This is nothing out of the ordinary. Ask anyone, regardless of affiliation, and they will tell you that MSNBC is just as much a liberal outlet as Fox News is a conservative outlet. Nobody disputes that. Likewise, all the democrats that I know refuse to watch MSNBC because it makes a mockery of "news". Just like Fox News, it's a source to have your ideologies stroked, if your vision is too fragile to be challenged. The reason liberals are more critical of MSNBC is because we understand that it doesn't equip watchers with the information necessary to form complete opinions. We expect that from conservative sources, so it doesn't bother us nearly as much.
After the dealing with the Olbermann ripping into Palin thread and with Fishermage's question of the Fairness Doctrine, sorry but I cannot agree to this.
Also, the only legitimate poll I can find on this shows FOX to be the least biased of the three cable news services.
Now, don't get me wrong, their talk shows are VERY biased. Hannity is extremely biased, and Alan Combs is a weak counter. O'Reilly is...well, whatever. He is biased toward O'Reillyism though.
The actual news coverage of FOX is the least biased, with ABC as a close second. FOX is populist however, there is no doubt about that, but so is everyone these days.
I watch them all, as well as listening to NPR sometimes in the car (I would say NPR is also pretty good, but that's radio).
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
Don't forget Buzz himself. I know he's a liberal, but I'd be willing to go to the mat for him. He's one of the few Obama supporters on this board who doesn't respond with ridiculous statements. He actually manages to challenge me on my conservatism from time to time. Plus, he a college football fan, so he can't be all bad.
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
Don't forget Buzz himself. I know he's a liberal, but I'd be willing to go to the mat for him. He's one of the few Obama supporters on this board who doesn't respond with ridiculous statements. He actually manages to challenge me on my conservatism from time to time. Plus, he a college football fan, so he can't be all bad.
Just because HE is open-minded and willing to be challenged, that doesn't mean that Democrats are more prone to it than Republicans.
I see that BOTH sides have people that are intellectually vigorous and enjoy challenge and having to prove themselves, and both sides have intellectual weaklings who spitback what they hear.
In this thread, Buzz wasn;t responding at all to the Actual subject of the OP I made, just a sidebar about Bias. It was beatnik who actually fielded the marxist question and, without attacking back, debated points with me, doing quite well.
I'm not convinced by him, but I respect what he said. I respect Buzz as well, but he didn't really speak to the Marxism of Obama.
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
I know a college Marxist when I hear one. His terminology, his offhand remarks that take certain things for granted. I argued with these guys in class after class, as well as my professor, DeGRood. Those were some of my happiest days. Either way, I know the talk. been there, done that.
It's not JUST the spread the wealth around comment. It's not just the redistribution of wealth jargon he keeps throwing. It's not just the fact that he attended a Liberation Theology Church for years, it's not just that he pals around with admitted Marxists like Bill Ayers, it's not ANY one thing. It's a lot of things, and I find they lead to more questions.
Now, I could be wrong, but -- HE HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED THE QUESTIONS BY THE MEDIA, and when one bold woman comes forward and asks his VP candidate about it, vicious attacks follow. I think it's a reasonable question.
This isn't the McCarthy era. The 60s spawned a new acceptance of Marxism and if one is a Marxist, or agrees with Marxist ideology, in whole or in part, one ought to be able to admit it, and if one is running for president, any voter has every right to be informed of such things.
Apparently Obama, his campaign, and most of his supporters in this thread don't believe we have a right to know the truth. Why is that?
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
Sometimes you never know. Someone might not like her tone, the way she asked the question, etc. Many times journalists are trying to provoke a certain answer or reaction with their questioning. Kinda like a lawyer drilling a witness for information. She was definitely displaying some Ambush Journalism in that segment. Katie Couric did it to Sarah Palin but she didn't get as abrasive as this other woman did with Biden.
Personally I try to not watch stuff like this. I'd rather read up and do research on stuff myself. Many journalists today have an agenda and their own opinion they are trying to push than just asking questions and documenting the answers.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode. Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
Sometimes you never know. Someone might not like her tone, the way she asked the question, etc. Many times journalists are trying to provoke a certain answer or reaction with their questioning. Kinda like a lawyer drilling a witness for information. She was definitely displaying some Ambush Journalism in that segment. Katie Couric did it to Sarah Palin but she didn't get as abrasive as this other woman did with Biden.
Personally I try to not watch stuff like this. I'd rather read up and do research on stuff myself. Many journalists today have an agenda and their own opinion they are trying to push than just asking questions and documenting the answers.
*sigh* everyone knows real journalism is attacking republicans. Why would Barack ever have to run attack adds if CCN, MSNBC, and ABC do all the attacking for him? Really the only way to get a unbias look at a election is to have them both type out only THEIR policies not even mentioning the other side and to get some brains and decide for yourself. Radio is bias, tv is bias, and both sides will keep calling each other out on it.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
In this thread, Buzz wasn;t responding at all to the Actual subject of the OP I made, just a sidebar about Bias. It was beatnik who actually fielded the marxist question and, without attacking back, debated points with me, doing quite well. I'm not convinced by him, but I respect what he said. I respect Buzz as well, but he didn't really speak to the Marxism of Obama.
It's safe to assume that if I remain visibly absent from a debate, it's because the topic being discussed is laced with such absurdity that I refuse to dignify it with comment. Drawing attention to these political tactics offers them a sense of credibility, which is something I try to avoid.
So there. My response is that it doesn't deserve a response. Happy now? At least you know where I stand on the subject.
BTW, I WISH I were as restrained as Zin makes me sound
Sometimes it's fun to make ridiculous statements purely for shock value. I just prefer to use them for topics that don't have extremely serious undertones.
In this thread, Buzz wasn;t responding at all to the Actual subject of the OP I made, just a sidebar about Bias. It was beatnik who actually fielded the marxist question and, without attacking back, debated points with me, doing quite well. I'm not convinced by him, but I respect what he said. I respect Buzz as well, but he didn't really speak to the Marxism of Obama.
It's safe to assume that if I remain visibly absent from a debate, it's because the topic being discussed is laced with such absurdity that I refuse to dignify it with comment. Drawing attention to these political tactics offers them a sense of credibility, which is something I try to avoid.
So there. My response is that it doesn't deserve a response. Happy now? At least you know where I stand on the subject.
BTW, I WISH I were as restrained as Zin makes me sound
Sometimes it's fun to make ridiculous statements purely for shock value. I just prefer to use them for topics that don't have extremely serious undertones.
While I couldn't disagree more, and I feel Obama's being a socialist, and the most hardcore one ever to get near the White House, is the biggest problem I have with him, I thoroughly respect your style.
I feel the fear of being called a McCarthyist, and other epithets that the left feels so free to use has destroyed political discussion in this country.
Be against affirmative action, one is called a racist; be against welfare, one is called heartless, call Obama a socialist now gets one the racist tag as well.
People need to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say. We are poised at this moment to elect an unknown because the press did not do it's job.
While I couldn't disagree more, and I feel Obama's being a socialist, and the most hardcore one ever to get near the White House, is the biggest problem I have with him, I thoroughly respect your style. I understand your fears of democratic controlled government. I felt the same way in 2000. My fears were realized. I do not think yours will be. Even though I think that the democrats will pick up their nine seats in the senate, I believe that the majority of the country will be represented. I, like yourself, take issue with the government consisting only of representatives from one platform. However, the opportunity exists for the people to put their chosen officials in office. If it happens to be predominantly the party you disagree with, you might have to accept that your personal views have become outdated. Contrary to what many conservatives may think:
Obama will not sandwich abortion clinics inbetween the pharmacy and the optometrist at Wal-Mart Obama's tax cuts are directed at WORKING Americans. It's not a welfare program for the lame and lazy. Obama will not be working with Al Qaeda to save the whales
People need to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say. We are poised at this moment to elect an unknown because the press did not do it's job. Here's the thing about the press. Conservative sites are good at creative journalism. They are successful in riling up people who want to believe that there's some dark secret in Obama's past that will be exposed in dramatic fashion and end with a righteous judgment. The fact is, they have been unable to prove any of it. They simply have you hooked on the search. True news sources don't feed on these insinuations, and conservatives consider any that don't as 'liberal media'. Conservatives ask questions like "Whay isn't the liberal media covering this?". Well, the answer is, because they'd look like a bunch of schizophrenics addicted to conspiracy theory, that's why. News outlets with any semblance of integrity don't print the 'search' for a story. They print the story itself once it has been legitimized.
While I couldn't disagree more, and I feel Obama's being a socialist, and the most hardcore one ever to get near the White House, is the biggest problem I have with him, I thoroughly respect your style. I understand your fears of democratic controlled government. I felt the same way in 2000. My fears were realized. I do not think yours will be. Even though I think that the democrats will pick up their nine seats in the senate, I believe that the majority of the country will be represented. I, like yourself, take issue with the government consisting only of representatives from one platform. However, the opportunity exists for the people to put their chosen officials in office. If it happens to be predominantly the party you disagree with, you might have to accept that your personal views have become outdated. Contrary to what many conservatives may think:
Obama will not sandwich abortion clinics inbetween the pharmacy and the optometrist at Wal-Mart Obama's tax cuts are directed at WORKING Americans. It's not a welfare program for the lame and lazy. Obama will not be working with Al Qaeda to save the whales
People need to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say. We are poised at this moment to elect an unknown because the press did not do it's job. Here's the thing about the press. Conservative sites are good at creative journalism. They are successful in riling up people who want to believe that there's some dark secret in Obama's past that will be exposed in dramatic fashion and end with a righteous judgment. The fact is, they have been unable to prove any of it. They simply have you hooked on the search. True news sources don't feed on these insinuations, and conservatives consider any that don't as 'liberal media'. Conservatives ask questions like "Whay isn't the liberal media covering this?". Well, the answer is, because they'd look like a bunch of schizophrenics addicted to conspiracy theory, that's why. News outlets with any semblance of integrity don't print the 'search' for a story. They print the story itself once it has been legitimized.
Well, your responses show a definite bias, and more spin on the facts.
First, I have no fears -- I just disagree with socialism -- thus I do not support Obama. I'm pro-choice, so I don't know what abortion clinics haveto do with anything. Obama is not giving tax cuts to anyone. He may say he is, but he has never done what he says he is going to do, so that's that. Either way, his PLAN is, as he said, redistrubutionist, or, as he said it, "spreading the wealth around." He is giving a "tax cut" to people who don't pay any income tax. That's welfare, IMHO.
That last aboout Obama and al quada is just more apeal to ridicule we see from the left -- well, your whole response is.
As far as what you call news, you are just flat out wrong. Today's news outlets don't have any semblence of integrity -- they do just what you claim they don't do, only, since they do it in a way that supports your world view, you can't see it. The went right to press with a bunch of false stories about palin, they have done so about Bush, they have done so in so many cases you assertion is just plain.
As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I can see it very clearly.
Note that what is going on here is conservatuve OPINION sources, which are rightly the place for commentary, versus "news" sources. The fact that one even can make a comparision of the two is VERY telling. As far as it goes, Fox is center-right populist -- MSNBC is far left hatemongering. Everyone else is in between those two. There is no news from the far right that is even close to Bigtime like the networks.
As far as what you call news, you are just flat out wrong. Today's news outlets don't have any semblence of integrity -- they do just what you claim they don't do, only, since they do it in a way that supports your world view, you can't see it. The went right to press with a bunch of false stories about palin, they have done so about Bush, they have done so in so many cases you assertion is just plain. Which false stories would that be? As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I can see it very clearly. Note that what is going on here is conservatuve OPINION sources, which are rightly the place for commentary, versus "news" sources. The fact that one even can make a comparision of the two is VERY telling. As far as it goes, Fox is center-right populist -- MSNBC is far left hatemongering. Everyone else is in between those two. There is no news from the far right that is even close to Bigtime like the networks. I never compared the two. If you notice I clearly separated 'conservative sites' and 'true news sources'. The problem is that conservatives will read the 'conservative sites', accept editorials as leads, and then ask why 'true news sources' aren't covering them as well. I'm not saying that liberals don't do the same with regards to 'liberal sites', they just don't bitch about how the media isn't leveling unfounded attacks against McCain afterward. Conservatives seem to think that the potential of a story is even better than the story itself. After all, you don't need to waste resources scouring the globe for seemingly allusive facts to corroborate potential when you can just report the potential instead.
Are you stuck on the Fox News vs. MSNBC discussion? I've moved on. I stand by my initail post on the matter. It doesn't bother me that you call it spin and I don't feel the need to further explain my statement.
As far as what you call news, you are just flat out wrong. Today's news outlets don't have any semblence of integrity -- they do just what you claim they don't do, only, since they do it in a way that supports your world view, you can't see it. The went right to press with a bunch of false stories about palin, they have done so about Bush, they have done so in so many cases you assertion is just plain. Which false stories would that be? As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I can see it very clearly. Note that what is going on here is conservatuve OPINION sources, which are rightly the place for commentary, versus "news" sources. The fact that one even can make a comparision of the two is VERY telling. As far as it goes, Fox is center-right populist -- MSNBC is far left hatemongering. Everyone else is in between those two. There is no news from the far right that is even close to Bigtime like the networks. I never compared the two. If you notice I clearly separated 'conservative sites' and 'true news sources'. The problem is that conservatives will read the 'conservative sites', accept editorials as leads, and then ask why 'true news sources' aren't covering them as well. I'm not saying that liberals don't do the same with regards to 'liberal sites', they just don't bitch about how the media isn't leveling unfounded attacks against McCain afterward. Conservatives seem to think that the potential of a story is even better than the story itself. After all, you don't need to waste resources scouring the globe for seemingly allusive facts to corroborate potential when you can just report the potential instead.
Are you stuck on the Fox News vs. MSNBC discussion? I've moved on. I stand by my initail post on the matter. It doesn't bother me that you call it spin and I don't feel the need to further explain my statement.
The false stories which have been catalogued before, over and over again, on this forum and many others. I simply don't believe you when you imply you don't know. I have linked to them myself a few times.
The first obvious ones are the ones about Palin's daughter, the ones about the book banning nonsense -- those and more were dutifully reported on by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS before the facts were checked. If it appeared on the DailyKos it was on TV the next day. If you missed it, I'm sorry, I didn't I watched it all with disgust.
News on the MSM starts on the liberal sites and goes stright to that MSM who report it as facts, and then yes, when it turns out to be wrong it is corrected quietly.
Conservative sites are conservative sites. The regular news is not very different than the liberal sites, obly there isn't the blatant hatred you see -- we see the same things reported as fact.
Liberals think the same thing as the conservatives do about the potential of a story being worth more than the actual story. The "no WMD" nonsense is a fine example of that. One, WMD wasn;t the main reason we went to war, it was a weak attempt to get the FRENCH to go along, plenty of WMD WAS found, as all reports have shown, but since no stockpiles were found, the nedia dutifully reported, no WMD found. A blatant falsehood, but it sounded good.
Your own bias is showing when you behave as if there is any difference between liberal sites and mainstream news. Liberals are, if anything, less concerned with actually getting and reporting the facts. They want to smear, and they are more than willing to print lies. This is in the mainstream press, not just the liberal sites.
Fox news does a much better job if this, and it's not Fox vs MSNBC...it's FOX vs the rest. Fox, the slightly conservative one, is far less biased than the rest. When they report a questionable story, they report it with skepticism. The rest DON'T, when it attacks a conservative. Obviously you missed my point there.
I would, for the future apprecuate it if you didn'yt chop up my words to answer. I find it rude, if you don't mind.
It is interesting that even when you ask liberals, they know the media is liberal biased, as the rasmussen poll showed.
I think 'pointless' is the most appropriate term for this discussion. I'm going to tell you that I don't see the same freewheelin' style reporting from ABC that I see from Fox News and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to tell you that CNN reports just as much non-issue sensationalism about Obama as they do about McCain and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to say that there's no way the whole of the MSM (minus Fox News) is suppressing information to benefit Obama's candidacy and you are going to say I'm blinded by liberal bias.
I see your pattern. Make the dismisive argument.
At least Fox News isn't scared to report the truth about the liberal media. Wait a second, you watch Fox News don't you? Holy shit! You're just regurgitating what you've heard on Fox News. You're blinded by conservative bias!
I think 'pointless' is the most appropriate term for this discussion. I'm going to tell you that I don't see the same freewheelin' style reporting from ABC that I see from Fox News and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to tell you that CNN reports just as much non-issue sensationalism about Obama as they do about McCain and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to say that there's no way the whole of the MSM (minus Fox News) is suppressing information to benefit Obama's candidacy and you are going to say I'm blinded by liberal bias.
I see your pattern. Make the dismisive argument. At least Fox News isn't scared to report the truth about the liberal media. Wait a second, you watch Fox News don't you? Holy shit! You're just regurgitating what you've heard on Fox News. You're blinded by conservative bias!
And get a load of this one, from someone in Rochester, N.Y., who did not like our analysis of the final presidential debate. “You guys are awfully tough on McCain. There may be some legitimacy to the claim of press bias. Mom.”
We were all set to dismiss Harris’ mother as a crank. Same for VandeHei’s: a conservative dismayed by what she sees as kid-glove treatment of Barack Obama. Then along came a study — funded by the prestigious Pew Research Center, no less — suggesting at first blush, at least, that they may be on to something.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).
You call that balanced?
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.
Here goes anyway.
There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Politico was not included in the Pew study. But our researcher Alex Burns pulled out his highlighter pen and did his own study of Politico's October stories last week: 110 stories advanced a narrative that was more favorable to Obama than McCain. Sixty-nine did the opposite.
Our daily parlor game (which some readers, alas, seem to take a bit more solemnly than we do) declaring “who won the day” has awarded the day to Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. It’s doubtful even McCain would say he’s had more good days than that.
Still, journalists should do more than just amplify existing trends. A couple weeks back, Politico managing editor Bill Nichols sent out a note to the campaign team urging people to cough up more story ideas that took a skeptical look at the campaign tactics and policy proposals of the Democrat, who is likely to be president three months from now. As it happened, the response was a trickle (though Nichols and Mahtesian came up with some ideas of their own).
Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election.
But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy.
Reporters obsess about personalities and process, about whose staff are jerks or whether they seem like decent folks, about who has a great stump speech or is funnier in person than they come off in public, about whether Michigan is in play or off the table. This is the flip side of the fact of how much we care about the horse race — we don’t care that much about our own opinions of which candidate would do more for world peace or tax cuts.
If that causes skeptics to scoff, perhaps they would find it more satisfying to hear that the reason ideological bias matters so little is that other biases matter so much more.
This is true in any election year. But the 2008 election has had some unique — and personal — phenomena.
One is McCain backlash. The Republican once was the best evidence of how little ideology matters. Even during his “maverick” days, McCain was a consistent social conservative, with views on abortion and other cultural issues that would have been odds with those of most reporters we know. Yet he won swooning coverage for a decade from reporters who liked his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics.
Now he is paying. McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout.
Since then the media often presumes bad faith on McCain’s part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.
It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election.
Journalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.
In addition, Obama has benefited from his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy — and thus to starve feed the press’ bias for palace intrigue. In this sense, his campaign bears resemblance to the two run by George W. Bush.
Beyond the particular circumstances of McCain v. Obama, there are other factors in any race that almost always matter more than the personal views of reporters.
The strongest of these is the bias in favor of momentum. A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.
Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.
These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obama’s campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.
For better or worse, the most common media instincts all have countervailing pressures. Countering the bias in favor of momentum is the bias against boredom. We’ve seen that several times this cycle — an outlying poll number being pumped to suggest big changes in a race that is basically unchanged. There’s a good chance you’ll see this phenomenon more in the next week.
Then there is the bend-over-backward bias. This is when journalists try so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment. A good example were stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life.
Right here he shows the very bias he is talking about that he states is unintended. The very fact that he says she was trying to hang on for dear life shows his very bias. I found it funny in an article talking about how there is bias but it isn't personal bias of the reporters shows that very bias.
Most of the independents/moderate democrats I know do not like Palin but they also didn't think she got creamed in the debate. In fact most of them though Biden did a pretty bad job and Palin did just okay.
Finally, one of the biases of journalists is the same one that is potent for almost all people: the one in favor of self-defensiveness. That’s why, even though we think ideological bias is pretty low on the list of journalistic maladies in this election, it is not viable for reporters to dismiss criticism out of hand.
So there you go, Ma: We’ll look into it.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election. But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election. But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
Rasmussen Poll data:
Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I think 'pointless' is the most appropriate term for this discussion. I'm going to tell you that I don't see the same freewheelin' style reporting from ABC that I see from Fox News and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to tell you that CNN reports just as much non-issue sensationalism about Obama as they do about McCain and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to say that there's no way the whole of the MSM (minus Fox News) is suppressing information to benefit Obama's candidacy and you are going to say I'm blinded by liberal bias.
I see your pattern. Make the dismisive argument. At least Fox News isn't scared to report the truth about the liberal media. Wait a second, you watch Fox News don't you? Holy shit! You're just regurgitating what you've heard on Fox News. You're blinded by conservative bias!
Pointless, isn't it?
I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong. I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why. It certainly is pointless; the difference however is YOU happen to be a liberal, and I am neither liberal nor conservative. I don't share the political spectrum you play on, so I would say I am in a slightly better position to see the bigger picture.
Originally posted by Fishermage I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong. I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why. It certainly is pointless; the difference however is YOU happen to be a liberal, and I am neither liberal nor conservative. I don't share the political spectrum you play on, so I would say I am in a slightly better position to see the bigger picture. Here is one of your own, who admits the truth:fishermage.blogspot.com/2008/10/medias-presidential-bias-and-decline.html I don't know what the reason or what your motives are, you are simply mistaken about a great many things. You're right about weed, though. Good job, there
Well let's be fair (and balanced as FOX would say) here, Fisher. How are you not conservative? I willingly admit that I am a conservative and most of what you type screams conservatism to me. Now I could be wrong, because it's hard to gauge how someone leans simply by reading their posts on a message board, but I would have to see something from you that goes against conventional conservatism.
It might be that weed thing you mentioned, I guess I didn't read that far into the debate. I'm not a fan of drugs. I even try to avoid those that are legal. But that might be because I'm weird (avoiding legal medication, that is), not conservative.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election. But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
Rasmussen Poll data:
Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.
Now Rasmussen's polls are known for leaning to the political right, and I find evidence of it right here. Only a conservative would preface a fact with a misleading interpretation. Because how can they say that "Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox," when by their own poll, 43% of unaffiliated voters see no bias in the major television networks?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Fishermage I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong. I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why. It certainly is pointless; the difference however is YOU happen to be a liberal, and I am neither liberal nor conservative. I don't share the political spectrum you play on, so I would say I am in a slightly better position to see the bigger picture. Here is one of your own, who admits the truth:fishermage.blogspot.com/2008/10/medias-presidential-bias-and-decline.html I don't know what the reason or what your motives are, you are simply mistaken about a great many things. You're right about weed, though. Good job, there
Well let's be fair (and balanced as FOX would say) here, Fisher. How are you not conservative? I willingly admit that I am a conservative and most of what you type screams conservatism to me. Now I could be wrong, because it's hard to gauge how someone leans simply by reading their posts on a message board, but I would have to see something from you that goes against conventional conservatism.
It might be that weed thing you mentioned, I guess I didn't read that far into the debate. I'm not a fan of drugs. I even try to avoid those that are legal. But that might be because I'm weird (avoiding legal medication, that is), not conservative.
I believe in the legalization of drugs (all of them), prostitution, I am pro choice, I am in favor of extremely open borders, I am against prayer in schools, teaching of intelligent design, I believe polygamy and gay marriage should be legal. I am EXTREMELY anti social conservatism, although yes, like some conservatives, I am a laissez faire capitalist, although, truth be told, I am closer to Austrian Anarchocapitalism than modern conservative corporate capitalism.
I am VERY much against the patriot act and believe it should be repealed immediately. I am against obsenity laws and believe even the obsene should be protected speech.
I am, however a hawk. I believe the Jihad must be fought, but we should not sacrifice our own values of liberty to do so -- kill the enemy -- not freedom.
That's a good start. I am an alien on the political spectrum.
I am however, a pragmatist, so where I agree with conservatives and republicans, I say so, and am happy to compromise on all these things for the greater good, and to be a peacemaker. same thing with liberals, although they, over the years, have gotten less and less liberal and more and more authoritarian as I get older, I'm very sorry to say.
I would say I broadly agree with your average conservative about 50% of the time, and your average liberal about 25% of the time.
Comments
After the dealing with the Olbermann ripping into Palin thread and with Fishermage's question of the Fairness Doctrine, sorry but I cannot agree to this.
Also, the only legitimate poll I can find on this shows FOX to be the least biased of the three cable news services.
www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/55_say_media_more_biased_this_year_in_campaign_coverage
Now, don't get me wrong, their talk shows are VERY biased. Hannity is extremely biased, and Alan Combs is a weak counter. O'Reilly is...well, whatever. He is biased toward O'Reillyism though.
The actual news coverage of FOX is the least biased, with ABC as a close second. FOX is populist however, there is no doubt about that, but so is everyone these days.
I watch them all, as well as listening to NPR sometimes in the car (I would say NPR is also pretty good, but that's radio).
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't forget Buzz himself. I know he's a liberal, but I'd be willing to go to the mat for him. He's one of the few Obama supporters on this board who doesn't respond with ridiculous statements. He actually manages to challenge me on my conservatism from time to time. Plus, he a college football fan, so he can't be all bad.
Don't forget Buzz himself. I know he's a liberal, but I'd be willing to go to the mat for him. He's one of the few Obama supporters on this board who doesn't respond with ridiculous statements. He actually manages to challenge me on my conservatism from time to time. Plus, he a college football fan, so he can't be all bad.
Just because HE is open-minded and willing to be challenged, that doesn't mean that Democrats are more prone to it than Republicans.
I see that BOTH sides have people that are intellectually vigorous and enjoy challenge and having to prove themselves, and both sides have intellectual weaklings who spitback what they hear.
In this thread, Buzz wasn;t responding at all to the Actual subject of the OP I made, just a sidebar about Bias. It was beatnik who actually fielded the marxist question and, without attacking back, debated points with me, doing quite well.
I'm not convinced by him, but I respect what he said. I respect Buzz as well, but he didn't really speak to the Marxism of Obama.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Snd, since we were speaking of Fox News awhile back, I found this interesting Bill Sammon piece:
elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/
I found this particularly interesting:
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
I know a college Marxist when I hear one. His terminology, his offhand remarks that take certain things for granted. I argued with these guys in class after class, as well as my professor, DeGRood. Those were some of my happiest days. Either way, I know the talk. been there, done that.
It's not JUST the spread the wealth around comment. It's not just the redistribution of wealth jargon he keeps throwing. It's not just the fact that he attended a Liberation Theology Church for years, it's not just that he pals around with admitted Marxists like Bill Ayers, it's not ANY one thing. It's a lot of things, and I find they lead to more questions.
Now, I could be wrong, but -- HE HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED THE QUESTIONS BY THE MEDIA, and when one bold woman comes forward and asks his VP candidate about it, vicious attacks follow. I think it's a reasonable question.
This isn't the McCarthy era. The 60s spawned a new acceptance of Marxism and if one is a Marxist, or agrees with Marxist ideology, in whole or in part, one ought to be able to admit it, and if one is running for president, any voter has every right to be informed of such things.
Apparently Obama, his campaign, and most of his supporters in this thread don't believe we have a right to know the truth. Why is that?
fishermage.blogspot.com
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
Sometimes you never know. Someone might not like her tone, the way she asked the question, etc. Many times journalists are trying to provoke a certain answer or reaction with their questioning. Kinda like a lawyer drilling a witness for information. She was definitely displaying some Ambush Journalism in that segment. Katie Couric did it to Sarah Palin but she didn't get as abrasive as this other woman did with Biden.
Personally I try to not watch stuff like this. I'd rather read up and do research on stuff myself. Many journalists today have an agenda and their own opinion they are trying to push than just asking questions and documenting the answers.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
If someone doesn't agree with your blog you see that as an attack on you? How do you know everyone who disagrees with you is a Democrat??
I never said anyone attacked ME. I said they attacked the woman conducting the interview cited. I don't believe I've been attacked here at all, and I never said so. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Where did you ever get the idea that I think everyone who disagrees with me is a Democrat? What thread are you reading, or rather, NOT reading? Hmmm.
I'm just saying just because someone makes a comment about not agreeing with the way the woman interviewed Biden doesn't necessarily make them an Obama/Biden supporter.
Okay, fair enough. Why would a person who was not a Biden/Obama supporter attack a woman who asked Joe Biden if Obama saying he wanted to "spread the wealth around" was Marxism? I'm curious as to why one would conclude they were anything else.
Sometimes you never know. Someone might not like her tone, the way she asked the question, etc. Many times journalists are trying to provoke a certain answer or reaction with their questioning. Kinda like a lawyer drilling a witness for information. She was definitely displaying some Ambush Journalism in that segment. Katie Couric did it to Sarah Palin but she didn't get as abrasive as this other woman did with Biden.
Personally I try to not watch stuff like this. I'd rather read up and do research on stuff myself. Many journalists today have an agenda and their own opinion they are trying to push than just asking questions and documenting the answers.
and your point is?
fishermage.blogspot.com
*sigh* everyone knows real journalism is attacking republicans. Why would Barack ever have to run attack adds if CCN, MSNBC, and ABC do all the attacking for him? Really the only way to get a unbias look at a election is to have them both type out only THEIR policies not even mentioning the other side and to get some brains and decide for yourself. Radio is bias, tv is bias, and both sides will keep calling each other out on it.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
It's safe to assume that if I remain visibly absent from a debate, it's because the topic being discussed is laced with such absurdity that I refuse to dignify it with comment. Drawing attention to these political tactics offers them a sense of credibility, which is something I try to avoid.
So there. My response is that it doesn't deserve a response. Happy now? At least you know where I stand on the subject.
BTW, I WISH I were as restrained as Zin makes me sound
Sometimes it's fun to make ridiculous statements purely for shock value. I just prefer to use them for topics that don't have extremely serious undertones.
It's safe to assume that if I remain visibly absent from a debate, it's because the topic being discussed is laced with such absurdity that I refuse to dignify it with comment. Drawing attention to these political tactics offers them a sense of credibility, which is something I try to avoid.
So there. My response is that it doesn't deserve a response. Happy now? At least you know where I stand on the subject.
BTW, I WISH I were as restrained as Zin makes me sound
Sometimes it's fun to make ridiculous statements purely for shock value. I just prefer to use them for topics that don't have extremely serious undertones.
While I couldn't disagree more, and I feel Obama's being a socialist, and the most hardcore one ever to get near the White House, is the biggest problem I have with him, I thoroughly respect your style.
I feel the fear of being called a McCarthyist, and other epithets that the left feels so free to use has destroyed political discussion in this country.
Be against affirmative action, one is called a racist; be against welfare, one is called heartless, call Obama a socialist now gets one the racist tag as well.
People need to be able to say what they mean and mean what they say. We are poised at this moment to elect an unknown because the press did not do it's job.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, your responses show a definite bias, and more spin on the facts.
First, I have no fears -- I just disagree with socialism -- thus I do not support Obama. I'm pro-choice, so I don't know what abortion clinics haveto do with anything. Obama is not giving tax cuts to anyone. He may say he is, but he has never done what he says he is going to do, so that's that. Either way, his PLAN is, as he said, redistrubutionist, or, as he said it, "spreading the wealth around." He is giving a "tax cut" to people who don't pay any income tax. That's welfare, IMHO.
That last aboout Obama and al quada is just more apeal to ridicule we see from the left -- well, your whole response is.
As far as what you call news, you are just flat out wrong. Today's news outlets don't have any semblence of integrity -- they do just what you claim they don't do, only, since they do it in a way that supports your world view, you can't see it. The went right to press with a bunch of false stories about palin, they have done so about Bush, they have done so in so many cases you assertion is just plain.
As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative, I can see it very clearly.
Note that what is going on here is conservatuve OPINION sources, which are rightly the place for commentary, versus "news" sources. The fact that one even can make a comparision of the two is VERY telling. As far as it goes, Fox is center-right populist -- MSNBC is far left hatemongering. Everyone else is in between those two. There is no news from the far right that is even close to Bigtime like the networks.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The false stories which have been catalogued before, over and over again, on this forum and many others. I simply don't believe you when you imply you don't know. I have linked to them myself a few times.
The first obvious ones are the ones about Palin's daughter, the ones about the book banning nonsense -- those and more were dutifully reported on by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS before the facts were checked. If it appeared on the DailyKos it was on TV the next day. If you missed it, I'm sorry, I didn't I watched it all with disgust.
News on the MSM starts on the liberal sites and goes stright to that MSM who report it as facts, and then yes, when it turns out to be wrong it is corrected quietly.
Conservative sites are conservative sites. The regular news is not very different than the liberal sites, obly there isn't the blatant hatred you see -- we see the same things reported as fact.
Liberals think the same thing as the conservatives do about the potential of a story being worth more than the actual story. The "no WMD" nonsense is a fine example of that. One, WMD wasn;t the main reason we went to war, it was a weak attempt to get the FRENCH to go along, plenty of WMD WAS found, as all reports have shown, but since no stockpiles were found, the nedia dutifully reported, no WMD found. A blatant falsehood, but it sounded good.
Your own bias is showing when you behave as if there is any difference between liberal sites and mainstream news. Liberals are, if anything, less concerned with actually getting and reporting the facts. They want to smear, and they are more than willing to print lies. This is in the mainstream press, not just the liberal sites.
Fox news does a much better job if this, and it's not Fox vs MSNBC...it's FOX vs the rest. Fox, the slightly conservative one, is far less biased than the rest. When they report a questionable story, they report it with skepticism. The rest DON'T, when it attacks a conservative. Obviously you missed my point there.
I would, for the future apprecuate it if you didn'yt chop up my words to answer. I find it rude, if you don't mind.
It is interesting that even when you ask liberals, they know the media is liberal biased, as the rasmussen poll showed.
fishermage.blogspot.com
@ Fishermage:
I think 'pointless' is the most appropriate term for this discussion. I'm going to tell you that I don't see the same freewheelin' style reporting from ABC that I see from Fox News and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to tell you that CNN reports just as much non-issue sensationalism about Obama as they do about McCain and you are going to say that I'm blinded by liberal bias. I'm going to say that there's no way the whole of the MSM (minus Fox News) is suppressing information to benefit Obama's candidacy and you are going to say I'm blinded by liberal bias.
I see your pattern. Make the dismisive argument.
At least Fox News isn't scared to report the truth about the liberal media. Wait a second, you watch Fox News don't you? Holy shit! You're just regurgitating what you've heard on Fox News. You're blinded by conservative bias!
Pointless, isn't it?
www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html
And get a load of this one, from someone in Rochester, N.Y., who did not like our analysis of the final presidential debate. “You guys are awfully tough on McCain. There may be some legitimacy to the claim of press bias. Mom.”
We were all set to dismiss Harris’ mother as a crank. Same for VandeHei’s: a conservative dismayed by what she sees as kid-glove treatment of Barack Obama. Then along came a study — funded by the prestigious Pew Research Center, no less — suggesting at first blush, at least, that they may be on to something.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.
What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).
You call that balanced?
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.
And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.
So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.
Here goes anyway.
There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
Politico was not included in the Pew study. But our researcher Alex Burns pulled out his highlighter pen and did his own study of Politico's October stories last week: 110 stories advanced a narrative that was more favorable to Obama than McCain. Sixty-nine did the opposite.
Our daily parlor game (which some readers, alas, seem to take a bit more solemnly than we do) declaring “who won the day” has awarded the day to Obama by a 2-to-1 margin. It’s doubtful even McCain would say he’s had more good days than that.
Still, journalists should do more than just amplify existing trends. A couple weeks back, Politico managing editor Bill Nichols sent out a note to the campaign team urging people to cough up more story ideas that took a skeptical look at the campaign tactics and policy proposals of the Democrat, who is likely to be president three months from now. As it happened, the response was a trickle (though Nichols and Mahtesian came up with some ideas of their own).
Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election.
But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election — and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama — ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.
The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy.
Reporters obsess about personalities and process, about whose staff are jerks or whether they seem like decent folks, about who has a great stump speech or is funnier in person than they come off in public, about whether Michigan is in play or off the table. This is the flip side of the fact of how much we care about the horse race — we don’t care that much about our own opinions of which candidate would do more for world peace or tax cuts.
If that causes skeptics to scoff, perhaps they would find it more satisfying to hear that the reason ideological bias matters so little is that other biases matter so much more.
This is true in any election year. But the 2008 election has had some unique — and personal — phenomena.
One is McCain backlash. The Republican once was the best evidence of how little ideology matters. Even during his “maverick” days, McCain was a consistent social conservative, with views on abortion and other cultural issues that would have been odds with those of most reporters we know. Yet he won swooning coverage for a decade from reporters who liked his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics.
Now he is paying. McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout.
Since then the media often presumes bad faith on McCain’s part. The best evidence of this has been the intense focus on the negative nature of his ads, when it is clear Obama has been similarly negative in spots he airs on radio and in swing states.
It is not our impression that many reporters are rooting for Obama personally. To the contrary, most colleagues on the trail we’ve spoken with seem to find him a distant and undefined figure. But he has benefited from the idea that negative attacks that in a normal campaign would be commonplace in this year would carry an out-of-bounds racial subtext. That’s why Obama’s long association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was basically a nonissue in the general election.
Journalists’ hair-trigger racial sensitivity may have been misplaced, but it was not driven by an ideological tilt.
In addition, Obama has benefited from his ability to minimize internal drama and maximize secrecy — and thus to starve feed the press’ bias for palace intrigue. In this sense, his campaign bears resemblance to the two run by George W. Bush.
Beyond the particular circumstances of McCain v. Obama, there are other factors in any race that almost always matter more than the personal views of reporters.
The strongest of these is the bias in favor of momentum. A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.
Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans — they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palin’s $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.
These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obama’s campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.
For better or worse, the most common media instincts all have countervailing pressures. Countering the bias in favor of momentum is the bias against boredom. We’ve seen that several times this cycle — an outlying poll number being pumped to suggest big changes in a race that is basically unchanged. There’s a good chance you’ll see this phenomenon more in the next week.
Then there is the bend-over-backward bias. This is when journalists try so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment. A good example were stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life.
Right here he shows the very bias he is talking about that he states is unintended. The very fact that he says she was trying to hang on for dear life shows his very bias. I found it funny in an article talking about how there is bias but it isn't personal bias of the reporters shows that very bias.
Most of the independents/moderate democrats I know do not like Palin but they also didn't think she got creamed in the debate. In fact most of them though Biden did a pretty bad job and Palin did just okay.
Finally, one of the biases of journalists is the same one that is potent for almost all people: the one in favor of self-defensiveness. That’s why, even though we think ideological bias is pretty low on the list of journalistic maladies in this election, it is not viable for reporters to dismiss criticism out of hand.
So there you go, Ma: We’ll look into it.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
Rasmussen Poll data:
Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
I'm not saying you are blinded by liberal bias, I am simply saying you are wrong. I don't know why, nor will I examine your psyche to determine why. It certainly is pointless; the difference however is YOU happen to be a liberal, and I am neither liberal nor conservative. I don't share the political spectrum you play on, so I would say I am in a slightly better position to see the bigger picture.
Here is one of your own, who admits the truth:fishermage.blogspot.com/2008/10/medias-presidential-bias-and-decline.html
I don't know what the reason or what your motives are, you are simply mistaken about a great many things.
You're right about weed, though. Good job, there
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well let's be fair (and balanced as FOX would say) here, Fisher. How are you not conservative? I willingly admit that I am a conservative and most of what you type screams conservatism to me. Now I could be wrong, because it's hard to gauge how someone leans simply by reading their posts on a message board, but I would have to see something from you that goes against conventional conservatism.
It might be that weed thing you mentioned, I guess I didn't read that far into the debate. I'm not a fan of drugs. I even try to avoid those that are legal. But that might be because I'm weird (avoiding legal medication, that is), not conservative.
So you want to blame Obama for the ineffective campaign that McCain has run? When McCain makes a stupendous blunder, like suspending his campaign, the media will report it. Fox News might say "it was the bold move of a true statesman" and CNN might say "Errr, what the fuck is up with John?". The majority of the people I talked to were also thinking "Err, what the fuck is up with John". So, which network shows bias?
McCain has made several of these missteps. The biggest being the selection of Sarah Palin. Don't expect the media to give him a pass on them. Well, at least the media excluding Fox News. But, it's already been established that Fox News is rife with conservative bias anyway.
Rasmussen Poll data:
Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.
Now Rasmussen's polls are known for leaning to the political right, and I find evidence of it right here. Only a conservative would preface a fact with a misleading interpretation. Because how can they say that "Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox," when by their own poll, 43% of unaffiliated voters see no bias in the major television networks?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Well let's be fair (and balanced as FOX would say) here, Fisher. How are you not conservative? I willingly admit that I am a conservative and most of what you type screams conservatism to me. Now I could be wrong, because it's hard to gauge how someone leans simply by reading their posts on a message board, but I would have to see something from you that goes against conventional conservatism.
It might be that weed thing you mentioned, I guess I didn't read that far into the debate. I'm not a fan of drugs. I even try to avoid those that are legal. But that might be because I'm weird (avoiding legal medication, that is), not conservative.
I believe in the legalization of drugs (all of them), prostitution, I am pro choice, I am in favor of extremely open borders, I am against prayer in schools, teaching of intelligent design, I believe polygamy and gay marriage should be legal. I am EXTREMELY anti social conservatism, although yes, like some conservatives, I am a laissez faire capitalist, although, truth be told, I am closer to Austrian Anarchocapitalism than modern conservative corporate capitalism.
I am VERY much against the patriot act and believe it should be repealed immediately. I am against obsenity laws and believe even the obsene should be protected speech.
I am, however a hawk. I believe the Jihad must be fought, but we should not sacrifice our own values of liberty to do so -- kill the enemy -- not freedom.
That's a good start. I am an alien on the political spectrum.
I am however, a pragmatist, so where I agree with conservatives and republicans, I say so, and am happy to compromise on all these things for the greater good, and to be a peacemaker. same thing with liberals, although they, over the years, have gotten less and less liberal and more and more authoritarian as I get older, I'm very sorry to say.
I would say I broadly agree with your average conservative about 50% of the time, and your average liberal about 25% of the time.
fishermage.blogspot.com