CBS Behind Slew of Anti-Choice Billboards in Georgia

For the past month, reproductive justice groups in Atlanta, Georgia have been fighting against an anti-choice campaign by Georgia Right to Life and a group called the Radiance Foundation. The two groups have collaborated to buy billboard space throughout the city calling black children “an endangered species,” and advocating for laws to limit the reproductive choices of women of color, as well as to push for laws banning abortion based on “the race or the sex of the child.”

Now it turns out that the billboards are the property of CBS Outdoors, a subsidiary of the multi-media CBS corporation.

The link

The Wrong Wing has done a good job of spinning the myth of the "mainstream liberal media bias". It is not nor has it ever been true.

Your title just shows the importance of proper punctuation. For example, "Liberal media, bias my ass" would mean something completely different.

You're wrong about that. Studies conducted by UCLA, Dartmouth, and the ASNE have confirmed a liberal media bias.

How do you explain the press' treatment of liberal stalwarts such as Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore?

Well then, I guess it's true that "Truth has a liberal bias".

People turn on people.
Been that way since Cain and Abel.

The studies found a liberal bias in the majority of reporting overall. The studies didn't conclude that every single media outlet/person in every single piece of reporting favored the left.

Interesting. During the bi-partisan summit last week, CNN went to commercials only when Democrats were speaking, often missing the entire statement of a Democrat. Never went to breaks when Republicans were speaking. Clearly designed to favor the statements of Republicans and get their message out over those of Democrats. Just one example proving your "every single piece of reporting favored the left" is hyperbole. Always and never statements are usually wrong.

The Democrats are not seen as pro=business. I am not saying that to be critical because some businesses need a strong leash. Even liberal media outlets are businesses. I doubt that any of them are going to pay less for health care for their people if this thing becomes law.

Expect no help is what I am saying. The wallet votes and the wallet influences news.

I think Democrats have learned to "expect no help" from the media. And your knowledge of the wallet, is the basis for the title, "Liberal Media Bias, my ass!" The days of an independent news division, if they ever existed, are long gone.

About the UCLA study:

The authors have previously received funding from the three premier conservative think tanks in the United States: the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI), The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.

The ASNE study didn't find "liberal bias," it just found that most people think newspapers are "biased and ethically compromised" either to the right or left--depending on how each respondent self-identified. Conservatives tended to think their newspaper was more liberal, and liberals that their newspapers were more conservative.

Don't know enough about the other guy but I would guess it's a telling sign that he no longer teaches at Dartmouth and is now at a school in Virginia (where Newt Gingrich is considered a liberal).

If you're suggesting an editorial board looking at John "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" McCain and his tag-along nincompoop Sarah Palin, coming to the conclusion that the other candidate was preferred is a "bias", then we'll have to agree to disagree or you're not being serious.

I know candidates who have been endorsed by and had their opponents endorsed by the same paper. Did that media source have a bias and then lose it?

I'm suggesting (seriously) that the Democrats received "help" from the media in the last election.

The topic is "Liberal Media Bias". It's a myth created by the Wrong Wing in order to brainwash the lemmings who will give it traction. Every candidate seeks endorsements and, yes, they can help (they don't always). But, it is not due to a "Liberal Media Bias". And Democrats don't automatically expect them (or help) as they would if a "Liberal Media Bias" existed.

Well, look at the alternative. Can anyone seriously suggest that McCain was a better alternative?

Obama was fortunate that the republicans nominated McCain, rather than say Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, or any number of other competent republicans.

Ahem. I was responding to:

You're not turning all Turnow on me, are you?

But speaking of liberal media bias, we have acknowledgement straight from the donkey's mouth:

“I don’t know if it’s 95 percent...[but] there are enough [liberals] in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction....It’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.”
— ABC News political director Mark Halperin appearing on The Hugh Hewitt Show, October 30, 2006

The Hugh Hewitt show? This is your "proof"? LMAO

Hugh Hewitt is just to the right of Adolf Eichmann, and Halperin claims to "agree with everything he says politically."

Gee, I wonder if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity think there's a "liberal bias" in the media, too?

Thank you, SemantiCop. Sheese.

So that's proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

The piece you cited said: "In contrast, when we did our final count in 2004, John Kerry barely edged George Bush, 213-205, and in elections before then, the GOP candidate almost always took the lion's share of endorsements."

Emphasis mine. So, in the past, the GOP got "help" from the media? That statement practically invalidates the rest of the article, imho.

Locally, I've heard a lot of people say that if the newspaper endorses a candidate, they're more likely to vote against that candidate. I'm not saying that's a majority opinion...I really wouldn't know...but it does go to show that newspaper endorsements are not always a help. I know I've always been skeptical about anybody endorsed by the Seattle Times, for example.

Newspaper? Ah, obscure historical reference, had to wiki the term.

I think the "majority" of the electorate have come to despise the "media" in all its forms, except perhaps the non-media media like the Daily Show which seems to hold for people more "truth" in its "coverage" than much of the traditional unbiased brick and mortar media of the past, so the endless debates over liberal bias are becoming as increasingly irrelevant as attempts at unbiased fair reporting. I think the new trend in "news" in fact is to have a viewpoint which has its drawbacks but its own honesty, too.

One additional point. In many larger newspapers, the editorial page reflects the publisher's (or owner's) voice and politics and is completely separate from the newsroom so political endorsements is not necessarily an indication of reporters' or general newsroom political leanings. I would agree, however, that in many newsrooms the individual political leaning is to the left, although in the best of them you could not tell from the reporting, or at least you could not some years back. Geographic exceptions aside, I think many reporters are closet liberals perhaps because they often see on a daily basis the failure of our institutions to address social justice issues and the humanistic toll that takes ... and of course because most reporters are pretty well educated. Sorry, couldn't resist.

That's silly talk.
Read the article again.

The article states that the GOP candidate has almost always taken the "lion's share of endorsements" yet the GOP candidate has not always won. So, really, how much clout and impact have endorsements really had on things? I remain unconvinced.

Since Greg Mitchell is the editor of Editor & Publisher which is devoted to the newspaper industry, I think he has a more favorable bias toward newspapers and their impact than much of the general public has making his POV questionable, imho.

I mean, gosh, Freelancer sounds pretty intelligent and he/she had to wiki it to figure out what we were even talking about.

And my original statement was 'I think Democrats have learned to "expect no help" from the media'

That in the last election, the overwhelming majority of newspapers could not help but see the difference between the Presidential candidates' and their VP candidates, to the point they endorsed the Democratic ticket is to their credit but should never and was not "expected".

"Help"? Yes... maybe.

"Expected"? Nope.