Thread: What Liberal Media? The 'myth' of the so called 'liberal media'

By no means should this thread be considered all encompassing and a definitive statement on the lack of a liberal media in this country and around the world, I will only talk about some obersvations, analyses, and things that I have read concerning the 'myth' of the liberal media.
---
Obviously the standard definition of liberal media, as it is commonly thought of in American political discourse, is one that is sort of like this:
The liberal media is a left wing media system, that seeks to undermine the core values of which our country was built upon, as well as is anti-governmental in its nature. Furthermore, the liberal media promotes socialism through biased media coverage, like giving aid and comfort to the terrorists by disclosing the various patriot act security measures, etc.

That seems like a fairly good thing.

Yet, which media sourcese are classified as liberal? Why are they classified that way? This is just an example, but I am going to analyze the different ways that the news stations covered how cheney was attacked today:
CBS news - notorious for their pre-emption with Dan Rather, Fox News - infamous in its own right, CNN, washington Post, and NY times.

Links can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/wo...cheney.html?hp
washingtonpost.com
FOXNews.com - Cheney Safe After Homicide Bombing at U.S. Base in Afghanistan, 23 Killed - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
Cheney Heard "Loud Boom" Of Afghan Blast, VP Unharmed By Suicide Bomber During Visit To Base, As Many As 23 Others Killed - CBS News
Cheney unhurt in*blast*outside Afghan base - CNN.com

Offhand, a few of these are the same, because a few of them carry the AP.
NY times - let's take a look at the words that they use.
1) 'A suicide bomber' - this of course, totally mis-represents what those people actually are. They are martyrs. No one says 'i am a suicide bomber' - they say, 'I am a martyr...for Islam'. Its like if you are in the CIA and you call yourself a spy; it just doesn't happen. Their choice of words conjures up something saying that these people are doing this because they are brainwashed or because they have mental problems, because thats who commits suicide.
2) 'The explosion killed and wounded a number of American and allied soldiers' - just 'a number'. It didn't give their names, what their jobs were, or anything beyond that. Just 'a number'. This dulls down the article, and says to me that these soldiers are nothing more than just a number.
3) The incident took place at the outermost security gate of the sprawling base. The incident? I consider any time where American soliders get attacked and or killed to be an ATTACK. An incident is when someone slips down a hole and breaks their leg.
4) But an Afghan guard at the base said that he counted as many as 15 dead at the scene, including three American soldiers, and that 12 others were wounded. Later news agency reports put the death toll as high as 23. Of course, because its an Afghan guard, the number is relegated to a second place. There is no mention by US officials of the Afghan dead, so essentially, we do not care about those numbers, because they are not us. 3 Americans die, vice president attacked, it is news; but 12 afghan allies die, its not news. This, despite the fact that aiding the enemy is a very 'liberal' thing.
One more then I go on to others.
5) Told by reporters about the Taliban claim of responsibility for the attack, Mr. Cheney said: “I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government. Striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber, I suppose, is one way to do that. But it shouldn’t affect our behavior at all.”. Of course they need to get a good quote for this article, to show that it has some merit, but why use this quote from Cheney? There seems to be some intent to put things in perspective here - the 'long term' perspective. As such, this quote reflects the desire of the people to succeed, to stop the 'bad guys' from taking over Afghanistan. Doesn't that seem like a very 'conservative' viewpoint to you?
(One note on NY times; a lot of the 'vague stuff' was put at the top, with details at the bottom. The problem is, the stuff up top is what people will always read, and it forms their opinion about the stuff on the bottm. I doubt anyone after reading that article can say how many people were killed, unless they stuided it).

Now Fox News / CBS news / CNN / AP / Wash post -

fox news - funny how they call the guy a 'homicde bomber'.
I am running short on time here, I can't spend all day posting.

Yet I find this. You have to look at how the different medias frame the conflict, and what are their implicit assumptions. As I showed in the NY times, the framing of the attack was that it was part of the attempts by the taliban to re-take the role of the government. This is their implict assumption; this is the gist that the people get from reading that article The logical conclusion from this is 'hmmm...if we leave now...the taliban will re-emerge'.
You have to look at the sources that the people cite. For instance, Dick Cheney obviously will give a biased quote, because he is a biased man. Because Cheney is the vice president, people will tend to have the same assumptions that he does, unless there is a confliting viewpoint. 'Leaders' lead because they are able to get their ideas out to the greatest number. In this case, Dick Cheney says the nature of the conflit is one thing, and practically all the newspapers report it as such, and implicitly assume that it is so. Even the 'liberal' NY times seemingly falls into this trap.
You have to look at the buzz-words that people use. For instance, why are they called suicide bombers and not martyrs? Perhaps this might be because americans don't know what a martyr is; but do you not think that this helps deepen the divide between the two societies? All conflits have their buzz words, that help people define how this conflict is - a quick scan of the washington post article finds these buzz words:
Suicide bomber, blew himself up, Bagram Airfield, Afghan President Hamad Karzai, unannounced trip, incident (there it is again! It's an attack dammit!), resurgent Taliban activity, "not affect our behavior.", question the authority of the central government, "he attacked the local population.", coalition soldier, at President Bush's request because of "the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world", regrouping, militant religious group, bloody spring offensive, terrorist training operations, Afghan tribal leaders, Democratic talk of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
----> While these may be an adequate reflection of what actually happened, just lloking at them makes me think of a biased article.

ok, I got to go. Test tomorrow.

I don't find that the media is particularly biased one way or another. Let's not forget that these are the same people that tore apart Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as much as they are doing to GWB.

Additionally, you have networks that are percieved as being skewed the opposite, such as Fox.

The 'number' of people killed has changed at least twice so far today, youre reading way too far in to that.

Dick Cheney is an obvious quote because he's the highest ranking person available for a quote, and because the Taliban claimed he was the target.

A suicide bomber is crazy, and brainwashed. I don't see an issue with that language at all, if western civilization believed in martyrs (people who get bitches for murdering other people) then you'd have a point, but we don't. We believe that you have to be effin loco to strap a bomb on and do the bidding of someone who's too chickenshit to do it themselves.

The 'number' of people killed has changed at least twice so far today, youre reading way too far in to that.

IT's not the amount of people that were killed, its who was sourced and how they were written in the article. At the top, it was said that a number of military personnel were killed. At the bottom it gave a number. If someone made it to the end, they would find out the exact number, but the overall effect is to say that the military people are just a number.

Dick Cheney is an obvious quote because he's the highest ranking person available for a quote, and because the Taliban claimed he was the target.

Obviously. But it appears that they used him to contextualize the situation.

A suicide bomber is crazy, and brainwashed. I don't see an issue with that language at all, if western civilization believed in martyrs (people who get bitches for murdering other people) then you'd have a point, but we don't. We believe that you have to be effin loco to strap a bomb on and do the bidding of someone who's too chickenshit to do it themselves.

Don't you think that this deepens the divide between the two groups, and polarizes?

I don't find that the media is particularly biased one way or another. Let's not forget that these are the same people that tore apart Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as much as they are doing to GWB.

Additionally, you have networks that are percieved as being skewed the opposite, such as Fox.

When push comes to shove, its biased towards what the people it sells to wants it to be biased. ITs biased towards the money. It is a business, after all.

Hey, this happened at Bagram, eh? I spent a couple days at that base, it's set in a valley and has a spectacular view of the nearby mountains. They look very menacing; they just curve up all around you, as if you're in a huge crater or mixing bowl.

There is no mention by US officials of the Afghan dead, so essentially, we do not care about those numbers, because they are not us. 3 Americans die, vice president attacked, it is news; but 12 afghan allies die, its not news.

Don't read too much into that. When I read stories from the Canadian press regarding Afghanistan, the focus was naturally on Canadian troops. They would mention something like, '10 coalition troops injured, 7 of which were Canadian...' but that's just because their readers are mostly Canadian, so it's not as if they're intentionally snubbing the rest of us.

2) 'The explosion killed and wounded a number of American and allied soldiers' - just 'a number'. It didn't give their names, what their jobs were, or anything beyond that. Just 'a number'. This dulls down the article, and says to me that these soldiers are nothing more than just a number.

Why should they be any more? Unless they're particularly critical or high ranking, like a Colonel or a General there really isn't much to note. If somebody dies in a car crash in Kansas they usually don't get much press coverage either.

----> While these may be an adequate reflection of what actually happened, just lloking at them makes me think of a biased article.

Everything written by a human being will be biased. The best anyone can do is understand what that particular organization or writer's bias is.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

IT's not the amount of people that were killed, its who was sourced and how they were written in the article. At the top, it was said that a number of military personnel were killed. At the bottom it gave a number. If someone made it to the end, they would find out the exact number, but the overall effect is to say that the military people are just a number.

Because for the sake of the story the exact number is a secondary concern, articles are written so you can get the jist of the story in the first paragraph which is never muddied with details.

Obviously. But it appears that they used him to contextualize the situation.

I doubt he would have given any more than that.

Don't you think that this deepens the divide between the two groups, and polarizes?

Is that even possible? One group thinks theyre going to heaven for murder, the other does not and thinks killing oneself during the act of committing murder is not only sick, but an act of cowardice. Can you really convince me that it's not sick to do that?

When push comes to shove, its biased towards what the people it sells to wants it to be biased. ITs biased towards the money. It is a business, after all

I agree with that statement, I've always said that.

The media outlets cater to whoever they think their "target audience" is. Obviously the majority of conservatives watch FNC. So, logically more liberals watch the other stations, right?

What I think is mainly what the other media outlets do is not necessarily praise the democrats, it's that they spend a lot of time bashing the conservatives and much less time with the liberals. FNC does the opposite. You're never going to get a completely unbiased news source anyway...

Don't read too much into that. When I read stories from the Canadian press regarding Afghanistan, the focus was naturally on Canadian troops. They would mention something like, '10 coalition troops injured, 7 of which were Canadian...' but that's just because their readers are mostly Canadian, so it's not as if they're intentionally snubbing the rest of us.

Why should they be any more? Unless they're particularly critical or high ranking, like a Colonel or a General there really isn't much to note. If somebody dies in a car crash in Kansas they usually don't get much press coverage either.

I agree with that statement, I've always said that.

Did I ever say that the press was intentionally biased for American causes? No. They do not sit around in their rooms saying to themselves "how can we screw with the administrations policy today." I'm saying that it comes out in the writing, and in the coverage of their events. Especially in a conflict, if you rely on the press that is basd around one side of the conflict, you are going to get a VERY skewed picture of what was going on.
Case in point; the actual invasion of Iraq. Umm Qasr was taken 9 different times according to the western media, and according to Iraqi media, there were "no coalition troops near baghdad....and they were being routed by the iraqi forces."
My point in this thread was to show that there is no such thing as a 'liberal' media - that is, as it was defined earlier in this thread.

Everything written by a human being will be biased. The best anyone can do is understand what that particular organization or writer's bias is.

Right. But too often, people say to all news medias 'oh...that man is liberal...therefore they're wrong...or that man is conservative and thus they are wrong.' My point was that you need to analyze the coverage to say whether such a thing is the case.

Because for the sake of the story the exact number is a secondary concern, articles are written so you can get the jist of the story in the first paragraph which is never muddied with details.

Read the AP articles. They mention a number, and lo and behold, in fox news, they mention actual SPECIFICS. ("BAGRAM, Afghanistan — A homicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing up to 23 people and wounding 20. Cheney was unhurt in the attack, which was claimed by the Taliban and was the closest that militants have come to a top U.S. official visiting Afghanistan. At least one U.S. soldier, an American contractor and a South Korean solder were among the dead, NATO said.")

At least they talked about numbers, and there was a dead american!

Is that even possible? One group thinks theyre going to heaven for murder, the other does not and thinks killing oneself during the act of committing murder is not only sick, but an act of cowardice. Can you really convince me that it's not sick to do that?

Later on, ill see if I have the time to make moderate and liberal version of this story based solely on the news reports here. If all stories were covered in a moderate tone, then there would be far more understanding between both cultures.

I agree with that statement, I've always said that.

And the government is the biggest source of news which makes you your money.
Don't shit where you eat, I believe is the phrase.

The media outlets cater to whoever they think their "target audience" is. Obviously the majority of conservatives watch FNC. So, logically more liberals watch the other stations, right?

What I think is mainly what the other media outlets do is not necessarily praise the democrats, it's that they spend a lot of time bashing the conservatives and much less time with the liberals. FNC does the opposite. You're never going to get a completely unbiased news source anyway...

The point of this thread was not to sow the divide between conservative and liberal media, the point is to show how little of a difference there actually is. There are the same basic premises, when push comes to shove there will be almost the same premises - only at certain times do they differ on views.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

1) 'A suicide bomber' - this of course, totally mis-represents what those people actually are. They are martyrs. No one says 'i am a suicide bomber' - they say, 'I am a martyr...for Islam'. Its like if you are in the CIA and you call yourself a spy; it just doesn't happen. Their choice of words conjures up something saying that these people are doing this because they are brainwashed or because they have mental problems, because thats who commits suicide.

They are deranged. Just because they don't think they're not doesn't mean they're right.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

2) 'The explosion killed and wounded a number of American and allied soldiers' - just 'a number'. It didn't give their names, what their jobs were, or anything beyond that. Just 'a number'. This dulls down the article, and says to me that these soldiers are nothing more than just a number.

It says to me that time is money, and there's nothing special about that kind of reporting.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

3) The incident took place at the outermost security gate of the sprawling base. The incident? I consider any time where American soliders get attacked and or killed to be an ATTACK. An incident is when someone slips down a hole and breaks their leg.

You might have a point, but I think it's more indicative of the "journalist's" desire to use lots of syllables than anything else. They spent a lot of money to get through tele-prompter reading school, cut'em some slack.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

4) But an Afghan guard at the base said that he counted as many as 15 dead at the scene, including three American soldiers, and that 12 others were wounded. Later news agency reports put the death toll as high as 23. Of course, because its an Afghan guard, the number is relegated to a second place. There is no mention by US officials of the Afghan dead, so essentially, we do not care about those numbers, because they are not us. 3 Americans die, vice president attacked, it is news; but 12 afghan allies die, its not news. This, despite the fact that aiding the enemy is a very 'liberal' thing.

No, I don't care about the Afghan dead.

I don't care about the Iraqi dead, either, but we keep hearing all sorts of wishful thinking about those numbers.

We went over there to civilize them. If they die in the process, too bad. Maybe next time they'll think twice about murdering our citizens.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

5) Told by reporters about the Taliban claim of responsibility for the attack, Mr. Cheney said: “I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government. Striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber, I suppose, is one way to do that. But it shouldn’t affect our behavior at all.”. Of course they need to get a good quote for this article, to show that it has some merit, but why use this quote from Cheney?

Probably because he's the Vice President. Think maybe they should have interviewed a goat instead?

Originally Posted by The_Bear

fox news - funny how they call the guy a 'homicde bomber'.

Oh, that is so annoying! The Bush idiots invented that term for some stupid, long forgotten reason, and only Fox, with its nose shoved up the Bush Ass, still uses it.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

this is the gist that the people get from reading that article The logical conclusion from this is 'hmmm...if we leave now...the taliban will re-emerge'.

Which...is the correct thing to say.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

For instance, why are they called suicide bombers and not martyrs?

Becuase it would be stupid for us to pretend that stone age religion is worth dying for. Becuase in our culture committing suicide is a sign of insanity, which is also the case in any human, but some cultures are so diseased they can't admit it.

Originally Posted by The_Bear

Perhaps this might be because americans don't know what a martyr is; but do you not think that this helps deepen the divide between the two societies?

Good. If my kid tells me she wants to be a suicide bomber or a martyr, I'll kill her.