"What Liberal media"??

[Gimpy]

If you believe there is liberal mainstream media in the United States, then you were probably Ann Coulter's bunkmate in the Heritage Foundation psycho ward for rabid right wing psychotics. With mercilessly thorough documentation, Eric Alterman decimates the farcical notion that the American media is dominated by liberals.
Given a corporate-owned press that benefits from the deregulation and tax cut environment that enriches the wealthy, it's a testament to the robust lungs and potty-mouthed tenacity of right wing media celebrities that they can perpetuate the myth of a progressive mainstream media.
Alterman's book is a touchstone of truth amidst the dross of mad rants by manic GOP "pundit celebrities." Alterman, for instance, documents how the Wall Street Journal "editors are so deeply committed to the far-right propaganda they espouse, they frequently contradict the reporting in their own newspaper." Armed with 40 pages of footnotes, Alterman vanquishes any notion of a liberal press. What we are left with is a media that serves as a propaganda news outlet for the right wing of the Republican party. The modern D.C. journalist, for the most part, is really a public relations writer for the White House. Even if you've known how "in the tank" the media is with the Republican Party, this book will get you even angrier. When you finish, make a commitment to voice your objections to the media as often as you can.
The question of whose interests the media protects -- and how -- has achieved holy-grail-like significance. Is media bias keeping us from getting the whole story? If so, who is at fault? Is it the liberals who are purported to be running the newsrooms, television and radio stations of this country, duping an unsuspecting public into mistaking their party line for news? Or is it the conservatives who have identified media bias as a reliably inflammatory rallying cry around which to consolidate their political base as they cynically "work the refs?" The media has become so pervasive in our lives that regardless of exactly where on the ideological fence you sit, the question of media bias has become all but unavoidable.
Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.
What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for "liberal" bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.
After reading What Liberal Media? you will understand that the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right-regardless of how "liberal" any given reporter may be.
What People Are Saying about "What Liberal Media?"
The myth of the liberal media is an idea that is gaining currency; this is a strong opening salvo in that much-needed discussion."
-- Ilene Cooper, Booklist, American Library Association
"The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. . . . For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion."
-- John Moe for Amazon.com.
"Alterman . . . seeks to debunk the notion [of a liberal bias in media] and goes so far as to argue that bastions of alleged liberalism like the Washington Post and ABC News 'have grown increasingly cowed by false complaints of liberal bias and hence, progressively more sympathetic to the most outlandish conservative complaints.' He largely succeeds: whatever your politics, Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable form."
-- Publisher's Weekly
*****************************

[SuperScout]

More bias?
More and more reporters are stepping out to disclose bias in the press.
First was CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg, a 28-year veteran of the network until being forced off the air, charging that bias at the big-three network is so obvious and comes so naturally to media luminaries such as Dan Rather that "it's hardly worth discussing anymore."
Oh, yes, it is worth discussing, says Peter Collins, for nine years ABC News' correspondent in Central America, reporting for "World News Tonight" and "Nightline."
Recently retired from journalism and feeling "liberated," Mr. Collins charges that ABC anchorman Peter Jennings manipulated news scripts to praise the former Soviet-backed Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
Telling his story to CNSNews.com, Mr. Collins charges that Mr. Jennings dictated changes in his television script to sing the praises of the Sandinista government's "new, unselfish society," for reducing illiteracy and "launch[ing] the biggest land reform in Central America."
Mr. Jennings "took a piece that I had written about the 10th anniversary of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua [in 1989] and first asked his producer to correct it for me and then he himself called me up in Managua and essentially dictated to me what I should say," Mr. Collins says.
"Basically what Mr. Jennings wanted was for me to make a favorable pronouncement about the 10 years of the Sandinista revolution, and he called me up, massaged my script in a way that I no longer recognized it."
ABC News publicist Cathie Levine told CNSNews.com that neither Mr. Jennings nor the network had anything to say about it.

[Gimpy]

"common ground"---I have NEVER had much use for Peter Jennings either. However, I must say that my "opinion" of Rush Limbuger and Bill O'Reilly are just as revolting as is my opinion of Jennings.

No matter, Eric Alterman makes good, sound and convincing arguements for as much (if not MORE) "bias" from the "Korn-survatives" as there supposedly is from the "liberals"!

[SuperScout]

Kindly consider the source: Eric Alterman is about as unbiased and as far left as Fidel Castro, so how could he pen any objective piece about how liberal or not the press is? On the other hand, Bernie Goldberg was an insider at the highest levels, and witnessed firsthand the liberal slant and delivery of the news at CBS. His book blows the cover of pseudo-objectivity off the press and documents this phoniness in great detail in many of the major news broadcasters. There was a time during the elections of 2000 when Tom Brokaw asked a Democratic political operative, when viewing election results, "Does this report mean that we won the state of Missouri?" "We won"? Objective? It was probably more than a Freudian slip on Brokaw's part, but then it was no surprise, or shouldn't have been any surprise.

And re-read the original post of yours: "...corporate owned press..." Is this a touch of class-warfare, or a thinkly veiled attack on capitalism? Who is supposed to own the press, the "people"? And why start off a piece with name calling, such as "...rabid right wing psychotics..." Was this a cut-and-paste review, or is this your way of starting an argument? Neither is very bright.

[reconeil]

Plus, your stating: "The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effective than liberals...", pretty-much proves it. After all, anyone owning a TV and witnessing a debate between most Conservative or Liberal Senators or Congressmen know full well that your: "The fact..." is nothing more than pure liberal fiction and quite the factual reverse of what you stated. Hell, most liberals asked a simple question will rant and rave until The Moderator cuts them off,...and still won't answer a simple question not to their liking and/or counter Dems/Libs.

Still, and in fairness to liberals, it must be admitted that they most all wild-eyed and fanatically stick-to-their-guns (naturally not real guns since detesting same in private hands),...whether caught flat-out-lying and stealing, being biasedly superior, and even when placing the well being of foreigners, foreign ethnicities, and races above the vast majority of The American Citizenry. Regardless, from Libs such is to be expected.

So, and what really bothers me is that most Conservative Senators and Congressmen on TV are so-damn-civil. Even when being nonsensically called starvers of children and old folks, and being everything but mothered, they show no emotion,...not even a well deserved punch-in-the-mouth.

The best that The Conservative wousses can come-up-with are words like: "I guess that my distinguished (even though obvious liar) colleague and I will have agree to disagree". Further NONSENSE.

Neil disappointed Conservative

[Gimpy]

Not very bright---

Anyway, I kinda liked that part about the "rabid, right-wing psychotics". ESPECIALLy when used in the "context" he used it about being "Ann Coulter's bunkmate in the Heritage Foundations psycho ward"---Because that's JUST where SHE belongs.

I also like the part about---"with merciless, thorough documention" he proves his point!

BTW---it WAS a "cut and paste review"---But NOT to "start an arguement" -- Only to PROVE that the "myth" is just THAT--a MYTH perpetrated and perpetually propagandized by the likes of Rush Limburger, Neil Boortz, Ann Coulter, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and that CHAMPION of "right-wing" morals and values and virtues his-seff---the biggest HYPOCRITE of them ALL, you know that guy that wrote all those childrens books about, VIRTUES and VALUES and is the SPOKESPERSON for ALL that is supposed to be R-I-G-H-T (wing that is) William Bennet. You know that fellow who thinks it's O.K. to gamble away more than $8 million while "professing" to be "virtuous" while he HID his HABIT of gambling away and WASTED some of his families wealth that could have been "used" for a more "moral" purpose. Talk about a "HYPOCRITE", WOW!!

Hey Neil (and Super)---THERE'S a fellow (Bennet) who's "wild eyed and sticks to his guns"--Talk about being "biasedly SUPERIOR" to the point of hilarious hypocrisy--you guys have got a good one there alright!!

[reconeil]

What Bennet OR ANYBODY (especially those not on MY/OUR PAYROLL and/or Oath Taking Controllers) do with their personal money is irrelevent.

What is relevent TO MANY, is how Dems/Libs/Socialists want to take as much as possible of MY/OUR MONEY, and would like to preferentially disperse same as they alone see fit to The Connected, supporters and/or those affiliated with or beholding to "Them" somehow.

Besides, I personally could put MY MONEY to better use (even at Atlantic City),...than any bloated and all-encompassing government could ever do (France excluded since they've truly mastered socialism quite well).

Neil

[Gimpy]

when the person espousing "virtues" over "vice" to our nations young folk ( and supports the so-called anti-
liberal" point of view" in doing so) can claim he's "not" got a "problem" with gambling---HORSE $HIT!

Check THIS OUT.

****************************

Newsweek: Bennett's gambling problem

VIRTUES AND VICES
Let?s also be honest that gambling would not be our first-choice vice if we were designing this fantasy-come-true from scratch. But gambling will do. It will definitely do. Bill Bennett has been exposed as a humbug artist who ought to be pelted off the public stage if he lacks the decency to slink quietly away as he is constantly calling on others to do. (Bennett on Monday issued a statement saying he was giving up gambling, adding, ?This is not an example I wish to set.?)
Although it may be impossible for anyone famous to become permanently discredited in American culture (a Bennett-like point I agree with), Bennett clearly deserves that distinction. There are those who will try to deny it to him. They will say:

Working his way down the list of other people?s pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient.

1.) He never specifically criticized gambling. This, if true, doesn?t show that Bennett is not a hypocrite. It just shows that he?s not a complete idiot. Working his way down the list of other people?s pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient. Is there some reason why his general intolerance of the standard vices does not apply to this one? None that he?s ever mentioned.
Open, say, Bennett?s The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, and read about how Americans overvalue ?unrestricted personal liberty.? How we must relearn to ?enter judgments on a whole range of behaviors and attitudes.? About how ?wealth and luxury ... often make it harder to deny the quest for instant gratification? because ?the more we attain, the more we want.? How would you have guessed, last week, that Bennett would regard a man who routinely ?cycle[s] several hundred thousand dollars in an evening? (his own description) sitting in an airless Las Vegas casino pumping coins into a slot machine or video game? Well, you would have guessed wrong! He thinks it?s perfectly OK as long as you don?t spend the family milk money.

2.) His gambling never hurt anyone else. This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it?s a good one. If a hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another, the problem with Bennett is what he says ? not (as far as we know) what he does. Bennett can?t plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about. He wants to put marijuana smokers in jail. He wants to make it harder to get divorced. He wants more ?moral criticism of homosexuality? and ?declining to accept that what they do is right.?
Washington Monthly on Bennett

In all these cases, Bennett wants laws against or heightened social disapproval of activities that have no direct harmful effects on anyone except the participants. He argues that the activities in question are encouraging other, more harmful activities, or are eroding general social norms in some vague way. Empower America, one of Bennett?s several shirt-pocket mass movements, officially opposes the spread of legalized gambling, and the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, one of Bennett?s cleverer PR conceits, includes ?problem? gambling as a negative indicator of cultural health. So, Bennett doesn?t believe that gambling is harmless. He just believes that his own gambling is harmless. But by the standards he applies to everything else, it is not harmless.

Bennett has been especially critical of libertarian sentiments coming from intellectuals and the media elite. Smoking a bit of pot may not ruin their middle-class lives, but by smoking pot they create an atmosphere of toleration that can be disastrous for others who are not so well grounded. The Bill Bennett who can ooze disdain over this is the same Bill Bennett who apparently thinks he has no connection to all those ?problem? gamblers because he makes millions preaching virtue and they don?t.

3. He?s doing no harm to himself. From the information in Alter?s and Green?s articles, Bennett seems to be in deep denial about this. If it?s true that he?s lost $8 million in gambling casinos over 10 years, that surely is addictive or compulsive behavior no matter how good virtue has been to him financially. He claims to have won more than he has lost, which is virtually (that word again!) impossible playing the machines as Bennett apparently does. If he?s not in denial, then he?s simply lying, which is a definite non-virtue. And he?s spraying smarm like the worst kind of cornered politician ? telling the Washington Post, for example, that his gambling habit started with ?church bingo.?

Even as an innocent hobby, playing the slots is about as far as you can get from the image Bennett paints of his notion of the Good Life. Surely even a high-roller can?t ?cycle through? $8 million so quickly that family, church, and community don?t suffer. There are preachers who can preach an ideal they don?t themselves meet and even use their own weaknesses as part of the lesson. Bill Bennett has not been such a preacher. He is smug, disdainful, intolerant. He gambled on bluster, and lost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HARDCORE]

Honorable Gents -

Ain't America Great! We can all still espouse different views, slam-dunk either side of the aisle, and yet when push comes to shove, stand side by side to the death in our mutual defense!

"Two rights, after-all, have never made a wrong!" And were it not for differing views, we would, as it was in Iraq, and still is in Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc., all march to the same distorted drummer!

"One continues to learn through debate!"

"God, you guys are great!"

[Keith_Hixson]

The Old Fashion Liberal. Who believes that we need more social concerns in government and want to protect the little guy. But support America when it goes to war, and supports idealism of a democratic government.

The New Ultra Liberal that is anti Religion, anti American, and believes that Fidel Castro is a hero, that President Bush is fascist, etc. They need to find a reality pill to swallow. I can accept the ideologies of the old fashion liberal as another way of governing but these New Ultra Liberals are a scary bunch.

Though I may not always agree with Gimpy or the Lrrpster I know that they aren't anti-American. They fought and were wounded for their country and they have a right to their beliefs. Good men, however misguided they may be.

Isn't America Great with its free flow of ideas.

Keith