That was so rich!

________

The Sissy And The Word Defined

Ms. Malkin is a clone.
She has been made wealthy to spout the idiot propoganda!
She no more believes what she espouses than I do. Couldn't!
Considering her heritage, she must be a brain on remote.

You have to read the preceding paragraph to clear up your confusion.

"Yes, the same program and network [NBC’s “Dateline,” which recruited Muslim males to be sent to sports events and NASCAR races in the South and across the heartland to expose fans as anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigots] that were humiliated for faking GM pick-up truck explosions attempted to manufacture another crisis [the "anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigots" one]."

NBC’s Dateline did an "exposé" of NASCAR as well as GM (the program that failed to inform viewers that they had attached sparking devices to a General Motors truck to ensure an explosion in a crash).

I think the point is that NBC should have learned its lesson from the GM "exposé"; ABC, from losing at least 3 hidden-camera lawsuits against PrimeTime [such as the one in which "ABC producers worked closely for months with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has waged a bitter campaign against non-union Food Lion" (the subject of the "exposé") and had "proposed the story to ABC; provided disgruntled workers to testify about alleged food-handling problems," etc. "ABC did not present to viewers evidence that would have undercut its indictment of Food Lion," and "no comment favorable to Food Lion was shown by ABC." Such undisclosed, inherent bias put ABC's objectivity into question.]; and CBS, from its "Rathergate debacle."

“Can anyone really trust ABC?... Lying is part of the very fabric of PrimeTime Live."

"Each loss puts at risk the credibility of a network and damages the cause of serious journalism everywhere."

("The Lion's Share," American Journalism Review)

Why do you think the biased mainstream media so eagerly covered every angle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal? Why did the administration quote the NYT so regularly when convincing us that we needed to attack Iraq? What do the republican owned and controlled ABC, NBC, and CBS have to gain by hating America? Curious questions for you conspiracy theorists

Kevin "Hack" King

"Why do you think the biased mainstream media so eagerly covered every angle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal?" -- That last word is a clue.

Because sex (and lies) sells?

For the same reason that Anna Nicole Smith's death and the paternity of her baby (as well as what was in her refrigerator ) was on 24-7.

I've not assessed whether your statement is biased in itself, though ("eagerly" & "every angle").

Please give me the sources for your statement: "the administration quote[d] the NYT so regularly when convincing us that we needed to attack Iraq."

I'd assume that the NYT quoted the President, et al, rather than the other way around; that's usually the way it's done.

Please give me the sources for your statement: "the [R]epublican owned and controlled ABC, NBC, and CBS."

If you want the primary reason for media bias, see "Journalists’ Political Views." Also, CNN's founder was atheist and humanist Ted Turner (who said that Gorbachev and Castro were his close friends), definitely a Democrat.

What do you mean by "you conspiracy theorists"? Bias does not equate to "conspiracy," but please explain. Also, the thesis of Michelle's column and the article from American Journalism Review is journalistic credibility and impartiality, not "conspiracy."

Now if you want to find out more about liberal bias in the media, I'd suggest that you read Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News and Arrogance: Rescuing America From The Media Elite by Bernard (Bernie) Goldberg.

For the latest updates (such as Hillary Clinton's campaign admitting to planting questions at an Iowa town hall meeting (CARTOON) and "ABC's Cokie Roberts Admits Hillary Has Had 'Way Too Favorable' Press"), GO HERE.

For further enlightenment , see Media Bias Basics, including "The Liberal Media Exposed" (PDF Report).

___________________________

"Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist" (Quarterly Journal of Economics)

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"There is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center [that's 90%], with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal [#1].

___________________________

AIM [Accuracy in Media] Report: "NEW EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" (11/6/06)

Conservatives justify their belief that a liberal media bias exists by arguing that journalists are liberal, and that their ideology affects how journalists cover the news. For example, a survey in 1992 showed that 89% of Washington, DC, journalists voted for President Clinton in the 1992 Presidential election. These results may explain why throughout 1992, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) found that more than 70% of the networks' sound-bites about President Bush were negative, whereas the majority of sound-bites about Governor Clinton were positive.

Before the 2004 election, the CMPA released a report which showed that on broadcast TV networks and weekly news magazines, evaluations of Sen. Kerry were positive by a 2-to-1 margin, and that over 60% of evaluations of President Bush were negative.

Some scholars contend that journalists seek a more activist role in reporting, and that this, combined with a liberal slant, produces a liberal media bias.

The results from this study suggests [sic] that conservatives do in fact perceive more bias than liberals.

Viewed in context, citing Gallup poll data on the ideological make-up of the public, the article on the PEJ [Project for Excellence in Journalism] website says that 40 percent of the journalists are liberal but only 17 percent of the public is. While 41 percent of the public is conservative, only 25 percent of the journalists are. That means there is a tremendous gulf in terms of the political views of journalists and the public.

That also means that conservatives and Republicans are being shortchanged in terms of their representation in the media. But don't look for any affirmative action program to make up the difference. Our media, you see, are interested in hiring liberal journalists representing different sexual orientations or ethnic backgrounds, but philosophical diversity is something that is off the table.

___________________________

"Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased" (INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY (11/1/07)

Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.)

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."

In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.

Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.

[There's much more in the article.]

See also "Even Harvard Says MSM Biased for Democrats". --"The survey didn't find a single positive story about a Republican on PBS. Zero. Nada."

"The Liberal Media: It's No Myth" (PDF)

"Is Media Bias an Established Fact Now That Even Harvard Sees It?" (11/9/07)

___________________________

Any more questions?

I stopped reading the normal paper a long time a go. It is full of lies. nothing good. And if there is something bad happening they will hide it so no one will look bad. In my city all the people that work at the news papers should go to a Alcohol Rehab clinic, so they can learn how to write.

Please read Denise’s link: AIM [Accuracy in Media] Report: "NEW EVIDENCE OF LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" (11/6/06)”

It does not say there is a liberal media bias. It says: “This study did not prove the existence of bias in the media” and that: “conservatives perceive a media bias.”

Denise also references: “For example, a survey in 1992 showed that 89% of Washington, DC, journalists voted for President Clinton in the 1992 Presidential election.”

Here’s the real story which completely discredits the claim:

Freedom Forum study of journalist voting preferences

Denise was led astray again by Brent Bozell over at the NewsBuster comic pages.

---------
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke

I discovered long ago that anyone who can not put into words their own conclusions from experience and has to throw out scores of look em up yourself stuff--some stupid, isn't worth the time.
It is called: baffling the bull boozers by binary excesses!

Conner wrote:
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."

First of all, the source document that Conner cites does not specify "morning news shows". This is all coverage, period.

Secondly, Conner conveniently leaves out the next paragraph:
"While Hillary Clinton led in the derby for press exposure (she was the primary subject in 17% of all campaign stories), the largely antagonistic attention of conservative talk radio accounted for most of that edge. Clinton was the focus of nearly a third of all the campaign segments among the conservative talkers studied (the three most popular conservative radio voices,Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage). Clinton is not nearly as a popular subject among liberal radio talk show hosts."

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/miscellaneous/invisible_primary.pdf
(page 10)

So Conner whines about "more" stories on Democratic candidates as "evidence" of "media bias" when the TRUTH is simply Limbaugh and his ilk smearing Hillary Clinton on a daily basis to feed their audiences.

Conner of course googles only articles negative to demos. It is not important to her as to their veracity.
Typical deviousness of the current administration.

Here's some info Denise left out:

Fox News Devoted 12 Times More Coverage To Anna Nicole Than Walter Reed

Study shows Fox News viewers misinformed about war, Iraq, WMD

Obviously, an unbiased report will usually favor Democrats over Republicans.

And Denise's source: NewsBusters. A laughable rag. Can we limit references here to even semi-serious publications?
---------
It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth. John Locke

If you wish to comment, I would be interested in your opinion of the FOX channel as far as truth and openness.
Oh, Oreilly, Mulkin, Hannity, (that guy from New Orleans), Cavuto, and the leggy anchors in particular with their knowledgeable comments considered with their many, many years of experience.
Do they read it all, and do they believe it all (what they read) or does it matter?
Old Faker, Geraldo, is around again, but he is easy to see through.
Then there is Ollie! Oh, well, he is subsidized by rednecks and billionaires and that can't be helped!