Chi.Trib: Labeling One Group 'Conservative' But Not IDing the Liberal One


We have here a classic case of liberal bias in the Old Media. It isn't as dramatic as may others that we have seen since The One came onto the national scene, but it is the sort of bias that has been endemic in the Old Media for a very long time. In a February 1 story in the Chicago Tribune, we find the old trick of naming a think tank as a source, but not mentioning that it is a liberal think tank, yet also citing a second group that is, however, labeled as a "conservative" think tank.

This sort of bias is very common in the Old Media. How it works is that the liberal think tank is cited as a source for some statistic or claim but that think tank is not labeled as a liberal group. This way the reader sees the liberal group's advice or stats as unbiased or straight. Then the media will give a counter claim by the conservative think tank. But the conservative group is labeled as a conservative think tank so that the reader is led to be wary of that group's stats or advice because they are biased.

In this way, the Old Media outlet in question can claim they've been "balanced" and were giving "both sides" of the story while still leaning the story to the left and attempting to discredit the right. It's a typical smoke screen of leftward bias that is an old stand by for the liberal media establishment.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The story was all about federal bailouts for the state of Illinois and explores where federal money should be used in the state. Here is where they mention the first think tank, the liberal one: (my bold)

Illinois can expect at least $22.3 billion from the stimulus package passed by the U.S. House last week, including tax breaks, government aid, infrastructure spending and new assistance for everything from school renovations to home weatherization for low-income families, according to the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank closely allied with the Obama administration. The estimate covers only individual tax breaks and spending allocated by formula, about two-thirds of the total funds in the $819 billion stimulus approved by the House. The Senate is considering a similar bill.

Notice that the Center for American Progress, a group well known for its liberal leanings, was not labeled a liberal think tank. Also notice the Tribune tried to help legitimize the Center for American Progress further by telling the reader that it is "closely allied" with popular president Obama!

Then comes the "balance" by citing the conservative group:

But there's another number that conservative critics would like voters to focus on: the increased debt load that will be taken on by the country—$35 billion for Illinois, if the increase in the national debt is considered to be evenly distributed around the country on the basis of population, according to the conservative Cato Institute.

Revealing, isn't it? The Center for American Progress is never labeled as the far, far left group that it is, but Cato is twice in the same paragraph labeled as "conservative."

So, in this case, the Center for American Progress is given the benefit if its liberal ideology left unsaid AND was linked to a popular president to further shore up how trustworthy it is, yet the Cato Institute was labeled as a "conservative" group. In this way the reader can understand that Cato is biased to the right as stated but CAP is not as its ideology is left out of the story.

This one is a classic Old Media trick, fortunately we are here to identify it as such.

(H/T NewsBuster reader Thomas Matheson)


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I always considered CATO as

I always considered CATO as a Libertarian think tank, which I believe is a more accurate term.

There will come a day in the next four years where "groups" will scramble to be labeled Conservative, in spite of the dinosaur media. 

As Obami and his thugs take this country further and further left, the idiocracy that voted him in will wake up and realize the horrible mistake they made. In the future, they will look twice at any politician coming out of Illinois in general and Chicago in particular.

→ Hope you're right

But it's going to take a return to basic conservatism to bring in the believers.

All the older Republicans seem to be quasi-democrats.  The younger group shows a little more promise.

Marsha Blackburn
Bobby Jindal
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum (I miss him)

Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce
our laws to the letter
. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, 05/07/98

GOP dragging it's feet

I have some reservations about some of these people on your list that could easily be remedied IF the GOP would start the '12 campaign now, starting with some well publicized questionaires on their positions. I would ask that the Heritage Foundation and others write the questions. 

But then again, we could just wait around to the last minute and through another white-haired guy in there and see how that works?

Bolton/KEYES 2012 

2010 is actually more vital

While the presidency for 2012 is important, 2010 is actually a far more vital year to focus on at this time. We have several senators up for relection that year, including over 30 senators and governors, as well as attacking the democratic control of the House. If we make a greater dent in the Congress and the statehouses, then we can plan on attacking 2012 with a greater degree of accuracy.

I hope we do NOT field another "Bob Dole" in 2012, and instead concentrate on a popular conservative.

In 2010

True, but I was responding to his list of potential Presidential candidates.

The best way to address the 2010 elections is to repeat 1994. That is, current GOP members of Congress need to grow a pair. Advance conservative ideas. Run conservatives in GOP primaries where needed. Tar and feather those who do not cooperate.  Etc.

Bolton/KEYES 2012 

Yes, this piece by Mike

Yes, this piece by Mike Dorning of the Chicago Tribune does once again illustrate a frequent technique employed by political activists like Mike Dorning and political advocacy groups like the Chicago Tribune whereby said political activists label the "conservatives" but fail to label those on the left.  However, this press release by Mike Dorning and the Chicago Tribune also once again demonstrates what incompetent fools members of the Washington press corps are.  Dorning incorrectly labels the Cato Institute as "conservative".  Hahahahahaha.  The Cato Institute is NOT "conservative".  It is a libertarian think tank.  I have seen members of the Washington press corps make the same false claim hundreds and hundreds of times.  They simply can not comprehend that the Cato Institute is not "conservative".

Also, note this bit of unsubstantiated advocacy from Mr. Dorning:

"In the view of economists, the most significant aspect of the stimulus would be the jobs created as money received from tax breaks and funds spent on government-financed projects ripples through the economy. Someone hired for a road project or a school renovation spends their pay at local businesses, creating demand for their services or products, leading them to hire more employees, who in turn spend their pay. It's a cycle that repeats itself many times, economists say."

"In the view of economists"?  "It's a cycle that repeats itself many times, economists say"?  "Economists"?  All "economists" think alike?  That bit from Mr. Dorning demonstrates another favorite technique employed by members of the Washington press corps, to wit:  When leftists say something, members of the Washington press corps substitute "Americans say ...", "People say ...", "Economists say ...", etc., for "Leftists say ...."

It has nothing to do with honest error

"They simply can not comprehend that the Cato Institute is not 'conservative.'"

I think you're missing the point, TE. It's not that they actually think
Cato is conservative. It's that whatever Cato is saying in this
instance is not "liberal." Therefore, it's
wrong and evil. Therefore, the troops must be prevented from giving it
the same credence the liberal think tank's nonsense gets. Therefore, it
must be portrayed as "conservative" and biased.

They'd say the same thing about, say, Brookings (or the Center for American Progress) if by some miracle Brookings began releasing findings that flew in the face of the great liberal shibboleths. All of
a sudden, it wouldn't be that the wise, honest liberals at Brookings
had suddenly come up with findings that threw into question everything
they'd formerly believed. Instead the race would be on to explain
how "conservatives" had managed to take over the institution.

The Obvious Truth

In recent times, conservatism is being demonised much like George W. Bush has been demonized and vilified by the media. The media and President Obama are making a concerted effort to identify everything that is conservative as extreme, evil, unfair, cold-hearted, cruel, hateful, uncool, and unpopular.

Obama has been doing this by publicly demonizing FOX news, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Pretty soon, "conservative bashing" will become just as popular as "Bush bashing" unless we can produce a conservative spokesman with charisma and a message that rings true. Perhaps Michael Steele could be the man.

Another major problem that conservatives face is that most all republicans in the house and the Senate are caving-in to liberal ideas, such as expanding the scope and size of the federal government, global warming and comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps they don't want to be demonized and vilified as being too conservative. We need proud conservatives in government. We have to many wimpy RINO Republicans who seek approval for adopting liberal ideas that may have good intentions but also have negative consequences. 

Although the Senate republicans are opposed to the "stimulus" bill as presented by the Democrats, they will likely vote for a compromise bill which will also dramatically increases the size and scope of the federal government and drastically increase the national debt.

We need to see conservative Republicans unabashedly calling for restraint in government spending and debt. We need conservative Republicans to boldly call for less government intervention. Less government spending. Less government debt. Less government programs. Less government power.

The government caused the housing bubble by pressuring banks to make housing loans to people, regardless of their ability to repay the loan. The government bought these most of these risky loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government caused the problem. The government is not the solution. The solution resides in hard work, individual passion, innovation, financial responsibility, and less government tinkering. 

Instead, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in favor of growing the size and scope of the federal government, but they are focusing on spending money on their "pet projects", rather than the Democrats.

Borrowing and spending will  lead to the collapse of our economy. We need conservative leaders to boldly stand up and preach "first do no harm". Let's pay our bills the best we can, individually and as a nation. Let's spend our money with frugality, individually and as a nation. Let us become more productive and exploit this nations natural resources to it's fullest in this time struggle. Let us produce more oil, steel, coal, lumber, plastics and manufactured goods. Let us increase our prosperity the old fashioned way. Let's buckle down, work hard and earn it. That is what I am waiting to hear from a politician. So far I haven't heard anything resembling the obvious truth. 

the ship has sailed

I found an article here about Jon Stewarts rant on talk radio and went to their forum and added a few comments. I was immediately smacked by some sr. producer, with whom I have traded a few dozen posts.

Through the email exchange, I'm appalled at the total lack of brains they're hiring in the main stream media -- it really is frightening.

I get back from her that my comments are racist and because I don't agree with her and question her. And the reason that makes me a racist is I don't know I'm a racist. OK. She starts to sing the praises of Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama and I question what it is he did to get elected. She starts with the name calling. Can't name ONE accomplishment. When pushed, I get "He's a man who knows what to do and he gets things done". Fine. What is it he got done? I mention he wrote two autobiographies, billed 350 hours at a milli vanilli law firm job in four years, fixed it so he ran unopposed in a congressoinal election and announced for president 140 days after becoming a senator with NO appreciable legislation passed. NO executive experience, no apparent leadership--just an empty suit shilling for George Soros.

Oh boy, did that set her off. I need to get with the program, she says. I need to come together and support Comrade Glorious Supreme Leader Obama because, well basically, he's not Bush and he's our PRESIDENT. I asked her why then, if he's president, she didn't do the same for Bush. MORE name calling.

The lack of intellect in this this woman's posts are frightening. And these are the people who are hired to run the main stream media. I still haven't gotten an answer to my questions from her, only name calling, finger pointing and Bush Deraingement Syndrome. God help the media. They have lost their soul.

Well, OK, but ...

In the article, Dorning references the think tank as "allied closely with the Obama camp", which to any thinking person, means bed-wetting liberal.

I agree

"closely allied with the Obama administration" = liberal

 

http://www.AlexaShrugged.com

Labels

Quick flash-thought....

Perhaps the MSM doesn't label the Libs so often because it's rather easy to spot them (or they're already well-know weasels)?

Other possibility: their target-ID systems are not entirely reliable, so it's to avoid "friendly fire" incidents once they start shooting (off at the mouth/keyboard/etc...).

Also, the "fill-in-the-blank conservative blah-blah-blah" labels are "flags" that they wave in front of the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid feeling-fueled hoards.  Otherwise they won't know when it's time to rise up and register their (self)rigtheous indignation over something or other.

 

WTH, That's an excellent

WTH,

That's an excellent example of an oldie-but-goodie. What are some of the other classics from the Old Media Bias Hit Parade - you know, the quainter, more gentle, bias from the days of yore, before the media went off it's collective rocker? I have a few:

1) Ending a story with a quote or clip of a liberal

2) Saying a conservative "claimed", while a liberal "asserted"

3) The anchor's arched eyebrow or tone of disbelief when reporting the conservative or Republican position or view.

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Don't forget

Don't forget the old favorite of have 3 or 4 liberals quoted, but only one conservative quoted in a story... oh, and the liberals get to call the conservative a name on top of it.

WTH,

Ahhhh, yes. Those bias techniques went down as smoothly as fine old scotch when an old master like Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, or Peter Jennings employed them. Why, we could barely tell we were being led astray. 

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.