Media Bias?

Media bias. Sure there's media bias. And it's almost completely liberal.

But who didn't know that? If you're a conservative living in the United States

you have to be aware that the news you get from the usual suspects is

inherently slanted towards the liberal left.

This is why I refer to the major news media as, "The Stenographers of the

Democrat Party."

So, what can you do about it? You can organize major boycotts of newspapers

and TV news stations. You can spend your money with sources of news where

you are more comfortable like the Washington Times, or National Review. Even

The American Spectator is more truthful and accurate.

The problem is that we have already seen that things like this don't influence

the left at all.

Liberal rags like The Philadelphia Inquirer, affectionately known as "The

People's Republic of Philadelphia Inquirer", and The Philadelphia Daily News,

affectionately known as, "The Daily Disappointment" have lost a combined

total of over a hundred thousand readers in the past four years. Any business

that loses that many paying customers would usually call a board meeting and

discuss ways of getting those paying customers back. Well, they held a board

meeting alright. Their answer was to increase the price of the daily

editions of their rags.

In editorials I've read, the reason for the increase in their prices was due

mostly because the cost of printing went up. Really?

There was only one board meeting for both papers, because both papers are

owned by the same company, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. Imagine that. The

only two major newspapers in "The City of Brotherly Love" and they're both

owned by the same company.

One of the weirdest things I've seen with these two liberal rags is that

neither has ever printed one negative thing about Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell

(D) throughout his entire tenure when it came to running the city.

These two papers cut some major slack to former Mayor Wilson Goode, but they

still pounced on him for many topics. The reason I point this out is to show

that they do pick on liberals in the limelight for some things, I guess just

to save face.

A little known story is the fact that when Ed Rendell was elected Mayor of

Philadelphia, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. had a city tax liability that,

sources said, exceeded $300,000. Rendell struck a deal with PNI. The deal

was that if they didn't write anything negative about him or his administration

he would accept a $15,000 payment for the tax liability and call it even.

So, Ed Rendell quickly became known as, "America's Mayor." He was given a

reputation of a democrat with a sense of fiscal responsibility. During the

two Goode administrations the city government went bankrupt to the point where

the city couldn't even sell bonds. Ed Rendell was given credit for bringing

the city's finances under control. This was done with the help of the two

bought-and-paid-for liberal rags of the city.

What they didn't report was that Mayor Rendell had absolutely nothing to do

with bringing the city government back from near death.

In the "Goode-old-days" there were commissions created that tried to come up

with a solution to Mayor Goode's fiscal problems. It was Senator Joe Rocks

(R) Pa, who created an entity known as the PICA Board. The PICA Board was

given sole responsibility to oversee any and all fiscal transactions made by

the city. Before Philadelphia City Council, and even the Mayor's office could

spend any money on anything, the idea had to first be filtered through the

PICA Board. The PICA Board is a fiscally conservative panel that got the

city's numbers back in the black, but you'll never know that by the information

written in the major media rags of Philly.

There are two reason I believe the major media is inherently liberal. One

reason is because I believe liberalism is an easy choice. All you have to do

is agree with any politically correct position, and BAM!, you're a genius.

It takes actual research and hard work to examine any political position and

report on it accurately. Given the time constraints on the daily publishing

industry, isn't it easier to hear an emotionally made argument and then just

report it as truth?

The second reason is because the major media runs itself in the same manner

that Washington, DC has over the past forty years. Think about it. Washington

has created a centralized command with all things originating from DC. Doesn't

the major news media do the same thing? ABC, NBC and CBS all have a central

command center with affiliate stations throughout the country. Those

affiliate stations get their marching orders from the central command center.

We know this must be true, because if you have a satellite system in your

home you can watch news broadcasts in most major cities. They all report the

same way.

Some people are convinced that there really is a conspiracy going on where

editors and program directors get together in the back rooms of their office

buildings and discuss how they're going to make news stories come out favoring

liberal groups and politicians over their conservative counterparts.

Well, I can give you a way of proving their suspicions. Just watch C-Span

any day of the week when the Senate or House of Representatives is convened.

Pay close attention to the issues being discussed and/or argued from the floor

of each respective house. Make a mental note of how the issues were debated,

then watch the major news media that night and see how distorted the reporting

is from the reality of what you watched earlier in the day. It will make you

wonder if the reporter watched the same thing you did, or if he watched it at

all.

You see, what happens is that even though the republicans are in the majority

of both houses, the major media are still the "Stenographers of the Democrat

Party." A democrat says something, and it's reported as truth. A republican

says something and he/she has to prove it to be reported. Then nine out of

ten times it isn't reported anyway.

Liberal journalists start with a conclusion, then work to prove it. The

problem is that they call it journalism.