Imagine campaign events happening in 22 states at the same time, and that at such contests, two liberals, two conservatives, and one moderate candidate are vying for the public's votes.
You would expect the words "liberal" and "conservative" to be equally interspersed in media coverage of these events if indeed press outlets were impartial, right?
Well, count MSNBC out of this logical calculus, for on Tuesday evening, the unabashedly left-leaning cable news network actually used the word "conservative" tens times as much as "liberal."
In fact, the actual tally for these descriptives during MSNBC's Super Tuesday primary coverage was (h/t NBer Gary Hall):
- Liberal -- fifteen
- Conservative -- 155
Now, for the cynical that might think anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann used the code word "progressive" to disguise the real political leaning of those they clearly esteem, this word only showed up once in the entire transcript.
Regardless, the good news -- other than the abysmal ratings of this disgrace of a network -- is that at least the folks at MSNBC aren't trying to hide their biases.
To paraphrase Carl Spackler, "They've got that going for them, which is nice!"
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
C'mon Noel
February 7, 2008 - 21:03 ET by deerjerkydave<liberal thinking>
C'mon Noel, you and I both know that liberal bias in the media only exists in your head. Your study is just all part of this dream like state we call reality. What is reality anyway? Reality cannot be trusted because what is real for you might not be real for me. For this reason alone we should question your study's accuracy.
</liberal thinking>
"conservative" does have a
February 7, 2008 - 21:07 ET by TruthMonger"conservative" does have a much nicer ring - and connotation - then "liberal"
it's better, i say it more too
TM
February 7, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Noel SheppardTM,
Heeheeheehee. ns
:) ns "progressives"
February 7, 2008 - 21:27 ET by TruthMonger:) ns
"progressives" really seem to loathe "progressiveness" if you think about it - can't even bring themselves to say it much
22 Ways you know your a good Liberal
February 7, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Airforce_5_O1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands
of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before *Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by
cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by
soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
Federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth
graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually
doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own
money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts
of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too
high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more
important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and
A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial
quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very
nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked
anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in
charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail,
but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the
Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right
wing conspiracy.
22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day
off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."
Great Jumpin' Jehosephat!
February 7, 2008 - 21:21 ET by RiharTalk about cutting to the quick. You nailed it!
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
OK, I'll jump in. 1. I
February 7, 2008 - 21:38 ET by balboaOK, I'll jump in.
1. I go both ways on capital punishment, and I am pro-choice.
2. Nah. I believe both can do both.
3. Nah.
4. Lol. Nope.
5. Eh...Can't say it's ONLY soccer moms. Not sure about the environment...thing.
6. Both are dependent on more than just genetics or environment.
7. Ha. Don't know enough about its spread.
8. I would hope that the 4th grade teacher can teach, first of all.
9. Hunters are not that big a deal to me, but I think activists can effect change.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
Nope.
11. Not
financial gain. I think he believed in the material, plus knew the
notoriety as an artist from doing the movie would be worth much more.
12. Both are great as ideas. Sometimes the execution is poor.
13. Nope. I hate ATM fees, those. I don't really think about taxes that much.
14. I think Steinem was important, but Bell, Edison, that's a totally different ballgame.
15. Nah.
16. What's "normal." I think she's driven, which is often equated with "not friendly" and often is.
17. Nah. I like our system.
18. That's conveniently simplistic. Sex offender?
19. Yes, no.
20. Nope.
21. Nope.
22. Nope.
That's a Keeper.
February 7, 2008 - 21:59 ET by dodecahedronVery well stated Airforce_5_O.
Reality
February 7, 2008 - 21:49 ET by brerolDear Deerjerkydave, You are right. Reality is what you make of it. With that said here is a bit of my reality. Limbaugh is really a moderate. His refusal not to endorse the arrest of Slick Willey proves it. Reagan was a moderate. The fact Reagan was once a Roosevelt democrat proves it. The Democrat party supports terrorists simply because the party does not support GWB fight against terrorist. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point. Which is damn the facts if it does not fit nicely into your illusion of reality.
So now we all know what Noel was doing Tuesday evening...
February 7, 2008 - 21:50 ET by R D HelmWhile most of the rest of us were watching the election results, crying into our (insert adult beverage of choice here), logging in here to voice our disgust while simultaneously making our escape plans to The Caymans, Sri Lanka, Siberia, Mars or what have you, Noel was at home filling his pool.
I mean, how else would he have time to run through a recording of that MSNBC garbage and count (probably multiple times just to be sure) the times the term conservative was used vs. the number of times liberal was used.
I sure hope he had plenty of beer. :-)
And, yes, I am only kidding here. Lol.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
MSDNC not only routinely
February 7, 2008 - 21:55 ET by TEMSDNC not only routinely applies the "conservative" label ten times as often as the "liberal" label, but unwatched leftist freak show host Keith Olbermoronn calls himself a "conservative". ROTFLMAO! Several weeks ago, an absolutely pea-brained dingbat writing for the Houston Chronicle wrote the latest fawning press release (#1001?) for Olbermoronn, and in the press release, the Houston Chronicle quoted Olbermoronn claiming to be a "conservative". Serving his role as Olbermoronn's latest useful idiot, the guy from the Houston Chronicle incredibly offered no challenge to Olbermoronn's claim of being a "conservative".
We've covered this...
February 7, 2008 - 22:50 ET by the curatorThis is the exact same thing Mr. Bozel wrote about yesterday.
I'll say the same thing I said then...
News commentators don't say 'liberal' as often as they say 'conservative' because the latter indicates more of a distinction between the candidates.
You can call Huckabee the 'conservative' republican candidate, and people know what you're talking about.
But, there's no point in saying, "Obama is the liberal this," or, "Hillary is the liberal that." They're both liberal. They're damn near the same candidate on most issues.
But, there are CLEAR differences between Huckabee and McCain in which the word 'conservative' provides clear context.
That's really the point - context. Using 'conservative' with regards to McCain and Huckabee provides clear context.
Using 'liberal' when differentiating between Obama and Clinton is pointless.
That's why 'liberal' isn't being used as much. So, please. Stop crying. When the general election starts, you'll hear 'liberal' all the time.
Stop what?
February 7, 2008 - 23:24 ET by RiharThe whole idea of this website is to point out the liberal bias of the mainstream media. To ask someone here to stop pointing out examples of the bias or "stop crying" is like asking a policeman to stop making arrests. "Stop hasslin' man!" I suppose would be the equivalent. It's doing what it was designed to do. Repeating examples of the same actions by the media is, in a way, documenting "offenses" as one would do in preperation to fire an employee who is breaking company policy.
The reason it's considered bias when a reporter labels a candidate "conservative" is the same as when a conservative labels an opponent "liberal". It's a term of disrespect. The conservative has it for his or her opponent (as does the liberal for his or hers), and the reporter has it for the conservative. Not necessarily, in fact rarely, for the liberal does the reporter use the label "liberal" in a derogetory manner. For that reason the reporter doesn't use the term "liberal" much at all.
It doesn't seem to matter about the difference between Huckabee and McCain or Obama and Clinton. In many ways McCain and Huckabee are as similar in their ideologies as Obama and Clinton are in theirs. Obama and Clinton are both liberal, as liberal as Ted Kennedy. McCain and Huckabee are both conservative, as conservative as Jim Jeffords.
The other day we had a similar discussion and we both thought we were getting through to each other but I don't think we were. Has this helped clarify things a little? Have I even identified your concern?
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
I still see your point
February 7, 2008 - 23:48 ET by the curatorTo ask someone here to stop pointing out examples of the bias or "stop crying" is like asking a policeman to stop making arrests.
I'm not asking anyone to stop pointing out alleged biases in news. I'm pointing out this is not bias.
when a reporter labels a candidate "conservative" is the same as when a conservative labels an opponent "liberal". It's a term of disrespect.
When reporters label a candidate 'liberal' or 'conservative' it's not a term of disrespect. They're simply pointing out facts. That's their job. Huckabee is conservative. I'm sure he's proud of it... as are Obama and Hillary of being liberal. But, they are BOTH liberal, so there's NO NEED to use that term to differentiate them.
the reporter has it (desrespecte) for (use of) the (word)conservative.
Show me ONE example of where a reporter has used the word 'conservative' in a derogertory manner.
we both thought we were getting through to each other
I think we see each other's point of view. But, we just don't agree with them. Which is perfectly fine. I respect your point of view. I just have a different one.
I would also disagree that Huckabee and McCain are anywhere near as close ideologically as Obama and Clinton. And I think the reception McCain got from the recent CPAC convention is proof of that.
2nd verse...
February 8, 2008 - 01:40 ET by RiharShow me ONE example of where a reporter has used the word 'conservative' in a derogertory manner.
Again I draw your attention to the un-scientific study I performed the other day. Whenever the reporter was trying to draw attention to what he or she considers a socially unacceptable or illegal move by a Republican the word "conservative" appears as well as "Republican". Even in the case of a local school board debating whether or not to include both evolution and creation in textbooks. It's in the test I conducted, look it up.
On that same note when Democrat does something socially unacceptable or illegal there is no desigation, or the use of the label "rep." appears. I'm not trying to be snide and I'm not making this up. Please parouse the hits we discussed and see for yourself.
In my opinion these are examples of a press that is doing it's job to point out the mistakes of Republicans but taking a "see no evil, report no evil" attitude toward Democrats.
I would also disagree that Huckabee and McCain are anywhere near as close ideologically as Obama and Clinton. And I think the reception McCain got from the recent CPAC convention is proof of that.
McCain and Huckabee agree on soft border enforcement, pro illegal alien, pro higher taxes, pro campaign finance reform, pro victory in Iraq, for fighting terrorists (I know it contradicts the first two platforms). They have more similarities than differences. Huckabee talks a good game on border security and McCain talks a good game with pro-life but when it comes to actions, neither show up. Or worse, they show up for the other team. With Obama and Clinton, you're right, six of one...
I respect your point of view. I just have a different one.
With this I have no doubt, and the feeling is mutual.
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
The Answer
February 8, 2008 - 09:33 ET by DanSReporters label candidates based on the candidates' views relative to the views of the reporter. Since MSNBC talking heads are far to the left, they consider liberals to be moderate, since they agree with them. It is hard to be more liberal than these commentators, so they are not likely to label anyone as liberal, relative to their own viewpoint, which they consider to be 'normal'.