The argument about the "liberal media" is something like saying the problem with Al-Qaeda is they use too much spice in their curry. That is not the problem; the problem is they want to kill us.
The real media biases inherent are get it fast, get it first, and get it cheap. A study of media by the Pew institute found that journalists describe themselves as more liberal on social issues. The same study, however, concluded that journalists tend to be much more conservative on economic issues, just as important as political ones.
The survey found that while journalists consider themselves slightly to the left in social issues, almost twice as many say they're to the right on economic issues. And when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, and free trade, the media shows that journalists are significantly to the right of the general public.
56% believe in privatizing social security, compared to 36% of americans.
Only 39% believe protecting Soc. Sec. is a top priority, compared to 59% of Americans.
Of the statement : "Too much power is in the hands of corporations," 43% strongly disagree, 32% somewhat agree, and 24% strongly agree, compared to the general public, of which 18% strongly disagree, 15% somewhat agree, and 62% strongly agree.
On whether Government should guarantee converage for those without health insurance, 43% of journalists disagree, while 64% of the public agree.
Of Nafta being positive or negative, 65% of journalists saw it as positive, 8% negative, and 27% dont know or saw no impact, whereas 32% of america saw it as positive, 42% negative, and 26% werent't sure or saw no impact.
Another unexplored and unmentioned fact is that several more editors and publishers, who affect what goes out in the news, are conservative. In the 2000 election, for example, according to Editor and Publisher Magazine, 56% of newspapers in a nationwide study endorsed bush, 26% endorsed Gore, while the rest had no opinion.
Obviously, if the media was liberal, they would run stories that help liberal candidates and hurt conservative ones. However, the 2000 election showed this was not so;
Kinda funny since Bush
Bush made this flagrant lie, in addition to the Texas Bill of Rights falsehood: "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum"
Al Gore: Funded the internet, which changed history forever.
Bush: Drove into a hedge, got arrested for drunk driving. Dodged the draft, snorted cocaine.
Now, if the media was "liberal", wouldn't the Bush stories be so many more, and so much worse? Wouldn't Bush's major faults be on record and known by most people? In fact they aren't. Refer to statistics above showing double the positive Bush stories, and 7% more negative Gore stories. The liberal media was asleep at the wheel. Thank you, liberal media!
The real media biases inherent are get it fast, get it first, and get it cheap. A study of media by the Pew institute found that journalists describe themselves as more liberal on social issues. The same study, however, concluded that journalists tend to be much more conservative on economic issues, just as important as political ones.
The survey found that while journalists consider themselves slightly to the left in social issues, almost twice as many say they're to the right on economic issues. And when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, and free trade, the media shows that journalists are significantly to the right of the general public.
56% believe in privatizing social security, compared to 36% of americans.
Only 39% believe protecting Soc. Sec. is a top priority, compared to 59% of Americans.
Of the statement : "Too much power is in the hands of corporations," 43% strongly disagree, 32% somewhat agree, and 24% strongly agree, compared to the general public, of which 18% strongly disagree, 15% somewhat agree, and 62% strongly agree.
On whether Government should guarantee converage for those without health insurance, 43% of journalists disagree, while 64% of the public agree.
Of Nafta being positive or negative, 65% of journalists saw it as positive, 8% negative, and 27% dont know or saw no impact, whereas 32% of america saw it as positive, 42% negative, and 26% werent't sure or saw no impact.
Another unexplored and unmentioned fact is that several more editors and publishers, who affect what goes out in the news, are conservative. In the 2000 election, for example, according to Editor and Publisher Magazine, 56% of newspapers in a nationwide study endorsed bush, 26% endorsed Gore, while the rest had no opinion.
Obviously, if the media was liberal, they would run stories that help liberal candidates and hurt conservative ones. However, the 2000 election showed this was not so;
- Positive stories for Gore were 13% of coverage, while positive Bush stories accounted for 24%, nearly double.
- Neutral stories of Gore were 31%, compared to 27% for Bush, and
- Negative stories for Gore totaled 56% to Bush's 49.
Kinda funny since Bush
- Skirted securities law by selling Harken Energy stocks while sitting on audit committee, a month before they tanked.
- lied about having supported a Patients Bill of Rights in TX (He actually vetoed it)
- Supposedly claimed to have discovered a canal
- Was quoted by the Republicans as "inventing the internet", when in fact he "took a major initiative in creating what we now know as the internet" through Arpanet funding
Bush made this flagrant lie, in addition to the Texas Bill of Rights falsehood: "The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum"
Al Gore: Funded the internet, which changed history forever.
Bush: Drove into a hedge, got arrested for drunk driving. Dodged the draft, snorted cocaine.
Now, if the media was "liberal", wouldn't the Bush stories be so many more, and so much worse? Wouldn't Bush's major faults be on record and known by most people? In fact they aren't. Refer to statistics above showing double the positive Bush stories, and 7% more negative Gore stories. The liberal media was asleep at the wheel. Thank you, liberal media!
