Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CNN has launched a new advertising campaign, claiming to be the only cable network without an ideological ax to grind. If you want to keep them all honest, without playing favorites, the choice is clear: CNN, the worldwide leader in news, the on-screen message argues.
So, did CNN play favorites during the midterm campaign? MRC analysts reviewed all of the guests and commentators on CNNs primetime weekday programs from October 4 through October 29, the last four full weeks before the November 2 elections. Guests were grouped into three categories: Democrat/liberal, Republican/conservative, and Other. The latter category included all non-political guests, as well as guests who were not associated with a clear political point of view.
Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org
It was conducted right before the election.CNN has launched a new advertising campaign, claiming to be the only cable network without an ideological ax to grind. If you want to keep them all honest, without playing favorites, the choice is clear: CNN, the worldwide leader in news, the on-screen message argues.
So, did CNN play favorites during the midterm campaign? MRC analysts reviewed all of the guests and commentators on CNNs primetime weekday programs from October 4 through October 29, the last four full weeks before the November 2 elections. Guests were grouped into three categories: Democrat/liberal, Republican/conservative, and Other. The latter category included all non-political guests, as well as guests who were not associated with a clear political point of view.
Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org
CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
It was conducted right before the election.
CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
I wonder if they counted the Teabaggers as nonpartisan?CNN has launched a new advertising campaign, claiming to be the only cable network without an ideological ax to grind. If you want to keep them all honest, without playing favorites, the choice is clear: CNN, the worldwide leader in news, the on-screen message argues.
So, did CNN play favorites during the midterm campaign? MRC analysts reviewed all of the guests and commentators on CNNs primetime weekday programs from October 4 through October 29, the last four full weeks before the November 2 elections. Guests were grouped into three categories: Democrat/liberal, Republican/conservative, and Other. The latter category included all non-political guests, as well as guests who were not associated with a clear political point of view.
Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org
CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
I wonder if they counted the Teabaggers as nonpartisan?
CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
I don't watch CNN (or any TV news), but I'm going to guess they maybe had more liberal guests because Democrats distancing themselves from Obama was big news.It was conducted right before the election.CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
That kinda dances around the flaw, and you may have be seeing the same thing I am.
I'll take that as a yes.I wonder if they counted the Teabaggers as nonpartisan?CNN tries to be the most non-partisan. They fail sometimes.
However, I'm surprised no one has pointed out the big, glaring, obvious flaw in this "study". And I'm pretty sure that the hacks at the MRC knew about this flaw, and went ahead and did it anyway.
You're just as big of an idiot as the partisan hacks at MRC. I bet you see el Rushbo hiding under your bed at night, and have a can of Rush-be-Gone on your bedstand. Bugger off.
I don't watch CNN (or any TV news), but I'm going to guess they maybe had more liberal guests because Democrats distancing themselves from Obama was big news.It was conducted right before the election.
That kinda dances around the flaw, and you may have be seeing the same thing I am.
I'll take that as a yes.I wonder if they counted the Teabaggers as nonpartisan?
You're just as big of an idiot as the partisan hacks at MRC. I bet you see el Rushbo hiding under your bed at night, and have a can of Rush-be-Gone on your bedstand. Bugger off.
"Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.""
How many times does it need to be repeated: Media is conservative, it can only be conservative, and the notion that it is liberal is only a tool used to control the message for the masses. If the message conflicts with standards then it is liberal and by definition biased. Words are defined by the media taskmaster, and everyone knows why liberal is a four letter word today.
Aside from Baker's astute comment above, media is corporate owned and reliant on corporate sponsors. Corporations do not shoot their own. The day you see stories on poverty in America, the impact our tax structure has on the crumbling infrastructure, the waste and robbery on wall street, outsourcing news with named corporations, and financial hooligans, of say Walmart and others, is the day media will be totally marginalized and eventually disbanded replaced with more controlled media such as fox and right wing radio where voices speak the same story line or suffer the consequences.
And I'd love to know who defined these commentators as liberal or conservative. What a joke but it sure works on the wingnuts of the right.
[
MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.
hey NY carbineer? see this? is this what you mean?
I got two words that put lie to that line of logic.
George Soros.
I got two words that put lie to that line of logic.
George Soros.
You really think one man has the power and money and to do whatever it is you think he does? Tell us what he does? You need to read a bit of industrial history going back long before Soros was even a twinkle in his mommy's eyes, and the use of the tools of corporate media to create ideas that become reality.
A few suggested reads:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reform-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394700953/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Age of Reform (9780394700953): Richard Hofstadter: Books[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Risk-Out-Democracy-Communication/dp/0252066162/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty (History of Communication) (9780252066160): Alex Carey: Books: Reviews, Prices & more[/ame]
"Corporate propaganda directed outwards, that is, to the public at large, has two main objectives: to identify the free enterprise system in popular consciousness with every cherished value, and to identify interventionist governments and strong unions (the only agencies capable of checking a complete domination of society by corporations) with tyranny, oppression and even subversion. The techniques used to achieve these results are variously called 'public relations', 'corporate communications' and 'economic education'." Alex Carey
Typical, the point flew about 3 miles over your head.
I'll spell it out for you.
Using the line of logic from your previous post, George Soros cannot be liberal.
Except, he is liberal.
Therefore, your line of logic in your previous post is tragically flawed.
I don't really give a crap about George Soros. I used him because I believe that there are zero people who can argue that he is a conservative. Therefore, his existence puts lie to your logic.
"Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.""
How many times does it need to be repeated: Media is conservative, it can only be conservative, and the notion that it is liberal is only a tool used to control the message for the masses. If the message conflicts with standards then it is liberal and by definition biased. Words are defined by the media taskmaster, and everyone knows why liberal is a four letter word today.
Aside from Baker's astute comment above, media is corporate owned and reliant on corporate sponsors. Corporations do not shoot their own. The day you see stories on poverty in America, the impact our tax structure has on the crumbling infrastructure, the waste and robbery on wall street, outsourcing news with named corporations, and financial hooligans, of say Walmart and others, is the day media will be totally marginalized and eventually disbanded replaced with more controlled media such as fox and right wing radio where voices speak the same story line or suffer the consequences.
And I'd love to know who defined these commentators as liberal or conservative. What a joke but it sure works on the wingnuts of the right.
Indeed. If you're going to go with the politics of the guests, a one-month sampling is useless.I don't watch CNN (or any TV news), but I'm going to guess they maybe had more liberal guests because Democrats distancing themselves from Obama was big news.That kinda dances around the flaw, and you may have be seeing the same thing I am.
OK, yeah. Pretty much the same thing I was thinking of. Although not that specific as to who was doing what.
The flaw is "Who was making the news? Who was in the news?"
Well, duh, if more Democrats are in the news, stands to reason that there would be more interviews with Democrats. The whole study ignores the "why" of more Democrats being interviewed and just focuses on a label.
Stupid.
Hell, at one point FNC had more liberal guests (don't remember who did the study, it was a few years ago). Applying the same methodology, FNC is liberal?
My guess is that more Democrats were available to be interviewed, because they were the party in power. As such, they were tied down, geographically, for a chunk of the season in DC or state capitols. Makes it easier to snag them for an interview. Also looks better to have an actual power broker on television as opposed to someone who wants to be. Also, the opposition is jetting all over the state with speeches and whistestops based on the latest poll numbers. Totally a guess though, and just the first reason that floated to the top of my mind.
But anyway. Methodology is flawed. You can come up with your own "why", but going off of simply what letter was behind each guests name is stupid to determine media bias.
That's different. Somehow. It just is! /leftist mode"Russell Baker, legendary columnist for the New York Times, put the matter well in December 2003: "Today's topdrawer Washington news people are part of a highly educated, upper middle class elite; they belong to the culture for which the American system works extremely well. Which is to say, they are, in the pure sense of the word, extremely conservative.""
How many times does it need to be repeated: Media is conservative, it can only be conservative, and the notion that it is liberal is only a tool used to control the message for the masses. If the message conflicts with standards then it is liberal and by definition biased. Words are defined by the media taskmaster, and everyone knows why liberal is a four letter word today.
Aside from Baker's astute comment above, media is corporate owned and reliant on corporate sponsors. Corporations do not shoot their own. The day you see stories on poverty in America, the impact our tax structure has on the crumbling infrastructure, the waste and robbery on wall street, outsourcing news with named corporations, and financial hooligans, of say Walmart and others, is the day media will be totally marginalized and eventually disbanded replaced with more controlled media such as fox and right wing radio where voices speak the same story line or suffer the consequences.
And I'd love to know who defined these commentators as liberal or conservative. What a joke but it sure works on the wingnuts of the right.
I got two words that put lie to that line of logic.
George Soros.
Typical, the point flew about 3 miles over your head.
I'll spell it out for you.
Using the line of logic from your previous post, George Soros cannot be liberal.
Except, he is liberal.
Therefore, your line of logic in your previous post is tragically flawed.
I don't really give a crap about George Soros. I used him because I believe that there are zero people who can argue that he is a conservative. Therefore, his existence puts lie to your logic.
Egads no wonder you wingnuts live this life of fantasy island. One man stands for all men! Soros is only liberal because he serves your purpose, I may not agree. Soros by the way is not media. And the point stands.
