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

[HuskerNation1]

Your example of clear bias was BS.

 

Wow, that was deep. So you don't think there was any bias in the 2008 election toward Obama despite the studies done showing there was?

[BigRedBuster]

No....i'm talking about your failed attempt with the Katrina vs. Flood scandal.

[HuskerNation1]

No....in talking about your failed attempt with the Katrina vs. Flood scandal.

 

No fail...you just elect to see what you want to see with that. How about the studies/data on the 2008 race. Are you going to tell me there was no bias there too?

[BigRedBuster]

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.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

 

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

 

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

 

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

 

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

No....in talking about your failed attempt with the Katrina vs. Flood scandal.

No fail...you just elect to see what you want to see with that. How about the studies/data on the 2008 race. Are you going to tell me there was no bias there too?

LOL....dude, the Katrina argument was nowhere close to what you think it is.

[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.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

 

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

 

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

 

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

 

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

 

 

Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press. Moreover, with the floods from this past week in LA, if Bush were President and chose to stay on vacation and play rounds and rounds of golf, all mainstream networks would be devoting days of coverage to his lack of compassion and engagement.

 

Regarding the 2008 election, if that is your conclusion, you should stop pretending you are truly an Independent thinker on here. Here's yet another source showing the slanted coverage. And as I said previously, you know I do not like Hillary, but the media was even in the tank for Obama over Hillary in the primaries...it was that obvious, but I'm sure you won't admit to that either.

 

http://www.journalism.org/2008/10/22/winning-media-campaign/

[BigRedBuster]

Ummmm.....I said I didn't come to a conclusion yet on the election. Notice my first statement in my post.

I simply said your article was no where close to even hiding their intentions behind writing it.

It's clear the article was written to get people's panties in a wad so they vote for McCain.

[ZRod]

 

 

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.

 

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press. Moreover, with the floods from this past week in LA, if Bush were President and chose to stay on vacation and play rounds and rounds of golf, all mainstream networks would be devoting days of coverage to his lack of compassion and engagement.

 

Regarding the 2008 election, if that is your conclusion, you should stop pretending you are truly an Independent thinker on here. Here's yet another source showing the slanted coverage. And as I said previously, you know I do not like Hillary, but the media was even in the tank for Obama over Hillary in the primaries...it was that obvious, but I'm sure you won't admit to that either.

 

http://www.journalism.org/2008/10/22/winning-media-campaign/

So it's not left/right bias? Could that mean that he just had a well run campaign, that was making sure the media got the right message and covered it? Probably not...

[Landlord]

 

 

Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press.

 

Prove it or stfu

Are there mods on here to stop someone from saying stfu...its obvious what that acronym represents.

 

 

 

Prove it

[Moiraine]

 

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.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

 

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

 

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

 

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

 

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.

[Red Five]

What the bloody hell is the problem here?

 

On 8/14 Obama signed a Disaster Declaration giving the area federal funding for relief.

 

On 8/18 the LA Governor basically said that Obama should wait to come as everything that comes with a presidential visit would distract resources from the recovery.

[Landlord]

What the bloody hell is the problem here?

 

On 8/14 Obama signed a Disaster Declaration giving the area federal funding for relief.

 

On 8/18 the LA Governor basically said that Obama should wait to come as everything that comes with a presidential visit would distract resources from the recovery.

 

 

 

MAINSTREAM MEDIA BIAS

[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.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

 

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

 

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

 

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

 

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.

 

 

While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that.

[Landlord]

Nobody is really arguing that non-Fox News media sources have bias. They're just arguing against your allusions to nefarious conspiracy or the bias being explicitly linked to the Democratic party.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

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.

Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

 

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

 

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

 

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

 

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.

 

 

While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that.

 

I believe most journalists are inherently liberal themselves. I think that field draws that type of person and...yes....that may from time to time leak into their reporting.

However, I don't agree that there is this mass liberal agenda in the MSM like so many conservative talk radio personalities and Fox News wants us to believe.

 

They report mostly what is going on. Now, many times, there are groups or people criticizing or saying negative things about conservatives. Conservatives have had a pathetic run politically lately. So.....if the Republicans are being criticized in the public and the Dems aren't to the same level, what is the MSM supposed to do? Is it supposed to ignore all the criticism of the Repubs just so they don't criticize them more? No. They should report the feelings the public is having towards various political groups.

This is why your Katrina vs. floods argument was such a fail. When we boiled it down, we literally were talking maybe a day difference on when the MSM started reporting the complaints of either President. Who gives a rip. Both complaints were reported when the public started complaining.

 

The point is, meh...maybe there is a little bias. But, it is nowhere close to the hysteria scandal that Republicans make it out to be. It's a worn out propaganda mode that certain media outlets promote (Fox) so that they keep their viewers only watching them. I've seen and witnessed that way too much with my own eyes and in my own life to not acknowledge that. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that isn't either opening their eyes or being honest with themselves.