An excellent example of liberal media bias.

[jcx]

The following story by NY Times staff writer Ronald Brownstein is an excellent example of subtle media bias. In covering the story of George Soros' MoveOn.org raising a significant sum for ex-Klansmen Sen. Robert Byrd (A story in itself which I will not address here) Mr. Brownstein neglects to mention Sen Byrd's somewhat sordid past. Specifically, his former affiliation with the Klan is completely omitted from a story currently running on nytimes.com and the main page of Yahoo!

The only reason I have for pointing this out is to demonstrate what I believe to be a clear bias. If David Duke decided to re-enter the world of politics and for some
inane reason the Heritage Foundation contributed to his cause, his Klan affiliation would be mentioned in every paragraph (rightly so).

Thanks for your time.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...toliberalgroup

[sam h]

The article is from the LA Times not the New York Times, but, hey, its all the same right?

Byrd is a total scumbag, but he did quit the Klan in 1943. Duke, on the other hand, was Louisiana's KKK Imperial Wizard into the 1980s, just before he started running for office. And since then, Duke has continued to publicly agitate for white supremacy when he hasn't been trying to get into politics. So they are really not that comparable.

[partygirluk]

Most media outlets will have some kind of bias.

[InchoateHand]

National Review doesn't. Fox doesn't.

[bholdr]

please include a smiley to denote sarcasam. i almost took your post seriously and nearly flamed you. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

also without bias:CBS, ABC, Washingto Post, Rush Limbaugh, HST, etc.. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

actually without bias (largely): CSM, AP, BBC

[Dead]

American Spectator, WSJ, and Ann Coulter's website are all great non-biased reads. If you don't get your news from them then you are certainly a commie. You don't want to be a commie, do you?

[Felix_Nietsche]

...suppose to be Neutral.
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Al Frankin(sp?) are editorialist. To accuse them of be being biased is silly. They admit upfront that they are biased and the listener is forewarned. Accusing an editorialist of being bias is like accusing Kerry of being a Democrat......

Where bias is wrong is where news reporters who are suppose to be objective are allowing their personal views to color the news. Their tactics of introducing bias include:

1. Time devoted to a story.
E.g. The media spent FIVE YEARS trying to nail Bush about his national guard service. It finally climaxed with the Dan Rather fake memos. While the coverage for the oil-for-food lasted maybe a week.

2. Choice of words
E.g. In the fight over the judicial nominees, the Democrats have called the proposed rule changes the "nuclear option". Republicans call it the "constitutional option". Obviously calling the proposed rule changes the nuclear option is less flattering, so what does the mainstream media call it? the nuclear option.... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

3. Choosing what stories to run and which stories to muck.
This is a biggie!

The problem with news bias is with reporters who are suppose to report news in an objective are in a sense being dishonest with their readers/viewers by not admiting thay are coloring the news. In their defense, the view of the world is so warped that they actually believe they are objective. Dan Rather was one of these people. He called himself a moderate. There are whole websites devoted with examples of his biasness...

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Choice of words
E.g. In the fight over the judicial nominees, the Democrats have called the proposed rule changes the "nuclear option". Republicans call it the "constitutional option". Obviously calling the proposed rule changes the nuclear option is less flattering, so what does the mainstream media call it? the nuclear option....

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, those mainstream, pinko, Dukakis-voting, tree-hugging liberals and their spinsters in the media are up to their old tricks.

Just look at this article by some commie rag columnist, one Comrade Bob Novak, where the phrase 'nuclear option' appears numerous times!

Link To Some Liberal Calling it a 'Nuclear Option'; how biased!

Where did the liberal media get the term 'nuclear option' from, anyway? Must have been one of their Democratic allies in the Senate. No Republican would ever use such inflammatory language.

Some Democratic Senator Referring to it as the 'nuclear option'...no wonder the MSM picked up the phrase!


[ QUOTE ]
Dan Rather was one of these people. He called himself a moderate. There are whole websites devoted with examples of his biasness...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? Whole websites!?!? Wow. Maybe now that Rather's retired, he'll have more time to visit Lenin's Mausoleum and pray at the altar of Trotsky.

I'd comment further on Rather's bias but I've got to run and check out what the Aryan Nation, KKK, Nordic Thunder, White Aryan Resistance (WAR), and the American Nazi Party's websites all have to teach me about white supremacy, because if there are whole websites devoted to it, it's gotta be true!!!!!!

[Cyrus]

I understand that Byrd has completely denounced his past KKK affiliation. In fact, his record on politics, for anyone that does not know his personal history, is anything but a Klansman's.

So, although not a minor "youthful indiscretion" at all, why is Robert Byrd's past affiliation with a racist organisation used by his ideological opponents to this day? Should we not rather be concerned with his current ideas and positions on issues?

David Duke has never repented and is, in fact, still actively supporting his racist ideas. Comparing Byrd with Duke is not little idiotic. It is like putting on equal measure a straight-up guy that had broken the law once in his youth with a serial killer still out for blood. What's your story?

[zaxx19]

From Dukes Website:

[ QUOTE ]
The Jewish supremacists are the real supremacists, Yet, they diabolically label their enemies as racist, haters, anti-Semites, and racially prejudiced, when in fact they practice the most virulent, and violent racism and human oppression known to mankind. Israel is an Apartheid State that has cruelly ethnically cleansed huge sections of land and put additional lands and millions of people under a brutal military occupation for decades. It jails and tortures tens of thousands, sends missiles and machine gun fire into neighborhoods of women and children, and somehow is still described as a democracy by the Jewish-dominated press! It segregates Jews and Arabs in schools, facilities, apartment buildings and neighborhoods and even whole towns! Yet, the proponents of Israel such as the ADL are busy finding targets of “racial hate” in the United States. And who are their targets, the very groups who oppose Jewish supremacism!



[/ QUOTE ]

Now, Cyrus are you sure you dont like David Duke a little more than you initially thought?? Bc it seems like you 2 might have alot of commonly held values/beliefs.