Is there really 'left wing' media bias?

[PrincessFiona]

Since you're reading Goldberg, I'd also suggest the book "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman.

It's a fascinatint read. You can read a clip from his website...and there he talks about the fact that 72 of the 232 pages of Goldberg's book address one person...Dan Rather...again, the man had an axe to grind.

Of course, Alterman is a *gasp* liberal, so what do you expect, right?

But in my eyes, if we really had a true liberal media we would spend a lot more time talking about universal healthcare and other social issues that are pressing in the US today.

Mentioning disagreeing with the Bush admin on a policy does not a 'liberal media' make. Half of this country is terrified and the words 'socialism and communism' come flying through their mind the minute you say 'universal healthcare' for example. Where do they get that? The liberal media?

There is as much conservative media as liberal media...it just doesn't suit conseratives to say it..because it's so much more fun to blame the liberals for failed policies, etc.

It's the 'liberals' fault that we've failed in Iraq (those treasonists should go to France where they belong). It's the blasted liberals who have screwed up the medicare prescription drug thing that Bush pushed through without making a deal with drug companies first. If only the liberal media hadn't ... alerted the publice to the difficulties people were having. It's the liberal media's fault that Bush showed up in NO and even had the lights turned on for a few minutes to be filmed showing how dedicated he was..and then never actually took action to help the people. It's the liberal's fault that many of the people there are still living like they were in a 3rd world country. It's the liberals' fault that social security reform hasn't gone through.

The blasted liberal media...if *only* we could have gotten our message through, THEN we would have been successful...Forget that Ann Coulter, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh get so much airtime that it is nauseating or that the successful political radio shows are all conservative...

Conservatives act like victims with no platform.

Face it..the media outlets all have little shows and journalists with their liberal and conservative slants. No one is a victim here unless they choose to be.

[SueC]

MSNBC now is a different story. Keith Olbermann is just good old-fashioned Bush bashintainment.

Which is why I love the guy so gosh-darn much! I will admit, I am biased, but I'm not on the news or deciding what the news stories are.
Rapunzel, I really take any of those studies with a grain of salt. I've done enough statistical analysis to know you can pull samples and interpret data any number of ways.

[Rapunzel]

So, the bottom line is that currently this study is the only solid, unbiased information on the subject. Until someone comes out with a comparable unbiased piece of research then this stands - like it or not.

Personally, I prefer news programs and commentary that are more than just propaganda (be they "Bush-bashing" or "pro-Bush" propaganda or what other subjects strike your fancy). I want news that allows me to think for myself rather than processing everything up into tiny, previously masticated bits that don't require me to do much in the way of mental digestion. That's why the majority of the news I get now is via the internet where I can read dozens of reports on the same story from foreign and domestic media outlets and blogs and compile the actual truth (which is generally an amalgum of a dozen or so stories with none of them giving you the complete picture - but, rather bits that you can piece together among them all) along with forming an opinion on whatever subject for myself. My personal rule is: I prefer to think for myself rather than have others do my thinking for me.

[PrincessFiona]

Define propaganda? Many people that I know consider any news report that does not support their view to be propaganda.

[Rapunzel]

I define propaganda as a "newsreport" with an obvious bias that appears to have an agenda behind it (be it the reporter's agenda, the networks, or possibly the network sponsors).

And, looking it up, Webster's defines it as:

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The second and third definitions are most similar to my own, personal, definition.

Facts are one thing. The manner in which those facts are reported is another. For instance, the use of any sort of emotional verbs or adjectives is suspect of an agenda. Distortion of facts by focusing on one specific portion of an issue to the exclusion of all others is also suspect. Body language is another cue as to the agenda (if there is one) of the reporter.

[SueC]

NT