Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 9/17/02 | Robert B. Bluey

Posted on 09/17/2002 3:56:39 AM PDT by kattracks

(CNSNews.com) - In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."

Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications. He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society.

"I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions," Kuypers said. "What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media."

The book, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," is a compilation of Kuypers' research on six prominent speeches between 1995 and 2000. He first obtained copies of the speeches and then compared their objectives with their coverage in the news media.

"I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was," he said.

Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag.

As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame.

The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings.

"I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades," chairman Reed Irvine said. "The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal."

Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago.

In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study.

But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality.

Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues.

"When it comes to foreign policy and the economy, the U.S. media have a long way to go before they reach a standard of fairness and accuracy," he said. "On issues such as race and homosexuality, there may have been some progress in recent years, but we would say they have a long way to go on those issues as well."

Mainstream journalists routinely ignore or do a mediocre job covering issues such as consumer rights, environmental matters and topics related to the poor and minorities, Rendall said.

"The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented," he said. "What's not well represented are progressive movements."

Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish.

"I just don't give examples of what I think is bias," he said. "I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well."

The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint.

"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."

E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.




TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ccrm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2002 3:56:39 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The professor was surprised by his findings?
I'm shocked he was surprised!
Well, in academia -- they are sheltered.
Semper Fi
2 posted on 09/17/2002 4:03:29 AM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
And this is news?
3 posted on 09/17/2002 4:11:36 AM PDT by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; All
CyberAlert -- 05/07/1996 -- NQ CyberAlert
... recent Freedom Forum survey of Washington reporters and bureau chiefs revealed 89
percent voted for Clinton versus 7 percent for Bush in 1992. Do you think the ...

Great Debate#9
... opinions skew their professional writing. Nuzzo pointed out that a 1995 Freedom
Forum survey showed 89 percent of the media voted for Bill Clinton while the ...

Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ...
... Why? They're usually wrong. 92% voted for Clinton. Libertarians, by contrast,
much enjoy being Right. You may (continue to?) derive your understanding of ...

-Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--

4 posted on 09/17/2002 4:15:49 AM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jamaksin; kattracks
This is news!

"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."

Based on the fact that the press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, it is obvious that the Founding Fathers considered the press to be the eyes and ears of the citizenry. If the public never hears certain news it will undermine our democracy.
5 posted on 09/17/2002 4:22:02 AM PDT by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality.

Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues.

When you are standing on the left field foul line, everybody looks like they are playing in right field.

6 posted on 09/17/2002 4:27:07 AM PDT by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BruceS
FAIR is a tad to the left of Mao.
7 posted on 09/17/2002 4:47:02 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BTTT
8 posted on 09/17/2002 6:12:44 AM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Actually the worst villains are movies and television because too many Americans are too lazy to read the papers or to access the internet and seek out alternative opinions. But these people can turn on the tube or rent a movie and have some liberal or leftist actor or newsclown utter their idiocies without fear of reproach. Unfortunately few people tune in to O'Reilly and other conservative voices. The big three still dominate the airwaves as far as news. And of course the movie industry is dominated by liberals and leftists who are only eager to advance their pet causes. When was the last time you saw a movie where the villains were leftists? Even comedians are usually ultra-liberal as well as pop musicians. The whole culture is still horribly skewed towards leftist thought. It is far easier to watch and listen rather than having to read to get information.
9 posted on 09/17/2002 6:25:30 AM PDT by driftless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maica
Agreed!!!

Excellent point - that coupled with the sorry state of American public education - can only spell trouble ahead!

10 posted on 09/17/2002 6:36:23 AM PDT by jamaksin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Any one take a side bet on this guys future career ?
11 posted on 09/17/2002 6:55:51 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
FAIR is a tad to the left of Mao.

Ed Asner's tribe.

12 posted on 09/17/2002 6:58:08 AM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I can prove liberal bias in one sentence.

There is no such thing as a 'Reagan Hater' or a 'Bush Hater' ... only Clinton Haters.
13 posted on 09/17/2002 7:01:36 AM PDT by mercy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."

I don't buy it. The Media definately doesn't ignore far left and moderate viewpoints. The Media only ignores conservative viewpoints. That much is evidenced by the issues that the Media pushes on an on-going basis. Issues like Gay Rights, Gun Control, and Radical Environmentalism that are the hallmark of the far left!

14 posted on 09/17/2002 7:05:13 AM PDT by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues

Just to be clear, this organization, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, which is stated here to be a media watchdog group, features books by Noam Chomsky on its website.

Go to their website to see how fair and accurate they are.

Also note how old their articles are. It appears to be a website and not much more. How nice of the author of this piece to have gotten a couple quotes from them, just to be fair...

15 posted on 09/17/2002 7:08:59 AM PDT by Auntie Mame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint.

"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts," Kuypers said. "They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."

The First Amendment provides that the newspapers and magazines and books are not to be jusdged on "fairness and accuracy" by the government but by we-the-people individually. And considering that the editorial page as a repository of explicit opinion did not even exist when the First Amendment was ratified, it would be ridulous to argue that putting opinion on the front page is some kind of infraction of the Constitution.

The Constitutional problem of journalism lies strictly, IMHO, in government-licensed--in clear evasion of the First Amendment--Broadcast Journalism. By licensing communication in the airwaves, the government takes on the role of censor of those it does not license to broadcast. It is that which makes some citizens more equal than others in political speech.

The Internet is the poor man's soap box, with global reach. The newspapers, granted, have great influence and are politically homogeneous--but that is not de jure but de facto. Outlaw broadcasting of politics, root and branch (political ads, who would actually miss them? Broadcast journalism as well. That would hit talk radio as well but then--what is talk radio but "equal time" vs broadcast journalism?).

They have the newspapers, and we have the internet. Let the Internet and the newspapers duke it out. That's the only principled approach.


16 posted on 09/17/2002 8:45:34 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
So the guy who wrote the book was surprised by his findings about MEDIA BIAS??? David Horowitz has been writing about this for years, and going around the country to talk at our colleges and universities. Sadly but true, David has been met with the usual liberal college level mentality and not even been allowed to appear, or talk on a pretty regular occasion.
17 posted on 09/17/2002 8:46:00 AM PDT by cousair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; be-baw
"I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions," Kuypers said. "What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media."

The book, "Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues," is a compilation of Kuypers' research on six prominent speeches between 1995 and 2000. He first obtained copies of the speeches and then compared their objectives with their coverage in the news media.

"I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was," he said.

Anyone who actually approaches the subject with an open mind will come to the conclusion above. This explains why the Internet belongs to conservatives and Libertarians.

You can make a liberal web site, and you can put on a liberal talk show host--but in either formant the arrogance of socialism gets exposed to too many penetrating questions, so you can't draw an audience with either.

What's Singapore Yank's new handle?


18 posted on 09/17/2002 9:08:14 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *CCRM
Index Bump
19 posted on 09/17/2002 9:20:16 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mercy
I was surprised reading the New York Times online last night (that would be today's issue) to come across the words "left wing" in two different articles, neither having to do with birds. Maybe shocked is more like it.
20 posted on 09/17/2002 4:14:12 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I was surprised reading the New York Times online last night (that would be today's issue) to come across the words "left wing" in two different articles, neither having to do with birds.

Were the references, perhaps, to "left wing freedom fighters" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

21 posted on 09/17/2002 4:22:12 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: okie01
No. Left wing was used in reference to American politics.
22 posted on 09/17/2002 4:29:16 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: driftless
You've got it, driftless! What makes it even worse, is that Hollywood doesn't have to let facts or responsibility interfere at all. They just pop out the old "artsitic license", and then blame others (usually, the parents) when one of their fool projects lead to a tragedy...
23 posted on 09/17/2002 4:40:22 PM PDT by LRS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If you can determine a reporter's political leanings by reading his/her stories, you're seeing bias.

It's easy to spot, even when it's a conservative. Trouble is, it's almost never a conservative bias. But with the best reporters, you can't ever tell.

24 posted on 09/17/2002 4:47:42 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"Left wing was used in reference to American politics."

Whomever could they have been referring to?

Would make for an entertaining parlor game. Who might the mainstream media label "left wing"? And why...?

25 posted on 09/17/2002 5:14:38 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Progressive view = Communist view.
If that is under represented, great!
26 posted on 09/17/2002 5:18:34 PM PDT by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."

Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, . . .

This guy better join Pariahs 'R' Us. He's definitely slipped off the tenure track, and he'll henceforth be treated with the same deference that NOW shows to Phyllis Schlafly.

27 posted on 09/17/2002 5:32:24 PM PDT by rhema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert; ForGod'sSake; calypgin; Peacerose
In case you missed this....
28 posted on 09/18/2002 10:31:15 AM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
ONly a blind ignorant shut-in would not know about the liberal bias in the mainstream media. This is like writing a book titled, "the sky is blue."
29 posted on 09/18/2002 10:32:34 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner; Landru; Mudboy Slim; sultan88
Thanks Mr. Mulliner. I would have likely missed this one. One has to wonder if the author actually went into this study not suspectiing bias in the lamestream media, or if he was just setting up a counter argument for the lefties. It's been my observation that anyone with more that a passing interest in the machinations of the media is acutely aware of the "progressive" bias. I won't hold it against the guy, however; he seems to arrive at his conclulsions honestly regardless of any preconceptions. I'd be curious to know his politics in any case.

I'm surprised he gave the FAIRies a voice in his study. Any media outlet that's not to the left of Mao is NOT properly covering the news in their simple minds. As someone mentioned earlier, they are waaaaay out in left field. The simpleton he quoted from FAIR offered NO support for his lame proffer of "conservative" bias. Try as they will, we all know they has very little to work with.

I am honor bound to agree with his assessment of the dangers of a group of Utopian social engineers in the mainstream media. Their reach and influence cannot be understated. Something like 50 Million+ Americans get their "news" from the three major networks on a more or less regular basis. The same place that sponsors will spend million$ for 30 second and 1 minute spots. To me, THAT speaks volumes about the influence of especially network teevee. Viewers are subjected to hours of progressive drivel that can't help but seep into the psyche, and produce a skewed understanding, er, misunderstanding of the world. Bottom line of course is, enough of these people vote WITHOUT benefit of accurate information, that our elections are also skewed.

Well, done preaching to the choir ; )

BTW, didn't I hear where Jeff Cohen left FAIRy and moved to MSNBC? Another RAT infesting the nest over there is NOT a good indicator of their "unbiased" approach.

FGS

30 posted on 09/18/2002 2:16:47 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mulliner
Thanks Mr. Mulliner. I would have likely missed this one. One has to wonder if the author actually went into this study not suspectiing bias in the lamestream media, or if he was just setting up a counter argument for the lefties. It's been my observation that anyone with more that a passing interest in the machinations of the media is acutely aware of the "progressive" bias. I won't hold it against the guy, however; he seems to arrive at his conclulsions honestly regardless of any preconceptions. I'd be curious to know his politics in any case.

I'm surprised he gave the FAIRies a voice in his study. Any media outlet that's not to the left of Mao is NOT properly covering the news in their simple minds. As someone mentioned earlier, they are waaaaay out in left field. The simpleton he quoted from FAIR offered NO support for his lame proffer of "conservative" bias. Try as they will, we all know they has very little to work with.

I am honor bound to agree with his assessment of the dangers of a group of Utopian social engineers in the mainstream media. Their reach and influence cannot be understated. Something like 50 Million+ Americans get their "news" from the three major networks on a more or less regular basis. The same place that sponsors will spend million$ for 30 second and 1 minute spots. To me, THAT speaks volumes about the influence of especially network teevee. Viewers are subjected to hours of progressive drivel that can't help but seep into the psyche, and produce a skewed understanding, er, misunderstanding of the world. Bottom line of course is, enough of these people vote WITHOUT benefit of accurate information, that our elections are also skewed.

Well, done preaching to the choir ; )

BTW, didn't I hear where Jeff Cohen left FAIRy and moved to MSNBC? Another RAT infesting the nest over there is NOT a good indicator of their "unbiased" approach.

FGS

31 posted on 09/18/2002 2:19:14 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
UnFreepingbelievable! The thread wouldn't reload to show my post, so I REpost. A two poster? Maybe I need a nap. Glitches are inevitable...

FGS

32 posted on 09/18/2002 2:23:28 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; MeeknMing; dubyaismypresident; Constitution Day; Argh; xsmommy; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

I, for one, refuse to swaller this until corroborative studies have been made.

I CANNOT bring myself to believe that OUR MEDIA holds ANY kind of bias, especially a liberal leftist one.

[dwoibeedwoibeedwoibeedwoibeedwoibee]

(That's me dwoibing my finger across my lips.)

Now it really IS time for a shot or three...

33 posted on 09/18/2002 2:27:35 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Do we really need to read about a study to know this? I sure hope he didn't get any federal grants to complete this study.
34 posted on 09/18/2002 2:29:11 PM PDT by al_c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BREAKING: It will be dark after the sun sets tonight!

oh wait... their IS SOME news value only in that this is being openly admitted by a professor...
35 posted on 09/18/2002 2:32:14 PM PDT by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c
Do we really need to read about a study to know this?

Some people do. EVERY study, essay, or research piece that adds documentation to what WE already know adds another nail in the coffin of the media dim bulbs. So, what are you doing to inform the great unwashed of the media's bias?

I sure hope he didn't get any federal grants to complete this study.

I hope he did. This message needs the widest possible dissemination regardless of how it's funded. How much is the truth worth?

FGS

36 posted on 09/18/2002 2:45:02 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
Who knew? What a shock........
37 posted on 09/18/2002 3:03:24 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
Now it really IS time for a shot or three...


38 posted on 09/18/2002 4:05:16 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
Hep yersef to one o' those in #38, btw !
39 posted on 09/18/2002 4:09:39 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Hey, thank you!! Looks great!
40 posted on 09/18/2002 6:17:16 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
So, where's the worm????

FGS

41 posted on 09/18/2002 6:35:58 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; kattracks
Where's the worm? I ate it already !!

Hey, ya'll check this out !! Perfect for campaign speeches......



42 posted on 09/19/2002 2:18:25 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; sultan88; scholar; Mudboy Slim
Yes, FGS; it's that time again, Pinhead-Parsing Thursday!
Without any further ado, then; let us begin...

"In a new book that will be released later this month, a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a 'narrow brand of liberal bias."

Where to start?
The first sentence of the first paragraph tells everyone *why* this was published, to begin with.
Be that as it may, & curiously enough, the last sentence of the first paragraph also tells (the discriminating reader) why they should go no further with this bilge.

Why am I so *hard* on the good professor?
I take great exception to the man's findings that the Lamestream favors a, "narrow brand of liberal bias" for starters.

*Narrow* he says??
HA!!
Perhaps the view is the result of the good professor wearing some narrow, rose-colored glasses while conducting the "research" producing this absurd conclusion.
Always remember what the Loveable Fuzzball has said about the Lamestream media, today:
"Miss catching ABC Tonight? Turn to NBC. Miss NBC's news, Turn to CBS. Miss CBS' broadcast, turn to CNN..."
~& I *do* believe Maja Rushie has applied this little axiom to the print media, too??
That my dear frind, is NOT a "narrow *brand* of Liberal bias."
That, "IS" a Liberal-Socialist domination.

"Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college, said he had no political agenda when conducting his research of nearly 700 newspaper articles from 116 publications."

Baloney.
Could say, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts," "Fool me once your fault, fool me twice YOUR fault" but, you get the idea.
This guy has an *agenda* like anyone else; and, in this case?
It'd be SELLING HIS LOUSY BOOK to people like you & I on the right.

"He called the results of his study surprising and warned of the consequences on American society."

Do ya think; huh, do ya, *professor*?

"'I didn't set out to look for a particular type of bias and I took steps to ensure I didn't impose my preconceptions,' Kuypers said. 'What I found was a narrow brand of liberal bias with the mainstream media.'"

"Professors" say a lot of things; in fact, *professors* are paid rather well for doing little more than blabbering ad nauseum; REGARDLESS, the facts [read: RESULTANT OUTCOME(s)] that're right in front of their (usually long) noses.

"The book, 'Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues,'"...

Is rediculous, redundent & gawdawful simplistic in that he's telling us what we already know; &, then imagines we'd now pay for to hear this from him?
This guy's been talking (waaayyy too much) to his buddies in the Dartmouth's School of Business & Marketing, it's plain to see.
They've apparently told the *good* professor he could generate *himself* some coin with this bullcocka to augment whateverinthehell they're paying him now (to "teach") by "playing to the right."

"'I did not honestly believe the level of bias and misrepresentation would be as deep and terrible as it was,' he said.

>doink!<
Welcome to the future, *Professor*.

"Kuypers analyzed two speeches by then-President Clinton on race and human rights, comments U.S. Sen. Trent Lott made on homosexuality, remarks by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March, a speech condemning homosexuality by former football star Reggie White and an Alabama state senator's remarks on the Confederate flag."

Let's review a condensed version of *how* our Liberal-Socialist quisling media friends approached these speeches, OK?
I'll simply use the topic of the speech next to the person's name & ideological affiliation giving the speech, to deduce the real *message*, OK?
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton -- Liberal 'Rat -- Race & Human Rights -- *Good*
US Sen Trent Lott -- 'Pubbie -- Homosexuality -- Homophobe
Louis Farrakhan -- *Enlightened* -- FREEDOM -- *Good*
Reggie White -- Minister of God -- Oppression -- *Bad*
'Bama State Sen -- Confederate Flag -- RACIST! -- *bad*

There're ten thousand more examples; but, why bother.
Looks like the *good* professor isn't aware of who sits on the editorial boards of the nation's majors starting with the worst of 'em all, The New York Slimes.
Well, we do, eh?
It's what the [read: our] fighting's all about, huh.

"As part of his findings, Kuypers said liberal opinions from editorials and news analyses often found their way into straightforward news reports. He speculated that the culture of news organizations was partly to blame."

Huh. This guy's *speculating*, is he?
This Liberal-Socialist manipulation just wandered in off the streets & onto the front pages??
Is that right?
Guess I'll have to go out on the limb here & do some translating 'lest someone miss this subtle attempt to slide some real *ThinkSpeak* past us??
"The culture of *news* organizations" = "Liberal-Socialist."

"The head of a media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media, agreed with Kuypers' findings."

What the hell was AIM gonna say?

"'I've seen no difference and no great change in the last decade or last two decades,' chairman Reed Irvine said. 'The journalists -- the people who are editing and writing for papers -- are still overwhelmingly liberal.'"

Now, when Reed Irving writes a book we'll have some red meat & not Kuyper's awful tasting print-laxative.

"Irvine has been studying the news media since the 1970s. He said the press continues to display liberal characteristics just as it did 30 years ago."

Does *Proffessor* Kuyper know about the provenance of the media he claims to have, "researched," is the question. < /sarc>

"In fact, he said that bias is probably more expansive today, citing the rise in coverage of race and homosexuality -- the two issues that were the primary focus of Kuypers' study."

Yup; nevermind Kuyper's ignoring the blatant Anti-American & America-hating crap we've had to endure over the past decade.
Odd this *professor* focused (restricted?) his "research" on those two areas, alone.
~Just coincidental, I'm sure.

"But Steve Rendall, a senior analyst for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, another media watchdog group, said the press has done a poor job covering many social issues, including race and homosexuality."
Rendall cited a study conducted by his organization that showed reporters in the nation's capital lean to the right when covering many issues."

HA!!
Should the Rendall miscreant join the ranks of the *good* professor insofar as writing a book on the topic?
Safe to say it's be one to skip; IF, this clown can make a statement as patently absurd as that.
Which, he does.

"'The right-wing and conservative movements are well represented and the center is well represented,' he said. 'What's not well represented are progressive movements.'"

Well represented??
Talk Radio??
Get a life, *professor*.
BTW: "Progressive" means Liberal-Socialist and everyone (by now) knows that much, imbecile.
Ms Rendall?
How about speaking plain english because you come off sounding like a real coward, pedestrian-grade Liberal-Socialist hack.

"Kuypers said he anticipates criticism, but defended his methods. He said they are clearly outlined in the book and allow readers to conduct their own analysis if they wish."

The *good* professor should be extremely pleased, then.
I for one, wouldn't dream of disappointing this guy.

"'I just don't give examples of what I think is bias,' he said. 'I outlined how I was going to look for bias in such a way that others can do this as well.'"

Bless your pointed little head, comrade.

"The only thing readers might disagree with is his conclusion, Kuypers said. He ends the book by issuing a warning that biased reporting could endanger democracy by presenting only a narrow viewpoint."

It's *not* a "narrow viewpoint," professor!!
The Liberal-Socialist's POV is the ONLY viewpoint.

"I'm scared for the state of democracy in this country in terms of how the press interacts,' Kuypers said. 'They are, in my opinion, an anti-democratic institution because they stifle alternative voices and paint an incredibly inaccurate picture of issues and ideas."

Anti-democratic, sure; but, according to you?
The *threat's* a, "narrow one."

...& you, professor, narrow minded in the extreme.

43 posted on 09/19/2002 8:47:32 AM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Destructor; sultan88; Administrative Simplification; Landru; kattracks
"...a Dartmouth College professor claims the news media ignore far-left, moderate and conservative viewpoints in favor of a "narrow brand of liberal bias."

"I don't buy it. The Media definately doesn't ignore far left and moderate viewpoints."

Depends upon how you define "far left"...in the Higher Education lexicon, "far left" most likely includes Absolute Socialism wherein private property rights/ownership are abolished altogether, all income is the central bureaucracy's to distribute as they see fit, etc. ...while that may be the Lib'rals ultimate goal, liberals believe on getting there incrementally, so the "liberal viewpoint" is simply growing the Federal Leviathan to some point just to the Left of the status quo. Then, when that is established as the status quo, liberals argue for something incrementally just to the Left of that, and so on and so on!!

It's the boiled frog theory and the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd ignores those viewpoints wherein proponents of Absolute Socialism advocate their views becuz it would startle the Sheeple outta their apathy.

As for ignoring "moderate viewpoints," there ain't no moderate position on anything...they're just spineless Lib'rals who are ashamed to admit that they are in favor of an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan!!

FReegards...MUD

44 posted on 09/19/2002 9:19:40 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Landru
Opus-Man Strikes Again...LOL!!

FReegards...MUD

45 posted on 09/19/2002 9:20:51 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
"a shot or three..."

I get a hangover just looking at that...LOL!!

FReegards...MUD

46 posted on 09/19/2002 9:22:02 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"This guy has an *agenda* like anyone else; and, in this case? It'd be SELLING HIS LOUSY BOOK to people like you & I on the right."

Bingo...give that man a cee-gar!!

FReegards...MUD

47 posted on 09/19/2002 9:30:08 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
I get a hangover just looking at that...LOL!!

They do look most potent, don't they?

48 posted on 09/19/2002 11:09:35 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
"Bingo...give that man a cee-gar!!"

HA!!
In a word this acadamian clown's angle can be summized: "Brill's Content," eh?

Didn't work then & it won't work now.

I'm afraid this one's gonna be "teaching" for a very, long time until he learns HOW to conduct a honest, UNbias research project.
Which assumes he's hell-bent on writing another book; so, he can retire to get the hell away from the "Mecca" of Liberal-Socialism, Dartmouth, he's now stuck at for the rest of his working life? :o)

...& you will be sending a *box* of cee-gars soon enough, my friend. ;^)

49 posted on 09/19/2002 1:09:02 PM PDT by Landru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Landru
"In a word this acadamian clown's angle can be summarized: "Brill's Content," eh?"

Now...pretend that this prof's sincere and see what you think about the analysis (in #44) of why he feels the "Far Left" is not properly represented in the Vast, LeftWing Medyuh Whore'd.

FReegards...MUD

50 posted on 09/19/2002 1:18:55 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson