Patronizing Piece of Pulp

Ain’t it like a liberal elitist to pat us on the head and give a lesson to the great “unwashed”? Perhaps in the words of Peter Jennings it’s the beginning of a “temper tantrum”?
We no longer have to accept what the MSM decides to report and withhold from the public.
Mr. Satullo should realize the MSM influence is slipping away, or maybe he will be the last to know.

I have to laugh every time I see a story like this. Mr. Satullo has the nerve to lecture bloggers on Orwellian poison? What this sounds like to me is the last desperate death groans of the MSM. If Satullo and his ilk were more center-orientated and wrote a fair appraisal of current events and issues then just maybe MSM would be “helping the public life of this nation work well…”

As for myself, I scan newspapers across the country via internet every morning. Most seem to think that those of us who are proudly conservative are some kind of alien monsters.

One of the favorite cliches of the left is labeling those of us who are conservatives and believe that we should follow the Constitution as “extreme right wingers”,”the religious right” and “the self righteous right”. It appears that the so-called moderate Republicans are joining their left wing brethren in expressing the same old tired cliches. When MSM fall in love with people like John McCain it’s time to watch out!

See, in some ways he is correct. Let me explain: the blogosphere has no set of standards or governing rules or regulations. The reason blogs have become so popular is due to the fact that people enjoy reading about things they agree with. Virtually all blogs are decidedly to the right or to the left, and their patronage mimics the political slant of that particular blog.

La Shawn,

He overreacted and so did you. Conservatives are also biased. My hometwon paper, the San Diego Union Tribune, is biased. It has its roots in the Nixon administration. The Orange County Register is biased toward conservativism. So is the Arizona Republic. I read all 3 and the LA Times to keep in touch with all views and make up my own mind. I NEVER read the NY Times or Washington Post. They’re East Coast and whatever they have to say of value, I can read in the other 4 papers. Painting the whole media with this same liberal wide brush is childish and lazy- minded. There are tons of bloggers who have little to say that is worthwhile. Only a few are worthwhile and they do not have access to the hard news that news organizations do. They are just spouting opinions and opinions are like noses, everyone has one. EVERYONE IS BIASED! It takes a lot of work to analyze everything and give every opinion its due. Just like liberalism, CONSERVATISM DOES NOT HAVE A HOLD ON ALL TRUTH.

Stan in San Diego

Um, stan, that’s not what La Shawn said. She didn’t say conservatives have a “HOLD ON ALL TRUTH”. She just pointed out that conservatives are the ones holding the leftist “mainstream” media to the standards of truth and reason.

The thing you missed, in your “everyone’s biased” rant, was that most of the press acts like they’re NOT biased, as if they were somehow detached and inhumanly objective. If they’d admit their biases, admit that they approach the news and politics from the direction they so obviously do, then they’d get a lot less criticism.

We spend enough money on education. Throwing more money at it won’t fix the problem. The problem is in poor educational policies that focus exclusively on student self esteem and not on student achievement. Educaton spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed over the last 30 years and the results have been stagnant. Military spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased. Do your research before you throw out a bomb like that. We don’t need more money, we need better management within the schools and better educators.

Thanks LaShawn for allowing dissent, it provides more fodder for the conservative intellectuals out there.

Not that long ago some journalists were asked if they were “journalists first” or “Americans first”. The response was “journalist first”!!

Chris Roberts – Maybe some of the readers would like to see if your comment about %GDP spent on education and defense is correct. Here’s what the Economist pocket edition “World in Figures” says for 2003.
US education expenditures: 5% of GDP
The book does not list the US military expenditure for defense separately, but does list the 42 countries with the highest military expenditure as % GDP. These range from #1 Eritrea with 31.5% to #42 Rwanda with 4.7%. Notably absent from the list of the top #42 is the US. Spring this little fact on your liberal friends and watch them retreat into a state of denial.
Even rudimentary powers of deduction lead one to conclude that
the US is spending more for education than for defense.
This conclusion may come as a surprise to our colleague frederoil, but from the tone of his rant he has spent little time researching the numbers. I guess it’s his choice to remain ignorant – but there are facts out there from reputable sources if he cares to look for them.

The outrage is that students who spend time learning skills to become journalists are then indoctrinated in the ideology of the left, so much so, that clarity is for them what they think, not what they see.

Chris,
I respect the Economist generally but I can assure you that the U.S. spends far, far more on defense than education. (I’m not saying that its right or wrong.) I am for a strong defense and have a feeling that at least part of the education budget is misdirected. Pres. Bush should be your target on this one. He is increasing the education enormously and brags about it every time the liberals accuse him of cutting or not spending the budget. Why don’t you do a Google search on the budget? You missed something somewhere.

Stan in San Diego

Stan,
The last I checked, we were spending 4.2% of GDP on defense. If you have something more relevant to refute my point, then let me know. I’ll gladly retract my argument. My main point was that we are spending more than enough on education, but we are wasting it because our academic acheivement, especially amongst poor SES and minorities, has remained stagnant. So it’s not a matter of how much we are spending, but how we are spending it.

This pundit thinks education dollars are being woefully wasted. But that is for another rant altogether.

LaShawn’s argument was about media bias, and I’ll get my two cents in on that matter. The problem is the lack of truthfulness in admitting bias. I am biased, and proud to admit it. Why can’t others admit theirs? I think Old Media would get less criticism and the public debate would be a lot better for it. Perhaps it is for the same reason that liberal Democrats must position themselves to the nation as moderates. They cannot draw a national audience otherwise. It’s phony and it dilutes the worthiness of their opinion and coverage. We should never masquarade our perspective for something it is not, which is EXACTLY what Old Media is doing.

As said, “objective” facts, only, are boring. Some 15 died in Fallujah, 150 died in Darfur, 300 died in the Congo, 1000 died on American highways.

I actually think there should be a daily auto death toll, to remind folk that every day huge numbers of people die in a voluntary, preventable way (which would have a huge, negative impact on their lives if they gave it up).

The Leftist bias is significantly what is NOT shown. Why aren’t their daily death tolls in Darfur, Congo, Ivory Coast (with 10 000 French troops, including bank theives)?

There are facts, and meanings. Facts are only interesting if they mean something, but the interpretation of what the facts mean is where the bias comes in. And usually “meaning” is focused on the future.

Does this or that fact mean more or fewer people, or Americans, will die in the next year or the next decade.

The media is doubly bad: it has a bias that it denies, and it refuses to correct its obvious double standards. Look at how CBS and Rather are going after Bush’s record — but even with the Swifties they have NOT investigated Kerry’s record.
Did Kerry sign Form 180? (No — this fact should be in every story about either candidate; Kerry refuses to release his records, despite his campaign promise to do so)

Was Kerry in Cambodia on Christmas 1968? (No evidence to support his fable; many say he is lying)

Was Kerry’s first PH from a self-inflicted wound? (yes, bad medal)
How many days did Kerry spend in the hospital? (0)

In Iraq, how many provinces have NOT had any terrorist attacks in a week, in a month? If you don’t know, it’s because the bias of the media is causing it avoid asking the important questions.

What is worth fighting for?

I totally agree with Steve, that journalists are frustrated teacher/ politician/ evangelists — they have their Dem oriented secularism and they want to convert everybody to that view of the Truth. Plus, on a vast array of complex issues, there are specialists who know far more (the Lawyer bloggers on law, for instance), and analyze the “facts” for meaning in a more thorough and complete way than most journalists.

“For any journalist who understands his real job — helping the public life of this nation work well”

That’s not the job of journalism. The job of journalism is to report the truth. When journalists say this stuff regarding an agenda driven media, it makes the media appear more….agenda driven.

Having worked in DC several years I came to know 2 pretty solid truths:
1) Journalists don’t care to “help the public”. They care to seem like they help the public so they can be invited to the next liberal party. Also, perhaps to attract a lovely man/lady who has bought into the same liberal bias(can’t meet ‘em at church).
2) They are absolutely lazy. They know beforehand the tone they want their story to take and then proceed with the “fact” some are included some are left out. Depends on how they want to “help the public.”

What I find interesting in the fact that Satullo would like us to believe that the propagandists are the bloggers. Dan Rather used FAKE documents to be the foundation of a smear campign diguised as journalism. He is the propagandist.

What also should be noted is the use of the word forged docs by MSM. If I had gone to a copy machine and made a copy of a $100 bill, that would be forgery. If I made a $99 bill, that would be fake. You cannot forge something that never existed. The documents were fake not forged, MSM.

LaShawn,

Your replies are excellent. Keep up the good work.

Jill: ‘Not that long ago some journalists were asked if they were “journalists first” or “Americans first”. The response was “journalist first”!!’

A very strange and dangerous attitude, especially given that country is at war. Astounding.

I think a forced deportation to a non-democratic country for these guys, only for a year but you don’t tell them, would be a great attitude adjuster. We all take our freedoms so for granted.

Is it the beginnings of losing them?

Which is why we aren’t moving forward Stan. The stakes are too high, and no one wants to give in. Everybody is too polarized on one side or the other. Die-hards on each side don’t care to visit sites, read opinions, or watch TV that offers a differing opinion. Shameful in my eyes. There have been a great many things I’ve learned from people from both sides of the aisle, without changing my conservative beliefs. You can bet that someone out there is ready to call me liberal. Read my blog and you will see otherwise.

Dare we call our democracy stagnant? I’ll get to that one soon on my blog.

There’s nothing wrong with public education that good parenting at home will not fix.

Stan,
I can tell you are nuanced. Perhaps “annointed”.(see T. Sowell)

La Shawn,

I’m entering the discussion late, so this will probably get buried, but here goes.

I agree that “we are all biased.” But I also think that it’s the duty of thoughtful people to become aware of their biases and, where necessary, correct them. Plato said that philosophy was about moving from opinion to knowledge, and we could just as well substitute the word “thinking intelligently” for the somewhat scary sounding term “philosophy.”

Yes, I know that it’s difficult to move from opinion to knowledge, but, if we say that everything is opinion, then we’re relativists. And relativism is a bad thing, as I’m sure you agree, both practically and at the level of principle.

What I find most offensive about liberal media bias is its utter lack of self-awareness. As a believing Catholic journalist once said to me of her colleagues at a Saint Louis newspaper: “they think that, because they’re the atheists, they’re the unbiased ones.” I’d like to find an apt name for this phenomenon, something like the “fallacy of misplaced dogma.”

What I’d like to see the liberal media do is lay their cards on the table or, to vary the metaphor, to throw down the gauntlet. To say, in other words, “we believe X,Y,and Z, and here’s why.” If they did that, then, just maybe, an argument could begin and it would be a little easier to move from opinion to knowledge.

Let me be clear. If everyone is biased, then so are conservatives. And if everyone has the duty to move from opinion to knowledge, then so do conservatives. Plato also talked about right opinion. In other words, moving from opinion to knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean repudiating the content of one’s opinions—if they are right. Thus, if conservatives are right, then they’ve got to offer arguments for their position. Which means: they may not (morally speaking) engage in the same tactics they deprecate pleading the rightness of their cause as an excuse. Fair as fair.

The problem has been that until recently the mainstream media, while claiming fairness, have not played fair at all, and so have blocked any fair debate about the issues. If the blogosphere can help change that, so muuch the better.

One last note: conservatism has classically been suspicious of big anything. I think we would have to be suspicious of big media that—granting the impossible—had all the “right” opinions. There’s something inherently demagogic at least about TV that we should never forget for an instant.

Thanks for letting me rant on for so long.

Keep up the good work.

Adrian

Satullo’s comments could easily be turned around on mainstream media. They ARE arrogant,hedonistic gatekeepers,who are having a hard time accepting folks in the blogsphere have tunneled under the gate and crashed their elitist party,to offer a view other than Karl Marx is the way and the light.

‘What I find most offensive about liberal media bias is its utter lack of self-awareness. As a believing Catholic journalist once said to me of her colleagues at a Saint Louis newspaper: “they think that, because they’re the atheists, they’re the unbiased ones.” I’d like to find an apt name for this phenomenon, something like the “fallacy of misplaced dogma.”’

This is a tad flawed, as assuming every liberal is an atheist is ridiculous, and factually incorrect.

‘One last note: conservatism has classically been suspicious of big anything.’

Apart from BIG free markets, and BIG wars.

Personally, i think the ‘liberal media’ is a myth. As a self confessed liberal, id love to see some of this ‘liberal media.’ What i see in the States is centre right channels like MSNBC, CNBC and CNN. Not mentioning the infamous ‘fair and balanced’ Rupert Murdoch ‘news’ agency – Fox. This corporate ‘liberal media’ giant fronts shows from such pinko agitators as Hannity and Colmes, and Bill O’Reilly. How come that everytime Bill O’Reilly takes a break from The O’Reilly Factor, his substitute is someone from the far right of the political spectrum, such as former congressman and now syndicated radio host Bob Dornan or hard right Michael Reagan (who left the GOP because it was not radical enough)? And why is it that 8 years of unrelenting, non-stop demonization of Clinton and his wife by these people is okay, but suggesting that Bush is illegitimate is “partisan rancor?”

CBS made a huge mess of things, and now people wont let it drop and continually insist American media is one big liberal machine?

oops sorry ’bout linking. won’t happen again (that’s what I get for paying attention.)

Stan, for starters, you can go to cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html.
&
bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

The military budget as a % of FY 03 (1 Oct 02 – 30 Sep 03) was 3.3% of an estimated $10.98 trillion GDP. Given the situation with Iraq & Afghanistan, it is expected to be not much more than 4% if that.

With the economy growing at 3.1% then, and about 3.5% over the past 12 months — it is estimated that GDP for 2004 will be approx 12 trillion. As the GDP grows, the deficit will shrink as a function of budgeted spending.

Chris, if you have it; I’d be interested in seeing our education costs on a per student basis compared to what India spends in adjusted dollars on their students — I know they only have a 52% or so literacy rate, but to compare apples to apples, perhaps a look at costs to train an IT professional. I’d be willing to best that we waste more money than most countries, including other “1st World” economies.

Bottomline, throwing good money after bad won’t help but pad bureaucratic feathers. Real change will have to come from raised expectations.

Omar,
Dan Rather, all of Air America, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Oblerman (sp), Maureen Dowd, Krugman, Kristol, Alterman, Walters… the list goes on, but I left my NY Times office phone list at my office.

I know our education spending was approaching 5%. India, I’ll have the numbers soon.

Stan
If you’re looking for “theological stuff look no further than La Shawn’s blog. There are quite a few pieces. Also I’ve posted Conversion Part one, two, three, One Conservative Christian’s Response to Bill Clinton’s Remarks at Riverside Church, I’ll Never Go Back to Egypt (my first post). You might also check out Evangelical Outpost or Broken Masterpieces

Chris, I was a die-hard Cowboys fan until they ran Landry off without so much as renaming the stadium after him.

Now I’m just “agnostic” to the whole concept of pro-sports, except for bikes, both human and internal-commbustion powered, and even then, I haven’t kept up lately

Give me a few more years for my boys to get old enough for me to get interested again

La Shawn,

Great comments and I agree with you. I just put up a post on Blogcritics.org and Viewpointjournal.com on the topic of what I think the Blogosphere has become, namely, a form of “Open Source” media community; very powerful, fast to react, and increasingly influential.

Personally, I think that when the Blogosphere called Dan Rather out on the forged documents, it was serving notice to him and to the rest of the media world that the Blogosphere was a force to be reconed with, just as the open source development world has become.

Thanks!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Keep in mind that Omar is not native to America (if memory serves you’re a British citizen thinking of applying for American citizenship, aren’t you, Omar?), so his idea of “center right” is a little different from a lot of Americans’ idea of it. If “the Beeb” is your idea of centrist, unbiased reporting, then CNN and (P)MSNBC *does* seem “center right”.

Just trying to put a little perspective on things.

Okay Andy, here is the date as compiled on nationmaster.com:
Education spending (source:UNESCO)
U.S. 4.7 % of GDP
India 3.3 % of GDP

India also has stated they will raise spending by at least 2 billion per year on education.

U.S. Military spending (source: CIA World Factbook)
3.2 % of GDP FY 1999
current data as I stated earlier lists it as 4.2 % of GDP

U.S. Military growth (source: International Institute for Strategic Studies)
-37%

That someone would make and market a anti-Fox filter only proves that there’s a sucker born every minute… That 700 already spent hard-earned cash to ensure that their twitchy fingers don’t accidently switch to Fox is priceless.

Andy,

I found it quite humerous too. He says that for every filter he sells, that he sends an e-mail to FOX to tell them about it. I just know that they’re wringing their hands over losing 700 viewers with the market share they have right now

I e-mailed the site to see if I could get a CNN blocker, but they never contacted me back

And the counterpoint is that Babylon wasn’t built in a day. Iraq will get there eventually as long as we hold the course, even if it cost us 10 times as much to exterminate the 3rd Jihad.

‘MSM would have us think the entire country was falling apart, when in reality the hot zone is centered in the Faluja – Baghdad region. For instance, the British military hasn’t taken any casulities in quite a while down in the Basra region.’

Cross that off right now, as 2 British soldiers just died today. Fewer British casualties in the Basra area can largely be accounted for by their differing policy. Decades of fighting in Northern Ireland has given the army a good understanding on this. Casualty figures are used to show an ESCALATION in the insurgency. When you have more people dying in the fight to keep hold of Iraq, than in the fight to win it doesnt that suggest something to you?

‘MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN center right? Granted, they may not be as left leaning as CBS, NBC, and ABC, but they are definitely left of center.’

Can you tell me how you came to this conclusion? I call BS. Maybe your views are just very hardline, but CNBC MSNBC and CNN are not ‘liberal.’ Regarding CNN in particular, studies have shown:

‘Covering one year of weekly programs (12/1/2001=11/30/2002) with 203 guests, the FAIR study found Reliable Sources’ guestlist strongly favored mainstream media insiders and right-leaning pundits. In addition, female critics were significantly underrepresented, ethnic minority voices were almost non-existent and progressive voices were far outnumbered by their conservative counterparts. ‘

And this….again in regards to ‘Reliable sources.’

‘With 35 right-leaning guests and 16 from the left (69 percent vs. 31 percent), the right had a better than 2 to 1 advantage. Right-wing syndicated talkshow host Laura Ingraham appeared seven times, more frequently than any other guest; the second-most prominent guest (6 appearances) was conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry. (The third most frequent guest was Time’s Karen Tumulty, with five appearances.)’

Hardly left of centre.

‘The reason that liberals decry the FOX network as being so far right is that they have been spoiled by the media reinforcing their worldview for the last several years.’

What a joke. Personally, Fox’s blatant slant on news doesnt bother me. What bothers me is Republican megaphoning, and their hilarious efforts to appear neutral. ‘Fair and balanced’ has become a virtual chant.

‘I know it must really irk guys like you when FOX does things like call terrorists “homicide bombers” vs the term “suicide bombers” used by the other media.’

Why would that irk me? You are using a common right wing tactic of associating dissenters with terrorist supporters/sympathizers. I dont give a damn about terminology – i know what they are.

‘It sends a message of more concern for the intended victims than for the bomber, how crass and right wing is that? ‘

Yes, but it fails to make note of the fact the terrorist kills him/herself in his homocidal efforts. When you say ‘homocide bombing’ it makes no reference to the fact the perpetrator took his/her own life with the victims. But as i said, tiny differences in terminology do not concern me.

‘Keep in mind that Omar is not native to America (if memory serves you’re a British citizen thinking of applying for American citizenship, aren’t you, Omar?),’

Thats right, but irrelevant.

‘ so his idea of “center right” is a little different from a lot of Americans’ idea of it.’

Not at all. Even judging by American standards, which in general is a lot more right wing than Europe (The majority of liberals, and people considered ‘liberal’ politicians arnt half as radical) the stated news channels can be shown to be centre right.

‘But, they are protecting the children! Heaven forbid the children stop watching half time shows or soft core shows on Cinemax and HBO, and get sucked into the corrupting influence of Fox News…’

Ironic, as its generally Conservatives that provoke censorship and the protection of children from ‘harmful’ media.

“Don’t forget also that we are STILL OCCUPYING THOSE TWO COUNTRIES, 60 years after liberating both from their respective evil leaderships.”

We’re there, but we’re not occupying them. If anything we’re defending them. As you recognize, but still keep your all caps.

“It will be a long haul in both Afgahnistan and Iraq, but if we don’t throw in the towel, it WILL get done.”

I don’t think it’ll take just that. I think it’ll take more than not giving up.

Danny:
Being nice to the islamofascists won’t make them go away, you’re wrong on that.

Omar: “Even judging by American standards, which in general is a lot more right wing than Europe (The majority of liberals, and people considered ‘liberal’ politicians arnt half as radical) the stated news channels can be shown to be centre right.”

It’s one thing to say that the truth of a claim can be demonstrated. It’s another thing entirely to actually demonstrate the truth of one’s claims. Do you have any evidence to show that the news channels you cited are “center right”?

I am a liberal. Im not ashamed of it at all, and i disagree with many of the points expressed on this site, some of them with a great burning passion. But I read it regularly. I am reletively new to the blogging circle, and i find the idea that opposing viewpoints are merely a few clicks away very exciting. I am from a very liberal area, and i have been eager to hear more about the conservative platform than the brainwash babbel than comes from my hardline liberal freinds. I plan to keep reading and posting here regularly, because without constant challenge, beleifs become stagnant and out of touch. That goes for both right and left.

‘It’s one thing to say that the truth of a claim can be demonstrated. It’s another thing entirely to actually demonstrate the truth of one’s claims. Do you have any evidence to show that the news channels you cited are “center right”? ‘

You obviously didnt read the entire of my post. I focused in on CNN specifically, but if you want MORE evidence id be glad to provide some. Go back and read it.

Andy, Are you biting at Omar’s bait?

‘Hmmm, where to start, lest anyone presumes that as a Brit you might actually know something about Her Majesty’s Soldiers? [swatting tse-tse flies]‘

Yeah – the British army is really useless. Military expert you, arnt you? I cant believe conservatives have the nerve to attack Kerry for patronising US allies.

‘A US soldier just died in Germany the other day and a couple more died Stateside. Perhaps we should just disband the military that way we’ll never read about another soldier dying ever again.’

Someone said there had been no British casualties for some time. I merely said correctly that this claim was incorrect. Basra is supposed to be secure, and has supposed to have been for some time. Yet large scale, carefully planned guerrilla ambushes like this continue, in a CONTROLLED zone.

‘they suffered under Saddam,’

And the people of Fallujah and Baghdad didnt?

‘Furthermore, Baghdad was the seat of Baathist power and it is only natural that the losers will resist hardest to being displaced from the top of the Iraqi food chain.’

Thats insane. Thats like saying Washington DC is filled with Bush supporters, or London with Blair supporters.

‘Do you really believe that the Brits operated soley in a vacuum? Given the level of cross-training and force integration spanning decades, it would be legitimate to say that decades of observing the fighting in Northern Ireland and participating after action reviews has given the US as good an understanding on urban warfare.’

Then why are the Americans still not learning lessons? I think its a case of Americans forgetting they are supposed to be LIBERATORS. The British sector doesnt use indiscriminate airstriking NEARLY as much as the American sector. Even little things, like patrolling in berets instead of helmets, and not pointing a gun at every man woman and child in the street.

‘What does it suggest to you when you have more Brits dying to hold Northern Ireland than in taking it? ‘

Are you aware of the date Ireland was ‘taken?’ Probably not. There was no conventional struggle to ‘take’ Northern Ireland.

‘Primarily that pacifying the population doesn’t happen in the short term.’

The IRA had substantially less population support than Insurgents in the hot points. Ironically, the IRA were propped up most by money from private US sources. I made comparisons to the constant urban warfare anyway, not the actual situations.

‘However, I tend to believe that since he spent 4 months in Nam, he’d be tempted to run the DOD as Lt Kerry, rather than leaving it to the pros.’

More irony, it seems to be endless. Bush and cabinet ignored MANY prominent generals, both retired and in service when taking the decision to invade Iraq. Talk about ‘leaving it to the pros.’

‘I *did* read it. You spouted off some quotes that could be Ratherfactured (manufactured from whole cloth), for all I know.’

So you attack my sources, which are based on what actually happens on CNN. Thats just weak, and transparent. You will obviously just discredit any scientific poll i come up with, so its all worthless. I havnt seen any ‘evidence’ explaining why the whole American media is a liberal machine, but there you go.

“Ironic, as its generally Conservatives that provoke censorship and the protection of children from ‘harmful’ media.” -Omar

Omar, it is conservative that get tarred for it, not that all conservatives do it. How about Tipper Gore? No conservative she, who led the crusade against the music industry. The V-chip, that come out of democrat initiative.
But if you listen to our MSM, only conservatives and republicans would do such things. That right there is an example of the bias… ignoring the failings of one side while hi-lighting the other. A journalists responsiblity to facts and fairness should preclude that, but it often doesn’t, and the pattern when as consistent as it often is, adds up to persistent bias.
If our big papers were as open about their stance and views as say, the Mirror, many of us wouldn’t be as pissed, since it is not the presence of bias, but the denial of bias that is so offensive.

AS for people not reading your posts and your ’sources’, I think they have, but when you quote non-objective sources like FAIR.org, you need to expect that they don’t just accept it as fact. The glowing reviews from Chomsky and Abbie Hoffman they prodly display on their site says alot about their objectivity, and the lack of people with other political views praising them says even more. It’s like quoting the AFL-CIO for labor statistics, or the NAACP of un-biased stats on race. Same thing goes for others quoting the NRA for gun facts or the Milk Board for nutrtion facts; they may have some good stuff, but you need to back it up a little more to counteract the bias inherent in any advocacy groups data.
Personally, the rule I follow when looking for evidence to back up my claims, I spend as much time trying to disprove the evidence as I did finding it.

Repeat after me 100 times;

‘Commentators and pundits are not journalists, therefore their opinions are not required to be objective. Rather, Billmon & Arnett are “journalists”. O’Reilly, Limbaugh & Franken are not journalists.’

‘O’Reilly, Limbaugh & Franken are not journalists.’

Neither is Tipper Gore, Noam Chomsky, or Abbie Hoffman, using your definition.

The thing is, Fox declares itself to be fair and balanced – suggesting that its various employees are all objective, and totally unbiased.

“So you attack my sources, which are based on what actually happens on CNN.”
Omar, I wouldn’t know where to begin to attack your sources, since *you won’t reveal who they are*! You haven’t once actually cited the source of your quotes, but rather put up some quotes and expect that we’ll assume that they’re from credible sources. Sorry, but that sort of non-argument won’t fly here.

“Thats just weak, and transparent.”
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about all of your arguments. Go figure.

Gotta make a correction; Billmon is a pundit, not a journalist. Philip Shenon should have been my 2nd mention of a real “journalist”. Albeit, while Rather and Arnett twisted the truth, Shenon is a terrorist sympathizer.

‘While you accussed me of ignoring censorship in the right, I have not done any such thing. I merely pointed out that it goes both ways…’

This is what i was saying, when someone made a reference to liberals supposedly wanting to censor things.
And pointed out that your source is far from objective.

‘And pointed out that your source is far from objective.’

Explain. Its based on guests from ‘reliable sources,’ their political viewpoint, and how many times they have appeared on the show. Its hardly an opinion piece. It uses facts to carve out whos political viewpoint is getting the most coverage.

‘As for Fox… balanced can also mean they have a balanced staff, or that they present more than one side of the issue.’

They fail to do this however. Liberals are invited on shows like the ‘O’Reilly factor so he can insult them, ignore them, tell them to shut up or simply just cut their mic off when hes losing a debate. Lets not forget the whole Jeremy Glick fiasco. Its not a level playing field whatsoever. Fox is NOT ‘fair and balanced.’ At least non of the other news channels have the audacity to claim this, and recite it as a virtual mantra.

‘From what I’ve seen, there are far more liberals on FNC than there are conservatives on CNN or the big broadcast networks’

So you are backing up my point that CNN ISNT liberal biased?

‘Omar, I wouldn’t know where to begin to attack your sources, since *you won’t reveal who they are*!’

The source is FAIR. Im not sure on your reading skills, but it was indicated clearly at the time.

‘And when it was pointed out that all of the members of FAIR are lefty liberals,’

This isnt really the case. Noam Chomsky supports FAIR. So what? Your point is pretty shaky here. Im sure the nice folks at the Fox network would support it, if it backed their blatantly biased reporting. FAIR is a group pushing for accuracy in media and reporting. They spare no critisisms towards liberals, as i said. FAIR has attacked Dan Rather, if you arnt aware. I dont know what you expect me to provide, but it likes you will dismiss it whatever it is.

‘What is your opinion on Media Research Center?’

What are your opinions on it? Surely if you disagree with FAIR for being supposedly slanted, you shouldnt be a fan of this? Since it openly admits to being Conservative, it isnt going to like any kind of remotely ‘liberal’ reporting, even if its totally factual. The thing about the MRC, it focuses almost entirely on CBS, and totally ignores Bush megaphoning across major news networks. I havnt seen many scientific studies, in regards to MRC.

‘I see you have the nerve to parrot sKerry talking points that patronize either military as the gospel truth, let alone others in the coalition.’

Im not patronising anybody.

‘War strategy is subjective and one doesn’t make general unless one is a pro OR benefitted from AA (Karpinski). ‘

Ah. You’ve been caught out here. You are running back on what you were saying earlier, when i quite fairly pointed out Bush ignored a lot of military advice when undertaking this war. The point is, he DIDNT leave it the pros, not in the slightest. Id link to a Guardian article FULL on soundbites from prominent military men, if i could. Seeing you implode is like being witness to a car wreck….its horrible but you just CANT look away.

“The source is FAIR. Im not sure on your reading skills, but it was indicated clearly at the time.”
Okay, FAIR enough; if I’d have been more FAIR I’d have noted that in my replies. (puns intended, go ahead and smack me )

That being said, you didn’t cite a specific article or webpage, and that’s where I took issue with you. It’s always best to get specific when quoting a group or an individual. In other words, while it’s a good thing to reveal *who* said what you’re quoting, it’s even better to reveal *where* and *when* they said it. That way, when someone is examining your argument, he/she can go back to the source and read it in context, to make sure that you’re fairly representing the person or group you’re quoting. It’s just good debate ettiquette.

So, don’t let it be said that I never offer constructive criticism.

Wow. This thread has gotten away a bit from the original post critiquing me, but I hope you won’t mind if mildly defend myself.
I think if you read my whole piece you’ll see a) that i wasn’t equating all bloggers with the “orwellians.” Far from it. I’m talking about people, most of them political operatives from the left and right, whom i deal with daily and whose goal in crying “Bias” is just to muzzle all criticism of their side.
and b) I would never claim journalists don’t commit sins of bias. Good Lord. I said explicitly that they screw up and provide plenty of ammunition to critics. In fact, I agree that the notion of “objectivity” is a false goal, because unattainable. Everyone is biased. The point in journalism is to have enough loyalty to a set of principles – fairness, thoroughness, accuracy (plus enough internal checks in your organization) – so that you can scour bias from your work as much as humanly possible.
There was a line I cut from the column for space (still a problem when you’re working ink on paper) that I wish I hadn’t, seeing how I left myself open to certain critiques. This was it: “Too many journalists content themselves with a false syllogism: Journalists should be objective; I am a journalist; therefore I am objective.”
That reasoning is of course absurd. The only way to do the job is to be vividly aware of your preconceptions and prejudices, so you can be on the alert for them distorting your work. If you’re smugly clueless that you’re biased, you will screw up.
Call me a fogey, but I still think it’s worthwhile to have some people around whose first allegiance is to those stuffy principles of journalism, instead of having everybody operate on: My team is always right. My team must always win.
Re: the Paris Hilton crack that annoyed some. I’m guessing a lot of people who blast the MSM as a unified entity don’t realize something: most print journalists consider most TV newspeople to be as annoying as you find them to be. we view them as shallow faux journalists. (We have our own flaws, but I’d argue we have a much greater residual allegiance to seriousness and depth) I no more want to be lumped in with Dan Rather than you’d want me to pretend to be spokesman for the blogosophere.
Finally, “make public life go well.” That’s an allusion to the basic creed of civic journalism, which some of you might not be familiar with. The idea is not that journalists know what the best result is; it’s that democracy works best when issues get aired, real dialogue happens and ordinary people aren’t shut out of the deal by elites. It’s actually a commitment not to let arrogant elites have all the fun, and a belief that journalists can help good dialogue to occur. so any card-carrying civic journalist is going to celebrate the blogosphere.
Sorry to have rambled. Too much caffeine.

Re: Chris’ Satullo’s latest remarks.

It’s become a cliche nowadays to deny that objectivity is possible. “We’re all biased,” people say with a shrug. In a certain sense, that’s a truism. My response is: “what are you gonna do about it?”

True, no finite intelligence can bootstrap its way out of its own skin. That kind of absolute objectivity is metaphysically impossible for beings such as we. But it’s also a bit of red herring. You don’t need absolute objectivity in the sense I’ve just described in order to be fair-minded. All you need is to get at enough distance from your opinions to realize that other smart people don’t or may not hold them. This doesn’t mean that you have to pretend to disbelieve your opinions when you believe in them. It just means that from now on you’ve got to argue for them.

I suppose that when it comes to journalism—and here I would agree with Andy—the obligation is not to much to present AN argument as it is to present THE arguments: both, or all the relevant, sides.

I take it from his remarks that Chris Satullo agrees with this on the level of princple.

What Chris Satullo doesn’t do, though, is address the question of whether or not there is such a thing as “liberal media bias.”

It’s true, of course, that a lot of people who shout “bias, bias” don’t care about being fair, or don’t even know what it means to be fair, and are using the bias-charge as a club to beat down arguments they don’t want to hear. But is this sufficient to account for conservatives’ accusations of media bias? In other words: even granting that conservatives as a rule would be perfectly happy with media bias if it went in their direction, it wouldn’t follow that there is no such thing as “liberal media bias.”

So, the question is this: is there or isn’t there?

Now, it doesn’t seem to me sufficient to answer by saying that most print journalists are just good guys trying their best to avoid mistakes, which will happen nonetheless. The question, at least in my mind, has nothing to do with the motives of individuals, which are known only to God. No, the issue is this: what is the kind of education do journalists typically receive nowadays? What kind of worldview do they get introduced into in the main journalism schools?

To put it another way: journalists may not be part of the political or economic elite in the strict sense, but they are part of an educational-cultural elite, which, on the whole, is characterized by a certain worldview.

Let me repeat that I’m not pronouncing on individual motives. In fact, I’m not even picking on journalists. I mean, there is such a thing as soi-disant “enlightened opinion” that saturates the culture-forming institutions—so much so that, without an extra special effort to be fair-minded, we’ll just miss it entirely, and think that, if we’re not aware of consciously distorting the facts, we’ve satisfied the requirements of objectivity.

I’d be false to my own principles if I said that “enlightened opinion” is a destiny we can’t escape. All I’m saying is that it will be unless we can learn to get some distance from it. Self-criticism about worldview should be a sine qua non of journalistic and every other education. But such self-criticism requires much more than a couple of courses in media ethics (or whatever ethics goes with your profession).

Thanks for letting me rant, you all.

Adrian