Not News: More Bias
So Katie "there's more of me to love" Couric started presenting the CBS Evening News eh? I call her a presenter because she is not a journalist. No, she's not, ass wipe. Anyway, CBS has yet another party hack to help them distort the "news". This seems to me to be a cheap attempt to boost ratings for CBS (Communist Broadcasting Syndicate). I'm sure it will work for a time, but I am also sure that her liberal bias will turn off even more viewers than before. Trust me this show was already in the tank before Dan Rather got him self fired, excuse me, retired, and there is a reason why. The CBS Evening News is known widely as having the most biased liberal reporting in the American Main-Stream Television Media. The CBS Evening News makes CNN look like a live reading of Mein Kampf. Everybody seems to know this except liberals whom think that this "news program" is the "middle of the road".
While liberal bias is at times hard to detect, I would like to share with you an excerpt from a story today on MSNBC.COM that shows that they too have a liberal bias (big suprise). This article is a critique of Couric's first performance as anchor, but as it continues that subtle bias becomes quite obvious:
Commentary creates demand for equal time
Couric also did a segment with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in which he opined on the state of the world. Friedman is a brilliant journalist and commentator, but again, this is supposed to be a news broadcast and not Charlie Rose. Friedman works for the Times, which is perceived by many as being liberal. So to be fair, Couric probably also should have somebody on who is from the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal, which is conservative.
Did you catch it? Here it is again with the relevant parts highlighted:
Commentary creates demand for equal time
Couric also did a segment with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in which he opined on the state of the world. Friedman is a brilliant journalist and commentator, but again, this is supposed to be a news broadcast and not “Charlie Rose.Friedman works for the Times, which is perceived by many as being liberal. So to be fair, Couric probably also should have somebody on who is from the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal, which is conservative.
There you go. Bias in one word: "perceived". So just in one word Michael Venture could have a non-astute reader thinking that the NYT is "perceived to be liberal", but the Washington Times and WSJ are conservative. That means a reader might think that the NYT is being unfairly judged as having a liberal bias, by such papers as the WSJ and the Washington Times. Clever eh? It's so clever that I really doubt that the author wrote it on purpose, because he's just not smart enough. This is the way he and his editors think, thats all. This is just one example in one story on one day. If you read carefully, you will see this sort of thing all the time in most of the Mass-Media. Now I understand that this article was a commentary, but he made a statement of fact that the WSJ and the Washington Times are conservative. He knows not that what he considers to be "middle of the road", the majority of Americas considers "liberal", so it is easy to understand why he considers the WSJ and Washington Times to be conservative: They report the news in a relatively fair way, but to the liberal media, thats just not fair at all.
-Masterson
P.S. Still have this borrowed computer. I have been playing GTA III on it, great fun!
While liberal bias is at times hard to detect, I would like to share with you an excerpt from a story today on MSNBC.COM that shows that they too have a liberal bias (big suprise). This article is a critique of Couric's first performance as anchor, but as it continues that subtle bias becomes quite obvious:
Commentary creates demand for equal time
Couric also did a segment with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in which he opined on the state of the world. Friedman is a brilliant journalist and commentator, but again, this is supposed to be a news broadcast and not Charlie Rose. Friedman works for the Times, which is perceived by many as being liberal. So to be fair, Couric probably also should have somebody on who is from the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal, which is conservative.
Did you catch it? Here it is again with the relevant parts highlighted:
Commentary creates demand for equal time
Couric also did a segment with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times in which he opined on the state of the world. Friedman is a brilliant journalist and commentator, but again, this is supposed to be a news broadcast and not “Charlie Rose.Friedman works for the Times, which is perceived by many as being liberal. So to be fair, Couric probably also should have somebody on who is from the Washington Times or Wall Street Journal, which is conservative.
There you go. Bias in one word: "perceived". So just in one word Michael Venture could have a non-astute reader thinking that the NYT is "perceived to be liberal", but the Washington Times and WSJ are conservative. That means a reader might think that the NYT is being unfairly judged as having a liberal bias, by such papers as the WSJ and the Washington Times. Clever eh? It's so clever that I really doubt that the author wrote it on purpose, because he's just not smart enough. This is the way he and his editors think, thats all. This is just one example in one story on one day. If you read carefully, you will see this sort of thing all the time in most of the Mass-Media. Now I understand that this article was a commentary, but he made a statement of fact that the WSJ and the Washington Times are conservative. He knows not that what he considers to be "middle of the road", the majority of Americas considers "liberal", so it is easy to understand why he considers the WSJ and Washington Times to be conservative: They report the news in a relatively fair way, but to the liberal media, thats just not fair at all.
-Masterson
P.S. Still have this borrowed computer. I have been playing GTA III on it, great fun!
posted by Venjanz at 10:59 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with you 100% about liberal bias in most if not all mass media. It is rampant, and it is dangerous. However, you back up your point that the writers of this liberal slant don't even know what they are doing is biased because it is just how they think by you yourself saying that the WSJ and Washington Post report news in a "relatively fair way." I believe it is safe to assume that you are more on the conservative side, so you perceive these papers as "fair and balanced" while in truth they are clearly conservatively balanced, albiet far less than the rest of the media is liberally biased.
Post a Comment
<< Home