If you think the Media is honest and credible. . . .

[koshergrl]

"Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Vs. Elana Kagan: In 1987 and in 1991 when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were respectively nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, both men were utterly destroyed by the press. In the case of Bork they were successful in preventing his nomination, not so in the case of Thomas. It was so bad for Robert Bork that a verb was made of his name. After the press and Democrats succeeded in ruining his career and reputation the term “Borked” gained cache. On the other hand, when Elana Kagan was nominated by Obama to serve on the highest court in the land, the media went out of its way to ignore key factors in her career in order to facilitate her ascension to the court. Just for one for instance, when running as McCain’s VP, Sarah Palin the media reported that she engaged in “book banning” when she was mayor of Wasilla. But Elana Kagan actually ruled that book banning was OK and the media ignored the story during her confirmation hearings. Liberal media bias 101."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[koshergrl]

"1995 Oklahoma City Bombing: In an example of jumping to conclusions — as long as such jumping smears the right — the media has for years claimed that convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was a “Christian terrorist.” This is an absurd claim, though, because McVeigh did not perpetrate his crimes in the name of religion nor was he a proselytizing Christian. He was an anti-government activist and did not use religion to justify any of his actions. This claim is still extant and even came up recently in a piece by lefty journalist Juan Williams. McVeigh was also part of the mythic “white militias” fear that the media and President Bill Clinton drummed up in the 1990s with little to no evidence."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[koshergrl]

"10). Rathergate (or Memogate): In an effort to damage George W. Bush’s 2004 run for reelection, Dan Rather — whose bias goes back decades — floated a story based on forged documents that claimed Bush had gone AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard unit back in 1973. Internet sleuths, though, realized that the documents purporting to have been created on a 1970s era typewriter were actually made using a Microsoft computer font and obviously these computers did not exist in 1973. Rather refused to admit the truth, however"

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[Foxfyre]

. . . .then you won't enjoy this thread that I would like to dedicate to the media who is in bed with a particular candidate or political party to the extent it will distort or flat out lie or, at best, fail to fact check.

As most of the mainstream MSM tilts left, most of what I observe in their reporting favors Obama and/or the Democrats, but if evidence can be found that any legitimate mainstream media source is favoring Romney and/or the Republcians and/or any other political party or candidate, that would be fair game here.

So post your thoughts and most especially the evidence you find related to this here.

Could it be that most journalists are smarter than the faux journalists and therefore pick a candidate by factors other than his/her political affiliation? I know, cause and effect are such hard concepts to grasp.

Depends on what you mean by 'faux journalists'. I grew up and have worked in the business, majored in journalism and mass communications in college. I was hanging around the news room as a copy girl from the time I was ten and have always had a fascination and passion for the media and those in it.

It started changing in the 70's as the rebel 'flower children' of the 60's passed out of that phase and into adult society but still affected by the cultural revolution. All of us who went into the media and academia then were visionary to some degree. We all wanted to leave our mark on the world; to make a difference. And a huge number of those grown up flower children did indeed go on to college and then into the media and into the universities. And as they aged they recruited and/or mentored like minded people to follow them. And slowly but surely, those instiutions, both media and academia, that had been solidly mainstream and/or somewhat conservative slowly but surely began to tilt left.

It was beginning to show up to a noticable degree in the 80's, and by the 90's it was a done deal. Almost all of the mainstream media and almost all academia is now mostly populated by leftists. Conservatives find themselves in hostile territory and usually don't stay long in either insititution. (I am no longer in it for instance.) Thus, you find most college professors now ideologically left of center and the huge majority of those in television and the mainstream press to be more sympathetic to the Democrats whether they will admit it or not.

So if our leftist friends here think we are picking on the left more than the right, it isn't necessarily so. It's just that the pure demographics--the sheer volume of people involved--provides so much more ammunition from the left than it does from the right.

 

[koshergrl]

"One of the early untrue reports on Palin was that her own baby, Trig, wasn’t hers but was really that of daughter Bristol. Then there was the false accusations that Palin used her political power to push around an Alaska State Trooper. The media even passed around the false claim that Palin banned books when she was Mayor of Wasilla using a list that included books that were not yet even published during her tenure as mayor. In fact, there are hundreds of cases of media bias against Palin and it continues to this day."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[koshergrl]

" Fort Hood Killer’s Religion Suppressed: As mentioned above, one of the many ways to see media bias is as much in what they don’t say as what they do say. The Fort Hood murderer was a perfect example. The media did is best to either ignore Major Nidal Hassan’s Muslim religion or downplay it choosing instead to focus on the fact that he was an Army psychiatrist."

 

[koshergrl]

"Left-Wing Think Tank Subterfuge: The left-wing media loves to use left-wing think tanks other than the SPLC, as well. These groups are constantly presented as “experts” in whatever subject drives a story. Yet once quoted, these left-wing think tanks are never identified as left-wing think tanks. Groups like The Center for American Progress, The Ford Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute, the Carter Center, or the Brady Campaign gun banning advocacy group are always cited as “experts” but readers are never informed that these groups are far left think tanks. On the other hand, any conservative think tank is always described as a conservative group."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[koshergrl]

"Lone Wolf Terrorist: This leads us to the general penchant of the media to ignore the Muslim connection to many of the mass shootings since 911. While the Tea Party or conservatives are often the first people the media blames for such crimes, Islam is consistently downplayed or entirely ignored as playing a role in these shootings or attempted terror attacks. "

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

 

[Foxfyre]

And more recently when Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, almost all the specualtion was that it was some rightwing nutjob who did it and it was "Tea Party inspired" and all that--including insinuations from the President that everybody aired, when in fact it was the opposite. But because there was so much immediate finger pointing at the beginning, and the correction in the misinformation was reported with so much less enthusiasm and only once and then everybody quickly moved on, a large segment of people to this day point to the Tea Party as the catalyst for that and think it was a rightwing extremist who did it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Why would we expect all the media to be objective?

How would we know if they were objective?

Why should they be objective?

What would make anyone believe everything he/she reads or hears?

What's wrong with media having a perspective?

If they portray themselves as objective, they should be objective.

And it's one thing to opine on the information they provide...it's another to WITHHOLD information in order to slant the story, and present it as a whole piece.

Even if they do 'portray' themselves as objective, what would make a person believe that? The problem is not the view, it's the viewer. Belief is a choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Left-Wing Think Tank Subterfuge: The left-wing media loves to use left-wing think tanks other than the SPLC, as well. These groups are constantly presented as “experts” in whatever subject drives a story. Yet once quoted, these left-wing think tanks are never identified as left-wing think tanks. Groups like The Center for American Progress, The Ford Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute, the Carter Center, or the Brady Campaign gun banning advocacy group are always cited as “experts” but readers are never informed that these groups are far left think tanks. On the other hand, any conservative think tank is always described as a conservative group."

The Top 50 Liberal Media Bias Examples

This is a subtle bias that is something we dedicated media watcher have long observed.

If a Democrat is caught in a gaffe, or indiscretion, or other is in a personally negative situation, it may be reported but the MSM is much more likely to not affiliate that person with any political party. Such person is almost never described as 'liberal'.

But if the errant person is a Republican, the leftwing MSM will almost always prominently point out the party affiliation and/or is far more likely to attach the adjective 'conservative' to him or her or designate him/her as a "Tea Party darling" or some such.

Bad stuff about leftists are buried as deeply into the story as possbile and is barely hinted about in the headline and the story will rarely make the front page or lead the evening news. Bad stuff about conservatives or Republicans will often be placed on the front page or will lead the evening news and anything mitigating the damage will be mentioned deep within the story if it is provided at all.

Even the size and wording of the headlines, certainly the opening words of the story (which is all most people generally read or hear), and even the photos used--endearing or attractive photos for Democrats; unattractive photos for Republicans etc.--are designed to create a particular illusion.

 

[Wry Catcher]

. . . .then you won't enjoy this thread that I would like to dedicate to the media who is in bed with a particular candidate or political party to the extent it will distort or flat out lie or, at best, fail to fact check.

As most of the mainstream MSM tilts left, most of what I observe in their reporting favors Obama and/or the Democrats, but if evidence can be found that any legitimate mainstream media source is favoring Romney and/or the Republcians and/or any other political party or candidate, that would be fair game here.

So post your thoughts and most especially the evidence you find related to this here.

Could it be that most journalists are smarter than the faux journalists and therefore pick a candidate by factors other than his/her political affiliation? I know, cause and effect are such hard concepts to grasp.

Depends on what you mean by 'faux journalists'. I grew up and have worked in the business, majored in journalism and mass communications in college. I was hanging around the news room as a copy girl from the time I was ten and have always had a fascination and passion for the media and those in it.

It started changing in the 70's as the rebel 'flower children' of the 60's passed out of that phase and into adult society but still affected by the cultural revolution. All of us who went into the media and academia then were visionary to some degree. We all wanted to leave our mark on the world; to make a difference. And a huge number of those grown up flower children did indeed go on to college and then into the media and into the universities. And as they aged they recruited and/or mentored like minded people to follow them. And slowly but surely, those instiutions, both media and academia, that had been solidly mainstream and/or somewhat conservative slowly but surely began to tilt left.

It was beginning to show up to a noticable degree in the 80's, and by the 90's it was a done deal. Almost all of the mainstream media and almost all academia is now mostly populated by leftists. Conservatives find themselves in hostile territory and usually don't stay long in either insititution. (I am no longer in it for instance.) Thus, you find most college professors now ideologically left of center and the huge majority of those in television and the mainstream press to be more sympathetic to the Democrats whether they will admit it or not.

So if our leftist friends here think we are picking on the left more than the right, it isn't necessarily so. It's just that the pure demographics--the sheer volume of people involved--provides so much more ammunition from the left than it does from the right.

Another cause maybe that the extremism on the right provides many more targets for journalists.

Not all of the criticism of the right comes from so called leftists. I would argue that the left- right paradigm isn't an accurate depiction of journalism and journalists - reporting is the reporting of facts, today (thanks to Ted Turner) the news has devolved into entertainment and facts are many times parenthetical within editorials written by others and read by talking heads (faux journalists).

Of course hard news exists, rarely on cable. And to watch hard news one must be informed, a difficult process given the amount of propaganda, misinformation and historical revision transmitted to us via all aspects of the media.

As a former jounalist what is your take on PBS and NPR?

 

[koshergrl]

What a load. When you can't argue with the facts, make up some conspiracy that explains why the left are COMPELLED to be dishonest.

 

[koshergrl]

Or, alternately, scream "RACISM" or "EXTREMIST!"

 

[Foxfyre]

Could it be that most journalists are smarter than the faux journalists and therefore pick a candidate by factors other than his/her political affiliation? I know, cause and effect are such hard concepts to grasp.

Depends on what you mean by 'faux journalists'. I grew up and have worked in the business, majored in journalism and mass communications in college. I was hanging around the news room as a copy girl from the time I was ten and have always had a fascination and passion for the media and those in it.

It started changing in the 70's as the rebel 'flower children' of the 60's passed out of that phase and into adult society but still affected by the cultural revolution. All of us who went into the media and academia then were visionary to some degree. We all wanted to leave our mark on the world; to make a difference. And a huge number of those grown up flower children did indeed go on to college and then into the media and into the universities. And as they aged they recruited and/or mentored like minded people to follow them. And slowly but surely, those instiutions, both media and academia, that had been solidly mainstream and/or somewhat conservative slowly but surely began to tilt left.

It was beginning to show up to a noticable degree in the 80's, and by the 90's it was a done deal. Almost all of the mainstream media and almost all academia is now mostly populated by leftists. Conservatives find themselves in hostile territory and usually don't stay long in either insititution. (I am no longer in it for instance.) Thus, you find most college professors now ideologically left of center and the huge majority of those in television and the mainstream press to be more sympathetic to the Democrats whether they will admit it or not.

So if our leftist friends here think we are picking on the left more than the right, it isn't necessarily so. It's just that the pure demographics--the sheer volume of people involved--provides so much more ammunition from the left than it does from the right.

Another cause maybe that the extremism on the right provides many more targets for journalists.

Not all of the criticism of the right comes from so called leftists. I would argue that the left- right paradigm isn't an accurate depiction of journalism and journalists - reporting is the reporting of facts, today (thanks to Ted Turner) the news has devolved into entertainment and facts are many times parenthetical within editorials written by others and read by talking heads (faux journalists).

Of course hard news exists, rarely on cable. And to watch hard news one must be informed, a difficult process given the amount of propaganda, misinformation and historical revision transmitted to us via all aspects of the media.

As a former jounalist what is your take on PBS and NPR?

PBS and NPR are heavily skewed left, but their funding is heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars and neither would likely survive if that source of funding was cut off. And because they may be dependent on Democrats or Republicans for their funding, they do a somewhat better job of reporting straight news and even in their sociopolitical documentaries they feature so they don't provide ammunition for a more conservative power base to eliminate it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Depends on what you mean by 'faux journalists'. I grew up and have worked in the business, majored in journalism and mass communications in college. I was hanging around the news room as a copy girl from the time I was ten and have always had a fascination and passion for the media and those in it.

It started changing in the 70's as the rebel 'flower children' of the 60's passed out of that phase and into adult society but still affected by the cultural revolution. All of us who went into the media and academia then were visionary to some degree. We all wanted to leave our mark on the world; to make a difference. And a huge number of those grown up flower children did indeed go on to college and then into the media and into the universities. And as they aged they recruited and/or mentored like minded people to follow them. And slowly but surely, those instiutions, both media and academia, that had been solidly mainstream and/or somewhat conservative slowly but surely began to tilt left.

It was beginning to show up to a noticable degree in the 80's, and by the 90's it was a done deal. Almost all of the mainstream media and almost all academia is now mostly populated by leftists. Conservatives find themselves in hostile territory and usually don't stay long in either insititution. (I am no longer in it for instance.) Thus, you find most college professors now ideologically left of center and the huge majority of those in television and the mainstream press to be more sympathetic to the Democrats whether they will admit it or not.

So if our leftist friends here think we are picking on the left more than the right, it isn't necessarily so. It's just that the pure demographics--the sheer volume of people involved--provides so much more ammunition from the left than it does from the right.

Another cause maybe that the extremism on the right provides many more targets for journalists.

Not all of the criticism of the right comes from so called leftists. I would argue that the left- right paradigm isn't an accurate depiction of journalism and journalists - reporting is the reporting of facts, today (thanks to Ted Turner) the news has devolved into entertainment and facts are many times parenthetical within editorials written by others and read by talking heads (faux journalists).

Of course hard news exists, rarely on cable. And to watch hard news one must be informed, a difficult process given the amount of propaganda, misinformation and historical revision transmitted to us via all aspects of the media.

As a former jounalist what is your take on PBS and NPR?

PBS and NPR are heavily skewed left, but their funding is heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars and neither would likely survive if that source of funding was cut off. And because they may be dependent on Democrats or Republicans for their funding, they do a somewhat better job of reporting straight news and even in their sociopolitical documentaries they feature so they don't provide ammunition for a more conservative power base to eliminate it.

Do you watch The News Hour?

I'd invite some of those who hold opinions which differ from my own to watch The News Hour.

Tonight, PBS investigates some of the most notorious factors in driving U.S. health care costs. Every Friday NPR broadcasts Science Friday.

I suspect "the left" isn't well defined and has become a code word for McCarthy style politicing, though I'm curious as to how you define "the left"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would we expect all the media to be objective?

How would we know if they were objective?

Why should they be objective?

What would make anyone believe everything he/she reads or hears?

What's wrong with media having a perspective?

Okay, stepping on soap box here. . . .

The Constitution explicitly protects a free press because of its absolute and critical importance to a free people. No people are ever free if they can be fooled or tricked into false beliefs; if they are not fully informed of all sides of any issue important to them, and are not only allowed but are incouraged to draw their own conclusions from the facts rather than from the dictates of somebody else.

The fourth estate is the public press that includes photographers, journalists, television broadcasters, radio announcers, and more recently news organizations and sites on the internet. In a very large population across a very large area, it is the only practical means we have to be fully informed about much of anything.

When the press is dishonest, manipulative, or less than ethical it is subject to be used for nefarious and dishonest purposes and can be utilized to control the people and subject them to authorities that are not in their best interest.

And THAT is what is wrong with a perspective that is presented as objective news.

There is nothing wrong with people publishing or presenting their opinion or point of view, but ethics require that all such be clearly labeled as opinion with no suggestion that the views of the person are supported by any other in the news organization.

 

[koshergrl]

Dems don't understand ethics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another cause maybe that the extremism on the right provides many more targets for journalists.

Not all of the criticism of the right comes from so called leftists. I would argue that the left- right paradigm isn't an accurate depiction of journalism and journalists - reporting is the reporting of facts, today (thanks to Ted Turner) the news has devolved into entertainment and facts are many times parenthetical within editorials written by others and read by talking heads (faux journalists).

Of course hard news exists, rarely on cable. And to watch hard news one must be informed, a difficult process given the amount of propaganda, misinformation and historical revision transmitted to us via all aspects of the media.

As a former jounalist what is your take on PBS and NPR?

PBS and NPR are heavily skewed left, but their funding is heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars and neither would likely survive if that source of funding was cut off. And because they may be dependent on Democrats or Republicans for their funding, they do a somewhat better job of reporting straight news and even in their sociopolitical documentaries they feature so they don't provide ammunition for a more conservative power base to eliminate it.

Do you watch The News Hour?

I'd invite some of those who hold opinions which differ from my own to watch The News Hour.

Tonight, PBS investigates some of the most notorious factors in driving U.S. health care costs. Every Friday NPR broadcasts Science Friday.

I suspect "the left" isn't well defined and has become a code word for McCarthy style politicing, though I'm curious as to how you define "the left"?

I have often watched the News Hour. Less so during the campaign as even PBS gets a little nutty if they think their candidate is behind or is slipping. And healthcare is one of those areas in which PBS's bias has been the strongest and in which they have been the least honest in showing opposing points of view. Global warming is another.

PBS does as well in presenting the news and perhaps sometimes even a bit better than ABC, NBC, or CBS at times. But for those who aren't ideologically left, the bias is still obvious. Those who are ideologically left see others who are left whether in the media or academia or entertainment as being the normal, rational, unbiased ones. But those trained to be objective and who demand that all the facts and all points of view be offerred without prejudice know that they aren't.

 

[del]

Why would we expect all the media to be objective?

How would we know if they were objective?

Why should they be objective?

What would make anyone believe everything he/she reads or hears?

What's wrong with media having a perspective?

i don't

we wouldn't

stupidity

nothing