[Masthead] Overcast ~ 41°F  
High: 55°F
Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2017

The so-called 'liberal' media

Posted Monday, April 6, 2009, at 1:46 PM

It's obvious that many feel network and major-city media carry a "liberal" bias.

That was so obvious in reader comments on The Boston Globe's story about its owners asking for union concessions due to economy-related financial problems. Brought out in the story was the thought, "What if Boston didn't have the Globe" anymore?

Many reader comments about the story claimed the Globe, in its news columns as well as editorial page, is too "liberal."

I suspect that many, if not most, of those criticizing "liberal" reporting actually want the "conservative" side presented as if it were the only side.

What do you think?

Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Ever since Hearst's "yellow journalism" brought the Spanish-American war the media has definitely had a bias.

The media ignores certain stories, inflates others, and spins others still by profiling the types of people they interview for sources. Most of the time this is done because ratings (read money)take precedence over honesty. Sometimes there are other reasons.

Also the government, to a certain degree, has a say in what a news agency can and can't report, and not many have enough backbone to risk their federal permits and licenses to defy them and report the truth.

This is why internet and talk radio news are eating the lunch of newspapers, and to a lesser extent tv news. Not because it is a better medium, but because the "audience" can challenge the "reporter".

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Apr 8, 2009, at 2:44 AM

National and international news is fine for internet sourcing, but when it comes to local or regional, we would be in a big hurt if we did not have newspapers.

I also find it less satisfying to stare at a screen rather than sit back and relax while reading. I realize that the upcoming generations may not share that, but I believe they will as they mature.

It does not seem as important when I post a picture and story about our daughter on 8.5 by 11" paper as it does when it is an actual clipping out of the local paper.

-- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Apr 7, 2009, at 7:23 AM

The news reporting was suppose to be the checks and balance in our country, that's why they are protected by the constitution. They were to report what was the truth whether it would about a republican or democrat. But more and more newspapers and news stations started leaning to the left and playing favorites.

But I also think the internet has hurt the sales of newspapers, why would you buy it when you can read it for free on line.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 9:44 PM

The Globe was in trouble before the economy hit the skids but I would tend to side with them about needing concessions. However, their management never should have conceded what they now want back.

But more on the subject, if we could trust that the opinion or political leaning of a paper was reserved for the editorial section, we could trust what they put out as news. Maybe, if they did that, more people would buy the paper and more would advertise.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 4:19 PM

People only want to read that which supports their own personal assumptions. With the Internet and cable television, we pick and choose. Once each side, supported by their meida icons, becomes resolute on an issue, it is difficult to build a concensus.

-- Posted by Grit on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 2:42 PM

I disagree . . .many of us just want unbiased reporting filled with actual facts and not skewered toward one side or the other.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Apr 6, 2009, at 2:11 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

David Melson is a copy editor and staff writer for the Times-Gazette.