MSM It's Not Just A US Perception Problem

[RetiredGySgt]

Jesus you're an idiot. Are you still grasping on to this bullshit?

The term ranking member has ALWAYS been used. Where the hell do you get this stuff? Pull it out of your ass?

The term goes back to at least the 1970s.


http://www.senate.gov/~veterans/public/index.cfm?pageid=8

And I repeat provide evidence it was EVER used by the MSpress prior to the Republicans taking over. It shouldn't be hard to do, since you claim it is a no brainer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and true to form, RSG runs away like a little girl, instead of admitting he was wrong.

I do not LIVE on this board, shall I now, when posting responses to your bullshit, wait a few minutes and claim YOU ran away? FUCKING hilarious the lengths you retards will go to to try and claim victory.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I do not LIVE on this board, shall I now, when posting responses to your bullshit, wait a few minutes and claim YOU ran away? FUCKING hilarious the lengths you retards will go to to try and claim victory.

Hmmmm, a week later and you still can't admit you were wrong.

You spent, what, several weeks crying like a little girl that the media only recently invented the term "ranking member" when the repubs went into the minority? Which was factually wrong on your part - you just pulled that assertion of of your ass.

And you didn't even have the balls, after weeks of crying, that you were wrong.

 

[AllieBaba]

in your opinion.

I suggest that news reporters can, in most cases, report the news professionally and objectively without allowing their own personal politics to get in their way.

You may very well have proof that a majority of journalists self identify as liberal or democrat, but you do not have proof that a majority of them report the news using that bias.

Apparently you don't watch or read the news much.

NYTimes are going to print a retraction of some headline they ran today, because it deliberately and mistakenly alluded to wrong doing which did not actually happen.

And watch CNN sometime. I was watching last night, and was amazed by the fact that every single commentator on that network felt free to editorialize at will. There was not one newsbit that didn't have an editorial attached. And this was just the morning news.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hmmmm, a week later and you still can't admit you were wrong.

You spent, what, several weeks crying like a little girl that the media only recently invented the term "ranking member" when the repubs went into the minority? Which was factually wrong on your part - you just pulled that assertion of of your ass.

And you didn't even have the balls, after weeks of crying, that you were wrong.

Did I miss where you provided even ONE example of the press using the term prior to 1994/1997? Didn't think so. The cry baby, the liar and the idiot is you. The TERM may be real but the MSM NEVER used it until their pets the Democrats were no longer in control. Which is the point you retard.

 

[maineman]

Apparently you don't watch or read the news much.

NYTimes are going to print a retraction of some headline they ran today, because it deliberately and mistakenly alluded to wrong doing which did not actually happen.

And watch CNN sometime. I was watching last night, and was amazed by the fact that every single commentator on that network felt free to editorialize at will. There was not one newsbit that didn't have an editorial attached. And this was just the morning news.

I watch a lot of news and I have listened to journalists use the term "ranking member" since I was in grade school....which was in the 50's.

 

[Larkinn]

Apparently you don't watch or read the news much.

NYTimes are going to print a retraction of some headline they ran today, because it deliberately and mistakenly alluded to wrong doing which did not actually happen.

.

Really? Have a link to this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I watch a lot of news and I have listened to journalists use the term "ranking member" since I was in grade school....which was in the 50's.

Funny thing Nancy, the term didn't exist until the 70's. And I have watched news and paid attention from the mid 70's through the end of the 90's, and until the republicans took control of Congress in the mid 90's the term was NEVER used.

Again it is simple Nancy, provide proof of your claim. If it was used so freely you should have NO trouble providing evidence. Come on guys, you keep making a claim, back it the hell up. If as you claim it was so standard you should be able to find it and post examples.

By the way Nancy, shall I go digging for the post where you admitted it did not appear in use by the media until the mid 90's and said " so what?" Quick now find it and change it.

 

[Alpha1]

in your opinion.

I suggest that news reporters can, in most cases, report the news professionally and objectively without allowing their own personal politics to get in their way.

You may very well have proof that a majority of journalists self identify as liberal or democrat, but you do not have proof that a majority of them report the news using that bias.

How does liberal bias work ? Its not "in your face bias"....its subtle...

http://tinyurl.com/2p4o3j

New Orleans having some trouble about housing?

Article from the AP, link above.....

Strange how the article NEVER ONCE mentions the Dem. governor, Kathleen Blanco.....
Strange how the article NEVER ONCE mentions the Dem. major, Mr. Nagin....

But then the AP does point out that the most public housing residents are black, as were many of the protesters, while the City Council is majority white, as if this fact has some important bearing on the protests.....

Thats liberal leaning, biased reporting

 

[mattskramer]

How does liberal bias work ? Its not "in your face bias"....its subtle...

http://tinyurl.com/2p4o3j

New Orleans having some trouble about housing?

Article from the AP, link above.....

Strange how the article NEVER ONCE mentions the Dem. governor, Kathleen Blanco.....
Strange how the article NEVER ONCE mentions the Dem. major, Mr. Nagin....

But then the AP does point out that the most public housing residents are black, as were many of the protesters, while the City Council is majority white, as if this fact has some important bearing on the protests.....

Thats liberal leaning, biased reporting

You have your alleged liberal media bias and your conservative media bias.

Check out these sides for alleged conservative media bias. As I so often say, you can generally find what you are looking for.

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.fair.org/index.php

 

[Alpha1]

I'm afraid we were talking about the main stream media, actual 'news reporting'....
not blogs or opinion programs like Rush or Air America, etc.....

 

[Annie]

You have your alleged liberal media bias and your conservative media bias.

Check out these sides for alleged conservative media bias. As I so often say, you can generally find what you are looking for.

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.fair.org/index.php

And those have what to do with anything? Your attempt at humor?

 

[trobinett]

And those have what to do with anything? Your attempt at humor?

Your asking if the kettle is black, of course, the kettle has NO idea.

 

[mattskramer]

And those have what to do with anything? Your attempt at humor?

Sorry to interrupt. It is just one of my hot buttons or soapbox issues. The allegation that the “main stream media is liberal is silly. It is relative and depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. People who stand on the right side of the political spectrum will see things as having a left wing bias more often than not because of where they look. Likewise, people left of center will see news items as having a right-wing bias. There are even web sites that will expose left wing bias or right wing bias.

 

[Annie]

Sorry to interrupt. It is just one of my hot buttons or soapbox issues. The allegation that the “main stream media is liberal is silly. It is relative and depends on the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. People who stand on the right side of the political spectrum will see things as having a left wing bias more often than not because of where they look. Likewise, people left of center will see news items as having a right-wing bias. There are even web sites that will expose left wing bias or right wing bias.

No it's not. University studies have found the bias and the overwhelming results were not right wing, not from MSM. Now you want to talk successful blogs or talk radio, I get you there.

 

[jillian]

*sigh*

http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

 

[mattskramer]

No it's not. University studies have found the bias and the overwhelming results were not right wing, not from MSM. Now you want to talk successful blogs or talk radio, I get you there.

Yeah yeah. I can pull commentary and studies that suggest conservative bias. I can find stuff that criticizes allegation of liberal bias. It is an old silly game.


http://www.fair.org/articles/liberal-media.html

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

 

[Annie]

*sigh*

http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters

Media Matters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Media Matters can refer to:

* Media Matters for America, a "progressive media and information center" founded by author David Brock, which monitors the media for alleged right wing bias

...

Disambiguation notice This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

 

[Foxfyre]

The MSM as reflected in the 'alphabet networks', both radio and television (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) have clearly tilted left of center in their news and cultural programming ever since the children of the 60's cultural revolution have been heading news rooms and anchoring news casts. And, they tend to perpetuate themselves by hiring like-minded individuals resulting in programming departments that are admittedly 75% or more registered Democrats or favoring the left according to several national polls.

I believe most of you have already posted those polls so I won't repeat here.

Many years ago when I was being carefully schooled in journalism law and ethics, the media was still bending over backwards to present hard news as fairly, impartially, and untainted by personal ideology as possible. Critical facts were to be checked, rechecked, and collaborated before they went to the proof readers and woe to the reporter if the city editor detected any perceptable slant favoring any particular point of view. If derogatory information about ANYBODY was printed, it had to be double checked and double verified before that made it into print. You didn't mess with a person's reputation without being absolutely certain you had your facts straight.

Now reporters, newspapers/radio/television/internet, just blurt it out there, perhaps masking it as a 'rumor', but with no concern that the information might be incorrect and what harm it might do to the person; or perhaps to intentionally hurt the person. Slander and libel laws are rarely applied anymore so they can do this with impunity.

Usually though the bias is more subtle and requires sharp perception to spot, even as it sublimally shapes opinons of the public:

- more unattractive photos are selected for one person; attractive photos for another

- headlines leave an impression different from what the story actually says or highlight an obscure fact rather than the more important aspect of the story

- a person is identified as a Republican in a negative story while no party affiliation is attached to the name of a Democrat in a negative story.

- an accomplishment of a Republican is blunted by reference to an unrelated negative fact while a negative story on a Democrat is blunted by reference to positive accomplishments.

- a news story leads with all kinds of negative information for several paragraphs or several minutes before any qualifying information appears, and this is with full knowledge that the reader or listener probably won't get that far.

It is true that the networks and CNN are doing somewhat better on all this simply to compete with Fox News who are definitely tilted right editorially, but who do give both sides of the news quite fairly and have snagged an impressive market share that has not escaped the attention of the others.

I would like to see us get back to solid journalistic ethics, however, so that we can better trust what we read in the papers and see on the nightly news.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm typically more left than right on issues, but I agree that network media, newpapers, etc. tend to lean far more to the left than the right. Public media like NPR leans even further in that direction. The bias comes across not only in how stories are presented, but which stories are chosen, adjectives that are chosen, value judgments that become part of the story.

I really don't begrudge the right having a bit of a foothold in talk radio and on Fox News. Some news networks like CNN have started moving to the center because of it (if it weren't for the success of Fox I don't think you'd see some of the conservatives you see on CNN).

I'm far more likely, on the whole, to agree with the more liberal media, but there is something disturbing about the idea of being presented with that viewpoint in the guise of objective journalism.

I don't think journalism in this country has ever been objective (read Democracy in America, by deToqueville). But I don't think we do ourselves any favors by pretending that much of the media isn't slanted, even if that slant happens to coincide with our own view point.