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.

(CNN)   "As a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case"   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 118
    More: Ironic, vice presidential candidate  
•       •       •

6791 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2012 at 5:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-30 04:43:23 PM
14 votes:
reality has a liberal bias .
2012-09-30 06:03:30 PM
12 votes:
I love that statement. It inherently implies that it's own premise is false. If you truly believed that there was a bias, there would be no reason to preface it with "as a conservative..." you would merely say "as someone with eyes, ears, and a functioning brain, it is clear that there is a media bias" or "here is evidence of clear media bias." By starting the sentence with "as a conservative" you transform the sentence to instead say "as a conservative, I want the media narrative to conform to my perspective, the fact that the reporting does not, leaves me to conclude that the media is biased, since I cannot admit even the possibility that reality is anything other than what I perceive it to be."

Short version: Bias doesn't care what side you come from, so starting "as a conservative" means you know something about your sentence isn't right.
2012-09-30 05:57:58 PM
12 votes:
The headline is accurate. There IS inherent media bias.

What ISN'T accurate is the implication that the media is biased in favor of liberals. They're biased towards whatever gets them profit and ratings.
2012-09-30 06:26:13 PM
11 votes:
No Con wants to hear this, but the disconnect between what the Media says is reality and what Cons say is reality is completely to be laid at their feet. The Cons have elevated to positions of opinion and truth maker in their party a bunch of trollistic, antagonistic, nihilistic, bomb-throwers who makes it their bread-and-butter to throw out the most incendiary and bombastic statements of opinion regarding Liberals and to force the party leaders to adopt them.

Rush, Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, all these millionaires who feed at the trough of hyper-partisan rhetoric have convinced your party members that Obama, a pretty centrist president, is some sort of anti-Christ, communist, bent on the destruction on the country.

The media has been repelled by your rank and file because they demand that the MSM report on bullshiat, made-up, controversies like fake birth certificates, Obama's communist upbringing and his secret ties to a cabal of shadowy businessmen who employ him to destroy the American dream. And when the MSM refuses, your rank and file flee to Fox news, the lupus of news, to get their fix of hyper-partisan, anti-democrat rhetoric. The Republicans are a bunch of junkies, addicted to the trollish out-pourings of hate and demanding and needing more and more outlandish lies to sustain their hate. It's quite remarkable. The right now believes that if a news report doesn't resemble the spew of a Fark independent troll post, it's hiding the truth.

You guys really need to get your house in order, because, if Nate Silver correctly predicts 49 out of the 50 states again this election, while you all believe Romney's going to carry all the states but NY and Cali, the Republican party will be relegated to the party of crackpots, cranks, and marginally intelligent. It may already be too late.
2012-09-30 04:55:23 PM
10 votes:
An that, my friends, is an encapsulation of everything wrong wtih the republican party. They believe something to be true and seek evidence to support that believe, rather than collect evidence and THEN form a conclusion.
2012-09-30 07:21:31 PM
7 votes:
At some point, folks are going to have to take a long, hard look at themselves and the party.

I was hoping that the party would look at McCain's run, and possibly realize that aligning themselves with the Idiot Brigade and the Palin nonsense, might jostle folks awake. I was wrong. The ties to money and the Religious Right still remained strong enough, and the hordes of folks who might have questioned exactly what had been done in their name during the Bush years; and the damage it had done to the economy and our infrastructure and job security, as well as trade; they became enthralled with a MOAR reactionary position, and instead wound up questioning the legitimacy of the President, and grasping further at straws, and shoving more cash at the very folks whose actions quite nearly broke our markets. Faced with not just a defeat, they instead rallied to even more reactionary, partisan voices, as opposed to looking at exactly what had been done. What had actually occurred, and rather than admit that they had not just been mistaken, doubled down on the very things, and with the very people who merrily sold them down river, and then wailed at the cost.

The GOP is going to have to face the reality, that their policies are not working. Not for the majority of Americans, only within strict confines, so long as most folks don't share in the riches, and that the only folks who profit from the continual war parades are those who sell things to the military, and those who film them doing so. The rest of the nation cannot afford this. Not any longer. And complaining that economics, mathematics, and the media are inherently "liberal" when they are simply reporting what is, shows the inherent weakness of basing EVERYTHING on a structure of subjective reality.

Subjective reality, as a concept, is useful. In understanding how people react, how people function, it is an important concept. Whether or not you intend affront to someone, if they perceive your comment or actions as being insulting, it IS insulting to them. Understanding how they could arrive at such a frame of mind IS an important concept. It is useful to understand the concept, to understand human interactions, and how to craft better delivery of information, and understand how folks will react.

Subjective reality doesn't change the acceleration of gravity though. It won't change the course of a hurricane. It won't stop a bullet. It can be used to help stave off economic collapse in helping to manipulate folks into continued confidence, but only for a short period of time, before cruel numbers continue to add up. And that is the problem within the GOP right now. A lot of folks have taken the concept of subjective reality to mean that YOU change the world by strict belief, as opposed to understanding that perception of reality can differ from person to person. GW was one of those. His circle understood the concept, but figured that they could keep the rubes on board for a while longer by selling a LOT of snake oil, and leaving someone else to pick up the tab.

I don't blame folks for being angry. They have a right to be angry. The problem is, they are allowing those who engineered the very conditions that sparked their anger to keep them pointed far and away from themselves, and are asking them for MOAR facts to back them up, and it's getting to be rarefied air at this point. To the point of near vacuum. At some point, the implosion will hit, and when it does, it's going to be very, very, very ugly.

I'm not alone in abandoning the party. I still consider myself fairly Conservative, but the GOP is no longer a Conservative party. It is infested with radicals and idiots, and steering a crew of half wits and criminally incompetents and just plain thieves and reactionaries, and they can call it "Conservative" all they want, but that doesn't make them such. Backing radical positions, and advancing even more radical positions, and branding it Conservative, they might pull off, but it's a losing game at this point. The numbers simply don't work. When Republicans, the party by, of and for the support of the Republic, are calling for an end to the Constitution and its protections, then you have a severe disconnect with reality. Climate change, the President's birth certificate, and the rest? Those are symptoms of a deeper problem, and it comes down to the "Conservative" party backing patently radical positions, and hoping that folks won't notice, and that simply isn't going to work for much longer...
2012-09-30 06:20:30 PM
7 votes:
No such thing as a liberal media. It was a myth then:

Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, explained during the 1992 election, "There is some strategy to [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."
http://www.utne.com/2003-07-01/Myth-of-the-Liberal-Media.aspx

The Freedom Forum's poll that "proves" a majority of reporters were for Clinton rather than Bush is bogus. They rigged it so they got the answer they wanted.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story21.html

"I admit it," Bill Kristol told The New Yorker in 1995. "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000313/alterman

www.howardsmead.com

In 2000, newspaper publishers preferred Bush over Gore by 3 to 1.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html

The study published in 2005 claiming liberal bias is also bogus. It too was rigged to get the desired results.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100353

thinkprogress.org

The "liberals" at CBS News cover for McCain (July 2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYaXr03vtNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDIAsS9VXiM&feature=related

And it's a myth now:

The Myth of Pro-Obama Media Bias
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612

thinkprogress.org

Newt Gingrich made more appearances on Meet the Press than any other individual in 2009. The actual speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did not appear once on the show in 2009.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/alterman

MSM's conservative bias
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1634/media-coverage-health-care-reform-de b ate-review

Political campaign coverage openly rightwing
www.journalism.org

The MSM is siding with Romney over Obama.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/23/media-favored-romney - over-obama-during-gop-primaries-study.html
http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report
2012-09-30 05:20:46 PM
7 votes:
Having no scruples makes them believe no one else does, either.
2012-09-30 04:02:07 PM
7 votes:
All together republicans" "WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

you dug your own holes, idiots.
2012-09-30 06:18:24 PM
6 votes:
This coming from a guy whose side has the largest coordinated media machine the US has seen in a long, long time.

The sheer volume of AM radio personalities who shrill extreme right-wing propaganda.

They have hordes of paid pundits who make the circuit on all the shows, all pushing the spin-de-jour specifically constructed to support a single side (and so they can sell their books...which consistently denigrate the Left for perceived and incorrect ideas).

They have a VAST media empire whose sole purpose is to push a narrative specific to a single party.

And THEY are the victims? THEY are the ones who are being objective?

No...your side is corrupted with money and influence, Ryan. Your side shills for the money that is being lavished on them. They talk about "freedom" and "oppressive government"...but their real motive is to stifle the first, and create a boogeyman out of the second...all for the profit of a few.

We are objective...we don't buy your shiat.
2012-09-30 05:36:24 PM
6 votes:
Study after study shows that the opposite is in fact true. But then facts have a liberal bias.
2012-09-30 06:04:44 PM
5 votes:
The media does indeed have a bias, in the sense that they tend to focus on train wrecks.
2012-09-30 07:13:14 PM
4 votes:

joonyer:
Emphasis mine, because I think it's a great point. Honestly, I don't think Obama is some salt of the earth guy who truly cares about low income people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he felt exactly like Romney about the "47%". The difference between the two is that Obama isn't stupid enough to say that shiat anywhere he could be recorded. That's the guy I want in charge, the guy who doesn't make basic rookie mistakes in the political arena. Romney's got a laundry list of simple f*ck ups that add up to someone who really is out of his league. Obama's made a few gaffes for sure, but nothing remotely close to the sh*tshow of Romney/Ryan. Those noobs can't even hold Barry's jock in that department..


WTF? Really? This is the guy who was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, literally one of the top up-and-coming lawyers in the country. Upon graduation, he could have gone to any firm of his choice (and making 6 figure salary) with a path to Supreme Court justice, but instead he chose to work in the inner city as a community organizer.
2012-09-30 06:55:40 PM
4 votes:

clambam: Think about it this way: Fox News is obviously to the right of CNN, is it not? And MSNBC is obviously to the left of CNN. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that with Fox to the right and MSNBC to the left, CNN represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road political opinion, insofar as it represents any opinion at all (frankly I tend to avoid the CNN opinion pieces, but at least, unlike Fox, they present their editorial views as opinions, not as news)?


The problem with that is that it assumes that the moderate, middle-of-the-road opinion is accurate. That is not always the case, If MSNBC is running a story about how not teaching evolution in Texas is hurting kids coming out of texas' educational system and going into college, and Fox News is running a story about how secular humanists push evolution because they want to devalue the human soul in order to give equal rights to dolphins, the honest thing to do is not to split the difference.
2012-09-30 06:10:03 PM
4 votes:
As a conservative person, I believe that the media is biased toward creating a coherent narrative with heroes, villains, and excitement, because the audience could not give less of a fark about storytelling reflecting the fundamental chaos of actual society and history and thus the news shows' bottom line is undercut by actual quality reporting.

Though, that said, some of this is a result of the historical cycle we're going through, and it happens anytime there's a major shift in the news industry that increases the competition for advertising dollars significantly. When printing technology made it so that any jackass with five bucks to spare could publish a newspaper, the resulting cut-throat business bullshiat gave us the newspaper wars and yellow journalism. Eventually that calmed down and, through regulation and the simple fact that some business models undeniably won, we got a more dispassionate and informative media with shiat like professional standards again.

We're just in the competition part of the cycle, now, where every dumbass with an internet connection is potentially considered legit so all the media companies have to undermine each other constantly and convince you that they and only they are truly informing you. Once people get a handle on things and some news formats/sources are considered consistently legit and others (*coughtwittercough*) aren't by an overwhelming majority of the public, the remaining players will have to convince _everyone_ and not just a target audience again and we'll be back to non-shiat news.

In the meantime, buckle down and learn to emotionally deal with the political impact of being in the "you provide the pictures, I'll provide the war" part of the industry cycle, and maybe take comfort (assuming you're relatively conservative) that it's currently hurting the radical candidate with the party that's trying to tear down the old order a lot more than the consumate professional that's strong on defense and fiscally conservative.
2012-09-30 06:01:52 PM
4 votes:
2012-09-30 05:58:52 PM
4 votes:
Derp not for whom the hurr durrs.
2012-09-30 05:44:36 PM
4 votes:
Being a successful fascist is always going to be an uphill battle. You can thank Hitler for that. He really jumped the shark.
2012-09-30 10:05:18 PM
3 votes:
One of these words just doesn't belong. One of these words is not like the others:

s9.postimage.org
2012-09-30 09:31:36 PM
3 votes:
The number one news network for ten years running is Fox News. They ARE the mainstream media.
2012-09-30 08:01:20 PM
3 votes:

evoke: MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias?

You libs really are delusional.


While covering Romney's "47%" remark, three MSNBC hosts on three separate morning programs brought up Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comments from the '08 primary, despite the point of each remark being completely different and Obama's remark not significantly hurting him, despite constant media coverage of it at the time, as well as constant coverage of Rev. Wright, as well as frequent discussions of Birthers.

Also there's this, and a dozen other studies of positive/negative media coverage.

The bias in media isn't toward the left or right, it's toward sensationalism and ratings.
2012-09-30 06:21:52 PM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: Even liberals pollsters are taking notice of the Media "corruption" in this race.


Is that going to be Pat Caddell?

*clicks link*

Yep. Pat Caddell. The same Pat Caddell that called for Obama to drop out in 2008. The same Pat Caddell that suggested that Obama should resign in 2010. The same Pat Caddell who said that the only way the democrats could win would be for Obama to resign or be primaried by Clinton in 2012. The same Pat Caddell that has suggested the only way Obama can succeed is to adopt wholesale the GOP agenda.

That guy is totally unbiased! I wonder how liberal David Horowitz feels?
2012-09-30 06:17:47 PM
3 votes:
FTFA: "I think it kind of goes without saying that there's definitely a media bias. We've - look, I'm a conservative person, I'm used to media bias. We expected media bias going into this," said Ryan.Asked to cite a specific example of media bias, Ryan demurred, instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win.

i.imgur.com

usfopo.files.wordpress.com

Progressives and Reactionaries often make blanket claims of bias for the other side. Actually, you can tell different forms of bias from analyzing which sources get utilized and where stories are placed.
2012-09-30 06:16:20 PM
3 votes:

Introitus: Snapper Carr: Lookie here. We got some media bias

What I think caused all the negative Obama ads was the constant attacks from Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, etc... and those being reported as news. The real bias in that chart is the constant negative attacks from that cluster fark of candidates throwing as much shiat as they could at Obama to see what sticks. Constantly covering those people and the derp that spewed from their noise holes constantly made the front page news.


I agree: the Republicans not only made Obama tougher by constantly attacking him, but they were completely unable to really determine what his weaknesses were. They're still fighting an Obama that exists only in their minds that was tempered by racism and stereotypes, mixed with a belief that any mistakes they made would be hushed up by the media by claiming victimization yet again.

The Republicans have an enormous weakness, and that is reality. They are unable to draw any sort of rational conclusions based on unbiased data. And you get what we have today: a political party making excuses for a loss they know is coming yet a refusal to do anything about it. Part of that is due to their whole ideology of treasuring the status quo over anything else, but the Republicans seem to be committing suicide in quite a fashion. It's hard to imagine anybody who wasn't born with connections or a silver spoon in their mouth to look at the Republican Party and find anything worth voting for in there. At this point, it's a cult of personality dedicated to easily-scared people's inability to deal with anything.
2012-09-30 10:17:55 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: [upload.wikimedia.org image 450x202]

What media bias?


You raise a good point.

Dan Rather got fired for that and pretty much ended his career.

Meanwhile over at Fox, people who do something similar such as reporting lies and half-truths don't get punished and probably are encouraged to do so. But somehow this is ok because they're right-wing and not like those left-wingers.

So vote Republican.
2012-09-30 09:53:39 PM
2 votes:
CNN is biased. MSNBC is biased. Headline News is biased. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and those two channels that are just live cameras showing congress are biased.

Sooner or later conservatives, you're gonna have to accept the fact that the common factor in all your failed relationships is you.
2012-09-30 09:48:09 PM
2 votes:
"I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing," said Ryan. "But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case."

Key words bolded.

He is using religious terminology, language used and accepted by the religious right, to turn this into an issue of faith and opinion rather than facts. Belief and feelings are hard to counter with evidence because they appeal to emotion and personal identity rather than reason.
2012-09-30 09:12:45 PM
2 votes:

Animatronik: I know another way to cut that debt that is better for the economy that most economists think is much better but almost all Democrats can't verbalize: CUT SPENDING.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Yeah, damn the current Democratic administration and their cutting spending more than any other administration in the last 50 years.
2012-09-30 09:08:16 PM
2 votes:

Animatronik: I know another way to cut that debt that is better for the economy that most economists think is much better but almost all Democrats can't verbalize: CUT SPENDING.


I'd love that too. But the alternative to the Democrats think that it makes fiscal sense to cut taxes and then cut spending in some parts while raising spending in others *cough cough* Defense *cough*.

Until we realize that we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, I won't take anything the GOP says seriously. Until the GOP gets past the fantasy that they can balance the budget on tax cuts and spending cuts, then the budget gap isn't going anywhere.

Anyone with basic Math skills knows this and yet no one in charge in DC seems to know it.
2012-09-30 09:04:21 PM
2 votes:

joonyer: moralpanic: joonyer: moralpanic: joonyer:
Emphasis mine, because I think it's a great point. Honestly, I don't think Obama is some salt of the earth guy who truly cares about low income people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he felt exactly like Romney about the "47%". The difference between the two is that Obama isn't stupid enough to say that shiat anywhere he could be recorded. That's the guy I want in charge, the guy who doesn't make basic rookie mistakes in the political arena. Romney's got a laundry list of simple f*ck ups that add up to someone who really is out of his league. Obama's made a few gaffes for sure, but nothing remotely close to the sh*tshow of Romney/Ryan. Those noobs can't even hold Barry's jock in that department..

WTF? Really? This is the guy who was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, literally one of the top up-and-coming lawyers in the country. Upon graduation, he could have gone to any firm of his choice (and making 6 figure salary) with a path to Supreme Court justice, but instead he chose to work in the inner city as a community organizer.

OK OK, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I was just trying to say that I'm not someone who thinks that Romney kicks puppies and Obama nurses them back to health. They're both rich, elite guys who run in rich, elite circles. They wouldn't be there if they didn't. However, I do think he cares for the common man more than Romney of course, but I think it's naive to think that any political candidate is as pure of heart and soul as their media image makes them out to be. I admit Obama's my all time favorite politician(I'm 39), but that doesn't make politics any less of a deceitful game. I'm glad you called me out on that though, I felt a bit dirty saying that LOL.

The sad thing is, you're doing what most of the media really does, and that's using false equivalency in order to not seem bias and be more fair. But the thing is, it's not equivalent. The right really is that much ...


I disagree. The media absolutely should be calling people on their shiat. When Reid says, "I heard that Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years" the media should come right back with "Really? Can you back that up? Put up or shut up, Harry. Oh, and don't think we're ignoring you, Mitt. If you say Harry's wrong, show us the returns to prove it." When Romney says, "Obama is trying to prevent military personnel from voting early", the media should come right back with, "No, he's not, STFU." I want a media that makes an effort to present accurate information, not one that just parrots what powerful people say and stands back to "let me decide" who's full of shiat. The current media is akin to telling a class of kids, "Well, some people say 4 * 3 is 12, but some people say 4 * 3 is a small yellow ferret with a blue beret and a slight lisp. Now, you decide which is factual!"
2012-09-30 08:43:35 PM
2 votes:

moralpanic: joonyer: moralpanic: joonyer:
Emphasis mine, because I think it's a great point. Honestly, I don't think Obama is some salt of the earth guy who truly cares about low income people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he felt exactly like Romney about the "47%". The difference between the two is that Obama isn't stupid enough to say that shiat anywhere he could be recorded. That's the guy I want in charge, the guy who doesn't make basic rookie mistakes in the political arena. Romney's got a laundry list of simple f*ck ups that add up to someone who really is out of his league. Obama's made a few gaffes for sure, but nothing remotely close to the sh*tshow of Romney/Ryan. Those noobs can't even hold Barry's jock in that department..

WTF? Really? This is the guy who was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, literally one of the top up-and-coming lawyers in the country. Upon graduation, he could have gone to any firm of his choice (and making 6 figure salary) with a path to Supreme Court justice, but instead he chose to work in the inner city as a community organizer.

OK OK, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I was just trying to say that I'm not someone who thinks that Romney kicks puppies and Obama nurses them back to health. They're both rich, elite guys who run in rich, elite circles. They wouldn't be there if they didn't. However, I do think he cares for the common man more than Romney of course, but I think it's naive to think that any political candidate is as pure of heart and soul as their media image makes them out to be. I admit Obama's my all time favorite politician(I'm 39), but that doesn't make politics any less of a deceitful game. I'm glad you called me out on that though, I felt a bit dirty saying that LOL.

The sad thing is, you're doing what most of the media really does, and that's using false equivalency in order to not seem bias and be more fair. But the thing is, it's not equivalent. The right really is that much more extreme ...


I don't know Obama any more than I know Romney. Of course I have faith that the guy is looking out for me, and the party he belongs to says the are. But that's it. I think it's partisan bullshiattery to assume that one guy wants to eat your family and the other would run into your burning house to save you.

But yes, you're correct, I'm softballing the right, but that's what you have to do to lure the retards off the short bus so you can beat them to a pulp and throw them in the ditch--OH! Sorry about that.

Point is: If you call them batshiat crazy loonballs before the conversation even happens, you think they're going to show up to talk? Call it what you like, but doing absolutely all you can to be unbiased is part of the media's job. The media's job isn't to call bullshiat, IMO. The media's job is to report it like it happened, and let the people that read that news call bullshiat.

Let me sum it up: Is it better to call the idiot an idiot and have everyone just take your word for it? Or is it better to let him say something and prove it himself? The first option makes you look bad, and him look like a victim. The second option puts it all on him.

Hope that all made a little sense, I'm gettin into my cups a bit!
2012-09-30 08:37:24 PM
2 votes:

joonyer: You want balance? Fine, all the cry babies on both sides can get their own respective echo chambers.


A truly awful state of affairs all around.

It's amazing to me how in every other aspect of our lives, we have to absorb new information and adjust our outlook accordingly, yet we can't seem to apply this basic principle to politics. Every year that goes by, I'm more convinced that a person's politics acts a sort of mental safety blanket against the realities of the world we live in.

Part of me wonders if the fact that so many Americans are practically working themselves to death to stay afloat financially has resulted in a population that simply doesn't have the energy to think through issues critically anymore.
2012-09-30 08:35:41 PM
2 votes:
"Asked to cite a specific example of media bias, Ryan demurred, instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win."

This, to me is the easiest way to prove that the "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA" shiat is utter nonsense. If the media was, in fact, biased toward liberals, there's no way they would let conservative after conservative get away with this shiat. An actual liberal media would just ask the damn question again, and if he tried dodging it again, would ask it again or say something to the effect of, "Then you can't actually support your assertion with facts or examples then?"
2012-09-30 07:47:53 PM
2 votes:

St Andrew: Even those employed by News Corp., home of Fox News Channel and controlled by the conservative-leaning Rupert Murdoch, gave the vast majority of their political dollars to Democrats, to the tune of $488,000 compared with $165,000.


Does that prove Fox reporting has a liberal bias? If not, what does that prove of other media outlets?
2012-09-30 07:07:10 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.


Then we can assume if the Democrats do well in 2012, it's a mandate against the failed policies of the right?
2012-09-30 06:43:58 PM
2 votes:
Obviously, I disagree. CNN is pretty unbiased in my opinion, and that's why I watch it--because I want the news, not an ideological interpretation of it. If I want right wing opinion, I watch Fox. If I want a left wing interpretation, I watch MSNBC. If I just want the news, I watch CNN.

Think about it this way: Fox News is obviously to the right of CNN, is it not? And MSNBC is obviously to the left of CNN. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that with Fox to the right and MSNBC to the left, CNN represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road political opinion, insofar as it represents any opinion at all (frankly I tend to avoid the CNN opinion pieces, but at least, unlike Fox, they present their editorial views as opinions, not as news)? Only an ideologue would interpret this situation as "Fox presents the news from a right wing perspective, CNN from a left wing perspective and MSNBC from a really left wing perspective." That just doesn't make sense. You'd have to be both stupid and paranoid to believe that. Really, really stupid and really, really paranoid.
2012-09-30 06:21:23 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.


You sound like you need a diaper, a binky and a huge dose of reality.
2012-09-30 06:10:01 PM
2 votes:

Mantour: [theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com image 650x483]



Sadly that explains it perfectly. The media is indeed biased, biased to be a corporate whore willing to do anything for ratings. They have always leaned conservative and refuse to give any positive coverage of protest movements like OWS or anti-war, only the Tea Party received such wonderful coverage from the "liberal biased" media.
2012-09-30 06:09:05 PM
2 votes:
I'm not drawing parallels in their ideas or actions, but i bet nazis, white supremacists, pedophiles, etc. think there's a media bias too. maybe the media portrays you as disingenuous self serving shiat bags because thats what you are.
2012-09-30 05:57:30 PM
2 votes:
goinglikesixty.com

We've - look, I'm a conservative person, I'm used to media bias. We expected media bias going into this," said Ryan.


Perpetual martyrs are perpetual.

/Hot like babby's tears.
2012-09-30 05:55:44 PM
2 votes:
theredphoenix.files.wordpress.com
2012-09-30 05:46:52 PM
2 votes:
GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan acknowledged the Republican campaign's "missteps" on Sunday, calling Mitt Romney's now-notorious "47%" comments "inarticulate," while still defending the crux of his running mate's argument.

Poor choice of words.


cdnet.myxer.com
2012-09-30 05:10:03 PM
2 votes:
Well, everyone is biased one way or another. When you feel that most of the media is biased against you, then maybe they aren't the ones who are out of touch... hmm?

The Republican party and the Neocons got the greatest free pass in recent history in the wake of 9/11. It's like these people can't remember 10 years ago when the media was all-aboard for their policies and measures. "What have you done for me today?" seems to be the attitude.
2012-09-30 04:20:36 PM
2 votes:
concerned citizen

He is right - look how many times MSNBC run edited versions of videos of Romney, attempting to distort the reality of what happened. I would like to support President, but this has been the nastiest campaign I have ever seen. He should be ashamed.
September 30, 2012 03:27 pm at 3:27 pm |


He's concerned.
2012-10-01 06:02:40 PM
1 votes:

perry147: Reality has a liberal bias.


you are a stupid tool
2012-10-01 08:33:59 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: FlashHarry: Study after study shows that the opposite is in fact true. But then facts have a liberal bias.

LOL, please link these plethora of studies. I would love to see your study after study showing the news is right wing.


If the media is left wing, then there isn't a market for right wing news. If there's no market for right wing news, the GOP is in trouble anyway as their ideology is becoming outmoded.

Discuss.
2012-10-01 06:56:32 AM
1 votes:

winterbraid: I was going to ask how someone so detached from reality manages to find his way home every night, but then it hit me: you're an indoor dog.


And you know what that means.

i49.tinypic.com
2012-10-01 12:52:26 AM
1 votes:

kyrg: Ambivalence: An that, my friends, is an encapsulation of everything wrong wtih the republican party. They believe something to be true and seek evidence to support that believe, rather than collect evidence and THEN form a conclusion.

Of course there are endless examples of press bias, but here's the most recent one. This week had the 2000th death in Afghanistan and barely a mention in the press. The 2000th death in Iraq had a weeks worth of coverage. Same tragedy different president.
Other examples are; Fast and furious, solindra, stiffing Israel, the Libyan embassy attack etc. if any of these event occurred under a Republican administration the press would be foaming at the mouth for answers and employ teams of fact checkers to parse every word of any response and you know it if you are honest with yourself.


You mean like when the media united against Bush after 9/11, or do you mean how after that colossal intelligence failure, how they constantly questioned whether there was really evidence of WMDs in Iraq during the run up to war?
2012-10-01 12:14:37 AM
1 votes:

joonyer: Animatronik: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: And freezing some programs while debt continues to balloon doesn't count as 'spending cuts' either. Obama failed the gut check and needs to go home to Chicago.

The gullibility of the liberal media when it comes to the federal budget is unbelievable. Whoever gets elected next, I hope we get dome folks withe half a brain who are actually allowed to speak to these issues in the media.

Tell me in all honesty.

Do you think we can balance the budget by cutting taxes, cutting spending in some programs (the ones the GOP doesn't like), but keeping spending levels in other programs (like DOD) the same or spend even more on Defense?

Do you really think this is a fiscally sound policy? 

I await your response.

I'd be in favor of tax increases accompanied by massive spending cuts, e.g. 5 to 10 dollars cut for each dollar in tax increase.

The problem is that Democrat serve up shiat on a shingle for spending cuts, so they can't credibly ask for tax increases. They're looking to continue passing the buck to the next generation, using tax increases to bolster the welfare state for another 5-10 years, while our credit rating drops.

we need precipitous action on this, we need it yesterday, because the bonds are going to dry up the way they did for cities, counties (and Greece). Obama and the Democrats aregoing to fark the credit rating of the United States.

Many economists know this,but they're not talking much and the press isn't asking much.

I could eat alphabet soup and shiat a better argument than that.


I am SO stealing that line.
2012-10-01 12:03:09 AM
1 votes:

Animatronik: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: And freezing some programs while debt continues to balloon doesn't count as 'spending cuts' either. Obama failed the gut check and needs to go home to Chicago.

The gullibility of the liberal media when it comes to the federal budget is unbelievable. Whoever gets elected next, I hope we get dome folks withe half a brain who are actually allowed to speak to these issues in the media.

Tell me in all honesty.

Do you think we can balance the budget by cutting taxes, cutting spending in some programs (the ones the GOP doesn't like), but keeping spending levels in other programs (like DOD) the same or spend even more on Defense?

Do you really think this is a fiscally sound policy? 

I await your response.

I'd be in favor of tax increases accompanied by massive spending cuts, e.g. 5 to 10 dollars cut for each dollar in tax increase.

The problem is that Democrat serve up shiat on a shingle for spending cuts, so they can't credibly ask for tax increases. They're looking to continue passing the buck to the next generation, using tax increases to bolster the welfare state for another 5-10 years, while our credit rating drops.

we need precipitous action on this, we need it yesterday, because the bonds are going to dry up the way they did for cities, counties (and Greece). Obama and the Democrats aregoing to fark the credit rating of the United States.

Many economists know this,but they're not talking much and the press isn't asking much.


I could eat alphabet soup and shiat a better argument than that.
2012-09-30 11:35:41 PM
1 votes:

heavymetal: It reminds me of a nature documentary where an animal's built in defense mechanism is useless against the animal attacking it. Despite not working, it is all the animal knows how to do so it continues as it is being devoured by the preditor.


Great, thanks for that. Now I have visions of Romney and Ryan squirting ink out their asses at reporters who keep asking them for details of what they plan to do for the country should they be elected.
2012-09-30 11:23:29 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: contrapunctus: Fox's bias is evident in the omission and or highlighting of specific news stories. As is MSNBC's. You can rest assured that both of those networks pander to their respective audiences in subtle and overt ways,

Even if that were equally true of both Fox News and MSNBC and that's a dubious conclusion at best, no one watches MSNBC and everyone watched Fox News so how is there the liberal bias that the right is constantly crying and biatching and moaning about?


I'll tell you why it matters.

The right-wing has successfully built their platform upon a foundation of lies, distortions, and selective "journalism". While I understand the natural desire to fight fire with fire, the bottom line is that it is incumbent upon all of us to simply be better than them, even if it means perhaps occasionally losing in the short term. To truly fight the right-wing's de-evolution to irrationality, you need to commit yourself to logic, thoughtfulness, and dispassionate analysis of facts.

The right-wing has built an audience that wants a pigfight. They want liberals who will scream back at them because it reinforces the caricatures of liberalism that Fox, Limbaugh, Boortz, and the rest of the quasi-fascist buffoons have spent 20+ years building. What they don't want is an educated, logical rebuttal to their ridiculous claims. Ever watch the way Bill Moyers calmly and rationally handled a Foxnews goon who tried to ambush him? It's masterful:

Billy Moyers vs Foxnews

Note how the Foxnews creep ends up slinking away like the beaten jackal he is. He didn't get a usable soundbite from Moyers. He didn't get a video of Moyers flipping out. He didn't get the very ammunition from Moyers that Foxnews expressly sent him there to retrieve, because Moyers knows damn well the game that these people play.

You ask me why I find MSNBC as repulsive as Foxnews? Because I find Fox's methods as distasteful as their message, and using the same sick methodology they do only reinforces this modern notion that politics always needs to be two adults screaming at each other like first-graders. The coarsening of the discourse itself is as much of a problem as the hard-right tack this country has undergone for the past 2 decades. Every night Olbermann ran with his childish (and painfully unfunny) "Worst Person in the World" schtick was a night he validated every stereotype about progressives that the right-wing echo chamber had planted into the minds of the gullible in our society.
2012-09-30 11:19:38 PM
1 votes:

kyrg: if any of these event occurred under a Republican administration the press would be foaming at the mouth for answers


4.bp.blogspot.com

Yeah, the media was sooooooooo foaming at the mouth back then. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.
2012-09-30 11:12:24 PM
1 votes:

Animatronik: neenerist: Animatronik: Which reality are you talking about.... we don't have 16 trillion in national debt, and the welfare state isn't crashing down due to unsustainable spending committments????

Obama didn't rack up 16 trillion and the welfare state overload in four years. Remember Bush? Few Republicans do apparently, integrity and loyalty are outmoded weaknesses.

You're right! He racked up 6 TRILLION in 3 YEARS.
But I wasn't even referring to the new debt that he and the Democratic Congress racked up. i was talking about the abject failure of any liberal news outlet to focus on these issues.


If you're running with he $6 Trillion figure then you're counting a budget passed before Obama became President and signed into law by his predecessor.

That aside:

TWAT: Approx 150 billion/year
Expansion in non-TWAT defense budget 2000-2008: approx. 250 billion/year
Medicare Part D: approx 70 billion/year
Bush tax cuts: approx 200 billion/year

Those account for about half the deficit, and the GOP has fought tooth and nail against every effort to reign in any of those budget busters.
2012-09-30 11:01:42 PM
1 votes:

Animatronik: The problem is that Democrat serve up shiat on a shingle for spending cuts



Sounds like someone never read the 0bama budget


Animatronik: Many economists know this,but they're not talking much and the press isn't asking much.



Because in a bad economy the last thing you do is drastically cut spending. See Europe for how that goes. Interest rates are still at record lows, now is the time to stimulate the economy by not cutting spending but increasing taxes and have a 2-4 year plan to start reducing spending
2012-09-30 10:47:26 PM
1 votes:

kyrg: Of course there are endless examples of press bias, but here's the most recent one. This week had the 2000th death in Afghanistan and barely a mention in the press. The 2000th death in Iraq had a weeks worth of coverage. Same tragedy different president.
Other examples are; Fast and furious, solindra, stiffing Israel, the Libyan embassy attack etc. if any of these event occurred under a Republican administration the press would be foaming at the mouth for answers and employ teams of fact checkers to parse every word of any response and you know it if you are honest with yourself.


New York Times
Huffington Post
CBS News
NBC News
AP (Via Yahoo)
etc.

See, the problem is that you're buying the talking point du jour from Fox or AM radio instead of discovering the truth for yourself. I know a lot of Republians are reality-challenged, but there's a cure - get out of the echo chamber.
2012-09-30 10:45:24 PM
1 votes:

kyrg: This week had the 2000th death in Afghanistan and barely a mention in the press


ABC
Christian Science Monitor
New York Times
The Atlantic Wire
CBS
Time
MSNBC
Fox News
The Guardian
BBC News
Mirror

Yeah, nary a peep from the media...
2012-09-30 10:34:12 PM
1 votes:
Media frequently embraces minority causes. Minority causes frequently benefit from liberal legislative or judicial action.

The issue should not be the question of whether there is liberal media bias (or conservative, in the case of FNC and some internet sources). What we should ask is whether liberal bias can actually be beneficial for society. Clearly, if you're a liberal, you would think so.

I'm not afraid of liberal or conservative bias. What I don't like is the air of neutrality that gets some media outlets perpetually sniffing their own rectums, when it turns out that gas was better expelled and forgotten. Just have your bias, and admit it. Tell us why you think a cause or stance is valuable for society. Most of the journalists I've met are actually not bright enough to realize that their bias is blatantly obvious. Some of them truly think they are completely neutral.
2012-09-30 10:20:39 PM
1 votes:
If the media had an actual "liberal" bias, Jill Stein would be your next President.

The media is not liberal, because they are owned by major corporations. It is not in their best interest to be liberal. The right has moved so far to the right, that the definition of liberal is to the right of what I consider the center. My definition of liberal would make Paul Ryan's face melt all over his copy of Atlas Shrugged.
2012-09-30 10:19:28 PM
1 votes:

heavymetal: Now because the term as been so over used, screaming "liberal media bias" just doesn't resonate with the swing voter like it did even 10 years ago.


The internet is the GOP's worst nightmare. They could lie their asses off, and have for decades, now they actually have to back up the bullshiat that they spew. Unfortunately for them, as it's been pointed out many times in this thread, facts have a liberal bias. And so does the internet it seems. And shrooms. Let's not forget shrooms.
2012-09-30 09:49:26 PM
1 votes:

LordJiro: The headline is accurate. There IS inherent media bias.

What ISN'T accurate is the implication that the media is biased in favor of liberals. They're biased towards whatever gets them profit and ratings.


This. The media is in this to make money, and one of the most effective ways to do that is to target specific demographics. Each media outlet targets a slightly different demographic and uses slightly different methods. This may lead to the impression that the media is biased toward the Liberal/Left because a clear majority of the target demographic for most media product are considered to be Liberals/Left - the 16 - 44 demographics, and in particular the single, university educated, childless and most of all, the urban segments of those demographics.

There's a heck of a lot more going into it than just that, of course. As implied above, Geography has a lot to do with it; for example a single, childless 26yr old living in New York City is more likely to be Liberal than a single, childless 26yr old living in Boulder, Montana. Ability to spend is another factor which is closely related to Geography - if there isn't a Jimmy John's in the area, you aren't likely to see Jimmy John's buying advertising space there. Etc.
2012-09-30 09:49:07 PM
1 votes:

joonyer: Overall though, it's a business. An entertainment business. Shock and Awe win the day, not objectivity or rationality. I originally wrote that thinking of the media, but I think it applies to the world of politics, too.


The only bit of the MSM (and I'm not sure how mainstream it is) that I like reading is the Christian Science Monitor. Because I feel like they're about the only part of the MSM that's trying to use journalism to make a better world, to report fairly, rather than most that just feel like, at some level, that they're trying to create division and hatred. Every paper apart from the CSM, I can sense the agenda in the writing.

Mostly, you're better off reading blogs, the papers they link to and books. Books on a subject can be the result of months of painstaking research. An article is banged out in a few hours by some kid.
2012-09-30 09:48:17 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: JudgeSmails: Mrtraveler01: JudgeSmails: I read an article yesterday that said Ryan was actually more of a down ticket drag than even Romney. If I can find the link I will post it.

Makes sense. Romney/GOP's plan of, "let's double down on the Medicare voucher idea" really blew up in their faces didn't it?

and he really comes off as a condescending little pisher.

He and Eric Holder are in the running for biggest douche of the House.


do you mean Cantor? if so then yes, I agree. Issa is just as bad.
2012-09-30 09:43:35 PM
1 votes:
"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper's many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism - for lack of a better term - that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects."

Arthur Brisbane - New York Times

Link
2012-09-30 09:40:38 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: What were the numbers between 2001 and 2004 or 2005-2008 just out of curiosity?



National Defict in millions
2001 -> 128,236
2002 -> -157,758
2003 -> -377,585
2004 -> -412,727
2005 -> -318,346
2006 -> -248,181
2007 -> -160,701
2008 -> -458,553
2009 -> -1,412,688 

Hope that's readable...I had it laid out pretty nicely, but Fark strips table tags. *sniffle*
2012-09-30 09:34:29 PM
1 votes:

theknuckler_33: Animatronik: neenerist: Animatronik: Which reality are you talking about.... we don't have 16 trillion in national debt, and the welfare state isn't crashing down due to unsustainable spending committments????

Obama didn't rack up 16 trillion and the welfare state overload in four years. Remember Bush? Few Republicans do apparently, integrity and loyalty are outmoded weaknesses.

You're right! He racked up 6 TRILLION in 3 YEARS.
But I wasn't even referring to the new debt that he and the Democratic Congress racked up. i was talking about the abject failure of any liberal news outlet to focus on these issues.

"Focus on" = "place full blame for the national debt solely on Obama"


No, actually it means focusing on what the candidates are saying, and Obamas problem is that he isn't saying jack shiat because he doesn't know what to do. And Romney is saying more but avoiding the specifics. And freezing some programs while debt continues to balloon doesn't count as 'spending cuts' either. Obama failed the gut check and needs to go home to Chicago.

The gullibility of the liberal media when it comes to the federal budget is unbelievable. Whoever gets elected next, I hope we get dome folks withe half a brain who are actually allowed to speak to these issues in the media.
2012-09-30 09:28:05 PM
1 votes:
"Media Bias" has become the "cry wolf" of conservative politics. It has been used so much I really don't think it works as well for them as it used to. At one time it was used to question the perspective one took when looking at the facts at hand, and then a different viewpoint but based on the facts presented. This is a legitemate argument and counter points from a different perspective as long as being based in reality are a good thing.

Unfortunately it has become the bread and butter of a generation of intellectually dishonest and lazy pundits. It is used now as a card blanche in dismissing any fact they disagree with while no counter viewpoint based on the facts are given. Instead opinions pulled out of their butts are presented as "facts" in their "counterpoint".

Now because the term as been so over used, screaming "liberal media bias" just doesn't resonate with the swing voter like it did even 10 years ago. They are basically freaking out because for so long they got away with being intellectually dishonest and lazy. Now they are unable to adapt to the new political landscape of needing "substance" so they are doing all they can to double down on the derp.
2012-09-30 09:26:18 PM
1 votes:

Animatronik: Teufelaffe: Animatronik: I know another way to cut that debt that is better for the economy that most economists think is much better but almost all Democrats can't verbalize: CUT SPENDING.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Yeah, damn the current Democratic administration and their cutting spending more than any other administration in the last 50 years.

Lol we're running the highest deficits ever, that's complete made-up bullshiat.
probably based on cuts that don't kck in until the next term, when they can be voted down.
Put away the shrooms, they have a liberal bias.


Deficit in 2009: $1.4 trillion
Estimated 2012 deficit: $1.3 trillion

Again, just in case it's not clear, 1,400,000,000,000 is a larger number than 1,300,000,000,000 thereby making your assertion "we're running the highest deficits ever" more bullshiat.

Source
2012-09-30 09:23:32 PM
1 votes:

evoke: Fox is slightly to the right except when Hannity is on. Then it's on the same level as MSNBC's programming. Matthews, Maddow, Sharpton, Schultz, Maddow are all far left.

Fox isn't to the right when they are airing pure news. MSNBC is leftist through and through. Even Morning Joe leans left.

CNN is definitely left but not nearly as much as MSNBC.

NPR, PBS all lean to the left. NYT as well.



Fox is a far right mouthpiece of the Republican Party. It's basically the Pravda for American fascists. Even when they're supposedly just talking news, they're still pretty biased conservatively.
MSNBC is centre to centre-left. They barely touch left, let alone far left. Morning Joe is run by a farking Republican.
CNN is pretty conservative, but in a gimmicky "look what corporate shiat we have to sell to you" or merely giving conservatives a pass.
NPR and PBS are true neutral.
NYT leans conservative unless you've forgotten all the times they sucked up to the Bush administration.
2012-09-30 09:18:32 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: American does not like socialist ideas and the people who promote them. This election will be even worse for the libs.


Oh the tears. It's already been proven repeatedly with citation that the media gives Obama a far harsher time than Romney. And Obama will most likely win this election, even with all the cover and aid they've given Romney. I fail to see how American opinion on socialist ideals matters in this race though, considering the two most likely candidates to win are a neoliberal conservative (Obama) and an outright fascist plutocrat (Romney). I don't see how the election could get worse for libs since there was no likelihood of a liberal candidate winning in the first place.
2012-09-30 09:15:30 PM
1 votes:

Animatronik: Because shrooms have a liberal bias, and they're really useful when you need to ignore your money troubles, because drawing attention to them might force you to turn off the multitrillion dollar money machine that guarantees that votes for Democrats Republicans are legally purchased..


FTFY

You forgot the defense budget, which to the GOP is basically welfare for Defense Contractors.
2012-09-30 09:12:23 PM
1 votes:

neenerist: Animatronik: Which reality are you talking about.... we don't have 16 trillion in national debt, and the welfare state isn't crashing down due to unsustainable spending committments????

Obama didn't rack up 16 trillion and the welfare state overload in four years. Remember Bush? Few Republicans do apparently, integrity and loyalty are outmoded weaknesses.


You're right! He racked up 6 TRILLION in 3 YEARS.
But I wasn't even referring to the new debt that he and the Democratic Congress racked up. i was talking about the abject failure of any liberal news outlet to focus on these issues.

Because shrooms have a liberal bias, and they're really useful when you need to ignore your money troubles, because drawing attention to them might force you to turn off the multitrillion dollar money machine that guarantees that votes for Democrats are legally purchased..
2012-09-30 09:04:21 PM
1 votes:

Emracool the Aeons Hip: Animatronik: Which reality are you talking about, the one where Obama rides magical unicorns, we don't have 16 trillion in national debt, and the welfare state isn't crashing down due to unsustainable spending committments????

I believe it was Conservatives who started the Unicorn thing, probably has to do with their religious tendencies. 16 Trillion is a very large number, you realize that Liberals don't like the debt being that high either, right? In fact, Liberals would like to pay for that debt, instead of cutting taxes to insanely low levels which, you know, creates more and more debt.


I know another way to cut that debt that is better for the economy that most economists think is much better but almost all Democrats can't verbalize: CUT SPENDING.

And I don't mean imaginary cuts that don't kick in until 2016 if they aren't voted down, or cuts in defense spending that are being double-counted.

You haven't put a dent in my thesis that shrooms have a liberal bias.
2012-09-30 08:43:55 PM
1 votes:

sithon: reality has a liberal bias .


That phrase has been pretty much run into the ground but I'll ask you a question:

Which reality are you talking about, the one where Obama rides magical unicorns, we don't have 16 trillion in national debt, and the welfare state isn't crashing down due to unsustainable spending committments????


that's not reality, my little liberal friend, that's shrooms.

Shrooms have a liberal bias.
2012-09-30 08:38:37 PM
1 votes:
Fox is slightly to the right except when Hannity is on. Then it's on the same level as MSNBC's programming. Matthews, Maddow, Sharpton, Schultz, Maddow are all far left.

Fox isn't to the right when they are airing pure news. MSNBC is leftist through and through. Even Morning Joe leans left.

CNN is definitely left but not nearly as much as MSNBC.

NPR, PBS all lean to the left. NYT as well.
2012-09-30 08:36:04 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: Joseph Geobels would be envious of the mainstream media today the way it protects and fawns around Obama. They make up polls (horribly skewed towards Democrats) to try to make it look like Obama is even TIED with his opponent, much less losing. Didn't you people learn anything from 2010? American does not like socialist ideas and the people who promote them. This election will be even worse for the libs.


So by your logic, when Obama wins you will have to learn a lesson from this? Maybe your rhetoric and your ideas are a little stupid, backward or flat out wrong?

/pipe dream, I know
2012-09-30 08:35:55 PM
1 votes:

tony41454: Joseph Geobels would be envious of the mainstream media today the way it protects and fawns around Obama. They make up polls (horribly skewed towards Democrats) to try to make it look like Obama is even TIED with his opponent, much less losing. Didn't you people learn anything from 2010? American does not like socialist ideas and the people who promote them. This election will be even worse for the libs.


If you think the polls are so skewed, Intrade is waiting for you. They give you wonderful odd if you are seriously believe you own bullshiat.
2012-09-30 08:32:32 PM
1 votes:
Joseph Geobels would be envious of the mainstream media today the way it protects and fawns around Obama. They make up polls (horribly skewed towards Democrats) to try to make it look like Obama is even TIED with his opponent, much less losing. Didn't you people learn anything from 2010? American does not like socialist ideas and the people who promote them. This election will be even worse for the libs.
2012-09-30 08:22:17 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.


It's amazing how you thundering neocons are suddenly anti-war.

And pastors violate the laws about tax exemption and politicking from the pulpit, but Faux News gives them the green light to do it.

You people are utterly shameless.
2012-09-30 08:19:24 PM
1 votes:

joonyer: moralpanic: joonyer:
Emphasis mine, because I think it's a great point. Honestly, I don't think Obama is some salt of the earth guy who truly cares about low income people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he felt exactly like Romney about the "47%". The difference between the two is that Obama isn't stupid enough to say that shiat anywhere he could be recorded. That's the guy I want in charge, the guy who doesn't make basic rookie mistakes in the political arena. Romney's got a laundry list of simple f*ck ups that add up to someone who really is out of his league. Obama's made a few gaffes for sure, but nothing remotely close to the sh*tshow of Romney/Ryan. Those noobs can't even hold Barry's jock in that department..

WTF? Really? This is the guy who was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, literally one of the top up-and-coming lawyers in the country. Upon graduation, he could have gone to any firm of his choice (and making 6 figure salary) with a path to Supreme Court justice, but instead he chose to work in the inner city as a community organizer.

OK OK, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I was just trying to say that I'm not someone who thinks that Romney kicks puppies and Obama nurses them back to health. They're both rich, elite guys who run in rich, elite circles. They wouldn't be there if they didn't. However, I do think he cares for the common man more than Romney of course, but I think it's naive to think that any political candidate is as pure of heart and soul as their media image makes them out to be. I admit Obama's my all time favorite politician(I'm 39), but that doesn't make politics any less of a deceitful game. I'm glad you called me out on that though, I felt a bit dirty saying that LOL.


The sad thing is, you're doing what most of the media really does, and that's using false equivalency in order to not seem bias and be more fair. But the thing is, it's not equivalent. The right really is that much more extreme, he really did dismissed 47% of the population as leeches.
2012-09-30 08:18:39 PM
1 votes:

evoke: MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias?

You libs really are delusional.


they do have a liberal bias, but as you conservatives never tire of saying nobody watches MSNBC
2012-09-30 08:10:02 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.


OH fark!
I get it now, I know what you're doing.

You're the door that always lies!

images.wikia.com
2012-09-30 08:08:07 PM
1 votes:
"Asked to cite a specific example of media bias, Ryan demurred, instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win."
Cocksucking, motherf**king, lying piece of shiat.
2012-09-30 08:07:00 PM
1 votes:
The funny thing is that people think that there is anything resembling a large-scale "liberal" news agency or channel in the US. You want "liberal"? Find a podcast of Democracy Now. At the absolute outside, MSNBC leans center-left. ABC/NBC/CBS are corporate center. Fox is the broadcast wing of the GOP.
2012-09-30 07:58:14 PM
1 votes:

evoke: MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias?

You libs really are delusional.


MSNBC has a liberal bias from about 5 pm to 2 am. That's not even half the day. And Scarborough poops on Obama and gets housewives to strongly assert their defecation skills on him, too.

//of course MSNBC has a liberal bias
//MSNBC != all media
//MSNBC doesn't claim to be fair and balanced
///how many more ways do you want your argument raped legitimately?
2012-09-30 07:57:09 PM
1 votes:
Positive or negative press??

waynedemocrats.org 

To say the Liberals get more media coverage OK. Now to say it is positive not so much.

"Our data does not support the thesis of a liberal media bias as it relates to Election 2012 coverage. If anything, our analysis suggests a media bias towards both Mitt Romney and Republicans. There are multiple data points included in our analysis. In news stories and broadcast transcripts that we analyzed over the last 3 months, newsmakers appearing in the media as partisan Republicans are quoted at a 44% higher rate than partisan Democrats. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative coverage was 17.1% more critical of Obama than Romney. We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012."

The citation you were look for

Specifically towards the Pres. Campaign.

www.4thestate.net

Then again "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." - Neil Newhouse
2012-09-30 07:52:12 PM
1 votes:
These grades aren't my fault, Mom! Teacher hates me!
2012-09-30 07:31:54 PM
1 votes:
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

Link 

Even those employed by News Corp., home of Fox News Channel and controlled by the conservative-leaning Rupert Murdoch, gave the vast majority of their political dollars to Democrats, to the tune of $488,000 compared with $165,000.

Link
2012-09-30 07:30:05 PM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: At some point, folks are going to have to take a long, hard look at themselves and the party.

I was hoping that the party would look at McCain's run, and possibly realize that aligning themselves with the Idiot Brigade and the Palin nonsense, might jostle folks awake. I was wrong. The ties to money and the Religious Right still remained strong enough, and the hordes of folks who might have questioned exactly what had been done in their name during the Bush years; and the damage it had done to the economy and our infrastructure and job security, as well as trade; they became enthralled with a MOAR reactionary position, and instead wound up questioning the legitimacy of the President, and grasping further at straws, and shoving more cash at the very folks whose actions quite nearly broke our markets. Faced with not just a defeat, they instead rallied to even more reactionary, partisan voices, as opposed to looking at exactly what had been done. What had actually occurred, and rather than admit that they had not just been mistaken, doubled down on the very things, and with the very people who merrily sold them down river, and then wailed at the cost.

The GOP is going to have to face the reality, that their policies are not working. Not for the majority of Americans, only within strict confines, so long as most folks don't share in the riches, and that the only folks who profit from the continual war parades are those who sell things to the military, and those who film them doing so. The rest of the nation cannot afford this. Not any longer. And complaining that economics, mathematics, and the media are inherently "liberal" when they are simply reporting what is, shows the inherent weakness of basing EVERYTHING on a structure of subjective reality.

Subjective reality, as a concept, is useful. In understanding how people react, how people function, it is an important concept. Whether or not you intend affront to someone, if they perceive your comment or actions as bei ...


Damn, that was beautiful. Seriously, Hubie, that's about as succint of a summary of the last decade of the GOP as I've ever seen. Well done, sir! Plus you like Firefly. Damnit, if only you had boobs.
2012-09-30 07:23:18 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: And while most reporters tend to skew liberal on social issues that doesn't make the media itself liberal. Especially on economic matters. They're owned by huge conglomerates that view them solely as profit centers.



And that's the problem. Conservatives mistake having knowledge on a subject for being liberal. That's why they always insult college professors, who are at a professional in their knowledge of a subject. But apparently these professors don't know what conservatives know, and therefore any of their views are just liberal and wrong. By labeling the smartest person in the room, a conservative can throw out all their views and feel comfortable believing they indeed know the truth.
2012-09-30 07:17:13 PM
1 votes:
GranoblasticMan: Then we can assume if the Democrats do well in 2012, it's a mandate against the failed policies of the right?

No, that will be a sign that the American people have been duped by the leftist media and that it's now apparent that those Second-Amendment-solutions should be implemented.
2012-09-30 06:56:47 PM
1 votes:
Well, they don't actually believe any of this. If they can make voters believe that the media is inherently biased, then uninformed voters will dismiss everything the media reports, be it opinion or fact. Their mission is not to inform, it's to reinforce the convictions of people who are generally ignorant...or win over anyone who will vote for whichever politician promises to lower taxes or prevents gay people from getting married.

I can't believe anybody is still shocked by either side's dirty tactics.

/happens to believe both sides suck
//one is incompetent, the other is possibly evil.
2012-09-30 06:56:40 PM
1 votes:
The party of personal responsibility strikes again!
2012-09-30 06:54:59 PM
1 votes:

clambam: hink about it this way: Fox News is obviously to the right of CNN, is it not? And MSNBC is obviously to the left of CNN


I think it's a matter of degrees. I really don't see how MSNBC can be considered nearly as comically partisan as Fox News. Fox News is truly a caricature of "Starship Troopers" proportions. And they're the #1 news show in America. So enough with the liberal media shiat.
2012-09-30 06:52:00 PM
1 votes:
Rolling context-included video of Romney is not bias. It's reporting.

It's not the media's fault that Romney is so skilled at making an ass out of himself. 

He's a bad candidate. Always has been, always will be. The GOP knew this for years and passed him over more than once.
2012-09-30 06:47:27 PM
1 votes:
I think that whichever party has the worst ideas will always complain about "media bias".

Right now a common trait of liberalism is to examine reality and govern based on what we observe to be the best outcome[1][2], . Conservativism on the other hand tends to simply cling on to the idea that "we shouldn't change anything ever because the old ways are best".

Right now actual facts and figures prove liberalism to be the more correct viewpoint of the two. Is it perfect? Hell no. But every day we are on this planet we learn new things about it and how people should interact with the world. We want to stop burning hydrocarbon-based fuels because we have evidence that doing so is going to screw up the environment. We support gay rights because there's evidence that gay marriage has no detrimental effects to society and we support civil rights. We are generally anti-war because nobody post-WW2 can come up with a compelling reason to attack a foreign country. We are pro-regulation because every economic history lesson since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution shows us that corporations have figured out ingenious ways to avoid liability for things that would get single people arrested, all the while profiting tremendously from other people's misery. We have evidence of all of these things and that our beliefs are, if not the 100% correct solution, then at least better than what we are currently doing.

So when the news media goes out and reports that the economy actually did get better after the bailouts, or that global warming is happening, or any number of openly visible things that reinforce views that liberals believe, conservatives tend to melt down and go into denial mode. "That news isn't fair because it makes my views look wrong". No, it's simple observation. As Bill Nye once said "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong". Many things in the planet are simply not up for debate. If you expect that the news report that the sky is green simply because that's what you believe, then of course you're going to claim that the news has a bias. But it doesn't change the fact that they're not biased, and you're wrong.


[1] - Yes I am fully aware that there are knee-jerk liberals who do not do this and want to change things simply for the sake of changing things. They are not the majority.
[2] - Also, we don't do this with gun control for some reason. Actual empirical evidence from countries such as Switzerland shows that if a populace is given proper arms training, gun control is practically unnecessary. Though I think gun control as a liberal issue is slowly dying out. I for one do not care. I don't own a gun nor do I care to, but don't really have a problem with other people owning them.
2012-09-30 06:47:05 PM
1 votes:

m2313: MyRandomName: LOL, please link these plethora of studies. I would love to see your study after study showing the news is right wing.

Hey man, just turn on the TV.
You seem to believe that the media is going balls out for a conservative politician anyway.
And the link right below your OP pretty much disproves your bullshiat.


you are right, i don't hear anything in the MSM about 0bama's muslim background or his falsified SS number, birth certificates, none of his college papers, or one peep about frank marshall davis. But sure as god made little green peas, they're talking about Romney's privacy being invaded and showing what may be a doctored tape talking about the 47% who don't have any skin in the game.
2012-09-30 06:33:55 PM
1 votes:

nyseattitude: You sound like you need a diaper, a binky and a huge dose of reality.


10lbs is starting to sound like a contractor hired by a liberal lobby group to make conservatives look ridiculous, and the contract runs out in seven weeks.
2012-09-30 06:33:55 PM
1 votes:
But at the end of the day, the choice is really clear, and we're giving people a very clear choice."

Yeah. Obama. Thanks for clearing that up.
2012-09-30 06:32:31 PM
1 votes:
Ryan also accused the media of having a liberal disposition.

"I think it kind of goes without saying that there's definitely a media bias. We've - look, I'm a conservative person, I'm used to media bias. We expected media bias going into this," said Ryan.

Asked to cite a specific example of media bias, Ryan demurred, instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and, therefore, would want a president who is a Democrat to win.

"I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing," said Ryan. "But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case."


So when asked to give an example of "liberal media bias" he wasn't able to.

I wish I could be surprised that Ryan basically admitted that he pulled it out of his ass, but that's what makes him so popular with the right.
2012-09-30 06:30:17 PM
1 votes:

nyseattitude: tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.

You sound like you need a diaper, a binky and a huge dose of reality.


That was just on the news right now. (That about the 2000 death count in Afghanistan) Does 10lbsofhorseshiat think he's somehow privy to amazing intel that nobody else has but him? And that therefore it proves the media is liberally biased?

Oh, and the report I just saw made it seem like kind of a big deal. Just another conservative standing on a mound of dead soldiers to trash the left.
2012-09-30 06:28:42 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: .then you heard about it because you were what, personally there? The press didn't cover it? What does that even mean?


I always like that particular talking point. "Why is the media silent on this event that I'm reading about in the New York Times?"
2012-09-30 06:25:29 PM
1 votes:
Certainly the media is biased, but what Ryan (and Romney) don't understand is that they are biased towards their own business. They are in it to make money. They make money by selling ads (either in print, tv ads, etc), and they do that better the more readers/viewers they have. So they are going to do whatever they can to get as many followers as possible. What that meant is that early in the campaign, they'd have been more than willing to shill for Romney, because as the underdog, they'd have gotten more followers if they'd have been able to keep claiming it's a "tight race". Unfortunately for the Republicans, the sheer number of missteps that their campaign has generated has given the media an even bigger story to run with - the Republicans are incompetent. That trumps a "tight race" story any day. So is it going to appear as if the media is "against" the Romney/Ryan campaign? Certainly. And that's because they are giving the media a much higher percentage of "we're dumbasses" stories to go with. If Obama was doing so, they'd be happy to run with those stories, as they'd sell newspapers/tv ads too.
2012-09-30 06:25:29 PM
1 votes:
Damn right.
The media is very conservatively biased due to our media being owned by a handful of corporations whose main agenda is profit and that our only two mainstream political choices are far right/fascist (R) and centre-right/conservative which are beholden to the monetary donations of the same handful of corporations' profits. There is a very significant lack of left wing or civil libertarian views in electoral politics and in the media.
If you're suggesting the media has a liberal bias, tell me what it's like to live outside of the USA or stop smoking so much meth.
2012-09-30 06:23:38 PM
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: As a conservative person, I believe that the media is biased toward creating a coherent narrative with heroes, villains, and excitement, because the audience could not give less of a fark about storytelling reflecting the fundamental chaos of actual society and history and thus the news shows' bottom line is undercut by actual quality reporting.

Though, that said, some of this is a result of the historical cycle we're going through, and it happens anytime there's a major shift in the news industry that increases the competition for advertising dollars significantly. When printing technology made it so that any jackass with five bucks to spare could publish a newspaper, the resulting cut-throat business bullshiat gave us the newspaper wars and yellow journalism. Eventually that calmed down and, through regulation and the simple fact that some business models undeniably won, we got a more dispassionate and informative media with shiat like professional standards again.

We're just in the competition part of the cycle, now, where every dumbass with an internet connection is potentially considered legit so all the media companies have to undermine each other constantly and convince you that they and only they are truly informing you. Once people get a handle on things and some news formats/sources are considered consistently legit and others (*coughtwittercough*) aren't by an overwhelming majority of the public, the remaining players will have to convince _everyone_ and not just a target audience again and we'll be back to non-shiat news.

In the meantime, buckle down and learn to emotionally deal with the political impact of being in the "you provide the pictures, I'll provide the war" part of the industry cycle, and maybe take comfort (assuming you're relatively conservative) that it's currently hurting the radical candidate with the party that's trying to tear down the old order a lot more than the consumate professional that's strong on defense and fiscally cons ...


Well said.

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.


I know you're not looking for credibility, but if you want to be taken seriously EVER, try to follow the style of Mr. Callahan.

He presents his opinion in a thoughtful, mature way that really makes me want to hear his opinion.

You stamp your feet like a 5 year old and scream that the boogeyman is real. You're a joke, literally.
2012-09-30 06:21:38 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.


Which resulted in a congress whose mission statement was "Make Obama a one term President", resulting in everything they are now blaming Obama for not fixing.

The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.

You guys can keep repeating that talking point, it's not going to make it true.

The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.

...then you heard about it because you were what, personally there? The press didn't cover it? What does that even mean?

The press has done nothing but coddle Romney through all his comically ridiculous lies and idiocy, all in an attempt to make this a close race. This "liberal media" cliche. no one buys it anymore.
2012-09-30 06:18:31 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Here, a liberal pollster from the Carter/Biden campaigns.


Lie #1

A guy who left the Democratic party in the 80's and who writes for Breitbart and Fox News among others is not a "liberal"

But that shows your bias. Anyone who has at any time been a Democrat is obviously a flaming liberal


MyRandomName: He destroys your bullshiat view that the Media isn't in the bag for Obama. He includes a plethora of examples for you to read. But knowing the fark left, since it's fox news they'll dismiss it. Then I'll laugh my ass off when I point out this is merely the transcript of his speech. Even with me pointing this last part out, I bet I get at least one Faux News DERRRP reply.



How did he destroy any argument? He went off bizarre tangents like being outraged the secret service were allegedly protecting a staffer.

He cites a poll of Florida voters who are all so worried about Iran. Okay, and? Good for them. Why does the media have to listen to what Florida voters think and make their coverage 100% about the "threat" of Iran?

He then writes in a FOX NEWS article about a "polarized justice department" LOL

I also love how 90% of his citations and numbers have no actual citations and sources themselves. Except the opinion polls, he sure loves those.

And then for his closing act, he complains of biased polling to make 0bama look better. Shocking, shocking revelation. With no actual facts, he just hates how 0bama could possibly be in the lead and it must because of bad polling. I'm sure he quoted a Rasmussen poll too as proof he is right.

See this is all you have, half assed pathetic shills writing nonsense and claiming it as fact. And you uneducated idiots eat it all up.
2012-09-30 06:17:44 PM
1 votes:

Snapper Carr: Lookie here. We got some media bias


A bit more.
2012-09-30 06:16:03 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Ambivalence: An that, my friends, is an encapsulation of everything wrong wtih the republican party. They believe something to be true and seek evidence to support that believe, rather than collect evidence and THEN form a conclusion.

DERRRRPPPP.

Even liberals pollsters are taking notice of the Media "corruption" in this race.

Here, a liberal pollster from the Carter/Biden campaigns. He destroys your bullshiat view that the Media isn't in the bag for Obama. He includes a plethora of examples for you to read. But knowing the fark left, since it's fox news they'll dismiss it. Then I'll laugh my ass off when I point out this is merely the transcript of his speech. Even with me pointing this last part out, I bet I get at least one Faux News DERRRP reply.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatenin g -our-country-future/


I won't mock you for using a Fox News opinion piece. Too obvious. But I will mock you because you cited Patrick farking Caddell. Patrick "Bush apologist, anti-environmentalist, constantly whines about Democrats" Caddell. Seriously.

Oh, and also, he worked on New Coke. His credibility on ANYTHING is precisely dick.
2012-09-30 06:13:48 PM
1 votes:
Of course the press is biased towards the left. That is what makes the 2010 shellacking even more of a mandate against the failed policies of the left.
Sibelius violates the Hatch Act and the media yawns...so that gives her the green light to do it again.
The administration lies about what happened in Libya and the media yawns, so they keep lying about what really happened.
The press makes a big deal of the 2,000 death in Iraq, but says nothing of that milestone in Afghanistan.
2012-09-30 06:06:50 PM
1 votes:
In the immortal words of Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
2012-09-30 06:04:38 PM
1 votes:

CruiserTwelve: "I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing," said Ryan. "But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case."

In other words, he thinks the media is biased because he thinks the media is biased.


Bingo.

Anyone who objectively examines the data and doesn't come up with the exact same conclusion is, obviously, biased. Because if you were objective and examined the data, the ONLY RESULT must be that there is inherent liberal bias. If you concluded that there was no bias, or a conservative bias, then you would have to be liberally biased.

I would go on, but this is giving me a headache. A liberal headache, no doubt.
2012-09-30 06:01:15 PM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: An that, my friends, is an encapsulation of everything wrong wtih the republican party. They believe something to be true and seek evidence to support that believe, rather than collect evidence and THEN form a conclusion.


DERRRRPPPP.

Even liberals pollsters are taking notice of the Media "corruption" in this race.

Here, a liberal pollster from the Carter/Biden campaigns. He destroys your bullshiat view that the Media isn't in the bag for Obama. He includes a plethora of examples for you to read. But knowing the fark left, since it's fox news they'll dismiss it. Then I'll laugh my ass off when I point out this is merely the transcript of his speech. Even with me pointing this last part out, I bet I get at least one Faux News DERRRP reply.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatenin g -our-country-future/
2012-09-30 05:58:56 PM
1 votes:
Play the reffs, and teach the conspiracy. It's worked for 30 years, so why stop now?
2012-09-30 05:53:33 PM
1 votes:

CruiserTwelve: "I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing," said Ryan. "But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case."

In other words, he thinks the media is biased because he thinks the media is biased.


Before you can decide what CNN's (for instance) bias is, you have to define the Right, Left and Middle first. Is Michelle Bachman the Right? Is Romney? Was Dubya? Is Obama the Left because I don't even consider him a true Liberal.
2012-09-30 05:49:51 PM
1 votes:
The media has a bias alright - its the Drudge bias.
2012-09-30 05:30:52 PM
1 votes:
"I'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing," said Ryan. "But as a conservative, I've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias. And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that's the case."

In other words, he thinks the media is biased because he thinks the media is biased.
2012-09-30 05:27:54 PM
1 votes:

Lurking Fear: All together republicans" "WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

you dug your own holes, idiots.


Exactly and acting like a whiny pussy won't help your case any.

/no offence meant to actually pussies which are awesome
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report