What Liberal Bias?

The question today, class, is this:  Is there any hope for the New York Times – or is its liberal bias so ingrained in the current day culture of the newspaper that nothing short of bankruptcy (if that) will change it?

I bring this up because the “public editor” of the Times, a fellow by the name of Clark Hoyt, has written that while the Acorn story was big news on FOX and on conservative Websites, the editors at the Times were operating on snooze control and got around to covering it late. Very late.  No, he didn’t say it quite that way, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant.

“It was an intriguing story,” Hoyt wrote, “employees of a controversial outfit, long criticized by Republicans as corrupt, appearing to engage in outrageous, if not illegal, behavior. An Acorn worker in Baltimore was shown telling the ‘prostitute’ that she could describe herself to tax authorities as an ‘independent artist’ and claim 15-year-old prostitutes

“But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes — closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser — suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs. Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.”

The Times looking “clueless” or worse “partisan”?  What’s next:  the “public editor” informing us the sun rises in the east?

But here’s the good news:  Despite what you or anyone else may think, there is no liberal bias at the New York Times.  How do I know this?  The New York Times told me.  First, the “public editor” quotes Jill Abramson, the paper’s managing editor for news, saying the problem at the Times is not liberal bias.  Abramson admits the paper was “slow off the mark” but said it was because of “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio” – not bias.

And she’s not alone.  Hoyt also interviewed Tom Rosenstiel, the director of the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism.  According to Hoyt, Rosenstiel “has studied journalists for years, and though they are more liberal than the general population, he believes they are motivated by the desire to get good stories, not to help one particular side.”

Well, I guess that settles it.  No liberal bias in the “MSM,” despite what you crazy right-wing paranoids think.  Except for one little thing:  there is a liberal bias at the Times and at other big so-called mainstream news organizations.  And even though there’s no vast-left wing conspiracy to slant the news, no grand liberal conspiracies, there is another problem:  groupthink.

Newsrooms are filled with liberal journalists.  Conservatives in big news organizations are in the minority – and a small minority at that.  So many liberals, so many like-minded people—no matter how fair they think they are – are going to produce a biased product.  It’s as simple as that.  And for anyone who doesn’t buy the logic, consider this:  What if the New York Times (or any other news organization) was loaded with conservative journalists?  What if they dominated the newsroom?  What if they thought their conservative values were superior to liberal values?  What if almost all of them always vote for the conservative Republican candidate running for president?  What if they socialize with like-minded conservatives and rarely come into contact with liberals?  Does anyone think the news wouldn’t be slanted to the Right?  Of course it would.  That’s how it works in the real world when the deck is stacked.

The reason news executives finally brought women and minority journalists into the newsroom was the realization that news reported and edited almost exclusively by white males would be slanted no matter how unbiased the journalists thought they were.  White males, no matter how educated they were, simply could not understand certain issues the way others could.  So executives instituted affirmative action programs to create a more diverse newsroom.  But what we have now in our newsrooms, after years of this devotion to diversity, are white liberals and black liberals, male liberals and female liberals, gay liberals and straight liberals, Latino liberals and Asian liberals and on and on.

Skin deep diversity simply is not enough.  We need intellectual diversity in the newsroom.  We need diversity of opinion.  And I’m afraid the only way to get it is with more affirmative action — affirmative action for the smallest minority in the newsroom:  conservative journalists.

By the way, I would tell those conservatives to keep their opinions to themselves.  And I’d tell liberals the same thing.  It isn’t your opinion that is needed, I would say, it’s your  perspective.  Without it, bias will continue to pollute journalism.  And the powers that be will continue to deny its existence and not care how silly they look as they do it.

So is there hope for the Times and the other so-called mainstream news organizations?  I report.  You decide.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • Sing A Ma Jigs Toys

    Woah this blog is magnificent i love studying your posts. Stay up the great paintings! You recognize, lots of people are searching round for this information, you could help them greatly.

  • James Cain

    We need to strart adding to the menu “Radical bias” There are far too many very dangerous folks in the spotlight who are trying to pass themselves off as Liberals.
    For example, does anyone think Van Jones is a Liberal? The only thing about him that would be liberal, would be the liberal use of drastic methods to radicalize America.

  • http://odiecologne Anthony Ferreira

    Dear Professor G:Since class is still in session! A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines.With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day—’Ah,so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’—Is it so bad,then,to be misunderstood.’ Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Ralph Waldo Emerson

  • http://www.political-fringe.com/ Leo Rizzuti

    Thank you for the post Bernie. I have been in a fairly heated online debate with someone about media bias for the last couple of days. He contends that the vast majority of the media is right wing. I supply him with survey numbers, he complains about the source. I give him search engine numbers noting a 3 to 1 liberal media bias. He counters with the argument that it is because of the conservative “echo chamber”. Then he realizes the stupidity of his remark and amends it to “well, 3:1 is still pretty much parity. I show him data concerning media support for Obama. He agrees, and claims that it is because Obama is politically center-right (huh?). I explain that I have worked in the media (newspapers specifically). I quote “Bias”. I quote Cronkite. He contends that we are all making it up. He is a perfect example of how group think not only occurs in closed groups, but is also quite prevalent in the general public.

    I guess what Captain said in Cool Hand Luke was true: “Some men you just can’t reach.”

  • http://www.fixingacourtcase.com George

    Not only is the deck stacked at the NY Times, they do not know that Right is right and Left is wrong or connotes wrong, in all languages. It is sheer democratic stupidity to believe the Left is Right. The great problem in America is that the half-educated are in charge of the media and the education. The Right stands no chance, it is a downhill slide, at least it will be “no spin” slide.

  • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

    Autism – 1 in 100 kids.
    When are they going to realize that mild autism is just a normal behavior?
    Severe cases are tragic – but the mild cases are just normal behavior. Not everybody is a social communications wizard. Some little kids just need time to socialize. Teachers in America refuse to deal with kids that are weird, different, moving too much. They send those kids to endless evaluation hoping somebody down the line will feed them a pill, so they behave like sheep. It is a torture for parents with the constant pressure from the schools for the young kids to behave. 1 in 100 – sounds like normal behavior to me.

    1 in 100 – 0dd or Norm?

    Most of the mild autistic kids are just a bit weird – WHO ISN’T?
    Do you know somebody who is normal and if you do – do you like him/her?
    Special ed industry is just cashing in on a normal kids that needs more time to mature. Live the parents and the kids alone. Let the kids move and smile!

    • Capn Eddie Ricketyback

      Maybe I’m missing something here, but how could this post possibly have any relevance to the column, “What Liberal Bias?”

      • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

        May be they banned you, because you are rude :) Lighten up would you!

        • Capn Eddie Ricketyback

          OK, I understand now. In your world it’s not rude to hijack a thread, but it’s the epitome of rudeness to call attention to it. It’s all clear to me now.

          • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

            My world may be a little autistic – learn to be patient with folks like me – we are growing in numbers:)

  • Joe

    I did not read the above article: no need to. I and Maureen Dowd along with Jayson Blair have been blessed Bernie with what you really said. Now let’s get to the point where’s it’s all your fault.

  • Travis

    Hi Bernie. I love your books and way of thinking. I’m probably more conservative than you, but you are spot on when it comes to journalistic integrity. One thing I’d like to get your opinion about is the recent fluff over losing the Chicago olympics. My opinion is that conservatives should lay off. It’s not that important in the grand scheme of things. What are your thoughts?

  • http://justanotherbagofhotair.blogspot.com Dan

    Bernie,

    I read the transcript of your apperance on O’Reilly, and I would take exception to your belief that the Tea Parties are not representative of a cross-section of America…for the same reason I would take exception with someone who reported that they are. To whom would you attribute those statements? Are they your – shudder – OPINION?

    Howsabout this – we go interview EVERY ONE of those Tea Party and 9/12 attendees and find out FOR SURE whether the group is a true cross-section of America? Too difficult? Sure it is. Just like it was difficult to estimate with any accuracy the size of the crowd on 9/12 in DC. (It was sure as hell bigger than “a few thousand,” though.)

    What EVERYONE who reports for a living needs to understand is that FACTS are the basis of TRUTH – and that’s what we need right now as a nation. If it’s too hard to gather the facts, then someone must put forth an opinion, but make it ATTRIBUTABLE to someone – then it becomes a FACT that someone else said it! (Journalism 101.)

    Don’t disparage something someone else said unless you’ve got FACTS on your side.

    Other than that, great interview with BillO, and great articles!

  • Alan

    It’s like you said in your book. Liberals don’t realize they’re liberal just like fish don’t realize they’re wet. The New York Times still lives in a world in which it set the news, and in which the general public didn’t have an alternative news source, so we had no choice but to listen to the “MSM”.

    The NY Times has evidently appointed someone to watch Fox News, though, so maybe they’ll figure out that there are indeed people in the world other than liberals. Probably not, but maybe.

  • Steve

    Hi Bernie, I really enjoy your visits on O’Reilly. I have debates with people, mostly bleeding heart liberals, who claim there is no liberal bias in the media. They point to the corporate owners of the TV stations, and newspapers as the tall tale proof that there is a conservative bias. It makes me want to rip my hair out when I see how ignorant people can be.

    I try to tell them it’s not the owners that dictate the news, its the editors and reporters who do and they are part of a vast liberal culture. I work in higher education and I see the same thing on college campuses. Their culture is one of liberalism and the president of a university can vote however he wants but his professors and administrators are going to teach and promote whatever ideals they believe in and bring the speakers to campus who mirror their beliefs.

    If anyone can help me win this argument, how can I tell these people who claim the corporate heads in the media are proof of no liberal bias? What will finally get into their heads that they and the rest of us are being sold a slew of propaganda by the left?

    I wanted to write a paper on liberal media bias and was told by a professor “don’t do it you’ll never get hired as a professor if you do.” That is life in higher Ed and the media. The pressure to conform to liberalism. One eyed midgets is what is expected of the people in the two largest information hubs of our country.

    • Alan

      You can’t argue with a person incapable of objectivity. It just doesn’t work. You use facts, and they use opinion.

      • Leland

        Amen!

  • leslie

    Please tell Bernie to contact me. 612.275.9822.

  • Dan

    ““employees of a controversial outfit, long criticized by Republicans as corrupt, appearing to engage in outrageous, if not illegal, behavior.”

    This quote from Clark Hoyt, the “public editor,” is a perfect example of unchecked slant. Even from an “editor” in a story about slant!

    Breaking it down.

    Is Acorn controversial? yes.
    Is it “long criticized”? yes.
    Is it “long criticized by Republicans”? yes.

    Is it “controversial” ONLY because it is “long criticized by Republicans”?
    NOT EVEN CLOSE.
    Convicted crimes. Alleged crimes (dozens?) working their way through the legal systems in multiple states. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money and unopened books. (Louisiana AG got a court order to see their books in Louisiana finally last I heard). This means law enforcement is also accusing corruption, not just those other folks called Republicans.

    This is a simple example of how slant can exist without a single falsehood being stated (I have identified dozens more in my research). Imply a singular cause and effect relationship where one is but one of many, or where one doesn’t even exist. Voila. The audience who isn’t tuned to detect the slant (which is most) infers improper meaning, repeats it to their friends and we’re off to the races (no pun intended).

    Do I believe Clark Hoyt is purposefully guilty of slant (in this case)? No. I believe he’s smart enough to understand the difference. But for a combination of causes Hoyt and too many of his colleagues in the profession have evolved over time into slanters. Heck, even Bernie (who I have bucket loads of respect for) didn’t point out the slant in that part of the Hoyt quote. Did Bernie detect it? I don’t know. Perhaps Bernie elected simply to make a different point about Hoyt’s conclusion. That’s fair. I admit the “sun rising in the east” was a cute line.

    Do I believe the world of journalism is guilty of allowing this slant to occur? Yes. They first and foremost hurt themselves by not policing the people in their own field. One of the consequences of them not looking after their industry has been significant numbers of the marketplace turning their back and in doing so threatening the very business model of print journalism and broadcast news.

    And oddly enough, even that story is slanted masking the cause and effects in play. How thick do you like your irony? All the way, thank you very much!

    p.s. You were great on the Factor last night, Bernie. Please do us all a favor and meet privately with Bill and the unnamed Fox person and try to reason with him. You’ll be doing him, Fox and all of us and the country a huge favor. Please try to follow up. Thanks

    • http://www.bartcop.com/ Wil Burns

      - In Oregon and Nevada, Lincoln Strategies — then known as Sproul and Associates — was investigated for destroying Democratic voter registration forms. The Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign paid Sproul $7.4 million for campaign work. [CNN, 10/14/04; KGW News, 10/13/04; East Valley Tribune, 09/07/06]

      - In Nevada, people who registered as Democrats with Lincoln Strategies — then known as Sproul and Associates — found their names absent from the voter registration rolls. [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/29/04]

      - During the 2006 midterm elections, Wal-Mart banned Lincoln Strategies for partisan voter registration efforts in Tennessee. The Republican National Committee had hired the firm. [Associated Press, 08/24/06]

      - In Arizona, Lincoln Strategies employed a variety of deceptive tactics — including systematically lying about the bill — to push a ballot initiative to eviscerate the state’s clean elections law. [Salon, 10/21/04]

      - Lincoln Strategies, then employed by the Republican Party, was behind efforts to place Ralph Nader on the ballot in states such as Arizona. [American Prospect, 06/25/04]

      Even former Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), during a hearing on voter fraud, admitted that “the difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn’t throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out.”

      http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/09/clean-coal-lobbying-fraud/

  • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

    I agree with you. Some commentators misstate facts on Fox. I have to confess – it feels good when they are hard on socialists, but I agree it is wrong to mislead and at the end it may backfire. People are hungry for honesty and truth. Some commentators throw silly jabs and cheap shots in the mix. I enjoy it, but I agree it is irresponsible and I recognize it to be false. There are people who take it for a fact. Credible media shouldn’t be doing it.

  • http://n/a Kathie Ampela

    I watched your commentary on Bill O’Reilly last night and I had to play it back 4 times, because I didn’t understand it. I think you had a problem with a commentator on Fox News, I think I know which one, but I won’t say the name here. I agree that no one on any news channel, be it a journalist, pundit, commentator, whatever, should ever present false information. That’s exactly why I’ve resorted to setting up my own media center on my computer. The lack of trust in media. However, do you know for a fact that these tea parties weren’t a cross section of America – did you interview everyone who was at those protests? Think about it. I’m not saying the majority weren’t conservative republicans/independents but there were probably moderate democrats as well who are very worried about Obama.

    Now I have to comment on Dan Rather. I grew up watching CBS News – I remember you, Bernie, as a correspondent years ago. My mother always wanted to watch CBS News. There was a reporter there (at CBS) who was a relative on my father’s side, his name was Ike Pappas. (long story). My point is, it was kind of a family thing to watch the CBS Evening News, first with Walter Cronkite, and later on, Dan Rather. To look back on it now, and to realize how much propaganda and misinformation was put out there by Rather sends shivers down my spine. I don’t want my son growing up (surrounded by) that kind of media corruption. Thank you, Bernie, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News and all the terrific writers on the Internet who present the other side. And thanks to the American public for finally realizing the existance of liberal media bias. I think we have a fighting chance now.

    • http://n/a Kathie Ampela

      Oh and by the way, great column this week, Bernie!

  • gene

    Bernie, I was concerned about your passion last night on O’Reilly, over, Glenn Beck I presume. You were awfully hot about him saying that the 9/12 people were a cross section of America. Perhaps overstated, but couldn’t that have been a corrective to the overwelming media blitz that this was a fringe group, not representative of America, nazis, racists, etc.? Most of them were just plain Americans were they not? There were some democrates and blacks and other minorites. Having said this, I do believe we should be accurate, even if the rest of the world is not. My greater concern was how angry you were. It seemed to me that there was more under the surface than you revealed. I hope you are still with us.

  • Capn Eddie Ricketyback

    I think I’ll do something different in this thread and comment on Bernie’s current column, you know, “What Liberal Bias?”

    Re: “Abramson admits the paper was ‘slow off the mark’ but said it was because of ‘insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio’ – not bias.” — It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a lame explanation for missing story after story that reflects poorly on the “liberal” side. I’ve never noticed any “slowness off the mark” when covering stories that reflect poorly on the right, many for which they have to publish corrections to on the inside pages, such as the McCain story about his supposed affair with an aide during the campaign.

    One would hope, probably forlornly, that the marketplace would solve this problem by putting such a corrupt enterprise out of business, but I doubt if the current administration would ever let that happen.

  • Jen

    Bernie, I’m a fan of yours, but I have to say I think you’re a little off-base in your criticism of Fox personalities last night on BOR – though I do wish you had named names. I assume you meant Beck and/or Hannity – the latter I don’t bother watching anymore – he’s too much of a showman, and does exaggerate events. The truth about Obama & his corrupt administration is bad enough – Hannity doesn’t need to purposely make it look even worse by misrepresenting the facts. So I agree with you there – but you made your point by saying it was dishonest to say the tea parties represented a cross-section of America.

    Now Beck I’ve only started watching a few months ago – and I can’t miss a show. He reports on events that even BOR, Greta, et al won’t report. Look at the radio tower bombing north of Seattle he just noted last night (did you watch it) – if it had been done by a self-proclaimed “right-wing militia”, there would have been non-stop coverage on the dominant liberal media. And did you see Beck’s show with the moms? There were several black moms represented too – and no, they weren’t plants.

    My parents (they’re both 73) were wanna-be hippies in the 60′s – but they were already married & having babies, so they faced the reality of working & providing for their family. They have been liberals since then (they did work for civil rights in NJ, my mother was even one of the Women in Black out protesting the war in Iraq). I’ve been the only conservative in my family of six (long story). They get their news from NPR & Moyers on PBS. But somehow my dad started listening to Beck several months ago on the radio – he has since dramatically changed, and is influencing my mom. My hard-headed liberal Obama fan brother has been saying to me – “what is Obama trying to do to this country”? And my other brother & sister are really opening their eyes about Obama’s efforts to control our lives (FCC czar, healthcare, school indoctrination, etc.).

    Sorry for the long post, but seriously I think you’re underestimating how even Democrats-for-life are changing their minds about this President, and yes, they’ve been out protesting at tea parties too. It’s NOT all white Republicans (if that’s what you meant by protests not showing a “cross-section of America).

  • Sunnyr

    Bernie, I have always enjoyed hearing your perspective on issues of the day and your books are right on point. BUT, I have to disagree with you about the Tea Party people. We DO represent a cross section of the nation, IMO. We are Republicans, Independents, Democrats, young, old, black, brown, yellow but mostly white. Our common interest is our love of our country and our constitution and our fear that the country we grew up in is not going to be there for our children and grandchildren. A great many of us voted for Barack Obama but are now regretting that vote very much. We see our freedoms being diminished by this administration and can no longer sit back and be silent. I also disagreed with your rant about those on Fox News who speak like “journalists” but are not. Since “REAL” journalists are not doing their jobs, I applaud Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity for efforts in exposing the corruption and outrageous behavior of some connected to this administration. and hope they will continue. I don’t give a rip if they are “journalists” or not. They are doing a great job of informing the public of the total corruption of many in the Obama circle. They are doing a service for this nation and to the American people. No one else is reporting the real truth about ANYTHING connected to the Marxist Messiah! Go Glenn Beck! We love you!

    • LlightSaber

      Hi Bernie,

      Here’s the point I’m at: I’m sick to death of diversity, and it has no place in this discussion. It’s a false premise, which lends credence to a non-argument.

      Why should any discussion take place at all regarding an assembly of people of like-mindedness? The cohesive element which drew people was the idea — the idea that govt., is out of control, the idea that health-care reform in its current framework is wrong — things like that.

      What’s more important here — the diversity aspect or the elevation of an idea? Aren’t the ideas what it’s all about anyway?

      I’m so sick of the lecturing and looking at the underside of everything. Instead of trying to make everyone feel guilty because there was an insufficient representation of black people, why not just celebrate an educated, passionate coalescence of concerned citizens?

  • http://www.theantcrat.com Xian Do

    There are times that I believe the best thing for journalists (notably the TV talking heads) is this…
    Before they begin reporting on any news story, the journalist places his or her hand on a Bible (or whatever text they hold sacred) and repeat the following:

    “I solemnly swear that the news report I am about to give will be the truth…
    …the whole truth…
    …and nothing but the truth…
    …so help me, Edward R. Murrow.”

    Just a thought.

    • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

      I agree – it is a good way to self-test :)

      • SuwaneeBen

        Great point.
        And, It should be the guide for all rad/tv/jrnl/net authors.
        Sad though, it would require a “Law” and involve the FCC (Frequent Cuss Counters).
        FCC is as useful as Brains for a Liberal…..sorry, Progressive!
        “A Mass of info for a Mush of Sense.”
        SuwaneeBen

  • Richard Boerner

    Bernie:
    I always enjoy listening to your commentary. I did observe the sparks that flew between you and O’Reilly, and I think your objections to describing the tea party participants as a diverse group was off base. The tea parties are not sponsored or promoted by any political party. They are sponsored by concerned conservatives, who like me (I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat), are fearful for the future of this country. The participants are truly demographically diverse – some even voted for Obama. To impugn someone because you felt that the attendees were lacking in political diversity (I do not know how that you could possibly know that with certainty) is flat wrong . I would not expect any liberal democrats to attend, nor did I hear anyone on Fox explicitly state or imply that this was so. From the verbage used to describe the diversty of the attendees, I heard a description of demographic diversity. Perhaps you heard something else.

  • An Objective Question

    When you say:
    “What if they dominated the newsroom? What if they thought their conservative values were superior to liberal values? What if almost all of them always vote for the conservative Republican candidate running for president? What if they socialize with like-minded conservatives and rarely come into contact with liberals? Does anyone think the news wouldn’t be slanted to the Right? Of course it would. That’s how it works in the real world when the deck is stacked.”

    Is that that an admission that Fox News slants the news and stacks the deck?

    • http://www.theantcrat.com Xian Do

      It’s an admission that the NY Times, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, BBC News, Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, CNN, and MSNBC….and a multitude of other bastions of objective journalism…slant the news and stack the deck.
      And probably have been for decades.

      By singling out Fox News in your so-called “Objective Question”, is that an admission that you are a fraud and a belligerent partisan hoping to troll for attention?

      • James

        I think no, to be fair, that AOQ is not trolling for attention but rather calling attention to the irony of the quoted passage. Let’s be honest here: FOX is just as guilty of bias as the NYT.

  • John D

    Dear Bernie,

    I very much enjoyed your discussion with Bill O’Reilly tonight. I believe you did FOX News a service by pointing out some growing problems with some of their personalities. As an avid FOX News viewer, I too have been bothered by some of the partisan advocacy disguised as honest reporting. FOX News has long been accused of this (often unfairly), but now they seem to be lending credibility to their critics.

    Although O’Reilly was defensive of his colleagues, he seemed receptive to your criticism, which is FAR more encouraging than how CBS News treated you when you criticized them.

    Thanks for calling it like you see it.

  • Edgar Solorzano

    Mr. Goldberg, do you know the difference between a journalist and a honest commentator? A journalist makes up stuff to talk about, and uses his wordsmith to convince others he knows what he is talking about and important. A commentator shares his heart and feelings how he see’s the world and share what he has learned. Let’s call a spade a spade. The American people will be heard. You are a Fringe, so called journalist, the so the called Media that are main stream jounalists. The people who label Americans who believe in values and loyalty to their country and have principles. The families that care, who are members of the charities and send donations. Do you think the majority of the American people are Hispanic or Afro American? They are still caucasian. They too voted for the current administration. Buyer’s remorse. From Wikipedia. A reminder. The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the indigenous populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.

  • Danny

    I agree with your point of view expressed on O’Reilly this evening. A good example was Shawn Hannity’s show about the Valley in CA in which the water was shut off assumably to protect some 2 inch fish. He interviewed a gentlemen with another point of view whom invited him to to examine the other side. Shawn would not let him talk and ridiculed him. I do not see Fox as fair and balanced with an attitude like that. He should have let him have his say, agreed to look in to it and then reported what he found out. But Shawn had his own agenda. By the way. Though I don’t always agree with him, I had no problem with him till now.

    • SuwaneeBen

      Closet.
      And, you know it.
      Have a good day.

      • Fie

        I wonder if there is precedent for exiling someone to another state? We might have to send you to Alabama….if they’ll have you. Or even better, California.

  • LlightSaber

    What I find most interesting about this is that there are no ambitious journalists in the lot.
    No one with curiosity? No one with the drive? The courage? The individuality? Ironically, what’s on display with the msm is not their elite educational backgrounds but their stunning ignorance. The fact that not one among them can see far enough down the road to envision the far-reaching impact such a journalist could make speaks volumes about their intellect, creativity and character.

    While they may look down on the ideas of judgement and competition and favor an equal playing field, somewhere down the road, at some point in time, there will come a time when there is a journalist who is gifted and who will record history, and they will be judge today’s “journalists” harshly. Maybe names will be named: those whose complicity with this administration very nearly contributed to the fall of America. Take note: Brian Williams (a disloyal SOB – the first to turn on Don Imus), Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson (how’s that Bush doctrine thing workin’ out for you? “Acorn? What’s Acorn?) Jeffrey Immelt, David Gregory (the second to turn on Don Imus). At least with Krugman and Begala you know where they stand; they don’t hide who they are. But the rest of the lot, they don’t even have the spine to be…….what’s the word of the day?……….ah, “transparent.”

    • SuwaneeBen

      GREAT comment, Sir.
      Thank you.

  • SuwaneeBen

    Having just viewed your segment on BOR, I must say your views are as skewed as every other liberal.
    Your party has the most corrupt, hand-pecked, individuals in American history.
    The coming elections will kill your grip on both houses.
    If not, America will die.
    America will die, just as your plan and wishes unfold.

    Wake up, Conservative American’s.
    The Global Warming, Light Bulb changing, Hybrid driving Nut Cases are trying to rule the 85% SANE AMERICANS.

    Let us now shut the 15%’er’s DOWN!

    Ben White
    Suwanee, GA

    • Jackie

      People who try to be kinder to the environment are nut cases? You’re implying that these people are insane? Who’s the real nutcase here?

  • Jaime Exeter

    I just saw you on The Oreilly Factor and you had the guts to say what most of the fawning guests (acolytes) on his show didnt say about the “fair and balanced” Fox news criticism in regards to journalists and commentaries….Ive never seen you so adamant and correct thast Oreilly “knew” you were right…Keep up the objectivity

  • speedball

    I would not use the New York TImes or any other mullett wrapper to line the bottom of my birds cage.

  • EddieD_Boston

    The media today is populated by people raised in very affluent suburbs who went to elite private schools and then on to Ivy League universities. Most of them are pampered and grew up divorced from the realities of the paycheck to paycheck existence of 90% of the country. Look at their general contempt for the men and women in the military. They don’t know ANYONE in the service because nobody in their circle of friends joined. The military is by and large an option for the poor and working class and everybody in their neighborhoods were upper middle class or wealthy. Growing up comfortable leaves plenty of time to worry about global warming.

  • btorocco

    Bernie, I like to call it bias by omission. It’s what they DON”T tell you that gives them away. By omitting half the story they insert their bias by default while they can claim that they ‘never said that’. That’s why Fox is perceived as ‘right wing’ because they do NOT omit what the others do and also commit the unforgiveable sin of giving conservatives a fair shake.

  • MCHnDFW

    It has been obvious for decades just how left leaning the main-scream media was becoming, and if it hadn’t been then the outright bitterness towards the newer center right media outlets that sprang up – who filled the void they created – would not have been nearly as vicious, belittling, and hateful.

    I had been cursing the msm as halfwits and incompetents for years but the day that Al Gore proclaimed the global warming debate over and the msm blindly followed and covered for him and his cronies was the day that really did it for me, I lost all hope for any salvage of the msm.

    The main-scream media has been living in a pink lala land of its own making for decades and they have become a vile bunch of spoiled brats who try to push their view as the only view, and they simply can’t stand being contradicted with fact and reality — much like congress and the rest of the gov knows best thug-ocrats in DC today.

  • Bill

    The NYT should just go out of business. Watching its slow death is painful, as I do like most of its non-political reporting and deep web of sources. However, on all things political, The NYT has been so obviously left-leaning for years that it is laughable that they still trot out their spokespeople to deny any bias. Does anyone think for a minute that the Times would have sat on a story as big as Van Jones or ACORN if they we connected to George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Halliburton? The so-called “Newspaper of Record” deliberately sat on these stories because their man in the White House was being embarrassed on a daily basis by the slow drip of seamy and sordid stories of one of his biggest support groups. The Times simply wanted the story to run its course and go away. When it did not, the Times simply says it was “slow on the uptake.” NO KIDDING!!! Same story with all the Czars, Socialists, Communists and assorted nutjobs serving in Obama’s Administration. Same with Reverend Wright, et.al. Same ol, same old. The NYT is a dinosaur and should go extinct.

  • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

    I think if NBC gets the exclusive rights of covering the war in Afghanistan Obama will start paying attention to the war. He may even go to Afghanistan – do a speech and shake hands with our Commandment there for a photo-op. Looks like our President just turned to be a lobbyist for NBC and their Mother-Corporation. Unfortunately NBC and their owners are more concern about Olympics and their business with Iran.

  • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

    I grew up in the USSR – there were 2 TV programs and one local – total – the same view. NY Times do not bother me. We have freedom of speech here in the USA. I am proud to be an American now. Liberals, socialists, communists /although they are wrong/ have the right to express their believes. Let them be. As long as conservatives, libertarians and everybody else have the same freedom – I am fine. The nation needs all ideas to be able to make their way to the public – people have brains to decide – it is called democracy – new ideas emerge every day – make our world better each day. The scary thing is when Government gives a shoulder and money to propagandize sustain idea – that is dangerous and unacceptable. NBC do not bother me – until the point where the President is plugging in for their Corporation’s business with Russia or with the Olympics – in return they spill green /as in money not as in nature/ propaganda.

    • EddieD_Boston

      Excellent point. Let the free market decide.

    • http://www.theantcrat.com Xian Do

      I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, Ellie.
      Our concern is this:
      Opinions are fine…nobody here is demanding censorship of personal views or opinions.

      But when a powerful institutionalized organization (The Mainstream Media) claims to be the epitome of unbiased impartiality and unvarnished facts yet are blatantly, and constantly, violating such claim…and dismissing any criticism of their failure with blithe indifference…then they are no better than PRAVDA in its heyday.
      In fact, they’re worse.
      At least PRAVDA openly admitted they were a state-run news source.

      • http://ellievellie.wordpress.com Ellie

        I read Pravda and Komsomolskaya Pradva and Moskovskaya Pravda. They did not openly admit to anything /until Gorbachev perestroika and glasnost/. They didn’t have to. The only other view – different then communist’s was coming from VOA and BBC radios – and the signal was always distorted. There was no “other stream” media in the USSR only a government media. There is plenty of free conservative media in the USA. The so called Main Stream Media here is not institutionalized – it is private – and it is … corrupt.

        • http://justanotherbagofhotair.blogspot.com Dan

          Ellie,

          It may be true that, compared to the media in the former USSR, our media is more conservative and more unbiased. However, that’s like comparing a rock to a piece of cotton. There really is no difference. In the USSR, the State owned the media – therefore, they owned the information. In this country, it’s not the State, but GE, CBS/Paramount, Rupert Murdoch, and Disney that own the media – therefore, Jeff Immelt, Les Moonves, Mr. Murdoch, and Robert Iger own the information. As John Mayer, in his song “Waiting For the World to Change,” so eloquently put it, “When they own the information/they can bend it all they want.”

          My problem with the so-called mainstream media is the lack of FACTS in their stories. Except for breaking news, when information is flowing fast and it’s hard to keep up, the so-called journalists (on BOTH sides, Bernie) resort to opinion-mongering and “interpretation,” instead of taking a Joe Friday approach (“just the facts, ma’am”) to the news. I don’t want to hear someone else’s interpretation of the facts, or their opinion of what happened. Someone else’s opinion – a government official, a law enforcement officer, an eye-witness – okay, that’s a fact. But it’s attributable to someone else. When a reporter offers an opinion, who are they attributing it to? Themselves? Who cares what they think? They’re REPORTERS – that means, they REPORT.

          When I was a news reporter, my two greatest idols were Edward R. Murrow (because he was one of the first) and Clark Kent – yes, that Clark Kent. It was not because of the fact he was secretly Superman, but because he stood for TRUTH – ironically, what “pravda” means in Russian. TRUTH means FACTS, not OPINIONS. Both liberal and conservative media would do well to remember that.

          And Ellie, if no one has told you yet, or even if they have – welcome to the United States of America!

          • http://justanotherbagofhotair.blogspot.com Dan

            Ugh. After reading my analogy, I realize it didn’t work so well. Probably comparing a rock to another rock would have been better. Oh, well…

  • Ed Fix

    “…a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert …or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan…”

    So, appearing biased is a problem, so they need to work harder on an appearance of impartiality.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Krisalyn

      I found just what I was needed, and it was eentrtaniing!

  • TomF

    More evidence that Clark Hoyt doesn’t get it: His sources are well-known liberals. Whenever conservatives interview fellow conservatives, libs accuse them of “bias.” What do you call a liberal who uses liberals for sources? Any “information” derived from such conversations should be considered suspect.

  • http://windowsxp linda digiacomo

    You are again correct! im not interested in the politics of the troop that was killed im only interested in the facts that destroyed him and his family! We all know reporters have opinions but we prefer they keep them to themselves. They can no longer do this is a comprehensives manner. they r reaching out .on a limb…. to have a great quote or opinion that will click and be sung on a daily basis. I dont give a crap what they think or their excuses. report the news. plain and cleanly. They are overstepping their bounds as we all know.Take that ass on msnbc that referred to the gun slinger at a town hall and then remarked on race and fear among the races? Turns out he was black.That was a horrible lie- full of misinformation from an idiot that clearly is in over her pay grade.

    Chris mattews with tingle legs . this is something we do not ever want to hear or visualize on a news program! we need them all to clean house read the news and shut the hell up!

    • http://justanotherbagofhotair.blogspot.com Dan

      LOL! “Tingle legs.” Yeah, that’s one mental image I’m going to have a hard time getting rid of.

      Take Keith Olbermann – he of the, “It’s deep, and I don’t think it’s playable” (describing a home run), or, “He put the biscuit in the basket” (describing a hockey goal). He’s always been a bit snarky, but he has no real knowledge of politics other than HIS OPINION. But let’s be clear, his show is not labeled as a news show. To be fair, he was hired to give HIS OPINION on the air. But even OPINIONS should be backed up by FACTS. His one-liners on ESPN were usually backed up by statistics or play-by-play. His one-liners on MSNBC have no basis in anything except the gray matter between his ears – and it’s woefully empty of true FACTS about not only politics, but what’s happening in this nation today.

      Jeff Immelt must be very happy with his puppets at 30 Rock. And now that he’s in the administration, he can tout MSNBC as “The Official Network of Barack Obama.” Talk about being in the tank…

  • Nalora

    “You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.” it is said. And the same is true with New Media/Old Media and bias. We all see it now. We have “adjusted” to it. We use our brains to filter it all by what bias we know exists at any particular place. What most Old News outlets fail to comprehend, is that the real bias is elitism on every side. The old media is being left in the dust because they believe that human beings (other than their own peer group) are stupid. The OLDmedia is no longer leading the conversation, and have not figured that out yet. They are talking to themselves, and are missing out on the REAL conversation taking place out here, in the real world.

  • Bob

    Eff! Race again?