So much for "liberal" media bias!

[taichiliberal]

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

Yet the neocon/teabagger driven GOP is putting him up as their presidential candidate.

Care to explain that, bunky? Or are you going to bluff and bluster?

I guess you missed the part of your own OP about the media bias.
Try to pay attention to yourself.

I guess you think your BS is passing for a clever, logical retort?

Hint: it's not.

You can't refute the facts, and if Stephie is cheering it on, that should clue you in on how lame your response was.

The GOP candidates made FOOLS of themselves in public....nobody in their right mind would vote for their policies. Those who back them are the monied special interest of who's identity we'll never know thanks to Citizen's United. You can blame your neocon/teabagger political gods for that one, bunky. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

taichiliberal is doing a good job.

wow, Alan can cut and paste!

Doesn't alter the FACTS in the OP one iota, nor does it disprove my retort to the Newsbuster's spin. But hey, Alan got a personal shot in. Good for you, bunky!

 

[alan1]

Media Favored Romney Over Obama - Yahoo! News

Media Favored Romney Over Obama


During the bruising Republican primaries, there was one candidate whose coverage was more relentlessly negative than the rest. In fact, he did not enjoy a single week where positive treatment by the media outweighed the negative.

His name is Barack Obama.

That is among the findings of a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington nonprofit that examined 52 key newspaper, television, radio, and Web outlets.

“Day in and day out, he was criticized by the entire Republican field on a variety of policies,” Mark Jurkowitz, the group’s associate director, says of Obama. “And he was inextricably linked to events that generated negative coverage”—including rising gas prices, the ailing economy, and the renewed debate over his health care law.

In short, while the president was being hammered on both fronts, his message was somewhat drowned out by the volume of news coverage surrounding the GOP candidates.


.... Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney’s coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama’s coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney’s depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president’s. So much for liberal bias.

You know what is effing classic?
I clicked on the link and at the bottom of the yahoo news story are 4 pictures that are "related content". Every picture and associated story is a pos about Mr Obama.
Fool.

You are a "Fool" if you think that you can IGNORE the facts by trying to dodge the key issue.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

OK, you didn't notice the 4 "related content" pics and stories in your link. (All positive about Mr Obama)
One article isn't the big picture in real life, but if you want to think it is, go for it. And Yes, I am laughing at you.

 

[alan1]

Yet the neocon/teabagger driven GOP is putting him up as their presidential candidate.

Care to explain that, bunky? Or are you going to bluff and bluster?

I guess you missed the part of your own OP about the media bias.
Try to pay attention to yourself.

I guess you think your BS is passing for a clever, logical retort?

Hint: it's not.

You can't refute the facts, and if Stephie is cheering it on, that should clue you in on how lame your response was.

The GOP candidates made FOOLS of themselves in public....nobody in their right mind would vote for their policies. Those who back them are the monied special interest of who's identity we'll never know thanks to Citizen's United. You can blame your neocon/teabagger political gods for that one, bunky. Carry on.

You seem hysterical.
Try to calm down.

 

[taichiliberal]

Alrighty, even those on fox news..glad to hear you admit it

I'm so sorry you don't get it. Journalists don't simply read what is put in front of them, journalists don't sit down with management and get the script of the day. Journalists are not parrots; Faux news employs parrots. Parrots who can read what is on their teleprompter but don't dare offer an opinion which conflicts with those fed them by the boss.

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist? cnnabcnbcnpr etc etc

please you can blow smoke up some peoples ass..

the only real Journalist is seems WITHOUT a liberal agenda is the LOCAL news stations..

If the "local" news is bought out by Murdoch or Clear Channel, they toe the party line, sweetpea. This is MOST certain regarding radio. And certainly evident in a recent LOCAL Fox news espisode when a Morning host called Rupert Murdoch a "self made man" in
comparing to Al Sharpton's self made rise to prominence.

Stephie, when you stop waiting for Drudge to hand you your talking points of the day, you'll start reading other sources, do a comparison, and start to THINK for yourself.

 

[taichiliberal]

I guess you missed the part of your own OP about the media bias.
Try to pay attention to yourself.

I guess you think your BS is passing for a clever, logical retort?

Hint: it's not.

You can't refute the facts, and if Stephie is cheering it on, that should clue you in on how lame your response was.

The GOP candidates made FOOLS of themselves in public....nobody in their right mind would vote for their policies. Those who back them are the monied special interest of who's identity we'll never know thanks to Citizen's United. You can blame your neocon/teabagger political gods for that one, bunky. Carry on.

You seem hysterical.
Try to calm down.

Translation: Alan doesn't like seeing Stephie get humiliated.

TFB...you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The OP stands valid.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm so sorry you don't get it. Journalists don't simply read what is put in front of them, journalists don't sit down with management and get the script of the day. Journalists are not parrots; Faux news employs parrots. Parrots who can read what is on their teleprompter but don't dare offer an opinion which conflicts with those fed them by the boss.

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist? cnnabcnbcnpr etc etc

please you can blow smoke up some peoples ass..

the only real Journalist is seems WITHOUT a liberal agenda is the LOCAL news stations..

If the "local" news is bought out by Murdoch or Clear Channel, they toe the party line, sweetpea. This is MOST certain regarding radio. And certainly evident in a recent LOCAL Fox news espisode when a Morning host called Rupert Murdoch a "self made man" in
comparing to Al Sharpton's self made rise to prominence.

Stephie, when you stop waiting for Drudge to hand you your talking points of the day, you'll start reading other sources, do a comparison, and start to THINK for yourself.

go to bed little one, school tomorrow..you don't know what or who I watch...you are again becoming a bore because THIS ARTICLE has been POSTED ALREADY...go search it out, if you know how to use SEARCH

 

[Liability]

* * * *

The OP stands valid.

 

[taichiliberal]

You know what is effing classic?
I clicked on the link and at the bottom of the yahoo news story are 4 pictures that are "related content". Every picture and associated story is a pos about Mr Obama.
Fool.

You are a "Fool" if you think that you can IGNORE the facts by trying to dodge the key issue.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

OK, you didn't notice the 4 "related content" pics and stories in your link. (All positive about Mr Obama)
One article isn't the big picture in real life, but if you want to think it is, go for it. And Yes, I am laughing at you.

Repeating your failed ploy doesn't magically validate your insinuation, chuckles. I'd have thought you gleamed that much from school, let alone life lessons.

Bottom line: Alan can't disprove the FACTS of the OP, nor can he or his cohorts refute my dismantling of the NewsBusters' spin.

Unless you can come up with a logical, fact based argument Alan, you're done...faux hysterics non-withstanding.

 

[taichiliberal]

* * * *

The OP stands valid.

You can't logically or factually prove it wrong, can ya chuckles?

But hey, insults and cartoons are about the best that can be expected for the neocon/teabagger parrots. Carry on.

 

[alan1]

You are a "Fool" if you think that you can IGNORE the facts by trying to dodge the key issue.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

OK, you didn't notice the 4 "related content" pics and stories in your link. (All positive about Mr Obama)
One article isn't the big picture in real life, but if you want to think it is, go for it. And Yes, I am laughing at you.

Repeating your failed ploy doesn't magically validate your insinuation, chuckles. I'd have thought you gleamed that much from school, let alone life lessons.

Bottom line: Alan can't disprove the FACTS of the OP, nor can he or his cohorts refute my dismantling of the NewsBusters' spin.

Unless you can come up with a logical, fact based argument Alan, you're done...faux hysterics non-withstanding.

You ignore the 4 "related content" articles in your link. (all positive about Mr Obama and contrary to your OP opinion). Your one article vs the 4 articles linked in your article. Simple math.
Your blind eye, not mine.
Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist? cnnabcnbcnpr etc etc

please you can blow smoke up some peoples ass..

the only real Journalist is seems WITHOUT a liberal agenda is the LOCAL news stations..

If the "local" news is bought out by Murdoch or Clear Channel, they toe the party line, sweetpea. This is MOST certain regarding radio. And certainly evident in a recent LOCAL Fox news espisode when a Morning host called Rupert Murdoch a "self made man" in
comparing to Al Sharpton's self made rise to prominence.

Stephie, when you stop waiting for Drudge to hand you your talking points of the day, you'll start reading other sources, do a comparison, and start to THINK for yourself.

go to bed little one, school tomorrow..you don't know what or who I watch...you are again becoming a bore because THIS ARTICLE has been POSTED ALREADY...go search it out, if you know how to use SEARCH

Poor widdle Stephie....she neither has the brains or the guts to debate the issue on facts....so her EXCUSE is that the article was already posted.

SO WHAT, Stephie? YOU and your cohorts are STILL parroting neocon/teabagger talking points THAT YOU CAN'T LOGICALLY DEFEND. I proved that when I took down the NewsBuster BS.

The OP stands pat...and little Stephie now has to try and convince everyone that she's not an acolyte of Limbaugh or Drudge or Maulkin or Krauthammer or Kristol or the WND or any of the Koch think tanks. I seriously doubt if Stephie will EVER be honest as to what info sources she bases her bilge on. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

OK, you didn't notice the 4 "related content" pics and stories in your link. (All positive about Mr Obama)
One article isn't the big picture in real life, but if you want to think it is, go for it. And Yes, I am laughing at you.

Repeating your failed ploy doesn't magically validate your insinuation, chuckles. I'd have thought you gleamed that much from school, let alone life lessons.

Bottom line: Alan can't disprove the FACTS of the OP, nor can he or his cohorts refute my dismantling of the NewsBusters' spin.

Unless you can come up with a logical, fact based argument Alan, you're done...faux hysterics non-withstanding.

You ignore the 4 "related content" articles in your link. (all positive about Mr Obama and contrary to your OP opinion).
Your blind eye, not mine.
Carry on.

Yep, Alan is done folks. He can't argue against the FACTS in the OP logically and factually, so instead he tries to shift the conversation to a moot point of links.

I read ALL sources of information offered, therefore I can determine who is right or wrong. Alan can't.

No sense in further acknowledging neocon/teabagger cranks like Alan with his limited debating capabilities. He's done.

 

[ogibillm]

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist?

all i needed to read to know you'd turned your critical thinking over to the am airwaves

 

[Liability]

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist?

all i needed to read to know you'd turned your critical thinking over to the am airwaves

Funny shit: ogibillm pontificating about critical thinking when he has no experience with it.

 

[Annie]

Repeating your failed ploy doesn't magically validate your insinuation, chuckles. I'd have thought you gleamed that much from school, let alone life lessons.

Bottom line: Alan can't disprove the FACTS of the OP, nor can he or his cohorts refute my dismantling of the NewsBusters' spin.

Unless you can come up with a logical, fact based argument Alan, you're done...faux hysterics non-withstanding.

You ignore the 4 "related content" articles in your link. (all positive about Mr Obama and contrary to your OP opinion).
Your blind eye, not mine.
Carry on.

Yep, Alan is done folks. He can't argue against the FACTS in the OP logically and factually, so instead he tries to shift the conversation to a moot point of links.

I read ALL sources of information offered, therefore I can determine who is right or wrong. Alan can't.

No sense in further acknowledging neocon/teabagger cranks like Alan with his limited debating capabilities. He's done.

getting 'the last word in here' isn't as easy as what you are used to.

 

[Stephanie]

ah is that the difference..so PMSnbc is chock full of Journalist?

all i needed to read to know you'd turned your critical thinking over to the am airwaves

 

[alan1]

Repeating your failed ploy doesn't magically validate your insinuation, chuckles. I'd have thought you gleamed that much from school, let alone life lessons.

Bottom line: Alan can't disprove the FACTS of the OP, nor can he or his cohorts refute my dismantling of the NewsBusters' spin.

Unless you can come up with a logical, fact based argument Alan, you're done...faux hysterics non-withstanding.

You ignore the 4 "related content" articles in your link. (all positive about Mr Obama and contrary to your OP opinion).
Your blind eye, not mine.
Carry on.

Yep, Alan is done folks. He can't argue against the FACTS in the OP logically and factually, so instead he tries to shift the conversation to a moot point of links.

I read ALL sources of information offered, therefore I can determine who is right or wrong. Alan can't.

No sense in further acknowledging neocon/teabagger cranks like Alan with his limited debating capabilities. He's done.

I commented on the link in your OP, and pointed out facts about it.
Oh wait, I didn't put facts in ALL CAPS, that make's my point lesser than yours.

Fine, you win, the media is liberally biased, you showed us.

 

[tinydancer]

OK got it with a couple of links.

Here's a brief explanation. Links to follow quote:

But "the press" hasn't been tougher on Obama than the Republicans. PEJ's "good press/bad press" statistic mixes reports of the campaign horse race (who's ahead, who's behind) with judgmental coverage of a candidate's background, issue positions, etc.

And, according to PEJ's own statistics, the vast majority of the reports they examined (they peg it at 64%) are about campaign strategy.

What this all means is that the GOP candidates got better "good press" scores because they each won primaries this year.

This is obvious when you look at the report's explanation of how Romney, Santorum and Gingrich each fared with "the press" (I'm stripping out the statistics, because they are a meaningless distraction):

[Romney] enjoyed one week of clearly positive coverage... in the week following his solid, if widely expected win in New Hampshire on Jan. 10. But that media bounce was short lived. The week of his loss on Jan. 21 to Newt Gingrich in South Carolina, negative coverage of Romney... outstripped positive....

Santorum’s Iowa victory on Jan. 3 also produced a burst of positive coverage for him....But during the week of his third-place finish in South Carolina on Jan. 21, the tone of Santorum’s coverage dropped markedly....

Gingrich only enjoyed a single week in which positive coverage about him significantly outweighed negative, the week he won the South Carolina primary.

NOW HERE IS THE KEY...

In other words, PEJ is not actually tracking how the press -- journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. -- are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign.

Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.



'Data Doesn't Lie' Proclaims WashPost's Cillizza As He Peddles Faulty Study Saying Obama Getting Unfavorable Media Treatment | NewsBusters.org

And check out this link as well. This is for more flaws in PEJ's methodology. AKA skewering the results.

The Media vs. Obama: Birth of a New Campaign 2012 Fairy Tale? | NewsBusters.org

I love the way Newsbusters does the usual neocon dance of placing supposition and conjecture with HALF the truth.


[COLOR="[U]Red"]Why was coverage of Obama so negative[/U]?
Republican contenders consistently leveled criticism against him at campaign stops and during debates, and that was often parroted by news outlets. Obama is also "inextricably linked," Kurtz notes, to unfavorable news coverage of the Supreme Court challenge to his health care legislation, rising gas prices, and the struggling economy.

How did coverage of Romney compare to his GOP rivals?Romney got a much easier ride, says Pew's Mark Jurkowitz. Rick Santorum "never enjoyed a sustained period of positive press," while Newt Gingrich enjoyed only one week of net positive coverage — the week that he won South Carolina. Ron Paul managed consistently positive coverage, but "this was offset by the fact that the media virtually ignored him," says Kurtz.


Does this disprove "liberal bias" in the media?Yes, says David Jackson at USA Today. It's time media-bashing conservatives started eating crow. Hold on, says Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary. Many pundits are spinning this study as proof of "Obama-bashing" in the media, but they've got it wrong. Instead, Obama's "normally adoring press corps covered him more like a candidate than a commander-in-chief," transitioning from fawning over Obama as a historical barrier-buster to scrutinizing him. They were simply subjecting his "poor record" to routine examination. That's not bashing.
[/COLOR]


Let me dumb it down for ya, Tiny......the GOP got a carte blanche to bash Obama at every turn with every FAILED criticism used since the 2008 campaign, even when they were chewing each others legs. And like it or not, this IS an election year. No matter WHAT Obama said or did, you had Boehner and company accusing him of being "on campaign"....especially when he beats them at their own game.

So according to the GOP, Obama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But their piss poor performance was and is their own worse enemy.

And PUH-LEEZE don't try to portray Newsbusters as an objective observer!

I never claimed Newsbusters was unbiased. Their job is to rip apart the bullshit in the left wing media.

Soul purpose in their lives and I for one appreciate it.

Just a quick note though on Obama being in campaign mode. I guess you've missed the latest statistics.

Obama has had more campaign fundraisers than 5 previous presidents combined. Boehner and the RNC are quite right.

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign'

By Toby Harnden

PUBLISHED: 12:41 GMT, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 19:16 GMT, 29 April 2012



Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Obama has held more fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign' | Mail Online

 

[George Costanza]

So much for "liberal" media bias!

Mr Romney is a liberal.
Next.

He is opposed to gay marriage. Liberals are not opposed to gay marriage.