It seems incredibly disingenuous to me for leftists to criticise the right's complaints about media bias as mere "whining". In American politics the media is generally seen as the referee and scorekeeper, and if they're biased in a particular direction that would appear to be a highly relevant factor in how the game is played.
So the question really is whether or not the media is biased, right? If it is, then complaints about the bias are legitimate and substantial, not mere whining. And all the evidence suggests that not only is the mainstream media incredibly tilted towards left-favorable coverage, but they know it and intend for their coverage to help "their side".
MW: "I think it's very disingenuous of you to charaterize these facts as "whining", when they appear to be highly relevant."
Mr. Thomas does indeed have insight.
.. and yes, it is whining.
.. and no, any supposed "liberal bias" is not very relevant. There are still more conservatives in this country than liberals (by a 10% margin in the Pew Research poll)... and the poll data on the Presidential election hasn't changed all that much since Kerry was found to be the presumptive Democratic nominee earlier this year.
The other thing to keep in mind is that liberals too complain that the media is too conservative.... just as conservatives complain that the media is too liberal.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think the media is too much of anything. It is what it is.
Mark, I disagree...sort of.
The mainstream media definitely tilts to the left. There are way too many examples of this to list. There is an interesting article about this here.
The only "mainstream" news that I know of that doesn't tilt fully left is Fox News. Surprisingly, the left constantly complains about Fox and says they tilt to the right, which is absolutely untrue. I watch Fox a lot, and like it primarily because I get mostly neutral coverage, with points of view from both sides.
A good example of this is Hannity and Colmes. They pick on each other every night for at least an hour, and I get the benefit of seeing both sides.
The reason I say I "kinda" disagree, is because the right has a good hold on talk-radio (and blogs, from what I can tell), which might even out the "score", so to speak.
The only reason anyone calls the media conservative is because some moonbats are so far out in left field that the liberal media appears conservative, when compared to them or the indivudals they associate with on a regular basis. Think Pauline "I can't believe it! I don't know a single person who voted for [Nixon]!" Kael.
The far right is no different. They rightly call the media liberal, but wrongly apply the same label to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Guiliani, and even George W. Bush.
Mark: Just because there may be 10% more conservatives means we shouldn't complain if the media acts to overcome that advantage? Since when does the media get a vote? Why do they get to "legitimately" work to level the playing field without getting called on it?
MW: "shouldn't complain if the media acts to overcome that advantage?"
That makes no sense. I think the media pulls everyone to the center... or within a few ticks of it in either direction.
I just don't think it's an injustice... like you seem to.
JP: "the right has a good hold on talk-radio (and blogs, from what I can tell), which might even out the "score", so to speak."
There are plenty of liberal blogs... but you're right about talk radio. It's plenty conservative.
Do I care that talk radio is more conservative? Or that Fox News appears to be conservative or right-down-the-middle (depending on who you talk to)? No.
To me, the media is nothing more than a slave to what the public finds interesting. The irony here is that the media usually only reports.. in major detail.. on issues that tend to be of the hot-button variety. The only things that are newsworthy are things that stir some sort of emotion in people.
The truth is in the eye of the beholder.. when it comes to news and news reporting. Many reporters for the major networks and newspapers are Democrats.. of either the liberal or moderate variety. What's "centrist" to them is probably not centrist to everyone. The kicker, though, is that many editors are conservative.
Oops.. forgot to explain the irony part.
The irony is that people complain about the media being biased... but only when they report on hot-button issues, which tends to be often because, as I said, they're slaves to what the public finds interesting.
Michael, it's fruitless to debate people like Mark on this issue. Mark is simply going through the same motions of defending the liberal media that the media itself went through from the 70's onward. First, deny the media is leftwing in its beliefs (1970's). Second, once that's proven utterly wrong, deny that the media's beliefs influences its reporting (1980's). Once a conglomeration of empirical research shows that claim to be thoroughly untenable, simply accuse your accusers of doing the same thing (1990's). And when that fails as well in view of the aforementioned empirical evidence, fall back on self-contradicting statements like "truth is in the eye of the beholder" and innane shibboleths like "it is what it is"----then just hope that by confusing and confounding the issue you make it go away.
If Darwinism had this much evidence in its favor, Pat Robertson would be preaching in a monkey suit. So, Michael, the question now isn't whether the media is biased, and the goal is not to bring sight to the volitionally blind, the question is what can we do about it, and will we do it. And you've obviously found an answer to those questions in your own way.
Hmm... from the 70's onward, eh? I guess this "liberal media" threw it's ideology out the window and "decided" to let Reagan, Carter (conservative Democrat), Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. win their presidential elections and.. at the same time.. crushed McGovern, Dukakis, and Al Gore.
Please... spare me your monomaniacal musings on the "liberal media"'s pivotal role in society's supposed decline. I'm sorry.. but the sky simply isn't falling.
The truth is indeed in the eye of the beholder when it comes to news and reporting. You may see it through the colored glasses with which you view the world as a "self-contradicting statement"... but it's true.
The truth about news and events belongs to those who seek, find, and report what they've found. If no one ever reports an event to the people who weren't there to witness it, it's as if it never happened. The only people who know the truth are the ones who personally witness it, gather reports from people who did, or come to unmistakable conclusions based on evidence that's left behind.
When a story is slanted to the left or the right, what's reported as "the truth" is indeed in the eye of the beholder who, in these cases, is the reporter, editor, or producer (or all of the above). It happens all the time... in all forms of media. Stories are spun to the left and to the right almost without warning. The way stories are spun or slanted varies... whether it's in the specific language that's used or picked out... or whether it's in what they're NOT telling you... spin and slant comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes.
The collective adjective for the media as "liberal", though, is misleading in itself.
As a Canadian observer, I don't see the American media as particularly liberal. One can pick out examples to support the position that it is too liberal or too conservative but I suspect that it really falls into the "how many angels" category.
Whaddya mean, "as a Candian observer?" It sounds like you're comparing apples to oranges by arguing that the American media is not very liberal relative to Canada. If not, what's your point?