If you think the Media is honest and credible. . . .

[Foxfyre]

. . . .then you won't enjoy this thread that I would like to dedicate to the media who is in bed with a particular candidate or political party to the extent it will distort or flat out lie or, at best, fail to fact check.

As most of the mainstream MSM tilts left, most of what I observe in their reporting favors Obama and/or the Democrats, but if evidence can be found that any legitimate mainstream media source is favoring Romney and/or the Republcians and/or any other political party or candidate, that would be fair game here.

So post your thoughts and most especially the evidence you find related to this here.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the story that prompted this thread:

President Barack Obama is having trouble drawing large crowds on the campaign trail. At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, his campaign was forced to move his acceptance speech from the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium to the 20,000 Time Warner Cable Arena, citing weather as the excuse. But the media are always eager to help--for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.

Read more: Media Claims 18K People Attended Obama Event At 5K Seat Arena - Obama Campaign Event - Fox Nation

 

[cereal_killer]

legitimate mainstream media source

Oxymoron

 

[California Girl]

Here's a classic example of the left wing response to a challenge... on twitter, I followed a particular, left wing media hack who shall remain nameless... let's call him Thin Skinned Fucking Baby - which could give away his identity, I know.... but it's the best I can come up with.... anyway, I digress... I followed this TSFB for a while... and he tweeted a link to an article he wrote... in which he had quoted Paul Ryan... he took one sentence out of a full speech and tore it to shreds... So I asked him to explain why he felt it appropriate to remove the context in order to make a point... which I said was creating faux outrage and as such was a lie....

He blocked me.

LMAO.

 

[Foxfyre]

legitimate mainstream media source

Oxymoron

You think? Well, I used that phrase to differentiate the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, cable news, etc.) from websites like Media Matters, Think Progress, Daily KOS, Newsmax, or other leftwing or rightwing sites that are deliberately and openly skewed in favor of a particular ideology.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's another example. The article itself is from Mediate.com, which I normally would not use as a source, but it pulls together in an easily readable form the sequence of events that I have read or heard in the mainstream media including Fox, CNN, and WaPo:

A video that broke on the Drudge Report on Tuesday and circulated widely which purports to show President Barack Obama as an Illinois state senator advocating for laws that favor redistribution of wealth continues to shift the focus of the presidential campaign. Today on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell said that neither NBC News nor MSNBC will air the video because they have not yet independently authenticated that the voice on the video is that of President Obama.

In the video in question, Obama is speaking to an audience of college students at Loyola University. “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and, hence, facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution – at least, at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” the voice which is supposedly that of Obama’s says.

“Because we have not, independently at NBC News and MSNBC, authenticated it, we’re not airing it,” said Mitchell

In the following segment, Mitchell interviewed President Obama’s campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt about the video and the president’s response to charges he advocated for a policy that favors the redistribution of wealth.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, “The Obama campaign confirmed that is Obama’s voice on the recording and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney’s criticism of it.”
NBC News Not Airing Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Tape Because They Have Not Yet ‘Authenticated It’ | Mediaite

And after being called on the carpet for 'favoritism', NBC did subsequently air the tape well behind others who had already done so.

 

[blastoff]

If you think the Media is honest and credible. . . .

...you've got a screw loose.

 

[Foxfyre]

Though this thread is primarily focused on focusing on blatant media dishonesty, I ran across this fairly recent study on where most people are getting their news and found it very interesting. I haven't studied it thoroughly yet, but from a quick reading (subject to amendment after further review):

The study focused on people in the Midwest.

It seems that those getting their news from radio, the GOP is in the majority.

Among those getting their news from the internet, the GOP is in a very strong majority, which could explain why websites like this do seem to tilt strongly right.

Those getting their news from network television tilt strongly left or Democrat.

For cable news, Fox is the preferred source for Republicans and Democrats go for all the other cable news all of which put together cannot come up with viewership to compare with Fox.

Those getting their news from newspapers are pretty well split between the GOP and Democrats.

The alternate sources that offer some news or propaganda that cater to women or very young people tilt left and are favored by Democrats, but the voter turnout from this demographic is pretty low.

Link for the study: http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/Uploads/Documents/wisc/Midwest_Media_Patterns_Full_Report_0421.pdf

Not mentioned in the study, but observed (by me) on this message board and other interaction I've had with folks, it seems that everybody considers their own sources to be the most reliable and trustworthy and the other peoples' choices for news to be the most corrupt.

 

[bobcollum]

This is the story that prompted this thread:

President Barack Obama is having trouble drawing large crowds on the campaign trail. At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, his campaign was forced to move his acceptance speech from the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium to the 20,000 Time Warner Cable Arena, citing weather as the excuse. But the media are always eager to help--for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.

Read more: Media Claims 18K People Attended Obama Event At 5K Seat Arena - Obama Campaign Event - Fox Nation

FOX News jumping on that one specifically is pretty ironic.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the story that prompted this thread:

President Barack Obama is having trouble drawing large crowds on the campaign trail. At the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, his campaign was forced to move his acceptance speech from the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium to the 20,000 Time Warner Cable Arena, citing weather as the excuse. But the media are always eager to help--for example, putting 18,000 people inside a 5,000-seat arena at an Obama event in Milwaukee on Saturday.

Read more: Media Claims 18K People Attended Obama Event At 5K Seat Arena - Obama Campaign Event - Fox Nation

FOX News jumping on that one specifically is pretty ironic.

Fox Nation is not Fox News though it is supported by their website. However, is the story wrong? Unnewsworthy? Can you provide a more acceptable source that disputes their facts?

Edit: Conversely, remember the Restore Honor rally in Washington DC last year and how hard the mainstream media, except for Fox, tried so hard to downplay the size of the crowd at that event? It has been my observation that the MSM will inflate numbers for anything supporting the left and will do their damndest to shrug off any significant support for anything on the right.

 

[bobcollum]

I said it was ironic, not wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

CBS' edit job on the Obama interview:

CBS Doesn't Air Obama Admitting Mistakes in Campaign Ads | The Weekly Standard

 

[longknife]

Thanks for starting the thread.

Anyone interested in the news cannot help but clearly see the media bias.

A recent poll [I usually ignore polls as being biased] indicates more than 60% of the respondent do not trust the "media".

If one, like me, constantly scours the blogosphere for new items, s/he will quickly find item and item not reported by the Lame Street Media - or, if they have no other option - is reported with their own political slant.

What surprises me are the recent cases where CNN [Counterfeit News Network] found and reported the diary of the slain ambassador without caving in to the Barry Hussein administration.

For those who want a good list of blogs to visit, check out my blog, A Soldier's Tales.

 

[Foxfyre]

Disclaimer: While the Media Research Center is by no means a non-partisan group, their report here cites direct quotes from various news personalities:

Back in April, the Media Research Center compiled a great report on comments from journalists which reveal their left wing bias,

While most in the media business continue to deny the problem of liberal bias, a number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. Examples:

"Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that -- I've worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I've ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic."
-- Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.

"No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House."
-- New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.

"When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine."
-- USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.

Not only do we have the bias, but media companies are putting their money where their mouths are. As reported in the New York Times (yes, the New York Times), "the New York media world is staunchly Democratic."
» Guess Who Gets the Big Money from Media Donations? » The Loft -- GOPUSA

Further disclaimer: Being partisan does not make one dishonest. But skewing the news in a way to favor one candidate over another is dishonest.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why would we expect all the media to be objective?

How would we know if they were objective?

Why should they be objective?

What would make anyone believe everything he/she reads or hears?

What's wrong with media having a perspective?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for starting the thread.

Anyone interested in the news cannot help but clearly see the media bias.

A recent poll [I usually ignore polls as being biased] indicates more than 60% of the respondent do not trust the "media".

If one, like me, constantly scours the blogosphere for new items, s/he will quickly find item and item not reported by the Lame Street Media - or, if they have no other option - is reported with their own political slant.

What surprises me are the recent cases where CNN [Counterfeit News Network] found and reported the diary of the slain ambassador without caving in to the Barry Hussein administration.

I have no problem with bias. We are all biased in one way or another re most things whether that is in preference for areas of the country, fashion, food, religion, music, reading material, where to vacation, what to watch on TV, choice of pets, who is most sexy, etc. etc. etc. and of course that would include our political leanings and socioeconomic opinions.

Bias should never be detectable in straight news reporting, however, and should never override the truth in editiorial opinion. When it exists to the point that it is intended to sway the readers or watcher or listener to believe something that is less than accurate, it is dishonest, indefensible, and often reprehensible.

 

[koshergrl]

Why would we expect all the media to be objective?

How would we know if they were objective?

Why should they be objective?

What would make anyone believe everything he/she reads or hears?

What's wrong with media having a perspective?

If they portray themselves as objective, they should be objective.

And it's one thing to opine on the information they provide...it's another to WITHHOLD information in order to slant the story, and present it as a whole piece.

 

[Wry Catcher]

. . . .then you won't enjoy this thread that I would like to dedicate to the media who is in bed with a particular candidate or political party to the extent it will distort or flat out lie or, at best, fail to fact check.

As most of the mainstream MSM tilts left, most of what I observe in their reporting favors Obama and/or the Democrats, but if evidence can be found that any legitimate mainstream media source is favoring Romney and/or the Republcians and/or any other political party or candidate, that would be fair game here.

So post your thoughts and most especially the evidence you find related to this here.

Could it be that most journalists are smarter than the faux journalists and therefore pick a candidate by factors other than his/her political affiliation? I know, cause and effect are such hard concepts to grasp.

 

[koshergrl]

"

There was Ruth Shalit, the young New Republic writer who was Washington journalism's It Girl in the mid-'90s, until she imploded with a couple of high-profile plagiarism episodes and a powerful but error-riddled assault on the Washington Post's approach to race.
Then there was Stephen Glass, also of The New Republic, whose stories, packed with amazing, dead-on detail, seemed too good to be true. And were. Glass will long be remembered as the guy who would build a Web site to corroborate his fabrications.
Now it's Jayson Blair, the 27-year-old New York Times national reporter who destroyed his career in a stunning conflagration of pilfered material, outright fiction and just plain bizarre behavior. (See "All About the Retrospect") The Times has a well-earned reputation for circling the wagons when its reporting comes under attack. It often chooses not to respond to questions about its coverage, as if it were above scrutiny. It did own up to some serious shortcomings after the Wen Ho Lee train wreck, but in a grudging, defensive Editor's Note rather than a forthright mea culpa. "

The Jayson Blair Affair  | American Journalism Review

 

[koshergrl]

"Better Red Than Informed: Probably the single worst example of liberal media bias is the media’s steadfast refusal to accurately report the monstrous evils of the Soviet Union — even still to this day. It didn’t matter how many millions of Soviet citizens that Joseph Stalin and his successors murdered, it didn’t matter how evil the Soviet Union was, the liberal media was not going to report about it. The media even awarded itself a Pulitzer Prize through the lies of one Walter Duranty a New York Times columnist that was a shill for the murderous Soviet Union."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples