BS. The media isn't liberal. When is the last time they pointed out the lies McCain constantly gives? Or the fact that the Democrats and Republican bipartisan derugltion is what caused our current mess? Or the fact that the wealth inequality has been sky rocketing? Or the fact that... do I have to continue?Conservatives like to repeat "liberal media" over and over agin because it gives them an excuse to ignore it.Calling it liberal is blatantly false- the media is progressive- specifically the 1920s version. Yes, them- only concerned with maintaining the status quo and wringing money out of the situation.As for "being more favorable"... yes, and they also are more favorable to suporters of the round earth theory than the flat one.One side is right and one side is WRONG. The medias job is to report the news and if the news shows one side in a bad light it may be bias-more likely though it is that the side IS bad.Sorry of I am over sarcastic- some moron wrote an editorial in the SJ Mercury basically advocating totalitarianism. The man identified himself as a liberal... and then took a plan that was literally straight out of the Nazi and Soviet planning books. The sheer amount of ignorance writing that...
Sidenote: deregulation did not cause our financial crisis. Outlandish govt. programs (CRA) and out of control credit plus massive inflation and questionable banking practices (protected by the fed) came together to hike up the cost of homes far more than demand would normally have done. This bubble is the result of govt. protectionism.Anyhoo, the media as a whole leans wickedly statist which fits both neoconservatism and liberalism. They talk about what sells, and most of the time the truth isn't as fun as shiny news stories about Paris Hilton or Obama or Palin or Dawkins.
I'm going to have to go with Josh on this one.
"Sidenote: deregulation did not cause our financial crisis. Outlandish govt. programs (CRA) and out of control credit plus massive inflation and questionable banking practices (protected by the fed) came together to hike up the cost of homes far more than demand would normally have done. This bubble is the result of govt. protectionism."You are going to have to explain because I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. I was under the impression that this was caused by people borrowing WAY beyond their means creating a bubble and that the reason they got cash at all was because of dergegulation. After all, these people would normally NOT be loaned large amounts of money.The economists seem to agree with me.http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/diamond-and-kashyap-on-the-recent-financial-upheavals/Or, in short, regulation problem."Anyhoo, the media as a whole leans wickedly statist which fits both neoconservatism and liberalism. They talk about what sells, and most of the time the truth isn't as fun as shiny news stories about Paris Hilton or Obama or Palin or Dawkins."Trust me- they aren't. I am a statist and the media DOESN'T reflect my views. At all. The media appears liberal if you consider homosexuals... because the newscasters aren't bigots. Most of the rest they tend to lean towards "Pro-American" or "Pro-Business".Of course, the neocons aren't statists. They are mostly concerned with foreign policy. Liberalism IS statist... and the media is opposed to that. Or it is just the natural fact that they gravitate to disasters and don't do very through fact checking. Honestly, it is impossible to tell between intent and incompetance on the media's part. Lets be honest- a degree in journalism isn't exactly such a feat. I have more respect for the intelligence capabilites of the military... cept the jar heads.
... Come to think of it, how the heck is this related to atheism at all?
You are going to have to explain because I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. I was under the impression that this was caused by people borrowing WAY beyond their means creating a bubble and that the reason they got cash at all was because of dergegulation. After all, these people would normally NOT be loaned large amounts of money.There is no one cause. Yes, people borrowed way beyond their means but that is because banks were forced to create subprime loans backed by govt. subsidies. The main program is called the "Community Reinvestment Act" and is literally bringing down our credit systems in America. for a hundred years the free market kept house prices pegged to inflation, but after govt. intervention separated that link by price fixing, we got a massive, massive bubble.Have a look here:http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/united_states_1890-2007.pngand tell me if you notice anything. Ans only some economists would agree with you- the Keynesians. There is only one school of economics that predicted this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zwThe price-fixing ways of statists created this emergency, and more price-fixing will not fix it.And for future reference, libertarians like myself view the central planners (neocons, democrats) as statists.But as to your other question, the media is entirely sensationalistic. Whether it is the New Atheism on full march or the crashing housing markets, life goes on in spite of their cackling.
The media has a bias towards conflict and underdog narratives. They fail to critically analyze any position: liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, or whatever.Since we're so concerned with being open about bias, it perhaps deserves pointing out that the organization responsible for the report you quoted is a religious conservative group, not an unbiased media watchdog.An example of bias that they point out is that Republican candidates were asked how they would treat atheists. I guess that they would have wanted the Democratic candidates to be asked how they would treat Christians. "Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, how would you treat Christians, y'know...the people you go to church with?"Here's a great video from a CNN story, in which they thought it would be a good idea to present a panel of 3 Christians to discuss atheism without an atheist present:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzUAnd don't make me track down the hostile media coverage of Michael Newdow when he challenged the pledge of allegiance. I'm sure you remember.I just have examples. They have examples and stats. But I question the validity of their stats. They managed to find only 77 stories in all of 2007 that covered Christian issues or themes? Are they serious?I want to see the same report for Jews instead of atheists. They make up only 2.2% of the population, not 8. Would we be shocked if 6/7 news organizations addressed the concerns and issues of Jews in the upcoming presidential election? Yeah, I guess I would be shocked that only 6 did.Don't worry, the media's fascination with atheism will blow over soon, and we can go back to that cozy assumption that we live in a Christian nation."Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert