Media

Glenn Greenwald on Media Bias

Not to the left, not to the right, but to the powerful

|

Glenn Greenwald knows the score:

Ample ink is spilled over debating whether the US media is biased in favor of Republicans or Democrats. It is neither. The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it.

NEXT: Democrats Beat Republicans in Congressional Election Cycle Fundraising

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah, yes. TEAM BE RULED.

    1. Greenwald continues to prove that he has real integrity. I wish there were more like him (outside of reason, that is).

      1. I dunno ’bout bias (though I get the feeling the left gets a little bit of an edge in MSM) but the left sure know how to make the creepiest videos Evah!

        http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/…..imir_putin

      2. Greenwald is pretty good, but real integrity is going a bit far. Denying a left-wing media bias isn’t exactly a difficult thing for a left-winger to do.

        1. If so, that’s from bias, not a lack of integrity. Lack of integrity would be him seeing it, and STILL claiming otherwise. I don’t believe Greenwald thinks like that.

          1. If he doesn’t see it, then he’s not worth reading or quoting, either.

            1. Nope, sorry, wrong. You’re a moron.

              1. See my post below, dumbfuck.

                Name the right-wing Krugman at the NYT.

                Left-wing bias means that the news media makes left-wing assumptions about disputed facts. If you don’t see it, you’re really stupid, which you continually prove, you certainly are.

                Libertarians should be more attuned to it than anyone, since we tend to be aware of the intellectual underpinnings of our beliefs, far more than most on the traditional left or right.

                1. Sorry, I don’t believe in a libertarian version of Approved Thinkers.

                  Your basic argument is, “WAAHHH! Greenwald doesn’t understand the TRUE NATURE of media bias, therefore we should never read him even if he’s right!” It’s moronic as all fuck.

                  That you think your posts somehow support the idea that Greenwald’s posts on civil liberties shouldn’t be read because he doesn’t have the Approved Beliefs is stupid. It’s the same shit that lefties pull, saying “If it’s from the Wrong People, you shouldn’t read it at all!” That’s some Soviet-level bullshit right there.

        2. He often enough takes a scalpel to his own side that it shouldn’t obscure what he is doing here, making a broader point that the MSM serve at the alter of power. The caveat being, but of course, they prefer the right people to be in charge, but their fetish isn’t conditioned on it. They’ll take whatever they can get so long as it gets them off.

          1. That’s about right. They do favor Democrats over Republicans, and “liberals” over “conservatives”, heavily in fact, but that’s only after they’ve gotten out of the way their de rigeur subservience to power, which trumps all other considerations, even this ideologic bias, if they get in the way. I noticed in the comment thread at the Guardian someone dated when this trend began exactly at the time I thought: the middle 1970s. In other words, once the dust cleared from Watergate.

            1. The problem is that you have a better shot of bumping into a Republican in San Francisco then you have in a typical newsroom. If you think that doesn’t matter I have the Lilly Ledbetter Bridge to sell you for a good price.

      3. I don’t agree with much of what Greenwald writes, but he at least tries to lay out a rational argument, which puts him in a class above the rest of the talking heads and paid opinionators.

        1. I do think he tries. The problem with Greenwald is that he thinks that the more he repeats himself, the truer the words become.

      4. But John says he’s just a socialist and we should ignore everything he says….

  2. “The overwhelming, driving bias of the US media is subservience to power, whoever happens to be wielding it.”

    We’ll see.

    If Romney wins, and he gets the same treatment as Obama, I’ll be really surprised.

    Seems to me that a huge chunk of the media doesn’t care what Obama does so long as Obama’s the one doing it.

    1. Last I looked George Bush wielded a lot of power for 8 years. Only a socialist ass clown like Greenwald would think that the media was totally subservient to him.

      1. Except Greenwald rose to his level of fame by calling out the media’s support on Iraq, silence on civil liberties issues and merely transcribing white house talking points.

        1. Which of course was a complete fabrication on Greenwald’s part. The media was all over Bush from day one.

          1. They were pretty rough on him at the beginning, but 9/11 changed that.

          2. The big problem with the Democrats during the period between 9/11 and about a year or so after we invaded Iraq was that there was no real opposition in Congress to whatever Bush was doing.

            The reason Obama is president now is becasue he was the only prominent Democrat who opposed Iraq and was generally against the president at that time–and he was basically a nobody. Otherwise, the Democrat nominee would have been Hillary, whose criticism of Bush during that period was that he wasn’t going far enough…

            To find a Democrat who was opposed to Bush during that period, you had to go all the way to the backbenchers–which is what Obama basically was. The rest of the Democrats rubber stamped everything Bush did, and the press was taking their cues from the Democrats–as always.

            1. Oh come on. This is conspiracy theorizing of the first order. The MSM was plenty harsh on Dems during that time.

              And there were FAR more prominent Democrat Iraq War opponents than Obama at the time. While BO’s opposition to Iraq certainly helped him in the 2008 primaries, it wasn’t the main factor.

              1. They were harsh on Dems sometimes, especially treating any war protestors as traitors. …especially Fox news, which was certainly MSM.

                But the reason the MSM wasn’t harsh on Bush wasn’t because they respected his power. It’s because, as liberal as the press generally is, they’re influenced by the same factors as the Democrat politicians, who weren’t criticizing Bush either.

                There was very little criticism coming from the left of George W. Bush between 9/11 and Iraq. There was basically libertarians, a few quips from relative radicals, like the ACLU, and that was about it. If the press is basically liberal, then why would they act differently from all the other liberals in Congress and the rest of society.

              2. From the PEW Research Center “Project for Excellence in Journalism” – For every one positive story on John McCain, there were four negative ones. For every one negative story on Obama, there were four positive ones.

                People like Glenn always bring up the Legacy Media’s love of those in power, and that’s true – but make no mistake, when they have a chance effect the outcome of an election, they will always make the call in team blue’s favor.

          3. The only time the media let up on Bush was after 9/11 for a while. No, the media was not pro-Iraq War, there was a fair debate and the anti-war crowd lost. It’s pretty obvious the media is DemOp Fox News aside.

            1. I don’t know what media you were tuned in to, but from here it looked like they were pro-war with Iraq — a little less so than with Afghanis, but not enough to say they weren’t.

            2. In fact during that period I expressed my perplexity to my friend David Lindelof that the media were so in the tank for the 2nd Iraqi war, and he responded with exactly what Greenwald wrote here, and that it should not have been surprising to me at all. Or maybe it was the 1st Gulf War; I may be conflating the memories, but the point is the same.

      2. Yeah, I was thinking there was that period of time in the run up to the Iraq War, when the media wouldn’t criticize or even question Bush…

        But then I remembered that was back when the Democrats were totally subservient to Bush, too! So, yeah, when the Democrats in Congress were completely subservient to Bush, the press was subservient to him, too…

        But that’s not saying much. That’s just showing that when the media doesn’t have a Democrat in the White House to lionize, they takes their cues from the Democrats in Congress.

        1. Congress overwhelmingly voted to support Iraq. It was close to 3/4.

          It wasn’t a Republican thing, at first.

          That said, “left-wing bias” does not mean the same thing as “pro-Democrat bias.” Left-wing bias is about a way of treating facts, choosing stories and “angles”, etc.

          1. E.g.: see the treatment of guns used for self-defense by NYT and WaPo stories, the assumptions made, etc.

      3. John, the media was in fact fellating Bush hardcore from 9/11 until things started going south in Iraq in mid-2004. Do you remember how they mocked Howard Dean and John Kerry, and the antiwar movement in general?

        However, it was nothing like what they’re doing with BO now. Greenwald is correct in a historical sense, but I seriously can’t see them worshipping Romney if he wins. They’re the left-wing Fox News now.

        1. See Ken above. To the extent that they didn’t go after Bush it was because Dems were not either. They basically take their cues from the Dems.

          1. So when they were ripping John Kerry for flip flopping, they were taking cues from the Dems?

            1. Who was ripping John Kerry? Fox News? Rush Limbaugh?

              1. Early on he was getting it from MSM outlets too. By the autumn they had changed their tune as Iraq started falling apart.

                They were merciless to Howard Dean, as well.

                1. Yes, they constantly replayed his freak out.

                2. You must be kidding. MSM fluffing is how Kerry got the nomination in the first place, undoubtedly to their later regret. All that war hero nonsense, remember?

            2. Did Kerry oppose the Iraq War?

              Did Kerry rail against what Bush did between 9/11 and when we invaded Iraq?

              During the election, Kerry still couldn’t bring himself to criticize Iraq directly.

              http://www.slate.com/articles/….._iraq.html

              What significant part of Bush’s agenda did Kerry oppose?

              His take was mostly that he thinks Bush should keep doing what he’s doing–but in a different way or in with different feelings in his heart.

              Not even Kerry could bring himself to really criticize the president directly. I just don’t think judging the bias of the media by how they (and the rest of the liberals) acted in the wake of 9/11 is useful.

              The loyal opposition may have been loyal during that period–but they weren’t really any kind of opposition. Why would would the media stand up and criticize Bush, when everyone else in the world it seemed (except libertarians) were treating him like he was Churchill during the Blitz.

              1. Yes, of course Kerry was Bush-lite. But my point is that the Dems wanted him to win and the media wasn’t along for the ride most of the way.

                1. This is actually creepy.

                  You really seem to not remember.

                  ‘He who controls the past’ indeed.

                  The media was all over Bush save for a brief period after 9/11. He was attacked for the Patriot Act, attacked for even thinking of going into Iraq, attacked for how he got elected, laughed at for choking on a pretzel. Gods above I could go on and on and on. There’s a reason the term Bush Derangement Syndrome was coined, folks, and it wasn’t because the media was sucking up to Bush.

                  1. You can go in the archives here at Hit & Run and read it for yourself.

                    Attacked for the Patriot Act?

                    “All but two Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted for the original Patriot Act legislation in 2001. The lone nay vote was from Russ Feingold of Wisconsin; Mary Landrieu of Louisiana did not vote. In the House the Democrats voted for the Act by 145 yea and 62 nay.”

                    http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Patriot_Act

                    You’re the one with selective memory.

                    Libertarians attacked Bush on the Patriot Act.

                    The mainstream media didn’t really start jumping on Bush’s case until Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and then it began in earnest after the Democratic Sweep of 2006. Once the Democrats felt strong enough to start criticizing Bush again, the media followed suit.

                    C’mon, you guys were here at Hit & Run for this stuff, right? The fact that the Democrats didn’t offer any significant resistance to anything Bush was doing was a common theme here at Hit & Run for years!

        2. This might make an interesting Lexis investigation, but I remember the corporate media giving Ted Kennedy and various others plenty of airtime to compare Afghanistan to Vietnam and declare it a quagmire before troops set foot on the ground.

      4. Only a Conservative Ass Clown couldn’t see the larger issue of the media supporting of lying government officials and a strong state, John. Can’t you take your team glasses off for a few minutes? I know it’s an election season, but Jesus Christ

        1. There’s no doubt they’re biased in favor of the big state, but suffice it to say, if Obama came out as small state Democrat tomorrow, he wouldn’t get the same treatment as Romney would–if he started advocating small state solutions all over the place.

          It’s possible the liberal media could have more than one bias.

          The common take around here used to be a whole better than this, by the way. Instead of arguing about whether the media was biased, we used to argue about why it would matter that they are.

          I don’t think there’s any question but that the media is biased and liberal. I also don’t think it matters much if we think for ourselves.

  3. Speaking of media bias, let’s see what kind of coverage this gets:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..urces-say/

    We had all kinds of assets within range of Benghazi, including two of the big AC-130 gunships. None of them were dispatched, even though the people under fire were begging for them, and we had a laser target designator on the mortar team firing on the safehouse.

    AC-130s are pretty much the perfect tool for cleaning up this kind of attack on forces that are pinned down. We could have saved the people at the safehouse, and did . . . nothing.

    1. I don’t think we had any business being over there, but this is just disgusting. They left those guys to rot?

      1. Yep. Note the lag between the attack on the embassy (which was characterized at the time as an organized attack), and the attack on the safehouse.

        Now, maybe those Spookies were tasked somewhere else, etc., but the official story is that Panetta and company made a conscious decision to send zip, zero, nada help because the situation was too confused.

        I can’t see any reason not to put a gunship when you have an actual ambassador under actual attack. And you’ve got operators on the ground, with the exact laser designators the Spooky needs for pinpoint fire. Jesus on a pogo stick, what more do you need? With Spookies, you don’t need to put any additional troops in harm’s way, so the “inadequate intelligence” dodge just doesn’t wash.

        Shocking, incredible incompetence is the very best case scenario here.

        1. Maybe Hillary was right about Obama’s readiness for that 2:00 AM phone call.

        2. Off topic, RC Dean, did you get a look at that Benghazi link I posted yesterday?

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_3335859

          1. I missed that. Thanks for the link. The locals did better than I thought.

    2. Didn’t you hear Leon Panetta? Obama needs more than 6 hours notice when there’s a national emergency before he can do anything.

      And BO’s military dogwasher Gen. Dempsey backed him up on it, dead Marines be damned. The same guy who condemned ex-Seals for running an ad against Obama’s taking credit for OBL-RIP, saying that the uniform must never be used for political purposes. I wonder if he’s seen BO’s own campaign ad featuring Navy Seals? It was on every 11:00 newscast here in PA a couple of months ago.

      1. Speaking of catching up on yesterday’s posts, I posted the statute on counterfeiting in response to your question from yesterday, T.

      2. Obama needs more than 6 hours notice when there’s a national emergency before he can do anything.

        It takes him that long to finish a round? Figures.

        1. I’m sure he lets others play through.

      3. If that report above is correct, then the excuses by Panetta and Dempsey simply don’t wash. They were talking about why they didn’t put troops into Benghazi.

        If we hed Spookies available, and it looks like we did, we didn’t need to put troops on the ground. Hell, we had somebody already on the ground who knew how to coordinate fire from the gunships, and had the laser to direct pinpoint fire.

        And Obama? Off to bed, so he could catch his flight to Vegas in the morning.

        1. If that reports is correct – Panetta, Dempsey and maybe Clinton and Petraeus all need to go.

      4. When the trailer’s rocking don’t come a knocking.

    3. More: Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

      “[Hillary Clinton] came over and, you know, did the same thing?separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere?at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”

      “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call?you know, come save our lives ? I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive.”

      Let the backstabbing commence. Report: Hillary asked for more security in Benghazi, Obama said no

      1. we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.

        Holy shit. I figured it was just too much of a coincidence that the guy was arrested for violating his probation as quickly as he was. When was the last time anyone ever heard of the police having the resourses to go arrest some white collar criminal for violating his probation by using a computer to post a youtube video? Jesus titty-fucking Christ, what a bunch of shitstains this administration is.

    4. I pointed this out when it was an earlier thread, but it bears repeating (I think):

      Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the consulate began. … Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

      Yet aren’t they now claiming that the reason Obama blamed it on a riot over a youtube video was because he didn’t know how large scale and organized the attack was until days later? BULLSHIT. They all knew what it was. They had to have known, there’s no way they couldn’t have.

      Or was that covered in one of the National Security briefings that he skipped because he was too busy preparing for his appearance on Letterman?

      1. Yet aren’t they now claiming that the reason Obama blamed it on a riot over a youtube video was because he didn’t know how large scale and organized the attack was until days later? BULLSHIT. They all knew what it was. They had to have known, there’s no way they couldn’t have.

        And given that Obama said that it was an “act of terror” a couple days later indicates that. So the fact that they then went with this stupid misdirection about a video no one saw after that initial statement is what makes this so criminal. It shows that the administration/State department was caught totally flat-footed by the attack, completely botched the response, and now are trying to cover up their malfeseance.

        I bet dollars to donuts Hillary’s going to barbeque this guy in the press if Romney wins. She played the good soldier to get them through the elections, but if he loses, she has no incentive to protect him anymore.

    5. What the fuck is the point of global hegemony if we can’t kill a bunch of terrorists who have our ambassador pinned down?

      Seriously, what does American military power mean? Are we a superpower or not?

      SLD apply, but come on.

    6. AC-130s are pretty much the perfect tool for cleaning up this kind of attack on forces that are pinned down.

      Depends on what your priorities are. An AC-130 firing into an urban area like Benghazi is going to result in a lot of dead civilians. Also you think the attackers were in uniform? So the AC-130 shows up and sees people running all over the place and shooting at each other. How do they determine which ones are on which side? Just start shooting every Libyan they see?

      1. An AC-130 firing into an urban area like Benghazi is going to result in a lot of dead civilians.

        Those things have a lot more precision than you might realize–especially if the mortar team is being lased. They’re designed for close air support, not fire-and-forget like drones.

        1. Accurate != Precision. If the militants are, say, ontop of an apartment building, the mortar round isn’t going to just hit him and leave all the surroundings completely unharmed.

      2. Except that’s not what happened. The Benghazi attackers used RPGs and mortars. These are very easy to identify with thermal imaging equipment. The guy holding the pipe shooting missiles at the consulate? He’s a bad guy. The guys using the mortar, which is the pipe that’s lobbing bombs at the consulate? Also bad guys.

        We’re not talking about a mostly peaceful crowd with a few terrorists shooting from inside it. This was an attack by an organized and equipped force of terrorists on the consulate.

        I was prepared to accept that things happened too fast to get reinforcements. It’s a big world, and shit happens. But this is truly damming right here.

        This worthless piece of shit watched Americans die and did nothing. It’s unconscionable, absolutely reprehensible.

      3. An AC-130 firing into an urban area like Benghazi is going to result in a lot of dead civilians.

        Not our concern.

  4. Speaking of Media Bias, check out this hyperemotional piece on CNN:
    Police: 2 kids found dead in Manhattan apartment; bleeding nanny accused

    Two children of a CNBC executive are stabbed by their nanny who then tries to slash her own throat. Mom comes home and discovers the carnage.

    It’s a horrific tale, and every parents’ nightmare. But, I can’t help but notice the writer wallowing in the fear that bad things can happen to his/her class.

    Police escorted the mother and her 3-year-old daughter from the apartment complex covered in a white sheet to shield them from photographers and gawkers. The mother underwent treatment at a hospital to help cope with the trauma, police said.
    The crime shocked parents in the Upper West Side and struck at the core of every parents’ worst nightmare: a caregiver harming their child. Many said they rushed home to hug their own children after hearing the news.

    1. Maryellen Conway, 39, a mother of two young children, said she immediately phoned her nanny and they cried together. “She was in tears. I trust her, obviously, with my life and she’s part of our family,” Conway said. “It’s unimaginable. There’s no words to describe what they’re going through.”
      Jasmarin Rothbarb pushed a stroller near the Krims’ apartment building Friday morning. She said she uses a nanny, but the killings made her wonder whether to keep doing so. “It’s a tough call. You trust these people with your most precious joys. I think I see more mothers out today than nannies. It’s a horrible thing.”

      1. I blame deregulation of the nannying industry.

    2. struck at the core of every parents’ worst nightmare: a caregiver harming their child.

      Every parent who can afford to hire a caregiver, at least.

      1. Their world is really so . . . small, isn’t it?

        1. At least we have better insight as to why their offspring whines about “privilege”.

        2. They’re more “micro” than “cosmo”, regardless of how many lattes they sip.

  5. “The auto bailout helped rescue states like Ohio from economic disaster. What, in turn, have you learned from the people of Ohio during your many visits to the state?”

    Holy fuck, is that an actual question asked by a “journalist”? Even a paid-for spokesman would mask his intentions a little more carefully.

    1. The auto bailout helped rescue states like Ohio from economic disaster

      Begs soooo many questions in one sentence. I’m actually impressed. This is like a meta-fallacy.

  6. It’s why journalists … are creepily grateful when they’re sprayed in the face by their squirt guns

    Euphemism???

  7. Brinkley conducted the interview in the Oval Office from his knees

    The real mystery here is how Obama understood the questions while Brinkley was performing fellatio on him.

    1. After the last four years, it’s like a second language to him.

  8. Yeah, what a bunch of fucking bullshit this is. The media collective has never been as totally fawning and sycophantic to any previous president as it has been to this one. Some members of the media in fact are so vile they’re willing to knowingly lie to members of the American public on this asshole’s behalf.

    1. Yeah, I think it’s because they realize their share of the market is shrinking and they have to play to what remains of their audience, which is older leftists and lazy people. Conservatives have fled to Fox News for the most part, and young people aren’t interested in TV and newspaper news.

      Notice it’s not pure left-wing stuff that they’re promoting; they also play into anti-drug hysteria, fear of technology, and the distorted law-and-orderism that old people tend to like.

    2. Plus there’s the possibility that media outfits may come to the State asking for a bailout in the near future, so they better play ball now.

  9. I’m curious when everyone decided that the single most watched cable news network, which most people acknowledge has a conservative bent, is not “mainstream media”.

    And if you think they were being kind to Clinton during the whole Lewinsky deal, you remember a very, very different late-90s than I do.

    1. Fox News has a plurality, not a majority of news viewers. And other media outlets certainly draw a distinction between themselves and Fox News, that’s for sure.

      1. I dunno, they clobber MSNBC in the ratings consistenly, but everybody is standing at the ready to freak out of someone being swayed by Chris Matthews (even if Hannity has twice as many viewers. Somehow that is not seen as an issue.)

        I also don’t get why everybody ascribes some sort of monolithic god-power to the legacy media. The narrative on the right seems to gyrate between “haha they’re dying” and “OMG they have such profound influence over everything! Only Fox can save us!”

        I would submit that Fox is the very definition of mainstream , simply based on viewership.

        1. Gojira, when people talk about the “mainstream” media, they are talking about a much larger set than the cable news outlets. They include broadcast TV, newspapers, etc.

          And in that universe, there is a fairly narrow class of people with fairly uniform views, which Fox is intentionally (and profitably) differentiating itself from.

          Yeah, they’re dying, but slowly, and they still have enormous influence over the national “conversation.”

          If Obama loses, then in retrospect I suspect this will be seen as their Waterloo. If he wins, well, that just means they aren’t quite dying off fast enough.

          1. Then presumably by your description, “mainstream media” must not include radio, if I read you right. Probably not supermarket tabloids either. Billboards?

        2. Fox News Channel and MSNBC do next to nothing in the realm of honest-to-goodness straight news reportage. The content of both of these networks consists almost entirely of “news analysis” and opinion, in each case overwhelmingly driven by a particular world view.

          It’s misleading and fallacious to try to do an apples to apples comparison of Fox News Channel to entities like the CBS Evening News, the New York Times, or even CNN, all of which put themselves forth as primarily straight-up journalistic organizations whose main focus is on reporting.

          1. “It’s misleading and fallacious to try to do an apples to apples comparison of Fox News Channel to entities like the CBS Evening News, the New York Times, or even CNN, all of which put themselves forth as primarily straight-up journalistic organizations whose main focus is on reporting.”

            I’m not sure it’s fair to only count bias if it’s intentionally deceitful.

            The New York Times may be extremely biased and think they’re reporting straight-up journalism. I think a lot of them honestly see things the way they call them.

            …but that doesn’t mean they aren’t biased. If the only stories that makes sense to them are the ones that portray Obama in the best light possible, then that’s the very definition of bias.

    2. No, what I remember is the late 90’s–when the MSM went after Ken Starr like he was a pervert, when reporters said they’d happily give a little head in exchange for what Clinton had given them, when the people in Congress trying to prosecute the case were reviled endlessly in the media….except on Fox.

      Why isn’t Fox part of the MSM? Because the term MSM is shorthand for all the media that seems to march in ideological lockstep. And they do not include Fox as a part of them.

      1. Then this is circularity, deduction rather than induction…the true Scotsman situation.

    3. “And if you think they were being kind to Clinton during the whole Lewinsky deal, you remember a very, very different late-90s than I do.”

      Did you know that RTC money meant to reimburse the widows and orphans that lost their savings accounts in Madison Guaranty, which wasn’t insured by FDIC, ended up somehow in Bill Clinton’s campaign fund?

      Nobody denied that happened–Clinton just claimed he had no idea how it got there! Do you think most Americans knew about that?

      Because I don’t.

      Did you know that every single partner in the Whitewater deal ended up in jail except for two people? …one of the people, who for some reason escaped jail, was the president of the United States, and the other one was his wife–who was the lead council responsible for putting the Whitewater deal together in the first place!

      She didn’t know how the RTC money ended up in Clinton’s campaign account either!

      I don’t think most Americans knew about that, either.

      If the only thing most Americans knew about the Clinton scandals was that he got blown by an intern? Then, yeah, I’d say the MSM gave him some pretty excellent coverage.

  10. I’m curious… If there is no left-wing bias, then where’s the right-wing Krugman being paid well to write for the NYT, and never called to account for his bald-faced zingers?

    Or how about a libertarian economist? They’re easy to find.

    It’s so good to see Arnold Kling and Richard Epstein getting such a big platform for their analyses, opinions and recommendations, isn’t it?

    Absolute sycophants supporting those in power, and left-wing bias to the extreme, are not mutually exclusive things. A quick read of the NYT will demonstrate that they coexist quite nicely.

  11. Greenwald knows the score?

    Please let this be sarcasm.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.