Media Bias...Obama's Advantage

[Trajan]

I like Bernie Goldbergs take on this;


its not that their is no bias, there is, in fox too, yet the msm gives themselves a pass, they will tell you fox is slanted bias and hard right yet they will also in thee same breath tell you that they are, as in Dan Rathers parlance, straight down the middle.... see; its only the other side that has a bias....

Msnbc is honest and says its left. Fox lies and says is fair and balanced. Can't you see this?

so you picked the gnats out of the flyshit, congrats....whats the average throw weight in viewership, reach, print media dissemination...theres is all of them, vs fox....

 

[Papageorgio]

Like you said, they're obviously pre-positioning their excuses for losing. Their two main excuses will be "LIBERAL MEDIA! and "DEMOCRATIC VOTE FRAUD!".

Hey, mamooth, how have you been? Glad you are here, I miss all the old Star group.

I know we don't agree, you are always good to debate with.

I extend a warm welcome.

 

[AmyNation]

Everything has a bias, because we only experience the world subjectively.

Do I think there's an organizational left-wing bias in the media? No.

Do I think there's an organizational money bias in the media? Of course.

You don't believe the Democrat Party/Obama deliver talking points to the left wing media?

It's obvious to me, the same attacks, the same phrases, the same statistics...through-out the left wing media just picked up and repeated incessantly.

Im sure it happens. Just like I've seen fox news "reporters" read right wing talking points on air.

There is of course a bias, because we are all human and we all put our own take into things. However we are currently in a liberal swing socially, so it's natural that the media shows this. Our country is a pendulum and will swing right again eventually and I'm sure the left will also complain about media bias then.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, not exactly a huge revelation...

but.. what the heck, shall we talk about the fact that Democrats always have an unfair advantage when it comes to the media or just accept it, laugh and move along..?

---------------------------------------


Just 22% of voters believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage of Election 2012. Only nine percent (9%) think most reporters will try to help Romney win, while 51% believe most will be trying to help the president.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Media bias in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, Reagan, Bush-41 and Bush-43 all had to deal with the same media bias, and they still won.

either Romney is a strong enough candidate to be heard over the noise, or he isn't.

here's the thing, the media, I think, went easier on him in the primaries because they didn't want the GOP to nominate a real conservative who didn't need a focus group to tell him what he believed.

Now the gloves are coming off, just like I predicted they would after he won the nomination.

 

[peach174]

The mainstream media does not give full information to the people.

When Paul Ryan's budget plan came out in 2011, the media was saying that Seniors would be given vouchers.
They never said future Seniors. That in turn, scared all Seniors that is on Medicare right now.
If they had not dropped the word (future) Seniors and would have reported it correctly that it would effect Future Seniors who are 54 and under, then we as a Nation could have had an honest discussion about the plan back then in 2011.
By dropping the word future it favored the Democrats.
Polls have showen that a large majority of news media and journalists are registered Democrats.
Yes, they favor the Democratic policies.
All of us here on the board who had read Paul Ryan's Plan told everyone that the it did not effect Seniors who were already on the plan. We all were accused of lying or not knowing what we were talking about.
We were right and none on the board who vote for Dem's believed us.
The Majority of you believed the news on the TV and INTERNET.
You all accuse FOX of lying. Fox news was the only one who was explaining Ryan's bill correctly.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all future seniors would be given vouchers either. Only ones that choose to get vouchers will get vouchers.

Democrats don't like choices, nor do they like the freedom to exercise them.

 

[Bfgrn]

The truth has a very liberal bias. That is why conservatives have to lie, then, whine when they are called out.

 

[Foxfyre]

AquaAthena is right. We had a massive cultural revolution in the 60's and 70's with many young people tuning out, zoning out, dropping out. Amerivca had been a deeply conservative nation up until then--conservative being defined as 'classical liberal' as opposed to the fiscal and social liberalism of our modern day American progressives/liberals. Those 'flower children' rejected many/most of the values and convictions of their parents.

Many of those 'flower children' grew up and mellowed out and became responsible adults but very different from their parents. They were pro-government, pro-Europe, and And many many of them went to journalism schools and made their way into the nation's news rooms.

By the 80's and 90's, these people had made their way into editor and news anchor positions and American journalism was fundamentally changed from an objective and fair and balanced "Fourth Estate" and, in varying degrees, became mostly a propaganda machine for progressive concepts.

So now we have almost all the mainstream media who are mostly a surrogate advocacy group for the Democrats and President Obama. And the progressives are frequently complaining about Fox News and conservative talk radio who are the only mainstream media that is standing up for any conservative concepts.

 

[Bfgrn]

AquaAthena is right. We had a massive cultural revolution in the 60's and 70's with many young people tuning out, zoning out, dropping out. Amerivca had been a deeply conservative nation up until then--conservative being defined as 'classical liberal' as opposed to the fiscal and social liberalism of our modern day American progressives/liberals. Those 'flower children' rejected many/most of the values and convictions of their parents.

Many of those 'flower children' grew up and mellowed out and became responsible adults but very different from their parents. They were pro-government, pro-Europe, and And many many of them went to journalism schools and made their way into the nation's news rooms.

By the 80's and 90's, these people had made their way into editor and news anchor positions and American journalism was fundamentally changed from an objective and fair and balanced "Fourth Estate" and, in varying degrees, became mostly a propaganda machine for progressive concepts.

So now we have almost all the mainstream media who are mostly a surrogate advocacy group for the Democrats and President Obama. And the progressives are frequently complaining about Fox News and conservative talk radio who are the only mainstream media that is standing up for any conservative concepts.

Then why don't today's 'conservative being defined as 'classical liberal' expound any of the values, tenets and beliefs of the greatest generation, or their parents who raised their families during the Great Depression? You know, the overwhelming majority of our ancestors who voted FDR into office for 4 terms, passed Social Security, the Civil Rights and Medicare???

 

[JoeB131]

Not all future seniors would be given vouchers either. Only ones that choose to get vouchers will get vouchers.

Democrats don't like choices, nor do they like the freedom to exercise them.

If vouchers are such a good deal, why not give them to everyone now?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not all future seniors would be given vouchers either. Only ones that choose to get vouchers will get vouchers.

Democrats don't like choices, nor do they like the freedom to exercise them.

If vouchers are such a good deal, why not give them to everyone now?

Good question. The main reason why not now is because Obama and the Democrats won't allow it and they can call all the shots right now.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with media bias which is the topic of this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

One recent example of media bias in this past week.

A volunteer at a gay and lesbian center goes to Chick-fil-a, picks up a sack of sandwiches, and proceeds to the Family Research Council offices in Washington D.C. --yes Chick-fil-a's critics had condemned Chick-fil-a's owner for sending a contribution to Family Research Council among others. Anyway, the volunteer proceeds to pull out a gun. announces that he doesn't like their politics, and shoots the guy who was greeting visitors at the door. He had fifty rounds of ammunition on him suggesting he had much mayhem in mind. The wounded man, despite being shot in the arm, tackles and wrestles the gunman to the ground and holds him until police can arrive.

How many of you have seen this on your evening news? Prominently displayed in your local newspaper? How many of you have heard of it at all from the media? (If you listen to conservative talk radio or watch Fox News, you probably do know about it. Otherwise, not so much though a brief cursory mention was provided at CNN, ABC, CBS et al. And then silence.

Is anybody posting on this thread willing to argue that the media would have treated it any differently if it had been somebody from the Family Research Council who had gone to the gay and lesbian center and shot the volunteer there? Can you imagine it would not have been thoroughly reported along with panels and 'informed opinion' on all the television networks? That it would not have been front page news in all the newspapers? That we wouldn't have had a dozen threads started about it at USMB?

 

[JoeB131]

Not all future seniors would be given vouchers either. Only ones that choose to get vouchers will get vouchers.

Democrats don't like choices, nor do they like the freedom to exercise them.

If vouchers are such a good deal, why not give them to everyone now?

Good question. The main reason why not now is because Obama and the Democrats won't allow it and they can call all the shots right now.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with media bias which is the topic of this thread.

I agree, they won't... and it isn't.

But I wasn't the one who brought it up.

Do I think the media is left leaning? Absolutely.

But carping about the refs is what a loser does. A winner just plays a better game. Something Romney seems incapable of doing.

 

[JoeB131]

One recent example of media bias in this past week.

A volunteer at a gay and lesbian center goes to Chick-fil-a, picks up a sack of sandwiches, and proceeds to the Family Research Council offices in Washington D.C. --yes Chick-fil-a's critics had condemned Chick-fil-a's owner for sending a contribution to Family Research Council among others. Anyway, the volunteer proceeds to pull out a gun. announces that he doesn't like their politics, and shoots the guy who was greeting visitors at the door. He had fifty rounds of ammunition on him suggesting he had much mayhem in mind. The wounded man, despite being shot in the arm, tackles and wrestles the gunman to the ground and holds him until police can arrive.

How many of you have seen this on your evening news? Prominently displayed in your local newspaper? How many of you have heard of it at all from the media? (If you listen to conservative talk radio or watch Fox News, you probably do know about it. Otherwise, not so much though a brief cursory mention was provided at CNN, ABC, CBS et al. And then silence.

Is anybody posting on this thread willing to argue that the media would have treated it any differently if it had been somebody from the Family Research Council who had gone to the gay and lesbian center and shot the volunteer there? Can you imagine it would not have been thoroughly reported along with panels and 'informed opinion' on all the television networks? That it would not have been front page news in all the newspapers? That we wouldn't have had a dozen threads started about it at USMB?

Here's the key thing on that incident...

No one died.

And it was on the news as soon as it happened, and forgotten pretty quickly because, hey, again, no one died. One person was hurt, but that's his job, and the individual involved was clearly disturbed.

 

[Foxfyre]

One recent example of media bias in this past week.

A volunteer at a gay and lesbian center goes to Chick-fil-a, picks up a sack of sandwiches, and proceeds to the Family Research Council offices in Washington D.C. --yes Chick-fil-a's critics had condemned Chick-fil-a's owner for sending a contribution to Family Research Council among others. Anyway, the volunteer proceeds to pull out a gun. announces that he doesn't like their politics, and shoots the guy who was greeting visitors at the door. He had fifty rounds of ammunition on him suggesting he had much mayhem in mind. The wounded man, despite being shot in the arm, tackles and wrestles the gunman to the ground and holds him until police can arrive.

How many of you have seen this on your evening news? Prominently displayed in your local newspaper? How many of you have heard of it at all from the media? (If you listen to conservative talk radio or watch Fox News, you probably do know about it. Otherwise, not so much though a brief cursory mention was provided at CNN, ABC, CBS et al. And then silence.

Is anybody posting on this thread willing to argue that the media would have treated it any differently if it had been somebody from the Family Research Council who had gone to the gay and lesbian center and shot the volunteer there? Can you imagine it would not have been thoroughly reported along with panels and 'informed opinion' on all the television networks? That it would not have been front page news in all the newspapers? That we wouldn't have had a dozen threads started about it at USMB?

Here's the key thing on that incident...

No one died.

And it was on the news as soon as it happened, and forgotten pretty quickly because, hey, again, no one died. One person was hurt, but that's his job, and the individual involved was clearly disturbed.

And the political/social implications in it were 100% completely ignored by the mainstream media. No suggestion that it was rhetoric or media condmenation of Chick-fil-a or protests by the gay and lesbian community or prejudice or any other factor was involved. Quickly reported without commentary and they moved right on.

Can you think of ANY news story over the last three years in which a possibly rightwing person was accused of any crime, assault, or insult against a leftwing group or person that was not covered extensively with interviews and commentary and in depth exploration of the sociopolitical implications and factors?

 

[AmyNation]

If its something that will get ratings, they run with it. Round the clock coverage of celebrity deaths? Yup. Kid gets gunned down on the street? Lucky if the local press cover it.

It's about ratings over everything else. The people have as much if not more of an influence on the media than the media does on us.

 

[Foxfyre]

If its something that will get ratings, they run with it. Round the clock coverage of celebrity deaths? Yup. Kid gets gunned down on the street? Lucky if the local press cover it.

It's about ratings over everything else. The people have as much if not more of an influence on the media than the media does on us.

That has always been the case. Stuff of more interest or with more emotional connection to more people--Elivis dying for instance--will get huge coverage while a relatively unknown person will ger relatively little - UNLESS it can possibly be a rightwing motivated 'hate crime', then it doesn't matter who it is. It will get tremendous coverage. Not so much if it is a leftwinger committing a crime against a rightwing group or person. And therein is the bias and dishonesty in the treatment.

Let Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney commit a major gaffe on the campaign trail, and it will be front page news for a day or two along with as many negative comments about it as they can find people to say. And if it is Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or any of the other lightning rod figures, it will be on the Review and merit intense scrutiny and attention by all the MSM.

Let Joe Biden accuse the Republicans of wanting to put a predominantly black audience in shackles, and it is laughed and shrugged off as, "Oh well, that's just Joe. He didn't mean it like that.

And THAT is how the MSM gives Obama/Biden a huge advantage by quickly skimming over their gaffes, issues, and missteps while giving glaring intention to anything their opponents say that can any way be made negative.

You will not get an honest or accurate account of most controversial sociopolitical issues by using only the MSM as your primary course. Add in Fox News or conservative talk radio, however, and you will get both sides of the issue and and will be able to then form an informed opinion.

 

[AmyNation]

I personally don't see main stream news to be as biased as fox and msnbc. However I agree, people should never get their news from just the conservative or liberal side, but be open to both to get a more accurate picture.

 

[Foxfyre]

I personally don't see main stream news to be as biased as fox and msnbc. However I agree, people should never get their news from just the conservative or liberal side, but be open to both to get a more accurate picture.

Actually media analysis groups have found Fox to of course be blatantly conservative in most of their editorial approach, but as balanced and non biased as any news organization in their straight news reporting. Leftwingers see it as biased because they don't cast the right in as negative a light as possible while casting the right in as positive a light as possible. The mainstream media does. This is not done obviously, of course, but is engineered for the maximum emotional effect.

 

[AmyNation]

I personally don't see main stream news to be as biased as fox and msnbc. However I agree, people should never get their news from just the conservative or liberal side, but be open to both to get a more accurate picture.

Actually media analysis groups have found Fox to of course be blatantly conservative in most of their editorial approach, but as balanced and non biased as any news organization in their straight news reporting. Leftwingers see it as biased because they don't cast the right in as negative a light as possible while casting the right in as positive a light as possible. The mainstream media does. This is not done obviously, of course, but is engineered for the maximum emotional effect.

I might buy that, but you have to then take into account that most of what they run is opinion.

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia