An obscure liberal radio talk show host in Madison, WI uses racial slurs and it national attention. A somewhat less obscure conservative radio talk show host in the larger Milwaukee market does the same thing, and it only gets local attention.
Liberal media, my ass.
Hat tip: Say Uncle
UPDATE: Commenter CalDevil points out that the Belling story did get national attention. An earlier Google search on “Belling” and “slur” returned almost exclusively local links. I sit corrected.
(The allegation of pervasive liberal bias is still bullshit, however. )
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
Coincidentally, they both occured in Milwaukee. Good point. As i said, o’reilly got a pass once and lott was brought down by bloggers, not the media.
Actually, the “Aunt Jemima” incident happened in Madison, if I’m not mistaken. Not sure why the byline read “Milwaukee,” other than maybe that’s where the reporter who wrote the store was.
The only reason I even knew about the Belling incident is because I’m from Milwaukee, so I still follow their local news.
I’m only being very mildly tongue-in-cheek when I say this, but maybe the reason such incidents don’t get much publicity is be cause we’re more likely to expect such behavior from conservatives.
Could be. However (and I only skimmed the second story) i don’t see the word conservative mentioned.
Re your hysterical claim: “A somewhat less obscure conservative radio talk show host in the larger Milwaukee market does the same thing, and it only gets local attention.”
Bulls__t
A quick Google News search of the terms Belling, Milwaukee and wetback shows that news about that conservative radio host who was suspended for using the term “wetback” appeared in over 300 stories across the entire nation.
I don’t live in WI, but I saw the story of Belling in my local papers, as well as on national cable news. It was news when he made the remark, it was news when he apologized, it was news when he got suspended, and it was news just the other day when he returned from suspension.
Not national news: AP stories ran several times in papers coast to coast, as well as internationally in papers like the Guardian.
CalDevil:
It seems you’re correct. My Google search was for the terms Belling and slur, and returned almost exclusively local links. I’ve posted a correction.
tgrisch,
Just our of curiosity. How do you measure that?
Just our of curiosity. How do you measure that?
Well, not to speak for tgirsch, but I tend to look at the existence of FoxNews, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Rielly, the media’s ‘lie back and think of Britain’ approach to the runup to the Iraq war and this administration in general, and then I contrast it with, say, Al Franken and the CBS memo screwup.
If these were weights on a scale, the right side would be somewhere around your ankles and the left up around your shoulder.
Garnett,
. The administration is not part of the news media.
ForNews is 1 cable channel, there are others
Conservatives claim that all the other news orginiations demonsrate differing levels of liberal bias, i.e., the other news channels (cable and netowrk), that almost all newspapers, news magazines, and NPR. Conservatives have foxnews, a few papers, and most talk radio.
My question was how do you measure bias.
Mark O:
Well, first we have to decide what we mean by “bias,” and I think some people have the wrong idea about that. Some people think lack of balance somehow equals bias, but that’s not necessarily true. Just because we report something that makes a Democrat look bad doesn’t mean we need to rush out and find a story that makes a Republican look bad, to avoid the appearance of bias. Now, if both stories are out there, and we intentionally avoid one story and highlight the other, then THAT would be bias. Or if we spin it heavily, that too would be bias. In my estimation the media should be biased not to the left or to the right, but to the truth. More on my definition of bias here.
Here I issued a challenge to demonstrate the “pervasive liberal bias” of NPR. That challenge remains open, by the way. I even include a counterexample that shows an NPR piece with mild conservative bias.
Here I give two examples of what I consider to be flagrant bias, and I explain why in detail. In one of the cases, I even give a non-biased report of the same story so you can compare and contrast.
Here I revisit the NPR challenge, comment on some of the examples I’d gotten up to that point, and mildly refine the terms of the challenge (but not in a way that fundamentally changes the rules — I just ask for more specificity).
Here I cite a study that supports my view that, if anything, NPR has a mild conservative tilt.
If you’re truly curious, as you say, this should be a good start.
tgirsch,
So when say, the News Hour on PBS introduces an expert from one side as “an expert” but the other as “a conservative expert” (not feeling they need to point out any “left leanings”), is that bias or not?
So you feel there is no selective reporting with regards to say the Afghan elections or Iraq?
Did you read “Bias”? What did you think of that?
Mark O:
Well, it depends on the experts, of course. If the expert is there to give a neutral expert opinion, then I don’t expect them to be identified as a “conservative” or “liberal” expert, just as an expert (unless, of course, said expert has openly opined politically on the issue in question). If the expert is from a conservative or progressive think-tank, I expect that to be disclosed. In the case of expert guests, one of the things I’ve seen cause problems is that the conservative guests identified themselves as conservative. In other words, they called the guest a conservative commentator because the guest asked to be identified that way.
Actually, yes I do, but not in the way that you’d think. In the case of Iraq, for example, I expect that the positive stories get a disproportionate amount of play, but not because of any pro-war bias. It’s human nature. We really want to find something positive amid all the killing and fighting, so when something like that happens, we latch onto it. We also tend to notice those more. Sadly, a few Americans being killed in combat hardly even pops up on our collective radar any more.
I have not. It’s on my list, along with Alterman’s What Liberal Media?
I’m currently reading All The President’s Spin. It’s a good read so far, and I recommend you read it if you haven’t already. Lest you think it’s a partisan hit piece, they have some pretty unkind things to say about the way Clinton manipulated the media, too.
tgirsch,
It occurreed to me today (while on a bike ride), that the “selective” criteria is not measurable. None of us outside the media have access to what stories are (a) left on the cutting room floor and (b) disregareded by the reporter in the field because of his bias. We aren’t privy to that data. So we as outsiders can’t measure their bias.
I’d tend to think that the natural bias of the news media would tend to slant the Iraq/Afghan situations the other way, because the good news are going to be quiet successes and the bad news are “sexier” news stories.
Tgirsh,
You still haven’t refuted my 45 examples of NPR bias. You dance around them with reasons not to.
I have demonstrated that your challenges do not hold water. First with NPR. Second, You challenged me to send 2 tickets so you and Kevin could see the Passion of the Christ. I sent them and told you what the expiration was on the tickets. You agreed to see the movie and failed to do so. You never said you would refund the money if you didn’t see it, you said you would see it.
I answered both your challenges. I am still waiting for you to do the same.
Peace,
Come on, Truth, you can do better than that. Your “45 examples” were copied and pasted from a web site, many of them weren’t from Morning Edition or All Things Considered, and I looked in detail at the first six items (13%) of the list, showing there was no bias there in all six cases. If there had been even one legitimate example of bias in those first six cases, that would have justified continuing, but there was not. And despite my repeated requests that you pick out two or three “slam dunk” examples of bias from that list, you have refused to do so. That’s enough of a refutation for any reasonable person.
In fact, I’ve repeatedly asked our readership (among which we have several conservatives) if any of them take your side on that issue, and no one has stepped forward. As far as I’m concerned, you just used copy and paste to throw a bunch of crap against the wall, hoping something would stick, and now you’re full of sour grapes because nothing did.
Get over it, Truth, you lost.
Mark O:
I’m not entirely sure I agree with you here. If there were only one media outlet, you’d have a better case. But for what you’re talking about to actually happen, every major news source would have to suppress the same stories, and that just seems unlikely, especially considering Fox News’ existence in the fray. (If there really were such pervasive liberal bias, Fox News would be jumping on the stories that the other outlets were suppressing.) The only other way something like that could happen is if there were stories that only one media outlet even knew about, which also seems highly unlikely.
Our media is pretty bad, but I don’t think liberal bias (or, honestly, any bias) is the biggest problem. The biggest problems are the desire for “balance” (as opposed to factual reporting), and the rush to “scoop” stories, resulting in fiascos like the CBS document flap, or any number of Fox News “we found weapons, oh wait, nevermind” stories.
tgirsch,
Hmmm… first you want examples and then you say there are too many examples. If you looked at 13% of examples you didn’t look at 87% of them. I am not impressed with your claim of refuting the first six as I have yet to see you concede to anything. As a matter of fact I would bet you are a great competitor in other aspects of your life. where is it? Basketball? Raquetball? Bike riding? (Do you even get outside?) You simply hate to lose.
Sour grapes? Nah! Amazement at your ability to dance around this sort of thing? Absolutely.
I think the only thing I have actually lost in this is $24.
Peace tgirsch.
You know, Truth, I think it’s high time for you to put up or shut up. Why haven’t you conceded anything yet? Could it be because you haven’t even bothered to look at my six-for-six refutations? That would make sense, since you can’t be bothered to single out a slam-dunk example of bias, instead choosing to take the lazy man’s route of copying and pasting uncritically from someone else’s web site.
If you’re so right about this, why is it that not a single conservative reader on this blog (many of whom relish in the opportunity to jump on us when they think we’re wrong) is willing to back you up on this? Their silence speaks volumes.
And frankly, I’m sick of hearing about the $24; I’ve admitted that we failed to hold up our end of the bargain (by not seeing The Passion before the passes expired), and I have offered to reimburse you on numerous occasions, and you have ignored the offers. I’m beginning to think that you’d rather hold the $24 over our heads than have it back. So for one final time: Send me an e-mail with an address, and I’ll send you your $24. Hell, I’ll make it $25. Give us a way to actually reimburse you, or stop bringing it up.
Tgirsch
Ignore the 87% and damce on my friend. perhaps that is what you do well, dancing! I bet you can really cut the rug dude!
Actually last time we discussed this you said part of the agreement was you would return the money if you could prove the movie wrong OR didn’t see it. You slipped in that if we didn’t see it jazz. This is the first time you flat out admitted you did not see the movie within the parameters of our agreement.
If the American Red Cross works for you go ahead and send them a check for $24. If you agree I will no longer say you didn’t pay. However every time you raise a “challenge” I see no reason not to use the fact that you failed two of them; Specifically the NPR and the Passion.
Peace,
Truth:
See, Truth, either you’re forgetful, or you’re lying. From a comment posted on August 25, 2004 to this thread:
[Emphasis added] That was fully three months ago. And you can’t claim to not have seen the message, because you responded to it barely an hour later, ignoring the reimbursement offer.
Done:
As for the rest:
I’ll freely admit to failing the Passion challenge. But the NPR challenge? Please! You didn’t even meet the terms of the challenge, which was specifically limited to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. You cited examples of anti-Israeli bias, specifically addressed and exempted from the challenge (you ignored the terms). You cited an O’Reilly interview from Fresh Aire, a show not covered under the terms of the challenge. You submitted a nine-year-old NRA complaint concerning a fifteen-year-old story. Hardly within the scope of the challenge, despite your claim there that they fell “well within the realm of criteria.” Several of the purported examples of bias complain about NPR interviewing liberal or progressive guests, but again, this is only forbidden if the progressive guests get more airtime than the conservative ones, something which is clearly not true:
So I’m sorry, Truth, but in several dimensions, in several ways, you have utterly failed in winning the NPR challenge. And in fact, you haven’t had a single person of any political slant not named The Truth claim that you have. So forgive me if I don’t take you seriously on that one.
Tgirsch,
Thanks for supporting the American Red Cross. I have given them a lot of cash and blood over the years.
“See, Truth, either you’re forgetful, or you’re lying.”
You know better than to use an either-or argument. Third possibility here – I’m right.
I said, by remembering not looking, “Actually last time we discussed this you said part of the agreement was you would return the money if you could prove the movie wrong OR didn’t see it.” You slipped in that if we didn’t see it jazz.” I went on to say “This is the first time you flat out admitted you did not see the movie within the parameters of our agreement.”
You said in the original exchange (Thanks for the link – I didn’t want to try to find it myself). ” Regarding the challenge surrounding The Passion, it was your challenge, not ours, but you’re right, we did not live up to our end of the bargain. I have told you before that I would gladly reimburse you (which we stated we would do if we didn’t see it or if we saw the movie and agreed it was not anti-semitic).
It’s true that you admitted you didn’t live up to your end of the bargain but then you slipped in that if we didn’t see it jazz. So when I said “This is the first time you flat out admitted you did not see the movie within the parameters of our agreement.” I was exactly right.
I, too, added the emphasis.
So what’s your excuse? Lying? Forgetful? Third possibility I haven’t covered?
Peace,
Truth:
Wow, that’s enough spin to make an Olympic figure skater dizzy. I frankly fail to see what difference the “didn’t see it” part makes. The fact remains that I said “we did not live up to our end of the bargain.” In what way does that constitute me not admitting that I didn’t see the movie within the parameters of our agreement. “We did not live up to our end of the bargain” seems like a pretty comprehensive statement to me. But rather than admit that you were wrong, and that I did indeed admit to not following the bargain, and that I did indeed offer to reimburse you before, you instead choose to engage in spin and harp on the way in which I restated the “bargain” in the first place.
For the record, the original bargain is made here on March 15-16, 2004. And you are correct that no terms were listed for what happens if we fail to see the movie. But I still don’t see why that makes my August 24th statement that “we did not live up to our end of the bargain” any less valid a mea culpa. There’s no weaseling in that statement.
FACT: I have previously acknowledged that we didn’t do what was required of us in that challenge.
FACT: I have previously offered to reimburse you for the tickets.
FACT: Back in August, you didn’t make any kind of big deal about me “adding” the “if we failed to see it” clause. That didn’t become a big deal for you until here, when you were proven wrong about this being the first time I’ve flat out admitted that we didn’t live up to the agreement.
FACT: You’re still full of it on the NPR bias challenge.
One more thing, Truth: If you want to obsess about specific terms of various challenges, perhaps you ought to re-read the original NPR challenge, and note that you didn’t even come close to meeting its terms:
You did not go to the archives; you did not listen to anything; you didn’t provide any links to the NPR stories that supposedly were biases; many of your examples were not recent; many of your examples were from shows other than All Things Considered and Morning Edition — even after I specifically excluded all other NPR programming; some of your examples concerned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I had also explicitly exempted.
The Truth is that to this day, you still have not provided even a single example as described “within the parameters of the original challenge.” The best you could do was to copy and paste a list of 45 examples — not of bias, but of why NPR sucks, according to the web site’s author — most of which don’t even meet the terms of the challenge.
Tgirsch
Fact: You said “See, Truth, either you’re forgetful, or you’re lying.”
If it isn’t a big deal then why did you call me a liar? Call it spin or what ever you want but I clearly showed here that I wasn’t lying or forgetting. You just can not stand to be proven wrong. If you were not so fast with the personal attacks you might pay closer attention to what is going on.
You seem very wound up these days. Sorry my friend but you were wrong so relax and move on.
Peace,
Whatever, dude. You claimed that I never conceded the Passion challenge, and you were wrong. Period. That qualifies as forgetful or lying. You didn’t clearly show anything, other than that I didn’t use exactly the words you would have liked. You claimed that you “won” the NPR challenge, even though you didn’t even honor its terms. Somehow, I don’t think I need to worry about my integrity here.
And for the record, I didn’t call you a liar. Forgetful != lying, and I left that option open.
Tgirsch,
OK, I demonstrated how you failed the Passion Challenge. Now on to that entity that survives because liberals have figured out how to make everyone pay it; NPR.
If you are leaving it open that there is pervasive bias throughout NPR, and I have demonstrated there is, shouldnt you call your challenge something other than the NPR Challenge? How about the All Things Considered and Morning Sedition Challenge?
Here are some examples of bias on your favorite shows. I have provided links that clearly spell out what the problems are with each show. Go ahead and refute each point of each problem and I will provide a few more for you. No goal post moving now.
About Books and Bear Bags
Date: 9/2/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows11.htm
About Books and Bear Bags
Date: 8/30/03
Show: Weekend Edition-Saturday (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows11.htm
All Together Now, Quagmire!
Date: 6/19/03
Show: All Things Considered (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows9.htm#3
Amazing Homicide Rate: Killed Seven Times Over
Date: 10/3/02
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows6.htm#4
Another Request Pending: The Sequel
Date: 8/6/04
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows14.htm#sequel
A Pretty Good Week
Date: 7/15/04
Show: All Things Considered (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows14.htm#pretty
Are Republicans Intellectually Inferior?
Date: 9/21/01
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows2.htm#2
Augusta, Georgia, on My Mind
Date: 4/14/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows8.htm#3
Body of Secrets: Attack on the USS Liberty
Date: 6/7/01
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows1.htm#4
Claudio Sanchez on School Diversity
Date: 5/14/02
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows4.htm#2
Convict Leasing in Alabama
Date: 7/16/01
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows2.htm#1
De Mortuis nil nisi Bonum
Date: 6/10/04
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows14.htm
Elementary! My Dear Watson!
Date: 12/1/03
Show: Morning Edition & All Things Considered (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows12.htm
Ellsberg’s New Spy Friend
Date: 2/25/04
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows12.htm#item2
Fighting the Right War
Date: 7/30/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows10.htm#2
How to Ambush the Speaker
Date: 6/24/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows10.htm
Kate’s Choice
Date: 9/24/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows11.htm#2
Lessons from Vietnam
Date: 4/30/04
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows13.htm#vietnam
Line, Hook, and Sinker
Date: 11/18/03
Show: All Things Considered (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows11.htm#3
Nigeria, Country or Continent?
Date: 10/12/00
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows1.htm#2
On The Media Fights Conservative Public Bias
Date: 2/9/02
Show: On the Media (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows3.htm#2
Talking Down the Economy
Date: 12/30/02
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows7.htm#3
The Arming of Saddam Hussein
Date: 7/29/03
Show: Morning Edition (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows10.htm#1
The Girl from Fallujah
Date: 11/14/04
Show: Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows1.htm#3
The Waffle House: Next on the List of Targeted Restaurants?
Date: 6/26/01
Show: All Things Considered (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows2.htm
Truth Squads
Date: 8/22/04
Show: Weekend Edition-Sunday (NPR)
http://www.nprsucks.com/shows14.htm#truth
There must be at least 25 examples here. It really wasn’t that difficult. Let me know when you have refuted all bias from all these examples Tgirsch and we’ll have a little more fun with this.
Peace,
Truth:
First, you have demonstrated no such thing. Second “NPR News Challenge” would probably be a better name.
I see you’re still fond of the astro-turf tactic, copying and pasting from someone else’s dirty work. That means, of course, that you still haven’t lived up to the original terms of the challenge: you have not yourself listened to NPR; you have not provided direct links to NPR’s abstracts and audio; and you haven’t explained which definition of “bias” these stories meet. Still, twenty-five examples is a more manageable list, so I’ll certainly examine them in an upcoming post (within the next week).
Of course, if you think interviewing an author about his book constitutes “liberal bias,” then I’m going to have my work cut out for me.
Tgirsch,
Regarding your NPR News Challenge here are 10 more for you. I think that’s now 35 clear examples of bias directly relating to the two news shows you picked.
Slamming Bush
Date: 10/17/03
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20031022.shtml
Co-hosts Renee Montagne and Steve Inskeep maintained as long as they possibly, plausibly could that John Kerry might somehow win Ohio’s electoral votes
Date: 11/03/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041108.asp#5
Inskeep Bias In Reporting
Date: 09/27/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040928.asp#4
NPR Delivers Glowing Look at Edwards, Critical Take on Cheney
Date: 09/20/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040927.asp#5
NPR reporter Kim Masters devoted far more air time to liberal charges of the media’s conservative bias than she did to conservative complaints about media bias in favor of liberals.
Date:08/16/04 08/17/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040823.asp#5
NPR Highlights Supposed Fearmongering by Cheney, but Not Edwards
Date: 10/20/2004
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041021.asp#3
NPR Challenges Bush Operative on Policy, Coddles Kerry Operative
Date 09/24/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040928.asp#4
A Rundown of National Public Radio’s Biased Convention Approach
Date:08/30/04 09/02/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040903pm.asp#5
Networks condemn Swiftboat Ad and NPR ignores it.
Date: 08/05/04
Show: & All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040806.asp#1
NPR Tags Knights of Columbus, But Not a Far-Left Group
Date: 08/03/04 08/04/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040805.asp#3
The more I look into NPR bias, the worse I see it is.
Peace,
Truth:
Still good at copy-and-paste, I see. It’s a shame you can’t be bothered to agree to the terms and actually listen to a broadcast. When I fail to see The Passion as agreed (and even admit wrongdoing), I’m some sort of evil hypocrite. When you fail to listen to NPR as described in the terms of the challenge, there’s somehow no foul there, and you’re completely unapologetic. Nope, no double-standard there.
Anyway, when I get back from Texas, I’ll look at your examples and comment on them. I’m not optimistic that I’ll find bias there, especially since even you don’t know what bias is there — if any — having only second- or third-hand knowledge of the stories.
Truth:
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Have you even listened to the horrible, evil Boy Scout book story? I’ll give you a clue, it’s here:
Emphasis added. Oooh! Holy liberal bias Batman! The guy praises the organization even though he disagrees with this particular policy! Let’s start burning Bibles and outlawing the private sector! Workers of the world, unite!
Man, if that’s the best you can do in terms of “liberal bias,” you’ve got a completely useless and unworkable definition of “bias.” I’m really looking forward to looking at the rest of your examples… NOT! (But I still will.)
Truth:
By the way, even if you do think that the Boy Scout thing was liberally biased, then this piece from the same broadcast balances it out: it is critical a British town’s government trying to move toward more politically correct language instead of using terms like “dear” and “love.”
Truth:
Man, are you even trying, let’s have a look at this example, the first of your ten “directly related” examples, shall we?
Precisely what part of Edwards’ statement was factually incorrect? It ain’t bias unless it’s untrue or unfairly reported. This was neither.
Tgirsch,
Here are a few more examples for you.
NPR Ties the Right & Limbaugh to Death Threats Against Gorelick
Date: 04/19/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040421.asp#4
Examples of blatant liberal bias after the election
Date: 11/03/04/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041108_bad.asp
NPR Sees Ultraconservatives in Georgia But No Liberals
Date: 07/19/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040720.asp#4
Liberal Slant by Block
Date: 11/04/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041108_bad.asp
Democrat Journalist connection with Moral Values
Date: 11/05/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041108_bad.asp
NPR Fails to Label as Liberal Some Far-Left People and Groups
Date: 08/26/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040729pm.asp#6
Finding Only Moderation in Democrat platform
Date: 08/26/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040729pm.asp#6
NPR has conceded that it was “inappropriate” for reporter David Kestenbaum to have suggested that the Traditional Values Coalition was a suspect in the anthrax letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy.
Date: 01/22/02
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20020131.asp#4
Bushs America: Friendless, Failed
NPRs Bob Edwards Unloads on Failures of Bushs Foreign Policy
Date: 10/17/04
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2003/nq20031027.asp
Networks Promote Anti-Nixon Author As Credible, But They Dismissed Anti-Clinton Authors
Date: 07/05/96
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2000/20000831.asp
Lining Up in Dan Rathers Valley of Forgery
Date: 09/20/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040923.asp
Little or No Interest in Gore and Marijuana
Date: 01/06/00
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2000/20000127.asp
Sexual Harassment Charges Worse Than Rape?
Anita vs. Juanita: The Awful Double Standard
Date: 02/25/94
Show: Morning Edition
http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/1999/watch19990308b.asp
Hyping Liberal Radios Rise, But Not Its Fall
Date: 03/30/04
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2004/fax20040923.asp
Pundits Evoke & Reject Blaming Affirmative Action in Rainesgate
Date: 05/09/03
Show: All Things Considered
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030512.asp
A perfect match? In hiring ABC News reporter Michele Norris as the new co-host of All Things Considered, National Public Radio picked a reporter who found a nefarious motive behind President Bushs call last fall for schoolchildren to donate one dollar each to help kids in Afghanistan, castigating it as insidious “propaganda.”
Date: 12/09/02
Peace,
Tgirsch
“It ain’t bias unless it’s untrue or unfairly reported. This was neither.”
There you go again using a either/or logical fallacy. You are saying bias is either this or it’s that. There are many ways of introducing bias into the news and NPR reigns when it comes to bias.
Bias by commission
Bias by omission
Bias by story selection
Bias by placement
Bias by the selection of sources
Bias by spin
Bias by labeling
Bias by policy endorsement or condemnation
More Than One Type in a Single Story
“Precisely what part of Edwards’ statement was factually incorrect?”
On the Oct. 17 “Morning Edition,” host Bob Edwards launched into a long “news” report on the flaws of the Bush foreign policy, observing: “Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever.”
Taking the best action for our country does not equal “preference”. This is a trashy liberal media example of lableing and spin. Edwards use of the word “disdain” is also pretty darn biased. That is purely liberal spin and labeling. If you can’t see blatant examples such as these you need to watch the news much closer.
Don’t feel bad about this Tgirsch. Learn from it. The media overwhelmingly votes Democrat. There are probably a few out there that do not realize how badly their personal bias works its way into their stories.
By the way, there must be at least 50 examples here for you now. Better luck on the rest than you had with this one.
Peace
Truth:
Pretty please, with sugar on top, tell me why the hell I should take you seriously when you have absolutely no regard for the terms of the challenge. Because I can’t see any reason to do so.
Also, pretty please tell me why hearsay was invalid when we criticized The Passion, but is perfectly acceptable for you concerning NPR. Maybe that’s how you “win” your challenges: by applying the rules only to the other side. Whatever.
You know what? You’re right. NPR is hopelessly liberal. After all, they refuse to acknowledge the manifest truth that George W. Bush is the second coming of the Messiah, and some of their reporters haven’t even offered to kiss Bush’s feet! Obviously, therefore, they can’t wait to reinstitute communism.
And for the record, I’m not playing at all with the definition of bias. I spelled it out in the original challenge, based on dictionary definitions. But of course, you don’t care one whit about the original challenge, because that might require you to make an effort and actually listen to the horrible pinko-commie NPR rather than copying and pasting from web sites who claim Gen. Boykin did nothing more than say that Christianity is good (when in fact he said we should forcibly convert others to it).
Oh, and even if you think Edwards intro throws the whole story out of balance, no problem. Because in the same broadcast, they allowed Colin Powell to address the Iraq issue without also talking to an administration opponent. Liberal slant wiped out by conservative slant. Now that I’ve seen your slanted story, I’ll raise you one. On the same date, their commentator talks about all the good that will come from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election in California. Tit for tat, plus one.
That’s the point. If you insist on putting forward such nitpicky examples, I can easily match them with nitpicky examples of conservative bias, usually from the same broadcast. But you don’t care about that.
And in fact, you know that! That’s why you keep copying in pasting in bulk: you can do it very quickly, whereas refuting your borrowed examples (being that you’re far, far too lazy to do your own dirty work) takes a bit of time. But it’s easily done, just time consuming.
Your scout example turned out to be a whole lot of nothing (I’ll assume that you concede that, since you’ve ignored my refutation), and was balanced by a slightly-right-leaning piece. Your Morning Edition example, also not the most compelling, was balanced by two right-leaning pieces. So in the two examples I’ve looked at so far, I’m at +1 on you.
Of course, rather than take this seriously, you’ll just keep copying and pasting and ignoring the terms, because in the grand scheme of things, you’ve got nuthin’ other than what Rush and Hannity and Drudge tell you.
Tgirsch,
And for the record, I’m not playing at all with the definition of bias.
This is a great example of why Tgirsch, and many liberals before him, fail to see media bias. They look the other way with Bias by commission, Bias by omission, Bias by story selection, Bias by placement, Bias by the selection of sources, Bias by spin, Bias by labeling, Bias by policy endorsement or condemnation and More Than One Type in a Single Story.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!
When things are not going your way, wham! Gods name in vain.
you’re far, far too lazy
Another personal attack from you Tgirsch. This is really becoming a pattern.
And in fact, you know that!
Huh? Now I know a few things? Usually you call me an idiot. Im used to your name calling and personal attacks. You need to get used to the fact that NPR News is heavily biased.
Your scout example turned out to be a whole lot of nothing (I’ll assume that you concede that, since you’ve ignored my refutation),
Using YOUR logic here Ill assume you are conceding the other 48 examples since you are ignoring them.
You know what? You’re right. NPR is hopelessly liberal.
I never said that, you just did though. What I am saying is they, NPR including their news, are extremely biased. I just dropped 50 some examples here for you that demonstrate what I am saying.
Peace,
Truth:
Wrong again. I’m not saying that there’s no such bias — little bits manage to sneak in all the time. It’s just that said bias isn’t overwhelmingly liberal, as people like you tend to claim. There’s as much or more conservative bias.
Actually, God’s name (the one you’re not supposed to take in vain) is “Yahweh.” And as far as expressions like “Jesus Christ,” “God damn it,” etc., I don’t wait for things to not be going my way — I use them all the time.
Is it an unwarranted attack? Have you personally listened to all 50 of your bias examples? Have you personally listened to any of them? It’s a fairly simple request, and one that was detailed in the original terms of the challenge. If laziness isn’t why you refuse to do so, then it must be a complete lack of regard for the challenge’s terms. When I failed to comply with The Passion challenge’s terms, I conceded that I was wrong. Apparently, those same standards don’t apply to you…
Except that I’m not ignoring them… I have specifically stated that I would get to the first 25. Whereas you had not (and still have not) addressed my refutation of the scout “bias.”