Does Calling Out Fox News Cause "Liberal" Media To Engage In Reverse Liberal Bias? By...HuffPo!

[TomCADem]

I noticed that Huffinton Post has run a series of articles that are very critical of President Obama's criticism of Fox News. President Obama has mildly suggested that Fox is more akin to talk radio, rather than an impartial news outlet. Yet, rather than examine the varacity of the charge, as Media Matters has done, Huffington Post has linked a series of articles that are quite critical of these comments.

This, of course, struck me as odd, since Huffinton Post is, well, supposed to be liberal. Then, I was reminded by something written ... on Huffinton Post! (see below) The gist is that liberal media, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Huffinton Post, etc., are so afraid of being seen a liberal equivalent of Fox News that they over compensate, and in the case Huffington Post, occasionally side with Fox News against President Obama to avoid being seen as bias. Then, they proudly announce that they are not biased, because they can also attack President Obama!

Of course, Fox News has no such fear of being perceived as biased, so they just accuse folks attacking them of being liars, then continue with their propaganda. In other words, liberal media is actign just like President Obama in trying to be bi-partisan. Why try to earn brownie points from conservatives by showing how they can sometimes side with Fox News against Democrats? Its not as if Republicans are going to say, "Hey! You know what? Huffington Post is not a shill for liberals after all!"

Anyways, here's the article on Huffington Post that describes why Huffington Post has not seriously reviewed President Obama's charge that Fox News is biased, but has instead linked articles repeating Fox's baseless charge that it was being excluded from interviews by the Obama administration, which was subsequently debunked by Rachel Maddow:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-l-ballinger/the-medias-liberal-revers_b_148427.html

The Media's Liberal Reverse Bias

When it was apparent that Senator Barack Obama was going to win the race for the presidency, I figured the dubious claims of media's liberal bias would simmer down once he took office and an activist White House press corps started dogging him. With an apparent lull in news to write about now that the election is over, though, the corps has already begun it's critical coverage as it focuses on the president-elect's announcements of his cabinet posts. It is a historic situation and such a focus is to be expected.

This is where the liberal reverse bias comes in, however. That's what I call it when reporters and editors -- fearful of being called liberal -- try to appear to be balanced by writing stories that push the conservative line. On these occasions, they swing too far the other way to appease their critics. I understand that. A reporter's credibility is about all he or she has. It was that way when I started in this business nearly 30 years ago and that's just the way it is.

As understandable as this swing may be, however, there's no excuse for it. Witness the preposterous stories coming out of way too many news organizations that claim Obama is reneging on his promise of change by picking the people he has for his cabinet

So, perhaps one unintended consequense of calling out Fox is that "liberal" media is now going to over compensate, and show just how "objective" they are by repeating right wing talking points.

[FrenchieCat]

1. What Liberal Media?

The media that I come in contact with are either quite balanced (the Nation, The New Yorker) and criticize the President more than enough, or are already tilting to the right.....like CNN and such.

We actually don't really have a liberal media in this country.....only the right thinks that simply practicing professional journalism is liberal....but it's not.

[TomCADem]

3. Which Is Why I Use Quotes Around "Liberal"

My point is that there really is not a liberal bias. In fact, due to sensitivity to charges of liberal bias, the media tends to over compensate by tilting right or being critical of President Obama.

[still_one]

2. The huffington post presents different views, however, arianna is no liberal, and it would

be major mistake to forget where she came from on the political spectrum

[Norrin Radd]

4. Not surprised; originally, Fluffpo fancied itself as left leaning but

open to posting articles from rightwingers, but readers/people who posted on the comment threads weren't having any of it (you still see rightwingers posting there, though). Patricia Heaton was one of the earlier rightwingers whose article got laughed off the stage.

If you look at this capture from the Internet Archive, you'll see that the title graphic has a blue star dueling with a red star:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050705084227/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Hutzpa]

5. So you are spamming us now

with the same subject?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8717560

[TomCADem]

10. I Thought Republican Charges Of Liberal Bias Are Entirely Different...

Given that such charges are completely full of shit, since most media is run by huge media conglomorates that are about as progressive as a dead snail moving backwards.

[Kind of Blue]

6. I'm not sure if it matters anymore.

I'm no communications expert, but I'm starting to understand that old theory of McLuhan's that the Medium is the Message. In my little understanding, I thought the medium only applied to the actual device - television, radio, print. But now I'm wondering if the medium isn't President Obama himself, because quite literally from the theory, the medium is anything from which change emerges. He wrote, "it is only too typical that the 'content' of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium." (McLuhan 9) And it is the character of the medium that is its potency or effect - its message."

Also, "Control over change would seem to consist in moving not with it but ahead of it. Anticipation gives the power to deflect and control force." This to me is why media bias for or against does not matter, because the media has clearly no control of Obama, way to late to deflect him, and at the same time they are twisting on themselves for how to put a fix on him, in order to continue to control what people think.

I think they have a lot to worry about because there is a new medium in town and it's Barack Obama. Maybe I'm being too simplistic but nevertheless it's going to be very interesting to watch what the media does next :popcorn:

[OHdem10]

7. The analysis is accurate and on point. Here is some history of

Liberal Media.

For years, the Media was more open in showing some liberal
leanings. At this time, the Republicans were going through
the "wanderings in the desert" The Republicans really believed
at that time the Media was against them. By the end of the
Regan Administration theGOP was really getting organized
but continued to complain about the Liberal Media. What they achieved
was making the Media feel guilty because since that time Media
has sometimes admitted they probably could have been more fair.

The GOP knowing this, keeps them in quilt mode. The Media should
wake up and smell the coffee. The GOP are big boys and girls
now and the Media should no longer feel the need to "pamper
the babies". There is history, years ago. Today is a different
party--whoa how different.

[heliarc]

8. You forget of course that Arianna Huffington...

is a bit of an opportunist. I'm not too young to remember her conservative leanings before...

[vaberella]

9. I see two ways of looking at this.

The first is that Huffpost is fighting for the rights of all anchors, this is doesn't matter if your perosnal view says Fox is not one. And this would be considered a dangerous trend if a President starts playing this game. However...I see this as Arianna supporting her old cronies. But also her directly ignoring the dangerous rhetoric that is spewing from Fox on a daily basis, excluding Shep Smith who speaks reason more often than not.