And out of all the major newspapers in the world, a dozen sounds like a good balance? Ah, well.
The problem that handicaps me with this argument is that liberal newspapers like the New York Times not only do not identify themselves as such, but don't see themselves as such. Damn few in the media will identify themselves as liberal, and none as left-wing.
What has happened to this discussion in America is that, if you listen to the media, the spectrum of liberal to conservative has had one end chopped off. There are constant references to "right-wing," "conservative," and "the Right" in media. No conservative politician is ever referred to without that identifier attached. No conservative think tank is mentioned without that "right-wing" stuck on the front. When was the last time you heard the term "liberal" in front of the names of any Democratic senator? Ever hear Ted Kennedy called a "left-winger?" Now, ever seen Jesse Helms' name in mainstream print without the term "right-wing" stuck on it somewhere?
And this is not a conspiracy...it's the way liberals actually see the world.
The best discussion of this I have seen is in Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias." Recommended.
Off Topic » in reply to Re: Counting papers
Re: Counting papers
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Ah, the unbiased media...
- Example from an art review in the LA Times
- Opinion pieces are supposed to be biased. Should I start whining because Rush does not present a balance of opinion? n/t (n/t)
- Tom..a favor please!
- Washington Times, WSJ, etc. Blah blah blah. n/t (n/t)
- Coding typo again...
- Reality check
- Ah, the unbiased media...
