Liberal bias rears its ugly head

[Montgomery Burns]

CNN producer to guest: Get angry about Hurricane Katrina when you go on the air

And guess who broke this story? Michael Kinsley, a lifelong diehard liberal.

CNN's tepid reply to getting busted was pathetic. :angry:

And there is even more. On the 4th anniversay of September 11, CNN, TNT and CNN Headline News chose to air a sick commercial from a moonbat conspiracy web site, claiming that the World Trade Center was blown up on purpose with controlled detonations:

Why people are tuning out CNN and moving to Fox because they want fair and balanced news

Nice 9-11 tribute, CNN. About as classy as the 9-11 tribute from that Hollyweird landwhale, Michael Moore.

No wonder Fox's ratigns are 2.5 to 3 times higher than CNN's. The public only wants fair and balanced news.

And CNN in the USA is actually mild compared to CNN International. CNN Int'l is akin to the EUrinal media; hardcore anti-Americanism. :angry:

Jealousy is such a strong emotion....

[moderateamericain]

CNN producer to guest:  Get angry about Hurricane Katrina when you go on the air

And guess who broke this story?  Michael Kinsley, a lifelong diehard liberal.

CNN's tepid reply to getting busted was pathetic.  :angry:

And there is even more.  On the 4th anniversay of September 11, CNN, TNT and CNN Headline News chose to air a sick commercial from a moonbat conspiracy web site, claiming that the World Trade Center was blown up on purpose with controlled detonations:

Why people are tuning out CNN and moving to Fox because they want fair and balanced news

Nice 9-11 tribute, CNN.  About as classy as the 9-11 tribute from that Hollyweird landwhale, Michael Moore.

No wonder Fox's ratigns are 2.5 to 3 times higher than CNN's.  The public only wants fair and balanced news.

And CNN in the USA is actually mild compared to CNN International.  CNN Int'l is akin to the EUrinal media; hardcore anti-Americanism.  :angry:

Jealousy is such a strong emotion....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats too bad, CNN is far more balanced then most of the others. Fox news can some times be neutral but several of their "talking heads" are obviously pro conservative. CNN in my opinion is still the most honest, or attempt to be honest network news.

[Riverwind]

Why people are tuning out CNN and moving to Fox because they want fair and balanced news

People choose media sources that provide the propaganda that they want to hear. Most people (especially people like MB) don't want to be challenged or told that their way of thinking might be wrong. Fox is very good at pandering to the self-centered segment of the US population on the right of the political spectrum. However, Fox makes no real attempt to be 'fair and balanced' - it is ridiculous to suggest that they are.

[Cartman]

People choose media sources that provide the propaganda that they want to hear.

This is a sad but probably true statement.

I do not believe or even understand the contention that the media contains a Liberal bias. I think it is a bogus complaint designed to suggest that people would love the right, but they are too stupid and brainwashed to think critically. If this were true and people passively consumed media products, there would be a helluva lot more violence in society. Everyone has watched violence on television, but not everyone acts on it. Does everyone buy a pair of Oakley's because they saw the ad? Why would we assume that the news determines how people vote?

But even if people do passively accept news like drones, why would there be a Liberal bias in the first place? What is the motive here? If we assume that the Conservative Party advocates reduced taxes for larger corporations, and we also assume that much of our mass media is owned by large corporations (not mom and pop outfits), would it not be silly to report in a fashion that detracts from your own interests? Why would they do this? From this, I must conclude that either the media does not contain a Liberal bias or the Conservatives are not the party that will cut taxes.

I could understand it if Layton claimed that his corporate tax agenda offends corporate media and consequently, he receives less coverage. At least that is logical. But why would these large corporations promote a party that seeks to spend their money like Liberals supposedly do? I do not go for conspiracy theories and I think most Canadians find this logic equally ridiculous.

Oh, and before anyone provides a link to supposedly "prove" biased news coverage, I bet I could find you a picture of a duck wearing a cowboy hat, rubber boots and a Roots sweatshirt on the internet.

[Black Dog]

People choose media sources that provide the propaganda that they want to hear.

This is a sad but probably true statement.

Of couse its true. This is first year marketing stuff, folks. People seek out information that reenforces their pre-existing beliefs and biases. Fox News is a prime example. the people watching it do so because it tells them what they want to hear, and does not force them to challenge any of their cherished beliefs. They don't actually want "fair and balanced" reportage.

Another lie that needs to be addressed is the myth of FoxNews' popularity. Yes, Fox news gets beter ratings than CNN, but that's deceptive: ratings are average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households.

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute, so these numbers give extra weight to heavy viewers: that is people who tune in to Fox and stay (probably a byproduct of the number of opinion shows like the "O'Reilly Factor" ). When it comes to cumulative numbers, CNN still beats Fox hands down. (For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox). So take the crowing of the Fox partisans with a grain of salt.

[Cartman]

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute, so these numbers give extra weight to heavy viewers: that is people who tune in to Fox and stay (probably a byproduct of the number of opinion shows like the "O'Reilly Factor" and "Special Report with Brit Hume). When it comes to cumulative numbers, CNN still beats Fox hands down. (For instance, in April 2003, during the height of the fighting in Iraq, 105 million viewers tuned into CNN compared to 86 million for Fox). So take the crowing of the Fox partisans with a grain of salt.

A little clarification needed here BD. So, you are saying that CNN has more viewers cumulatively. But, because Fox has a few shows that draw more viewers, the average (I assume the mean) viewers per minute is deceptively raised? Please correct me if I am wrong. This is quite interesting!

[Black Dog]

A little clarification needed here BD. So, you are saying that CNN has more viewers cumulatively. But, because Fox has a few shows that draw more viewers, the average (I assume the mean) viewers per minute is deceptively raised? Please correct me if I am wrong. This is quite interesting!

Basically, Neilsen measures viewership in two ways: ratings (which are presented as a single number and represent the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen's household monitoring) and the "cume" (the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day). Unlike the average ratings number, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer. So CNN has a higher "cume" than Fox, while Fox has higher ratings than CNN.

[Cartman]

Are you fn serious? I wondered why the stats were so skewed as CNN seems to be quite popular and it has been around for some time. I am gonna look this up because this is really, really fascinating to me anyways. Thanx BD!

That is really deceptive.

[Black Dog]

I understand that it's conventional wisdom in the industry that people tune into CNN for news updates and headlines and Fox for commentary.

[moderateamericain]

I understand that it's conventional wisdom in the industry that people tune into CNN for news updates and headlines and Fox for commentary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quoted for truth.

[Black Dog]

Quoted for truth.

Meaning...what?

[Montgomery Burns]

CNN producer to guest:  Get angry about Hurricane Katrina when you go on the air

And guess who broke this story?  Michael Kinsley, a lifelong diehard liberal.

CNN's tepid reply to getting busted was pathetic.   :angry:

And there is even more.   On the 4th anniversay of September 11, CNN, TNT and CNN Headline News chose to air a sick commercial from a moonbat conspiracy web site, claiming that the World Trade Center was blown up on purpose with controlled detonations:

Why people are tuning out CNN and moving to Fox because they want fair and balanced news

Nice 9-11 tribute, CNN.  About as classy as the 9-11 tribute from that Hollyweird landwhale, Michael Moore.

No wonder Fox's ratigns are 2.5 to 3 times higher than CNN's.  The public only wants fair and balanced news.

And CNN in the USA is actually mild compared to CNN International.  CNN Int'l is akin to the EUrinal media; hardcore anti-Americanism.   :angry:

Jealousy is such a strong emotion....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats too bad, CNN is far more balanced then most of the others. Fox news can some times be neutral but several of their "talking heads" are obviously pro conservative. CNN in my opinion is still the most honest, or attempt to be honest network news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but I disagree. Fox cannot hold a candle to all the scandals of CNN. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

1) CNN admitting they didn't report on Saddam's atrocities because they wanted to keep their Baghdad bureau open.

2) Eason Jordan claiming that the US military was deliberately targeting journalists (he said this at a European conference in Geneva). When asked to provide some proof, he huffed and puffed, refused to turn over the videotape, and then resigned when the pressure got too strong.

3) Peter Arnett. Nuff said!

4) Paul Begala and James Carville were allowed to continue hosting Crossfire when they were both advisors to John Kerry's campaign - a blatant conflict of interest. Just imagine if two Fox News personalities were advising the Bush campaign while hosting a Fox News show. The liberal media would have blown a gasket.

Indeed, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal took a leave of absence from the WSJ when she went to work on the Bush campaign. That's called integrity.

5) Remember Judy Woodruff after Zell Miller's speech at the RNC? She said to Zell, "Why don't you just join the other side?", and then crossed her arms across her chest and turned away from Miller - refusing to even look at him.

6) Jack Cafferty. In all the years I have watched CNN, he has NEVER read ONE email that supported Bush. Consdidering that a majority of the public supports Bush, I find this very very biased.

7) That US Marine general who said it was fun to shoot at the Taliban. CNN only showed that phrase. However Fox showed what he said before that, i.e., that the Taliban liked to slap around women and ergo, it was fun to shoot the Taliban and kicks their asses. Politically correct? No. But put in context, i believe that most of the public agreed with the general.

8) Today. CNN was spinning that California Governor Ahnold was in trouble. Bull. Even in liberal California, he is popular. He will be reelected. Mark my words.

9) Today. Wolf Blitzer frantically trying to spin that Bush was responsible for the lack of response in New Orleans. He had NOTHING to say about Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin. And then Blitzer was whining that the money spent on Louisiana's disaster relief would cost taxpayers. Bush cannot win on CNN. Ever.

There is a reason why Fox whips CNN's ass in the ratings. Indeed, the last ratings I saw showed only one CNN show (Larry King Live) in the top 12 cable news shows ratings. The #12 show was Fox and Friends First, which airs at 6 AM on the East Coast and 3 AM in the West Coast.

A Fox News show (Fox and Friends First) in a crap time slot beats every show on CNN for ratings except for Larry King Live.

[Montgomery Burns]

Cartman:

I do not believe or even understand the contention that the media contains a Liberal bias. I think it is a bogus complaint designed to suggest that people would love the right, but they are too stupid and brainwashed to think critically.

Good grief, Cartman. Study after study after study after study shows liberal bias in the media, yet you cannot "understand the contention that the media contains a liberal bias?"

Why do you think that the left constantly complains about the Fox News Channel, but they are virtually silent when it comes to the rest of the mainstream media?

If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, the LA Times, NPR, CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.

[I Miss Trudeau]

If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, the LA Times, NPR, CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you concede that you're a bore on the subject, then?

[Montgomery Burns]

If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, the LA Times, NPR, CBC, CTV, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you concede that you're a bore on the subject, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ahhh, childish insults. You would have fit right in with the radical leftists in the crowd at the Hitchens-Galloway debate. Indeed, your user name says it all.

[Black Dog]

There is a reason why Fox whips CNN's ass in the ratings. Indeed, the last ratings I saw showed only one CNN show (Larry King Live) in the top 12 cable news shows ratings. The #12 show was Fox and Friends First, which airs at 6 AM on the East Coast and 3 AM in the West Coast.

A Fox News show (Fox and Friends First) in a crap time slot beats every show on CNN for ratings except for Larry King Live.

Fox , like CNN , now reaches about 4 of every 5 television households in the U.S, so comparisons with broadcast news shows are valid. Both "Special Report with Brit Hume" and the "Fox Report" draw around 1 million viewers a night during prime time. Compare that with the numbers from the big three: NBC's "Nightly News" averages 8.4 million households, ABC's "World News Tonight" averages 7 million and CBS's "Evening News", "liberal bias" and all, reaches 6 million households.

So next time someone talks at length about the rating juggernaut that is FOX News, keep these numbers in mind.

[Montgomery Burns]

There is a reason why Fox whips CNN's ass in the ratings. Indeed, the last ratings I saw showed only one CNN show (Larry King Live) in the top 12 cable news shows ratings. The #12 show was Fox and Friends First, which airs at 6 AM on the East Coast and 3 AM in the West Coast.

A Fox News show (Fox and Friends First) in a crap time slot beats every show on CNN for ratings except for Larry King Live.

Fox , like CNN , now reaches about 4 of every 5 television households in the U.S, so comparisons with broadcast news shows are valid. Both "Special Report with Brit Hume" and the "Fox Report" draw around 1 million viewers a night during prime time. Compare that with the numbers from the big three: NBC's "Nightly News" averages 8.4 million households, ABC's "World News Tonight" averages 7 million and CBS's "Evening News", "liberal bias" and all, reaches 6 million households.

So next time someone talks at length about the rating juggernaut that is FOX News, keep these numbers in mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Old habits die hard. The Fox News Channel first aired in 1996. Compare that to the lengthy history of the 3 network channels. However, while Fox has gained viewership, the Big 3 have lost viewership. They will likely lose more viewers in years to come as their audience is older (check out the commercials that run during their supper broadcasts) than the Fox News viewers.

Surveys seem to suggest that cable news has become more important than traditional ratings might reflect. In 2003, the household weekly average for time spent watching cable news was 3 hours and 6 minutes, significantly higher than the 2 hours and 19 minutes spent watching broadcast news (including network news magazine shows), according to an analysis by CNN of Nielsen data. The Pew Research Center surveys have asked people where they go for most of their national and international news. More people cite cable than network, and have for some time. In January 2003, for example, a Pew survey asking people simply to identify whether their favored news source was cable, network or local found cable held a 36-point advantage over network - 49% to 13%.

Since many leftists start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of the FNC, I suspect it is having an impact. Even Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC launched numerous attacks against Fox News the moment the Liberal Party. I specifically remember Peter Mansbridge mentioning the FNC 3 times by name on the 11 PM news the day the Liberal Party lifted its 5 year ban off the channel.

I find it telling that the left denies there is a liberal bias in the media (the corporate media mantra), but the only news source that greatly angers them is the FNC.

Besides, FNC viewers were proven - inadvertently - by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) to be the most informed about Iraq - by a 4 to 1 margin over those who got their news from the liberal media.

I remember the lefties gleefully triumphing the results of the PIPA study, "See, Fox News viewers are uninformed; they're morons"...but then the PIPA report exploded in their face. They don't bring up the PIPA study anymore.

I find the FNC refreshing. It's different not seeing Republicans being treated so hostile - like they usually are by the liberal media. I also enjoy seeing liberals squirm when they are asked to back up their views with facts. I think that is the main reason why the left hates the FNC so much. Liberals often end up looking, well, dumb when they appear on the FNC and aren't asked the typical softball questions they are used to receiving. However, I believe some of that is due to complacency on their part; they're not used to pundits or reporters questioning their views.

[Cartman]

I find it telling that the left denies there is a liberal bias in the media (the corporate media mantra), but the only news source that greatly angers them is the FNC.

Just to clarify, I identify myself as being on the left and I really don't care where people buy their cigarettes, food or stationary supplies. I also don't care what television they view. I am not greatly angered by Fox as it is rarely on my mind and not included in my satellite package.

BTW, do you actually know the definition of "mantra"?

I still maintain that there is no liberal bias in the media and more importantly, no reason to have one. Nobody has even bothered to try and refute this point. I am sure CNN would love to have their taxes reduced.

[Black Dog]

Surveys seem to suggest that cable news has become more important than traditional ratings might reflect. In 2003, the household weekly average for time spent watching cable news was 3 hours and 6 minutes, significantly higher than the 2 hours and 19 minutes spent watching broadcast news (including network news magazine shows), according to an analysis by CNN of Nielsen data. The Pew Research Center surveys have asked people where they go for most of their national and international news. More people cite cable than network, and have for some time. In January 2003, for example, a Pew survey asking people simply to identify whether their favored news source was cable, network or local found cable held a 36-point advantage over network - 49% to 13%.

Which would explain why more people still watch CNN over Fox.

Besides, FNC viewers were proven - inadvertently - by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) to be the most informed about Iraq - by a 4 to 1 margin over those who got their news from the liberal media.

What it really said.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.

I remember the lefties gleefully triumphing the results of the PIPA study, "See, Fox News viewers are uninformed; they're morons"...but then the PIPA report exploded in their face. They don't bring up the PIPA study anymore

The PIPA report exploded in whose faces when, extactly? When WMD were found? When the links between Saddam and 9--11 were shown?

You're really in your own little world, dude.

[LotusLandLunatic]

IJust to clarify, I identify myself as being on the left ...

I still maintain that there is no liberal bias in the media ...

Just to carify, if you owned a media outlet which way would IT be leaning? If ever so slightly? Hm! Hmm? Hmmm?

[Shakeyhands]

Good grief, Cartman.  Study after study after study after study shows liberal bias in the media, yet you cannot "understand the contention that the media contains a liberal bias?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would it be possible to post a link or perhaps two to these studies that prove Liberal bias? I know I for one would enjoy reading one. Thanks.

[newbie]

I also enjoy seeing liberals squirm when they are asked to back up their views with facts.  I think that is the main reason why the left hates the FNC so much.  Liberals often end up looking, well, dumb when they appear on the FNC and aren't asked the typical softball questions they are used to receiving.  However, I believe some of that is due to complacency on their part; they're not used to pundits or reporters questioning their views.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kinda like Ann Coulter when she insisted Canada sent troops to Vietnam.

[Montgomery Burns]

How dare Ann Coulter not be up on Canadian history? Doesn't she listen to Paul Martin? Canada LEADS THE WORLD!!

[PocketRocket]

How dare Ann Coulter not be up on Canadian history?  Doesn't she listen to Paul Martin?  Canada LEADS THE WORLD!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you're apearing on tv in an interview, and you "insist", that Canada sent troops to Viet-Nam, even when told, by a Canadian, that it wasn't so, and then CONTINUE insisting, well, it kind of makes you look an ass, don't you think???

Ann Coulture is simply another example of the right's version of Michael Moore.

Yes, you have 'em too.

[newbie]

Gotta love this guy:

"History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security."

as from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5082301178.html

How bloody true.