F_M, the homicide v. suicide bomber point is still an example of the slant, which you didn't disprove in your post. You gave a reason why you think its conservative hypocrisy, but that doesn't change the fact that its slanted. Not only that but 'homicide bomber' was a word used I believed by Dr. Jenkins in his research on terrorism and thats how it caught on.

 

And finally the suice v. homicide bombers debate shows the slant quite clearly, the hypocrisy of it is irrelevant.

 

It isn't slanted because using the word suicide bomber does not imply a liberal bias. When they follow the status quo and don't follow an uneccesary change in the lexicon, they are merely doing what everyone else does. Unless everyone who uses the word suicide bomber is a liberal, then you've proven nothing. The word suicide bomber has been used by the Washington Times and even Fox News' online edition. Go do a basic google news search. Are those publications part of the liberal media bias?

 

The truth is he is on MSNBC as a liberal commentator. Now, some people may feel that a show is best served by attacking everyone on the show in a more seemingly objective way, which is what Scarborough does as well. Your source about Dobbs does not disprove my point, b/c of A) the source its coming from and B) one example from the internet does not alone negate the truth, I challenge you to watch for the next few days and be objective and you'd be surprised in what you see.

 

In terms of Matthews, you are only repeating conclusary statements. The reality is that Matthews voted for Bush in 2000 and has basically said he is more conservative than people think. How can someone who voted for Bush ever be labeled a liberal? What exactly does he say that makes him a liberal commentator?

 

But even if I concede to your point that Matthews, which is totally baseless, then at least MSNBC has equally "conservative" viewpoints. MSNBC has Tucker Carlson. CNN has Glenn Beck. . Fox news has none. Not a single one. How is that for difference in bias?

 

Others may rather use the O'Reilly approach, where he attacks from an idelogical viewpoint. Regardless it changes nothing. Editorial type shows are not relevant in this discussion.

 

They are absolutely relevant. They provide more forceful and substantive points. They don't let people get away with stuff. They act as mouthpieces and reinforce what people suspect. When OReilly makes 5 points that proves democrats are wrong on Iraq, don't you think he is convincing people? Do you actually think Rush Limbaugh doesn't convince people? Following that logic, it would be like saying you and I have less an effect on this board than the people who post random useless articles and never make a point. You're telling me that if we gave you, accord, and wildmarlinman your own space on here to express your views and we gave prinmemito the right to post articles, then the board would be biased towards liberals?

 

Liberal don't have a single person on television that convinces people of their viewpoints. Not a single person. Al Franken doesn't have his own show. OReilly does. Glenn Beck does. Only recently has Olbermann been speaking up. But that is still only one and it is on MSNBC. Fox news has none.

Its all subjective. I listen to Glenn Beck everyday on the radio. He's as conservative as Matthews is liberal. Not only that but I dont want to get into this debate. But Bush is not conservative, so voting for bush doesnt make someone conservative.

I don't think the news media has a liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC are very even-handed. I remember how they used to cover Bill Clinton in the 90's and all those scandals. I'll tell you what, you would have thought they'd be going after Bush a lot harder than they are based on how they went after Clinton for getting a blow job.

 

Its all subjective. I listen to Glenn Beck everyday on the radio. He's as conservative as Matthews is liberal. Not only that but I dont want to get into this debate. But Bush is not conservative, so voting for bush doesnt make someone conservative.

 

If it's all subjective then why are we having this discussion at all? You think the media has a liberal bias simply because you're conservative and therefore anything they spew out will seem liberal to you.

 

I think all you conservatives ought to give this thing a rest. The media does not have a liberal bias. Some commentators may, but the news is reported fairly overall.

I don't think the news media has a liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC are very even-handed. I remember how they used to cover Bill Clinton in the 90's and all those scandals. I'll tell you what, you would have thought they'd be going after Bush a lot harder than they are based on how they went after Clinton for getting a blow job.

 

Its all subjective. I listen to Glenn Beck everyday on the radio. He's as conservative as Matthews is liberal. Not only that but I dont want to get into this debate. But Bush is not conservative, so voting for bush doesnt make someone conservative.

 

If it's all subjective then why are we having this discussion at all? You think the media has a liberal bias simply because you're conservative and therefore anything they spew out will seem liberal to you.

 

I think all you conservatives ought to give this thing a rest. The media does not have a liberal bias. Some commentators may, but the news is reported fairly overall.

 

If you know how to read you'd notice that I'm describing a slant on both sides. The real problem is people like you who think Fox is the only media source that has any type of a bias.

I don't think the news media has a liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC are very even-handed. I remember how they used to cover Bill Clinton in the 90's and all those scandals. I'll tell you what, you would have thought they'd be going after Bush a lot harder than they are based on how they went after Clinton for getting a blow job.

 

Its all subjective. I listen to Glenn Beck everyday on the radio. He's as conservative as Matthews is liberal. Not only that but I dont want to get into this debate. But Bush is not conservative, so voting for bush doesnt make someone conservative.

 

If it's all subjective then why are we having this discussion at all? You think the media has a liberal bias simply because you're conservative and therefore anything they spew out will seem liberal to you.

 

I think all you conservatives ought to give this thing a rest. The media does not have a liberal bias. Some commentators may, but the news is reported fairly overall.

 

If you know how to read you'd notice that I'm describing a slant on both sides. The real problem is people like you who think Fox is the only media source that has any type of a bias.

 

Calm down. The truth of the matter is Fox's slant is clearly more pronounced, even when they're reporting "facts". I just don't think that's the case with the other major news networks. Sometimes they are biased, but they're mostly objective in their reporting. Fox is way too extreme.

I don't think the news media has a liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC are very even-handed. I remember how they used to cover Bill Clinton in the 90's and all those scandals. I'll tell you what, you would have thought they'd be going after Bush a lot harder than they are based on how they went after Clinton for getting a blow job.

 

Its all subjective. I listen to Glenn Beck everyday on the radio. He's as conservative as Matthews is liberal. Not only that but I dont want to get into this debate. But Bush is not conservative, so voting for bush doesnt make someone conservative.

 

If it's all subjective then why are we having this discussion at all? You think the media has a liberal bias simply because you're conservative and therefore anything they spew out will seem liberal to you.

 

I think all you conservatives ought to give this thing a rest. The media does not have a liberal bias. Some commentators may, but the news is reported fairly overall.

 

If you know how to read you'd notice that I'm describing a slant on both sides. The real problem is people like you who think Fox is the only media source that has any type of a bias.

 

Calm down. The truth of the matter is Fox's slant is clearly more pronounced, even when they're reporting "facts". I just don't think that's the case with the other major news networks. Sometimes they are biased, but they're mostly objective in their reporting. Fox is way too extreme.

 

Thats the same argument I'm trying to make except that your sayign that as a liberal. As a libertarian I think MSNBC's reporting is more biased than Fox's in regular news stories. Furthermore, what F_m will continue debating me about is something that is very hard to prove or disprove, b/c its based on perception. Showing me links about a time or two where there was no slant or when there was doesn't prove or disprove a point like this b/c its perception. For example, when polled most people in media say theyre registered democrats. I can use this type of evidence to prove slant, but the weight of the evidence for that purpose is questionable. By the way, i apologize for the way I wrote the previous post, it came out worse than I intended.

No problem. It seems that we agree for the most part, then. I don't think Fox news is very libertarian. They seem more like Republicans and Bush worshipers to me. If they were truly libertarian or even conservative they'd be bashing Bush a lot more. As a libertarian you wouldn't support many of the things that the Bush administration has been doing in recent years, such as secret wiretapping, advocating religiously-based programs, strong opposition to gay marriage, etc. I am relatively libertarian myself. In an ideal world the theories and positions of Milton Friedman would be implemented and things would work out great. But the world is not ideal and we have to deal with that reality. That's why I am a democrat.

No problem. It seems that we agree for the most part, then. I don't think Fox news is very libertarian. They seem more like Republicans and Bush worshipers to me. If they were truly libertarian or even conservative they'd be bashing Bush a lot more. As a libertarian you wouldn't support many of the things that the Bush administration has been doing in recent years, such as secret wiretapping, advocating religiously-based programs, strong opposition to gay marriage, etc. I am relatively libertarian myself. In an ideal world the theories and positions of Milton Friedman would be implemented and things would work out great. But the world is not ideal and we have to deal with that reality. That's why I am a democrat.

 

 

I disagree with plenty of the things Bush has said or done, and as such I am disappointed at the republican party. However, I can't be a democrat b/c of the fiscal policies. Even though Bush in practice has been fiscally irresponsible, the Democrats aren't offering budget balancing and cutting spending alternatives. I was actually looking at unity08.com and it seems like an interesting movement.