0  0

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media

Claims that media in the United States show liberal bias

“Liberal media” is a phrase used by some critics in American political discourse to express the view that the American media generally has a liberal bias. The expression is frequently used by critics of the network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio (NPR]). [4] [5] [6]

ABC News political director Mark Halperin has claimed that reporters are predominantly liberal in outlook, and inevitably bring some of that background to their reporting in the form of assumptions that can be seen as bias.[2]

People who use the phrase “liberal bias” claim that liberal biases are evident in both the choice (what stories are favored, or “played,” over others) and coverage (how stories are researched, portrayed, and presented). According to their perceptions, there is a “slant” or “spin” in the news that tends to promote a liberal agenda.

Those who support the concept of a liberal media bias often also claim that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views. In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters claimed to be or lean toward being Democratic or liberal. Only 15% claimed to be or lean toward being Republican or conservative. A survey by the Pew Research Center and Project for Excellence in Journalism in 2004 found 34% of journalists describing themselves as liberal, 54% as moderate, and only 7% as conservative.

Some argue that even asking politicians about their plans to solve social issues is a form of liberal bias, on the grounds that such a question must be based on the liberal assumption that government has a role in solving social or economic problems.

Proponents of Liberal Bias claims cite other examples such as:

* Promotion of “deviant” or anti-Christian lifestyles, such as feminism, atheism, homosexuality, abortion, or illicit drug use,
* Emphasis on extremist views, such as deep ecology, global warming, or animal rights
* Promotion of communism or other anti-business ideologies
* Critical coverage of Republicans, sometimes portrayed as as less intelligent, yet are soft on Democrats

Those who support the view that a liberal media bias exists, have said that the media has a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore those when a gun has been used for positive purposes in law enforcement or self-protection — this would be classified as spiking).

Many of the positions in the preceding paragraph are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College: Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Conservative critics claim that the editorial pages of many large U.S. newspapers such as The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, allegedly have a more-or-less explicitly liberal point of view. They claim, however, that a wall exists between editorial and reporting. Some critics see this wall as crumbling in the heat of partisan politics. Newer media, such as television and some web news sources, do not distinguish as clearly between the editorial department and the news department. Conservatives frequently accuse the big three networks of liberal bias in their news reporting. This view is represented by the slogan of Fox News, “Fair and balanced”, which suggests that the competition is not fair and balanced.

Some people claim that bias is present not just in news programs but in the networks’ other programs as well. Some entertainment programs have been accused of having a subtle political bias.

In addition to accusations of intentional bias, some accuse reporters of being lazy, and claim that this creates a tendency toward liberal bias, since it takes less effort to challenge politicians and government officials with questions than it does to investigate the actual causes of social problems. Reporters (even conservative reporters) may have a tendency to take the easy path and confront officials with emotion laden social problems and ask “What are you going to do about it?”.

It has been observed that bias that seems to be politically motivated may be motivated by sensationalism rather than politics.

0  0

0  0

And you remain indifferent that the jihadis and Baathists make no pretence of complying with the Geneva Convention. This week the jihadis released a video of them cutting the head off one of our soldiers. Where is your complaint of their non-compliance with the Geneva Convention, hypocrite?

Steve

0  0

Any lawyer could get any prisoner of war found not guilty because evidence is not collected in the chaos and fog of war. For example, if the US tried the German soldiers captured at Normandy to see if they had engaged in combat, it’s doubtful that any US soldier could match them to shots fired or soldiers killed. Of course, many of the witnesses would be dead or wounded. There are also no detectives to take statements on the battlefield nor evidence vans to collect fingerprints and blood samples.

This is one of dozens of reasons why it is foolish to treat combatants in a war as domestic criminals. There are international treaties which deal with international hostilities, none of which demand that prisoners be tried in a court of law to determine their offenses.

This mode of treating terrorism as a felony to be dealt with by the justice system was a disaster under Clinton. Do the liberals ever learn from their mistakes or are they doomed to repeat them endlessly to the detriment of the nation?

Steve

0  0

0  0

This is not WW2 and the laws governing warfare (oxymoron) need to reflect the reality.

0  0

And the ability to eventually get things right thru the process of law.

billT

0  0

If you’re interested in a more in-depth article from an American judicial and military perspective, I’d recommend the link below. Here’s an axcerpt from the header:

Geoffrey S. Corn, Lt. Col. US Army (Ret.) and former Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters, now a professor at South Texas College of Law, says that the US Supreme Court’s finding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to US military operations against al Qaeda restores a broad approach to basic law of war doctrine long held by US military lawyers….

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/hamdan-common-article-3-and-true.php

0  0

Not to make too much of my (peacetime) military service, but I met many people there with different social and political philosophies than mine who I came to respect. Although my own views overlap with those of more conservative people a minority of the time, I’ve always known that most people in that camp were repulsed when Vice President Cheney was arguing for torture in the Senate.

Our strength comes mostly from our core shared values.

Jared

0  0