Rice and the Liberal Media Bias

[John Galt]

I've never been one to believe in a significant mainstream liberal media bias. I generally think subtle biases and marketing do affect form and content, but not to the degree that so many argue.

CNN, however, has astounded me the last few days with the pictures of Rice. Go now to the front page and look. Every picture for the last few days has had her scowling and looking as though she is full of hate.

Anyway, it just disappoints me.

[CamEdwards]

maybe they just don't like black people?

by the way, I love how she called Clarke's comments a "scurrilous allegation."

smart and sexy.....

I want her.

[SirFozzie]

Nevermind Liberal Media, CNN's just pissed that Rice has spent time briefing the Rupert Murdoch media empire and not them.

Me? I'm pissed that Rice is telling her side of the issues of 9/11 to the press.. but not the bipartisan committe investigating 9/11.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I dunno. She looks pissed off for certain, but that's because she's ticked at Dick Clarke's "scurrilous allegations" and is fiercely rebutting them. She has every reason to be angry. Clarke's comments make her look like a dope.

CNN had Rice on yesterday morning, full interview and everything. She wasn't pressed too hard or grilled or anything.

Besides any "liberal media bias" CNN might have is easily out weighed by the monstrosity that is FOX News.

[Honolulu_Blue]

maybe they just don't like black people?

by the way, I love how she called Clarke's comments a "scurrilous allegation."

smart and sexy.....

I want her.

Agreed.

Gotta love that word: scurrilous.

[Ryche]

Rice is telling her side to the committee, just not in the open public hearing. Anything she tells the committee will be made available to the public.

[CamEdwards]

I dunno. She looks pissed off for certain, but that's because she's ticked at Dick Clarke's "scurrilous allegations" and is fiercely rebutting them. She has every reason to be angry. Clarke's comments make her look like a dope.

Actually, Clarke's comments (in 2002) make Clarke look like a dope.


CNN had Rice on yesterday morning, full interview and everything. She wasn't pressed too hard or grilled or anything.

Besides any "liberal media bias" CNN might have is easily out weighed by the monstrosity that is FOX News.

Unless, of course, you only watch and/or read only one of the two.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Actually, Clarke's comments (in 2002) make Clarke look like a dope.



Unless, of course, you only watch and/or read only one of the two.

Agreed, Clarke does seem like a dope. He just made some comment in his book about Rice not even knowing what Al-Qadea was when he brought it up for the first time. Hence, making Rice look like a dope.

Sadly, more people watch and/or read Fox News than anything else. :(

[Peregrine]

I've noticed those crazy pictures on CNN.com myself. It's strange because they've had very flattering pictures of her in the past, it's just the last couple days that they have "angry Condi" scowling her way through a brick wall.

[AgPete]

Agreed, Clarke does seem like a dope. He just made some comment in his book about Rice not even knowing what Al-Qadea was when he brought it up for the first time. Hence, making Rice look like a dope.

Sadly, more people watch and/or read Fox News than anything else. :(

Sometimes Fox News gets on my nerves because they're so determined to prove the good in Bush and the bad in everyone else but I've gotta admit, it is entertaining. Neil Cavuto is my favorite host.

[AgPete]

Dola, BTW, Rice has that infamous scowl on Fox News website coverage too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115169,00.html

[Senator]

I first met her at the 92 Convention in Houston.

Hubba Hubba

[wig]

Has anyone else noticed that the frontmen for this counteroffensive (Rice and Powell) are black?

In light of the stepped-up Republican effort to get the "black vote", I find this interesting.

[John Galt]

Dola, BTW, Rice has that infamous scowl on Fox News website coverage too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115169,00.html

That's because it is the AP photo with the story. Fox, however, doesn't feature it prominently on the front page for 3 days (like CNN has).

I'm sure Rice is angry about things, but these scowl pcitures are just over the top.

[AgPete]

That's because it is the AP photo with the story. Fox, however, doesn't feature it prominently on the front page for 3 days (like CNN has).

I'm sure Rice is angry about things, but these scowl pcitures are just over the top.

If it's just the AP photo, then I doubt there's any bias, just websites too lazy to go get any other photo. :p It's a headline story at CNN so it's gets the big picture. It's not headline news at Fox. People are welcome to speculate if it's not a headline story at FOX because it's a potentially damaging story against the Republicans. :p

[Honolulu_Blue]

That's because it is the AP photo with the story. Fox, however, doesn't feature it prominently on the front page for 3 days (like CNN has).

I'm sure Rice is angry about things, but these scowl pcitures are just over the top.

She's REALLY angry.

[GrantDawg]

If John Galt is calling something "liberal media bias" then it carries a lot of weight.

[stevew]

Has anyone else noticed that the frontmen for this counteroffensive (Rice and Powell) are black?

In light of the stepped-up Republican effort to get the "black vote", I find this interesting.

If the Reps are lucky, this year we might pull in 15% of AA voters.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

maybe they just don't like black people?

by the way, I love how she called Clarke's comments a "scurrilous allegation."

smart and sexy.....

I want her.
So this is what a few days away from the Mrs. does... :eek:

I agree though. SHe's like a big, sexy brain! :D

[Honolulu_Blue]

So this is what a few days away from the Mrs. does... :eek:

I agree though. SHe's like a big, sexy brain! :D

And she absolutely LOVES football.

[GrantDawg]

And she absolutely LOVES football.
I'd love her to become commisioner.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Besides any "liberal media bias" CNN might have is easily out weighed by the monstrosity that is FOX News.
What you talking about, FOX News is fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek: fair and balanced :eek:

...see, the more you say something the more you trick the common man (the moron) that it is true!

[yabanci]

what is this, a Rush Limbaugh crybaby session? wwhhaaaaa it's not a fair picture. whhhaaaaaaaa

[cuervo72]

I noticed the same kind of thing on ABC News the other night. They were interviewing Iraqis, and they got the meanest, angriest sounding interpreter (a woman) they possibly could to do the translations for the broadcast. It's just little things, but when they're done again and again, there is an effect.

[BishopMVP]

Agreed, Clarke does seem like a dope. He just made some comment in his book about Rice not even knowing what Al-Qadea was when he brought it up for the first time. Hence, making Rice look like a dope.
Too bad there are quotes from Rice prior to the meeting in question where she specifically mentions Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Sadly, more people watch and/or read Fox News than anything else. :(
In a highly partisan country where most people seem to prefer watching news shows that reflect and reinforce their viewpoints, doesn't that seem to imply something? Like maybe that FoxNews isn't a far-right wing conspiracy, but rather a conservative outlet that appeals to so many viewers because it's the only one on the airwaves? (Not trying to attack you personally)

[BishopMVP]

...see, the more you say something the more you trick the common man (the moron) that it is true!
Yup....the average American is a gullible idiot who is easily misled by the biased, partisan media in this country. ;)

[yabanci]

Yup....the average American is a gullible idiot who is easily misled by the biased, partisan media in this country. ;)

That's for sure.

[Huckleberry]

GrantDawg -

So Fox News is part of the liberal media bias on this Rice thing, then?


Fox News' "enlarged" picture of Rice:

<img src="http://www.foxnews.com/images/120470/4_22_032504_rice.jpg" border=0 width=200 height=300>

[yabanci]

whhhaaaaaa. it's not fair. Fox news is not fair. whaaaaaaa

[corbes]

There was a different picture of Rice on the front page of USA Today yesterday. Her scowl was even more evil in that picture.

[gstelmack]

THAT'S the kind of face I want to see on a key person in the fight on terror. Go get 'em Condi!

[Maple Leafs]

Damn. I thought this thread was going to be a Limbaugh-style rant about how Jerry Rice was over-rated because he's black.

[kcchief19]

Well, I'd say the biggest part of the problem is that she always looks pissed off about something.

It's also an AP photo, so if you're going to cast media bias, cast it on the AP. CNN, Fox and other broadcast Web sites use AP photos because they don't employ their traditional photogs.

As for critizing CNN for put Condi on the front page scowling and Fox News burying the picture inside, the most prominent photo to me on Fox News' site is of a pig because those jack asses would drop dead of a heart attack if they didn't have gaint flaming advertising as the most prominent thing on the page.

[Easy Mac]

I concur with the first line of kcchief's post... I don't think I've ever seen miss rice smile... nor have i ever seen hell clinton smile... i think i saw laura bush smile once, but i think i was drunk and picturing her face on a cloud.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Too bad there are quotes from Rice prior to the meeting in question where she specifically mentions Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.


In a highly partisan country where most people seem to prefer watching news shows that reflect and reinforce their viewpoints, doesn't that seem to imply something? Like maybe that FoxNews isn't a far-right wing conspiracy, but rather a conservative outlet that appeals to so many viewers because it's the only one on the airwaves? (Not trying to attack you personally)

No attack felt at all.

This is why, I think Fox News has grown in popularity since Bush took over. It's like watching a sporting event. Who would you rather listen to? You color and play-by-play guy or the other teams'? Trust me, after having to listen to three years of Lions' games from the other side (Lions radio broadcast isn't carried on the internet) it's the latter.

I don't think Fox News is the only conservative outlet, it's just the most blatant. Not to mention sensationalist as well.

[Dutch]

To me, Fox News is a breath of fresh air. How can anyone stand CNN for more than 10 minutes....it's terrible.

Somebody explain to me what "Conservative Bias" on Fox News looks like. It's got to be in print to have liberals this "angry" at FoxNews.

[tucker342]

Lets see...

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html
and if you want more, just google it.

Can you say the same thing about CNN? Not really

[tucker342]

dola-

an article about the "Liberal" bias in the media

http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html
(warning: it's really long)

[Chief Rum]

If the Reps are lucky, this year we might pull in 15% of AA voters.

That may be true, but I just don't think there are enough All-Americans to make this significant--even going back through a hundred years of football. ;)

CR

[BishopMVP]

an article about the "Liberal" bias in the media
<TABLE width="100%" border=3><THEAD><TR><TH>Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?</TH><TH></TH></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Left 30%</TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Center 57%</TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Right 9%</TD><TD align=middle></TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle>Other 5%</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>


And that's from a self-reporting system.

And guess who said this?


Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base." It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.
If you said ABC News, you'd be right. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html

I don't deny that Fox News is a conservative news outlet biased in favor of the administration, but it's annoying when liberals bash it and don't admit the same about CNN/NYT, or vice versa from conservatives. (FTR, I don't watch either. The only TV news show I watch is the Daily Show.)

[sabotai]

I don't deny that Fox News is a conservative news outlet biased in favor of the administration, but it's annoying when liberals bash it and don't admit the same about CNN/NYT, or vice versa from conservatives.

^^^^^

I wish I could say that it amazed me that liberals don't see CNN as liberally-biased and that conservatives don't see Fox News as conservatively-biased. But it doesn't...

[Easy Mac]

Somebody explain to me what "Conservative Bias" on Fox News looks like. It's got to be in print to have liberals this "angry" at FoxNews. Seriously, if you can say this with a straight face, you deserve an oscar. Do I have to name all of the shows, or the favorable slant they give Bush/negative slant they give a democrat.

Personally, I watch FoxNews because its hilarious that people actually have views as extreme as the nuts on there. The fact that they're yelling half the time makes it very entertaining. I can't say anything about CNN, because I don't think I've watched 5 minutes of it in my lifetime. The people and shows they have are beyond boring, and not because its "liberal," but because the people are uninteresting.

People are going to gleam what they want from the news regardless of how it is presented, so who really cares if an outlet is conservative or liberal? Conservatives will still read the NY Times for the news, but bitch that its a liberal slant... does this mean they do the worst job of actually getting the news out there of any newspaper... no. Same for FoxNews. I go there for news because CNN is so fucking boring, but I still get out of it what I want without paying too much attention to the slant they present (unless its O'Reilly, because if he doesn't offend 90% of America, something is wrong, but he's entertainment, not news).

[sabotai]

EDIT: non-dola,

Condi Rice is fugly.

[Easy Mac]

thats right bitch, you better dola-recognize.

[BishopMVP]

EDIT: non-dola,

Condi Rice is fugly.
Flame war beginning in 5...4...3..... :D

[sabotai]

Flame war beginning in 5...4...3..... :D

You didn't say 2 or 1.

[Dutch]

She's hot as far as politicians go. :)

[fhasumi]

I think she's a cross between Arlene the Cat from Garfield, and Tootie from Facts of Life


And yes, I'd bang both.

[sabotai]

She's hot as far as politicians go. :)

Well if the choice is between Condi Rice and Janet Reno...the choice is rather obvious. :D

I still don't think Maxim will be calling anytime soon. ;)

[sabotai]

dola,

And I set you all up for the obvious Wayne's World reference, and you don't take it. You all suck.

[BishopMVP]

I think she's a cross between Arlene the Cat from Garfield, and Tootie from Facts of Life


And yes, I'd bang both.
Your signature has never been more apt.

[fhasumi]

Your signature has never been more apt.
:)

[Dutch]

Seriously, if you can say this with a straight face, you deserve an oscar. Do I have to name all of the shows, or the favorable slant they give Bush/negative slant they give a democrat.

Personally, I watch FoxNews because its hilarious that people actually have views as extreme as the nuts on there. The fact that they're yelling half the time makes it very entertaining. I can't say anything about CNN, because I don't think I've watched 5 minutes of it in my lifetime. The people and shows they have are beyond boring, and not because its "liberal," but because the people are uninteresting.

People are going to gleam what they want from the news regardless of how it is presented, so who really cares if an outlet is conservative or liberal? Conservatives will still read the NY Times for the news, but bitch that its a liberal slant... does this mean they do the worst job of actually getting the news out there of any newspaper... no. Same for FoxNews. I go there for news because CNN is so fucking boring, but I still get out of it what I want without paying too much attention to the slant they present (unless its O'Reilly, because if he doesn't offend 90% of America, something is wrong, but he's entertainment, not news).

1. You didn't answer my question, just told us what left-wingers always tell us. It's conservative, right-wing. I was asking you why you felt that way, not to repeat yourself.

2. I have watched a lot of CNN, it's got a pretty heavy anti-Administration stance. I think more so than they did against Clinton. I remember watching news shows about the war while I was in Turkey. While FoxNews did focus on a lot of positive spin (fastest advance of a large army in history, minimal loss of life relative to 2 nations in history warring, portraying soldiers as hero's, potraying Saddam as the bad guy, explaining the Bush Administrations position on Iraq, talking about the lack of UN Resolutions compliance), CNN was extremely negative (talking about quagmire's, confused army generals, "Blood for Oil" protestors, interviewing family members of dead soldiers, what Europe wanted to say, not giving Bush any legitimacy for the efforts, ignoring the UN Resolutions unless Bush administration was talking about them, and the list goes on).

We always complain that the news is so fixated on the negative, that finally, a news station shows you how to focus on the positive, and be highly successful in the process. And they still report the news. Amazing. It's no wonder so many Americans are starting to forget about CNN and ABC News and NBC News and heading for FoxNews.

3. Why does O'Reilly offend you?

[Senator]

I concur with the first line of kcchief's post... I don't think I've ever seen miss rice smile

http://www.coastalsd.com/Local_Photos/Carriers/condi_rice.jpg

[Dutch]

Oh my God, she's related to Michael Dukakis!!! Noooooo!!!!!

[John Galt]

1. You didn't answer my question, just told us what left-wingers always tell us. It's conservative, right-wing. I was asking you why you felt that way, not to repeat yourself.

2. I have watched a lot of CNN, it's got a pretty heavy anti-Administration stance. I think more so than they did against Clinton. I remember watching news shows about the war while I was in Turkey. While FoxNews did focus on a lot of positive spin (fastest advance of a large army in history, minimal loss of life relative to 2 nations in history warring, portraying soldiers as hero's, potraying Saddam as the bad guy, explaining the Bush Administrations position on Iraq, talking about the lack of UN Resolutions compliance), CNN was extremely negative (talking about quagmire's, confused army generals, "Blood for Oil" protestors, interviewing family members of dead soldiers, what Europe wanted to say, not giving Bush any legitimacy for the efforts, ignoring the UN Resolutions unless Bush administration was talking about them, and the list goes on).

We always complain that the news is so fixated on the negative, that finally, a news station shows you how to focus on the positive, and be highly successful in the process. And they still report the news. Amazing. It's no wonder so many Americans are starting to forget about CNN and ABC News and NBC News and heading for FoxNews.

3. Why does O'Reilly offend you?

If you truly do not understand why, read tucker's link from fair.org posted earlier in this thread.

[Dutch]

If you truly do not understand why, read tucker's link from fair.org posted earlier in this thread.

I was hoping that Tucker would tell me what "HE" thought, not what some website says. I have no way to know what's bias and what's not on the internet. Unbias is telling both sides of a story, bias is telling one side of the story.

[Easy Mac]

1. You didn't answer my question, just told us what left-wingers always tell us. It's conservative, right-wing. I was asking you why you felt that way, not to repeat yourself.

I did, but we hear what we want

2. I have watched a lot of CNN, it's got a pretty heavy anti-Administration stance. I think more so than they did against Clinton. I remember watching news shows about the war while I was in Turkey. While FoxNews did focus on a lot of positive spin (fastest advance of a large army in history, minimal loss of life relative to 2 nations in history warring, portraying soldiers as hero's, potraying Saddam as the bad guy, explaining the Bush Administrations position on Iraq, talking about the lack of UN Resolutions compliance), CNN was extremely negative (talking about quagmire's, confused army generals, "Blood for Oil" protestors, interviewing family members of dead soldiers, what Europe wanted to say, not giving Bush any legitimacy for the efforts, ignoring the UN Resolutions unless Bush administration was talking about them, and the list goes on).

So you admit CNN is anti-administration, but then you won't say FoxNews is pro-administration... I'd say reporting 0 negative stories about something half America disagreed with is pretty much admitting their in the Administration's pocket.... And have we forgotten the "reporting" at FoxNews from the Clinton era?

We always complain that the news is so fixated on the negative, that finally, a news station shows you how to focus on the positive, and be highly successful in the process. And they still report the news. Amazing. It's no wonder so many Americans are starting to forget about CNN and ABC News and NBC News and heading for FoxNews.

I don't consider FoxNews positive news, but its all relative to how you perceive their slant.


3. Why does O'Reilly offend you?
His extreme views are a bastardization of democracy. If you think what he "spins" is positive, then wow. You have a right to make a living as long as you conform to the O'Reilly viewpoint. He's racist (see his constant condemning of black spokespeople while ignoring the white spokespeople who are just as bad.)

[CamEdwards]

I think it's pretty telling that reporters themselves see themselves as moderate or centrist, which goes along with that recent analysis by ABC News' "The Note", which said: "They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories."

Just as a corrollary, I've noticed conservatives tend to be adament about being conservative, while liberals tend to want to be called or call themselves "moderates".

[Dutch]

So you admit CNN is anti-administration, but then you won't say FoxNews is pro-administration... I'd say reporting 0 negative stories about something half America disagreed with is pretty much admitting their in the Administration's pocket.... And have we forgotten the "reporting" at FoxNews from the Clinton era?

FoxNews is pro-administration. Do you agree they should be or shouldn't be?

His extreme views are a bastardization of democracy. If you think what he "spins" is positive, then wow. You have a right to make a living as long as you conform to the O'Reilly viewpoint. He's racist (see his constant condemning of black spokespeople while ignoring the white spokespeople who are just as bad.)

You aren't talking about Ludacris are you? He's not mad a Ludacris, he's mad at Budweiser for using an "entertainer" that appeals primarily to kids under the age of 18 to sell beer. I think his critisism's are fair, not racist.

[John Galt]

Just as a corrollary, I've noticed conservatives tend to be adament about being conservative, while liberals tend to want to be called or call themselves "moderates".

Hmmmm . . . I've always thought the opposite (at least on this board) - maybe that (like your observation about the media's self-identification) is relative.

And a side observation, I think conservatives deploy a lot of labelling language that is very negative to them, but is actually innocuous in meaning. I think terms like "liberal," "feminist," "politically correct" or even "socialist" are all used as desrciptors which mean very different (and very negative) things to conversatives, but not to everyone. I view all those terms as pretty neutral (just as I do there opposites, "conservative" or "capitalist" being the obvious ones). No real point to this observation - I just find it interesting when I read conservative press like the Weekly Standard and National Review.

I for one am not a conservative, am often called liberal on this board, but do not readily fit any common category. I do, however, think that I am anything but "moderate."

[John Galt]

I was hoping that Tucker would tell me what "HE" thought, not what some website says. I have no way to know what's bias and what's not on the internet. Unbias is telling both sides of a story, bias is telling one side of the story.

I presume because he posted the link, he believes it reflects what he thinks. It may be "biased" (and fair.org is admittedly liberal, but is the best organization for news about news), but if it reflects his views and explains them, what else matters. I also agree with the observations made by fair.org about Fox and O'Reilly (another one of the articles). I don't think that is a particularly bad thing that Fox is rabidly conservative, but I just think it is crazy to deny its bent.

[Dutch]

John,

I think it may be due to FoxNews claiming they are the normal ones and CNN claims they are the normal ones. That's probably correct. I watch a lot of different news channels. I tend to "agree" with the way FoxNews lays out their news for me to consume and "disagree" with CNN and "really disagree" with ABC. NBC and CBS I admittedly do not watch. I cannot stand the slant Reuters and the AP put on all of their news stories.

And FoxNews does promote the Republicans more than the Democrats. But if that's true, then the opposite must be true about CNN and ABC.

[BishopMVP]

I think it's pretty telling that reporters themselves see themselves as moderate or centrist
....
Just as a corrollary, I've noticed conservatives tend to be adament about being conservative, while liberals tend to want to be called or call themselves "moderates".
For the first part, I think John Galt hit it on the head; for the most part it's just relative, and so people surrounded by liberals or conservatives tend to assume that is the normal mindset. The other smaller part is that people like/tend to think that their mindset is shared more often than not, and don't like to define themselves as partisan. Even when I went to an ANSWER organized teach-in against the war and occupation, where it's mostly only the core of the anti-Bush, anti-War and anti-American protestors, most people there didn't seem to realize they were on the fringe of political thought in this country.

For the second part, I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. Personally, I define myself as fairly middle of the road, but I'm sure that people on this board who follow the political discussions would probably put me firmly in the conservative camp.

[John Galt]

John,

I think it may be due to FoxNews claiming they are the normal ones and CNN claims they are the normal ones. That's probably correct. I watch a lot of different news channels. I tend to "agree" with the way FoxNews lays out their news for me to consume and "disagree" with CNN and "really disagree" with ABC. NBC and CBS I admittedly do not watch. I cannot stand the slant Reuters and the AP put on all of their news stories.

And FoxNews does promote the Republicans more than the Democrats. But if that's true, then the opposite must be true about CNN and ABC.

Read the fair.org article - there is a lot of evidence to deny your conclusion. CNN, like a lot of news organizations is probably slightly left of center, but Fox is so much more right-wing and has a lot of shady practices in terms of promoting its viewpoint. I'm fine with all that - I just wish they would admit they are right-wing news instead of denying it.

[Dutch]

http://www.mediaresearch.org/archive/cyber/welcome.asp

We could come up with the above website about liberal bias as well. But that's not the point of this excercise. The point is for those of us who have experienced actual slants to explain them. I mentioned mine about the war.

Easy Mac mentioned his about Ludacris not getting a fair shake on O'Reilly.

What are your personal experiences with the News that lead you to believe what you believe?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Here is some strong (though ultimately not conclusive) data on the Fox News phenomenon.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

skip to page 7

Essentially got a broad sample of people, asked them where they got their news, then asked the following questions:

-Has evidence of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda been found?
-Have weapons of mass-destruction been found in Iraq?
-Did world public opinion favor the US going to war with Iraq?

(tip: the correct answer to each of these questions is No)

Then they correlated the data on how many of these questions people got wrong with their primary news source. Fox viewers scored dead last among all major news sources, with 80% getting at least one question wrong. They figured maybe it was just because more conservatives watch Fox, and conservatives are more likely to believe these things. So they isolated it by party affiliation (ie compared only Republicans who watch PBS with only Republicans who watch Fox, and likewise for Democrats) and found the difference was nearly the same. PBS and NPR led the field by a large margin. No big surprise there...

[ice4277]

I was at the National Broadcasting Society convention in Atlanta in 2002, and Lou Watters, former CNN anchor, was one of the speakers. During a question and answer session, he said something I thought was interesting when asked about bias in the media. To paraphrase: "There are a couple of different viewpoints among the mass media news organizations. CNN has a definite liberal slant. Fox News has a definite conservative slant. MSNBC...well...MSNBC doesn't know what it wants to be."

This was interesting to me for a couple of reasons. One, it was the first time I ever really heard an anchor/reporter classify his own network as something. Granted, at the time, he had just retired, but still, kind of interesting. Also, I was intrigued by the comment about MSNBC. I'm pretty sure he meant it mostly as a joke, but I found it interesting that he felt a news organization HAD to be defined as either liberal/conservative, as if there is no way one could ever tread the middle ground. Personally, I think MSNBC does a better job of this than either CNN or Fox, but I think it still tends to lean a bit to the left. Not as much as the CNN dreck though.

[John Galt]

O'Reilly is the easiest - I've was regularly offended by his abuse of people during the war - especially when he cut off and yelled at a 9/11 survivor who opposed the war. He also picks the easiest liberal strawmen to pick on - he's a wimp.

[BishopMVP]

-Has evidence of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda been found?
-Have weapons of mass-destruction been found in Iraq?
These two are both gray questions. There is evidence of (fairly distant) links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and we have found (much fewer than expected) chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Fox News overhypes the links and evidence, while CNN plays them down. These questions just aren't cut and dried yes/no.

[Maple Leafs]

-Has evidence of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda been found?

(tip: the correct answer to each of these questions is No)
Is that really true, though?

I mean, I realize what you're getting at. There are still plenty of Americans who think Saddam and Osama were drinking beer and playing Playstation together leading up to 9/11. Clearly the connections isn't anywhere near as strong as many think.

But to say there's no connection at all? Even now, with Al Qaeda bombing countries over their support for the Iraq war and releasing tapes every week mentioning the US "occupation"? No link at all?

[BishopMVP]

To paraphrase: "There are a couple of different viewpoints among the mass media news organizations. CNN has a definite liberal slant. Fox News has a definite conservative slant. MSNBC...well...MSNBC doesn't know what it wants to be."
I got the impression that MSNBC was liberal, then saw the success Fox News was having and moved their coverage over that direction to try and get more viewers.

[Maple Leafs]

Just curious... all these people that endlessly complain about media bias and FOX this and CNN that and oh it's so unbalanced... I mean, have any of these people picked up a newspaper in the last 100 or so years? Why does anyone act like this is some sort of recent phenomenon?

[John Galt]

These two are both gray questions. There is evidence of (fairly distant) links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and we have found (much fewer than expected) chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Fox News overhypes the links and evidence, while CNN plays them down. These questions just aren't cut and dried yes/no.

I agree the first question is gray and not indicative of anything. I'm curious (honestly) when chemical and biological weapons have been found? I may have forgotten or missed something, but I don't think any CB weapons have been found (and thus the question is not gray at all).

[John Galt]

Just curious... all these people that endlessly complain about media bias and FOX this and CNN that and oh it's so unbalanced... I mean, have any of these people picked up a newspaper in the last 100 or so years? Why does anyone act like this is some sort of recent phenomenon?

Agreed. I do, however, think one thing is different in regards to FOX - they go out of there way to say they aren't conservative and that they are "fair and balanced." That seems a little different in my mind - magazines and newspapers fall in their niches, but FOX is soooooo right-wing and yet in denial. That seems a little different to me.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

These two are both gray questions. There is evidence of (fairly distant) links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and we have found (much fewer than expected) chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. Fox News overhypes the links and evidence, while CNN plays them down. These questions just aren't cut and dried yes/no.

These are not gray questions. Don't forget Bush's hand-picked special investigator for WMD's, David Kay who said he found no WMD's and that "I don't think they existed." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3424831.stm) Meanwhile the "evidence" of the Iraq-AlQaeda connections comes with more caveats and question marks than the WMD "evidence" ever did, and we can see where that got us. There is no credible evidence of a connection between the two, and Colin Powell has said as much (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/).

If you think these issues are gray, maybe you have watched too much Fox News...

edit: added link for the Kay quote..

[BishopMVP]

I agree the first question is gray and not indicative of anything. I'm curious (honestly) when chemical and biological weapons have been found? I may have forgotten or missed something, but I don't think any CB weapons have been found (and thus the question is not gray at all).
97 vials in a scientists' freezer? ;) Yeah, the stuff found has been more along the lines of 'weapons program' rather than actual chemical/biological weapons, but if you want to get technical, there were tons of chemical/biological weapons found in Iraq - after the first Gulf War. The question also asked about 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', which is a subjective definition.

[Dutch]

David Kay who said he found no WMD's and that "I don't think they existed."

He did not say that, did he?

[BishopMVP]

These are not gray questions. Don't forget Bush's hand-picked special investigator for WMD's, David Kay who said he found no WMD's and that "I don't think they ever existed." He did not say that he thought the WMD's never existed. In the Guardian's take, he said "I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war,""There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," Here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) is his initial report. I couldn't find a transcript of his statements after resigning.

Meanwhile the "evidence" of the Iraq-AlQaeda connections comes with more caveats and question marks than the WMD "evidence" ever did, and we can see where that got us. There is no credible evidence of a connection between the two, and Colin Powell has said as much (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/).
Saddam Hussein met Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Rumsfeld is employed by Bush. Bush employs some of the people who helped fund Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. There's a credible connection you should be happy with. There are many more closer ones, which all have varying degrees of believability. Anyone implying Saddam was directing Al-Qaeda or behind 9/11 is ridiculous, but as the same time, claiming there was no connection between two groups in the same region united by hatred of the US is also ludicrous.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

He did not say that, did he?

I've added a link, in the previous post. He did say that, and also said that the chances of them finding any WMD's in Iraq at this point are "close to nil". The didn't ever exist comment is in the context of Hussein rebuilding his stockpiles after they were destroyed in the first Gulf War, not that Iraq never had WMD's..

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Anyone implying Saddam was directing Al-Qaeda or behind 9/11 is ridiculous, but as the same time, claiming there was no connection between two groups in the same region united by hatred of the US is also ludicrous.

Someone can agree or disagree with your theory here (and I won't bother getting into that), but it is simply a theory. The question at issue is whether evidence has been found. And as the Secretary of State said in the interview, there has been no credible evidence found to date to substantiate any such claims.

[Dutch]

Rice Discusses Terror, but Not Under Oath
49 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) says the Bush administration has a good story to tell about fighting terrorism and she's pouring it out in television appearances, interviews and newspaper articles. The one place she won't talk is in public, under oath, before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 1, 2001, terrorist attacks.

That is blossoming into a public relations nightmare.

This is media bias. Extremely Negative, while Clarke gets a free ride.

Bush's Joke About WMD Draws Criticism
1 hour, 47 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s humorous references to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (news - web sites) have drawn criticism from Democrats as inappropriate for wartime. The White House and Republicans contend the president was just poking fun at himself.

This is media bias. Completely negative.

Both of these happened in the last 2 hours. We can nail the AP as left wing or anti-Bush pretty easily. Unless anybody can show me where the AP is has a positive or very positive article about the Bush Administration. Don't try, you can't. You will have to go to Fox News for that.

[digamma]

This is media bias. Completely negative.

Both of these happened in the last 2 hours. We can nail the AP as left wing or anti-Bush pretty easily. Unless anybody can show me where the AP is has a positive or very positive article about the Bush Administration. Don't try, you can't. You will have to go to Fox News for that.
Your first example is arguably slanted, but I'm not sure how the second example is biased and completely negative. Terry McAuliffe and Nancy Pelosi have been quoted all over the place since the correspondent's dinner for criticizing the Bush joke. The article simply says Democrats have criticized Bush's joke for being inappropriate. It doesn't say Bush's joke was inappropriate (or really anything even remotely close to that).

I think you are reading too much into this.

Also, I skimmed the thread, so I'm not sure if people have brought up the fact that liberal and conservative biases are often trumped by "I want to make a lot of money by selling a lot of newspapers/getting high ratings/getting the story first etc." biases.

[John Galt]

This is media bias. Extremely Negative, while Clarke gets a free ride.



This is media bias. Completely negative.

Both of these happened in the last 2 hours. We can nail the AP as left wing or anti-Bush pretty easily. Unless anybody can show me where the AP is has a positive or very positive article about the Bush Administration. Don't try, you can't. You will have to go to Fox News for that.

I agree with digamma - the second story is 100% innocent.

The first is hard to judge without reading what comes next. And to say Clarke gets a free ride from the AP is just nonsense.

[BishopMVP]

Someone can agree or disagree with your theory here (and I won't bother getting into that), but it is simply a theory. The question at issue is whether evidence has been found. And as the Secretary of State said in the interview, there has been no credible evidence found to date to substantiate any such claims.
My point though is that you can play 6 degrees of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and there will be a lot of hits. The two have also not met each other to discuss plans to attack other people. Where in between the two you draw the line and say there is a connection is a very subjective judgment. When you ask the question of whether Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and a significant number of Americans say yes, that's disturbing. When you ask whether Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda are connected, it's much more subjective.

[Dutch]

I agree with digamma - the second story is 100% innocent.

The first is hard to judge without reading what comes next. And to say Clarke gets a free ride from the AP is just nonsense.

Show me an AP article where it gives Clarke a tough ride. Show me an article where a very positive look at Bush poking fun at himself and the Bush Administration is mentioned. Then I will back off of the claims.

[Maple Leafs]

Agreed. I do, however, think one thing is different in regards to FOX - they go out of there way to say they aren't conservative and that they are "fair and balanced." That seems a little different in my mind - magazines and newspapers fall in their niches, but FOX is soooooo right-wing and yet in denial. That seems a little different to me.Yes and no. I think all media have their biases, and I think they're all in denial in the sense that they play that "wink, nudge" game of claiming 100% objectivity. Very few will be up front about which side they're coming from, with the exception of some of the tabloid papers.

That said, the difference is that Fox doesn't just claim to be balanced, they throw it in your face every fifteen seconds. I can see where that would become maddening after a while.

[John Galt]

I can't - every time I do a search on the AP website, it shuts down my browser.

As for Bush poking fun at himself - all the original stories (including from the AP) reported what happened (I don't know why they should have a "positive" look) and now the story has shifted to democrats backlash. That is how a story develops. I'm sure someone could find AP stories showing the attacks on Clarke, but I can't do it because it kills my browser.

[digamma]

I'd also argue that the story you posted is positive towards Bush. The first sentence mentions his "humorous references." Later in the article (a portion which you did not post) it says that the audience "erupted with laughter."

With regard to Clarke, there are headlines all over the place about attempts to declassify his 2002 testimony to reveal his inconsistencies between then and now. There are also headlines quoting him as defending his allegations as "not politically motivated."

[HerRealName]

Here is a Clarke article that states the WH view:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLARKE_WHITE_HOUSE?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House, intensifying its effort to discredit former national security aide Richard Clarke, took the unusual step Wednesday of revealing he was the anonymous official who had defended President Bush's anti-terrorism strategy in August 2002.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who was Clarke's boss, also accused him of offering differing versions of his role in providing a plan to combat terrorism. "This story has so many twists and turns, he needs to get his story straight."

In nationally televised testimony Wednesday, Clarke said the administration scaled back the struggle against al-Qaida after taking office in 2001, making it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" until the Sept. 11 attacks. But in the 2002 discussion with reporters, Clarke outlined a multi-pronged approach for confronting al-Qaida that he said the White House had developed over several months leading up to the attacks.

Rice, in a meeting with reporters, released a Sept. 15, 2001, e-mail Clarke sent to her that said, "When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and other domestic law enforcement authorities."

He attached an earlier memo from before Sept. 11 in which Clarke warned such agencies that "a spectacular al-Qaida terrorist attack was coming in the near future."



Related Links
AL-QAIDA
»Web »Archives

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
»Web »Archives

RICHARD CLARKE
»Web »Archives

CONDOLEEZZA RICE
»Web »Archives

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
»Web »Archives








"Thus, the White House did insure that domestic law enforcement ... knew that (his office) believed that a major al-Qaida attack was coming and it could be in the U.S.," Clarke's e-mail said.

She suggested that e-mail was self-serving, and conflicted with other more recent assertions by Clarke in his new book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," and during his testimony Wednesday before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

Earlier, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, referring to Clarke's White House briefing, said that Clarke "in his own words, provides a point-by-point rebuttal of what he now asserts. This shatters the cornerstone of Mr. Clarke's assertions."

Asked about his briefing comments, Clarke said he had chosen to "put the best face" on Bush's policies while working for him in 2002.

"I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration," Clarke told the commission investigating the terrorist attacks.

Just before Clarke began testifying Wednesday afternoon, McClellan read lengthy excerpts of the Aug. 4, 2002, briefing that Clarke gave reporters.

McClellan quoted Clarke criticizing the Clinton administration. "There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," Clarke said.

At the time of the original briefing, the White House had insisted that journalists refer to Clarke only as a "senior administration official." But on Wednesday, the administration changed the terms. Fox News asked the White House for permission to reveal Clarke as the source, and the White House agreed, McClellan said.

After Fox aired its report, White House officials told other members of the news media they, too, could identify Clarke as the source.

Clarke was a top counterterrorism official for both the Clinton and Bush administrations. He said in the 2002 briefing that President Clinton had a strategy for tackling al-Qaida, but that it languished for years because that administration could not resolve several thorny issues.

Bush officials reviewed those policies when they came into office, and decided to "increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action fivefold, to go after al-Qaida," Clarke said in 2002.

Bush embraced a plan for the "rapid elimination" of al-Qaida, shifting from the Clinton administration's policy of seeking to "roll back" the threat over several years, Clarke said at that earlier briefing.

The decision to reveal Clarke as the source in the August 2002 illustrated the White House's determination to blunt Clarke's attacks on Bush in an election year.

"Let's remember why we are having this conversation, because Mr. Clarke made assertions that we have said are flat-out wrong," McClellan said. Moreover, in his book, "Mr. Clarke certainly decided on his own to go ahead and reveal conversations that were considered private previously," the spokesman said.

Asked at the commission hearing Wednesday whether he intended to mislead journalists and their readers in 2002, Clarke said no.

"When you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice," he said.

One "choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did."

---

[yabanci]

We can nail the AP as left wing or anti-Bush pretty easily. Unless anybody can show me where the AP is has a positive or very positive article about the Bush Administration. Don't try, you can't. You will have to go to Fox News for that.

You are losing serious credibility with statements like this.

[Dutch]

I think that was a fair written article. The more I look around, I see some other fair written articles by the AP. Maybe I got this notion from just reading the Yahoo! Headlines...

Yabanci, I agree with you. I made a mistake.

[Dutch]

dola....

I made mistake about accusing the AP of being fully lopsided...just so their no confusion. ;)

[PunkyQB]

I have an example of how CNN frequently disappoints me, coming from a CNN viewer who is generally incapable of watching FOX for more than 10 minutes at a time due to the spin I perceive in their presentation. (I find some of their personalities (O'Reilly) to be simply below a professional standard of meaningful discourse on interesting issues, but this post isn't out to demonstrate that or, even, to rip FOX.)

CNN repeatedly disappoints me and draws my ire even on issues where I am rather inclined to agree with whatever bias it might be accused of. To me, this is most pronounced when CNN tries to do a 'man-on-the-street’ collection of the different perspectives people have on whatever issue.

On several (perhaps not most, but far too many) occasions I notice that well dressed, highly articulate passersby are featured to voice the "liberal" point of view with a certain amount of charisma. In contrast, where I would otherwise expect to see a likewise articulate point of view of the rank-and-file conservative's reactions, I frequently see much less thoughtful comments from people having a more difficult time expressing themselves or people who seem tremendously off-putting in their manner of opining.

I'm not talking about expert panels or anything, just the ‘man-on-the-street’ work. It drives me -crazy- ... because what am I supposed to believe? A sample selection of people walking around downtown DC (or where-ever) contains only well-spoken liberals and disoriented or off-putting conservatives? I don’t know if it is an unconscious result of producer bias, or maybe conservatives run away screaming when they see a CNN logo on a camera … but I’m convinced this pattern exists for whatever reason.

It is during these moments that I am most concerned I'm on the receiving end of a propaganda effect. It portrays a country of intelligent well-spoken liberals battling a bunch of crass dogmatics with apparently less insight behind their opinions. I -know- I don't live in that world ... so I do wish CNN would take a little more care in this respect to keep their credibility in my eyes.

Not only does it make one point of view look deceptively “the true intellectual option”, I also believe it promotes a viewer mentality where it becomes harder and harder for TV news viewers to effectively communicate with those presenting contrary, but intelligently thought out, political perspectives.

Now, time to go watch my Illini probably get bounced by Duke :(