|
The Curious Case of Angelina Jolie's Father (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, i just have to be so far right that everything looks left to me. |
ding ding ding!
The "liberal media bias" may exist in isolated outlets or papers, but it's hardly an endemic calculated ideology. Many of the biggest outlets in the country are decidedly conservative (Wall Street Journal, Fox News Channel, Clear Channel, Radio America, The New York Post, Washington Times, hundreds of local small-market papers, etc.). Notice how the New York Times and/or MSNBC often stand in for media writ large whenever claims of liberal bias are levied. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well said lebez. couldnt agree more. the idea that these massive corporations are really closet commies makes me laugh. we get the same here in OZ where our state tv channels (ABC & SBS) are accused of such bias, yet they're the only news channels that anyone with brains would ever bother watching.
big business news has about as much "liberal bias" as microsoft or rio tinto. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| "Liberal media bias" really smacks of a conspiracy no smaller than the 9/11 "cover-up"! |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
"Liberal media bias" really smacks of a conspiracy no smaller than the 9/11 "cover-up"! |
uh, yeah dude... to even suggest there's a liberal media bias is akin to being a 9/11 truther. LOL! Fox News isn't network news by the way... it's cable news that you have to pay for. I'm talking mainly about NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox's network channels nationally and locally. The majority of newspapers are liberal institutions as well, especially the largest ones. It's not a conspiricy at all.
I guess the study from George Washington University's "Center for Media and Public Affairs" in April that shows over 50% of network news is devoted to Obama (virtually all of it positive) means nothing.
| quote: | | During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s. |
So the three broadcast network evening news shows have basically devoted on average about half of their entire newscasts to Obama. And there's more:
| quote: | | CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush’s presidency. |
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm
You see that? More coverage from one network than Bush and Clinton got from 3 combined. Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?
Or read this Vanity Fair article on the matter---> http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/...currentPage=all
Or take a look at a Pew media research poll of the first 100 days---> http://journalism.org/analysis_repo..._first_100_days
Or, how about the fact that on June 24th, ABC WILL BE TURNING OVER IT'S PROGRAMMING TO OBAMA FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE to help him pitch his healthcare plan infomercial style, and rejected the request for opposing viewpoints, or bipartisan discussion (which hilariously Obama said he welcomed)? Is this the work of an unbiased media? I'll stop here becuase I could spend all day coming up with more examples. --- http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_4_27_09.htm
You see that? More coverage from one network than Bush and Clinton got from 3 combined. Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias? |
Erm, maybe that's an Obama bias, but I hardly think shouting from the mountaintops that Obama gets more coverage than Clinton did is indicative of a liberal bias.
Add to the fact that in the first six months of Bush's presidency, diddly-squat happened, and I think you have yourself an answer.
You haven't actually said anything other than that media outlets have a propensity to cover the actions of the President in a time of economic crisis. All I can say is "duh." |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I love how American conservativism drums up this whole self-reliance and personal responsibility thing, yet largely calls the media "left wing" or "biased" - as though people cannot come to their own decisions and are extremely susceptible to mass control. If you've no faith in people's abilities to choose for themselves, then just what business do you have tooting your horn about the entrepreneurial imperative that makes this country so great etc, etc. ? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I love how American conservativism drums up this whole self-reliance and personal responsibility thing, yet largely calls the media "left wing" or "biased" - as though people cannot come to their own decisions and are extremely susceptible to mass control. If you've no faith in people's abilities to choose for themselves, then just what business do you have tooting your horn about the entrepreneurial imperative that makes this country so great etc, etc. ? |
I think the self reliance of conservatism is rooted in the idea of individual liberty... and the belief that freedom includes a person's freedom to make good and bad choices for themselves, not have Big Brother holding their hand and deciding what's best for them. I have plenty of faith in people- when they are left alone by government and allowed to succeed or fail on their own merit. You gotta agree that a growing population of this country are not properly educated and informed (look at the return on our public school investment)... and when people are not adequately informed/educated then yes, it constrains the mind from understanding that they are the masters of their own destiny, not the State. It gets easier and easier to take entitlements and government handouts than work hard for success. And with the ever expanding nanny state perpetuated by liberal policies and a supportive agenda driven media, the American entrepreneurial spirit is diminshed little by little each day. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
You haven't actually said anything other than that media outlets have a propensity to cover the actions of the President in a time of economic crisis. All I can say is "duh." |
wow... that's all that's happening? You think the media's coverage of Obama is equally positive and negative as it was with Bush? You can't think it's even remotely close. The Drudge report of ABC News and the government uniting as one is not the most recent and pure example of the media bias?
| quote: | | The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate. |
? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
This thread needs more Angelina pics..
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
wow... that's all that's happening? You think the media's coverage of Obama is equally positive and negative as it was with Bush? You can't think it's even remotely close. |
Actually, I do. Prior to 2003, Bush was as widely heralded by the media as Obama. Coverage typically shadows public opinion - when a president is popular, they're more likely to receive positive coverage. I don't see anything implicitly nefarious in that, especially since it does cut both ways. Are you inferring that right after 9/11 you saw legions of reporters filing negative stories about Bush? If anything, we saw the talking heads repeat the adage that it was all Clinton's fault for not taking bin Laden seriously - it wasn't until the debacle of the lead-up to Iraq that people started to seriously question Bush's leadership skills.
| quote: | | The Drudge report of ABC News and the government uniting as one is not the most recent and pure example of the media bias? |
First of all, I don't trust Drudge. And second of all, how is this any different than a press conference? Bush didn't like holding those; Obama clearly does.
Are you saying that ABC should say no to a potential monopoly on viewers that evening, all in the pursuit of the fairness doctrine? I thought you hated that. You have me so confused as to where you actually stand on things. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how ed up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.mediamatters.org/ |
Fixed.
Or here's another one:
| quote: | [QUOTE]Originally posted by The17sss
You gotta live here and see it all first hand, day after day, to understand how ed up our main stream media is. For a good look, go here---> http://www.fair.org |
Yeah, playing this "librul media" game sure is fun!
In fact, you might find some interesting information on there, like that darn Pew study you cited:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906150022
You can also go there to find some interesting tidbits about that CMPA study you cited, like this from the study:
| quote: | The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies, according to a new study by researchers at George Mason and Chapman Universities. But the study also finds that Mr. Obama's positive media image hasn't precluded heavy criticism of his policies.
[...]
While Mr. Obama's personal qualities and leadership abilities have drawn mostly praise from the mainstream media, his policies have not fared so well. On the broadcast networks fewer than two out of five evaluative soundbites (39%) praised his policies and proposals. ABC's policy coverage was relatively balanced (48% positive), while source and reporter comments ran over two to one negative at both CBS (32% positive) and NBC (31% positive).
TV news coverage of the president's economic policies, which focused mainly on the economic stimulus and the various proposed and enacted industry bailouts, garnered support from only 37% of evaluative soundbites. He fared better on domestic issues other than the economy, where praise for his health care proposals and new stem cell research policy brought balanced coverage overall (50% positive). But only one out of four comments (24%) praised his foreign policy decisions, including the war on terror.
Negative Example: "The Obama administration is paying too much money to the wrong people." - Economist, CBS, March 20
The New York Times policy coverage, while less positive than its personal coverage of Mr. Obama, was about evenly divided between praise and criticism (48% positive). Although similar to the broadcast networks in its treatment of economic policy (40% positive), the Times portrayed other domestic policy areas relatively favorably (60% positive), and its 39% positive coverage of foreign policy domains was still more favorable than the networks' 24% positive coverage.
Positive Example: Mr. Obama's actions "reaffirmed American values and are a ray of light after eight long, dark years." - ACLU executive, New York Times, Jan. 22
By contrast, Fox News coverage was even more negative toward Mr. Obama's policies than the Times was positive. Only one out of twelve evaluative soundbites (8%) praised any of the president's policies, including six percent positive judgments on the economic matters, seven percent on other domestic issues, and 17% on foreign affairs. [emphases added]
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904280025
|
This is also an interesting perspective when compared to Bush's first couple of months in office:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904280014
Curse that darn librul media thingy!
Besides, one only needs a gigantic brain fart of Bush's first term, i.e. his first 3 or so years for one to believe the media was so vindictive, so vicious, so, uhh, librul, and wanted his head hoisted on top of a steak. I remember it quite well - Bush had the media, that stupid lapdog media in his back pocket, and could pull their strings at any given moment. The name of the game with the media does not have any political leanings. Rather, it has everything to do with $. And the best way to get $ for the media is access. Getting access to a President is the best means of getting high ratings (and therefore more $). It was damn true with Bush, just as much as it is with Obama.
One has to be a bit selective in memory and evidence to depict the media as "librul". The same argument could easily be made that the same media is conservative. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
. If you want to look for deep seeded hatred in this country, look no further than the Democrat party, the left wing especially, and the left wing media. |
Absolutely hysterical coming from someone who quotes Rush Limbaugh in their signature.
What deep seeded hatred exactly is the democratic party pushing right now? |
|
|
|
|
