DivotMaker wrote:
The "liberal media" has been around for years...where have you been?
Living under a rock, I guess. I started hearing about it when Bushie took office, but I've never understood it.
Then you don't listen to AM talk radio because it THE buzzword on nearly every other station. I guess radio doesn't count as media to right wingers.
It allows conservatives to conveniently disregard anything that's reported that they don't agree with. It's not that bias doesn't show up, or that the media can't be a bunch of hacks. But any story negative toward a conservative is written off as liberal bias. It's become a crutch.
It is funny, though, how quickly that unreliable media will be cited when a story criticizes something liberal.
I disagree. Sure there are members who arent liberal and some that are conservative...but for the most part they are. They didnt even try to hide it this election.
You guys sling that word "liberal" around like it's something to be ashamed of.
It is. It puts you in the same column as Alan Colmes... Ashamed yet?????
Brando70 wrote:It allows conservatives to conveniently disregard anything that's reported that they don't agree with.
It does a lot of that. Every day...but it still doesnt change the bias that exists . That bias is just plain dishonest.
I will be the first to agree that the media is dysfunctional. They are often lazy, unprofessional, and conformist. They tend to create certain narratives and stick with them. It's just that those problems don't always manifest themselves in "liberal" bias.
The bigger problem I see, from both conservatives and liberals, is a misperception that blogging is more accurate than the media is. That's really dangerous, because blogs actually move journalism closer to the opinionated punditry that pervades it, not away from that. Blogs do often cover things that may be overlooked, but most blogging exhibits the worst tendencies of journalism.
Interesting little write-up on how the polls fared against the actual election. Nate Silver at 538.com was incredibly accurate in both the popular vote finals and the electoral projections.
Could not disagree more. It is as obvious as the nose on your face, but I understand if you choose not to believe it.
What's obvious is that some conservatives only want to hear Fox News "news" where right wing guests are allowed to tell blatant lies without being challenged. Anything else is conveniently dismissed as the liberal media.
Could not disagree more. It is as obvious as the nose on your face, but I understand if you choose not to believe it.
What's obvious is that some conservatives only want to hear Fox News "news" where right wing guests are allowed to tell blatant lies without being challenged. Anything else is conveniently dismissed as the liberal media.
Brando70 wrote:Interesting little write-up on how the polls fared against the actual election. Nate Silver at 538.com was incredibly accurate in both the popular vote finals and the electoral projections.
Yeah, I was amazed when pairing up Nate's last map and projected vote totals and the actuals Wednesday morning.
I know where I'm going for vote projections in 2012!
And for political news, Politico.com crushed most mainstream media outlets during the campaign and continues to do so this week. Politico broke the story that Obama offered the "chief" position to Emanuel, was the first to report that Emanuel accepted and also broke the story for Obama's pick for White House press secretary.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
DivotMaker wrote:
Could not disagree more. It is as obvious as the nose on your face, but I understand if you choose not to believe it.
What's obvious is that some conservatives only want to hear Fox News "news" where right wing guests are allowed to tell blatant lies without being challenged. Anything else is conveniently dismissed as the liberal media.
It never gets old, folks...
It wasnt that funny because Fox news does suck balls. It is the right wing version of CNN...NBC...ABC...CBS.
If the "liberal media" is a myth, then why did the media serve as a lynch mob during Clinton's impeachment 10 years ago? Before Obama, Clinton was the left wing's most shining poster boy since Bobby Kennedy.
Or is the "liberal media" a recent phenomenon? And is it possible that maybe the media is reporting what 72 percent of the American public believes -- that George W. Bush is a sh*tty president who isn't doing a good job?
Put an effective, productive, bipartisan Republican in the Oval Office, and I don't think he or she would be pilloried just because of GOP membership. I don't recall the media ripping Reagan to shreds, and I recall the media praising George Bush during the Gulf War.
I also remember the "liberal media" praising George W. Bush for his leadership immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 because let's face it: Bush was an effective, calming, reassuring leader during the immediate aftermath. He built tremendous equity with all of the American people and the world for that fine work, and then he pissed nearly all of it away with decisions based on neocon and free-market ideology instead of rational governing from the right-center.
Take care,
PK
Last edited by pk500 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
The defeat was crushing for the Republican party. You're just bitter.
@ 34 - If you read the link you'll see a former adviser of McCain is quoted in support of the article's headline, it wasn't just Reuters interviewing their word processor.
Dan Schnur, communications director for McCain's 2000 presidential bid and now head of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, agreed.
"I don't think there's partisan or ideological bias because the mainstream media tries not to take sides in policy disagreements," he said. "Favorable news coverage is ... more a function of favorable poll numbers."
Feanor wrote:The defeat was crushing for the Republican party. You're just bitter.
@ 34 - If you read the link you'll see a former adviser of McCain is quoted in support of the article's headline, it wasn't just Reuters interviewing their word processor.
I'm not bitter; that's just the taste you've gotten in your mouth from having your head up your ass...
I'm also not a republican, poindexter, so what do I care? What lost Tuesday were moderates. They have the same taste in their mouths...
Last edited by Teal on Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Feanor wrote:The defeat was crushing for the Republican party. You're just bitter.
@ 34 - If you read the link you'll see a former adviser of McCain is quoted in support of the article's headline, it wasn't just Reuters interviewing their word processor.
When I signed up. I didnt know there would be reading....
Yeah, these Election threads consume enough of our time without reading every link. If I had stayed out of this thread all year I could have played and finished two or three extra games by now.
Last edited by Feanor on Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pk500 wrote:If the "liberal media" is a myth, then why did the media serve as a lynch mob during Clinton's impeachment 10 years ago? Before Obama, Clinton was the left wing's most shining poster boy since Bobby Kennedy.
Or is the "liberal media" a recent phenomenon? And is it possible that maybe the media is reporting what 72 percent of the American public believes -- that George W. Bush is a sh*tty president who isn't doing a good job?
Put an effective, productive, bipartisan Republican in the Oval Office, and I don't think he or she would be pilloried just because of GOP membership. I don't recall the media ripping Reagan to shreds, and I recall the media praising George Bush during the Gulf War.
I also remember the "liberal media" praising George W. Bush for his leadership immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 because let's face it: Bush was an effective, calming, reassuring leader during the immediate aftermath. He built tremendous equity with all of the American people and the world for that fine work, and then he pissed nearly all of it away with decisions based on neocon and free-market ideology instead of rational governing from the right-center.
Take care,
PK
Well said PK. The one thing I'd like to know:
If the media truly has a "liberal bias", could someone explain "why"?
My Tesla referral code - get free supercharger miles!! https://ts.la/gregg43474
Feanor wrote:Yeah, these Election thread consume enough of our time without reading every link. If I had stayed out of this thread all year I could have played and finished two or three extra games by now.
I have a new rogue to level up.
I will have to respectfully disagree as I move along down the path to Westfall.
It's the same complaints: When the media doesn't spin things for the Republican, it's liberal media bias. PK brings up some good points. I'd say that if the media was soooo liberally biased, why weren't they very skeptical about the WMD claims until after the fact. The "liberal" NYT printed a bunch of bull stories about WMDs that weren't at all true. The press excoriated Clinton and went after him like crazy. Or how about Gore, and the way they attacked him for things that weren't true (his invented the Internet claim, as one of many examples).
None of these are EVER brought up when discussing "liberal" bias, because they are clear examples of the opposite. "Liberal bias" is just a way for conservatives to complain because the output of the press doesn't mirror the National Review or the WSJ editorial pages.
As one example, look at all the complaining about the bias against Palin and not against Biden for gaffes. This would be legitimate, IF Palin's statements were just gaffes. But they weren't. The complaining about the unfair treatment of Palin is just a smokescreen to try and a) make her comments equivalent to gaffes (when they're not) and b) distract from what those comments reveal about her knowledge.
Ashamed yet?????
