Hello Peter, speaking about things I really hate, I don't like being called ignorant, but I will get over it. I do not have a BS from my local college, so I guess that makes me one of the unenlightened, unwashed peasants. That's fine with me.

The MSM is going away simply because of the bias they show on a day to day basis. You may not see the bias because you agree with the slant. Judging from your website and you 'vote to impeach' banner at the bottom, you are a liberal guy, which is fine with me. I was a registered Democrat when I was in my twenties as well. My point is, whatever 'facts' I give you on media bias, they are just people's opinions. Bernard Goldstein�s book "Bias" was a great look behind the curtain of PC thinking and liberal bias at CBS.

That crown jewel of media bias last year was the Rathergate story. CBS throws Mary Mapes and crew under the bus but insists that there is no political bias at the network.
Ratherbiased.com is a good site for that story, a search on Realclearpolitics.com would be another place to start.

The Rathergate story will soon be surpassed by the CNN-Eason Jordan saga, the mainstream press has been running from this story as fast as they can. The bloggers and a few outlets are trying to get the story out.
Here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe story;

Still, a statement released yesterday by a spokesman for Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said the senator, who was in the audience for the discussion, was ''outraged by the comments."

Representative Barney Frank, who was on the panel, told The Boston Globe yesterday that attendees ''perked up" after Jordan made remarks that ''sounded like accusing the military of deliberate targeting." Frank said Jordan then backed off a bit, saying he wasn't indicating that such targeting represented US military policy.
http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2005/02/08/cnn_clarifies_iraq_comments/

Barney Frank is hardly a closed minded conservative.

The latest on I saw was Tim Russert's interview with Sec. Def. Rumsfeld this past Sunday. I am not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld but I am glad he stood up for himself and did not let the media distort his response to the up-armoring questions posed by a soldier. Who, by the way, was given the question to ask by a reporter from the Chattanooga Free Press.

You seem like a good guy, good luck in your studies, and with your quest for a companion. That is a pursuit worthy of your best effort, a person with whom you can talk, laugh and cry is priceless.
 

(Also Posted at http://ngrimmm.blogspot.com/2005/02/mainstream-media-bias-answering.html)
Dear Commentator,
I thought it was obvious, but my enlightenment vs. ignorance comment was based on willingness vs. unwillingness to accept the countless data and factual evidence presented on media bias specifically at MEDIA MATTERS website. It clearly shows who the perpetrators are. I haven't gotten my BS yet, but I do side with the majority of people who have degrees in being a progressive thinker specifically against the Bush regime.
As far as facts go. If you're not using facts, then it's just rhetoric. I'll gladly back up any claims I make with factual evidence.
That book about liberal bias in media. Well, liberal denotes inclusive and open to different beliefs, so that's contradictory in itself.
Quoting reviews:
"what I got was a poorly written, gossip-ridden, whiny screed by a very bitter man."
"Ultimately, 'Bias' is a self-serving hit piece that acts as a distraction from the more serious media issues facing our country. Two things are vital to a functioning democratic republic: a well-informed citizenry and an educated citizenry. Unfortunately, in this sound bite driven culture we have lost both."
I tend to agree with the second. We've got all these pundits who distort "news", there's no way for average Joe to have the knowledge needed to be informed.
I highly recommend the Daily Show on Comedy Central, it's Funny and informative.
Quoting the "Facts proving liberal media bias" from "Bias":
--A CBS reporter in a conference call labeling former presidential candidate Gary Bauer "that little nut from the Christian Group." And no editors listening objected.
--How the news media went along with early contentions by AIDS activists that the horrorific disease put the entire heterosexual population at risk versus specific segments (homosexuals, drug users and those that have sex with them).
--How the word "controversial" often means the reporter/show does not agree with the person or issue to which it refers.
--How conservatives are labelled as such but liberals aren't.
--"they don't simply disagree with conservatives. They see them as morally deficient."
--"The sophisticated media elites don't categorize their beliefs as liberal but as simply the correct way to look at things."
Editors and Producers make decision and people have opinions. There's no "factual evidence on media bias" there either.
I'm ignorant of MSM, Google for "MSM" showed following possible acronym so I can't really respond there:
Some sort of Vitamin or something from drugstores or supplement (very prevalent).
Morehouse School of Medicine.
Maastricht School of Management
Dept of materials science and . . .(cutoff)
Michael Methfessel's home page (interesting looking site)
I do vote for Impeaching Bush Now.
I did visit ratherbiased. (didn't see "rathergate" and didn't feel like searching for it). It looks like Rather's just a normal guy who got lucky with the reporting career.
Rathergate? My understanding was that the only potential factual problem was a SINGLE, POSSIBLY forged document, reviewed by the White House before being used, and they said it was a true document. Forged or real, the document presented TRUE information. Does anyone have FACTS on this one way or the other? I know Bush confessed to most or all the information, but still some people made an issue about it in order to further the right wing agenda.

Lifted from Amazon, a thorough review of "Bias":
"Reviewer: Doc Barham "Integral Consultant, Speaker & Trainer" (LOS ANGELES, CA USA) -
Bernard Goldberg would probably accuse me of being biased, and I confess, I am. After dropping fifteen dollars and slogging through this overblown tattletale pamphlet I was sorely disappointed. I thought I might finally read something that truly exposed the "liberal media bias" conspiracy we all hear so much about these days. Instead, what I got was a poorly written, gossip-ridden, whiny screed by a very bitter man.
What I've finally realized is that "liberal media bias" is a huge red herring for several reasons:
For starters, with no irony whatsoever, conservative talking heads and pundits like Mr. Goldberg regularly complain about liberal bias on and in the same networks and newspapers they claim are the worst offenders.
In addition, there are any number of unabashedly conservative media outlets nationwide: Fox News, Clear Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, MSNBC, CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Ken Hamblin, Michael Savage, and the list goes on.
What's more, even traditionally progressive news outlets like The New York times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Atlantic Monthly have drunk deep the liberal media Kool-Aid and shifted further right in their reportage.
The fact is that the nation's information pipeline is now owned and controlled by a mere handful of massive multi-media conglomerates. Corporations are by their very nature conservative. They're businesses and their business is to make money. They don't profit by straying too far to one side or challenging the Establishment status quo. They can't afford it. They would risk losing viewers and/or readership and millions of dollars from advertisers who regularly pull or threaten to pull their ads over news stories or programming they don't support or wish to be associated with.
The news just isn't the news anymore. Bias isn't the problem and Mr. Goldberg seems to miss this point entirely. The problem is that the news has been reduced to superficial infotainment.
To say that a handful of dinosaurs at a Jurassic network like CBS have a particular bias is old news and misses the larger point entirely.
Ultimately, 'Bias' is a self-serving hit piece that acts as a distraction from the more serious media issues facing our country. Two things are vital to a functioning democratic republic: a well-informed citizenry and an educated citizenry. Unfortunately, in this sound bite driven culture we have lost both.
When Bernard Goldberg tackles the bigger problem of the "lowest common denominator media bias" or the "mindless consumerism media bias" or the "infotainment media bias" then perhaps I'll be ready to plunk down a few more saw bucks. Until then, I'll be posting 'Bias' on Amazon's used book section to get some of my hard earned dollars back. My time wasted reading this book I can never get back."
 

Yolo, you conveniently hear the reports that suit your side, but not the others. The soldier who asked Rumsfeld came up with the question himself. Even if the reporter did come up with the question (which he didn't), would it change the fact that the question was legitimate?

Read this: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000739870