Media Bias

[smsmith40]

Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I am NOT trying to start a flame war.

I am genuinely curious as to the orgins of the seemingly widespread liberal media bias belief. I am looking for some help from our more conservative leaning posters . What was it that convinced you that this bias exists. I am not looking for you to post a bunch of articles from other people or news sites. I am looking for specific examples that made and continue to make you subscribe to this opinion.

[Kilmer17]

I think the best examples are the polls such as the one posted yesterday showing overwhelmingly that those in the media identify themselves as liberal.

Add to that specific examples like:

Compare how Paula Jones and Anita Hill were treated by the media. Jones was portrayed as a whore out for vengeance while Hill was a victim.

- 9 white house correspondents survey voted for Clinton in 1992, while 2 voted for Bush

- 12 voted for Dukakis in 1988 - one for Bush

- 10 voted for Mondale in 1984 - zero for Reagan

- 8 voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980 - 2 for Reagan

Of course, none of these reporters could be biased at all in their reporting.......

Source: US News and World Report White House Reporter Kenneth Walsh

-Dan Rather joyously exhulting "We've won" after Gore was innaccurately called the winner in 2000.

--Another survey...

Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:

44% considered themselves Democrats

16% Repubs

34% independents

89% voted for Clinton in 1992

7% voted for Bush in 1992

Freedom Forum sponsored poll, 1992

And most recently the drum banging talking about how a"Liberal Radio" station is needed, and nary a mention a few months later as it is failing.

Top of my head stuff, I can dig up more if needed.

[Riggo-toni]

Peter Jennings after the GOP captured both houses claiming it was just like a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum.

The GOP attracts more male voters; the Dems attract more female voters. Yet, the media constantly harped on the GOP's "gender gap," all the while attributing GOP success to "angry white males"

Newsweek featuring Bush on the front cover prior to the 88 election with the caption "Fighting the Wimp Factor." Odd statement about a WWII Jet fighter pilot who was directly in the line of fire.

Dan Rather claiming on his broadcast that Bush's account of his plane being shot down had proven to be false and that Bush had changed his story about the incident. Rather cited on occasion where Bush mentioned someone he was with who managed to jettison out safely. Rather than showed another account where Bush talked about the sorrow of losing a friend in the incident. Where Rather was being completely misleading: The records of the incident showed there were 3 people on the plane. Bush and one other ejected safely and survived. Another died in the plane. - completely consistent with the "different versions" Rather claimed Bush had told. :doh:

[Destino]

Hook it up with the links to the surveys. Your surveys are very different then the one osted yesterday that showed the vast majority to be moderates.

[TheKurp]

My position all along has been that economics drives media reporting, not some hidden political agenda or ideology.

Then lo and behold, this appeared in yesterday's USA Today.

Survey: Profit pressures worry most journalists

By Peter Johnson

Journalists are increasingly concerned that bottom-line pressure is hurting the quality of news coverage, says a new Pew study of 547 national and local reporters, editors and executives.

Though journalists at national print and electronic news organizations have a gloomier view of the business than their local brethren, both groups indicate rising concern about the effect of profit pressures. Concern rose from 41% of national journalists in 1995 to 49% in 1999 and 66% polled in March. Local: 33% in 1995, 46% in 1999 and 57% now.

One dissent came from executives at national news organizations: 57% feel increased profit pressures are ''mostly just changing the way news organizations do things'' rather than undermining quality.

''In an election year, and at a time when the public and politicians are increasingly skeptical of the press, we thought it was particularly important to find out what journalists themselves thought of their profession and their performance,'' says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. His group and the Committee of Concerned Journalists conducted the poll with the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The poll found that journalists believe the media pay too little attention to complex issues and show increasingly timid coverage: 55% of national journalists and 37% of local ones say coverage of President Bush, for example, has not been critical enough.

Although journalists are concerned over factual errors in news reports, there is no indication that recent reporter scandals at The New York Times and USA TODAY are dimming journalists' views of their profession.

The number who cite ''ethics and standards'' as the biggest problem facing the industry didn't grow from 1999.

And although plagiarism, a major factor in the scandals, may be getting more attention, most journalists say the problem actually isn't any more prevalent today than in the past.

Cynicism -- a constant knock against the press -- is waning, journalists say. Just 37% of national reporters and 40% of local ones view the press as too cynical, down from 53% and 51%, respectively, in 1999. Among Internet journalists, just 24% view the press as too cynical, down from 48% five years ago.

''That journalists describe themselves as less cynical and less remote is encouraging,'' Rosenstiel says.

''That a large majority feel the economics of news is eroding quality more than ever, however, is worrisome, because the economics of the news business is something that is to a large degree beyond the power of the newsroom to control.''

NPR: Going 'right'?

National Public Radio, which conservatives have long labeled ''liberal,'' relies on largely the same range of sources that dominate mainstream commercial news, airing more Republican than Democratic voices, and with male sources outnumbering female sources by nearly four to one.

So says left-leaning Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, which finds that nine of the top 10 most frequently used sources on NPR were white male government officials. (Secretary of State Colin Powell was the one exception.) The top seven were Republicans.

FAIR's study looked at on-air sources in June 2003 on NPR's four main news shows.

''We wanted to find out how 'public' is National Public Radio,'' FAIR's Steve Rendall says. He says NPR programmers quote a ''preponderance of people from right-leaning and centrist-leaning think tanks and generally ignore left-wing think tanks.''

Rendall says that as NPR has grown, the environment has become more ''corporate'' and programming more conservative. NPR's removal of longtime Morning Edition host Bob Edwards hinted at a shop where ''numbers crunchers are saying NPR has to shoot for a younger demographic that commercial stations have always searched for.''

Says NPR spokeswoman Jenny Lawhorn: ''Anybody has the right to criticize NPR, but there are many millions of listeners who depend on us and think our NPR News is fair and comprehensive.''

[Kilmer17]

Sure, "moderates" who overwhelmingly support and vote for Democrats.

The striking numbers-

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

Countered with-

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

[hokie4redskins]

If you want proof of the liberal bias in the media, click here.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Destino

Hook it up with the links to the surveys. Your surveys are very different then the one osted yesterday that showed the vast majority to be moderates.

It showed that because they "self indentified" themselves as moderates. There was no unbias objective analysis performed to measure & catagorize them as moderates. I'd suggest that most of the respondents who identified themselves as "moderates" are in fact "liberals" who choose not to expose that fact for a variety of reasons.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by hokie4redskins

If you want proof of the liberal bias in the media, click here.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Hard to tell, but you're being facetious, right?

[hokie4redskins]

Here's an interesting article about how biased the Pulitzer is.

The Pulitzer Prize:

No Conservatives Need Apply

FrontPageMagazine.com

As posted on April 7, 2004

An article written by George Shadroui in FrontPageMagazine.com

The Pulitzer Prize: No Conservatives Need Apply

The Pulitzer Prizes announced this week demonstrate again the stranglehold that liberals and leftists enjoy when it comes to garnering recognition from those who bestow honors for outstanding journalism and writing.

While it is laudable that Anne Applebaum, who serves on the liberal Washington Post editorial board, won for documenting the terrors of the Soviet Gulag, it should be recalled that Solzhenitsyn’s monumental work on the same subject appeared in the 1970s. Likewise, the award given to William Taubman for his Khrushchev biography comes long after the Soviet Union itself had admitted to the crimes and repression documented. It has apparently taken the liberal and leftist establishment decades to accept and document crimes that many anti-communists were assailed for daring to mention back in 1940s and 1950s.

The rest of the awards, however, went pretty much as expected, with liberal and left-driven journalism taking the honors. In the category for commentary, the winner and all those nominated were liberals. The public service writing award went to two PBS leftists. The investigative reporting award went for a series about American atrocities in Vietnam, which is standard fare in the awards business. The national reporting award went to a series attacking Wal-Mart -- a favorite bete noir of the Left. The international reporting award went to the Washington Post for a series on the reactions of Iraqis to the American invasion, much of it casting U.S. efforts in a negative light. The beat reporting award went to a story on college admissions preferences for the wealthy (not one of the extraordinary investigations into race preference admissions has ever won). The drama award went to a play whose lone character is a transvestite. The non-fiction book award went to a book by a leftist about race struggles.

In short, like many national awards of this kind, the Pulitzer is a political prize bestowed almost exclusively on writers, journalists and thinkers who cater to suitably liberal or left-wing points of view. It wasn't always thus, but since the 1960s that's been the case. Writers Peter Collier and David Horowitz, for example, were nominated for a National Book Award for the first of their four best-selling biographies of American dynastic families. That was when they were on the Left. Although their book on the Kennedys earned them the sobriquet "the premier chroniclers of American dynastic tragedy" and the New York Times described their book on the Fords as an "irresistible epic," they were never nominated for an award again.

Having spent more than 20 years working as a journalist or with journalists, I can attest to what even internal surveys by academics and journalists have shown: most journalists are either liberal/Left or so cynical that they resist easy characterization. In fact, in nearly a decade of working as a local reporter, I do not recall stumbling across another conservative. So do liberals dominate the reporting awards? The answer is obvious. And it's not because the few conservative journalists don't write worthy stories. Heather MacDonald, Michael Fumento, William Tucker, Bill Gertz and the late Mike Kelly have produced prize-worthy work by any standard, but none of them have been rewarded by the Pulitzer Board.

Still, many of the awards honor legitimate feats of journalism and many focus on local news coverage that defies easy ideological characterization, so let us put aside the journalism categories for now and look instead at the major book or commentary awards, which are more high profile and often more slanted. For the purposes of this analysis, four categories – general non-fiction, commentary, autobiography/biography and history – are relevant. A review of winners over 40 years shows that conservatives are basically excluded.

The category for commentary is an exception. Since 1970, when commentary was first singled out for recognition as part of the Pulitzer Prizes, several prominent conservatives have won, including George Will, William Safire, Charles Krauthammer, Vermont Royster and Paul Gigot.

But liberals have still dominated, with winners including Mike Royko, David Broder, Mary McGrory, Ellen Goodman, Russell Baker, Art Buchwald, Claude Sitton, Murray Kempton, Jimmy Breslin, Clarence Page, Jimmie Hoagland, Anna Quindlen, Colbert King, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and William Raspberry. William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Thomas Sowell, to mention just four obvious conservatives whose work is impressive in scope and quality, have never won.

A 4 to 1 ratio is actually a victory of sorts for conservatives when compared to most other categories or awards. Not a single discernible conservative has won in the other three major categories being considered here. Not one. There is a long list of leftists and liberals, however. Among those honored for their work in history, we find Dean Acheson, James MacGregor Burns, Leon Litwack, Taylor Branch, Joseph Ellis, Robert Caro, Stanley Karnow, Gordon Wood, Louis Menand, and Doris Kearns Goodwin.

In the general non-fiction category, winners have included Barbara Tuchman, David McCullough, Tina Rosenberg, Garry Wills, Richard Hofstader, Theodore White, Norman Mailer, Frances Fitzgerald, Annie Dillard, James Lelyveld, J. Anthony Lukas, Neil Sheehan, Jonathan Weiner, John Dower, John McPhee, Samantha Power and David Remnick. In the biography and auto-biography category we have W.A. Swanberg, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Robert Caro, Joseph Lash, George Kennan, Edmund Morris, Russell Baker, Katherine Graham, David McCullough, etc.

Some of these awardees wrote great books and their work deserved recognition, irrespective of ideological pedigree. It cannot be ignored, however, that conservative authors are totally overlooked (or snubbed) going back to the 1960s. No awards for Allan Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind), George Gilder (Wealth and Poverty), Charles Murray (Losing Ground), Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom (America in Black and White), whose books helped set the terms of national discussion and policy.

Why? For starters, Joseph Pulitzer was a crusader who coined a much-cited definition of journalistic excellence: to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. By this standard, documenting the defects in society is a priority, often with the goal of stimulating government activism to redress specific issues. When not pushing for more government to solve seemingly intractable social problems, the press is routinely focused on corporate malfeasance. Finding victims and documenting failure is the paradigm through which journalists practice their craft -- except, alas, when it might cut against the liberal grain. There will be no Pulitzers for exposing the destructive effects of liberal programs like welfare, for example, or the political subversion of the public health system by the AIDS lobby.

To show just how prevalent this bias is, consider for a moment John Stossel, the Emmy-winning television reporter, who recently published a book, Give Us a Break, in which he documents how he was ostracized by the journalism community when he turned his reporting talents from major corporations to big government. Once a touted and celebrated reporter, suddenly he was on the outside among the liberal elite. Bernard Goldberg, in his books, Bias and Arrogance, also documents the liberal slant of major news organizations.

This political culture within the profession discourages journalists from tackling certain stories that would provide a more balanced view of public policy and international issues. How is it, for example, that the media have gladly focused on the victims of American and corporate power, yet done so little to document the suffering of victims of Ba'athist tyranny in Iraq? Could it be that the media is reluctant to give moral credence to what is an unpopular war among leftists and Democrats? Prisons were emptied, mass graves uncovered, and yet coverage that has explored these issues in depth or interviewed families or victims at length has been scarce since Saddam was toppled. Certainly, compared to the coverage given Richard Clarke’s attacks on the Bush policy in Iraq, efforts to document the atrocities uncovered by our troops has been miniscule. It is as if we had defeated the Germans and then no one bothered to document the concentration camps or the Nazi killing machine, but rather focused on the imperfections of D-Day.

This bias is evident in coverage of Cold War issues, as well. Again, it took decades before liberals finally documented atrocities perpetrated by communism. Yet, their work was quickly recognized. Meanwhile, the work of Richard Pipes, Robert Conquest and Martin Malia has never received a Pulitzer. As this year shows again, there is no shortage of honored books or authors who "dare" to report on American "crimes" in Southeast Asia or Central America – among them Frances Fitzgerald, Neil Sheehan, Norman Mailer, Tina Rosenberg and Gloria Emerson – or for work that takes the traditional liberal slant on our nation’s race problems. The result is that even well-intended and more fair-minded journalists or historians often seem to view issues through the paradigms constructed by anti-American critics like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

Take as one example recent Pulitzer winner Samantha Power. In her book on genocide, A Problem from Hell, she documents what she calls the reluctance of the United States to take any action to thwart the genocidal policies of other governments. Power, it should be noted, reviewed Chomsky’s recent book, Hegemony or Survival, for the New York Times. The book is another in a long line of his anti-American fulminations. Though Power concedes that Chomsky can be one-sided, her own work is in some ways a testimony to his influence.

Power, like many critics of American foreign policy on the Left, views American decision-making outside of historical context. She judges our action or inaction against some unachievable ideal rather than against what other nations or governments were doing. If our record is less than satisfactory, it seems fair to ask how it compares with the action or inaction of others? To attack the United States because it has neither the capacity nor the will to right every horrific wrong being committed across the globe is to hold our nation to a standard unmatched in history. As we are finding in Iraq today, the choices are not painless or uncomplicated, but these factors often are forgotten over time.

For example, what would she have had the American government do to stop the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide beyond exercising our maximum military and diplomatic might against the regimes perpetrating these crimes, which we did once involved in both World War I and World War II? We lost almost a million men in both wars and it was not a given that we would triumph. Nor is it a given we will win in Iraq against a clearly fascist enemy, but our harshest critics for acting against a tyrannical regime are on the Left.

Back in the 1980s, J. Douglas Bates, a former newspaper editor, offered some criticism of the Pulitzers in his book, The Pulitzer Prize. He documented a bias evident in the Pulitzers, not against conservatives, but against those who worked in the heartland or out West. His argument was that Easterners had the advantage. Bates also documented the lobbying effort by leftists on behalf of the work of Toni Morrison and James Baldwin. When a group of leftist writers took out an ad in the New York Review of Books arguing that Morrison should win in the fiction category, the Pulitzer Board a few weeks later honored her novel Beloved. You can rest assured that those writers never organized on behalf of black author Shelby Steele, known for his rejection of politically correct views.

Bates has plenty of sympathy for liberals he feels have been overlooked by the Pulitzers, including I.F. Stone, Leonard Bernstein and Neil Sheehan for his reporting on the Vietnam war (though Sheehan would later win for his history of Vietnam). Yet, not once in his 250-page book did Bates explore the issue of bias against conservative writers or journalists who cut against the liberal grain.

The awards, of course, are administered by the Columbia Journalism School, which is itself a bastion of liberal/Left attitudes. One Columbia University student once reportedly remarked – all my professors come from The Nation and the Village Voice. There is not a single identifiable conservative on the Columbia Journalism faculty. Bernard Goldberg, in his most recent book, Arrogance, reports that a blue ribbon panel was established a few years ago to review the school’s operations in an effort to improve its performance and the practice of good journalism. Goldberg notes that the panel consisted almost entirely of known leftists and liberals, while prominent and respected conservatives were not invited to contribute.

Awards are symbolic but also important. They are the trademark of excellence and they often make or break careers. They should be based on the quality of the work being considered, not on the political prejudices of judges or the industry as a whole. Most conservatives, I am confident, want fair and balanced reporting even when it cuts against the grain of their own ideology. This is the bulwark of a free society. What they can’t accept as easily is the kind of spectacle witnessed over the past couple of weeks, when Richard Clarke was given unprecedented air time, during a time of war, to espouse views at odds with those of conservative administration trying to win that war.

A self critical journalism community must ask itself why such noted conservative writers and authors as William F. Buckley Jr., David Horowitz, Peter Collier, Michael Novak, George Gilder, Charles Murray, Allen Bloom, William Gertz, Gerald Posner, Dinesh D'Souza, Thomas Sowell, Florence King and many others have been overlooked by so many contests that honor writing or letters.

However difficult it might be for liberal elites to acknowledge it, every major award given for writing or public affairs reporting is dominated or controlled by the leftist or liberal intelligentsia. Is it an accident that Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel Prize precisely when a conservative president whose policies Carter detests was trying to mobilize the international community against worldwide terrorism?

Those who would claim to be the standard-bearers of excellence and the defenders of the marketplace of ideas should be embarrassed by the discriminatory practices evident in these cherished awards. None dare call it bias – but bias it is.

Read the entire article as posted on FrontPageMagazine.com

[hokie4redskins]

"Hard to tell, but you're being facetious, right?"

I suppose it puts me in quite the conundrum referring to the MRC exposing the liberal bias when it is in fact a conservative bias, but let us not ignore the obvious. Hard to dispute what the MRC exposes.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by hokie4redskins

I suppose it puts me in quite the conundrum referring to the MRC exposing the liberal bias when it is in fact a conservative bias, but let us not ignore the obvious. Hard to dispute what the MRC exposes.

Oh, I dunno, http://www.mediatransparency.org does a pretty good job of disputing what the MRC claims to expose.

[Kilmer17]

Of the 1400 members of the national media who were surveyed:

44% considered themselves Democrats

16% Repubs

34% independents

89% voted for Clinton in 1992

7% voted for Bush in 1992

Freedom Forum sponsored poll, 1992

[hokie4redskins]

Hmm, I didn't find anything directly refuting what the MRC exposes. Seems to me it's just more liberal ideology being spewed in the media. Let me get this straight. You used a liberal website to denounce the conservative website I used to denounce the blatant liberal media bias after you subtley pointed out that I was using a conservative bias to expose a liberal bias??? Is that right? I guess it's only ok when you do it.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by hokie4redskins

Hmm, I didn't find anything directly refuting what the MRC exposes. Seems to me it's just more liberal ideology being spewed in the media. Let me get this straight. You used a liberal website to denounce the conservative website I used to denounce the blatant liberal media bias after you subtley pointed out that I was using a conservative bias to expose a liberal bias??? Is that right? I guess it's only ok when you do it.

Here, I'll help you. Make sure you note the links to articles on both sides of the page.

While you're perusing the Media Transparency site, click on the "About" link. There you'll learn what the underlying motivation was for creating the website. After you've learned that, then take a look at who funds Media Research Center.

Now, isn't the subject of this thread about bias in the media? Keep that in mind if you decide to respond again on this thread.

Also, for added reading enjoyment please visit this website.

[chiefhogskin48]

Hokie4Redskins,

You are from the ESPN boards, right? If so, long time, no see!

[chomerics]

It's not that the media is leftist, it's that the Neo-cons consider ANYTHING even slightly left of their viewpoint liberal. They call John McCain a democrat for christ sakes. It's their excuse for doing a piss poor job in every aspect of running a country. . . It's not their fault, it's the liberal media:rolleyes:

[NavyDave]

Fox News while it is more "fair and balanced" than other networks we can say it is popular among Conservatives.

CNN, Headline News, MSNBC, BBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS liberal

So 1 conservative cable channel versus 7 liberal channels

The only National conservative paper of note is IMO is the Washington Times. I like the post for coupons and sports but the Times for their editorials.

Look at how fast the american being beheaded and the Sarin and mustard gas stories disappeared but the prison stories are kept on life support daily.

Anything pro american or something showing success like a thriving economyy or Saudi saying yesterday they wil lower gasprices are not getting any air play.

[hokie4redskins]

Well, whatever. Those links only confirmed that Mediatransparency is, in fact, a liberal bias. We can debate all day about this and it's clear neither one of us is budging, so...........enjoyed the discussion.

[hokie4redskins]

Hey Chiefhogskin,

Yes, it has been a long time since those days at ESPN. Still there every now and again but it's infested with enough trolls to make the cicadas look small in number. I get my Redskins fix here now. Long time reader but finally mustered the balls to register. The "Cheerleader" avatar was intimidating to me though. Oh well. Glad to see you're around.

Navy Dave,

The Wall Street Journal is a good conservative angle. Check out their editorial page. You'll have it as one of your favorites, I guarantee. It's great.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

[smsmith40]

Thanks for all your replies guys, but I was really looking for examples of the kind of reporting that made you believe in the liberal media bias.

How individual members of the media happen to vote is surely irrelevant to their conduct as responsible reporters.

NavyDave - I know you think the BBC is biased but honestly, I think you'll find it is right down the middle of mainstream opinion in the UK.

[Kilmer17]

A perfect example of what you are looking for is the comparison of Anita Hill and Paula Jones.

[NavyDave]

McCain isnt being called a democrat he is being called a RINO Republican in Name Only on certain issues.

After Bush wins reelection we wont see the all out liberal war to block anything Bush and the spineless GOP caving to maintain an honorable position on the hill will end.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by smsmith40

Thanks for all your replies guys, but I was really looking for examples of the kind of reporting that made you believe in the liberal media bias.

How individual members of the media happen to vote is surely irrelevant to their conduct as responsible reporters.

NavyDave - I know you think the BBC is biased but honestly, I think you'll find it is right down the middle of mainstream opinion in the UK.

How is this for bias:

The time column is how long it took the media (voter news service) to call the state for the candidate.

State.....................Candidate..............Margin of victory............Time

Arizona..................Bush..................7 points..............2 hours, 51 min

Arkansas................Bush..................6 points..............3 hours, 42 minutes

Tenn......................Bush..................3 points ..............3 hours, 03 minutes

West VA ..............Bush..................6 points...............3 hours, 16 minutes

Colorado...............Bush..................9 points...............2 hours, 41 minutes

Georgia.................Bush..................12 points..............59 minutes

Alabama................Bush .................15 points..............25 minutes

NC.........................Bush .................13 points...............39 minutes

Penn....................Gore ..................4 points ................1 hours, 24 minutes

Michigan.............Gore .................4 points ................1 hours, 24 minutes

Minn....................Gore..................2 points ...............1 hours, 25 minutes

Washington ........Gore..................5 points ...............1 hours, 08 minutes

Maine .................Gore .................5 points ................10 minutes

Florida ...............Gore .................4 points................52 minutes

http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/111600/gen_1116006903.shtml

"Tauzin claimed there were delays in calling nine states that Bush won by at least six percentage points but there were no delays in any state that Gore carried by six percentage points. His data used CNN as a source."

Everyone new Florida was crucial to the election and yet called it was called incorrectly for Gore BEFORE the polls closed. You think their coverage was an attempt to suppress GOP votes across the country? Every republican I know turned off the tv when Florida was called for Gore thinking it was over. Bob Beckel even conceded that this likely upressed votes across the country.

Why the delays in calling states for Bush? I guess some will claim it was not bias, just a “bureaucratic snafu”

[semiskin]

I personally have a hard time seeing this liberal media bias. On occasion I like to watch some of the primetime news shows, and tend to think that the opinions of most of the hosts sway towards the conservative side of the spectrum

Bill O'Reilley, even though he says that he is "fair and balanced" and is all about the "no spin zone", he's a conservative to the core.

Hannity and Colmes, Hannity is a obviously a hardcore conservative, who pretty much carries the show, because Colmes is kind of an idiot as far as I am concerned.

Scarborough Country, probably my favorite of the bunch, is also a conservative, and if I'm not mistaken was a Republican Congressman in Conneticut.

Chris Matthews, Hardball, is also conservative.

This whole conservative/liberal media bias, is just a bunch of BS IMO. Conservatives will never be happy until everything sways in their favor, and liberals will never be happy until they've PO'd every conservative. How's that for "fair and balanced."