Lib leftist lean laid bare

Status
Not open for further replies.

Big Money

New member
liberal-media-bias-bias-politics-1347735208.jpg





Since 1962, there have been surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists.

In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative.

A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative.

In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates.

But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed.

Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

In the Pew survey, only 5 percent say so--this, after further proof of liberal dominance and noisy debates about liberal bias.

And in 1999, 11 percent said ethics and standards were a major concern.

But after high-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism, only 5 percent agree.





http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-620207.html
 
What are you talking about? Romney admits to $250 million, Kerry to only 200. Why do you keep lying?
 

How cute. Big Money hasn't learned to post graphs with a resource yet. Poor kid will learn the hard way......Every credible graph has a resource it came from, even the ones that stretch the truth. The ones with no source are nearly always fake.
 
How cute. Big Money hasn't learned to post graphs with a resource yet. Poor kid will learn the hard way......Every credible graph has a resource it came from, even the ones that stretch the truth. The ones with no source are nearly always fake.

I wonder what truth deflector thinks about this. Not really.
 
liberal-media-bias-bias-politics-1347735208.jpg





Since 1962, there have been surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists.

In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative.

A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative.

In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.

Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates.

But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed.

Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1 or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond dispute.

In the Pew survey, only 5 percent say so--this, after further proof of liberal dominance and noisy debates about liberal bias.

And in 1999, 11 percent said ethics and standards were a major concern.

But after high-visibility scandals involving fabricated stories and controversies about plagiarism, only 5 percent agree.





http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-620207.html

For profit Fox News media is generally the better bet. Because the mainstreaming majority............is generally...........................................
 
How cute. Big Money hasn't learned to post graphs with a resource yet. Poor kid will learn the hard way......Every credible graph has a resource it came from, even the ones that stretch the truth. The ones with no source are nearly always fake.

I can explain it so you understand it. Of all of those candidates listed above, they were all holding jobs at the time they ran (governor, senator). Employment income is taxed differently than capital gains income, which is all Romney had. So a Senator's salary is going to push the effective rates up to a range where most folks find themselves.

It's just a little odd that Romney was a fraction higher in percentages than Kerry, who in addition to enjoying the benefits of the Widow Heinz's capital gains, was also being taxed on his Senate salary. Romney didn't have that Senate salary so his effective percentage should have been lower than Kerry's. Of course, Kerry could have had a slew of BS deductions factored in, knowing the liberal media would never snoop around in *his* tax returns.

SMH. The 47% will just never get it.
 
Actually, Kerry's salary could have amounted to practically nil in comparison to the Widow Heinz's annual capital gains. And since we're talking percentages here... it does make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top