You've probably heard by now that our Democratic governor, James McGreevy of New Jersey, resigned today amidst a brewing scandal surrounding a homosexual relationship with a former employee and appointee of his. But already the media - at least in this area, Philly/New Jersey/New York - are already spinning this into what seems to be a gay-rights issue. This was the big news of the week here, but it's all over the national news as well.

McGreevy resigned not because he is gay, but because he had an affair behind the backs of his wife and two children, and, to his credit, he firmly and unequivocably stated that this was the reason for his resignation. But, literally, as soon as the press conference ended, the local television affiliates had already fully-framed his reason for resigning as being solely because he is gay, not because he cheated on his wife, or that he was under pressure from his party to resign. I caught the three major networks doing man-in-the-street interviews, and I noticed in all three cases that the interviewer never mentioned that McGreevy himself stated that his reason for resigning was because he cheated on his wife; all three network interviewers asked an almost identical question, "The Governor has just announced that he is gay and that he is resigning. How does that make you feel?" No mention was made, whatsoever, that he resigned because he had cheated on his wife - and that he had directly stated that as his reason. No mention was made that the man he cheated with was a man who he appointed to two separate high-ranking government posts, which alone stinks of corruption. No mention was made of the fact that there were undeniably more political motives for doing so. Rather, the intent of the reporters conducting the interviews seemed clearly to lead respondents to believe that McGreevy's decision to resign was due solely to his sexuality.

The reason why I'm bringing this up is that it shows both the agenda, and the immense amount of slant that exists in our media. Have you ever considered that at least some, if not a great deal, of what you believe is because you've been trained to feel a certain way by the media? I realize this may be hard for most people to admit, but have you ever considered that the spin by the popular media has influenced or shaped your views? Or even made them for you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aguagon:
Ah, so now we're going to call the coverage of the Abu Gharib bit liberal-biased. It was a horrific event that deserved the coverage it got. But maybe you're right in saying it was a little drawn out...it kind of reminds me of something else...hmmm, what could that be?

---

Yes, it absolutely was. It might have been a terrible situation, but vastly more serious things get far less coverage. Remember the Oklahoma City bombimg? Columbine? They didn't get front-page coverage for two straight months! Granted, they were over-reported as it is, but even they were off front-page coverage after about two weeks, and daily stories weren't running after about three. Abu Ghraib, as awful as it may have been, was pretty minor compared to these and other events in the last few years.

The kicker is, the New York Times (and the LA Times) rarely had anything new to report; they just reprinted the same stuff from the day before. Clearly, the purpose was to put and keep this issue in the spotlight (i.e. to create a scandal to be used against Bush), rather legitimate journalism.

Oh, that's right, the LEWINSKY scandal. They didn't let that go for years!

Two of that nation's largest papers, including the 800-pound gorilla of the media, didn't feature the Lewinsky scandal for two months straight, front-page no less. Yes, I agree that this was badly over-reported too (like the O.J. trial, Columbine, and now the Laci Peterson case, to name but a few).

The media is seeking to cause trouble and controversy, not to screw over the Republicans.

Who says they can't do both at the same time? They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

quote:

---

Also, I thought you might be interested in what the liberal fascist magazine Newsweek's conventional wisdom page had to say this week:

Bush (Thumbs Up)--Traps Kerry into backing him on Iraq war, then skillfully savages him for it.
Kerry (Thumbs Down)--By pledging to be positive, he can't get down in the dirt to even baseless attacks.

---

Sounds like they're making Kerry to be the honest, innocent guy who chose to take the high road while the awful Bush took the low road.

Incidentally, apparently Newsweek's accuracy is suffering: Here in the Metro Philly area, the Kerry team - and, more importantly, his mouthpieces - have been running solidly anti-Bush ads, including some specifically touting Kerry.

quote:

---

McGreevey (Thumbs Down)--Tries to use gay angle to lessen sting of old-fashioned patronage scandal.

---

And...few people familiar with NJ politics really believed that McGreevey quit because he was gay.

quote:

---

In stark contrast, turn to a "fair and balanced" Conservative outlet (like Rush Limbaugh, for instance) and you'll hear a load of stuff along the lines of: "This just in! When Kerry was five years old, he claimed his favorite flavor of ice cream was _chocolate_. Now, he says it's _strawberry_! I suggest you pick a flavor, Senator Kerry!"

---

Which is that same kind of garbage you'll get from Al Frankin and "Air America". I intended to stick to real news sources, not demogogues on either side preaching to their respective choirs, but since you consider this type of stuff "news", I'll bite. To his credit, Limbaugh tries to get you to think and to look at things from a different perspective, which, if you've noticed, is why he often criticizes his callers - even those who agree with him.; By stark contrast, from what I've heard of Frankin and Garofalo, they [I]don't[I] want you to question them or their beliefs or their specific points-of-view. You must see things their way, or that's it. And, unfortunately, that kind of intolerance has become the hallmark of liberalism in the last few decades. And, not surprisingly, that intolerance exists in the "mainstream" media as well.

limbaugh isnt a news outlet. he is a perspective radio talk show host. much like al franken...but not a scum bag.

The media, in general is liberal biased. hvae you notived that all that is being talked about on news stations is the Abu Gahraib scandal and the Clinton book?
firt does anyone remember when the first events of Abu Garhaib happened? it started in November. November! Thats eight months! and its still a hot topic.
have you ever realized that there is nothing on the accomplishments in Iraq? or the the recovery of the economy? or anything on Nick Berg?
the liberals are using the media to compromise everything we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anything that shows the war in a good light or anything that might persuade the people to rally around Bush and the war or anything that puts Bush in a good light is shoved aside. The media asks "does this demonize Bush or does it demonize Kerrry?" "how can we make this into a failure for Bush?" it is sickening.
now how to stop this liberal crap. we should be able to see the pictures of Saddam's torture chambers, his mass graves, his horrendous torture movies. we should be able to see binLadens movies on the decapitaion of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl. i am convinced that that is the only way for the message to truly get through to the American people. we need to know what we are dealing with. We were able to see teh Abu Garhaib pictures, we were able to see the concentration camp pictures and those pictures truly got the point across to people.
if we show these pictures, it will show why we are over ther in Iraq and Afghanistan. it will show why the fight against terrorism isnt a lost cause. it would show what would happpen to you if you were caught by one of these people. it owuld show you what would happen if we just leave. We forget why we are there and what we are fighting. No one wants to see it but we need to see the atrocities against humanity Saddam comitted. Imagine if we never saw the pics of Hilter and his concentration camps. the word nazism wouldnt be considered bad, the swastika would have just been a symbol of defeated country all the things associated with German nazism now wouldnt have been had those pictures not been shown.
they figured 6 million Jews were exterminated in WW 2 and people believed that because we had pictures. if we just ahd a bunch claims that 6 million jews were exterminated half of the people who believed wouldnt have believed that.
the war on terror isnt just in Iraq and Afghanistan. terror is spread around the world. we are not just fighting the al-qaeda but ALL terrorism.
some of the people in Hollywood made their fortunes in WW 2 documenatries or the Bosnian conflict or stuff like that. now we have documenatries on George Bush. nothing on the atrocities in Afghanistan or Iraq. Nothing on the terrorist camps in Libya and nothing on the treatment of women in all of the Middle East.

juat thought id bring this up again.

Ah, so now we're going to call the coverage of the Abu Gharib bit liberal-biased. It was a horrific event that deserved the coverage it got. But maybe you're right in saying it was a little drawn out...it kind of reminds me of something else...hmmm, what could that be?

Oh, that's right, the LEWINSKY scandal. They didn't let that go for years! The media is seeking to cause trouble and controversy, not to screw over the Republicans. Also, I thought you might be interested in what the liberal fascist magazine Newsweek's conventional wisdom page had to say this week:

Bush (Thumbs Up)--Traps Kerry into backing him on Iraq war, then skillfully savages him for it.
Kerry (Thumbs Down)--By pledging to be positive, he can't get down in the dirt to even baseless attacks.
McGreevey (Thumbs Down)--Tries to use gay angle to lessen sting of old-fashioned patronage scandal.

Now, of course, will be the part will you to me that even the liberal-biased media has come to its senses on the McGreevey one.

In stark contrast, turn to a "fair and balanced" Conservative outlet (like Rush Limbaugh, for instance) and you'll hear a load of stuff along the lines of: "This just in! When Kerry was five years old, he claimed his favorite flavor of ice cream was chocolate. Now, he says it's strawberry! I suggest you pick a flavor, Senator Kerry!"

Ah, so a liberal news outlet is "fair and balanced" while a conservative on is "anti-Kerry, pro-war nutjobs"?
WRONG! Actually, the reverse is true; the conservative outlets (at least some of them, not all) try to be fair and balanced. Most of the liberal ones don't even make the vaguest attempt, including the New York Times, and are full of Pro-Kerry, anti-Bush, anti-war nutjobs.

Case in point: New York Times running the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for almost two months straight on its front page. The Times was on a mission to hang this scandal around Bush's neck.

Case in point: LA Times did the same.

Case in point: To Boston Globe's close relationship with John Kerry. It's reporters even wrong a biography on the man in order to promote his presidential candidacy, and openly lied about on the the Swift Boat Veterans, claiming that he recanted his statements about Jon Kerry when he did not.

As far as how biased develop, the New York Times article actually touches on that quite well; in fact, the author tries to excuse the New York Times' left-wing bias as being the result of heavy multi-culturalism, which tends to breed the kind of ivory-tower elitism that has come to be synonymous with modern liberalism. I suggest you re-read that article - you'll see that it is very telling not just about the New York Times, but of the modern form of liberalism itself.

Also, maybe when you go to college it'll be more obvious. People in the arts and humanities field - of which journalism is a central part - tend overwhelmingly to lean liberal if not progressive. In my observance, almost exclusively. Try going to a college and survey the arts and humanties majors, and you'll find this yourself. Try asking how many of them favor Kerry and how many favor Bush; your results won't be anything close to representative of the national polls. I'd be surprised if you find more than 5% who support Bush. I did this for a journalism project (although it was back when all nine Democrats were running and nobody knew who tghe nominee would be) and 97% of the humanities majors would vote for the Democrats, whoever it may be, including journalism majors. (I didn't give people the choise of Nader or Badnarik. Sorry, that was my bad. But nearly all said they would vote Democratic anyway.)

First off, the New York Times never came right out and admitted anything. That article you posted was just from one insider's point of view. I'm sure, though, that you're as positive he is right as you are Dick Clark is wrong. It's just that from my perspective, at least, the "liberally biased" media outlets you mentioned seemed to be the ones offering fair and balanced (no pun intended) coverage, while the conservatively biased ones I mentioned seemed to be...well...full of the anti-Kerry, pro-war nutjobs.

Let's say, for a moment, that these biases do exist. I'm a bit curious as to how these left-wing biases developed. It seems peculiar that the people who research and report on issues as a career would end up with a left-wing bias.

But then again, maybe it's not that peculiar.

For every conservative news outlet, I can name 15-20 that are liberally-biased, and that's not counting local TV or radio stations. Since you named FoxNews specifically, I'll start:

New York Times
Associated Press
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
NBC
ABC
CBS
CNN
Time Magazine
Newsweek
Miami Herald
Philadelphia Inquirer
Detroit Free Press
Baltimore Sun
Boston Globe

It's worth noting that the first two control the overwhelming majority of news, and the first eight control nearly all.

And the media has done anything but give Bush a break. Do you really consider the fact that the LA Times and New York Times - the 800-pound gorilla of the media - rehashing the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on their front pages for nearly two months in a row is "being kind to Bush"?

I think every journalist has a different take on things, and is bound to slant things in that direction. However, the media at large does not have a liberal bias. In fact, with all Bush has done, the media is being downright kind to him. The only blatantly one-sided mediums of the media are AM Radio and Fox News.

The liberal bias in the media is extreme, particularly on social issues. The media tends to be more centrist or center-conservative on fiscal issues, but if you spend a little time learning about both sides of most social issues, especially hot-button ones, you'll find that the media's bias is extreme and severely affects coverage. In some cases, the press goes out of its way to suppress points-of-view other than its own.

As I've already said, this really isn't so much a liberal bias as a controversy bias. If it really does have a "liberal" bias, then the liberals screwed up big time. While I think the majority of America thinks Bush went a bit too far in bringing up a new Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, America does side with Bush in overall not wanting gay marriage. Amazingly, things that are brought up about gays lately are having a tendency to help Bush's ratings.

There is no liberal bias in the media. Let it die.

Only in New Jersey... Well, maybe everyone will leave MY governor (Arnold) alone now that there's some new "juicy gossip" to be aired. I have to say that I wasn't aware of this issue concerning the New Jersey governor (I haven't really been watching TV very much lately) but assuming that you all are right about people focusing on the gay factor rather than the cheating factor, that is so typical. I have a feeling that these liberally slanted TV stations are taking this opportunity to promote gay rights and get the issue in the spotlight--AGAIN. I absolutely think that they should focus on the fact that this man is a homewrecker if you will--cheating on your wife and kids is wrong no matter what gender you're doing it with. But, how could these liberals pass up such a perfect opportunity?

this is really sleazy of the democrats. why don t they just let him step down? its not like and republican is going to have a chance there. but maybe some of the voters will realize and get sick of all the scandals that have gone on in there state. we'll see.

" if there is a special election for the next governor there will be a greater chance for new jersey being behind bush "
There won't be a special election. Because his resignation goes into effect (or affect, I was always really bad at that *shakes head*) on November 15 (give or take a couple days), he is avoiding a special election and the conflict that it would bring about.

Media spin forever exists. People have experiences and opinions and it will always show through. The goal is to slowly weed out the truth through multiple sources which sucks, but is necessary.

AH! NuShoes, you're so right! I was watching the local New Jersey news, and they were interviewing a Democratic Campaign Advisor, or something, and all she was saying about the event was that we should all be proud of the governor for having the courage to come out and say that, she didn't even mention the fact that what he did was WRONG, and definitely nothing about how he put this guy on the payroll (6 figure salary!) even though the guy had NO credentials for it.
Even Fox seemed to spin it in a liberal way...I'm not joking, it was really odd. I was watching the news at 9 today, and all the people who they interviewed on the street said that they didn't care at all and they wished he wouldn't resign. Believe me, New Jerseyans are not all behind the guy.

this could actually play into bush's hands...or so i hear. if there is a special election for the next governor there will be a greater chance for new jersey being behind bush but i highly doubt that. new jersey is a die hard liberal haven.

O believe me, I have thought about it. In school we did a whole project on media bias. The media, no matter how "equal" it is, always has a slant, it's human nature. But the point at which it is scary is when it's being used as a tool of the government.
Example: The colored threat levels. Let's be honest the real reason for those is to keep the public afraid that we will have another terrorist attack.
I hate the fact that the media uses us like this and the way they try to sway our views. Their job is not to give us opinions, but to gove us the facts and let us form our own opinions. I dislike that people think I'm too stupid to think for myself or that I can be swayed because some newscaster or reporter believes something.

Sure, the media does shape our views, but it isn't solely responsible for shaping our views. What the media seems to thrive on is controversy. In the McGreevy example, they weren't being die-hard liberals, they were just trying to stir a pot that didn't need stirring. My only real fear regarding the media is that in the years to come it will disentigrate into Public Access style uninformed debate.

The media wants to be entertaining, not accurate. At any time, anyone can just flip off a news report and turn on something that will provide them with mindless entertainment. The media is having to fight this by creating its own entertainment: i.e., having Democrats and Republicans fight over the reported issue instead of uncovering the real issue.

The WB did indeed get higher TV ratings than the DNC, but this doesn't speak badly of Democrats. It speaks badly of the intelligence of the average American. I don't really have any solution to this problem, except to tell people to get more involved, and I think we all know just how much good that will do.

Thank you for listening to my written-at-midnight, semi-coherent rambling.

Like it or not, the media HAS shaped everyone's views, beliefs, mindframe, etc, in some way shape or for