New Study Says Media Is Biased

[SFL Cat]

Study conducted by UCLA

link (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist


Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( [email protected] )
Phone: 310-825-1046

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co?author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low?population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op?Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government?funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

-UCLA-

[GreenMonster]

Did someone pay for this, many others could have finished this in an afternoon..

[Cringer]

bah. It's not tilted right or left, it is tilted towards corporate/power interests.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left.
This study doesn't even pass the laugh test. If you make Hitler your center point, most things are going to lean left.

bah. It's not tilted right or left, it is tilted towards corporate/power interests.
Your crazy countenance belies the wisdom beneath.

[Ajaxab]

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe. What is more important is how the source is used qualitatively rather than the number of times it appears in a given source. A given media outlet can refer to the NAACP 500 times over the course of a month but if 425 of those citations are critical of the organization, then how is it possible to say the media outlet is liberal? Simply tallying the number of times an organization appears is only part of the story. Of course these political science scholars can claim that a media person would never do this study. Reason being that it doesn't provide a comprehensive picture of what's going on. It's nice to put a shiny, quantitative veneer on the results, but if they don't study how the media outlets are using the source, these scholars are missing (at least) half the point. Citation patterns simply don't provide us with the complete picture.

[MrBigglesworth]

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe. What is more important is how the source is used qualitatively rather than the number of times it appears in a given source. A given media outlet can refer to the NAACP 500 times over the course of a month but if 425 of those citations are critical of the organization, then how is it possible to say the media outlet is liberal? Simply tallying the number of times an organization appears is only part of the story. Of course these political science scholars can claim that a media person would never do this study. Reason being that it doesn't provide a comprehensive picture of what's going on. It's nice to put a shiny, quantitative veneer on the results, but if they don't study how the media outlets are using the source, these scholars are missing (at least) half the point.
I bet Mediamatters.org got a 100% conservative rating from these guys :rolleyes:

[Subby]

In other news, most people are stupid and will believe everything they are told by people they see on television.

[st.cronin]

This study would have more credibility in my eyes if UCLA's football team had put up some fight against those Trojans.

[Raiders Army]

Tim Groseclose isn't even a doctor. I wonder if he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before he wrote the study?

[sachmo71]

In other news, most people are stupid and will believe everything they are told by people they see on television.



we're not stupid; we're just distracted and don't have time to think for ourselves.

Next step: pre-chewed food. Shaves like an hour off of the day.

[John Galt]

So you post this study in one thread, a bunch of people respond (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=990471#post990471), you ignore those responses, and then start a new thread on the subject. Interesting.

edit: oops. That wasn't you. I'm not a bright man.

[Maple Leafs]

So you post this study in one thread, a bunch of people respond (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=990471#post990471), you ignore those responses, and then start a new thread on the subject. Interesting.

Actually, I'm glad it was posted. I don't pay any attention to the political threads since they're predictably useless so I would have missed this.

As someone who made a living working in a newsroom at one point, I find this sort of stuff interesting. This study seems like an interesting attempt to quantify something that's difficult to nail down -- I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised) at how quickly people want to dismiss this sort of thing when it doesn't fit their pre-decided worldview.

[SFL Cat]

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!

[wade moore]

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!
He edited it, looks like an honest mistake...

[John Galt]

^^^ WTF JG? Are you addressing me?!

see the edit. As I said, I am not a bright man.

[John Galt]

Actually, I'm glad it was posted. I don't pay any attention to the political threads since they're predictably useless so I would have missed this.

As someone who made a living working in a newsroom at one point, I find this sort of stuff interesting. This study seems like an interesting attempt to quantify something that's difficult to nail down -- I'm a little disappointed (though not surprised) at how quickly people want to dismiss this sort of thing when it doesn't fit their pre-decided worldview.

I have no complaints with a separate thread. I only had a problem when I stupidly thought SFL Cat was JW.

Either way, the other thread contains some discussion (although more of it had to with JW's ridiculous assertion that the NYT has an active agenda to attack Bush and their publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind).

[Flasch186]

weve already mostly agreed that it has more to do with Corporate dollar signs and ratings...with some holdouts on the extreme sides to try to defend or attack everything the admin. does.

[Warhammer]

This study doesn't even pass the laugh test. If you make Hitler your center point, most things are going to lean left.

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.

[Maple Leafs]

If you've decided that it's about corporate dollar signs, you're not looking at it hard enough. That's an easy out -- it's all greed, end of story. But if it was all about corporate suits making the calls, the mainstream media would be titled sharply to the right, and it's not.

As I mentioned, I spent several years working in newsrooms. A few years isn't a huge sample size, but it's probably more than most folks here have to go on. I worked for a few papers, and I always knew which way we leaned. I was never told directly -- it's not in any employee handbook -- but it was pretty obvious that if you wanted the editors to like your stuff and wanted your stories to get good play, you had to follow along. There were a handful of writers with enough pull to go against the flow, but they were exceptions.

In one case we knew where the bias came from -- the publisher wanted things a certain way, and he signed the checks. In others, it was just the way it had always been. Never once did I see any sort of direct "corporate" influence. If anything, attacking big money corporations is a first instinct for most journalists (although that obviously gets sticky if the corporation owns the paper, and potentially even if there's ad dollars involved).

The reality is that many news sources do have a bias, and that includes the New York Times. That doesn't meant they're part of some grand conspiracy, but anyone who really wants to argue that the Times isn't titled to the left has a very distorted view of where the "center" is. I'm not even convinced that this is a bad thing, but pretending it doesn't exist just seems silly to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

In one case we knew where the bias came from -- the publisher wanted things a certain way, and he signed the checks. In others, it was just the way it had always been. Never once did I see any sort of direct "corporate" influence. If anything, attacking big money corporations is a first instinct for most journalists (although that obviously gets sticky if the corporation owns the paper, and potentially even if there's ad dollars involved).
Saying the media has a corporate bias does not mean that they like or dislike corporations, it means that they do business in a way that is designed to make them the most money. For example, during the run-up to the war it was profitable to lead the pack in terms of hawkishness (see: Judy Miller).

A lot of the scientific reasons why the study is crap have been mentioned already here and in the other thread. It is not just rejected because it doesn't fit a worldview, it is rejected because it is terrible science.

[Maple Leafs]

Saying the media has a corporate bias does not mean that they like or dislike corporations, it means that they do business in a way that is designed to make them the most money. For example, during the run-up to the war it was profitable to lead the pack in terms of hawkishness (see: Judy Miller).
I know exactly what was meant. And that's an easy argument to make when you're talking about this blanket creation called "the media", but it doesn't hold up as well when discussing individuals. Do you really think Miller was sitting at her desk day after day wondering "how can I maximize profit for my employer today?"

Miller did a sloppy job of reporting that could be argued to have had catastrophic results. I'm not fan of hers -- she deserves all the vile directed at her. But there are any number of better explanations for her, and cases like her, than just pointing at corporate greed. I realize "big corporations" have become a nice catch-all for everything that's wrong with society today, but it just isn't that simple.

A lot of the scientific reasons why the study is crap have been mentioned already here and in the other thread. It is not just rejected because it doesn't fit a worldview, it is rejected because it is terrible science.
Based on what? They work for three years in a controlled academic setting, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum decide that it's "terrible science" based on a press release?

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.
It's not just that Drudge is an aberration, it's the fact that EVERY news outlet's score is slanted to the left. The reason is because they found a mid-point which was just terrible. They took the average ADA score of congress. Congress today is skewed to the right, even though through the recent presidential elections we can see that the country is evenly divided.

[sterlingice]

Actually they explained why there was that aberration. Most of the stuff listed on Drudge's site are links to other media outlets. The result is that most of his articles will skew left due to how the original author wrote the article.

They suggest that the stuff that Drudge wrote leans right, which makes sense.

I'm actually surprised that no one is crying foul about FOX News being labeled as pretty moderate.Also, the Wall Street Journal being just to the left of Democrats...?? I'm sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

SI

[Ajaxab]

I don't see this as terrible science, but it does privilege the quantitative at the expense of the qualitative. Of course, it's much easier and quicker to do quantitative bean-counting (especially when one has research assistants to do it for you) and then publish an article instead of doing the gruntwork of interpretive qualitative work (something research assistants cannot do for you).

[Flasch186]

If you've decided that it's about corporate dollar signs, you're not looking at it hard enough. That's an easy out -- it's all greed, end of story. But if it was all about corporate suits making the calls, the mainstream media would be titled sharply to the right, and it's not.



Wrong, its overwhelmingly slanted towards the sensational regardless of left or right. Put anyone overwhelmingly in power and most sensational news is going to come out of that pocket. When the Dems get overwhelming power the same thing will happen, and has before.

[MrBigglesworth]

I know exactly what was meant. And that's an easy argument to make when you're talking about this blanket creation called "the media", but it doesn't hold up as well when discussing individuals. Do you really think Miller was sitting at her desk day after day wondering "how can I maximize profit for my employer today?"
No, I think Miller was sitting wondering, "how can I maximize my income today?" She does that by pleasing her employer, who in turn is pleased by profits. That's how the entire rest of the world works, I see no reason to just assume it's not how the media works. You said yourself that you used to do stories that made the people signing the checks happy, so I don't see why you are confused by my position.

Based on what? They work for three years in a controlled academic setting, and a bunch of guys on an internet forum decide that it's "terrible science" based on a press release?
This study has been around for a while, the press release isn't the first time I have heard about it. Search for it on google, you'll find all kinds of stuff. To my knowledge it was never peer reviewed, an obvious sign that something is wrong.

http://media.eriposte.com/2-9.htm

[Warhammer]

Also, the Wall Street Journal being just to the left of Democrats...?? I'm sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all.

SI

*sigh* As the article states, the news articles are left, the editorial page is right. Since I have begun to read the Journal during lunch at work, I was astounded at how left it was. I wouldn't say it was quite that far left, but it was pretty left.

[Warhammer]

It's not just that Drudge is an aberration, it's the fact that EVERY news outlet's score is slanted to the left. The reason is because they found a mid-point which was just terrible. They took the average ADA score of congress. Congress today is skewed to the right, even though through the recent presidential elections we can see that the country is evenly divided.

Is it a surprise to everyone that most outlet's skew left? I was actually surprised that as many outlets were moderate as they had listed. However, they did have FOX News pretty close to where I would have them pegged myself.

Journalists lean left. We all know that. Is it any surprise that the way they report the news skews to the side that they lean? I think it is requires a fair degree of suspension of belief to feel otherwise. Hell, my wife can't watch the news anymore. She was in journalism, and refuses to have anything to do with it, because you have to have a take in every article now days... As she puts it, you're not telling a story, you're editorializing it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Journalists lean left. We all know that. Is it any surprise that the way they report the news skews to the side that they lean? I think it is requires a fair degree of suspension of belief to feel otherwise.
But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Wouldn't they have an effect?

[st.cronin]

But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative.

lol

[JonInMiddleGA]

In other breaking news ... the sky is blue & researchers believe that water may indeed be wet.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

A bitchslap of this study from an actual non-political blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001169.html

[flere-imsaho]

Although this kind of content analysis has merit, simply counting the number of references a given outlet makes to a liberal/conservative source really doesn't lead us to the conclusions these scholars would have us believe.

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=hitler).

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-37%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=mother+theresa).

Clearly Google is run by fascists.

[sterlingice]

A bitchslap of this study from an actual non-political blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001169.htmlI don't know about non-political, but he does raise a lot of points to really discount the study. The fact that the 200 sources used to determine liberal or conservative is, at best, arbitrarily chosen, and at worst a tainted set.

"At another point, G & M explain that they disregarded the ACLU in their final analysis because it turned up with an excessively conservative score, owing to Republicans who cited it for its opposition to McCain-Feingold." That should say all we need to know.

SI

[sterlingice]

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=hitler).

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-37%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=mother+theresa).

Clearly Google is run by fascists.Well, you gotta admit, Hitler would probably win in a (Google) fight without divine intervention.

SI

[SFL Cat]

But editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative. Wouldn't they have an effect?

As I have said before, that hasn't been my experience. Most editors are definitely NOT conservative. Most media outlets are owned by corporate conglomerates rather than individuals. Administration has little if anything to do with editorial content. The only time they might intervene is if editorial does something to offend advertisers which might result in a loss of revenue (i.e. a big advertiser pulls its account). This situation very rarely happens.

[Ajaxab]

For instance, if I search for "Hitler" on Google News, I get 4,690 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=hitler).

If I search for "Mother Theresa" on Google News, I get 688 hits (http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-37%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=mother+theresa).

Clearly Google is run by fascists.

And we better get that Nazi Al Gore while we're at it because he clearly invented this medium of propaganda. :D

[Raiders Army]

I'd rather take out Tipper Gore since she started the PMRC.

[JW]

I have no complaints with a separate thread. I only had a problem when I stupidly thought SFL Cat was JW.

Either way, the other thread contains some discussion (although more of it had to with JW's ridiculous assertion that the NYT has an active agenda to attack Bush and their publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind).

You aren't quite right there. My assertion was that the NYT has an agenda to attack Bush. I did not say the NYT's publishing decisions are entirely made with that in mind, and in fact would not agree with that at all. They have many more fish to fry than George Bush. I would suggest that is it only your perception that my assertion is 'ridiculous.' Many people feel the way I do. And I think that what is ridiculous is the NYT's anti-Bush agenda.

And, yes, I was the one who first posted the study. One thing I've learned about studies is that the typical reaction is to believe those you agree with and disbelieve those you disagree with.

And another thing; I have rarely if ever seen anyone's mind changed by disucssions on an internet forum.

[MrBigglesworth]

Many people feel the way I do. And I think that what is ridiculous is the NYT's anti-Bush agenda.

Rob Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

Jon Stewart: I’m sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

Corddry: That’s right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.
.

[Grammaticus]

In other breaking news ... the sky is blue & researchers believe that water may indeed be wet.
Now, that is funny.

[JW]

Bigglesworth, no matter how you cut it, many people do believe the NYT is biased, at least as biased at Fox News. What I find interesting, similar to what I noted above, is that people seem to think their favorite news organizations are objective. It is only the other ones that are biased. They are all biased to some extent. In my opinion NYT is more biased than many, despite the crown of objectivity it so loves to wear. I've spent a lot of my adult life in the media or working with media in some way. Humans are biased, and reporters are no less biased than anyone else. I've seen many examples of biased reporters in my lifetime.

Apparently Bob Kohn and I make two people who believe the NYT is biased. Is his book biased? Probably. But it is just an example here. Believe it or not, there is an entire world between the coasts that is distrustful of our media giants.

Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted by Bob Kohn

[flere-imsaho]

It now turns out that the New York Times knew (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines), before the 2004 election, about the "spying on Americans" story, but didn't publish it until now (see other thread).

Now, if the NYT was that biased, wouldn't they have published before the election?

[JPhillips]

An update on the writers of this study and the way the "liberal" media didn't report the conservative bias.

None of the outlets that reported on the study mentioned that the authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. Groseclose was a Hoover Institution 2000-2001 national fellow; Milyo, according to his CV (pdf), received a $40,500 grant from AEI; and, according to The Philanthropy Roundtable, Groseclose and Milyo were named by Heritage as Salvatori fellows in 1997. In 1996, Groseclose and Milyo co-authored a piece for the right-wing magazine The American Spectator, titled "Lost Shepherd," criticizing the then-recently defeated member of Congress Karen Shepherd (D-UT) and defending her successor, Enid Greene (R-UT); when the piece was published, Greene was in the midst of a campaign contribution scandal and later agreed to pay a civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission found (pdf) that she violated campaign finance laws.

[Flasch186]

ouch

[Easy Mac]

Well I was going to make the "Media finds Study Biased" post, but it seems the facts have beaten me to it.

[Dutch]

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

[Easy Mac]

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?
The same way you right leaning folks can be so sure that CNN leans left.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

It's all just a matter of perception really. And it seems that when you tilt to the left so far that the ground his risen up to meet you, well, perception is apparently skewed just a bit. ;)

[st.cronin]

Does anybody know where the idea of an unbiased media as ideal arose?

[John Galt]

How can you left-leaning folks be so sure that Fox News leans to the right?

I think the fact that it is by far the most right wing major media source in the world (not just the U.S.) is pretty good evidence.

[Dutch]

I think the fact that it is by far the most right wing major media source in the world (not just the U.S.) is pretty good evidence.

Did you have scientific proof of that or are you just speaking on behalf of left-leaing people everywhere?

[Flasch186]

no matter the source one half of the people in this thread wont believe it regardless.

[Easy Mac]

no matter the source one half of the people in this thread wont believe it regardless.
That's not true

[Desnudo]

I find the overall slant of this thread leaning to the left based on the number posts from known sources. Everyone's meta-bias is impressive though.

[Glengoyne]

Does anybody know where the idea of an unbiased media as ideal arose?I thought it was a basic tenant of journalism.

As for Fox and leaning to the left or right. I find that Fox news...not the personality shows...goes to the right MUCH less often than CNN news goes to the left. When you factor in the personality shows...there is NO comparison however.

[st.cronin]

I thought it was a basic tenant of journalism..

Well, today it is, but I think it's a recent development. I believe that in early America newspapers were transparent political party mouthpieces, even carrying the name of the party in the title of the paper.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does anybody know where the idea of an unbiased media as ideal arose?

You actually raise a decent point there, although I way too tired & that's way too in-depth for me to do it any sort of justice. But I thought I'd at least give you credit for thinking of it ;)

As a companion sub-topic, it's worth wondering whether a truly non-biased source could survive financially as well. My guess would be no.

[John Galt]

Did you have scientific proof of that or are you just speaking on behalf of left-leaing people everywhere?

Scientific proof? What are you talking about? Are you honestly arguing that Fox News is not right-wing using any reasonable measure of political orientation? Can you name a mainstream news source more to the right-wing?

[Dutch]

Scientific proof? What are you talking about? Are you honestly arguing that Fox News is not right-wing using any reasonable measure of political orientation? Can you name a mainstream news source more to the right-wing?

Those are great questions. I do wonder if you might argue that FoxNews is biased and CNN isn't.

For the record, and being completely honest, I believe that FoxNews is right-slanted and CNN is left-slanted.

[CamEdwards]

After speaking with the study's author today, I just want to point out a couple of things.

The study didn't look at shows like Hannity and Colmes, Hardball, etc. In fact, the only Fox show they examined was Brit Hume's program. Yet the study found that Hume's show was the most conservative of the broadcasts they watched. The study also found that CBS News was the most liberal of the broadcasts. And Jim Lehrer was the most balanced.

Would anybody (left or right) really have a problem with those picks?

Oh, apparently Dow Jones didn't like the Wall Street Journal being called more liberal than the NYTimes. They fired off a press release blasting the study. Again, however, the study did not examine the op/ed pages, just the news content. Since I don't read the Wall St. Journal, I have no idea how I'd judge the accuracy of this.

BTW, the study's author did say he's been getting a large volume of... interesting email. :)

[WVUFAN]

It now turns out that the New York Times knew (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines), before the 2004 election, about the "spying on Americans" story, but didn't publish it until now (see other thread).

Now, if the NYT was that biased, wouldn't they have published before the election?
Well, considering every single President since 1978, including Carter and Clinton, have signed a similiar document allowing wiretaps on foreign nationals without a warrant, I would answer your question as "yes". They would wait until the opportune time to make Bush look as negative as possible.

But it's par for the course. Despite some fairly obvious media crockery (the false Bush war document by Rather, multiple negative attacks on the Swiftboat vets while ignoring Kerry's true war record), Bush still won the election. Looks like the people know the real deal after all, despite the liberal bias.

[Flasch186]

Well, considering every single President since 1978, including Carter and Clinton, have signed a similiar document allowing wiretaps on foreign nationals without a warrant, I would answer your question as "yes". They would wait until the opportune time to make Bush look as negative as possible.

But it's par for the course. Despite some fairly obvious media crockery (the false Bush war document by Rather, multiple negative attacks on the Swiftboat vets while ignoring Kerry's true war record), Bush still won the election. Looks like the people know the real deal after all, despite the liberal bias.

jeez, that was fair and balanced.

[WVUFAN]

jeez, that was fair and balanced.I'm not a member of the media.

Before anyone starts to ask for proof of Carter and Clinton's involvement is the searching of foreign nationals without a warrant, please note the following links:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm -- signed by Jimmy Carter
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm -- signed by Bill Clinton

These searches, exactly like Bush's allow for searches of foreign nationals in areas in which US citizens live and own.

So, why exactly is Bush being lombasted and not these two presidents?

[Buccaneer]

When I check for regular news, I go to FoxNews.com (best presentation) and CNN.com (most comprehensive). I found both to be about the same as far as content. I never click on the personalities at either site for those aren't news. Is the mere presence of those kind of things at FoxNews cloud your judgement and perception to the rest of it??

[Flasch186]

I never click on the personalities at either site for those aren't news. Is the mere presence of those kind of things at FoxNews cloud your judgement and perception to the rest of it??


honestly, i Definitely think the personalities that are on the show disallow me from seeing anything on their channel as being centered...right or wrong as that may be, they chose to hire O'Reilly and Sean.

WVU - Clinton got hammered plenty in office, plenty.

[WVUFAN]

honestly, i Definitely think the personalities that are on the show disallow me from seeing anything on their channel as being centered...right or wrong as that may be, they chose to hire O'Reilly and Sean.

WVU - Clinton got hammered plenty in office, plenty.He should have been impeached. He committed a felony when he was in office.

My point is why wasn't this brought up when they were in office if it's such of horrible, newsworthy offense? Because it's Bush.

[Buccaneer]

honestly, i Definitely think the personalities that are on the show disallow me from seeing anything on their channel as being centered...right or wrong as that may be, they chose to hire O'Reilly and Sean.

WVU - Clinton got hammered plenty in office, plenty.
How the hell do you know that? Because someone told you and you believed it? Or did you find someone else's opinion to copy and paste? Even through the "Monica" scandal, many news articles and shows were focusing on how the right-wing conspiracy was bringing him down, just like they had been doing during the Gingrich term.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, considering every single President since 1978, including Carter and Clinton, have signed a similiar document allowing wiretaps on foreign nationals without a warrant, I would answer your question as "yes". They would wait until the opportune time to make Bush look as negative as possible.
I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say. Not only does WVUFAN completely miss the point of the entire issue and talks about how legal wiretaps on foreign nationals are, but he expects people to believe that THIS is the most opportune time to hurt Bush, as opposed to right before one of the closest incumbent elections in history. Amazing. This deserves a golden wingnut:

http://www.thepoorman.net/wp-content/kipgoldennut.jpg

[Buccaneer]

I think the fact that it is by far the most right wing major media source in the world (not just the U.S.) is pretty good evidence.
JG: You have portrayed yourself as someone who is smart but to me (and that you are calling this a fact and saying "by far") shows you have no credibility and have no clue as to what "right wing" means in the context of world press and politics. People don't pay much attention to my views of the outside looking in but at least I don't have the pretenciousness (sp?) like you have in thinking that your pronouncements have any merits whatsoever. So there.

[Flasch186]

He should have been impeached. He committed a felony when he was in office.

My point is why wasn't this brought up when they were in office if it's such of horrible, newsworthy offense? Because it's Bush.

to answer your questions or statements...I believe he was impeached but not confirmed or something like that.

AND ONCE YOU HANG OUT HERE LONG ENOUGH YOULL LEARN WITH ME, it doesnt matter what wrongs were done in the past, it doesnt excuse wrongs now. If Clinton or any pres. spied on American's without getting warrants than that is equally wrong, as it is today. Next time I see a retrospective on one of the news channels addressing news from 10 years ago as opposed to news today, Ill tivo it and let you know.

[Flasch186]

How the hell do you know that? Because someone told you and you believed it? Or did you find someone else's opinion to copy and paste? Even through the "Monica" scandal, many news articles and shows were focusing on how the right-wing conspiracy was bringing him down, just like they had been doing during the Gingrich term.

I was alive and the same political junkie I am now.

[WVUFAN]

to answer your questions or statements...I believe he was impeached but not confirmed or something like that.

AND ONCE YOU HANG OUT HERE LONG ENOUGH YOULL LEARN WITH ME, it doesnt matter what wrongs were done in the past, it doesnt excuse wrongs now. If Clinton or any pres. spied on American's without getting warrants than that is equally wrong, as it is today. Next time I see a retrospective on one of the news channels addressing news from 10 years ago as opposed to news today, Ill tivo it and let you know.
It wasn't wrong then and it's not now. CONGRESS PASSED A LAW ALLOWING THIS ACTION TO OCCUR, so the "legality" should not be questioned. Link can be supplied if you like.

You don't want to be wiretapped, don't talk to terrorists, don't associate with terrorists. Why people are so concerned about THE FREAKING ENEMY is beyond me.

[Dutch]

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cnn.com

The wayback machine is pretty cool, but sadly, all the CNN headliners have been removed pre-Bush.

[WVUFAN]

I'm speechless. I really don't know what to say. Not only does WVUFAN completely miss the point of the entire issue and talks about how legal wiretaps on foreign nationals are, but he expects people to believe that THIS is the most opportune time to hurt Bush, as opposed to right before one of the closest incumbent elections in history. Amazing. This deserves a golden wingnut:
So what was "the issue", that we should be concerned with the rights of terrorists, or those that collaborate with them? I'm not, and I'm not concerned with those who choose to collaborate with the enemy. This includes journalists.

As for the timing issue, the article linked by Flere explained this: the Times did to affect the re-ratificiation of the Patriot Act.

[Flasch186]

It wasn't wrong then and it's not now. CONGRESS PASSED A LAW ALLOWING THIS ACTION TO OCCUR, so the "legality" should not be questioned. Link can be supplied if you like.

You don't want to be wiretapped, don't talk to terrorists, don't associate with terrorists. Why people are so concerned about THE FREAKING ENEMY is beyond me.

Legality should be questioned, we have an adversarial system, not a Monarchy. If he did nothing wrong than Im sure the administration will be happy to cooperate with the Bipartisan investigation. When it washes out that he did nothing wrong than wonderful...if it comes out that he did Im sure you'll stand by that decision as well, right?

[WVUFAN]

Legality should be questioned, we have an adversarial system, not a Monarchy. If he did nothing wrong than Im sure the administration will be happy to cooperate with the Bipartisan investigation. When it washes out that he did nothing wrong than wonderful...if it comes out that he did Im sure you'll stand by that decision as well, right?
Then an investigation should be launched at the same time with Clinton and Carter's involvement in the same same law that Bush uses. Remember, as you said, wrong is wrong regardless on when it occured.

To directly answer your question, no, there should be no "bipartisan (no such thing) investigation" over an act that was approved by Congress and never been challenged. If it was fine to be used in 1978 and 1994, it's fine to be used now ... whoops, we're not talking about a Democratic president, so the media is all over it.

[Flasch186]

Then an investigation should be launched at the same time with Clinton and Carter's involvement in the same same law that Bush uses. Remember, as you said, wrong is wrong regardless on when it occured.

To directly answer your question, no, there should be no "bipartisan (no such thing) investigation" over an act that was approved by Congress and never been challenged. If it was fine to be used in 1978 and 1994, it's fine to be used now ... whoops, we're not talking about a Democratic president, so the media is all over it.

now, if the Congressman and women are the one's you say passed the law, and theyre the one's calling for the investigation(s) perhaps they feel that the "legality" should be questioned. thank god we live in a country where these investigations occur and it can all be flushed out and we can find out the truth. Isn't that refreshing to know that you dont have to worry about someone running roughshod. Perhaps he'll be vindicated....but isn't it great that those congressmen and women can figure out if a law was broken. I mean, it has been a bipartisan call...so your partisanship wont cloud their judgment or decision not to investigate. Ill sleep better tonight knowing our congress people are protecting our interests and our president is trying too.

Again, the retrospective Idea is kinda a waste of taxpayer's money...I mean with the new cuts in funding for student loans, medicare co-pays, senior's ability to qualify for nursing assistance...we have to watch those pennies. Plus, its revisionist anyways, youll only be happy with one outcome...just like now. Blinders on ruins credibility.

[MrBigglesworth]

Then an investigation should be launched at the same time with Clinton and Carter's involvement in the same same law that Bush uses. Remember, as you said, wrong is wrong regardless on when it occured.

To directly answer your question, no, there should be no "bipartisan (no such thing) investigation" over an act that was approved by Congress and never been challenged. If it was fine to be used in 1978 and 1994, it's fine to be used now ... whoops, we're not talking about a Democratic president, so the media is all over it.
Dude, you are completely wrong. Completely. Clinton never did what Bush did. Carter never did what Bush did. Congress never passed any law authorizing what Bush did. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you want to debate whether or not Bush should be above the law, well at least that is not arguing a fact, but don't try to make the case that grass is red and the sky is brown, that just wastes everyone's time.

[Dutch]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about Clinton but I can indeed verify that Carter didn't do shit for his four years.

[WVUFAN]

Dude, you are completely wrong. Completely. Clinton never did what Bush did. Carter never did what Bush did. Congress never passed any law authorizing what Bush did. I can't make it any simpler than that. If you want to debate whether or not Bush should be above the law, well at least that is not arguing a fact, but don't try to make the case that grass is red and the sky is brown, that just wastes everyone's time.Again, I refer the the links I listed above, which Clinton and Carter both authorized the NSA to do searches of foreign nationals and US citizens who are in conversation with foreign nationals. This is without question, is in black and white, and is the EXACT SAME authorization Bush gave, and is ABSOLUTELY legal. You can talk about whether the concept is right and wrong, that's fine. It's legal, though.

As for the underlying law:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 allows the government, under certain circumstances to eavesdrop on Americans (without warrant or court order). These are the circumstances:
the purpose of the eavesdropping is to gather foreign intelligence
the communication in question is between known foreign or suspected agents overseas and the American.
the American in question is acting in his role a part of an association or corporation that is "not substantially composed of United States persons."
You can read it yourself.
It is now known as US Code Title 50 Secs. 1801/1802
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1801 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=1801)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1802 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=1802)

[Flasch186]

we shall find out, in Congressional hearings and then we'll go by that. Just like the 9/11 results. And DeLay's trial. And Libby's trial....Like Glen says...we'll find out the results and then we'll hammer or relieve the people just like that.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Stolen from another site...

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

[Flasch186]

ewww, WVU, you should know better than to pull Drudge reports as news. C'mon....Ill cut you slack though, you havnt been here long. Most here know that drudge report is not newsworthy or citable.

[MrBigglesworth]

Again, I refer the the links I listed above, which Clinton and Carter both authorized the NSA to do searches of foreign nationals and US citizens who are in conversation with foreign nationals.
See Jesse's post. The Clinton one deals with physical searches. At the time, FISA dealt only with electronic intelligence. Clinton had found a loophole. The law however was changed by Congress, and Clinton (to everyone's knowledge) never broke the law. Contrast that to what Bush is doing: he broke the law and says he will continue breaking the law. Not the same thing.

This is without question, is in black and white, and is the EXACT SAME authorization Bush gave, and is ABSOLUTELY legal. You can talk about whether the concept is right and wrong, that's fine. It's legal, though.

As for the underlying law:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 allows the government, under certain circumstances to eavesdrop on Americans (without warrant or court order). These are the circumstances:
the purpose of the eavesdropping is to gather foreign intelligence
the communication in question is between known foreign or suspected agents overseas and the American.
the American in question is acting in his role a part of an association or corporation that is "not substantially composed of United States persons."
You can read it yourself.
It is now known as US Code Title 50 Secs. 1801/1802
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1801 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=1801)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...le=50&sec=1802 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=50&sec=1802)
Maybe you should read it yourself. Here are the parts that completely screw your entire argument:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
So what does section 1801 (a) say?
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
Al Queda is (4). 1802 deals directly with only (1-3).

Also in reading 1802, nowhere does it that US Citizens can be searched without a warrant. In fact, it actually says:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;...
No substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Not that they are both or all of the parties, but 'a' party. What is a United States person?
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Means, in clear black and white, that a communication between a citizen and a foreign national needs a warrant. End of story.

I figure you just read this crap somewhere and posted it without really reading 1801 or 1802. I don't know where you get these lies from, but I would not trust that source in the future. Maybe read the source material that they cite, at least.

[WVUFAN]

See Jesse's post. The Clinton one deals with physical searches. At the time, FISA dealt only with electronic intelligence. Clinton had found a loophole. The law however was changed by Congress, and Clinton (to everyone's knowledge) never broke the law. Contrast that to what Bush is doing: he broke the law and says he will continue breaking the law. Not the same thing. You might want to re-read it, because I did, and you're wrong. Again.


Maybe you should read it yourself. Here are the parts that completely screw your entire argument:

So what does section 1801 (a) say?

Al Queda is (4). 1802 deals directly with only (1-3).Al Queda could easily be considered 2 as well as 4.


Also in reading 1802, nowhere does it that US Citizens can be searched without a warrant. In fact, it actually says:

No substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Not that they are both or all of the parties, but 'a' party. What is a United States person?

Means, in clear black and white, that a communication between a citizen and a foreign national needs a warrant. End of story.

I figure you just read this crap somewhere and posted it without really reading 1801 or 1802. I don't know where you get these lies from, but I would not trust that source in the future. Maybe read the source material that they cite, at least.
But all of that really makes no difference, because FISA goes out the door when another statute allows the search. On September 18, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, which authorizes broad power to the President in defense of the country against terrorism. This section, along with the "special needs" exception to classic warrants, allows for warrantless searches. Quote -- the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstance"

Attorney General Moschella sums it up very nicely when he wrote:

"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement. Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."

So, with or without FISA, it's still legal.

[JPhillips]

Congress had no intention of giving Bush those powers within the United States as Tom Daschle makes clear today in the Washington Post.

The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in today's Washington Post.

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

...


As drafted, and as finally passed, the resolution authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons" who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

Daschle wrote that Congress also rejected draft language from the White House that would have authorized the use of force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States," not only against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.


So Bush asked for the authority he claims he has and Congress specifically said no.

[John Galt]

JG: You have portrayed yourself as someone who is smart but to me (and that you are calling this a fact and saying "by far") shows you have no credibility and have no clue as to what "right wing" means in the context of world press and politics. People don't pay much attention to my views of the outside looking in but at least I don't have the pretenciousness (sp?) like you have in thinking that your pronouncements have any merits whatsoever. So there.

Huh? If you think I'm wrong, name a major news source that is close to as right-wing as Fox (and I'm talking the TV version not the watered down website). And the personalities do matter, but Brit Hume (who is obstensibly an anchor) alone perverts the news on a regular basis. As for the rest of your comments, don't be such an ass.

[John Galt]

Those are great questions. I do wonder if you might argue that FoxNews is biased and CNN isn't.

For the record, and being completely honest, I believe that FoxNews is right-slanted and CNN is left-slanted.

On the U.S. political spectrum, I would say the jury is still out on where CNN fits. FoxNews on the other had is news with an agenda. On a global scale, I would argue every major news source in the U.S. is right-wing. Unlike most every other Western democracy, the U.S. lacks a major leftist (and I mean really leftist) news source.

[SFL Cat]

On the U.S. political spectrum, I would say the jury is still out on where CNN fits.


:confused: In it's hey-day, it wasn't called the Clinton News Network for nothing.

[CamEdwards]

On the U.S. political spectrum, I would say the jury is still out on where CNN fits. FoxNews on the other had is news with an agenda. On a global scale, I would argue every major news source in the U.S. is right-wing. Unlike most every other Western democracy, the U.S. lacks a major leftist (and I mean really leftist) news source.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The jury's still out on CNN? O-kay. Shall I dredge up some Eason Jordan quotes?


While you're right that most global media sources are more liberal than most of our news sources, most of the GLOBE is also more left-leaning than this country. That being said, most Americans don't get their news from the Guardian. And here in America, most of the media outlets are to the left of the general population.

[John Galt]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The jury's still out on CNN? O-kay. Shall I dredge up some Eason Jordan quotes?


While you're right that most global media sources are more liberal than most of our news sources, most of the GLOBE is also more left-leaning than this country. That being said, most Americans don't get their news from the Guardian. And here in America, most of the media outlets are to the left of the general population.

I agree with you about the rest of the world's population. But I also think the U.S. could use a socialist type rag to offset Fox News and the like. The Nation is about as far left a mainstream print publication can go in the U.S., and that's not very far. On the other hand, the National Review and the Weekly Standard often set new standards for hackery and have a much larger reader base.

As for CNN and other media, I'm still waiting for a study with decent methodology to establish that fact. Cherry-picking anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for any proof of bias. CNN was significantly pro-Iraq war in its early coverage, it gave more time to Swift Boaters than to Bush's national guard problems (based upon Lexis-Nexis searches), and it tends to pretty mainstream about almost every major issue. It lacks any real independent investigative wing and rarely offers anything insightful that could be construed as leftist.

I wouldn't be surprised if CNN is to the left of the general population. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it is to the right of the general population. So far, no acceptable study has shown either way. Fox News, on the other hand, I think has a clear agenda in the way it packages news.

[CamEdwards]

I agree with you about the rest of the world's population. But I also think the U.S. could use a socialist type rag to offset Fox News and the like. The Nation is about as far left a mainstream print publication can go in the U.S., and that's not very far. On the other hand, the National Review and the Weekly Standard often set new standards for hackery and have a much larger reader base.

As for CNN and other media, I'm still waiting for a study with decent methodology to establish that fact. Cherry-picking anecdotal evidence is not sufficient for any proof of bias. CNN was significantly pro-Iraq war in its early coverage, it gave more time to Swift Boaters than to Bush's national guard problems (based upon Lexis-Nexis searches), and it tends to pretty mainstream about almost every major issue. It lacks any real independent investigative wing and rarely offers anything insightful that could be construed as leftist.

I wouldn't be surprised if CNN is to the left of the general population. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it is to the right of the general population. So far, no acceptable study has shown either way. Fox News, on the other hand, I think has a clear agenda in the way it packages news.

So I go to the Nation's website just now, and there on the front page is the following quote.

"The Bush Administration is not a dictatorship, but it has all the markings of one in embryonic form. Bush has declared himself to be above the law, and members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. Either the President upholds the laws of this country, or he must leave office."

There is an editiorial by John Conyers, and a piece entitled "Bush's High Crimes". I'd say this is not a "moderate" left-leaning publication. It is full bore liberal.

It's not socialist. But maybe the reason there's not a successful socialist rag in this country is that socialism can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas (and oh, the irony of that isn't lost on me).

Now, as to CNN. I'm not going to cross check Lexis-Nexis (and are you looking at CNN.com or transcripts of the broadcasts when you do that? There are some methodology problems with basing your opinion of CNN's broadcast on their website, given that they use wire stories quite a bit on the web), but I'd caution you not to place too much importance on the fact that CNN's broadcasts might have been more pro-war than you would have liked. Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer, Tom Daschle, and Dianne Feinstein all were pro-war back in 2003. I think you have to look beyond that one issue. I choose to look at the statements of Eason Jordan, the guy in charge of the news on CNN. Your mileage may vary.

[Flasch186]

Again, the majority of news is not right wing or left wing but money wing.

[John Galt]

So I go to the Nation's website just now, and there on the front page is the following quote.

"The Bush Administration is not a dictatorship, but it has all the markings of one in embryonic form. Bush has declared himself to be above the law, and members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. Either the President upholds the laws of this country, or he must leave office."

There is an editiorial by John Conyers, and a piece entitled "Bush's High Crimes". I'd say this is not a "moderate" left-leaning publication. It is full bore liberal.

It's not socialist. But maybe the reason there's not a successful socialist rag in this country is that socialism can't compete in the free marketplace of ideas (and oh, the irony of that isn't lost on me).

Now, as to CNN. I'm not going to cross check Lexis-Nexis (and are you looking at CNN.com or transcripts of the broadcasts when you do that? There are some methodology problems with basing your opinion of CNN's broadcast on their website, given that they use wire stories quite a bit on the web), but I'd caution you not to place too much importance on the fact that CNN's broadcasts might have been more pro-war than you would have liked. Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer, Tom Daschle, and Dianne Feinstein all were pro-war back in 2003. I think you have to look beyond that one issue. I choose to look at the statements of Eason Jordan, the guy in charge of the news on CNN. Your mileage may vary.

About the Nation, true enough. They do have some bomb-throwers here and there. Although, I do think it is sad that Conyers, a U.S. congressperson, has to publish in a magazine very few people read because his views are too radical. I subscribe to the Nation, but very few people in this country do.

I don't know about socialism not being able to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I think "socialist" and "communist" are very dirty words in the U.S. They certainly cannot compete in the U.S. marketplace of ideas, but that's a farcry from saying they can't compete. I'm no socialist, but there are many more of them in free societies around the globe that would disagree with your conclusion.

I did the CNN search a long time ago as part of a discussion with Grantdawg about media bias on the web. Generally, the media on Lexis Nexis covered Swift Boats more than the National Guard stuff. I also tried to adjust for positive and negative coverage. I also looked at CNN specifically, although I'm not sure I posted about them.

I think CNN is readily distinguishable from Fox, though. I found a lot of the material in the movie Outfoxed to be pretty damning and persuasive. Even the little things like Fox adopting the administration's nonsensical label "homocide bombers" show there is a top-down agenda there. That to me is very different than unintentional bias. At some point a bias could be as bad as a clear agenda, but I think that is a hard case to make for Fox. Fox is sensational, flag-waiving, and will usually put out whatever RNC talking points are available. To me, that isn't news.

[Flasch186]

That leftist media is ACTUALLY reporting that in one of Alito's memos he said that "Roe v. Wade should be overturned"....how horrible those lefty media outlets for reporting this.

If its true, its true and should be reported....now I shall watch Fox News and see if it gets reported:

not yet and not on the website.

[Buccaneer]

I would sya most of the Middle East's news sources, including some in Israel and esp. many of the state-run ones, are towing a harder line. I'm not sure, but one could add some of Russia's (pro-Putin) news outlets, and many in Africa. I equate totalitarian and dictatorship, along with curtailed freedom of press and religion, as being more "right wing" than the quasi-conservative (or RINO) stuff we have here.

Regarding Fox vs CNN, I would say that 90% of the contents (in reporting news) are identical. For example, I saw no difference in the way both reported on Alito and Roberts, and Fox were headlining more of the Bush controversies as a feature story while CNN had it more buried.

[Flasch186]

Regarding Fox vs CNN, I would say that 90% of the contents (in reporting news) are identical. For example, I saw no difference in the way both reported on Alito and Roberts, and Fox were headlining more of the Bush controversies as a feature story while CNN had it more buried.

I agree with that but its in the way thigns are said, one word here and there, both ways effect which slant it is taking. On CNN they certaiknly are more left than Fox News....where that may be on the whole spectrum, is debatable.

nothing yet on the Alito thing-y...which is HUGE since it WILL lead to the nuclear option and Filibuster in the Spring.

[John Galt]

I would sya most of the Middle East's news sources, including some in Israel and esp. many of the state-run ones, are towing a harder line. I'm not sure, but one could add some of Russia's (pro-Putin) news outlets, and many in Africa. I equate totalitarian and dictatorship, along with curtailed freedom of press and religion, as being more "right wing" than the quasi-conservative (or RINO) stuff we have here.

Regarding Fox vs CNN, I would say that 90% of the contents (in reporting news) are identical. For example, I saw no difference in the way both reported on Alito and Roberts, and Fox were headlining more of the Bush controversies as a feature story while CNN had it more buried.

If you are going to count dictatorships as right-wing, then that does change things. Although I think most on the right would surely try to label Al-Jazeera as left-wing. I think the Russian news sources are largely pro-government, but they still include all sorts of communist propoganda human intereste type stories.

I think you are right on Fox and CNN in terms of websites, but TV seems very different, IMO. Maybe its just the hours I watch Fox, but Hume does things with the news that I would have thought no anchor would ever do.

[Buccaneer]

Getting news from TV is such a quaint idea. Didn't realize people still do that (apart from disaster news) given the sound-bite/entertainment focus.

[Dutch]

Getting news from TV is such a quaint idea. Didn't realize people still do that (apart from disaster news) given the sound-bite/entertainment focus.

Never over-estimate the motivation of the "undecided" voter.

[MrBigglesworth]

You might want to re-read it, because I did, and you're wrong. Again.

Al Queda could easily be considered 2 as well as 4.
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
That's laughable. And even if it were true, you still have that whole pesky " (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party;" thing.

But all of that really makes no difference, because FISA goes out the door when another statute allows the search. On September 18, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, which authorizes broad power to the President in defense of the country against terrorism. This section, along with the "special needs" exception to classic warrants, allows for warrantless searches. Quote -- the "reasonableness of a search" depends on "the totality of the circumstance"
You are like 5 days behind in your propaganda. Do you get Drudge snail-mailed to you? This is the rationalization Bush used a week ago. Not only is it ludicrous to assume that Congress made Bush a perpetual dictator on September 18, 2001, but members of Congress, including Tom Daschle as someone mentioned, have already said that that was not the intent.

Attorney General Moschella sums it up very nicely when he wrote:

"Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement. Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al-Qaida in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable."
Finally, an opinion and not a incorrect fact. Shocking that Bush's Assistant AG would be in favor of this. I don't know what the 'special needs' exception is. This seems to be the third legal rationale that you are using in a single post. But anyway, this guy's argument is a strawman. Nobody is advising against wiretaps for 'foreign intelligence collection' or 'interecepting communications into and out of the United States'. People are objecting to warrantless searches of American people, and these guy that 'sums it up' doesn't mention at all why it is necessary to go around the warrant process, which pretty much does sum it up, because nobody has been able to give a good reason.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I'm not a Fox News watcher, but after reading this thread I turned it on for a bit to see if I could detect any type of bias. The program that was on was called Dayside. Their guest was John Gibson, author of The War on Christmas.

One of the things they talked about was a vote in the House regarding protecting Christmas symbols. They scrolled a list of Congressmen/women who voted against it and labeled it "Anti-Christmas Voters" (or something along those lines). Beneath that was the phone number to the House so you could call and voice your outrage.

If the five minutes or so of watching this is any indication of how Fox News normally is, I would definitely say it is treading to the right of center.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not a Fox News watcher, but after reading this thread I turned it on for a bit to see if I could detect any type of bias. The program that was on was called Dayside. Their guest was John Gibson, author of The War on Christmas.

One of the things they talked about was a vote in the House regarding protecting Christmas symbols. They scrolled a list of Congressmen/women who voted against it and labeled it "Anti-Christmas Voters" (or something along those lines). Beneath that was the phone number to the House so you could call and voice your outrage.

If the five minutes or so of watching this is any indication of how Fox News normally is, I would definitely say it is treading to the right of center.
This will really blow your mind: John Gibson is a FoxNews host!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1240,00.html

[Mr. Sparkle]

Did anyone see Gibson go off on some fella named Rob Boston over the whole War on Christmas controversy? Man, that was comedy. He was even yelling at the guy on his side of the argument to pipe down. Good times.