Could There Be A Better Example of Media Bias Than NYT With This?

[Kathianne]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/darrell-issa-sticks-it-to-the-times.php

Devastating in what they left themselves open for:



Posted on August 19, 2011 by John Hinderaker (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/author/john) in Media Bias (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/media-bias)
Darrell Issa Sticks It to the Times

Darrell Issa (http://issa.house.gov/) is a brilliant businessman who made a lot of money the old-fashioned way: he earned it, rather than marrying or inheriting it as so many Democratic politicians do. Which is another way of saying that he is just the kind of man we need in Washington.


The Left, of course, doesn’t see it that way. The New York Times hates Issa because, as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he has launched several investigations of wrongdoing that have embarrassed the Obama administration. So ace reporter Eric Lichtblau, no longer occupied with illegally leaking national defense secrets now that a Democrat occupies the White House, went looking for dirt on Issa.


“Looking” isn’t exactly the right word; let’s say he went “trolling.” We have written a number of times about how the relatively respectable left-wing organs, like the New York Times, the Washington Post and MSNBC, rely on the far-left blogosphere for material. They monitor the crazy stuff that the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Think Progress, etc., spew out, and if they see something they think they can turn into a plausible story, they steal it.


That is what happened here. It started at Think Progress, where cub reporter Lee Fang wrote an article in March (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/30/151097/issa-earmark-property/) claiming that Congressman Issa had secured earmarks for highway construction that benefited properties he owns in his San Diego district. Lichtblau picked up Fang’s “research” and amplified it in a hit piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/politics/15issa.html?_r=3&pagewanted=4&hp) in the Times. Of course, as we have often noted, one of the problems with lifting stories from the fever swamp is that they generally turn out to be wrong.


Before getting to Lichtblau’s errors, however, a more basic point: his story in the Times is intended to put Issa in a bad light and to imply some sort of wrongdoing on Issa’s part. But if you read to the end of the article, the question that will occur to you is, What was the point? Where was the wrongdoing? There isn’t any alleged. Lichtblau’s article is sheer atmospherics; it attempts to portray Issa as a shady character without offering facts in support of that characterization...



Links at site

[KartRacerBoy]

I read this story on Polico.com yesterday. If the story in the NYT was correct, then Issa was using his elected position to line his pockets, but the politico story said Issa's staff noted factual disputes that if Issa is right, he wasn't lining the pockets. I didn't look real hard at the story, but I think the premise of the story was valid. Whether NYT had the facts well researched is another thing. I would think b4 running a story lilke this, you'd be real sure of your facts, which isn't to say they were.

The politico story did note that the author came to the NYT from the LA Times, iirc, and had written articles like this on Issa b4. That's logical since Issa was a California congressman, but I think the reporter ain't a fan of Issa.

[Gunny]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/darrell-issa-sticks-it-to-the-times.php

Devastating in what they left themselves open for:



Links at site

There is no better example period of media bias than the NYT. Runner up: Washington Post.

[KartRacerBoy]

So what do your think are exemplars of media neutrality? Washington Times and WSJ? :laugh:

[Kathianne]

So what do your think are exemplars of media neutrality? Washington Times and WSJ? :laugh:

The WSJ does a decent job of news reporting, while their editorials certainly have a conservative bias. I think what separates out their stories are what used to be called 'editors.' Seems most print journalism have gotten rid of the position. Not all bias is caught, but certainly more than what now passes for 'news' articles in most dailies.

[Gunny]

So what do your think are exemplars of media neutrality? Washington Times and WSJ? :laugh:

There is no media neutrality. That would require presenting nothing but lists of facts. Instead, people get led to the conclusion the author wishes them to arrive at; which, reflects either the writer's but more likely the writer's employer's POV.

[ConHog]

So what do your think are exemplars of media neutrality? Washington Times and WSJ? :laugh:


None, that is why a smart person reads some of various sources before rendering an opinion.

[KartRacerBoy]

None, that is why a smart person reads some of various sources before rendering an opinion.

My favorite Sunday morning politcal show is Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. I USED to watch it becz Mara Liasson, the NPR political reporter was, IMO, the smartest person on the journalist panel and always gave a no BS version of what political realities were, while guys like William Crystal and Juan Williams puffed their political bias. And Chris Wallace is a great host. Sadly, Mara is rarely on the show nowadays probably due to NPR's tiff with Juan Williams.

[ConHog]

My favorite Sunday morning politcal show is Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. I USED to watch it becz Mara Liasson, the NPR political reporter was, IMO, the smartest person on the journalist panel and always gave a no BS version of what political realities were, while guys like William Crystal and Juan Williams puffed their political bias. And Chris Wallace is a great host. Sadly, Mara is rarely on the show nowadays probably due to NPR's tiff with Juan Williams.

I like Juan Wlliams.

[KartRacerBoy]

I like Juan Wlliams.

Oh the irony!!! :laugh:

I don't like him that much. I'm quite liberal and I think many more things are racially motivated than most whites think, yet I thin Juan Williams is over the top.

[ConHog]

Oh the irony!!! :laugh:

I don't like him that much. I'm quite liberal and I think many more things are racially motivated than most whites think, yet I thin Juan Williams is over the top.

Oh, I realize the irony lol. I don't agree with him, but I do like the way he presents his opinions and respect that he is (usually) respectful of those he disagrees with.

[KartRacerBoy]

Oh, I realize the irony lol. I don't agree with him, but I do like the way he presents his opinions and respect that he is (usually) respectful of those he disagrees with.

Perhaps.

William Crystal, however, must've been beat up on a regular basis in his childhood if he grew up with that shit-eating grin that never leaves his face.

[gabosaurus]

Um .... let's see: Pretty much any show on the Fox New Channel. Or many days in the New York Post.

The whole "liberal media" sham comes from Dubya's legendary challenge to the press: "If you aren't with us, you're against us."
Meaning that you either toe the GOP line or you are the enemy. You are the "liberal media" or "mainstream media."
What to most of us is the middle of the road is the far left to those on the right.

[Missileman]

Um .... let's see: Pretty much any show on the Fox New Channel. Or many days in the New York Post.

The whole "liberal media" sham comes from Dubya's legendary challenge to the press: "If you aren't with us, you're against us."
Meaning that you either toe the GOP line or you are the enemy. You are the "liberal media" or "mainstream media."
What to most of us is the middle of the road is the far left to those on the right.

I guess if the truth isn't on your side, you feel compelled to lie...or maybe you are a total fucking idiot and truly believe that pile of shit you just posted. Bush never made such a challenge to the press. It was issued to the rest of the wolrd's nations in regards to the war on terror.

[gabosaurus]

I guess if the truth isn't on your side, you feel compelled to lie...or maybe you are a total fucking idiot and truly believe that pile of shit you just posted. Bush never made such a challenge to the press. It was issued to the rest of the wolrd's nations in regards to the war on terror.

Nope! He said the same thing in a media interview. Or perhaps you chose to overlook that. Just the same way you choose to overlook most things that don't meet your specifications of "truth."

You would be surprised how many people disagree with the media. On both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/e-mail-brings-a-blue-streak-of-hate-filled-profanity/2011/08/19/gIQAXJvoQJ_story.html?hpid=z4


I’m talking about the cowardly and unsigned invective of hate-mongers. They come from the right accusing me and The Post of being part of left-wing, commie-loving, socialist-smooching, White House-colluding conspiracies of one form or another, not to mention committing all kinds of lurid acts with President Obama. And they come from the left, saying that The Post and I are neoconservative, racist, fascist Zionists who do unnatural things with animals.

[Missileman]

Nope! He said the same thing in a media interview.

:link:

[Kathianne]

I guess if the truth isn't on your side, you feel compelled to lie...or maybe you are a total fucking idiot and truly believe that pile of shit you just posted. Bush never made such a challenge to the press. It was issued to the rest of the wolrd's nations in regards to the war on terror.

BTW, no copy write rules on gov. cause, uh we pay for it!

and it was issued in an address to a joint meeting of Congress, Sept. 20, 2001. You will notice that I've highlighted the portions that were later used to vilify and mock GW, though I doubt that anyone on that night, questioned his sincerity. Indeed, overwhelmingly he had bi-partisan support of Congress. I enlarged a tad, the questioned phrase Gabby used erroneously to try and make her biased, :laugh2: point:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html




<tbody>
(http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html#)
http://wbtdcs.nara.gov/dcs5w0txb10000wocrvqy1nqm_6n1p/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&WT.js=No [/URL]http://wbtdcs.nara.gov/dcs5w0txb10000wocrvqy1nqm_6n1p/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&WT.js=No


</tbody>
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People [URL="http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.es.html"]http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/images/espanol.gif (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html#)
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.


<tbody>



</tbody>
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/images/tv.gifView the President's Remarks (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.v.smil)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/images/listen.gifListen to the President's Remarks (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.a.ram) 9:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans:

In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/images/20010920-8-m.jpg (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/images/20010920-8.html) We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. (Applause.)


We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.
My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong. (Applause.)


Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. (Applause.)


I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.


Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country. (Applause.)


And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.


We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/images/20010920-8-1-m.jpg (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/images/20010920-8-1.html)
Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.)


On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.


Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.


Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.
This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.


The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world.
Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.


And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.


These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.


I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)


Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)


Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.


They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.


These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.


We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)


Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.


This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.


Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.


Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the Office of Homeland Security.


And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come.


These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.)


Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.)


This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.


We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.
The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what -- we're not going to allow it. (Applause.)


Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.


I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.)


I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.


The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it.


I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.


I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. (Applause.)


And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.


Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.


Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency. (Applause.)


We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. (Applause.) We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before they strike. (Applause.)
We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work.


Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. (Applause.) As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will rebuild New York City. (Applause.)


After all that has just passed -- all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them -- it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.)


Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.)


It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.


And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. (Applause.)


I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.


The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America.
Thank you. (Applause.)
END 9:41 P.M. EDT

[logroller]

NYT has a new slogan. "All the news that's fit to print...and more!"

Besides bias being different than blatant lies, Is it a realistic expectation for no-bias in media? I would say the reason most people open a paper or tune in to a "news" outlet is they are, perhaps unknowingly, looking for a biased presentation of the story. If something really concerns me, I'd check a variety of sources based on the bias I'd expect.

[Kathianne]

NYT has a new slogan. "All the news that's fit to print...and more!"

Besides bias being different than blatant lies, Is it a realistic expectation for no-bias in media? I would say the reason most people open a paper or tune in to a "news" outlet is they are, perhaps unknowingly, looking for a biased presentation of the story. If something really concerns me, I'd check a variety of sources based on the bias I'd expect.

Yes, there is a difference. In the case of Issa, seems that NYT may have lied, not just bias. Time will tell. However their bias, make the accusation not only more credible, but likely. That's more than 'just a shame.' The NYT used to be the paper of 'record' in news. Totally without bias? Hardly, no paper, no matter how great and active the editors could ever say that.

However, most 'quality' dailies used to put great stock in separating out editorials from news. As I said much earlier, the WSJ does the best I've noticed currently, though might well have been substandard years ago. I really can't remember.

My mom, a news hog, loved the Chicago Daily News. Why? Their columnists, especially Mike Royko, and editorials. The news was the news, something to read. While the 'something to read' went along with WSJ, Chicago Sun, Chicago Sun Times, Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report, yeah, I'd say we were covered.

[Gunny]

My favorite Sunday morning politcal show is Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. I USED to watch it becz Mara Liasson, the NPR political reporter was, IMO, the smartest person on the journalist panel and always gave a no BS version of what political realities were, while guys like William Crystal and Juan Williams puffed their political bias. And Chris Wallace is a great host. Sadly, Mara is rarely on the show nowadays probably due to NPR's tiff with Juan Williams.

NPR is one of the most biased media sources out there. Nothing but a mouthpiece for the left wing/progressive agenda.

[Gunny]

Um .... let's see: Pretty much any show on the Fox New Channel. Or many days in the New York Post.

The whole "liberal media" sham comes from Dubya's legendary challenge to the press: "If you aren't with us, you're against us."
Meaning that you either toe the GOP line or you are the enemy. You are the "liberal media" or "mainstream media."
What to most of us is the middle of the road is the far left to those on the right.

Wow. Middle of the road? YOU?!?

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

[Kathianne]

NPR is one of the most biased media sources out there. Nothing but a mouthpiece for the left wing/progressive agenda.

While I'll agree with that assessment, doesn't mean that KRB was wrong about
...Fox Sunday Morning with Chris Wallace. I USED to watch it becz Mara Liasson,...

[Gunny]

NYT has a new slogan. "All the news that's fit to print...and more!"

Besides bias being different than blatant lies, Is it a realistic expectation for no-bias in media? I would say the reason most people open a paper or tune in to a "news" outlet is they are, perhaps unknowingly, looking for a biased presentation of the story. If something really concerns me, I'd check a variety of sources based on the bias I'd expect.

Anyone looking for as much truth as possible does. The facts are usually the common denominators from all the sources and the biased filler to be taken with a grain of salt. But then, at a minimum, a majority of the voters in this nation in the last election were not concerned with facts, even when presented with them.

Having said that, ANYONE who actually believes the media is not left-biased has his/her head stuck in the sand. When the underlying justification to one's behavior is freedom of speech, no matter the cost, it's hardly going to be anything else.

[Gunny]

While I'll agree with that assessment, doesn't mean that KRB was wrong about

I wouldn't know; therefore, didn't comment on that. I may have watched Fox Sunday Morning once at some point. I have listened to NPR on more than several occasions and found very little useful in anything they present. Well, except comedic relief.:laugh:

[logroller]

Yes, there is a difference. In the case of Issa, seems that NYT may have lied, not just bias. Time will tell. However their bias, make the accusation not only more credible, but likely. That's more than 'just a shame.' The NYT used to be the paper of 'record' in news. Totally without bias? Hardly, no paper, no matter how great and active the editors could ever say that.

However, most 'quality' dailies used to put great stock in separating out editorials from news. As I said much earlier, the WSJ does the best I've noticed currently, though might well have been substandard years ago. I really can't remember.

My mom, a news hog, loved the Chicago Daily News. Why? Their columnists, especially Mike Royko, and editorials. The news was the news, something to read. While the 'something to read' went along with WSJ, Chicago Sun, Chicago Sun Times, Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report, yeah, I'd say we were covered.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my inference. There's a difference, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up "blatant lies" (the ISsa thing reminds me of the german stormer editor who's slogan, unofficially, was "Something always sticks".

If I opened the WSJ and article said "buy xyz stock, its bound to grow 50%"-- my first thought shouldn't be to buy, but do a little more research. Answer questions like-- Who stands to gain from this? Fifty yrs ago we didn't have a lot of options to verify information,but now we do. If I wanted to read some dirt about a conservative senator who pushed for drug reform bill, you better believe I'm going to a few sources to find out what's in it for him. And where would I look? Two oppositely biased sources. Again, i look for confirmation of the bias I'd expect. If MSNBC said he's a stand up guy and this is just what the country needs, I'd probably give that more weight than if Fox said it. Likewise, if Fox said the opposite, that this is bad, I assume he's probably more progressive despite the biases attached to the (R) in his title. Do you not expect MSNBC to give me liberal bias? Expect FOX to not give a conservative one? The NYT...that's liberal IMO... And the facts appear to support that. Kath, thanks for posting this BTW, that's how are biases are to be checked.



PS: I think most readers, viewers even more so, are too lazy to check the facts, and I suppose the same goes for voters!

[KartRacerBoy]

NPR is one of the most biased media sources out there. Nothing but a mouthpiece for the left wing/progressive agenda.

This is the funniest post eVAr! :clap:

Oh shit. You were serious weren't you?

[gabosaurus]

NPR is one of the most biased media sources out there. Nothing but a mouthpiece for the left wing/progressive agenda.

So what you are saying is that NPR is the left-wing version of Fox News?