Why is the Media so Liberal?
446468
Many people go into news broadcasting to try to change the world to make it a better place.  By definition, liberals want change and conservatives don't.
1054907
Because Liberals run the media. Except Fox News. that's the only station that showed him for what he truly is.
965565
Media is in bed with Liberal agenda, that's no secret. The average American has no idea what a real war is and most do not have th stomach to see one through. They do not want to think about bad things and have "their" petty little lives disturbed by anything hard. They do not want to commit the brain power into researching for themselves to find the truth they would rather listen to the "experts" on CNN, NBC, ABC who's only purpose is to make money and to entertain not to report the truth.
297807
Why do people think our media is so liberal?  It is a matter of relativity.  When you put yourself WAY out on the right, you're going to believe we have a liberal media.  Those on the extreme left think we have a conservative media...and you're both wrong.  I have listened to conservative talk radio who say this day after day, but they never do anything but bash anybody who doesn't agree with them without presenting anything.  No facts, no credible guests...it drives me crazy to listen to them.  If they would just present some facts or some documentation or some references I might be able to decide FOR MYSELF if they have a valid opinion.  I do however believe it does swing a bit to the right and to answer the questions, our president is dead wrong on a lot of things...the worst being Iraq.  He is a traitor to the American people and he needs to take some of those pseudo-Christian values and apply them to the homosexual, poor, African-American, and most of all to the Iraq people.
621008
Here's the plain truth about liberal democracy.  In the past 30 years, the composition of people in the media (especially newspaper) has become radically skewed to the Left (liberal Democrat).  TV journalism was always somewhat bent to the left, as evidenced by 60-Minutes and other programs.\n\nRecent studies have proven that over 80% of print journalism professionals describe themselves as liberal.  You can easily find these statistics on the web.\n\nWhat the liberal media often does is present something as "fact" that is far from having been established as anything but conjecture or rumor.\n\nThey also use repetition to create the illusion that something is far worse than it is.  For example, even though the Abu Ghraib prison abuse was limited to a few soldiers acting badly, the New York Times ran something around 47 front page about it.  Why?  To create the illusion that this was authorized by the top levels of government and/or the military, when it fact it was a few soldiers who, in many cases, did little more than is frequently done in College Fraternity hazings.  They compare Abu Ghraib to Saddam's torture regime.  Absolute misreprentation.  Saddam had rape rooms, and real physical torture, savage beatings, etc.  In contrast, none of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were physically harmed.  While it is true some of the guards tried to extract information by menacing them with dogs, but the dogs were never allowed to touch the prisoners.  Does the liberal media report on that?  Of course not.  They are working with an agenda.\n\nRemember, Abu Ghraib abuses were on the order of college fraternity hazings.\n\nWhat you see on the nightly news, and written in most newspapers is such a biased account that it borders on Soviet-style propaganda.\n\nAnother example of the role of the media in liberal democracy: when soldiers in Iraq are asked how the war is going, and how they feel about their mission, they cite their pride in bringing democracy to a country that had only known brutal repression.  They proudly cite the 3,000 schools they've helped build, the sewers they've constructed so disease is not spread, and how free elections, allowing women to vote, have all vastly improved Iraq.  Does the liberal media report this?  No.  They only issue a body count.  They report on the war as if our soldiers are disillusioned and the war is lost.\n\nAs any responsible person will tell you, the U.S. military is unsurpassed.  We cannot be beaten on the battlefield, only in the field of public opinion.  The liberal media tries to paint a bleak picture of the war to further its own agenda.\n\nIn summary, I believe the theory of liberal democracy applies to the liberal press slanting the news to fit their own ideas and prejudices.  They have an idea of how the world should be, and the report only what supports that idea.
328461
Everyone has a bias.  For some reason, reporters seem to be the only ones that won't own up to it.\n\nFrom the stories they cover and the words they choose, I would generally agree that they "spin to the left."
451947
Because the media tend to be afraid to take a side on the real issues.  If they show a bias they might lose viewers and this would hurt their business.  Things have become too politically correct, people living and working here illegally are breaking the law.  If I rob a store, I'll be put into jail, won't I?  Well whatever I don't feel like gettin' into this right now I'm off to bed!!  But... \n\n...It's all about the Benjamin's, baby.\n\n\n\n** Person before me:  while I agree that the media is completely biased and the Republicans are far from perfect, was it not the (alcoholic and self-proclaimed-stupid) Senator Ted Kennedy from our lovely state of MA (he's a DEMOCRAT) who is quoted nightly on the news/radio in the Boston area ("VIVA LA VICTORIA" come ON) and backs up all attempts for complete amnesty?  He isn't alone.  The Democrats have their own pro-Amnesty agenda hidden behind the fascade of "human rights."  Don't be fooled my friend, both sides of the political spectrum are messed up!\n\nSir, Germany isn't now nor ever was COMMUNIST.  Hitler was a fascist dictator.  If I'm not mistaken, most of the world was fighting the spread of communism - Germany included - on the eastern front.  I just needed to put that out there b/c that is a really terrible mistake to make.  If you mean an authoritarian, or totalitarian dictatorship then fine - but communism is an economic system not a political system so that statement makes even LESS sense...
432811
I'd like to know who the Liberal Media are today.  Is it someone like Judith Miller with a direct line to the White House? Or maybe it's the Fox News Channel on cable. Or Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews on MSNBC.\n\nThe Liberal Media is a myth these days.  If it weren't for the New York Times, who have employed for many years persons of all political bent, including notable Conservative William Safire, and the above mentioned mouthpiece for the sitting President, we wouldn't ever know anything that the Executive Branch didn't want us to know.\n\nAdmittedly, much of the media we experience with national exposure are no longer impartial reporters of the news, and a survey of them would almost certainly favor the Conservative viewpoint. \n\nYou see where that's gotten us.  Most of what we have belatedly learned about the run up to the war has been from leaks from persons with a lot to lose, not from investigative reporting.\n\nAttila the Hun could own the different forms of media as far as I'm concerned, so long as the reporters and their managers were not constrained by the owner. \n\nHowever, that does not appear to be the case with owner Rupert Murdock, a foreigner, whose media holding seem only to present a Conservative viewpoint, with an occasional Liberal lamb decoy. I am very uneasy with this.
1030460
Because the liberal left media controls so much of what is printed and viewed by the public.A perfect example is Yahoo allowing liberal Al Gore to ask the featured question,a question which assumes we agree with his views on global climate change which happen to be the Democrat talking points on this subject.
356779
it just seems that way; its just the overall democratic / liberal media
136888
In any journalism there will probably be a slant towards the writer's viewpoint, but yes, objectivism is a positive quality in journalism and the better writers can report without showing their opinions much.  But in general, the press and journalism in America are definitely under liberal influence.  \n\nConsider two recent incidents: Britney Spears driving with her infant son in her lap and Dick Cheney accidentally shooting a fellow hunter.  Both were irresponsible and similar in nature, but the press and media made a big stink about the Cheney incident simply because he is a conservative government official, while a recent AP article sympathized with Britney.  More and more it seems like journalism's biggest goal nowadays is to fling mud on conservatives, which isn't how journalism should be.
165446
There are three side to every story, my side, your side, and the truth.  A wise man once said to only believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.  In the U.S. you have a very Liberal Press, but there is also enough conservative press out there that you can get a story from different perspectives.  Sometimes the world made by the press can be too real, but most of the time it is just bland.  We need to get news from several different sources in order to get a feel for what the story actually is.  The main problem with the media is that they only report what they want and that leaves a lot out there that we never get to learn about.
1132326
The media is suppose to be neutral but it leans everywhere.....
507471
most people's opinions are formed by the media. what the media chooses to cover, what stereotypes they choose to feed into, what issues they decide get the ratings, etc. so our people are free to choose, but is it really freedom if they are only presented with selective information? most people do not take the time to look up facts, background, stats, etc. they trust that what they read, see, hear is the truth.  if you are interested in this subject, you should check out Bowling for Columbine, it's a documentary about the Columbine shootings, but it also has a very interesting part about U.S. media vs. Canadian media.  Of course, that's media, too.  :)
1158705
That's why only people living in trailer parks and simple-minded folk watch Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. I agree the media is not liberal at all. But I suppose when they show how soldiers are dying then that shows people what is happening in this war and that's liberal thinking blah blah, etc.  I guess it's pretty liberal to document the massacres at Haditha as well. Goodness knows it's liberal to show the truth every once in a while. \n\nBBC world is so much better.
1139160
First of all to find a truly liberal media you would have to go outside of the traditional media (i.e. newspapers, TV, radio, etc...) and explore international news and domestic news from the Internet. Here you will find an abundance of liberal media. Second, while most MSM reporters, researchers, other news "workers'" etc...were, and some still are, registered democrats with a liberal bent, the fact is most of the news they are allowed to report on is handpicked by the editors and publishers of their respective organizations, which are controlled by major corporations with a vested interest in suppressing news that is harmful to its "bottom line."\nThe trick was to convince the US public that the word "liberal" meant something inherently evil or bad. The attack began during the Reagan years and has been so successful that politicians who are in fact liberal will not use that word to describe themselves. To combat this contamination of the word "liberal" a new word has emerged to replace it. A word that is going to be harder to displace because most people like to believe they are not living in a dead-end world without progress.\nTo conclude, all MSM are not liberal at all. They are profit driven giant corporations whose sole function is to provide profits for their shareholders at the expense of providing unbiased coverage of what is truly news. \n\nMSM= mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, NY Times, SJ, Washington Post, etc...)
1026756
I know the previous answerers will not probably read my answer so its meaningless to direct it to them, but to their claim that the media is liberal, here is my rebuttal:\n\nFirst, the media companies are not non-profit organizations. There aren't that many diverse news/media companies in the first place and those that do exist are under a few corporate umbrellas that donate to the Republican party. The people who run these companies are rich, privileged men. They are also pretty intelligent. They are not as stupid as Ann Coulter. So they keep a low profile and they let their company take the garb of being liberal. Wolf in sheep's clothing, shall we say? The "bias" is kept "liberal" for a reason. I mean come on, if you went all out and claimed the media companies to be conservative would anybody trust them anymore? Yeah right! So this is a very subtle move which my republican friends do not have the acumen to understand. So you build trust among the liberals by pretending to be their friend, and slowly build up your case. These are not foolish people after all.\nSecond continuing on the thought of corporations that exist for profit: who gains when these news companies make money? When you watch the news, buy the magazines? I don't. I am sure most of you don't either. The owners and executives do. And what is the political affiliation of the executives of these companies?\nI will let you look up Michael Ganzi of Hearst Corp. (that owns Popular Mechanics amongst a host of other publications), Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation (Fox, Harper Collins), John Engler (member of Board of directors of Dow Jones, Republican governor of Michigan) to name a few. These are people to make the decisions how and what to publish through various media. Just these 3 companies Hearst, Fox and Dow Jones control an ENORMOUS segment of the media industry. AND they are all republican controlled.\nThird, these businessmen are not stupid. If they produced ONLY left wing news then the right wing wouldn't buy it. If they produced only right wing news then the left wing wouldn't buy it. And that would hurt half their business. So they spread their products evenly, some left, some right. New York Times right, New York Post left... just mix it up, have people buy it, get the checks from the bank. And if you can mix in a little controversy, by making a leftist slant, then it will sell more!!\nEventually where does the buck stop? At the executives' desk. And they are all right wingers (I prefer wrong wingers as a better descriptor).\n\nAnyways, I am sure my republican friends wouldn't understand all this logic. They are simple minded people and don't really follow the intricate ways the GOP top brass think and act.\n\nSo how do we counter the right wing media?\nUse the Internet. Blogs, personal news, word-of-mouth is the new face of news. The printing press ushered in Renaissance and was instrumental in the dissemination of ideas by people like Voltaire, Locke, Rousseau, Descartes etc.. that led to the French Revolution and eventually emancipated Europe and America. I say the Internet is the printing press of this age. Blog, write, disseminate. There are some intelligent republicans who do this as well. But most of them are not there yet. The liberals at least have that one advantage: of education. Put it to good use.