Using an Ann Coulter book as a reference to prove a poltical point is almost equivalent to using a creationist source to prove a scientific point, get a grip on yourself man.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They claimed that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control. Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media – 09/17/2002

http://web.archive.org/web/20080205062048/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200209/CUL20020917b.html

What I said to Casper:

Journalists, on the other hand, control most of what the news story will be. There's a boss who says "go out and cover this" and then either approves or disapproves it. however, if the Journalists, who create the content (not follow an extremely specific guideline with pre-made questions) and edits it and all, are mostly liberal, it is INEVITABLE that what they are telling us is with a liberal slant. Rarely can human beings keep their personal beliefs out of what they say (unless they're reading off a teleprompter... written by who, though?)

Now, I suppose the real question would be on how much of a real problem is this?

So anyway, the same question goes to lobbying. I shall say that most of the people who are going to say "liberal journalists isn't a problem" are the same people who say "corporate lobbies are a problem".

Two different issues with many similarities. This is because the real problem then becomes "how much faith do we have in our free minded voters?"

If we have little faith, then allowing corporations to lobby and fund campaigns is JUST AS BAD as allowing Journalists to have political beliefs on what they're talking about.

To say that the Journalists are being impartial is irrelevant if you believe that corporate lobbies CAN'T BE impartial. What differs business men from journalists? They are both humans with very similar desires. Just one favors money while the other favors ideology and fame. A businessman is MOST LIKELY going to try and change things so that he can make more money, but only JUST AS LIKELY as a journalist will try to convince people that he is right and his way is right.

Not to mention, of course, that most media is run by corporations. 30 Rock makes fun of Libertarians and even tries to paint the owner of General Electric as a heartless Libertarian type. It's how they get away with the fact that the CEO of General Electric has supported Obama and his policies since he was running for election.

If the people who are telling us the news describe themselves as more left/democratic/liberal, then we have a left-leaning media. Bad? Good? I, for one, favor free speech and I take in all the media that I care for. Even though most of the media may be liberal, there is still plenty of media out there that isn't.

If we favor the first amendment, we should instead focus on picking media that suits us. You know... free market philosophy?

I always fear that one day Conservatives will demand a Fairness Doctrine for everything but radio (thank goodness they've invested too much time and attacking the Fairness Doctrine to just flip-flop).

Public media (NPR PBS) is liberal.

NPR gets its money from the Government. They pay check requires them to believe that government should be involved in the arts. Conservatives believe in limited government, and so, of course, people who get their money from the government, are not going to support policies that would remove their job. What's funny is NPR and PBS often tells its listeners that they are less biased than media that gets its funding by advertisements, but they are, of course, more biased. Even if you could try to not be biased, subconsciously you would assume the government should be doing all sorts of stuff, because, after all, you wouldn't believe that your life work is meaningless, or not valuable.

"It was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations." That is 7 times the amount that republicans got.

Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-democrats-got-88-percent-2008-contributions-tv-network-execs-writers

The people who "moderate" the debates are all democratic hacks. George Stephanopoulos was the Bill Clinton press secretary. Chris Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration

A study cited frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter.[21] They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

R. Lichter, S. Rothman, and L. Lichter, The Media Elite. New York: Hastings House, 1991.

In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

ASNE report". Retrieved 2007-03-28, http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html

Financial reporters are never allowed to write about companies in which they have an interest, while political reporters routinely refuse to answer questions that might reveal their own political positions and thus allow the reader to adjust for any bias, whether conscious or subconscious, that their reporting might contain. If financial reporters have to regulate their self interest, so should political reporters.

During a 2006 exchange with Hewitt, longtime Washington Post reporter and columnist Thomas Edsall said that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 15-25 to 1 among members of the mainstream media ("The Hugh Hewitt Show". Hughhewitt.townhall.com. 2011-12-06. Retrieved 2011-12-10., http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078-2e33-46d8-b85a-a91a5257fca2) )

The media is liberal, and if it is controlled by corporations than they are liberal leaning corporations probably subsidized by a liberal government. The only reason people out there think the media is not liberal is because the media says its not biased and feeds the ego of these mind washed idiots out there by saying that they are smarter than the other guys(non main stream media patrons) just because they pay attention to their show.