published Monday, February 14th, 2011

Liberal bias confirmed

The Free Press editorial page for years has been among the judges for the Media Research Center's annual compilation of the most blatant liberal bias in the news media. The recently announced "winners" of those dubious "honors" confirm again that the American people have good reason to believe there is a pervasive liberal bent in the mainstream media.

Here are a few of the quotes the Media Research Center compiled in 2010 (with the rest available on its website,

* After a guest pointed out that radical Muslims kill people in expectation of rewards in heaven, Tavis Smiley, a host on a PBS show, remarked, "But Christians do that every single day in this country." He cited the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado — though the killers' motives were never thought to be related to Christianity.

* New York Times columnist Frank Rich likened opponents of ObamaCare socialized medicine to Nazis after some Democrat congressmen alleged they were subjected to racial slurs around the time of the ObamaCare vote. But no one produced evidence that the slurs took place, which is highly unusual since the incident supposedly happened outside the Capitol, with lots of news media and hundreds of people nearby. Another Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, specifically denied hearing racial slurs.

* After Democrats had huge losses in the 2010 midterms, CNN and MSNBC contributor Bill Press used a vulgarity to refer to voters, and called them "a bunch of idiots."

* In one of the strangest remarks documented by the MRC, Terry Moran of ABC News declared, "The stimulus worked" and labeled it one of the Obama administration's "major accomplishments." In fact, the $862 billion stimulus massively added to our national debt, and the money generally went toward government jobs rather than the private-sector jobs that the president had said the money would create. Unemployment was not supposed to exceed 8 percent if the stimulus passed, but it soon rose to nearly 10 percent and is still a painful 9 percent today.

* MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said the grass-roots tea party movement supports "hanging union organizers" and wants to "end this democracy." In reality, it's a group of patriotic, peaceful Americans who are alarmed by the threat to our economy of back-breaking debt and limitless government spending, and by the erosion of our liberties through big new programs such as ObamaCare.

* Former New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse called Arizona a "police state" after it enacted a sensible law to stem the costly tide of illegal aliens into the state.

* Highlighting the media's hostility toward former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, MSNBC's Chris Matthews suggested she is illiterate. "I'm dead serious about this," he said. "Have you ever seen her reading words on a piece of paper?"

* Sarah Spitz, who often contributes pieces to National Public Radio, said that if she saw conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh dying, she would "laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out."

It is naive to think that journalists don't have personal views on politics. But at least among those who claim to present the news impartially, it is appalling that many seem comfortable promoting a political agenda.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Certainly this editor can rest easy in the knowledge that he will never be judged impartial.

February 14, 2011 at 12:25 a.m.
dfclapp said...

In making your case, it would help if you used a non-partisan news review organization rather than a conservative one built by a conservative activist. Aren't there enough real issues that you could address without this kind of a pot-calling-the-kettle-black nonsense? Off the top of my head, I can think of an equal number of absurd/baseless complaints/attacks made by the members of the conservative press.

February 14, 2011 at 5:13 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Yeah I guess this guy needs to shut up. When pointing out all alleged inconsistencies with conservatives, it is okay but let anything about liberals be pointed out and whoa, you're a bum. It is one thing to be biased and admit it. It is something else altogether to be biased and pretend you are objective. I see much more of this on the liberal side than on the conservative side. So the beat goes on the division continues and the whole country suffers more and more because of it.

February 14, 2011 at 6:08 a.m.
fairmon said...

Party loyalist in both parties are subject to thinking if they paint the other side in a bad light their agenda will gain favor. It is similar to negative campaign adds that both parties use. It is inappropriate to label an article or TV show as news then embark on a stream of personal opinions and selective often edited sources to support the opinion.

Sarah Spitz is a maniac. I don't care for Limbaugh either but she would probably qualify to be committed if someone analyzed her frequent rhetoric.

February 14, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.
carlB said...

Username: harp3339 | On: February 14, 2011 at 7:45 a.m.

Reply to harp3339: You talk with a balanced opinion, which is good.

It still "boils down" for the people to separate the facts from the fiction. That is if they want to believe the facts instead of the fiction. For many people I have my doubts as to them wanting to stick to the "facts."

February 14, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.
Plato said...

First of all most of the people whose quotes are cited in this piece are NOT reporting news, i.e. Matthews, Olbermann, Press. They are political analysts voicing their opinions just like O'Reilly, Chrystal, and Krauthamme do on the conservative side, with a huge heap of hyperbole and some tid bits of fiction along the way..

Second almost 300 Billion of the stimulus was tax cuts, something conservatives are always clamoring for, and the Congressional Budge Office says the stimulus added as many as 3.3 million new jobs to the economy. So unemployment would be upwards of 13% right now had it not been for the stimulus.

Finally, I have no doubt that Sarah Palin can read, but Keith Olbermann was 100% right when he said "that women is an idiot".

February 14, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Remember... When you are as far right of the scale as "Free Press", Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.

February 14, 2011 at 11:55 a.m.
librul said...

Even Ron Paul found out he was too liberal for the whackjobs at CPAC. Looks like the purists in the Tea Party are going to be a real headache for the neo-fascist Republicans. A food fight in Lincoln's frathouse will doubtless be quite entertaining.

February 14, 2011 at 5:14 p.m.
rick1 said...

"Second almost 300 Billion of the stimulus was tax cuts" Since you brought it up let's look at taxes under Obama. According to Americians for Tax Relief,the tax cuts you are talking about under the stimulus were temporary. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts.

"Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus added as many as 3.3 million new jobs to the economy." In March, 2010 in a speech to the National Association of Business Economics, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said "We don't think one can learn much from watching the evolution of particular components of GDP [gross domestic product] over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus … so we fall back on repeating the sort of analysis we did before. And we tried to be very explicit about it that it is essentially repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it."

When asked if this means that any actual underperformance of the stimulus would fail to show up in the CBO's stimulus jobs count, Elmendorf replied "That's right." This means the 1.5 million jobs saved estimate was pre-determined.

So much for your stimulus creating all of those jobs and Obama lowering your taxes.

February 14, 2011 at 6:45 p.m.
carlB said...

Finally, I have no doubt that Sarah Palin can read, but Keith Olbermann was 100% right when he said "that women is an idiot". Username: Plato | On: February 14, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.

Reply to Plato: If you are interested and do not already know. check this site.

You might be able to watch on Comcast channel 107

February 14, 2011 at 7:25 p.m.
Plato said...

rick1 - The Heritage foundation as you know is a Conservative political think tank. They are taking a statement which in it's simplest form means that the CBO relied on historical data for their forecasting model rather than actual measuring of jobs created by the actions of the government which is next to impossible to do and coming to the conclusion that the CBO numbers are meaningless. Their methodology in no way invalidates the estimates. Forecasting is an inexact science at best but it is usually accurate withing certain parameters.

I would invite your attention to another report done recently by two highly respected economists. In “How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End,” prominent economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi say that the stimulus, stress tests, emergency Federal Reserve maneuvers and Troubled Asset Relief Program saved the economy from collapse.

Without those extraordinary measures, they say, the United States’ GDP would be 6.5 percent lower, the unemployment rate would be 3 percentage points higher, there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs and the economy would be experiencing deflation. Blinder is a professor at Princeton and a former Fed official. Zandi is the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics and a former adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.

February 14, 2011 at 8:39 p.m.
Plato said...

rick 1 stated ". In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts."

That's a cleaver way of misleading people into thinking Obama is sort sort of big "tax and spend liberal" when in fact, the federal income taxes we pay are lower now then they have been since President Eisenhower was in office. Yes the Obama tax cuts in federal taxes were not "permanent" because they were part of a one time appropriation bill - the stimulus bill. The Bush tax cuts were not "permanent" either. In fact they would have expired on Dec 31 2010 had the President not worked to have them extended. So playing games with words and numbers proves nothing.

This 7 to 1 figure comes about mostly from the fact that the tax increases are on specific individuals under the Affordable Health Care Act, primary people who can afford coverage but reject it in favor of using ERs or services paid for now by others. You can call that a tax increase if you want, I call it making people be responsible for their own health care.

February 14, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.
ceeweed said...

Grow up and grow a pair, Free Press!

February 14, 2011 at 9:11 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Their methodology in no way invalidates the estimates. Forecasting is an inexact science at best but it is usually accurate withing certain parameters."


Did the Execute Administration not use those same sort of "forecasts" to claim that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%?

How did that work out?


"Forecasts" are only as good as the assumptions made within them.


Garbage In, Garbage Out

First you have to agree with the assumption that running money through the machine in D.C. is the best way to create sustainable jobs.

Then, using the assumption that X dollars spent by creates Y sustainable jobs you can just stick in a number for your X (another assumption), and one for your Y (another assumption), multiply and voila, you get whatever you want to get.

From an objective standpoint, the "forecast" is bunk.

You've not measured anything.

At best you've merely conjured numbers out of thin air that support your first assumption.

That such B.S. is peddled by the government and their cheerleaders in the media is not surprising.

That so many otherwise rational people believe it represents any kind of factual evidence is astounding.

February 14, 2011 at 9:25 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"That's a cleaver way of misleading people into thinking Obama is sort sort of big "tax and spend liberal" when in fact, the federal income taxes we pay are lower now then they have been since President Eisenhower was in office."

Good lord. What does the total amount of taxes paid(which is extremely dependent on the current economy: do we want to go there?) have to do with the fact that for every $1 in temporary tax relief signed into law by the current POTUS, $7 in permanent tax hikes has also been signed into law by the current POTUS?

It doesn't mislead anyone to point out that, on balance, he's raised taxes substantially. It just hasn't taken effect yet.

He stuffed tax increases into the pipeline, and barring major repeal acts and/or court actions, they're coming.

He's just so stupid that he got it mixed up.

He thought it was supposed to be "spend-n-tax".

February 14, 2011 at 9:51 p.m.
hambone said...

What's the difference between "Tax and Spend" and "Borrow and Spend"?

answer: Interest paid to China!

February 14, 2011 at 10:21 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hambone | On: February 14, 2011 at 10:21 p.m.

I like it.

Here's another.

What's the same between "Tax and Spend" and "Borrow and Spend"?

answer: Too much spend.

February 14, 2011 at 11:30 p.m.
jpo3136 said...

Y'all forgot to quote the King James Version of the Bible in your editorial. It clearly states, "Judge not lest ye, too, be editorialized as too liberal."

The Media Research Center website the editorial refers us to was founded by Frank Bozell, a former National CPAC chairman.

It's funded by ExxonMobil.

Opening complaints in their "Annual Report 2009" begin with the medias refusal to report fictional events created by the Republican National Committee: "Climategate", "Van Jones 'Scandal'", and "Fannie and Freddie May Bonuses."

2009 was obviously marred by massive unemployment, foreclosures, layoffs, credit card interest-based price gouging and other banking problems caused by illegal transactions encouraged by the Bush Administration.

As Wall Streeters collected massive bonuses to the open disgust of many voters, this website the Free Press Editorial staff would have us refer to complains about federal lending agencies and companies like ACORN, whose main function was to encourage a minimum wage. ACORN, long slammed by the GOP in some fake pimp "probe", was a staunch advocate of the minimum wage.

I thought the Free Press supported the virtues of hard work and employment.

That's right: destroying the minimum wage is to the advantage of fatkats in the Republican party who are buying ad time for politicians. Look at their million dollar as buys here in Tennessee. With Citizens United decision behind them, the Republican party outright bought two US Representatives for Tennessee, including Representative Desjardins to our immediate west.

Surely, the journalists of the Free Press do not expect people educated to meet and exceed the GED to take the claims of CPAC seriously. Is this editorial satire?

These CPAC people we're directed to consult by the editorial above are far to the right of former President Richard Nixon. Clearly, they're a fringe element who should be ignored.

If you're to the right of President Richard Nixon, you're clearly off in looney land. This website the Free Press has referred us to is staffed by wingnuts. Please, let's try to stay within what's observably true and reasonably credible. We already have plenty of recordings of Glen Back and Fox News on Comedy Central. We don't need to trick anyone into watching more of that on the Internet.

CPAC's website at, as listed above, is far below rational expectations. We actually check up on these things. Please do more research in the future. Thanks.

February 15, 2011 at 11:49 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.