Skip to comments.Media Watchdog Launches Media Liberal Bias Campaign
Posted on 06/18/2004 7:58:22 PM PDT by seastay
A media watchdog group is launching an ambitious campaign to reach 50 million people every week with evidence of the media's liberal bias.
"Day after day, night after night, the news media question, denounce, or just plain ignore the good news. They want higher taxes to fund massive new federal spending for more liberal experiments like socialized health care," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and founder of CNSNews.com .
"They want America -- and the world -- to see our military as corrupt and barbaric -- and failing. And they'll denounce anyone or anything that stands in the way of that message."
The "Tell the Truth" campaign will include full-page ads and billboards in top media markets, and thousands of bumper stickers, coffee mugs, pens and t-shirts bearing the "Tell the Truth" slogan. The campaign also includes daily email CyberAlerts; and a weekly fax report with the "Worst of the Week," identifying the most egregious bias.
Several special reports will be issued. One recent report documents the media's hostility towards the policies of former President Ronald Reagan that they now acknowledge were monumental achievements.
The MRC's Free Market Project will release four studies documenting the media's agenda against the food industry, in favor of higher taxes and greater environmental activism, and against tort reform. Special features will be included on TimesWatch.org, a site dedicated to the New York Times' bias.
A Pew Research Center for People and the Press poll of the national news media published this spring revealed the media admits its bias. By a factor of 5-1, they label themselves as liberal over conservative.
According to Bozell, the media has dropped the ball in its coverage of the economy, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism.
We don't want a 'conservative' news media," Bozell said. "We want, and demand, truth . We want the news media to strive for objectivity at all times. We want balance. We want fairness."
And everything else.
'bout damn time!
Signing up for daily email CyberAlerts
IMO we need lawsuits, and lots of them. Sue them on fraud charges for deliberately misinforming their audience, who have the just expectation that the media is telling the truth. Sue them for campaign finance violations, on the grounds that their bias constitutes an illegal and undeclared campaign contribution to the Democrats. Sue them for discrimination against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Sue them for the various libel and slander they pour out daily.
They don't fear complaints. They DO fear lawsuits, the more expensive to defend the better.
I'd have to say I totally agree with you.
Well great. Now we just need a small army of lawyers. And maybe a couple of clothespins.
Well hasn't MRC been doing this now for a few years anyway?
I like the idea
...To name a few.
"Yup, this is just a way for Bozell to try to raise money. I hear he's running out of cash for his many operations."
Er, all I see in this article is ways he's trying to SPEND money. And a hell of a lot of it. I'm not seeing how he's going to -get- any money out of this whole thing.
When the media isn't focused on the insipid news of the day (OJ, Scott Peterson, LA Car Chases), they're focused on trying to get their guy John Kerry elected.
Cite in this article where it says he's trying to raise money. Near as I can tell, he's spending most of it on full page advertising. CyberAlerts are cheap and easy to disseminate.
This probably comes on the heels of the Tom Harkin Defense Approrpiations Amendment he tried to ram through the Senate with great success to censor Rush Limbaugh's one-and-only first hour of his radio show from Armed Forces Radio. Not because of indecency, but because one hour out of 24 of Armed Forces Radio is deemed unbalanced according to that old nitwit Democratic Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin.
I heard something about this mentioned on the previews for Hannity and Colmes, but I didn't get to see it. Do you know of any articles on it? This makes me really mad.
This is our version of a 527. And for people that think that W is being too soft in his campaign, just wait until after the Dem convention. Then there will be daily refutations of the such Cheney made yesterday when he backslapped the NYT!
I'll be surprised as Hell if the Republicans in the Senate join in the fight.
It seems to me that W and Co knew before and have since been proven right that the Dems would keep shooting themselves in the foot.
As far as the Pubbies being strong, I know some will disagree but I think that this is a year to show maturity while not being timid. The Dem bellyaches will do the rest. If we win big in this election, I believe there will some tougher stands made in the 2005 to 2007 session. We need to win this one decisively so that we can have four more years to clean up the Clinton mess, particuarly the War On Terrorism and judicial nominations.
The War On Terror, thankfully, won't be fought entirely in the Senate, by the Senate.
The Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot, regardless. The Clinton mess will be with us for longer than 4 more years, but, having Bush in the White House for 4 more years will help. But, we have a lot of catching up to do. Frankly, the first act of terrorism came under Carter's watch. It just took 9/11 to wake this country up to the realities of terrorism.
It's easier for the Republicans to keep the Democrats on defense, rather than giving them the ball every damn time and watching the Republicans continually play defense, because that's what the Republicans are doing, playing defense. The Republican's in the Senate may have a small majority, but they don't act like a party that wants a bigger majority.
All valid points.
As Ronald Reagan said when something went wrong - "It must be right - it was God's will."
I'm sure God's will is our shared desire for W to stay another four years.
On one point that really rings true, that it will take more than eight years to clean up Clinton's mess, is similar to how one can break a bone in a second and take years to fully recover.
I'm hitting the hay but appreciate your input.
I love MRC. Sometimes the bias they cite is a stretch, but generally and more often it's so blatant that only a blind man couldn't see it.
Yes, indeed.... I do love that graphic :-)
This is liberal-like thinking. As such, it is absurd. First, a newspaper owes no duty to anyone and second, virtually any issue involving content is protected by First Amendment guarantees.
Even a newspaper is bound by false-advertising laws. If they advertise that they print "all the news fit to print", and in practice are clearly doing otherwise, they're liable.
You have a better suggestion? Shall we simply whine endlessly about their malfeasance, or shall we do something substantial about it?
LOL. I have to pay to see a roadside billboard? Yes, I know CyberAlerts are/were/have been done, that's nothing new. I don't need Bozell to convince me the media is rampant with liberal bias, that's been known to me for a long, long time. I'm not part of the target audience, so if he wants to spend money, more power to him.
Slander and libel are not covered by the First Amendment. So, no, not "virtually any issue" is protected.
Liable for what? What defines whether they are "doing otherwise"?
You have a better suggestion?
Do I have a better suggestion for what? The law?
Shall we simply whine endlessly about their malfeasance, or shall we do something substantial about it?
1)Stop buying and advertising in any paper you don't like.
2)Try to get as many people to do the same.
3)Start an alternative paper/network and counter the BS.
Suing them for frivilous stuff is NOT substantial and definitely not productive. You won't find a good attorney to take a case he knows he might sanctioned in.
Here are a couple of possibilities others have suggested:
As far as false advertising goes, if they promise potential customers that they don't have a political agenda, and a rat on the inside can be found to testify that they do, then that's false advertising under law.
You may be content to let them freely engage in sedition without opposition, but I for one will seek any method available to stick it to them as long as their behavior remains the same.