This wouldn't be an overt action based on their own political beliefs, would it? The Press is often regarded as overwhelmingly liberal, could this be considered evidence of that?

Can someone tell me how we would know if the press had a liberal bias? Wouldn't we need baseline where the press 'should' be, and then see if the press is more liberal than that in their reporting? I'm not sure how we would ever know that.

Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

Yeah, it sucks when your party's ideology is so batshiat crazy that people who are paid to pay attention to current events can't help but respect the other side more.

Face it, republicans, your party is going the way of the whigs. Evolve or die. Preferably the first, I'd prefer the democrats have an actual valid opponent so they're required to innovate instead of stagnate.

/Ironically, I did a quick lookup to make sure the Whigs weren't still around and discovered the Modern Whig Party (new window), which actually sounds like a pretty sane group.

Yeah, right. But on the bright side, conservatives pay their taxes.

I thought most Republicans regarded Bush as a feeble-minded big government traitor now that he can't cut their taxes anymore. Isn't that why they would barely acknowledge his existence during the convention?

I'm sure some of those press members were from liberal media companies like the WSJ or Fox (not sure if they were one company yet during the Bush speech).

I am interested, though, why the press didn't rise for Bush, unless they were told to remain in their seats beforehand. I thought it was protocol that you rise for the President when he enters a room. While I can see a few reporters remaining seated I doubt all would unless they were told not to rise.

I mean, hell, look at this from their website:

Abortion

Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. But the bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with. For example, many "pro-choice" voters find themselves agreeing with many traditionally GOP issues while many of those opposed to abortion rights find themselves agreeing with many Democratic issues. Despite this fact, voters too often are pushed to choose one party or the other due to the abortion issue alone. It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

Watch these guys, I think they'll be going places in the next 10 years.

yeah. boy - did you notice how the media barely mentioned reverend wright or bill ayers? to say nothing of the swift boat attacks on kerrey in '04.

that darned librul media. is there anything they can't librul?

We don't stand for war criminals.

What amazes me is that I really couldn't care less about this at all.

Obama's a likable guy (for now), Bush wasn't so much. People don't appreciate being spun and lied to all the time, especially when their job is to get at the truth. So far Obama isn't doing that perceptibly.

There is no bigger myth that doesn't require tinfoil than the liberal media.

TheOther: I thought most Republicans regarded Bush as a feeble-minded big government traitor now that he can't cut their taxes anymore. Isn't that why they would barely acknowledge his existence during the convention?

have you noticed that these flailing imbeciles can't even decide what they are trying to convey anymore ? They contradict their own claims of persecutions with declarations of triumph and then run back the other way again all in the span of a given morning. It's like a hyper little child who desperately needs attention of any kind.

Raiden333: I mean, hell, look at this from their website:

Abortion

Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. But the bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with. For example, many "pro-choice" voters find themselves agreeing with many traditionally GOP issues while many of those opposed to abortion rights find themselves agreeing with many Democratic issues. Despite this fact, voters too often are pushed to choose one party or the other due to the abortion issue alone. It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

Watch these guys, I think they'll be going places in the next 10 years.

I don't like this part; it's a very pro-life suggestion. I fully understand the whole "BOOO Big Gubmint!" attitude, but abortion is one of those rare issues where the federal involvement is actually acting like Small Gubmint. It's giving freedom of choice, it's not restricting anyone's rights.

The same would go for a hypothetical federal amendment to legalize gay marriage. Nobody would be forced to marry gay people, no church would be forced to perform gay ceremonies; it would give freedom for those who want it, and have no effect on those against it.

I mean, that's my interpretation of "Big" and "Small"; that it's not about Fed versus State, but about restriction of freedom, the intervention in peoples' lives.

DamnYankees: Can someone tell me how we would know if the press had a liberal bias? Wouldn't we need baseline where the press 'should' be, and then see if the press is more liberal than that in their reporting? I'm not sure how we would ever know that.

Because it never has, and it never will be.

The press operates to make money. Period. Everything you read in any major news outlet has been edited and screened for the peon masses.

Contrary to what most think, it's a state-media.

Are the republicans starting to 'b-b-b-but Bush' now, too?

After the media paved the way to an invasion of Iraq, how can anyone claim they're liberal?

Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

I am wondering if this was not something bush would tell them to stop doing, everyone who has met him says hes a nice guy, even if he had people giving him bad advice.

Its a minor issue but if he didnt tell them not to do it then it does say something about them as a whole but would any of that really surprise the public?

WFern: After the media paved the way to an invasion of Iraq, how can anyone claim they're liberal?

The media printed what sold papers, dont think they are smart enough to print the truth anymore, its all about what the people want to read.

Its all pathetic really.

Reality is liberal.

This was when Obama came unexpectedly. Who knows what the typical briefing protocol is/was?

Stupid video is stupid.

Bush video is from November 2008. Maybe the press did stand for Bush in 2001 & somewhere along the lines he asked them to stop? Or maybe after covering the White House for 7 years, the press corps just stopped standing for him anymore?

And for the last f*cking time, the press is not overwhelmingly liberal.

Top 4 stories on Fox News: Specter, Obama having to pick Souter's replacement, Swine Flu, a probe into John Edwards' campaign contributions.

CNN: The Cowboys' practice center collapse, an article on the homeless, Jack Kemp, and Swine Flu

MSNBC: An article about ethanol, Swine Flu, a helicopter crash in Venezuela, Tiger Woods

ABC: Obama having to pick Souter's replacement, Swine Flu, a story about a guy poisoning 5 people, a probe into John Edwards' campaign contributions

CBS: Swine flu, Ecuadorans suing Chevron, Arlen Specter, and an article about a guy w/amnesia.

You could argue that the ethanol & homeless stories are liberal-leaning, but why is it that 3 out of the 4 of Fox' lead stories are all political?

nah, they only get up when the prez comes in
they didnt consider chimpy-mcfark-for-brains prez
just some tard that stole 2 elections

/sry, that's what I heard
/yah, they also show respec for obama, and had none for bush?? QQ

You know, it could be that the since this whitehouse show more respect for people in general, people in general are show them more respect? ( Like not giving reporters insulting nicknames. )

steamingpile: Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

Whoa, I'm 19 and not that naïve, don't say stuff like that.

Did anyone watch the video or this a general flamewar?

It's quite ironic that the party of personal responsibility is forever looking for someone else to blame for its woes.

steamingpile: Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

I am wondering if this was not something bush would tell them to stop doing, everyone who has met him says hes a nice guy, even if he had people giving him bad advice.

Its a minor issue but if he didnt tell them not to do it then it does say something about them as a whole but would any of that really surprise the public?

Well, you certainly lived up to your name with that post.

Grats!

Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

History doesn't lie. You do the research. Democrats get in trouble far more often than Republicans.

Link (new window)

damageddude 2009-05-03 07:04:19 PM
I'm sure some of those press members were from liberal media companies like the WSJ or Fox (not sure if they were one company yet during the Bush speech).

I am interested, though, why the press didn't rise for Bush, unless they were told to remain in their seats beforehand. I thought it was protocol that you rise for the President when he enters a room. While I can see a few reporters remaining seated I doubt all would unless they were told not to rise.

Could not agree more. While I do not have the answer to this question, I would hope the reason they did not stand for Bush was because they were asked not to, instead of disrespect. Not a fan of Obama's, but he is our president and deserves the respect the office should afford him.

steamingpile: The media printed what sold papers, dont think they are smart enough to print the truth anymore, its all about what the people want to read.

Anymore? What golden age of journalism are you remembering where the information people want to hear isn't what drove the media?

I'm sure William Randolph Hearst would like a word with you.

moralpanic: Reality is liberal.

Until you need someone to protect you, then you ask for the republicans guns.

Tor_Eckman: steamingpile: Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

I am wondering if this was not something bush would tell them to stop doing, everyone who has met him says hes a nice guy, even if he had people giving him bad advice.

Its a minor issue but if he didnt tell them not to do it then it does say something about them as a whole but would any of that really surprise the public?

Well, you certainly lived up to your name with that post.

Grats!

No its immersed in common sense, its why you completely missed the point.

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: steamingpile: Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

Whoa, I'm 19 and not that naïve, don't say stuff like that.

Da eebel Dems and der rise to powa'. Takin' muh guns and freedom! THEY CAN TAKE OUR FREEDOM, BUT CAN NEVER TAKE...OUR GUNS!

All media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, drum up support for the Iraq war, months before it happens, switching the reasoning from WMDs, to Saddam being an EEEEEEEEEVIL oppressive dictator mid-2003 after no weapons were immediately found.

Liberal bias.

Fox News smashes competitors' ratings, with the figure "more viewers watch Fox than CNN and MSNBC combined" often thrown around.

Liberal bias.

Got it.

bartink: This was when Obama came unexpectedly. Who knows what the typical briefing protocol is/was?

The typical protocol is to let all involved parties know you're about to come. But everybody comes unexpectedly sometimes. I call it "Surprise, I'm done."

steamingpile: moralpanic: Reality is liberal.

Until you need someone to protect you, then you ask for the republicans guns.

Tor_Eckman: steamingpile: Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

Yeah, your statement is complete bullshiat, if you truly believe that then you have be about 18 or 19, neither party values the truth as evidenced by the dems actions since they came into power.

I am wondering if this was not something bush would tell them to stop doing, everyone who has met him says hes a nice guy, even if he had people giving him bad advice.

Its a minor issue but if he didnt tell them not to do it then it does say something about them as a whole but would any of that really surprise the public?

Well, you certainly lived up to your name with that post.

Grats!

No its immersed in common sense, its why you completely missed the point.

Aaaaaaand plop! Another turd.

Cozret: You know, it could be that the since this whitehouse show more respect for people in general, people in general are show them more respect? ( Like not giving reporters insulting nicknames. )

You mean people don't like being called "major league assholes?"

JQPublic: Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

History doesn't lie. You do the research. Democrats get in trouble far more often than Republicans.

Link (new window)

Have a better organization of that info, champ? Good luck wading through that to find a comparison of party affiliations.

jpo2269: damageddude 2009-05-03 07:04:19 PM
I'm sure some of those press members were from liberal media companies like the WSJ or Fox (not sure if they were one company yet during the Bush speech).

I am interested, though, why the press didn't rise for Bush, unless they were told to remain in their seats beforehand. I thought it was protocol that you rise for the President when he enters a room. While I can see a few reporters remaining seated I doubt all would unless they were told not to rise.

Could not agree more. While I do not have the answer to this question, I would hope the reason they did not stand for Bush was because they were asked not to, instead of disrespect. Not a fan of Obama's, but he is our president and deserves the respect the office should afford him.

Whenever the POTUS enters a room, the people in the room stand, unless asked not to. The video could be edited to where the person at the podium before Bush asked them not to stand but was removed, or Bush had made it clear that they were not to stand upon his entry. Either way, a 2008 video of Bush compared to the first year of the Obama Administration is really grasping at straws.
I remember hearing how there were hardly even any reporters at Bush's last PC, I could be wrong though.

Isn't that the clip where Obama made an unexpected appearance in order to confirm Souter's retirement?

If you really believe the media have a "liberal bias" you are just plain stupid.

WFern: Cozret: You know, it could be that the since this whitehouse show more respect for people in general, people in general are show them more respect? ( Like not giving reporters insulting nicknames. )

You mean people don't like being called "major league assholes?"

JQPublic: Whamdangler: Media has a bias toward the truth. The Democrats are way more truthful than the republicans. You do the math.

History doesn't lie. You do the research. Democrats get in trouble far more often than Republicans.

Link (new window)

Have a better organization of that info, champ? Good luck wading through that to find a comparison of party affiliations.

Can I chew your food for you, champ?

Hastor: Isn't that the clip where Obama made an unexpected appearance in order to confirm Souter's retirement?

If true, that's really the final nail in the coffin of the headline's argument.

Dan the Schman: Raiden333: I mean, hell, look at this from their website:

Abortion...
Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

Watch these guys, I think they'll be going places in the next 10 years.

I don't like this part; it's a very pro-life suggestion. I fully understand the whole "BOOO Big Gubmint!" attitude, but abortion is one of those rare issues where the federal involvement is actually acting like Small Gubmint. It's giving freedom of choice, it's not restricting anyone's rights.

The same would go for a hypothetical federal amendment to legalize gay marriage. Nobody would be forced to marry gay people, no church would be forced to perform gay ceremonies; it would give freedom for those who want it, and have no effect on those against it.

I mean, that's my interpretation of "Big" and "Small"; that it's not about Fed versus State, but about restriction of freedom, the intervention in peoples' lives.

I disagree. All too often the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution are ignored. States and individuals are due the ability to make decisions for themselves on issues that are not addressed in the Constitution.

I don't believe that's a bad thing. It would provide moderate (within the confines of the Constitution) diversity and an opportunity for people to move to a state that has laws which are to their liking. It would also limit the focus of the federal government so they could better concentrate on their primary duties: foreign affairs, interstate regulation, and national defense.

Way to go guys, this is the kind of stuff that'll surely get you back into power in no time. Can we call it standgate?

steamingpile: Until you need someone to protect you, then you ask for the republicans guns.

Except that they are the ones we need protection from.

I am so tired of the hit or miss coverage the US Nazi party gets.

Modern whigs...

Ideologies: PRAGMATISM, CENTRISM
1984 references should be scattered throughout this one

Though, really, I don't mind it. They seem like good dudes.

And to stay on topic: The press is still circlejerking around Obama. Not sure when it'll be over. I hope sooner than later... President worship is more than a bit obnoxious.

Most media cheerlead stories more than politics.

They cheerleaded the rush into invading Iraq. They cheerleaded Bush in 2000.

They cheerleaded Obama in 2008 like nothing they have ever done before, though. They can't kiss his ass enough.

Their current hope for a swine flu wipeout of North America is fizzing out, though.