Claims of media's liberal bias come and go [NPR spin alert]

Pioneer Press ^ | Jun. 17, 2003 | BRIAN LAMBERT

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

"Mainstream Democrats have nothing they can tie themselves to other than accusing the Republicans of things."

[WorkingClassFilth]

"When Brit Hume, on Fox News' Special Report, looks for liberal balance to the conservative Fred Barnes on the panel, why does he choose Mara Liasson or Juan Williams from NPR?"

Because Mara Liasson is rumored to be a grand-daughter of Joseph Stalin and Juan Williams is the reportedly the illegitimate son of Che Guevara.

In short, their journalistic credentials are impeccable.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"NPR shows both sides of an issue? Does that mean the mouth and the butt of each liberal on every broadcast?"

A winning post, Madame!

[WorkingClassFilth]

"... liberals like Shorr are full time propaganda agents."

I beg your pardon, Sir! This is a completely false and inflammatory statement.

Using the descriptor 'liberal' in connection with his politics is just about on par with describing him as a 'Pro-Life Republican' or the male version of Phyllis Schlafly.

Daniel Shorr has a red streak from his neocortex to his rectum and his exlicitly pro-Marxist rhetoric is the only remarkable thing about him greater than his speech impediment.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Interesting.

"What [people] really want is to hear their own opinions reflected back at them, and they really resent anyone who contradicts what they think. They seem to want a kind of informational comfort food provided by whatever media they use."

Does FR provide evidence for or against that claim?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Too clever by half, son. It's time you put up your nickle's worth and justify your views that these outlets are worthy of anyone's consideration.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

The nature of a statistical argument for media bias seems to be widely misunderstood.

Statistical variation in the treatment of a topic is, at best, evidence of bias. It's not bias by definition.

The question is what would best explain the statistical variations. Bias is an obvious explanation. But there's no telling whether it's the best until other candidates are considered.

It's rare to find a story in a popular medium where anyone takes the time to consider alternatives, even if only to reject them.

In fact, it is so rare that the best explanation for its absence from public debate is that most people misunderstand the nature of statistical arguments for media bias ...

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Too clever [for WorkingClassFilth] by half"

I hope not.

I'm waiting for your answer.

[StopThePress]

>>Dworkin emphasizes that senior analysts like Juan Williams (criticized for being too conservative for his association with Fox News) and Daniel Schorr (too liberal for being on Nixon's enemies list and commenting so freely on perceived lapses in logic in Bush II policy) are held to a different standard than so-called regular reporters.

<<

One thing this idiot forgot to mention...regardless of where Juan Williams voices his view(s) - he's ALWAYS a liberal.

[majordivit]

>>Dworkin emphasizes that senior analysts like Juan Williams (criticized for being too conservative for his association with Fox News) and Daniel Schorr (too liberal for being on Nixon's enemies list and commenting so freely on perceived lapses in logic in Bush II policy) are held to a different standard than so-called regular reporters.>{? One thing this idiot forgot to mention...regardless of where Juan Williams voices his view(s) - he's ALWAYS a liberal.

Exactly. Claiming that Juan Williams is a conservative simply because he vents his liberal pro palestinian pro racial quotas pro high tax pro big govt pro third world immigration pro gun grabbing views on FOX network definatley deserves the laughtrack. I would like to know who did the criticizing. It just goes to show you how stupid or blind the left really is. I think they are just blinded by hatred of any media outlit that doesn't spew out far left doctrine 24 hours a day.

[nutmeg]

read later bump

[jagrmeister]

After trying to fight the media wars from within (letter-writing,etc.), I've realized the media is tone-deaf to complaints of bias. The very bias they are accused of in their journalism prevents them from taking this constructive criticism seriously. They cannot and will not reform. The only answer is to compete- just as FoxNews has dethroned CNN, so to must we compete against the network news programs, the weekend shows, mainstream magazines, and a national newspaper (see the Weekly Standard's latest issue for more on this).

[WorkingClassFilth]

You've already done this trick in past threads on NPR and PBS bias topics.

It's time you got a new shtick.

Either that, or tell the nice folks at home why you don't believe that the biases on publicly funded media shouldn't get in the way of continued funding.

[Drango]

After trying to fight the media wars from within (letter-writing,etc.), I've realized the media is tone-deaf to complaints of bias... They cannot and will not reform.

Excellent point! However, in the case of NPR/PBS they are funded by Congress and it might be possible to cut off the money that feeds 'em.

Currently the biggest problem is the REPUBLICAN Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska. He won't be there forever....

[ConsistentLibertarian]

From the article: "What [people] really want is to hear their own opinions reflected back at them, and they really resent anyone who contradicts what they think. They seem to want a kind of informational comfort food provided by whatever media they use."

I asked you if FR provide evidence for or against that claim.

You're unwilling to answer and resent my having asked.

Ironically, you thereby prove the author's point.

New question: Does NPR reflect your own opinions back at you or does it contradict what you think?

[m1911]

FR provides evidence both ways for me. I disagree with some people on some issues here, agree with others. Usually, it depends on the issue and person. In the most general sense, I agree with more of what I read here than what I hear on NPR.

Of course, FR does tend to give both sides, even if opposing opinions are usually editorialized with the ever popular BARF ALERT. NPR tends more toward debates between Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists, with the only outside voice coming from the ADM "commercials".

The exception is Marketplace, which seems to be more balanced. I guess it's because they have to talk about the free market there. :)

[Drango]

The exception is Marketplace, which seems to be more balanced.

But they still tilt to the left. If the story is about Ford, then the union gets equal time. If the story is about Monsanto it's how they are trying NOT to kill us all. If the story is about Bank of America it's about their day care centers...and only the left would pay to hear Robert B. Reich.

[m1911]

Reich is an odd bird. He was talking about the bubble bursting and lax auditing in late '99. He warned Greenspan not to raise rates early in 2000. He wasn't afraid to say that tax cuts for the rich seem huge because they pay the most taxes.

He can be perceptive and honest, but he still thinks that government should be the cradle-to-grave support system for everyone. Oh, and that redistribution of wealth is a good thing.

[syriacus]

NPR = Nina, Plagiarizing Reporter.

Good one!!

[Drango]

home to plagiarist Nina Totenberg

Thanks...I didn't know about this...googled her and here is some more info on the background....http://www.cjr.org/year/95/4/plagiarize.asp

---

A classic example is Nina Totenberg, the well-known, enterprising reporter for National Public Radio who has made a name for herself disclosing Washington's dirty secrets. Totenberg was fired for plagiarism when she worked as a staff writer for the now-defunct National Observer, a fact disclosed by Al Hunt in a Wall Street Journal column during the Clarence Thomas hearings some twenty years later. In 1972, Totenberg simply took several paragraphs and verbatim quotes from a Washington Post report about former House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, who was about to become majority leader, and dropped them into her own story about him, without attributing a single word to the Post. "I was in a hurry. I used terrible judgment," she told CJR. "The fact I used so many direct quotes obligated me morally to credit the Post. I should have been punished. I have a strong feeling that a young reporter is entitled to one mistake and to have the holy bejeezus scared out of her to never do it again."