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

[del]

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.

 

[francoHFW]

Be unbiased, no. Not lie, yes. It's called journalism.

 

[mudwhistle]

Only if they insist on calling themselves a news source rather than merely entertainment.

Maybe you just don't like the truth. You can always turn on Fox News to hear the propaganda and dogma you crave.

"The propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda"
Ray McGovern - retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries

But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

Maybe? He hasn't been honest about anything in the few years I've seen his posts. He indicating that the killing of OBL was a "mistake" and of course that Obama gets no credit for it. The dishonesty of the GOP isn't shocking; the depths it has sunk to is though.

I think maybe you are a liar.

I never said that Osama Bin Laden was killed by mistake. Course you are prone to making shit up.

 

[zeke]

Are the rethugs really trotting out their excuses for losing already??>>?? WOW.

Its not the economy stupid, its the media. LMAO.

I had already read where they (rethugs) have lined up some excuses for Mittens failure should he be elected. Obama being the number 1 excuse.

But really rethugs, giving up so soon?

 

[mudwhistle]

Are the rethugs really trotting out their excuses for losing already??>>?? WOW.

Its not the economy stupid, its the media. LMAO.

I had already read where they (rethugs) have lined up some excuses for Mittens failure should he be elected. Obama being the number 1 excuse.

But really rethugs, giving up so soon?

Wow....now that really makes sense, panty-sniffer.

Of course Obama would be an excuse because they're both running for the same office.

Jesus, go get a cup of coffee dip-shit.

 

[zeke]

Hey I forgot to say; fuk you muddy.

Hows those sec 8 welfare tenants working out for you?


Your thread muddy. Convince anyone yet of what you claim? Fuk no. You got nothing but mouth.

 

[JoeB131]

Are the rethugs really trotting out their excuses for losing already??>>?? WOW.

Its not the economy stupid, its the media. LMAO.

I had already read where they (rethugs) have lined up some excuses for Mittens failure should he be elected. Obama being the number 1 excuse.

But really rethugs, giving up so soon?

I can already tell you what the excuses are going to be...

1) Romney wasn't a "real conservative". Which is true. BUt that didn't bother them so much during the primaries when the Koch Brothers "Teabagged" them into voting for him.

2) Anti-Mormon bigotry- All you big meany-heads didn't vote for him because he was a Moooooooormon.

3) THe Media covered up for Obama while sliming Romney by pointing out his past.

The point is, what we won't get is the introspection- that the GOP has alienated minorities, worked against the interests of working people, and have pandered to religious nutbags, to the degree that even in the worst economy in 80 years, they still couldn't win.

Mitt Romney will be the new Alf Landon. It took the GOP three more losing elections before they did the real introspection and elected Ike after getting right on the issues.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey I forgot to say; fuk you muddy.

Hows those sec 8 welfare tenants working out for you?


Your thread muddy. Convince anyone yet of what you claim? Fuk no. You got nothing but mouth.

I don't have to convince anyone that matters.

 

[zeke]

Of course Obama would be an excuse because they're both running for the same office. Muddy.

So muddy, because Obama was running for office but mittens won, that would be the excuse for the failure of a mittens presidency?

Is that really what you said and meant?

At least you seem to admit that Mittens would fail. And Obama would be to blame. Typical Rethug. Blame someone else for your failure.

I will wait all day while working for the brillance of your reply. LMAO again....

 

[zeke]

The Modern Republican Coyote chews off three legs and is still caught in the trap - Joe B

Thanks Joe B. I almost missed that and it was really funny. True but funny. Out to work. Later.

 

[mudwhistle]

Of course Obama would be an excuse because they're both running for the same office. Muddy.

So muddy, because Obama was running for office but mittens won, that would be the excuse for the failure of a mittens presidency?

Is that really what you said and meant?

At least you seem to admit that Mittens would fail. And Obama would be to blame. Typical Rethug. Blame someone else for your failure.

I will wait all day while working for the brillance of your reply. LMAO again....

Are you hearing voices now Mr Panty-sniffer???

 

[mudwhistle]

The Modern Republican Coyote chews off three legs and is still caught in the trap - Joe B

Thanks Joe B. I almost missed that and it was really funny. True but funny. Out to work. Later.

Bubeye........

 

[Mac1958]

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

The media (of which I was a member for about 20 years in a former life) has an obligation to tell the whole story. To not exclude information that conflicts with their opinion or their thesis, for example.

What has happened over the last few decades, though, is that the press has decided that it has the responsibility of examining a story or issue, determining based on its own set of values what "the truth" is, and then reporting the story as "fact". And, since a vast majority of the press is liberal, that's the color of the story you get. I'd even go so far as to say that, when they report a story from a leftist perspective, they do often think they're providing "the truth". But it's not the whole story.

One thing I've seen a ton of lefties say recently is that "a story often doesn't have two sides, and so that contrary information doesn't deserve to be in the story." That's pure bullshit. That's giving the journalist the power to decide what "the truth" is, and that's not their responsibility. And, again, odds are great that the journalist has a leftist perspective. What I want is an objective presentation of the facts so that I can make up my own mind. But I no longer expect that.

I can certainly understand why liberals don't see bias in the media, it's obvious: For the most part, it is presented from their perspective.

.

 

[JoeB131]

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

The media (of which I was a member for about 20 years in a former life) has an obligation to tell the whole story. To not exclude information that conflicts with their opinion or their thesis, for example.

What has happened over the last few decades, though, is that the press has decided that it has the responsibility of examining a story or issue, determining based on its own set of values what "the truth" is, and then reporting the story as "fact". And, since a vast majority of the press is liberal, that's the color of the story you get. I'd even go so far as to say that, when they report a story from a leftist perspective, they do often think they're providing "the truth". But it's not the whole story.

One thing I've seen a ton of lefties say recently is that "a story often doesn't have two sides, and so that contrary information doesn't deserve to be in the story." That's pure bullshit. That's giving the journalist the power to decide what "the truth" is, and that's not their responsibility. And, again, odds are great that the journalist has a leftist perspective. What I want is an objective presentation of the facts so that I can make up my own mind. But I no longer expect that.

I can certainly understand why liberals don't see bias in the media, it's obvious: For the most part, it is presented from their perspective.

.

I think there is a liberal bias in the media because journalism as a profession is more likely to attract liberals. Just like finance is more likely to attract conservatives.

I also think a large part of the problem is the commercialization of the news.

It was up until the 1970's, that TV Networks took a loss on their news divisions. It was the job of the Beverely Hillbilllies to sell Corn Flakes, not Walter Conkrite. He was there to read the news and it was considered a public service.

Then, as the great satirical movie Network pointed out, it became a goal to make News into Entertainment. Let's not send a film crew off to cover that famine in Africa. That costs money and frankly, it's kind of a Debbie Downer. Let's cover Tom and Katie's divorce!

Even looking at this race, they spend very little time talking about the issues or the plans these guys have put out and more about the silly stuff.

And our politics end up having less substance. I recently watched the Ford Carter debate. The two of them went into a lot of detail and a lot of substance about what concerned people in 1976, but all anyone remembers about those debates today is Ford flubbed a sentence about Poland being under Soviet domination.

Today, the goal is to score points and not make any mistakes. Not much substance at all.

 

[Mac1958]

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

The media (of which I was a member for about 20 years in a former life) has an obligation to tell the whole story. To not exclude information that conflicts with their opinion or their thesis, for example.

What has happened over the last few decades, though, is that the press has decided that it has the responsibility of examining a story or issue, determining based on its own set of values what "the truth" is, and then reporting the story as "fact". And, since a vast majority of the press is liberal, that's the color of the story you get. I'd even go so far as to say that, when they report a story from a leftist perspective, they do often think they're providing "the truth". But it's not the whole story.

One thing I've seen a ton of lefties say recently is that "a story often doesn't have two sides, and so that contrary information doesn't deserve to be in the story." That's pure bullshit. That's giving the journalist the power to decide what "the truth" is, and that's not their responsibility. And, again, odds are great that the journalist has a leftist perspective. What I want is an objective presentation of the facts so that I can make up my own mind. But I no longer expect that.

I can certainly understand why liberals don't see bias in the media, it's obvious: For the most part, it is presented from their perspective.

.

I think there is a liberal bias in the media because journalism as a profession is more likely to attract liberals. Just like finance is more likely to attract conservatives.

I also think a large part of the problem is the commercialization of the news.

It was up until the 1970's, that TV Networks took a loss on their news divisions. It was the job of the Beverely Hillbilllies to sell Corn Flakes, not Walter Conkrite. He was there to read the news and it was considered a public service.

Then, as the great satirical movie Network pointed out, it became a goal to make News into Entertainment. Let's not send a film crew off to cover that famine in Africa. That costs money and frankly, it's kind of a Debbie Downer. Let's cover Tom and Katie's divorce!

Even looking at this race, they spend very little time talking about the issues or the plans these guys have put out and more about the silly stuff.

And our politics end up having less substance. I recently watched the Ford Carter debate. The two of them went into a lot of detail and a lot of substance about what concerned people in 1976, but all anyone remembers about those debates today is Ford flubbed a sentence about Poland being under Soviet domination.

Today, the goal is to score points and not make any mistakes. Not much substance at all.

Agree completely.

I'd also add that my first assignment in my first class on my first day of college was to read "All the President's Men" (it was relatively new back then, I'm old). Journalist as celebrity. I think it played a significant part in what was to come.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

The media (of which I was a member for about 20 years in a former life) has an obligation to tell the whole story. To not exclude information that conflicts with their opinion or their thesis, for example.

What has happened over the last few decades, though, is that the press has decided that it has the responsibility of examining a story or issue, determining based on its own set of values what "the truth" is, and then reporting the story as "fact". And, since a vast majority of the press is liberal, that's the color of the story you get. I'd even go so far as to say that, when they report a story from a leftist perspective, they do often think they're providing "the truth". But it's not the whole story.

One thing I've seen a ton of lefties say recently is that "a story often doesn't have two sides, and so that contrary information doesn't deserve to be in the story." That's pure bullshit. That's giving the journalist the power to decide what "the truth" is, and that's not their responsibility. And, again, odds are great that the journalist has a leftist perspective. What I want is an objective presentation of the facts so that I can make up my own mind. But I no longer expect that.

I can certainly understand why liberals don't see bias in the media, it's obvious: For the most part, it is presented from their perspective.

.

I think there is a liberal bias in the media because journalism as a profession is more likely to attract liberals. Just like finance is more likely to attract conservatives.

I also think a large part of the problem is the commercialization of the news.

It was up until the 1970's, that TV Networks took a loss on their news divisions. It was the job of the Beverely Hillbilllies to sell Corn Flakes, not Walter Conkrite. He was there to read the news and it was considered a public service.

Then, as the great satirical movie Network pointed out, it became a goal to make News into Entertainment. Let's not send a film crew off to cover that famine in Africa. That costs money and frankly, it's kind of a Debbie Downer. Let's cover Tom and Katie's divorce!

Even looking at this race, they spend very little time talking about the issues or the plans these guys have put out and more about the silly stuff.

And our politics end up having less substance. I recently watched the Ford Carter debate. The two of them went into a lot of detail and a lot of substance about what concerned people in 1976, but all anyone remembers about those debates today is Ford flubbed a sentence about Poland being under Soviet domination.

Today, the goal is to score points and not make any mistakes. Not much substance at all.

Agree completely.

I'd also add that my first assignment in my first class on my first day of college was to read "All the President's Men" (it was relatively new back then, I'm old). Journalist as celebrity. I think it played a significant part in what was to come.

.

I decided after 2 years of Journalism school that I was in the wrong field. The chances of getting a good position was pretty slim. My politics just didn't fit in.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Another, uh, "thought".

I have a good buddy here in town with whom I went to college. He does the news for a talk radio station here. He's a proud and committed socialist, and will tell you so at the drop of a hat.

Yet when he does the news, you'd absolutely never know his political leanings. He never gets emotional, he always provides a full and balanced perspective (in very few words, by the way), and his style is very conversational and friendly. I really enjoy listening to him.

I guess my point is that it's not impossible.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I think there is a liberal bias in the media because journalism as a profession is more likely to attract liberals. Just like finance is more likely to attract conservatives.

I also think a large part of the problem is the commercialization of the news.

It was up until the 1970's, that TV Networks took a loss on their news divisions. It was the job of the Beverely Hillbilllies to sell Corn Flakes, not Walter Conkrite. He was there to read the news and it was considered a public service.

Then, as the great satirical movie Network pointed out, it became a goal to make News into Entertainment. Let's not send a film crew off to cover that famine in Africa. That costs money and frankly, it's kind of a Debbie Downer. Let's cover Tom and Katie's divorce!

Even looking at this race, they spend very little time talking about the issues or the plans these guys have put out and more about the silly stuff.

And our politics end up having less substance. I recently watched the Ford Carter debate. The two of them went into a lot of detail and a lot of substance about what concerned people in 1976, but all anyone remembers about those debates today is Ford flubbed a sentence about Poland being under Soviet domination.

Today, the goal is to score points and not make any mistakes. Not much substance at all.

Agree completely.

I'd also add that my first assignment in my first class on my first day of college was to read "All the President's Men" (it was relatively new back then, I'm old). Journalist as celebrity. I think it played a significant part in what was to come.

.

I decided after 2 years of Journalism school that I was in the wrong field. The chances of getting a good position was pretty slim. My politics just didn't fit in.

Yeah, understandable. It's a wacky field, indeed.

.

 

[del]

Hey I forgot to say; fuk you muddy.

Hows those sec 8 welfare tenants working out for you?


Your thread muddy. Convince anyone yet of what you claim? Fuk no. You got nothing but mouth.

I don't have to convince anyone that matters.

you misspelled *can't*

 

[mudwhistle]

.

Another, uh, "thought".

I have a good buddy here in town with whom I went to college. He does the news for a talk radio station here. He's a proud and committed socialist, and will tell you so at the drop of a hat.

Yet when he does the news, you'd absolutely never know his political leanings. He never gets emotional, he always provides a full and balanced perspective (in very few words, by the way), and his style is very conversational and friendly. I really enjoy listening to him.

I guess my point is that it's not impossible.

.

I could tell you stories about CNN when I was in Somalia. Rat-bastards hate the military and sort of hate America.

NBC is becoming unbearable to watch. Not just their news but their sitcoms.

I think the only reason most people don't complain about media bias is because they benefit from it. Not to mention the fact somebody is finally showing the other side.

Liars hate the truth more than anything. It's why they've tried to shut Fox, Rush, and Beck down. They try to do it with threats and intimidation. Sandra Flucke was one example.