Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
MSM: "Ideological Support System?"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 03, 2008

Mark Steyn points to this Ed Driscoll quote:
When the MSM moans about the gallons of red ink it's spilled since 2001, it needs to ask itself if it's prepared to actually report the news, in a fashion that interests readers, or if it exists as a non-profit ideological support system.
The focus of the question is the San Francisco Chronicle's interview with Barack Obama in which he said his "cap and trade" plan would necessarily see electricity rates "skyrocket". And that the regulation and mandates he'd impose on coal dependent industries (steel, power, etc) would bankrupt them.

Steyn and Driscoll are of the opinion that's news. Apparently, the SF Chronicle didn't see it that way.

Which brings us to another point of discussion. Besides gushing red ink, what has the blatant bias demonstrated by the press in this election cost them. Two polls help establish that cost. The first establishes the perceived bias. As I've said any number of times, perception is reality to most people. And, per a recent Pew poll, the perception of the public is anything but complimentary to the MSM when it comes to how they've covered this election in particular:
Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.
That's up 20 points from the 2004 election (and the Pew study shows that since 1992, the percentage of those saying the press favors Democrats has hovered in the 50% range with a spike of 59% in 1996). So this isn't just the right or Republicans perceiving bias this time - it is a large majority of the public with that perception.

The cost? Well here's the interesting part. The cost has been the forsaking of the MSM as the only source of news and opinion. It has been the destruction of the virtual monopoly the MSM held for decades when it was able to decide, filter and present what it felt was newsworthy.

The cost has been the rise of the "internet" as a primary source of campaign news and opinion.

While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news. And with so much interest in the election next week, the public's use of the internet as a campaign news source is up even since the primaries earlier this year. In March, 26% cited the internet as a main source for election news, while the percentages citing television and newspapers remain largely unchanged.
It would seem to me that even the most dim-witted of MSM editors could look at those numbers and fathom the future if they remain on the "ideological support system" path - The SF Chronicle's treatment of the news contained in the Obama interview being the latest case study.

If they don't figure it out (or continue to deny the existence of the bias and take steps to correct it) the possibility that they'll become irrelevant, i.e. just another among a great number of choices, is quite good.

Liberty, as far as I'm concerned, is always enhanced when choice is increased. Given the behavior of the MSM choice has indeed been the winner. The bad news for the MSM is that once the lack of credibility box of has been opened, it is darned hard to close again.

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Unfortunately The Fairness Doctrine and whatever they brew up for the Internet will also become job protection for the MSM.

So, although I don’t doubt their interest in bringing the socialist utopia, perhaps the above explains the unabashed support for Obama.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
BINGO!

The MSM is throwing in because it’s the best way to roll - back the people who promise to level the playing field for them.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I would sure like to begin a campaign in which a date is selected and all who have witnessed the liberal bias cancel their subscriptions effective that date. (How about January 21?) I am holding off my cancellation of the St Louis Post Dispatch for such a campaign.
 
Written By: Charles Horton
URL: http://
If this dumb*ss theory about how people were deserting the MSM because they hated its liberal bias, and that’s why they’re all coming to the Internet instead, was actually true, then people would be flocking to conservative blogs, which should be rapidly overtaking liberal blogs in traffic.

Which is in no way whatsoever happening.

Meanwhile, on television, ("MSM"), the show with the most rapid growth on television is liberal Rachel Maddow.

Newspapers have been in decline for a decade. It has nothing to do with partisanship. You’re talking out of your *ss, and the evidence, in the form of new media, completely fails to back you. As usual.

Your victimization complex does not equal reality. Don’t you work in the newspaper industry? You should know better.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
So this isn’t just the right or Republicans perceiving bias this time - it is a large majority of the public with that perception.

Republicans dominate the media. They push the message that the media is dominated by liberals in order to discredit and deligitimize sources of information that can make them look bad. Because a large percentage of Americans (or anyone) believes whatever is told to them the most loudly and consistently, some of the constant repetition has broken through and been repeated by politically moderate and inactive folks.

In these efforts, Republicans have been greately aided by their ability to intimidate liberals and browbeat them an occasional false "confession" of "bias". Financial and career pressures play a major role in this effort, as does a genuine mismatch in anger, determination, and sheer persistence.

None of it bears any realtionship to "objective truth", not that the concept is even relevant to such things as "bias", which no two scientists even agree on definitions for, much less standards to detect or control interposing variables.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Most of the center-to-conservative people I know no longer read newspapers. One has magazine subscriptions that he has resolved to cancel.

I’m not sure how much more is left for me to do in that regard, but I will keep an eye on whatever decisions I make so that the media gets as little as possible.

The media is in for even leaner years than the rest of us. Good.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Which is in no way whatsoever happening.
Of course not ’nost.

As usual, all bluff and bluster and very few facts. And just as obvious, you didn’t read the post for comprehension.
Meanwhile, on television, ("MSM"), the show with the most rapid growth on television is liberal Rachel Maddow.
Rachel Maddow - wow. If it were all about just putting someone from the left up there and theorizing people would flock to watch, Olberman would be king. Well he is king - of the bottom of the ratings.

On top of that, as the study shows, had you bothered to read further than the first paragraph of the post, that TV as a source of election information has remained flat since 2004.

What part of that claim don’t you understand?

So don’t give me your nonsense. There’s a reason 70% of Americans see the bias issue as one-sided and it isn’t just newspapers they’re talking about - something you missed as usual. Of course you’d know that if you’d actually read a post instead of getting that left knee jerking 100 miles an hour after glancing at a couple of lines and then erecting strawmen in the comment section here.

The article says that television and newspapers have remained FLAT as a source of election news while the internet has seen a 23% increase since the last election. Why do you suppose people are seeking election info in another venue? Because they’re satisfied with the existing ones?

BTW, find the word "blog" or an allusion to people turning to them on either side of the political spectrum once in the article I wrote and I’ll send you a $100 check.

Learn to freakin’ read, will you? You’re beginning to rival MK in the amount of straw you leave laying around in your comments here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
How do Republicans dominate the media, glasnost?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
The article says that television and newspapers have remained FLAT as a source of election news while the internet has seen a 23% increase since the last election. Why do you suppose people are seeking election info in another venue? Because they’re satisfied with the existing ones?
I apologize for being rude. You’ve missed my point. Your hypothesis is that the "MSM" is declining and people are turning to the internet - which is true - and furthermore that this is because they dislike the MSM’s "liberal bias" - which is absurd.

If the two things had anything to do with each other, than all the people disgusted at liberal bias would not be getting off of newspapers and onto liberal blogs. Right? Go to alexa.com and compare the traffic growth of dailykos to any top 10 conservative blog over the past year. As a percentage or in absolute numbers, it dominates them all. I’m sure there’s some advantages of scale, so use talkingpointsmemo.com instead - growth rates are basically the same.

the falloff in newspapers has nothing to do with liberal bias, or else new readers would be flocking to places that don’t have liberal bias, rather than ones that do. You should have been able to figure this out yourself.

The differentiation between "blog" and "the internet" is a strawman. If you can find a scintilla of evidence that people are flocking to the conservative parts of the internet at higher rates than they are flocking to the liberal parts, your theory would be less than a joke. Until then, you’re faced with trying to explain why people hate liberal bias in the MSM so much that they’re going to the internet to read liberals on the internet at rapidly increasing rates.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
How do Republicans dominate the media, glasnost?
Here’s a small example.

You want another example? In June, Republican whining got Keith Olbermann - the most watched program on his own cable network - kicked off of election coverage for being too mean to conservatives. Have you ever seen anyone on Fox News ever be pulled off of Fox News for being too mean to liberals?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Rachel Maddow - wow. If it were all about just putting someone from the left up there and theorizing people would flock to watch, Olberman would be king. Well he is king - of the bottom of the ratings.
This is what we call fish in a barrel.

A year ago, back when there were literally no liberal programs on cable news anywhere, MSNBC was regularly getting beaten like a drum by CNN. You can tell the difference between the genuinely liberal performances and the traditional fake ’liberal media’ performances, in popularity, by looking at how David Gregory is doing in his time slot vs. Rachel Maddow. She’s been in that slot for a month. Gregory used to be there, and their 9PM ratings used to look like their 6PM ones.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I apologize for being rude. You’ve missed my point. Your hypothesis is that the "MSM" is declining and people are turning to the internet - which is true - and furthermore that this is because they dislike the MSM’s "liberal bias" - which is absurd.
Then explain why 70% believe the MSM is in the tank for Obama? 70%!
If the two things had anything to do with each other, than all the people disgusted at liberal bias would not be getting off of newspapers and onto liberal blogs. Right?
This has nothing to do with blogs. Google, YouTube, reports directly from news agencies, think tank studies, polls, the ability to compare and contrast on their own, etc. Blogs don’t even have to enter into the equation. So again this is your strawman and it’s not making your case.
The differentiation between "blog" and "the internet" is a strawman.
See above. No. It is not. The only strawmen marching around in this comment section are yours.
A year ago, back when there were literally no liberal programs on cable news anywhere, MSNBC was regularly getting beaten like a drum by CNN. You can tell the difference between the genuinely liberal performances and the traditional fake ’liberal media’ performances, in popularity, by looking at how David Gregory is doing in his time slot vs. Rachel Maddow. She’s been in that slot for a month. Gregory used to be there, and their 9PM ratings used to look like their 6PM ones.
One more time for the terminally obtuse - TV ratings have remains what? FLAT. Your claim is irrelevant - the shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
glasnost,

Like most liberals, you don’t seem to grasp the difference between "news" and "opinion".

News broadcasts, papers, news websites, etc, are supposed to offer news: unbiased, factual reporting of what happens, often with unbiased, fact-based analyses. On the other hand, blogs, virtually by definition, are opinion (though they are often based on / cite news articles). A growing number of Americans have figured out that the news they get is heavily slanted; conservatives in particular are starting to regard the networks and wire services as little more than liberal propaganda machines. If polls and surveys are any indication, even many liberals are smart enough to see that the news is often biased. That the readership of liberal blogs is expanding is unfortunate, but I would say at least people know what they are doing when they go to a liberal site: they are getting liberal commentary and opinion. They obviously like it, but may actually be intellectually honest enough to NOT like it in a news program.

Libs like to b***h about Fox News, citing Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as "evidence" of the conservative bias of that network, dishonestly portraying them and their programs as part of Fox’s news coverage, which they are not. One seldom if ever hears complaining about (for example) Brit Hume, Sheppard Smith, or even Greta Van Susteren, who do actual NEWS programming and NOT opinion shows.

What got Olbermann burned was not that he was "mean" to conservatives: it was that D-MSNBC put him in a position of offering election NEWS coverage, and Olbermann couldn’t even try to hide his bias. It was so obvious that D-MSNBC was embarrassed into pulling him off the assignment.

I often WISH that we conservatives ran the media or had as much power as you libs believe in your psychotic fantasies. It so, then perhaps the following might have actually happened:

—- There would have been less coverage of Sarah Palin’s tanning bed and more coverage of The Annointed One’s relationship with Bill Ayers

—- The fraction of negative stories about John McCain would have been approximately equal to the fraction of negative stories about The Annointed One

—- The LAT would actually release the Khalidi tape

—- There would have been at least as much coverage and investigation of Tony Rezko as there has been about Joe the Plumber, or investigations into who in the Ohio / Toledo government released info about Joe’s personal records to the MSM

—- There might be almost as many magazine covers showing John McCain with a halo as there have been of The Annointed One, or as many unflattering covers of Joe Biden as there have been of Sarah Palin

—- There might be almost as much discussion of the cost of Joe Biden’s wardrobe as there has been of Sarah Palin’s. For that matter, there might have been almost as much serious discussion about The Annointed One’s qualifications to be president as there were about Sarah Palin’s to be VP

—- There might have actually been serious coverage of the role played by Chris "Sweetheart Mortgage" Dodd, Barney "My lover works for Freddie" Frank, and other filthy dems in the meltdown of the home mortgage industry. Somebody might even have followed up with Nancy Pelosi’s flat denial that the dems had ANYTHING to do with the meltdown, or asked why, if Charlie Rangle is to "simple" to file his own taxes, he is qualified to write the tax code for the rest of us

—- There might have been as much coverage of The Annointed One’s impoverished brother in Kenya ("I am my brother’s keeper") and his illegal alien aunt in NJ as there was about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy or Trig Palin’s parentage
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
Glasnost,
Hayes getting a gig on CNN means Republicans dominate the media? What percentage of reporters identify as Democrats or liberals or vote that way, compared to Republican?
You are going to have to do better than that.

Your second example starts off with an error. Olbermann (and Mathews) were removed in September as anchors but remained as analysts. Even Tom Brokaw said that Herr Olbermann went to far:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008.html
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Libs like to b***h about Fox News, citing Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity as "evidence" of the conservative bias of that network, dishonestly portraying them and their programs as part of Fox’s news coverage, which they are not
This is a literally absurd distinction. First of all, Fox News’ reporting is, yes, wildly and outrageously biased against liberals and democrats: no, it’s not just their "opinion". Secondly, on a television news show, there is no relevant distinction between "news" and opinion". When you report a "straight fact" and then proceed to offer your opinion at length on how this proves your point that liberals are scumbags, you are, yes, in the tank for non-liberals. You’ve somehow created a system where which objectively true facts are inserted into a story, or not inserted in it, next to some other true facts, is frequently considered evidence of "liberal bias", while purporting to say that providing the meaning of these facts for your audience, and that that meaning is that liberals are stupid/evil, is *not* conservative bias. It’s crazy.
Even Tom Brokaw said that Herr Olbermann went to far:
You’re proving my point. We still have liberal commentators on "liberal networks" being punished for partisan remarks, of which you can’t find, on Fox News, a single instance. Tom Brokaw’s opinion here is a demonstration of the balance of media intimidation being on the side of conservatives, as it has been for decades. Brokaw plays that role in order to keep MSNBC from being picked on too much by conservatives. Liberal media sources do that kind of kowtowing all the time: conservative networks don’t.
In these efforts, Republicans have been greately aided by their ability to intimidate liberals and browbeat them an occasional false "confession" of "bias". Financial and career pressures play a major role in this effort, as does a genuine mismatch in anger, determination, and sheer persistence.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
See above. No. It is not. The only strawmen marching around in this comment section are yours
If viewers were leaving traditional media sources because they disliked the MSM’s liberal bias, they would be heading towards sources that were *not* liberally biased.

That’s a very logical statement.

But they’re not. They’re heading towards the internet, but they’re not heading towards more-conservative-friendly ("less biased") sources at any greater rate than they’re heading towards "liberally biased" sources.

In other words, they’re fleeing *from* liberal bias... towards liberal bias.

This makes no sense.

If this does somehow make sense, please explain. If there is something inaccurate about this statement, I invite you to contest it.

If you can demonstrate that they’re leaving the MSM and heading towards something that is in any way less biased, you will have begun to make your point. Until then, you’re simply noting a movement from one medium to another and projecting your personal desires as to why they might be doing so.

People don’t flee a consumer option because they dislike one of its qualities in favor of another option with identical qualities.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
If viewers were leaving traditional media sources because they disliked the MSM’s liberal bias, they would be heading towards sources that were *not* liberally biased.

That’s a very logical statement.

But they’re not. They’re heading towards the internet, but they’re not heading towards more-conservative-friendly ("less biased") sources at any greater rate than they’re heading towards "liberally biased" sources.

In other words, they’re fleeing *from* liberal bias... towards liberal bias.

This makes no sense.
Nothing you’ve said makes any sense. Why couldn’t they instead opt for neutral content? Or unfiltered content? Or content from a number of sources and sides so they can figure it out for themselves?

Nothing says that if they perceive the MSM’s coverage as slanted to one candidate that they’re necessarily seeking out either liberal or conservative sites as a solution to that problem.

That’s why the term "internet" in its broadest term is used - something you still can’t seem to grasp.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
glasnost,

Yes, I know: Fox News is always just soooo mean to libs. Oddly, the only specific complaints I can recall ever seeing involve O’Reilly and Hannity who are COMMENTATORS. In contrast, we have Evan Thomas publicly admitting that the MSM was in the tank for Kerry in ’04. We have Cap’n Dan and C-BS caught red-handed peddling falsified documents to smear Bush. We have statistics about the overwhelming fraction of reporters who vote democrat (spit) and contribute to democrat (spit) campaigns. We have MSM personalities who used to work for dems (spit), such as Matthews, Carville, Stephanopolous, and Russet (RIP). We have a Newsweek reporter who admitted fantasizing about "taking out" Rudy during the primaries. We have Chris Matthews talking about the shaking in his leg when he hears The Annointed One speak.

Now, if you’ve got an actual example of a NEWS person on Fox (somebody like Hume, Smith, Angle, Cameron, etc) "report[ing] a ’straight fact’ and then proceed[ing] to offer [their] opinion at length on how this proves [their] point that liberals are scumbags", please feel free to share it with us. But please refrain from linking to some liberal think-tank that "proves" how biased Fox is: we’ve seen that often enough.

But why am I bothering to argue the point? It suits liberals to believe that Fox - which doesn’t trip over itself to agree with them - is "biased" against them. Socialists must have their Goldsteins, I suppose.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
That’s why the term "internet" in its broadest term is used - something you still can’t seem to grasp.
"The internet" is used because it’s the most inclusive term possible, because the people running the polls didn’t bother to seek any further detail.

Why couldn’t they instead opt for neutral content?
What neutral content could we be talking about? Most of the largest internet news sources that aren’t blogs are websites run by the same people in charge of major newspapers and television websites. Those same organizations you think people are leaving because of "liberal bias" in the newspaper and television areas, are running unbiased internet sites, but biased television programs and newspapers? Does this make sense?
Nothing says that if they perceive the MSM’s coverage as slanted to one candidate that they’re necessarily seeking out either liberal or conservative sites as a solution to that problem.
It is not logical to suggest that - you’ve suggested this - people are leaving the MSM because of its liberal bias - but that they would then go to a liberally biased source, after leaving a liberally biased source because of its liberal bias.

While the MSM is flat and shrinking, blogospheric page views are rapidly rising. Blogs do not equal the internet, but in the absence of good reasons or evidence to the contrary, if people were leaving one medium because of one bias, they would flock to the opposite bias, and they certainly would *not* flock in equal numbers to areas exhibiting the exact same bias. But liberal blogopsheric traffic is growing at the same rate, or better, than conservative traffic.

The point is - here is the point, try to deal with this sentence, please- that, if people hate liberal bias so much, and that’s why they’re leaving the "MSM" and going to the Internet, they should logically be avoiding liberal bias on the internet when they arrive. But they’re not.

For that matter, they should also be avoiding MSM content on the internet that is virtually identical to the MSM content they’re leaving behind on newspapers and TV. But they’re emphatically not doing this, either.

If they like liberal bias on the internet but not on the newspapers, and that set of preferences is driving their movements, then clearly "liberal bias" is not causing the movement.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
The internet" is used because it’s the most inclusive term possible, because the people running the polls didn’t bother to seek any further detail.
So you presume to make the assumption for them?

That’s both funny and ludicrous.
It is not logical to suggest that - you’ve suggested this - people are leaving the MSM because of its liberal bias - but that they would then go to a liberally biased source, after leaving a liberally biased source because of its liberal bias.
What I’ve suggested is they’ve left because of bias - period. It really doesn’t matter whether it is liberal or conservative, it is still perceived as bias. The SF Chronicle piece is just a convenient example with which to make the point.

Naturally I covered the fact that I was talking about all bias in the post which you again (and still) appear not to have read:
So this isn’t just the right or Republicans perceiving bias this time - it is a large majority of the public with that perception.
Moving on:
The point is - here is the point, try to deal with this sentence, please- that, if people hate liberal bias so much, and that’s why they’re leaving the "MSM" and going to the Internet, they should logically be avoiding liberal bias on the internet when they arrive. But they’re not.
You are the one who keeps trying to lay "liberal bias" on this post and it isn’t addressing liberal bias - it is addressing BIAS as perceived by 70% of the population. 70% obviously wouldn’t come from just the right would they? So the bias they perceive could be other than a liberal bias, correct?

The only person trying to keep the "liberal bias" strawman alive here is you and that’s because that’s the only way you can support your false premise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
DocJim,
We have MSM personalities who used to work for dems (spit), such as Matthews, Carville, Stephanopolous, and Russet (RIP)
Congradulations, that’s three. I linked upthread to a documentation of eight former republican operatives currently working for just CNN.

Meanwhile, yes, at some point in time, a reporter somewhere was punked documents that later turned out to be false, and from this you have strung a Grand Theory of Media Bias. I suggest that you tend to read the stories that confirm what you already believe to be true, rather than ones that present contrary evidence. For some reason, I don’t recall seeing any of these incidents make the pages of Q & O. I have to leave off my favorite example, since I can’t find the link right now, wherein Fox managed to mention the out-of-context, 11-month old, never-covered up "story" of B.O.’s remarks about coal one hundred and twenty eight times in twenty four hours, but sure, they’re only biased in the "commentary".

Ponder.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810310018?f=h_latest
Summary: Fox News repeatedly allowed Dick Morris to solicit donations for a conservative political action committee to fund an ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810310005?f=s_search
In reports on Gov. Sarah Palin’s October 30 speech in Erie, Pa., Reuters and MSNBC.com’s First Read uncritically reported Palin’s assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "supported cutting off funding for our troops in the war." Neither outlet pointed out that Palin’s running mate, Sen. John McCain, himself voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. McCain — along with all but two of his fellow Republican senators — voted against a March 2007 bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810300015?f=s_search
On the October 29 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama promises "to nationalize our health care," and said his is a "false promise." In fact, Obama has not proposed, much less promised, to nationalize health care. As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama’s plan would allow individuals to keep their private health insurance if they so choose, while establishing "a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." During the Democratic primary, Hannity made a similar false claim about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, as Media Matters noted.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810300008?f=s_search
Summary: The Washington Post, The Washington Times, the Associated Press, and The Hill reported Sen. John McCain’s claims that Sen. Barack Obama is "offering government-run health care" and "an energy plan guaranteed to work without drilling," without noting that both claims are false. Obama has not proposed "government-run health care" and Obama’s energy plan calls domestic oil and natural gas production "critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280021?f=s_search
Summary: Since October 16, numerous media figures — among them Jerome Corsi, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, and Bill Cunningham — have compared Sen. Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis.
On the October 29 edition of ABC Radio Networks’ The Mark Levin Show, Levin asserted that Obama is "really into these big German-like events that he creates in this country, isn’t he? Have you noticed that?" Curtis Sliwa, WABC radio host and CEO and founder of the community activist organization Guardian Angels, responded: "I am telling you, and he comes out and it’s almost as if the crowd stands in unison, and I’m saying to myself, ’Oh my God, the Olympic Stadium, Berlin, 1938,’
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810270013?f=s_search
Summary: On The Live Desk, Trace Gallagher falsely suggested that in 2001 comments about attempts to pursue "economic justice" through the court system, Sen. Barack Obama had advocated "chang[ing] the mission of the Supreme Court in some facet," a statement with which Bill Sammon agreed. Obama did not advocate changing the mission of the court; to the contrary, Obama said that "traged[y]" lies in the civil rights movement’s overreliance on the courts to bring about political and economic justice, when the judicial system is not the appropriate vehicle to effect broad economic change.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
We have statistics about the overwhelming fraction of reporters who vote democrat (spit) and contribute to democrat (spit) campaigns.
If the majority of realtors in the country tend Republican, does that constitute evidence that realtors demonstrate conservative bias in their lending of homes? If the majority of lawyers in the country, for argument’s sake, vote Democratic, does that constitute evidence that they argue cases in a liberally biased manner?
Wouldn’t a liberal bias have resulted in something less than wall-to-wall coverage of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Tony Rezko? Did the media demonstrate their liberal bias while pursuing saturation coverage of Bill Clinton’s occasionally genuine and usually fabricated scandals? Or was it during the saturation coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Spare me.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Media Matters...

Spare me.

Ann Coulter - commentator

Mark Levin - commentator

Sean Hannity - commentator

Jerome Corsi - author

Curtis Sliwa - commentator

Dick Morris - commentator. And just how did Fox "allow" Dick to "solicit donations"? Was he on the air, on a news program, telling viewers to call a phone number? Could this be anything like CNN "allowing" James Carville to work for the Clinton campaign?

And how did Trace Gallagher "suggest"? From what I’ve read of The Annointed One’s own remarks, one could quite easily interpret them to mean exactly what Gallagher "suggested".

Now, shall I pull out MY list of similar remarks made by Al Franken, Joy Behar, Fatso Mikey Moore, etc? You know: people who don’t work for the news and (except for Moore) pretend to offer news and unbiased coverage?

If realtors reported the news, then you hypothetical would make sense. Since they don’t, I don’t see the point. Frankly, I doubt that you do, either.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
You are the one who keeps trying to lay "liberal bias" on this post and it isn’t addressing liberal bias - it is addressing BIAS
If you say so. That is, indeed, not how the post appeared to read to me, at the time, or now. I must have been misled by the way in which this website tends to constantly insist on the media’s liberal bias.

Have you considered the possibility that people are shifting from newspapers to the internet for reasons other than bias? That’s what I’ve been trying to hint at here, ever so delicately.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
That is, indeed, not how the post appeared to read to me ...
That’s been obvious from the beginning. What’s also been obvious from the beginning is you really didn’t read the post or you wouldn’t have asserted half of what you did.
Have you considered the possibility that people are shifting from newspapers to the internet for reasons other than bias? That’s what I’ve been trying to hint at here, ever so delicately.
Obviously the 30% who see no bias in the media might very well be accessing the internet for other reasons. Seems a blinding flash of the obvious to me.

But it is also just as obvious that one of the foremost reason many may be going to the internet to get their election info is because of the bias they perceive in the MSM.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I’m not a psychic, but sometimes I get the impression you actually prefer my lapses into ad hominem and general harangues to the times when I actually kill time trying to make a straightforward logical argument.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I’m not a psychic, but sometimes I get the impression you actually prefer my lapses into ad hominem and general harangues to the times when I actually kill time trying to make a straightforward logical argument.
Frankly, I’d love just once to see a straightforward and logical argument from you. That being said, unfortunately I don’t have the time (or patience) to address all your nonsense so I usually react to only the most egregious of it, whether it contains ad hominem or not.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Network Total ABC, NBC, CBS:
Coverage of Obama:
Positive: 36.8%
Negative: 24.8%

Coverage of McCain:
Positive: 13.1%
Negative: 55.5%

CNN Total:
Obama:
Positive: 36.1%
Negative: 38.7%

McCain:
Positive: 12.6%
Negative: 61.3%

MSNBC Total:
Obama:
Positive: 43.2%
Negative: 13.5%

McCain:
Positive: 9.9%
Negative: 72.8%

Fox Total:
Obama:
Positive: 25.2%
Negative: 40.0%

McCain:
Positive: 22.2%
Negative: 39.8%

From the Project for Excellence in Journalism
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

The Republican dominated Media at work . Coverage of McCain hugely more negative than that of Obama.
Except for that of the "rightwing" Fox News, which was virtually identical in the negative coverage of both, and only had a little higher percentage of positive coverage for Obama than McCain (25.2 to 22.2 percent).
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider