Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (15299)	9/20/2007 4:38:36 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224744

You really need to keep up, RMF... The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists. The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. In principle this meant that newsrooms populated mainly by conservatives would produce a similarly skewed perspective toward the political right. Such accusations have been leveled against Fox News. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias. Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view. en.wikipedia.org Apparently you just enjoy making this stuff up. Diz-

To: RMF who wrote (15299)	9/20/2007 5:31:24 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 224744

As far as the TELEVISION Networks, (except FOX), I think they have been going out of their way to play it middle of the road at best and "Bush leaning" at worst. We've been through this. MSNBC is extremely leftwing, as is PBS. CBS clearly favors Democrats on shows like 60 Minutes. So does CNN. ABC, since they retain John Stossel, I suppose is the most middle of the road. Even the NYT's before the Iraq War was almost "supporting" the whole WMD's thing. Everyone believed Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. The intelligence communities of every nation said so. So did the Clinton administration.

To: RMF who wrote (15299)	9/20/2007 9:33:47 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224744

Olbermann tells the truth, Hannity-Limbaugh lie-lie-lie-lie-lie. Huge difference. Can't compare the two. That's like comparing Honest Abe to GW Bush. One's an ethical patriotic truth-teller and maybe our greatest ever presdient, the other is a sleazy dishonest prick and undoubtedly the worst disgrace ever to inhabit the White House. The thing you have to understand about Hannioty-Limbaugh is that they are PROUD of their lying. It is what they do. Their rightwing talking points aren't even supposed to be truth in any way, just words used to create false impressions, scare people and manipulate people into making mistakes. Olbermann would never do that sort of thing. He has real ethics in his journalism.