• That's an understatement!
  • I would say there is not enough liberal commentary in the media for the conservative based media is owned by media moguls that make sure that the liberal point of view is less in the limelight.
  • No not at all. Most media is owned by extremely right wing moguls (Conrad Black until recently, Murdoch etc). Even supposed "liberal" media is just slightly less authoritarian conservatism. Real liberal media is things like Indymedia in my opinion, the BBC is not liberal by counter example. Economically nearly all media is right of centre.
  • I think conservatives will always see a liberal bias and liberals will always see a conservative bias. Really, it just depends which bit of media you're talking about.
  • The general consensus seems to be that there is. Except for Fox News, which is so painfully and blatantly right wing it almost makes up for the rest of the "liberal" media lol. I personally think it's unfair to label the media liberal or conservative (unless a certain outlet claims to be one or the other). Not to sound all left-wing and treasonous, or anything, but Dubya isn't precisely the most popular President we've ever had, andhe doesn't exactly have the nation rallying behind him with support for the Iraq war. So if reporting negatively about things that ARE negative makes the media liberal, then I suppose they are. But if we had a liberal Democrat as President heading up such and unpopular war, would people be calling the media conservative for reporting about that in a negative light? I suppose they would be, but hopefully you get my point. I'm not saying the media is totally unbiased; I don't think that's the case. But I DO think the media has a tendency to lean toward reporting what is going to get it better ratings, by saying what the people want to hear. Or agreeing with what the people think. With a President whose overall job rating has been below 40% ( and at some times even under 30% : ) for over a year, I think reporting negatively about his administration is pretty fair. Bring on the downrates :)
  • Whatever they want.
  • In the U.S. the mainstream media has a huge liberal bias, this is unquestionable.
  • No I don't think there is. I think there is a sensationalist bias based on who can get the ratings. Therefore make more money from advertisments.
  • The media cartels are controlled by a few media moguls. They manipulate reality with fantasy to brainwash societies. My 2 cents.
  • In general, the media tends to go for whatever's the most sensational, but there are certain standards. And in most Western media, those standards lean towards conservativism, meaning that when any particular outlet or story differs from that pre-existing bias, it stands out and gets interpretted as "Liberal Bias". If mainstream media had a true Liberal bias, it would be much more noticeable than it is. As things stand, the only "Liberal Bias" held by most media sources is a refusal to bend to the pre-biased standards mandating that every bit of coverage have an every-so-slight bias towards whichever Republican is currently in office. What's reported by the "Liberal Media" is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot more that the general public doesn't even see because the inherent *Conservative* bias prohibits most news sources from straying anywhere near focusing on it.
  • Facing Political Pressure, MSNBC Reshuffles Campaign Anchors In media news, MSNBC has announced Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer anchor any of the network"s live political coverage for the rest of the presidential campaign season. NBC News" White House Correspondent David Gregory will become the primary host of the network"s coverage of the upcoming debates and on election night. In May White House Counselor Ed Gillespie sent a letter to NBC News accusing Matthews and Olbermann of being "blatantly partisan." The McCain campaign and several right-wing groups have also complained that Matthews and Olberrmann are too liberal. It’s not the first time MSNBC, which is owned by General Electric, has shifted its programming because of political pressure. In 2003, prior to the invasion of Iraq, the network canceled its highest rated program hosted by Phil Donahue. A leaked internal NBC study indicated Donahue was fired because of his anti-war views. The study found that Donahue "seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives." Ref: I notice no network is pulling Bill O'Reilly off the air for his slanted views. Please.
  • How can we know? Perhaps if we listen to the soldiers returning from Iraq, we should at least wonder why the media doesn't report the successes they've seen. I noticed that the 'GOP Welcoming Committee' was effectively whitewashed so well by the Media that NOBODY knew what I was talking about when I mentioned their Kristallnacht tactics in St Paul during the Republican convention.
  • Yes, for I would venture to say that at least 1/3 of the media is in the tank for Obama. Of the major cable news channels, MSNBC is totally in the tank for Barack, and CNN is almost as bad. Fox news, though sometimes called "right wing" is actually pretty "fair and balanced" as they claim. The two reasons why they they seem to be pro McCain/Palin is that anyone who is balanced and talks about both instead of just can be easily said to be in the tank for the opposing party.
  • The media has an insitutional bias, let's leave it at that. Due in a good part to the efforts of various public relations firms, the media paints issues as if there are only two sides to them, with the narrow playing field reinforcing commonly held assumptions. Noam Chomsky was talking about this in one of his articles, he gave an example too: the debate over the Vietnam War. He said the most extreme, radical view of the war you could find in established journalism (i.e. the New York Times, etc) was that it was started with good intentions in mind, but was poorly managed and ended up hurting the US economically. The fact that it was an act of aggression and killed millions of people was practically unmentionable.
  • I think there's a bias toward maximum ratings now that most media seem to be driven by a financial bottom line. If Palin had sexually molested a gay environmentalist or if Obama was hiding Che Guevara in a secret underground ammo depot, I'm fairly sure that the media would be all over either "story". ;)
  • Everyone sees the bias they want to see. My father is convinced everything except fox is Liberal. Well, yes, when you see Fox as middle of the road, everything else will be Liberal. If you take a more-commonly-taken-as-middle news source to be middle, you might see fox as right and something else as left. That said, it's certainly possible for an individual paper to be more left or right-- There are two papers where I live. One overwhelmingly serves the under-30 crowd in town proper, the other serves the over-30s and is more in the surrounding area. One is more left and one is more right, not out of any conscious effort but because the under-30 one is more likely to have LTEs endorsing Obama and covering events aimed at under-30s, The other is more likely to carry news about farm subsidies and events aimed at older people. While, yes, a McCain or Obama speech would be covered by both, a dem-based "get out the vote" campaign is more likely to be covered by the "young" paper and a "good old fashioned conservative grandparenting" seminar is more likely to be covered by the other. Point: The paper is only as biased as its audience. If you think your paper has a bias that you disagree with, you might find that the other town paper is more in your liking, OR maybe you're just living in the wrong area (my father would probably not like any paper near seattle, for instance).
  • Can the pope swim? Is a duck catholic? Yes, there is a clear bias. Did you notice how much coverage one political convention received compared to the other? Our local newscasts practically was entirely coverage of one convention, and the other barely got mentioned. The media has no obligation to be impartial. We tend to read/watch/buy those whose coverage match our preferences. There's just a lot of money in being liberal.
  • they're biased to whatever makes them money. since the country is basically equally divided population wise between conservatives and liberals it would make sense that the media would set their programming to make the people happy. like i said, they're going to show whatever makes them the most money, it's just another business these days. the news is no longer an honorable profession, it's a business.
  • I think most thinking people agree that there is a liberal bias in the media. Studies have shown this is true and polls of Americans show that the majority of Americans believe it too.
  • I believe that "Liberal Media" is an invention of the right. It's a classic blame the messenger tactic. This way, anytime something they don't like is reported, it's neutralized before it's out.
  • It depends which Media you watch or read. There are left , right and Middle of the road Media.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy