New Study Confirms Severe Media Bias

Below is another excellent piece from Engram at Back Talk blog. If you are a liberal and don't think there is a liberal media bias... this piece explains exactly why you feel that way with the hard facts and data not the opinions of a neocon.
Here it is in it's entirety.
NEW STUDY ON THE MEDIA we have...confirms it's not the media we wish we had.
Lately, I've documented a few instances of reporters in the mainstream media covering the situation in Iraq in an accurate way. It's odd to think that accurate news coverage would warrant any discussion at all, but it does because reporters lean so far to the left that they have trouble filtering out their personal views, especially when reporting news about Iraq (it would be the same way with conservative reporters, if there were any). A reader sent me this story that demonstrates how to put a negative (i.e., liberal) spin on recent events in Iraq:

2007 Toll Nears Highest for US in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER

BAGHDAD (AP) — With just under two months left in the year, 2007 is on course to be the deadliest year on record for American forces in Iraq, despite a recent sharp drop in U.S. deaths.

At least 847 American military personnel have died in Iraq so far this year — the second-highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003, according to Associated Press figures.

Technically true, but you'd think a chart like this one would help to place the story in context:



As you can see, military casualties in Iraq have come way down. Isn't that a relevant fact to mention is a story like this? And here is a table showing U.S. military casualties per year that also helps to provide a bit of context:


The years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 are all very similar, and if casualties remain low for the next two months, 2007 will be much like the prior years but will also set a record. If I had written this story, I'd have included all of this for context. To be fair, at the very end of the article, it mentions the recent dramatic drop in U.S. military casualties. But by then, most readers will have formed an impression and moved on.

When it comes to evaluating the political inclinations of the mainstream media, it doesn't matter whether you are liberal or conservative. Either way, you can't possibly believe that the MSM is neutral or that it leans to the right. Obviously, it leans to the left. As obvious as it is, people sometimes argue about this, so, every once in a while, I like to collect all of the evidence in one place. I'm doing that again today because more evidence just came to light in the form of yet another study of the subject.

Before getting to the new evidence, let me just take a quick tour through the old evidence. The thing to note is that, no matter how you slice it, the evidence points in the same direction: the MSM leans left, and that affects how the news is covered. If you disagree, please cite all of the evidence that suggests otherwise. As hard as you try, you'll find that there is no such evidence (though I'd love to be proven wrong about that).

If you just take a poll ask people if news coverage is too liberal, too conservative or just about right, you results like these:


As you can see, if you are a Democrat, news coverage feels just about right. To everyone else, it seems to lean left (which is precisely why it feels right to Democrats).

The Pew Research Center conducted another poll that asked reporters to just say whether they are liberal, moderate or conservative. Here are the results:


Reporters mostly call themselves "moderate," but many more reporters admit to being liberal than conservative (by a ratio of almost 5 to 1).

MSNBC identified 144 journalists who made political contributions between 2004 and 2007 according to public records of the Federal Election Commission. The question of interest was this: Which party received the most donations from these journalists? The results are shown in this chart:


In summary, consumers of the news think that news coverage leans pretty far to the left, the reporters themselves acknowledge that they lean left, and reporters donate to Democratic candidates far more than they donate to Republican candidates.

As you might expect, reporters who lean left report news that is biased in the leftward direction. A careful analysis of the news conducted by political scientists at UCLA shows that this is, indeed, the case. Their report, called "A Measure of Media Bias," is available here. They started with the observation that U.S. senators have been ranked on a scale of 0 to 100 according to how conservative or liberal they are (with 50 being about the midpoint). Very liberal senators with a score close to 100 might cite liberal think tanks 10 times as often as conservative think tanks. If a news outlet like the New York Times did the same thing, it would get a score close to 100. Very conservative senators with a score close to 0 might cite conservative think tanks 10 times as often as liberal think tanks. If a news outlet like Fox News did the same thing, it would get a score close to 0. Here are their results for different news outlets (with scores greater than 50 showing a liberal slant and less than 50 showing a conservative slant):


As you can see, only Fox News and the Washington Times are more conservative than the average American. All other news outlets tilt in the liberal direction to varying degrees. The Wall Street Journal is the most liberal news outlet, which is surprising because everyone knows that it is a conservative newspaper. Actually, though, it is the journal's editorial pages that are very conservative (and that's why you think of it as a conservative publication). Its newsroom is left wing, even more so than the New York Times.

Now a new study from Harvard University has just come out that examines how the media covers the various presidential campaigns. The results are about what you'd expect (unless, that is, you deny that the media leans left). For example, who gets more coverage, Democratic candidates or Republican candidates? Need I even ask?


Who gets more positive coverage, the top Democratic candidates or the top Republican candidates? Need I even ask?


Let's look at the network evening news in particular:


In the positive category, it is 2-to-1 in favor of the Democrats. In the negative category, well, it's obvious.

The report describing these new findings goes out of its way to explain how these results might not reflect a liberal bias (e.g., Barack Obama is a new face, Hillary Clinton started to campaign earlier than the others, etc.). You can, if you work hard enough, explain away any one piece of evidence concerning the political inclinations of the mainstream media. But my point is this: when every single way of addressing this issue leads to the same conclusion -- namely, that a left wing media reports the news from a left wing point of view -- then that conclusion becomes inescapable. I know this isn't even a debatable issue any more, but I still think it is valuable to review the evidence every once in a while. Collecting the evidence as I do does not make me a conservative. Whether you are liberal or conservative, you can't really dispute the fact that the evidence consistently points to a liberal bias on the part of the mainstream media. It is the evidence that makes that case, not me. If you know of evidence that points in the other direction, do tell.

UPDATE: Coincidentally, Glenn Reynolds links to a post by Don Surber on this very topic:

The lies began before the war with CNN fronting for Saddam Hussein for 10 years just to keep its bureau open in Baghdad so it could brag about its foreign reporting. Instead of shuttering the bureau and then reporting the horrors from Atlanta, CNN stayed and kept its mouth shut.

That was just the start. Adnan Hajj staged and Photoshopped photos for AP and later Reuters that were sent around the world.

There is Captain Jamil Hussein, a police officer whom AP relied on repeatedly in 2006 for horror stories about Iraq. The military and the Iraqi government often denied the incidents. When Michelle Malkin and others questioned his existence, AP furiously defended him and insisted he was real — and stopped quoting him.

There is “Scott Thomas,” a pseudonym for a very real soldier, who sold outlandish lies to the editors of TNR. Apparently The New Republic learned nothing from Stephen Glass.

An unchecked conservative media would be as bad in a different way, but the media we have is liberal (and is bad in this particular way). END-

Great work Engram as usual... fair and balanced analysis.

Left Wing Pathological Liars

What do pathological liars do when they get caught in a big lie like the moveon.org scandal where they "cooked the books" and lied while accusing General Petraeus of "cooking the books" and lying?
or the lie that Algore won the 2000 election,
or the lie that Karl Rove had a secret deal with NBC's Walsh to steal the 2000 elelction written by fake journalist "David Podvin" who doesn't actually exist,
or the lie that Bush knew about (or was involved in) the 9/11 attacks,
or the lie that Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans,
or the lie that if re-elected Bush had a secret draft planned for after the 2004 election,
or the lie that Bush stole the 2004 election...
or the series of lies out of Iraq via the AP regarding "civil war" reports sourced to a fake person Jamil Hussein...
or which time were they lying here, when they said Saddam had WMD or when they now claim they never said he had WMD?
or the lie that claimed Bush said Saddam was an imminent threat, (Bush actually said "We must act BEFORE Saddam poses an imminent threat." i.e. preemptive strike)
or the lie that claimed Bush said Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks, (no evidence in any public statement by Bush)
...there is literally an endless supply of these, (apparently) but what does the left do when each and every lie starts to smell bad and the truth starts to catch up?
They come up with another big lie, accuse everyone ELSE of lying and promptly "move-on" to the next big fat whopper ASAP.

Examples #4,276,173 & #4,276,174- Immediately following the "General Betray us" debacle yet before the stench is gone, we get this...
Two NEW lies are being spread like cancer by the extreme liberal left bloggers like kittenstomper here in Oklahoma for example... who print the accusation and the lie but don't print what Limbaugh ACTUALLY said... just like the rest of the "repeat the lies" leftwing pathological bloggers around the globe who aren't the least bit interested in facts, but instead only interested in how much damage they can do with the lies.

So what is it this week that is spreading across the liberal blogosphere like wildfire... and getting picked up by the Democrat party advertising department (the main stream media) and repeated as fact?

Lie #1- O'Reilly made racist comments.
Fact1: Fact2 Both Rev. Al Sharpton (D) AND NPR's Juan Williams (D) (neither are Bush loving neocons) were present with O'Reilly at the time the comments were made and BOTH Sharpton AND Williams have said...

O'Reilly's comments were right...if taken in context, and were certainly NOT racist in any way.

Lie #2- Rush Limbaugh calls any troops "phoney" who oppose the war.
Fact: Here is what Limbaugh actually said, judge for yourself...

"Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth."

No wonder the pathological left got mad, "smearing without regard for truth" is the official plan of operation for the left right now and they don't want that truth getting out either.
Thats what they do when they lose in the battle of ideas. (and make no mistake they are losing otherwise there is no need to smear)
Smear Bush, smear Republicans, smear the military, smear Generals, smear Christians and then claim Bush, Rush and O'Reilly are the liars.

MEANWHILE, the very SAME LEFT (suddenly outraged) who has been calling the troops "murderers", "uneducated and poor", thugs, the real terrorists... and worse, NOW all of a sudden they are mad at somebody for calling one of their phoney so-called "murdering troops... phoney?
Jesse McBeth was another (phoney) example of our troops being murdering thugs (he was never in combat for God's sake) held up by the left and used as a weapon against the military and Bush just like they do with Club Gitmo and elsewhere.

And yet some people wonder why those of us on the right have nothing but contempt for these... pathetic lying losers who are given utmost credibility and respect by the mainstream media.

If you were one that helped spread any of these lies, you are scum. ( and scum is NOT a term of endearment)

We can post direct quotes in context of dozens of America hating liberals in Hollywood and get scorned and criticized for it... the left can make up lies and get away with it... and in fact get those lies printed as real news.

This is what the left is doing to America and if those of you who call yourselves moderate liberals had better start calling these people out and discrediting them... because it reflect directly on you, like it, admit it or not. They are destroying your country too.

The right has played nicey-nice and patty-cake long enough, trying to not give your lies credibility by not responding and thats about to come to an end... trust me.

Who is behind all of this... well, if we follow the money, one place it will lead us is to one George Soros for without his billions funding these liars... their lies might never get out of the sewer they came from. Soros is willing to pay anyone any amount if they are willing to lie, cheat or steal to destroy Bush and Republicans. (Like the so-called NASA whistleblower which turned out to be a global warming fraud/lie paid for by Soros)

The troops know who is on their side and who is telling lies, so the story about Rush will have no impact there, only here where the other war is going on... the war against truth waged by the extreme, "off the rails on a crazy train", moonbat (did I mention extreme?) left. If there is such a thing as a moderate liberal majority that doesn't believe these lies, they need to assist in stopping the madness or they end up being a willing un-active partner in these partisan lies.
-red stater

THE "NEWS" FROM IRAQ:

Garbage In - Garbage Out, ...A Story Of Recycling.

When reading the news from/about Iraq in your local newspaper or anyone else’s local newspaper (like the NY Times) or watching your local network or cable news, most of the reporting is primarily coming from one source.

No, it’s not Bush, Rumsfeld (Gates) or CENTCOM.

The Associated Press (AP) is that primary source (Reuters being second) and is pretty much where all of the so-called Main Stream Media gets the majority of their “facts” with regard to Iraq in particular. (CENTCOM or Bush admin reports are regarded as government propaganda which must be refuted for the sake of “objectivity”).

When NBC (via MSNBC) declared Iraq to be “officially” in a state of “Civil War” a few weeks ago, much of their reasoning for the declaration was based on Associated Press reports of violence (according to MSNBC).

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and even FOX NEWS use AP as an unchallenged source daily in most of their stories coming out of Iraq.

That is the system.
The Associated Press (Rueters and a few other) news agencies get the “facts” (in Iraq) and write stories. The “reporters” who aren’t in Iraq copy them and repeat them but also write their own stories based on these AP “reports”.

You don’t actually think Wolf, Katie or your local yocal newsdude/chic have their own staff in Iraq running around town getting the "news" do you? (hopefully not, if so you would be wrong) Sure they might have a guy reporting from the hotel balcony (wearing a flak jacket) who just got off the phone with... the AP reporter, but that's about it.

So, (you ask) what’s wrong with everyone forming their view on Iraq based largely on AP reports in the news?
After all, AP is the ultimate “source” and the benchmark for unbiased, journalistic, institutions of truth from which all "worthy news" originates…right?

The “source” of the problem.
The AP (and others) uses local “stringers” to get their “facts” about events in Iraq. These Iraqi locals provide information to AP for a (small?) fee.(?)
AP “journalists” then use these "reports" to write the news we Americans watch on tv and read in the paper.

Enter Captain Jamil Hussein of the Iraqi police force (according to AP).
Captain Hussein is one of these so called “stringers” and is the primary or sole source in over 60 AP stories on “civil war” type violence in Iraq.
Two other primary AP “stringers” also “working” for the Iraq police force (according to AP) are used as the sole source in dozens more stories on extreme violence in Iraq.

Okay, SO WHAT...you ask?

There is NO "Captain Jamil Hussein" according to the official Iraqi Police spokesman, the Iraqi government and CENTCOM.

Jamil Hussein doesn’t exist. CENTCOM can’t authenticate him, the Iraq police can’t authenticate him and the Associated Press can’t produce him.
He is fake, bogus, not authentic, not real and so are his "reports".

The other two sources are bogus as well and in fact one was arrested by the Iraqi police for impersonating an officer. (of all things)
All of the stories using Capt. Jamil Hussein and the others as the source have been denied and refuted by others at the scene of the events, by the real Iraqi police and by CENTCOM which went virtually unreported.

YES, it seems that your local papers and your nightly news have been and currently ARE reporting violence that never happened or is greatly exaggerated based on fake “stringers” and fake reports from the enemy (Islamic fascist terrorist throatcutters).

Why would AP do this?

The media has believed (and reported) all along that the war was wrong, that America couldn’t win and that a civil war would break out.
Journalists are humans too (with opinions). These “journalists” instinctively seek out sources that support their belief.
(have you ever seen a reporter write a story intentionally demonstrating that he/she was wrong about a deep seated belief?)
And, there are plenty of Sunni AND Shia extremists, radicals and supporters, who know that sending bad news of violence day after day, after week, after month, directly to average Americans sitting safely at home in their living rooms, will help their cause.

To our enemy, “Civil War” means America is losing which means that America will leave Iraq soon.
To “journalists”, civil war means they were right all along and that America should leave Iraq soon.

The journalists are sympathetic to the insurgents. CNN went so far as to show a staged video of an attack on US troops provided by terrorists as genuine news. (The shooters on the video are heard saying “be careful not to kill innocent people”) These are the same type thugs who are blowing up innocent people to instigate violence and create the images of civil war for “Captain Hussein” to feed to AP.

Got the picture now?

So, when you hear that America was wrong and America should leave Iraq (in a civil war), know that it is coming directly to your living room (or front porch) from Al Qaeda Sunni and/or Shia Hojjatiah “stringers" via the Associated Press.

Now, if you think that only uninformed and uneducated people would base their view on Iraq on what they see in the news, you would be wrong (again).

Liberal moonbat (pictured above) teachers and college professors use "the news" to support their pre-existing view that the (any) war is wrong, that America is losing/cannot win and that Iraq is in a “civil war”. Some even try to “make students sympathize with the insurgents” and claim that “US troops are the foreign fighters who are responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqi’s”.
Gee, where do you think Professor Payne got that idea, from his own personal unbiased source(s) living in Baghdad (lol) or from (AP) stories in the press?
(He sure doesn't get this news from CENTCOM)

When you see opinion poll’s that show 50-60%+ Americans believe we are losing or that it (the war) was wrong or that there is a civil war in Iraq… now you understand how they may have come to that "conclusion".

Our perspective is being carefully manipulated by the enemy along with the compliance of the American news media via the AP.
Make no mistake, “the terrorists” are aware of the power of the media and are USING it against us.

How much of YOUR view on Iraq is based on mainstream “news” reports FROM Iraq?

Do YOU believe the words of fake AP “stringers” over your own troops who all say the main stream news media is wrong and paints an inaccurate picture of the war?
(if so, you are probably a liberal Democrat who’s agenda matches with the fake reports)

Garbage in - garbage out… recycled and consumed by the masses.
What a bunch of garbage.

This would be a good time to (again) invite all mass consumers of garbage (and all moonbats) to SUPPORT VICTORY in Iraq and support the troops by believing what they say.
OR
You can continue believing fake reporters like Jamil Hussein (and David Podvin) and other "fake news" in order to justify promoting America's defeat…your choice.

-Red
UPDATE: 1/4/2007:
JAMIL HUSSEIN IS FREE...!!! (but not for long according to Iraqi police) click on "Free Jamil Hussein" banner below for details from Michelle Malkin and the AP...
UPDATE2: 1/6/2007- "Jamil Hussein" say's "I'm not the guy" and challenges anyone to "prove he is the AP source" for over 60 highly controversial stories which ultimately could have impacted world view on the war in Iraq. Flopping Aces has the latest...stay tuned...