http://sopebocks.blogspot.com/2006/11/topic-liberal-bias-in-media-proven-im.html

Man, Halperin was a major suck-up here.

I’m sure it goes without saying to genuine readers of the blog that your “source” of proof of media bias is a GOP-funded tool pretending to be a research center. They call these quasi-PACS (masquerading as nonprofits) “opposition research” centers, meaning they put out research showing only what they are paid to show — and in recent years what I’ve seen when I’ve checked into the GOP funded ones, the sources are either fictional, paid for their positions or duped into saying what they said and are livid, without access to clear their record. As the real sources who are burned dwindle, these “research” arms of the GOP have used more and more fictional stuff.

Which leads me back to your “proof,” JKelly/barfly, that the media is liberal. The “article” in your link offers no verifiable fact, which any Journalism 301 student knows makes it unnewsworthy and irrelevant.

I’m real. I’m a newsroom journalist and have been for decades. I’m not liberal (and Jason is on target to say conservatives denounce this WH. I, too, hear the conservatives saying that nothing about its Middle East policy is conservative).

My major urban paper endorses mostly Republicans, including Bush. My newsroom includes a mix of liberal, conservative and apolitical types that seems to reflect national polls. I cast my personal votes for Republicans as often as Democrats, just not George Bush since his disasterous incompetence demonstrated on 9/11.

So, on the one hand, you have one real example, me, to contrast with … nothing!

Your goal, JKelly/barfly, along with Halperin’s, is to purge newsrooms of any view except that of the Unitary Executive’s Supreme Authority. You know it. Everyone knows what your goal is.

What is sickening is you anti-Americans who’ll actually spend so much time and energy trying to destroy the essence and concept of the First Amendment. Viva la Pravda, right JK?

If you can’t spell, at least you can fake it by using spellcheck!
————————————-
Now on the topic at hand, this latest news out of ABC (for me) is just one more reason to *continue* boycotting ABC/Disney.

If this clown wants to perpetuate the “liberal media” myth fine, but not without paying the consequences such as boycotts of their businesses *and* being publicly exposed as a tool of the conservative liars party.

These clowns (including Rush, Savage, Hannity, Bill’O, and the rest) have more in common with bullies in a school lunch room than mature adults.
The immature, malevolent, and always innacurate rantings of the Bush apologists are obvious for those with a brain, a heart, and knowledge of current events.

Now regarding the bleating sack of ______ (you can fill in your favorite term of endearment) Rush Limbaugh….

After hearing about, then seeing his unforgiveable attack on Michael J. Fox, my first reaction was “oh how I’d like to have 2 minutes alone with this bastard” (I’m sure that I’m not the only one, eh?).
Well it’s now a day later, and after his defiant ‘non-apology’ I must say that the feeling has only gotten stronger.
Of course that’s not an option (for me), although if I *heard* about someone assaulting him I’d have to say that [head]Rush probably got what he deserved.
Of course, violence is not the way to solve problems, but I do have to admit that there is a part of me that would enjoy seeing him have his jaw broken (then permanently wired shut).

I have to assume that he’s beefed-up his personal security since then (maybe he’s using Bill O’Really’s [imaginary] Fox security team?) but I’d bet that he’s looking over his shoulder even more than usual after this latest a$$burst.

Even for an assclown like Limbaugh, this is a *new* low for the reich-wingers…
What’s next Rush, making fun of people with deformities, the blind/deaf?

Has anyone from the ‘right’ come out and publicly called Limbaugh on this?
..and *why* isn’t the “liberal media” all over this, eh?

Are these adults or overgrown schoolchildren?
That little sh!t Tucker Carlson and his producer/sidekick were making fun of someone the other day and I thought to myself, is what they have to offer, and what *kind* of human being listens to this (and continues to tune in)?

Juvenile put-downs and making fun of others is much of what many of the conservative blowhards have to offer (oh, and helping to push the conservative agenda [of lies and half-truths] by being Bush apologists and repeating the WH’s talking points).

Too bad Tucker isn’t more like Margaret Carlson (no relation). She seems so thoughtful and good. Tucker Carlson, not so much. He’s just another willing tool for the evil known as the Republican party (as we currently know it).

This latest example of sub-human thinking from Rush Limbaugh is the most disgusting example of conservative BS since the GOP’s ’swiftboating’ of war veterans (who actually had the guts to put their LIVES on the line for their country) like Max Cleland, John McCain (yes, they’ll eat their own in pursuit of power), John Kerry, etc..

Is there a depth that the GOP can sink to below this latest example by Limbaugh?
Well, there’s close to two weeks left, and what I’m seeing is desperation (with a capital “D”) on the GOP’s part.

Nothing it seems is too distasteful or beneath them [to try] at this point.
Their plan for victory seems to consist of lies about their opposition and general FUD*.

They’re trying to run on the economy (’Greed is GOOD’, and ‘Don’t pay any attention to the trillion dollar deficit behind the curtain’), but that’s not gaining any ‘traction’ compared to the war, all the Republican scandals, and idiots like Limbaugh making fun of one of America’s beloved actors (and a genuinely good man) Michael J. Fox.

That’s ALL the GOP has to offer America, scandals, lies and FUD!

*Fear, Uncertaintity, and Doubt.

Oh, no, can’t have that. It’s a “marketplace of ideas.” As long as those ideas argee with yours, I suppose.

This liberal media garbage is getting old, don’t'cha think? Not even conservatives believe it. They just play the refs to try to elbow for preferential treatment, and it works because corporate sponsorship likes it tilted conservative: it covers up all but the most egregious misdeeds.

In typical, idea-less, morally-bankrupt republican fashion, you completely failed to address or provide a counterpoint to any of the republican voter traits I pointed out.

In tactics more becoming of a 3rd grader on the school playground, your rebuttal basically boils down to “well, we won the last election, so nyeah nyeah”. Grow up, it might help with that whole bedwetting problem you have.

As for those “scum filled” urban areas, you are really showing your true bigotted stripes there. Not a surprise, but what may come as a surprise to you is that the tax revenue from those people you consider “scum” in the urban areas subsidizes all the rural areas, particularly in the south, that do not contibute to the GNP in any meaningful way.

In other words, without the “scum”, the rural South would basically be a third-world country. But at least you wouldn’t have to take any of that crap about tolerance and hope from those uppity urban scumbags, right?!?

When people like you decide to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around you, and you realize that it is in the interest of your children to embrace liberal policies that look to make the world a cleaner, less fear-filled and bigotted place, then perhaps we can all make this country a better place together.

In the meantime, keep on pandering to the lowest common denominator in your party who are receptive to messages of fear and intolerance. Maybe someday you’ll wake up.

here you go – good reseach on liberal bia as it pertains to journalists

Of course, true liberals never let facts get in the way. It’s all about feeling isn’t it?

Now that he is out promoting his book, which clearly is targeted at and will sell best with a biased right-wing demographic, he indisputably has a conflict of interest that is incompatible with his role as a journalist with ABC. After all, his sole purpose for being on was to build visibility to help him sell his book with that crowd.

Contact ABC and tell them it’s time to dismiss Halperin on the unarguable grounds he has a conflict of interest that is fundamentally incompatible with his role with ABC: He has chosen being an author with a self-serving interest in selling a book that is all about pushing a personal opinion with regard to the subject matter he covers as a journalist. Make it clear to them that if the press does not defend the journalistic principles for which the press needs and deserve First Amendment protection, the people will not be there when the press faces First Amendment challenges.

In this case, that means giving Halperin the time to do what he really wants to do – sell his book – on his own, rather than allowing him to use his status as a journalist to sell his book to the detriment of journalistic business of reporting the facts and ABC’s credibility.

Try this: Name the prominent Newspapers with some national following with editorial boards that tilt right?

Outside of the Wall Street Jounal, which definately leans right, there isn’t one!

The left bias is so pervasive in traditional news that its invisible to those within it. Like fish trying to understand what water is.

Fortunately, there are finally alternatives to the traditional media. New voices can be heard.

What about Air America? I guess a better question would be why does liberal views fail so spectacularly in radio. I have listened to Air America and it came across as shrill and boring.

Talk about delusional! As if the immigrants aer lining up at your door waiting to rape and pillage!

Wet the bed much?

That means the first thing they did in our country is break the law. But you want to give them rights and take away mine. I have the right to own arms to protect myself from the people you protect.

- suspension of disbelief (you buy right into the WH b.s. like “we never said it was ’stay the course’”)

- a twisted sense of morals (e.g. you must protect embryos, but its ok to drop bombs on children who are already born and living)

- a belief that you need to protected and told what’s right and wrong by a ‘higher’ power (be it Bush, or your twisted version of God)

- a hatred for people that are different than how you want to be (I’d say ‘hatred for people that are different from you’, but we all know that a lot of conservatives are closeted, self-loathing gays anyway)

- a need for made-up boogeymen to rally your fellow bedwetter republicans in unified hatred and fear (the “liberal media”, the “homosexual agenda”, “terrorists are EVERYWHERE!!! get out the duct tape!!”)

-

When I get the time (I’m at work), I will research recent surveys which actually stated that very few journalists consider themselves liberal. In fact, I’m pretty sure that there’s a link to/thread about the surveys somewhere here on TP. Unless someone else wants to help with this?

See you later.

In real journalism, fair, accurate and truthful is the standard. “Balanced” NEVER was.

It’s a myth that even the left seems to believe “has always been,” but truthful, fair and accurate reporting never has been necessarily balanced reporting — and often isn’t.

Example, John Wayne Gacy trial: Did we omit facts about his atrocities because they were out of balance with the fans of his clown paintings? Fair, accurate, truthful — but not balanced.

Halperin should know this, but conveniently made his way to fame in Disney without a clue as to the standards of professional journalism. But, he gets paid much better than do I, so I guess he must be right (wink).