Why is our great, liberal media so content with booking Media Research Center’s, L. Brent Bozell as their leading expert on liberal bias in the media and culture while virtually ignoring the conservative misinformation expert David Brock of Media Matters for America? It is quite apparent to all involved that the MRC group is more interested in pushing a conservative agenda rather than being an actual watchdog group.
CJR did a review of MRC and said " We'd like to take Brent Bozell's Media Research Center seriously. We really would. There are ideological biases in the press, overt and covert, and organizations like MRC can, theoretically, are an important resource in identifying and understanding them. Media Matters -- MRC's competitor on the left -- is, for example, a consistently useful resource, largely because the organization tends to limit its criticisms to specific instances of media malfeasance, and then supports those criticisms with documented facts and clear, transparent reasoning.
"Underlying every assertion by MRC, on the other hand, is the notion that the media are consciously and deliberately acting to distort the news, thanks to an overriding and all-consuming ideological bias. But because MRC is so insistent on pushing its overreaching and not-so-hidden ideological agenda, reasonable people have a hard time taking it seriously, even when the organization has a legitimate point to make. That's because, at its heart, MRC doesn't exist to make the media better -- it's just one part of a wider movement by the far right to demonize corporate media."
24/7 Cable Television usually pairs Brent against some democratic strategist or neutral journalist who doesn’t have the information needed to engage in a meaningful debate, so my question is this. Why is the media using a single, slanted POV on disinformation that is coloring the landscape with distortions at Bozell’s whim? The answer is obviously that many of their anchor's have a right wing agenda, so to put on an intelligent, informed pundit would hurt their cause. Bill O'Reilly constantly attacks anyone that will not appear on his show, yet has declined to book David Brock after numerous inquires.
MRC just released a new study called " Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals" where they claim once again that the big three networks are biased.
Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler dissects the MRC thusly: …"Try to believe—just try to believe—that this is their number-one example of the terrible bias they’re describing:
"MRC REPORT: An Imbalanced Approach: On the April 26 Today, Katie Couric introduced a debate segment by branding just one side: "Dee Dee Myers was President Clinton’s first White House press secretary, and Tucker Carlson is a conservative commentator and host for MSNBC." Were we supposed to believe Myers is non-ideological?
"Incredible, isn’t it? The MRC studied six months of news reports and this is its number-one outrage? This is the best example of a news org "branding just one side?" For those who have just arrived from Neptune, let’s note the foolishness of this complaint. When Couric identified Myers as Clinton’s press secretary, she was, in fact, identifying Myers’ place on the "ideological" spectrum. She balanced this by describing Carlson as what he says he is—a conservative."
Media Matters also reviews the study: MRC studies that "prove" media's "liberal bias" collapse under scrutiny
I think it is time we act and let the TV Gods know that we are feed up with not being represented in the media bias arena. I’m asking everyone to contact:
viewerservices@msnbc.com MSNBC TV One MSNBC Plaza Secaucus, N.J. 07094 (201)-583-5000
FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 Comments@foxnews.com 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036
CNN-One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366 Phone: 404-827-1500 Fax: 404-827-1906
Blogesota reminds me to ask for eveyone to help gather all the reps. and email or put them in the comments so I can post them.
Shakespeares Sister has a great take and response from a few other bloggers:What Liberal Media?
