Biased in the media

[Buddy]

What do you all think about the news and media? Do you think it's "fair and balanced" all the time? Some of the time? Do you think we really get the whole truth? Some of the truth? The slanted truth?

Which organizations do you think are biased? How? Why? Which do you think really tell the truth?

Do you think the media is "liberal" or "conservative"? A bit of both? Neither?

[Oily]

I have trained my mind to a point of near constant distrust of everything I see or hear. It drives me insane

Basically, I believe "the truth" entirely depends on political ties, financial incentives, and personal bias. I have no idea of liberal or conservative (English, y'know) but most newspapers here talk openly on every political party and criticise them equally.

But I read so many articles and see so much news, that I see twenty sides of every story. Which makes me trust none of them, but try and make up my own mind on it.

I think the media here are pretty good though. I think the newspaper I read tries to be truthful - it's often just the opinionated columns that only give one side of the truth, while the general news-reporting is better.

[Kiddo]

I tried to do a research paper for ENG112H with a thesis of the media is biased in favor of whoever is in power.

About two weeks in I gave up and changed my thesis to the media has a liberal bias because I simply couldn't find enough evidence to support a conservative bias.

I wish I still had that essay - the file on my computer got lost when my registry got eaten by AdAware and I had to reformat... but I have the paper copy somewhere. But I'm not about to type up the entire thing all over again.

Generally, I don't trust the media, especially not around my area. My dad heard over a radio station that the Columbus paper has recieved the "Golden Hammer and Sickle Award for turning front page news into back page editorials with a distinct leftist slant." So yeah. We use it to line the ferret cage and that's about it.

[Patjade]

Try watching Fox News sometime if you want a conservative bias. Between Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, they make Rush Limbaugh sound like Ted Kennedy.

[Stal]

Patjade said:

Try watching Fox News sometime if you want a conservative bias. Between Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, they make Rush Limbaugh sound like Ted Kennedy.

Fox News is about the only new source (With biased news shows, i.e. O'Reilley Factor, Hannity & Colmes, of course.) I trust when it comes to unbiased reporting. Everywhere else I see an intense media bias in good favor of the left.

But when it comes to unbiased shows, I will say for the most part Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are pretty unbiased. I listen to their shows a lot and you will hear criticism towards the Republicans. Hannity's about had it with a bunch of these Republican senators and so forth.

[Buddy]

Where do I stand...

Truthfully, nobody is immune to the plauge of biased-ness. Not CNN, not Fox, nobody. Everyone, at times, has done something, said something, or appeared in a way, so as to look like it was giving one side an advantage.

However, that said, I do believe there are those who present more of a bias than others. Namely, Fox. Now, don't get me wrong - there have been times where CNN has done something that made me go "Man! Those guys look like they're supporting one side more than the other!" (Ex: One time, they had a guy giving a review for the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The guy then started to note how ironic it was, what with all the belief in global warming. He then went on to talk about how Bush was bad for the environment and blah blah blah...) Still, for however biased CNN may be at times to the left, Fox is ten times that to the right.

One thing that really gets to me is how everyone seems to think there's some huge conspiracy with "the liberal media". It simply doesn't make sense! So, are you to tell me that in a profession that encompasses hundreds of thousands (millions, if you count smaller, local newspapers and TV station affiliates) of people, the majority of them all have a liberal-minded agenda, with only the desire to push a liberal-democratic frame of mind? Get real! That doesn't even make sense!

Sounds like paranoia, to me.

As far as Fox goes, there can be no doubt Fox reports the news differently than others. However, it just doesn't make sense to say that Fox is the only major news station that reports the news "fair and balanced" and that all the others are doing it wrong. It's like saying that sheep are black and the white ones are the exception to the rule.

Now, don't think that I'm nessecarily sticking up for CNN - I've seen them before, and they can, at times, be jsut as biased as Fox is. I'm simply saying that, to me, Fox is more slanted, more of the time.

That said, I can not prove this to anybody that doesn't not already agree with me. I have no smoking gun. I have little, if any evidence - none of it anywhere near "conclusive" for anyone other than myself.

I myself still wake up every morning to CNN. I think Anderson Cooper is cool!

[The Angry Artist]

Ninja said:

But when it comes to unbiased shows, I will say for the most part Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are pretty unbiased. I listen to their shows a lot and you will hear criticism towards the Republicans. Hannity's about had it with a bunch of these Republican senators and so forth.

I dearly hope you're going to pop out at me in a few minutes and say, "Just kidding." I am very sure you're mistaken when you say that Rush Limbaugh is unbiased. Al Franken (who is very much a Democrat) didn't write Rush Limbaugh Is A Big, Fat, Idiot and make so many references to him in Liars And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Rush Limbaugh is indeed biased. He is a die-hard conservative Republican. I can't stand to listen to his radio show.

Yes, I believe in the Democarts. I don't believe in Limbaugh. That's all I'll say.

[Crystal]

Well, since I have absolutely no idea what any of you are talking about....

;D

[Stal]

Secret said:

Where do I stand...

Truthfully, nobody is immune to the plauge of biased-ness. Not CNN, not Fox, nobody. Everyone, at times, has done something, said something, or appeared in a way, so as to look like it was giving one side an advantage.

However, that said, I do believe there are those who present more of a bias than others. Namely, Fox. Now, don't get me wrong - there have been times where CNN has done something that made me go "Man! Those guys look like they're supporting one side more than the other!" (Ex: One time, they had a guy giving a review for the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The guy then started to note how ironic it was, what with all the belief in global warming. He then went on to talk about how Bush was bad for the environment and blah blah blah...) Still, for however biased CNN may be at times to the left, Fox is ten times that to the right.

One thing that really gets to me is how everyone seems to think there's some huge conspiracy with "the liberal media". It simply doesn't make sense! So, are you to tell me that in a profession that encompasses hundreds of thousands (millions, if you count smaller, local newspapers and TV station affiliates) of people, the majority of them all have a liberal-minded agenda, with only the desire to push a liberal-democratic frame of mind? Get real! That doesn't even make sense!

Sounds like paranoia, to me.

As far as Fox goes, there can be no doubt Fox reports the news differently than others. However, it just doesn't make sense to say that Fox is the only major news station that reports the news "fair and balanced" and that all the others are doing it wrong. It's like saying that sheep are black and the white ones are the exception to the rule.

Now, don't think that I'm nessecarily sticking up for CNN - I've seen them before, and they can, at times, be jsut as biased as Fox is. I'm simply saying that, to me, Fox is more slanted, more of the time.

That said, I can not prove this to anybody that doesn't not already agree with me. I have no smoking gun. I have little, if any evidence - none of it anywhere near "conclusive" for anyone other than myself.

I myself still wake up every morning to CNN. I think Anderson Cooper is cool!

Buddy, you have no idea how often I've heard people talk about interning at a media source of some sort, going through their Journalism/media classes at college, and so forth and dealing with all the liberal bias there was. Most people talk about how 98% of the people they work with are all liberals and will only report that aspect of things.

Example: Very recently the media has jumped all over this thing about George Bush having only read a summary report of the CIA intelligence briefing and not the full 90 page report. This is a thing a lot of the media is talking about fervently, and Kerry jumped on it at well. "He made his decision without reading all 90 pages! Blah blah blah"

When John Kerry is asked if he read the full 90 pages, he stumbles through his answer of a no. But wait, he made his decision without reading all 90 pages.

Bush not reading it: Front-page stories.
Kerry not reading it: Barely noteworthy section in some newspapers (meaning not even mentioned in many) towards the back.

Anyone remember the Jack Ryan/Jeri Ryan sex club scandal from just a couple weeks ago? How an actual MEDIA SOURCE dug into those records to find out about Jack Ryan's divorce? Yes, it was done by the actual media source for no reason at all other than to get dirt.

So where's this same media source digging into John Kerry's divorce records? And digging up dirt on him? Or what about getting dirt on John Edwards?

None of it's happening. Why? Liberal-minded media. These are just examples off the top of my head. Two very recent examples that are within grasp. If I think back and refresh my memory I'm sure I can come up with many more examples.

Buddy, you also mention that it's ludicrous to think that Fox News is the only one doing it right. That all these others out there can't be doing it wrong because so many of them are. How weak an argument that is. Okay, Buddy, back in the 1800's a lot of people had slaves. They were all doing it...could they be wrong? After all to say those who did not have slaves were doing it right is like saying the White Sheep are examples.

Back in the early to mid-1900s Blacks had a huge racial discrimination thing going against them. A lot of people discriminated, so for anyone to say that the few who didn't discriminate were right would be just as ludicrous.

Just because there's a majority doing it doesn't mean they're correct, Buddy. I also love how you use Sheep as an example.

Now please, also give me examples of how the Fox News actual News programming (Not the "specialty" shows such as O'Reilly, G-Block, Hannity & Colmes and so forth) is biased to the right. I'm talking actual news here, not the other shows, the reason being of course those are going to have a slant to that direction...that's their purpose!

Also, TAA, you're not qualified to make any sort of opinion on Rush Limbaugh being biased. Yes, he's a conservative, but biased would mean he'd consider Republicans and other Conservatives to be above reproach. If you'd listen to his show, you'd know that. The fact you use Al Fraken and his books as examples just goes to show how unqualified that opinion is. Franken is about as bad as Michael Moore with lies or twisting things beyond belief.

EDIT -- One more thing, Buddy...Anderson Cooper was much cooler as host of The Mole.

[The Angry Artist]

Ninja said:

Also, TAA, you're not qualified to make any sort of opinion on Rush Limbaugh being biased. Yes, he's a conservative, but biased would mean he'd consider Republicans and other Conservatives to be above reproach. If you'd listen to his show, you'd know that. The fact you use Al Fraken and his books as examples just goes to show how unqualified that opinion is. Franken is about as bad as Michael Moore with lies or twisting things beyond belief.

I understand what you're saying. But you seem to be under the impression that I have never listened to his show. That is not true. A while ago I stopped listening to his show because of his bias. In fact, you supported my statement, because I was trying to prove that Rush Limbaugh is biased. Al Fanken was, in his books, illustrating Rush Limbaugh's bias.

And so, in all fairness, I lam listening to today's show. He believed Martha Stewart was convicted because the jury were liberals (that have been trained to hate CEOs) and that she stood strong when being sentenced, he said John Kerry is not a unifier, he read a piece about Kerry and Edwards' implied homosexuality, he mentioned a bit of anti-lower class because they allegedly wanted to go after the upper class (during the Martha Stewart arguement). He said that President Bush rightly became president and that polls showed it (depsite the fact that Gore won the popular vote), and he said the Democrtas want anybody they can get to vote for Kerry -- like felons, people from Haiti, etc. He also said that the left have irrational rage against Bush, they they feel powerless, that they are scared of the right.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not he was right or wrong. But those are definitely biased statements. I may not agree with what he said, but this last paragraph proves he is biased.

[Stal]

The said:

I understand what you're saying. But you seem to be under the impression that I have never listened to his show. That is not true. A while ago I stopped listening to his show because of his bias. In fact, you supported my statement, because I was trying to prove that Rush Limbaugh is biased. Al Fanken was, in his books, illustrating Rush Limbaugh's bias.

And so, in all fairness, I lam listening to today's show. He believed Martha Stewart was convicted because the jury were liberals (that have been trained to hate CEOs) and that she stood strong when being sentenced, he said John Kerry is not a unifier, he read a piece about Kerry and Edwards' implied homosexuality, he mentioned a bit of anti-lower class because they allegedly wanted to go after the upper class (during the Martha Stewart arguement). He said that President Bush rightly became president and that polls showed it (depsite the fact that Gore won the popular vote), and he said the Democrtas want anybody they can get to vote for Kerry -- like felons, people from Haiti, etc. He also said that the left have irrational rage against Bush, they they feel powerless, that they are scared of the right.

I'm not going to argue about whether or not he was right or wrong. But those are definitely biased statements. I may not agree with what he said, but this last paragraph proves he is biased.

No, I just figured you didn't listen to him but once in a blue moon.

Okay, so because of his beliefs, he's biased. Fine, we're all biased if that's your definition of it. But as I've said in my past post, to be biased in the way we refer to in this case would mean he gives no criticism to conservatives/republicans...which isn't true. Yes, he believes all these things. Yes, he's a conservative. Yes he believes conservatives are right. But he's not beyond criticising those in his own belief areas. I've heard him do it plenty of times. Sure, it may not be too often, as they tend to agree with one another for the most part, but it happens.

So explain to me how all this means bias. It seems to me you're saying he's just like you, me, and all human beings and therefore we're all as biased as he is.

[Buddy]

Ninja said:

Buddy, you have no idea how often I've heard people talk about interning at a media source of some sort, going through their Journalism/media classes at college, and so forth and dealing with all the liberal bias there was. Most people talk about how 98% of the people they work with are all liberals and will only report that aspect of things.

Example: Very recently the media has jumped all over this thing about George Bush having only read a summary report of the CIA intelligence briefing and not the full 90 page report. This is a thing a lot of the media is talking about fervently, and Kerry jumped on it at well. "He made his decision without reading all 90 pages! Blah blah blah"

When John Kerry is asked if he read the full 90 pages, he stumbles through his answer of a no. But wait, he made his decision without reading all 90 pages.

Bush not reading it: Front-page stories.
Kerry not reading it: Barely noteworthy section in some newspapers (meaning not even mentioned in many) towards the back.

Anyone remember the Jack Ryan/Jeri Ryan sex club scandal from just a couple weeks ago? How an actual MEDIA SOURCE dug into those records to find out about Jack Ryan's divorce? Yes, it was done by the actual media source for no reason at all other than to get dirt.

So where's this same media source digging into John Kerry's divorce records? And digging up dirt on him? Or what about getting dirt on John Edwards?

None of it's happening. Why? Liberal-minded media. These are just examples off the top of my head. Two very recent examples that are within grasp. If I think back and refresh my memory I'm sure I can come up with many more examples.

Buddy, you also mention that it's ludicrous to think that Fox News is the only one doing it right. That all these others out there can't be doing it wrong because so many of them are. How weak an argument that is. Okay, Buddy, back in the 1800's a lot of people had slaves. They were all doing it...could they be wrong? After all to say those who did not have slaves were doing it right is like saying the White Sheep are examples.

Back in the early to mid-1900s Blacks had a huge racial discrimination thing going against them. A lot of people discriminated, so for anyone to say that the few who didn't discriminate were right would be just as ludicrous.

Just because there's a majority doing it doesn't mean they're correct, Buddy. I also love how you use Sheep as an example.

Now please, also give me examples of how the Fox News actual News programming (Not the "specialty" shows such as O'Reilly, G-Block, Hannity & Colmes and so forth) is biased to the right. I'm talking actual news here, not the other shows, the reason being of course those are going to have a slant to that direction...that's their purpose!

Also, TAA, you're not qualified to make any sort of opinion on Rush Limbaugh being biased. Yes, he's a conservative, but biased would mean he'd consider Republicans and other Conservatives to be above reproach. If you'd listen to his show, you'd know that. The fact you use Al Fraken and his books as examples just goes to show how unqualified that opinion is. Franken is about as bad as Michael Moore with lies or twisting things beyond belief.

Hmmm.... oddly enough, I didn't really want to debate this, as there really is no way to prove it one way or another. I actually tried to phrase my post so as to show that, really, I know that all outlets and organizations carry, at times, one sort of bias or another. Apparently, I failed...

Now...

98%?! That's ridiculous! I mean, if you had thrown out 85 or 90%, at least I wouldn't have been laughing! But 98%?! Sorry, but unless you can give me some kind of proof (which, like any argument on this issue (for both sides), you cannot) I'd have to say that just sounds absurd.

Now, as for that 90-page report thing, honestly, I barely even remembered that! I'm not sure how much coverage you saw of it, but I don't remember hardly any coverage on it! And I've been a pretty big news-junky for a while now (I switch back between Fox and CNN during breakfast every morning), so it's a fair bet that if the media had hyped it as big as you say, I'm sure I would've heard of it.

Furthermore, I'd bet most people would consider it a bigger story that the President didn't read his intelligence report, moreso than a certain Senator (although, like I said, I don't remember the story, so perhaps Kerry was running at the time (for the record, I don't care if the President reads his entire report or only the summary - as long as he knows what he needs to know, I could care less)).

And the media digging into Jack Ryan's records were so much more different than when they were digging into Clinton's records (again, for the record, I think that man got the short end of the stick on that issue - I felt kinda bad for him, really!).

To work off that, what about the Clinton scandel? Everybody and their mother was talking and reporting on that! No one would shut up! I assume this was the "liberal" media attacking this "liberal" President, right?

Or how about when Cheney "dropped the 'F' bomb on the Senate floor"? One would've thought they'd be all over that! Heck, they've talked more about Whoopi Goldberg and what she said at the fundraiser (the liberal fundraiser), and how she insulted Bush.

And yes, there are people wanting to dig into Kerry's records. They want information on his tax information, as well as a few other things, I believe. The media simply wants dirt - it doesn't care which side of the aisle it comes from.

You're examples aren't that strong, just as this example isn't:

I was watching Fox a few weeks ago (it was that "Fox and Friends" show in the morning, I belive), and they were talking about the report that someone, I believe either the CIA or the Senate, had published saying that there could be as many as 20,000 insurgents in Iraq, as opposed to the 5,000 Bush had originally said.

The anchorman made quite clear what he thought of the report with a statement to the effect of "Well, I think the number is closer to 5,000 - 20,000 just sounds too high".

Then, there was when Bush gave a primetime speech followed by a Q&A sessions with reporters about 8 months ago. This is a perfect example of how one can never truely tell who is or isn't biased.

See, the following day, it seemed like everyone was complaining that the "liberal media" had been too hard on the President, and had asked him certain questions, wanting certain answers (at least, that's what Ann Coulter was rambling about). Yet, during the Q&A, I remember a reporter from Fox standing up and asking Bush if he thought that perhaps it had been the fault of the CIA for his bad intelligence. One could easily say this was just Fox trying to give the President an easy question, or a chance to shift the blame from himself.

So, the pendulum can swing both ways: one person could say that Fox was being fair and the rest of the media was too anti-Bush/pro-liberal, or one could say that Fox was acting conservatively in asking Bush an easy question. It's simply too hard to prove either way.

A smoking gun? I dare say, not! No more-so than you're points. Although, I could give you much freasher points if it wasn't for that everybody is babbling on about Martha Stewart. Yet, as I sit here, watching CNN, I note how "liberal" CNN cut away from it's "important" coverage of Marth Stewart to show a McCain/Cheny speech, in which they once again talk about how the war in Irq was good, and how great of a guy Cheny is. Oh, the bias....

The comparison to the 1800's dosen't really make sense, although, in the 1800's, having slaves wasn't "wrong". It's only wrong by our standards today. So, a farmer not owning slaves would've been considered the odd-man out. And besides, that still doesn't disprove my point: that claiming "98%" of the media industry is biased and only a small portion is "fair and balanced", doesn't make rational sense! Furthermore, that's a huge claim to make without substantial evidence (which, as I said in the beginning, neither side has).

While you're right - just because the majority is doing it, doesn't mean it's right - for some other network to come in and start reporting the news differently, then claim that everyone else is doing it wrong and has been for a long time, is laughable.

And yes, I liked the sheep comparrison. And I stand by it.

It's ridiculous to say that O'Reily, Hannity, and all those other shows don't count because they're "specialty" shows. Fox puts them on the air, knowing they're conservative-slanted. And so, what does it appear Fox is doing when it puts many conservative-slanted shows on the air? In prime-time?

It's, in your words, "weak" to claim that those shows don't count. They're part of the Fox line-up, they count. You can't say "Yeah sure, those prime-time specialty shows may be biased, but the 90-second mini-reports are fair, so we're fair and balanced!"

And I like Franken! He always gives me a laugh! I think TAA's post showed just how "fair" Limbaugh is. Just because someone crticizes a certain party, doesn't mean they're unbiased - Bill Maher (I think that's how you spell his last name) has criticized Democrats, but he is still very liberal.

EDIT -- One more thing, Buddy...Anderson Cooper was much cooler as host of The Mole.

I wouldn't know - I don't watch reality TV. Although I do know that his show is interesting - they're always doing week-long, society-type reports.

[Stal]

Secret said:

Hmmm.... oddly enough, I didn't really want to debate this, as there really is no way to prove it one way or another. I actually tried to phrase my post so as to show that, really, I know that all outlets and organizations carry, at times, one sort of bias or another. Apparently, I failed...

Now...

98%?! That's ridiculous! I mean, if you had thrown out 85 or 90%, at least I wouldn't have been laughing! But 98%?! Sorry, but unless you can give me some kind of proof (which, like any argument on this issue (for both sides), you cannot) I'd have to say that just sounds absurd.

Once more, you didn't read what I said. I said they talk about the people they work with. I did not say 98% of the entire media. I'm referring to certain people who've worked in certain branches/certain offices in which there was a concentration that high. One lady I talked with referred to how when she worked in an office there was not a person without some Bush-bashing material hung somewhere around their cubicle. That's 100% of the people she worked with, in case you didn't keep up.

Now, as for that 90-page report thing, honestly, I barely even remembered that! I'm not sure how much coverage you saw of it, but I don't remember hardly any coverage on it! And I've been a pretty big news-junky for a while now (I switch back between Fox and CNN during breakfast every morning), so it's a fair bet that if the media had hyped it as big as you say, I'm sure I would've heard of it.

Newspaper, Buddy. Newspapers.

Furthermore, I'd bet most people would consider it a bigger story that the President didn't read his intelligence report, moreso than a certain Senator (although, like I said, I don't remember the story, so perhaps Kerry was running at the time (for the record, I don't care if the President reads his entire report or only the summary - as long as he knows what he needs to know, I could care less)).

Actually, it's not. The senate is what voted for the war, and if I remember correctly, Kerry voted for it (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

----

Ack, dinner, I'll be back with more at another free point.

By the way, if you didn't want to debate it, you should've kept your mouth shut.

----

Back.

Okay, Buddy, the rest of your post you make some pretty valid points. And I'll admit there are many times where I'm surprised a station will carry such a story. But in my experience, their every day just news reporting tends to be biased in favor of the left. Perhaps I see that, being a Republican and trained to catch the liberal bias. And what I consider to be unbiased reporting is biased for you because you're a democrat and trained to catch the conservative bias. ^_^ (Did that make sense?)

And with that said, I really don't have time to respond to any other comments made. So I'll just take a shot to the pride and withdraw without having won/proven any points.

By the way, Buddy, fine display in your post. You actually made a post similar in debating style to mine. You make me so proud.

[Buddy]

Ninja said:

Once more, you didn't read what I said. I said they talk about the people they work with. I did not say 98% of the entire media. I'm referring to certain people who've worked in certain branches/certain offices in which there was a concentration that high. One lady I talked with referred to how when she worked in an office there was not a person without some Bush-bashing material hung somewhere around their cubicle. That's 100% of the people she worked with, in case you didn't keep up.

Oh no, I read what you wrote quite clearly (I can read, you know). You said that out of all the people you've talked, they (or you) believe that 98% of the people they work with as being liberal, or Bush-bashers. Now, if every person who works in the industry considers 98% percent of the people they work with liberal Bush-bashers, then how much of the industry is a Bush-basher, by your claim?

Or was that only the people you've talked to? And if so, how can that small group of people know 98% percent of anything other than those that they have worked with? Is that not a small group of a large industry? One small group of people certainly can't speak for an entire industry.

You used the number 98% for a reason - to imply that a large amount of the industry is liberal-minded. Now, you either got the information from a group of people who have only work in a small cubicle compared to the entire industry, making that number only representative of that cubicle, or you were trying to use that number to either say or imply that the 98% of the industry is liberal, to which I said that doesn't make sense.

Either way, that number is useless... I think....

Newspaper, Buddy. Newspapers.

Hmmm... well, I don't have the time to read newspapers, so I'll take your word on it, then.

Actually, it's not. The senate is what voted for the war, and if I remember correctly, Kerry voted for it (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yeah (although he voted for it "before he voted against it" ).

By the way, if you didn't want to debate it, you should've kept your mouth shut.

Hey, you quoted me, first!

[Stal]

Secret said:

Oh no, I read what you wrote quite clearly (I can read, you know). You said that out of all the people you've talked, they (or you) believe that 98% of the people they work with as being liberal, or Bush-bashers. Now, if every person who works in the industry considers 98% percent of the people they work with liberal Bush-bashers, then how much of the industry is a Bush-basher, by your claim?

Or was that only the people you've talked to? And if so, how can that small group of people know 98% percent of anything other than those that they have worked with? Is that not a small group of a large industry? One small group of people certainly can't speak for an entire industry.

You used the number 98% for a reason - to imply that a large amount of the industry is liberal-minded. Now, you either got the information from a group of people who have only work in a small cubicle compared to the entire industry, making that number only representative of that cubicle, or you were trying to use that number to either say or imply that the 98% of the industry is liberal, to which I said that doesn't make sense.

Either way, that number is useless... I think....

You still didn't get the point. XD

I'm saying this: The people in the immediate office of that branch/place/whatever tends to be liberal minded. I've heard people talk about how 100% of their coworkers were liberals (and were shocked to find out she supported Bush), other people where only about 85% were. The good majority of the people I have talked with, though, could not find a conservative person in their groups, or was one of three or four. I was using that as a small-scale model of what the industry must look like. Sure, it's not going to be a direct demographic translation, but you get the picture (I hope, anyway). I never intended to imply that 98% of the media, period, was liberal. That is ludicrous. That make more sense?

Hey, you quoted me, first!

You still posted it. ;D

I'll just refer to my final edit above, in case you hadn't seen it.

--

Oh, I have one more final comment...in case you didn't catch on, here's why I like the sheep example: Sheep follow each other like the dumb bricks they are.