Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   New study confirms the media's "liberal bias" showing they covered Obama twice as favorably as Romney during the primaries. No, wait, strike that, reverse it   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 80
    More: Interesting, obama, GOP, Project for Excellence in Journalism, Peter Beinart, liberal bias, Howard Kurtz, primaries, Reliable Sources  
•       •       •

869 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 12:31 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 03:06:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: GW wasn't running at all?

Also that :)

I meant to say that Obama and Clinton were getting more coverage than McCain at this point.

It seems that one should EXPECT the challengers to get more coverage than the incumbant at this stage. Look at Kerry compared to GW at the same point for example.

It seems absurd to try to charicterize this as an example of media bias.


The article isn't saying more coverage for Romney. It's saying that a highter percentage of that coverage is favorable. Maybe you should try rtfa so you wouldn't look so stupid.
 
2012-04-23 03:07:29 PM  

Gulper Eel: Obama was running in the Republican primaries?


This. Seriously people are upset because Obama was not covered in the Republican Primaries? SERIOUSLY??!?
 
2012-04-23 03:08:27 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: Gulper Eel: Obama was running in the Republican primaries?

This. Seriously people are upset because Obama was not covered in the Republican Primaries? SERIOUSLY??!?


facepalm.jpg
 
2012-04-23 03:09:53 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Citrate1007: The myth of the liberal media is in my opinion, one of the greatest political feats that the GOP has achieved.

I agree


I suspect you are both too young to remember a time when it did exist. Well, of a sort. It's never been some vast conspiracy of newsmen getting together and plotting to guide and slant the news like some Right wing extremists believe but most journalism school graduates from the 60's until the late 80s tended to be liberal leaning. Your worldview does greatly inform how you view events even if one is trying to maintain objectivity. CNN when it was first started was very guilty of this. Many people, not all of them particularly right wing jokingly called it the Communist News Network because of it's very left slanted view.

Fox News "Fair and Balanced" slogan was supposed to be slightly ironic when it was started. Essentially Murdoch considered it's Right wing slant to balance out the liberal bias on most news shows and at the time it did. Problem is that ratings matter more than poltics and the success of Fox News has led most news outlets to the same slant to regain lost audience.

also most journalists develop an adversarial relationship with the government so during a democratic administration that bias would be lessened further.

I'll agree the GOP has been trying to act like said bias is still a threat when it is nearly non-existant now but pretending it never existed is just as ignorant.
 
2012-04-23 03:29:54 PM  

Digitalstrange: I'll agree the GOP has been trying to act like said bias is still a threat when it is nearly non-existant now but pretending it never existed is just as ignorant.


You're talking about the 80's, was the media being liberal or simply reporting on all of Reagan's tomfoolery? I don't remember the media being called Conservative during the few years where Clinton's blowjob was the top story.

The media always gets blamed for being biased for reporting the facts. Fox News is just comically biased and sensationalized no matter what the facts are. It really is like watching a satirical version of a news show.
 
2012-04-23 03:42:13 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: This. Seriously people are upset because Obama was not covered in the Republican Primaries? SERIOUSLY??!?


try reading the farking article before you speak.
 
2012-04-23 05:24:39 PM  
www.b2bcommunications.com


WTF...are you people listening to yourselves?

1.) During primaries, coverage of a sitting President with no competition from his own party has a completely different angle than that of candidates from an opposing party.

2.) The media has (have, for the grammar nazis among us) portrayed Romney favorably because they were scared shiatless of his challengers, not because they bloody liked him. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of thing. Now that the primary race is over, you might have notice they've changed their tone toward him.
 
2012-04-23 06:41:15 PM  
The media want a race. They will do all they can to get one. They have no interest in REPORTING the news, just in making it what they want it to be. How can anyone not have seen this years ago?
 
2012-04-23 07:04:37 PM  

spmkk: 1.) During primaries, coverage of a sitting President with no competition from his own party has a completely different angle than that of candidates from an opposing party.


We know he's not running in the primaries, but, um, he was still the president of the United States during the period of time that the primaries were going on. The fact that the press is covering Obama from a different angle doesn't that angle has to be negative.

FTA: Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney's coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama's coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney's depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president's. So much for liberal bias.
 
2012-04-23 07:19:47 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I meant to say that Obama and Clinton were getting more coverage than McCain at this point.


The race between Obama and Clinton was much closer.

At this point for years ago, McCain had won the nomination, but it was months before the general election; he was doing much.

Obama is currently the president of the United States. He's doing a lot more than McCain was back then.

/Besides, the article is about the quality of the coverage, not the quantity.
 
2012-04-23 07:32:20 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: brainlordmesomorph: tenpoundsofcheese: Citrate1007: The myth of the liberal media is in my opinion, one of the greatest political feats that the GOP has achieved.

The only reason the media isn't as liberal as before is because Fox News presents fair and balanced reporting and as a result they are crushing the biased cable news shows.

The problem for Fox is that when you report the news in a balanced way you alienate both sides.
(you didn't attack the other side enough...or you attacked "our" side).

LOL yeah, the right HATES the coverage they get on FOX,

Missing the point.
Of course they like the coverage because it is more balanced than what they get in the MSM, but they would like Fox to be partisan for them instead of being fair and balanced.


On May 25, 2008, Fox News political contributor Liz Trotta stated on the air, while talking about the presidential election, "And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh Obama. Well, both, if we could."; she then laughed.

Writing for the Los Angeles Times, Republican and conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg indicated his belief that Fox News was rightward-leaning: "Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloid-like network."

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has stated that "Fox does tilt right," (although he states this in specific reference to the coverage of the Iraq war, not FNC's coverage in general), but that the network does not "actively campaign or try to help Bush-Cheney."

Then-presidential candidate George W. Bush's cousin, John Prescott Ellis, was Fox News' projection team manager during the general election of 2000.

In June 2010, News Corporation donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.[28][29][30] News Corporation's political action committee had previously split their contributions to Democrats and Republicans by a margin of 54% to 46%, respectively.


Photocopied memos from John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[72] Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed, which included Moody quotes such as, "The soldiers [seen on Fox in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."

Two days after the 2006 election, The Huffington Post reported they had acquired a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "...[L]et's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor Martha McCallum, went on-air on the program The Live Desk with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 congressional election.

While promoting his memoir, What Happened, Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary (2003-2006) for President George W. Bush stated on the July 25, 2008, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the Bush White House routinely gave talking points to Fox News commentators - but not journalists - in order to influence discourse and content.[78] McClellan stated that these talking points were not issued to provide the public with news, but were issued to provide Fox News commentators with issues and perspectives favorable to the White House and Republican Party.
 
2012-04-23 07:59:01 PM  

HighOnCraic: "FTA: Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney's coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama's coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney's depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president's. So much for liberal bias."



Or it could be that, you know, Obama actually did more things worthy of negative coverage from Jan. 2 through April 15th? Nah, it must be the conservative bias....
 
2012-04-23 08:32:02 PM  

spmkk: HighOnCraic: "FTA: Overall, it was no contest. From Jan. 2 through April 15, Romney's coverage was 39 percent positive, 32 percent negative, and 29 percent neutral, the researchers found. Obama's coverage was 18 percent positive, 34 percent negative, and 34 percent neutral. That means Romney's depiction by the media was more than twice as positive as the president's. So much for liberal bias."


Or it could be that, you know, Obama actually did more things worthy of negative coverage from Jan. 2 through April 15th? Nah, it must be the conservative bias....


But the myth is that the liberal, mainstream MSM media is in the tank for Obama, and they always give him good coverage no matter what he does. Fox News bases its whole existence on the premise that they're presenting a perspective that is completely absent from the rest of the media.

Are you willing to accept the myth of the liberal media that has been spread around for decades is, you know, a myth?

Even Bill Kristol has admitted that:

"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Link
 
2012-04-23 09:52:36 PM  

HighOnCraic: Even Bill Kristol has admitted that:

"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."


Which is not saying that the media aren't liberal. Just that it didn't matter much.

I see it like this: The mainstream media tends to lean left because few die-hard conservatives are likely to get a degree in journalism or broadcast communications. Since most of the people pursuing a careeer in reporting or broadcasting tend to be liberal, the product they produce tends to be more liberal than not.

That is not to say is is biased per se( although there are clearly examples of bias in journalism), just that in a circumstance where a perspective might be apparant, it is statistically more probable that that perspective will trend left rather than right, becasue that is the trend of the demographics of the industry. It's not a grand conspiracy, it's simply demographics.

I see it in the same way as how cops tend to be assholes. It's not that all cops are assholes - it's that most assholes want to be cops. There are plenty of very good, fair and d ecent cops out there, and when they are, you don't notice them. But there is also a disproportionate number of assholes who took up the badge, and they are more noticeable.
 
2012-04-23 10:07:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Even Bill Kristol has admitted that:

"I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Which is not saying that the media aren't liberal. Just that it didn't matter much.


But if they're so liberal, why are they willing to give Obama negative coverage?

Hey, I disagree with Obama on a lot of issues, and I think he deserves negative coverage sometimes. But you can't ignore the fact that for decades the right has been claiming that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats.

The Birther issue is a good example. At first, the Birthers accused the media of covering up the issue to protect Obama. Then, after the long-form was released, other conservatives accused the media of keeping the issue alive because it highlighted the silliness of the Birthers and therefore made other Republicans look bad.


That is not to say is is biased per se( although there are clearly examples of bias in journalism), just that in a circumstance where a perspective might be apparant, it is statistically more probable that that perspective will trend left rather than right, becasue that is the trend of the demographics of the industry.


The statistics in this particular article go completely against that argument. Granted, the article only analyzed a short period.

/Maybe it's just that even journalists with a leftist perspective will criticized leftist politicians when they think they deserve it. . .
 
2012-04-23 10:54:29 PM  

HighOnCraic: But you can't ignore the fact that for decades the right has been claiming that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats.


I don't know that any real person has genuinely argued that the media "outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats". Go softly on them, gloss over things, sure, try to spin things to avoid political damage, of course. I have heard many time that the "liberal media" takes the side of Democrats and always try to slant the story, but I have never heard anyone argue that the simply refuse to "say ANYTHING negative".

Out of curiosity, when you are saying that "THEY" say these things, do you mean Rush, Beck, O'Rielly, etc?

It is important to maintain some perspective and remember that these paid provocatuers do not represent anyone., nor are they a reliable guage for public sentiment. (remember that nearly all of them campaigned AGAINST McCain, and yet McCain still won the nomination).

They make a living being over the top outrageous and peddling a hyperbolic extreme of what they think their audience wants to hear in order to get ratings. Including many on the left weho diligently tune in for their daily outrage. They feed on your hate.

They are a fun-house mirror guess of what they think conservatives think like. They are not exactly a "voice of the people".
 
2012-04-23 11:07:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: But you can't ignore the fact that for decades the right has been claiming that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats.

I don't know that any real person has genuinely argued that the media "outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats". Go softly on them, gloss over things, sure, try to spin things to avoid political damage, of course. I have heard many time that the "liberal media" takes the side of Democrats and always try to slant the story, but I have never heard anyone argue that the simply refuse to "say ANYTHING negative".

Out of curiosity, when you are saying that "THEY" say these things, do you mean Rush, Beck, O'Rielly, etc?

It is important to maintain some perspective and remember that these paid provocatuers do not represent anyone., nor are they a reliable guage for public sentiment. (remember that nearly all of them campaigned AGAINST McCain, and yet McCain still won the nomination).

They make a living being over the top outrageous and peddling a hyperbolic extreme of what they think their audience wants to hear in order to get ratings. Including many on the left weho diligently tune in for their daily outrage. They feed on your hate.

They are a fun-house mirror guess of what they think conservatives think like. They are not exactly a "voice of the people".


I guess I was only referring to the true Scotsmen . . .
 
2012-04-23 11:26:14 PM  

HighOnCraic: I guess I was only referring to the true Scotsmen . . .


Ah. Then you must be one of the people that think that Republican voters get their instructions daily from Right-wing radio and Fox news.

And it's just not quite so. These jackholes make their living by trying to get out ahead of the conservartive base, which is different from LEADING it. And from time to time, you can see it when the right-wing pundits go off on some direction only to have to scramble back quickly before their audience notices.

Look at the last election. Despite the fact that they were told emphatically and repeatedly by every major right wing paid provacatuer NOT to support McCain., he won the nomination pretty handily.

Look at this election. Same is true for Romneyt this time. As far as I know, not a single right-wing pundit was out there supporting Romney, and quite a few have blasted him. And yet here he is.. nominated by Republican voters.

Anywho, my point is that while the right-wing media machine may provide the lexicon and occasionaly articulate of specific ideas used by Republicans, they are simply not master-minding it, nor do they have any authority or ability to direct Republican voters. They simply aren't that powerful.

They are a distorted reflection of the Republican voters, not the other way around.You see them trying to predict the minds of Republican votes (and conservatives in general), not them deciding for them.

/And yes, there are some real retards out there who really do blindly accept whatever Rushbo or Beck say as gospel. And they are there in about the same percentage as idiots who take what Micheal Moore Naom Chomsky or Maher say as gospel.
// And I also know 1%ers and people with Masters degrees who listen to Beck every day because they think he "finally gets it". Before Beck, they were just nutjobs, and Beck figured out how to tap that.
 
2012-04-23 11:32:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Look at the last election. Despite the fact that they were told emphatically and repeatedly by every major right wing paid provacatuer NOT to support McCain., he won the nomination pretty handily.

Look at this election. Same is true for Romneyt this time. As far as I know, not a single right-wing pundit was out there supporting Romney, and quite a few have blasted him. And yet here he is.. nominated by Republican voters.

Anywho, my point is that while the right-wing media machine may provide the lexicon and occasionaly articulate of specific ideas used by Republicans, they are simply not master-minding it, nor do they have any authority or ability to direct Republican voters. They simply aren't that powerful.

They are a distorted reflection of the Republican voters, not the other way around.You see them trying to predict the minds of Republican votes (and conservatives in general), not them deciding for them.


Fair enough, but we're discussing the liberal MEDIA vs. the conservative MEDIA, not voters. Please move the goalposts back, they were fine right where they were.
 
2012-04-23 11:50:42 PM  

HighOnCraic: Fair enough, but we're discussing the liberal MEDIA vs. the conservative MEDIA, not voters.


The thread began that way, sure.

But I think you will notice that you and I were discussing whether or not the right-wing pundits were the directors/voice/retarded parrots of Republiocan voters.

It began with me asking whether you meant right-wing paid provacatuers when you said "other conservatives accused the media of ..."

That's not a goal-post move, that's a change in the direction of the conversation.

I was opining on the topic of the role of paid provacatuers in relation to Republican voters.

It's just you and me here for a while, but you can go back to the topic that died already if you don't mind posting to yourself if no one else shows up.

/Not being snarky, I'm busy elsewhere on something else that is more important, and just popping in here when I am stuck waiting.
 
2012-04-23 11:54:16 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

In an article published on January 26 -- the day Dennis Miller debuted on CNBC -- Miller said of President George W. Bush, "I like him. I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends." In his five months on the air, Miller has done exactly that, an allegiance that has reportedly earned him "a ride on Air Force One and a lift in the President's limo."

Granted, Dennis Miller isn't an important voice in the GOP, but he was given his own show on a supposedly liberal network, and starts off by giving Bush a pass. Has anyone in the liberal media ever said, "I like Obama. I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends."?

Link

Guys like Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Alan Keyes have worked on "liberal" networks like CNN and MSNBC. Has Fox News ever given a show to a former Democratic politician?

Colmes doesn't count.
 
2012-04-24 12:09:42 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Fair enough, but we're discussing the liberal MEDIA vs. the conservative MEDIA, not voters.

The thread began that way, sure.

But I think you will notice that you and I were discussing whether or not the right-wing pundits were the directors/voice/retarded parrots of Republiocan voters.

It began with me asking whether you meant right-wing paid provacatuers when you said "other conservatives accused the media of ..."

That's not a goal-post move, that's a change in the direction of the conversation.

I was opining on the topic of the role of paid provacatuers in relation to Republican voters.

It's just you and me here for a while, but you can go back to the topic that died already if you don't mind posting to yourself if no one else shows up.

/Not being snarky, I'm busy elsewhere on something else that is more important, and just popping in here when I am stuck waiting.


Here is precisely where you moved the goalposts:

HighOnCraic: But you can't ignore the fact that for decades the right has been claiming that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats.

I don't know that any real person has genuinely argued that the media "outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats". Go softly on them, gloss over things, sure, try to spin things to avoid political damage, of course. I have heard many time that the "liberal media" takes the side of Democrats and always try to slant the story, but I have never heard anyone argue that the simply refuse to "say ANYTHING negative".

Out of curiosity, when you are saying that "THEY" say these things, do you mean Rush, Beck, O'Rielly, etc?

It is important to maintain some perspective and remember that these paid provocatuers do not represent anyone., nor are they a reliable guage for public sentiment
. (remember that nearly all of them campaigned AGAINST McCain, and yet McCain still won the nomination).


Just to be clear, when I mentioned the right's complaints about the liberal media, I was referring to the pundits and the politicians. I have no idea what the voters think collectively of the media. But in a discussion about the media, you can't simple wave your hands and say, "Our nutty pundits don't count!"

And maybe I went too far by saying some pundits and politicians claim that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats, but they certainly claim that the liberal media treat Democrats better than Republicans. And the article, at least for the brief time during the study, refutes that.
 
2012-04-24 12:23:51 AM  
Hmm . . .

Search for: media in the tank for obama

About 11,200,000 results (0.21 seconds)
 
2012-04-24 12:31:31 AM  

HighOnCraic: Has anyone in the liberal media ever said, "I like Obama. I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends."?


Is that a serious question? Are you asking me if anyone on a major broadcast network has said anything very favorable of Obama? Do you want to exempt Oprah and Olberman now, or wait until later?

Just to be clear, when I mentioned the right's complaints about the liberal media, I was referring to the pundits and the politicians. I have no idea what the voters think collectively of the media.

That was the clarification I asked for and that led to the change in topic. When you said "the right", you meant the conservative media and pundits. I was pointing out that they are not really representative of "the Right", unless you are nopt counting actual voters as "The right", which led to an aside about the role of the Right-wing paid provacatuers in public opinion.


And maybe I went too far by saying some pundits and politicians claim that the liberal media outright refuses to say anything negative about Democrats, but they certainly claim that the liberal media treat Democrats better than Republicans.

I think it's safe to say that the media in general treats Democrats better than Republicans. Probably best that they do in moderation.

And the article, at least for the brief time during the study, refutes that.

If the best "refuting" of the liberal media "myth" is a snapshot study of a few months of a Presidential primary season, then I think you may be damning with faint praise.
 
2012-04-24 01:09:49 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Has anyone in the liberal media ever said, "I like Obama. I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends."?

Is that a serious question? Are you asking me if anyone on a major broadcast network has said anything very favorable of Obama? Do you want to exempt Oprah and Olberman now, or wait until later?


No, I was addressing the fact that Dennis Miller, granted, not a major voice in the conservative movement, used those exact words in reference to Bush, right around the time that Miller got his own show on, wait for it, a liberal news outlet. "I'm going to give him a pass" is a lot stronger than just saying something very favorable.


That was the clarification I asked for and that led to the change in topic. When you said "the right", you meant the conservative media and pundits. I was pointing out that they are not really representative of "the Right", unless you are nopt counting actual voters as "The right", which led to an aside about the role of the Right-wing paid provacatuers in public opinion.


Yes, I was referring to the pundits and the politicians. Someone must be watching those pundits and voting for those politicians, or they wouldn't be on the air or in office.

Are you saying that the pundits and politicians constantly rail against the "liberal media," but it doesn't matter because the rank-and-file voters don't believe the media is too liberal?

Railing against the liberal media, with their elitist "Gotcha!" questions has been a big part of the game, particularly for politicians:

During the 1992 presidential race, Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, outlined the right's game plan, saying that "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media]. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."

In fact, conservatives own outright some of the country's largest newspapers - or at least their editorial pages. The Washington Times, The New York Post, and The New York Sun are all unabashedly conservative, while the influential Wall Street Journal's editorial page, recently graced with its own PBS program including a $5 million taxpayer subsidy, is populated by some of the most rabidly far-right columnists working in this country today.

And the equivalent of this on the left? Some would point to The New York Times, which counts two conservatives, David Brooks and John Tierney, on its page, and which until recently ran a column by William Safire. How about another right-wing whipping boy - The Washington Post? They run columns by George Will, Robert Kagan and Charles Krauthammer. Hardly writers who sympathize with liberal values. The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Washington Times can't say that they have anything remotely comparable to the diversity of opinion that can be found on the pages of the allegedly "liberal" New York Times and Washington Post.

In the magazine world, two of the right's favorite targets - Time and Newsweek - run columns by Krauthammer and Will, respectively.

Link
 
2012-04-24 01:22:55 AM  
I'm pretty sure my hometown paper, the NY Daily News endorsed Obama in '08, but they regularly feature editorials and Krauthammer and S.E. Cupp (one of the Fox News hotties).

Kinda fair and balanced . . .
 
2012-04-24 01:37:13 AM  

HighOnCraic: "But the myth is that the liberal, mainstream MSM media is in the tank for Obama, and they always give him good coverage no matter what he does. Fox News bases its whole existence on the premise that they're presenting a perspective that is completely absent from the rest of the media."


Liberal bias doesn't necessarily mean bias in favor of Obama. You do realize that part of today's popular (and journalistic) sentiment against Obama is that he's not liberal enough, do you not?


HighOnCraic: "Are you willing to accept the myth of the liberal media that has been spread around for decades is, you know, a myth?"


Sure. Just as soon as I see as much bellyaching in the mainstream press about Obama's net worth and financial history as I do about Romney's. As soon as you show me that journalists consistently go to similar lengths to discredit Obama's past as they do to smear Romney's and equate him with everything that can be painted as a downside of capitalism. As soon as footage of hostile forces flying hijacked airplanes into American buildings full of innocent civilians stays on the air as long as pictures of American soldiers allowing dogs to bark at shirtless enemy prisoners. As soon as the national debt, which affects every single citizen directly and painfully, dominates mainstream headlines much as laws requiring ultrasounds for a small minority, and as soon as the press stops referring to non-sexual procedures as "rape" just because they're proposed by conservatives. As soon as there are as many articles and op-eds favorable to Israel as there are showing Israel in a negative light (exactly why this is a political polarizer is a he-said/she-said discussion for a different day, but the fact remains that the right consistently supports Israel and the left is overwhelmingly critical of it). As soon as the press ridicules the left-wing falsehood that poor people are dying in the streets by the tens of thousands from lack of medical care with the same vehemence that they conjured up to discredit the "death panels" talking point from the right.

More generally -- and more importantly -- as soon as the questions of how we spend money and how we borrow it become as important to the mainstream media as how we raise it. As soon as I see all that, I will HAPPILY accept that liberal bias in the media is a "myth". Until then, one article that shows an almost identical propensity of negative coverage for Romney and Obama (not sure how anyone defines this as "no contest") sadly isn't going to undo years of readership and observation.

In other news, how you define and frame the questions has an effect on the answers. Who knew?
 
2012-04-24 01:37:18 AM  

HighOnCraic: Are you saying that the pundits and politicians constantly rail against the "liberal media," but it doesn't matter because the rank-and-file voters don't believe the media is too liberal?


No.

(Though YOU quoted a Republican strategist who suggested that. Or at least that the "liberal media" was not that powerful.)
 
2012-04-24 03:28:31 AM  

HighOnCraic: Hmm . . .

Search for: media in the tank for obama

About 11,200,000 results (0.21 seconds)


That's a whole lot of lying.
 
2012-04-24 03:14:12 PM  

spmkk: As soon as you show me that journalists consistently go to similar lengths to discredit Obama's past as they do to smear Romney's and equate him with everything that can be painted as a downside of capitalism.


Romney's more conservative opponents in the primaries were the ones who push the "vulture capitalist" meme. If the media had ignored that angle, they would've been silencing the more conservative voices in the primary races.
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report