It is easy to show that the dominant media in this country are biased towards liberalism. Indeed, that fact is even admitted to by some prominent liberals in the media. Here are some quotes that document the liberal bias of the dominant media, that document discrimination against conservatives by liberal media, and make the case that the dominant liberal media really need to be cleaned up (we need a lot of new, more fair-minded owners of media, plus a lot of liberally bigoted publishers and editors and reporters should be replaced).

From a Nov. 2022 Media Research Center study titled "The Dangerous Partisanship of TV’s Midterm Coverage": "Four years ago [in 2018], TV’s midterm coverage hammered Republican candidates and then-President Trump with 88 percent negative spin while sparing Democrats similarly bad press. This year, Democrats are in charge of the White House and both chambers of Congress, yet a new Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts finds that Republicans are receiving coverage that is just as negative (87% negative) as in 2018, while Democrats---including the President---are drawing far less scrutiny than the party out of power" (despite all the problems that Democrat policies have contributed to, like the ridiculously high level of illegal immigration, the ridiculously high inflation rate, the high crime rate, the dumbing-down of the schools, etc., etc.).

A nice admission from a radically liberal magazine: “[T]he left controls the commanding heights of the culture: universities, news organizations, Hollywood, art museums, advertising, much of Silicon Valley, and the teachers’ unions and teaching colleges that shape K–12 education. And in many of those institutions, dissent has been stifled” (Jonathan Haidt, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid,” The Atlantic, April 11, 2022).

A good example of the bias of the liberal "fake news" media: From an August 2020 report by the Media Research Center: "From June 1 [2020] through July 31 [2020], the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts focused 512 minutes of airtime on the President, or nine times more than the 58 minutes allotted to Biden....The extra airtime devoted to Trump consisted almost entirely of anchors and reporters criticizing the President. During these two months, our analysts documented 668 evaluative statements about the President, 95 percent of which (634) were negative, vs. a mere five percent (34) that were positive. Using the same methodology...we found very few evaluative statements about Joe Biden---just a dozen, two-thirds of which (67%) were positive. Do the math, and viewers heard 150 TIMES more negative comments about Trump than Biden. That’s not news reporting---that’s a negative [anti-Republican, anti-conservative] advertising campaign in action."

Another good example of the bias of the liberal "fake news" media: A Media Research Center "study of every ABC, CBS and NBC evening news broadcast from January 1 through May 15 of this year [2019] found a total of 234 stories that talked about illegal immigration, but less than one-tenth of those (22, or 9%), actually informed viewers about the dramatically increasing rate of illegal crossings. Apprehensions at the U.S. border have surpassed 100,000 per month, an 11-year high."

There clearly is an illegal immigration crisis on our border, and President Trump wants to do something about it, but many Democrats (who have no problem rewarding people who break our laws, like illegal immigrants) want to downplay the crisis for cynical political reasons and the liberal "fake news" media help Democrats by downplaying the crisis. As a result of this media manipulation, 87% of respondents to a Harvard/Harris poll wrongly guessed that the number of border apprehensions was significantly lower. A majority of those respondents (52%) wildly underestimated that the rate was less than 100,000 per YEAR, which would make the problem only one-twelfth as serious as it actually is.

According to an October 2018 study by the Media Research Center, over the summer of 2018 the coverage of the Trump presidency by the Big Three (ABC, NBC, and CBS) was overwhelmingly negative (92% negative, just 8% positive). They basically ignored such achievements as the huge improvements to the economy (low unemployment, positive effects of the tax cuts and deregulation in general), and the progress we've made on North Korea, and the fairer trade agreements we have with some other countries now, etc. More solid evidence showing how terribly corrupt and biased the dominant liberal media are.

According to a March 2018 Rasmussen survey: "Fresh into President Trump’s second year in office, voters see even more bias against the president in the media than they did at the start of his presidency. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters believe when most reporters write or talk about the president, they are trying to block him from passing his agenda, up from 44% a year ago and 47% in August [2017]. Just five percent (5%) now think most reporters are trying to help Trump pass his agenda, down from 10% a month into his presidency." Good news! The liberal bigots who dominate the media are being taught a very valuable lesson.

And according to an August 2019 Rasmussen survey that trend continued: "Distrust of political news reporting remains at a record high, with just over half of voters now convinced that most in the media are out to get President Trump. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 32% of Likely U.S. Voters trust the political news they are getting. Most (54%) do not. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure."

According to "a Harvard University study published on Thursday [May 18, 2017]...The left-leaning mainstream media are overwhelmingly, and dramatically, anti-Trump in their coverage....Not surprisingly, Trump's coverage has been the worst of any recent American president. Trump's overall score of 80% negative coverage during the start of his presidency compares with Obama's 41%, Bush's 57% and Bill Clinton's 60%....Even the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, often credited with helping to take down [former President Richard] Nixon, advised today's reporters to 'stick to the reporting' and accused them of 'binge-drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid.'" And liberals wonder why Trump has called the "fake news media" the "enemy of the people." Much of the dominant media in this country are basically biased liberal propaganda machines masquerading as news outlets.

According to a 2016 study by the Center for Public Integrity, "more than 96 percent of donations from media figures to either of the two major-party presidential candidates [Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump] went to Hillary Clinton [as of October 2016]" (Jonah Goldberg, "Bans on donations only help reporters hide biases," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 24, 2016, section 1, p. 19).

According to Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science at UCLA and author of the book Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind: "Media bias aids Democratic candidates by eight to 10 percentage points in a typical election, every mainstream national news outlet has a liberal bias, and only four of 100 news outlets examined lean right and even those can't be considered far right" (from an editorial titled "Why The Bias Matters" in Investor's Business Daily, Sept. 7, 2011, p. A14).

According to a 2014 survey of U.S. journalists conducted by the Indiana University School of Journalism, titled "Press Release: Survey finds U.S. journalists less satisfied, have less autonomy," four times as many journalists identify with the Democrat Party than with the Republican Party.

According to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism's report on media coverage of the final days of the Obama vs. Romney presidential campaign ("The Final Days of the Media Campaign 2012"): "During this final week, from October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points....For Mitt Romney in the final week,...Negative stories in the press outnumbered positive ones 33% to 16%....All totaled, in the period from August 27-November 5, the number of unfavorable stories exceeded favorable one[s] for both men in the mainstream media, but the tone for Obama was considerably less harsh. In the end, 20% of stories during the fall period about Obama were favorable compared with 29% that were unfavorable (a gap of 9 points). For Romney, 15% of stories during this fall period were favorable while 37% were unfavorable, a gap more than twice as large as Obama's." In sum, the liberal bigots who dominate the media once again discriminated in favor of the Democrat and just may have been the deciding factor in the election.

From the June 4, 2004, Chicago Sun-Times: "According to a new survey [by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center], only 12 percent of local reporters, editors and media executives describe themselves as conservatives, while twice as many say they're liberal. At national news organizations, the gap is wider----7 percent conservative vs. 34 percent liberal."¹ In reality the situation is even more unbalanced than those statistics indicate. In that Pew study, 54 percent of news people self-described themselves as "moderate," as neither liberal nor conservative. However, as other statistics in this study suggest, many of these so-called moderates are closet liberals. For example, a stunning 88 percent of journalists believe society should approve of homosexuality while only around half of Americans believe that. And as syndicated columnist George Will once noted, about 90 percent of news reporters, editors, and producers vote for Democrats not Republicans.²

CBS News' Andy Rooney, discussing Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which argues that the dominant media are biased in the liberal direction, on CNN's "Larry King Live" in June 2002: "There is just no question that I, among others [in the media], have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think...Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that....But I think he should be more careful."³

Journalist Charles Krauthammer: "The nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs found...that TV coverage of the new GOP Congress in early 1995 was overwhelmingly negative: 68 percent negative evaluations versus 32 percent positive. (Dan Rather, on CBS, offered this typical description of the House GOP agenda: 'to demolish or damage [not, to fix] government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.')"⁴

Roger Ebert: "I agree that Hollywood movies tend toward the liberal agenda, because artistic and creative types in general tend to be liberal."⁵

Chicago Sun-Times writer Mary Houlihan: "As is the norm in the entertainment industry, theater is filled with liberal voices. Plays raising conservative viewpoints are rare, if they exist at all."⁶

U.S. News & World Report's John Leo: "Journalists are increasingly reluctant to report negative news about minorities or women's causes....The upshot of this is soft and caring coverage of favored [liberal] groups [and their causes], with certain stories mostly ruled out of bounds [i.e., censored]--the hyperaggressive side of the gay rights movement, for instance, or anything that might embarrass the cause of abortion rights."⁷

Chicago Tribune columnist Stephen Chapman: "Liberal journalists--in other words, most journalists--seem to assume that conservatives rise out of bed every morning with no thought but to do whatever they can to make the world worse. They are never given the presumption of pure intentions. Selfless idealism is taken to be the exclusive preserve of those on the other [liberal] end of the political spectrum."⁸

U.S. News & World Report's Douglas Stanglin: "The three major television networks gave Bill Clinton better coverage during the recent [1996] campaign than they gave Bob Dole. That's the conclusion of an upcoming report by Washington's [nonpartisan] Center for Media and Public Affairs, which...found that 50 percent of the stories on Clinton were positive in tone, compared with only 33 percent for Dole."⁹

Even Dan "Mr. Liberal" Rather, in a moment of candor, has admitted that "American journalism...is increasingly straying from its mission of public service and from its standards of fairness, accuracy and integrity."¹⁰ (The very pro-homosexual Chicago Tribune had this to say about Rather: "Rather...for years has fended off accusations that he has a liberal bias,...[fended off] criticism that he has a liberal, pro-Democrat bias....Well, let's be clear on that. Rather deserves it. In spades."¹¹ And the Chicago Sun-Times editorialized that Dan "Rather brought controversy to the post [anchor for CBS news]...with the liberal viewpoints he couldn't contain----objectivity was never part of his vocabulary."¹²)

Chicago Sun-Times's Raymond Coffey: "Much of what is going on in this left-right labeling [by many members of the dominant media is]...misleading. And consciously so, in my view."¹³ (Examples of the kind of labeling being referred to are "open-minded," "far-Right," "extremist," etc. For instance, some reporters biasedly describe liberals as "progressive" instead of, say, "reactionary.")

"Time magazine columnist Hugh Sidey told a luncheon crowd at the Illinois Manufacturers Association last week that in his history of covering presidential campaigns, he has never seen a year in which the media were more biased than in 1992. He said the anti-Bush/pro-Clinton coverage was anything but journalism."¹⁴

Columnist Noel Holston: "Republican characters in prime-time [TV] series tend to be straw men [or women], caricatures designed to be the butt of jokes."¹⁵

John Leo again: "The media are having unusual trouble describing gay attacks on Catholics....Famous newspapers and commentators who scour language for the faintest hint of insensitivity to gays, blacks and women show little interest in this foot-stomping bigotry toward Catholics."¹⁶

Homosexual journalist Andrew Sullivan, in his own name-calling way, has also conceded the media is liberally biased: "But, difficult as it may be to admit, some of the gay-baiting right's argument about media bias holds up."¹⁷

Journalist Robert Samuelson: "Among editors and reporters of the national media--papers, magazines, TV--a 'liberal bias' is not so much denied as ignored, despite overwhelming evidence that it exists."¹⁸

"Earlier this year [2004], Evan Thomas, Newsweek's Washington editor, conceded that there was media bias favoring Senator [John] Kerry [in his presidential campaign against George Bush in 2004] and speculated that it might be worth a...5-point advantage [in the election]."¹⁹ To illustrate that anti-Bush bias: "The Project for Excellence in Journalism...[found that from] Oct. 1 through Oct. 14, 2004: Percent of stories [in the mainstream media] about President Bush that are negative----59 percent. Percent of stories about Sen. Kerry that are negative----25 percent. Stories favorable to Bush? 14 percent. Favorable to Kerry? 34 percent. That is not a difference [opined syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer]. That is a chasm."²⁰

"Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News...is acknowledging that reporters' bias 'tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction.'"²¹ And speaking of ABC News, a columnist for the homosexual newspaper Windy City Times has stated that the network's news division is "replete with gays."²²

"'Fox News Sunday' anchor Chris Wallace, a self-described Democrat, calls the media's blatant favoritism 'astonishing.' Meanwhile, liberal journalist Juan Williams agrees with the assertion that CNN is 'in the tank' for the Democrats."²³

And finally: "An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this [2008] election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans."²⁴

Moreover, for those who think that, because the major media are owned by big corporations those media must be conservative, there is this item from syndicated columnist Mona Charen: "In 1997 [the latest year for which statistics were available at the time she wrote this], corporations gave almost five times as much to left-leaning charities and public-policy advocates than to right-leaning ones."²⁵ Corporate America appears not to be the bastion of conservatism liberals want you to believe it is.

These quotes are just the "tip of the iceberg." Not only do we have more such quotes, but groups like Accuracy in Media, Media Research Center, and Morality in Media can provide many additional details and statistics re the liberal bias of the dominant media.

The main point of this paper is that the dominant media cannot be trusted to present the whole, unvarnished, unbiased truth about many issues (e.g., homosexuality). Too many media members will slant their coverage of issues to favor or promote liberal causes. But often the bias is subtle, insidious, like when liberals use certain labels (e.g., "progressive" or "gay").

Hopefully the reader, as he or she keeps up on the "news," will remember how psychologically manipulative many members of the dominant media are, will remember how they manipulate language in order to manipulate your emotions and values, in order to impose their unsound liberal values on you.

1. Randy Dotinga, "More liberals at news outlets, survey says," Chicago Sun-Times, June 4, 2004, p. 44.

2. George Will, "Free-market flavor for elections," Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 15, 1997, p. 19.

3. Phil Rosenthal, "Overheard," Chicago Sun-Times, June 10, 2002, P. 43.

4. Charles Krauthammer, "It might not look like it, but conservatives still are winning the war," Chicago Tribune, Oct. 6, 1997, section 1, p. 13.

5. Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 24, 1997, "Showcase" sec., p. 5.

6. Mary Houlihan, "Theaters charged up for election season," Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 29, 2004, "Showcase" sec., p. 5D.

7. John Leo, "A great story never told," U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 2, 1996, p. 24.

8. Stephen Chapman, "Idealists wanted; conservatives need not apply," Chicago Tribune, June 22, 1997, sec. 1, p. 17.

9. Douglas Stanglin, "Did the media tilt toward Clinton," U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 18, 1996, p. 20.

10. "Eavesdropping," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 16, 1995, sec. 1, p. 2.

11. Chicago Tribune editorial, "Rather lame excuses," Apr. 9, 2001, sec. 1, p. 12.

12. "Rather helps end an era," Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 26, 2004, p. 55.

13. Raymond Coffey, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 29, 1994, p. 3.

14. Michael Sneed, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 8, 1992, p. 2.

15. Noel Holston, "TV offers a liberal dose of anti-conservative bias," Chicago Tribune, Sept. 26, 1992, p. 28.

16. John Leo, "The gay tide of Catholic-bashing," U.S. News & World Report, Apr. 1, 1991, p. 15.

17. Andrew Sullivan, "Us and Them," New Republic, Apr. 2, 2001, p. 8.

18. Robert Samuelson, "Can a liberal be fair at the helm," Chicago Tribune, Aug. 31, 2001, sec. 1, p. 27.

19. John O'Sullivan, "The Limits of Media Bias," National Review, Nov. 29, 2004, p. 46.

20. Charles Krauthammer, "No question about media's liberal bias," Chicago Tribune, Jan. 17, 2005, sec. 1, p. 19.

21. Investor's Business Daily, Nov. 1, 2006, p. A12.

22. Billy Masters, "Billy Masters," Windy City Times, May 4, 2016, p. 25.

23. Investor's Business Daily, Nov. 1, 2006, p. A12.

24. William Tate, "Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1," Investor's Business Daily, July 24, 2008, p. A11.

25. Mona Charen, "Corporations must be liberal? That's only a myth," Daily Herald, June 17, 2001, sec. 1, p. 16.