• Hello Maryann
    Three conservatives have told me that the media is biased. That is not surprising so that leaves my questions unanswered.
    Does the perceived left-wing media really stacked the deck for Hillary Clinton? Same thing question for the Iraq war funding? I don’t think so.
    Remember how Joe would write a disclaimer at the bottom of a questionable letter. That is what I was referring to. I remember the battles between you and Joe and I admit he did cross the line when he started bashing the Catholic Church.
    Like I said let’s wait and see with the Victoria Advocate endorses in the upcoming election. I think the owners decide.

    December 3, 2007 at 5:32 p.m.

  • Is there media bias? Sure, but it's not always a bad thing. From my point of view, CBS and CNN, among others, are t.v. outlets stacked to the liberal/Democrat side.   Fox News, I believe, is also biased. O'Reilly might say, "The Spin Stops Here," but he does a fine job of creating it too. No problem, because I prefer to have news with a conservative bent. To watch CBS or CNN would give me high blood pressure, make me angry, and give reason for my husband to tell me to can it, that the guys on the t.v. can't hear me.
    I don't think in this day and age that we can have a totally unbiased media outlet because of funding. Who pays for what? That's why I don't rely on Fox, the Victoria Advocate, or KSAT 12 for news, but I try to get a few over a few days.
    Mike, I civilly disagree with your point of view on the editorship of this newspaper. The previous editor, was a big dog liberal, and yes, he took a stance, and it was firmly entrenched in the politics of the left- pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-killing embryonic stem cells. The guy had a death chant. 
    It seems like the present editor doesn't topple over to the left. I have no delusions, but the paper has seem to have centered itself a tiny bit. Why, look at the editorial today- about supporting the Salvation Army, and not a pointed arrow jutting out anywhere about right wing conservative religious fanatics.... What a nice peaceful change.
    I don't care to mince words or hide behind euphemisms, if one is for killing babies in the womb,  he or she should have the fortitude to admit the postition for abortion- which means pro-abortion. Since lives are being lost because of this position, these people should have the honesty to own up to what they actually support- killing babies in the womb, to the tune of 4,000 a day in this country.

    December 2, 2007 at 8:47 p.m.

  • Hello Ernie
    That was a very good example you cited but I think it was media stereotyping rather than media bias. The words pro-abortion or anti-abortion are a good example. Is anyone really pro-abortion or do they see a little grey?
    Air America turned into a get Bill OReilly when Al Franken was on, and Randi Rhodes is just a constant whiner. I watch Keith Olbermann for laughs but it is also insightful from the left side of course.
    I do not believe Brian Williams of NBC or Charlie Gibson will suppress the nightly news in favor of the Democrats. Everyone has feelings and tendencies. but I think those two show their professionalism.
    I will write a three blogs on illegal immigration later this month one on security, one on the economics and the last the politics of this issue.
    The Tyler situation was first hashed out as police v DA and the same people were waiting for a big case. They got in the Ratliff case.
    You know I never listen to PBS, but I think it is just like the endowment of the arts, and our representatives are scared to put up legislation to get rid of them.
    I am reading Ron Brownstein’s new book “The Second Civil War” that explains how extreme partisanship has paralyzed Washington and this country.
    I don’t back away from the “liberal” unless you put me into the Code Pink or PITA type. I am more of “live and let live”.

    Got to go but I will always answer your question.

    December 2, 2007 at 7:53 p.m.

  • I shall try again....
    Media bias does exist.
    Now before you get all up in arms, let me clarify. The media - television, newspapers, magazines, radio, - are operated by organizations comprised of humans and humans, most of them, have opinions, feelings and emotions. So expecting the media to be wholly without bias is pretty much akin to asking most of us to continue living without breathing. It ain't likely to happen.
    That being said however, Larry Elder in his book "Showdown" cited this revealing example of the subtle media bias you can find in much of the "mainstream" media today: As one of Clinton's first actions as president in '93 he struck down some antiabortion legislation instituted by Ronald Regan as he had stated during the campaign that he would do. In 2001 Bush-41 reversed a proabortion policy of Clinton's. Here's how two of the mainstream media giants saw those two events.  Peter Jenkins of ABC news: 1) "President Clinton keeps his word on abortion rights." and 2) "One of the president's [Bush] first actions was designed to appeal to abortion conservatives." Meanwhile, Tom Brokaw on NBC saw the two events in this light: 1) "Today President Clinton kept a campaign promise...." and 2) "...the new president's [Bush] very active day...started on a controversial note." Reporting the facts? Yes. Without bias? Hardly. Clinton reported as "President Clinton" and a promise keeper. Bush reported simply as the "new president" and "controversial" and appealing to conservatives.
    Admittedly I don't watch every newscast nor read every newspaper printed but I do keep up with the news that affects me and the news that affects our nation and I see enough to occasionally "read between the lines" enough to pick up a lot of this innuendo.  Granted, too, there are the obvious niche news sources (if you want to call them that) that cater to the liberal or to the conservative groups but if one discounts these sources and sticks with the "mainstream" media, I do believe that certainly the majority of televised news and much of the print media is left of center. And yes, there is the venerable Fox News that, depsite their 'fair and balanced' motto, obviously presents the news in a conservative light. The one thing I'd have to say in their favor is that they're much less subtle than the example cited above. It is the responsibility of the media to present the facts - without coloring them, without editorial comment unless specifically stated as such and without bias and without selective editing.
    I don't have the opportunity to listen to a lot of talk radio but have heard Rush and Imus.... and Air Amercia which airs on PBS. fercryinoutloud! Now Rush tends to give me gas (must be contagious) and O'reilly can be agonizingly overbearing but as far as I'm aware, neither Rush, Imus, O'reilly, Hannity or any of the other conservative hosts (or Brokaw, Jennings and Rather for that matter) is publicly funded. They have a market and if it's pays for their programming, more power to 'em, I don't have a beef with that. But PBS is publicly funded and with that I do have a beef. Imagine the uproar if my tax dollars supported a national initiative to, say, put the Nativity on the White House lawn!
    I used to (attempt) to converse on Air America's website for some give and take with the other side but doing so there sanely and without personal attacks is an exercise in futility. I enjoy the debating and hashing out a workable alternative with the opposing side but I think it needs to be done within the confines of remembering that, in the end, we're on the same damn side! Often I think we forget that. And I see that same mentality much too prevalent in national politics and considering this Tyler thing, in local politics as well. Our adversarial system of checks-and-balances government has come to resemble a political Super Bowl 2008 wherein the only concern is which party emerges victorious and any means necessary is acceptable to be the winner.
    I've read many of your posts and some of your blogging and find you to be one of the most level-headed and cogent people in these forums... and a liberal to boot. :) (May I call you a "liberal"? You did say in one of your posts that you're "left of center" after all.) I relish the opportunity to hash out some of these issues with you. I expect to discover that while we differ sometimes in the methodology, we have a lot of common ground to work from and many of the same goals to work toward.

    December 2, 2007 at 2:32 p.m.

  • Mike there is very little doubt in my mind that there is a Liberal bias in much of the Media. That being said with the advent of Cable and the Internet we now have lots of right wing biased news outlets as well. I like to look at important issues from all sides. I am a regular reader/viewer of The Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, American Spectator, Weekly Standard, and I think this is a nice mix of both right wing & left wing information you can piece together and find a semblance of truth.

    Long live the Republic,

    December 2, 2007 at 12:13 p.m.

  • Mike,
    Tried to leave a long comment about your post but got logged off and lost about two hours' work. :(
    Will try again soon as there's much I'd like to discuss with you but too whupped to type all that again.
    Blog something about the illegal immigration issue. Was reading your and others' posts in response to the Letter to the Editor of 11/27 (I think it was) and would like to address some of those issues with you but too late to do so in that forum. Hey, I have a job and was working that day, ok?  :-)

    December 1, 2007 at 11:47 p.m.