Is CNN non-partisan?

[RadiomanATL]

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.

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.

Indeed. If you're going to go with the politics of the guests, a one-month sampling is useless.

I'd say that no matter the timeframe, the sampling is useless.

What matters is the bent of the stories and the hosts. Not the guests.

 

[edthecynic]

"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.

SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

Now by your own moronic "logic" this makes you a Soros-diddler!

 

[chanel]

I don't think anyone would claim that "media research" is a perfect science. However, if the hypothesis is that Dem candidates were being given more free advertising right before the midterms, looking at one month would be suffidient.

BTW - Kathy Griffin, liberal pundit/comedian was counted as "other".

I don't have a problem with CNN, but a study like this may keep them on their toes. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't think anyone would claim that "media research" is a perfect science. However, if the hypothesis is that Dem candidates were being given more free advertising right before the midterms, looking at one month would be suffidient.

BTW - Kathy Griffin, liberal pundit/comedian was counted as "other".

I don't have a problem with CNN, but a study like this may keep them on their toes. Nothing wrong with that.

Bullshit! Didn't you read your own link?

From your link:

“Several of the people listed as ‘Democrat/liberal’ in study, such a Wanda Sykes, Kathy Griffin and Sean Penn, were on the air talking about non-political topics, such as bullying and the disaster in Haiti.”

Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org

 

[Trajan]

MRC gives no backup to their claims. They don't show who they are labeling as Liberal and CON$ervative. They could be easily labeling CON$ as nonpolitical and moderates as Libs. MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

CNN Claims 'No Favorites,' But New MRC Data Documents Its Liberal Skew

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?



edthecynic- from the graph yes that appears so, they don't name names, its a graph, have you visited their site to dig in to how they counted or crafted their coincuslions?

what back up do you have for the statement I highlighted above?

Obviously I did because I posted the link to MRC in the post you edited my quote from! sheesh

And I already posted an example for backup in this thread with their Gore at Monticello gaffe lie.

wtf? post 26? you linked to what? you are all over the place...and that convoluted 93 issue, I can hardly make out what you are trying to say.... 1993, okay you know what, sure they did it, I don't care to check, I'll take your word for it.....next? is that it?

 

[RadiomanATL]

"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.

SOROS DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.

Now by your own moronic "logic" this makes you a Soros-diddler!

No, it doesn't. If you knew the first thing about logic you would recognize it.

 

[Trajan]

I don't think anyone would claim that "media research" is a perfect science. However, if the hypothesis is that Dem candidates were being given more free advertising right before the midterms, looking at one month would be suffidient.

BTW - Kathy Griffin, liberal pundit/comedian was counted as "other".

I don't have a problem with CNN, but a study like this may keep them on their toes. Nothing wrong with that.

Bullshit! Didn't you read your own link?

From your link:

“Several of the people listed as ‘Democrat/liberal’ in study, such a Wanda Sykes, Kathy Griffin and Sean Penn, were on the air talking about non-political topics, such as bullying and the disaster in Haiti.”


th title of the pocie and the rgah is cnns prcie time geusts....so whats th isse agini?
Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org

the graph lists cnns prime time guests by affiliation.....so whats the problem again?

and this is an apolitical statement? whatever...

FYI, the guests CNN claims were really nonpartisan made liberal points. For example, Kathy Griffin on LKL, talking about bullying, unleashed against conservatives:

“I think that the way that we had trickle-down economics in the 80s, this is trickle down homophobia. And I really want people to connect the dots. And that's why I believe there's a connection between Prop 8, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and now the string of teen suicides. It's almost sanctioned to bully gay people and treat them as second-class citizens.”

Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org

 

[chanel]

Sorry ed. I misread that early this morning. But that's where they belong IMHO.

 

[MarcATL]

CNN is non-partisan, but favors the GOP.

The reason being that they are so deathly afraid of being labelled "liberal" that they tip-around anything conservative, kow-tow to them, bow down and all but blow them on their knees to avoid being labelled as "liberal" when all the Reichwing does it beat and hammer them to death with the label "liberal" every damn day.

CNN, the channel famous for "we'll have to leave it there." Which is right where I leave it...there.

Funny how the Reich never seems to bash and harp on CNN's ratings when they are ALWAYS considerably lower than MSNBC's. But they ALWAYS start off by attempting to bash MSNBC by talking about their so-called low ratings.

lol!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure that last month CNN would have welcomed multiple appearances by several of those wacky Tea Party senate candidates,

had they not decided they were not going to do any interviews in the major media,

except for Foxnews.

That would have changed the numbers dramatically.

good scheme, conservative candidates refuse to go on certain channels, then conservatives attack those channels for not having enough conservative candidates on.

 

[Trajan]

I'm sure that last month CNN would have welcomed multiple appearances by several of those wacky Tea Party senate candidates,

had they not decided they were not going to do any interviews in the major media,

except for Foxnews.

That would have changed the numbers dramatically.

good scheme, conservative candidates refuse to go on certain channels, then conservatives attack those channels for not having enough conservative candidates on.

that is true. but there are tons of others who weren't running no? how many of those folks were dem candidates btw? vool throw that number out.


and frankly since its been my experience that cnn etc. may have the attitude ala "wacky" you just exhibited, I just wanted to say hey, who blames them....and this cuts both ways, the dems would not agree to a sponsored FOX debate...but since its just fox, whos gives a crap, just some whacky cons..right?

 

[The T]

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 CNN’s 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

See Also: http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/141417-cnn-promo-denies-liberal-bias.html

 

[Big Fitz]

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 CNN’s 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

Whatever do you mean? They're just as unbiased as NBC and the Boston Globe! That's slander!

Fox at least keeps their bias to their commentary and talk shows. Their news is right down the middle.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sure that last month CNN would have welcomed multiple appearances by several of those wacky Tea Party senate candidates,

had they not decided they were not going to do any interviews in the major media,

except for Foxnews.

That would have changed the numbers dramatically.

good scheme, conservative candidates refuse to go on certain channels, then conservatives attack those channels for not having enough conservative candidates on.

If I was a tea party candidate and CNN wanted an interview, fine. Taped and I get final edit. Can't trust those fuckers to do the right thing or not play ambush.

 

[Big Fitz]

CNN is non-partisan, but favors the GOP.

The reason being that they are so deathly afraid of being labelled "liberal" that they tip-around anything conservative, kow-tow to them, bow down and all but blow them on their knees to avoid being labelled as "liberal" when all the Reichwing does it beat and hammer them to death with the label "liberal" every damn day.

CNN, the channel famous for "we'll have to leave it there." Which is right where I leave it...there.

Funny how the Reich never seems to bash and harp on CNN's ratings when they are ALWAYS considerably lower than MSNBC's. But they ALWAYS start off by attempting to bash MSNBC by talking about their so-called low ratings.

lol!!!

oh wow, that's delusional. But you're on a bender for posting delusional stuff.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure that last month CNN would have welcomed multiple appearances by several of those wacky Tea Party senate candidates,

had they not decided they were not going to do any interviews in the major media,

except for Foxnews.

That would have changed the numbers dramatically.

good scheme, conservative candidates refuse to go on certain channels, then conservatives attack those channels for not having enough conservative candidates on.

that is true. but there are tons of others who weren't running no? how many of those folks were dem candidates btw? vool throw that number out.


and frankly since its been my experience that cnn etc. may have the attitude ala "wacky" you just exhibited, I just wanted to say hey, who blames them....and this cuts both ways, the dems would not agree to a sponsored FOX debate...but since its just fox, whos gives a crap, just some whacky cons..right?

I look at the big picture this way. There's no chance Foxnews is going to do a non-partisan balanced primetime lineup and programming.

Given that, why should CNN and MSNBC unilaterally 'disarm'?

 

[Trajan]

I'm sure that last month CNN would have welcomed multiple appearances by several of those wacky Tea Party senate candidates,

had they not decided they were not going to do any interviews in the major media,

except for Foxnews.

That would have changed the numbers dramatically.

good scheme, conservative candidates refuse to go on certain channels, then conservatives attack those channels for not having enough conservative candidates on.

that is true. but there are tons of others who weren't running no? how many of those folks were dem candidates btw? vool throw that number out.


and frankly since its been my experience that cnn etc. may have the attitude ala "wacky" you just exhibited, I just wanted to say hey, who blames them....and this cuts both ways, the dems would not agree to a sponsored FOX debate...but since its just fox, whos gives a crap, just some whacky cons..right?

I look at the big picture this way. There's no chance Foxnews is going to do a non-partisan balanced primetime lineup and programming.

Given that, why should CNN and MSNBC unilaterally 'disarm'?

fine by me, unlike others I classify you with (rightly or wrongly)you know that right/ left, they are mirrors of each other. if 80% of the newsroom of fox votes rep. or self ID's as a con, and 80% of cnn and the rest does ala the left, at least you realize they are all part of the same hypocrisy.......I would hope you'd share that with the yahoos here who think their shit doesn't stink.


I would say directly to your question, that; cbs abc nbc mslsd cnn npr pbs gives you a throw weight Fox cannot match. The numbers are on your side. Its not fair, but thats life. life aint fair, that why I laugh whenever the latest fox outrage thread is regurgitated.......fox vs....the rest? its like sending a 12 year old kid on a naked end around on the Ravens....

 

[NYcarbineer]

that is true. but there are tons of others who weren't running no? how many of those folks were dem candidates btw? vool throw that number out.


and frankly since its been my experience that cnn etc. may have the attitude ala "wacky" you just exhibited, I just wanted to say hey, who blames them....and this cuts both ways, the dems would not agree to a sponsored FOX debate...but since its just fox, whos gives a crap, just some whacky cons..right?

I look at the big picture this way. There's no chance Foxnews is going to do a non-partisan balanced primetime lineup and programming.

Given that, why should CNN and MSNBC unilaterally 'disarm'?

fine by me, unlike others I classify you with (rightly or wrongly)you know that right/ left, they are mirrors of each other. if 80% of the newsroom of fox votes rep. or self ID's as a con, and 80% of cnn and the rest does ala the left, at least you realize they are all part of the same hypocrisy.......I would hope you'd share that with the yahoos here who think their shit doesn't stink.


I would say directly to your question, that; cbs abc nbc mslsd cnn npr pbs gives you a throw weight Fox cannot match. The numbers are on your side. Its not fair, but thats life. life aint fair, that why I laugh whenever the latest fox outrage thread is regurgitated.......fox vs....the rest? its like sending a 12 year old kid on a naked end around on the Ravens....

You made a fatal error there. By throwing NPR into a tv discussion, you put all of rightwing talk radio in play, which in sheer volume and reach swamps everything else on talk radio and much television.

PBS is not politically biased, btw. And I have no idea what CBS, ABC, and NBC qualify as, especially given that the vast majority of their programming is neither news, nor commentary on the news.

 

[Intense]

I look at the big picture this way. There's no chance Foxnews is going to do a non-partisan balanced primetime lineup and programming.

Given that, why should CNN and MSNBC unilaterally 'disarm'?

fine by me, unlike others I classify you with (rightly or wrongly)you know that right/ left, they are mirrors of each other. if 80% of the newsroom of fox votes rep. or self ID's as a con, and 80% of cnn and the rest does ala the left, at least you realize they are all part of the same hypocrisy.......I would hope you'd share that with the yahoos here who think their shit doesn't stink.


I would say directly to your question, that; cbs abc nbc mslsd cnn npr pbs gives you a throw weight Fox cannot match. The numbers are on your side. Its not fair, but thats life. life aint fair, that why I laugh whenever the latest fox outrage thread is regurgitated.......fox vs....the rest? its like sending a 12 year old kid on a naked end around on the Ravens....

You made a fatal error there. By throwing NPR into a tv discussion, you put all of rightwing talk radio in play, which in sheer volume and reach swamps everything else on talk radio and much television.

PBS is not politically biased, btw. And I have no idea what CBS, ABC, and NBC qualify as, especially given that the vast majority of their programming is neither news, nor commentary on the news.

I find Bias on PBS all of the time. I also find News on the Talk Radio Stations, every 1/2 hour. One of us is not being truthful!!!!!!

 

[Shadow]

fine by me, unlike others I classify you with (rightly or wrongly)you know that right/ left, they are mirrors of each other. if 80% of the newsroom of fox votes rep. or self ID's as a con, and 80% of cnn and the rest does ala the left, at least you realize they are all part of the same hypocrisy.......I would hope you'd share that with the yahoos here who think their shit doesn't stink.


I would say directly to your question, that; cbs abc nbc mslsd cnn npr pbs gives you a throw weight Fox cannot match. The numbers are on your side. Its not fair, but thats life. life aint fair, that why I laugh whenever the latest fox outrage thread is regurgitated.......fox vs....the rest? its like sending a 12 year old kid on a naked end around on the Ravens....

You made a fatal error there. By throwing NPR into a tv discussion, you put all of rightwing talk radio in play, which in sheer volume and reach swamps everything else on talk radio and much television.

PBS is not politically biased, btw. And I have no idea what CBS, ABC, and NBC qualify as, especially given that the vast majority of their programming is neither news, nor commentary on the news.

I find Bias on PBS all of the time. I also find News on the Talk Radio Stations, every 1/2 hour. One of us is not being truthful!!!!!!

PBS is definately politically biased...the Bill Moyers show for example,while he has had conservatives on as guests...mainly he bombards them with gotcha type questions...democrats always treated nice with gushy commentary.

I also have been listening to some conservative talk radio lately.. Lots of regular news during breaks...usually painting the Obama admin in a favorable light.