Discover the networks.org

RESEARCH ON MEDIA BIAS The leftwing bias of the American mass media is pervasive and quantifiable. Since the 1980s, studies have consistently shown that the professionals who constitute America’s mainstream news media – reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks – are preponderantly left-oriented and Democrat. These studies have excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists – all of whom make it clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it. Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the relevant facts to the readers, listeners, and viewers. A useful way of gauging the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that industry believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. For example, research shows that: Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia. Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.” 75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.” 56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World. 57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.” Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.” Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.” It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks: In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater. In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon. In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon. In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford. In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan. In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history. In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1. In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2. Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor. In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio. In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings: In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans. In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans. In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans. In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans. We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum: In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives. In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives. In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives. In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives. In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1. In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1. In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative. Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.” By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Media expert Bernard Goldberg says: “No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.” Expanding further upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said that journalists increasingly "see themselves as society’s designated saviors," striving to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.” Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do: Save the world.” Adapted from: "In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias," by John Perazzo (October 31, 2008). This article is complete with footnotes citing the sources of the various statistics.

Guide to the political left in media bias ... internet search result

RESEARCH ON MEDIA BIAS The leftwing bias of the American mass media is pervasive and quantifiable. Since the 1980s, studies have consistently shown that the professionals who constitute America’s mainstream news media – reporters, editors, anchors, publishers, correspondents, bureau chiefs, and executives at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks – are preponderantly left-oriented and Democrat. These studies have excluded commentators, editorialists, and opinion columnists – all of whom make it clear that they are giving their opinions and analyses of the news as they view it. Rather, the focus of the research has been on those individuals whose ostensible duty is to impartially and comprehensively present the relevant facts to the readers, listeners, and viewers. A useful way of gauging the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that industry believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. For example, research shows that: Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia. Some 71% agree that the “government should work to ensure that everyone has a job.” 75% agree that the “government should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor.” 56% say that the United States has exploited the nations of the Third World. 57% say that America’s disproportionate consumption of the world’s natural resources is “immoral.” Nearly half agree that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated.” Only 30% agree that “private enterprise is fair to workers.” It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks: In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater. In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon. In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon. In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford. In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan. In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history. In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1. In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2. Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor. In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio. In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other. The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings: In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans. In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans. In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans. In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans. We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum: In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives. In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives. In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives. In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives. In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1. In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1. In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative. Bias in the news media manifests itself most powerfully not in the form of outright, intentional lies, but is most often a function of what reporters choose not to tell their audience; i.e., the facts they purposely omit so as to avoid contradicting the political narrative they wish to advance. As media researchers Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo put it: “[F]or every sin of commission…we believe that there are hundreds, and maybe thousands, of sins of omission – cases where a journalist chose facts or stories that only one side of the political spectrum is likely to mention.” By no means is such activity the result of an organized campaign or conspiracy. Media expert Bernard Goldberg says: “No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.” Goldberg explains that "a lot of newspeople … got into journalism in the first place" so they could: (a) "change the world and make it a better place," and (b) use their positions as platforms from which to “sho[w] compassion,” which “makes us feel good about ourselves.” Expanding further upon this point, Goldberg quotes researcher Robert Lichter of the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs, who said that journalists increasingly "see themselves as society’s designated saviors," striving to “awaken the national conscience and force public action.” Or as ABC News anchor Peter Jennings admitted to the Boston Globe in July 2001: “Those of us who went into journalism in the ’50s or ’60s, it was sort of a liberal thing to do: Save the world.” Adapted from: "In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias," by John Perazzo (October 31, 2008). This article is complete with footnotes citing the sources of the various statistics.

Obamayouth Corp and Hitler youth of Germany ... Fema search

A LOT of guns and ammo bought with our tax dollars for the followers of o

- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -

Obama FEMA Corp recruits conjure up memories of the Hitler Youth of 1930’s Germany

October 19, 2012
The federal government calls them FEMA Corps. But they conjure up memories of the Hitler Youth of 1930’s Germany. Regardless of their name, the Dept of Homeland Security has just graduated its first class of 231 Homeland Youth. Kids, aged 18-24 and recruited from the President’s AmeriCorp volunteers, they represent the first wave of DHS’s youth corps, designed specifically to create a full time, paid, standing army of FEMA Youth across the country.
On September 13, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security graduated its first class of FEMA Corps first-responders. While the idea of having a volunteer force of tens of thousands of volunteers scattered across the country to aid in times of natural disasters sounds great, the details and timing of this new government army is somewhat curious, if not disturbing.
DHS raising an armed army
The first problem one finds with this ‘new army’ is the fact that they are mere children. Yes, 18 is generally the legal age a person can sign a contract, join the military or be tried as an adult. But ask any parent – an 18, 20 or even a 24 year-old is still a naïve, readily-influenced kid.
Read more

---

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/obama-fema-corp-recruits-conjure-up-memories-of-the-hitler-youth-of-1930s-germany/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2013 Infowars. All rights reserved.

Back with Maxine! Thx Tom & Carolyn L!

New MAXINE With Some Explaining Where Did Maxine Come From?
This is interesting. I never knew who the creator of Maxine was! After the Maxine jokes there is a summary on how she was created and a photo of her creator. More from the gal everyone loves and admires, and you finally get to meet her creator at the end.

AFTER THAT THERE ARE NEW ONES NEVER SEEN BEFORE.....I loved it!



















Hummmmmm! How True.









Creator

Of Maxine 

John Wagner, Hallmark artist since 1970, says Maxine was inspired by his mother, his maiden aunts and his grandmother, the woman who bought him art lessons when 'fill in the pumpkins'was about the extent of his art classes at St. John's Catholic School in Leonia N.J.

John remembers doodling as a preschooler and says both his grandmother and his mother encouraged his artistic interests. He eventually attended the Vesper George School of Art in Boston and landed at Hallmark as part of a new artists group. But it was the birth of the humorous Shoebox Greetings (a tiny little division of Hallmark) in 1986 that added a new dimension to John's professional life. The Shoebox way of seeing the world unleashed his talents and he created Maxine.

Why the name 'Maxine'? 'People at Shoebox started referring to the character as 'John Wagner's old lady,' and I knew that would get me into trouble with my wife,' John says. The Shoebox team had a contest among themselves to name the character and three of the approximately 30 entries suggested 'Maxine'. John says the name is perfect.

John, who says he's humbled by such acceptance of Maxine, admits he's proud of her.

Now you know the story of how Maxine came to be.
SOME NEW M A XINES !I haven't seen these before. Good ones.

If you ain't laughin'...........you ain't livin!"

Best to lock with inside door locks ... Thx Marge R & Friends!

I locked my car. As I walked away I heard my car door unlock. I went back and locked my car again three times. Each time, as soon as I started to walk away, I would hear it unlock again!! Naturally alarmed, I looked around and there were two guys sitting in a car in the fire lane next to the store. They were obviously ...watching me intently, and there was no doubt they were somehow involved in this very weird situation . I quickly chucked the errand I was on, jumped in my car and sped away. I went straight to the police station, told them what had happened, and found out I was part of a new, and very successful, scheme being used to gain entry into cars. Two weeks later, my friend's son had a similar happening....
While traveling, my friend's son stopped at a roadside rest to use the bathroom. When he came out to his car less than 4-5 minutes later, someone had gotten into his car and stolen his cell phone, laptop computer, GPS navigator, briefcase.....you name it. He called the police and since there were no signs of his car being broken into, the police told him he had been a victim of the latest robbery tactic -- there is a device that robbers are using now to clone your security code when you lock your doors on your car using your key-chain locking device..

They sit a distance away and watch for their next victim. They know you are going inside of the store, restaurant, or bathroom and that they now have a few minutes to steal and run. The police officer said to manually lock your car door-by hitting the lock button inside the car -- that way if there is someone sitting in a parking lot watching for their next victim, it will not be you.

When you hit the lock button on your car upon exiting, it does not send the security code, but if you walk away and use the door lock on your key chain, it sends the code through the airwaves where it can be instantly stolen

Be wisely aware of what you just read and please pass this note on. Look how many times we all lock our doors with our remote just to be sure we remembered to lock them -- and bingo, someone has our code...and whatever was in our car.  --Please share with everyone you know.

To my ageless friends ... Thx Tom C and T & C L!

TO MY AGELESS FRIENDS1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: How to be cruel to old guys: AARP Eye Chart 11: 12: