Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Lies, damn lies, and liberal media bias
Published on September 30, 2003 By Draginol In Politics

Those who say there isn't a liberal bias in the media should take a closer look at what the media chooses to report on. It doesn't even take long to discover that the issues that get reported tend to be ones dear to liberal causes.

Let me give you a good example:

Today the news covered how any millions of people are not covered by medical insurance.  It was reported repeatedly on NPR, CNN, ABC News, and CBS evening news (didn't see NBC but I bet it was reported there).

Is that really big news though? If so, consider this: When was the last time the news reported on how many abortions were performed in a given quarter?  Can you recall the last time you heard of the # of crimes foiled by armed citizens with gun permits? How about the last national comparison of how religious based private schools fair to public funded schools?  Or for that matter, the amount of money spent by religious based charities versus "secular" based charities on public works?

The statistics are out there. Waiting to be reported. While I am personally pro-choice, I would be there are many millions of Americans who are quite concerned about the # of abortions performed each quarter. I don't suppose you'll hear NPR report those numbers even as they repeated no less than 4 times today while I was listening the uninsured statistics.

And somehow I don't expect to see Dan Rather do a report on the amount of crimes stopped thanks to an armed citizenry even though the statistics are out there (and I'm sure the NRA would be pleased to share those stats with journalists). Yet somehow CBS never has a problem reporting on the "millions" of homeless (though strangely these reports are most often done when a Republican is President).

So next time you listen to the news, take note of what statistics they choose to report on. I suspect you'll find that the statistics almost always are ones that strengthen the liberal side of a given debate while simultaneously urging governmental action.


on Sep 30, 2003
I agree there seems to be a bias in the media, or something weird going on (as I posted in my Wilongate article). But as a tongue in cheek rebutal, I would say that the news that the media choose not to report are the ones that would weaken the conservative side of a give debate

And this health story did not seem to last long ... I cannot find it on CNN front page anymore (but it's still in the NY times).
on Sep 30, 2003
With regard to Wilsongate, I think the main reason it didn't get reported is that the story is "complicated" relatively speaking and not terribly interesting. Some minor operative that was the spouse of an ambassador was leaked to the press. This wans't some "spy". That was someone who already had diplomatic immunity anyway. It's something that needs to be looked at but doesn't really rise to the level of being front page news in my book.
on Oct 01, 2003
Then your book agrees with Fox news, which is not reporting on it. (I did not find this myself, I thank the Agonist).
on Oct 01, 2003
A followup on media coverage, very interesting: Calling a Lie a Lie.
on Oct 01, 2003
Interesting reading I guess. If you like blantantly incorrect articles. I read till this point: On the economy, Bush said that the middle class would reap the gains of his tax cuts, which in fact were regressive.

Amusing really that it completely contradicts the reality of todays economics. An AP article Tax cuts help spur higher spending in July, August shows just what those tax cuts are doing.

on Oct 01, 2003
Indeed. While everyone is guilty ofmessing with stats on occasion, the left does it in the most cynical way.

Across the board tax cuts do indeed benefit "the rich" than everyone else in terms of who gets raw dollars because they pay the most taxes.

Half the adult population pays essentially no taxes. So a tax cut for them means nothing because they aren't paying to begin with.

The top 10%, however, pay over 90% of the bill. So a flat 10% tax cut for everyone means that the top 10% are going to get 90% of the benefit. So what?
on Oct 01, 2003
TidalPoet: you really stopped reading at that point ? Too bad, the nice thing was afterward, when the author explains how journalist prefer to attack on small things (he slept with he secretary) than on big things, as the latter may be read as political partisanship. I like the way he presented his point.

I'm also surprised that the only thing you disagreed with was the economy. Do you agree with the other lies ?
on Oct 03, 2003
Brab_Alan: Did you agree with all his points? If so, when one is proven wrong, would you not think it wise to go back and investigate the rest, just to be sure? Reporters and writers have credit until they're proven to be liars themselves. I went back and read the other lies and the rest of the article, as I said, I quit reading it - not because it was poorly written mind you.

A number of different scholars disagree mightily about Global Warming. I guess if he picked one side and sided with it, he can say he was right. But was he correct in not reporting the fact that just because -he- picked one side that there wasn't in fact another group who disagreed with him? Horribly biased reporting in this case.

The money was indeed funding abortions overseas. I heard the entire senate debate on this topic, after the fact. Groups that were considered part of the family planning process were indeed encouraging, counseling, and helping with pre-care and outpaitent care for abortions. While they specifically might not have been paying the doctor bill to have the child killed, they were in fact being paid tax dollars for contributing to abortions. If you believe complex medical procedures are only one incision then I guess the reporter is correct.

Stem cell research: Many, many other reporters have come out stating the sixty lines is in fact, incorrect - there are 78. Currently only one is sharing it's line with medical researches, while many others are in litigation and dealing with congressional matters. That isn't to say the other 77 are not even being used - but are being used by private groups. Promise of stem cell research still years away

So, really - are you trying to base your argument on that article? It's bunk. I can write better than that and have. At least fact check an article before representing it as some kind of truth.

on Oct 04, 2003
I did not base any argument on the article, and I did not agree with all its points. The lie part was interesting, and as you said some of these were not true. The part I found really interesting was the end of the article. I'm not even pretending it's true (I'm sorry if I said something that could be interpreted that way, I'm not a native speaker), just interesting.