Defining the "Liberal Media" and the "Mainstream Media"

[Landlord]

 

 

Hurricane Katrina made landfall on Monday, August 29. The damage and flooding got really bad by Tuesday, August 30. President Bush returned to Washington from his vacation by that Wednesday (within 2 days) and toured the damage by that Friday. Meanwhile, the Louisiana flooding started to get bad last Friday night, got really bad by Saturday, and was devastating by Sunday. Obama has remained on vacation all week, and now only plans to visit next week after Trump showed him up today. Just a couple days ago Obama's team was saying he had no plans to visit.

 

 

You didn't, at all, answer the question about how long it took the media to start criticizing Bush.

 

 

Yes, I did explain it. Katrina hit on a Monday and by that Thursday the complaints were coming in and the media was covering the fallout by that Friday, so within 3 to 4 days of it happening. With the 2016 flooding beginning last Saturday, it's taken 6 to 7 days before the media has begun to "question" whether Obama should still be on vacation golfing. Now the next 2 weeks will show whether the bias continues as Bush was hammered for weeks and months after Katrina, with some claiming his response would ruin his legacy. I have offered enough proof...why don't you start showing some proof that the MSM is treating Bush and Obama fairly in these situations. Please lay out your timeline and examples. I'll be waiting.

 

 

 

 

You say you explained it, yet the word "Thursday" didn't show up a single time in your post I quoted, nor did the words "media", "criticism", or anything else to show how long it took for the backlash to start.

 

 

Further, your claim is total bullsh#t. NBC News posted a video on Thursday explaining how Obama is facing "vacation criticism", 5 days after the flooding started. You claim that Bush started getting criticism the Thursday/Friday after Katrina hit that Monday, so 3/4 days.

 

 

So, apparently, a difference of 1-2 days is a prime example of mainstream media bias, where the criticism has taken WAY longer with a several day gap, and where the spotlight was on Bush but is lacking on Obama, and how there is so much hypocrisy.

 

Is that really your assertion?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

Hurricane Katrina made landfall on Monday, August 29. The damage and flooding got really bad by Tuesday, August 30. President Bush returned to Washington from his vacation by that Wednesday (within 2 days) and toured the damage by that Friday. Meanwhile, the Louisiana flooding started to get bad last Friday night, got really bad by Saturday, and was devastating by Sunday. Obama has remained on vacation all week, and now only plans to visit next week after Trump showed him up today. Just a couple days ago Obama's team was saying he had no plans to visit.

 

 

You didn't, at all, answer the question about how long it took the media to start criticizing Bush.

 

 

Yes, I did explain it. Katrina hit on a Monday and by that Thursday the complaints were coming in and the media was covering the fallout by that Friday, so within 3 to 4 days of it happening. With the 2016 flooding beginning last Saturday, it's taken 6 to 7 days before the media has begun to "question" whether Obama should still be on vacation golfing. Now the next 2 weeks will show whether the bias continues as Bush was hammered for weeks and months after Katrina, with some claiming his response would ruin his legacy. I have offered enough proof...why don't you start showing some proof that the MSM is treating Bush and Obama fairly in these situations. Please lay out your timeline and examples. I'll be waiting.

 

 

 

 

You say you explained it, yet the word "Thursday" didn't show up a single time in your post I quoted, nor did the words "media", "criticism", or anything else to show how long it took for the backlash to start.

 

 

Further, your claim is total bullsh#t. NBC News posted a video on Thursday explaining how Obama is facing "vacation criticism", 5 days after the flooding started. You claim that Bush started getting criticism the Thursday/Friday after Katrina hit that Monday, so 3/4 days.

 

 

So, apparently, a difference of 1-2 days is a prime example of mainstream media bias, where the criticism has taken WAY longer with a several day gap, and where the spotlight was on Bush but is lacking on Obama, and how there is so much hypocrisy.

 

Is that really your assertion?

 

 

Yes, by Thursday the media criticism of Bush began...3 days after Katrina hit. The criticism of Obama was small and on day 6, and here we are a week out and there still is not much coverage from mainstream networks about Obama. I watched the broadcasts last night, and spent little time focusing on Obama being on vacation. Instead, they focused on the tragedy itself. Also, as I just pointed out, the criticism of Bush went on intensely for weeks, and continues well after that. Go ahead and continue to put on your blinders and assume that the only bias that exists is from Fox News. I'm still waiting for you to offer a detailed account that shows the media has treated Obama and Bush equally in their coverage of these disasters.

 

And let's not forget the ultimate hypocrite himself who bashed Bush for not getting on the ground sooner with Katrina...click on the video clips and let me know if you agree that Obama is once again contradicting himself.

 

http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2016/08/19/obama-katrina-flashback/

[Landlord]

I'm still waiting for you to offer a detailed account that shows the media has treated Obama and Bush equally in their coverage of these disasters.

 

 

Why would I waste my time doing that when I never made that claim?

 

How much of this lack of fairness is due to these tragedies not being even remotely close to the same thing in terms of scale? Surely that's at least 1% of the equation, right?

[HuskerNation1]

 

I'm still waiting for you to offer a detailed account that shows the media has treated Obama and Bush equally in their coverage of these disasters.

 

 

Why would I waste my time doing that when I never made that claim?

 

How much of this lack of fairness is due to these tragedies not being even remotely close to the same thing in terms of scale? Surely that's at least 1% of the equation, right?

 

 

So in not making that claim, you are admitting there is a difference in the coverage given by the mainstream networks as it related to Obama and Bush.

[Landlord]

So in not making that claim, you are admitting there is a difference in the coverage given by the mainstream networks as it related to Obama and Bush.

 

 

Yes, there is a difference. They happened at different times, they're different presidents, the tragedies are different (especially in scale), the state of the media is different, the influence of social media is different, the federal response has been different, etc. etc. etc. Hell maybe there even is some bias in there. How do I know? I'm not the one making wild accusations that don't fit the evidence.

 

 

Sometimes I really wish I could live in a world where the answers were as simple as, "Oh the media doesn't criticize this guy because they're on his side." But that's not reality.

[BigRedBuster]

So....the complaints about Katrina started coming in on Thursday and the media reported it on Friday.

 

Now, with the floods, the media started reporting it on Thursday. When did the complaints start?

[HuskerNation1]

So....the complaints about Katrina started coming in on Thursday and the media reported it on Friday.

 

Now, with the floods, the media started reporting it on Thursday. When did the complaints start?

 

The complaints about Bush started 3 days after Katrina hit on that Thursday. The first hints of Obama being criticized was on Thursday, more on Friday, about 5 or 6 days after things had gotten bad. Local complaints began in both situations right away. Bush stopped his vacation within 2 days and headed back to Washington DC where he did his "flyover" that Obama running as a candidate harshly criticized in the link I provided above. If you guys are right that there is no media bias, I would expect the MSM networks to continue to criticize Obama for weeks to come and discuss the impact this will have on his legacy.

[Landlord]

If you guys are right that there is no media bias, I would expect the MSM networks to continue to criticize Obama for weeks to come and discuss the impact this will have on his legacy.

 

 

Why the hell would they spend the same amount of time discussing it when the current flooding isn't even a 10th of the scale of Katrina?

[HuskerNation1]

There have been countless articles written by those not affiliated with the right that agree that the MSM is biased. Here are a couple of recent ones including coming from the NY Times where they referenced a study showing that journalists on the mainstream networks are twice as likely to be Democrats vs Republicans.

 

http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/liberal-media/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect

[BigRedBuster]

I really don't give a rip what Bush or Obama did or didn't do. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

So, we literally are talking about maybe a day difference here in the reporting of complaints.

 

Is that really worth getting your panties in a wad?

 

I expect if there continues to be complaints, the media will report them. If there are very few if any, I expect the media to stop trotting it.

[HuskerNation1]

 

If you guys are right that there is no media bias, I would expect the MSM networks to continue to criticize Obama for weeks to come and discuss the impact this will have on his legacy.

 

 

Why the hell would they spend the same amount of time discussing it when the current flooding isn't even a 10th of the scale of Katrina?

 

 

Yesterday the news was resporting that there has been twice as much rain with these 2016 floods as there was with Katrina. Also, the rain continues to hit Louisiana today. Both are awful tragedies, and the persistent need for you to try to defend Obama is mind-blowing. He should have been engaged and on top of this and he's made a decision that golfing at Martha's vineyard is where he needs to be.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/worse-hurricane-katrina-coffins-float-8637663

[BigRedBuster]

Do you have any concept of the fact this is no where close to Katrina? Ok, they got more rain, but that doesn't take into consideration wind and storm surge.

 

The only reason you keep hammering this is for political reasons.

[Landlord]

From your link, bnill:

 

 

 

 

At least four people have died and more than 7,000 have been rescued after the American state was hit by up to 17 inches of rain in 24 hours.

 

 

Compared to ~1500 dead in Katrina.

[HuskerNation1]

It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

 

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.

[BigRedBuster]

Your example of clear bias was BS.