"Well you certainly have no idea how the Media works. Do you think these "Liberal" journalists just go ahead with their stories unchecked by editors who have to answer to those higher than them (like the corporations that own the media) and have it aired or printed. Not once during Clinton's reign did I ever hear the term "liberal media" nor did I hear it when Bush was taking the country to war. Now that Bush is getting some criticism the only defense is "must be a liberal media" Can you imagine Liberals using this as an excuse when any criticisms were made of Clinton "must be a conservative media" It is the media's job to probe, dig deep, uncover all the information of any and all stories. This has not been done."

What a quote,chock full o ignorance.

Journalists checked by editors? I could post countless examples of stories allow to run wild before facts come out for the sole reason of pushing an agenda.For example-the Haditha Marines.Didnt seem to mind hanging them out to dry as symbols of an America gone wrong did they?

A trip to google or nexislexis will show you how wrong you are about the preBush history of the liberal MSM.Articles and studies going back quite awhile abound.

As far as Bush taking us to war.If memory serves me correct alot of liberal politicians were also gung ho on the war like the media(before they were against it).Why should we all be surprised that the media now shares the same disdain for the war and Bush as those same politicians.It would seem to reinforce my point that the media has chosen a side and its pretty clearly the liberal one.

All one needs to do is look at the free pass Bill Clinton still gets to this day from the MSM on a whole host of topics that occurred while he was president and some that occured before as well as those that occurred after.Hes bulletproof.

The current media has gone way past simple criticism of Bush.Half truths and outright lies often accompany many of these 'criticisms'.When this needs to occur the bias becomes clear.

Now are you ignoring my argument or didn't you see it? It's on 147, incase you feel like getting owned.

You didn't debunk it. It was a study completed by several well known and respected universities. It was not done by a right wing website, unlike the left wing websites that spouted their opinions that you linked.

Actually it appears to be you who is unfamiliar with how the media works. For starters, I provided links proving that the corporations who own these media outlets are liberal. That is a fact not up for dispute as they support dems by large margins. Additionally, editors are also liberal so their columns (which are reviewed for factual content and sources, not for biased language) don't have biased language removed. And if you didn't hear the term liberal media under Clinton then you didn't get out much. CNN was referred to as the Clinton News Network. CBS has been criticized for being liberal (along with the NY & LA Times, Boston Globe, and others) since Reagan. Liberal media is a term in use for decades.

Kronkite stated the media is liberal in an interview. So kook or not, it was a formal interview.

This is a link to another thread that didn't show any Boston Globe links.

BS because it didn't tell you what you want to hear. The Boston Globe is a reputable paper and they use the term left wing far more than right wing when describing politicians or groups. And why would I mention those links? They are irrelevant since fund raising has nothing to do with a liberal media.

This is about opinion. If the public's opinion is that the media is liberal then it is in fact by definition liberal.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

That was an argument??? You even went back on your ridiculous claim. What was your wording...oh yeah ,
Then you decided that because the two richest guys in America are not influencing the media that the media is Liberal biased. Really now, that is a joke. It's so unrelated.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Rolf, right. Nice defense. Obviously I wasted my time.

Please follow along. I already said your study was from University students (From UCLA to be exact) and not from several well known universities. I then siad that this study was posted on a right-wing site here. Your old link doesn't work but I found the article here. Some of my links were done by University students also. I mean c'mon the UCLA study cites the ACLU as on the right-wing side of the ledger and The Rand Corporation on the left. What does that tell you.
No you didn't...where?
The Democratic party can hardly be called Liberal for starters and when you say they, who is they?
You want to show me this source that says the majority of editors are liberals.
Clinton was no liberal. Liberals don't bomb the hell out of 3 or 4 countries.
Cite them then.
Yes, mine was an interview too but I got labeled using a kook site. If you defend him (the user who criticized me for using the same site) then your credibility goes out the window. And for your information Conkrite stated that most reporters are liberal not that the media is liberal...Big difference.
You are getting two responses to two different statements confused. Also you are the one that put in the link to the money donated to the parties. If it's unrelated then why did you do it? I know it's unrelated I just showed you that others disagree with your assessment.
Not if the public are mostly retards.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

Well, this was pretty easy. Apparently, the owner of Time warner is a democrat, and they get a lot of support from democrats as opposed to republicans.


If you've never heard of Time Warner, it's ticker symbol TWX on the NYSE, and it owns AOL, New Line Cinema, Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Cartoon Network, CNN, and DC Comics.

Proof: http://www.politicalbase.com/people/...-bewkes/28448/

Wow, out of the 11 major news media conglomerates you were able to list one as a democrat. Does not make him a liberal and does not make a majority.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

So what if a right wing website happened to list it, completely irrelevant if it originally came from a non-biased source (which it did). And yes, it came from several well known universities. Students are typically involved in university studies. And not just UCLA, but U of Missouri as well. And they are professors, not students.

Yep...looks right to me. The study was collected using statistical analysis. You are disputing stats with your personal opinion or why you don't like the people behind the study. Apparently because you are unable to dispute the study itself.

The opensecrets link shows political donors by party. Overwhelmingly democrat.

Yes they can, compared to the rest of the country they are very liberal. And they are media corporations.

The poll was of journalists, who were overwhelmingly liberal, as they admitted. Editors are promoted from these ranks. Simple math says therefore that they are also liberal.

Yes they do, Truman and FDR did it and they were liberal.

Done. http://www.ratherbiased.com/bush_attack.htm
http://www.mrc.org/about/aboutwelcome.asp (note founded in 1987)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1375 (article from 1997 referencing liberal media)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922731/posts (note the quotes from the 90's)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...8-E8E89BB15F3B (Clinton News Network admits bias)

Really...if Bush Sr is the first you heard of the liberal media then you weren't paying attention.

Not quite, he said that the media tilts towards liberalism. That they tend to be populists who champion that (liberal) message.

Because my link was a result of money donated from media corporations to political parties. Not donations in general, which your unrelated link was about.

Got it...so if the public disagrees with you then that's your fallback. Can you prove this? Of course not. The public feels the media tilts liberal, then by definition that is exactly what it does.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

gosh, I must have missed that Republican debate on Telemundo.

Can you fill us in on who went to that?

We'll wait.





the Republicans really showed up for that one!