Liberal Media Bias

[3rdnlng]

There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform.

 

For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game.

 

"Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself.

 

All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits.

 

 

The curtain isn't opening as slowly anymore.

[Juror#8]

You are one delusional dude.

 

Not with respect to my point about media bias.

[Magox]

Not with respect to my point about media bias.

"There you go again"

[Juror#8]

The curtain isn't opening as slowly anymore.

 

Not sure what you're saying?

 

"There you go again"

 

"I am not worried about the deficit; it's big enough to take care of itself."

[Magox]

Not sure what you're saying?

 

 

 

"I am not worried about the deficit; it's big enough to take care of itself."

umm, the point of the...

 

oh nevermind

[Rob's House]

There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform.

 

For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game.

 

"Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself.

 

All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits.

This reminds me of the best quote from American Beauty: "Never underestimate the power of denial."

[B-Man]

There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform.

 

For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game.

 

"Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself.

 

All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that you will (or should....lol) care, but I want to thank you for this post, because now it puts all your subsequent posts in the proper less significant category.

 

Anyone who is in denial about the left-leaning slant of our major newspapers and network news (non-editorial ) and seeks to explain their view with the "everyone is biased, so it all evens out" meme, certainly should not be taken seriously.

 

This subject has been discussed for years and there is more than ample research that concludes that the U.S. media overwhelmingly starts from a liberal starting point................and no, I will not provide you with examples. You seem an intelligent person, if you wished to resource them, they are everywhere.

 

 

Perhaps you have been reading too much Calvin and Hobbes;

 

"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” ― Bill Watterson

 

 

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Not sure what you're saying?

 

 

"I am not worried about the deficit; it's big enough to take care of itself."

 

 

I know of no conservative, moderate--conservative or moderate who doesn't believe that the mainstream media is left leaning and biased.

[Juror#8]

So since you, Magox, and Rob's House say that it is, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Since an echo chamber community here doesn't object, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Here is where we're at with this...there are plenty of studies that show that news coverage is liberal and that news coverage is conservative.

 

When you account for media in the aggregate (print, television, radio, internet) - the thousands of outlets, the millions of personalities - there is no wonder that opinions are mixed and studies have arrived at different conclusions.

 

So with no data consensus, I go by what I see and what I hear and based on conversations with colleagues.

 

I think that there is a fairly even balance, when you look at things aggregately, that may tilt left or right depending on atmospherics. From 2000-2004, news coverage (in the aggregate) was decidedly conservative. 2006 seemed to be a VERY liberal media year, when looking at things aggregately.

 

But this "all eggs in the basket" boogey man stuff is naive and lacks nuance.

[DC Tom]

So since you, Magox, and Rob's House say that it is, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Since an echo chamber community here doesn't object, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Here is where we're at with this...there are plenty of studies that show that news coverage is liberal and that news coverage is conservative.

 

When you account for media in the aggregate (print, television, radio, internet) - the thousands of outlets, the millions of personalities - there is no wonder that opinions are mixed and studies have arrived at different conclusions.

 

So with no data consensus, I go by what I see and what I hear and based on conversations with colleagues.

 

I think that there is a fairly even balance, when you look at things aggregately, that may tilt left or right depending on atmospherics. From 2000-2004, news coverage (in the aggregate) was decidedly conservative. 2006 seemed to be a VERY liberal media year, when looking at things aggregately.

 

But this "all eggs in the basket" boogey man stuff is naive and lacks nuance.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/140466-liberal-media-bias/page__view__findpost__p__2348530

 

 

But even more strongly, the media is biased towards profit.

[Rob's House]

So since you, Magox, and Rob's House say that it is, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Since an echo chamber community here doesn't object, I guess that it is decidedly so.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Here is where we're at with this...there are plenty of studies that show that news coverage is liberal and that news coverage is conservative.

 

When you account for media in the aggregate (print, television, radio, internet) - the thousands of outlets, the millions of personalities - there is no wonder that opinions are mixed and studies have arrived at different conclusions.

 

So with no data consensus, I go by what I see and what I hear and based on conversations with colleagues.

 

I think that there is a fairly even balance, when you look at things aggregately, that may tilt left or right depending on atmospherics. From 2000-2004, news coverage (in the aggregate) was decidedly conservative. 2006 seemed to be a VERY liberal media year, when looking at things aggregately.

 

But this "all eggs in the basket" boogey man stuff is naive and lacks nuance.

I could write a page long post on this, but what's the point? The last election cycle was so obscenely over the top that the issue isn't worth debating. If you couldn't recognize the bias when the overwhelming majority of national media got their pom poms and started shamelessly cheerleading for Obama there's nothing I could say to make that point any clearer.

Next I expect you'll suggest sports media covers the Bills like they do the Pats, Albert Haynesworth is a nice guy, and Trent Edwards is a good QB.

[Juror#8]

 

"It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.” ― Bill Watterson

 

"Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other."

[Rob's House]

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/140466-liberal-media-bias/page__view__findpost__p__2348530

 

 

But even more strongly, the media is biased towards profit.

I'm not so sure. A lot of major outlets who could certainly have used the ratings declined to carry or explore potential scandals involving Obama in the run up to the election. Those stories would have drawn a lot of attention & I'm at a loss to find the profit motive behind the decision not to run with them.

[B-Man]

"Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other."

 

 

 

And there is a good example of your difficulty with this,

 

you seem to want to catagorize any statement of the media left-leaning as originating from a "Partisan" basis,

 

while the majority of the world, that is willing to look at the media's actual statements, easily reach the conclusion that most news reports have some liberal bias somewhere in the story, (or by what is left out)

 

Both left and right, media members and public, can acknowledge this, its a shame that you cannot.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 24, 2012 by B-Man

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Another example of the mainstream bias is look how Tim Thomas is being treated by the drive by media right now.

 

compare that to the likes of the Hollywood elites bashing on bush relentlessly for 7.5 years.

[Juror#8]

I could write a page long post on this, but what's the point? The last election cycle was so obscenely over the top that the issue isn't worth debating. If you couldn't recognize the bias when the overwhelming majority of national media got their pom poms and started shamelessly cheerleading for Obama there's nothing I could say to make that point any clearer.

Next I expect you'll suggest sports media covers the Bills like they do the Pats, Albert Haynesworth is a nice guy, and Trent Edwards is a good QB.

 

I watched the entire election cycle in 2008. I watched every debate either live, CSpan or recorded. I watched news programs beginning with "Morning Joe" at 6, and ended with O'Reilly's re-run at 11.

 

I have an absolutely different opinion...so much so that I'm questioning whether or not you watched what could even be considered an appreciable amount of coverage during that cycle.

 

There was fawning over Palin, an admiration with Hillary, and a curiosity about Obama that began favorable but then that devolved into something personally critical.

 

With Palin, it was so partial, that commentators on Fox were discussing how Biden couldn't be his characteristically boarish self during their debate, because of how it would play in 60 second sound-bytes after the fact.

 

Therefore, the WH was working on different ways to delicately handle points of contention.

 

So the consensus was that she did phenomenally post-debate....however, Biden couldn't fairly critique her as a candidate.

 

It was really bad.

 

Now were Clinton, Palin, and Obama criticized and lauded. Yep. It's the extent to which those things happened that was suspect.

 

The bolded point above is what I was mentioning when I discussed "self-contained" arguments; e.g., "this is so obvious, that I don't have to discuss it." (I'm looking out for ya by the way, because you'll get Rule 56'd out playing that game. I'm not stipulating, so present your case).

 

It's not obvious. You're not the sky and your argument is not blue. Reasonable minds can differ and my observation is different than yours. You can provide metrics, and I can offset those.

 

So you're left fighting this out anecdotally.

 

And I'm your huckleberry.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[Rob's House]

I watched the entire election cycle in 2008. I watched every debate either live, CSpan or recorded. I watched news programs beginning with "Morning Joe" at 6, and ended with O'Reilly's re-run at 11.

 

I have an absolutely different opinion...so much so that I'm questioning whether or not you watched what could even be considered an appreciable amount of coverage during that cycle.

 

There was fawning over Palin, an admiration with Hillary, and a curiosity about Obama that began favorable but then that devolved into something personally critical.

 

With Palin, it was so partial, that commentators on Fox were discussing how Biden couldn't be his characteristically boarish self during their debate, because of how it would play in 60 second sound-bytes after the fact.

 

Therefore, the WH was working on different ways to delicately handle points of contention.

 

So the consensus was that she did phenomenally post-debate....however, Biden couldn't fairly critique her as a candidate.

 

It was really bad.

 

Now were Clinton, Palin, and Obama criticized and lauded. Yep. It's the extent to which those things happened that was suspect.

 

The bolded point above is what I was mentioning when I discussed "self-contained" arguments; e.g., "this is so obvious, that I don't have to discuss it." (I'm looking out for ya by the way, because you'll get Rule 56'd out playing that game. I'm not stipulating, so present your case).

 

It's not obvious. You're not the sky and your argument is not blue. Reasonable minds can differ and my observation is different than yours. You can provide metrics, and I can offset those.

 

So you're left fighting this out anecdotally.

 

And I'm your huckleberry.

I think you're giving a lot of weight to Fox. Take Fox out of the equation and there was nothing but skepticism for McCain/Palin and poitive optimism for Obama/Biden.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Rob's House

[Juror#8]

I think you're giving a lot of weight to Fox. Take Fox out of the equation and there was nothing but skepticism for McCain/Palin and poitive optimism for Obama/Biden.

 

I respect your point.

 

How about these narratives? Stop me when it rings a bell:

 

Obama is an aspirational character, a refreshing voice, who is promising the world but hasn't done anything to suggest that he can deliver on those promises. He is an politically-inexperienced academic whose only meaningful public service appointment was that of a community organizer in South Chicago. He pals around with _______, was mentored by a racist demagogue, and a hippie revolutionary, and whose allegiance, religion, and patriotism could be subterfuge so an elevated level of vetting is necessary.

 

Biden is a brash, boarish, indelicate career politician whose foreign policy bona fides is considerably outweighed by his self-serving personal nature and innability to recognize an extant chain of command. He can't keep his mouth shut, he is perilously extemporaneous in conversation, and he is good for one campaign trail gaffe at every campaign stop.

 

Those narratives ran on MSNBC, CNN, national news, Washington Post, NY Times, et cetera, et cetera.

 

No conjecture. Fact.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[Alaska Darin]

There is no "liberal media bias," not in traditional news outlets and especially not in cable news. For every Dan Rather, running bs stories about Bush, you had John Stossel on ABC, making bs comments about Clinton, and trumpeting tort reform.

 

For every story slanted in one direction, you'll find another outlet that slants in the opposite direction...enough that it becomes a zero sum game.

 

"Liberal media bias" is the product of a weird and degenerative slippery-slopishness that is now a self-contained entity unto itself.

 

All that crap is just boogeymanism...so that an audience can preemptively tune out a story without ever having to hear the merits.

[3rdnlng]

I respect your point.

 

How about these narratives? Stop me when it rings a bell:

 

Obama is an aspirational character, a refreshing voice, who is promising the world but hasn't done anything to suggest that he can deliver on those promises. He is an politically-inexperienced academic whose only meaningful public service appointment was that of a community organizer in South Chicago. He pals around with _______, was mentored by a racist demagogue, and a hippie revolutionary, and whose allegiance, religion, and patriotism could be subterfuge so an elevated level of vetting is necessary.

 

Biden is a brash, boarish, indelicate career politician whose foreign policy bona fides is considerably outweighed by his self-serving personal nature and innability to recognize an extant chain of command. He can't keep his mouth shut, he is perilously extemporaneous in conversation, and he is good for one campaign trail gaffe at every campaign stop.

 

Those narratives ran on MSNBC, CNN, national news, Washington Post, NY Times, et cetera, et cetera.

 

No conjecture. Fact.

 

Here's a fraction of what I found when I searched "left media bias":

 

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

 

This is what I found when I searched "right media bias".

 

http://www.notaphuckingthing.com