The Media Bias Against Bush?

[tian]

By Claudia Parsons

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The study looked at 16 newspapers of varying size across the country, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine cable programs and nine Web sites through the course of 2004.

Examining the public perception that coverage of the war in Iraq was decidedly negative, it found evidence did not support that conclusion. The majority of stories had no decided tone, 25 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive, it said.

The three network nightly newscasts and public broadcaster PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative.

Looking at public perceptions of the media, the report showed that more people thought the media was unfair to both Kerry and Bush than to the candidates four years earlier, but fewer people thought news organizations had too much influence on the outcome of the election.

"It may be that the expectations of the press have sunk enough that they will not sink much further. People are not dismayed by disappointments in the press. They expect them," the authors of the report said.

The study noted a huge rise in audiences for Internet news, particularly for bloggers whose readers jumped by 58 percent in six months to 32 million people.

Despite the growing importance of the Web, the report said investment was not keeping pace and some 62 percent of Internet professionals reported cutbacks in the newsroom in the last three years, even more than the 37 percent of print, radio and TV journalists who cited cutbacks in their newsrooms.

"For all that the number of outlets has grown, the number of people engaged in collecting original information has not," the report said, noting that much of the investment was directed at repackaging and presenting information rather than gathering news.


tian

 

[Zero]

And are we to assume that this was bias and not just a case of reporting the truth? Funny how coverage that is not favorable to Bush is considered bias. The other alternative is to only report positive news or to spin every piece of news to make it appear positive, but then, that would be tantamount to propaganda. The administration has Fox, MSNBC and Sinclair, they dissiminate prepackaged new stories and they pay journalists to favor their stances, there has to be some level of balance.

 

[Makkonnen]

when I think of GW i think victim

Great Post!

 

[Black_Immortal]

This story is exceedingly light with regards to details about the Columbia J School study, and if "The Media Bias against Bush" is the actual headline, it does not (which is typical of too many headlines) give you a real idea of the nature of the story, but it does predispose you to view the story in a certain way.

 

[rude_dog]

It may be hard to believe but I may agree with that article. I thought during the election the media was hard on Bush. But I think there's two reasons for it.

1. BUSH was terrible. There was plenty of bad news to go around. Now that the election is over, the media have to be pleasant to keep access to the White House and sources. The media could have been harder.

2. The media is being true to their class. Being a reporter is not easy and it usually requires a graduate degree. Bush's largest opposition were educated voters. The largest block of people voting against Bush were people with advance degrees. I can't remember the exact figures but something like 90% of College Professors and Scientists contributed to John Kerry. I think the media contributed about 75% to Kerry. If I remember correctly, Business professionals were slightly in Bush's favor.

Bush's strongest supporters??? Poorly educated white males, ie. Redneck Southerners. I wonder why?

I found that information in an article written by Paul Krugman of the NY Times. His data was from some study. I'll try and find the article.

 

[rude_dog]

I'm still trying to find the article by Paul Krugman.

Ruling Class War
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: September 11, 2004



There are two sorts of people in the information-age elite, spreadsheet people and paragraph people. Spreadsheet people work with numbers, wear loafers and support Republicans. Paragraph people work with prose, don't shine their shoes as often as they should and back Democrats.

C.E.O.'s are classic spreadsheet people. According to a sample gathered by PoliticalMoneyLine in July, the number of C.E.O.'s donating funds to Bush's campaign is five times the number donating to Kerry's.

Professors, on the other hand, are classic paragraph people and lean Democratic. Eleven academics gave to the Kerry campaign for every 1 who gave to Bush's. Actors like paragraphs, too, albeit short ones. Almost 18 actors gave to Kerry for every 1 who gave to Bush. For self-described authors, the ratio was about 36 to 1. Among journalists, there were 93 Kerry donors for every Bush donor. For librarians, who must like Faulknerian, sprawling paragraphs, the ratio of Kerry to Bush donations was a whopping 223 to 1.

Laura Bush has a lot of work to do in shoring up her base.

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics allows us to probe the emerging class alignments, but the pattern is the same. Number people and word people are moving apart.

Accountants, whose relationship with numbers verges on the erotic, are now heavily Republican. Back in the early 1990's, accountants gave mostly to Democrats, but now they give twice as much to the party of Lincoln. Similarly, in the early 1990's, bankers gave equally to the two parties. Now they give mostly to Republicans, though one notices that employees at big banks, like Citigroup and Bank of America, are more likely to give to Democrats.

But lawyers - people who didn't realize that they wanted to be novelists until their student loan burdens were already too heavy - are shifting the other way. This year, lawyers gave about $81 million to Democrats and about $31 million to Republicans.

Media types are Democratic, of course, but one is dismayed to learn that two-thirds of employee donations at Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation went to Democrats. Whatever happened to company loyalty?

If you look at the big Kerry donors, you realize that the days of the starving intellectual are over. University of California employees make up the single biggest block of Kerry donors and Harvard employees are second, topping folks from Goldman Sachs and others in the supposedly sell-out/big-money professions.

Academics have had such an impact on the Democratic donor base because there is less intellectual diversity in academia than in any other profession. All but 1 percent of the campaign donations made by employees of William & Mary College went to Democrats. In the Harvard crowd, Democrats got 96 percent of the dollars. At M.I.T., it was 94 percent. Yale is a beacon of freethinking by comparison; 8 percent of its employee donations went to Republicans.

It should be noted there are some professions that span the spreadsheet-people/paragraph-people divide. For example, lobbyists give equally to both parties. (Could it possibly be that lobbyists don't have principles?) And casino people split their giving, with employees at Harrah's giving mostly to Democrats and employees at MGM Mirage giving mostly to Republicans.

Why have the class alignments shaken out as they have? There are a couple of theories. First there is the intellectual affiliation theory. Numerate people take comfort in the false clarity that numbers imply, and so also admire Bush's speaking style. Paragraph people, meanwhile, relate to the postmodern, post-Cartesian, deconstructionist, co-directional ambiguity of Kerry's Iraq policy.

I subscribe, however, to the mondo-neo-Marxist theory of information-age class conflict. According to this view, people who majored in liberal arts subjects like English and history naturally loathe people who majored in econ, business and the other "hard" fields. This loathing turns political in adult life and explains just about everything you need to know about political conflict today.

It should be added that not everybody fits predictably into the political camp indicated by a profession. I myself am thinking of founding the Class Traitors Association, made up of conservative writers, liberal accountants and other people so filled with self-loathing that they ally politically with social and cultural rivals.

Class traitors of the word, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your friends - and a world to gain!

 

[dyhawk]

the only problem with the media was that they were not hard enough, you have to ask your self how can you go from the whole world wanting to help you fight terror to the whole world wanting to see the next attack ........ANSWER you lead turns around and use the opertunity to make himself wealthy by invading a country rich with oil not having anything to do with the attack in question and sending its people out to die for the all mighty dollar.............and treating everyone like dolls today we are code red tomorrow it will be yellow lol what he probably has the colour code for the next 4 years planned out

Peace

 

[Greed]

Funny how coverage that is not favorable to Bush is considered bias.

is that what the article said? i thought the article said that stories were 3x more likely to be negative and that equalled bias.

unfortunately, people seem to actually want NEWS article to be positive/negative at all. its too bad that no one here is saying that NEWS articles should all be neutral.

am i the only one that get disgusted that the media takes it for granted that some NEWS stories take a side. is that what NEWS is supposed to be to you people?

let NEWS be news and let me get an opinion, when i want someone else's, from an opinion piece.

too many people here dont really care about bias in the media, instead they are just complaining that the media isnt bias enough, in their favor of course.

 

[tian]

And are we to assume that this was bias and not just a case of reporting the truth? Funny how coverage that is not favorable to Bush is considered bias. The other alternative is to only report positive news or to spin every piece of news to make it appear positive, but then, that would be tantamount to propaganda. The administration has Fox, MSNBC and Sinclair, they dissiminate prepackaged new stories and they pay journalists to favor their stances, there has to be some level of balance.

No, this was an independent study from Columbia University. The media is biased, period. Reporting the truth? Really?

Now, as far as reporting a sense of balance; are the major news networks balancing out Fox and Sinclair (MSNBC has been shown as having a liberal bias), or is it the fact that Fox and Sinclair is balancing out the major news agencies?


tian

 

[tian]

is that what the article said? i thought the article said that stories were 3x more likely to be negative and that equalled bias.

unfortunately, people seem to actually want NEWS article to be positive/negative at all. its too bad that no one here is saying that NEWS articles should all be neutral.

am i the only one that get disgusted that the media takes it for granted that some NEWS stories take a side. is that what NEWS is supposed to be to you people?

let NEWS be news and let me get an opinion, when i want someone else's, from an opinion piece.

too many people here dont really care about bias in the media, instead they are just complaining that the media isnt bias enough, in their favor of course.

True, true, true!

There is a situation, though. Take Iraq, for instance. Many soldiers return to America telling people that they are seeing a biased media first hand. In other words, they only report on negative stories, and not positive ones. It's like the news agencies has an agenda.

As a matter of fact, many do. Take Philip Bennett, Managing Editor of the Washington Post. When asked about how the American mainstream media plays in foreign policy, he says that "the role of the Washington Post is to hold the government accountable for decisions made by it". He goes on to say that the in the case of the correspondent in Baghdad is "to tell their readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide."

So, he's not really interested in the "feel-good" stories in Iraq, but rather the inconsistencies of the Bush administration's claims. Hence, there's a bias, regardless as to their claims of "Accurate and independent reporting."

tian

 

[tehuti]

True, true, true!

There is a situation, though. Take Iraq, for instance. Many soldiers return to America telling people that they are seeing a biased media first hand. In other words, they only report on negative stories, and not positive ones. It's like the news agencies has an agenda.

As a matter of fact, many do. Take Philip Bennett, Managing Editor of the Washington Post. When asked about how the American mainstream media plays in foreign policy, he says that "the role of the Washington Post is to hold the government accountable for decisions made by it". He goes on to say that the in the case of the correspondent in Baghdad is "to tell their readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide."

So, he's not really interested in the "feel-good" stories in Iraq, but rather the inconsistencies of the Bush administration's claims. Hence, there's a bias, regardless as to their claims of "Accurate and independent reporting."

tian

The Bush Adminsitration already has control of the government released stories that are circulated to the press in Iraq. In an article I posted on the old board, it detailed that the leadership of the government apparatus used to give press releases in Iraq, consists of members of Bush's 2000 election campaign team and their job in Iraq is to use the media to paint a favorable picture of Iraq to postively effect his 2004 re-election bid. Nothing surprising in this fact, essentially, they are putting forth pro-Bush propaganda. Under these circumstances does the media not have a responsiblity to detail a more accurate and full picture of what is going on in Iraq, instead of solely relying on Bush Administration produced news? Does this site fully disclose what the conditions in Iraq are: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/, because this all we would get without papers such as the Washington Post trying to get the other side of the story from Iraq.

 

[QueEx]

... Hence, there's a bias, regardless as to their claims of "Accurate and independent reporting."

I thought Accurate meant without factual distorton; and independent meant without connection or affiliation to the issue being reported on. Correct me if I am wrong in those defintions, but if I am right -- how does that jibe with your contention of bias ??? In other words, what stories are you citing that were biased against Bush and how were they not accurate and independent ???

QueEx

 

[tian]

The Bush Adminsitration already has control of the government released stories that are circulated to the press in Iraq. In an article I posted on the old board, it detailed that the leadership of the government apparatus used to give press releases in Iraq, consists of members of Bush's 2000 election campaign team and their job in Iraq is to use the media to paint a favorable picture of Iraq to postively effect his 2004 re-election bid. Nothing surprising in this fact, essentially, they are putting forth pro-Bush propaganda. Under these circumstances does the media not have a responsiblity to detail a more accurate and full picture of what is going on in Iraq, instead of solely relying on Bush Administration produced news? Does this site fully disclose what the conditions in Iraq are: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/, because this all we would get without papers such as the Washington Post trying to get the other side of the story from Iraq.

Which news agency is relying on news coming from www.whitehouse.gov? Of course, there's going to be a bias on "government-controlled" news posted on George Bush's website!

But many people rely on mainstream media to give an accurate, unbiased picture of what's actually going on in the world... not some stories intended on ensuring that the government is being held accountable. What's that?

I look for news that gives me accuracy- negative and/or positive. I am not looking for slants or biases or anything else.

Give me the news. Let me make up my own mind. Don't try to make up my mind for me.


tian

 

[tian]

I thought Accurate meant without factual distorton; and independent meant without connection or affiliation to the issue being reported on. Correct me if I am wrong in those defintions, but if I am right -- how does that jibe with your contention of bias ??? In other words, what stories are you citing that were biased against Bush and how were they not accurate and independent ???

QueEx

According to the Washington Post, the newspaper has an "AGENDA." This agenda is not rooted in giving fair and accurate news as it happens because he would have stated so. He added that it is the agenda of the Washington Post to hold the Bush Administration ACCOUNTABLE. Therefore, even if every news article printed in the Washington Post was true and accurate; because of their agenda, you must wonder as to if they are selecting stories that will support that agenda. And if they are, then the total picture of what they are presenting is biased.

tian

 

[tehuti]

Which news agency is relying on news coming from www.whitehouse.gov? Of course, there's going to be a bias on "government-controlled" news posted on George Bush's website!

That was simply an example of the type of one sided and agenda based accounts that are being provided by the Bush Administration. Its relevance is that these are the same sort of stories the Administration is feeding as press releases to the media in Iraq; if the media relied on these "feel-good" stories, without detailing any futher realaties in Iraq, then it would be tantamount to the media promoting govenment propaganda - that fact would be neither indenpendent or unbiased. But, if your comfortable with state run or party run news, so be it.

 

[tehuti]

"the role of the Washington Post is to hold the government accountable for decisions made by it"

Holding the government accountable should be the goal of the media in general, not just the Washington Post. The Consitution and American case law has recognized that for this very reason, the press has extensive protection from prior restraint and freedom of expression. The Washington Post's agenda is the agenda that was invisioned and protected by the framers of the Constitution.

 

[QueEx]

According to the Washington Post, the newspaper has an "AGENDA." This agenda is not rooted in giving fair and accurate news as it happens because he would have stated so. He added that it is the agenda of the Washington Post to hold the Bush Administration ACCOUNTABLE. Therefore, even if every news article printed in the Washington Post was true and accurate; because of their agenda, you must wonder as to if they are selecting stories that will support that agenda. And if they are, then the total picture of what they are presenting is biased.

tian

You don't want the administration held ACCOUNTABLE ??? Feel Good news is okay, but I am more interested in my government doing what it is supposed to do; doing what it says its going to do; and not doing things that it shouldn't be engaged in. Hence, I want my government held accountable -- and I think its safe to say that we can't count on the government to hold itself accountable -- the Fox will eat the chickens and the hungry boy will eat the lunch, if you know what I mean.

We all have agendas -- the issue is whether its a good, bad or neutral agenda. Is Accountability a bad agenda ??? Frankly, I find it odd that you would argue that a news organization selecting stories to support its agenda of holding government accountable is bias.

QueEx

 

[tian]

You don't want the administration held ACCOUNTABLE ??? Feel Good news is okay, but I am more interested in my government doing what it is supposed to do; doing what it says its going to do; and not doing things that it shouldn't be engaged in. Hence, I want my government held accountable -- and I think its safe to say that we can't count on the government to hold itself accountable -- the Fox will eat the chickens and the hungry boy will eat the lunch, if you know what I mean.

We all have agendas -- the issue is whether its a good, bad or neutral agenda. Is Accountability a bad agenda ??? Frankly, I find it odd that you would argue that a news organization selecting stories to support its agenda of holding government accountable is bias.

QueEx

So you want your news to be all about holding the government accountable. OK.

I do not. I want my news to be accurate AND complete- negative or positive. I do not want to subscribe to news organizations whose agenda is anything but that.

Inside the government, there are checks and balances for issues of accountability. There are many special interests groups that exists for purposes of accountability. I just don't want my newspaper to be one of them.


tian

 

[QueEx]

So you want your news to be all about holding the government accountable. OK.

I do not. I want my news to be accurate AND complete- negative or positive. I do not want to subscribe to news organizations whose agenda is anything but that.

Inside the government, there are checks and balances for issues of accountability. There are many special interests groups that exists for purposes of accountability. I just don't want my newspaper to be one of them.


tian

Fine tian, I can't argue against what you say. But I know that solid newsreporting broke open abuse and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - not the government and its lapdogs; good hold-em accountable news reporting sent Nixon packing -- not the government and watchdogs; HappyBurton was a product of news investigation -- not the government although I commend the GAO; news organizations are bringing the facts on Social Security -- not the government and its say-for-pay yeasayers; I still don't remember Bush Fessing up on WMD in Iraq - though watchdogs and commissions had to own-up, it was news organizations constant questions (although not as many questions as many would like) that held the governments feet to the fire. Hell, I could go on and on but the picture is not too hard to see.

Human interest and goody-two shoe stores are fine and I take in my share. While a good-two-shoe story about troops helping children in an Iraqi village is good and positive, I am far more interested in why my government says an invasion of Iraq was necessary in the first instance and realistically knowing how the war is going and the dangers faced. I want to know what, if any, dangers does Iran and North Korea pose, especially those that diplomacy can't manage. Its always interesting to read feely goodie stories about commissions the president has formed including African Americans -- but I what I really want to know is who the appointees are and what their agenda may or may not be.

What I don't want is news agencies making me feel good when disaster maybe lurking. I want the straight skinny -- not the government's phat assed positions. LOL

QueEx

 

[Zero]

This article not withstanding, the argument of most conservatives appears to be that the only news outlets that are "not biased" are those along the lines of Fox, the New York Post and the Washington Times. So I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I guess nobody wants objective news, they just want to hear what they want to hear. When I see the news and compare it to info I find on the web, I see that even the so-called "biased" news agencies whitewash most info. Many times this favors Bush, but I've also heard people complain about even the most right wing News agencies like Fox being unfair to Bush. I think, when dealing with those people, only a state run news would be satisfactory to them. I don't see the reporting on Bush to be unfair, I see it as honest most times (but honest, fact-based news that does not reflect positively on Bush will always be marked as biased by many people). There is no left-leaning equivalent to Fox, NYP, WT in the main stream media. The closest I could think of in tone and style of reporting would be Air America or Pacifica and neither is anywhere near comparable in size or audience. So it seems to me that the far right wing has at least one major national news outlet, at least one major affiliate network in Sinclair and several major newspapers all to themselves. They could simply not read or watch the rest and be completely content. The left has the internet and AM radio, yet the balance is still considered unfair in favor of Bush opposers.

I sometimes wonder what exactly it is many right wingers want from this country although I also wonder if they really know themselves.

 

[tian]

That was simply an example of the type of one sided and agenda based accounts that are being provided by the Bush Administration. Its relevance is that these are the same sort of stories the Administration is feeding as press releases to the media in Iraq; if the media relied on these "feel-good" stories, without detailing any futher realaties in Iraq, then it would be tantamount to the media promoting govenment propaganda - that fact would be neither indenpendent or unbiased. But, if your comfortable with state run or party run news, so be it.

No one is asking for you to only adhere to press releases, either. I just want unbiased news. No agendas outside of that.

tian

 

[tian]

Holding the government accountable should be the goal of the media in general, not just the Washington Post. The Consitution and American case law has recognized that for this very reason, the press has extensive protection from prior restraint and freedom of expression. The Washington Post's agenda is the agenda that was invisioned and protected by the framers of the Constitution.

Protected, not envisioned. Where in history has there been an account that the framers wished for the media to hold the government accountable?


tian

 

[tian]

Fine tian, I can't argue against what you say. But I know that solid newsreporting broke open abuse and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - not the government and its lapdogs; good hold-em accountable news reporting sent Nixon packing -- not the government and watchdogs; HappyBurton was a product of news investigation -- not the government although I commend the GAO; news organizations are bringing the facts on Social Security -- not the government and its say-for-pay yeasayers; I still don't remember Bush Fessing up on WMD in Iraq - though watchdogs and commissions had to own-up, it was news organizations constant questions (although not as many questions as many would like) that held the governments feet to the fire. Hell, I could go on and on but the picture is not too hard to see.

Human interest and goody-two shoe stores are fine and I take in my share. While a good-two-shoe story about troops helping children in an Iraqi village is good and positive, I am far more interested in why my government says an invasion of Iraq was necessary in the first instance and realistically knowing how the war is going and the dangers faced. I want to know what, if any, dangers does Iran and North Korea pose, especially those that diplomacy can't manage. Its always interesting to read feely goodie stories about commissions the president has formed including African Americans -- but I what I really want to know is who the appointees are and what their agenda may or may not be.

What I don't want is news agencies making me feel good when disaster maybe lurking. I want the straight skinny -- not the government's phat assed positions. LOL

QueEx

Exactly. It was also the news organizations that leaked Clinton hummers in the White House, Clinton's failures against Bin Laden, and Carters catastrophic failures at home and abroad. In other words, I want to hear it all- the good, the bad, and the ugly.

tian

 

[tian]

This article not withstanding, the argument of most conservatives appears to be that the only news outlets that are "not biased" are those along the lines of Fox, the New York Post and the Washington Times. So I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I guess nobody wants objective news, they just want to hear what they want to hear. When I see the news and compare it to info I find on the web, I see that even the so-called "biased" news agencies whitewash most info. Many times this favors Bush, but I've also heard people complain about even the most right wing News agencies like Fox being unfair to Bush. I think, when dealing with those people, only a state run news would be satisfactory to them. I don't see the reporting on Bush to be unfair, I see it as honest most times (but honest, fact-based news that does not reflect positively on Bush will always be marked as biased by many people). There is no left-leaning equivalent to Fox, NYP, WT in the main stream media. The closest I could think of in tone and style of reporting would be Air America or Pacifica and neither is anywhere near comparable in size or audience. So it seems to me that the far right wing has at least one major national news outlet, at least one major affiliate network in Sinclair and several major newspapers all to themselves. They could simply not read or watch the rest and be completely content. The left has the internet and AM radio, yet the balance is still considered unfair in favor of Bush opposers.

I sometimes wonder what exactly it is many right wingers want from this country although I also wonder if they really know themselves.

Well, let me give you some left-leaning equivalents to Fox, NYP, and Washington Times, ok?

Those are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC, MSNBC, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, etc.

Personally, I listen and watch all of it. I spend over 3 hours of my time reading articles and watching news shows. I can see the media bias, and sift right through it.


tian

 

[Zero]

Well, let me give you some left-leaning equivalents to Fox, NYP, and Washington Times, ok?

Those are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC, MSNBC, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, etc.

Personally, I listen and watch all of it. I spend over 3 hours of my time reading articles and watching news shows. I can see the media bias, and sift right through it.


tian

I just don't see any of those you mentioned above being as wildy to the left and anti-Bush as Fox, NYP or Wash. Times are to the right. I guess it's a matter of perspective, but if the above mentioned outlets were more fair by your definition, they'd be just like FOX, NYP and WT. It's kinda like the right wingers that call people like Al Gore and Jphn Kerry leftwing extremists. Anything left of the extreme right is considered leftist by a lot of people. Hell, Reagan is a pinko by the modern definition of Republican.

 

[tehuti]

Protected, not envisioned. Where in history has there been an account that the framers wished for the media to hold the government accountable?


tian

A brief history of the development and role of mass media in America and its relation to the creation of the Constitution:

Not surprisingly, in 1649 Parliament recognized the right of any individual to "initiate discussion on any subject" and that seditious statements by members of Parliament, and the printers who published them, could not be prosecuted. This was the birth of the first laws guaranteeing freedom of speech.

The laws and limitations on the press--the principal mass media of the time--that were being enacted and enforced in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also applied to the British colonies in America. Books and newspapers were banned and burned, and both authors and printers (the "publishers" of colonial times) were thrown in jail and their property confiscated as "restitution" to the Crown for alleged libelous and seditious statements about the British Crown or Parliament. Even criticism of the laws themselves was interpreted as being seditious. Meanwhile, heavier and heavier taxes were levied against all printed (published) material via the requirement that the printers purchase and display a tax "stamp" on all publications.

Parliament abolished this printer's licensing in the late seventeenth century in England, but not in the American colonies. Many printers in the colonies ignored or defied the licensing "stamp" laws of the Crown and published anyway, becoming more and more daring and direct in their criticism of the Crown's efforts to control, not only economics and trade in the American colonies, but also--and to some, more significantly--publishing and even public speech in the colonies. One of these "scoff-laws" was Benjamin Franklin, who by the 1720s was directly publishing and distributing passionate arguments for free speech and a free press from the print shop he owned with his brother James in Philadelphia. Franklin published under the pseudonym "Cato," expressing the view that these freedoms were the "God-given right of every man." Franklin was one of the first of the group that we now refer to as America's Founding Fathers, to write and widely publish the fundamental doctrine that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not only the right of every citizen, but also the ethical responsibility of every just and effective government. Moreover, Franklin expressed the highly seditious view that it was these basic freedoms that assured a just government, thus establishing the foundation for what later would become the constitutionally guaranteed role of the press as the "Fourth Estate" of America's constitutional democracy.

In the years just before the full outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, freedom of speech and freedom of the press became the battleground, not just between the colonies and the British Crown, but between the two leading political factions within the colonies themselves. The "Patriots" were resolute supporters of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and argued that the Crown's attempts to limit these "natural" freedoms were the basis for revolution. The "Tories" opposed any efforts to separate the colonies from England and viewed speech and publication suggesting separation from the crown treasonous, seditious, and inciting violence and revolution, therefore clearly deserving the aggressive, even violent enforcement of the Crown's controls and limitations on free speech and press. The Tories published their own pro-British newspapers, which were in constant threat of violent destruction by Patriot factions. Clearly, in pre-Revolution America, democracy was undergoing a slow, difficult, and painful birth. The Patriots, demanding democratic government with freedom of press and speech guaranteed, had not as yet learned the painful lesson that in a functioning democracy these freedoms must be assured for all sides, even when the published views of the minority are anathema to the views of the majority. To assure such freedoms they must be assured for everybody. More on this will appear in the modules that follow.

With the winning of the revolution and the birth of the United States of America, freedom of the press immediately blossomed. In the years following the war, close to 500 independent newspapers were launched. This number is all the more extraordinary considering how small the new American nation was. Through this burgeoning and free mass media, a new battle was waging as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention struggled to write a foundational constitution that would become the heart of the new democratic government and that would endure for centuries to come. This battle was between the Federalists and the Republicans, each holding strong views as to what the new government should be.
Through this battle of political viewpoints between the Federalists and the Republicans, reported on extensively by the mass media of the time so that all of the people had access to what was going on, albeit time-delayed due to the limitations of information and transportation technologies, our system of two-party democracy quickly evolved.

Here we see a very important early example of how mass communication plays a pivotal roll in the process of government in a democracy. While the first attempt at forming a national government, the Articles of Confederation, made no mention of freedom of speech or freedom of the press, these basic democratic freedoms became seminal to the formation of the Constitution, in no small part because of this active role of the free press.

From the struggle of the American Founding Fathers (actually before, via the writings of Locke, Emerson, and others) through the entire history of the American form of democratic government and up to the present day, there have evolved two often-opposing views of fundamental freedoms of speech, expression, and the press:

1. a legal philosophy that stresses the importance of these freedoms to the "health" of a democratic society, but within the context of the protection and "greater good" of society, and

2. a philosophy that stresses the overriding value and importance of individual freedom of expression, even at risk to society.

The ongoing conflict between these two legal philosophies continues to be at the heart of media law today. We will run into this conflict of legal philosophies again and again as we explore the subject of media-law thought this course.

Regardless of these historically conflicting legal philosophies, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression remain a foundational construct in American Constitutional law, further strengthened by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By building in guarantees of freedom of expression, authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights not only sought to assure such freedoms for individuals within an enduring democratic government, but also allowed for the expression (and thus publication) of an ever-growing body of ideas, philosophies, and innovations to strengthen the adaptability of the American legal system, and American government, in an ever-changing world. In doing this they established a governing legal structure that would remain stable.

The constitutional foundations that form the basis for freedom of communication can be outlined as:

* a "marketplace of ideas"
* a societal "safety valve"
* an assurance of "self-government"
* a limitation on "government power"
* freedom of speech and press as a "protected sphere"
_______________________________________________

This is taken directly from my class notes, from my Communication Law course.

 

[muckraker10021]

<font face="arial unicode ms, arial, sans serif" size="4" color="#333333"><br />
<font color="#0000FF">This is the year 2005 and some of you are still confused about how the "Media Of Mass Distraction" works;the so-called "Mainstream Media".

There is NO Liberal "mainstream media". The "Media Of Mass Distraction" serves the interest of the corporations who $$Pay $60,000.+ for a full page ad in the New York Times or $300,000.+ for a commercial on General Electric's (NBC) 'ER' program. The owners and boards of the corporations who pay big money to advertise in the New York Times, Washington Post, General Electric (NBC), Disney (ABC), Viacom(CBS), Time -Warner(CNN) are ALL MONOPOLY CAPITALIST. There are a few exceptions. A FEW!! People like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates Sr, Paul Allen. etc. , who are Centi-millionaires or billionaires who are Liberal....but 97% of the super-rich are either Republicans or RepubliKlans.

Notice I didn't mention <s>FOX</s> FAUX News, the Washington Times, New York Post etc. as part of the mainstream media. That's because the aren't media companies. They make No Pretense about what there purpose is. Their purpose is NOT to report the news good or bad, republican or democrat, just the facts. NO their STATED PURPOSE IS - "TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION TO ACCEPT <s>CONSERVATIVE</s> REPUBLIKLAN IDEOLOGY ". When <s>FOX</s> FAUX News or the Washington Times are pressed, they admit that! "We a not a news organization in the classic sense".- says <s>FOX</s> FAUX News Boss-of-Bosses Rupert Murdoch. Now I know <s>FOX</s> FAUX News is not "news...in the classic sense", and you might know that <s>FOX</s> FAUX News is not "news...in the classic sense", BUT 97% of the people who watch FAUX actually beleive they are watching real news and not the Joseph Goebbels style PROPAGANDA that it is.

Read the interview <s>FOX</s> FAUX News Boss-of-Bosses Rupert Murdoch gave to Michael Tomasky in 2003. Read industry publication Editor & Publisher. This information is not hidden or even hard to find.

I'll post more on March 18th.</font>

NOW! -Stop Lying to yourself (Cognitive Dissonance) <br /> Now - Put on your thinking cap. <br /><img src="http://www.kalatel.com/images-prod/thinking-man-IMG.jpg" width="99" height="122"><br />Now - Throw away the RepubliKlan “talking points” you’ve been consuming . <br />Okay now you’re ready to think clearly and not – Disbelieve – <br />What you see with your own eyes.<br />Your brain can now receive data without preconceived ideas.<br /><br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” repeat….<br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” <br /><br />Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.<br /><br />Fact: The media is controlled and monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate and conservative republican agendas. <br /><br />Let’s start with who owns the media<br /><br /><font size="5" color="#d90000"><a href="http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Nation-Entertainment_Nation-2006.pdf" target="_blank">WHO CONTROLS WHAT YOU SEE &amp; READ IN THE MEDIA</a></b></u></font><br>

<img src="http://i.min.us/ibwvUq.jpg">
[PDF]http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Nation-Entertainment_Nation-2006.pdf[/PDF]

<br /><br />Next let us look at a statement from one of the RepubliKlans most lunatic fringe. The chief neo-con spokesman. The man who wants to expand America's military occupation and war to include Iran & Syria while perpetually continuing the fiasco in Iraq. <br />Right- wing spokesmen. <br /><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/03/12/opinion/kristol-190a.jpg" width="150"><br /><font color=”#0000ff”>WILLIAM KRISTOL</font><br /><font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"><br /><b>"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole liberal media thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth knows that is a myth"</b></font><br /><br />William Kristol is the former chief of staff for former vice-president Quayle. He is currently the<br />Editor of the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol.asp" target="_blank">WEEKLY STANDARD</a> and the Chairman of <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/" target="_blank">PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY</a>.<br /><br />This is the <s>NEO-CON</s> NEO-NAZI group that has got the US involved in the invasion and occupation of IRAQ. It’s been their goal for years. Here is the letter they sent out in 1998 advocating the Invasion of IRAQ. Look at the bottom of the letter an see who signed the letter. You will see a whole bunch of guys who are now working for Cheney-<font size=”2”>bush</font>. <br /><a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm" target="_blank">LETTER ASKING FOR REMOVAL OF SADDAM</a><br /><br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” repeat….<br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS”<br /><br />The media serves the interests of the “Corporate Elite”. The “Corporate Elite” is decidedly conservative Republican. It’s is not even something you can debate. It’s a closed case.<br /><br />Let me connect a few dots for you and then I’ll leave you on your own to deprogram yourself from the myth of liberal media bias.<br /><br />General Electric Corp. –GE- owns NBC broadcasting. General Electric is also the nations top toxic waste polluter. Sites that have been identified as toxic waste sites that must be cleaned up using our tax dollars are called ‘SUPERFUND SITES’ General Electric has created 86 superfund sites, more than any other US corporation. Has this fact EVER been reported on NBC news?? - NEVER!!<br /><br />During the first few weeks of the current IRAQ invasion. NBC commentator Tom Brokaw told viewers that <font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"> - “We must be very careful not to destroy Iraq’s infrastructure during this precision bombing phase of OUR operation because WE now OWN this country. It is OURS”</font><br /><br />GENERAL ELECTRIC which 100% owns NBC has received 6 Billion dollars in no-bid IRAQI reconstruction contracts with more in the pipeline. How critical of Cheney-<font size=”2”>bush</font> Junta do you think NBC will be ???<br /><br />I can connect the dots for you in a similar fashion for CBS which is owned by VIACOM whose Boss-of-Bosses Sumner Redstone said that "Republican Government is good for our business interest as a corporation" or ABC which is owned by DISNEY whose soon to be departed Boss-of-Bosses, Michael Eisner refused to distribute Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 because "we have substancial business interest that are affected by Republican politicians" (Jeb Bush in Florida-Disney World) (Swartznegger in California-Disney Land) (baby bush in Wash. DC-ABC media exspansion) or FOX NEWS or TIME WARNER or The WASHINGTON POST or The NEW YORK TIMES ….and ALL of the major mass media.<br /><br />The “Media” is not liberal and it is certainly not progressive. The media is a right –wing cudgel that is used to manufacture consent among the unknowledgeable. Unfortunately the majority of Americans are unknowledgeable.<br /><br />Are the opinions and analysis of liberals and progressives heard at all in the media ?? Sure there are a FEW and I emphasize a FEW, but that’s it. Anyone looking at the facts on this issue empirically and willing to be HONEST would say as William Kristol did that <br /><font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"><br />"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole liberal media thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth knows that is a myth"</font><br /><br />

 

[Makkonnen]

brother muck tian doesn't care about that truth we've been over it before

 

[titlovr]

Well, let me give you some left-leaning equivalents to Fox, NYP, and Washington Times, ok?

Those are CBS, NBC, PBS, ABC, MSNBC, LA Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN, etc.
tian

You can not really be serious? I agree with CBS, NBC, ABC, but PBS? COme on man PBS and NPR are probably the most unbiased news sources out there. When I say unbiased I mean that if they have a story, they usually are going to have people from both sides of the aisle to argue there side. Facts are facts. If your President is a dumb fuck up, he is just a dumb fuck up. Clinton committed adultery, and that was bad. But his adultery did not hurt anyone but his family. No soldiers died, no civilians died. Bush's lies hurt everyone. I would rather the news tell me about the bad side of war rather than telling me about soldiers handing candy out to kids. That is not why they were sent over there.

 

[tian]

<font face="arial unicode ms, arial, sans serif" size="4" color="#333333"><br />
<font color="#0000FF">This is the year 2005 and some of you are still confused about how the "Media Of Mass Distraction" works;the so-called "Mainstream Media".

There is NO Liberal "mainstream media". The "Media Of Mass Distraction" serves the interest of the corporations who $$Pay $60,000.+ for a full page ad in the New York Times or $300,000.+ for a commercial on General Electric's (NBC) 'ER' program. The owners and boards of the corporations who pay big money to advertise in the New York Times, Washington Post, General Electric (NBC), Disney (ABC), Viacom(CBS), Time -Warner(CNN) are ALL MONOPOLY CAPITALIST. There are a few exceptions. A FEW!! People like Warren Buffet, George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates Sr, Paul Allen. etc. , who are Centi-millionaires or billionaires who are Liberal....but 97% of the super-rich are either Republicans or RepubliKlans.

Notice I didn't mention <s>FOX</s> FAUX News, the Washington Times, New York Post etc. as part of the mainstream media. That's because the aren't media companies. They make No Pretense about what there purpose is. Their purpose is NOT to report the news good or bad, republican or democrat, just the facts. NO their STATED PURPOSE IS - "TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION TO ACCEPT <s>CONSERVATIVE</s> REPUBLIKLAN IDEOLOGY ". When <s>FOX</s> FAUX News or the Washington Times are pressed, they admit that! "We a not a news organization in the classic sense".- says <s>FOX</s> FAUX News Boss-of-Bosses Rupert Murdoch. Now I know <s>FOX</s> FAUX News is not "news...in the classic sense", and you might know that <s>FOX</s> FAUX News is not "news...in the classic sense", BUT 97% of the people who watch FAUX actually beleive they are watching real news and not the Joseph Goebbels style PROPAGANDA that it is.

Read the interview <s>FOX</s> FAUX News Boss-of-Bosses Rupert Murdoch gave to Michael Tomasky in 2003. Read industry publication Editor & Publisher. This information is not hidden or even hard to find.

I'll post more on March 18th.</font>

NOW! -Stop Lying to yourself (Cognitive Dissonance) <br /> Now - Put on your thinking cap. <br /><img src="http://www.kalatel.com/images-prod/thinking-man-IMG.jpg" width="99" height="122"><br />Now - Throw away the RepubliKlan “talking points” you’ve been consuming . <br />Okay now you’re ready to think clearly and not – Disbelieve – <br />What you see with your own eyes.<br />Your brain can now receive data without preconceived ideas.<br /><br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” repeat….<br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” <br /><br />Myth: The U.S. has a liberal media.<br /><br />Fact: The media is controlled and monopolized by parent corporations with pro-corporate and conservative republican agendas. <br /><br />Let’s start with who owns the media<br /><br /><font size="5"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html" target="_blank">WHO CONTROLS WHAT YOU SEE &amp; READ IN THE MEDIA</a></font><br><br /><br />Next let us look at a statement from one of the RepubliKlans most lunatic fringe<br />Right- wing spokesmen. <br /><img src="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Images/bios/bio_kristol.jpg"><br /><font color=”#0000ff”>WILLIAM KRISTOL</font><br /><br /><font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"><br />"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole liberal media thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth knows that is a myth"</font><br /><br />William Kristol is the former chief of staff for former vice-president Quayle. He is currently the<br />Editor of the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_kristol.asp" target="_blank">WEEKLY STANDARD</a> and the Chairman of <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/" target="_blank">PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY</a>.<br /><br />This is the <s>NEO-CON</s> NEO-NAZI group that has got the US involved in the invasion and occupation of IRAQ. It’s been their goal for years. Here is the letter they sent out in 1998 advocating the Invasion of IRAQ. Look at the bottom of the letter an see who signed the letter. You will see a whole bunch of guys who are now working for Cheney-<font size=”2”>bush</font>. <br /><a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm" target="_blank">LETTER ASKING FOR REMOVAL OF SADDAM</a><br /><br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS” repeat….<br />THERE IS NO “LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS”<br /><br />The media serves the interests of the “Corporate Elite”. The “Corporate Elite” is decidedly conservative Republican. It’s is not even something you can debate. It’s a closed case.<br /><br />Let me connect a few dots for you and then I’ll leave you on your own to deprogram yourself from the myth of liberal media bias.<br /><br />General Electric Corp. –GE- owns NBC broadcasting. General Electric is also the nations top toxic waste polluter. Sites that have been identified as toxic waste sites that must be cleaned up using our tax dollars are called ‘SUPERFUND SITES’ General Electric has created 86 superfund sites, more than any other US corporation. Has this fact EVER been reported on NBC news?? - NEVER!!<br /><br />During the first few weeks of the current IRAQ invasion. NBC commentator Tom Brokaw told viewers that <font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"> - “We must be very careful not to destroy Iraq’s infrastructure during this precision bombing phase of OUR operation because WE now OWN this country. It is OURS”</font><br /><br />GENERAL ELECTRIC which 100% owns NBC has received 6 Billion dollars in no-bid IRAQI reconstruction contracts with more in the pipeline. How critical of Cheney-<font size=”2”>bush</font> Junta do you think NBC will be ???<br /><br />I can connect the dots for you in a similar fashion for CBS which is owned by VIACOM whose Boss-of-Bosses Sumner Redstone said that "Republican Government is good for our business interest as a corporation" or ABC which is owned by DISNEY whose soon to be departed Boss-of-Bosses, Michael Eisner refused to distribute Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 because "we have substancial business interest that are affected by Republican politicians" (Jeb Bush in Florida-Disney World) (Swartznegger in California-Disney Land) (baby bush in Wash. DC-ABC media exspansion) or FOX NEWS or TIME WARNER or The WASHINGTON POST or The NEW YORK TIMES ….and ALL of the major mass media.<br /><br />The “Media” is not liberal and it is certainly not progressive. The media is a right –wing cudgel that is used to manufacture consent among the unknowledgeable. Unfortunately the majority of Americans are unknowledgeable.<br /><br />Are the opinions and analysis of liberals and progressives heard at all in the media ?? Sure there are a FEW and I emphasize a FEW, but that’s it. Anyone looking at the facts on this issue empirically and willing to be HONEST would say as William Kristol did that <br /><font face=”times new roman” color="#A60053"><br />"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole liberal media thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth knows that is a myth"</font><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html" width=900 height=1700 hspace=0 vspace=0 frameborder=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0 scrolling=yes><br></iframe><br /></fo
nt><br /><br />

And this person's opinion is to be reside over fact?

tian

 

[tian]

You can not really be serious? I agree with CBS, NBC, ABC, but PBS? COme on man PBS and NPR are probably the most unbiased news sources out there. When I say unbiased I mean that if they have a story, they usually are going to have people from both sides of the aisle to argue there side. Facts are facts. If your President is a dumb fuck up, he is just a dumb fuck up. Clinton committed adultery, and that was bad. But his adultery did not hurt anyone but his family. No soldiers died, no civilians died. Bush's lies hurt everyone. I would rather the news tell me about the bad side of war rather than telling me about soldiers handing candy out to kids. That is not why they were sent over there.

I didn't say it. Columbia University's research has said it. Why is it so difficult for everyone to believe that these entities have a bias????

tian

 

[Zero]

I didn't say it. Columbia University's research has said it. Why is it so difficult for everyone to believe that these entities have a bias????

tian

Most likely because most on here are not Republicans (not saying they are Democrats either). I mean, if Bush was my guy, I'd see bias everywhere too, I guess, but since he is not and the negative news I have heard about him can be verified at various sources, I don't have a problem with the info. Honestly, a lot of people felt that Jeff Gannon was the only unbiased reporter in the white house press corps. I here good things about Bush and bad things on most of the networks (except Fox) and even then, the info is thoroughly cleansed of any worthwhile content.

I'm still not quite sure what you want from the media, but it sounds more and more like you'd rather have a Bill O'Reilly or Shawn Hannity on every channel than a Walter Kronkite or Tom Brokaw. That's your taste and that's fine, but don't call it bias, call it what it is, you want the media telling you what you want to hear 24X7, be the info true or not.

 

[sinofDaFathers]

did someone say cocaine.........

 

[tian]

Most likely because most on here are not Republicans (not saying they are Democrats either). I mean, if Bush was my guy, I'd see bias everywhere too, I guess, but since he is not and the negative news I have heard about him can be verified at various sources, I don't have a problem with the info. Honestly, a lot of people felt that Jeff Gannon was the only unbiased reporter in the white house press corps. I here good things about Bush and bad things on most of the networks (except Fox) and even then, the info is thoroughly cleansed of any worthwhile content.

I'm still not quite sure what you want from the media, but it sounds more and more like you'd rather have a Bill O'Reilly or Shawn Hannity on every channel than a Walter Kronkite or Tom Brokaw. That's your taste and that's fine, but don't call it bias, call it what it is, you want the media telling you what you want to hear 24X7, be the info true or not.

I don't want biased news, period. Be it from Walter Kronkite or Rush Limbaugh. I don't want Republican-flavored nor Democratic-flavored news. That's what I want. That's what I think the American people deserve.

See, the problem with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly is that they are not news anchors. They are not reporters. They are news commentators. They comment on events, not report on them. So you can't put them in the same category with Walter Kronkite and Tom Brokaw. Sean Hannity's counterparts are located on Air America, not ABC. (CNN had some on Crossfire, but alas, they couldn't keep up with Hannity and Colmes.)

But I'm not looking for the liberal version of news and political commentators... I'm looking for real news-negative and positive.

For instance, I would have liked to know when Iraq's stock exchange opened. I would have liked to know about the economic impact that it had in regards to their employment numbers.

I would have liked to know more about their training. I would like to know about how they stopped the bombing at a local school. In other words, how is Iraq progressing?

See, negative AND positive... give it to us straight.


tian

 

[Zero]

I don't want biased news, period. Be it from Walter Kronkite or Rush Limbaugh. I don't want Republican-flavored nor Democratic-flavored news. That's what I want. That's what I think the American people deserve.

See, the problem with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly is that they are not news anchors. They are not reporters. They are news commentators. They comment on events, not report on them. So you can't put them in the same category with Walter Kronkite and Tom Brokaw. Sean Hannity's counterparts are located on Air America, not ABC. (CNN had some on Crossfire, but alas, they couldn't keep up with Hannity and Colmes.)

But I'm not looking for the liberal version of news and political commentators... I'm looking for real news-negative and positive.

For instance, I would have liked to know when Iraq's stock exchange opened. I would have liked to know about the economic impact that it had in regards to their employment numbers.

I would have liked to know more about their training. I would like to know about how they stopped the bombing at a local school. In other words, how is Iraq progressing?

See, negative AND positive... give it to us straight.


tian

On this point, we agree