Mass Media:Is there bias, perceived or actual?

[GarfieldJL]

Thread split from The Ayers thread. Carry on issues about the Mass Media and bias (perceived or real) here. Thanks, Jae.

 

I would argue about your biased "truth", and lack of substantial sources, but you're in the wrong thread. This is the Ayers discussion.

 

Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

 

FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate. Otherwise, using the logic that we should throw everything by Fox out, we should throw out everything said by CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes because of their significant liberal bias in their opinion programs and editorials.

 

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's something reported in the regular news segments by either CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I'm fine with those facts and reports.

 

The opinion reporting by Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc, is just that--opinion. The NYTimes has been caught enough times with inaccuracies that they didn't retract, and at least 1 reporter completely making up stories, that I cannot trust them as a reliable news outlet anymore.

 

I will go further and say that the New York Times goes out of its way to try to cover up scandals involving Democrats and tries to smear Republicans at every opportunity.

[jrrtoken]

Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

Fox News may report the truth, but they add an incredible amount of bias to it, so much of a bias, in fact, that you'll need to filter most of it to salvage any thread of truth. All news outlets have a bias, but most are either to a minimum or casually hide it. Fox, on the other hand, seems to advertise their conservatism through their reporting.

[Astor]

Look if the accusation of MSNBC trying to deliberately disrupt the Republican Convention is true, it doesn't give MSNBC much in the way of credibility.

 

But that's an incredibly big 'if', surely?

[Adavardes]

Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

 

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

[GarfieldJL]

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

 

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

 

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

 

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/

[jrrtoken]

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

No, you're completely missing the point. You were using an opinion as cold, hard evidence. Opinions, either conservative or liberal do not qualify as the truth.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

 

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

 

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/

sweet i love blogs.

 

also when you keep bringing up obama and ayers in nearly every post you make regardless of the thread's topic then it kind of makes sense that people would think you are a "smear merchant" and you have a "pathological hatred of obama".

 

and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.

 

 

but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan

[Jae Onasi]

And that's just one case. I'll go look up some more if you'd like.

Half your links are broken or are to non-journal sources--salon.com is an extremely liberal, Fox-news bashing site that is hardly unbiased. Please try with some unbiased sources to disprove Fox's reliability. I freely accept Fox has a conservative lean to it. MSNBC is a competitor to Fox and is hardly unbiased in that regard.

 

As for having WMD, Hussein had and used chemical agents against his own people. The Halabja attack killed thousands and injured up to another 10,000. It was a horrendous act of genocide. Furthermore, chemical weapons were used by both Iran and Iraq in their war in the '80's. Finding old chemical weapons caches would hardly be surprising.

 

The Fox news article you linked noted that the weapons found by the military were apparently made before '91 and were in an unusable form. However, they were still WMDs. After careful reading of this Fox article, it is stating not that there were new WMDs found, but that the inspection process missed a significant number of old caches, and that Hussein was dishonest in saying all chemical weapons had been destroyed. Clearly they had not been destroyed. Fox in fact notes that these were not the weapons that the Bush administration was looking for (see bolded part).

 

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

 

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

 

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

 

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

 

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

 

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

 

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

 

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

 

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

 

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

 

I'm thinking you possibly looked at the title and assumed Fox was talking about WMDs built up for the second Gulf War when you posted this as proof that Fox was factually inaccurate. I see nothing in this article that states that. The US military did find WMDs, as the declassified document notes, but they also happened to be older WMDs, and the article states that. There are multiple independant sources showing Hussein used chemical and nerve-agent weapons on his own people and in the Iran-Iraq wars. It is patently obvious that he had and used WMDs from the '80's on.

[PridedFalcon]

btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

 

Thanks, there's no need to be a Grammar Nazi, leave the moderating to the moderators; Lucas Forums is a multi national board, and English may not always be an individuals first language, further more some people, such as me have dyslexia. -- j7

 

Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

 

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

 

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

[EnderWiggin]

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

 

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints.

 

So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?

 

 

Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

 

No. No I am not. (Oh, , and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. )

 

Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

 

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

 

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

 

Hey, I like this guy already

 

Welcome!

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints.

 

Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.

 

So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?

 

To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.

 

Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.

 

Again check to see who I responded to.

 

Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

 

Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.

 

No. No I am not. (, and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. )

 

Seriously I don't have a pathological hatred I was originally for anyone but Hillary Clinton, after I found out about Obama's associations and record, I'd rather have Hillary in the Presidency than Obama. I'm so vocal about this issue because the man's associations and limited record are downright scary.

[Jae Onasi]

Garfield, Ender, and anyone who has or is contemplating harsh rhetoric in this thread: while the flames would greatly warm up where I live and perhaps melt some of the near 20 inches of snow that we've gotten here in the last 5 days, it's reaching 'bomb the village with napalm' level. If you all continue on any further with the flaming, I will give everyone else the Christmas (or holiday of your choice) present of barring you from Kavar's until after Christmas so we don't have to listen to the crap. I appreciate your cooperation in keeping this place civil.

 

Edit: I'm also working on splitting off the posts on liberal/conservative media bias, so if some of your posts disappear, that's why. Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

Absolutely nothing, to be honest. My opinion on this is worth about as much as anyone's here. The only thing I can claim expertise on and could be quoted as a source for are eyes and vision, and possibly Martin Luther King Jr.'s political relationship with LBJ.

 

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've obviously missed my discussion on abortion, religion, and taxes. I do fall on the liberal side in regards to healthcare.

 

and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.

Point Man's the only one who gets to play white knight.

 

but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan

Fox isn't non-partisan at all. The opinion shows are very conservative, and the news coverage tends a bit to the conservative as well, but I wasn't talking about bias earlier, I was noting that Fox coverage on straight news issues is factual (and when they make mistakes, they acknowledge and fix them, since I've seen them do that a couple times).

 

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God.

>.>

<.<

 

Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints.

And here I thought I was jaded by the evil in Man.

Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.

Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

 

Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly.

Bill O'Reilly is one of those I consider an opinion commentator rather than a pure journalist, so I wouldn't rely on him for the hard news. He's useful for providing some sourcing that liberal sources don't pick up or provide that I can go back to and check later.

Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

And he's so cute when he gets all mad and red-faced and you can see the arteries standing out on his temples.

[EnderWiggin]

Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.

 

It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.

 

To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.

 

Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.

 

Again check to see who I responded to.

 

Try not to discount what I'm saying just because it says 'EnderWiggin' at the top.

 

Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.

 

I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)

 

 

Anyways, getting back to Ayers, I did find financial ties between Obama and Ayers, I think I posted it somewhere earlier in this topic if not I'll try to find it again.

Ok. We'll be here.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.

 

Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.

 

Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.

 

They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.

 

 

I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)

 

And he keeps the Opinion segment at the end of the show, the rest of the time is the news. The opinion segment is clearly labelled as such and not reported as news.

[Jae Onasi]

All right, to avoid the non-stop "OMG Faux News is teh badz" "No they aren't and here's a blog to prove it!" arguments sprouting up in so many threads like a bad case of foot fungus, discuss media bias (or lack thereof) and its ramifications here. This is not an Ayers thread. This is not a pro/anti-Bush thread. This is not a pro/anti-Obama thread, though I understand that coverage by the various networks of Bush and Obama are naturally going to come up. Ayers stuff must be contained to the Ayers thread.

 

In order to show differences, please post excerpts along with the link, rather than just a link. It's very hard to get an idea of where you're going on a point if you just post a link with no explanation. For instance, if you want to show the differences between coverage of Hurricane Katrina, post excerpts from a conservative source and a liberal source to show the differences within your post. Then include the links if someone wants to research it more for themselves. Please double check your links to make sure they aren't broken or route to non-existent pages as a courtesy to everyone.

 

The internet is not the be-all, end-all source. Book excerpts (please include citation and page number), radio podcasts/transcripts, studies on the media, journal articles, newspaper reports, all work as well. Please don't use the argument 'well, it was on this page but it got deleted by the owner.' If you don't have the info, don't post the claim, please. Either find the cached page or get us a different corroborating source. I do not want to see a copy of an alleged deleted web page from a blog because that could easily be altered.

 

It would also be helpful to define the terms as you see it the first time you use it in this thread: a conservative's view of 'mainstream media' and a liberal's view of 'mainstream media' are different, and having these defined here helps us all have some common ground to work with.

 

Also, if you all would like some kind of poll I'll be happy to edit it in. I'd just need to know options you'd all prefer to have. Thanks.

[mur'phon]

Most studies I have seen shows that the media as a whole is usually slightly left of whatever is considered centre in a country. The reason being the level of education of the journalists/editors, as most places higher education makes you more likely to be leftish. However this is mostly countered by the fact that the media try to have the same bias as their customers, so while a leftish journalist might want to write a leftish article, if he is working for a newspaper targeting conservatives, he'll have to write something not to far from his newspapers views.

So yes, there is bias, usually slightly leftish, and if you find it to be very leftish, blame your fellow consumers:D

 

Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

 

Only in America:D

[EnderWiggin]

Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.

 

Actually, I did. I clearly and accurately explained to you that someone can disagree with Jae without insulting her.

 

 

They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.

 

Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?

 

_EW_

 

 

Also, this post and the post I'm quoting likely should be moved to the Mass Media thread.

 

Done. --Jae

[GarfieldJL]

Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?

 

Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.

 

This carefully edited video shows Officer Stewart of the Denver Police knocking Alicia Forrest of Code Pink to the ground during a protest, and then, after an edit, Forrest getting arrested by other officers. This video has created a firestorm among left-wing blogs, and also engendered many follow-up stories in the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, Westword, and other mainstream Denver media outlets.

 

However, I personally witnessed the entire incident, from the beginning to the end, and can say without reservation that the Rocky Mountain News video is intentionally deceptive, and crafted to make the protester (Alicia Forrest) appear to be a victim of needless police brutality. I have photographic and video proof, shown below, that Alicia Forrest “asked for it” in the sense that she disobeyed police commands to stay back and also taunted the police; and that she was not seriously injured by Officer Stewart; and that the Rocky Mountain News in particular committed an act of media malfeasance by purposely posting on their site a deceptive video that left out all the context surrounding the incident. Furthermore, many blogs jumped on the story and trumpeted it as evidence of police misbehavior, when in fact there was no misbehavior at all.

-- Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality

 

Additionally we have:

 

Perhaps even more extraordinary, however, is that the Times allowed Ayers to publish obvious lies about his terrorist past and rejected a rebuttal by the former FBI informant who lived through the history Ayers tried to rewrite.

-- The Op Ed the New York Times Wouldn't Run

 

The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.

[jrrtoken]

Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.

Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.

Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality

I'm not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny.

The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.

You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

[GarfieldJL]

Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.

 

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.

 

I'm not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny.

 

Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.

 

You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

 

I'm sorry you find the truth to be tasteless.

 

Let's tone down the rhetoric and name-calling on both sides of the political aisle--it's not constructive to the conversation regardless of who's doing it. It's not a reportable offense in that it's not flaming a member here, but if we're looking for constructive dialog, "left-wing nuts" and "fascist motherkeepitcleansoyoudon'tgetyourmouthwashedoutwithsoap", do not help one bit. --Jae

 

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school's "liberal political machine" for being a conservative.

 

William Felkner, 45, says the New England college and six professors wouldn't approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the "wrong" side of political issues and countered the school's "progressive" liberal agenda.

 

Felkner said his problems with his professors began in his first semester, in the fall of 2004, when he objected in an e-mail to one of his professors that the school was showing and promoting Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on campus. He said he objected because no opposing point of view was presented.

 

He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner's ability to "fit with the profession."

 

"I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases," he wrote.

 

Felkner's complaint, filed two years ago, alleges that Ryczek discriminated against him for his conservative viewpoint and gave him bad grades because of it in several classes. It also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.

--Article on Fox News website

 

And more from same article:

Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class "assailing" his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not "progressive."

 

That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.

 

Video of a CBS News Story

[jrrtoken]

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.

No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.

Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.

It's called a JOKE

That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.

As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

[The Doctor]

The only aspect of the mainstream media that's irrationally biased is Faux News, to be perfectly honest. I've yet to see any story, in either "factual" or admittedly-opinion format, that wouldn't make a Nazi blush with embarrassment. I've tried many times over the past three years to keep up with their "news", and at the end of the day all I've gained is a new appreciation for CTVNewsnet. How Faux still manages to clutch to any kind of audience is completely beyond me.

 

And, for the record: there's a reason why educated journalists usually have a left-leaning "bias". Though Murph seems to have beaten me to that point.

[GarfieldJL]

No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.

 

Even when you see the actual news articles from New York Times, or media outlets literally disappear from being online? Fact is that I was actually seeing it happen when I went to post links to those articles here after I had saw the articles before a class, I get back and the media outlet had deleted those articles.

 

Also a few of the bloggers I've used have had a reputation of catching media outlets in the act of dishonest reporting.

 

It's called a JOKE

 

It's called not funny.

 

As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

 

It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.

 

That's a separate topic. Please stay on the topic of media bias. --Jae

[EnderWiggin]

It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.

awww our elementary schools are liberal propaganda machines.

 

Hitler Youth.

 

_EW_