Liberal Media Bias? CBS, CNN Reporters Buy Into Conservative Jargon

Click here to read examples of the so-called "liberal media" using "cut and run."

Sooner rather than later, I hope.

As it is, most Demcorats are largely silent when it comes to discussing media bias. At least they never talk about it when they are on TV or in editiorials.

But I haven't seen much more.

I thought he did well- but it needs to be done every single time by every Democrat- until the bias is either reduced or at least becomes common knowledge to the viewers.

....accusing her of being biased for the Bush administration's POV, and that she should be on their payroll if she was going to defend them---after-which Miss Phillips tried to defend she wasn't---Nancy was never invited to her show again.

The anti-Democracy MSM doesn't like being unmasked. Slapped around by Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, yes, but not unmasked by any Democratic leader, or consultant--and with "unmasking", I mean, being told the truth instead of spin.

I guess the Democratic congressmen/women are like computer viruses to the "liberal-biased" MSM.

They only trot out Howard Dean during Republican plummeting approval ratings that just come out, no doubt in the hope he says something they can use against the Democratic politicians so the Repubs quickly stand on Bush's side again, or, they pull out stuttering (think Carville), and nervous (think Margaret Carlson) "liberals" (so we look bad), or so-called liberals whom we've seldom heard about, to "debate" (i.e. agree with) the proven-seasoned rightwing apologists.

I mean really! How many times have they had Randi Rhodes (to counter rightwing talking points), David Sirota (to counter Republicans' vote against raising the minimum wage on the Federal level), Brad Friedman, or Greg Palast (to present facts and stats that America should get rid of corporate-owned voting machines).

But they have NO QUALMS to give disgraced Delay as much air-time as he needs to spout his lies without any liberal to counter him!

And tomorrow?

If your accusation is true, can you show where Nancy Pelosi, in public, raises the charge that she, the Minority House Leader, cannot get back onto that show or that network?

If you cant, then that is a huge part of the problem, isnt it?

I've seen Pelosi on TV since then, so I'm not even sure we can say she was ever "banned"- but if she was, why does she not say so?

We cant confront media bias if we only talk about it once every few months- or if we refuse to point out the times we are censored.

BTW- In fairness, Randi Rhodes is on Lou Dobbs all the time.

...which dominated the news with plenty Bush Republican apologists to spin down the humiliation aided by "liberal" commentators.

And tomorrow? Sorry, but I'm not clairvoyant so I can't tell ya.

If your accusation is true

Accusation?? BANNED?? You read my post? I didn't make an accusation. I pointed out a FACT. Since Kyra Phillips acted testy and unprofessional toward Pelosi and the minority leader in the House called her on it, has she been back then?

BTW, I never used the word "banned", nor did I make any accusation that she believes she isn't being invited back to CNN. It's just a fact that she hasn't been, and if I want to see her, I have to turn to C-Span.

We cant confront media bias if we only talk about it once every few months- or if we refuse to point out the times we are censored.

Let's just put it this way: If liberals---true liberals---weren't censored from the media, Robert Scheer would still be writing for the L.A. Times, Phil Donohue would still have the highest rated show on MSNBC, John Kerry wouldn't have been so thoroughly "swiftboated", and most importantly, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Eric Alterman never gave up a chance to passionately inform "there's no liberal media bias" and has become "persona non grata" since proving, with numbers what's already so clear, but I always return to pointing out, that had there been any? Would we be in Iraq today?

Like Megamouth Matthews said today again:"Never argue with the man who has a full pot of ink."

And in all fairness, yes, Randi Rhodes was on Lou Dobbs and Larry King a couple of times---hardly ALL the time---but I haven't seen her last week, nor this.

However, where is Greg Palast, and with Lou Dobbs highlighting e-voting machine unreliability since last week, why not invite Brad Friedman who can be called an expert in e-voting machines that go faulty without fail---against Democratic candidates, that is.

If the answer is "she did not" or "I dont know" then that is the problem.

Okay- you got me on "today"- but were there not 90 or so other days since the last time Nancy spoke up?

And another thing- why do we assume that top, elected Democrats have to sit around and WAIT to be invited on- they DO have PR people who know the phone #'s of the producers, do they not? I know that top Democrats can indeed call these shows and ask to be on.

Seems like a better strategy would be ask to be on and to publically demand equal time than to sit around and wait for a call.

The only thing that annoys me more than media bias is the fact that DEMs with media access rarely say or do anything about it.

Nancy said something once, several months ago, for about 5 seconds- that was great, but not enough.

My argument stands- if we are being censored or "not allowed" back on TV shows, then the victims need to SAY SO. Where are any top Democrats demanding equal time?- I see little or nothing of that.

I know media bias exist- I'm ready to move past using as it a catch-all excuse for our failures and to start DOING SOMETHING about it.

We can start by having top Democrats with media access saying it exists and pointing out instances where we are censored, banned, not allowed access and not given equal time.

Democratic leaders aren't coming out forceful enough.

Democratic leadership are seemingly not demanding equal time to counter Republican spin; not telling anyone in any of their press conferences that they're not being fairly treated, and as long as they don't start complaining---outside Democrats, Liberals and Progressives---no one else will ever believe it.

Got it.

I can only surmise, if I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that the lack of demanding equal air-time on cable and broadcast news shows (or complaining about it when they're refused during press conferences, for example), is that they've been so soundly pounded by MSM over the eight years under and with Clinton, and since Bush stole the presidency in 2000, that they've become "camera shy" in criticizing MSM.

Otherwise, the alternative can only mean, that they aren't as determined to frame the political discussion in their favor by fighting for the air-time normally allotted only Bush republicans and rightwing talking-heads for free, and instead believe their message is better "broadcast" through expensive ads.

Still, your point; that no Democratic leader has seemingly demanded equal time as far as we know, and if they have, and not received it, would/should complain about it every chance they get although there's no proof of this, is food-for-thought at the very least, and for our side, worrisome at worse.

However, I stand by my point that rightwing apologists, their leaders, and rightwing hacks literally dominate the airwaves usually unopposed, as opposed to liberals and progressives (usually with an opposing guest) outside Democratic leaders, and their consultants, that is.

I still maintain that now is the time to speak up about all of this- I doubt there is much more they can throw at us in retaliation- they already cost us 3 election cycles in row.

Also- please know post #44, which I wrote b/f your response, is not directed at you specifically- I have had this same argument 100s of times.

majority in Congress, now is the time for our leaders to speak up as much as they can since we're the party with the vision that goes beyond giving more taxpayer's money to the uber-wealthy in this country, and continuing this no-plan, no-end Bush-war.

NOW is the time for them to demand equal air-time or at the very least get the equivalent MSM gives to, say, Delay? That would be more than enough, I'd think. ;-)

Also- please know post #44, which I wrote b/f your response, is not directed at you specifically- I have had this same argument 100s of times.

Thanks for the preempt, but I really never thought you were "bashing Dems". As I see it, you were only helping me stop the "mea culpas" regarding the rightwing media bias, and actually helped me see that for all our complaining, we haven't heard our congresspeople on this---except for Pelosi that one time, that is--thus no progress is being made on this issue.

However, I can also understand why some DUers may construe that you're "bashing Dems" the way you formulate your posts because there's definitely a bit of anger filtering through your words ( much like the tenacity in my initial response to your initial response to my post in this thread), although now I understand it's not "anger" but rather frustration with our Democratic politicians' inability or unwillingness to be more demanding for equal time even though it is their legal right, or come right out and complain loudly enough about it.

Today, Megamouth Matthews said to Barnacle that the Democrats running for re-election, or are attempting to take seats from the Repubs, should do one thing, and one thing only in order to win the majority.

He "advised" that the Democrats should...keep their mouths shut! I mean, it even took Mike Barnacle back during that segment that it made him wince and ask in astonishment: "What??"

Megamouth repeated with an uncomfortable chuckle {paraphrasing}: "If the Democrats want to win back the majority, they need to keep their mouths shut otherwise they'll say something (a la San Diego's Busby and her "You don't papers in order to vote" which some say is why she lost the election, though not addressing the fact that the Republican "win" is illegal on account of poll workers allowed to take home the Diebold machines for days, even a week before the election in direct violation of election laws) that would hurt them.

Although Megamouth is a rightwing hack himself, he did make the point that Democratic candidates do have the tendency to shoot themselves in the foot (with LOTS of help by the MSM, of course), but that can be attributed to them being unaccustomed to standing in the spotlight since they get so little chance to do so AND clearly don't do anything to change it.

Ach! This post got longer than I initially planned.

Sorry.

*tapping foot and waiting*

Make sure you have some good arguments- a majority of DUers insist that we not pressure DEMs to adress this, but to hang on to it as an excuse for EVERYTHING.

You will be told that Democrats are "not allowed back" on certain shows- that they "have to be invited" and that if we speak up about it "they will be even MORE unfair"

My position is, if true- then who is SAYING SO in public?

I'm being serious- if you take this position as strongly as I have, several DUers will attack you.

I still maintain that Demcorats need to SAY that they are not being given equal time and that they need challenge talking heads, to their faces, whenever they use GOP talking points or repeat lies.

hardly even decent examples.

That's just the way the talking heads operate. They throw out the inflamatory buzz words because the people being interviewed are there wanting to address those buzz words specifically.

"Wolf- you DO realize that this talking point originated from Karl Rove's desk, dont you?- so why are you repeating it for him, as if you are advancing the phrase on purpose or something- care to explain yourself to your audience as to why?"

That took 5 or so seconds to get that in there. EVERY Democrat on TV should adress talking points in this manner.

though most politicians are very good at it, the public very often wants to see specific points addressed.

So that they have a better perspective as to whether the "specific points" are BS or not.

I'm not so sure our Democrats are very good at it at all- I've never seen them adress media bias.

they want people to cut through the BS and actually NOT be a typical deflecting politician and they want them to point out why the rhetoric and talking points are nothing but BS.

YMMV

And you "cut through it" by exposing it for what it is- a Rove contrived phrase that media talking heads repeat over & over.

Exposing a GOP/media talking point- exactly how is that "typical deflection"?- nothing typical about it- I've never seen it done.

Are you really saying that we should not point out the strange fact that "journalists" constantly parrot GOP talking points?

You really are kidding, right?

I mean these programs are all but basically scripted and the person the talking head is sitting across from is there to do nothing other than address the GOP talking point.

In this case it's not a bias, the DNC wants this exact situation and interview to take place and they want that question asked specifically. Everybody.... ok, well most everybody in the "biz" is in on this way things are done.

A guess, mind you-I really dont know what you are suggesting.

We either expose media bias and win some elections, or we accept it as status quo and keep losing.

I have no idea where you are coming from when you suggest the DNC wants the GOP/media to frame this as "cut & run."

If you dont see how the media constantly runs with GOP talking points (see "cut & run", "flip-flopper", "Gore invented the internet", "Hillary iwill be the nominee" Swiftboat vets, "DEMS have no plan" etc, etc)but never repeats our talking points in that manner-then you need to pay attention more.

Cheers.

is that you have sites like media matters pointing out use of conservative jargon, but most people only know media matters through the eyes of bill o'reilly and his ilk -- trying to suggest that it's a liberal propaganda site, misrepresenting its purpose.

unless you listen to al franken's show on air america, you probably won't get a fair use of (or even frequent mention of) sites like media matters.

And talk about in speeches, CSPAN & editorials too.

The problem is DEMS with media access are either ignoring the issue of media bias or holding an unrealistic hope that obscure websites like Media matters is enough to do the job.

we're talking media bias here and you think that unless I listen to Al Franken on Air America I'm not getting the straight scoop?

Are you actually trying to say that Al Franken and Air America aren't biased?

I'm sorry guys, but to be brutally honest, I see very little difference between Air America and Fox news. They are both nothing more than parrots for their respective party of choice.

And the other huge differecne is that AAR does not present outright false information- and they issue retractions when they make mistakes.

I'm prepared to list several specific examples of false information presented by Fox, CNN and MSNBC. And I'm talking MAJOR issues here to- not piddly stuff. Are you prepared to match me, issue for issue with false news from AAR? Since you 1st claimed they are the same, you can go first.

You dont get it- when Conservtives claim bias- they are talking about factual information that happens to make the GOP look bad.

When Democrats talk about bias, we are talking about how certain damaging news is omitted or lied about in favor of Bush- or how MORE access and coverage and appearances/interviews are given to the GOP.

One example of the latter is already the subject of this thread- the media dutifully repeats Rove's "cut & Run" phrase over & over- but refuses to repeat Kerry's "Lie & die" or Murtha's "Stay & pay" phrase.

I appreciate your passion, but I just can't get fired up enough to play a who is more biased game between Fox and Air America.

It's actually almost laughable to think it really matters, IMHO. It's like trying to deny the one you like is biased based only on how biased someone else is.

As I said, I don't like biased news or pundits, period. That's just me.

Media Matters is also a biased site... Just like Times Watch is....

If you can actually stand to see those you love and cherish often taken to task just as often as thier right wing cousins, check out...

http://factcheck.org/
http://www.cjrdaily.org/

I'm sure there are others

I know there really is no such thing as unbiased news, but IMHO it all pretty much sucks anymore.

Hint- next time you debate a real Liberal like me instead of the ones they let on TV, be sure to have some actual examples to back up your assertions. We will always insist on them.

When I speak of bias- I'm prepared to give examples- not empty accusations or a random link like you. Could you at least pull the examples of AAR lying from those links?

Unless you can present actual examples, then my assertion stands that AAR is factual while FOX/CNN/NBC etc lies in favor of Bush and against Demcorats.

AAR tells the TRUTH in favor of Demcorats & against Bush.

I know- I-know- Everyone knows that truth has a Liberal bias.

I see nothing on those sites with examples of AAR presenting false information.

In fact, a see little or nothing about ANY major media outlet making up false stories that hurt Bush or benefit Demcorats.

Which stories are you talking about?

I'm still prepared to list several MAJOR fake stories presented by FOX, CNN, etc that hurt Democrats or helped bush. THAT is bias, my friend.

I could list examples of FOX, CNN, NBC etc tellng MAJOR lies that favor Bush or hurt Democrats in 20-60 seconds.

I'm still giving you the opportunity to go 1st.

are apples and oranges. AAR is, by its own admission, partisan. It's the equivalent of conservative talk radio.

In theory, CBS and CNN news broadcasts are supposed to be objective.

Let's not try to compare apples and oranges. It's expected that partisan hosts are going to be partisan (hopefully truthful). Mainstream media should not be partisan (and hopefully truthful).

...we would find that AAR goes out of its way to be factual, while the rest of Big Media has presented out-right lies on several of the most important issues in our lifetime.

Point taken!

I actually disagree with that. I've been regularly disappointed with AAR. I don't think there's an effort to outright lie, but there is a lot of hyperbole, a lot of unnecessary name calling, a lot of oversimplification and sarcasm.

I really hoped that AAR would be more thoughtful in its choice of host, presentation of topics, etc. At some point, AAR decided that simply laying out the facts on Washington, providing access to Democratic voices across the country, highlighting success stories, etc., was boring.

So instead we get the loud and hyperbolic and the occassionally snide -- which isn't a whole lot better than conservative talk radio.

I'm tired of people saying "AAR is just a Liberal Rush Limbaugh" when they cant provide examples of AAR lying like RW radio does.

It's unfair to compare a station that does not lie to a whole slew of shows like Rush, that lies on a daily basis.

I can show you outright, specific lies that RW radio has put forth.
And I mean MAJOR, big lies on the biggest issues of the day- not piddly, nit-picking stuff.

Can you do the same w/ AAR?

What I said was that media watchdogs like media matters -- which frequently provide examples of use of conservative jargon and factual errors by the mainstream media -- is rarely referenced by the mainstream media.

What I said was that Franken is one of the few broadcasters to actually cite media matters (he gives David Brock a forum on his show). However, there are several conservative media, like Bill O'Reilly, who frequently misrepresent what media matters does or says, or why it exists.

***

Separately, the fact that you see little difference between Air America and Fox News is hilarious. Air America ackowledges itself as a liberal radio network. It doesn't try to disguise itself as objective.

Fox News -- I assume you mean the television network -- tries to disguise itself, at least during daytime hours, as an objective news source. The fact that they have a pronounced conservative bias is ignored by other conservative media.

Chalk it up as another actual example we have, while Ranger has nothing.

Paula Zahn is a talking head, sure. But Bash and Chen are supposedly objective reporters.

The thing is, they use these buzzwords because they know other people -- such as Fox -- are using them, and they don't want to be accused of being liberal. I can almost understand what Bash did -- she framed it as, "the republicans are doing this," which is accurate.

But what Chen did is just lazy and stupid and unnecessary. And the fact that it came after McConnell admitted the GOP knew about Casey's plan during the week, but still badmouthed the Democrats, shows how little effort Chen put into her report.

A phrase helpfully provided by the Pentagon. And while I saw several stories about the 74-page talking points bulletin the Pentagon handed out to its congressional advocates, there was precious little about the startling and unprecedented nature of the Pentagon orchestrating the debate in Congress. Apparently, the Defense Department has adopted the Republican party as its official party, which is sort of against the concept of a nonpartisan military ultimately answerable to civilian authority.

What's next? Loyalty oaths? Oops, got 'em. Will the military decide it's only going to defend Republican strongholds? And who will it view as the "enemy" against which the country needs protection? Terrorists? Democrats? Other threats to its way of life? We need some serious reforms in this country when the organs of government function for only one party and one viewpoint.

is suspect in my book . . .

... have a liberal bias, and the Republicans bitched incessantly about it. Then they took it over.

Democrats need to muster the courage to call the media what it is, Republican lap-dogs.

Like Bush Sr. did to Dan Rather, WAY back in the 1980's.

And they need to do it often, with solid examples.

The Dems should really take advantage of this crap and cut an ad outlining General Casey's statement about withdrawal, note all the media echo of cut and run, include a clip of Bush saying he will defer to his generals in the field, and not until the end identify the source of the quote as General Casey.

Actually he called for gradual reduction of the troops on a timetable. But we can then tell Karl Rove that the Iraqi prime minister wants the US troops to cut and run thus reducing Rove's slogan to ashes.

They continue to call the Iraq fiasco a war instead of an occupation.

Levin spoke about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

They fall right into the war on terror lingo.

They even repeat cut and run far more often than they should.

If they do it to themselves. If they allow the right to define things, why can't the media? It starts with them.

n/t

don't hear that much do ya?

Truth hurts, American's can't handle, so MSM won't say it!

If your answer is "none" or "I dont know" then that is part of the problem too.

Granted- the media repeats GOP talking points for them, but why do we expect them to do the same for us? Democrats should be out there saying it.