OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:58 pm

Is there a bias? Absolutely. Is it absolute? Absolutely not.

Hell, the media is just putting their mouths where their money is anyway.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2713742569

That's data from over the summer. I don't necessarily agree with the editorial, but the figures are interesting.

I'm quite sure that the numbers would be even more staggering if you include the real campaign season. I'm sure the numbers would be even more staggering if they weren't contributing via the See No Evil Obama website brought to you by George Soros. LOL

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The myth of an objective media is right up there with unicorns and sasquatch. Never existed and never will.

When your goal is to sell news for profit you'll do whatever you have to do to market your commodity. That's why they were rabid during Lewisnsky and why they've enjoyed making a pinata out of George W. Bush. Money. That's the prime directive. Journalistic sanctimony is right up there with politicians' hyprocisy on the list of disingenuous traits.

But that doesn't change the fact that on balance the majority of them are personally more liberal than conservative - a fact that cannot totally be eliminated from their reporting.

greggsand · Post by **greggsand** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:03 pm

RobVarak wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that on balance the majority of them are personally more liberal than conservative - a fact that cannot totally be eliminated from their reporting.

(if so) My question is "why"? Why do they tend to be more 'liberal'?

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:09 pm

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

Great points Paul! But don't you know? It's only the "liberal media" when they report something about their own that they don't like. I guess all that Reverend Wright and William Ayers stuff was reported by the same "Liberal Media"? And also when there is an article that damaging to their side, it's quickly dismissed because of the source. It's all very selective.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:13 pm

A Catholic convert who grew up in a Hindu household, Jindal has made his name by aligning himself with the cultural conservative wing of the Republican Party, fiercely opposing stem cell research and abortion while favoring the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.

I didn't think the first article I read about the guy would have such bad news.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:35 pm

RobVarak wrote:
Hell, the media is just putting their mouths where their money is anyway.

Those figures are probably dwarfed by the sums given by the media conglomerates for whom the reporters work.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:45 pm

wco81 wrote:
RobVarak wrote:
Hell, the media is just putting their mouths where their money is anyway.

Those figures are probably dwarfed by the sums given by the media conglomerates for whom the reporters work.

I agree, but as with Soros and his ilk all of that money is under the table these days. And I think the individual editors and reporters are where the bias creeps in anyway.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:54 pm

RobVarak wrote:Is there a bias? Absolutely. Is it absolute? Absolutely not.

Hell, the media is just putting their mouths where their money is anyway.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2713742569

Wow...so $0 in campaign contributions to the Republicans from Fox News? You mean even McCain's/Palin's home team couldn't support them? How telling is that.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:02 am

In the final season of Wired, they showed two factions in the Baltimore Sun newsroom, the publishers/management and the editors/reporters.

The first faction had plenty of control on what stories got reported, from the reporters they kept on.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:12 am

GTHobbes wrote:
RobVarak wrote:Is there a bias? Absolutely. Is it absolute? Absolutely not.

Hell, the media is just putting their mouths where their money is anyway.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 2713742569

Wow...so $0 in campaign contributions to the Republicans from Fox News? You mean even McCain's/Palin's home team couldn't support them? How telling is that.

I find it hilarious that you can see the same information I'm seeing, and yet draw that conclusion. Good lord.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:34 am

JackB1 wrote:
I am glad to hear this, but if this is true, why do we need to stay until 2011? That makes almost 10 years we are in Iraq and for what? To bring the violence level back to where it was before we invaded? Call me crazy, but to me that hardly sounds worth it.

I am glad your friends are still perservering, but I'm sure their families would rather they were home.

It won't be as many troops as we currently have in Korea and Germany. We will have support troops there until 2011.

My friends are dedicated soldiers who do not want to go home until the mission is done,wherever that may be. The Army is their life. They are soldiers. The families of my friends understand exactly what makes these men tick and enjoy the times they come home for leave. I love my family very much,given a chance I would go right back to Iraq or Afghanistan tomorrow. It is what it is my friend. Don't worry about the "Lifers". Worry about the reserve and NG troops that really have a civillian life. They are the ones that suffered heavy casualties in these wars.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:41 am

Feanor wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:
Jared wrote:The "liberal media" is a myth.
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.

I don't agree. Fox news has someone from both sides everytime there is a subject up for debate.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:38 am

GTHobbes wrote:
Wow...so $0 in campaign contributions to the Republicans from Fox News? You mean even McCain's/Palin's home team couldn't support them? How telling is that.

As I stated in my post, and as the link makes clear, that chart is from the summer....long before the conventions.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:49 am

JackDog wrote:
Feanor wrote:
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.
I don't agree. Fox news has someone from both sides everytime there is a subject up for debate.

Bull$hit. Fox News is a joke. He who screams and lies the loudest wins on Fox News and fortunately the majority of liberals do not subscribe to that policy. Hannity constantly berates and belittles his liberal guests like a spotty little bully. Don't even get me started on the "No Spin Zone" and the creepy womanizer/phone sex operator Bill O'Reilly. I wouldn't be surprised if they give Michael Savage his own segment next week.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:51 am

macsomjrr wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Feanor wrote: 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.
I don't agree. Fox news has someone from both sides everytime there is a subject up for debate.
Bull$hit. Fox News is a joke. He who screams and lies the loudest wins on Fox News and fortunately the majority of liberals do not subscribe to that policy. Hannity constantly berates and belittles his liberal guests like a spotty little bully. Don't even get me started on the "No Spin Zone" and the creepy womanizer/phone sex operator Bill O'Reilly. I wouldn't be surprised if they give Michael Savage his own segment next week.

But those guys aren't journalists, Mac. They're commentators. They're supposed to do that. To label the whole damned thing because of two people is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

What's ironic is that all this stupid Palin flap was first reported by Carl Cameron...of Fox News. First. Before anyone else. Shepard Smith called Joe the Plumber on the carpet today, as well. Shep...from Fox News.

Judging Hannity by journalistic standards is like judging Michael Phelps for his singing voice-it's not what he does. And besmirching Fox's ability to do fair reporting of actual news by Bill O'Reilly is like saying that ESPN is shitty because Dick Vitale is annoying.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:28 am

Teal wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:
JackDog wrote: I don't agree. Fox news has someone from both sides everytime there is a subject up for debate.
Bull$hit. Fox News is a joke. He who screams and lies the loudest wins on Fox News and fortunately the majority of liberals do not subscribe to that policy. Hannity constantly berates and belittles his liberal guests like a spotty little bully. Don't even get me started on the "No Spin Zone" and the creepy womanizer/phone sex operator Bill O'Reilly. I wouldn't be surprised if they give Michael Savage his own segment next week.
But those guys aren't journalists, Mac. They're commentators. They're supposed to do that. To label the whole damned thing because of two people is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

What's ironic is that all this stupid Palin flap was first reported by Carl Cameron...of Fox News. First. Before anyone else. Shepard Smith called Joe the Plumber on the carpet today, as well. Shep...from Fox News.

Judging Hannity by journalistic standards is like judging Michael Phelps for his singing voice-it's not what he does. And besmirching Fox's ability to do fair reporting of actual news by Bill O'Reilly is like saying that ESPN is shitty because Dick Vitale is annoying.

Yeah but my point is you don't get that kind of journalism on the other stations. I have no problem with the conservative agenda when it is presented appropriately as an equal platform with the liberal stuff but Fox News makes it seem like it is OK to just yell and scream your opinion as loudly as you can and bully your POV into the minds of the public. It is critical, when it comes to pulse pounding, tension gripping, controversial topics that everybody maintains a level head and keeps their cool. I don't think Fox subscribes to that and instead creates a forum for their people to just go crazy an spout all kinds of false accusations. Maybe it has changed recently I don't know, I haven't turned it on in a long while.

Post by **Jared** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:15 am

To add, people complain at length about MSNBC because it has two-three liberal commentators on opinion/commentary shows.

As for the news side of Fox News, there are mounds of evidence that show that it has a clear conservative bias. It's not just the prime-time commentators, it's the reporters as well.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:27 am

Jared wrote:As for the news side of Fox News, there are mounds of evidence that show that it has a clear conservative bias. It's not just the prime-time commentators, it's the reporters as well.

I don't dispute this, but when you compare Fox to Clinton News Network, CBS, NBC, ABC and their liberal slant, it is easy to see that liberal bias far outweighs conservative bias in today's media. I realize you and others choose not to see it that way and that is your prerogative.

At the end of the day, there are a great number of opinions flying around in this and previous political threads. It is also painfully obvious that many of us are on completely opposite mindsets regarding the emotionally-charged topic of politics. I have had my say here and thank you for letting me express those opinions.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:34 am

macsomjrr wrote:Yeah but my point is you don't get that kind of journalism on the other stations. I have no problem with the conservative agenda when it is presented appropriately as an equal platform with the liberal stuff but Fox News makes it seem like it is OK to just yell and scream your opinion as loudly as you can and bully your POV into the minds of the public.

Pure baloney, sliced for sandwiches.

Ever watched Chris Matthews on MSNBC? Ever seen one of Keith Olbermann's mouth-foaming opinion pieces on MSNBC? And what about Pat Buchanan's shouting matches with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC?

MSNBC has nearly as much volume above substance as Fox News. Only Chuck Todd keeps anything on the level at that network.

Matthews became overtly partisan during this election season because Russert was no longer around to rein him in. It's no coincidence that Matthews became a blatant left-wing, Obama shill on the air not long after Russert's death. Russert also NEVER would have allowed Olbermann -- a commentator -- to serve as the host of the Democratic National Convention for MSNBC, either.

MSNBC's political division always gave much more of an impression of objectivity than Fox or CNN due to Russert's firm, steady guidance. That guy had ENORMOUS, positive influence on the news divisions of NBC and MSNBC.

With his absence, all vestiges of objectivity were allowed to evaporate almost instantly at MSNBC. I think Williams and Brokaw's power at NBC at least keep that news division somewhat straight.

One can only hope Todd can gain the respect and power of Russert and return some objectivity to MSNBC. Cable news needs it.

Take care,
PK

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:35 am

I don't expect balance from O'Reilly anymore than I expect it from Olberman, they're partisans. But I also don't expect the Fox News morning anchor to interview a conservative media analyst who claims only 8 - 15 million americans are uninsured without pointing out that the US Census Bureau says it 47 million. That's just bad journalism.

[EDIT] The latest figure is actually 45.7 million:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/ ... 07asc.html

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:37 am

Feanor wrote:I don't expect balance from O'Reilly anymore than I expect it from Olberman, they're partisans. But I also don't expect the Fox News morning anchor to interview a conservative media analyst who claims only 8 - 15 million americans are uninsured without pointing out that the US Census Bureau says it 47 million. That's just bad journalism.

Of course it is, just like CNN running a lead Web news story about the sinking chances of the McCain-Palin campaign based solely on the comments of its own political commentator Bill Schneider. No analysis tag, too; it was packaged as news.

Disgraceful.

Take care,
PK

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:39 am

If those comments were based on polling data that showed McCain's numbers going south in the important states, then surely that is news? If they weren't, then that is bad journalism, too.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:44 am

Feanor wrote:If those comments were based on polling data that showed McCain's numbers going south in the important states, then surely that is news? If they weren't, then that is bad journalism, too.

It was about an assertion or two shy of a pure opinion piece.

One thing to realize about Fox News, too: Some of their pundits either are frequent guests or hosts of conservative talk radio shows. And in right wing talk radio, volume rules.

Can you think of one right-wing talk radio icon who isn't a ranter, raver or screamer? Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Michael Reagan. Even Glenn Beck gets frothed up.

It's hard for those people to turn down the volume knob when on TV. For them, TV and radio are just like Nigel Tufnel's amps: "This one goes to 11."

Right wingers are used to that kind of rhetoric and relish it, judging by the ratings for those radio programs. So Fox News would be nuts to turn down the volume for its political shows.

Take care,
PK

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:31 am

macsomjrr wrote:
Bull$hit. Fox News is a joke. He who screams and lies the loudest wins on Fox News and fortunately the majority of liberals do not subscribe to that policy. Hannity constantly berates and belittles his liberal guests like a spotty little bully. Don't even get me started on the "No Spin Zone" and the creepy womanizer/phone sex operator Bill O'Reilly. I wouldn't be surprised if they give Michael Savage his own segment next week.

Call it whatever the f*ck you want. I watch them all and at some point they're all a joke. If you don't see that then your blind. I watched O'Reilly interview Clinton,McCain and Obama. If he was what you claim,why did Clinton and Obama do his show? Because of his ratings. He kills MSNBC and CNN in that timeslot. Why? because he goes after them all. After his interviews he didn't come away with anyones jizz dripping down his chin like Olbermann and Matthews. They were so bad even Bill Bill Maher said they were ready to have sex with Obama. O'Reily goes after them all on both sides and in the middle. If you really watched his show you would know that. Sounds like your a fan of Olbermann. He relies on the Daily Kos and Media Matters for his talking points. AWSOME!!

Hannity goes after the liberals and Colmes goes after the conservitives. That's what they do! That's why they have a show. The difference between you and I is simple. I want to see both side grilled for fuckups. You don't.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:48 am

Matthews is chasing ratings. Country is against Bush and the Republicans so he challenged the GOP guests more, especially those saying Obama was anti-American or socialist.

In 2000 and 2004, he challenged the Democrats, saying why do liberals say Republican candidates aren't smart and so on.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:01 am

Can we at least all agree that outlets for true "news" are severly lacking in this country?