So, You Think The Media Is Not Biased

[uscitizen]

Of course we can assume that good things are happening in Iraq because the media are not reporting them ?

 

[maineman]

and you think "If it bleeds, it leads" is a particularly LIBERAL media philosophy?

I suppose that "tits above the fold" is too?

 

[maineman]

"MM, you rattled a number of negative leftist news items over the past couple decades."

Without going back to check, I think I rattled off whitewater jennifer flowers travelgate vince foster filegate paula jones cumstained blue dress monica lewinsky house judiciary committee televised hearings televised impeachment proceedings televised senate trial... and to claim that that list was news items over the past couple decades and somehow just ignore the fact that it was a full court nonstop republican driven media onslaught on ONE democratic president from day one of his presidency and not ending until dubya was inaugurated eight years later is nothing but republican apologist SPIN. You should be ashamed.

 

[Bern80]

"MM, you rattled a number of negative leftist news items over the past couple decades."

Without going back to check, I think I rattled off whitewater jennifer flowers travelgate vince foster filegate paula jones cumstained blue dress monica lewinsky house judiciary committee televised hearings televised impeachment proceedings televised senate trial... and to claim that that list was news items over the past couple decades and somehow just ignore the fact that it was a full court nonstop republican driven media onslaught on ONE democratic president from day one of his presidency and not ending until dubya was inaugurated eight years later is nothing but republican apologist SPIN. You should be ashamed.

If you read my response again you will see I never apologuized for anyone. Plus I'm not a republican. Who again is doing the spinning?

 

[maineman]

If you read my response again you will see I never apologuized for anyone. Plus I'm not a republican. Who again is doing the spinning?

You certainly suggested that the 10:1 ratio applied to liberal versus conservative spin to the news. And then you referred to my litany of non-stop action against Clinton as "some news stories over the past couple decades". That is clearly disingenuous.

 

[maineman]

and as far as I can see...there is no meat on this "Hillary fundraising problems" bone....and the Pelosi support for the Fairness doctrine only comes from third hand reports of what went on in a democratic house caucus...

that's a great idea. Let's have the main stream media be a fucking gossip column. he said he said she said..... that's hard news to you?

and again...if you think that showing the gore in Iraq is some liberal news philosophy, you have never studied journalism. "If it leads it bleeds" has been around a long long time.

 

[Bern80]

You certainly suggested that the 10:1 ratio applied to liberal versus conservative spin to the news.

I believe that to be accurate, yes

And then you referred to my litany of non-stop action against Clinton as "some news stories over the past couple decades". That is clearly disingenuous.

again if you read my post I don't question if the above was reported. And a lot if it was before my time so I apologize for not understanding the context. I question though who reported it.

 

[Shogun]

I still wonder what percentage of fox news prime time talking heads donate only to republicans....

 

[Annie]

I still wonder what percentage of fox news prime time talking heads donate only to republicans....

Actually if you go to that msnbc site, you'll find 0 'talking heads' from FOX. You will find several reporters and staff. I do believe that more gave to dems than republicans.

 

[Bern80]

and as far as I can see...there is no meat on this "Hillary fundraising problems" bone....and the Pelosi support for the Fairness doctrine only comes from third hand reports of what went on in a democratic house caucus...

How will we know if all these people you claim have so much jounalistic integrity don't find out? Is it really realistic to beleive that the reporter who donated to Hillary's compaign is going to investigate a piece that possibly could disqualify her from the race?

that's a great idea. Let's have the main stream media be a fucking gossip column. he said he said she said..... that's hard news to you?

What is this in reference to? It isn't something I ever suggested.

and again...if you think that showing the gore in Iraq is some liberal news philosophy, you have never studied journalism. "If it leads it bleeds" has been around a long long time.

Apparently it is because there the only one's doing it.

 

[Shogun]

Actually if you go to that msnbc site, you'll find 0 'talking heads' from FOX. You will find several reporters and staff. I do believe that more gave to dems than republicans.

that site didnt list it's total of 144 people surveyed so I hardly think it is accurate to say "0" talking heads from fox donate to republicans. It said that a producer for orielly donated to a dem.. that is hardly conclusive.

 

[hjmick]

Here's a link to a pretty good list. The site itself is pretty good. In researching this topic, one thing I've found is, most of the large corporations have PACs and most of the prominent figures within the respective corporations give a majority of their contributions to the PACs.

NEWSMEAT Hall of Fame - Media
Federal Campaign Contributions Since 1978
updated every Monday

 

[maineman]

"I believe that to be accurate, yes"

do you sing a chorus of "I believe" while you type that? I believe that number is bullshit. So I guess we are at a standstill on THAT particular issue.

"again if you read my post I don't question if the above was reported. And a lot if it was before my time so I apologize for not understanding the context. I question though who reported it."

everybody reported it. It was Clinton bashing 24/7. Republicans have bitched about the fact that their children were continually inundated with lurid coverage about oral sex....do you think that was just on Faux? (and one wonders why, if the story was so repugnant to them, that they pursued it with such vigor) EVERY network, EVERY paper covered ALL of those stories ALL the fucking time.... so this idea that a "liberal press" would somehow protect and shield or even go easy on a democrat because he was a democrat is clearly bullshit.

I DID live through it. I lived through Watergate and the crimes that Nixon committed were WAY worse than the indiscretions of Bill Clinton yet the coverage of those "scandals" was nearly identical.

The myth of a liberal press is just that. Today's media is owned by BIG corporations. Do you think they are going to go out of their way to promote the democratic agenda, if it is, as you all claim, so bad for big corporations?

 

[red states rule]

"I believe that to be accurate, yes"

do you sing a chorus of "I believe" while you type that? I believe that number is bullshit. So I guess we are at a standstill on THAT particular issue.

"again if you read my post I don't question if the above was reported. And a lot if it was before my time so I apologize for not understanding the context. I question though who reported it."

everybody reported it. It was Clinton bashing 24/7. Republicans have bitched about the fact that their children were continually inundated with lurid coverage about oral sex....do you think that was just on Faux? (and one wonders why, if the story was so repugnant to them, that they pursued it with such vigor) EVERY network, EVERY paper covered ALL of those stories ALL the fucking time.... so this idea that a "liberal press" would somehow protect and shield or even go easy on a democrat because he was a democrat is clearly bullshit.

I DID live through it. I lived through Watergate and the crimes that Nixon committed were WAY worse than the indiscretions of Bill Clinton yet the coverage of those "scandals" was nearly identical.

The myth of a liberal press is just that. Today's media is owned by BIG corporations. Do you think they are going to go out of their way to promote the democratic agenda, if it is, as you all claim, so bad for big corporations?

For many years the liberal media did not have any competition. They were the only game in town

Then along came talk radio, the internet, and Fox News. All of a sudden they had competition

They could no longer shape and slant the news - they had outlets to call them on it

Like with Dan Rather trying to tilt the election to Kerry with fake documents, without the competition he may have gotten away with it

 

[maineman]

For many years the liberal media did not have any competition. They were the only game in town

Then along came talk radio, the internet, and Fox News. All of a sudden they had competition

They could no longer shape and slant the news - they had outlets to call them on it

Like with Dan Rather trying to tilt the election to Kerry with fake documents, without the competition he may have gotten away with it

your opinion. not supported by facts. ( no surprise!)

It is, on the other hand, a FACT that all the major mainstream media is operated by LARGE corporations who, if conservatives like you are to be believed, would NEVER be biased in favor of a political ideology that is against them.

 

[red states rule]

your opinion. not supported by facts. ( no surprise!)

It is, on the other hand, a FACT that all the major mainstream media is operated by LARGE corporations who, if conservatives like you are to be believed, would NEVER be biased in favor of a political ideology that is against them.

To libs, facts never mean anything

 

[maineman]

To libs, facts never mean anything

to morons, the definition of "fact" is twisted.

here is a clue: your opinions are not now, nor have they ever been, FACTS.

 

[Bern80]

"I believe that to be accurate, yes"

do you sing a chorus of "I believe" while you type that? I believe that number is bullshit. So I guess we are at a standstill on THAT particular issue.

Open your eyes man. You don't need to surf the internet much to see how much more news there is out their then what is being covered on teh nightly news.

everybody reported it. It was Clinton bashing 24/7. Republicans have bitched about the fact that their children were continually inundated with lurid coverage about oral sex....do you think that was just on Faux? (and one wonders why, if the story was so repugnant to them, that they pursued it with such vigor) EVERY network, EVERY paper covered ALL of those stories ALL the fucking time.... so this idea that a "liberal press" would somehow protect and shield or even go easy on a democrat because he was a democrat is clearly bullshit.

I for one am not claiming media bias has remained unchanged one way or the other over time. I believe there is less journalistic integrity now then even in teh clinton years for one thing. It was pursued I believe for a lot of reasons.
The best addage I can use is when the rumbling gets loud enough it's time to pay attention to the boulder crashing down the hill. The main stream media could not afford to not cover this. In a certain sense they feed off themselves. One network can not afford to ignore something because they are competeing against others. Once it got started there was no stopping it.

I DID live through it. I lived through Watergate and the crimes that Nixon committed were WAY worse than the indiscretions of Bill Clinton yet the coverage of those "scandals" was nearly identical.

The character of the President of the United States is unimportant?

The myth of a liberal press is just that. Today's media is owned by BIG corporations. Do you think they are going to go out of their way to promote the democratic agenda, if it is, as you all claim, so bad for big corporations?

Grow some nuts and say what you mean MM when you say big corporations. I'lll do your tranlsating for you this once. 'Big corporations' in MM's world = right wing.

 

[red states rule]

all of a sudden you are not at all interested in the political donation of those in the (fox) media, eh?

WOW, SHOCKER.


poor guy, did you just get bitchslapped with strong logic?

It would seem Fox news employees give to DEMOCRATS as well

So much for Fox News being full of right wingers



D) Fox News Channel, Codie Brooks, researcher for Brit Hume's "Special Report," $300 to Senate campaign of Harold Ford Jr., Tennessee Democrat, in March 2006, $200 more in June, and $2,100 more in September.


(D) Fox affiliate in Omaha, KPTM, Calvert Collins, reporter, $500 in October 2006 to Jim Esch, Democratic House candidate from Omaha. Esch lost to the Republican incumbent in November.



(D) Fox affiliate in Minneapolis, KMSP, Alix Kendall, morning anchor, $250 in September 2006 to Midwest Values PAC, which gave to Democratic candidates.



(D) Fox affiliate in Washington, D.C., WTTG, Laura Evans, anchor, $500 in August 2006 to John Sarbanes, Democratic House candidate in Maryland. Evans anchors the 5 p.m. news. She is listed in FEC records by her married name, Laura Manatos.


(R) Fox News Channel, Ann Stewart Banker, producer for Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," $5,000 in June 2006 to Volunteer PAC, which gave to Republican candidates. Her father was once a campaign treasurer for former Republican Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

for the complete list of all the reporters in the survey:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455#Brooks

 

[Annie]

that site didnt list it's total of 144 people surveyed so I hardly think it is accurate to say "0" talking heads from fox donate to republicans. It said that a producer for orielly donated to a dem.. that is hardly conclusive.

Yes it did, just follow the links at the article.