The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? Part 3

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 3: "Working The Ref"

"What do you mean I wrecked the economy and lied about going to war?! You're not seriously gonna call that are you? ARE YOU?!"

by Tyrone L. Heppard

   Whether the people like them or hate them, Fox News is having an impact on everyone. Ironically enough, we see the liberal bias argument coming from the right; the same people that Fox tailors its news for. In fact, Fox News actively does what it can to help spread the word about the ‘obvious’ liberal bias in the media. For example last year, Fox News anchor Sean Hannity aired a documentary called “Behind the Bias: The History of Liberal Media.” His claim is that for years, the media has been going out of their way to portray republicans, “as either evil or stupid”.

Sean Hannity talking about media bias. Pot, meet kettle.

   The problem with this theory is that in order for that to be the case, there would have to be a certain power in journalists’ hands they frankly don’t have. In addition, there’s evidence showing some people who talk about there being a media bias know that it’s just a talking point that can’t be proven. Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation, wrote “What Media Bias?” in 2003. He opens it up with two quotes said during a 1992 interview by a man named Rich Bond while he served as the chair of Republican Party:

   Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election – and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one.” 

   Alterman continues to give examples of top conservative pundits and republican leaders who “kid” about the liberal media bias and how it was, “often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." In other words, not only does the right admit that that liberal media bias is a bunch of malarkey, they admit to using it to justify whenever something doesn’t go their way.

   In addition, it’s clear that the mindset among conservative thinkers is to pressure the media on purpose. By calling reporters and journalists biased now, the same journalists will be less inclined to do their job when there’s actually something newsworthy or of public concern to report. Understanding this point will become crucial when we take a look at who truly holds the sway over what goes across a TV news outlet’s air waves.

   Try as I may, I was hard-pressed to find a psychologist (or a psychiatrist for that matter) who was good enough at their job yet informed enough about politics to look a the GOP's constant assertion of a bias in media that doesn't exist and to come up with a diagnosis. I failed to do so, but I think I found the next best thing.

   So it looks like I'm ending class early today; but don't worry, there will be a lot covered tomorrow - even a movie to watch! What should you expect? Here's a hint.

Tomorrow: Part 4: "Manufacturing Consent" 

The Day Socialism Came to America- The 2008 Election

By Kenny Brown

Whatever happened to this great country? What has happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave? When did we sell out our capitalist values for Russian style socialism?

I will tell you when. It was the day in 2008 that we elected Barack Hussein Obama as our President. Before that day this country never allowed the government to fund and control medical programs and health care. We never let taxpayer dollars go to bailout companies. We never had any socialized programs. Extreme debt and fiscal issues did not exist. We only had honest, hard working men in Washington and the White House and Barack Obama has changed all of that.

Scandals within government have arisen and that has never happened before, the deficit went up for the first time in the recorded history of the country, and people started receiving Food Stamps and welfare out of nowhere. In one moment, when all the votes were tallied on that November night in 2008, America began to drown in a sea of Socialist values and corruption. America was deflowered.

A new age of taxation began where people were lead to believe that a Government could only exist if it taxed it's citizens. We lost a lot on that day. We lost the hard work of George Bush. The magic of the Reagan years where the budget was balanced, debt never rose and scandals involving Middle Eastern countries were unheard of. And it has happened again.

The US citizens, working through Democracy, have reelected and decided to continue this Age of Socialism. We have never seen anything like this before. I just hope we can get back to the regular, debt free, civil liberty filled, constitution loving, Conservative lifestyle we all were accustomed to. Especially those years of personal responsibility and small government we saw under modern Republican leaders.


-Rush Limbaugh approved.

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? Part 2

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 2: We Got the Numbers!

by Tyrone L. Heppard  

   

   With regard to a liberal bias in American media, everyone thinks they have evidence that backs up their side. This is because surveys have been taken that “prove” and “disprove” the existence of such a bias.

   Take for instance the Media Research Center whose taglines include, “I don’t believe the liberal media” and, “America’s media watchdog”. You only need to spend 10 minutes on their official website to find out that they decry any media coverage that, ironically enough, doesn’t conform to the traditional conservative line of thought; but more on that later.

   They did, however, do some research that needs to be considered as far as liberal media bias is concerned. In the annals of the MRC archives, there’s a 1981 study conducted by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman (of George Washington University and Smith College, respectively) in the form of a book called “The Media Elite”.

   Lichter and Rothman set out to survey journalists and reporters to learn more about their political attitudes and voting patterns. They interviewed people who worked in either the newspaper or TV business. Among those surveyed were the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, PBS, ABC, NBC and other media outlets.

   In 1986, David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilholt publish “The American Journalist” which helps back up the results of the Lichter-Rothman study. They surveyed 136 staffers and executives from the Associated Press, United Press International and the Boston Globe – who they thought represented the elite media. 32.3 percent of reporters said they rated themselves as more liberal; only 11.8 percent called themselves conservative. Also, out of all the journalists surveyed, 43 percent said they were democrats and only six percent said they were republican.

   Okay - so the reporters tend to be liberals who vote democratic. What about the audience though? They are the ones who ultimately have to decide whether they buy the argument; that because journalists tend to vote democratic, they are likely to push a liberal agenda in the media. For an answer to that question, we have to look at who Americans like to get their news from.

   Before looking at which media outlets Americans trust and distrust the most, much like the journalists, we have to look at the voting patterns of the general American public. According to the right-leaning Rasmussen Reports, polls in April 2012 showed that the 36.4 percent of Americans are republicans, 33.4 are democrats and 30.2 percent are 3rd party or independent voters.

   Earlier this year, Public Policy Polling released the results of their 3rd annual news trust polls. They asked people their opinions of many of the major TV news outlets (Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC) as well as PBS and Comedy Central (due to the popularity of the Daily Show and The Colbert Report). Right away, there are some very interesting results.

So the only people who trust Fox News are the people who work there?

   With 34 percent of the vote, Fox News turned out to be the most trusted and distrusted news source for Americans; they topped both lists. Underneath Fox in the trust column, people said they trusted PBS next (17%) followed by CNN (12%) and ABC (11%). The other outlets didn’t even break double digits. Those who distrusted Fox first said they distrusted Comedy Central most after that (16%). MSNBC (15%) and CNN (11%) followed.

   As far as who people trusted based on party affiliation, democrats say they trust PBS, ABC and CBS the most (with 21%, 19% and 17%, respectively) while 53 percent of democrats said they didn’t trust Fox. Republicans all said they trusted Fox the most with 68 percent of the vote; MSNBC is their least trusted TV news source with 28 percent of the vote.The results from the polling show two important things with regard to the liberal media bias. 

   First, when compared to the results of similar polls taken in 2010 and 2011, the data shows that despite all of this talk of a liberal bias, trust in TV news has been on the rise. Second, republicans don’t seem to trust anything but Fox News, while both democrats and independents think everyone except Fox is legitimate.

   So what's their angle? Why keep harping on something that people aren't buying? I'm sure there's a simple explanation. Seriously. This won't take long....

Tomorrow: Part 3: "Working the Ref"

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction?

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 1: Please, Consider The Following

by Tyrone L. Heppard

   

   The extent to which the news influences us every day is no secret. Not only that, but it turns out that contrary to popular belief, people develop preferences in news outlets; they don’t just blindly follow the loudest pundit on TV and base their morals and personal politics on what they hear people say.

   Studies have shown that in general, we all trust the network we chose to get our news from. In fact, according to statistics, anyone who is even mildly interested in news supports their news source much like a sports fan supports their favorite team. However, both liberals and conservatives believe that our media serves the interest of the elite.

   Who is this “elite”? If you ask a liberal, they’d probably say it’s Congress or whoever is working for the president (at least that was the case when Bush was in office); it might even be the multi-national corporations and the fat cats on Wall Street who have the media outlets in their back pockets. A conservative would definitely say that the media caters to the left; that a majority of the news is delivered by liberals and, therefore, most TV news outlets work to promote the agenda of liberal elites.

This guy's so ashamed of his corrupt country, he cant show his face

   They would even give it a name: liberal media bias. But what exactly is liberal media bias? Is there even evidence that backs up their claim that the Fourth Estate is run “for liberals, by liberals”? If that’s the case, then what is the liberal agenda? What have they been working so hard to push on or hide from the American people? Furthermore, if this is all accurate and can be proven, is it even working? Why or why not?

   There is plenty speculation coming from the conservative side of the table but not much evidence. For example, if someone were to ask Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain about why they received any negative press during their quests for the republican presidential nomination, they would blame (and have blamed) the “liberal” media.

   We all know that people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz wear their political hearts on their sleeves, but the only “journalists” on TV who go out of their way to lean left are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and they label themselves as comedians. So in order to answer the question of whether there’s a liberal media bias, we need to ask two questions: what media and whose bias?

   In an attempt to disprove the liberal media bias argument, one would have to take an objective look at various sources and hear from both liberals and conservatives on the issue. First, we’ll look at the most indisputable evidence that there is so far: the poll numbers. Afterwards, experts on the subject of media bias explain why the traditional go-to argument for a conservative is the liberal media bias. Based on the examples given by our experts, we’ll look at some real-world examples from the 2012 election to show how the right attempted to present the media bias angle to the American people.

   With that being said; hey, wonky numbers people! Want to see some statistics?

Tomorrow: Part 2: We Got the Numbers!

Egyptian President Morsi Consolidates Power for Himself and the Muslim Brotherhood

  
 By John Amaruso



In the wake of the so far successful ceasefire brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi has made an attempt to consolidate power for himself and the Muslim Brotherhood. His power grab comes mostly in the form of reductions in the power of the judicial branch, which many see as the only branch of government still ruled by civilians, as the executive and legislative branch's power are vested in the President.

The highest court in Egypt today called Morsi's attempts an "unprecedented assault" on civil liberties and the judicial system. Morsi has claimed the move comes in an attempt to secure the country after it's instability following the removal of former President Hosni Mubarak. President Morsi says this is a short term solution to maintain security until a new constitution can be drafted by the Parliament.

The timing of this comes when international praise for Morsi's mediation skills between Israel and Hamas has lent him considerable credibility. Meanwhile his attempts at oppression at home seeks to undermine his image as a conciliatory and pragmatic figure.

Demonstrations have erupted across the country, and many see this as a slippery slope towards the return of practices under the dictatorship of Mubarak.

The School of the Americas- The Training of Dictators and Assassins With U.S. Tax Dollars Continues

By John Amaruso


The "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation", formerly known as the "School of the Americas" is a U.S. Military training institution owned by the Department of Defense in Fort Benning, Georgia.

The institute has produced some of the most notorious dictators known to the western world such as Gen. Manuel Noriega, former strong man of Panama, to Gen. Roberto Viola, former dictator of Argentina. Many of the institutions graduates have violated human rights, primarily in Latin America.

From Honduras to Guatemala, graduates of the university have funded and participated in violent revolts against democratic powers in an attempt to gain power for themselves and various foreign interests, leaving in their wake thousands of innocent civilians murdered, and countries torn a part.

All of these soldiers and mercenaries are being trained by the U.S. military with OUR tax dollars.

An annual protest is being held this Friday by LUCAP (Loyola University Community Action Program). Comprised of mostly Loyola students, the protest is annual and Nov 16, 2012 marks the 13 year anniversary of the assassination of Jesuit priests who dared to stand up and vocalize their discontent with the assassin training camp.

The organization "The School of the Americas Watch" plans on meeting with President Obama to sway him to sign an executive order to close down the institute.

The School of the America's changed their name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in an attempt to disconnect themselves from their bloody and controversial past.

If you are interested in more information, below are links to some of the organizations who will take part in the demonstrations. Also a list of the most conspicuous of graduates from the institute.

The School of the Americas watch-
http://www.soaw.org/about-us

LUCAP-
http://mm.loyno.edu/volunteer-service/loyola-university-community-action-program
List of those dictators in Latin America trained by the U.S. military at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. (provided by SOAW). Mind you, this is only a short list of the known dictators. There are countless other mercenaries around the world which have not been accounted for.

Why Can't We All Just Recognize Palestine Exists?

"Our image has undergone change from David fighting Goliath to being Goliath"  
          - Yitzhak Shamir, former Israeli prime minister on the state of affairs between Palestine and Israel

President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine at UN council meeting

 

 

 

       
By John Amaruso



 "Facing a lack of progress in their statehood bid, Palestinian leaders said Monday that they would ask the United Nation's General Assembly by month's end to elevate their status in the international body from observer entity to nonmember state"- L.A. Times

         This is the opening paragraph of an article in the L.A. Times reporting on Palestine's second attempt in a year to solicit help from the international community in recognizing their right to exist. Last year a bid for full U.N. membership was largely denied, with help from the U.S. and Israel. This time it's for nonmember status. While it may be symbolic, it is a first step. 

         "On behalf of whom will you present a resolution in September? Mr. Abbas or Hamas?" said Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor after last year's attempt, insinuating that Hamas would lead the newly Palestinian state, and not the current president Mahmoud Abbas. 

         Hamas which opposes Israeli occupation of Palestinian land has operated out of the Gaza Strip and have used terror tactics to gain ground on Israeli forces. They have launched home made missiles and bombs over the Israeli border for years in an attempt to deter Israeli forces from entering Palestinian land. In 2008 the "Gaza War" was initiated by Israel to stop the rocket fire into Israeli territory and to cease the shipment of arms to the terrorist group. The war that lasted three weeks resulted in almost 2,000 Palestinian deaths and only 13 Israeli deaths. It is said that for every 1 Israeli soldier killed in the half century long conflict, almost 4 Palestinian civilians were killed.

         The Palestinian Authority which is the official government of Palestine has denounced the terror tactics employed by groups like Hamas, and does not recognize them as an official political party. Although the Palestinian Authority opposes Hamas's tactics, Israel tends to blur the difference and declare the whole of Palestine a terrorist ran government. Israeli settlements which encroach on Palestinian territory have provided Hamas the needed sympathy and political support from victims to continue their war against Israel from both civilians and government officials alike.

 
         President Mahmoud Abbas has been pragmatic in his approach towards Israel, and since his election in 2008 has reached his hand out to Israel and has warranted U.S. support to come to a peace treaty between the two warring states. He has denied claims that Palestine is attempting to circumvent negotiations between his country and Israel by seeking UN recognition. Mahmoud Abbas said his nation's desire for UN recognition did not have to prevent talks, but instead could potentially be a catalyst for well intentioned and productive talks between Palestine and Israel. UN recognition would give Palestine the ability to seek UN resolutions and support, ultimately undermining Israeli dominance over the region. This would in turn give Palestine the leverage necessary to impede Israel's desires to have the upper hand in negotiations 
 

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia shaking hands with
President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine

         Several countries in Latin America have already recognized the state of Palestine, along with Russia, shown in the picture above with President Mahmoud Abbas and President Dmitry Medvedev shaking hands at UN council meeting. The Obama administration has not announced whether or not it supports Palestine's attempts at gaining recognition for statehood, but has indicated it does not like the unilateralism employed by Palestine to gain recognition by the UN. This comes to no surprise, as the U.S.'s long time alliance with Israel hinders almost any public support for Palestine in their actions. 

 

          Whatever the outcome may be, Palestine seems to be the underdog in this fight. Israel's advanced weaponry, sophisticated intelligence agency and strong security forces have given the nation the upper hand in almost any battle fought against Palestine. Palestine lacks a strong and advanced army, or even an infrastructure worthy of notice. Almost 80% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip live in extreme poverty, while almost half in the West Bank live under the same conditions. This all comes as the result of Israeli sanctions and blockades against the state, which Israel claims is in favor of the national security of Israel to prevent the arms trade to Hamas, but many in Palestine say it is just an attempt to keep the Palestinian state from becoming functional and autonomous. 

 

          One thing is for certain, negotiations between the two countries have yielded nothing, and Israeli ignorance of the Palestinian civilian's livelihoods only further enrages terrorist groups that see Israel as an oppressor of it's people. Meanwhile Israeli citizens are fed propaganda and outrageous claims of Palestinian aggression and savagery against it's people. Both sides must come to an agreement that can facilitate a two state solution that can live side by side without conflict. Although this may seem idealist and paternally optimistic, crazier things have happened.

 

Israel Bombing of Palestine during the 08 Gaza War

         Israel's bullying of the weaker nation has left Palestine no other option but to seek support from the international community, which has normally batted an eye to the demonized state formerly ruled under Hamas. Now that light has been shed on Israeli aggression and violations against Palestine's people and international law, the tables have turned and sympathy has been given to the Palestinian state. Hopefully these two nations can live in peace, and it is in my opinion that the only way this can be achieved is if the playing field between Palestine and Israel are leveled. This will be done through UN recognition of Palestine, which will show Israel that Palestine can't just be pushed around anymore, and that it's violation of Palestinian autonomy won't go unpunished. It's this that Israel worries about, the loss of power over the Palestinian territory which it arrogantly claims is Israel's. 

 

         This could maybe be the beginning of fair and balanced talks between the two countries, and a gradual and eventual downgrade of military power from both sides. It is always said that the stronger party in negotiations does not have to negotiate. Now that Palestine may have the support of the international community, Israel will no longer have that luxury, and maybe the Palestinian people can finally regain their livelihood without the harsh and aggressive sanctions of it's Goliath like neighbor, Israel.