We have received feedback on this issue from people all across America. Review the graph to the left for a quick snapshot of the responses received to date, or read the responses below.

... Believe the opposite ...

September 16,2003

Taking the temperature of the public>>??? Nothing more then consensus games. No real discussion here.
A soviet citizen was asked, "How do you know if what your being told is the truth by Provda. The response was, Believe the opposite.

... Where was the "left" ...

September 16,2003

Example - you interview "two sides" - an NBC analyst (a moderate), and Tony Blakley, a rabid right-winger who works for Rev. Moon's Washington Times, a paper that has yet to show a profit in all its years, and thus is a subsidized right-wing propoganda machine, mostly for Moon and the Republicans. Where was the "left" represented in your report (Joe Conason, Paul Begala, etc.)? Nowhere to be seen - and this is so typical these days in "mainstream/middle" media. A "moderate" and a rabid right-winger...and no liberal in sight. Thus, little credibility...

... No real discussion here. ...

September 16,2003

Taking the temperature of the public>>??? Nothing more then consensus games. No real discussion here.

... what big $$ are behind ...

September 16,2003

The conglomerates have hamstrung the broadcasters as have the sponsors.
The most reliable reporting comes from public broadcasting. At least I can look with a discriminating eye without having to wonder what big $$ are behind any given report.

... news organizations are driven ...

September 16,2003

I believe that news organizations are driven by the very few network owners.

... problem stems from "slant" ...

September 16,2003

The problem is not with credibility or facts. The problem stems from the "slant" and the way they convey the facts. It is hard to find a news organization who is willing to rustle the feathers of a corporate giant because somewhere in the forest they share the same nest.

... I believe very little ...

September 16,2003

I used to believe everything I read in the papers and news periodicals and saw on television news.

Now I believe very little. Many reporters have become like many authors—they will tell any lie to sell a story.

Nor do I believe what I hear from the government particularly the skilled liars like Scty. of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who thinks Americans are so stupid he can manipulate what they believe by brainwashing with any high spin prevarication.

... editors more responsive to political views ...

September 16,2003

I think there is far too much "spin control" in broadcast news, too little careful editing of content for accuracy, and too much mixing of political propaganda with factual reporting. Obviously there is a balance to be struck with reporting breaking news stories as they happen, but I feel that editors often are more responsive to the political views of network sponsors than to journalistic ethics. In particular, many investigative
reporters impose their own political views or those of their editors on interviews. It seems to me that there is a sort of tabloid "attack journalism" style which has affected the American news media. In addition, we also have a problem with this administration which has
emphasized secrecy over open debate and democracy.

It is impossible for citizens to participate in the democratic process when they have no idea what their elected officials are doing or how they arrived at their decisions. When I see sloppy editing for accuracy of content or embedded political expression, I lose confidence
and trust in what I see or read.

... take a look at the facts ...

September 16,2003

Alright, well, I'm basically going to write a whole article--
Yes, the media is widely believed to be liberal, and conservatives have done a lot to promote this, yet lets take a look at the facts -- on the conservative side you see the argument that the media is liberal because a majority of journalists are democrats, well, first of all, lets think about this, are the democrats a left wing party? According to the ADA democrats are far more likely to vote with the GOP than the GOP is to vote with the DNC(http://adaction.org/VRStats2002.htm). The other point that is hardly ever even considered is that maybe these journalists are only workers and are not those who censor the news. Those who censor the news, the owners often tend to be conservative and censor in favor of the corporations that sponsor them(makes sense really).
Now lets look at some other claims -- "fox news succeeded because most news watchers are liberal and fox filled the gap for conservatives" -- well think again; all news networks have strong conservative bases, even so called liberal CNN(http://slate.msn.com/id/2079326/) Liberals watch less television news in general as well, only about 20 minutes as compared to 31 with conservatives. Tell me, If your viewers are self labeled conservatives, how do you expect to keep them by becoming liberal?
Another point, which is often conveniently ignored by conservatives is that the sources of news matter, and when we look at where the news gets their news we see the center and right very well represented but the left is very underrepresented (read this-http://www.fair.org/extra/9605/tank.html) - as you can see 4 out of the top 5 sources is conservative, while the other is centrist. While journalists are trained for years to be objective, these sources are not, and are proudly conservative.
If you are not yet convinced, I could give you another mountain of evidence, and rant on forever, or you could simply visit fair.org and see the truth for yourself.
So why was this liberal media thing started in the first place? Well that's not a hard question to answer: by asking this question corporations and the right effectively discredit any question of a conservative media, and at the same time move the media further to the right. It's been a good strategy, and it's convinced quite a few people, but it's about time they heard the other side of the story(this one, and every story!)

... often propaganda. ...

September 16,2003

First, it is a ratings game. Second, it is controlled. Third, it is often propaganda.