Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ball of Hate, Nov 2, 2007.
i always thought that this would be subject to change depending on the current political climate of the time. It could be very different in 4 years, and I'm sure it was 4 or so years ago.
It's not a solid study.
While Clinton was in office, the liberals felt that they were being persecuted by the media. It was this bias that "helped" elect George W. Bush. Now the media have realized that people aren't really happy with many of Bush's decisions so rather than support those decisions, they're Monday morning quarterbacking with how the liberals would've handled the decisions. They're going to influence people to vote liberal again and then for the next 4 years we'll hear how awful the liberals are and what the conservatives would do to make things right.
It's a vicious cycle.
I think if this study would have been done back then, the results would have been different. maybe not a vast right wing conspiracy, but there would have been some bias.
The thing is, both sides claim there's a bias towards the other side and will delineate exactly where those biases lie. I've never actually sat down and done my own side by side comparison but there are those who say the media are actually fair on both sides.
Living here on Long Island, I don't really see much to support the liberals's argument. Our local paper, Newsday, is liberal as are the NY Times and to a degree the Daily News. The only really conservative newspaper (if you want to consider it a newspaper) is the NY Post. None of the local news programs are anywhere near conservative either. So what's left? Rush & Hannity? Bob Grant? Bill O'Reilly? That's not much of a conservative slant if you ask me