Talk:Liberal media

The title kinda rubs wrong..
Grammatically-speaking, wouldn't "liberally-biased media" be an improvement? (i.e. it needs an adverb) Or make the whole phrase more like a noun--"Liberal media bias." Thoughts? RaoulDuke 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's ugly. Move it to where you think it makes the most sense.  I vote for "liberally biased media", I love the innuendo.  04:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be just "liberal media"? That's almost always the term that's actually used. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mess
The "mess," so-called, was an expansion of the article, firstly, to note the dissatisfaction of certain elements of the loony fringe with Fox News, secondly, to make a correction regarding the mainstream media's response to right-wing complaints. They toady to everyone who can kick up enough dust to give them even a bit of a black eye. 06:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah bad writing is bad writing. Maybe try again?  Better yet, make it a new section we can all improve?  06:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what is so bad about my edits as to merit a complete revert, so perhaps a third opinion is needed. 06:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * " Fox News is also borderline non-liberally-biased, although some right-wingers have recently expressed their doubts about the conservative bona fides of this news channel, they being such raving moonbats as to engage a table at a gay-oriented job fair.http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_and_homosexuality" is fairly crap IMO. First off, linking to a wiki without a permalink of difflink fails.  And your whole edit depends on a link to CP, so who cares?  06:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Joseph Farah attacked Glenn Beck a few weeks ago because of his insufficient anti-gay bigotry (along with Ann Coulter and GOProud), but I guess most "conservatives" realize that Fox News is an incredibly valuable outlet for them and will be careful not to criticize it too much. Andy and his stooges might indeed be the only ones who are sufficiently detached from reality to ignore such considerations. Röstigraben (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronze?
Seems good enough. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Hermann and Chomsky?
Why, LX? P-Foster (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Cause they're dirty Reds? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. P-Foster (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) They were making a fallacious argument; comparing newspapers to assembly lines is like comparing apples and oranges. 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the section in question is titled "Commonly cited research," and their work is nothing if not broadly cited. Instead of waving it aside, why not engage with the argument constructively? P-Foster (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the analogy goes too far, but the point they're making is that there is editorial control of media outlets. Journalists don't own news channels or papers and they get canned all the time if they don't toe the line. See also: Fox News memos.Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, how are some memos from an editor evidence of what Chomsky et al. were yowling about? There is a difference between merely hiring palatable people and exercising direct control. 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one example. You're making it out like journalists have the run of the place. And: "How they get the liberal editors and reporters to put up with this for any extended period, is not discussed." Seriously, have you even read Herman and Chomsky? [[File:Facepalm.png]] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right-wingers sometimes point to articles in the pinko press as an example of what the whole "mainstream media" is up to. Similarly, pinkos point to Fox News as such an example; never mind that Fox News is about the only "mainstream media" outlet with those sorts of bias issues.
 * "Systems analyses" like Chomsky's almost never get down to brass tacks like that, for cause that if they did, they would be self-exposed for the dreck that they are.
 * I have only read a part of Chomsky's, but I think I got the gist. I suppose that is one of the pitfalls of trying to coat things with treacle; "is not discussed" sounds somewhat milder than the full version, "is a question that is dismissed with an assertion that all journalists who disagree with what they say are deluded." 05:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The FNC memos are a means of setting the editorial tone and branding, much like MSNBC's Lean Forward campaign.
 * BTW, no you didn't get the gist of Herman and Chomsky, because most of the book is "brass tacks," i.e. case studies of Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, etc. If you say "this is not discussed," you are just laughably flat-out wrong because it's the entire point of the goddamn book. Nor does it mean "delusion," but wanting to stay employed, have access to certain sources, etc.
 * Finally, do I agree 100% with H&C? No, I'd say, among other things, their model is missing laziness/incompetence/failure of due diligence (how often do skeptics complain about the horrible coverage of science in the media?) and the research is dated due to the Cold War paradigm they wrote the book in. However, H&C do not have to be 100% correct for this point to be valid: Having a slightly above-average number of left-leaning journalists doesn't automatically mean there is a systemic liberal bias within the media as a whole as the journalists are not the only ones who exert editorial influence over the news. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it
We need to go into more detail about how absurd this canard is. If nothing else, I'd love to know the conservative explanation for how Reagan became president in the years before Fox News and the internet -wouldn't a hostile media have torn him to shreds, and boosted Carter? And if the Liberal Media was so weak they couldn't pull that off, why does its "bias" even matter? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

All media has some sort of bias
It is human nature in my opinion. I could be wrong but that is my two cents.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)