OKAY - Now do people here FINALLY realize that the media is the problem?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

It is a known fact that in order to “fix” a problem you have to know the REAL problem, the REAL cause of the problem and fix that.

Many times people will look at the “symptoms” of the problem and try to fix those. This doesn’t fix the problem. It will just be a temporary fix. Going after symptoms only diverts time and energy away from fixing the REAL problem.

How does REAL change happen? It's from the people. When the majority of the people believe that something is wrong - then change finally happens. We all spend 50% of our time here railing against Democratic Politicians and how THEY are the problem. They are just a SYMPTOM of the problem.

IMO - It’s the media and the people who fall for the media’s propaganda. Who do the politicians listen to? It’s the voters. It’s the people and groups who fund them and give them donations. We have to face the fact that in many issues we are still in the minority – despite all of the b.s. that is going on in this country.

Why do the Dems have such a problem winning the Presidential elections? Why do we keep on getting Republicans and wimpy Dems in the Senate/House?
It’s because of all the RED states and areas. What is the most popular means of getting news? Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. CNN, MSNBC, ABC are almost as bad 80% of the time. CBS is going downhill. NBC is probably not far behind. They're trying to take federal money from PBS.

We saw that a little group of right-wingers were able to infiltrate ABC and get that piece of crap "Path to 9/11" made during primetime on the best tv night of the week. Why can't we infiltrate the networks too? Rupert Murdock is able to keep on swallowing up more and more media outlets and we're doing nothing.... Little by little they are making inroads.

I live in a purple-red state (Florida) and I think a big reason that our Senator is so wimpy is that in order for a Dem to get elected and keep their seat is to act "Democratic-lite." A Feingold would never be elected here or in most states currently. A Conyers would never be elected in my area or most districts.

We do have a couple of half-way decent pols in Florida but they're all from Palm Beach, Miami Gainesville, Palm Beach, and other rock-solid blue areas, etc. To expect ALL of our elected officials to be Conyers or Feingolds is simply unrealistic. If you notice the politicians who take the brave stances are all from rock solid "BLUE" areas. The ones from the red or purple areas are wimpy.

That's part of the reason the pols are so wimpy. We need to be realistic: any politicans #1 objective Dem or Rep. is to be re-elected. Even the "good" politicians turn into wimps when they get into office. Many pols would rather see this country go to hell in a handbasket before losing their seat. Term limits would work also - but try to get THAT passsed - talk about impossible.

We have to change the voters minds first – and then the politicans will change.

[zalinda]

1. You're right......it is the media

People keep yelling about Hillary not being left enough. They don't realize that New York STATE is reddish purple, only New York CITY is blue.

Kerry on the news broadcasts here was just awful. Bush was put in a good light, Kerry in a bad light.

But, still many people here don't get it. They will yell at our dems all the time, and when they do something good will keep quiet.

zalinda

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. Look at all the hits they did on Gore, Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc.

n/t

[blm]

19. and nothing COMPARABLE to any GOP candidate, even ones under indictment

This has been going on since impeachment, which was the beginning of the media's blatant shilling for the GOP and BushInc.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Kerry was only awful because they made sure he looked that way

Kerry fought back against the Swift Boat Liars but his efforts were minimized due to lack of reporting. The NYTimes did a great investigative article in early September exposing O'Neil and all the liars, but you saw nothing of this type of reporting on the TV news.
No matter, most people only saw the real John Kerry after seeing the debates, and the polls showed this all across the board, with JK pulling back to within a couple points, if not dead even. The thing that fucked Kerry (and all of us) over was that goddamned bin Laden tape, and as later revealed, the CIA determined bin Laden meant to help Bush, and the polls showed this to be true that weekend- Kerry's movement in the polls stopped dead.
Geez, look at this post today on Dailykos- even ESPN has been in on the act!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/26/8550/57285

The VRWC is alive and well.

[AX10]

3. Exactly!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

6. CNN used to be a gem - now we have Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Paula Zahn

Phil Donahue-gone, Bill Maher-gone, Dan Rather-gone, Ted Koppel-gone.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Dobbs is better than the rest IMHO.

At least he'll talk about electronic voting issues.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. He swings between being "one of the best" to being "one of the worst"

I was watching him for a while but then it seemed like he just went back to the "R" side. He does not like any Dem Politicans it seems to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Frankly, I stopped watching ALL Cable "Newz" in the summer of '04

And haven't gone back.

It just got so fucking atrocious I couldn't deal with it anymore. (I agree, 100%, with your OP) And I used to LIKE CNN, way back in the day.

I'll watch Olbermann on the internet, that's about it.

But I've followed Lou Dobbs's take on EV issues through DU, though. I'm not sure where he sits politically- if I had to guess, I'd say Libertarian- but I've never seen him as a rabid, spitting ideologue.

[cynatnite]

4. It's the corporate media...

not just the media.

[SammyWinstonJack]

5. Well that would be the media! nt

[cynatnite]

12. Don't agree...

there are some media such as newspapers, for example the Times-Picayune, who tell it like it is without having to do do a RW hit job.

They are not part of the corporate media world like Faux and MSNBC are.

I don't label ALL media the same because they just aren't.

[SammyWinstonJack]

29. Point taken!

:hi: I suppose I was just thinking of the visual media and not the print media. I stand corrected.

[seabeyond]

7. everytime kerry has done what people on the board YELL for him to do

media attacked and attacked hard. we all enjoyed it, and said ya it's about time, but average joe heard a totally different story..... this is what the dems have to deal with. and us going after the dems without recognizing the true issue is of no help and only harms us more

excellent post

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. They're all labeled "naysayers" "trouble-makers", etc.

n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

9. look at what they did to Kennedy a while back. Now he's disappeared.

I don't think his health really allows to take all the abuse that was heaped on him.

[sandnsea]

10. Look what we're hearing today

Nothing about the facts behind Clinton's statements, just spin that he's either crazed or defending an indefensible record. Nobody is bringing up the Republicans' comments in the 90's about Bin Laden. That was one of Clinton's key points and one of the most important if people are ever going to understand the truth. This tirade is not going to do us any good at all, in the end. And that's because of the media spin on it, not Clinton himself. I finally turned the mess off, it's too discouraging.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. Yesterday was so good - now the Repub. spinmeisters are out propagandzing.

b.s. Trying to get Merkins back under control. They will all spin, spin spin the same propaganda over and over again until it's the national meme.

And the media will be their witting and unwitting partners in spreading the propaganda.

[Lindacooks]

47. I actually saw one report that was all about President Clinton

'showing a little leg' during the interview with that pimp Wallace. Yes, a section of his leg was visible between the sock and pant leg hem.

I almost threw the TV out the window.

:grr:

[BelgianMadCow]

15. As Randi says : "it's the meed-jaa stupid"

I think there's a lot to that. I wonder if BC has second thoughts about FCC deregulation now.

[plcdude]

18. I would put

NBC closer to Fox than the other two networks myself.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

21. Oh Gawd - don't tell me that.... Now I'm REALLY depressed.

[sufrommich]

20. I'm not interested in "news" that

cheerleads for either side.The truth is,the mugs in freeperville rant about the very same thing(obviously excluding FOX)and the same news programs!I'm not afraid of people with different opinions than mine,I do not have a problem with an equal voice for both sides.We should not be advocating for a press that reflects our values as Democrats,that's really just wishing for a press skewed to the left instead of the right.I want the news to report the news and let me decide what to make of it.I would,however,like stonger Democratic talking heads on the opinion shows than we have right now.Personally,I don't care who speaks for the right,I feel alot more comfortable knowing what they are thinking and how the plan to spin than not knowing.I'm strongly against limiting anyone's choice in what they choose to watch as individuals.That's undemocratic.

[Rex]

22. The M$M is just one component in the BFEEs vie for world domination.

They ARE the problem just as much as Baker or Rove is a problem. They all work for The Man. I say we will never progress until we bring down the Establishment.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Antidisestablishmentarianism! Rock on!

:bounce:

[LiberalUprising]

40. Oh my, do you mean the Dems too?

They are after all a part of the establisment.

[Rex]

42. Yes, the ones whose loyalties are with big business and not the people.

If they put their corporate agenda over the common good then yes. I'm thinking along the lines of politicians like Joe Lieberman.

We need to do away with corporate lobbyists and special interest groups, stuff like that.

[LiberalUprising]

43. But even the ones not along the lines of Lieberman

are still by the definition of establishment, the establishment. Is it possible to rebuild with half of the the establishment intact or would the whole thing need to be taken down to have a real and meaningful change in actions and policy?

[Rex]

44. I think the Establishment and the Military Industrial Complex are

one and the same today. The whole thing was wrong to begin with, Dwight Eisenhower warned us long ago about wasting money and no one listened. 50 years later we are paying for those mistakes.

Does the whole thing need to be scraped? I don't know truthfully. I'd have to have unfettered access into every file since the 50s that has to do with the MIC.

I know that when Reagan was in office, the military paid 50 dollars for an ordinary hammer. I can't even begin to imagine how much we waste now. The Pentagon cannot account for 2 trillion dollars. Does that warrant a scrap and refit? I just don't know.

[LiberalUprising]

45. Well I don't know either

but the question does need to be addressed by all US citizens, regardless of party or even if they are totally apathetic. What is best for the country as a whole?

We have the ultimate soap opera goin on here, if it were a TV show it'd be number one easily, how do we capitalize on that and make it interesting and exciting to the average joe?

Edit for spelling (again)

[Rex]

46. Well IMO scraping the whole thing would be a tremendous waste

in and of itself. The military is a tool of the People (well it is supposed to be). Romanticizing and glorifying war is part of the problem. If the M$M would show footage of the horrible conditions of war on a daily basis over and over, then it would sink in. Hey, this is really really bad. Why are we there again?

Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in the media would help a lot too IMO.

[LiberalUprising]

49. I agree to a point

But remember who owns the m$m?

The 6 major corporations that are profiting from this illegal and amoral invasion run the media.

I also believe not much will change things without the media being exposed and for it to be accepted my a overwhelming majority of the nation.

But these are the same lobbists bribing our congress dem and rep to start these grand adventures in the fist place, how will this come to an end on it's own with the present US mindset and attitudes?

How is the media gonna change?

Even if it did, we would be starting from square one as a country, only as a very confused country instead of a country that is hip to the game.


I think we will have to start with a completly new slate for any positive results to be expected. Granted it is a risk but we don't have much more to lose.

[Rex]

52. Then that is the answer - 6 major corporations equal one huge cartel.

Cartels are illegal in America. Now we just need a statesmen to step up and force the issue. I doubt they will get much 'face time' in the M$M, but world news organizations will pick up on it.

We need a little luck and a lot of hope.

[LiberalUprising]

55. I hear ya

Lets keep our fingers crossed, however this shakes out, it is going to be one very bummpy ride for us peasants and serfs.

Not getting my hopes up on this bunch though.

[Ron Green]

23. The Media is (are) a symptom as well.

There's something that makes all the disinformation and mindless, lowbrow crap sell like hotcakes. What is it? Could it be . . . people are not very smart? If you start from that premise, you're seldom wrong.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

24. They are also lazy - they don't want to hear any bad news....

n/t

[tnlefty]

35. This addresses the other component that I thought worth mentioning!

I can't remember the number of times that I would mention to different people things such as : "go look at the Taguba report", "look at what Amnesty International reported about this", blah, blah, blah, and this was to people who I knew had internet connections but they refused to look for anything else because it was all 'people trying to make Bush** look bad!

A large part of this is the recipients of media who don't care to find out anything else, much less the truth or a differing view point to compare information to.

[lostnfound]

25. And to get balance, you need some far-left ideas in the media mix..

Far-right ideas are presented in the media in substantial quantities, and treated seriously. But the far left is much more rare, and are marginalized on those rare occasions that they are given air time.

[emcguffie]

26. I've always agreed with you.

I couldn't find anyone who agreed with me.

We need new media.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

30. hey thanks - a kindred spirit

n/t

[chill_wind]

27. CNN Military PsyOps (FAIR Expose')

I've posted this before, but just in case there's even one DUer left that hasn't read it......

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

Someday we're all going to have to look up the gritty details and credentials belonging to all those generically titled "CNN Terrorism Analyst" experts they keep shoving at us.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

31. Speaking of CNN and Atlanta - a friend in Atlanta says there's no msnbc

there and he can't get Olbermann. Is this true?

[spanone]

28. Rupert Murdoch has everyone talking about Clinton.

Including me. Fucker.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. Talking about Clinton can't be a bad thing, can it? Especially in this

context. How many people will wake up because of the "crazed" Clinton interview? How many people will become more informed to the evils of the bush regime because of it? How many people will wake up because of this? Maybe Murock f'd up? :evilgrin:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

34. People are falling in the usual camps. Dems vs. Reps.

I don't think this is going to turn off any Dems and it will just make them mad - the way Bill was treated.

[bobthedrummer]

38. From the DU archives, offered for serious consideration w/o comment.

"Reality vs. perception management"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x71919#top

[blm]

51. How many people are hearing of NIE report? Torture bill? Iraqi Civil War?

.

[pooja]

36. Well, if I follow the money trail, since that is the beginning of all

evil in the world, we find the banks. It all spirals from there.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

37. And who's the banks and investment firm's best friend - the Republicans

They've given the financial institutions everything they dreamed of. Remember when the Dems were in charge? Credit card rates used to be capped at 18.6%. The bankruptcy bill was also a payback to financial institutions. Ronald Reagan was also very, very good to them.

They didn't manage to privatize Social Security though - which would have been a payback to all the investment firms who bankrolled Dumbya's campaiagn.

[KoKo]

39. HEY! thanks for your post ....but you need to KNOW that there are DU'ers

who've been FIGHTING CORPORATE MEDIA since Selection 2000! We've sent thousands of e-mails/letters/faxes to the FCC about the Media De-Regulation when Colin Powell's annointed SON, MICHAEL, was head of FCC...and faxed/e-mailed the MSM for YEARS! We've been out there working from the old days and BEFORE of the now defunct "Media Whores Online."

We've been working on it. BUT........THEY NEVER LISTENED TO US...although we did get Media De-reg DELAYED because the Gun Lobby joined in barraging Michael Powell about Media De-Reg.

They DON'T LISTEN!!

But, if you tune into Olbermann they notice the numbers. MSNBC is on the "skids financially" though and GE wants to pull the plug. So we might be watching Olbermann and Tweety on CNBC in the future. UGH!!!!!!!!

[joeunderdog]

41. It's NOT the media, Stupid. They're just a spoke in the wheel.

BTW--your post was a good one and you're not Stupid.:hi: After reading David Brock's book on the RW machine, I was able to see the media and their corporate masters for what they are. I wrote my own post about this around the time of the Dubai hoopla and I'll dust it off here. It dovertails with many of the posts here.

Early in his first term as pResident, the Chimp in Charge took an unpopular position on a nasty battle over media consolidation. In the face of convincing bi-partisan outcry, Michael Powell of the FCC allowed the media to consolidate to frightening, unprecedented levels. In hindsight, it was no mistake that this was one of the first things tackled by BushCo who already had key allies in top media positions at Fox, CBS, Clear Channel and others. A quick neutering of NPR and--viola!--everyone is on message. Sprinkle in some cross-contamination between the mega-media moguls, our pals in Defense/Big Pharm/Oil/Et Al, along with BushCo itself, and you can see why the news media is nothing short of an infomercial. Lobbying is only the public face of this politico-economic incest. And by extension, Jackoff Abramoff is merely a metaphor for the corporate rape of American politics that is happening on a much larger scale.

As we steamrolled through the Reagan years, American Corporations' foothold in politics became the critical element in their plan for profit. The payoff was direct and substantial. While their relative taxes have steadily decreased, their profits increased exponentially and their foothold became a chokehold. But the real coup for US Corporations was in the last 20 years with the world-wide economy that developed after the Fall of the Wall, NAFTA and the development of the world-wide web. Globalization allowed American Corporations unlimited labor and financial resources to exploit, opportunities to maximize profits like never before, and ultimately, enough power to slay their master. Their tail now wags our dog. American politicians are now merely corporate management, government division.

But what's worse, and what's at the core of the destructive practices of the BFEE and today's Neo-Con politics is this...American Corporations have literally become parasites on our country, not worrying about killing the host, because they no longer require a symbiotic relationship with their birth parent in order to survive. They no longer need to plant the seeds for the next healthy American generation because there are now more lucrative opportunities elsewhere in places like India, China and Dubai. Whether it's out-of-control debt, outsourcing or backroom Medicare deals, today's Neo-Cannibals are eating the young (and old) Americans.

Just watch the news to see that the Promo Dept. is doing a truly sensational job for Big Biz. It's hard to argue that the masses aren't suckers for media creations the likes of Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, The Case For War, the 911 Commission and the phantom War on Terrah itself. Accordingly, the bed will always be feathered for politicians to re-write the laws that further enable the Corporations while the outrage goes unreported and essentially stifled. Think about it--Diebold would be absolutely dead if it even got fair press. But even Al Franken is afraid to get Rather'ed on the issue of election fraud. It will only become a public issue when it's good for business, and no sooner.

Without doubt, foreign companies have tried to get over on America as best they could. It's just part of the game. But it's the globalized, American-born Corporations that are now killing our future by using their tools: Mainstream Media consolidation, the stacked Judicial Branch, Diebold and Bush's Neo-Crooks. Like Heir Bush himself, their attitude is, quite literally, First America, now the world. A weaker America essentially makes both Bush and his Corporate Affiliates stronger.

Globalized corporations are now driving this bus, and keeping us alive doesn't necessarily serve their purposes any longer. The media and the pols are just here to promote the corporate agenda and suck us dry. Our best defense is communication and information.

Go DU.

[bdamomma]

48. they (the media) just add to all the BS that is going on in the

country, they have been a total waste of time for everyone, they are nothing but bush's lapdogs. Total useless, except for some, like Keith Olbermann he is the only one I will watch.

[malaise]

50. Despite the media

Bill Clinton is the most popular man in America.

[ProSense]

53. Not according to the media

2001
2002
2003
2005

[malaise]

65. Check 2006

He's the most popular man now.

[LiberalUprising]

54. Bill is being trotted out now

for a reason, to disract, he is the most hated dem, also for a reason, even to moderate repugs Clinton is despised, could it be just smoke and mirrors, all part of the illusion?


Why has the M$M according to some, all of a sudden now giving stories like this airplay after 5+ years of shutting down the dems, turning it into an almost a complete dem silence, except when it came to demonstrating how religious or patriotic they are as compared to their 'opposition'??

[omega minimo]

56. "What's The Matter With Kansas?" Tom Frank www.tcfrank.com www.thebaffler.

com

[tomreedtoon]

57. So what are you going to do WITHOUT the media?

We can whine all we want about the corporate media. (I'm part of it since I work in TV.) But the corporate media won't be broken up until the the broadcasting and antitrust laws are changed. And that won't happen until a Democratic majority in both Houses are back.

So, rather than chew over the corporate media and how unfair they (we) are, why don't you start discussing ways to get the message out over and above their heads?

Bill Clinton gave one good example with his Chris Wallace interview. He got mad, for the first time I can recall in his public life. Why don't the other candidates?

Why does Kerry always go around with a half-smile on his face? Why doesn't he get mad? Why doesn't he appear on Bill O'Reilly's show and punch that smug bastard in his falafel-filled mouth?

Why doesn't Clark, or Kucinich, or the other appear in interviews and call Bush an appropriate name that would get an X rating from the MPAA - which, as political speech, wouldn't be censorable and would have people talking about it if it was anyway?

Why don't people here design bumper stickers that have a simple, direct slogan instead of writing doctoral theses on why we're right and they're wrong - as if the number of words would prove anything to Joe Sixpack?

Why do Democrats keep behaving in a way that insures they will lose elections?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

58. We need to do the same thing that the Reps did - take it over slowly.

They've been plugging away for years at taking over various institutions. It's only going to get worse. Every year it get worse and worse. They get more of their people in there and we lose more spokespeople from the left.

We need to look at how the right took over. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

I don't get why many here like to blame the Dems for EVERYTHING. It's almost like they're being masochistic - blame the victim.

[tomreedtoon]

60. Who made Democrats the victims? Nobody but the Democrats!

They were the ones who gave up, who ran ineffective candidates with ineffective campaigns.

And, if I may digress for a moment, I think there's a reason that most people don't think of.

Remember Chicago 1968? The protestors? Hubert Humphrey weeping, knowing in his heart of hearts that he had lost the election already?

It was a crisis of confidence for the Democratic Party, and they're still feeling it. The protests, and the reactions to the protests, disconnected them from their electorate and they haven't re-connected.

When I looked at Dukakis, Gore and Kerry, I didn't see men who were standing with the labor movement, with workers, with the poor. They looked like they were trying to look Presidential and say all the right things, but they didn't really reach out.

Bill Clinton reached out, and when the impeachment business came up, the Democratic Party backstabbed him. I don't blame him for sitting it out and letting the compassion-challenged candidates sink on their own. (Not that they wanted his help, mind you.)

I now believe that any candidate with a personality, with a soul, frightens the Democratic Party. The great tradition of Democratic candidates since Roosevelt had people who had more than a desire to reach out to the disenfranchised - they had a NEED, a HUNGER to reach out to those people. The only one of the Big Three Democratic candidates that has anything close to a "need" is Gore's need to protect the environment. And that is too easily interpreteted as "anti-business" and "tree hugging" by the Republicans.

We all know that Bush has no love for humanity. But he can at least fake it. The Democrats can't.

[Raksha]

59. I don't get it with all the hand-wringing over the media on this thread.

Surely somebody besides me realizes that's PRECISELY why Clinton's smackdown was so lethal! He didn't JUST go after the Bush mafia. Plenty of good Democrats have done that and the noise machine just drowns them out. But Bill Clinton launched a direct frontal assault on the corporate media ITSELF, and they were not expecting that. For all the frantic spinning they are doing on Fox and elsewhere, they haven't recovered and they WON'T. He called them on their bias ("your little right-wing hit job") and they had no defense against that WHATSOEVER. No talking points. They didn't think they needed any, because they have been getting away with it for so long there was no reason to believe they wouldn't always have the final spin cycle.

Now whether they like it or not, every viewer of whatever political persuasion is going to wonder why they don't ask Bush, Cheney, Condi et al the same tough questions they ask the Democrats. So in order to maintain even a shred of credibility, they are going to at least have to pretend to be "tough" with the Bush mafia whether they like it or not.

This was the "the emperor has no clothes" moment for the "fair and balanced" corporate media.

[B Calm]

61. Why is it some people have realized all along that they don't ask

Bush, Cheney, Condi etc. etc. all the same tough questions they ask the Democrats? Are the majority of people in the US that blind?

[chill_wind]

62. I wish I could agree that it was some sort of "defining" moment but

I think the corporatist whore media is entrenched far too deeply beyond all that and they've had years to totally consolidate themselves.

Next week it will be all but forgotten, and if and when they revisit again for any reason, they will go on tittering with the "humor" of it all and will go on "Howard Deaning" the whole incident.

CNN has already gone that route now, characterizing the "red-faced, finger-wagging Clinton" as nothing more than the same visuals of Clinton shaking his finger in the Lewinsky meltdown and re-airing that very clip. They just did it yesterday. That's what the channel flipping America sees, still in 2006, and on this matter and any other that would otherwise make them look bad- the MSM intends--and are quite able-- to keep it that way.

[Vinca]

63. It's always been the media . . . duh.

The "liberal" media is and has always been BS right wing spin. Sadly, half the populace is more concerned about Paris Hilton's DUI than the Geneva Conventions and they are unwilling to go beyond what is thrust in their faces to learn what's going on in the world.

[chill_wind]

64. The MSMedia most definately IS an inextricable part of the Beast.

A clip from an entry I remember adding to my journal a few months ago
(bold emphasis mine)

FAIR’s annual survey of think tank citations in the mainstream media focuses attention on the groups that media turn to for “expert” sources. Rarely described politically when they are quoted (Extra!, 5–6/98), think tank sources often appear as neutral observers of the news, in contrast to partisan politicians and representatives of advocacy groups. If the media have a “liberal” bias, as conservatives have long claimed, then one would expect news outlets to seek out progressive think tanks as sources. However, in the history of this study, begun in 1996, we have instead found a consistent preference for conservative think tanks over progressive ones.

The latest survey of think tank citations—which is based on appearances in major newspapers and TV and radio transcripts that appear in the Nexis database—found that 40 percent of such citations in 2005 were to conservative or center-right groups, 47 percent were to centrist groups and only 13 percent were to center-left or progressive groups.

Report is here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2897

Charts and graphs, no less.

link to more:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2682765

An unequivocally CONSISTENT actively sought-out preference. That's the scale of the battle we are fighting.