Talk:What Liberal Media?

I am questioning the veracity of the following sentence, written by the author of this article. "...Alterman concludes that the media have neither a neutral nor conservative bias.". According to text which appears on the book jacket flaps "...Alterman find the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal...". (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/bk_descript.htm)

I changed the word "seeks" to "purports" in the following sentence: "The web site Oh, That Liberal Media, named in apparent response to the title of this book, purports to document alleged cases of 'liberal bias' in media reporting." The word "seeks" implies a good faith and honest effort to document liberal bias in the media, and I don't see that there. As a moderate, I can honestly say that much of what the website calls "liberal bias" are simply things that are not conservative enough for them. Also, take a look at how they define "liberal": (http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/001581.html) Tzepish 00:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeesh. How anything founded on a strawman argument can be considered rational is beyond me. Kasreyn 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of anonymous edit

Hi to all. I reverted just now the version of 14:34, 10 April 2007 where I had placed an "advert" tag on the article. Some anonymous user identified only as 201.64.96.2 did an edit that took this out, without any explanation (so I can only assume it to be vandalism, judging from the lack of explanation or attribution).

My reason for putting this tag on the article is that it seems to me that this article needs some help. The concluding "puff"[1] of Alterman's book that is not even sourced to the original article, but comes from the promotional website for the book, is especially egregious here. I'm not sure it helps the reader to be told how great the book is according to blurbs of praise extracted from its website; what would be much better is some kind of a summary.

What, in fact, is the "detailed research" done by Altermann? Ann Coulter's fans would attribute "detailed research" to her, too, but I see from the page on her that the many controversies about the quality of her research have been amply detailed. I would like to see some further detail pro and con about what Alterman presents given in this space (albeit with more NPOV and without some of the "gotcha" quality some have added to the Coulter article at present). That would do more of a service to the reader than telling him/her nothing more than that the author and/or publisher think that their product is "A well-documented, even-tempered and witty answer...." What does everyone else think? --MollyTheCat 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous edits

I removed the NPOV phrase "detailed research" in the second sentence of the article. This claim is obvious debatable and was not referenced. If one wanted to go into detail on what constitutes detailed research in the context of this particular book, more power to you. Otherwise, it doesn't really belong. Additionally, I added a brief excerpt from The American Spectator's review of the book to counterbalance the weight of the LATimes review, which previously was the only review quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talk2farley (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on What Liberal Media?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]