stevenbgood - I took no offense at your post, and did not feel like you were directing it at me. Its good to see another Mobilian on here, I do most of my riding in the same areas that you were talking about with the exception of up at B'ham, I have heard that is a nice area by other people. If you ever see a blue Grizzly or Black/Red Raptor on the trails around Mobile just give a shout, always good to meet new people who like to ride.

 

hondabuster - Your not the only one who can cut and paste. Here you go, from their own mouths.


Admissions of Liberal Bias


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We?re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I?ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.?
? Washington Post ?Book World? editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post?s ?daily in-house electronic critiques,? as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.

Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: ?Is this attack [on public broadcasting?s budget] going to make NPR a little less liberal??
NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg: ?I don?t think we?re liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that.?
Thomas: ?I do listen to you and you?re not that liberal, but you?re a little bit liberal.?
Totenberg: ?No, I don?t think so. I don?t think that?s a fair criticism, I really don?t ? any more than, any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal.?
Thomas: ?I think Newsweek is a little liberal.?
? Exchange on the June 26, 2005 Inside Washington.


?There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it?s very dangerous. That?s different from the media doing it?s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.?
? ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.


?I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.?
? Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.


?I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don?t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that?s one of the faults.?
? Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN?s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.


?Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.?
? Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.


Joe Scarborough: ?Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money??
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: ?Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ?liberal? came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn?t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what?s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what?s happening.?
? MSNBC?s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.


?Does anybody really think there wouldn?t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS?s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry??
? Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC?s Hardball.


?The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it?s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS?s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon?s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.?
? Newsweek?s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, ?The ?Media Party? is over: CBS? downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,? January 11 , 2005.


?Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don?t drive pickup trucks, most of them don?t have guns, most of them don?t go to NASCAR, and every day we?re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.?
? ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry?s concession speech on November 3, 2004.


?I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.?
? CBS?s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.


?There?s one other base here: the media. Let?s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards ? I?m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but ? they?re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there?s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that?s going to be worth maybe 15 points.?
? Newsweek?s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.


The Washington Post?s Howard Kurtz: ?You?ve said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as ?young and dynamic and optimistic,? that that?s worth maybe 15 points.?
Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: ?Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I?m not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don?t think it?s worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say.?
Kurtz: ?Is it worth five points??
Thomas: ?Maybe, maybe.?
? Exchange on CNN?s Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004.


Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: ?The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You?re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....?
MSNBC?s Chris Matthews: ?But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn?t like Churchill speaking against the *****.?
Meacham: ?That?s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.?
Matthews: ?Well, they?re right about the New York Times, and they may be right about all of us.?
? Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC?s live convention coverage, August 30, 2004.


?Of course it is....These are the social issues: g@y rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you?ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.?
? New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, ?Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper??


?Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ?conservative positions.?...?
?The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush?s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.?
? From the February 10, 2004 edition of ABCNews.com?s ?The Note,? a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.


Jack Cafferty: ?Can you say liberal? And the liberal talk radio station Air America debuts today....The question is, does America need additional ?liberal? media outlets?...?
Bill Hemmer: ?I think it?s a good question....Why hasn?t a liberal radio station or TV network never taken off before??
Cafferty: ?We have them. Are you, did you just get off a vegetable truck from the South Bronx? They?re everywhere....What do they call this joint? The Clinton News Network??
? Exchange on CNN?s American Morning, March 31, 2004.


?I think most claims of liberal media bias are overblown. At the same time, I do think that reporters often let their cultural predilections drive their coverage of social issues, and the coverage of the g@y marriage amendment offers a perfect example....Why do reporters assume that the amendment is a fringe concern? Perhaps because nearly all live in big cities, among educated, relatively affluent peers, who hold liberal views on social matters. In Washington and New York, g@y marriage is an utterly mainstream proposition. Unfortunately, in most of the country, it?s not.?
? New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Chait, CBSNews.com, March 1, 2004.


?Where I work at ABC, people say ?conservative? the way people say ?child molester.??
? ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.


?I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people ? and to a lesser degree today, the TV people ? come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries ? which newspaper people used to have anyway ? and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.?
? Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite to Time magazine?s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine?s November 3, 2003 edition.


?I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I?m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.?
? CBS?s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg?s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN?s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.


?Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I?m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.?
? ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN?s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002


?[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan...that isn?t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean? in that direction.?
? Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in ?Leaning on the Media? by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.


?There is a liberal bias. It?s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ? most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume?s bosses are liberal and they?re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.?
? Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.


?Everybody knows that there?s a liberal, that there?s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don?t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It?s not a liberal, it?s humanitarian and that?s a vastly different thing.?
? Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.


?There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I?m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don?t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites? have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it?s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don?t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we?re going to slant the news. We don?t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg?s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton?s health care plan ?wacky??...
??Reality Check? suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: ?Time Out!? You?d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else ? like Albania.?
? CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.


?I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now, the question is whether that?s bad or not, and that?s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world ? I forget what the surveys show, but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world.?
? Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.


?As much as we try to think otherwise, when you?re covering someone like yourself, and your position in life is insecure, she?s your mascot. Something in you roots for her. You?re rooting for your team. I try to get that bias out, but for many of us it?s there.?
? Time Senior Writer Margaret Carlson quoted in The Washington Post, March 7, 1994.


?I think liberalism lives ? the notion that we don?t have to stay where we are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? It was people who wanted to change things for the better.?
? Charles Kuralt talking with Morley Safer on the CBS special, One for the Road with Charles Kuralt, May 5, 1994.


?I won?t make any pretense that the ?American Agenda? [segments on World News Tonight] is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and ?Well, on the one hand this and on the other that? ? I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues.?
? ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC?s Equal Time, August 9, 1994.


?I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we?re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.?
? ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.


?The group of people I?ll call The Press ? by which I mean several dozen political journalists of my acquaintance, many of whom the Buchanan administration may someday round up on suspicion of having Democratic or even liberal sympathies ? was of one mind as the season?s first primary campaign shuddered toward its finish. I asked each of them, one after another, this question: If you were a New Hampshire Democrat, whom would you vote for? The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. In this group, in my experience, such unanimity is unprecedented....
?Almost none is due to calculations about Clinton being ?electable?...and none at all is due to belief in Clinton?s denials in the Flowers business, because no one believes these denials. No, the real reason members of The Press like Clinton is simple, and surprisingly uncynical: they think he would make a very good, perhaps a great, President. Several told me they were convinced that Clinton is the most talented presidential candidate they have ever encountered, JFK included.?
? New Republic Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg, March 9, 1992 issue.


?We?re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don?t think we can run away from that. And I think we?re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people.?
? Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.


?Coverage of the campaign vindicated exactly what conservatives have been saying for years about liberal bias in the media. In their defense, journalists say that though they may have their personal opinions, as professionals they are able to correct for them when they write. Sounds nice, but I?m not buying any.?
? Former Newsweek reporter Jacob Weisberg in The New Republic, November 23, 1992 issue.


?There is no such thing as objective reporting...I?ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That?s my subversive mission.?
? Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.


?I do have an axe to grind...I want to be the little subversive person in television.?
? Barbara Pyle, CNN Environmental Editor and Turner Broadcasting Vice President for Environmental Policy, as quoted by David Brooks in the July 1990 American Spectator.


?I?m not sure it?s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that?s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.?
? PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS?s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.


?As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.?
? Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.


?Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you?d have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy.?
? NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.

 

hondabuster - Here some more for you to chew on, this cutting and pasting thing is a blast[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]


The Media Elite

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets ? including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS ? on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the ?media elite? were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article ?Media and Business Elites.? The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman?s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

KEY FINDINGS:

Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that ?the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,? while the authors found ?five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.?
30 percent disagreed that ?private enterprise is fair to workers;? 28 percent agreed that ?all political systems are repressive.?
54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
?Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.?
Majorities of journalists agreed with the statements: ?U.S. exploits Third World, causes poverty? (56%) and ?U.S. use of resources immoral? (57%). Three-fourths disagreed that the ?West had helped Third World.?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Journalist

In late 1982 and early 1983, Indiana University journalism professors David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit surveyed more than 1,000 journalists, and reported the results in their 1986 book, The American Journalist. Their poll included more than just top reporters, and, overall, they detected only a modest skew towards the liberal side of the spectrum ? 22 percent of those interviewed called themselves liberal, compared with 19 percent who said they were conservative. But among 136 executives and staffers at ?prominent news organizations? ? the three weekly newsmagazines, the AP and UPI wire services and the Boston Globe ? the liberal tilt was much more pronounced, with liberals outnumbering conservatives by a more than two-to-one margin (32 to 12 percent). Only six percent of this group identified themselves as Republican, compared with seven times as many (43 percent) who said they were Democrats.

KEY FINDINGS:

Journalists were instructed: ?The media are often classified politically in terms of left, right and center. On a scale from zero (meaning extreme left) to one hundred (meaning extreme right)....where on this scale would you place yourself??
Most of the journalists surveyed (57.5%) chose numbers that placed themselves in the middle of the spectrum, with 22.1 percent ranking themselves as more liberal, and 17.9 percent saying they were more conservative, and 2.5 percent not responding.
?When the political leanings of U.S. journalists are analyzed separately for executive (those who supervise editorial employees) and staffers of prominent and nonprominent news organizations, we find more journalists (both executives and staffers) from prominent organizations claiming to be left-of-center.?
Among the prominent, or elite, media, 32.3 percent rated themselves as more liberal, compared to 11.8 percent who said they were more conservative. Eight percent rated themselves as solidly ?left,? but none of the media elite would place themselves squarely on the ?right.?
Nearly four in ten of all journalists surveyed (38.5%) described themselves as Democrats, compared to just 18.8 percent who said they were Republicans. Among the journalists working at prominent news organizations, just 6 percent would admit to being Republicans, compared to 43 percent who said they were Democrats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles Times Survey

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

KEY FINDINGS:

Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
84 percent of reporters and editors supported a so-called "nuclear freeze" to ban all future nuclear missile deployment; 80 percent were against increased defense spending; and 76 percent opposed aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.
82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey of Business Reporters

A 1988 poll by a New York-based newsletter, Journalist and Financial Reporting, surveyed 151 business reporters from over 30 publications ranging from the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times and Chicago Tribune to Money, Fortune and Business Week. The survey found that newspaper and magazine business reporters are just as liberal as their colleagues covering politics.



KEY FINDINGS:

54 percent identified themselves as Democrats, just 9 percent as Republicans.
76 percent reported they opposed school prayer and 75 percent were against aid to the Contras, rebels fighting the Communist-backed Nicaraguan government. An overwhelming 86 percent favored abortion.
More than half, 52 percent, evaluated President Reagan?s performance in office as ?poor? or ?below average.? Only 17 percent gave him an ?excellent? or ?good,? while 19 percent considered him ?average.?
Asked who they wished to see become President, 27 percent named liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D), trailed by 20 percent for Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and nine percent for Senator Paul Simon (D-Ill). Senator Bob Dole was the most ?popular? Republican, garnering a piddling eight percent.
Rev. Pat Robertson, then a GOP candidate, topped the list ? at 44 percent ? of those the reporters would ?least like to see as President,? followed by 19 percent who named the eventual winner that year, George H. W. Bush.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journalists ? Who Are They, Really?

In 1992, Professors Weaver and Wilhoit conducted another national survey of journalists, and noticed the group had moved farther to the left. Writing in the Fall 1992 Media Studies Journal, they discovered that 47 percent of journalists now said they were ?liberal,? while only 22 percent labeled themselves as ?conservative.?

KEY FINDINGS:

44 percent of journalists identified themselves as Democrats, an increase from the early 1980s, while 16 percent tagged themselves as Republican, a decline from the earlier study.
?Compared to the overall U.S. population, journalists are 3 percent to 10 percent more likely to say they are Democrats, depending on which national survey you use as a yardstick, and 10 to 17 points less likely to say they are Republicans.?


Nearly half of the journalists surveyed (47 percent) called themselves ?liberal,? compared to 22 percent who described themselves as ?conservative.? Gallup polls taken at the same time found just 18 percent of the public considered themselves liberal, while 34 percent of the public said they were conservative.
The study authors found ?minorities are much more likely to call themselves Democrats than are white journalists, especially blacks (70 percent), Asians (63 percent) and Hispanics (59 percent).?
Women journalists (58 percent) are much more likely than men (38 percent) to prefer the Democratic Party.
More than half of journalists (51%) said abortion should be ?legal under any circumstances,? compared to just 4 percent who thought abortion should be ?illegal in all circumstances.? Among the general public, 33 percent wanted abortion ?legal under any circumstances,? and 14 percent thought it should always be illegal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newspaper Journalists of the ?90s

In 1996, as a follow-up to a 1988 survey, the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) surveyed 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes across the nation, and found that newsrooms were more ideologically unrepresentative than they had been in the late 1980s. While the percentage of journalists calling themselves ?Democrat or liberal? essentially held steady (going from 62 to 61 percent of those surveyed), the percentage saying they were ?Republican or conservative? dropped from 22 percent to just 15 percent of journalists. The ASNE report, The Newspaper Journalists of the ?90s, also revealed that bigger ? presumably more influential ? newspapers had the most liberal staffs.

KEY FINDINGS:

According to ASNE: ?In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988. The greatest gain is in the ?independent? column, which rose from 17 percent to 24 percent. Liberal/Democrats and those leaning that way slipped only from 62 to 61 percent.?


?Political orientation does not vary across job descriptions, except that editorial writers are more likely to be independent or conservative than staffers in the newsroom.?
?On papers of at least 50,000 circulation, 65 percent of the staffs are liberal/Democrat or leaning that way, and 12 percent are conservative/Republican or leaning that way.?
Women in the newsroom were more likely than men to identify as liberal/Democratic. Only 11 percent identified themselves as conservative or leaned that way.
Minority journalists are even more liberal/Democrat than other reporters, with a mere three percent of blacks and eight percent of Asians and Hispanics putting themselves on the right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Media Elite Revisited

In 1995, Stanley Rothman and Amy Black polled the news media elite ? ?reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines and wire services? as part of a larger examination of nine elite groups in the U.S. The results were published in the Spring 2001 issue of The Public Interest. They found the media elite held strongly liberal views on abortion, homosexuality, and a range of economic issues. ?Despite the discrediting of centrally planned economies produced by the collapse of the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes, attitudes about government control of the economy have not changed very much since the 1980s,? the authors marveled.

KEY FINDINGS:

Nearly all of the media elite (97 percent) agreed that ?it is a woman?s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion,? and five out of six (84 percent) agreed strongly.
Three out of four journalists (73 percent) agreed that ?homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality,? and 40 percent agreed strongly.
Seven out of ten journalists (71 percent) agreed that ?government should work to ensure that everyone has a job,? and 30 percent said they strongly agreed with that statement.
Three-fourths (75 percent) agreed that ?government should work to reduce the income gap between the rich and the poor,? and more than a third (34 percent) strongly agreed.
Relatively few journalists (39 percent) agreed that ?less government regulation of business would be good for the economy,? and just five percent strongly agreed with this sentiment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People and the Press: Whose Views Shape the News?

In the July/August 2001 edition of the Roper Center?s Public Perspective, Washington Post national political correspondent Thomas Edsall summarized the findings of a Kaiser Family Foundation poll of 301 ?media professionals,? 300 ?policymakers? and the 1,206 members of the public. The media professionals included ?reporters and editors from top newspapers, TV and radio networks, news services and news magazines.? The results showed that ?only a tiny fraction of the media identifies itself as either Republican (4%), or conservative (6%),? placing reporters far to the left of media consumers.

KEY FINDINGS:

Four times as many ?media professionals? told the pollsters they considered themselves ?liberal? (25%) than called themselves ?conservative? (6%). Among the general public, self-identified conservatives outnumbered liberals, 38 percent to 21 percent.


More than six times as many media professionals called themselves Democrats (27%), than said they were Republicans (just 4%). Among the general public, Democrats slightly outnumbered Republicans, 34 percent to 28 percent.
Policymakers were also found to be less liberal than journalists. According to Edsall, ?These areas of divergence between the public and the press lend themselves to conflict, both with the consumers and the makers of news, and threaten to diminish the legitimacy of American journalism.?
Edsall: ?Whether or not members of the media agree with conservative voters on any given set of questions is not at issue. The problem is the invisibility of these men and women to the national media, and, most especially, the inability of the press to represent their views in public discourse.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Journalists See Journalists in 2004

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as ?liberal? (34 percent) than ?conservative? (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.
The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.


Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.
Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are ?not critical enough? of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been ?too critical.? In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given ?too much? coverage to then-President Clinton?s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of ?too little? coverage of Clinton?s achievements.
Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, ?The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.? Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.
Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: ?The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance ? either liberal or conservative ? is Fox News Channel,? Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journalists? Ethics & Attitudes, 2005

Preparing for a panel discussion on the media, the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands commissioned a poll of 673 journalists, including 424 from newspapers, 48 from broadcast and cable networks, 47 from top-50-market local television stations, 45 from Web sites, 41 from other television stations, 26 from national radio networks, 18 from wire services, 14 from top-50-market local radio stations and 10 from magazines. The surveys were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates between March 7 and May 2, 2005, with the results released on May 24, 2005. The poll asked questions on journalistic ethics and about journalists? views on issues and overall ideology.

KEY FINDINGS:

Nearly all journalists (95%) rated ?the ethical practices of journalists? as either ?very good? (32%) or ?somewhat good.? A majority of the same group (56%) found the ?ethical practices of politicians? either ?somewhat bad? or ?very bad.?

Most journalists also said they thought ?news organizations get the facts straight? (86%) and that ?most news organizations quickly report? any mistakes (74%), compared to just three percent who saw a propensity to ?try to cover up? mistakes.

Only 10 percent of reporters thought a major reason for CBS?s use of forged memos in the infamous National Guard story was because ?CBS News and Dan Rather are liberals who dislike President Bush,? with most (54%) saying that was ?not a reason at all.?

Most of the journalists (76%) said they thought the story ran because ?CBS News and Dan Rather believed the story was accurate and provided new information about the controversy surrounding Bush?s service in the National Guard.?

A total of 31 percent described themselves as ?very liberal? or ?liberal? compared to just nine percent who identified themselves as ?very conservative? or ?conservative,? with 49 percent maintaining they are ?moderate.?

More than half of the journalists (57%) said they attend worship services only ?a few times a year? (34%) or ?never? (23%), compared to 27 percent who said they attend either ?every week? (17%) or ?almost every week? (10%).

Nearly three in five journalists (59%) favored laws allowing ?two men or two women to marry each other.? Among the general public, only 28 percent favored so-called same-sex marriage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The News Media and the War, 2005

As part of a larger study of how the views of ?opinion leaders? compare with those of the general public, the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, in collaboration with the Council on Foreign relations, surveyed 72 top journalists in September and October 2005. The study, which was released on November 17, 2005, found that, compared to everyday citizens, journalists were more likely to have opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, were more pessimistic about the chances of success in Iraq, and were far less likely to see immigration reform as a national priority. Reporters were also more disapproving of President Bush?s job performance.

KEY FINDINGS:

The public was nearly evenly split on whether the U.S. should have invaded Iraq in 2003, with 48 percent agreeing with the decision and 45 percent disagreeing. But among journalists, 71 percent said they considered it a bad decision, compared to just 28 percent that thought it was the right move.



Similarly, while the public is evenly split on whether the war in Iraq will help or hurt the U.S. in the overall war on terror (44% to 44%), three times as many journalists say the war in Iraq has been harmful as think it was helpful (68% to 22%).

While 56 percent of the public said ?efforts to establish a stable democracy? in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail.

Nearly half of the public (46%) believe torture of terrorist suspects can be ?often? or ?sometimes? justified, while 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is ?rarely? or ?never? justified.

Just 17 percent of journalists said they thought ?reducing illegal immigration? was a ?top priority,? compared to 51 percent of the public who rate it as a ?top priority.?

Just 21 percent of the media approved of President Bush?s job performance in the fall of 2005, compared to 40 percent of the public.

 

hondabuster - You up for some more.

How the media votes.

The Media Elite

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets ? including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS ? on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the ?media elite? were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article ?Media and Business Elites.? The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman?s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.



KEY FINDINGS:

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman?s survey of journalists discovered that ?Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.?
?Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House Reporters

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, ***, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.



KEY FINDINGS:

In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, four for liberal independent John Anderson, and two voted for Ronald Reagan.
In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.
Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: ?Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal ? even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.?
?Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Newspaper Reporters

In 1982, scholars at the California State University at Los Angeles asked reporters from the fifty largest U.S. newspapers for whom they voted in 1980. In that election, Republican Ronald Reagan won with 50 percent of the vote, compared with 41 percent for Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and 8 percent for liberal Republican-turned-independent John Anderson.

KEY FINDING:

51 percent of big city reporters cast a ballot for Democratic President Jimmy Carter, 24 percent for liberal independent candidate John Anderson, and 25 percent for the Republican winner, Ronald Reagan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Newspaper Journalists

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. They found that by a margin of two-to-one, reporters had a negative view of then-President Ronald Reagan and voted, by the same margin, for Walter Mondale in 1984.

KEY FINDINGS:

When asked how they voted in the 1984 election, more than twice as many newspaper journalists chose liberal Walter Mondale (58 percent) over the conservative incumbent Ronald Reagan (26 percent), even as the country picked Reagan in a 59 to 41 percent landslide.
Times staff writer David Shaw expounded: ?When asked ?How would you describe your views on most matters having to do with politics?? 55 percent of the newspaper journalists say they?re liberal (12 percent say ?very liberal,? and 43 percent say ?somewhat liberal?), and only 23 percent of their readers say they?re liberal (five percent say ?very liberal,? and 18 percent say ?somewhat liberal?).
?Sometimes the readers and journalists take diametrically opposed positions ? as on the question: ?Are you in favor of the way Ronald Reagan is handling his job as President?? Journalists say ?No? by a 2-1 margin; readers say ?Yes? by about the same margin.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Media Elite Revisited

In 1995, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black ?partially replicated the earlier Rothman-Lichter? survey of the media elite described above. ?The sample of journalists mirrors that from the earlier study, including reporters and editors at major national newspapers, news magazines and wire services,? the authors wrote in a Spring 2001 article for the journal Public Interest. When it came to voting habits and ideology, the authors found the media elite maintained their liberal bent, providing strong majority support for Democrats Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992.

KEY FINDINGS:

More than three out of four ?elite journalists,? 76 percent, reported voting for Michael Dukakis in 1988, compared to just 46 percent of the voting public.
An even larger percentage of top journalists, 91 percent, cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992. That same year, only 43 percent of voters picked Clinton, who nevertheless won a three-way race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Bureau Chiefs and Correspondents

In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, ?Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.? Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters ? by an incredible margin of nine-to-one ? overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush.



KEY FINDINGS:

89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
Asked ?How would you characterize your political orientation?? 61 percent said ?liberal? or ?liberal to moderate.? Only nine percent labeled themselves ?conservative? or ?moderate to conservative.?
Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican?s 1994 Contract with America ?an election-year campaign ploy.? Just three percent considered it ?a serious reform proposal.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newspaper Editors

In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor?s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC?s February 1998 MediaWatch.

KEY FINDINGS:

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.
In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.
When asked ?How often do journalists? opinions influence coverage?? a solid majority of the editors (57 percent) conceded it ?sometimes? happens while another 14 percent said opinions ?often? influence news coverage. In contrast, only one percent claim it ?never? happens, and 26 percent say personal views ?seldom? influence coverage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaign Journalists

New York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry?s election by a 12-to-1 ratio.

KEY FINDINGS:

Tierney found a strong preference for the liberal Kerry: ?When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington.?
To see why journalists preferred Kerry, ?we asked our respondents which administration they?d prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint.? More than half the journalists thought Bush was the better news subject: ?The Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40....The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry.?
?We tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. ?Bush's religious streak,? one Florida correspondent said, ?would drive me nuts on a desert island.??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TV and Newspaper Journalists

In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut?s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide ? 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn?t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.



KEY FINDINGS:

More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
When asked ?generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?? more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
While about half of the journalists said they were ?moderate,? 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves ?strongly liberal,? compared to just three percent who reported being ?strongly conservative,? a four-to-one disparity.
When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed ?essential? the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called ?essential? the judicially-derived ?right to privacy.? But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the ?right to own firearms? essential, while 42 percent called that right ?important but not essential,? and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as ?not important.?

 

hondabuster - Not that you are reading what I have posted already, here is some more good info. Remember "the truth shall set you free".

How the public views the media.


The People & The Press, 1997

One of the most comprehensive surveys of the public?s general opinion of the media was done in 1997 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press, formerly known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. This research compared poll results from the mid-1980s with the late-1990s, (using identical questions) and determined a growing percentage of the public realize the media are biased.

KEY FINDINGS:

Two-thirds (67%) said agreed with the statement: ?In dealing with political and social issues, news organizations tend to favor one side.? That was up 14 points from 53 percent who gave that answer in 1985.
Those who believed the media ?deal fairly with all sides? fell from 34 percent to 27 percent.
?In one of the most telling complaints, a majority (54%) of Americans believe the news media gets in the way of society solving its problems,? Pew reported.
Republicans ?are more likely to say news organizations favor one side than are Democrats or independents (77 percent vs. 58 percent and 69 percent, respectively).?
The percentage who felt ?news organizations get the facts straight? fell from 55 percent to 37 percent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the People Want from the Press

In November 1996, the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) partnered with the Lou Harris Organization to poll 3,000 people about their attitudes toward the press. According to the poll, those who saw a liberal bias outnumbered those who perceived a conservative bias by two-to-one. The results of the poll were published in the May/June 1997 Media Monitor, the CMPA?s newsletter and later released as a 226-page report, What the People Want from the Press.

KEY FINDINGS:

CMPA reported: ?Majorities of all major groups in the population, including 70 percent of self-described liberals, now see a ?fair amount? or ?great deal? of bias in the news. In general, perceptions of bias rise along with levels of education and political participation.?
?Those who see a liberal tilt outnumber those who detect a conservative bias by more than a two to one margin. Forty-three percent describe the news media?s perspective on politics as liberal, compared to 33 percent who see it as a middle of the road, and 19 percent who find it to be conservative.?
?Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative.?


?These findings challenge the argument of some journalists that bias is purely in the eye of the beholder. Although conservatives are three times more likely to see liberal rather than conservative bias, moderates and liberals alike see liberal bias in the media twice as often as they see conservative bias,? CMPA concluded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASNE Journalism Credibility Project, 1998

As part of ?a $1 million project to improve the credibility of newspapers and journalism,? the American Society of Newspaper Editors commissioned a poll of 3,000 Americans in April and May of 1998. The survey found that more than three-fourths of Americans (78%) believed that the press is biased, and an equal percentage believed that reporters would ?spike or spin? a story to suit powerful interests. The findings were detailed in a 1999 report, Examining Our Credibility: Perspectives of the Public and the Press.

KEY FINDINGS:

?78 percent of U.S. adults agree with the assessment that there is bias in the news media,? the report found.
?58 percent believe that the public?s dissatisfaction with the media is justified ? as opposed to 29 percent who say the press is ?an easy target for deeper problems in our society.??
?78 percent believe that powerful people can get stories into the paper ? or keep them out.?
?50 percent believe there are particular people or groups that get a ?special break? in news coverage, and 45 percent believe that others ?don?t get a fair shake.??
?77 percent believe newspapers pay lots more attention to stories that support their own point of view.?
?Although a sizeable portion of the public (46 percent) thinks that their newspaper is more liberal than they, another significant segment (36 percent) see the newspaper as more conservative than themselves,? ASNE found.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People & The Press, 2000

During the election year, the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press frequently polled public attitudes about the media. In an October 15, 2000 report, the group found that most voters ?generally believe the media has been fair to both major presidential candidates, but more say the press has been fair to Al Gore than to George W. Bush.? In fact, the vast majority of respondents (89%) agreed that reporters? political views often or sometimes influenced the coverage.

KEY FINDINGS:

When asked, ?How often do you think members of the news media let their own political preferences influence the way they report the news?? 57 percent said ?often,? and another 32 percent said ?sometimes.? Just 8 percent said ?seldom,? and only one percent thought reporters? preferences ?never? influenced their coverage.


Nearly half of the public (47%) thought reporters wanted to see Democratic candidate Al Gore win the 2000 election; just 23 percent thought reporters were hoping for a victory by Republican George W. Bush.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gallup Organization

Since 2001, Gallup has polled American adults on the question: Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is [sic] too liberal, just about right, or too conservative. For five consecutive years, the number of Americans saying the media are too liberal has outnumbered those seeing a pro-conservative bias by a three-to-one margin. Gallup also found that while a large majority of Democrats said they had trust and confidence in the media, a similarly large percentage of Republicans expressed little or no trust in the media.

KEY FINDINGS:

In September 2005, nearly three times as many Americans said that the media are too liberal (46%) than said the media are too conservative (16%).
Since 2001, the percentage saying the media are too liberal has ranged from 45 percent to 48 percent; the percentage seeing the media as too conservative has never exceeded 16 percent.


In 2005, only 3 in 10 Republicans (31%) told Gallup they had a great deal or fair amount of trust and confidence in the media, while the vast majority of Republicans (69%) said they had very little or no trust in the media. Democrats were much more trusting, with 70% expressing a great deal or fair amount confidence in the media and 30% reporting very little or no confidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People & The Press, 2003

In the summer of 2003, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a poll of 1,201 American adults regarding the media for the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. They found that a majority (53%) of Americans regard the press as ?politically biased,? and most said the media tilted to the left.

KEY FINDINGS:

?Most Americans (53%) believe that news organizations are politically biased, while just 29 percent say they are careful to remove bias from their reports,? Pew reported.
?When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are ?liberal? (51%) than ?conservative? (26%) while 14 percent say neither phrase applies.?
Even Democrats thought the press tilted left, not right. Among Democratic respondents, 41 percent thought the media are liberal, compared to 33 percent who found the media to be conservative. Among Republicans, 65 percent said the press is liberal, 22 percent find the media to be conservative.
?Americans are divided over whether press criticism of the military serves to keep the nation militarily prepared (45%) or to weaken the country?s defenses (43%),? Pew found. Republicans were especially likely (63%) to say that media criticism was harmful to national defense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bias in the 2004 Presidential Campaign

Four different polls conducted in the last days and immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential campaign found the public more inclined to see the media as biased in favor of Democratic candidate John Kerry than Republican George W. Bush. Polls by the Pew Research Center and Gallup in the final weeks of the campaign found twice as many thought the media had been biased in favor of Kerry than saw a pro-Bush tilt. An Election Day survey of voters in 12 battleground states also found one out of every three voters (32%) thought news coverage was biased in favor of Kerry and the Democrats, compared to just 14 percent who thought the media were slanted in favor of Bush and the Republicans. And a Pew Research Center poll conducted after the election found that 40 percent of voters believed that media coverage of President Bush had been unfair, compared to 31 percent who thought Senator Kerry?s coverage was unfair.



KEY FINDINGS:

A Gallup poll of 1,538 registered voters conducted October 22-24, 2004 found a plurality (45%) thought the media coverage has not been biased toward either candidate. But of the remainder, most (35%) said the coverage had been biased in Kerry?s favor, while fewer than half that number (16%) thought coverage had been biased in favor of Bush.
The Pew Research Center surveyed 1,307 registered voters between October 15-19, 2004. ?Half of voters (50%) say most newspaper and TV reporters would prefer to see John Kerry win the election, compared with just 22% who think that most journalists are pulling for George Bush,? Pew reported.
That pre-election poll also found that a large majority of voters thought the news media had too much clout: ?Nearly six-in-ten (62%) say news organizations have too much influence in determining the election?s outcome; only about half that number (32%) feel that the media's influence is appropriate.?
A poll of 1,000 voters conducted on Election Day by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates of voters in 12 closely-fought ?battleground? states found that more voters felt the news media?s campaign coverage had been biased (46%) than thought the media coverage had not been skewed (42%). Of those who saw bias, more than twice as many (32%) said the news media had favored John Kerry as felt the media had favored George W. Bush (14%).
A post-election survey of 1,209 voters conducted by the Pew Research Center (November 5-8, 2004) reported that ?voters are increasingly troubled by what they see as the media?s unfair treatment of the candidates. While a majority (56%) view press coverage of Bush's campaign as fair, four-in-ten [40%] think it was unfair, up from 30 percent four years ago.?
The Pew report continued: ?Significantly more voters (65%) believe the press was fair in its coverage of the Kerry campaign. However, a growing minority also views this coverage as unfair ? 31 percent say that now, compared with 24 percent who faulted press coverage of Al Gore's campaign four years ago.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missouri School of Journalism, 2004

The Missouri School of Journalism?s Center for Advanced Social Research surveyed 495 adults about their attitudes toward the press during June and July of 2004. Their results, released in April 2005, showed that most Americans (85%) thought that news reporting was biased, although a smaller majority (62%) still said they considered journalism credible. Of those who thought the media were biased, most said the bias favored liberals.

KEY FINDINGS:

Nearly six out of seven adults (85%) said there was a bias in news reporting. ?Of those, 48 percent identified it as liberal, 30 percent as conservative, 12 percent as both, and 3 percent as other bias,? an April 27, 2005 Associated Press report summarized.


According to the AP summary, ?74 percent said reporters tend to favor one side over the other when covering political and social issues.?
?58 percent said journalists have too much influence over what happens in the world.?
?77 percent said they think a news story is sometimes killed or buried if it is embarrassing or damaging to the financial interests of a news organization.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Journalism Review, 2005

In May 2005, Gannett's First Amendment Center in Nashville polled Americans about their attitudes towards the media. Some exclusive results were published in the August/September 2005 edition of the American Journalism Review. The article by senior writer Rachel Smolkin revealed that nearly two-thirds (64%) reject the notion that ?the news media try to report the news without bias,? and nearly the same number (65%) agreed that ?the falsifying or making up of stories in the American news media is a widespread problem.?

KEY FINDINGS:

When read the statement, ?Overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias,? 64 percent disagreed (42% saying they disagreed strongly, 22 percent saying they mildly disagreed.) Only 13 percent strongly agreed that the media attempt to keep bias out of the news.
When told ?The falsifying or making up of stories in the American news media is a widespread problem,? 40 percent strongly agreed and an additional 25 percent mildly agreed. Just 11 percent strongly disagreed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS?s "State of the Media," 2006

In late January 2006, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked 1,229 adults about their attitudes toward the news media as part of a "State of the Media" segment on the CBS Evening News. The poll found the public?s view of the media divided by partisanship, with self-identified Democrats most confident of the media?s ability to report news "fully, accurately and fairly" and "tell the truth" all or most of the time, and Republicans expressing much more skepticism.

KEY FINDINGS:

The poll discovered "large majorities of Democrats and liberals (about seven in 10 of each) think the news media tell the truth all or most of the time. About half of Republicans and conservatives agree."

Four out of every ten respondents (including 47% of self-identified Republicans) said they thought the news media tell the truth "only some of the time or hardly ever."

Just over a third of adults (36%) said they had "not very much" confidence or "none at all" in the news media?s ability to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly." Nearly half of Republicans (48%) expressed little confidence in the news media, while three-fourths of Democrats (75%) said they had "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in the media.

More than a third of respondents (35%) said the media have been "harder on George W. Bush" compared to other presidents, compared to just 18 percent who said the media have been "easier on George W. Bush."

Three out of five Republicans (61%) said they thought the news media had been harder on Bush than previous presidents. A third of independents (36%) and one out of ten Democrats (11%) agreed.

Virtually no Republicans thought media coverage of Bush has been easier than past presidents, but 16 percent of independents and 34 percent of Democrats said coverage of Bush has been softer.

 

hondabuster - Here is an article from a vet who did 2 tours of duty in Iraq.

Troops in Support Of the War

By Wade Zirkle
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A21

Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. The event also featured Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that's become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent "our" views. With all due respect, most often they don't.

The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . ."

"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."

What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."

It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.

In view of his distinguished military career, John Murtha has been the subject of much attention from the media and is a sought-after spokesman for opponents of the Iraq war. He has earned the right to speak. But his comments supposedly expressing the negative views of those who have and are now serving in the Middle East run counter to what I and others know and hear from our own colleagues -- from junior officers to the enlisted backbone of our fighting force.

Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world.

While we don't question his motives, we do question his assumptions. When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, there was a sense of respectful disagreement among most military personnel. But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face.

Like so many others past and present, I proudly volunteered to serve in the military. I served one tour in Iraq and then volunteered to go back. Veterans continue to make clear that they are determined to succeed in Iraq. They are making this clear the best way they can: by volunteering to go back for third and sometimes fourth deployments. This fact is backed up by official Pentagon recruitment reports released as recently as Monday.

The morale of the trigger-pulling class of today's fighting force is strong. Unfortunately, we have not had a microphone or media audience willing to report our comments. Despite this frustration, our military continues to proudly dedicate itself to the mission at hand: a free, democratic and stable Iraq and a more secure America. All citizens have a right to express their views on this important national challenge, and all should be heard. Veterans ask no more, and they deserve no less.

The writer is executive director of Vets for Freedom. He served two tours in Iraq with the Marines before being wounded in action.

 

Unlike others who post in this thread I will acknowledge were I get some of the articles and info from.

WorldThreats.com

MediaResearchCenter.com

VetsForFreedom.com

FreeRepublic.com

Debka.com

NationalReview.com

Drudgereport.com

Newsmax.com

foxnews.com

 

And which of those media outlets do you consider liberal?
You offered up a buch of opinions, wheres the facts?

 

hondabuster
"And which of those media outlets do you consider liberal?
You offered up a buch of opinions, wheres the facts?"

HAHAHAHAHAHA.........You did not even read the posts that I put up, if you had you would have seen that several different studies have been done on the subject and what some of the findings were......

I never said I consider any of the media outlets I posted to be liberal, show me where I stated that.....you can't, I will save you some time, cause I know how little research you do, some of the websites I posted are conservative websites. I was merely posting the sites I get some of my info from, unlike you who posts each day but will not tell us where you got these articles from.

This will be hard for you but take the time and go back and read each of the post I put up last night.

Your hatered has blinded you.

 

Look at the title of the thread and look at his question "And which of those media outlets do you consider liberal?

Now see? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]