Biased media round up for Sunday -1

CNN's shell game

Astronomer and former BBC science correspondent David Whitehouse takes BBC to task over it's blatantly taking sides in the climate change debate.

Thomas Joscelyn takes the New York Times to the cleaners -New York Times Distorts Qaeda Links.
(so what's new, I am tempted to ask.)
(via -Powerline)
Victor Hanson had taken the same dirty laundry to the cleaners earlier - The New York Times Surrenders.

BBC doctors TV footage of Gordon Brown.
(via -Biased BBC)

From Bill Kristol-

"The Defeatist Democrats have lots of support from the mainstream media, most of whom have simply given up on reporting the war or analyzing arguments about the war. Actually, the newsmen who know something, like John F. Burns and Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times, have produced some terrific reporting. But run-of-the-mill foreign policy and White House reporters have little interest in what is actually happening in Iraq, or in a real consideration of the likely outcomes of different policy options. They're not even reporting what's happening in Washington. They're simply committed to discrediting the war and humiliating the Bush administration. "

Americans Overwhelmingly Believe Media Are Liberally Biased
-"By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals."

Former BBC producer has an article- 'Here is the news (as we want to report it)'- on the iron-grip of 'media-liberalism'. Some of his insights are striking, for example-

We belonged instead to a dispersed ''metropolitan-media-arts-graduate'' tribe. We met over coffee, lunch, drinks and dinner to reinforce our views on the evils of apartheid, nuclear deterrence, capital punishment, the British Empire, big business, advertising, public relations, the Royal Family, the defence budget? it's a wonder we ever got home. We so rarely encountered any coherent opposing arguments that we took our group-think as the views of all right-thinking people.

The second factor which shaped our media liberal attitudes was a sense of exclusion. We saw ourselves as part of the intellectual élite, full of ideas about how the country should be run, and yet with no involvement in the process or power to do anything about it. Being naïve in the way institutions actually work, yet having good arts degrees from reputable universities, we were convinced that Britain's problems were
the result of the stupidity of the people in charge. We ignored the tedious practicalities of getting institutions to adopt and implement ideas.

This ignorance of the realities of government and management enabled us to occupy the moral high ground. We saw ourselves as clever people in a stupid world, upright people in a corrupt world, compassionate people in a brutal world, libertarian people in an authoritarian world. We were not Marxists but accepted a lot of Marxist social analysis. Some people called us arrogant; looking back, I am afraid I cannot dispute the epithet.

We also had an almost complete ignorance of market economics. That ignorance is still there. Say ''Tesco'' to a media liberal and the patellar reflex says, "Exploiting African farmers and driving out small shopkeepers". The achievement of providing the range of goods, the competitive prices, the food quality, the speed of service and the ease of parking that attract millions of shoppers every day does not show up on the media liberal radar.

(emphasis mine)