The whole issue of whether or not CNN is a conservative entity is beside the point of the thread,
but oh well ...
I get my news from all over the world. That's used to be one of the advantages of living near New York City, but with the internet, anybody who's willing to make the effort can.
is a conservative news outlet. They aren't outright liars like Fox, but middle of the road? Not hardly. Read the news from the rest of the world's viewpoint sometime.
The key to determining where the politics of a given source lies mostly in what they choose to report, or not report. Take the Iraq invasion. Liberal sources hammer away at civilian casualty figures. Conservative ones often brushed them off with 'civilians die during war. It happens'.
Of course, I'm not implying CNN is the Washington Times
. But conservative is very fair. I'll give you an example. You may know that a number of the news media got together and did the complete Florida recount of the 2000 presidential election. You may also recall that the headlines they all reported saif that Bush won the recount. Go Google "2000" "election" "recount" "Gore wins", and read a few links. GORE won the total recount. Bush only wins if you only count 'undervotes', dimpled chads and the like. 'overvotes' were cases where someone voted for Gore twice, punching the hole next to his name, and writing his name in as well. (People said they did that because the ballot was confusing, and they wanted to make things clear.) Of you count the overvotes, Gore wins Florida handily.
I don't bring this up to re-argue the Florida election, but to make a point about news coverage. A 'liberal' media doesn't report that Bush would have won a total recount when they know Gore would have. Were they actually lying?
No. Gore himself sued for a recount based only on undervotes.
Getting back to general commentary, AirAmerica
, which fancies itself a liberal netrwork, isn't even all that liberal, measured against a global context, or simply by the standards that prevailed up to 1980. MotherJones
covers things in better depth. The New Yorker
has done brilliant work on Iraq. On the conservative side, Wall St Journal
reporting than I do in FoxNews. And I've had the same challenge standing for almost four years about http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
. Post me an article where they are deliberately lying about the facts. do the print stuff the US gov't does like? Sure. But half the gov't in the Mid East have banned them at one time or another. Al-Jazeera get their facts straight. You'll actually find that on the facts
they don't differ greatly from the Jerusalem Post
. (Of course, between those two, one man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'commando'. I'm talking about facts
, not spin.)
I find the BBC
rather pro-Western in it's MidEast coverage, but factual. Le Monde Diplomatique
has perspectives rarely touched by other media outlets.
And then there are the blogs. But except for one mention, I'll avoid that here. Juan Cole
is pretty reliable.
Lastly, most of you are probably unaware that Hezbollah has their own
news service, Al-Manar
. If you read their
covergae of the war in Lebanon, and read the Jerusalem Post coverage (or the New York Post coverage), it would make more sense to you why I find Al-Jazeera to be moderate source.
Most people want to hear the news in a way that re-inforces what they already believe. This is how FoxNews is 'moderate' to some people, while all other news sources are 'liberal'. Rational use of the language alone should prohibit such a conclusion. If everyone is to one side of you, you aren't in the middle.
If you don't agree with me about CNN, that's fine. However, I've been watching them since their inception, and their coverage doesn't meet the standards of anything I'd ever consider 'leftist', or even 'middle-of-the-road'. It's been mentioned here before that Richard Nixon would have been considered a flaming liberal by the standards of most of today's US media. But in his time, they called him a hardcore conservative.