It is understood by all but the far left that the mainstream media has a strong liberal/leftist bias. For the far left, however, they do not have that perception of the media simply because they believe the media has not gone far enough to the left. So here are just a few examples of the liberal media bias.
* The lead story on the front page of the 12/13/11 LA Times is entitled "High court to rule on immigration." The issue, according to the Times, is "whether Arizona and other states can target illegal immigrants for arrest..." In the third paragraph they postulate a dilemma for leading Republican candidates for President - "appealing to their anti-immigrant base...(vs.)... alienating the growing bloc of Latino voters." So while the Times acknowledges that the legal issue involves ILLEGAL immigrants only, they somehow lost the ability to make that distinction on behalf of Republicans. Republicans are anti-ALL immigrants, legal or not. They may as well have called Republicans "racists" (which they undoubtedly believe to be the case). But people would have immediately picked up on that obvious media bias. Much better to use the more subtle suggestion that Republicans are anti-all immigration. I do not know any Republican, personally or otherwise among the candidates, opposed to legal immigration. When I tell people that the media engages in a subtle form of brainwashing through propaganda, this is the type of "reporting" to which I am referring.
* Those wealthy Republicans, like Romney, are out of touch with the American people. As reported by Larry Elder in the 12/15/11 Investor's Business Daily, the Democratic National Committee immediately blasted Romney as out of touch for offering that $10,000 bet to Rick Perry at one of the debates. The media joined in. But this is a lie frequently told by the media - those wealthy Republicans don't care about the average joe. They are simply out of touch. As Elder points out, there are more multi-millionaire Democrats in the US Senate than there are Republicans. Oops. That does not fit with the propaganda. And who was making $300,000 per year when, in Zanesville, Ohio, she complained about the "high cost of her daughters' summer camp, piano and dance lessons?" That would be Michelle Obama, speaking in a town where the median income was $28,854 (about $13,000 less than the national median). Out of touch? Oops. Obama went to Columbia University and then Harvard Law School. Does that experience put him in touch with the average American? Or how about when Obama referred to the US Senate salary of $170,000 as "relatively modest." Oops. (All as reported in the Elder IBD article.)
* The LA Times becomes part of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. In their lead editorial in the Sunday, 12/4/11 edition, they write: "An Occupy manifesto." That's right; not content with simply commenting on and otherwise supporting the "Occupy" movement, they wrote a Manifesto to aid the rudderless movement in an effort to help them accomplish their goals. As the "Occupy" movement has been largely supported by the Democrat party, do you now see what I mean when I say that the LA and NY Times (and others) act as the media arm of the Democrat party? The Manifesto suggests that the movement address five main issues: financial reform, taxation, corporate influence, education, and marijuana. Marijuana? Really? A main issue? Okay, how about "corporate influence." The Times is still ranting about the Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no limit on corporate advertising if the money was spent on independent advertising, not tied to any campaign. The Times still sees no problem with Union influence, however. Public employee unions have long had a corrupt relationship with state legislatures around the country. They give large sums to Democrat candidates and are rewarded with legislation providing ridiculous benefits and pensions to the unions, all at taxpayers' expense. These deals are bankrupting states; but somehow the corporate influence is the problem.
* Obama's economic speech at Osawatomie, Kansas. Well, the mainstream media loved this speech. Obama made hard-hitting comments like this: Republicans believe that "If only we cut more regulations and cut more taxes - especially for the wealthy - our economy will grow stronger...It's a simple theory...Here's the problem: It doesn't work. Its never worked." The NY Times immediately praised the speech as a "relief" to hear. (In their lead editorial of 12/7/11.) They agreed that cutting regulations and taxes do not work: "Not before the Great Depression, not in the 80's,and not in the last decade." The lead editorial in the 12/8/11 IBD disagreed. They note that after Reagan lowered taxes and cut regulations there was an economic boom lasting two decades. The Times also conveniently ignores how one business owner and CEO after the next says they have money to expand and grow jobs, but are reluctant to do so because of the unknown impact of Obama's policies (like Obamacare) on their bottom line. The Times also ignores how a high tax and regulation state like California has been bleeding jobs to a lower tax and regulation state like Texas. The Times agreed with Obama's assessment that the "rich" need to pay more taxes. As Obama said: the "wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century." Except the CBO shows that in 2009 the richest 1% paid about 40% of federal income taxes; whereas in 1980 they only paid 18%. (As reported in the 12/8/11 IBD.)
* The NY Times recently asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to write an op-ed piece for their paper. (As reported by Herb Keinon in the 12/16/11 Jerusalem Post online.) Ron Dermer, a senior advisor to Netanyahu, "respectfully declined." But in the Netanyahu style, he did not leave it at that. He then blasted the paper for their negative attitudes towards Israel, as reflected in 19 of their last 20 op-ed pieces. The Times let their liberal (and Jewish) columnist Thomas Friedman say in his column that Netanyahu's tremendous reception from Congress earlier this year was "bought and paid for by the Israel lobby." No chance any of those Senators or Congressmen actually view Israel as a strategic ally, with shared values? And Dermer further blasted the paper for printing an op-ed piece by Abbas, head of the PA. In referring to Israel's war for independence in 1948, Abbas said in that article: "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued." Except that none of it is true. When the UN voted partition of the British Mandate in 1947, the Arabs announced before the vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. Five Arab countries, along with the aid of at least some of the Arabs in the Mandate area, attacked Israel the day after Israel declared their independence.
Dermer made a comment that all of the mainstream media should consider. He said that it was a shame that the "paper of record" (as the NY Times calls itself) ignored the admonition from Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "...everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but...no one is entitled to their own facts." But how can the mainstream media be expected to screen submissions for factual accuracy, when their own articles and editorials have long abandoned the idea of accuracy in favor of propaganda?