Well let's start with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
Wolf cried that it was unfair that only Clinton was pressed to release his donor list. Never mind there was a scandal about how Clinton was funded, which turned out to be true. However, Bush released his donor list without problem. And that Carter was also being pressed to release his donor list.
Wolf in talking about the arrest of the Democratic governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich, said the following: “You know, most of the scandals -- most of the political scandals...in recent years have involved Republicans...and they’re all pretty well-known.” He continued by labeling the Democrat’s apprehension a “huge embarrassment.”. One wonders if he said the same thing during Enron after the 20 or so scandals with Clinton.
Wolf had section on a Catholic cardinal who said Obama’s pro-abortion stance is "aggressive, disruptive, and apocalyptic." Wolf ran a promo for the clip as follows: "Also, a scathing rant against Barack Obama from a rather surprising source, a Roman Catholic cardinal -- the story behind his diatribe against the president-elect." A completely neutral response.
In an interview with Wolf, Palin said she is still concerned about connections with Obama's ties to a former member of the Weatherman Underground. Then mentioned "If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol. That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it"
Here's how the headline read: Sarah Palin said she would be honored to help out President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."
And that's just one of the CNN's program hosts. Shall I go through all of them?
But what about some of the general stories?
When Eric Shinseki, Barack Obama’s choice for Veterans Affairs Secretary was announced, they headline was 'Obama's choice for VA Secretary opposed Rumsfield.' What was never mentioned was that he didn't actually oppose him, but rather, pushed for more troops in Iraq.
How about CNN's 'legal analyst' Jeffrey Toobin who said "Who cares about ACORN? Who cares about Bill Ayers? I mean, I just don't get this. What is the point of raising that?"
Then after being shown people do care about it said "But he doesn't have an affiliation with ACORN."
Finely after shown he does, said "...I stand corrected on that, but I just don't see why that is going to move voters?" No left-wing drivel there...
Or how about CNN's world affairs analyst Fareed Zakaria, who said of Palin "she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start."
On a personal level, I've watched news reports that I know are being reported from a bias fashion. For example, one news report was on trash floating the Pacific Ocean. At the very end of the report, the reporter said, perhaps we can clean up this plastic trash and end all wars. No left-wing drivel there.
Or one report covered how cars do not need premium gas, and that it is only made in order to soak customers and boost greedy oil company profits. FYI, as someone who worked for a dealership, and watch people come into the shop with problems caused by not having the correct gas in the car, this is just more left-wing drivel.
If you want I can list for you hundreds more. The reason most don't report how bias the mass media is, is because it's so obvious, so wide spread, so universal, that even just looking up these references bores me. In fact, one way to tell the left knows how liberally bias the media is, just look at how many claim it's republican bias. Look up how often they claim that a news reporting is republican slanted, when if fact it just a rare case where they reported accurately with no slant at all.
I can't speak for all, but I can speak for what I've witnessed. Liberals generally are this stupid. From the few recent experiences at work, liberals have the most oblivious views in the world. One said if we all rode motorcycles tomorrow, we could drop the price of gas, and bankrupt all the oil companies. Huh? Anther said that Cuba has the best health care in the world. Remind me why are they dying trying to swim here again? One in talking to her about my position, she told me she no longer wanted to discuss it, and that her husband was in Union management UAW, and she knew everything I said was a lie. (we were not even discussing the automotive industry).
Example one is above. Example two is when I was in college, conservative discussions were harassed, boycotted, and censored. A free conservative news letter, at stands around the campus, would be looted, and disposed of by liberals who can't stand the thought of any other opinion being heard.
For myself, I was in a Humanities class (actually two of them), in which the professor opened the class by saying there was no morality. So then after a video on Racism, I pointed out there was nothing wrong with it. If nothing is morally wrong, who are you to judge a person who believes racism is ok?
After saying that America imposes it's morals on other nations wrongly, we had a video on abused Women in India. I told the class that there's nothing morally wrong with that, and who are we to impose our morals on India, and judge them?
I was censored, taunted, insulted, and the professor gave me very low grades until I had to drop out or get a very bad score. (which was ok. I had a blast in the class. Most fun I had at that college the entire time) But the fact is, liberals do not want to hear the opposing side... ever.
One of my favorite ones was a class project in which the class was split in half, and had to debate from one of two angles. The situation was a mythical town with a small river and a proposed manufacturing plant. You had to either argue for the jobs and plant at the destruction of the environment, or argue for the environment at the cost of not having jobs.
I looked up a manufacturing plant in, I think Missouri, that was built along a river. Far from destroying the environment, the year around warm water allowed plant and animal life to grow and prosper continuously. The fish population tripled, the plant life increased, and animal life that fed on the fish, also increased. In effect I proved you could have both the environment and the jobs.
I failed the project for arguing from outside the defined limits of the project.
It isn't that Discover or National Geographic, is in and of itself bias. The sources for the information are nearly all bias. I've been working on a thread for this, and I'll debate it there when I finish it.
