It’s not enough to say that the media lies. You also need to know how they lie and why they lie.
What stories are the media going to report and what stories are they going to ignore? There’s fertile grounds right there; stories that favor conservatives tend to get ignored or underreported versus stories that favor liberals getting premium coverage – which gets brought up again and again until it enters the public consciousness (e.g. “Read my lips; no new taxes” by George H.W. Bush).
Another way to maintain a bias is to use ideology to select which stories get repeated and which end up in the purge bin. When I find mainstream media articles that help conservatives, I copy and paste it to a Word file; because I have personally encountered hundreds of occasions when such stories get “purged” and I have learned from experience that you have to preserve a record. You can’t merely allude to articles that help out conservatives and insert a link to the source, because that link will lead to nowhere in short order. You’ve got to cite the relevant facts. Versus pro-liberal stories which seem to live on forever.
Then there’s the issue of “fairness” that liberals invariably like to talk about – but never actually live out in their own lives and careers. Fox News is routinely derided for it’s “fair and balanced” slogan. But the fact of the matter is that Fox News IS fair and balanced when compared to any other news outlets; they allow liberals to have a substantial representation whereas the other networks allow virtually no conservative representation.
According to a nonprofit, politically neutral, non-partisan George Mason University Centre for Media and Public Affairs study, Fox News Channel’s evening news broadcasts provide more balanced news coverage than all other news shows on networks or cable.
I still remember getting into an argument with a local news reporter who defended media exclusion of conservative ideas by comparing the debate to round earth versus flat earth. With of course the “flat earth” view being held by conservatives. And on this characterization, it is simply wrong to give coverage to the flat earth view. So it wasn’t bias the media was showing in ignoring conservative positions, but simple intelligence.
It is for that reason that liberals such as John Kerry have publicly said that the media has a responsibility to NOT give equal time to conservatives:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”
“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”
The problem is that a whopping load of journalists agree with this view.
And most of these journalists voted for Kerry. From the New York Times:
When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.
Polling of MSM journalists showed they voted 9-1 in favor of Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992 and voted in the same margin for John Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004. No surprise, then, that the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Kerry received 77 percent favorable coverage in 2004 while Bush received 34 percent favorable coverage — quite a chasm, in my view.
Hypothetical question: If Bush had instead received nine out of 10 votes of the MSM in 2004, does anyone really believe Kerry would have garnered that 77 percent favorable coverage compared to Bush’s 34 percent? One did not have to have a Mensa-level IQ in 2008 to ascertain the MSM were virtual cheerleaders for the Obama campaign.
Wouldn’t you like to have that kind of power to delegitimize the opposition and shut them out? Then you should be a journalist, as long as you use your power to target conservatives and help liberals.
One of the other ways that I’ve found that liberal bias reeks out of news stories is when “experts” are used. I swear these reporters will pick up a phone and call fifteen experts until they finally get the “expert opinion” they want.
We recently witnessed this with statements that Obama has repeatedly made – and which the mainstream media has repeatedly reported as fact – about the opinion of “economists.” Obama has routinely said things like:
“…this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in America. This isn’t just my belief. This is what independent economists have said. Not just politicians. Not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across America. But if we don’t act, the opposite will be true — there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth.”
Where has the barrage of fact checking been – you know, like there would have been if BUSH had said something like that? Or if John Boehner said something like it today?
Well, there IS this…
The same media that would have jumped all over such untrue statements by a Republican have repeatedly allowed Obama to say this crap without any challenge. And that’s the Big Lie strategy that Hitler crafted and our own media propaganda perfected.
Here’s the truth. And grab it while you can because one day you’ll click on the link and you will get the message, “Article no longer available…”:
(AP) WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama gets mediocre marks for his handling of the economy, and Mitt Romney easily outpolls his Republican rivals in an Associated Press survey of economists. [...]
Half of the 36 economists who responded to the Dec. 14-20 AP survey rated Obama’s economic policies “fair.” And 13 called them “poor.” Just five of the economists gave the president “good” marks. None rated him as “excellent.”
That’s zero As, five Bs, 18 Cs or Ds and 13 Fs (you know they only had four rather than five “grade” criteria so that it would be impossible to nail down a grade point average. FWIW). That’s a very low D average, friends. But that’s like a 2.2 GPA.
The problem is that the mainstream media keeps using shockingly partisan “non-partisan” sources – such as the liberal Tax Policy Center – to provide “objective analysis.”
Yes, the Tax Policy Center is directly connected to the liberal Urban Institute and the liberal Brookings Institution, and this wouldn’t be one iota different than Fox News going to the Rush Limbaugh Policy Center for an “objective evaluation,” but what the hell.
I mean, yes, this does explain why Fox News gets better ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined, but of course the mainstream media says even though they’re relentlessly biased and no one watches them, Fox News is evil.
The media depicted Obama as the man who was somehow constantly crowned with a mystical halo of wonderfulness by the “objective” sources such as the AP and Reuters:
John McCain wasn’t quite so fortunate:
Politico had this to say about media “balance” in the coverage of Obama versus McCain:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).
You call that balanced?
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
Yeah, so what if the people calling themselves “journalists” are really just a bunch of Nazi Joseph Goebbels wannabes?
Americans have degenerated into a bunch of intellectually and morally stupid herd animals who can be told what to think just as surely as herd animals can be easily led to their own slaughtering. And that’s basically the one and only truth that the mainstream media accurately understands. Which is why you can count on them to keep shoveling manure and calling it “journalism” in this year that will determine whether America has a chance to survive or goes the way of the Dodo bird due to insane spending and the crushing debt that invariably accompanies such insane spending.
The media have been shockingly biased to the left going back to Walter Lippman, whose thoughts on mind-control is summarized as follows:
The intelligent minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.
Not only is the American public of today no more intelligent than was the pre-World War II German public, but any objective evaluation would show that the people who voted for Hitler were FAR better educated and FAR more “enlightened” than we are today.
Liberal education not only didn’t help Germany; it profoundly hurt them -
“Indeed, about one-third of the (half million) officials and leaders of the Nazi Party in 1935 were teachers by profession. Support for National Socialism, extreme nationalism and pan-Germanism was particularly marked among university students and professors (Kolinsky 1974: 87-8). One quarter of the future SS had doctorates, while in the elections to student councils in German universities during the academic year 1930-1 Nazi candidates received 40 per cent or more of the votes cast in fourteen of the eighteen universities for which such data survive, and fifty per cent or more of the votes in nine of them (Kornhauser 1960: 188). It does not necessarily follow that all highly educated people were inherently susceptible to fascism, but students and university professors were very strikingly over-represented within most of the major fascist movements…” [Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change: p. 380].
- just as it profoundly hurts the United States of America today as the same sort of vile people with the same sorts of vile beliefs and attitudes overwhelmingly inhabit our intelligentsia today.
You take a look at who is filling the ranks of the incredibly vile and toxic Occupy movement and you find college students and college professors. And it was teaching physicians at the University of Wisconsin Madison who wrote fake sick notes – in abject disregard of their medical and professional ethics – to help the far-leftist cause in the Wisconsin riots.
And these same fools who have had their brains washed by an incredibly toxic pseudo-academic climate that is more intolerant of ideas than any other institution on earth bar none are the ones running our elite media. If you want actual attempts to literally try to brainwash ideological opponents, if you want systematic exclusion and persecution of rival ideas, if you want the systematic denial of free speech, if you want to see a place where only liberals are allowed to have a voice – at least without being shouted down, if you want to see the fascist mindset that you are above the law until you get to make the laws that others must be forced to follow, then all you have to do is go to the universities that give Obama a 63-1 advantage in their newspapers. Because that’s where you’ll find it today, just as it was where you’d find it in the Germany that became Nazi Germany.
And then realize that it is these same arrogant elitist snobs who dominate our journalism today who both created this climate and oozed out of it like the slime they are.
The media have done the same thing that the universities have done; it is a trick the left has long practiced: demand to be included in the interest of tolerance, or fairness, or rights, or what have you, obtain a foothold in an institution – and then slam the door shut in the faces of everyone they disagree with. Because whether you’re talking about university faculty or journalists, it’s the same story: good luck getting a job if you are a conservative.
And then realize that these people have incredible power and influence over what the people think, even as they believe they have not only the right but the duty to intentionally shape what the unwashed masses think in the name of “objective journalism.”
I keep saying over and over again that the beast is coming. And there are two things to say about that: 1) the beast will be a big government leader who will unite the world exactly as liberals have always dreamed about; and 2) the same liberals who are the loudest in their unbelief of the coming last days will be the very same ones who will one day most ardently worship that beast (Revelation 13:7-8).