Liberal Bias in the News, Part IV

[rbw1966]

Nunberg himself is a liberal. He provides a very colorful commentary on his field, linguistics, for NPR regularly.

[Billy]

Greg-

Here are some gun stats for you

 

This taken from http://www.danielmauser.com/violence.html

 

Let’s look at the simple facts: this country loses over 15,000 people each year to gun homicides. In Japan, with about half of our population, they lose less than 50 lives. Germany, a third our size, loses less than 200. Great Britain, Australia and Canada combined, less than 350. Gun supporters say that the lower death totals are due to cultural differences. If it was cultural, the death totals would be more random, not the uniformly lower totals in countries with stronger gun controls. Most of these low firearm death countries are ethnically and culturally diverse, just like the U.S. But they have one major thing in common: they all have tight gun restrictions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or someone playing Moses, to see the connection!

[j_b]

anyone with half a brain knows there is no liberal bias in the media. where was the liberal slant with respect to the iraq war? wmd's? lies? imbedded reporters? etc ... always ten steps back from where the general public was. where is the liberal bias w.r.t global warming and kyoto? and on, and on .... as mentioned in the piece linked to by matt, people think there is a liberal bias in the media because the media told them there was one.

[bunglehead]

"politics is hollywood for the ugly"

-P.J. O'rourke.

 

"I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat"

-Will Rogers

 

[Greg_W]

JoshK said:

Greg, I'm curious about what your specific complaints with the assault weapon ban are? I don't know much about it, but do know that their is no good reason why people should be able to own "streetsweeper" 12 shot automatic shot guns, sub machine guns and the like.

 

Dude, AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, which you mention here, were banned in 1934. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban uses loose language and bullshit "cosmetic" criteria for deciding what guns it will ban. It's a stupid law that DOES NOTHING to reduce gun crime, for the main reason that criminals are using cheap, easily obtainable and concealable guns. We have plenty of laws on the books to convict criminals when they break the law using guns; this one is useless.

 

Josh, look at what you wrote: "I don't know much about it...their [sic] is no good reason why people should be able to own..." First question: who are you to say what is good and right for another individual? Period. When you roll over and allow others to decide what is good for YOU, you've already lost. YOU may decide it isn't right for YOU, but you cannot say that about another individual. Second, you obviously know very little about the subject here which doesn't allow you to discuss intelligently does it?

[rbw1966]

Hey Greg--where are those stats you promised yesterday?

[Greg_W]

rbw1966 said:

Hey Greg--where are those stats you promised yesterday?

 

Still workin' it. Although, as a sidenote, will you actually listen to stats when I cite them from an NRA publication regardless of who did the study? I've cited stats from economist John Lott before and have been shot down with, "oh, he can twist the data any way he wants" blah, blah, blah. I'll still find them, though.

[mattp]

rbw1966 said:

Nunberg himself is a liberal. He provides a very colorful commentary on his field, linguistics, for NPR regularly.

 

Nunberg may be a liberal but, on that question as to whether the media disproportionately labels "conservatives" in an effort to make their liberal counterparts appear more mainstream, he at least made an effort to back up his assertion with some kind of analysis of actual fact, whereas all Goldberg could offer was an unsubstantiated assertion. When questioned about this, Golberg said "I didn't want the book to be written from a social scientist point of view." In other words, he doesn't think that he should have had to have any actual data to back up his point.

[rbw1966]

Greg--I'll listen to whatever you say and will take into account the source when evaluating it. Expecting otherwise, I am sure you will agree, is kinda dumb. I'm sure there are other data sources then the NRA though.

 

Matt--I wasn't trying to say that Nunberg couldn't be believed. I've talked to the guy a number of times and I admire his sense of ethics and defer to his analysis. I'm just providing some background info.

[iain]

the "assault weapon" ban is a little weak since there are certainly semi-automatics out there w/o grenade launchers, bayonets, or pistol grips (what are the other features? suppressing?) would be nice if they revised it based on function. but it will probably be sunsetted next year w/o a better option in place.

[mattp]

We've argued the gun control issue before, Greg, and I think you are right when you say that most of us folks who are in support of gun control are not going to believe your NRA-sponsored "facts." However, I bet you would very likely similarly reject any study that showed that there was serious risk associated with keeping guns in one's home, too. This is one of those issues where our society is just about as polarized as we are on, say, abortion.

 

In the context of the question of whether or not there is a liberal bias to the news media, can you or the NRA provide a statistic that shows that the purported bias against guns is anything more than the sensationalism or some other kind of market-driven slant that all of us agree exists in the news?

[terrible_ted]

I love the two track thread... kind of an Ornette Coleman thing...

 

WRT Nunberg, liberal or no, he's at least willing to put his numbers out there.

 

-t

[iain]

But apart from the subjective appearance features that make an "assault weapon" in the bill, would you agree that clips of less than 10 rounds is a reasonable request for a civilian semi-automatic weapon?

[chucK]

What's with this gun tangent anyway? It's not like gun politics are essentially Rep vs Dem is it? Plenty of republicans (police for example) do not like guns and then there are probably dems who like guns. I think?

[iain]

what's with the dem/rep tangent anyways? I thought we were talking about liberal news and knee-jerk assault rifle legislation.

[chucK]

[JoshK]

Greg_W said:

Josh, look at what you wrote: "I don't know much about it...their [sic] is no good reason why people should be able to own..." First question: who are you to say what is good and right for another individual? Period. When you roll over and allow others to decide what is good for YOU, you've already lost. YOU may decide it isn't right for YOU, but you cannot say that about another individual. Second, you obviously know very little about the subject here which doesn't allow you to discuss intelligently does it?

 

This is exactly what I *asked* you and didn't attack you, ya' fucking idiot. I still haven't had my quesiton answered, which is exactly what is wrong with that piece of legislation. Any piece of legislation that removes guns from our society save legit hunting weapons (no, not Ak-47s) is good legislation. It may take a while but as our society evolves further from the caveman mentality you and your NRA brother's have, we'll rid ourselves of more and more guns.

[iain]

Guns are here to stay. I think compromises can be made. I don't think clips limited to 10 rounds or less is unreasonable. I also think police body armor should have a fighting chance against any legal weapon. Police already risk so much on the job and I have a lot of respect for them even if they can't handle a bunch of birkenstock-wearing peaceniks at an anti-bush rally.

 

I really don't care if people have bayonets or stuff on the muzzle, or if they have pistol grips, retractable stocks, etc. That doesn't kill people. If someone wants a look-alike assault rifle, that is their risk and I doubt it helps much for hunting. My guess is you are 1000x more likely to be wounded or killed by police fire if you have something that looks like an AK or an Intratec even if it is not, when the police finally show up at the door for a disturbance, even if you are the victim. I know I don't want some nervous young cop around me if I am holding something that looks like an assault rifle, even if I called in the crook.

[allthumbs]

JoshK said: It may take a while but as our society evolves further from the caveman mentality you and your NRA brother's have, we'll rid ourselves of more and more guns.

I doubt that will happen, but if it does, thankfully I'll be long dead and gone. Grow some balls pussy.

[mattp]

This morning, on the way to work I heard two news stories on NPR, that ultimate bastion of the allegedly liberal media establishment. These showed, if anything, a CONSERVATIVE slant.

 

The first, a story on the bombing of a mosque in Iraq, told of how there was an ongoing struggle between a younger generation and elders in the Shiite sect, but then quoted Akhmed Jalabi (or however you spell it) as attributing the bombing to "Saddam Hussein loyalists." Jalabi was identified as a "member of the Iraqui National Congress." My question is this: what kind of an expert is Jalabi, who I believe is a puppet put forth by Bush and Co. with little if any legitimacy in Iraq, and isn't this an attempt to legitimize him in the eyes of the American news listener? Don't they paint a simplistic picture of the situation when every bomber in the country is passed off as a "Saddam Hussein loyalist?" Isn't the suggestion here that if we can only root out all remaining "loyalists," things will settle down?

 

The second story was one about Arnold Schwartzenegger. It described his adoring fans, and contained a couple of snippets from a speech wherein he said there were no superheroes in the real world, and that he would balance the budget without raising taxes and that he would not have to cut any funding to education. The story noted that he had refused to talk to reporters about a thirty year old article in a men's magazine, giving no hint of what that article may have said, and quioting him as saying that he wants to look toward the future rather than dwell in the past. I don't think Gray Davis is being given such treatment, is he? And of Cruz Bustamonte, the story noted that he can't lose - he will either be governor or remain in his current position as lieutenant governor.

 

NPR doesn't sound so unabashedly liberal to me.

[Jim]

mattp said:

NPR doesn't sound so unabashedly liberal to me.

 

NPR is about as mainstream as it gets. There is no liberal, widespread media in the US. On NPR you get the same voices from the conservative Washington think tanks, Pentagon briefers, Wall Street Journal commentators, etc., sprinkled in with a few slightly left of center commentators.

 

It's just that compared to the rabid right of the rest of the US media it looks lefty when it's barely center. While you hear both right (mostly) and left on NPR you'll never hear progressive views on widely carried programs like nitwork television, Fox, Limbaugh, etc.

[mattp]

Another example of the shoddy work that went into Goldberg's book, Bias:

 

He devotes a chapter to complaining that the liberal media made much noise about homeless people during Bush I and somehow indicated that Clinton solved the whole problem but then Bush Jr. brought it back (the chapter is called "How Bill Clinton Cured Homelessness). However, in the ABC and CNN pieces that he cites as examples of this, it was clearly stated that the current rise began in 1999 and 2000 - during Clinton's reign. Reporters who cover the issue are probably likely to be politically liberal on social issues, at least, and somebody with a liberal agenda on social issues may have had other topics to report on during the Clinton years, but I don't think it can be argued that, in these two stories cited by Goldberg, there was some liberal conspiracy to distort the truth. See: book review by FAIR .

 

Where are Fairweather and Peter Puget to revive the argument that the liberal bias in the media is so clearly obvious that everybody knows it is true?

[Fairweather]

Matt,

 

Are you sure you read the same book I did? (Or for that matter, did you just skip the book and go straight to the liberal published reviews/retort?) I just skimmed the chapter in question once again and can see dozens of examples/quotes relating to this topic. "Light on facts, heavy on whining"? What more do you require?

 

" The conservative Media Research Center found that in 1990, when George Bush was president, there were 71 homeless stories on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN evening newscasts. But in 1995, when Bill Clinton was in the White House, the number had gone down to just nine!"

 

...."a Village Voice study that showed that in 1988 the New York Times ran fifty stories on the homeless, including five on page one. But a decade later, in 1998 the Times ran only ten homeless stories, and none on page one."

 

"An ABC World News Tonight story just three weeks after Goerge W Bush was sworn in.....reporter Bob Jameson said, 'In New York City the number of homeless in the shelter system has risen above twenty five thousand a night for the first time since the late 1980's'".

 

Note that the number of homeless did not necessarily decline during the Clinton years, just the number of network stories about their plight.

 

The chapter is literally stuffed with example after example of this bias. How about the voting records/patterns of Washington DC journalists:

 

89% said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992

7% said George HW Bush.

2% Ross Perot

 

Do you honestly believe these reporters put aside their idealology ...not just when writing a story, but when choosing a topic?

 

Matt, I can tell you don't like to be challenged, but are you sure we read the same book?

 

NPR ... too conservative?

 

Good lord, it may be too late to help you.

[mattp]

Fairweather, thanks for the reply. I was afraid you might not be willing to defend your pal, Goldberg, and I was trying to provoke you. Perhaps it worked.

 

Yes, I can assure you I read the same book. Every page of it. As I said on this particular point (the number of homelessness stories), I do not find it evidence of an attempt to distort the news that reporters who are interested in homelessness may have had other issues on their minds during the Clinton years. The numbers may have resulted from all the "liberal" reporters gettting together and agreeing that they better lay off that issue or their hero Bill Clinton might look bad, but I doubt it. Most liberals I know were not enamored with Bill Clinton. Did these evil liberal reporters misstate the issue somehow? Do you really argue that those numerical studies show that when somebody writes a story about homelessness they are trying to make the President look bad?

 

And yes. I think NPR has become rather mainstream and they are now nearly as bland as the rest of the media. At one time they were provacatove, but now they have become afraid to rial the powers that be. They peddle Bush & Co's propaganda just like anybody else, and rarely do they offer us any critical perspective on important current issues. However, I'd like to see them rial the politically correct once in a while, along with the Administration.

[Fairweather]

Actually, I find myself listening to NPR more and more frequently. Something about the sounds they incorporate into their stories give them life, and I can only imagine that family gatherings around the radio in the 1940's were something like this. I find most of the stories fascinating, but some , while balanced on the whole, were obviously selected to appeal to a liberal audiance.(again... IMO.)

 

Just to clarify, I don't mind liberal stories that are obviously editorials...like some of the absolute CRAP written/read on NPR by Daniel Shore. (Some balance would be nice too, but I guess that's why there is Limbaugh and Medved.) What irks me is editorial undercurrent woven into actual news. I don't find this much anymore in NPR's top-of-the-hour news. Maybe that is why I am finding it so much more digestible. Maybe they got the word that the big (17%) taxpayer cow was a-'gonna-dry up real soon if they didn't change their ways. ??

 

As for the "mainstream media", no I don't believe there are ANY conspiracies afoot, just a common ideal amongst reporters that leans hard to the left.