One sign of liberal media bias is when articles routinely brand conservative policy institutes as "conservative" or "Republican" while omitting the partisan and philosophical leanings of liberal advocacy groups.
For example, the Washington Policy Center, which calls itself a "non-partisan free-market" think tank, recently released a report on the King County Transit Now tax proposal. The Seattle Times characterized the WPC thusly:
... a conservative think tank says in a new report ... The report was written by Michael Ennis [who] previously was an assistant to former state Sen. Dino Rossi, former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton and state Rep. Jan Shabro, all Republicans.Compare and contrast with recent Times articles quoting "Justice at Stake" on the State Supreme Court races. It's hard to argue with a straight face that Justice at Stake is anything but a liberal, Democrat-leaning advocacy group. Its "partners" are trial lawyer associations and other liberal Democrat constituency groups. It is funded by left-wing non-profits, including George Soros' Open Society Institute. Its executive director, Bert Brandenburg, worked on Clinton's 1992 campaign and was Attorney General Janet Reno's spokesman. Yet Justice at Stake's liberal Democrat leanings are never mentioned when it is quoted by the Seattle Times. It is portrayed only as a neutral advocate for fair courts. September 14:
Justice at Stake, a Washington, D.C., group pushing to keep politics and special interests out of court races.Even worse, May 23:
Campaign spending in Supreme Court races has risen sharply in most of the 38 states that elect justices, according to a report by Justice at Stake, a Washington D.C.-based nonpartisan groupAs non-partisan as its sponsors George Soros and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 24, 2006 11:56 AM | Email This
Postman thread is ''Light blogging ahead''.
Posted by: Methow Ken on September 24, 2006 01:23 PMAnd the Times and P-I wonder why their subscriptions are falling off so rapidly.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 24, 2006 04:30 PMSure the media has a liberal bias. After all, they try to report what's happening, and as Stephen Colbert pointed out recently, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
But it's absurd for Stu to say that's why their circulation is declining -- especially in liberal Seattle. If anything, the Seattle Times is more conservative than its hometown market; after all, the Times endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 and Dino Rossi in 2004 even though Seattle voters overwhelmingly opposed those candidates.
Posted by: Bruce on September 24, 2006 05:23 PMI can't even read an article about a new cancer treatment in the P-I without wondering what the editor's agenda was in allowing it to go to print. I always feel the need to research any article they print by checking various sources on the internet to get the rest of the story. My trust of Seattle newspapers as news sources is nil.
At some point we'll decide that $176.80 a year plus tip the P-I is too much to pay for the amount of entertainment we get and we'll cancel our subscription. From the looks of things a lot of other folks have beat us out the door and it's no wonder.
Frankly, my idea of the newspaper we need today was the local weekly we got in Maryland 40 years ago. It had everything I wanted to know about my neighborhood--and more!--and it didn't try to hoodwink us into thinking they were a source for anything other than 30 pages of editorial content. And their advertising? Affordable to the businesses I wanted to know about. That paper's still around, even has a website reporting on births, weddings, ambulance runs and lawsuits. They even have an extremely popular column by a courthouse-watching Stefan wannabe! Who in the world would need 'news' from the P-I as long as we had a newspaper like that AND the internet?
Posted by: iyq2 on September 24, 2006 06:55 PM#2 - They give a conservative one sentence in an article to state her position on an issue, and give liberals 13 paragraphs to tear her personality and appearance apart -- while ignoring the issue.
Posted by: starboardhelm on September 24, 2006 07:41 PMmy example? the fluff insert on immigration in the Times--tear-jerking--no conservative views for balance--all pix of desparate-looking, honest, anxious folk, not federal LAW BREAKERS cutting in line. no pix of those who wait years in line and follow the laws.
intelligent (substantive) writing appeals to all--even grudgingly to conservatives; this is lost in our society of desparate housewives and 30-minute sitcom dr phil solutions.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 24, 2006 07:46 PMThe liberal bias of the Seattle and Bellevue papers is evident on all their pages, particularly the op-ed pages. I will admit that the Eastside Journal does occasionally have articles by conservatives, i.e., Bob Wallace, etal, but mostly it's just the usual liberal biased media.
Who needs it?
Posted by: Clean House on September 24, 2006 08:09 PMIncluding the NYTimes assessment that the Iraq war has made the world a less safe place. I don't believe that necessarily, but don't believe all of the White House spin either.
Jimmie@14, I didn't see the crack dealer article, but I read the one about the homeless guy. I didn't think it deified him. It even quoted his mother as saying there wasn't really a moral to the story. It merely tried to show that a guy in rough straits had a human side -- planting flowers, etc. -- that was wasted due to his drug habit or whatever else sent him over the edge. It was a typical human interest article, not intended to be a deep analysis of homelessness or anything else.
Posted by: Bruce on September 24, 2006 08:33 PMSounds like a job for Jim McDermott. afterall he has done it before.
Posted by: Huh? on September 24, 2006 09:16 PMOn most issues, the average American agrees more than the Dems than the Reps. (This has been well-documented, but sorry, I'm too tired to cite a reference now.)
Many of them don't know any conservatives.
Do the math. Every time a liberal knows a conservative, that conservative knows that liberal. So the number of conservatives that the average liberal knows is inextricably linked to the number of liberals that each conservative knows.
Posted by: Bruce on September 24, 2006 10:13 PMSomebody needs to get busted for this. Arrested, tried, convicted and promptly executed. Yes, there would be unprecented liberoid squalling, but this is what needs to happen.
Until things like this start to happen, we can only assume that we're doomed. The forces of no-civilization will overtake the forces of Western Civilization.
All we can do is retreat into the empty quarter, wait it out from the Camas Priarie down into the flats of the Snake River, up into the Bitterroots.
Is this a gloomy foretelling? Yes it is.
But now you know where to run, if you can bring a rifle with you.
Let's hope we can hold out until once again broadcasting classified information once again becomes a crime.
We've seen the NYT do this over and over.
Posted by: Niccolo on September 25, 2006 02:52 AMi look at articles overall in the whole scheme of the paper's daily trends. frequently light on perps, only touches of personal blame/responsibility atricles and usually leftish for my taste. that's fine, but i always take them with a grain of salt. proof? try studying the ratio of readers' letter positions--usually tilted left. by design or chance?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 25, 2006 04:44 AMWe (the readers) have no idea of the support/caveats/opposing viewpoints to the pieces of the intelligence estimate leaked to the NYT. So that classified information has been doubly filtered. Once by the leakers (who have their own agenda), then again by the NYT editors--whose agenda is clear to the entire world. I cannot give much credence to that article.
Posted by: iconoclast on September 25, 2006 07:50 AMReally? Well, that would certainly explain GOP control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the majority of the state's governorships, wouldn't it?
Posted by: jimg on September 25, 2006 08:20 AMI don't know where you live Bruce, but here in Seattle my experience is that people just automatically assume you are a liberal. When we moved into our neighborhood years ago our neighbor, the local Dem Precinct Chair, asked us if we "voted the right way". I spent 5 years working on Seattle's Capitol Hill and I very carefully avoided talking politics with customers. They never knew I was a conservative. Watching them throw tantrums like little children after the 2004 election was priceless entertainment.
For more entertainment watch how the leftist media spins Bill Clinton's meltdown during the Chris Wallace interview. Should be interesting.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2006 08:27 AMIt is so true that the automatic assumption of all Seattle liberals is that everyone else is a liberal (as well as anyone who voted for Bush is eeevviilllll). And, unless one is spoiling for a fight, don't even mildly disagree with the liberal memes or voice modest support for "Rethugs".
Funny at times. other times I feel like an early Christian hiding out from the praetorians.
Posted by: iconoclast on September 25, 2006 12:21 PMObviously if Postman's not willing to objectively look at the bias in his paper, he's good with being a puppet for pelz publication.
Posted by: Huh? on September 25, 2006 01:20 PMThe "mainstream media presents itself as unbiased, when in fact there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left."
The man who made that comment is not some rabid right-wing critic but Thomas Edsall, a Washington Post political reporter for a quarter-century who recently accepted an early retirement offer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092401108_3.html
Posted by: Obi-Wan on September 25, 2006 02:35 PMJimg@28 -- even in 2000 and 2004 (when Bush was far more popular than he is now), polls showed more Americans agreed with the views of Gore and Kerry than Bush, but didn't personally like Gore and Kerry (who ran horrendous campaigns). And despite his awful campaign, Gore got half a million more votes than Bush. Sure Bush won both elections -- only a childish whiner would refer to him as "Mr. Bush" instead of "President Bush" -- but you would be wise to correctly interpret why.
Bill@29 -- you are right, many people in Seattle assume their neighbors are liberal. It's statistically a good guess, and doubtless is intended as a compliment, but one should never assume, and real dialog would be better. Heck, that's why some of us libs hang out here looking for intelligent conservatives to listen to and debate.
Posted by: Bruce on September 25, 2006 08:55 PMThanks Bruce. I think that's what it's all about, reasoned and sometime very passionate debate...with a little bit of humor and humility thrown in for good measure.
Papers pick each part very closely. my guess is page space is precious. like grocery store shelf space. everything--size, topic, pages, location, colors--it's no accident. lots of thought goes in.
ergo, when looking at a paper, i think grocery shelf--what's displayed? why? how much space? for whom? why would that be?
true--maybe it's the consumer, but I don't like the article or person or lifestyle featured as "noble"--and yes--i can "shop elsewhere" thanks to America and its soldiers fighting for its freedoms.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 26, 2006 02:49 PM"Can't carry on an intelligent conversation with that type. He can't spell worth s**t either !"
Huh?
Bush is an unpopular dictator
Foley is a child sex predator
Rumming is an incompetent Liar
And YOU - support them - YOU are my ememy.
your fascist party is LOSING big time!!!!
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
"Can't carry on an intelligent conversation with that type. He can't spell worth s**t either !"
Huh?
Bush is an unpopular dictator
Foley is a child sex predator
Rumming is an incompetent Liar
And YOU - support them - YOU are my ememy.
your fascist party is LOSING big time!!!!
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
"Can't carry on an intelligent conversation with that type. He can't spell worth s**t either !"
Huh?
Bush is an unpopular dictator
Foley is a child sex predator
Rumming is an incompetent Liar
And YOU - support them - YOU are my ememy.
your fascist party is LOSING big time!!!!
hahahahahahahhahahahahahaha