City of Roses
Hey Balladeer, thanks for answering back! I knew that sort of reaction was coming! LOL!
Balladeer, I know exactly what you are talking about. O'Reilly mentioned it on Monday's edition of "The O'Reilly Factor" during his Talking Points segment.
Of course O'Reilly is someone who is most intolerant of virtually all liberal views and his general grudge of the left is clear, from comparing all sorts of progressive voices to Fidel Castro and the Ku Klux Klan, comparing Michael Moore and Hollywood celebrities to Nazi faithful, harrassing Jeremy Glick, calling the ACLU, NAACP and other organizations "terrorist" or "fascist" organizations, etc.
O'Reilly can say whatever he wants on his show. What I hear on his program makes it onto my own "Most Ridiculous Item of the Day" many days, but he can go on and make those absurd allegations and they're not going to daunt me. But I believe both him and I know his program and the network he represents is not fair and balanced, especially noting the fact their CEO and chairman Roger Ailes was the former media strategist for three Republican presidents and former producer of Rush Limbaugh's now-defunct TV show, that his show generates a whole new type of spin, and he's only looking out for those who share his interests, and he should come clean on all that and just admit his program leans that direction.
With that said, I believe every media study is worthy to be looked over, but I have to tell you, I am quite skeptical about this Project for Excellence in Journalism study (affiliated with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism).
First of all, those who conducted the study admitted themselves there wasn't proof for the contention that reporting in general about Iraq was overwhelmingly negative.
Secondly, if you were using that study to defend Fox News, just look at the study. It reveals itself Fox News, through reports from 16 newspapers, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable news programs and nine Web sites in 2004, still conducted positive stories about the war in Iraq 38 percent of the time., with only 14 percent negative coverage. Compare that with CNN and MSNBC, which their positive-to-negative numbers (CNN: 20-23, MSNBC 16-17) are quite close together.
In fact, that finding even proves further that Fox news is slanted. Observe how the positive/negative numbers are pretty well balanced on CNN and MSNBC, while on Fox News the positive-negative coverage ratio is nearly 3 to 1.
Those at Fox News keep insisting there's a massive liberal bias in the newspapers as well, but I have to tell you, 31% negative to 23% positive is not far off, especially if you were to insist all the major newspapers tilt left or extreme left. That leaves me with the impression that either the whole "liberal press" thing is simply a myth, or the "liberal press" simply isn't serving their general interest, and I happen to believe in the former. I myself believe there certainly are liberal newspapers like the New York Times and the LA Times, but there are quite a lot of newspapers for more conservative interests, especially the Washington Times.
Finally, I wonder if that study bothered to include the massive negative ad campaign that the Bush re-election team launched on Kerry throughout the year.
The Campaign Media Analysis Group found that the Bush campaign, from the beginning of the presidential campaign to June 1, 2004, had run ads saying negative things about Kerry 49,050 times, amounting to 75 percent of Bush's campaign advertising. Kerry, in contrast, in that same time frame, ran negative ads against Bush 13,336 times, or just 27 percent of his total.
And that was before the Swift Boat ad crusade.
After the 2004 election, the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project found in their study that the Bush campaign and its allies ran more than 101,000 anti-Kerry "attack" or negative ads, more than the combined total of "positive" and "contrast" ads.
Actually, I am glad you brought that up as well, for I have another recent finding to share that I find interesting, regarding the so-called "liberal media bias".
A Media Matters for America analysis last week compared the coverage of controversial comments made by two Republicans and two Democrats:
Senator Robert Byrd: (D-WV)
Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley: (D)
Senator Lindsey Graham: (R-SC)
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R)
The study found that the controversial comments Byrd made regarding the filibuster and the comments O'Malley made in invoking the 9-11 terrorist attacks in discussing the Bush administration's proposed 2006 budget received far more press exposure than the comments Lindsey Graham made about South Carolina not yet getting over the abolition of slavery and Mitch Daniels' comments of invoking a "car-bombing" when criticizing Indiana Democrats.
The study revealed that Byrd's comment made it to most cable news programs and Associated Press articles among other sources between March 1-6, while Graham's only made it to the National Journal's CongressDaily, Inside Politics, Roll Call and The White House Bulletin between March 7-9.
Meanwhile, O'Malley's comment made it to a handful of cable news programs and major newspapers including the Washington Post, while Daniels' comment was only exposed across a few associated Press articles and newspapers in Kentucky and Indiana.
Now, this is just one comparison and it shouldn't speak for the position the media takes in general, but I think the bottom line here is that the media is obviously failing us both. In my opinion, I feel the corporate media generally-speaking leans more right, because there is not ONE progressive host on the major news networks or the cable news networks, but it's also pretty accurate to say it doesn't lean either way in many cases, it's all just simply washed-down and defective. It is failing to satisfy either of our needs, when 63% of our news is all recycled material, when our headlines are flooding with stories on Michael Jackson and such (A CNN poll revealed 89% would not be following the Michael Jackson trial, 81% in a Fox News poll said the same thing) that a unanimous majority don't want to see, and so many important subjects that a majority of Americans believe are important like the environment are rarely ever publicized.
THAT'S exactly why the "blog" has been accelerating as a source where dissatisfied Americans get their news now (even while most are unfamiliar what a blog is), young Americans turn to Comedy Central and Dennis Miller, etc, and why, meanwhile, the numbers who read the national newspapers have dwindled. There's many who are curious and want to try to locate international papers like myself.
I truly believe you are yearning ever so much to hear more positive news about the war in the Middle East just as I long to see at least one progressive host start a new show on one of the major networks and discuss things like peaceful diplomacy, sustainability, ecological wisdom, corporate accountability and instating a living wage for all Americans.
And I respect your desires. I confidently believe we both desire just that; a cultural media designed more in the form of a forum, where the megaphone is restricted to what I like to call "officialdom". We've got to be more independent again.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"