@blankfist, I get what you're afraid of. I agree that what you're worried about is a serious issue, and something to be mindful of, but it isn't a new problem. It didn't spring into existence with the advent of Saturday morning cartoons, and it's certainly not the sole province of "collectivists" -- whoever those people are.

So, what should we do about it? Impugn the motives of any self-identified parent group that takes a stance on the content of children's programming? Try to make it seem like it's only the opposite end of the ideological spectrum that engages in it?

That seems cheap, and disingenuous.

Part of why I'm poking at you is because it's just sounding like another outcry against "liberal bias" in media. I know you well enough to say I don't think that's really all this is, but I'm getting that "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" sensation, and wouldn't mind you dispelling it.

Really, I think your overall concern is propaganda.

I've honestly got no clue what we do about propaganda in the long run. Usually the liberal answer is "more education!", but that's exactly your concern -- that libruls are secretly indoctrinating kids so they're immune to right-wing propaganda.

I actually think propaganda is going to wind up being the greatest threat to humanity over the coming century. Our ability to properly filter signal from noise, now that we've suddenly plugged ourselves into this unfiltered global communication network is going to be key to our long term survival. I still want to believe that being plugged in that way is a good thing, but I'm noticing that people are increasingly choosing to live in a reality of their construction, complete with its own history, rather than the reality they actually inhabit.

That said, I welcome any solution you might have to the problem.

To help you understand better, NinjaInHeat, on American politics, just think on this. The concept of a conservative/liberal agenda news agency did not emerge until Fox News turned from 'journalistic quality' in the early 90's to sensational news coverage. Basically, that 'news' agency started to embrace more weird things and not so much stable ideas. During that time, it was not leaning to one or the other side of the political spectrum. With the 'election' of George W. Bush, the owner of Fox News started to switch it from 'neutral' to 'conservative' journalism. During the first couple of years, pass 2000, more and more Americans started to hear of differences between Fox News an all others.

They called it 'the elite media' or 'leftist media'. In an effort to undermine good journalism in favor of their style of journalism. Journalists/reporters were often charged with the task of reporting the news, as it happened, and allow the audience to form their opinions. They would show facts and evidence, and would stay away from opinionated journalism. Think 'Walter Conkrite'. So, Fox News, turned to having a political 'bent' on news reporting. They often tried to put the Republican President, Mr. George W. Bush in the best possible light. Anyone who remains neutral on the subject would point out, that, it undermines good journalism. They were the last ones to report about events in several spots (i.e. Gitmo), and did try to spin the knowledge of an event in the most favorible manner towards the Republican president and Congress (which until 2006, was controlled by the Republican party).

During this timeline, radio, in an effort to draw more listeners, started to bend towards conservative politics. Radio was getting heavily hammered thanks to the Internet, and needed a gimmick to draw more listeners to its site. Largely to get people to buy products and services the radio stations aired on ads.

Conservative radio, actually changed how Fox News 'reported' information. On talk radio, often the host would try to keep the tone and mood of any discussion on subjects that would anger its listeners. Making callers respond in angered voices. As anyone who has studied psychology will understand. Someone who talks in a calm, rational tone, generally can think and be reasoned with. When someone is beyond angry, their ability to think rationally is severally if not, totally, eliminated. Hence were the concept of 'blind rage' comes from. The Frontal Lobe of the human brain shuts down.

So, back to Fox News, and your question. Any news source that doesn't blindly agree with Fox News or conservative talk radio, is, to those people, liberal media. Whether the media is actually liberal bias or not, is irrelavent. So, for example, CNN (i.e. cnn.com) is considered liberal. The BCC, in England, is liberal. The Washington Times (or is the Post?), is liberal. The Boston Globe, is liberal. Newsweek, Money, and even Forbes, is liberal. Generally, any publication that questions Republicans, is automatically liberal. Conservative media will not show things, that hinder its philosophy or show moderates/liberals in a positive tone.

/end neutral bias

I've seen alot of news coverage by Fox News on the sift here, showing how they undermine good jounalism in favor of the latest spin to keep Republicans out of scrutiny. I'm sure many of the people here could post links of some of the more amusing moments in which Fox News, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly, or even Rush Limbaugh tries to change the facts to place conservatives/Republicans in to the best possible light. And, to lump moderates as liberals. Then, to show liberals/Democrats in the worst possible light.

Honestly, to understand American politics, one needs to listen to all possible sides on a given piece of information or event. Use, 'critical thinking skills', wisdom, and reason, to figure out what the reason information and facts are, THEN, decide on how to accept that information. For most conservatives, and some liberals, that's way to much effort to expect to take in.

Ohhhh, how the US news-mediatainment business has it's claws dug deep. The ideal of professional journalism is not in it's ability to 'show both sides'. It's the duty to tell us what's TRUE and what's FALSE!

There should be no 'Liberal Bias' or 'Conservative Bias' in news, there should be 'This is What Actually Happened and This is What It Means Bias'. News also needs to get over its hang-ups about access to power, as too often you see pathetic grovelling deference shown to politicians - even after they finally get the balls to ask a hard question.

People aren't dissatisfied that their news doesn't tell them what they wanna hear, they're dissatisfied because they know they're being LIED to... constantly. Or, in the very least, know that there's definitely more to the story than what they're being told.

Bachelors and Masters in psychology. I blame it for my liberal bias, all that science and critical thinking .

>> ^quantumushroom:
FOX is doing the job that the 'state-run' mainstream media is supposed to do: question authority. (1) The mainstream media losers are dying both in readership and viewership...and they can't figure out why! (2) If reality had a liberal bias it wouldn't need so many Obamagandists to make theft, class envy and monstrous federal tyranny seem appealing. (3) FOX can have any viewpoint it likes, but it can't lie about the facts. No one can. (4) And the facts do not support the workability or legitimacy of obamacare. (5)

1. State run media? Seriously, proof or stfu, you paranoid mental case.
2. I heard they invented this thing called an "Internet." I'm surprised I have to school you under the circumstances.
3. If the media loves Obama and his health care proposal so much, why do they insist on incessantly spreading stories opposing the idea? Why don't they just expose the bankruptcy of the opposition's bare ideological obstructions? Why don't they just tell us why we need it? I have an answer for you - you're delusional, and the media doesn't love Obama or his health care proposal. The PEOPLE love Obama and his health care proposal, and therefore the media has to report on it if it is to remain viable in the free market.
4. FNC cannot have any viewpoint it likes, it must have the viewpoint of the hard right. Plus, yes they can and have lied about facts. Plus, they can simply ignore the inconvenient facts, so what does it matter anyway?
5. If facts do not support the legitimacy of the current health care ideas, then please explain to us how it is that many nations around the world operate with far more aggressive policies while providing better quality health care to their people. That's a fact. And guess what? It suggests we're not doing enough.

You can't be taken seriously when all you do is point a finger and show no evidence of your batshit claims.

FOX is doing the job that the 'state-run' mainstream media is supposed to do: question authority. That liberals end up looking like fools as a result is because their insolvent and unworkable schemes are foolish.

The mainstream media losers are dying both in readership and viewership...and they can't figure out why! "Golly gosh! What are we doing WRONG?!" For starters, you could act like journalists instead of shilling for the taxocrats, but that's not gonna to happen and really, it's for the best, puts the WIN in Darwin.

If reality had a liberal bias it wouldn't need so many Obamagandists to make theft, class envy and monstrous federal tyranny seem appealing.

FOX can have any viewpoint it likes, but it can't lie about the facts. No one can. And the facts do not support the workability or legitimacy of obamacare.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.

So, why not eliminate the biases of American media by watching a news outlet that isn't based in America? Try the BBC... or does that still have too much of a "liberal" bias for you, WP?

Suggesting that the veracity of claims/statistics/statements should be dismissed outright simply because you perceive the network to be biased one way or another is a pretty poor way to get any facts at all.

The real bias is corporate. There are some clear standouts: MSNBC and FOX NEWS. Everyone else is clearly influenced by their corporate masters.

If you believe in some liberal media conspiracy, that means you are not sane. Period. Look at the parent companies. Dominated by liberals? Not usually.

edit: Oh, look, a questionable report based on paper-thin methodology, supported by a think-tank designed to find liberal bias in the media (big surprise that they found it!), contradicted by a poll that shows the majority of journalists are moderates. Master debater spotted.

Your logical thought process (and your fingers) should look at the list of networks you punch-out (NN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NYT, AP, US) and some kind of conspiracy 'flag' should be thrown up. You mean there are no 'real' news network, and EVERYone is biased ?

Reality has a well-established liberal bias....I think that's a much more rational explanation.

On the website for the Conservative Bible Project they claim,
"Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations...Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English."

Really? King James was a modern liberal?

So what type of thing do they propose removing from the Bible? Here's a notable example:
"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Man, I can't believe Jesus was such a fucking hippy Liberal. Perhaps we could replace that line with something more Conservative like, "Father...either you're with me, or you're with the Romans."

They go on to say, "The Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses"

Oh, joy!

I love reading these arguments about healthcare on VS.

For the most part VideoSift is pretty openminded, and usually has a liberal bias, but when it comes to healthcare there are still scores of people who refuse to step out of their partisan bubble and look at the facts.

I blame McCarthyism. Americans, at least from a non-American point of view, seem to be terrified of their own government. Anytime anyone ever mentions the government actually providing a service or helping out people start screaming "communism" or "socialism" and start freaking out as if the candidate for the USSR just won the presidential election.

Fucking grow up!

The United States is the only industrialized nation without universal health care. The United States also spends more money on health care than any other while having among the lowest actual health. Doesn't that bother you people? Doesn't it bother you that every other industrialized nation is laughing at you for fighting about something they all hold dear and see as the obvious choice? No one ever says, "I wish my country had a health care system like America". Wonder why? Because everyone has better.

Stop running in fear of government programs and get yourselves some health care.

So outside of news, fiction, and school (government school? is that like public school?) what is there? Faux News, propaganda, and Christian school? Reality has a liberal bias.

Yeah, I keep hearing that reality has a liberal bias, yet I've never seen so much propaganda, lies and misinformation helping "the obvious" liberal reality cross the fking street.

Public schools are government schools. You've been enjoying "quality" objective education from pro-government, majority victicrat, unionized employees who can't be fired, and therefore don't have to do much to earn a paycheck besides show up.

Fox News (Faux? how clever!) has been around since 1996. What shite were the Big 3 and CNN broadcasting before then?

It happens when someone taps on the glass outside the liberal thought-prism created by mainstream media, Hollywood garbage and government schools.

So outside of news, fiction, and school (government school? is that like public school?) what is there? Faux News, propaganda, and Christian school? Reality has a liberal bias.

But black on black crime is no joke, consider these statistics, from infoplease.com and Wikipedia.

5 Safest Cities:
Ramapo, NY                 72.54% white / 17.04% black
Mission Viegjo, CA       83.15% white / 1.15% black
O'fallon, Mo                 95.32% white / 2.24% black
Newton, MA                88.07% white / 1.97% black
Brick, NJ                      95.81% white / 0.99% black

5 Most Dangerous Cities:
New Orleans, LA        67.25% black / 28.05% white
Camden, NJ                53.35% black / 16.84% white
Detroit, MI                  81.6% black / 12.3% white
St. Louis, MO              51.2% black / 43.85% white
Oakland, CA              35.66% black / 23.52% white

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Why is this a shock? Government is the tit at which these government science shills suck.


I don’t know if you realize this or not, but the vast majority of scientists in this country work for big corporations, such as chemical companies, pharmaceuticals and the oil industry, entities that are not know for having a liberal bias. The number of scientist that depend on the government for their funding is very small and is made up overwhelmingly of those working for military contractors.