Media Bias, We report - you decide

Do I have to get Annabelle in here to teach you geography ?

Please?

Them's fighting words, sir!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

For today's media bias let's look forward to the upcoming 2004 Presidential Campaign and compare it to the 2000 election.

During the 2000 election, according to information culled from the Nexis media database, media reporters used the phrases "liberal" and "conservative" to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions.

Here's the breakdown of what was said by the three major networks:

From this we can safely say that the three major media network's reporters and anchors used the phrase "conservative" as a description far more than they used the phrase "liberal".

Why?

As Bernard Goldberg explained in his book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, "to Dan Rather and to a lot of other powerful members of the chattering class, that which is right of center is conservative. That which is left of center is middle of the road. No wonder they can?t recognize their own bias." He claims that the media pointedly identify conservative politicians as 'conservatives' but rarely use the word 'liberal' to describe liberals. In the world of the Jennings and Brokaws and Rathers, conservatives are out of the mainstream and have to be identified. Liberals, on the other hand, are the mainstream and don?t have to be identified.

Only one reporter, NBC?s Lisa Myers, used 'liberal' to describe Democratic candidate Bill Bradley (Sept. 25, 1999), and no network reporter labeled Vice President Al Gore as liberal during the entire 1999-2000 election cycle. In contrast, then-Governor George W. Bush was called a conservative 19 times. On August 14, 1999, for example, NBC?s David Bloom defined Bush as "a tax-cutting, anti-abortion, pro-business, pro-school vouchers conservative." Reporters included Bush?s "compassionate" modifier on six of those 19 labels, but CBS?s Bill Whitaker tried to discredit that concept on August 3, 2000: "The compassion often obscures the conservative, but it?s there."

GOP Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney?s conservatism was portrayed as scandalous during the week before the 2000 GOP convention. Dan Rather referred to Cheney?s "hard-line conservative congressional voting record" (July 26, 2000) while NBC?s Andrea Mitchell castigated Cheney?s votes as "mainstream, perhaps, for a conservative Republican in 1980, but not for this day and age" (July 30, 2000). Cheney?s Democratic counterpart Joe Lieberman was called a centrist or moderate eight times but never liberal, despite having been awarded a 95 percent approval rating from the liberal ADA in 1999.

Very few of these 1,239 labels were wrongly applied, and terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" are a fine shorthand way to tell viewers where a politician, group or policy falls in the American political landscape. But the lopsided way that network reporters applied these labels to conservatives and not liberals over the past five years confirms Goldberg?s observation that network reporters generally regard conservatives as having alien and eccentric views that need to be labeled, while liberal beliefs require no special identification.

This year, those same reporters seem ready to help John Kerry hide his anti-defense, pro-abortion, high-tax, big-government, Massachusetts liberal pedigree.

Again . . . why?

Them's fighting words, sir!

Since you are in Conyers, you know about the group of "good ol' boys" I am refering to. They are not necessarily republicans (or able to SPELL republican).

Oh my yes. They're all around me like flies at a dump. These inbred, tooth-less wonders never cease to amaze me. It's as if they're living in another time, or on another planet.

I am proud of many things Southern: respect for parents, respect for church, respect for women.

I detest other things Southern: desire for slavery, hatred of others (blacks, gays, etc.), keeping a woman 'in her place'

I was born in Conyers, I have lived here practically every day, and I'll die here. I have travelled from Maine to California, but I'm home in Georgia. Inbred tooth-less wonders not withstanding.

Assholeitis knows no geopolitical boundaries. It is a sad and destivating disease that can strikes across all known boundaries around the world, from the good ole boys to the talkin heads and yes some times even to the highest office in the land. This destivating sickness makes otherwise nice people say bad things.

There is no vaccine, the is no cure. But there is hope, for as little as $75 a day you could help a deserving me live in the lifestyle I am accustomed to. Please if you don't send money it may be too late. Send all of your cash to:

Find a cure or a way to get free beer money,
c/o Gene R.
1 Assholeitis Drive
Waynesville, NC
28786

Let's see if I understand this correctly--the northern Republicans who have fled to the suburbs so their kids won't have to go to school with poor blacks (and some poor whites) are somehow less racist than southerners? Here in Rochester, NY, the city (where I live in an integrated neighborhood with working class and professinal whites, blacks, and others) has become a rotten core surrounded by a ring of relatively wealthy (largely white) suburbs. This is true in many other northern cities, as well, as has frequently been pointed out by our black mayor (one of the few Democrats of any color or gender I have ever voted for--but I sometimes think he's a closet libertarian).
However, to show that they are not racist, the northern Republicans will severely chastise any white (particularly white males) who makes "racially insensitive remarks." They have actually forced resignations of some white males whose remarks were far less offensive than those being discussed here. Of course, we all know that it is only white males who can be racists or bigots--not!

Implying that living in the suburbs is racist is a very slippery slope. By your reasoning, I live in the suburbs of Detroit, therefore I'm racist. That's a load of crap. Yes, there is racism in the north, I won't argue the point. We live in the suburbs because Detroit is not the greatest, or safest, place to raise a family. I've lived in the city, I know what it's like and I know what kind problems there are. We do have a few families of black folks in our town and, to my knowledge, no one gives them problems. They are welcome.

I spent 6 years in the Army. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you that, for most, any prejudices that you bring with you are largely thrown in the garbage after you realize that, when your life depends on the guy next to you, there is no time for bigotry.

You are right sir, it pretty much clears out THAT issue!

I'm certainly glad to see my friends here picking up on my use of multi-level sarcasm! The job of a jester isn't easy!

After spending 7 years in the Air Force, mostly flying unarmed recon missions over the Gulf of Tonkin and Plainnes des Jarres, I would agree with this, but would go one step farther and argue that for most of us, racism itself is largely a thing of the past, and the military deserves a large share of the credit for making it so. IMHO, it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP with a vested interest in "fighting racism" that perpetuate the myth that racism continues to be a significant problem. As a scout leader who has had ample opportunity to watch white and black youth working and playing together, I have noticed for some time that while the youth are well aware of and appreciate their differences, they do not allow the differences to get in their way. The same thing holds true in the workplace and in social settings for most of the adults I deal with. Personnally, I think the ruling elites are using "racism" as a wedge issue to divide working class and middle class whites and blacks against each other to divert them from realizing that the real problems in this country originate in the corporate boardrooms. So, yes, I think it is wrong to suggest that southerners are somehow more racist than northerners--suburbanites or otherwise--but it is equally wrong to suggest that for most of us, racism is even an issue any longer.

You have obviously never spent much time in the hills of north Georgia. Racism is alive and well there; of course the Civil War is alive there, also.

There are many places in the US where racism is alive and well. Biggotry is ugly wherever we encounter it! Racism is not such a big issue now for most of us. It's place has been taken up by immigration policy. Being biggoted toward immigrants isn't much different from racial bias.....?

I can back up Maisky up 100% on that. I went to college at Georgia Southern University in tiny Statesboro, GA. If it were not for the University it would only be a cotton field. Raceism was rampid. I will never forget (coming from NY) seeing a guy with a tee shirt that said the REAL BOYS IN THE HOOD and on the back it had a bunch of clan people on it. He was just walking thru town like that. I remember telling him he would not last 10 min in NY with a shirt like that. He with what should have been an odvous response told me something to the effect that us yankees did not know how to deal with your ....... I am sure you can fill in the rest.
Also a friend on my team was telling me his family was from Tennessee and that on the way home there was a county that he would never drive thru in Northern Georgia cause he would probably get strung up.
It really blew my mind. I know there are and have met many wonderful people from the south, but something needs to be done.

 

Yep, them hills of north Georgia still house bootleggers, inbreds, and racists. As do many of the "white flight" zones in some northern surburbs. As do some lovely towns in Europe.

Also, those same areas house people that get along with anyone, regardless of color or national origin.

Divisions along racial/national/gender/religion/political lines have existed since Adam and Eve left the Garden. One bad apple stinks up the whole bushel.

Mailagnas was close to the answer with his statement:

The correct answer is that it is the politicians--Democrate and Republicans alike--along with groups like the ACLU and NAACP, need racism to flourish in order to keep working class and middle class whites and blacks fighting against each other. These people can't keep their power and their "on camera" time without the existence of a racial divide. They feed it, prepetuate it, they live because of it. Without it they would become un-needed.

Yes, I've seen employers that wouldn't hire someone because they're a (insert any minority here). I've also seen employers that couldn't hire anyone but a (insert any minority here) regardless of their qualification due to hiring quotas. Now which is more racist?

I've found that real racism knows no specific boundry. I've heard the dreaded "N" word in Maine and Illinois as often as in "them hills". I take no offense to the stereotype of my home being any more racist than the blue-blood homes of Massachusetts because I know it's not true.

And, sadly, Mailagnas is correct: "it is only white males who can be racists or bigots".

Yeah, there's those at Georgia Southern that "want to string one up". Been there, seen it. And that's bad. Yet you have rappers from a northern ghetto that sing that they "want to string one up", and that song makes it to #1 on the BET channel's weekly video wrap-up. Huh?

Excuse me, but this northern Republican resents the implication that it is only us engages in this activity. Racism knows no political party.

And which way do you stand? In one post you say that whites move to the suburbs because they're racist, then you say that racism is no longer an issue. What'll it be my friend?