That has changed recently with the Democrats still refusing to agree with domestic oil drilling and it's the only sure thing we can do right now to get us out of the gas price hole we're in currently. There's people on both sides of the fence, but I remember reading that 60% or so of americans think that congress is holding us back in this matter and most cited democratic opposition to drilling.
Media Bias?
- Thread starter homefires
- Start date
That has changed recently with the Democrats still refusing to agree with domestic oil drilling and it's the only sure thing we can do right now to get us out of the gas price hole we're in currently. There's people on both sides of the fence, but I remember reading that 60% or so of americans think that congress is holding us back in this matter and most cited democratic opposition to drilling.
Speaking of media bias - I started noticing my home page is constantly inundated and FREQUENTLY revised/updating pictures/headlines whooping up B.O.
Anyhow, I'm thinking of changing my homepage it but I'll wait to see how comparable the Republican coverage is before making final judgment.
Anyhow, I'm thinking of changing my homepage it but I'll wait to see how comparable the Republican coverage is before making final judgment.
mountainclmbr
New member
I don't watch the MSM liberal news and have not since the mid 1980's. I am sometimes at some one else's house and can't miss it. It seems to me that they are in a headlong race to see who gets to be PRAVDA-USA.
Oh wow - while not a surprise, the homepage I mentioned already has absolutely nothing in the headlines about McCain/Palin. Nothing, what so ever.
Got topics about back to school supplies, heart healthy tips, American muscle (cars) on display.... Looks like business as usual.
To me, looks like media bias. I'm not surprised - what's new?
Got topics about back to school supplies, heart healthy tips, American muscle (cars) on display.... Looks like business as usual.
To me, looks like media bias. I'm not surprised - what's new?
LightningJoe
New member
Bias is not the word. The MSM are just propaganda. Don't watch that baloney.
Gave up on CNN in disgust years ago.
Gave up on CNN in disgust years ago.
Dearhunter61
New member
peetzakilla
MSNBC basically declared themselves Obama Headquarters several months ago. They said, ON AIR, that they want him to be president. There's objective press for you.
There's at least a little bias evident everywhere if you pay attention. I watch Fox News because IMO they have the least bias. Not none, but less.
I have a friend who grew up in Switzerland...his biggest complaint is the fact that our media claims to be NON-BIASED...when actually it is extremely biased. He said we would all be better off if they would just claim to be who they are and then support those views...I think he might be right! At least then some people would not think they are getting unbiased coverage on the news.
I am tired of watching the news and it being presented as unbiased when it reeks of same!
Yesterday I watched CNN and they had a reporter that read one email from someone that panned the choice of Palin as VEEP and then said the Republicans are in trouble...no other email was read...not another in support of this view nor one which would give the other sides view to provide balance to the reporting...:barf:
MSNBC basically declared themselves Obama Headquarters several months ago. They said, ON AIR, that they want him to be president. There's objective press for you.
There's at least a little bias evident everywhere if you pay attention. I watch Fox News because IMO they have the least bias. Not none, but less.
I have a friend who grew up in Switzerland...his biggest complaint is the fact that our media claims to be NON-BIASED...when actually it is extremely biased. He said we would all be better off if they would just claim to be who they are and then support those views...I think he might be right! At least then some people would not think they are getting unbiased coverage on the news.
I am tired of watching the news and it being presented as unbiased when it reeks of same!
Yesterday I watched CNN and they had a reporter that read one email from someone that panned the choice of Palin as VEEP and then said the Republicans are in trouble...no other email was read...not another in support of this view nor one which would give the other sides view to provide balance to the reporting...:barf:
Yes, there is MEDIA BIAS!
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.
Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.
True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.
Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."
And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.
The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.
An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.
And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.
A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:
"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.
In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.
As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."
It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.
One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.
A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.
The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.
What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain
We got cable, 33 channels, for the Olympics. (Half of these are in the new Kalifornia English: Mexican) The only good news for me after the Olympics, was on Sunday night, they had a special on ESPN classic, Sugar Ray Robinson. I would say it was about 60% commercials, 40% show. I called the next day, and canceled the cable. They should be paying ME for allowing all that advertizing into my house. I haven't had TV in ten years, don't miss it. Once you get used to watching a TV show in 40 minutes, on DVD, with no interruptions, you don't want to go back.
We get news from Drudge, and conservative talk radio.
I believe the constant commercials condition children at an early age, with the results that they can't concentrate for more then 10 minutes at school, without expecting a commercial interruption...:barf:
We get news from Drudge, and conservative talk radio.
I believe the constant commercials condition children at an early age, with the results that they can't concentrate for more then 10 minutes at school, without expecting a commercial interruption...:barf:
Bias is one heck of a book - highly recommended! I'm now reading Bamboozled by Angla McGowan. Another very good book that should be required reading in schools. Both are available in most libraries.
From Amazon (Bias)
From Amazon (Bamoozled):