See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian What liberal media? Yeah, that liberal media «
2. Political Activists Posing as News Reporters « Truthseeker
3. Michelle Malkin » Time magazine reporters admit they voted for Romney

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 am, gregorystephens said:

   This is so typical of the MSM’s hypocricy. These are the same people that are pushing for the “fairness doctrine”. This is just absolutely insane. Liberals only take a stand when it furthers their cause, even if it contradicts another of their causes. This is just another example of what happens when you have no moral compass.

2. #2
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 am, Carlos said:

   The modern American journalist — partial to Liberalism, but impartial towards America.

3. #3
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 am, ajmontana said:

   It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out just watch one of their debate’s.

4. #4
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am, Ahenobarbus said:

   Wear ribbons after the 9/11 attacks? – Not anywhere’s near as bad as the blindfolds worn for the following two year after.

   Display the flag during wartime? – Make it cheap, over use it like Fox.

   And dole out political cash while on the job? – They discussed this on MSNBC last night; CNN, ABC, CBS all have a zero tolerance policy on donating money to politics. NBC/MSNBC have a “don’t encourage/don’t prohibit” policy. Fox is the only one whose policy permits political donations…hmmmm.

   144 person sample out of 10,000 some actual journalists is not much to build a case on.

5. #5
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:00 am, crushliberalism said:

   Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism said it best when he said it thusly:

   “If you give money to a candidate, then you are rooting for that candidate. You’ve made an investment in that candidate.”

   It just so happens to be that roughly 90% of journos’ donations went to Democrats, and it just so happens to be that 61% of fishwrap reporters consider themselves liberal (as per an American Association of Newspaper Editors survey), and it just so happens to be that roughly 90% of journalists vote Democrat in the presidential elections, a number which basically mirrors that found in the MSNBC story.

   But if you can just get past those three BIG coinkidinks, you’d see there’s no reason to doubt the impartiality of the MSM!

6. #6
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 am, Greg Tinti said:

   Great column, Michelle.

7. #7
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 am, jrlingreenbay said:

   ” 144 person sample out of 10,000 some actual journalists is not much to build a case on.”

   In theory - I would agree with you - which is why I find amazing the blind faith in almost every poll that comes out.

   How anyone can say that “Most Americans” believe this or that based on a sample of 500, 1000, or even 2000 people out of 300 million, is beyond logical. Yet every day we hear about this poll or that one.

   I do believe - as many do - that the MSM tends to attract more liberal-leaning people than conservative ones.

   The most interesting part of this study ( which, by the way, was conducted by a liberal-leaning network, so I give them credit for even making these findings public ) was the comments made by these journalists afterwards.

   To say that you didn’t report on US News or Politics when you’re covering the Iraq war is blind ignorance. Just as the one Ethics specialist who thought that MoveOn.org was non-partisan.

   I’ve heard the same logic from children when caught taking cookies from the cupboard: “When you said, don’t eat any cookies - I didn’t know you meant THOSE cookies!”

8. #8
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am, Rick Moran said:

   Ahenobarbus:

   144 person sample out of 10,000 some actual journalists is not much to build a case on.

   Okay, I’ll bite. How about these findings from a Pew Research poll done in 2004?

   Five times more national journalists identify themselves as “liberal” (34 percent) than “conservative” (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.

   The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

   Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

   Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are “not critical enough” of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been “too critical.” In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given “too much” coverage to then-President Clinton’s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of “too little” coverage of Clinton’s achievements.

   How’s the case now?

9. #9
   On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 am, SteveG said:

   Its not 144 out of 10,000. Its 144 that they have highlighted.
   Try this… check the list for names of reporters from your local paper. If you know the names of their spouses or significant other, check that too.
   I’ve seen local reporters list no occupation, or call themselves “plumber”
   Where I’m from the overwhelming choices were Howard Dean and Wesley Clark

10. #10
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 am, novaculus said:

    Re: Poniewozik

    I don’t know about the “cheap bastard” self-description (after all, its his wallet and his mommy) but he is definitely a horse’s ass.

    And the rest of them:

    What else do the so-called news people have in common with politicians? They all think they are smarter and better than the rest of us, snd know better than we do what is good for us. This fact partially explains why they have no guilt over ethics violations and rampant, blatant hypocrisy: the rules don’t apply to them.

11. #11
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am, johnv40 said:

    No wonder–they could NEVER handle the truth!

12. #12
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am, DanME said:

    This liberal bias has been clear for years and years. Going way back to Cronkite, most people think is was one of the top TV anchors. Most people think he was the source of all information and knowledge. However, since he retired and started expressing his opinions more openly, it has become clear that he was and is very liberal. MSNBC is the worst. How many of their anchors used to work for democratic congressmen or senators? Chris Mathews for sure.

13. #13
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 am, TaiChiWawa said:

    Well, if the sample of 144 is generally representative of the population (10,000 someone said) being considered, the confidence interval for a 95% confidence level would be a little over 8%.

    If the error was all against the 90% (9 to 1) conclusion, then this would still leave a 95% chance that there is a better than 80% donation (and presumably) ideological bias.

14. #14
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 am, Trae said:

    I don’t think anyone–save the people themselves–would argue the liberal bias in MSM. But just as all people in the spotlight, they want to save face. We can attribute the “non-disclosure” to precisely that, if one day the Democratic party crumbles…each person has a way out. That way is a supposed “policy” of never contributing to one party or another.

    We could argue the fine points, but this one is way too obvious.

15. #15
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 am, bipartisancomplainer said:

    Any word on whether there will be any punishments for these violations?

16. #16
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 am, DR1579 said:

    Normal Media is bunk but the sad thing is a lot of people don’t have a very available way to access the new media.
    At least Fox News is a LITTLE better.

17. #17
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am, terrig said:

    I was really disappointed in that Dan Zane. His “House Party” cd that I got for my kids is going to file 13 or try for a resale on Amazon.
    As for that snit Guy Raz, what an a$$ he is. I’m sure the embedded troops appreciated all his support. Now he covers the Pentagon for NPR. Why do they let them in the parking lot? But I guess unlike those who report the snooze, they can’t show partisanship. When my husband was in Iraq he constantly commented on all the reporters who stayed in the green zone all the time and sent local Iraqis out to film their stories while they talked over it and how sometimes they went outside the gate stood sort of near a Humvee and acted like they were with said troops on patrol. I don’t watch the big 3 anymore and was forced to listen to CNN yesterday while at a dentist appt. Wolf & Babs decried the loss of the 14 military members in 48 hours. An elderly gentleman from the WW2 era spoke up and said “Good thing you weren’t there on D-Day. We lost 14 people per second in the landings”. Yes, some will say it’s easy for me because my husband is now home. But we know he has to go back and we know that he could get killed. But he also tells the “bring them home because we support you so much crowd” that Soldiers die in garrison through training accidents, vehicle accidents, but you don’t hear about those at all. BTW for those of you in the press who are chomping at the bit for our men and women to go to Darfur, why don’t you sign up yourself? You claim they’re tired out (which they are) from Iraq yet you want to send them out to Darfur right away.

18. #18
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 am, watershed said:

    DanME, I wonder if you’re criticism of Cronkite is unfair. You say yourself he only revealed his liberal views after his retirement. Wouldn’t that prove his impartiality on the job?

19. #19
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 am, corona said:

    “There is probably no more yuppie-Brooklyn phenomenon than a Toddlers Against Bush concert.”

    No comment.

20. #20
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am, pxystick said:

    Fox is the only one whose policy permits political donations

    Why is it that some keep focusing on this aspect, not just Fox, but all the networks said policy on donations? I don’t think the problem is the existence of the donations. Everyone should be able to donate to whoever they want. The problem is in disclosure of said donations. Many have commented about the reactions to this article in MSNBC as turning on the lights on the roaches in the kitchen. If you give money, then back up your decisions with real reasons, not the CYA responses that we see so often.

    Everyone should give money to whoever they want. Just disclose it, like the rules say. And don’t be surprised with the comments, and the results of these studies. We all know what is going on, and who supports who. Just don’t be surprised to learn that we really aren’t as stupid as you (the MSM) think we are!

21. #21
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 am, JD said:

    A little over ten years ago, my wife was one of two secretaries working in the newsroom of the Charlotte Observer. It was a standing joke there that the two secretaries and a guy who wrote for the business section were the only Republicans working there. In my visits to the newsroom, I never saw anything to prove this wrong.

22. #22
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 am, Taqiyyotomist said:

    The media cannot possibly have anything but a Consevative bias, since the outets are all owned by big evil Rightwing corporations, right? That’s the line I keep hearing anyway. No matter what the proof in the pudding, the stations and newspapers are owned by Corporations, so it doesn’t matter if the reporters are all admitted Maoist Che-fellating Marxist Moonbats, the only logical possibility is that the bias is to the Right. Don’t believe your lying eyes. Trust in absolute moonbat logic.

    (Registration at MM? Why, I think I will! God Bless you Michelle.)

23. #23
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 am, The Raging Republican said:

    How did we ever get to the point were our media has become so corrupt? Did you watch O’Reilly last night? He had a great piece on this too. Its amazing the liberal bias by the mainstream media. It makes me irate!

24. #24
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am, The Raging Republican said:

    “There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible”.

    -Scott Pelley CBS News Correspondent

    Source: “Crazies to the Left Of Me, Wimps To the Right” By Bernard Goldberg; page 64.

25. #25
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am, Bad Candy said:

    So will the media get tamp down such blatant displays of partisanship, or will they just not care?

    I’ll also be curious to see if the MSM becomes more belligerent in their partisanship in the near future or if they’ll play it low key for a while till things cool down.

    I still firmly believe that the conservative movement has to build an effective counter to the leftist MSM. The blogosphere and talk radio are great, but not nearly enough. I don’t think that you can make a truly objective major news operation, so I’d rather they be openly partisan, or at least open about their ideology.

26. #26
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am, watershed said:

    Do the 50 million or so people who listen to overwhelmingly conservative talk radio make it count as mainstream media?

27. #27
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 am, planetgeo said:

    This is why I think the Fairness Doctrine is such a great idea. It will finally diversify the blatantly unfair, and now documented 90-10 liberal bias in all the media (newspapers, network television, etc.).

    Oh wait, you say the Fairness Doctrine only intends to correct 90% of the 10% that is conservative (i.e., Talk Radio)?…Never mind.

28. #28
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:51 am, ammonrae said:

    I am against this Fairness Doctrine. The liberals need to learn about economics. I think Trent need to leave talk radio alone as well.

29. #29
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 am, MikeOK said:

    planetgeo - LOL!

    Actually, there will never be such a thing as “non-biased” reporting, because every reporter writes from their personal point of view.

    It is the responsibility of the editorial staff to ensure that all sides of a story are covered, and that both liberal and conservative viewpoints are allowed equal representation on the editorial pages.

    It is also the responsibility of the editorial staff to disclose any known conflicts of interest between reporters and the stories that they cover.

    Believe me, if the ratio were reversed (90% reporter donations to Republicans) we would already be swimming in Congressional hearings and “fairness” legislation.

    As it is, though, I’m not holding my breath … just relying more these days on common sense and blogs.

30. #30
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:03 am, Karmi said:

    Your NYPost column, “MEDIA UNMASKED”, nails it. Then again, perhaps these poor innocent and objective reporters fear reprisals, from the Democrat Party, if they don’t donate ‘properly’…so to speak of Fairness.

31. #31
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 am, CBear said:

    The liberal left is only patriotic when they want something. Disclosing which side the MSM is on…well that’s kind of a “Well Duh.” I hardly watch the MSM news anymore because I got so tired of one sided stories.
    I spent years as a part time Broadcaster for a local radio station and saw first hand how this bias works. As a Broadcaster I was told what kind of stories I could cover and which angle (not slant) I should use. Needless to say my broadcasting days are long gone
    Only when Journalists can be objective and report on ALL angles of a story or event will “Fairness” in the news make a comeback.

32. #32
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 am, freedomamerie said:

    Let’s see…

    The MSM covers stories that are important like what’s really happening in Iraq.

    Fox News covers stories about Paris Hilton, some missing white woman, and other news involving women in bikinis.

    Newsflash….NEWS IS NOT OBJECTIVE. Why do you want it to be? Are you guys condoning affirmative action for conservative news?

33. #33
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 am, hawkeye54 said:

    I am against this Fairness Doctrine. The liberals need to learn about economics. I think Trent need to leave talk radio alone as well.

    Typical of the liberal viewpoint is if they can’t compete in the marketplace with their message they turn to the government to silence the misguided and misinformed people who disagree with them. They miss the days when they had a lock on the media with the BIG THREE networks.

    Actually the liberals, most of whom have been educated brainwashed to hate capitalism, know all they need about economics - “give government your money (taxes) so WE can buy the votes of the ignorant to control them, gain power and forever keep it”.

34. #34
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am, SrWalterR said:

    The reoccurring statement by the liberal press is that they have a policy stating that their staff is not allowed to make political contributions. Why not, if there was balance in the media, readers of the news (us) knowing where members of the media contribute would help understand the individual views of each reporter. The fact is that every time a method of evaluating bias in the media is found, every attempt is made to hide the facts and obvious bias. I noticed also that Fox news was quite balanced, and that they do not seem to have such a policy.

35. #35
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 12:17 pm, sxs537 said:

    Actually the Pew research report Quoted by Rick Moran (Comment #8) is more indicative of the liberal bias in the news media than the MSNBC study.

    TaiChiWawa - Even though your math seems correct the issue I have is that sample is not random (atleast not in a standard statistical way)

36. #36
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm, davidleerothmann said:

    “Do the 50 million or so people who listen to overwhelmingly conservative talk radio make it count as mainstream media?”

    Talk radio is not part of the mainstream media. The growth of conservative talk radio was a response to the liberal bias of the major media outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WAPOST, etc).

37. #37
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm, Laree said:

    I came across this when I was reading the online article Hillary’s Hit Man Strikes Again, this time the authors of the latest book written about Hillary, I think it is called “Her Way”…anyway this link was embedded, in the article, it appears to be The Liberal Plan to Silence the Consertatives.

    http://howardwasright.com/index.php/site/more/111/

38. #38
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm, Capt Howdy said:

    So if I were a liberal journalist intent on sneaking in my pernicious liberal viewpoint whenever and wherever I could… all I’d have to do to reassure conservatives like Michelle of my journalistic integrity is to wear 9-11 ribbons and fly a little flag on my desk?

    That was easy!

39. #39
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm, lawhawk said:

    Only the liberal media would run Hamas editorials on the back pages of the WaPo and NYT on the same day, and see nothing wrong with it; except that they would have chosen to run something different had they known that the other was going to run a Hamas editorial that day.

    So, it isn’t the fact that Hamas was getting free agitprop space, but that the competitor was running the same kind of agitprop that would have gotten them to change their publication. Nice.

40. #40
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm, Olaz said:

    Michelle,
    Please point me to your “Full Disclosure” page. These statistics look mighty interesting. Almost like I could manipulate them to say something like: “90% of all journalists are liberals” or “people who self identify as liberals are more likely to seek a career in journalism”.

41. #41
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

    Ms. Malkin,

    While watching the Chirac News Network ask ridiculously biased and undignified questions of the republican candidates, I came up with a list of 21 questions CNN should ask the democrats. I hope it meets your standards.

    http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/21-questions-cnn-should-ask-the-democrats/

    Respectfully,

    eric

42. #42
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

    Unfortunately, if CNN can’t report news objectively, they certainly won’t hold their havorite left-wing candidates accountable for, well, for anything.

    You know, for messages to get out, they need to be clearly understood in just a few words - slogans, jingles, an entire industry we call Madison Ave is build upon that simple fact.

    If we want to open up the discussion, to show the Dems as they are or get them to answer the questions that the NY Times feels aren’t fit to print, let’s try this as a rally cry, and repeat it every time anyone discusses anything about politics, even if it’s off-topic - try to find a way to work it into the conversation. Eventually, it’ll get so loud an answer will have to be made - and then we can get on with a real debate:

    “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOO AFRAID TO GO ON FOX NEWS.”

    Additionally

    “And if they can’t stand up to three reporters for 90 minutes in a debate, how can they, in this dangerous world, stand up to those who want to destroy us?”

    The Dems are acting superior about Fox News, but the fact is that they’re scared to death. Scared of being asked logical questions that demand logical answers. Scared of being held to account for their past behavior. Scared to death of looking stupid when a bright light is finally shone down upon them, a light badly missing from the rest of the media. Let’s make it talking point to be repeated at every opportunity, and even if there isn’t an opportunity. This otherwise generally ignored story could be the critical turning point in the 08 elections, if only it gets said loud and often enough.

    They can either admit to cowardice, which is not the hallmark of a president or any other public figure worth talking about, or they can answer the tough questions.

    “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOO AFRAID TO GO ON FOX NEWS.”

    “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOO AFRAID TO GO ON FOX NEWS.”

    “THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOO AFRAID TO GO ON FOX NEWS.”

    Yell it as loud as you can at every opportunity. NOW is the time!

43. #43
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm, MikeB said:

    Michelle’s definition of a “good journalist” is one that says America is winning the war on terror or doing great in Iraq. A bad journalist is one that tells the truth, that the war is a disaster and her and many other Chicken Hawks have blood on their hands. A good war to Bush-Cheney-Limbaugh-Hannity-Malkin-Coulter is one where other Americans die to protect their right to continue personal attacks on those who want to save American’s lives.

44. #44
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm, general company said:

    We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”

    Yea be nice if they were even this objective, they do their best to undermine any “just cause” the USA under takes.

    MikeB: Your comments are absurd. No where will you find realist insisting the war is going perfectly. Who the heck ever said this would be easy? I remember early on the MSM droning on about Rummies “long hard slog” comment, Bush echoed those types of comments as well. Wake up! As for personal attacks go visit some of your buddies blogs.

45. #45
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm, Yashmak said:

    Media Bias - An Exhaustive Study
    

46. #46
    On June 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm, Yashmak said:

    Media Bias - An Exhaustive Study

    Sorry about the double-post. . .the link button didn’t work. .

    http://tinyurl.com/e3cfh

47. #47
    On June 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm, OldNavyFart said:

    The only difference between a liberal politician and a Donkey is one brain cell that tells the politician not to crap on the streets during parades.

48. #48
    On August 6th, 2007 at 10:42 pm, LoneRanger said:

    You don’t need all these studies and investigations to determine whether journalists are liberal. Just sit in a corner of a newsroom for an hour. Close your eyes and you’ll swear you were sitting in the middle of the Cold War Kremlin.