MSM BIAS:50 Cain stories and only 3 Clinton rape stories

[daveman]

Is the simple-mindedness of conservatives any more evident than this thread?

I agree, if by "simple-mindedness" you mean "unwillingness to swallow leftist horseshit".

 

[daveman]

Because, as we all know, truth has a liberal bias.

You mean the distorted and warped leftist world-view has a liberal bias.

 

[alan1]

Clinton Rape of Broaddrick ONLY 3 stories in 3 days...

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

50 Cain anonymous harassment stories in 3 days..

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

NONE of you racist Cain haters will admit it but the white man Clinton while PRESIDENT had 3 stories! 3 stories of RAPE by a sitting President!

And you say there is no MSM bias???

At least you Cain haters could at least admit the obvious.. the MSM is racist and biased towards white democrat politician!

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

 

[paperview]

Because, as we all know, truth has a liberal bias.

The National Enquirer certainly agrees.

I know, huh?

 

[bodecea]

Umm the net was young when the clinton accusations came forward, so not as much info will be there about that. Nor was the media in as much of a enquireristic mode.
Comparing how the media reacted then to now is not a fair comparison.

We might even say that the Clinton scandal created the enquireristic mode.

 

[paperview]

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick. Those are news stories bub. Hell, she rode her tear-soaked 60 minutes interview for months...

And that poor poor raped woman never filed charges, did she. Nope.

Face it: Broderick was a proven liar.

End of story.

 

[ladyliberal]

First, let me just say that the original post is factually inaccurate. Willey accused Clinton of kissing her, and Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her and propositioning her. Neither of these alleged incidents meet either the legal or the common definition of rape.

I'm skeptical of the "Media Research Center"'s methodology, and in particular I'm unsure why next-day network news stories are a good statistic for overall MSM coverage. It's also rather silly to include statistics on coverage of Clinton sexual allegations without including Monica Lewinsky (or for that matter Gennifer Flowers). MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

Still, there does seem to be some disparity. However, I doubt much if any of it is due to racism or political bias:

-- Standards for how to cover alleged sexual misconduct have evolved

-- Cain is running for office. Jones story was public in 1994, well before Clinton's reelection campaign was heating up, and the other two stories were made public in Clinton's second term.

-- Clinton had a long history of accusations of sexual misconduct (some surely true, most certainly not), whereas Cain had never previously had any allegations made public.

And most importantly: The accusations against Cain were simply more credible than those against Clinton. Jones held a press conference in which she contradicted published information and accused Clinton of misconduct that she hadn't mentioned for years. Politico, a major news organization, announced in a story with multiple sources that multiple women had made contemporaneous complaints and successfully brought suit for Cain's alleged actions. Even if news organizations were inclined to believe Jones story, it would take them some time to check it out (thereby missing MRC's odd one-day deadline) whereas they could repeat Politico's well-sourced story on its own merits.

Indeed, all of the three women mentioned here had serious credibility issues (see, eg, Wikipedia):

- Jones civil case proved so weak that the judge threw it out in a summary judgment. While this was primarily because Jones failed to show damages, Jones had also damaged her credibility by, for example, being videotaped asking for factual prompts while telling her story.

- Willey repeatedly lied to the FBI

- Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit saying that she had *not* been assaulted. Eventually, she made the claim that Clinton had assaulted her two decades earlier, but she had not made any contemporaneous complaint.

 

[auditor0007]

Clinton Rape of Broaddrick ONLY 3 stories in 3 days...

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

50 Cain anonymous harassment stories in 3 days..

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

NONE of you racist Cain haters will admit it but the white man Clinton while PRESIDENT had 3 stories! 3 stories of RAPE by a sitting President!

And you say there is no MSM bias???

At least you Cain haters could at least admit the obvious.. the MSM is racist and biased towards white democrat politician!

Blame Al Gore. If he hadn't invented the Internet, there wouldn't be so much exposure to stories like this. It's all Al's fault, lol.

 

[alan1]

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick. Those are news stories bub. Hell, she rode her tear-soaked 60 minutes interview for months...

And that poor poor raped woman never filed charges, did she. Nope.

Face it: Broderick was a proven liar.

End of story.

As opposed to the anonymous women that also never filed rape charges against Mr Cain?

The point is, that some faced the media, and now, some don't. Do you not find it odd that the media gives so much weight to those that remain hidden?

 

[Inthemiddle]

How long ago were the Clinton stories? Around 20 years ago, right? Why do you think you can compare the situation then and now and call it bias by the media? The habits of news reporting are much different now then they were 20 years ago. News reporting has become much more sensationalist. People nowadays are constantly looking for the next update. There are more extant news networks nowadays, and several of them regularly cycle the same headlines throughout the day. The public appetite to remain abreast of political scandals has increased dramatically over the years as the public has become much more partisan.

The truth is that there is a litany of factors that can easily and adequately explain who Cain's current scandals are receiving so much comparative attention, and Clinton's so little. The fact that you automatically cry out about bias demonstrates that you, yourself, are biased.

 

[Full-Auto]

Because, as we all know, truth has a liberal bias.

The National Enquirer certainly agrees.

I know, huh?

Those eager for trashy news have little concern of who it is about.

 

[daveman]

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick. Those are news stories bub. Hell, she rode her tear-soaked 60 minutes interview for months...

And that poor poor raped woman never filed charges, did she. Nope.

Face it: Broderick was a proven liar.

End of story.

As opposed to the anonymous women that also never filed rape charges against Mr Cain?

The point is, that some faced the media, and now, some don't. Do you not find it odd that the media gives so much weight to those that remain hidden?

You're asking for a degree of introspection that's simply not possible.

 

[paperview]

MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

MRC is Brent Bozell's baby. He also runs CNS News. Right wing Propaganda on steroids. Anyone familiar with Bozell's history knows what a shill he is.

I've been following him for well over a decade. Skunk extraordinaire.

A little background:

"He and the organizations that he foundes reap millions in PR money annually by selling the political carcinogens of extremist Right billionaires wrapped in the flag, mom, and apple pie. It’s the political Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man trying to put one past the American people.

Bozell, a second generation Right-wing reactionary following in his father Jr.’s footsteps, is a nephew of the late William F. Buckley and the grandson of advertising/PR agency magnate Leo Bozell. He one of many of the Christian media Don Quixotes marching off to joust with their big windmill: Liberal America.

More: (Good article) :: Dissecting Right Wing Political Extremism «

Best moments in televison wingnut history is when he is on C-Span's Washington Journal and figgits in his chair like a 5 year old chocolate stained toddler when people call in with his lies and idiocy and he has no place to Foxrun. Hilarity!

 

[alan1]

How long ago were the Clinton stories? Around 20 years ago, right?

Irrelevant. The medium may have change, the actions did not.

Why do you think you can compare the situation then and now and call it bias by the media?

Experience.

The habits of news reporting are much different now then they were 20 years ago. News reporting has become much more sensationalist. People nowadays are constantly looking for the next update. There are more extant news networks nowadays, and several of them regularly cycle the same headlines throughout the day. The public appetite to remain abreast of political scandals has increased dramatically over the years as the public has become much more partisan.

In other words, it's not "news", it's hackery regardless of your opinion.

The truth is that there is a litany of factors that can easily and adequately explain who Cain's current scandals are receiving so much comparative attention, and Clinton's so little. The fact that you automatically cry out about bias demonstrates that you, yourself, are biased.

Your biased opinion does not make it so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So it is OK for the MSM to influence voters about Cain negatively by writing 50 more stories in 3 days then they did about a sitting President being accused of Rape?

Cain himself is responsible for any negative opinion voters may have, not the media.

And just tell Fox to run 50 stories about the BS ‘rape’ non-issue. Problem solved.

Besides whining about ‘unfair’ media coverage, what does the right want to be done about it?

The information in the OP represents the First Amendment and free market capitalism – the media are going to publish what sells and makes money and they have the right to do so. Or are conservatives saying they’re opposed to that?

 

[Inthemiddle]

How long ago were the Clinton stories? Around 20 years ago, right?

Irrelevant. The medium may have change, the actions did not.

Why do you think you can compare the situation then and now and call it bias by the media?

Experience.

The habits of news reporting are much different now then they were 20 years ago. News reporting has become much more sensationalist. People nowadays are constantly looking for the next update. There are more extant news networks nowadays, and several of them regularly cycle the same headlines throughout the day. The public appetite to remain abreast of political scandals has increased dramatically over the years as the public has become much more partisan.

In other words, it's not "news", it's hackery regardless of your opinion.

The truth is that there is a litany of factors that can easily and adequately explain who Cain's current scandals are receiving so much comparative attention, and Clinton's so little. The fact that you automatically cry out about bias demonstrates that you, yourself, are biased.

Your biased opinion does not make it so.

All that just to say "Nu-uh!" That's about all the sophistication of your response.

 

[paperview]

You're asking for a degree of introspection that's simply not possible.

 

[daveman]

MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

MRC is Brent Bozell's baby. He also runs CNS News. Right wing Propaganda on steroids. Anyone familiar with Bozell's history knows what a shill he is.

I've been following him for well over a decade. Skunk extraordinaire.

A little background:

"He and the organizations that he foundes reap millions in PR money annually by selling the political carcinogens of extremist Right billionaires wrapped in the flag, mom, and apple pie. It’s the political Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man trying to put one past the American people.

Bozell, a second generation Right-wing reactionary following in his father Jr.’s footsteps, is a nephew of the late William F. Buckley and the grandson of advertising/PR agency magnate Leo Bozell. He one of many of the Christian media Don Quixotes marching off to joust with their big windmill: Liberal America.

More: (Good article) :: Dissecting Right Wing Political Extremism «

Best moments in televison wingnut history is when he is on C-Span's Washington Journal and figgits in his chair like a 5 year old chocolate stained toddler when people call in with his lies and idiocy and he has no place to Foxrun. Hilarity!

Yeah, no bias there, huh?

 

[daveman]

You're asking for a degree of introspection that's simply not possible.

Face it: You don't care because the target is a conservative. Anything goes.

 

[paperview]