The Issue Everyone's Dancing Around Is Media Coverage Favors Obama

[del]

^

worries about being ignored on the innertubz

 

[rightwinger]

Romney didnt lose...

It was the liberal Lamestream media

 

[del]

"clear channel represents the alternative media."

^
rdeanlike idiocy

 

[jasonnfree]

Who would that be, people that make a career of posting things they hear on fox news?

The media recently trumpeted that bad employment news would no doubt be a disaster for Obama. Instead, Obama's numbers went up. The media is now furious because they weren't able to push Obama's numbers down by pushing that particular slant of theirs.

The media very badly wants a close election, being that improves their ratings. They're not getting a close election, so they're working to boost Romney, to try to make things closer. That's why the media practically weeps in impotent rage whenever Obama gets any good news.

So, why can't the media ever just say "Ryan is lying" or "Romney is lying", given that both of them regularly tell such whoppers?

You are rolling with real players here.

Do not embarrass yourself with another post like this.

 

[mamooth]

You are rolling with real players here.

Looks like someone has some interesting delusions of their own self-importance. That's right, you're such a playa! Nobody better mess with you! You'll go all gangsta on 'em!

Do not embarrass yourself with another post like this.

Couldn't even try to address the issue, eh?

Our media is owned entirely by very big and very conservative corporations. Claiming that such extremely conservative entities have a liberal bias is just crazy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Issue Everyone's Dancing Around Is Media Coverage Favors Obama

No one is ‘dancing around’ anything, as this is a non-issue.

As already noted, research has demonstrated that the press concerning Obama and Romney is equally negative.

If Romney loses it will be because of Romney, not because Obama gets better press, because the debate mods didn't ask the right questions, or any other nonsense.

Correct.

It’s time for conservatives to stop whining and take personal responsibility for a change.

As with voter ‘fraud,’ the inane notion of the ‘liberal biased media’ is a contrived rightist myth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does 'the media' have any obligation to be unbiased, left OR right?

 

[candycorn]

So you're saying media bias doesn't exist?

Sure it does...it has a corporate media bias

Who Owns the Media?

Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution. In the interactive charts below we reveal who owns what.

Here one...

Bain Capital/Thomas H. Lee Partners (Clear Channel)

2011 Revenue: $6.2 billion

Company Overview: These private equity firms own Clear Channel, the largest radio station owner in the country. Approximately half of the company's revenue is generated from radio broadcasting. The remaining half comes from advertising companies and other investments.

Radio: 866 radio stations and Premiere Radio Networks (a national radio network that produces, distributes or represents approximately 90 syndicated radio programs, serves nearly 5,800 radio station affiliates and has over 213 million weekly listeners. Programs include the Rush Limbaugh Show, Glenn Beck and the Sean Hannity Show); Fox Sports Radio; Fox News Radio; Australian Radio Network

Other: Katz Media (radio advertising broker); American Outdoor Advertising

The mainstream media isn't Clear Channel. AM radio (Wow.....what a threat)

Clear Channel represents the alternative media.

The Mainstream Media is owned by companies like Viacom, Gannett, NBC Universal. NBC works out of a building owned by GE called the Rockefeller Center. The FCC is run by the Obama Administration. Anyone who's license is coming up for renewal this year had to meet their standards of fairness or lose their licenses.

Most media outlets are headquartered out of New York, a liberal state, and Washington D.C. and extremely liberal city.

Viacom - CBS, BET, MTV, Paramount Pictures, Showtime, Dreamworks, Microsoft, Simon & Schuster, 170 media networks reaching more than 600 million global subscribers and more than 500 branded digital media properties.

They produce the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, MTV programs including Bill Maher, Comedy Central, Nickelodean, and Spike channel. Viacom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of conglomerates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gannett - USA Today, The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, Arizona. Other significant newspapers include The Indianapolis Star, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Tennessean in Nashville, Tennessee, The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, NY, The Des Moines Register, the Detroit Free Press and The News-Press in Fort Myers.

Gannett owns 23 television stations through Gannett Broadcasting Inc. the largest group owner of NBC-affiliated stations.

How does getting your nuts kicked feel bud........?

Apparently Mudwhistle likes it rough. Groce.

 

[007]

C-span is still rerunning the Bubba Clinton speech today. Must be like the hundredth rerunning of it so far.

Naaaahh... there's no libroid love affair with the left going on with the media... pfft...

It's so fucking blatant it's pathetic. Just about as pathetic as those here thinking that anyone is buying their act that there isn't... fucking dumbasses.

 

[candycorn]

C-span is still rerunning the Bubba Clinton speech today. Must be like the hundredth rerunning of it so far.

Naaaahh... there's no libroid love affair with the left going on with the media... pfft...

It's so fucking blatant it's pathetic. Just about as pathetic as those here thinking that anyone is buying their act that there isn't... fucking dumbasses.

Poor baby...Want some milk and cookies?

 

[alan1]

Both of the below articles are from Reuters. In one article, Romney leads by two points and in the other article, Obama leads by two points.
But, look at how that 2 point spread is "reported.

Romney leads by two points, Romney takes lead over Obama with convention bounce: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Mitt Romney has moved into a narrow lead over U.S. President Barack Obama in a small bounce for him from the Republican National Convention, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

Obama leads by two points, Obama widens lead over Romney despite jobs data: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Obama had leapfrogged Romney in the daily tracking poll on Friday with a lead of 46 percent to 44 percent.

"leapfrogged" vs "small bounce" and "lead" vs "narrow lead" when both articles are talking about 2 point difference between the candidates in a poll with a margin of error of near 3 points.

And people claim their is no bias in reporting. Reuters reports it, and most newspapers pick it up and say the exact same thing.

 

[bodecea]

The only reason Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell is the simple fact that he's getting great media coverage. It doesn't matter how lousy a president he's turned out to be. He is getting tons of help from his lap-dog press.

Everything Mitt Romney does is torn to pieces while everything Obama does wrong is ether ignored or trivialized. I'm listening to these assholes on Fox talk about the bump Obama received from the convention and they're simply ignoring the elephant in the room. Obama has an unfair advantage when it comes to media coverage. It doesn't matter how good of a case Romney makes for change if he can't overcome the lies and the censorship that is in full effect from the Mainstream Media.

I was undergoing a four hour long test at the hospital Friday and while I was waiting I watched both Obama and Romney giving speeches. Obama seemed like he was a smart-ass talking smack about Romney. He was campaigning like someone who hasn't spent a day in the Oval Office, promising one thing after another and using fear tactics in an attempt to cast a pal over Mitt Romney. Just about everyone in that waiting room told me they weren't buying his crapola. Obama was bad-mouthing Romney big-time.

"This guy has no plan. Everything he wants to do has been tried before and look what it got us. Vote for me and I promise things will be better!!!!"

I was thinking everything Obama was saying could be directly applied to himself.

Then they showed Mitt Romney's town-hall. Romney essentially was asking everyone if they wanted four more years of lackluster growth, high unemployment, and shrinking wages. Obama claims that nobody could have done anything about the malaise we're in. The problem is we need someone who feels he can do something to improve the situation, not someone who feels he's powerless to do his job. We don't need someone who feels he can't work with Congress to get things done. We need someone who is at least willing to try, don't we???

Obama needs a lot of help to convince everyone that things aren't so bad. Tell that to the folks that live in California that make $20/hr and still have to live in their cars. The costs of energy has skyrocketed as Obama predicted and it has gotten harder and harder to make ends meet. Underemployment is one of the biggest problems that goes unnoticed in the media. Four more years of Obama assures that this will continue to get worse. It's almost like he's hoping for it. He figures that a 100% increase in our utility bills is going in the right direction. If you ask him what he's planning to do about it he'll just say nothing. He has no control over it. His war on fossil-fuels had nothing to do with it. Fact is his war on our energy has everything to do with it. He said Friday that we are less energy dependent than we've been in our history. This bold-faced lie seemed to go unnoticed by the attending crowd but not with the folks watching it on television.

Obama thinks that calling Mitt Romney a

Getting your excmoney-grubbing rich guy who murders people's wives and enjoys firing people and outsourcing jobs to China is going to get him another four years. Four years to further destroy the economy. Four more years to destroy capitalism so he can replace it with something he was taught was better. European socialism based on crony-capitalism. So far he's pretty much staying even with Romney. However the trends don't look as good as his slobbering press would lead you to believe. The trend looks better for Romney than Obama but as anyone who has been paying attention knows, the worry is Obama will be able to trick us into giving what he wants. Most of the people in that room felt Obama was a shoe-in. They're scared. I told them if Obama wins it will be by a squeaker. But if Romney wins I'm pretty sure it will be by a landslide. They said "I sure hope so. I can't handle 4 more years of this nonsense."

Getting your excuses lined up early, I see.

 

[clevergirl]

Both of the below articles are from Reuters. In one article, Romney leads by two points and in the other article, Obama leads by two points.
But, look at how that 2 point spread is "reported.

Romney leads by two points, Romney takes lead over Obama with convention bounce: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Mitt Romney has moved into a narrow lead over U.S. President Barack Obama in a small bounce for him from the Republican National Convention, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

Obama leads by two points, Obama widens lead over Romney despite jobs data: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Obama had leapfrogged Romney in the daily tracking poll on Friday with a lead of 46 percent to 44 percent.

"leapfrogged" vs "small bounce" and "lead" vs "narrow lead" when both articles are talking about 2 point difference between the candidates in a poll with a margin of error of near 3 points.

And people claim their is no bias in reporting. Reuters reports it, and most newspapers pick it up and say the exact same thing.

Pointing out the real and obvious bias is pointless. Here is what matters.

Those persons, who are interested in politics, are actually the only ones who listen to and follow what is said in the media. They are the only ones it matters to with regards to impacting this election. Of that group, those that can change the actual outcome are the independents- and THEY don't typically like the media. They know that it is biased left and so therefore are going to vote based on the economy and Obama's record-not what is reported. Meaning at the end of the day, as disheartening and tragic as it is to have such a biased media, it really won't matter.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here's more evidence of that "bias", folks:


Ryan defends his support of defense cuts - CBS News

That mean ol' Norah O' Donnell, wanting a straight answer out of poor, put-upon little Paulie.


<sniff>

 

[alan1]

Both of the below articles are from Reuters. In one article, Romney leads by two points and in the other article, Obama leads by two points.
But, look at how that 2 point spread is "reported.

Romney leads by two points, Romney takes lead over Obama with convention bounce: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Mitt Romney has moved into a narrow lead over U.S. President Barack Obama in a small bounce for him from the Republican National Convention, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Thursday.

Obama leads by two points, Obama widens lead over Romney despite jobs data: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters

Obama had leapfrogged Romney in the daily tracking poll on Friday with a lead of 46 percent to 44 percent.

"leapfrogged" vs "small bounce" and "lead" vs "narrow lead" when both articles are talking about 2 point difference between the candidates in a poll with a margin of error of near 3 points.

And people claim their is no bias in reporting. Reuters reports it, and most newspapers pick it up and say the exact same thing.

Pointing out the real and obvious bias is pointless. Here is what matters.

Those persons, who are interested in politics, are actually the only ones who listen to and follow what is said in the media. They are the only ones it matters to with regards to impacting this election. Of that group, those that can change the actual outcome are the independents- and THEY don't typically like the media. They know that it is biased left and so therefore are going to vote based on the economy and Obama's record-not what is reported. Meaning at the end of the day, as disheartening and tragic as it is to have such a biased media, it really won't matter.

But the sheer volume of fools that accept the MSM spin and vote accordingly is a challenge to overcome. That is how Mr Obama won last time.

 

[LoneLaugher]

David Gregory practically blew Romney on MTP today. Nutter will have to stop whining sometime.

 

[Misty]

Read the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg who actually witnessed first hand when he worked for CBS.

 

[JoeB131]

Could you at least wait until Romney loses before you start annoying us with the excuses and blame-shifting over why he lost?

Oh, snap!

 

[Bfgrn]

There is a very REAL liberal bias to the truth. What we argue about here isn't philosophy, we argue FACTS vs. false right wing propaganda and lies.

And any of you on the right are welcome to pick any topic, and I and other liberals will hand you your head, every time.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

LOL

pubs run from the journalists or demand to have control over the questions asked and what do the rw's say?

Its the lib's fault.

Ryan CHARGED for his town hall meetings (Constitution? He don't need no steekeen Constitution) and then had an elderly man forcible removed because he dared ask a question. And, then, SUCMN Ryan made a joke about the man's illness.

What to the rw's say about this?

Its a lib conspiracy.

Talk about head in the sand. You sheeples are just DUMB.