Zogby Poll - 64% Believe Media Tilts to the Left

A recent Zogby poll confirms what most Americans already know painfully well, that the mainstream media is significantly further to left of the political spectrum than the general population. 

Of all respondents, 64% feel the media as a leftist bias and only 28% perceive a right-leaning bias.  Republicans aside, 66% of Independents and even 17% of Democrats believe that the media has a leftist bias. 

Of course, none of this is a surprise.  This brings us to the useful part of this article.

Many leftists have a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Fox News.  Whether they have ever seen it or not, they are firmly convinced that it is a fanatically right-wing news network.  The fact that Fox does feature liberals like Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and Greta Van Susteren while CNN, MSNBC, etc. feature almost no Republican voices is unimportant in the formation of this opinion.

Even if we concede that Fox News is biased to the right, that makes it just one out of eight news networks with a Republican bias.  The left thus still controls 7 out of 8 news networks.  Why, then, the obsession over the lack of a total monopoly, when they already have an 87.5% monopoly?  Because their opinion is not logical, merely fashionable.  There is a reason 'fashion' and 'fascism' are similar-sounding words - they originate from the Latin words for conformity. 

So when your opponent says :

"..(some statement insinuating that Fox News deserves condemnation for having a right-wing bias)"

you can then call them on their hypocrisy by stating :

"But out of 8 news networks, if 7 are left-wing, and just 1 is right wing, and even that network contains liberals, why does Fox News bother you so much?  If only 1 out of 8 news networks caters to half of the population, yet you want to suppress even that, that means you are opposed to free speech, doesn't it?  How is what you seek even remotely fair?"

They will, of course, either quickly change the subject or attack you personally with childish insults.  Either tactic is evidence that you have exposed their desire to suppress free speech.  If they insist that Fox News should be suppressed because Republicans are 'dumb', then remind them of how people earning over $50,000  a year overwhelmingly voted for Bush, while Kerry had a majority only among those who earn under $30,000 a year.  Income may not corelate directly to intelligence, but income certainly does not have an inverse corelation with intelligence.  Anyone who suggests that a group that is 'rich' is simultaneously 'dumb' is desperately trying to fight off realities that fail to affirm their belief in their own intelligence.  This usually leads to a hatred of American meritocracy, for obvious reasons. 

Winning these debates is remarkably quick and easy, once you learn to offer rebuttals that take the form of questions that the opponent must think about, rather than facts that can be easily ignored. 

Update : Here is a remarkable attempt by Reuters to spin US success against Al-Qaeda as a negative, in a "success creates long-term problems" vein.

Update (6/21/07) : Actually, 64% is low.  MSNBC has identified that journalists donate to Democrats over Republicans at an 88% to 12% rate.  That they are this undiversified in ideology is problem enough, but that an agenda pervades duties that should be held to certain professional standards is even worse. 

Related :

The Way to Debate Iraq

Deconstructing the 'Leftist' Mind

Comments

[aravi]

FOX News is brutal to watch. They have way too many opinion shows. I prefer CNN, despite Lou Dobbs. I especially enjoy Anderson (his stock with me flew through the roof during the Hezbollah War). Overall, I watch BBC World the most. It does lean left but not overly so and it's the most tolerable to watch.

[Alex]

Dear Futurist

That's an interesting interpretation of the Zogby Poll of yours... It seems like you are on the Holy War of bashing the left wing...
In your conclusion it seems like who is not in the right wing, then he is in the left one :) That's just pathetic generalization.
For your information, there are only two news channel which are really left, the rest is just liberal. And liberal is not left, by the way ;)
And the Fox News are highly opionated which is really bad. Tell me, do we need opionated news, or news told us in a neutural way, so we can draw our conclusions by ourselves?
That's why I like British News channels, so I dont hear any opinions of half-baked political analysts, but the pure world news.

Cheers.

[GK]

Alex,

You are avoiding the results of the poll, merely because it is uncomfortable to you. Nothing you have stated is intelligent.

And the Fox News are highly opionated which is really bad. Tell me, do we need opionated news, or news told us in a neutural way

Your own sentence proves the point of the article, which is that your type obsesses over Fox News because you disagree with it, but excuse 'opinionated news' that is biased in your favor. Why obsess over the 1 network out of 8 that is Republican? Are you opposed to free speech?

64% of Americans say the media is biased to the left. Zogby, itself a Democrat operation, has found this.

[Alex]

GK, no need to treat my words the way you want, I made no excuses, and the statement like "excuse 'opinionated news' that is biased in your favor" does not make much sense...
Also, "Are you opposed to free speech?" - I'm not opposed to free speech, I just dont feel comfortable when people obuse free speech to inject an opinion that is not based on true facts (or simply manipulate facts to create a different vision), like:
"if 7 (news companies) are left-wing" - not true
"If only 1 out of 8 news networks caters to half of the population" - not true
"The left thus still controls 7 out of 8 news networks." - not true.
The 5 0f 8 networks (I repeat myself again) are not leftist, they are liberal.

"And the Fox News are highly opionated which is really bad. Tell me, do we need opionated news, or news told us in a neutural way

Your own sentence proves the point of the article, which is that your type obsesses over Fox"

Excuse me, why does my sentence prove the point of the article?! It does not!
And what "type" you are talking about? If your are talking about me, I'm not obsessed with Fox News, I just think they should do better job of delivering news, not "making" news of their own.
The whole statement of yours is just ridiculous...

[Saul]

GK posts: "They will, of course, either quickly change the subject or attack you personally with childish insults."

Which results in a comment containing the following:
"It seems like you are on the Holy War of bashing the left wing..."

You are not a futurist but a prophet. Don't let the Imams catch you doing that.

Alex said:
"I'm not opposed to free speech, I just..."

Classic. No one who is truly in favor of free speech makes exceptions for things they do not feel are "true facts" or "create a different vision".

Alex said
"Excuse me, why does my sentence prove the point of the article?!"

I would guess that the answer is that merlot and posting don't mix. ;-) [I kid! I kid 'cause I love.]

As for media being liberal rather than left-wing; do liberals support Castro and Chavez? Do liberals support any homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic,
or generally theocratic regime merely because they oppose Israel or America? Do liberals misrepresent the economy by such an extent that they have a majority of Americans believing they are in a recession when all economic indicators show record after record being broken?

I guess I was mistaken about what liberal actually means.

Alex said: "I just think they should do better job of delivering news, not "making" news of their own."

Like the fauxtography scandals and stories about burning Sunnis and destroyed Mosques which never happened and... anything by Jamil Hussein, or the "fact" that Jamil Hussein actually exists... Is that what you mean by "making news"?

[LT Nichols]

GK:
Outstanding analysis. The reality of media bias has now been studied scientifically, and although liberal media bias hasn't been 'proven' any more than evolution can be 'proven', just like evolution it's clearly demonstrated enough to convince anyone without ideological blinders.

Wiki article
other surveys/studies

Regards,
LT Nichols
AppealForCourage.org

[GK]

Saul,

Great job destroying Alex's illogical nonsense. I never call these people 'liberal', as their desire to suppress any non-conforming views is the very antithesis of the definition of the word 'liberal'.

Alex is clumsily trying to ignore the Zogby poll by saying 'not true' without any basis. Facts to support his wishes don't exist, so he avoids them.

Alex's own admission that he is obsessed with just one network, Fox News, out of 8, that does not conform with his views, simply proves that he is wants a 100% monopoly over what information people should be fed. 7 out of 8 is not enough. That is suppression of free speech and hence fascism. Period.

There is no more substance to anything Alex has written.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Alex uses arguments that are useful if true - points that could have been valid if the facts supported them. After that it's wishful thinking.

Yes, if 7 out of 8 were unopinionated or barely opinionated in their reporting, the mildly rightist slant of Fox might be a point against it. Neutral news would be a better thing. As the other 7 have greater slant left than Fox does right, the point is moot.

Citing the British news channels as a preferable example gives away his whole argument. Whatever definition of liberal, progressive, or leftist one uses, the BBC is farther out than the others. The choices and framing of stories and film are a more subtle, but perhaps more powerful way of being biased. That Alex (and aravi) miss these subtleties and swallow what they are fed does not speak well for them.

I will anticipate another argument that no one has made, but would be valid if it were supported by outside facts. A majority impression of bias does not prove it. 64% of the population could think that the media leans left but be wrong, after all, if a rightist bias were well-hidden. As most people absorb news in order to "get the news" rather than try and estimate source bias for amusement, the fact that a slant is perceived at all would suggest that it surpasses some threshold level of being noticed. That would indicate that the bias is even greater than perceived.

But there is concrete and independent evidence of bias as well: entire sites and books devoted to it. Though several on the left have argued that local news has a pro-business bias in its business section, this counts as a rightward slant. But of course people want their own area to be prosperous. This is true but hardly significant. The sports page has a sports-positive attitude, arts & leisure has an arts & leisure positive attitude, and the same is true for the travel, religion, and comics sections. So what? It's the news and op-ed pages where the damage is done, often by omission rather than declaration.

[Alex]

@Saul,

Excellent brain fart, mio amigo.

[GK]

Alex said :

Excellent brain fart, mio amigo.

Translation : Alex is totally stumped by Saul (as he often is by most other rational thinkers), and has no rebuttal whatsoever.

[Alex]

Rational thinkers, GK?!
I did not see anything rational so far in your posts...

[Dave]

Simple explaination for that, Alex. You are in posession of an irrational mind.

[Alex]

Thanks, GK-Dave, for the detail explanation, I was wondering about that myself...

[Saul]

"Excellent brain fart, mio amigo"

I am going to be laughing about that for the rest of the day.

Maybe I should have wrote "moonshine" instead of "merlot".

Generally, if someone sees a post which has nothing rational in it, one can point that out through dissecting the argument and pointing to flaws in reasoning. Or one can just say it is illogical and make ad hominem attacks. Alex, if GK and Dave are the same person as, you assert without evidence (I will probably be included in this collective next) does that make your lake of content any more persuasive? There are many good books on logic and critical thinking out there. I heartily recommend having a look.

[Josh]

CNN, MSNBC, etc. feature almost no Republican voices

You can't be serious.

If they insist that Fox News should be suppressed because Republicans are 'dumb'

Who thinks Fox should be "suppressed"? It should simply be recognized for the propaganda outlet that it is.

There is a reason 'fashion' and 'fascism' are similar-sounding words.

Is there? Do tell. How about "axe" and "acts"? "Hostel" and "hostile"? "Liar" and "layer"? Please tell the world about the sinister connection between these innocent-seeming words before the evil MSM brainwashes more good conservative Americans with its pernicious Fifth Column of homophones!

[GK]

Josh,

Why no comments on the poll itself?

You can't be serious.

Failure to provide examples indicates the lack thereof.

It should simply be recognized for the propaganda outlet that it is.

What basis do you have for it being any more of a propaganda outfit than the far more numerous left-leaning organizations? Simply believing something does not make it so.

"fashion" and 'fascism" both originate from the same Latin word.

Please tell the world about the sinister connection between these innocent-seeming words before the evil MSM brainwashes more good conservative Americans with its pernicious Fifth Column of homophones!

Emotional outbursts are indicative of a lack of rational counterpoints.

[Josh]

Why no comments on the poll itself?

Because AVI already covered the relevant point: just because a majority of people believe a certain thing does not make it true.

Just a partial list of Republicans/Conservatives on major media outlets:

Tucker Carlson, George Will, William F. Buckley, Jr., John McLaughlin, G. Gordon Liddy, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Robert Novak, William Safire, Pat Buchanan, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, P. J. O'Rourke, Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck.

What basis do you have for it being any more of a propaganda outfit than the far more numerous left-leaning organizations?

The content of its reporting. And emails from Roger Ailes pushing the right-wing line.

"fashion" and 'fascism" both originate from the same Latin word.

No. Fascism originates from fascis, meaning a bundle or group. Fashion originates from facti, meaning "to make."

[Josh]

And that wasn't an emotional outburst. It was sarcasm mocking your silly idea that similar-sounding words are somehow related.

Basic factual mistakes and inability to comprehend tone are indicative of knee-jerk ideology masquerading as thought.

[GK]

Just a partial list of Republicans/Conservatives on major media outlets:

We are talking about people who have shows or are employed analysts, not just guests (Fox has many left-wing guests). Only one-fourth of your list (which also includes libertarians) are regulars.

Fox has far more Democrats as hosts or regulars than any other single left-wing network has of Republicans.

The content of its reporting. And emails from Roger Ailes pushing the right-wing line.

That is just your opinion and an anedotal example. Ted Turner pushes leftist propaganda more often than Roger Ailes pushes right-wing ideas. You have no evidence that Ailes is less truthful than Turner.

The poll is the the best way to quantify this, and shows a sizable net left-wing bias.

The main point you avoid is that if only 1 network is right-wing, and 7 are left-wing, that is very far from representative of the distribution of the general population. An unwillingness to admit that the center of gravity of media ideology is much further to the left than the general population is dishonest.

[Josh]

We are talking about people who have shows or are employed analysts, not just guests.

You don't get to define what makes for bias on a network. Guests are clearly relevant. Also I note you think that Greta Van Susteren somehow counts, even though her show is not political.

The poll is the the best way to quantify this, and shows a sizable net left-wing bias.

Wow. You rely on polls to tell you what to believe? 64% of the American people can be wrong, you know.

The main point you avoid is that if only 1 network is right-wing, and 7 are left-wing,

First you need to establish that 7 are left-wing with something more substantial than a poll showing that people believe it's true.

[GK]

Josh,

If right-wing guests on CNN count, so do left-wing guests on Fox. Surely your ideological bias cannot deny this.

You don't get to define what makes for bias on a network.

This, from someone who insists that Fox is a propaganda outlet, but the other networks are not, despite proof from multiple sources against no countering proof of your own.

Your Roger Ailes example flopped when the Ted Turner example was presented, so you dropped it, I see. You have no basis for your claim that Fox is somehow less credible than other networks (other than your own emotions).

You have yet to provide any justification to why the Zogby poll is invalid. An alternative poll from another well-known organization, perhaps?

These links also prove left-wing media bias (although you will dismiss them as invalid due to their inconvenience).

Wiki article
other surveys/studies

Furthermore, you refuse to admit that the center of gravity of media ideology being further to the left than that of the general population is itself unfair to that group.

[Josh]

If right-wing guests on CNN count, so do left-wing guests on Fox. Surely your ideological bias cannot deny this.

I never have. Probably because my ideological bias is de minimis, while yours is pervasive and obvious.

despite proof from multiple sources against no countering proof of your own.

Again, a public opinion poll showing that the public believes a particular proposition is not actually evidence that the proposition is true. I realize it's probably embarassing for you to admit that the whole premise of your post is so obviously flawed, but you can at least bear it in mind to avoid such gaffes in the future.

Your Roger Ailes example flopped when the Ted Turner example was presented, so you dropped it, I see.

No, I can only some of your "arguments" at a time. If you can show me memos from Turner to the news staff pushing a particular line, we can discuss them. Until then, your analogy doesn't hold.

You have yet to provide any justification as to why the Zogby poll is invalid.

Actually, I've explained it several times. However accurate the poll is, it doesn't support the claim that you think it does. The fact that a majority of people believe a proposition is not evidence that the proposition is true. This is very basic logic. There's a name for the fallacy you're asserting. It's called appeal to popularity. Google it so as not to humiliate yourself in the future.

Furthermore, you refuse to admit that the center of gravity of media ideology being further to the left than that of the general population is itself unfair to that group.

Because it isn't. News organizations should present the facts. If those facts don't flatter the ideological preconceptions of the majority, too bad.

It appears your problem is that you are unable to put aside your emotions and think logically. I'm no psychologist, but your hatred of the MSM for reporting information that is inconvenient for your ideology apparently drives you to commit the most basic logical errors.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Josh, seems you only quoted the part of my post you liked...

[Al Fin]

Leftism is harder to define these days--since it encompasses mainly a generalised hatred toward anything "other." To be a leftist you not only have to hate the other--and forcefully exclude the other's point of view from your circle of influence--you also must pass the litmus test of the litany of belief.

But the litany is disconnected and inconsistent with itself. That makes it more difficult--so just sticking to the hatred of the "other" is the primary occupation of the left currently.

George Bush makes an excellent scapegoat for leftist anger. By focusing on hatred for Bush and his administration, consistency is more easily achieved, at least more easily projected by the media.

[GK]

Josh,

You continue to ramble nonsensically because you cannot admit some very basic things.

1) You insist the poll is merely perception, not evidence, of leftist bias, but show no counter evidence from a credible source that the media is not biased. Thus, it appears you feel the American public is stupid (whenever the majority disagrees with your views). I, on the other hand, provided additional sources supporting my position.

2) You clumsily ignored the other link which shows media personnel voted 85% democratic in 2004 (again, while supplying no evidence that the voting of this group is balanced).

3) You retreated from your claim about Roger Ailes because you know Ted Turner has said ridiculous things like "Bush is Hitler" and "I have not decided which side I am on in the WoT". Google this, if you must, but I am sure you already know about this. Have some courage to acknowledge it.

4) You insist that Fox is the only news network that is a propaganda outlet, but offer no justification other than "I don't like Fox", despite being repeatedly told to provide proof.

5) You truly think it is just fine for the center of gravity of political ideology of the media to be very far from that of the general public, only because it happens to suit your ends. You would be squealing from the raftertops if the media were *gasp* 50% right wing (like the general public is).

6) AVI correctly points out that you ignored the 95% of his post that did not suit your emotion-based ideology. This is humorous, as it proves much of the point I am making - that you are very selective and hypocritical of what you claim is legit, and what is not.

Beyond this, there is no substance to anything else you have saying. You are upset that left-wing bias is widely exposed across America, and that your 85% market share is vulnerable (hence the extreme fear of just *one* network out of eight). This desperation shows in your continually devolving rebuttals.

In fact, if the other side is so afraid of us even though they have an 85% market share, then we must be in a stronger position than we think.

[Josh]

1) You insist the poll is merely perception, not evidence, of leftist bias, but show no counter evidence from a credible source that the media is not biased.

I don't have to show any counter evidence. You made a claim based on evidence that doesn't support your claim. That's it. You've made a bad argument. Why should I present evidence to rebut a prooposition that a child could see you haven't even begun to establish?

The rest of your post is a bunch of hand-waving and distortions to distract from the painfully obvious fact that you are unable to make even the most basic logical argument. Show me you can make that first step (and man up and admit you employed an obvious fallacy) and then we may be able to discuss tangential matters such as your inability to understand that your Ailes/Turner analogy as flawed. But until you show (1) a command of basic logic; and (2) some semblance of intellectual honesty, I have to assume I'm going to get more of the same illogic and dishonest emotionalism that, frankly, is not worth addressing.

[Josh]

Josh, seems you only quoted the part of my post you liked...

I figured GK would be more receptive since it came from you, but instead I got another one of his verbal tantrums, which is disappointing. I'm trying to explain fundamental logic to him, but I have to do it in baby steps because he's so emotionally invested in his ideology that he gets really evasive when you point out his errors. And even taking baby steps hasn't been all that productive. I'm beginning to fear that he's beyond help.

[GK]

Josh,

You have answered none of the crystal-clear points I have provided. My response might as well be a mere copy and paste of my previous rebuttal.

You dodge all questions, whine that every source provided is not valid, despite providing no countering sources of your own to support your belief that the media is not biased to the left. You cannot admit that the 50% of the country that is right of the center deserve proportional representation in the media. I question your basic belief in Democracy, at this point.

There is absolutely no other substance to your words.

Then again, you have admitted on the "Way to Debate Iraq" thread that you feel you have a birthright to criticize everything America does and does not do in the War on Terror, while simultaneously having no responsibility to provide any better ideas of your own. So, truly, what can thinking people expect from someone like you? Certainly nothing honest, mature, equitable, or constructive.

[GK]

Josh, seems you only quoted the part of my post you liked...

But Josh won't concede that he has no answer for the other 95% of AVI's post.

Plus, Josh, in great cowardice, continues to ignore data showing that those in the media itself vote about 85% Democrat.

Not addressing a credible source provided, while also providing no countering sources of his own, makes a person unworthy of taking seriously.

I'm beginning to fear that he's beyond help.

Yes, it will be impossible to convert me to your unpopular ideology. I am too logical for that, plus am glad that my side is the more successful one and the happier one.

What, truly, does your side have to offer that could possibly attract converts? Other than domination of the media, what else?

[Josh]

Whatever you say, Twix. Learn to understand that appeal to popularity is a fallacy and then get back to me.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Josh, I have. You haven't gotten back to me. You are clutching one poor technicality to your breast for warmth.

BTW, I think some comments of GK's indicates that he gets your point, too, but considers it minor in the face of other evidence, not originally stated.

[GK]

AVI,

Exactly. I certainly agree that, in theory, 64% of the people believing something does not make it true. This is just as possible for the 26% that think the media is biased to the right. I dont know why Josh thinks this point can't backfire against him just as easily. He starts with the premise that the side that he does not like is the only one that this could apply to.

My main point is that such a theoretical possibility is minor, when I have also provided other research beyond the Zogby Poll, including proof that 85% of media people vote Democrat. Josh has provided no countering source at all, despite repeated requests.

The second point is a matter of principle. If 50%+ of the people have a political leaning that only 10-15% of the media represents, that is unfair. Josh's failure to concede that this is unfair reveals his desire to have a 100% monopoly on his ideology, perhaps out of fear that his unappealing ideology cannot compete very well in a free market of ideas.

This just confirms the main point of the article. Hatred of Fox News, when it is just one out of 7 or 8 that is not controlled by the left, reveals much. Anything less than a 100% majority is intolerable to these people.

[Josh]

Then he should be a mensch and admit that his initial post was flawed. If he were to do that, I'd be willing to discuss his other evidence. But as it stands, he hasn't defended his initial point in good faith, so why should I think he would do so with regard to the other evidence? Further, the fact that he uses Democrat as an adjective rather than a noun strengthens the suspicion that he's interested only in partisan point-scoring, rather than thoughtful consideraton of the issue.

As for your comment, all I've seen is a reference to unnamed sites and books. Nothing really to debate there until you are more specific.

[Rich Casebolt]

just because a majority of people believe a certain thing does not make it true.

Keep that in mind, Josh (and Alex), when the MSM publishes poll data that say a majority of Americans believe that our involvement in Iraq is a "mistake" ... and refrain from using such poll data to justify your positions.

As for the leftward-bias of the MSM, their political-affiliation statistics (as GK noted) ... the andecotal observation of how the MSM frequently pre-identifies interview subjects as "conservative" or "right-wing", but far less frequently pre-identifies "liberal", "progressive", or "Leftist" interviewees (an unbalance that I have seen very, very little of on Fox, BTW) ... and the evidence published by Bernard Goldberg in his books Bias and Arrogance ... corroborate the subject poll.

When your social and professional circles are filled with only people who share your mindset ... and, having confused education and intelligence with wisdom, come to believe themselves to be the Best and Brightest, destined to lead the dim bulbs of Flyover Country to enlightenment ... it is all too easy to think -- not Left vs. Right -- but Virtue vs. Vice -- when it comes to the socioeconomic and political worldviews in this nation ... because that belief never gets tested by these like-minded souls.

It is an article a faith ... a blinded faith, unlike that in my own Christianity, for the object of that faith is ... themselves, ignoring their own failings (many of which have been demonstrated on a national scale within our history), and their own ability to continue in such self-deception in the absence of disciplined testing of their beliefs.

Conservatives are also susceptible to this ... however, their historical respect for absolute truth over relativism leads them to test their thinking against fact, history, and reason to a greater degree than the "true believers" and fashion sheep who form the support base of the Left.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Josh - lame comeback. Roll again.

[Josh]

AVI,

Not a comeback. A fact. Arguments, not grade-school taunts.

[Ira Rabinowitz]

Whatever you say, Twix. Learn to understand that appeal to popularity is a fallacy and then get back to me.

It seems that Josh has long since past the point where he can intelligently discuss anything.

[Josh]

Thanks for that very substantive contribution, Ira!

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I guess that could go on forever, with Josh saying "I've won, you fools just don't see it," and people responding "no Josh, you are calling one oversight a crushing defeat."

I am more than content to allow my arguments stand as they are.

[Josh]

One oversight, flawed premise of an entire post, apples, oranges.

[Ira Rabinowitz]

I still think it is absurd that Josh refuses to answer simple questions about his principles (effectively revealing that his true principles are something he would rather not have a light shone on), only because of some supposed oversight in the original article, which he does not even clearly state.

He says 'the initial post is flawed'..
1) How, exactly? How can you assume that your 'perceptions are not reality' view automatically works in your favor?
2) Why does this absolve you of answering any questions posed to you?

Copout, anyone?

[Richard]

Copout, anyone?

Indeed. It is obvious to any thinking person that Josh has merely confirmed the stereotypes of illogical 'liberals' through his juvenile whining and cowardice in the face of simple questions about fairness and mutual respect.

[Josh]

I think Thomas can explain it to you, Richard and Ira.

[SanFranciscoJim]

It is quite telling that you think that General Electric is a "left-wing" biased corporation. You do know that GE owns NBC, right?

[GK]

SFJim,

Not just me, but 64% of the US population believes that most of the media tilts left. NBC and MSNBC are among the most left-wing, even more than CNN. GE will eventually change this once NBC goes to far.

It is quite telling that 'San Francisco Jim' thinks Fox is 'right-wing'. You do know that Fox has Alan Colmes, Greta, Juan Williams, etc. on it, right?

[K T Cat]

People think that the MSM tilts left...and investors think there are better places to put their money.

:-)

[Acksiom]

Josh, your points interest me. I'd like to cross-check your reasoning and perception against an area in which I am expert, if I may:

What, IYO, are the three most often addressed issues of gender discrimination against males and favoring females among all eight networks, in a political context?