The Fux News Channel - "We distort you decide"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Harry Hope

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 10:27:18 AM7/2/01
to

From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html

Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -

Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced when it comes to
political guests, a watchdog group has charged.

Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on Brit Hume's daily news show
over a five-month period earlier this year were Republican, and only
six were Democrats, the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
said.

In an admittedly more subjective analysis, FAIR said 65 of the show's
92 total guests were conservative politically.

``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced, as straight news,'' said
Steve Rendall, a FAIR senior analyst.

``It's media consumer fraud.''

________________________________________________

More like queer and unbalanced.

Harry

"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House -- make no mistake
about it"

Georgie W. Dimwit -- Washington Post, 2/7/01

wrigley

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 11:48:20 AM7/2/01
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:45:48 GMT, Sam Barber
<samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:27:18 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
>wrote:


>
>>
>>From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html
>>
>>Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced
>>
>>By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>>
>>NEW YORK (AP) -
>>
>>Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced when it comes to
>>political guests, a watchdog group has charged.
>>
>>Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on Brit Hume's daily news show
>>over a five-month period earlier this year were Republican, and only
>>six were Democrats, the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
>>said.
>>
>>In an admittedly more subjective analysis, FAIR said 65 of the show's
>>92 total guests were conservative politically.
>>
>>``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced, as straight news,'' said
>>Steve Rendall, a FAIR senior analyst.
>>
>>``It's media consumer fraud.''
>>
>>________________________________________________
>>
>>More like queer and unbalanced.
>

>When you put all the networks together, FOX balances the group.
>
>That is the point.
>
>Got the stats for the other networks, Harry?
>
>Oh, I forgot, you can't reply.
>


Sam, if Harry were to get stats for the other networks, and those
stats were done by not so FAIR, then I can guarantee you those stats
would show that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS would be balanced.
Consider the source.

Joshua Heard

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 11:53:21 AM7/2/01
to
Where's the report on the rest of the *liberal* media?


"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b408169....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

Daniel T. Fahey

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 11:59:53 AM7/2/01
to

"Sam Barber" <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote in message
news:m321ktgu2cjpuphsk...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:27:18 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
> >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html
> >
> >Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced
> >
> >By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
> >
> >NEW YORK (AP) -
> >
> >Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced when it comes to
> >political guests, a watchdog group has charged.
> >
> >Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on Brit Hume's daily news show
> >over a five-month period earlier this year were Republican, and only
> >six were Democrats, the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> >said.
> >
> >In an admittedly more subjective analysis, FAIR said 65 of the show's
> >92 total guests were conservative politically.
> >
> >``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced, as straight news,'' said
> >Steve Rendall, a FAIR senior analyst.
> >
> >``It's media consumer fraud.''
> >
> >________________________________________________
> >
> >More like queer and unbalanced.
>
> When you put all the networks together, FOX balances the group.
>
> That is the point.
>
> Got the stats for the other networks, Harry?
>
> Oh, I forgot, you can't reply.

I will reply...you see all the stations are conservative.
FOX is more conservative.

This trend to control the press and media started with Ronald Reagan.
This was most successful against Iraq. Where no press people werw allowed
to get near the fighting zone. No Vietnam type reporting there.

They do not want happened during Watergate to happen.
That way Niraragua and Panama could be pummeled by the USA.

The internet is the last bastion of free exchange of ideas.
And the power brokers are trying to find a way to control this medium.

FOX and the right wing special purpose newpapers are just the beginning.
If there was a left wing push or a idology push I would be just as
concerned.

This push to facism by controllong industry and public media
is dangerous and not to be discounted.

Pay attention....what FOX represents is not healthy for the country.

YoDA


>


Bert Hyman

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 11:55:08 AM7/2/01
to
jhe...@NoSpamNovacron.com (Joshua Heard) wrote in news:RN007.50097
$0e3.44...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com:

> Where's the report on the rest of the *liberal* media?
>

See http://www.mrc.org/

>
> "Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3b408169....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...

>>...


>>
>> Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced when it comes to
>> political guests, a watchdog group has charged.
>>
>>

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com

Bloody Viking

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:32:08 PM7/2/01
to

Sam Barber (samb...@prontomail.com) wrote:

: When you put all the networks together, FOX balances the group.

While FOX might add balance in the aggregate, it has to be unbalanced to do
so. The fact that NO mass media network is balanced shows that you cannot
trust what mass media says.

--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
http://www.ripco.com/~nospam/

CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listas Para Cerrar.

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:48:14 PM7/2/01
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:45:48 GMT, Sam Barber
<samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:

>> From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html
>>
>> Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced
>>
>> By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) -
>>
>> Fox News Channel is anything but fair and
>> balanced when it comes to political guests,
>> a watchdog group has charged.
>>
>> Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on
>> Brit Hume's daily news show over a
>> five-month period earlier this year were
>> Republican, and only six were Democrats,
>> the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in
>> Reporting said.
>>
>> In an admittedly more subjective analysis,
>> FAIR said 65 of the show's 92 total guests
>> were conservative politically.
>>
>> ``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced,
>> as straight news,'' said Steve Rendall, a
>> FAIR senior analyst.
>>
>> ``It's media consumer fraud.''
>>
>> ________________________________
>>

>> More like queer and unbalanced.
>

> When you put all the networks together, FOX
> balances the group.
>

> That is the point.
>
> Got the stats for the other networks, Harry?

____

At it happens, we don't have to speculate
here. FAIR compared Hume's show with
Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN. During the
same period, when 50 of Hume's 56 political
guests were Republicans, Blitzer had 67
political guests--38 were Republicans and
29 were Democrats. Heavily tilted to the
right, but not more than anyone would
expect from the corporate press. It does
throw Hume's show in rather sharp relief,
though, doesn't it?

Bill Smith

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:01:09 PM7/2/01
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:27:18 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
wrote:

>

"Fair" ? Right! How many liberal media outlets do they take to task
for bias? In all fairness, they probably don't have enough staff for a
job that big.

Bill Smith

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:56:00 PM7/2/01
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:48:20 GMT, wri...@home.com (wrigley) wrote:

> Sam, if Harry were to get stats for the other
> networks, and those stats were done by
> not so FAIR, then I can guarantee you
> those stats would show that CNN, ABC,
> NBC, and CBS would be balanced.
> Consider the source.

____

I suppose I should credit you with a valiant
attempt to create a straw man--I just don't
think such a thing is very noble. Whatever
the source, the numbers don't lie. All FAIR
did was compile the guests and count
them. They did compare Hume's FOX
show to Wolf Blitzer's CNN show. In the
period when 50 of Hume's 56 political
guests were Republicans, Blitzer had on
67 political guests: 38 were Republicans
and 29 were Democrats. Heavily weighted
to the right, but that's just the way the
corporate press is--FOX is even more
conservative.

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 12:57:01 PM7/2/01
to
On 2 Jul 2001 15:55:08 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:

>> Where's the report on the rest of the
>> *liberal* media?
>
> See http://www.mrc.org/

___

LOL! Just don't expect to learn anything
while you're there.

Bert Hyman

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:07:39 PM7/2/01
to
classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in
news:2694F725B682066F.B55C72D7...@lp.airnews.net:

I see you weren't fooling when you chose the ID "classicliberal"; was
that "LOL!" supposed to be some sort of argument?

You can read FAIRs analysis and you can read MRCs analysis. I presume
they both supply what they believe to be compelling arguments and an
abundance of quotes.

If you're afraid to read one or the other, that's your problem.

Daniel T. Fahey

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:12:31 PM7/2/01
to

"Bert Hyman" <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90D26F0A025...@192.61.221.125...

> jhe...@NoSpamNovacron.com (Joshua Heard) wrote in news:RN007.50097
> $0e3.44...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com:
>
> > Where's the report on the rest of the *liberal* media?
> >
>
> See http://www.mrc.org/

YUP.. sounds like old CIA type propaganda against other countries.
Now they are attacking the USA.
They are advertising a war on anyone that does not share thier opinion.
"Heck with the ideas, lets attack them because they are a Liberal."

YoDA

wrigley

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:27:42 PM7/2/01
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:56:00 GMT, classic...@my-deja.com
(classicliberal2) wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:48:20 GMT, wri...@home.com (wrigley) wrote:
>
>> Sam, if Harry were to get stats for the other
>> networks, and those stats were done by
>> not so FAIR, then I can guarantee you
>> those stats would show that CNN, ABC,
>> NBC, and CBS would be balanced.
>> Consider the source.
>____
>
>I suppose I should credit you with a valiant
>attempt to create a straw man--I just don't
>think such a thing is very noble.

Didn't see that as a strawman.

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 1:43:06 PM7/2/01
to
On 2 Jul 2001 17:07:39 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:

>>>> Where's the report on the rest of the
>>>> *liberal* media?
>>>
>>> See http://www.mrc.org/ ___
>>
>> LOL! Just don't expect to learn anything
>> while you're there.
>
> I see you weren't fooling when you chose
> the ID "classicliberal"; was that "LOL!"
> supposed to be some sort of argument?

___

No, it's just an appropriate response
whenever MRC is mentioned.
___

> You can read FAIRs analysis and you
> can read MRCs analysis.

___

To call what MRC does "analysis" is to
degrade the word to the point of
meaninglessness. MRC, like FAIR, is a
seeker of bias. Unlike FAIR, they don't
care about accuracy at all--if someone
in the press says something bad about
a conservative Republican, they're
biased...whether it's true or not (At the
top of the MRC garbage-heap is an
absolutely chronic liar named Brent
Bozell
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/update102900.html).
MRC deals largely in meaningless
context-free anecdotes to make their
case for "bias," whereas FAIR does
research.
___

> I presume they both supply what they
> believe to be compelling arguments and
> an abundance of quotes.

___

The difference, of course, is that FAIR's
arguments actually are frequently compelling.
A recent hot topic of discussion in these
environs has been John Stossel. Consider
the disparate treatment of Stossel by the two
groups:

Stosse's show "Are We Scaring Ourselves To Death?":
http://www.fair.org/extra/9406/neufeld-stossel.html
vs.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1994/mw19940501otbs.html

"Is America Number One?"
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-america.html
vs.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1999/cyb19990922.html#4

"Mr. Stossel Goes To Washington"
http://www.fair.org/activism/stossel-goes-to-washington.html
vs.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/fmp/medianomics/2001/kd20010131.html

Note that, in all this, the MRC routinely
heaps praise upon Stossel for spreading what
is, in fact, misinformation--the same
misinformation debunked in the FAIR articles.
___

>If you're afraid to read one or the other,
> that's your problem.

___

It isn't a matter of fear. You just need to
know, going in, that you *aren't* going to
get substance from MRC, and you *are*
going to be misled by them.

Rico

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 3:20:57 PM7/2/01
to
In article <m321ktgu2cjpuphsk...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:27:18 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html
>>
>>Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced
>>
>>By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>>
>>NEW YORK (AP) -
>>
>>Fox News Channel is anything but fair and balanced when it comes to
>>political guests, a watchdog group has charged.
>>
>>Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on Brit Hume's daily news show
>>over a five-month period earlier this year were Republican, and only
>>six were Democrats, the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
>>said.
>>
>>In an admittedly more subjective analysis, FAIR said 65 of the show's
>>92 total guests were conservative politically.
>>
>>``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced, as straight news,'' said
>>Steve Rendall, a FAIR senior analyst.
>>
>>``It's media consumer fraud.''
>>
>>________________________________________________
>>
>>More like queer and unbalanced.
>
>When you put all the networks together, FOX balances the group.
>
>That is the point.
>
>Got the stats for the other networks, Harry?
>
>Oh, I forgot, you can't reply.
>

Why don't you post them? He posted for Fox and Hume, you make the claims
about the other networks ">When you put all the networks together, FOX
balances the group."

Rico

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 3:27:14 PM7/2/01
to
In article <fn71kt0nqn2imcl9v...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>Nonsense. That's just a lame excuse.


CNN, Wolfe Blitzer (67 guests, 38 were republican - some FAIR report) as a
cite, your turn!

>>
>>This trend to control the press and media started with Ronald Reagan.
>>This was most successful against Iraq. Where no press people werw allowed
>>to get near the fighting zone. No Vietnam type reporting there.
>

>While we watched it live on CNN.


>
>>
>>They do not want happened during Watergate to happen.
>>That way Niraragua and Panama could be pummeled by the USA.
>

>You have to prove control of the press.


>
>>
>>The internet is the last bastion of free exchange of ideas.
>>And the power brokers are trying to find a way to control this medium.
>

>No way they can control it.
>
>And we note your opposition to free exchange of ideas with those you
>don't agree with.


>
>>
>>FOX and the right wing special purpose newpapers are just the beginning.
>

>Tell us about these "special purpose newspapers", Dan. Name them.


>
>>If there was a left wing push or a idology push I would be just as
>>concerned.
>

>The you are against all the Lying Socialist Weasels here. Did you
>ever read the purpose of Zepp's web site?


>>
>>This push to facism by controllong industry and public media
>>is dangerous and not to be discounted.
>

>You're just upset that we expose fascism on the left.


>
>>
>>Pay attention....what FOX represents is not healthy for the country.
>

>What you represent is the curtailment of free speech.
>
>Thanks for admitting it.
>
>>
>>YoDA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>

Rico

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 3:31:29 PM7/2/01
to

Wolfe Blitzer of CNN is compared to Hume, want to know the numbers?

Bill Smith

unread,
Jul 2, 2001, 8:24:43 PM7/2/01
to

Numbers? Sure, why not.

What bugs me is; there's so much obvious bias. Right or left, you
pick. I don't think anyone's making much of an effort to be fair.

A lot of it is in the eye of the beholder as well. My wife and I can
look at the same newscast and she will think it's bent right and I'll
think it's bent left. Go figure.

Every time I here the phrase "(Blank) watchdog group" it's almost
always someone grinding a particular ideological axe.

Bill Smith

Rico

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:50:34 PM7/3/01
to
In article <sum1ktomjjistcbno...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>It was a challenge to him. Didn't you get the point?

>
>>He posted for Fox and Hume, you make the claims
>>about the other networks ">When you put all the networks together, FOX
>>balances the group."
>
>Sounds good to me. But I'll withdraw the claim in light of Hume's
>own statement:


Are you surprised Hume regards himslef as moderate? Did you expect him to
agree with their conclusion. Have you noticed he does not dispute their
numbers?

>
>----
>Brit Hume, Liberally Interpreted
>
>By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 2, 2001;
>Page C01
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6786-2001Jul1.html
>
>Fox News Channel has been getting some good press lately as its
>ratings have soared and its news coverage is being recognized as more
>balanced than its pugnaciously conservative talk shows.
>
>But now a liberal advocacy group is taking on Brit Hume's "Special
>Report," the network's signature political newscast, saying it tilts
>-- yes -- to the right.
>
>Hume, a respected former White House correspondent for ABC, calls the
>criticism from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) "downright
>silly," adding: "I'm a little skeptical of their credibility because
>it's a very tendentious source. . . . The show's not about me, nor is
>it about my views."
>
>From January through mid-May, says the group's study, 71 percent of
>Hume's guests were avowed conservatives. And 89 percent of the
>political pros -- officeholders, candidates, staffers and consultants
>-- were Republicans.
>
>These guests included President Bush, Chief of Staff Andrew Card,
>Budget Director Mitch Daniels, Interior Secretary Gale Norton,
>environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman, faith-based director John
>DiIulio, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Don Nickles
>and nine other GOP officials, along with Jack Kemp, Lynne Cheney,
>William Bennett, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Paul Gigot.
>During the same period, the program hosted Democratic lawmakers Joe
>Lieberman, John Breaux, Jon Corzine and John Spratt.
>
>(To play it safe, the group did not classify such moderate
>Republicans as Whitman and David Gergen as conservatives.)
>
>Hume notes that the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate
>and House at the time. "To the extent we did newsmaker interviews,
>some of them tended to be Republicans because they had the levers of
>power," he says.
>
>The liberal group also says Hume's pundit panel is unbalanced because
>the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes is an outspoken conservative, Roll
>Call's Mort Kondracke is "at the very rightward edge of the
>Democratic Party" and National Public Radio's Mara Liasson not a real
>liberal. In fact, the panelists themselves say there is no liberal
>among them.
>
>Liasson says there is no "ideological slant to what I say. If I fill
>any role on that panel, I'm a girl reporter. . . . I try pretty
>carefully to be right down the middle."
>
>Says Kondracke: "I regard myself as a moderate, neither a
>conservative nor a liberal. Sometimes I criticize Democrats,
>sometimes I criticize Republicans."
>
>Barnes says he's clearly a conservative, and that "this is one of the
>things about Fox, that conservatives are welcome in other than just
>token positions. I actually think the panel is pretty balanced: one
>conservative and two nonconservatives."
>
>FAIR also takes a swipe at Hume's "Political Grapevine" roundup,
>saying he has carried such items as Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy
>(R.I.) in an airport scuffle and Democratic California Gov. Gray
>Davis uttering a string of curse words. By contrast, Hume praised
>Bush for requiring coats and ties in the Oval Office, while
>"President Clinton used to come into the Oval Office in running
>shorts . . . and . . . sometimes he did not remain fully clothed
>while he was there."
>
>"It could be called 'Blacks, Liberals and Environmentalists Behaving
>Badly,' " says FAIR spokesman Steve Rendall.
>
>Hume dismisses this as a "selective reading," saying he looks for
>little-noticed items and offers them "with virtually no comment. . .
>.. It doesn't surprise me that a left-liberal media advocacy group
>would claim these stories are tilted in some way. . . . This is a
>group that wants advocacy for views it likes. I don't think I'm going
>to satisfy them."
>
>
>
>

Rico

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:53:25 PM7/3/01
to
In article <kam1ktc6gias5gkl9...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>So that means all stations are conservative?


Still your turn, waiting on you to actually post some facts. waiting....

As to all stations, cannot say, it should be noted the major networks are
all owned by large (Fortune 100) corps. They are unlikely to be promoting
an anti corperate view point. Example NBC is owned by GE, when was the last
time NBC did a major anti nuke story?

Rico

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 1:57:13 PM7/3/01
to

67 guests 38 republicans.



>
>What bugs me is; there's so much obvious bias. Right or left, you
>pick. I don't think anyone's making much of an effort to be fair.

There is virtually no left bias on the big media. The socialists rarely to
never get on the air. What is called left bias is the 'moderate' pro
corparate view point. The anti copr view is never heard. The big media is
own by Fortune 100 companys, they are not about to allow their enemys air
time. Example GE owns NBC, GE is big in nuclear energy, when was the last
time you saw a serious anti-nuke piece on NBC?

Tom Abbott

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 8:29:31 PM7/3/01
to
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:59:53 -0400, "Daniel T. Fahey"
<DanF...@DanSources.com> wrote:

Yeah, I guess that's why the national news networks
refused Reagan's request to address the nation. Reagan
really had them in his back pocket, didn't he. Perhaps you
should read a little history instead of spending so much
time indulging in conspiracy theories.

>This was most successful against Iraq. Where no press people werw allowed
>to get near the fighting zone. No Vietnam type reporting there.
>
>They do not want happened during Watergate to happen.
>That way Niraragua and Panama could be pummeled by the USA.
>
>The internet is the last bastion of free exchange of ideas.
>And the power brokers are trying to find a way to control this medium.
>
>FOX and the right wing special purpose newpapers are just the beginning.
>If there was a left wing push or a idology push I would be just as
>concerned.
>

Which means you are blind since there has been a leftwing
liberal newsmedia in the US for decades and it has been
undermining the nation all that time.

>This push to facism by controllong industry and public media
>is dangerous and not to be discounted.
>
>Pay attention....what FOX represents is not healthy for the country.
>
>YoDA
>
>

Fox gets closer to the truth that the liberal networks.


TA

Tom Abbott

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 8:34:02 PM7/3/01
to


Go to the url below and it will put in sharp relief the
obvious liberal bias of the national news media:


http://www.mediaresearch.org/


TA

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 3, 2001, 11:48:15 PM7/3/01
to
On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 19:34:02 -0500, Tom Abbott <tab...@intellex.com>
wrote:

>>>> From The Associated Press, 7/2/01:
>>>> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010701/en/tv_fox_balance.html
>>>>
>>>> Fox News Channel Said Unbalanced
>>>>
>>>> By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
>>>>
>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -
>>>>
>>>> Fox News Channel is anything but fair and
>>>> balanced when it comes to political guests,
>>>> a watchdog group has charged.
>>>>
>>>> Fifty of 56 partisan guests interviewed on
>>>> Brit Hume's daily news show over a
>>>> five-month period earlier this year were
>>>> Republican, and only six were Democrats,
>>>> the liberal group Fairness & Accuracy in
>>>> Reporting said.
>>>>
>>>> In an admittedly more subjective analysis,
>>>> FAIR said 65 of the show's 92 total guests
>>>> were conservative politically.
>>>>
>>>> ``Fox portrays itself as fair and balanced,
>>>> as straight news,'' said Steve Rendall, a
>>>> FAIR senior analyst.
>>>>
>>>> ``It's media consumer fraud.''
>>>>

>>>> More like queer and unbalanced.
>>>
>>> When you put all the networks together, FOX
>>> balances the group.
>>>
>>> That is the point.
>>>
>>> Got the stats for the other networks, Harry?
>>

>> At it happens, we don't have to speculate
>> here. FAIR compared Hume's show with
>> Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN. During the
>> same period, when 50 of Hume's 56 political
>> guests were Republicans, Blitzer had 67
>> political guests--38 were Republicans and
>> 29 were Democrats. Heavily tilted to the
>> right, but not more than anyone would
>> expect from the corporate press. It does
>> throw Hume's show in rather sharp relief,
>> though, doesn't it?
>
>
> Go to the url below and it will put in sharp
> relief the obvious liberal bias of the
> national news media:
>
> http://www.mediaresearch.org/

___

I have a counter-proposal--go to these urls
and find out something about who you're
citing as a source:

http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/update102900.html

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 12:56:07 AM7/4/01
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:48:15 GMT, classic...@my-deja.com
(classicliberal2) wrote:

>> Go to the url below and it will put in sharp
>> relief the obvious liberal bias of the
>> national news media:
>>
>> http://www.mediaresearch.org/
>___
>
> I have a counter-proposal--go to these urls
> and find out something about who you're
> citing as a source:
>
> http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html
> http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/update102900.html

___

As a matter of fact, let me save you some
work. Here's an article from last year laying
out what you can expect from the MRC
and the national news media, in general:
____

Mythmakers & Al Gore The Liar
10/25/00

Dedicated to Joel Foss
Who deserves an apology...
_________

"As you have no doubt heard, Al Gore lies like a
rug. The old punch line about how you know when
a politician is lying is no joke when it comes to the
vice president. If his lips are moving, you know...
His lies are effortless and imaginative. He created
the Internet. He and Tipper were the inspiration for
'Love Story.' He had no idea the Buddhist Temple
was even a fund-raiser...He 'found' Love Canal..."

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, 5/11/00


"By now, pretty much everyone recognizes that Vice
President Gore has a problem with the truth."

-John J. Miller, National Review, 5/22/00
___________


"Democrats are desperate and afraid," writes Brent
Bozell in his column at the Media Research Center
(10/10/00). "The reality that their nominee for
President has a compulsive tendency to make things
up to make himself look good is sinking in." At least,
this is the image of Al Gore which Bush/Cheney
campaign strategists would have you believe, and
that means Brent Bozell and his Media Research
Center want you to believe it, too.

The MRC, founded by Bozell in 1987, is allegedly a
"media watchdog." Allegedly, it's dedicated to ferreting
out "bias" in the press, specifically liberal bias. But unlike
it's liberal counterpart, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In
Reporting), the MRC is unconcerned with accuracy-if
someone says something bad about a Republican, it's
"bias," in the MRC lexicon, whether it's true or not.
Keeping this in mind as a caveat, their work could
theoretically still be useful in an overall critique of the
corporate press.

Unfortunately, as it turns out the MRC isn't particularly
interested in spotting "bias," either. Their mission statement
this year would perhaps most properly read "Our goal is
the election of George Bush Jr.." Their investigation of
"bias" is limited to this end, and they've shown themselves
fully willing to eat their own in its pursuit. Throughout the
primaries, for example, the MRC hounded Bush's
Republican opponent John McCain. Week after week,
McCain was an object of scorn, his "Straight Talk Express"
tour portrayed by Bozell as the "Trash-Talk Express." In
the end, they got their man, but to take The Prize, they
would have to get through Al Gore, formidable if only for
the fact that while the VP is quite intelligent, their
contender for the title is a moron.

This could be a thorny issue; the MRC does it's part for
Bush by portraying the corporate press as "liberal" and
thus pro-Gore and thus, hopefully, undermining the public's
confidence in anti-Republican stories. The problem starts
with the fact that Gore and Bush are both conservatives,
and virtually indistinguishable from a policy standpoint--it's
irrational to say a "liberal media" would prefer either of
them. It's also embarrasing to adopt the "liberal media" as
a focus while wholly ignoring the fact that the same media
won't give Ralph Nader--the only liberal in the race this
year--the time of day. Even more problematic in adopting
Al Gore as the annointed champion of the "liberal media"
was the fact that the press has been mercilessly brutal to Al
Gore during the campaign while largely deferring to-when
not outright cheerleading for--his Republican opponent. For
what those at MRC do to be in any way effective it has to be
at least superficially credible, but the overwhelming press
hostility to Gore was obvious to anyone who had made
even a cursory effort to follow the campaign. If MRC flaks
were to simply start squealing "liberal media, pro-Gore
media" at every turn, it would undermine their own credibility,
rather than that of the press. There was a presidency to be
won, though, and, damn the torpedoes, Bozell and company
pressed on, perhaps deciding they would come up with a
way to deal with the problem along the way.

The thing around which most of the anti-Gore press coverage
has centered is the Myth of Al Gore The Liar. The Myth of Al
Gore The Liar (henceforth MOAGTL) was created by the
corporate press and the Republican party from a
Frankenstein's-monster patchwork of stories about things the
Vice President has supposedly said and done. Supposedly,
because virtually none of the dozens of stories that make up
the myth have any relation to reality. The point is an
essential one: MOAGTL has nothing to do with lying. It really
has nothing to do with Al Gore. It has only to do with electing
George Bush, Jr. to the presidency by any means necessary,
which coincides perfectly with the present agenda of the
MRC. The organization adopted it enthusiastically. In doing
so, it was only following the lead of the corporate press, but
obviously this could never be conceded. To maintain it's own
"liberal media" fiction--and anything it may possess that might
vaguely resemble credibility--the MRC has tried to divorce
the myth from it's origins.

To wit--Bozell from 10/10/00:

"Nearly every Gore gaffe that's become part of the campaign
talking points was originally ignored by the major media, which
attempted to strangle the mistakes and embarrassments in the
crib."

Actually, exactly the opposite is the case--it was, in fact, the
"major media" that largely invented those "gaffes," either
through outright fabrication or by repeating easily disproven
Republican fabrications ad infinitum, in some cases for years
at a time. Bozell's own examples illustrate the point.
________

"Gore portrays himself as the technical genius who invented
the Internet..."

-L. Brent Bozell, III (6/8/00)
________

Bozell says that Gore's claim of "creating the Internet…was
not true." Did Gore ever make such a claim? In March,
1999, Gore was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer. In the
course of the interview, Gore said, among other things, "During
my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative
in creating the Internet." This is an obvious overstatement, but
the context was clearly Gore's legislative record, and that
Gore deserves credit on this score for aiding the development
of the technology that makes up the internet is totally
defensible [1]. The misrepresentation of this comment--that
Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet--started two
days later with a report on the CNN interview by Declan
McCullagh in Wired:

"It's a time-honored tradition for presidential hopefuls to
claim credit for other people's successes.

"But Al Gore as the father of the Internet?

"That's what the campaigner in chief told CNN's Wolf Blitzer
during an interview Tuesday evening."

The story was picked up almost immediately by RNC
chairman Jim Nicholson, who began zipping faxes to news
organizations. House Majority Leader Dick Armey quickly
did the same, saying Gore had made an "outrageous claim."
The totally credulous press took this at face value. The
AP's Michelle Mittelstadt reported (3/12/99)

"Vice President Al Gore's claim that he is the Father of
the Internet drew amused protests yesterday from
congressional leaders."

And so the story passed into legend.
_______

"Clearly, Clintonism will bloom and grow all over again if
Hillary Clinton and Al Gore reign over Washington after
these elections. And the most relentless defenders of
Clintonism--the entrenched, unelected, 89-percent
pro-Clinton press corps--are trying to see to that.

"Election Day is drawing near, and the press seems
passionately dedicated to carrying Al Gore's bags into
the White House residence. One bonafide story after
another casting the Democrats in a negative light is
being buried."

-L. Brent Bozell, III (9/14/00)


"This is not accidental. It is deliberate, and premeditated.
These networks are doing, or not doing, whatever it takes
to see Al Gore succeed Bill Clinton."

-L. Brent Bozell, III (9/26/00)
_______

McCullagh's Wired piece also introduced another facet
of the conservatives' use of MOAGTL that would become
all too common, namely feigned outrage at the fact that the
"liberal" and "pro-Gore" press hadn't challenged Gore on
something he had not, in fact, said:

"After Gore took credit for the Internet, Blitzer simply
moved on to talk about polls showing Texas governor
George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole ahead of the vice
president."

McCallagh's piece appeared on March 11, 1999. Here's
Brent Bozell from 19 months later. (10/10/00)

"'He [Gore] didn't really say he "invented the Internet,' they
["liberals"] complain, he 'took the initiative in creating it.'
The real point here isn't the complete lack of distinction
between 'inventing' and 'creating' the Internet. It's that Gore
said this on March 9, 1999, to CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and Blitzer
didn't even blink. He didn't follow up. His eyebrows didn't even
move. He just asked another question. The statement went
completely unreported on television for ten days."

Who knows what chain of logic could have led Bozell to
conclude that an event that in fact occurred *on television*
went "unreported on television?" It's true that the subsequent
misrepresentation of the event was initially "unreported on
television"--after all, an alleged "journalist" had to invent it
before there was anything to report--but one can hardly argue
the press hasn't more than made up for it since. Bozell
continued:

"That same pattern of media apathy and omission has
followed almost every other Gore boast and flub. So if this
image [of Gore as a liar] has taken hold, it's not something
the liberal media caused. Blame the high profile of a
presidential debate, matched with the conservative message
taking hold in public opinion, despite the liberal media's best
efforts at organized amnesia."

The first sentence here is correct, though in a far more ironic
way than Bozell intended it. There is, indeed, a pattern here.
To demonstrate, one need look no further than another of
Bozell's examples. Bozell says Gore's "suggesting he and
Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story…was not true"
(10/10/00). This is probably the most repeated story in the
MOAGTL canon.[2] Here's what actually happened. Gore,
in an off-the-record conversation with Karen Tumulty (Time
Magazine) and Richard Berke (the New York Times), said
he and wife Tipper had been the inspiration for the characters
in "Love Story." Enter Maureen Dowd, mixing her usual
lowball brand of rhetorical sewage. In a pair of pieces in
the New York Times in December 1997, she ridicules Gore
for his claim:

"Does he think, going into 2000, that this will give him a
romantic glow, or a romantic afterglow?" (12/13/97)

She said Gore had done this "to warm up his image"
(12/17/97). Frank Rich, also in the NewYork Times,
chimed in (12/16/97), saying Gore's comment had been
made in "an effort to overcompensate for his public stiffness."
He labelled it "fib," and said it showed "disingenuousness"
and was reflective of the Vice President's "real character
problem." As it turned out, Erich Segal, the writer of "Love
Story," had, indeed, said that the character of Oliver Barret
was partially based on Gore, but said the character Jennifer
Cavilleri wasn't based on Tipper. Gore's inclusion of Tipper
in his "Love Story" comments came from--you guessed it--an
inacurate story in the press, specifically a Tennnessee
newspaper (the Nashville Tennessean). Further, these facts
had been reported in the New York Times by Melinda
Henneberger on 12/14/97--two days before the Rich
piece, and three days before the second Dowd piece.
Even Henneberger was dissembling in her handling of the
story-she buried the fact that Segal had said Gore was a
basis for the Barret character over 20 paragraphs into her
piece, a piece that was headlined, incredibly enough,
"Author of 'Love Story' Disputes Gore Story" (referring
to the fact that Segal had said Tipper wasn't the inspiration
for Jenny Cavilleri).[3] A full week after the Henneberger
piece, Gore advisor Bob Squier was grilled by Cokie
Roberts on ABC's THIS WEEK, the implications of her
comments being that Gore had been lying. And so on.

The "issue" was more or less dead for over a year until the
deadly RNC fax machines started rumbling again in March
1999, regurgitating the vacuous (and factually inaccurate)
Dowd and Rich takes on the story. And the press fell right
in line, reporting what the RNC was saying as though it
were fact, and, though this version of events had been
disproven amost immediately after being "reported" in
1997, the press largely continues to hold to it to this day,
willingly participating in a Republican character
assassination. Bozell was still repeating the "Love Story"
lie as of October 12.
________

"Instead of hounding Gore, the media have sold Gore's wild
stories."

-L. Brent Bozell, III (10/10/00)
________

Another common "Love" story in MOAGTL is the infamous
Love Canal debacle. Once again, this was entirely an
invention of the "liberal" and "pro-Gore" press. It starts
with a story by Katherine Seeyle in the New York Times
(12/1/99):

"Later in the day, Mr. Gore, who suffered some
embarrassment this year when he took credit for the
development of the Internet, said he was the one who had
first drawn attention to the toxic contamination of Love
Canal. He was telling a school audience that each person
can make a difference in the world and recalled a child
writing to him when he was in Congress about a
hazardous-waste site in Tennessee.

"He then added, 'I found a little place in upstate New York
called Love Canal. I had the first issue on that issue and
Toone, Tenn.,' he said. 'But I was the one that started it
all. And it all happened because one high school student got
involved.'"

This was a total mischaracterization of Gore's comments, and
the part about "I was the one that started it all" is a
fabrication by Seeyle. Here's what Gore actually said:

"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing [on
the toxic waste dump in Toone]. I looked around the country for
other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New
York called Love Canal. Had the first meeting on that issue and
Toone, Tennessee-that was the one that you didn't hear of.
But that was the one that started it all. We passed a major
national law to clean up hazardous waste sites. And we had
new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water
around the country. We've still got work to do. But we made a
huge difference. And it all happened because one high school
student got involved."

Note that at no point did Gore say "he was the one who had
first drawn attention to the toxic contamination of Love
Canal"-quite the opposite, he said no one heard much about
that first hearing, which he did, indeed, hold. Seeyle
butchered his comments beyond recognition to get the desired
result--another MOAGTL story--and even fabricated a quote
to support her phony version. That the clip was played on
television that night, exposing the deception (though without
commenting on it), didn't stop Ceci Connolly from repeating it
in the Washington Post the next day (in a piece ironically
titled "First 'Love Story,' Now Love Canal"):

"Add Love Canal to the list of verbal missteps by Vice
President Gore.

"The man who mistakenly claimed to have inspired the movie
'Love Story' and to have invented the Internet says he didn't
quite mean to say that he discovered a toxic waste site when
he said at a high school forum Tuesday in New Hampshire: 'I
found a little place in New York called Love Canal.'

"Gore went on to brag about holding the 'first hearing on
that issue' and said 'I was the one that started it all.'"
[4]

Within five days, the phony Gore quote was in U.S. News &
World Report, the Washington Times, and was being repeated
on "The News, with Brian Williams." And so on.
_______

"For the entrenched liberal media, the Big Story is whatever
the Gore campaign tells them it is."

-Bozell 9/14/00
_______

During the first presidential "debate," Al Gore shared
this anecdote:

"I'd like to tell you a quick story. I letter today [from]
Randy Ellis. He has a 15-year-old daughter named Kailey who's
in Sarasota High School. Her science class was supposed to be
for 24 students. She is the 36th student in that classroom,
sent me a picture of her in the classroom. They can't
squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during
class. I want the federal government, consistent with local
control and new accountability, to make improvement of our
schools the No. 1 priority so Kailey will have a desk and
can sit down in a classroom where she can learn."

The next day, the press was ripping at Gore for telling
this tale, portraying it as another example of Gore's
propensity to lie. Here is Bozell's take on the situation
from a few days after the event (10/10/00):

"If the media were objective, by now they'd be suggesting the
Democrats did a bad job in selecting a nominee.... A good
candidate wouldn't sloppily use anecdotes that can be easily
picked apart, like the poor unseated girl at the supposedly
impoverished, overcrowded school in Sarasota, Florida.
When the school turned out to be modern and fancy, Gore
blamed the girl and her father instead of placing any blame
on his campaign's utter lack of homework."

If Bozell and the rest of those in the press who raked Gore
over the coals over this had done any homework at all, they
would have known that the "modern and fancy" school in
question, Sarasota High School, had recently suffered a
series of crushing budgetary cutbacks, was suffering from
severe overcrowding, and the story Gore told had been
accurate in every meaningful respect. The "modern and
fancy" characterization came exclusively from the school's
principal, Daniel Kennedy. That Kennedy was just a
bureacrat trying to cover his ass is born out by the fact
that this characterization disappeared instantly when he
was given a slot in the Wall Street Journal to trash Gore's
claim. A detailed examination of this story, including the
media coverage, can be found here.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/11/gore/index.html.
As for Gore having "blamed the girl and her father," for a
phony story or for anything else, this is a deliberate
fabrication by Bozell. No such event ever happened.
_________

"In the 2000 election cycle, Al Gore should be a great
challenge for the media's fact checkers. With his penchant
for truth-twisting, the press might need a whole brigade
working around the clock."

-Bozell 6/20/00

"The degree to which the liberal media is refusing to cover
Gore scandals is becoming mind-numbing."

-Bozell 6/8/00
_________

THE PROPENSITY TO EXAGGERATE

In his 10/12/00 column, Brent Bozell downgrades what he
had previously described unequivocally as lies to the status
of a "propensity to exaggerate" on Gore's part. He lists
several examples of this, and they're worth a closer look.

As an example of Gore's "propensity," Bozell includes
Gore's claim that he was "fired upon in Vietnam." This was
an ugly story, first put forward by John J. Miller in the May
22 issue of National Review as an example of a Gore lie.
Gore was a journalist in the war, and the implication is that
he never saw combat action. Miller created this story by
doctoring a comment Gore made in the Baltimore Sun in
1987. In Miller's version, Gore had said he "walked
through the elephant grass and was fired upon"; "I carried
an M-16…I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night."
Here's what Gore actually said in the Baltimore Sun:

"'I carried an M-16 and traveled all over the country to
any spot where engineers were involved in a conflict,' he
[Gore] says. 'I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night
and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired
upon, but I never saw the kind of combat that a lot of
people did.'"

Note that Gore actually stressed that he DIDN'T see
heavy combat. The doctored version (and the bogus
characterization of the comment) is still being dutifully
reported by the press to this day (see, for example, "Fact
and Fiction," by Ralph Hallow, Washington Times, 10/10/00).

As another example, Bozell trashes Gore's claim that, as a
child, he was "sung to sleep with union commercial jingles."
(10/12/00). This story came from Walter Shapiro of USA
Today (9/20/00):

"The tune [Gore mentioned] was written for an ILGWU radio
and TV ad campaign that first aired in 1975, when the
27-year-old Gore was a reporter for the Nashville
Tennessean."

The problem is that Gore never made any such claim; as
the Vice President explained two days after the Shapiro
piece, he was telling a joke to a group of Teamsters, "a
joke that I had told to a number of union audiences over
the years." We don't have to guess on whether he was
being honest, here. The event was taped, and the tape
backs up Gore on the point, as USA Today-the original
source of the story-subsequently pointed out. That
didn't stop the press. Two days after Gore's explanation,
Glen Johnson was still reporting to readers of the
Boston Globe that "During the week, Gore also hummed a
union jingle, saying he recalled it from his childhood.
But the tune was not written until he was 27." ("Gore
Seen as 'Misleading,'" 9/24/00). Bozell first picked
up the story on 9/26/00. Four days after it had been
conclusively proven that this was a joke, here's what
he had to say:

"Labor Lullabies. In what obviously was a disastrous Monday
on the campaign trail in Las Vegas, Gore made up yet another
story, this time for the Teamsters union's national
convention. 'You know I still remember the lullabies that
I heard as a child, [singing] "Look for the union label.'"
USA Today reported the goof two days later, noting the song
was written for union TV commercials in 1975, when Gore
was 27."

Incredibly, Bozell even berated the press because "No
reporters found relatives or childhood friends for
corroboration." Over two weeks after THAT, Richard Berke
was writing in the New York Times about how Gore had
"recalled a childhood lullaby that did not exist"
("Tendency to Embellish Fact Sangs Gore," 10/6/00). And
so on.

Bozell says Gore claimed that he was "present at the creation
of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve," neither of which is true. The part about the
Strategic Petroleum Reseve was begun by Katherine Seeyle in
the New York Times on September 22, the same day Gore shot
down the "lullaby" non-story. The Vice President was
questioned about his support for tapping into the Reserve
to ease pressure on oil prices. The implication was that
the reserve was designed only for national emergencies,
something Gore denied:

"I've been a part of the discussions on the strategic
reserve since the days when it was first established and
actually, the purposes that justify release are many and
varied and in fact it's not just as narrow as that."

Seelye noted that the Reserve's web site says it is "the
nation's first line of defense against an interruption
in petroleum supplies" and "a significant deterrent to
oil import cutoffs and a key tool of foreign policy,"
while failing to mention anything about lowering oil
prices. The criticism about the Gore comment was that
Congress created the reserve in 1975, while Gore wasn't
elected to Congress until 1976. But Gore never claimed,
as Bozell says, to have been "present at the creation"
of the Reserve--he said he had been "a part of the
discussions on the strategic reserve since the days
when it was first established," and he was. As for the
Earned Income Tax credit, here's what Gore actually
said to Time Magazine in November, 1999 (referring to
Bill Bradley):

"(He proposes) the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say,
welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the
principal proponent for a long time."

This was clearly a reference to the expansion of the EITC, and
not the original act, which was passed before Gore had entered
Congress. And, in fact, Gore was the author of the expansion
of EITC in 1989.

Bozell now concedes there is "a smidgen of truth" in each of the
examples he's using--though he's never admitted as much in
the past--but, he says, "there's also a disgregard, a *lack of
interest,* in accuracy. That clearly becomes a character issue.
And when the quantity of exaggerations reaches epidemic
proportions, as it has with Gore, it ought to be regarded by
political observers in the press as serious stuff indeed." The
reader will have to decide with whom the "quantity of
exaggerations" has reached "epidemic proportions." As for
my vote, well... Bozell concludes his column this way: "Al
Gore, simply put, is a liar." My reaction to this mess draws
forth more colorful language, though, so I'll conclude mine
this way: "L. Brent Bozell is a goddamn liar!"

And you can quote me on that.

jriddle
10/25/00
______

NOTES

[1] For some of those defenses, look here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032699_1.shtml
There are more here
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/04/gore/index.html,
along with refutations of other MOAGTL stories
not covered here. For that matter, an invaluable
resource on these stories is the Daily Howler,
which picks up on misleading stories, inaccurate
facts, and lies in the press and tracks them day
after day. It's at http://www.dailyhowler.com/

[2] Another of the more commonly reported MOAGTL
pieces has to do with the "fundraiser" at a Buddhist Temple
during the 1996 campaign. Gore has been mercilessly
attacked in the press for this for four years. Bozell, on
9/14/00, took Gore to task for "holding a fundraiser at a
Buddhist temple." In his 8/24/00 piece, Bozell called Gore
a "Buddhist monk-tapper who lies endlessly on the
campaign trail." On 10/12/00, he wrote "The Buddhist
Temple story (I never knew it was a fundraiser) is another
lie." In fact, as Sean Wilentz reports, in the American
Prospect, "...a close reading of the reports and documents
released by the Fred Thompson and Dan Burton
committees, as well as Gore's testimony to Justice
Department officials on April 18, 2000, shows that the
case against Gore in the all-important Buddhist temple
affair now rests on nothing more than a willfully negative
reading of the evidence." Wilentz dissects the story in some
detail here http://www.tompaine.com/print.php3?id=1444 .

[3] This practice of reporting Segal's remarks as
contradicting Gore has been repeated in several press
stories. For example, Bruce Morton, on CNN's "Inside
Politics" (3/19/99), said "Gore once claimed the two
characters in the movie Love Story were based on his
wife Tipper and himself. The author said, 'News to me,'
and Gore backed off." The Washington Times Rowan
Scarborough wrote (3/16/99) "[Gore] once told reporters
he and wife Tipper were the models for the best-selling
novel "Love Story"...an assertion author Erich Segal said
was untrue." For an example of just how far some
pundits will go to mislead in this respect, look here
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h092800_1.shtml

[4] Connolly has falsified other Gore quotes in order to
put Gore in a negative light. For another such incident
(only weeks later), see
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h121899_1.shtml
________

DISCLAIMER: Al Gore is a politician and, like all
politicians, is, in fact, a liar. For example, when Gore
says he won't appoint lousy Supreme Court Justices like
Antonin Scalia, someone needs to point out that Gore
voted for Scalia when he was up for confirmation in the
Senate. MOAGTL doesn't deal with genuine lies; it's a
character assassination campaign, centered around
electing George Bush, Jr. while avoiding discussion of
any real policy issues (where, of course, Bush doesn't
differ from Gore in any significant manner).
_________

EXPLANATORY: This article is dedicated to Joel
Foss, whose belief in the media's version of the
"Love Story" debacle cost him the $64,000 question
on "I Want To Be A Millionaire."

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 1:11:28 AM7/4/01
to
Here's a follow-up to the original "Mythmakers & Al Gore The Liar"
article:
____

Mythmakers & Al Gore The Liar: A Follow-Up
Oct 27, 2000

I once asked a question here, something to the effect of
"Is dishonesty an inherent feature of conservatism?"
Maybe it was a lame question--certainly no one took me
up on it at the time--but I'm going to ask it again,
because Brent Bozell's new column is out today, and he's
repeating most of the same lies about Gore I covered in
my previous article on Al Gore The Liar.

What I've done here is excerpt some comments from right-wing
columnists who have regurgitated various portions of MOAGTL.
I thought it would be useful in further demonstrating that
this was, indeed, a character assasination campaign. I was
surprised myself, however, to find that so many of the
conservative op-ed writers had written similar stories
promoting MOAGTL within a very short span of time. The
oldest piece I've used here came from 9/22/00--all the rest
occur within an 8 day period in early October, and they all
say basically the same thing. This is by no means any sort
of comprehensive sampling of conservative writers, but all
of them I looked at happened to have written things like
this within the same very tight time-frame. An intriguing
bit of info I almost didn't catch.

When elipses appear in the quotes below, it's where I've
removed an example of a Gore lie or misrepresentation. I
did this only when I don't have the documentation for it.
It could be a genuine example, but everything that
surrounds it--as I dealt with in the previous post--is
definitely a lie, and for that reason it would be
irresponsible either to use the columnists who are
willing to lie to that degree as a source or to repeat
what may be another fabrication without at least
examining it's accuracy. I've added additional notes to
most of these comments. Check out the comments
themselves--often distortions of distortions of
distortions, and the mendacity with which the conservatives
sell these tales is incredible.
________

Linda Bowles, 10/3/00"

"At a union conference, Algore told the Teamsters that
'Remember the Union Label' was 'one of the lullabies'
his parents sang to him as a child. In fact, the song
was not written until 1975 -- when little Algore was
27 years old. Algore claimed to have been involved in
setting up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The truth
is that the oil reserve was set up and funded in 1975,
two years before Algore became a member of Congress."

Later on, there's this:

"There is no 'maybe' about the pattern of fabrications,
exaggerations, and flip-flops. Algore claimed that he
invented the Internet, that he and Tipper were the
models for Erich Segal's novel, 'Love Story,'... that
in Vietnam he spent most of his time in the field and
was fired upon by the enemy,... that his sister was the
very first volunteer for the Peace Corps,[1]... that he
did not know he was in the middle of a fund raiser at
the California Buddhist Temple in 1996, that he did not
know his fund-raising phone calls from his government
office were illegal, and that he did not know anything
about the millions of dollars illegally funneled into
the Democrat Party by agents of communist China.[2]

"All of these claims and boasts are documentably false,
and some of them are arguably delusional. We have in
clear view the picture of a deeply insecure man,
uncomfortable with himself, and too fragile to hear or
tell the hard truth -- a man who phonies up the past
to appear smarter, more worthy, and more substantive
than he really is.

"Algore's propensity to mangle the truth appears
compulsive in that, although warned about it by his
advisers, he apparently cannot stop himself. Is this a
man we can trust to keep his word, honor his promises,
and restore our faith in government?"
_______

NOTES ON BOWLES:

[1] To see this story dissected, look here
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h101000_1.shtml

[2] This number is a fiction of Bowles for which
no documentation exists at all.
_______

Mona Charen 10/6/00:

"Everyone knows that Al Gore's biggest problem is
a tendency to lie, which is why his resort to lies
in the first debate is almost creepy. For several
weeks, the news has been full of Gore's little
exaggerations and fibs. One would have thought that
if he had one goal, it would be to avoid any
additional lies. But he couldn't resist."

Later:

"Al Gore is the Zelig of modern politics, painting
himself into pictures of which he was no part. He
invented the Internet,... discovered Love Canal,
faced danger in Vietnam, rocked to sleep as a babe
to music written when he was an adult and authored
the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit.[1] He
now claims that he legitimately read in a newspaper
article that he was the model for Erich Segal's
tearjerker 'Love Story.' Baloney. People know this
sort of thing. Segal has even gone public saying
that Gore was not his model."

And more:

"...he got caught when he used little Kailey Ellis
as the symbol of overcrowded, underfunded public
schools. The day he visited, Kailey had to stand in
science class for a few minutes until someone got
her a lab chair. Gore did not inquire about the
facts. He grabbed Kailey's name and ran.[2] Later, we
learned that it was one of the first days of school
in one of the wealthiest districts in Florida, that
Kailey was standing because they were unloading
$100,000.00 worth of new equipment and that she was
given a desk the following day.[3]

"Here's a deal that might satisfy voters and might
prove even more remunerative than Mr. Bush's tax cut
plan -- have Mr. Gore give taxpayers back one dollar
for every lie he tells."
_______

NOTES ON CHAREN

[1] Charen get the original comment right--Gore was talking
about the extension of EITC, and not the original act, as
the corporate press and an army of lying conservatives have
claimed. She's lying herself, though, because Gore did,
indeed, author that extension.

[2] This account bears no resemblance to reality at all.
Gore didn't visit the school--the issue was brought to Gore's
attention by Kailey Ellis' father, Randy, who was doing some
catering work for the Gore campaign. He delivered a letter
about the situation, along with an article from the Sarasota
Herald-Tribune to Air Force Two. These were the sources of
Gore's remarks. "The day he [Gore] visited, Kailey had to
stand in science class for a few minutes until someone got
her a lab chair." This is a total fucking lie by Charen.
Kailey had to stand in class because there is a very severe
overcrowding problem in that school district, brought on by
a budget crunch. She only eventually got a desk because
another student voluntarily gave his up for her--and he
had to go without one himself for another week after that.

[3] The source for this story was a single comment made by
the school's principal, Dan Kennedy, when he was playing
CYA games in the press. As Salon noted, when the Wall Street
Journal offered Kennedy a slot to trash Gore, "Conspicuously
absent was any mention of six-figure, unpacked equipment
clogging up classrooms as the reason for the overcrowding."

(The Salon article is here
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/11/gore/index.html)
________

Ann Coulter, 10/11/00:

"This is the guy who said he invented the Internet,
claimed to be the inspiration for 'Love Story,' and
said he discovered Love Canal (it had already been
declared a national disaster area by President Carter).
He says... his mother sang him union lullabies that
didn't exist until he was 27 years old."

Later:

"Gore's endless boasts of his false heroic feats had
already gotten to the point of pathology. Making stuff
up is surely one of Gore's leading negatives in this
campaign."

Later still:

"...in the Taking Credit for Things Yet to Come
category, Gore told the sad story of little Kaylie
Ellis and her poverty-stricken Sarasota, Fla., high
school, where they 'can't squeeze another desk in
for (Kaylie), so she has to stand during class.' But
never fear! Gore would come to Kaylie's rescue as
president: 'I want the federal government ... to make


improvement of our schools the No. 1 priority so

Kaylie will have a desk and can sit down in a
classroom ...'

"But then the day after the debate, the principal of
Kaylie's high school indignantly took to the airwaves
to say that the classroom seemed crowded that day only
because it was brimming over with $100,000 worth of
computer equipment. [1] The school has plenty of room,
plenty of desks, [2] and--evidently--plenty of
computer equipment."

Later still:

"Yeah, of course Gore doesn't want to focus on
scandals. Unlike the Internet, he actually does have
something to do with those. This is like Don Corleone
complaining to the prosecutor that -- as a point of
etiquette -- he just doesn't think they should be
discussing any crimes either of them may have
committed. When did it become a principled stance
for crooks to take crime off the table?

"Nixon didn't want to talk about the Watergate in the
1972 election. Slobodan Milosevic probably got a
little sick of all the jawboning about scandals in
the recent Yugoslavian election. King George didn't
want to talk about taxes."
________

NOTES ON COULTER

[1] This is a misrepresentation by Coulter, and, though
minor, she repeats it twice--Kennedy said there was
"probably about $100,000 worth of new lab equipment...
waiting to be unpacked." There was no mention of computer
equipment

[2] The school has neither of these; this is, quite
simply, a lie. The school is facing large-scale
overcrowding because of a $17 million budgetary
shortfall. There were, among other things, 100 teachers
fired as a result of this. As for space, the original
Sarasota Herald-Tribune quoted Kailey Ellis' biology
teacher Spike Black: "All day, at least two, three or
four kids are without a chair. We could get more chairs
but there's no place to put them."
________

Tony Snow, 9/22/00

"He brags that his sister was the 'very first' Peace
Corps volunteer. False.... He claimed to 'find' Love
Canal. He didn't. He said he and Tipper were the
inspiration behind 'Love Story.' Author Erich Segal
has swatted that one away. Furthermore, why not claim
to have inspired a good movie--or at least one in
which your beloved doesn't die???"
_________

Oliver North, 10/9/00

"Whatever Al Gore's physical maladies, they pale by
comparison to his biggest problem: He just can't tell
the truth. The man he wants to replace apparently had (or
has?) a compulsive desire for women other than his wife.
And Al Gore evidently has an equally compulsive desire to
embellish his curriculum vitae, to create fabrications
where facts would do, and to misrepresent matters that
are so easily disproved, by even the most cursory
examination of the facts." [1]

Later:

"Gore went on to tell a moving, but bogus story about a
schoolgirl in Sarasota, Fla.--Kaylie Ellis--whose
classroom was so crowded that, 'They can't squeeze


another desk in for her, so she has to stand during

class," Gore asserted. That, too, was a lie. [2] The truth
came out the next morning when the principal of Sarasota
High School, Dan Kennedy, told Florida's WFLA radio that
Prince Albert the Fabricator had been 'misleading'
because 'we don't have any students standing in class,
and we have more than enough desks for all our students.'
In fact, the room had been crowded because it was being
refurbished and was packed with $100,000 worth of
yet-to-be-unpacked new equipment."
_________

NOTES ON NORTH

[1] This is a common theme in MOAGTL--the attempt to tie
Gore into the sex scandals of the Clinton administration.
This can't be done literally, so it's always done by
insinuation, as it was by George Bush in the first
presidential "debate" a few weeks ago.

[2] Something should be mentioned here about the
matter of context. Gore was given a letter and a
newspaper article on this situation, and he was
only repeating, acurately, what they said. Even if
it had turned out not to be true, it wouldn't be
legitimate to call this a "lie." At worst, it
would have been a cause to complain about sloppy
research on his part.

harrison numbugger

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 7:15:53 AM7/4/01
to

classicasshole wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:48:15 GMT, classic...@my-deja.com
> (classicliberal2) wrote:
>

<SNIP>

ROFLMAO!! The little shit head was appointed president by the supreme
court, and still the right wing wackos are afraid of Al Gore......

>

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 11:41:39 AM7/4/01
to

____

?

Rico

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 6:48:50 PM7/4/01
to
In article <ps54kt84222s7gnm8...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed this part:

>
>"Hume, a respected former White House correspondent for ABC, calls the
>criticism from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) 'downright
>silly,...'"
>
>Better try to read more carefully, eh?

************************
You read carefully and post the line where he says their numbers are wrong.
Look real hard and post it so all can see it clearly.

**********************

Rico

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 6:53:45 PM7/4/01
to
In article <af54ktcsr88g8287o...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>Still having trouble reading, I see. Typical.


Dtill waiting, you call me names say I can't read, so highlihgt for me
where you have posted a single number or anything to refute FAIR's finding.
Which of the people they say are republicans do you claim are democrats.
Maybe I do have a reading problem, help me out post it out in the clear.
Let me hit the carriage return a few times so you'll have some room.


>
>>As to all stations, cannot say, it should be noted the major networks are
>>all owned by large (Fortune 100) corps.
>

>Then you agree that my reponse to the claim that all stations are
>conservative was both accurate an appropriate.

All stations are not owned by the major netowrks. Do you know anything
about the broadcast industry?

>
>> They are unlikely to be promoting
>>an anti corperate view point. Example NBC is owned by GE, when was the last
>>time NBC did a major anti nuke story?
>

>Why don't you tell us? And also tell us when there was any story on
>nukes worth reporting.


RIGHT NOW, haven't you read your boy's energy policy?

>
>Your premise and conclusion are both faulty, of course, since networks
>make it a practice to identify their owners when a story on the owners
>is reported. This happens quite often.


What does this have to do with anything?

Rico

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 6:58:08 PM7/4/01
to
In article <9064ktcf5lealkbl7...@4ax.com>, Sam Barber <samb...@prontomail.com> wrote:
>We get a hoot out of your faulty logic, bubba Rico.


OK which members of the Socailist workers party were on this past weekend's
news talk shows? Next weekend you watch and report back to us. How many
Greens got on last week, how about reporting for us next week.

Post something Sam instead of hitting your keys mindlessly. These things
are easy to find out, post a fact. You claim you have, but never seem able
to repeat the effort, so here let me make you some room:

Post something we can verify, a website anything sammy...

Rico

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 7:01:50 PM7/4/01
to

Went to your link, can't find the article numbers that aren't subjective.
Granted FAIR called a lot of people conservative who are more moderate, but
then they actually counted repulicans and democrats (not subject, you
either are or aren't of the party). Now I'm sure such is there, but with
so many articles there could you point to THE article(s).

Furplay

unread,
Jul 4, 2001, 9:03:42 PM7/4/01
to
Truth in advertising laws need to be applied to this propaganda ministry ASAP.
--
"Who's driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"

Mr.GW

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 2:01:03 AM7/5/01
to
You liberals can listen to CNN's left wing programming.
It sure is interesting in this country. The liberals will continue to post
about George Bush being right wing, too conservative Christian. Like there
is something wrong with being a Christian president.
Are there any Christian Democrats?
What would thei country be like if everyone was the same?
I am going to go some digging about the left wing raticals.
I can find just as much wrong wth the Democrats that you can find about the
Republicans.

"Furplay" <mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3B43BCEE...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.radiks.net...

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 2:39:51 AM7/5/01
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 03:48:15 GMT, classic...@my-deja.com
(classicliberal2) wrote:

>> Go to the url below and it will put in sharp
>> relief the obvious liberal bias of the
>> national news media:
>>
>> http://www.mediaresearch.org/
>

> I have a counter-proposal--go to these urls
> and find out something about who you're
> citing as a source:
>
> http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html
> http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/update102900.html

___

As a matter of fact, let me save you some
work. Here's an article from last year laying
out what you can expect from the MRC
and the national news media, in general:

____

Mythmakers & Al Gore The Liar

10/25/00

To wit--Bozell from 10/10/00:

-Bozell 9/14/00
_______

sent me a picture of her in the classroom. They can't


squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during

Sam Barber

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 7:02:06 AM7/5/01
to

If you could read, you'd be embarrased to ask the question.

Keep trying, however.

(snip)

Sam Barber

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 7:03:24 AM7/5/01
to

Don't you think you should be looking for my answer instead of making
an ass of yourself?

Sam Barber

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 7:09:23 AM7/5/01
to

Let's see. According to your illogic, the major networks should report
things that aren't news because it is not news that is relevant, but
exposure.

>Post something Sam instead of hitting your keys mindlessly. These things
>are easy to find out, post a fact. You claim you have, but never seem able
>to repeat the effort, so here let me make you some room:

You ought to take a course in logic, sonny. You've committed a major
logical error.


mhirtes

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 11:42:36 AM7/5/01
to
Mr.GW wrote:
>
> You liberals can listen to CNN's left wing programming.

You're just saying that because CNN isn't a propaganda arm of the GOP
like DittoVision is. When Bush commits an atrocity (and does that AT
LEAST once a day), you WON'T see anyone on CNN trying to put a BUllSHit
spin on it.

The truth is out there. It's just that it's NOT at FOX NEWS.

Rico

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 12:55:22 PM7/5/01
to


The entire reason I issued you the challenge was the 100% certainty that
you would not be able to back yourself up with any actual facts. Challenge
issued and as any (you) can see you posted nothing.

Rico

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 12:53:35 PM7/5/01
to
In article <tk80qv8...@corp.supernews.com>, <Mr.GW> wrote:
>You liberals can listen to CNN's left wing programming.


I love it, Same article that showed us Hume included numbers for Wolf
Blitzer on CNN 67 guests, 39 republicans. You even attack your own because
they aren't biased enough.

Rico

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 12:57:23 PM7/5/01
to

Still no numbers, still nothing but empty opinion, do you ever post facts?
Answer no never in your life. Post the google link to any example of you
backing up anything you have ever posted.

Mark Neglay

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 1:30:26 PM7/5/01
to
classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in message news:<92876C11F34235B1.37A1F3F3...@lp.airnews.net>...

> At it happens, we don't have to speculate
> here.

That's just not true. FAIR inserted at least a few qualifiers in
their report. For one thing, we have no idea what standards (if any)
that they used determine whether a quest was partisan. For another,
it seems a bit odd that they were able to determine for each
individual how he or she was registered and it seems a bit odd that
each and every guest was either a Republican or a Democrat. No CATO
Libertarians in there? What about Buchannan? How is he qualified?
Did Fox really go 5 months without bringing in someone who was neither
Republican nor Democrat? I must question how FAIR qualified every
guest as Republican and Democrat.

> Heavily tilted to the
> right, but not more than anyone would
> expect from the corporate press.

The "corporate press" has no more interest in conservative issues than
they do in liberal issues. What the media are truly interested in is
attracting viewers. Perhaps liberal leaning stories (for example,
those that expose corruption on the right but not the left) attract
more viewers. Perhaps liberals are more attracted to the field of
journalism. Perhaps many media sources target liberals because
conservatives just aren't their target audience. But whatever the
reason, there has been and continues to be a liberal slant to the
news. Just watch Dan Rather lamenting the certification of votes by
Katherine Harris. (A classic--find it on the MRC website) At no time
does he claim that the votes have been certified but instead reports
that "according to Katherine Harris" the election is over...or some
such garbage.

Harold

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 1:47:34 PM7/5/01
to
On Wed, 04 Jul 2001 20:03:42 -0500, Furplay
<mhi...@ALL.SPAMMERS.MUST.DIE.radiks.net> wrote:

>Truth in advertising laws need to be applied to this propaganda ministry ASAP.

Yes, we certainly would not want to see any free expression of
opinion, now would we? Let's get a government entity involved to tell
the poor, ignorant citizens where the truth really lies.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
-----
Cars are such a symbol of Americanism that the Soviets in the 1930s
had to cancel propaganda showings of John Steinbeck’s "Grapes of
Wrath" because Soviet audiences were furious to find that even
destitute Americans had pickups to migrate in.
-----John Bragg, CDMC

Mark Neglay

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 1:53:38 PM7/5/01
to
classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in message news:<3378E1AA98765088.DB06CD0C...@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 2 Jul 2001 17:07:39 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:

> It isn't a matter of fear. You just need to
> know, going in, that you *aren't* going to
> get substance from MRC, and you *are*
> going to be misled by them.

FAIR is not dedicated to exposing bias in media or presenting the rest
of the story whenever facts have been ignored or misrepresented. It
is dedicated to exposing (and manufacturing) bias in what it sees as
conservative-slanted reporting. FAIR's reports are no more accurate
and unbiased than MRC's. Both have an agenda--to paint the media as
biased against their own views.

I don't know that you can even find one story where FAIR exposes a
liberal bias in the media. I have never seen or read one by FAIR.
Does this mean that there is never any liberal bias in the news...or
does it just seem a bit more likely that FAIR is no more "fair" than
the MRC.

Mark Neglay

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 2:22:49 PM7/5/01
to
classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in message news:<3378E1AA98765088.DB06CD0C...@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 2 Jul 2001 17:07:39 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote:

> It isn't a matter of fear. You just need to
> know, going in, that you *aren't* going to
> get substance from MRC, and you *are*
> going to be misled by them.

The MRC doesn't conduct studies and FAIR does? What is it about FAIR
studies that make them more accurate or scientific than those
conducted by the MRC?

Find many MRC studies at:
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/specialreports.html

Of course, both sets of studies are open to the same kinds of bias.
Both have individuals interpreting the meanings of statements in the
media. Both sets of studies can be affected quite a bit by the
political leanings of those conducting the study. I just don't
understand how you can claim that FAIR's are "real" studies and MRC's
are not.

Both groups are biased. Both have an agenda. Both are open to the
same criticisms you are making for only the MRC.

Garrett

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 2:50:05 PM7/5/01
to
Mark Neglay wrote:

> classic...@my-deja.com (classicliberal2) wrote in message news:<92876C11F34235B1.37A1F3F3...@lp.airnews.net>...

> > Heavily tilted to the
> > right, but not more than anyone would
> > expect from the corporate press.
>
> The "corporate press" has no more interest in conservative issues than
> they do in liberal issues. What the media are truly interested in is
> attracting viewers.

No, they are interested in making money.
You make money from advertising, not from the viewers.
In order to make money from advertising you don't piss off
the people paying for the advertising.

> Perhaps liberal leaning stories (for example,
> those that expose corruption on the right but not the left) attract
> more viewers.

I doubt that. What attracts viewers is things that shock.
A good example is crime. That's why people's perception of
a crime problem all through the 90's didn't reflect reality.
The media played it up even while crime rates were dropping.
And crime is a perfect angle for "tough-on-crime" politicians,
normally conservatives.

> Perhaps liberals are more attracted to the field of
> journalism.

That may be true. But that doesn't translate into reporting.
For instance, a majority of newspapers endorsed the GOP
alternative to Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. This is counting
by both sheer numbers and circulation.

> Perhaps many media sources target liberals because
> conservatives just aren't their target audience.

Their target audience is wealthy, not poor. And the Democratic
base is generally poor and middle-class.

> But whatever the
> reason, there has been and continues to be a liberal slant to the
> news.

Why, because you can't accept otherwise?


classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 3:20:25 PM7/5/01
to
On 5 Jul 2001 10:30:26 -0700, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
wrote:

>> At it happens, we don't have to speculate
>> here.
>
> That's just not true. FAIR inserted at least
> a few qualifiers in their report. For one thing,
> we have no idea what standards (if any)
> that they used determine whether a quest
> was partisan.

___

You're wrong, right off the bat. They
released numbers regarding which Hume
guests, overall, were "conservative"
(71%). This is subjective, in the way you
suggest, but the Kurtz article notes that
"to play it safe, the group did not classify
such moderate Republicans as [Christine
Todd] Whitman and David Gergen as
conservatives," which means the 71% is
actually understated.

The second set of numbers relates to
political guests. This is not subjective at
all--we're talking about elected officials,
here. Of the 56 political guests, 50 were
Republicans.
___

> For another,
> it seems a bit odd that they were able
> to determine for each individual how he
> or she was registered

___

It isn't a matter of voter registration--these
are people elected as either Democrats
or Republicans.
___

> and it seems a bit
> odd that each and every guest was either
> a Republican or a Democrat. No CATO
> Libertarians in there? What about
> Buchannan? How is he qualified? Did
> Fox really go 5 months without bringing
> in someone who was neither Republican
> nor Democrat? I must question how FAIR
> qualified every guest as Republican and
> Democrat.

___

Try reading what you're addressing, for a
change. There were two sets of numbers.
All the elected officials--that is, the political
guests--were either Republicans or
Democrats. The other set of numbers--the
one where 71% of Hume's guests are
conservatives--refers to the overall guests
on his program (and those others you
mention would be included in it).
___

>> Heavily tilted to the
>> right, but not more than anyone would
>> expect from the corporate press.
>
> The "corporate press" has no more
> interest in conservative issues than
> they do in liberal issues. What the
> media are truly interested in is
> attracting viewers. Perhaps liberal
> leaning stories (for example, those
> that expose corruption on the right
> but not the left) attract more viewers.
> Perhaps liberals are more attracted to
> the field of journalism. Perhaps many
> media sources target liberals because
> conservatives just aren't their target
> audience.

___

That's all very sweet, but it has
nothing to do with reality. The corporate
press seeks to attract affluent white
people of a particular age-bracket and
sell that audience to advertisers. The
press reflects the bias of this demographic,
which is conservative on just about
everything.
___

> But whatever the
> reason, there has been and continues
> to be a liberal slant to the news. Just
> watch Dan Rather lamenting the
> certification of votes by Katherine
> Harris. (A classic--find it on the MRC
> website) At no time does he claim that
> the votes have been certified but
> instead reports that "according to
> Katherine Harris" the election is
> over...or some such garbage.

___

You have made a broad assertion, then
referenced a single anecdote, and
even it does not support your contention.
I love arguing this stuff, but you're going
to have to do better than that.

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 3:50:48 PM7/5/01
to
On 5 Jul 2001 10:53:38 -0700, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
wrote:

>> It isn't a matter of fear. You just need to
>> know, going in, that you *aren't* going to
>> get substance from MRC, and you *are*
>> going to be misled by them.
>
> FAIR is not dedicated to exposing bias in
> media or presenting the rest of the story
> whenever facts have been ignored or
> misrepresented. It is dedicated to exposing
> (and manufacturing) bias in what it sees as
> conservative-slanted reporting.

___

They are a liberal group, and they've never
denied it. They do operate with that bias. If,
however, you're going to say they
"manufacture" bias (however they're
supposed to do that), you're going to have
to provide some evidence beyond saying it.
___

> FAIR's reports are no more accurate
> and unbiased than MRC's.

___

They're no more unbiased, but as for
accuracy, what you say is demonstrably
false. Did you happen to read the stuff I
posted about the MRC?
___

> Both have an agenda--to paint the media as
> biased against their own views.

___

Yes. But FAIR is correct to do so. The lack
of substance in the MRC's position can be
gauged by the fact that they it depends
almost entirely upon distortions, half-truths,
and lies (reference, again, the stuff I posted
about them before).
___

> I don't know that you can even find one
> story where FAIR exposes a liberal bias
> in the media.

___

They don't do it at all. The oversight,
however, is forgivable--there simply isn't
any appreciable liberal bias to expose.
There are pockets--for example, the
corporate press tends to strongly favor
gun-control measures--but even these
aren't particularly "liberal"--such measures
are overwhelmingly endorsed by the public.
___

> I have never seen or read one by FAIR.
> Does this mean that there is never any
> liberal bias in the news...or does it just
> seem a bit more likely that FAIR is no
> more "fair" than the MRC.

___

The problem with the MRC isn't really
one of "fairness." They turn reality on
its head, and, to the degree that they
have any influence, steer the press
even further in what I would regard
as a wrong direction. FAIR is a liberal
group, they have their biases, and all
that. You won't, however, find examples
anywhere in their work of the outright
fabrications the MRC puts forward in
almost everything it does.

classicliberal2

unread,
Jul 5, 2001, 4:52:31 PM7/5/01
to
On 5 Jul 2001 11:22:49 -0700, malco...@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
wrote:

>> It isn't a matter of fear. You just need to
>> know, going in, that you *aren't* going to
>> get substance from MRC, and you *are*
>> going to be misled by them.
>
> The MRC doesn't conduct studies and
> FAIR does? What is it about FAIR studies
> that make them more accurate or scientific
> than those conducted by the MRC?
>
> Find many MRC studies at:
> http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/specialreports.html

___

Let me give you an example. Ideally, I'd like
to compare how the two groups covered
something. For now, let me focus on one
of the MRC's reports to give you some idea
of what I'm talking about.

http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/fmp/2001/bushtaxplan.html

This deals with network coverage of the
Bush tax proposal.

MRC decided to count the characterizations
offered of the plan on the newscasts--"big",
"huge," "right size,"