Poll: Bias 'alive and well' in press

[Real World]

Interesting poll.




By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

March 16, 2007

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

Naturally, there's a partisan divide, and a pronounced one. Among Republican respondents, 97 percent said the press was liberal. Two-thirds of political independents agreed with them, with less than a quarter of the independents -- 23 percent -- saying there was a conservative bias.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...4454-8075r.htm

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by Real World

Interesting poll.




By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

March 16, 2007

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

Naturally, there's a partisan divide, and a pronounced one. Among Republican respondents, 97 percent said the press was liberal. Two-thirds of political independents agreed with them, with less than a quarter of the independents -- 23 percent -- saying there was a conservative bias.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/...4454-8075r.htm

Huh. How 'bout that. Resonates with me.


//

[Patters]

My view is that talk radio is overwhelmingly right wing, national newspapers are a majority liberal, local newspapers (that have traditionally backed Republicans as much as Democrats) are pretty much split, tv is pretty much split, and liberals have a larger voice on the internet than do conservatives. I think CNN is the most objective of tv news stations for the simple reason that whether you go to left wing or right wing blogs, everyone complains about their slant.

That said, how does one identify bias? Part of the problem is that bad news sells, and whether it's the Clinton sex scandal or the daily tragedies in Iraq, those stories may appear biased, but the motivation is sales more than politics.

[DarrylS]

Originally Posted by Patters

That said, how does one identify bias? Part of the problem is that bad news sells, and whether it's the Clinton sex scandal or the daily tragedies in Iraq, those stories may appear biased, but the motivation is sales more than politics.

A perfect example is Anna Nicole Smith, we have been inundated with info on her life and death for about a month now and it shows no sign of abating... when not focused on her we have split our time on Britney, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and a whole bunch of other excessive celebs who I do not give a rats ass about.

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by Patters

My view is that talk radio is overwhelmingly right wing, national newspapers are a majority liberal, local newspapers (that have traditionally backed Republicans as much as Democrats) are pretty much split, tv is pretty much split, and liberals have a larger voice on the internet than do conservatives. I think CNN is the most objective of tv news stations for the simple reason that whether you go to left wing or right wing blogs, everyone complains about their slant.

Which is exactly WHY the Dems now want to destroy this most fragile balance of news/information by trying to re-install the the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine", a plan that would essentially cause talk radio to shut itself down by demanding all statements made on public airwaves be rebutted. Since the left owns so much of the other media, neutralizing talk radio would swing the power to the left's direction. Very bad.


//

[Patters]

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

Which is exactly WHY the Dems now want to destroy this most fragile balance of news/information by trying to re-install the the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine", a plan that would essentially cause talk radio to shut itself down by demanding all statements made on public airwaves be rebutted. Since the left owns so much of the other media, neutralizing talk radio would swing the power to the left's direction. Very bad. //

Fog, in all honesty, there's always a political game going on. There are always those who seize political opportunity with power. One of the sleazy ways the Republicans have used their power is for gerrymandering. The Republicans also used the system to wage war on Clinton, avoid hearings on many issues, delayed election reform, and I believe the Republican-dominated FCC even passed measures that aided Rupert Murdoch. The Democrats are no different. If the Democrats can find a way to use the system that's in place to benefit them, they will, but I don't think they'll be as extreme as the Republicans were. It remains to be seen.

Like it or not, this is the nature of our system. That said, on most issues the vast majority of our elected officials try to be principled; those are the issues that get them elected.

I haven't read a good critique of what the Democrats are trying to do with regard to the Fairness Doctrine, so I don't know if it has leadership support, if it's a different Fairness Doctrine, or even where it is in the process.

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by Patters

Fog, in all honesty, there's always a political game going on. There are always those who seize political opportunity with power. One of the sleazy ways the Republicans have used their power is for gerrymandering. The Republicans also used the system to wage war on Clinton, avoid hearings on many issues, delayed election reform, and I believe the Republican-dominated FCC even passed measures that aided Rupert Murdoch. The Democrats are no different. If the Democrats can find a way to use the system that's in place to benefit them, they will, but I don't think they'll be as extreme as the Republicans were. It remains to be seen.

Like it or not, this is the nature of our system. That said, on most issues the vast majority of our elected officials try to be principled; those are the issues that get them elected.

I haven't read a good critique of what the Democrats are trying to do with regard to the Fairness Doctrine, so I don't know if it has leadership support, if it's a different Fairness Doctrine, or even where it is in the process.

As usual, it all depends on whose ox is being gored to say whether it is a crime or just life.

I do know that the debate has got to rise above petty partisanship between competing brothers, the Dems and the Repubs. We need a more parental leadership that takes into account *all* of the children.

We need someone to stand in a position that all people can recognize as the final authority. We need a benevolent king and queen, someone who can see to the needs of all the sons and daughters.


//

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by Real World

Interesting poll.

Poll?
Now you're into POLLS?!

[Patters]

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

As usual, it all depends on whose ox is being gored to say whether it is a crime or just life.

I do know that the debate has got to rise above petty partisanship between competing brothers, the Dems and the Repubs. We need a more parental leadership that takes into account *all* of the children.

We need someone to stand in a position that all people can recognize as the final authority. We need a benevolent king and queen, someone who can see to the needs of all the sons and daughters. //

I don't agree. Our system isn't perfect, but overall it works quite well. The Dem Congress got punished for its arrogance in the early 90s, and the same just happened to the Republican Congress. In the meantime, despite their mistakes overall they seem to take care of the country, whether you agree with them or not. While a benevolent king is a nice idea, I strongly suspect that your idea of benevolence is a lot different than my idea, and there will always be those who see what they want regardless of the leader. I think Hillary and Bush are good examples of people whose image is created as much by their admirers and opponents as by the facts. What we need most of all is open government. The fewer secrets, the easier it is to catch people being dishonest. We also need to make honesty a top moral issue. Americans, like almost everyone else in the world, are too dishonest.

[Fogbuster]

Originally Posted by Patters

I don't agree. Our system isn't perfect, but overall it works quite well. The Dem Congress got punished for its arrogance in the early 90s, and the same just happened to the Republican Congress. In the meantime, despite their mistakes overall they seem to take care of the country, whether you agree with them or not. While a benevolent king is a nice idea, I strongly suspect that your idea of benevolence is a lot different than my idea, and there will always be those who see what they want regardless of the leader. I think Hillary and Bush are good examples of people whose image is created as much by their admirers and opponents as by the facts. What we need most of all is open government. The fewer secrets, the easier it is to catch people being dishonest. We also need to make honesty a top moral issue. Americans, like almost everyone else in the world, are too dishonest.

So you want to continue with this never-ending feud, brother pitched against brother, ad infinitum?! No, sir, not for me. I'm tired as hell of the bickering, the lying, the cheating and stealing, and worse, the violence. Only a higher love can relieve this situation and only those in the parents' position can offer that. Believe me, it is attainable and much better than the current squabble fest we live in.


//