Media Bias...Obama's Advantage


That's because McCain ran a sucky campaign, was always losing, was an unlikable grouch, and picked a trainwreck for a VP. If the media had not reported more negatively on McCain, that would have indicated a record-level wild conservative bias.

Our nutty conservative media will work hard to support the GOP, but they can only take it so far. It was impossible to put a shine on the turd that was McCain's campaign, and it's just as hard to do it for Romney.

No it was not, listen to yourself and re-read what the media did.

Thats right BLAME THE MEDIA.

Look McCain made more mistakes during the campaign than Obama. If the media reports that, then theres more attention on the negative. If the media doesnt, they are negligent.
 
I'm not really a believer......

in these "October surprises."

And the media can only control so much until the people get fed up and ignore them. That's very much what I see happening now.
 
I'm not really a believer......

in these "October surprises."

And the media can only control so much until the people get fed up and ignore them. That's very much what I see happening now.

It is? Let's be honest here. How many people do you know who don't eat and breathe this stuff every day?

What I see is people aren't happy with the way things are, but Romney kind of creeps folks out. They don't like him and don't trust him. And most fair people realize Obama didn't create this mess.
 
I'm not really a believer......

in these "October surprises."

And the media can only control so much until the people get fed up and ignore them. That's very much what I see happening now.

It is? Let's be honest here. How many people do you know who don't eat and breathe this stuff every day?

What I see is people aren't happy with the way things are, but Romney kind of creeps folks out. They don't like him and don't trust him. And most fair people realize Obama didn't create this mess.

I think you are correct for the most part. Although, I do see a few things happening. Folks are starting to warm up to Romney after seeing who/why/how he picked his running mate. And folks are getting fired up. There is still the old "Silent majority" that if you listen, you can hear them. They are pretty unhappy with Obama right now. So media or no, alot of folks have already made up their minds, and some are afraid to say so. I think this election will be suprising in that less will vote for Obama than the polls show.

Whenever you use fear to attain a goal, you get very unexpected results, especially with americans.
 
Well, not exactly a huge revelation...:lol:

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..?

---------------------------------------:dunno:


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

It's true. Most of the so-called journalists went to liberal colleges and were taught by liberal professors. It's a mindset. One to overcome for a win to save America from socialism, then bankruptcy.

Go R&R......:woohoo:

you mean they're educated?

oh no!
 
Well, not exactly a huge revelation...:lol:

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..?

---------------------------------------:dunno:


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

It's true. Most of the so-called journalists went to liberal colleges and were taught by liberal professors. It's a mindset. One to overcome for a win to save America from socialism, then bankruptcy.

Go R&R......:woohoo:

you mean they're educated?

oh no!

I call it indoctrinated.
 
It's true. Most of the so-called journalists went to liberal colleges and were taught by liberal professors. It's a mindset. One to overcome for a win to save America from socialism, then bankruptcy.

Go R&R......:woohoo:

you mean they're educated?

oh no!

I call it indoctrinated.

Yes me too. I had a long chat with a journalism student recently. When I was in journalism school we were instructed to be competent, observant, and thorough in gathering information for a news story. The who, what, where, when, why, and how went into the first paragraph or certainly into the first two paragraphs. No extentuating information was ever omitted or buried deep into the story. Any detection of the reporter's political or social bias included in a straight news story merited a severe knuckle rapping from the news editor. The ethics were strongly respected and observed that we were to be accurate and 100% objective. And any news that could in any way damage a person's credibility or reputation would be verified, verified, and verified again by reliable, on the record sources.

According to this student, none of that is emphasied or even brought up in journalism schools these days. The objective is to be 'fair but honest' with 'honesty' of course being in the eye of the beholder. And that is what I see when I watch so much of the news or read newspapers and news magazines. The reporter's bias is obvious and blatantly influences the story.
 
I'm not sure either one of you..........

understood what I was saying. What I meant is that fewer people are simply accepting what any "media" individual has to say about another person or situation.

They are going directly to the source.

IOW, do you just accept what Maddow says about Romney or Ryan or do you listen to Romney and Ryan themselves before forming your opinion.

Do you accept what Rush Limbaugh has to say about Obama or do you listen to Obama himself?

Do you just accept a writer's opinion or do you look at what the individual under discussion actually said [in quotes]?

I believe we, the people, [in general] have become a lot more cautious about accepting everything the media says and have found other ways to form an opinion.

My neighbors DON'T eat and breath politics. They also don't trust the media that much. And that's what I mean when I say the media can only control so far.
 
I'm not really a believer......

in these "October surprises."

And the media can only control so much until the people get fed up and ignore them. That's very much what I see happening now.

It is? Let's be honest here. How many people do you know who don't eat and breathe this stuff every day?

What I see is people aren't happy with the way things are, but Romney kind of creeps folks out. They don't like him and don't trust him. And most fair people realize Obama didn't create this mess.

I think you are correct for the most part. Although, I do see a few things happening. Folks are starting to warm up to Romney after seeing who/why/how he picked his running mate. And folks are getting fired up. There is still the old "Silent majority" that if you listen, you can hear them. They are pretty unhappy with Obama right now. So media or no, alot of folks have already made up their minds, and some are afraid to say so. I think this election will be suprising in that less will vote for Obama than the polls show.

Whenever you use fear to attain a goal, you get very unexpected results, especially with americans.

I don't think the election is going to be that close.

Even Republicans don't really like Romney.

And Americans don't vote for people they don't like.
 
It is? Let's be honest here. How many people do you know who don't eat and breathe this stuff every day?

What I see is people aren't happy with the way things are, but Romney kind of creeps folks out. They don't like him and don't trust him. And most fair people realize Obama didn't create this mess.

I think you are correct for the most part. Although, I do see a few things happening. Folks are starting to warm up to Romney after seeing who/why/how he picked his running mate. And folks are getting fired up. There is still the old "Silent majority" that if you listen, you can hear them. They are pretty unhappy with Obama right now. So media or no, alot of folks have already made up their minds, and some are afraid to say so. I think this election will be suprising in that less will vote for Obama than the polls show.

Whenever you use fear to attain a goal, you get very unexpected results, especially with americans.

I don't think the election is going to be that close.

Even Republicans don't really like Romney.

And Americans don't vote for people they don't like.

But they are lovin` on Paul Ryan and sick of Hope and Chains....
 
you mean they're educated?

oh no!

I call it indoctrinated.

Yes me too. I had a long chat with a journalism student recently. When I was in journalism school we were instructed to be competent, observant, and thorough in gathering information for a news story. The who, what, where, when, why, and how went into the first paragraph or certainly into the first two paragraphs. No extentuating information was ever omitted or buried deep into the story. Any detection of the reporter's political or social bias included in a straight news story merited a severe knuckle rapping from the news editor. The ethics were strongly respected and observed that we were to be accurate and 100% objective. And any news that could in any way damage a person's credibility or reputation would be verified, verified, and verified again by reliable, on the record sources.

According to this student, none of that is emphasied or even brought up in journalism schools these days. The objective is to be 'fair but honest' with 'honesty' of course being in the eye of the beholder. And that is what I see when I watch so much of the news or read newspapers and news magazines. The reporter's bias is obvious and blatantly influences the story.

So....back in the day, when there really was a liberal media:

"No extentuating information was ever omitted or buried deep into the story. Any detection of the reporter's political or social bias included in a straight news story merited a severe knuckle rapping from the news editor. The ethics were strongly respected and observed that we were to be accurate and 100% objective. And any news that could in any way damage a person's credibility or reputation would be verified, verified, and verified again by reliable, on the record sources."
 
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....:rolleyes: see; its only the other side that has a bias....:lol:
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....

and yet, your side says its "Liberal Media". How can this be?
 
Well, not exactly a huge revelation...:lol:

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..?

---------------------------------------:dunno:


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

How whiny can you be?
 
Well, not exactly a huge revelation...:lol:

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..?

---------------------------------------:dunno:


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

How whiny can you be?

Well, far short of your standard Democrat would be my guess...:lol:
 
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?

Another glaring example is the MF Global/Jon Corzine scandal, with Jon Corzine having close ties to Obama and a huge fund raiser for him. 1.2 Billion dollars gone, no charges, no media coverage, Joe Biden out talking about how they have 'chained Wallstreet' (while the republicans will unchain them), and MF Global and Jon Corzine get off scott free with blatant fraud. If it had been a big Romney supporter who had done this, there would be Federal judicial review of this happening, and it would be in headlines for weeks on every news outlet.

Prosecution, Regulation Needed for MF Global Customers - DailyFinance

Prosecution, Regulation Needed for MF Global Customers
By Molly McCluskey, The Motley Fool
Posted 3:06PM 08/22/12

Hedge funds fail. Banks make mistakes. But the collapse of MF Global last fall was extraordinary in that customer funds were compromised. And when investigations into those missing funds led to vague non-answers, bankrupt farmers, and an industry on the verge of ruin, the collapse truly became a spectacle.

Much has been made in the past few days about the lack of federal prosecution against MF Global executives, whether because of a lack of criminal activity or a lack of evidence. If the rumors are true, it's a significant blow to MF Global customers looking for vindication. Federal prosecution would have gone a long way in sending the message that banks and bankers can't be allowed to run amok.

The criminal inmates are running the Wall Street asylum.

James Koutoulas, head of the Commodity Customer Coalition, and the leading advocate for MF Global customers, doesn't pull punches. When it comes to MF Global leaders getting a pass on accountability, his frustrations lie with the Department of Justice. "They've essentially given everybody who committed fraud in 2008 a pass," Koutoulas says, "and it appears the DOJ doesn't have the will to prosecute this either."
 
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?

Another glaring example is the MF Global/Jon Corzine scandal, with Jon Corzine having close ties to Obama and a huge fund raiser for him. 1.2 Billion dollars gone, no charges, no media coverage, Joe Biden out talking about how they have 'chained Wallstreet' (while the republicans will unchain them), and MF Global and Jon Corzine get off scott free with blatant fraud. If it had been a big Romney supporter who had done this, there would be Federal judicial review of this happening, and it would be in headlines for weeks on every news outlet.

Prosecution, Regulation Needed for MF Global Customers - DailyFinance

Prosecution, Regulation Needed for MF Global Customers
By Molly McCluskey, The Motley Fool
Posted 3:06PM 08/22/12

Hedge funds fail. Banks make mistakes. But the collapse of MF Global last fall was extraordinary in that customer funds were compromised. And when investigations into those missing funds led to vague non-answers, bankrupt farmers, and an industry on the verge of ruin, the collapse truly became a spectacle.

Much has been made in the past few days about the lack of federal prosecution against MF Global executives, whether because of a lack of criminal activity or a lack of evidence. If the rumors are true, it's a significant blow to MF Global customers looking for vindication. Federal prosecution would have gone a long way in sending the message that banks and bankers can't be allowed to run amok.

The criminal inmates are running the Wall Street asylum.

James Koutoulas, head of the Commodity Customer Coalition, and the leading advocate for MF Global customers, doesn't pull punches. When it comes to MF Global leaders getting a pass on accountability, his frustrations lie with the Department of Justice. "They've essentially given everybody who committed fraud in 2008 a pass," Koutoulas says, "and it appears the DOJ doesn't have the will to prosecute this either."

Actually last year, there was enough scandal associated with Corzine (Goldman Sachs), that the Obama campaign quietly returned 70k that the Corzines had contributed. There is no indication that they intend to return the $500k that Corzine raised for the Obama re-election bid, however.

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's campaign has returned some $70,000 in contributions made by embattled MF Global chief Jon Corzine and his wife, a campaign official said on Friday.

Corzine, a former Democratic senator, governor of New Jersey and one-time leader of Goldman Sachs, was one of the top so-called "bundlers" and surrogates for the campaign, leveraging his elite network to lump together donations to benefit the Democratic incumbent's re-election bid.

As of early last month, the former Goldman Sachs chief had raised donations of at least $500,000 for Obama's 2012 effort.

The campaign said in early November it would return the donations made by Corzine if he were charged with any wrongdoing. The campaign severed ties after Corzine's securities firm imploded and he agreed to testify before a congressional committee about $1.2 billion in missing investor funds.

Corzine and his wife each contributed $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee and $5,000 to Obama's campaign, the maximum amounts that individuals are allowed to give, according to campaign finance records.
Obama campaign returns cash from MF Global's Corzine | Reuters

There has been a half hearted attempt by the Justice Dept. to deal with some of the more flagrant violations and obvious dishonesty built into the entire scandal, but they aren't about to aggressively go after any more of this lucrative cash cow than they absolutely have to.

The the obedient media reports just as much as they 'have to' and do that in a way to put the Obama administration is as positive a light as possible.
 
So you're saying that our national media, which is entirely owned by _extremely_ conservative corporations, is actually liberal? The media is crazy pro-corporate, which generally translates into pro-Republican. Every Democrat knows they have to run against both the Republicans and the media.

The other problem with the modern media is how lazy it is, because reporting costs money. Almost every modern media outlet will unapologetically state that their mission isn't to report the truth. They'll say their mission is "to be fair". That is, play stenographer to the powerful and only report the hesaid/shesaid, which is an abdication of journalistic responsibility. If one side says "the earth is round" and one says "the earth is flat", the media headline will be "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ." That's a huge benefit for the Republicans, being they are far more often the ones who are simply making it all up. So is the Ryan budget a laughable fantasy from top to bottom? Who cares. Adding up the numbers is haaaaaaaard. Far easier to just report "Budget Ideas Differ." And anyone who did dare add up the numbers and report it would get the label "LIBERAL MEDIA!", being that arithmetic is a socialist plot.

The is no corrilation between who owns most of the Media and how they Report Stories. The VAST majority of the Reporters on the Ground, the Editors making Comments, and the Producers deciding what and how to cover, are Liberal Democrats. Period.
 
So you're saying that our national media, which is entirely owned by _extremely_ conservative corporations, is actually liberal? The media is crazy pro-corporate, which generally translates into pro-Republican. Every Democrat knows they have to run against both the Republicans and the media.

The other problem with the modern media is how lazy it is, because reporting costs money. Almost every modern media outlet will unapologetically state that their mission isn't to report the truth. They'll say their mission is "to be fair". That is, play stenographer to the powerful and only report the hesaid/shesaid, which is an abdication of journalistic responsibility. If one side says "the earth is round" and one says "the earth is flat", the media headline will be "Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ." That's a huge benefit for the Republicans, being they are far more often the ones who are simply making it all up. So is the Ryan budget a laughable fantasy from top to bottom? Who cares. Adding up the numbers is haaaaaaaard. Far easier to just report "Budget Ideas Differ." And anyone who did dare add up the numbers and report it would get the label "LIBERAL MEDIA!", being that arithmetic is a socialist plot.

The is no corrilation between who owns most of the Media and how they Report Stories. The VAST majority of the Reporters on the Ground, the Editors making Comments, and the Producers deciding what and how to cover, are Liberal Democrats. Period.

This is reflected in public perception of media bias. This morning I was watching early news citing a recent poll (Pew?) reflecting that a large percentage of Americans do detect liberal bias. I'll keep looking for a print summary of that poll.

Back in February:

The downward slide of media credibility continues. A Pew survey released a few days ago found 67 percent of Americans see “a great deal” or “fair amount” of “political bias” in the news media, a record high for the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press which pegged the level at 63 percent just four months ago. Specifically:


Currently, 37 percent of Americans say there is a great deal of bias in news coverage and 30 percent say there is a fair amount of bias. Far fewer see not too much bias (21 percent) or none at all (10 percent). The percentage saying there is a great deal of bias has increased six points, from 31 percent to 37 percent, since 2008.

Do people perceive a media bias to the left or to the right? Pew didn’t ask, but their data indicates – no surprise – more conservatives than liberals recognize a tilt in the news media: “About half (49 percent) of Republicans say there is a great deal of media bias, and this rises to 57 percent among conservative Republicans. By comparison, 32 percent of Democrats and 35 percent of independents see a great deal of bias in the news.”

Back in September, Gallup documented the public detected liberal bias by a nearly three-to-one margin: “The majority of Americans (60 percent) also continue to perceive bias, with 47 percent saying the media are too liberal and 13 percent saying they are too conservative.”

Read more: Pew: Record High 67% See Political Bias in News Media | NewsBusters.org
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top