The Leftist Media

[Jedi Knight]

Here is an excellent article on the left's attempt to spin the fact that the media is a leftist conglomerate.

As quoted in the article:Without exception, every major metropolitan newspaper in America -- dominating all local media satellites -- is firmly in the control of political "liberals" or, as I would prefer it, the political left. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Sun Times, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the Baltimore Sun, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Detroit News, the Portland Oregonian, the Seattle Times, etc etc. are by any measure "liberal" papers. They regularly endorse Democratic candidates, their news features are designed to liberal tastes; they ritually celebrate liberal icons and just as regularly taint conservative leaders. Even the Wall Street Journal, whose two editorial pages are often said to be the party organ of the conservative movement, follows the pattern of media liberalism in its news and feature sections.--Horowitz endquote.

The successful leftist spin on media control is because they say that since a "corporation" owns it, it is a "capitalist" and thus "right-wing" enterprise. Only gullible Americans believe that spin. It would be like Stalin selling one candy bar a week and then him claiming to be a capitalist.

The left-wing controls nearly all print media in the United States. The only conservative voices are in radio and book media. Magazines, newspapers and cable television media are clearly controlled by the left-wing, minus Fox-News which is a new cable media outlet. Yet the left whines about Fox news.

Celebrating "diversity" only matters to leftists if it is the "celebration" of leftist "enlightenment" and leftist "intolerance" to everything else while saying they are the most "tolerant".

JK

 

[Crossbow]

Here is an excellent article on the left's attempt to spin the fact that the media is a leftist conglomerate.

As quoted in the article:Without exception, every major metropolitan newspaper in America -- dominating all local media satellites -- is firmly in the control of political "liberals" or, as I would prefer it, the political left. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Sun Times, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the Baltimore Sun, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Detroit News, the Portland Oregonian, the Seattle Times, etc etc. are by any measure "liberal" papers. They regularly endorse Democratic candidates, their news features are designed to liberal tastes; they ritually celebrate liberal icons and just as regularly taint conservative leaders. Even the Wall Street Journal, whose two editorial pages are often said to be the party organ of the conservative movement, follows the pattern of media liberalism in its news and feature sections.--Horowitz endquote.

...
JK

Does this recent example that is one of your many contradictions show you why many people do not take you seriously in spite of your battle experience?

 

[Doubt]

Gannet news endorsments. They are the owner of the Detroit News. Liberal controlled bias? Maybe, maybe not.

In 2000:
? 41 newspapers endorsed Al Gore.
? 37 newspapers endorsed George W. Bush.
? 20 newspapers endorsed no one.

In 1996:

? 45 newspapers endorsed Bill Clinton.
? 28 newspapers endorsed Bob Dole.
? 24 newspapers endorsed no one.

Overall:

? 31 newspapers endorsed the Democratic candidate in 2000 and 1996.

? 21 newspapers endorsed the Republican candidate in 2000 and 1996.

? 17 newspapers endorsed no presidential candidate in 2000 or 1996.

? 18 newspapers switched parties from 1996 to 2000, with 13 moving from Democrat to Republican and 5 moving from Republican to Democrat.

? Three newspapers did not endorse a candidate for president in 2000, after endorsing one of the parties in 1996.

? Seven newspapers endorsed a candidate for president in 2000, after not endorsing one in 1996.

? One newspaper endorsed the Democratic candidate in 2000 and offered opposing endorsements in 1996.

http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2000/november/nw1110-3.htm

Also, Gore's web site show what newspapers endorsed whom. 6 of those "liberal" papers endorsed Bush. But by any measure they are liberal??? Horowitz if full of s*it.

http://www.gore2004us.com/2004endorsements.html

There probably is a liberal bias in general, but control??? Deal with reality.

(Edited twice to clean up the quote)

 

[Reginald]

I have my suspicions about this publication......

Here

 

[Segnosaur]

I hate posting in the ranting threads started by Jedi, but I was wondering, are newspapers in the U.S. part of 'chains'?

Here in Canada, we have several newspaper chains... The 'Sun' chain (outlets in 5 or 6 major cities), and the Southam chain (papers in dozens of cities).

Of course, the bias here is much worse than anything you have in the U.S....

- The Southam chain (the biggest chain in the country) is owned by the Asper family, a friend of our Liberal Prime Minister. This chain also owns a national paper (the post) as well as a TV network (Global)
- The main paper in our biggest city (Toronto Star) is very left-wing oriented
- The Canadian national paper "Globe and Mail" also supports the liberals
- We also have a government-run Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (which, of course, is biased towards the left wing.)

 

[headscratcher4]

Some insight from an admittedly liberal source, Salon and Joe Conason:

Salon, 3/10/03
"Phony by any measure"

"With David Horowitz it's always hard to tell where ignorance ends and prevarication begins. He states fraudulent "facts" with the confidence of a man who believes his own ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Consider this example: At the very beginning of his letter quarreling with David Talbot over media bias, he lists more than a dozen daily newspapers that he describes as "by any measure liberal" and thus inclined to endorse Democrats. An innocent reader who has never seen most of those papers might believe Horowitz knows what he's talking about. That would be a mistake. Six of those papers – The Chicago Tribune, The Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, The Detroit News, The Portland Oregonian and The Seattle Times – endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2000. He also neglects to mention a number of important dailies that endorsed Bush, from Hartford and Cleveland to Indianapolis and San Diego. And he was probably just too busy to consult Editor & Publisher, where he could have found out that most of the daily newspapers in the United States, at all levels of circulation, backed the Republican."

 

[Marvel Frozen]

I tend to ignore anyone who thinks the media is overly liberal or overly conservative. There may be a slight leaning one way or the other, but overall people who think it's a significant bias are most likely looking at things from a terribly biased point of view.

 

[Doubt]

Some insight from an admittedly liberal source, Salon and Joe Conason:

Salon, 3/10/03
"Phony by any measure"

" Six of those papers – The Chicago Tribune, The Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, The Detroit News, The Portland Oregonian and The Seattle Times – endorsed George W. Bush for President in 2000."

headscratcher,

Darn you made that look easy. I had to go count them myself.

 

[Advocate]

I tend to ignore anyone who thinks the media is overly liberal or overly conservative. There may be a slight leaning one way or the other, but overall people who think it's a significant bias are most likely looking at things from a terribly biased point of view.

I would say there is a strong bias in BOTH directions, depending on the subject. When it comes to those issues, mostly economic ones, that would affect the company that owns the paper (most are chains) or the radio/television network, then they are very conservative. The owners make sure this is the case. On all other issues, and particularly on social issues, they are very liberal. This is because most journalists are themselves liberal and the owners do not interfere. So in a sense both sides are right about the media bias. However, since there are many more issues that do not affect the companies that own the papers/networks than there are that do, I would say overall that they are liberal. And yes, I do realize that not all media follow this pattern, but most do.

 

[corplinx]

I just don't like how the leftist term gets applied evenly to all. Different outlets will have a different detectable bias. THings I have noticed:

Peter Jennings loves them whacky palestinians
Dan Rather had a big ◊◊◊◊ eating grin whenever he reported negative news on Newt Gingrich (which was often)
Sam Donaldsen sort of has a beltway bias against all things republican (though not necessarily libertarian or conservative ideas)
David Brinkley outright said what he thought of another 4 years of Bill Clinton (4 more years of goddamn nonsense to be exact) on national TV in a moment that made my sides split.


I think its unfair to lump all the media moutpieces and copy houses together. Each has their own biases.

 

[The Fool]

I have even seen the "communists control the medis" conspiracy theorists claiming News Corporation is left wing...Lol, Rupert Murdock a liberal???

 

[corplinx]

I have even seen the "communists control the medis" conspiracy theorists claiming News Corporation is left wing...Lol, Rupert Murdock a liberal???

Well, some people are convinced the media is liberal no matter what. Remember who broke the bush DUI story rigth before the election and is usually accused of costing Bush swing voters at the last minute and thus losing the popular vote barely? It was News Corp.

What people just don't get is that FNC is very tabloidal above all else.

 

[The Fool]

Well, some people are convinced the media is liberal no matter what. Remember who broke the bush DUI story rigth before the election and is usually accused of costing Bush swing voters at the last minute and thus losing the popular vote barely? It was News Corp.

What people just don't get is that FNC is very tabloidal above all else.

It all gets down the basic principle that when the media agree's with you it is being unbiased and truthfull, when it disagrees with you it is being biased.
If your views are extremist then, yes, It will appear that the vast majority of the media is biased against you.

 

[Goshawk]

The only conservative voices are in radio and book media.

Wow, this is so factually incorrect, not to say just plain wrong, that the mind boggles.

JK, you've never heard of any of the following columnists? They aren't all confined to "radio and book media".

Gary Aldrich
Doug Bandow
Bruce Bartlett
Tony Blankley
Linda Bowles
Brent Bozell
Pat Buchanan
William F. Buckley
Steve Chapman
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Chuck Colson
Ward Connerly
Ann Coulter
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Edwin J. Feulner
Suzanne Fields
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Maggie Gallagher
James Glassman
Jonah Goldberg
Paul Greenberg
John Hanley
David Horowitz
Dexter Ingram
Terence Jeffrey
Michael Kelly
Jack Kemp
Charles Krauthammer
Larry Kudlow
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Rich Lowry
Ross Mackenzie
Michelle Malkin
John McCaslin
Brian McNicoll
Bill Murchison
Joel Mowbray
Oliver North
Robert Novak
Marvin Olasky
Bill O'Reilly
Kathleen Parker
Dennis Prager
Alan Reynolds
Paul Craig Roberts
Debra Saunders
Phyllis Schlafly
Ben Shapiro
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Jacob Sullum
Mark Tapscott
Cal Thomas
Matt Towery
Rich Tucker
Emmett Tyrrell
Malcolm Wallop
Jude Wanniski
Diana West
George Will
Armstrong Williams
Walter Williams

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/

 

[corplinx]

The only thing that strikes me as being generally leftist about the mainstream media is that fact that people considered right-wing or conservative are billed as such. When is the last time you heard, "Left wing advocate Maureen Dowd had a piece in today's NYT"?

Of course, this point is brought up in the book "Bias" which was written by a self-admitted liberal. I don't offer this as proof in any way. His book revealed no real conspiracy or even agenda of hard leftists. He painted more of a picture of a group of "tea cozy liberals" (i made this term up) who basically see slightly left of center as being center because of their frame of reference. The author's frame of reference is of course from CBS.

Muddying these waters is FoxNews which bills people as they are more consistently. You don't have people left of center unbilled. However, Fox being unable to do anything with tact and class has the network with the tackiest production values I have ever seen.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, some people are convinced the media is liberal no matter what. Remember who broke the bush DUI story rigth before the election and is usually accused of costing Bush swing voters at the last minute and thus losing the popular vote barely? It was News Corp.

What people just don't get is that FNC is very tabloidal above all else.

rupert will do whatever it takes to make a dollar. he is purely and simply an opportunistic pragmatist. if it means forcing his journalists to tell lies so he doesn't offend a lobby group, he'll do it.

 

[pgwenthold]

The only thing that strikes me as being generally leftist about the mainstream media is that fact that people considered right-wing or conservative are billed as such. When is the last time you heard, "Left wing advocate Maureen Dowd had a piece in today's NYT"?

Of course, this point is brought up in the book "Bias" which was written by a self-admitted liberal.

Didn't FAIR investigate this claim and find it to be completely bogus? Left-wing advocates are billed as such just as much as right wingers.

 

[Crossbow]

Here is an excellent article on the left's attempt to spin the fact that the media is a leftist conglomerate.

As quoted in the article:Without exception, every major metropolitan newspaper in America -- dominating all local media satellites -- is firmly in the control of political "liberals" or, as I would prefer it, the political left. The New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the Sun Times, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Miami Herald, the Baltimore Sun, the Denver Post, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Detroit News, the Portland Oregonian, the Seattle Times, etc etc. are by any measure "liberal" papers. They regularly endorse Democratic candidates, their news features are designed to liberal tastes; they ritually celebrate liberal icons and just as regularly taint conservative leaders. Even the Wall Street Journal, whose two editorial pages are often said to be the party organ of the conservative movement, follows the pattern of media liberalism in its news and feature sections.--Horowitz endquote.

The successful leftist spin on media control is because they say that since a "corporation" owns it, it is a "capitalist" and thus "right-wing" enterprise. Only gullible Americans believe that spin. It would be like Stalin selling one candy bar a week and then him claiming to be a capitalist.

The left-wing controls nearly all print media in the United States. The only conservative voices are in radio and book media. Magazines, newspapers and cable television media are clearly controlled by the left-wing, minus Fox-News which is a new cable media outlet. Yet the left whines about Fox news.

Celebrating "diversity" only matters to leftists if it is the "celebration" of leftist "enlightenment" and leftist "intolerance" to everything else while saying they are the most "tolerant".

JK

I noticed that JK has not done a single thing to further support these claims he made the other day: I do hope the facts of the situation actually made a postive impact on him.

 

[Lemastre]

Jedi Knight never saw a chain he didn't want to yank.

Mr. Knight seems a bit reactionary in his politics, but his major talent is in knowing what chains to pull to elicit heated responses. I know a number of persons of his bent. They know little, but take glee in stirring up discussions about anything and everything. Responding to his assertions may help you crystallize your own thoughts on a topic, but will have little to do with his thought processes, which are not about the topic, but about keeping the pot boiling.