Proving Media Bias

[HomeInspect]

the American media polluting the American minds

Proving Media Bias - Political Science - Prager University

 

[daveman]

Allow me to provide the official leftist rebuttal:

Nuh-UH!!

Thank you.

 

[Dutch]

the American media polluting the American minds

Proving Media Bias - Political Science - Prager University

Prager University.Ah yes that bastion of higher learning with their 5 minute courses. I heard their main football rival is Beck University.

From your Link:

"Prager University is an entirely new concept in education. Our courses, taught by some of the finest, most original thinkers in the world, are five minutes long, visually stimulating and rich in practical content. Each seeks to enhance the student's understanding and appreciation for the core ideas that support Western Civilization such as freedom, personality responsibility and capitalism. "

5 Minute long courses, hell I could have graduated college in 4 days rather than four years.

 

[Dutch]

5 minutes long, that's about as long as a Fox News segment. Hmmm, I wonder could it be that the con's attention span begins to wander after that.

 

[pinqy]

A Conservative biased organization calling itself a "university" though they are of course not accredited nor degree granting, claims liberal media bias?

Is it even possible they would have come to any other conclusion?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Does lil Glenny Beck know about this?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Be sure to check out the "political quotient" quiz, linked from the home page.

I haven't read all the questions but so far, each question actually tells you how to answer.

 

[daveman]

Looks like I called it, huh?

 

[jasonnfree]

So the major media, which is corporate america, is going to have a bias toward liberals, the same ones who are supposedly anti business? I know this philosphy is taught at praeger and limbaugh university, so it must be right.

the American media polluting the American minds

Proving Media Bias - Political Science - Prager University

 

[HomeInspect]

AS I expected.. none of the mindless who responded could refute the info provided. Gee.. wonder why?

 

[jasonnfree]

Well for one, it doesn't matter who the reporters vote for, they are not the ones that pick what stories to write about. . Remember the chuckles Bush got at the radio and tv correspondents assn. dinner? He was yukking it up about not finding wmd's. What's the story here? Most of them are probably liberals but they don't want to risk their jobs walking out maybe? Here's a u tube clip. Watch it then tell me where the liberal media bias is. Now remember, this guy you depend on for your information said in the beginning of your clip, The most important thing first and foremost is that the reporters vote overwhelmingly democrat. How they vote and how they act at their business friendly corporate jobs are two different things.

Second, Van Jones. See how quickly he disappeared. The "M" word (marxist) and Obama. After Van Jones who else you got? Look at Obama appointments. Won't find any radicals, progressives, or Marxists. Not one.

Bush tax cuts another story but they sure didn't create any jobs under Bush. The measly two or three hundred I got was no big deal. The wealthy are fewer but received far greater amount individually. Anyway chomp on the 1st position I believe I refuted. The thing about Palin and Hillary. Filler stuff. He said she said. Notice how the liberal media doesn't worry about the BP oil spill anymore? Or how the Exxon Valdez plaintiffs had to wait over twenty years to get paid only a fraction of original settlement? Or what about the Koch Bros. convicted of stealing oil from government land and just had to pay a fine. Big list I could give you off the top of my head but come up with an answer about why the "liberal media" doesn't pursue stories of any importance..Just the mindless dribble that keeps people like yourself worried about Marxists.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4]Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

AS I expected.. none of the mindless who responded could refute the info provided. Gee.. wonder why?

 

[HomeInspect]

Well for one, it doesn't matter who the reporters vote for, they are not the ones that pick what stories to write about. . Remember the chuckles Bush got at the radio and tv correspondents assn. dinner? He was yukking it up about not finding wmd's. What's the story here? Most of them are probably liberals but they don't want to risk their jobs walking out maybe? Here's a u tube clip. Watch it then tell me where the liberal media bias is. Now remember, this guy you depend on for your information said in the beginning of your clip, The most important thing first and foremost is that the reporters vote overwhelmingly democrat. How they vote and how they act at their business friendly corporate jobs are two different things.

Second, Van Jones. See how quickly he disappeared. The "M" word (marxist) and Obama. After Van Jones who else you got? Look at Obama appointments. Won't find any radicals, progressives, or Marxists. Not one.

Bush tax cuts another story but they sure didn't create any jobs under Bush. The measly two or three hundred I got was no big deal. The wealthy are fewer but received far greater amount individually. Anyway chomp on the 1st position I believe I refuted. The thing about Palin and Hillary. Filler stuff. He said she said. Notice how the liberal media doesn't worry about the BP oil spill anymore? Or how the Exxon Valdez plaintiffs had to wait over twenty years to get paid only a fraction of original settlement? Or what about the Koch Bros. convicted of stealing oil from government land and just had to pay a fine. Big list I could give you off the top of my head but come up with an answer about why the "liberal media" doesn't pursue stories of any importance..Just the mindless dribble that keeps people like yourself worried about Marxists.


Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube

AS I expected.. none of the mindless who responded could refute the info provided. Gee.. wonder why?

You still don't refute the points of extreme media bias. For instance, Van Jones didn't disappear because of the main stream media.. where were they on this. Why did the MSM send scores of reporters to Wasilla Alaska to dig up stuff on Palin, when Obama was hardly vetted by the media?

 

[Charles_Main]

So the major media, which is corporate america, is going to have a bias toward liberals, the same ones who are supposedly anti business? I know this philosphy is taught at praeger and limbaugh university, so it must be right.

the American media polluting the American minds

Proving Media Bias - Political Science - Prager University

It's not the Cooperate Bosses sitting in the News rooms Deciding what to cover and how to Cover it Jack ass. It's Liberal Democrat Reporters, Editors and Producers.

 

[jasonnfree]

I did refute the main point. Remember? That reporters vote 90% democrat. I asked you, did you see any of the "liberal press" walk out of that banquet when bush yukked it up about not finding any WMD? Reporters don't pick what they write. Most of the news we get is bland dribble anyway. Major stories like I gave examples of soon are put out of sight never to be brought up. Van jones has no influence on any policies. He's in siberia. Obama is not marxist. If he were, then he wouldn't have got the big wall street support he got in 2008. Did you notice he didn't invite Hugo Chavez in as a job czar? He brought in CEO of GE. Look at his corporate and republican appointments. Like bush's defense secretary.
The news media is corporate. If Obama is considered anti business, would it make any sense for the owners of media to have a liberal slant. This is what you get for listening to republican b.s. and lies. Afraid of non existent marxists.

Well for one, it doesn't matter who the reporters vote for, they are not the ones that pick what stories to write about. . Remember the chuckles Bush got at the radio and tv correspondents assn. dinner? He was yukking it up about not finding wmd's. What's the story here? Most of them are probably liberals but they don't want to risk their jobs walking out maybe? Here's a u tube clip. Watch it then tell me where the liberal media bias is. Now remember, this guy you depend on for your information said in the beginning of your clip, The most important thing first and foremost is that the reporters vote overwhelmingly democrat. How they vote and how they act at their business friendly corporate jobs are two different things.

Second, Van Jones. See how quickly he disappeared. The "M" word (marxist) and Obama. After Van Jones who else you got? Look at Obama appointments. Won't find any radicals, progressives, or Marxists. Not one.

Bush tax cuts another story but they sure didn't create any jobs under Bush. The measly two or three hundred I got was no big deal. The wealthy are fewer but received far greater amount individually. Anyway chomp on the 1st position I believe I refuted. The thing about Palin and Hillary. Filler stuff. He said she said. Notice how the liberal media doesn't worry about the BP oil spill anymore? Or how the Exxon Valdez plaintiffs had to wait over twenty years to get paid only a fraction of original settlement? Or what about the Koch Bros. convicted of stealing oil from government land and just had to pay a fine. Big list I could give you off the top of my head but come up with an answer about why the "liberal media" doesn't pursue stories of any importance..Just the mindless dribble that keeps people like yourself worried about Marxists.


Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube

AS I expected.. none of the mindless who responded could refute the info provided. Gee.. wonder why?

You still don't refute the points of extreme media bias. For instance, Van Jones didn't disappear because of the main stream media.. where were they on this. Why did the MSM send scores of reporters to Wasilla Alaska to dig up stuff on Palin, when Obama was hardly vetted by the media?

 

[jasonnfree]

Why was Sara picked on? I don't know. Maybe because she's news. A half wit, but gets press. Still, minor stuff compared to big stories that don't get play. The Kochs get felony charges on them for stealing gas on gov't land, and many other charges including wrongful death judgements in some of their industries, also bribing foreign officials. Pay a fine, nothing more. They can still influence elections with their money and fund thing tanks like americans for prosperity, freedom works, the list goes on. All republican by the way. This should be what's reported and is not because we do not have a liberal media.

 

[whitehall]

Dan Rather gets about 100k in speaking engagements after trying to use forged documents to influence a presidential election. Rather should be sharing a cell with former democrat governor Jon Corzine, but wait a minute, Corzine isn't in jail either. CBS also fired Rather's handler but other than that the network never really got in trouble when the rest of the biased left wing media circled the wagons..

 

[HomeInspect]

Why was Sara picked on? I don't know. Maybe because she's news. A half wit, but gets press. Still, minor stuff compared to big stories that don't get play. The Kochs get felony charges on them for stealing gas on gov't land, and many other charges including wrongful death judgements in some of their industries, also bribing foreign officials. Pay a fine, nothing more. They can still influence elections with their money and fund thing tanks like americans for prosperity, freedom works, the list goes on. All republican by the way. This should be what's reported and is not because we do not have a liberal media.

LOL... and I guess you think FOX is not rightwing too? FOX is just one outlet that doesn't put a dent in the Liberal media. When you agree with what you hear, it's easy to be naive

 

[blastoff]

So Saturday after the official intro of Ryan as Romney's running mate and their speeches in Norfolk, VA, I surfed over to MSNBC to get their slant. And there was Ms. Strap-on, Rachel Maddow, giving her analysis. First of course was the alleged earth shattering flub when Romney introduced Ryan as the next president. Never mind everyone on the planet who heard it knew exactly what had happened, it was worth highlighting in the most negative manner she could conger up at the moment. That Barry had done virtually the same thing when he introduced Biden 4 years ago she either didn't know or just chose to ignore it because it would take the air out of her sails.

But her next phony issue was the venue chosen to make the announcement, Norfolk, home of our largest naval base in the world, and right smack dab in front of the USS Wisconsin, from which both Romney and Ryan descended from and walked to the podium to speak. The lovely Rachel implied that by doing so the two were trying to imply some military cred even though neither of them have ever served in the military. The obvious link of the ship being named in honor of Ryan's home state which he represents in the House somehow couldn't be factored in by the sage commentator.

That's just another example of what passes for serious political commentary by the stridently left leaning MSNBC and other media outlets.