# The Fox Street Journal?



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Most people of all political persuasions hold the news coverage of the Wall Street Journal in high esteem for its impartiality and overall high quality. Given Rupert Murdoch's track record of turning news outlets he owns into organs for his political views, are you concerned that selling the Journal to Murdoch will reduce its quality and undermine its reputation for balance?


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

To paraphrase Larry Kudlow, 'the editorial page there is full of conservatives, supply siders, my kind of people'. This won't change. 

Murdoch bought it and he can do whatever he wants with it. He's smart enough to know that turning the most respected name in financial journalism into a tabloid would be poor business. 

I fully expect he'll leverage his new cable channel (does it have a name yet) with the WSJ and vice versa. May even change the WSJ website's format. 

It's a shame that the family didn't do this on thier own. They could have crushed Bloomberg long, long ago.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Glad I am paid up for the next year at the old rates, no doubt he'll raise them


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

I wish he would tell the kid that delivers my paper to quit throwing it into our flowers! The Post-Dispatch guy can toss it to my porch, why can't he? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Given Rupert Murdoch's track record of turning news outlets he owns into organs for his political views


So, no one else does that? Newspapers have been doing that in America since Benjamin Franklin. My own town newspaper is nothing more than a socialist rag - The Orlando Sentinel.

At least on Murdoch's outlets they present people from both viewpoints and let them debate. I find few or no other outlets do that. The shows that do on non-Fox networks are things like Larry Kudlow. Even then it's always the conservative hosts that present both sides and let the viewers hear both sides. You don't see that on say Keith Olbermann.

Complaining about Murdoch and Fox says far more about the complainer's reputation and concept of balance than it does Murdoch's.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I'm not saying nobody else does it. What I am saying is that up until this point, pretty much everybody, even people on the Left, says that the WSJ hasn't done it, even with their right-wing editorial positions. I don't read the Journal, but it would seem to me that people who care about journalism would care if the Journal were to go from being a paper with conservative editorial positions and objective news coverage to a paper with conservative editorial positions and an owner whose political views drive its news coverage.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

No...


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> no doubt he'll raise them


He cut the price of the NY Post when he took over to grow circulation.

I think they just raised it back up this year though.

He could easily cut the price, make WSJ.com free, run it at a loss, and really put the screws on the NY Times. He could also introduce an english-language Asian WSJ.


----------



## Mr. Papa (Jun 15, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> [P]retty much everybody, even people on the Left, says that the WSJ hasn't done it, even with their right-wing editorial positions...people who care about journalism would care if the Journal were to go from being a paper with conservative editorial positions and objective news coverage to a paper with conservative editorial positions and an owner whose political views drive its news coverage.


I agree with this. It used to be that when you watched the news, you got THE NEWS, and a commentator injecting their personal opinions sent out shock waves. Now the opposite is true, and you're lucky to eek out some news in between witty quips, sardonic observations, and superficial arguments between so-called experts. I liked the world better when my black was blacker and my white whiter, and I didn't know (or care, really,) about the opinions or star-power of the newscaster. I am horrified by the stultifying news coverage on both ends of the Republican / Democrat spectrum, each trying to pass off opinion and conjecture as news and analysis. They have weaponized the news, and their coverage skews, polarizes, and dumbs-down important issues that we citizens, as the stewards of our government, are now too often afraid (or uneducated) to effectively debate. Like it or not, the Wall Street Journal was one of the last monolithic bastions of truly conservative news that will now be sullied by the Fox entertainment machine, and in my opinion, we're all worse off for it.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not saying nobody else does it. What I am saying is that up until this point, pretty much everybody, even people on the Left, says that the WSJ hasn't done it, even with their right-wing editorial positions. I don't read the Journal, but it would seem to me that people who care about journalism would care if the Journal were to go from being a paper with conservative editorial positions and objective news coverage to a paper with conservative editorial positions and an owner whose political views drive its news coverage.


+1. And I am a moderate/conservative Republican. The paper is a respected bastion of objective reporting. I'd like it to stay that way.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Crazyquik hit the nail on the head, this is all about content for the business tv channel news corp will be launching soon. (although the landscape is littered with failed tries: anyone else remember fnn or cnnfn?) of late, CNBC has been making good money, they're the ones that will feel the squeeze first. On my directv subscription, I get CNBC and Bloomberg as all-business-news channels.

It will be interesting to see if Murdoch leverages his international empire for the tv channel. One of my criticisms of Fox News is that in the wee hours, it's just repeats of the talking head shows they run in the evening. CNN Headline is the only US news channel I'm aware of that runs new content 24/7 (yes, they cycle stories). It would be fantastic if I could get live asian and european market coverage on his tv business news channel from his overseas properties when the US markets are closed.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> He cut the price of the NY Post when he took over to grow circulation.
> 
> I think they just raised it back up this year though.
> 
> He could easily cut the price, make WSJ.com free, run it at a loss, and really put the screws on the NY Times. He could also introduce an english-language Asian WSJ.


Then I'm going to want some money back  I resigned up on the $99 for the year, paper and website. I had cancelled my subscription as the guy delivering the paper made it by my house about three days a week.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It was the left media that broke from reporting "the news" and telling us what they felt about "the news". All these "complaints" are just hilarious. The reason Fox is killing other networks is because they report "the news". Now the let claims Fox is slanting the news because it is so different from the MSM. Well, all I can say is ... you can't fool "the folks".


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I'm not saying nobody else does it. What I am saying is that up until this point, pretty much everybody, even people on the Left, says that the WSJ hasn't done it, even with their right-wing editorial positions. I don't read the Journal, but it would seem to me that people who care about journalism would care if the Journal were to go from being a paper with conservative editorial positions and objective news coverage to a paper with conservative editorial positions and an owner whose political views drive its news coverage.


I'm not sure that you can quite say the news coverage is objective, but its very good information from a business standpoint. Why would that change? He'll look for ways to get value that are untapped. This is why they have been bought, after all: they failed to capitalize on their assets.

The editorial page is already deranged, so it's unlikely that Murdoch will have to make any changes. It's unlikely, but he could even temper it a bit. Either way, I think this is probably a good thing and not a big deal at all. Time will tell, of course.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

The current owners ruined the Journal when they cut the size down width-wize.

If Murdoch now screws with Barron's, I will be p!ssed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

gregp said:


> I'm not sure that you can quite say the news coverage is objective, but its very good information from a business standpoint. Why would that change? He'll look for ways to get value that are untapped. This is why they have been bought, after all: they failed to capitalize on their assets.
> 
> The editorial page is already deranged, so it's unlikely that Murdoch will have to make any changes. It's unlikely, but he could even temper it a bit. Either way, I think this is probably a good thing and not a big deal at all. Time will tell, of course.


+1, well said.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Complaining about Murdoch and Fox says far more about the complainer's reputation and concept of balance than it does Murdoch's.


Wow. I did not think anybody in the US would still seriously argue that Fox is at it claims "fair and balanced".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Wow. I did not think anybody in the US would still seriously argue that Fox is at it claims "fair and balanced".


I do not think most people think that. It is merely slightly canted the other way from the majority of the rest of the media, hence it stands out and is the target of a multitude of attacks. If I was a broadcaster, I would look at FNC's success and figure that market is not saturated yet with just one major player in it and attempt to penetrate it myself.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Wow. I did not think anybody in the US would still seriously argue that Fox is at it claims "fair and balanced".


That's not what I said at all. I said the people attacking Fox on the basis of it's imbalance were awful silent for the last 20 years of imbalanced network news and their current attacks speak more about them than it does to Murdoch.

You're just proving my point by arguing past me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This is the type of complaining that I find telling.



So ... Rudy the front-runner is getting all the face-time? The Times feels that has to be some sort of Ailes bias. LOL 

I think the real question would be why isn't the front-runner getting face-time on the other outlets? 

Wouldn't balanced reporting be to weigh face-time on current standing in the polls? That's how we do everythign else.

In breaking news Hillary probably gets more face-time than Obama as well.

What an alternate reality some people have.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> You're just proving my point by arguing past me.


Am I?

Let's be clear. Yes, I am under the impression that Fox is unbalanced. More unbalanced to the right than the other networks are on the left. And I am sorry I was "awfully silent for the last 20 years", and I am sorry if you consider that tells so much about my character. The simple fact is that I am young, and not an American. When I started to follow the American media closely, Fox was already well-established.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Am I?
> 
> Let's be clear. Yes, I am under the impression that Fox is unbalanced. More unbalanced to the right than the other networks are on the left. And I am sorry I was "awfully silent for the last 20 years", and I am sorry if you consider that tells so much about my character. The simple fact is that I am young, and not an American. When I started to follow the American media closely, Fox was already well-established.


Yes it does. Let's be clearer.

The imbalance at Murdoch is far less than the imbalance at CBS. The question is not is there an imbalance. And; what you said is that we were arguing there was none, which is NOT TRUE. I did not argue that.

The question is the sudden concern about slanted news now that there is a conservatively slanted news outlet.

Unless, I missed your recent post about CBS slanting the news to the left.

I'm glad we could clear that up.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Why all the fuss? Anyone actually interested in business reads the Financial Times, which is notoriously anti-American - but then again who isn't these days?

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> The question is the sudden concern about slanted news now that there is a conservatively slanted news outlet.


Sudden? I don't think I am an example of that. Again, I have been interested in media bias in America ever since I started following the American media closely, about 7 years ago. I have been silent in the 20 years before that, it's true and I am sorry. Believe me, if I could go back in time I would go and give my toddler-self a stern talking-to about that.

For example, here was my take one year ago:

I admit I did not speak of CBS in there, I speak mostly of what I know from abroad: the news networks and the newspapers.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Sudden? I don't think I am an example of that. Again, I have been interested in media bias in America ever since I started following the American media closely, about 7 years ago. I have been silent in the 20 years before that, it's true and I am sorry. Believe me, if I could go back in time I would go and give my toddler-self a stern talking-to about that.
> 
> For example, here was my take one year ago:
> 
> I admit I did not speak of CBS in there, I speak mostly of what I know from abroad: the news networks and the newspapers.


Ah, I'm mostly speaking about the bloggers and people Jack listens to - organized complaining. I can't think of any of their names Schwartz or something. He'll chime in.

Although you bring up an interesting point. I can't read your SF post, but apparently you were a toddler for 13 years? LOL

I'm trying to do the math 20 - 7 ... my damn calculator is broken.

In all seriousness, I appreciate your consistent and balanced opposition to slanted news, I just tend to think a broad market sorts that out and it's nothing to complain about. I am my own best filter IMHO. Others may disagree.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm trying to do the math 20 - 7 ... my damn calculator is broken.


I said I was "young", not that I was 20. I am 29. I started being interested in the American media about 7 years ago since that's when I lived in the US for a year.

And of course, before that year I was a toddler. Yup, all 22 years before that. What can I say, I liked it as a toddler so I made it last.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> I said I was "young", not that I was 20. I am 29. I started being interested in the American media about 7 years ago since that's when I lived in the US for a year.
> 
> And of course, before that year I was a toddler. Yup, all 22 years before that. What can I say, I liked it as a toddler so I made it last.


I've heard about people like that - not that there is anything wrong with that


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The imbalance at Murdoch is far less than the imbalance at CBS.


+1

I'm not trying to pile on you Etienne, I know it can be hard to understand politics from the outside (I'm following politics in at least 5 countries with multiparty elections), but what he says is true. Fox may infuriate the left, but it has not been found going to the lengths that CBS and others have been caught at to further their politics at the expense of integrity.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

radix023 said:


> +1
> 
> I'm not trying to pile on you Etienne, I know it can be hard to understand politics from the outside (I'm following politics in at least 5 countries with multiparty elections), but what he says is true. Fox may infuriate the left, but it has not been found going to the lengths that CBS and others have been caught at to further their politics at the expense of integrity.


Oh puhleeze, FNC is a running joke in journalism and has been since its founding. The left isn't infuriated, we're amused. If this is the best "conservatives" can come up with, it's no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh puhleeze, FNC is a running joke in journalism and has been since its founding. The left isn't infuriated, we're amused. If this is the best "conservatives" can come up with, it's no wonder they got their asses handed to them in the last election.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

And let us not forget the left's big venture into countering Rush and his crew:

No, no humour from the left. So Frank, FNC = why the Repubs lost? That's a little whacky even for you there.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Sorry to inject a note of reality into this little echo chamber, but it is simply false that the American mainstream media have a left-wing, or even liberal, bias. I know it's a story that you conservatives like to tell each other, it just isn't true.
I won't spend too much time on this, but I'll point out a few things:

1. In 2002-2003, the reporting--not the editorial stands, but the reporting--of the supposedly liberal New York Times was objectively supportive of the Bush Administration's pro-war propaganda. They had Judy Miller, who was actively acting as a mouthpiece for Bush and his client Chalabi, and they supinely failed to challenge the factual claims, now known to have been false, about connections between Hussein and the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction.

2. The Sunday talk shows have established a strong right-wing bias. Here's the analysis: .
Don't take either my word for it or the reputation of the admittedly liberal Media Matters for America, actually read the report, with the actual data on who is invited to participate in those discussions, and then explain why those data are incorrect.

You don't have to like this. You don't even have to believe it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I read the WSJ and tune into Pacifica Radio for lefty jewish journalist Amy Goodman. I enjoy Pat Buchannan because he 'walks his walk' even if it's not in my direction and every now and then he nails an issue right between the eyes. Anybody who listens only to their political bent resources might as well don a black suit and pick up the tabloids.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> 2. The Sunday talk shows have established a strong right-wing bias. Here's the analysis: .
> Don't take either my word for it or the reputation of the admittedly liberal Media Matters for America, actually read the report, with the actual data on who is invited to participate in those discussions, and then explain why those data are incorrect.


Yes, because Sunday morning talk shows are certainly representative of the other 166 hours per week on the big networks. And I know many of the hosts, such as Stephanopoulos are extreme right wing, are they not? And this report was certainly done by an agency without an agenda too!



> Since its founding less than two years ago, Media Matters for America has identified and
> documented more than 3,000 instances of conservative misinformation in the media outlets
> we monitor.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry to inject a note of reality into this little echo chamber, but it is simply false that the American mainstream media have a left-wing, or even liberal, bias. I know it's a story that you conservatives like to tell each other, it just isn't true.
> I won't spend too much time on this, but I'll point out a few things:
> 
> 1. In 2002-2003, the reporting--not the editorial stands, but the reporting--of the supposedly liberal New York Times was objectively supportive of the Bush Administration's pro-war propaganda. They had Judy Miller, who was actively acting as a mouthpiece for Bush and his client Chalabi, and they supinely failed to challenge the factual claims, now known to have been false, about connections between Hussein and the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction.
> ...


Jack, are you even aware that MediaMatters is a puppet organization of George Soros and Moveon.org?

You are the one with your own facts and they are hogwash, Sir.

I expect an apology and a correction.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You can expect anything you want. If you are looking for a correction, read the report and point out something that is factually incorrect.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You can expect anything you want. If you are looking for a correction, read the report and point out something that is factually incorrect.


LMAO. I'm sincerely disappointed, Jack.

At least you previously argued with some intellectual integrity.

You were one of the last liberal/progressive on the Interchange with any left.

A sad day, Sir. You now join the ranks of FraudDC.

DYOH those "facts" are nothing but propoganda.

And; you did not answer the question: Did you know that Media Matters was a puppet of Moveon.org before you posted the link?

You provided the link. You vouch for it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I explicitly identified the political bias of Media Matters when I provided the link. If they're wrong on the facts, show me where they're wrong and I'll agree with you that they're wrong. I won't go along with your implicit premise that because they are a liberal organization everything they say is wrong.

So again, show me where they're wrong on the facts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You can expect anything you want. If you are looking for a correction, read the report and point out something that is factually incorrect.


Since I quoted from page 18, one might assume I read the report. I see no need to find any of the alleged facts incorrect, I have put them in the proper perspective. A broadcast week has 168 hours. Proving that for one hour a week is not leaning left does not prove the network itself does not lean left.

To summarize 167 = 167 x 1


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I explicitly identified the political bias of Media Matters when I provided the link. If they're wrong on the facts, show me where they're wrong and I'll agree with you that they're wrong. I won't go along with your implicit premise that because they are a liberal organization everything they say is wrong.
> 
> So again, show me where they're wrong on the facts.


That's not the question. There is a huge difference between what you said and identifying them as a left-wing hatchet job. It goes to your credibility. Aren't you a lawyer? I'm sure you can understand the need for this question.

The question for the third time is: Were you aware when you posted the link that Media Matters is funded by George Soros and Moveon.org?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's not the question. There is a huge difference between what you said and identifying them as a left-wing hatchet job. It goes to your credibility. Aren't you a lawyer? I'm sure you can understand the need for this question.
> 
> The question for the third time is: Were you aware when you posted the link that Media Matters is funded by George Soros and Moveon.org?


Careful, you'll be on his ignore list too. You know, the one that somehow lets him post in threads I start and eerily answer my posts sometimes...


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rupert Murdoch has done something no politican did or could do in the UK. He has made it impossible for any politican to talk about the European Union in any sane, common sense way. He owns more newspapers here than any other proprietor and they are all insanely anti-Europe. He has acheived a more Euro skeptic Britain than ever before without one real political debate - just by making sure his editors parrot his own views many of which are based on half truths and falsehoods. We need a proper political debate here on the EU - pros and cons - and our stance on the Euro - but even the pro EU politicians - like Tony Blair ( too late now!) dare not even talk about it - thank you Mr Murdoch - whoever elected you?

So I would say "Wall Street Journal beware!" The politics of the journal may be similar to Mr Murdochs but he'll still do something with it you guys don't like I am sure. It might need to wait for a big national issue to arise you weren't expecting but if he lives long enough - he will interfere!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The question for the third time is: Were you aware when you posted the link that Media Matters is funded by George Soros and Moveon.org?


It's an easy question to answer: I didn't know who funds Media Matters, and I still don't, although I'll take your word for it. 
It doesn't affect anything in my original post.

Now that I've answered your question will you show me something wrong with the evidence in the Media Matters report, or is that too much to ask?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> It's an easy question to answer: I didn't know who funds Media Matters, and I still don't, although I'll take your word for it.
> It doesn't affect anything in my original post.
> 
> Now that I've answered your question will you show me something wrong with the evidence in the Media Matters report, or is that too much to ask?


No, I will not. And; it affects everything in your original post.

It's intellectually dishonest for you to quote a bunch of left-wing fringe activists propoganda while ranting about reality and facts regarding media bias with an accusing self-righteous tone.

I will not dignify the report or your post by reading it.

If you would like to engage in a reality-based discussion about bias in the media, then you need to find a reputable source to have a credible position to base such an attack. We were all playing rather nicely until you went off on such a baseless tirade.

You should simply retract your soapbox and apologize to the board for not vetting your source.

That is if you care about such things, or you can just join Fraud.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> We were all playing rather nicely until you went off on such a baseless tirade.





ksinc said:


> Ah, I'm mostly speaking about the bloggers and people Jack listens to - organized complaining. I can't think of any of their names Schwartz or something. He'll chime in.


We were? You gratuitously attack the people I listen to, or rather, whom you think I listen to, without any support for who they might be or what they might say.

"Schwartz or something"? What's that?

"He'll chime in"?

Not evidence of a mind willing to engage the issues instead of attacking those you disagree with.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Not evidence of a mind willing to engage the issues instead of attacking those you disagree with.


You mean, like someone who would place a poster on ignore as they find the contrary position too difficult to deal with?


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

Bah....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Has there not been multiple sources saying that Murdo has been chummy with Hillary for the last several months? You know what horse he has his chips on.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> We were? You gratuitously attack the people I listen to, or rather, whom you think I listen to, without any support for who they might be or what they might say.
> 
> "Schwartz or something"? What's that?
> 
> ...


Excuse me, but I did engage the issue. You are incorrect, again. You might have some crediblity there except you even responded to my post first, before you later gave up on sanity and went off on your tirade. Nice try, but no.

FWIW, I mean the blogger/radio guy you kept linking to in the Libby threads.

It's not an attack to quote historical fact. You listen to these Moveon quacks. Probably one of them that came up with term 'The FOX Street Journal'.

You're absolutely right on one point. I thought you had the intellectual integrity that we could at least assume you LISTEN to the people you link to, but now we know that's not a reasonable assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you may or may not have listened to links that you post. Very revealing.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Sorry to inject a note of reality into this little echo chamber, but it is simply false that the American mainstream media have a left-wing, or even liberal, bias. I know it's a story that you conservatives like to tell each other, it just isn't true. I won't spend too much time on this, but I'll point out a few things: 1. In 2002-2003, the reporting--not the editorial stands, but the reporting--of the supposedly liberal New York Times was objectively supportive of the Bush Administration's pro-war propaganda. They had Judy Miller, who was actively acting as a mouthpiece for Bush and his client Chalabi, and they supinely failed to challenge the factual claims, now known to have been false, about connections between Hussein and the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hussein's so-called weapons of mass destruction. 2. The Sunday talk shows have established a strong right-wing bias. Here's the analysis: . Don't take either my word for it or the reputation of the admittedly liberal Media Matters for America, actually read the report, with the actual data on who is invited to participate in those discussions, and then explain why those data are incorrect. You don't have to like this. You don't even have to believe it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.


1. ~61% of journalists identify themselves as liberal/Democrat, ~15% as conservative/Republican according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

2. UCLA researchers find that all major news outlets except Fox and the Washington Times display liberal media bias.

3. A professor from the University of Maryland/SUNY finds that Republican presidents receive far fewer positive stories in regards to the same economic numbers than their Democratic counterparts do. 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453

4. A professor from Dartmouth finds liberal bias in issues including welfare and gun control. 
(Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues by Jim A. Kuypers - https://www.amazon.com/dp/0275977595/)

etc.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Sorry, I'm thinking of the the woman "Shire". I was thinking "Sh" something ... that's how my memory is.

You also link to this one https://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

So, yes, that's what I think you listen to and read. You got me!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*For Jack...*

Interesting quote here: 
_In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked&#8230; For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." _

And one more: _GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." _

-just checking in from Minneapolis


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Interesting perspective Laxplayer. I like the quote "once liberal news magazines like 60 Minutes". I guess Scott Pelley would be considered a "centrist" by the author? LOL

A lot of other very interesting articles on that blog - no bias there 



> Hey Democrats and Independents are you tired of conservatives posting lies and spin about how the economy works, capitol gains tax cuts, abortion, Bible Myths, etc. etc. etc. and how they claim to be right about everything. If you are, the two web sites listed below is the mother lode for liberals and democrats and Independents. These sites are like striking political gold, Make sure you visit them and bookmark them. Then the next time some conservative posts another lie on your favorite message board you will have the ammunition to discredit his/her right-wing lies and spin.


He also lists the top bush=crook and anti-Bush sites on the net and the Oreilly-sucks.com site. I can see that he promotes a moderate, independent viewpoint.

These are good too. Many Indies might want to download some quality comedic wallpapers https://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/WP/wallpaper1.html


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Interesting quote here:
> _In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked&#8230; For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." _
> 
> And one more: _GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." _
> ...


The counterpoint:
"The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in _The Post_, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."
*- Washington Post "Book World" editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post's "daily in-house electronic critiques," as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.*

"There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor."
*- ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.*

"Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC."
*- Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
*
"There's one other base here: the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards - I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but - they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
*- Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.*
* 
**
*


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Mr. Papa said:


> I agree with this. It used to be that when you watched the news, you got THE NEWS, and a commentator injecting their personal opinions sent out shock waves. Now the opposite is true, and you're lucky to eek out some news in between witty quips, sardonic observations, and superficial arguments between so-called experts. I liked the world better when my black was blacker and my white whiter, and I didn't know (or care, really,) about the opinions or star-power of the newscaster. I am horrified by the stultifying news coverage on both ends of the Republican / Democrat spectrum, each trying to pass off opinion and conjecture as news and analysis. They have weaponized the news, and their coverage skews, polarizes, and dumbs-down important issues that we citizens, as the stewards of our government, are now too often afraid (or uneducated) to effectively debate. Like it or not, the Wall Street Journal was one of the last monolithic bastions of truly conservative news that will now be sullied by the Fox entertainment machine, and in my opinion, we're all worse off for it.


I'm sorry, but this strikes me as a bit of "good-old-days" syndrome. In the Old Days Uncle Walter and his ilk would spin the news by declaring anti-government, anti-war, anti-American stories "newsworthy" and pro-government, pro-American stories "not newsworthy". There were simply no serious conservative outlets to balance the story.

It was only with the advent of talk radio and Fox News that a counterpoint to that perspective brought the extent of the bias into clear relief. Is it the best situation? No. I'd love to have purity in the news business, but it isn't realistic. It's essentially now become an advocacy system, much like our courts. But there are rules. CBS became so engaged in their advocacy position they forgot the rules and like an attorney that lies to the court they were held in public contempt.

You may not like Fox News' perspective but excuse me if I don't break out my crying rag. We conservatives have had to swallow the liberal dregs for years...and like it. Now that there's a different viewpoint liberals have become crybabies about it, all the while watching as the ratings on their shows (TV and radio) fall into oblivion.

Now they want to drag out the "Fairness Doctrine" which to a person they decried when it was last in place. Like bailing out a sick, non-competitive company that can't compete in the market place they want government funding for "Air America". Typical.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A couple thoughts:

First, anyone who says that the MSM does not have a lefty bias has his head up his butt. My God, all you have to do is pay attention. But if you haven't been, then read Goldberg's book for crying out loud.

Second, I long ago lost faith in any notion of objective reporting, and that includes the WSJ. As a lawyer I have been involved in a number of high profile cases over the years that were reported on by major news outlets, including the WSJ. They invariably report the story from a biased point of view. That bias may be idiologically based, or just the angle they think will sell with the readership; but true objectivity is a value that is MIA. The single exception that I can recall involved the small town Marietta Daily Journal, which reported on a dispute handled by the Cobb County Commission. It was masterful. The report faithfully summarized the arguments made by both sides and then the Commission's decision. No commentary; no putative "analysis." I have no doubt that the reporter left the "profession" years ago due to his failure to advance.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Thanks, Lax. I had forgotten about that quote from Pat Buchanan.

And now, welcome to the club. We can call it "People whom ksinc will attack but not substantively respond to".


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Fair and balanced USA Today. Not trying to make Republicans or the Bush Administration look evil or anything....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks, Lax. I had forgotten about that quote from Pat Buchanan.
> 
> And now, welcome to the club. We can call it "People whom ksinc will attack but not substantively respond to".


Jack, I did respond substantively and you are being broadly dishonest.

I also responded substantively to your original post and you went on the attack. I have even responded substantively to each of your attacks. I did not subtantively respond to MediaMatters report because it was not worthy of such a response. I asked the compelling question which you dodged and weaved for several posts. You link to wacko-liberal blogs and then link to an organized liberal propoganda group in a discussion about liberal media bias and then act attacked when I mentioned them in passing. When questioned as though you had been slandered by such an impliction I provided references to which you simply fail to reply.

I answer or respond to every one of your questions and you attempt to dodge mine and occasionally answer after a bunch of cajoling.

It's called a conscience, Jack. You should look into it. It seems you can't make up your mind whether you want to be responded to or not; or whether you want us to actually go read and investigate your links or not. I can see why. I would hope so can everyone else. I believe so. Since you're attack on those believing in liberal bias have their own set of facts, you're getting plenty of substance in this thread from all quarters and responding to none of it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Interesting perspective Laxplayer. I like the quote "once liberal news magazines like 60 Minutes". I guess Scott Pelley would be considered a "centrist" by the author? LOL
> 
> *A lot of other very interesting articles on that blog - no bias there*
> 
> ...


Buchanan and Kristol are the ones I was quoting. Apparently they disagree with you about the liberal media. I made no reference to the rest of the article. I just posted the two quotes and the site I found them on from my search for Buchanan's quote. You ignore this and go ahead and attack the author. Isn't this the type of thing that you are always complaining about from others? 
_Go Pat Go!_


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Buchanan and Kristol are the ones I was quoting. Apparently they disagree with you about the liberal media. I made no reference to the rest of the article. I just posted the two quotes and the site I found them on from my search for Buchanan's quote. You ignore this and go ahead and attack the author. Isn't this the type of thing that you are always complaining about from others?
> _Go Pat Go!_


I'm not attacking the author. I'm simply showing what you selectively ignored by your own admission. It's context and completeness.

You also seem to have an issue with people reading your entire link. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and when they post something I tend read it although with a skeptical eye. I also back up and read some other things on the site. It's called due diligence. In fact, part of the reason was I noticed the author isn't readily identified. Many stories on that site are copied and some seem to be authored by Stewert himself. Whoever he is and whatever credentials he has are still a mystery to me.

And; No, I don't complain about that. I just pointed out the inconsistencies. Jack is the one complaining. I simply countered with the facts that he launched the attack. Which is a fact. That's not a complaint it's a rejection of Moveon.org nonsense. No I will not read something by MediaMatters because I have already done my due diligence on that organization.

Some people can't handle the scrutiny. Not my fault when you quote them without doing your own due diligence.

I don't post links to things written by Moveon.org equivalents. I think you could find some mainstreamers if your point is valid. I think the Pat quote is good and I agree. It may be slightly out of context, but I find no quibble with it. What he's saying is the Liberal media was fair with him. He's not saying they are not Liberal. Remember that Pat bolted. It's kind of like McCain. They were very favorable to McCain once upon a time when he was a valuable tool to beat the Republicans with. Call them the left's favorite Republicans. Yes, I supported Pat. Even voted for him when he was a Republican. On a lot of issues he has turned out to be correct. I know I have frequently suggested his book "A Republic, Not an Empire" on the forum. I will admit I often wonder about the Chris Matthews - Pat Buchanan thing. That's a pretty odd 'marriage'.

I also did a search and found several "blogs" with the same article. It appears to be a planted talking point by the precursor to Moveon.org - thanks for the help! 

One comes from here https://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backliberalmedia The Resurgent Liberalism site? That sounds objective.

Did a search on the webmaster Steve Kangas (RIP):

https://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990314suicide1.asp

I apologize for looking behind the curtain 

Oh this is good https://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm



> Myth: Taxes are theft.
> Fact: Taxes are payments for the public goods and services you consume.


I particularly like the profound and powerful closing statement.


> If tax opponents argue that a person doesn't have to patronize a company he disagrees with, then liberals can argue that a person doesn't have to vote for a public official he disagrees with.


Huh? ROFLMAO!

You can demonstrate your own intellectual curiousity and objectivity by going to one of my links and listening to an essay on the law and plunder

I think you will find two things: 1) Kangas's article grossly mis-characterizes the libertarian point-of-view 2) There isn't much equality in intellectual terms between Bastiat's essay and the article in question.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*Snoresville*

Yawn. This one never gets old, does it?

For most of the past 7 years, the media, liberal or otherwise, didn't seem to constrain the Bush Administration or Republicans from holding sway in all three branches of government.

If anything, the administration seemed, for a long while at least, to be masters of manipulating the media to serve their narrative spin.

And now that things are supposedly shifting a little we're supposed to cry?

Plus, people see what they want to see with respect to the media. It's like a Rorschach test. You can always find enough "evidence" to support your view, whatever your view is.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Plus, people see what they want to see with respect to the media. It's like a Rorschach test. You can always find enough "evidence" to support your view, whatever your view is.


I have to agree with Bertie's conclusion on this...to an extent. Most everyone, right and left, agree FNC is slanted to the right. So no Rorschach test there. Where people start drawing their own conclusions though is on the rest of the media. While the right usually readily admits FNC slants right, the left, by and large, does not want to admit in the slightest that there might be a leftward slant in the MSM. No one here is going to change the opinion of anyone else on that, so I agree with the conclusion over the MSM.

What I think speaks volumes though is that people that self-identify as being to the right will usually admit FNC slants right. People that self-identify as being to the left seem to have a huge investment in denying the possibility major portions of the MSM slant left. This huge wall against even considering this possibility is very problematic in a group, that supposedly holds as its strengths, open inquiry, questioning of the status quo, and open mindedness to multiple possibilities. YMMV.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Wayfarer,
The explanation can be found in Bernie Goldberg's book, "Bias," the thesis of which is liberals, especially those in influence, very often lose perspective of the "center." The garden variety MSM newsman honestly perceives himself as a moderate because compared to his friends he is. Recall the old adage from 1972: Manahattan socialite wakes up the first Wednesday in November only to be genuinely astonished that Richard Nixon was re-elected -- "Afterall, I don't know a single person who was voting for that man."


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Wonder what Hillary has to say? After all Murdoch has held a fundraiser for her BUT she is boycotting the Fox debate. I guess her princples will return when Murdoch's check clears.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Wayfarer,
> The explanation can be found in Bernie Goldberg's book, "Bias," the thesis of which is liberals, especially those in influence, very often lose perspective of the "center." The garden variety MSM newsman honestly perceives himself as a moderate because compared to his friends he is. Recall the old adage from 1972: Manahattan socialite wakes up the first Wednesday in November only to be genuinely astonished that Richard Nixon was re-elected -- "Afterall, I don't know a single person who was voting for that man."


Mike, +1


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right- wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.


https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QP1V5O2&show_article=1


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate.


Does anyone else have a problem with:

a) This.
b) No cries of "voices being silenced" or "equal treatment", etc. from the left? I mean, can you imagine of the Repubs boycotted PBS?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH"

https://www.nypost.com/seven/080320...h_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.
> 
> The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch...


Excellent link ksinc  I mean, what's 800k in one's own pocket got to do with campaign donations after all?


----------

