The idea there’s a liberal bias in the media has been completely debunked

30 posts / 0 new

The group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting – took a look at the Sunday morning talk shows over the last few months and found a heavy tilt in favor of white, conservative, men appearing as guests.

Between February and June of 2012, one-on-one interviews on NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News were with a Republican 70% of the time, with a man 86% of the time, and with a white person 92% of the time. Given that most of the mainstream media today is owned by corporations headed up by white, Conservative men – then it shouldn’t be surprising that that’s the perspective you’re most likely to see on the news today.
Time to turn the channel and find independent news media – like Free Speech TV.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 10:59 am

Comments

What does "completely" mean? I thought this did it pretty much completely when I read it back in 1988:

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media -- Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

I guess you just have to keep debunking.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Most of that time was spent covering the GOP primary. What exactly did you expect?

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote mjolnir:

Most of that time was spent covering the GOP primary. What exactly did you expect?

There very well could be a problem with sampling... but there's a bigger problem here... what they hell do terms like "liberal" and "conservative" even mean in a time when both parties have moved to the right... and one has fallen off the deep end? Traditional US conservatives like Ike, Nixon, Ford, Bush1, and even those further to the right like Reagan, would not recognize the GOP of today... nor would FDR, Truman, JFK, or LBJ recognize today's Democratic Party.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The media definitely isn't liberal or Leftist, or conservative for that matter. It's pro-government.

Pierpont,

It's funny but I don't really see a difference among FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Except each one is worse than the one before. Rhetoric may change but policies don't Reagan, for example, was basically a New Deal Democrat who supported a needless military build-up. Almost every President since Wilson has supported a quasi-fascist economic system.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 2:33 pm

We can debate WWII if you want, and many have said that the empire that grows up after WWII runs away from any real democracy to become the imperial "fascism" of crony and warmongering corporate establishing itself in the State. Where various Presidents were in that development as opposed to occupying an office that inherits imperialism might show you some differences that matter.

You also give a simplisitic gloss to the "each worse than the one before" line that misses far too much to ignore. Even if you want to criticize the Democrats as many here do, their sins are not the same as those of the cheerleaders of empire in the Neocon Right. The defection of old Democrats to Neoliberalism happened a long time ago. It was part of the fallout of Vietnam and anti-war protests.

Reagan, for example, was a convert from the New Deal who served as the frontman for corporate. The operative word is convert. This was typical of the "Reagan Democrat" who is better explained by racism and loss of patriarchal power than by any bread and butter self-interest. It taps into the "anti-Communism" of the "real American" patriots and opposes all the New Deal social programs while it runs up the flag on the global empire. Democrats have not been good opponents of the imperial coup, but don't confuse the issue as if the decline of democracy was the fault of "government." Empire is bad government, but democracy is good government. The corruption of government is about the corrupters. It is also about what we need to do to have a good government.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

The MSM , print and television, is definetly left leaning. They have a bias toward making money.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

For the last 30 years or so, the presidential elections have been pretty close to 50/50, if one candidate wins by 10% that is a landslide. Yet why is it when they poll the mainstream media and ask who did you vote for president, 90% of that group voted for the Democrat?

Do you really think that doesn't come out in what they report and how they report it?

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:

For the last 30 years or so, the presidential elections have been pretty close to 50/50, if one candidate wins by 10% that is a landslide. Yet why is it when they poll the mainstream media and ask who did you vote for president, 90% of that group voted for the Democrat?

Do you really think that doesn't come out in what they report and how they report it?

It's because the Right is inherently more irrational than the "left". Those with Right wing views applying for such jobs are probably seen as unqualified to do objective reporting... organizations like Faux News which have a Right wing agenda aren't concerned with objectivity ;-)

Come to think of it, it's probably not a joke!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

This article by BrianR and its related articles clearly demonstrates the liberal bias in the media.

http://bralls.newsvine.com/_news/2006/10/26/414867-does-the-media-slant-liberal-or-conservative

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote mauiman58:

For the last 30 years or so, the presidential elections have been pretty close to 50/50, if one candidate wins by 10% that is a landslide. Yet why is it when they poll the mainstream media and ask who did you vote for president, 90% of that group voted for the Democrat?

Do you really think that doesn't come out in what they report and how they report it?

That's because it's probably true that 90% of EVERY group votes Democrat. Why do you think the Republicans push so hard for voter ID laws. The less people voting gives a better chance for Republicans to gain office. Believe it or not, I think most Americans want legislators who benefit them and not big business, corporations and robber barons. Voting Republican equals voting for less paying jobs, policies based on religious beliefs, suppression of women and minorities, more defense and security for the elite and less defense and security for the working stiff, and a widening gap between the rich and the rest. We are all puppets to a certain extent but conservatives have more strings and are easier to manipulate. IMHO

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Quote camaroman:

This article by BrianR and its related articles clearly demonstrates the liberal bias in the media.

http://bralls.newsvine.com/_news/2006/10/26/414867-does-the-media-slant-liberal-or-conservative

The main political spectrum in the US represented by BOTH MAJOR PARTIES, is way to the right of social democratic nations of Europe. Where is there ANY main stream news coverage bias towards making the US a real multiparty democracy? THERE'S NONE! Where is there ANY MSN news coverage bias towards revamping corporate charter laws? THERE'S NONE! Where is there ANY MSN coverage advocating the reversal of free trade? THERE' NONE!

I consider myself a Progressive in wanting reforms in ALL those areas... and I see None of these issues being raised anywhere in the mainstream press. What we see is some strong AGREEMENTS between US Liberals and Conservatives that such things are just outside the realm of acceptable thought. It's that UNSPOKEN area of agreement that represents the true spectrum of politics in the US, not the often minor difference between the parties… though the US Right has gone off the deep end the past 12 years.

Please don't pass off your ignorance of politics as a valid perspective on this.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

While I agree with most of your post, in typical "progressive" fashion cannot tolerate any evidence to the contrary of your view of the world, in this particular case the left slant that MOST of the MSM exhibits. The answer to most of your questions is because the MSM is corporate owned and controlled.

Your closeminded liberal views do not make you an expert, only an asshiole with a differing opinion.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am
Quote camaroman:

While I agree with most of your post, in typical "progressive" fashion cannot tolerate any evidence to the contrary of your view of the world, in this particular case the left slant that MOST of the MSM exhibits. The answer to most of your questions is because the MSM is corporate owned and controlled.

Your closeminded liberal views do not make you an expert, only an asshiole with a differing opinion.

If you're addressing someone in particular PLEASE learn how to use the quote function.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote mjolnir:

Most of that time was spent covering the GOP primary. What exactly did you expect?

So by your logic this bias towards white GOPer would NOT show up in a non-election year?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote mauiman58:

For the last 30 years or so, the presidential elections have been pretty close to 50/50, if one candidate wins by 10% that is a landslide. Yet why is it when they poll the mainstream media and ask who did you vote for president, 90% of that group voted for the Democrat?

Do you really think that doesn't come out in what they report and how they report it?

It's because the Right is inherently more irrational than the "left". Those with Right wing views applying for such jobs are probably seen as unqualified to do objective reporting... organizations like Faux News which have a Right wing agenda aren't concerned with objectivity ;-)

Come to think of it, it's probably not a joke!

Wow, you really have a slanted view of the world don't you? Again, the recurring theme on these boards is that anyone who disagrees with us is (take your pick) narrow minded, irrational, unqualified, uneducated, uninformed, etc, etc. You need to get your head out of the sand and realize that your going to have to win some of us right wing idiots over to your point of view, or the left will continue to lose elections like they just did in Wisconsin. I've got some very bad news for you, name calling is not gong to help your cause.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

For the last 30 years or so, the presidential elections have been pretty close to 50/50, if one candidate wins by 10% that is a landslide. Yet why is it when they poll the mainstream media and ask who did you vote for president, 90% of that group voted for the Democrat?

Do you really think that doesn't come out in what they report and how they report it?

That's because it's probably true that 90% of EVERY group votes Democrat. Why do you think the Republicans push so hard for voter ID laws. The less people voting gives a better chance for Republicans to gain office. Believe it or not, I think most Americans want legislators who benefit them and not big business, corporations and robber barons. Voting Republican equals voting for less paying jobs, policies based on religious beliefs, suppression of women and minorities, more defense and security for the elite and less defense and security for the working stiff, and a widening gap between the rich and the rest. We are all puppets to a certain extent but conservatives have more strings and are easier to manipulate. IMHO

Oh come on, you can't really believe that 90% of the population favors the Dems do you? If that was really the case, how could the Republicans ever win any election.

And sorry the answer is not money, because even if 55% of the population agreed with your above statement, there would not be enough money in the world to elect any Republican. Your 90% number is more like 40% tops.

I'm sure you think I am cynical and hard hearted when I claim that elected officials are just as much self centered greedy bastards as those "robber barons" in corporate America. The problem is that there are a HELL of a lot of people who see the situation the same way I do. So we work just as hard as the progressive to limit the size and power of any government. That's why we flood to Fox news because we get sick and tired of the bleeding heart mainstream media telling us how grandma will immeadiately starve and/or freeze to death if you cut (take you pick) social security, medicare, medicaid, etc by 2%. And FOX news ratings are double or triple what PMS-NBC gets because of that.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

I was being a little sarcastic Maui but not totally. You say there isn't enough money to elect a Republican and yet 10% of our population has and controls 90% of the wealth. In a case scenario if those 10% were hard righties they could easily buy elections. Fox news stinks and you know it. How often have you heard a liberal point of view on that show unless it's the subject of a good mocking. Fox has good rating because when they first started out they were the only competition for CNN and many people, myself included, hated the CNN news format. It was all over the place and unorganized. Fox came along and did a great job of cleaning up how news was presented. It was actually very, very good. Then somewhere along the way they started leaning more and more to politically centered programs. As it sits now, the only time you actually get to watch the news is when Shepard Smith does his show twice a day. The rest is political and very heavy hard right. That's not fair and balanced in anyone's book but so many people have been watching it for so long that it hasn't been noticed by many.

There's very little actual news on the tube anymore. Good Morning America, The Today Show, and CBS all just rehash yesterdays news with their own shade of lipstick. The cable news shows are the only one's that you will get a newsflash, fresh story from and Fox's presentation still beats the crap out of CNN and MSNBC. Fox attracted the audience BEFORE they began to manipulate their brains. Just because they are very talented and smart doesn't mean they are being fair and balanced at all. They are not, any fool can see that.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Just for record, I don't watch much of PMS-NBC or Fox so I can't really agree or disagree with you. But sorry, I do think Sean Hannity does know what he is talking about when I do see him. I have a feeling that you don't see it that way. And I did happen to watch PMS-NBC a little the night the Wisconsin vote came down. Their analysis of that situation was UNBELIEVABLE. One commentator actually said the big winner of the night was Barak Obama. Say what? Five months before your election your side loses a very visable election, and that was in your game plan and a good thing for you? Really?

Truth is that both networks bend the truth. And remember, their number one job is to get ratings, they are both a business first. And Fox new does that very well, much better than PMS-NBC.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Quote mauiman58:Wow, you really have a slanted view of the world don't you? Again, the recurring theme on these boards is that anyone who disagrees with us is (take your pick) narrow minded, irrational, unqualified, uneducated, uninformed, etc, etc. You need to get your head out of the sand and realize that your going to have to win some of us right wing idiots over to your point of view, or the left will continue to lose elections like they just did in Wisconsin. I've got some very bad news for you, name calling is not going to help your cause.
Please don't confuse me with someone who plays well with Right wingers. I'm not here to sing Kumbaya. I call it as I see it. I've been kicked off plenty of Liberal Boards... come to think of it... even this one. Half the time I disagree with Thom.

Look, I find BOTH sides of our dysfunctional political system distasteful and only consider Dems the lesser of the evils. But when it comes to the Right, collectively they are more irrational than the "left". I'm not saying everyone is uneducated. I respect the argument you were trying to make about SS. It was quite apart from some the absolute idiots here.

Painting with a broad brush I believe the Right in the US is largely a coalition of irrational interest groups being urged on and exploited by the GOP who needs their votes to pass legislation to benefit the only ones they DO care about... those already with money.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote mauiman58:

Just for record, I don't watch much of PMS-NBC or Fox so I can't really agree or disagree with you. But sorry, I do think Sean Hannity does know what he is talking about when I do see him. I have a feeling that you don't see it that way. And I did happen to watch PMS-NBC a little the night the Wisconsin vote came down. Their analysis of that situation was UNBELIEVABLE. One commentator actually said the big winner of the night was Barak Obama. Say what? Five months before your election your side loses a very visable election, and that was in your game plan and a good thing for you? Really?

Truth is that both networks bend the truth. And remember, their number one job is to get ratings, they are both a business first. And Fox new does that very well, much better than PMS-NBC.

You are right, the number one job is to get ratings but Fox has a number 2 job that the other stations don't have and that is to push the right wing agenda to as many people who will listen.

The media has become tool used by political parties to influence the opinions of the public. A blatant example of this is the “Plan for Putting the GOP in the News” memo from the Nixon administration. The 15-page memo was anonymous, and has written comments on it by Nixon’s then-advisor and current Fox News President Roger Ailes.


Roger Ailes: founding CEO of Fox News and adviser to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Also credited for possessing the world's least attractive set of jowls.

The memo stated that television was the best medium for political persuasion because of its imminent popularity: “People are lazy. With television you just sit – watch – listen. The thinking is done for you.” The plan was to record prepackaged interviews with Republican politicians and deliver the videotapes to local news stations. Presently, critics say that Fox News has demonstrated their role as an arm of the Republican Party.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

Just for record, I don't watch much of PMS-NBC or Fox so I can't really agree or disagree with you. But sorry, I do think Sean Hannity does know what he is talking about when I do see him. I have a feeling that you don't see it that way. And I did happen to watch PMS-NBC a little the night the Wisconsin vote came down. Their analysis of that situation was UNBELIEVABLE. One commentator actually said the big winner of the night was Barak Obama. Say what? Five months before your election your side loses a very visable election, and that was in your game plan and a good thing for you? Really?

Truth is that both networks bend the truth. And remember, their number one job is to get ratings, they are both a business first. And Fox new does that very well, much better than PMS-NBC.

You are right, the number one job is to get ratings but Fox has a number 2 job that the other stations don't have and that is to push the right wing agenda to as many people who will listen.

The media has become tool used by political parties to influence the opinions of the public. A blatant example of this is the “Plan for Putting the GOP in the News” memo from the Nixon administration. The 15-page memo was anonymous, and has written comments on it by Nixon’s then-advisor and current Fox News President Roger Ailes.


Roger Ailes: founding CEO of Fox News and adviser to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Also credited for possessing the world's least attractive set of jowls.

The memo stated that television was the best medium for political persuasion because of its imminent popularity: “People are lazy. With television you just sit – watch – listen. The thinking is done for you.” The plan was to record prepackaged interviews with Republican politicians and deliver the videotapes to local news stations. Presently, critics say that Fox News has demonstrated their role as an arm of the Republican Party.

Yeah with that in the background I can see how you can feel like Fox news is an arm of the Republican party. Even I have to agree that they slant to the hard right. But if that's true then PMS-NBC is just as much of an arm for the Dems, they just can't get the ratings like Fox, for whatever reason.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

Just for record, I don't watch much of PMS-NBC or Fox so I can't really agree or disagree with you. But sorry, I do think Sean Hannity does know what he is talking about when I do see him. I have a feeling that you don't see it that way. And I did happen to watch PMS-NBC a little the night the Wisconsin vote came down. Their analysis of that situation was UNBELIEVABLE. One commentator actually said the big winner of the night was Barak Obama. Say what? Five months before your election your side loses a very visable election, and that was in your game plan and a good thing for you? Really?

Truth is that both networks bend the truth. And remember, their number one job is to get ratings, they are both a business first. And Fox new does that very well, much better than PMS-NBC.

You are right, the number one job is to get ratings but Fox has a number 2 job that the other stations don't have and that is to push the right wing agenda to as many people who will listen.

Maui: For the record, Obama has never shown any real support for organized labor and he sure as hell avoided Wisconsin leading up to the recall election even though he was in Chicago the weekend before. If you define "his side" as the Democratic candidate running against Walker without any real Obama support, then I guess Obama lost. However, the Dems did win one senate seat which gave them the ability to temper Walker's extremism. Working people in Wisconsin won a small battle in spite of Obama. Obama won a small battle by not allowing Fox the direct camera footage of Walker beating Obama by proxy. People will read into it anyway they want.

BW: I'm not sure if ratings or GOP agenda is numero uno w/ Fox, but they go together like a hand in a glove. As long as the ratings are strong, then they always point to that as the proof of the validity of the message. As long as they fluff up their disinformation in highly entertaining way, the message is delivered and the ratings prove what a good message it is. This Issa witch hunt is a perfect example. Without Fox and right-wing talk radio, this Issa nonsense would have died out within a few days.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Maui: Yeah with that in the background I can see how you can feel like Fox news is an arm of the Republican party. Even I have to agree that they slant to the hard right. But if that's true then PMS-NBC is just as much of an arm for the Dems, they just can't get the ratings like Fox, for whatever reason.

I have to argue with you on NBC or even MSNBC being as far left as Fox is far right. There are actual political programs on MSNBC and CNN and just about every other cable news network that are formatted around the conservative and republican agenda. Morning Joe, with Joe Scarborough is one of them on MSNBC. I guarantee you he isn't a Democrat. I have searched and searched and I cannot find anything on Fox News where the political show is based on a liberal or Democrats point of view. All news networks are not created equal.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Maui: Yeah with that in the background I can see how you can feel like Fox news is an arm of the Republican party. Even I have to agree that they slant to the hard right. But if that's true then PMS-NBC is just as much of an arm for the Dems, they just can't get the ratings like Fox, for whatever reason.

I have to argue with you on NBC or even MSNBC being as far left as Fox is far right. There are actual political programs on MSNBC and CNN and just about every other cable news network that are formatted around the conservative and republican agenda. Morning Joe, with Joe Scarborough is one of them on MSNBC. I guarantee you he isn't a Democrat. I have searched and searched and I cannot find anything on Fox News where the political show is based on a liberal or Democrats point of view. All news networks are not created equal.

OK, I will defer to you on MSNBC, all I ever watch are short snippets in the evening, that's where I catch the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Oberman (although I think he is not on MSNBC anymore?). Certainly those two are as far left as Sean Hannity is to the right. If there is something different in the morning I would not know about it.

Hey FOX does invite lefties to some of their panels, but they end up looking like fools. I'm not sure why the lefties agree to come on the air. The last one I saw was former Cincinnatti mayor Jerry Springer trying to defend Obama's massive stimulas spending early in his presidency. To say that conversation did not go well for Jerry is an understatement.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote mauiman58:

Just for record, I don't watch much of PMS-NBC or Fox so I can't really agree or disagree with you. But sorry, I do think Sean Hannity does know what he is talking about when I do see him. I have a feeling that you don't see it that way. And I did happen to watch PMS-NBC a little the night the Wisconsin vote came down. Their analysis of that situation was UNBELIEVABLE. One commentator actually said the big winner of the night was Barak Obama. Say what? Five months before your election your side loses a very visable election, and that was in your game plan and a good thing for you? Really?

Truth is that both networks bend the truth. And remember, their number one job is to get ratings, they are both a business first. And Fox new does that very well, much better than PMS-NBC.

You are right, the number one job is to get ratings but Fox has a number 2 job that the other stations don't have and that is to push the right wing agenda to as many people who will listen.

Maui: For the record, Obama has never shown any real support for organized labor and he sure as hell avoided Wisconsin leading up to the recall election even though he was in Chicago the weekend before. If you define "his side" as the Democratic candidate running against Walker without any real Obama support, then I guess Obama lost. However, the Dems did win one senate seat which gave them the ability to temper Walker's extremism. Working people in Wisconsin won a small battle in spite of Obama. Obama won a small battle by not allowing Fox the direct camera footage of Walker beating Obama by proxy. People will read into it anyway they want.

BW: I'm not sure if ratings or GOP agenda is numero uno w/ Fox, but they go together like a hand in a glove. As long as the ratings are strong, then they always point to that as the proof of the validity of the message. As long as they fluff up their disinformation in highly entertaining way, the message is delivered and the ratings prove what a good message it is. This Issa witch hunt is a perfect example. Without Fox and right-wing talk radio, this Issa nonsense would have died out within a few days.

On Wisconsin, perhaps, but if you back about a month before the election, there were a lot of lefties who were foaming at the mouth at the prospect of Scott Walker losing and what it meant to the Democrats. Obviously one of them was not Barak Obama.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:The media definitely isn't liberal or Leftist, or conservative for that matter. It's pro-government.
In the generic sense I suspect both parties have their uses for government. They just differ on who it should benefit. I'm not sure what your point is.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote mauiman58:Hey FOX does invite lefties to some of their panels, but they end up looking like fools. I'm not sure why the lefties agree to come on the air. The last one I saw was former Cincinnati mayor Jerry Springer trying to defend Obama's massive stimulus spending early in his presidency. To say that conversation did not go well for Jerry is an understatement.

Really? FOX brought on a MAYOR to defend federal policy? What a set-up.

It's like Rush who lets on an occasional liberal as long as he's sure it's an inarticulate idiot who can't effectively defend their positions. Of course Rush does so just to make himself look omniscient to his braindead dittoheads… not because he cares in the least about being fair and balanced.

So THAT is your "proof" FOX attempts to be "fair"?

ROTF

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote mauiman58:Hey FOX does invite lefties to some of their panels, but they end up looking like fools. I'm not sure why the lefties agree to come on the air. The last one I saw was former Cincinnati mayor Jerry Springer trying to defend Obama's massive stimulus spending early in his presidency. To say that conversation did not go well for Jerry is an understatement.

Really? FOX brought on a MAYOR to defend federal policy? What a set-up.

It's like Rush who lets on an occasional liberal as long as he's sure it's an inarticulate idiot who can't effectively defend their positions. Of course Rush does so just to make himself look omniscient to his braindead dittoheads… not because he cares in the least about being fair and balanced.

So THAT is your "proof" FOX attempts to be "fair"?

ROTF

No if you go back and re read my comment, you will notice that I wondered why any lefty would show up and get skewered on FOX news.

Like I said, 90% of the mainstream media voted Democrat in the last presidential elections. I'll bet 100% of the FOX news anchors voted Republican. That's only a 10% difference, and at least with FOX you know you are listening to the right's view of the world. The mainstream media still says it is middle of the road. I say BALONEY to that.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 6:45 pm

Quote mauiman58:The mainstream media still says it is middle of the road. I say BALONEY to that.

My point is that the political spectrum in the US is so narrow that those lost inside it can't honestly claim to be fair and balanced vis a vis the broader worldwide political spectrum of democratic nations. That doesn't change my observation that the political Right in the US is more irrational than the political "left" in the US. But that also doesn't mean the political "left" in the US doesn't suffer its own myopia.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system