"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.
FReegards...MUD
Bingo...give that man a cee-gar!!
FReegards...MUD
Anyway, I can't even begin to tackle the complete work, so you'll hafta settle for some general observations ; )
For starters, I'll not begrudge the good purfesser the opportunity to make a buck. Particularly when he's writing on a subject near and dear to my heart. And more particularly, since he seems to have arrived at the proper conclusion, ie, the
Not knowing the good purfesser's politics, he may in fact be stating the truth; that is, he went into this not knowing what to expect. Yeah I know, hard to believe, but possible. He is after all a college purfesser, and he's supposed to have that scientific method down pat ; ) IF his methods cannot be faulted AND he's stating what to to us is the obvious; what's the beef? Let 'im sell a gazillion copies! If he makes a million buck$, I don't care because he(hope springs eternal) may reach some of academia who themselves refuse introspection.
I'd be willing to bet the good purfesser was/is not a firebreathing liberal. A fence rider at worst. Why? The utopian social dreamers cannot even consider their own idealistic notions as being faulty. They function in a dream world where there is no accountability, responsibility, or productivity. They mooch off of us, just like big gubmint. Dog turds in a cantaloupe patch; nothing more.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it, you verbose ol' fart : )
FGS