Media Bias  by Roger King  

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Media Bias
  3. Conclusion

Introduction

Why Reporters -- and Judges and Professors -- Are Biased  by Dennis Prager  For most liberal news reporters, therefore, the purpose of news reporting is not to report news as objectively as possible. The purpose of the media in general and of reporting specifically is to promote social justice and the social transformation of society.

Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources  at The Pew Research Center  August 17, 2008   The public continues to express skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media. No major news outlet - whether broadcast or cable, print or online - stands out as particularly credible.

There has been little change in public perceptions of the credibility of most major news organizations between 2006 and 2008. Over the last 10 years, however, virtually every news organization or program has seen its credibility marks decline.

 

Figure

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abandoned in America, The Death of Awareness   by  Ben N. Venzke   July 18 2008   Journalism in this country has always held a privileged role and rightfully so. There was a reason why a newspaper had certain rights and privileges that do not exist for a comic book publisher or a Hollywood studio or the people that make soap. It was a sacred duty of the media to inform the public. Something now only conveniently bandied about when a catchy scandal is breaking and "news" organizations sue to get access to government documents or say Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson or the Runaway Bride have an upcoming court appearance and well, the ratings on streaming that live.    Link

 

Media Bias

Homeland Security monitors journalists  1/7/2012  Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.  ...

The website Fast Company reports that the intel collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

NPR CEO Vivian Schiller Key Architect of FCC Govt Takeover of the News by Tara Servatius 10/25/10

National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller 

Schiller, a former New York Times executive, is one of a few dozen power players working with the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and a leftist group called Free Press to “reinvent journalism.” That’s how the FTC describes it. The FCC calls what they are doing the “Future of Journalism.” Free Press, a think tank funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, among others, calls it “the new public media.”

It’s all the same thing, a plan to take over local news coverage from for-profit television, radio and print media, which Schiller and her friends claim is in danger of extinction. These “friends” get together regularly with the heads of the FCC and FTC to brainstorm the details in government and congressional meetings. These meetings include the leaders of all the country’s public broadcasting outlets, including PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and American Public Media.

They are beefing up their staffs in local news markets with herds of public news reporters to “take over” coverage as commercial media fails. Nationwide, this will cost $40 billion to $60 billion over a decade, they believe. Their plans, according to the FCC’s Future of Media report, are to raise this money by taxing for-profit news organizations – the ones whose reporting Schiller is supposedly trying to “save.” They want to charge “spectrum fees” of five percent of broadcast station revenues for use of the public spectrum and airwaves, which the government controls. They figure that could bring in $1.8 billion a year. A one percent tax on all electronic devices like cell phones, televisions and laptops could bring in billions more. So would a monthly fee on internet subscriptions.

Thoughtcrime: D.C. Reporter Suspended for Accurate Report on BP’s Donations to Obama by Robert Bluey Aug 11th 2010 WJLA-TV, a Washington, D.C. ABC affiliate, suspended reporter Doug McKelway following his alleged “partisan” comments at a liberal rally on Capitol Hill marking the three-month anniversary of the Gulf oil spill.  ...

McKelway stuck to the truth about BP’s political contributions and pending cap-and-trade legislation, newsworthy subjects given that the event’s organizers were lobbying to “pass legislation to end America’s addiction to oil and urged lawmakers to donate campaign money raised from the oil industry to the clean-up efforts in the Gulf.”

According to the Washington Post, it was McKelway’s supposedly controversial comments on July 20 that led to his suspension. Anonymous sources at the station are now accusing him of “insubordination” in an apparent attempt to fire him.

McKelway’s live report began with a factually correct statement about BP’s donations to President Obama. McKelway accurately noted that Obama received $77,051 from the BP employees, information verified by the Center for Responsive Politics.

When McKelway asked one of the event’s participants to comment on it, Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network acknowledged it was a problem for Obama. The rally was organized by left-wing groups Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen.

At the end of the live segment, McKelway talked about the prospect of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, a topic related to the rally, which urged lawmakers to “take immediate action to pass climate and energy legislation.”

NBC, CBS won't air anti-mosque ad By Hillary May July 15, 2010  Two major broadcasters have refused to air an advertisement that urges Americans to protest the building of a mosque and Islamic cultural center just blocks from the ruins of the World Trade Center. 

NBC and CBS refused to broadcast the 60-second ad, which is sponsored by the National Republican Trust, a conservative organization that promotes "American values" and supports candidates running for government positions. 

Fox Turns On Wilders By Rich Trzupek  March 24, 2010  why is Fox following its brethren in the media by ignoring the Wilders trial, a story that is full of so many themes that might otherwise attract Fox’s attention? Could it have anything to with Saudi Arabian prince Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s stake in News Corp [4].? Might Murdoch’s increasingly cozy relationship [5] with Arabic media giant Rotana Group have something to do with it? Murdoch’s maverick news organization appears to playing a subtle, yet dangerous game.

Unlike its fellow networks, Fox is ready and willing to denounce radical jihadists who threaten not only the west, but who – if left unchecked – will upset delicate power structures in Muslim theocracies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that lean toward the west. But, for Fox, calling out the religious system of governance that empowers and enriches the princes of Saudi Arabia and the UAE seems to be out of bounds. Free speech, it would appear, has it limits – even at Fox News.

Sarah Palin’s Detractors and Double Standards  By Andrew Cline February 16, 2010  When recently released e-mails revealed that Palin sought her husband Todd’s advice [2] on numerous issues while she was governor of Alaska, the media gasped in horror. Why, he’s just a snowmobile racer!

Darker musings soon surfaced. The Washington Post “reported” that the e-mails “sent and received by Todd Palin further illuminate the personal quirks, machinations and frustrations of the Palins….” Machinations? Apparently, when male Democratic politicians consult their wives, it’s a sign of wisdom and humility. When a female Republican governor consults her husband, there must be a sinister plot afoot.

For the politically correct Left, gender makes all the difference. Thus, it was appropriate for powerful men such as Obama and Clinton to consult their wives because it fit the leftist notion that these men were sharing power with their wives. This transfer of power from males to females, no matter how slight, was progress. By contrast, Palin was transferring power to her husband. That’s bad because, you know, he’s a guy. Power has to run the other way.

One also detects an element of liberal elitism. Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama are all lawyers, while Todd Palin is a high-school graduate who worked as a production supervisor for an oil company. In the view of the media and liberal elites, what could he possibly know?

The other Palin-related controversial non-controversy this past week happened when she was shown to have written a few notes on her hand [3] for her Tea Party Convention speech last Saturday. The Left went bonkers: Oh, she’s so dumb she has to crib her speech!

New MRC Report Details 40+ Surveys Showing Media's Liberalism and Public's Rejection of Bias by Rich Noyes  02/18/2010

WHAT JOURNALISTS THINK

HOW JOURNALISTS VOTE

WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT BIAS

For details about these and many other surveys, check out the new “Media Bias 101” at www.MRC.org.

Washington Post Suggests Crazed Pilot Joseph Stack Was A Tea Partier By Rob on February 18, 2010  Joseph Stack, a disturbed man who rammed his airplane into the Echelon Building in Austin Texas, apparently wrote a suicide note.  And Jonathan Capeheart, on Washington Post’s ironically-named PostPartisan blog, is suggesting that said suicide note makes him a tea partier.   ...

Capeheart goes on to make the predictable McVeigh references, but there’s a problem.  Here’s the ending of the Stack suicide note Capeheart quotes:

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.  Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010

Here, via Allah, is how his suicide note really ended:

Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010

Maybe Capeheart missed it, but railing against capitalism is hardly a tea-party ideal.  What’s more, Capeheart also left out the Bush-bashing part of Stack’s letter, though being tough on Bush is something tea partiers do.

A Leninist View of the American Media  by David G. Muller, Jr.  March 26, 2009   The premise that now guides the mainstream media is something we haven't seen before in this country - thus the never-ending consternation of conservatives at the blatant bias of the media and the nonchalance of its practitioners when caught in the act. We have seen press behavior like this before, though - not here, but in China and the Soviet Union during their classical Leninist eras. ...

When we look through this Leninist prism, the behavior of today's American mainstream media becomes quite comprehensible. Where conservatives see dishonesty, double standards, and deception, media practitioners see themselves as fulfilling their role in consolidating Party power in pursuit of a socialist utopia. They have fundamentally different ideas of the media's role in society.

How did this happen? Unlike the China or Soviet Union of the 1950s, there is no explicitly Leninist curriculum in the journalism schools, nor have the Democrats formally appointed political commissars on television and newspaper editorial staffs. Yet the effect is clearly apparent. There seems to be a natural, organic affinity between a political party with dictatorial ambitions and the press, and this makes formal indoctrination or routine enforcement unnecessary.

 
More interesting, what does this Leninist model predict for the mainstream media and its fealty to the Democratic Party? Today's media adhere closely to all the above rules except the last one: exclusivity. NBC or the New York Times may enforce ideological uniformity within their organizations, but what about independent, conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh or National Review?
 
Democrats have been explicit about plans to revive the Fairness Doctrine, whose implicit goal is to drive conservatives off the talk-radio airwaves. There is no reason to think that a new Fairness Doctrine would not also be festooned with prohibitions against public "hate speech," defined as anything critical of the Left's political program or personalities. Hate speech prohibitions could also be extended to the Internet, targeting conservative opinion sites and blogs. A compliant Supreme Court is only an appointment or two away.
 
Nor is direct government ownership of media outlets out of the question. We already have the Public Broadcasting System, and this model could be applied more broadly. In this era of government bailouts, how hard is it to imagine a national icon such as the New York Times, crippled by shrinking advertising revenues, seeking government support "in the public interest"?

 

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1  by William Tate  at IBD editorials July 23, 2008   True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

      LINK

Selected, Not Elected.. Again  by Bob Parks  Tuesday, June 10, 2008   According to a new Rasmussen poll, Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many - 68% - -believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.   Link

55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem Than Campaign Cash  at Rasmussen Reports  August 11, 2008   The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions.  Link

Journalists Liberal? Just Ask Huffington Post   by Dan Gainor September 11, 2008  The latest issue of the media mag American Journalism Review gives a wee hint to the leanings of journalists. A study showed that the No. 1 blog read by political reporters is ... the lefty site http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.

The communications firm Brodeur interviewed 69 political reporters and it showed both HuffPo and DailyKos in the top five ahead of the one conservative site, Townhall.com.   Link

In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias by John Perazzo October 31, 2008

What did the mainstream media miss in 2008?  at World Net Daily WorldNetDaily's "readers' choice" picks for the 10 most underreported stories of 2007 were:

  1. Developments moving U.S. and continent closer to a North American Union.

  2. Bush's refusal to pardon imprisoned Border Patrol Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were prosecuted by the president's friend, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton.

  3. Research refuting man-made global warming.

  4. Lack of action on border fence mandated by Congress.

  5. California bill introducing homosexuality to young children.

  6. Hillary and her felonious fundraising.

  7. Illegal aliens who rape, murder, kill driving drunk, commit voter fraud, welfare fraud and burden the system

  8. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein's resignation from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, which she chaired, amid a conflict of interest due to her husband's ownership of two major defense contractors.

  9. Progress of Law of the Sea Treaty.

  10. Syria's alleged WMDs and Israel's attack.

Obama inauguration got unprecedented news coverage   January 21, 2009  LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's inauguration generated an unprecedented 35,000 stories in the world's major newspapers, television and radio broadcasts over the past day -- about 35 times more than the last presidential swearing-in -- a monitoring group said on Wednesday.

NPR wants Fox to remove logo on O'Reilly UPDATE Fox responds  by Michael Calderone  February 12, 2009  NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard devoted her latest column to reader complaints about Fox News contributor Juan Williams, who she described as the biggest "lightning rod" among all of NPR's staff.

It's gotten to the point that according to Shepard, "NPR's Vice President of News, Ellen Weiss, has asked Williams to ask that Fox remove his NPR identification whenever he is on O'Reilly."

The New York Times vs. Accurate Cuban History  by Humberto Fontova   February 19, 2009  Instead of the American founding, the New York Times aches for its former days of glory—when every imbecility on Fidel Castro the Times and other leftist media outlets reported established Beltway talking points:

Every night during 1959, scores of Cuban patriots crumpled to firing squads while Fidel, Raul, and Che repaired to their respective stolen mansions and met with Soviet GRU agents to button down the complete communization of Cuba. Many Cuban refugees banged desperately on U.S. newsroom and State Department doors trying to get these facts reported. Alas, at the time, this detail did not qualify as among “all the news that's fit to print.”

 

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
 "Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees"
 "Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
 "Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:
 "Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $170 million"
 "Obama Spends $170 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
 "Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
 "Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Conclusion