Orson Scott Card on liberal media bias

He makes a good argument for liberal bias in the newspapers he has quoted, but I don't think he strengthens his case by comparing it to FoxNews, which allegedly:

presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer.

Any reasonable person should be able to freely admit that the Murdoch press in general is heavily influenced by conservative ideology, mainly coming from Rupert himself.

is heavily influenced by conservative ideology

if by heavily influenced you mean allowing a liberal and a conservative exactly equal time on a news program when discussing issues as opposed to a liberal and .... *crickets* in the conventional media then sure...

Mainly what I mean is that the Murdoch press has a remarkable tendency to have editorial consistency throughout the network on every major issue. For example during the before and early stages of the War on Iraq not a single editoral was published in any Murdoch publication opposing the War on Iraq. Perhaps he just has a knack for picking the same sort of editor every time, but I think this is more likely to be a result of editorial direction rather than an amazing example of several hundred of the liberal press spontaneously choosing to go against the tide.

What part of Foxnews do you think is conservative?

For example during the before and early stages of the War on Iraq not a single editoral was published in any Murdoch publication opposing the War on Iraq.

Which isn't terribly surprising considering the overwhelming support it enjoyed.

What part of Foxnews do you think is conservative?

I could go for the cheap shot and say the "O'Reilly Factor", but frankly I haven't watched all that much of FoxNews in general, so my commentary on that network alone should be taken with a grain of salt. However, I have a fair amount of experience with the Murdoch press because they supply some of the largest Australian newspapers, and a part of my job involves reading many of them every day. This experience has led me to approach Murdoch news sources with a certain amount of suspicion and more scrupulous fact-checking - not as much as the "Green Worker's Left whatever", "al Jazeera" and "The Nationalist Weekly" of course, but more than Reuters, AP, AFP, the government and more reputable commercial free-to-air stations etc.

allowing a liberal and a conservative exactly equal time on a news program when discussing issues as opposed to a liberal and .... *crickets* in the conventional media then sure...

Personally I would consider even that to be evidence of bias, or at least a sign of the agenda-setting which so typifies the role of the modern media. There are more opinions than those belonging to stereotypical liberals and conservatives.

Which isn't terribly surprising considering the overwhelming support it enjoyed

Actually in Australia, where there a number of Murdoch-owned newspapers, disapproval for unilateral action was quite high - around 60-70% I think. This was higher of course in city and suburban areas, where the majority of Newscorp's work can be seen. One would expect editorials more reflective of popular opinion at the time of going to print.

I'm still waiting to see a headline, in large bold print, reading "Kerry is not a War Hero!" ... with the usual 'according to sources' buried in the story.

Somehow I don't see this happening, even though these types of headlines are seen often when slanted toward the present administration.

You mean like the New York Times put a front page story about a "rumor" that Dick Cheney is going to get dropped from the ticket even though there was no evidence support that?

You can theorize about conservative bias but liberal bias is thrown in our faces in a very real way.

BTW, anyone who thinks O'Reilly is conservative either doesn't watch him or is so left wing that anyone who isn't far left must seem conservative. Conservatives don't consider O'Reilly conservative.

It's funny when O'Reilly reads his email, and he reads one that calls him a liberal and another that calls him a conservative.

to have editorial consistency

No one has a beef with editorial bias. The beef comes when they attempt to pass off editorial or opinion content as a news story. O'Reilly is an analyst with an opinion and Q&A show not the guy who heads you the news stories. Ask a conservative if O'Reilly is left or right and you will get a different response than you might expect in anycase.

No one has a beef with editorial bias.

Actually, the whole point of Card's article was his beef with editorial bias.

Editorial Bias = Media Bias

I'm still waiting to see a headline, in large bold print, reading "Kerry is not a War Hero!"

Because it's a "liberal media"? I've yet to see a headline that says "Bush was wrong about Iraq" from the "liberal media".

Conservatives seem to expend a lot of energy in blaming the liberal media for anything they please. If Kerry is elected, the media will criticize Kerry's policy and actions the same way as they did Bush. Of course, I don't expect Kerry to foul up as much as George W. did/is. Anyway, all this liberal media talk is bullshit.

I've yet to see a headline that says "Bush was wrong about Iraq" from the "liberal media".

Then you haven't been looking.

CBSNews.com had as it's headline "Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" on July 10, 2003. This was only one of various 'Bush Lied' headlines after the State of the Union address with the infamous 16 words. The latest information about that info and even the stories themselves belied the headline.

In most all cases, these blatant headlines are followed with some type of clarification or recanting in the actual story, but the bold headline has the most effect upon a lot of readers.

The point being ... you don't see this type of false statement/opinion about the left to the degree that you do the current administration.

You mean like the New York Times put a front page story about a "rumor" that Dick Cheney is going to get dropped from the ticket even though there was no evidence support that? You can theorize about conservative bias but liberal bias is thrown in our faces in a very real way.

I said in my first post that he makes a good case for liberal bias. From his article it is obvious that there is considerable bias towards the Democrats in many press sources in the US. I merely think that there are better examples of a fair and balanced media source than FoxNews.

The problem is though that my perception of balanced is of course dependent on my understanding of world and domestic affairs. I think the best a newspaper, TV station or internet news source can do to minimise accusations of bias is to make liberal use of the words "allege", "allegation" and their ilk when writing titles and articles. That was one of the best features of the London Times of years gone by. There's something undeniably reputable about a news source where only assertions that have been verified beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law are considered fact. For example CBS should have said "Critics allege Bush knew Iraq Info was false" whilst about 9/11subeditors might have put "Osama bin Laden alleged to be involved in WTC attack".

Of course that still allows for bias in the selection of news stories, but in my opinion it's an important step towards a more fair and balanced press.

There are so many subtle & overt ways the liberal press exposes its bias. Just one example. Our only major newspaper (metro area of some 3.5mil) has yet to print a story about U.S. casualties in Iraq without an obligatory qualifier, going something like this: "Two U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb outside Najaf today, the xxxth and xxxth casualties since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq." That's not intended as a direct quote, but every such article, without fail and for months on end, has included the "since President Bush declared" language. What purpose is served, pray tell, by including that language ad nauseum? None, except to make us aware that the reporter (or editor) wants to get another shot at Bush in. That kind of gratuitous crap gets wrapped around story after story, I'm afraid, by reporters and/or editors whose agendas include much more than reporting facts. They clearly hope that the wag-the-dog theory proves true, that if they say something often enough & loudly enough it will be believed as factual.

0.02/Opinion

Cheers,
Daiwa

I've read and enjoyed a lot of sf novels from Orson, who is a devout Mormon, BTW, last I heard. His "Enders Game" is classic for kids or adults, and the series that follows has a lot to recommend it, as well. Altogether a thoughtful and thought provoking author, who enjoys taking on really challenging moral and philosophical issues and does a really good job, generally, in presenting them. (And, I speak as a devout atheist and follower of Ayn Rand.)

I suspect, however, re "liberal bias," that the reality is more diverse. I occasionally cruise the local radio dial just to see who's out there, and it's a real zoo here in the LA/OC area. One thing that has gone largely unremarked by the media is the rise of the ultra-right "Patriots" on the low-budget AM circuit. These are direct descendents of the old John Birchers, with their Bilderbergers and Illuminati/Council on Foreign Relations schtick, and their typical holocaust denials, etc.

The interesting thing is that if you look at their publications, or listen to them for very long, you find that on a wide variety of issues, they are precisely in line ideologically with the radical progressive left. In fact, many of their published articles could be dropped right into some progressive/left inner city rabble rouser journal and wouldn't raise a ripple. It's absolutely the same line, verbatum. And it's really embarrassing to the leftists when I hand them an issue of one of the Patriot rags, open to a select article, watch them eat it up, and then show them the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" nonsense, or the magnetized water that will cure AIDS, on the following page.

So, where does THAT fit in this dialogue? Does it discredit the left? Or the "Patriot" right? Has one of them been somehow subverted by the other? Or have both groups been sucked into a bodacious conspiracy?

There are major biases on both sides of the fence in the media outlets each party controls - talk radio for republicans/conservatives and newspapers for democrats/liberals. On tv and the internet, you can find whatever opinion you want or are looking for. The fact that these media outlets usually portray and debate just one of only two positions should give concern to all of us about the reliabililty of either position - right now both sides leave out big chunks of info. to support their postions when necessary. Most issues cannot be distilled to 2 simple arguing points as is being done in ALL of our media outlets (except the net) left and right...

Articles like the one Drag posted seem only to draw more lines between the population via finger-pointing and name-calling and do nothing to actually solve real issues. It's just a blame game that creates ever more distrust, paranoia, and suspicion - these create bureaucracy and grid-lock. Many people seem to think most of the worlds problems exist because of democrats and their lying (or vice-versa)- the true problem is the government itself and the systems it has created (how many people are actually familiar with the econmoics of a fiat based currency - like US dollars - and the problems our currency itself creates in society - how many people know that a central bank - the Federal Reserve - is a plank of communism or that we have implemented 8 or 9 of the 10 planks of communism here in America and what that means). Power of the size that exists (media/state/military/etc.) will (eventually) be used unwisely by whoever it is controlled by (mostly one-world commies from what I see) regardless of their political affiliations.

For information on what the conservatives are saying that might be a little varied from the actual truth, check out mediamatters.org - I am not a liberal, but lets cover all the hyperbole/truth-twisting if we are going to start finger-pointing about hyperbole/truth-twisting.

There are major biases on both sides of the fence in the media outlets each party controls - talk radio for republicans/conservatives and newspapers for democrats/liberals. On tv and the internet, you can find whatever opinion you want or are looking for. The fact that these media outlets usually portray and debate just one of only two positions should give concern to all of us about the reliabililty of either position - right now both sides leave out big chunks of info. to support their postions when necessary. Most issues cannot be distilled to 2 simple arguing points as is being done in ALL of our media outlets (except the net) left and right...

Articles like the one Drag posted (no offense Drag, just and observation) seem only to draw more lines between the population via finger-pointing and name-calling and do nothing to actually solve real issues. It's just a blame game that creates ever more distrust, paranoia, and suspicion - these create bureaucracy and grid-lock. Many people seem to think most of the worlds problems exist because of democrats and their lying (or vice-versa)- the true problem is the government itself and the systems it has created (how many people are actually familiar with the econmoics of a fiat based currency - like US dollars - and the problems our currency itself creates in society - how many people know that a central bank - the Federal Reserve - is a plank of communism or that we have implemented 8 or 9 of the 10 planks of communism here in America and what that means). Power of the size that exists (media/state/military/etc.) will (eventually) be used unwisely by whoever it is controlled by (mostly one-world commies from what I see) regardless of their political affiliations.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose. Property Taxes –fully implemented

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. Income Taxes – fully implemented

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. – partially implemented via inheritance tax

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. – partially implemented via asset forefeiture laws

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. – fully implemented via the Federal Reserve

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State. – Fully implemented via FCC, DOT, etc.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. – Fully implemented via Corporate Taxes (50% of profit) and corporate farming

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. fully implemented via Women’s rights and migrant workers

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. fully implemented via corporate farms, expressways, and urban sprawl

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc. almost fully implemented via Public Schools

If you think that property taxes is the equivalent of abolishing private property, you need to take better advantage of free education.

An interesting earlier counter-argument article about the media, which demonstrates how a slightly conservative stance by the major media outlets is safer for them:

Here it is.

Madine,

I don't think that property taxes are the equivalent of abolishing private property. I think they can be interpreted as a Plank of communism. Several Planks seek to transfer the labor of the individual to the state via taxation.

Karl Marx said that any state practicing 6 or more Planks of communism, was practicing communism. The US, therefore, is practicing communism. It may not be the totalitarian form that we were taught to fear and loathe, but it is still communism according to Karl Marx.

My point here was that who is bias and who is not is a surface issue meant to distract the population. Articles like Orson Scott Card's do nothing to affect the status of the core issues (or even get people thinking about them) that directly affect each of us every day - core issues like fiat money and Central Banking are good examples because most Americans don't understand their own monetary system, who controls it, who profits from it, who is indebted by it, when fiat started in the US, what the founding fathers said about fiat, etc.

Also, "free education" is not free, we pay for it via taxes whether we use it or not - "public education" would be an acceptable term. Taking advantage of public education is no longer in the best interest of the individual unless there are no other options available. The system itself is bloated, corrupt, bureaucratic and unresponsive and does not use the resources it has as wisely as privately run schools which results in not producing the best quality student. Test scores prove it and so do the lessons and books being used in many schools. Teaching to the level of the least intelligent kid in class isn't doing us or our country any favors...

Madine,

One more thing.

If you think that you actually own the land (not the dwelling) you live on (if you "own" a house), you need to sit down with your lawyer and your deed and see who actually, legally, owns your land. You will find that, effectively, you are a renter of land from the US Federal Government and you do not have the right to use your land any way that you would see fit to (and I'm not talking about wanting to dump nuclear waste or something). You are restricted from many uses depending upon where you live, what bugs and animals the Gov. claims you have on your land, what resources you have on your land, etc.

Just because you rent, doesn't mean it is not your "private property". If I lease a copier it is still "mine" even though I might even make more money than the payment each month, but I don't really ever own it - I use it for a fee. The same is true of your land. You rent it, you make money off it, and you probaly pay somewhere between 200-1000 dollars a month in property taxes if you are middle class depending on location, home size, home value, etc.

Property tax IS rent to the federal government - it matters not what they do with it or if it is used for good or evil. It is still rent.

Property tax IS rent to the federal government

I'm pretty sure that the federal government does not collect property taxes. State and local governments do.

The US has had a national bank/banking system long before Marxism.

Madine,

OK -I should have said Property tax is rent to government in general, but the Feds are the ones that truly "own" your land and the local and state guys collect the money for a Federal schooling system that does not do a good job. Forget who collects the money (I collect taxes on all 100 of my employees for the Feds) - it's who has the right to spend it that counts. In the case of schooling, I believe much of the core dedision making is done at the Federal level.

There is a difference between a National Bank/Banking system and a Central Bank and its' banking system. Also, the national banks you speak of did not issue fiat money except the Bank Of The United States (to pay for the war of 1812 I believe) - Jackson relinquished the charter on that bank after the debt was relieved and we did not have a Central Bank again in the US until the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. 1913 is the same year income taxes were first begun - there is a connection between the two. Central Banks create debt for the state, the state pays interest on the debt via taxation. How much of the tax dollars each year are used to pay the interest on the debt? About 400 BILLION - almost the same as our entire defense budget each year!

These things you mention are, again, just surface issues and do seem to get to the heart of things to me...