Exactly, that is why they are commonly known as the liberal media.
Lets see if the polls accurately describe what liberals want to see in their media:
64 percent they were politically biased- yes, far left-wing liberals can only handle one sided stories.
59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate- making up documents, running stories on the front page of the NYT then retracting it days later on page 9. Another bright realization.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America". Watch any coverage of the war or the President. Bashing America, just the way liberals have liked it for 40 years.
Lets see if the polls accurately describe what liberals want to see in their media:
64 percent they were politically biased- yes, far left-wing liberals can only handle one sided stories.
59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate- making up documents, running stories on the front page of the NYT then retracting it days later on page 9. Another bright realization.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America". Watch any coverage of the war or the President. Bashing America, just the way liberals have liked it for 40 years.
Posts
19 comments:
talk about projection..
Exactly. The article doesn't specify what therespondents meant by bias or what "standing up for America" really means. Game simply tosses in his prexisting beliefs.
I wonder if he actually pored over the poll data before doing so like a student trained in empirical research would do......
You have to understand, the twenty percent of loyalists in this country have convinced themselves (against all reason) that the other eighty percent actually would agree with them, if it weren't for those pesky journalists...
Actually, Hash, lefty sheep like you don't even realize when your being led astray. If you don't understand the impact of repeated one-sided reporting, then "stupid" is a word you should get used to hearing about yourself.
Just think of it in the most simple terms (your welcome. I know it's helpful for you). If all the news of the war was totally positive, that we won every skirmish, that none of our troops got the slightest scratch, that the entirety of the Iraqi people sang our praises, etc., etc., do you really believe the polling would look the same regarding the war, the Bush administration's handling of it or anything related to the war? You'd be a liar to say it would be.
What we've had for the most part is almost the exact opposite of my hypothetical, tempered only with the reporting of conservative pundits who've spent serious time there, and troops who've been blogging and those who've seen the obvious distortions of the press (and there've been quite a few) and called them to task. In fact, without those checking the "facts" reported by Reuters, TNR, AP and others, the polling would look worse for the admin and the military than it does now.
That ain't projection, it's the way it is.
"Actually, Hash, lefty sheep like you don't even realize when your being led astray. If you don't understand the impact of repeated one-sided reporting, then "stupid" is a word you should get used to hearing about yourself."
Join a real church and then come talk to me.
"Just think of it in the most simple terms (your welcome. I know it's helpful for you). If all the news of the war was totally positive, that we won every skirmish, that none of our troops got the slightest scratch, that the entirety of the Iraqi people sang our praises, etc., etc., do you really believe the polling would look the same regarding the war, the Bush administration's handling of it or anything related to the war? You'd be a liar to say it would be."
Except the original post had nothing to do with this whatsover.
"Could this be that pushy, sneaky, assertive side of your nature taking over the discussion?
What we've had for the most part is almost the exact opposite of my hypothetical, tempered only with the reporting of conservative pundits who've spent serious time there, and troops who've been blogging and those who've seen the obvious distortions of the press (and there've been quite a few) and called them to task. In fact, without those checking the "facts" reported by Reuters, TNR, AP and others, the polling would look worse for the admin and the military than it does now.
That ain't projection, it's the way it is."
Nonsense. You're basing your opinions on scatterbrained neocon "hotties" like Laura Ingraham, who spends a week on a protected, guided tour, through the safest of neighborhoods, and crypto-agents of foreign entities like Michael Yon who serve up a steady diet of white-trash pablum with an occasional, fabricated, dead baby in a casserole so you can justify your phony moral outrage to the real Americans around you, in colorful diatribes.
You cannot have any credibility, for you answer to no real moral authority. Your intelligence is pulp. You are an embarrassment to this nation, for you have a devious agenda to promote.
You are low-grade filth, that sucks the lifeblood from the nation, you are my enemy, and I pray for your destruction, in whatever manner He deems fit.
Fanatic,
You do such a great job of indicting yourself, that a response is rarely needed.
The only reason anyone bothers to resond to your deranged prattle, is because of a morbid fascination, a wondering of what you may say next.
It's kind of like worrying at a wart on your big toe. Or a better example would be picking at a malignant tumor.
I believe you need to go wipe your ass, it sounds as if you beshat yourself after that last post.
You people take the cake. You can't even bring yourselves to admit there's a leftist bias in the main stream media. Study, after study, example after example, poll after poll, and you're still in denial.
No Fanatic; Marshall, or myself, or game, or any other conservative that takes time to gain info beyond a few minutes of sound bite news a day; don't have a "devious" agenda to promote (you really need to see a professional about your paranoia).
The point is, it's a damn shame that the media refuses to even try to be balanced. And I for one am sick and tired of it, as are many others. That's why you continue to see your precious media puppet masters lose power and audience. They're reduced to attacking those that would dare have a differing opinion, in a pathetic attempt to protect their relevance. It won't work for long.
If you think about it, the rise in people's opinions that the media is biased and inaccurate pretty closely follows the rise of Fox News Channel. Isn't that curious?
There's probably two types who feel the media is politically biased and inaccurate.
1) Fox News Channel watchers who are being told that the media is politically biased and inaccurate, and
2) Those who know that Fox News is politically biased and inaccurate.
I think that everyone here believes that the media is biased. The debate is regarding the nature of the bias.
So whaddya say we make this an ACTUAL debate? We can all present real evidence of bias and prove that our perception is correct.
Remember, negative reporting is not necessarily bias - it has to be something that is verifiably false or slanted, for example an ongoing reference to, lets say, a presidential candidate that claimed to have invented the internet, when in fact he did no such thing.
Anybody game?
So yeah, I am.
Here's an example. Bill O'Reilly was on Bill Moyers like white on rice because Moyers had a program on impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Moyers was mostly a moderator to his two guests, one was Bruce Fein, a conservative scholar, and the other was John Nichols, writer for The Nation. Nichols is moderate to liberal; Fein is a constitutional lawyer who was deputy attorney general under Reagan, advocated impeachment of Clinton, and has numerous conservative bona fides.
Both guests strongly advocated the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, not for political reasons but for historical and constitutional reasons.
Moyers played devil's advocate.
So was this program biased? How? Politically biased? Philosophically biased?
If a liberal and a conservative come to the same conclusion, is it biased?
O'Reilly is typical of many who decry a so-called liberal media. If a certain viewpoint (especially yours), regardless of strength or validity, is not given EQUAL weight in a news item or debate, then that debate or item is tainted with bias.
"You do such a great job of indicting yourself, that a response is rarely needed."
Marshall showed us what a moron and a loser he is, and I pointed it out.
Don't like it? Tough.
jim said:
"If you think about it, the rise in people's opinions that the media is biased and inaccurate pretty closely follows the rise of Fox news channel."
I'm not sure when you were born, but perhaps you're one of those whom consider "history" to mean only the things you can remember from your life time. I believe FOX news started in the mid-nineties. I can assure you there were complaints and documentation of a lefty bias in the media LONG, LONG, before FOX came aboard.
As a matter of fact, you could argue that FOX's dominance in the TV news media is a direct result of a liberal bias in the rest of the broadcast and print media. You see, there were so many people that were aware of the half-truths, ommissions, and purposeful misleading "news reports" coming from the established media, that they yearned for the other side of the story. Murdoch recognized the demand, and simply supplied.
So you see, your supposition about the start of "cries of media bias" has no foundation in fact.
I'm not claiming there's no bias at FOX, just that anyone who doesn't take everything coming from the media with a grain of salt is a fool's fool.
Here's a suppostition for you to ponder - maybe, those who see no bias in the main stream media, simply are unable to recognize that the parroting of one's world view may indeed be in fact biased. (in other words, sometimes you need to look "outside" your own circle-jerk of self confirmation).
Realism makes a good point. I'd like to point out how those on the left that claim righty media bias allways bring up examples of conservative editorialist. Should we go "tit for tat", Jim? Your "tit" will be more examples of admited conservative editorialist and my "tat" will be claimed unbiased reporting from the Main-stream media (perhaps I should start with the Dan Rathers fiasco).
"(perhaps I should start with the Dan Rathers fiasco)."
You mean when Dan Rather reported the truth about your lying, loser president, and he lost his job because of your wicked neocon ways?
Dan Rather did nothing more than report the truth. It was you who couldn't handle it, and resorted to skullduggery to slander an honest man's record and destroy his career.
Ah, yes. The so-called Dan Rather "fiasco" or Rathergate as some of you call it.
Rather was guilty of allowing his producer to use documents which were not adequately verified.
However, did you ever hear anyone from the White House or anywhere else actually refute the substance of the story?
In the 90s the entire media was out to get Clinton. Which way were they biased then?
The media is more biased towards "I got to have some big story so I can sell more ad space and make my corporate owners a profit so I can keep my job."
The media is more biased to "I will never call a politician out on a lie because then he'll never talk to me again."
I can cite you Media Matters all day long and they'll reference the NY Times, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, PBS and NPR every bit as much as they reference Fox Noise Corp. for media bias or just plain sloppy journalism.
jim
I agree 100% with the last 3 paragraphs of your post.
As far as your question about Clinton and the 90's, he pretty much got a free pass from most of the media (anybody remember China?), except when he got caught red-handed lying. Then it was nothing more than your example of "who could sell the biggest story", hell, even a lefty biased organization won't pass up such a "juicy" story.
But your point about Clinton and the 90's brings to mind the blantant bias concerning Regan in the 80's.
Aw, Hashbrown. Now my feelins is hoit.
Realism,
"Remember, negative reporting is not necessarily bias - it has to be something that is verifiably false or slanted,"
This is only partly true, however. Much of the complaints about bias concerning the war reporting has to do with the fact that it's like pulling teeth to hear of anything that is going well. It goes beyond the "if it bleeds, it leads" method. We only hear of the progress of the war from direct interviews by officers like Patraeus on shows like Hugh Hewitt and the like. If the military leaders have good things to say, (and the Multi-National Forces website always spoke clearly of what is going right and where more needs to be done), why don't we hear more of it in the MSM? So that type of biased reporting would be difficult to point out except in total for a period when other sources have better news the MSM didn't bother with for the same period, if that makes sense.
But here's my entry: The "Domestic Spying" stories, when clearly the point of the administration had nothing to do with spying on Americans. I mean even if some American was "spied" upon, the program was clearly meant to intercept communications from terror suspects. The use of the term "domestic spying" was clearly a case of bias.
A good challenge, Realism.
"We only hear of the progress of the war from direct interviews by officers like Patraeus on shows like Hugh Hewitt and the like."
Precisely.
Only a flat-out liar like Hugh Hewitt is permitted access.
Calm down, fudgie.
Maybe Hughie will have some candy for you tonight...
Fudgie????Don't think many will ever agree with keen insight like that.
Post a Comment