why is yahoo so left leaning on its news coverage..???
413763
Probably because the owners ar the liberal left extremists.
20334
Because the media has an avowed liberal stance when it comes to such matters; that which they deem newsworthy- and an affront to anything they consider damaging to their agenda- will get front page news and major headlines. Anything they don't want to be noticed by the majority will be hidden in the back pages of the society section, thereby still 'reporting' the news, but not giving it the same prominence it should have had because it didn't push their agenda forward.
239850
Because the main stream media is very left wing and biased against the conseritives in this country. They publish only the bad news. Take Iraq, the cover bombings & alleged atrocities and say nothing about the schools being built, GIs interacting with the population and kids, etc.
926319
i'm not surprised, i went on the link and its the post-standard ! a typically left leaning publication and was surprised too that this professor is also liberal and liberally educated ! wow, its nice to hear someone tell the truth for a change instead of using something to back up their agendas...thanks for the link.
1167384
I actually completely disagree that the media is 'liberal'. I've seen too many highly controversial stories reported on PBS The Newshour that are never shown on network news. \n\nI think the old saying 'liberal media' is just another way the rightwing is manipulating us. They WANT us to think that so that we don't believe the real stuff... like I said some of the stories I have seen on PBS news.\n\nI wish ppl would wake up... not saying you.. but ppl in general and begin to think on their own and search for the whole, complete, real story on things.\n\nBTW, loved your comment on my B. Laden question. Some ppl argue with the truth even when it is staring them in the face.\n\nAlso, capitalism has never worked throughout history for the exact reasons we are seeing develop now.
246429
Because, unfortunatly, even with the increase in news coverage, people research less and just listen to the sound bytes.\n\nIf they researched more, they might learn that the so-called "polls" recently were farces.  The "troops want out of Iraq in 1 year" poll was sub-contracted by Zogby to a little known Lebenese "polling firm" that I can't find much about.  There are doubts the poll was ever done.  Then there is the Presidential approval "polls" which show President Bush with a 33% approval rating.  What they didn't tell you was the sample was over 70% Democrat... Which changes the dynamics totally (at least 5% of the approval rating was Dems assuming the other 20-25% Republican samples were all in support of the President).\n\nIn addition, far to many people believe the "anti-war" groups and their lies, which get a lot of selective press coverage.  Selective because the "investigative journalists" who thought Echelon was Clinton's gift to National Security in the 90s won't do anything to investigate the motives and funding of these "anti-war" groups.\n\nTo the leftists who will rant and rave at what I write, look at the links. Are you one of the left who "Supports the Troops when they kill their officers"? ( http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/webl... ) Or do you advocate SF Indymedia's more direct approach? ( http://www.indybay.org/uploads/military_... ) Yes, right from Indymedia's own site!!
123958
I actually think the media has much more of a conservative slant.  Considering that most main-stream media is owned by giant corporations, this is not surprising.\n\nMay I ask how you manage to fit so much information into your questions without going into the additional details?
423076
Once again the right wing asserts as truth something that is not, then acts on that "truth" to bring things more to their way of thinking. They claim that mainstream media is liberal, therefore they need to be blatantly conservative to offset the media bias. They ignore the vast conservative ownership and control of much of the media, ignore the proud tradition of the press being critical of whatever government is in power, and point only to the   majority of reporters as "liberal." Maybe so, but nothing on tv compares remotely to the blatant drumbeat of the GOP talking points on Fox.\nFox so completely contaminates their news with their political bias, that anyone who has the sense to get a broad picture of the issues can only be shocked by Fox's one-sidedness. \nFair and balanced is a claim similar to Bush's of being a uniter. Sure.
1063319
do you know what is amazing... conservatives can see though the bias of your site, yet say O'Riley is unbias?\n\nIt's really crazy, if they have enough logic to see through one person's bias, but no enough to see through bias on their own side... O'Riley doesn't even try to hide it... \n\nI mean I can see Franken and Moore are bias... it's blatantly obvious... yet I don't think it's even as obvious as Coulter, Rush, Hannity and O'Riley... oh well, I guess they have the rose colored glasses on...
432811
I'd like to know who the Liberal Media are today.  Is it someone like Judith Miller with a direct line to the White House? Or maybe it's the Fox News Channel on cable. Or Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews on MSNBC.\n\nThe Liberal Media is a myth these days.  If it weren't for the New York Times, who have employed for many years persons of all political bent, including notable Conservative William Safire, and the above mentioned mouthpiece for the sitting President, we wouldn't ever know anything that the Executive Branch didn't want us to know.\n\nAdmittedly, much of the media we experience with national exposure are no longer impartial reporters of the news, and a survey of them would almost certainly favor the Conservative viewpoint. \n\nYou see where that's gotten us.  Most of what we have belatedly learned about the run up to the war has been from leaks from persons with a lot to lose, not from investigative reporting.\n\nAttila the Hun could own the different forms of media as far as I'm concerned, so long as the reporters and their managers were not constrained by the owner. \n\nHowever, that does not appear to be the case with owner Rupert Murdock, a foreigner, whose media holding seem only to present a Conservative viewpoint, with an occasional Liberal lamb decoy. I am very uneasy with this.
293270
It could be because BBC news is British English and Yahoo is American English. You may be more acquainted with American English. We do export more media than do the British.
1099375
.. only listen to Rush and read the Nation Review... everyone else is lying... hahahahaha\n\nseems a little bit of a paranoid attitude to me when you think the vast majority of media is against you... doesn't it... and they say "liberalism" is a mental disorder?
220503
Liberal news.\n\nLeft serving media would rather have the "Bush Bash" value.
701481
Because the press has a liberal bias.
64122
switch to any news channel..they got some assumptions regarding that..bt dont believe them just think reverse of that..lol
1048591
I can find the biases in mine easily.  I can tell which High Schools it favors, which local policies it likes.  I can also tell that the editors are liberal.  It is obvious from their collumns.  They do print editorials that represent both sides of the asile, but being from a liberal state, the Democrat side does tend to get more space.
1025540
If you're going to state questions, try to be a little non-bias about them.  Every word you've typed has "left-wing nutjob" written all over them.  Try again later.