And a very large number American people own the companies that you talk about,,, stocks and 401K plans... People that are on all three sides of the table....

We as a country get what we ask for....low prices high returns....

__________________
Fear the Government

Oh I know. He just kept asking for that information over and over again, so I figured I'd indulge him.

Idiocracy at it's best.

Fact: Established beyond any reasonable doubt the MSM is overwhelmingly liberally biased. This is not even open for debate, it has been so well documented that any discussion is pointless, only those in denial or are being willfully dishonest would disagree.

Furthermore, polls are meaningless in todays climate of lies and misinformation. They are too easily manipulated to get any result you want.

Look, you seem like an intelligent, open minded person, maybe you could do me a favor.

Factor out politics, then look at the mass media as a whole, not counting FOX and obvious conservative outlets, and tell me there is no liberal bias, when it comes to gun control, gay marriage, global warming and religion.

Look at ALL the issues, except politics, and tell me there is no liberal bias in the mass media.

Go ahead.

Tell me.

This statement sounds like someone who has never left America to see what the media is like in other places. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean that we're partly trained to think the way we do because of our environment. I've never thought of American media as being too progressive, too left wing, or too right wing either. The American media is mostly lazy.

Ever since Nixon, the media has been on the beat looking for the latest transgressions and fallacies of all politicians. Who knows. Maybe it really started after Kennedy's assassination. The American media in the past 40 years has a reputation for playing GOTCHA! games with every politician and iconic figure.

CNN is the child of that entire era. They follow sleazy stories shamelessly, they were Bush's best friend during the run-up to the Iraq war, and they spend far too much time repeating things or taking meaningless digressions into trivial celebrity crime and gossip stories. CNN never bothered telling Americans that the Bush administration was paying off nearly 100,000 former Baathists to help build the case for the success of the so-called "Surge", but we were reminded of Britney Spears' latest tribulation almost daily.

The NY Times is the only true liberal paper I can think of in America. Other big cities have their papers, but even in Chicago, the two big papers are centrist, and on the coasts there are good examples of centre-lefts and centre-rights. But mostly they're lazy.

The run-up to the Iraq war remains the best example of this. The media in America gets all caught up in sentimentality and forgets the fact that they're supposed to be on the side of truth and honesty. So while the rest of the world was getting updated news about how England in fact didn't really know if Saddam had anything because the intelligence was so outdated and therefore the UN team, headed by Hans Blix, was asking for more time in Iraq, in America, the whole story was "Immediate Threat", pumped down every American's throat, every single day until it became so.

On radio I expect a right-wing slant. On tv and cable, a lazy slant substituting for the centre. And on the internet? Crazy conspiracy people. There really isn't anything that liberal about the media in America.

Wow, Jason hit the nail on the head. It's honestly the best description of the media I have ever read.

You don't know either, but are still making replies for them

Riigghtt, it's so for that best of all conservative reasons, BECAUSE I SAY SO, and anything that says different it just leftist lies.

Why do we all hate America?

OK, more than two, I stopped reading when I saw one was from Newsbusters.

And every one an opinion piece.

Look, I can find you hundreds of opinions on Moveon that say the media is biased conservative, and I can find you hundreds more on Newsmax that say its liberal. And then I can find you thousands of opinions that say Sasquatch is living in our basements.

Opinions are like a*&H*&es.... everybody's got one and they all stink.

Find me ONE study by a REPUTABLE AND UNBIASED source that gives me NUMBERS as to just how biased the media is in what direction. It's so goddam obvious to everyone and these are news stories, right out in the open, so it should be easy

All the issues you list ARE political. I've already stated my opinion after doing exactly what you ask. I've even included a link to the media's latest years-long right wing outrage. I have no axe to grind here. I get almost none of my news from television news shows. My internet/newspaper/magazine reading is spread across many sources and I try my best not to believe any of them blindly so the right wing bias of most media sources doesn't really affect me that much. I just get tired of hearing the same baseless limbaugh talking points like the mythica "liberal media" endlessly repeated as though they had some basis in fact.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

You accused me of "The old class warfare axe grinding away". I was merely explaining why my claim that "Huge corporations are by definition pro business/anti worker" is not class warfare but common sense acknowledgment of the purpose of a for-profit corporation. So if it has nothing to do with the conversation you shouldn't have brought it in.You have never explained how or why any corporation would allow its employees to dictate the content of its product - especially when that content is diametrically opposite to the best interest of the corporation. So your claims about the political opinions of employees simply have no relevance. As for the fact that most people believe the news is slanted, the majority of americans also believe God created humans in their present form and evolution is wrong. So pardon me if I don't find that argument persuasive.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

As progressive as I consider myself to be, I think the evidence, at least to some extent, suggests that there probably is a liberal media bias. This study used the voting patterns of journalists to determine bias (Media Research Center: How the Media Vote). However, I'm not sure it's really fair to consider this a "fact." After all, the terms liberal and conservative are completely open to interpretation. Because of this, any attempt to apply one of these labels to any medium is going to require a subjective determination that would be virtually impossible to verify. I don't even know what is considered "mainstream" media anymore. Do blogs count now?

If we possessed a left-to-moderate-to-right spectrum, I think most of the mainstream media outlets would place a little left-of-center. If an individual's political ideology is extremely left-of-center, that individual will probably view the media as too-far-right. If an individual's political ideology is extremely right-of-center, that individual will probably view the media as too-far-left. It's all about perspective. Two people may hear the exact same statistic and interpret it in completely different ways (e.g. If the media reports that American troop deaths have steadily declined, someone to the left may interpret that as conservative propaganda in support of the war, while someone to the right may interpret it as a liberal attempt to only report death tolls).

If a statistic is reported, it is up to the journalist to provide adequate proof that the statistic should be considered legitimate. However, if a journalist does this, then it really is not justified to discount the statistic on the basis of the news outlet that employs the journalist. If Newsmax didn't do things like this...

...where the headline is blatantly misleading, I'd be willing to trust some of what they say. For example, here is a perfectly legitimate Newsmax article...

I think we just have to start disputing the statistics, quotes and citations, rather than the media outlet that reports them.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

You have done the same thing many others have. You've linked to a source claiming media employees have a liberal bias. But you have shown nothing that explains why the owners of our media would allow the political opinions of their employees to dictate the content which is sold by the corporation to advertisers.

The sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to maximise return for stockholders and executives. That means that when you ignore Murdoch's properties and other family or individually owned outlets like the NYT, it must be assumed that the content produced by our media is produced for the purpose of maximising return for stockholders and executives. So if we have media bias it is for one of two reasons.

1. Because that's what attracts viewers and the subsequent advertising profits.
2. Because a political bias one way or the other willl benefit the corporations' overall profitablilty in their wide range of international businesses.

If the bias exists and is produced by cause #1 then it can be a liberal bias or a conservative bias depending on what viewers want.
If bias exists and is produced by cause #2 then it can only be a pro business/anti regulation bias. In other words a right wing republican bias.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

In theory, I think you're absolutely correct. It wouldn't make sense for media outlets to advertise an agenda that is antithetical to their purpose. Like I said, I think perception of bias is probably based on one's own political ideology. Though I still think that the opinions exuded on stations like MSNBC and CNN tend to lean slightly to the left. Maybe it's just a paradox.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK ME AND MY POSTS AT LEAST READ MY FUCKING POSTS.

I showed admissions from liberals in the media that it is biased to the left. I showed campaign contributions from all the CEOs I could find from the big media giants. It is well known that the voting records of journalists lean towards democrats at a rate of 12 to 1, or higher, unless you have never bothered to look at any of the PEW polls.

But still, you can't see the bias because you are a liberal.

I asked you to do me a simple favor, but you just dismiss it.

Let's try again. Factor out campaigns and individual politicians. Only look at issues. Is the mass media biased on gun control? On gay marriage? On religion?

If you answer anything other than yes, then you are being dishonest.

Here is MORE EVIDENCE..........

A great interview with Bernard Goldberg.

Goldberg discusses news 'Bias'

Disney and its employees are among the biggest donors in American politics, having contributed nearly $8 million to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Two-thirds of that total has gone to Democrats. But like a lot of donors, Disney and its employees have sent an increasing share of their contributions to Republicans since the mid-‘90s, when the GOP took control of Congress.

Disney’s donations were split more evenly than ever immediately after Bush won the last presidential election. The company and its employees sent 53 percent of their contributions to Democrats and 47 percent to Republicans in the 2001-2002 election cycle. So far in the current cycle, slightly more than 60 percent of contributions from Disney has gone to Democrats, versus 40 percent to Republicans.

A portion of that giving comes from Disney’s political action committee, which has contributed $158,000 to federal candidates in the current election cycle—half to Democratic candidates and half to Republican candidates.

Disney is also a lobbying giant, having spent nearly $4 million to lobby the federal government last year. Chief among its concerns is preventing the unauthorized copying and distribution of movies and music, but Disney’s legislative interests are as broad as its business holdings. In addition to its stake in the movie and theme park business, Disney owns the television network ABC, dozens of local television and radio stations and two major sports franchises, pro hockey’s Anaheim Mighty Ducks and Major League Baseball’s Anaheim Angels.

One reason Democrats edge Republicans in total fundraising from Disney may be Miramax itself, whose contributions are included in the Disney total. Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the brothers who run Miramax, are big Democratic givers who have contributed $224,492 to Democratic candidates and party committees since 1999. They have given no contributions to Republicans during that time.

Harvey Weinstein, who gives far more generously than his brother, gave $2,000 last year to John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate. He made most of his political contributions during the 2001-2002 election cycle, the last in which unlimited soft money contributions to the national political parties were allowed. Weinstein gave $85,000 in soft money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee during the cycle.

Eve Chilton Weinstein, Harvey’s wife and the president of Elegant Films, has contributed more than have the two brothers combined (though her contribution totals are not included with Miramax’s). She has given a total of $383,500 to federal candidates and parties since 1999, all to Democrats. Of that, $320,000 went to DNC soft money accounts in 2000.

Michael Eisner, the embattled Disney chief executive who reportedly encouraged filmmaker Moore to cancel his distribution deal with Miramax, has been much more modest—and pragmatic—in his political giving.

Together with his wife Jane, Eisner, who recently was stripped of his duties as chairman by the Disney board, has contributed $80,500 to federal candidates and party committees since 1999. One-third of that total, or $27,000, has gone to Republicans, including $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee last year.

OpenSecrets

Here are stats from AOL Time Warner. Every year more money went to Democrats, then Republicans. In 1996, the split between the two parties was almost even, but ever other 2 year period the majority went to DEMS. In 190 it was 86% to dems vs. 14% to Repubs.

Time Warner: Summary | OpenSecrets

Here is the lobbying numbers for the Communications Workers of America.

Communications Workers of America represents 740,000 workers in telecommunications, broadcasting, journalism and other fields. The union’s members work for companies such as AT&T, General Electric and many of the nation’s top newspapers and broadcast stations. The union lobbies on a number of workplace issues, including health benefits, social security and prescription drug coverage. The union has also been a strong supporter of proposals to lift federal regulations and allow regional telephone companies to enter the long-distance market and offer high-speed Internet access.

From 1990, to 2000, Republicans only received 1% of their money, or less.

99-100% of the money went to democrats.

Communications Workers of America: Summary | OpenSecrets

General Electric, who owns 13 television stations, CNBC, MSNBC, and Bravo
was much more balanced. There is closer to an equal split among the 2 parties.

General Electric: Summary | OpenSecrets

VIVENDI heavily favors Democrats.

In 1990, 1994 and 1996, 100% of ALL THE MONEY WENT TO DEMOCRATS.

IN 2008, 75% went to Democrats.

Vivendi: Summary | OpenSecrets

////////

So, ALL THE MEDIA CORPORATIONS, EXCEPT GE, HEAVILY FAVOR DEMOCRATS WHEN GIVING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

I guess that rips apart your ideas that corporations should all favor republicans.

So, every time a journalist decides to do a story, or how to write that story, they are thinking to themselves, "How can this story maximize corporate profits"?