Liberal Media Bias

[Juror#8]

Post Script -

 

The 2008 race was pitifully covered; but the coverage was NOT one-sided. And there was a lot of good pub for Palin and McCain on the non-Fox stations. At the same time though, Chris Matthews was VERY critical of Palin (personally so). But he was also critical of Hillary (personally so).

 

McCain was almost universally covered as a principled, intelligent, seasoned vet who, if anything, made a bad decision for running mate. His marital past was superficially touched upon (almost fleetingly so) nationally. The media seemed to accept his claim that he met his current wife after he divorced his former wife even though anecdotally there were suggestions of wholesale infidelity. He basically skated on that **** big time.

 

Palin was covered as a free-spirited, anti-Washington, confident, up-and-coming conservative voice. But she was also covered as a stupid, intellectually incurious, policy-averse, dolt.

 

If you begin peeling apart the 08 election cycle and the coverage thereof, you would be surprised.

 

The point is, reasonable minds can differ.

[B-Man]

Selective memory by some posters.

 

 

Actual study of the coverage at the time. Lengthly, but despite their efforts at downplaying their own figures, it shows that Obama/Biden recieved much less critical attention than McCain/Palin

 

Pew Research

 

[

Winning the Media Campaign How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election

October 22, 2008

 

The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.

 

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

 

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

 

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 24, 2012 by B-Man

[Juror#8]

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

 

Lol. I guess I could respond. However your post speaks volumes in my favor.

[Juror#8]

Selective memory by some posters.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election

 

"This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative. When Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly attacked Lichter’s method during a radio interview, saying it would embolden liberal bias, Lichter responded, 'You can take all my studies or none of my studies'—an allusion to past uses of his work to support conservative views."

 

Yes, that was a study by this Robert Lichter:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Robert_Lichter

 

"Lichter has authored or co-authored fourteen books and over a hundred scholarly articles and monographs on the news and entertainment media. His best-known work, The Media Elite, (written with Stanley Rothman and Linda Lichter) argued that journalists, on average, held more liberal political views than the general public, and that their backgrounds and outlooks affect their coverage of the news......

 

Some critics, such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and the Columbia Journalism Review, have criticized Lichter and the CMPA for holding a conservative bias of their own or for being funded by conservative foundations."

 

What else you got?

 

I apologize in advance for wrecking paradigms here. Let me know if you want to go back to putting smiley faces, declarative statements, and "of course nots" in response to the idea that there is equidistance in the media.

 

And GG, of course this is not an erudite conversation. Nothing of substance here. Meaningfulness? Meh...

[3rdnlng]

Lol. I guess I could respond. However your post speaks volumes in my favor.

 

 

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

 

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

 

 

So, because the only articles I can find about media bias address left leaning media bias, all the bias must come from the right?

[Juror#8]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

 

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

 

 

So, because the only articles I can find about media bias address left leaning media bias, all the bias must come from the right?

 

Absolutely not. That's not what I was saying or inferring.

 

In fact, the point that I'm making is that on balance, there is no media bias. I don't think that there is pervasive bias coming from the right....or the left.

 

There is crappy coverage. There are editorialists and pundits who hate both sides. There are people who remain objective and go all "just the facts" on things. Some seasons you'll have ______, others you'll have ________; it seems to depend on atmospherics.

 

But collectively, there is no appreciably biased media slant.

 

I have tried to provide examples and even some metrics so as to avoid the " ," " ," and " " responses.

 

I guess in some communities they hear something enough that it just because undisputed truth. I wonder how many of them have actually critically analyzed the claim to see if it held water.

 

I have. I was going to write a book about the 2008 Presidential election that never made it beyond the conceptual stage. But the research that went into it was fairly involved.

 

And it caused my paradigms to shift a bit.

 

If you get a chance, you should go back to square one...before you had an ideological disposition...and approach this election cycle - from right around April to late October - as if you were trying to be convinced by the media about who to vote for.

 

You'll surprise yourself.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

In fact, the point that I'm making is that on balance, there is no media bias. I don't think that there is pervasive bias coming from the right....or the left.

 

"On balance"? What balance? Unless you're claiming that NewsCorp's and the Moonies' raving and obvious conservative bias counters, as intended, the subtle and unconscious liberal bias in the rest of the world...

[3rdnlng]

Absolutely not. That's not what I was saying or inferring.

 

In fact, the point that I'm making is that on balance, there is no media bias. I don't think that there is pervasive bias coming from the right....or the left.

 

There is crappy coverage. There are editorialists and pundits who hate both sides. There are people who remain objective and go all "just the facts" on things. Some seasons you'll have ______, others you'll have ________; it seems to depend on atmospherics.

 

But collectively, there is no appreciably biased media slant.

 

I have tried to provide examples and even some metrics so as to avoid the " ," " ," and " " responses.

 

I guess in some communities they hear something enough that it just because undisputed truth. I wonder how many of them have actually critically analyzed the claim to see if it held water.

 

I have. I was going to write a book about the 2008 Presidential election that never made it beyond the conceptual stage. But the research that went into it was fairly involved.

 

And it caused my paradigms to shift a bit.

 

If you get a chance, you should go back to square one...before you had an ideological disposition...and approach this election cycle - from right around April to late October - as if you were trying to be convinced by the media about who to vote for.

 

You'll surprise yourself.

 

 

I've observed the media bias myself. I've backed it up and posted surveys confirming my beliefs. Also, I'm willing to bet that the people you are bunching together here do think for themselves and came to their conclusions independently.

[Magox]

It's like me looking at a red shirt and I say, "hey, thats a red shirt" and you tell me, "that's not red, it's blue", and I'm like "listen here ****, I know what I'm looking at, and its !@#$ing red."

Edited January 24, 2012 by Magox

[Juror#8]

I've observed the media bias myself. I've backed it up and posted surveys confirming my beliefs. Also, I'm willing to bet that the people you are bunching together here do think for themselves and came to their conclusions independently.

 

Awesome.

 

I've backed it up and posted surveys as well. We can both post more but we'll likely not convince one another.

 

I respect your opinion and appreciate the convo.

 

I didn't bunch anyone together "HERE." That comment didn't mention "this," "here," "TSW," "PPP"...

 

It seems like you're trying to instigate.

 

It's like me looking at a red shirt and I say, "hey, thats a red shirt" and you tell me, "that's not red, it's blue", and I'm like "listen here ****, I know what I'm looking at, and its !@#$ing red."

 

Ditto.

[3rdnlng]

Awesome.

 

I've backed it up and posted surveys as well. We can both post more but we'll likely not convince one another.

 

I respect your opinion and appreciate the convo.

 

I didn't bunch anyone together "HERE." That comment didn't mention "this," "here," "TSW," "PPP"...

 

It seems like you're trying to instigate.

 

 

 

Ditto.

 

 

 

"Since an echo chamber community here doesn't object, I guess that it is decidedly so". (from your post #249) This is where I came up with the bunching together comment. I was not trying to instigate.

 

Let me lay out a hypothetical for you:

 

John Smith is a democratic member of the House of Representatives. Jeff Smith is also a member of the House of Representatives but he is a republican. They are both caught diddling with underage boys. In the newspaper reporting how often will they put a (D) behind John Smiths name and how often will they put an ® behind Jeff Smiths name? Same with tv. How often will they mention party for John vs. Jeff? How many times will the stories be repeated and how long will they keep the stories in the news respectively? I see the media favoring the left in a lot of subtle little ways. Look for them, and if you're honest you'll see them.

[Magox]

 

 

 

Ditto.

There is a distinction, you're colorblind.

[PastaJoe]

Blaming the media is just an excuse that conservatives use because they know that myth is red meat for their constituents. "It's the media's fault why people don't like our ideas". It couldn't be that the ideas are bad or benefit a select few. No that couldn't be it.

[Chef Jim]

Blaming the media is just an excuse that conservatives use because they know that myth is red meat for their constituents. "It's the media's fault why people don't like our ideas". It couldn't be that the ideas are bad or benefit a select few. No that couldn't be it.

 

You do realize that conservative ideas are favored in this country don't you? Of course youd don't or you're afraid to admit it.

[Juror#8]

"Since an echo chamber community here doesn't object, I guess that it is decidedly so". (from your post #249) This is where I came up with the bunching together comment. I was not trying to instigate.

 

O.k., thought you were responding to this from post #266:

 

"I guess in some communities they hear something enough that it just because undisputed truth. I wonder how many of them have actually critically analyzed the claim to see if it held water."

 

I think that the presumption was reasonable considering that you quoted my post #266 when making the comment.

 

Either way, I should not have presumed. My apologies for being incorrect.

 

Apropos your second point, the coverage on that goes both ways. For every republican congressman that gets their "R" emphasized in your scenario, there seems to be a democratic congressman who gets their "D" emphasized with respect to financial "indiscretion."

 

Back in 2005 William Jefferson and Duke Cunningham had similiar (though not analagous) issues of financial "indiscretion." William Jefferson and his "D" were all over the place. Duke Cunningham was B-sided.

 

If you remember that, there is no way that you wouldn't remember the skewed reporting. MSNBC was the worst. They plastered Jefferson's name. Cunningman's name would be on the update "crawl" ensconced at the bottom of the tv screen.

 

In fairness, I recognize your points. How about you, and mine?

[PastaJoe]

You do realize that conservative ideas are favored in this country don't you? Of course youd don't or you're afraid to admit it.

 

Conservative ideas aren't what the Republicans promote, except perhaps Ron Paul. I'm for staying out of people's personal lives too, so I guess I'm more conservative than the candidates.

[Chef Jim]

Conservative ideas aren't what the Republicans promote, except perhaps Ron Paul. I'm for staying out of people's personal lives too, so I guess I'm more conservative than the candidates.

 

Go back and read your own post you numbskull.

[Rob's House]

Blaming the media is just an excuse that conservatives use because they know that myth is red meat for their constituents. "It's the media's fault why people don't like our ideas". It couldn't be that the ideas are bad or benefit a select few. No that couldn't be it.

It's the medias fault that so many never get to hear an accurate representation of those ideas.

[3rdnlng]

O.k., thought you were responding to this from post #266:

 

"I guess in some communities they hear something enough that it just because undisputed truth. I wonder how many of them have actually critically analyzed the claim to see if it held water."

 

I think that the presumption was reasonable considering that you quoted my post #266 when making the comment.

 

Either way, I should not have presumed. My apologies for being incorrect.

 

Apropos your second point, the coverage on that goes both ways. For every republican congressman that gets their "R" emphasized in your scenario, there seems to be a democratic congressman who gets their "D" emphasized with respect to financial "indiscretion."

 

Back in 2005 William Jefferson and Duke Cunningham had similiar (though not analagous) issues of financial "indiscretion." William Jefferson and his "D" were all over the place. Duke Cunningham was B-sided.

 

If you remember that, there is no way that you wouldn't remember the skewed reporting. MSNBC was the worst. They plastered Jefferson's name. Cunningman's name would be on the update "crawl" ensconced at the bottom of the tv screen.

 

In fairness, I recognize your points. How about you, and mine?

 

 

I recognize your points, but you seem to use anecdotes to prove a point. They can be effective but I would prefer to make up my own mind from observation and research.

[Rob's House]

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.

I really don't want to do this, because it's basically a rehash of previous posts and I could literally write a thousand pages on the topic, but I'll just give you a few points to chew on.

Everything you mentioned was said on most national media outlets at one time or another. That's not the point. The bias is often far more subtle and often is found in omissions of parts of stories, by the frequency and depth of the story, or by the tone of the story.

 

Sure, Reverand Wright got mentioned. ACORN got mentioned. The criticisms of Obama and Biden got mentioned. But they weren't analyzed with under a microscope and combed over for weeks at a time. And often although both sides of the argument are represented the conservative side is poorly articulated.

 

I know it's anecdotal, but I talked to dozens of average people (those that don't follow politics as closely as everyone here) in the run up to and shortly after the election, and the results were almost identical. Virtually everyone was familiar with the non-story that was "trooper-gate." No one knew anything about Tony Rezco or Bill Ayers. Everyone knew about Palin's daughter, but virtually no one knew about ACORN, which was a two day white washed story on network TV (save your breath, I saw the coverage).

 

Everyone "knew" Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house. No one knew Obama had visited 57 states. No one knew about Biden claiming FDR went on TV in '29 to tell everyone "here's what happened."

 

We were constantly bombarded with the deep concerns of media "experts" who couldn't conceive of the idea of having an inexperienced novice like Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency. But there was no such concern about sending an inexperienced novice with a D next to his name directly to the oval office.

 

Charlie Gibson glared down his pointy nose with his stupid glasses giving Palin the 3rd degree, and she was "exposed" for not knowing the "Bush Doctrine". They never followed up to tell us that Charlie didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was either, or that it's a broad term that has been given multiple meanings by the media, but whatever. Then Katie Couric grills her for an hour looking for a chink in the armor, and when she gets some meat it's blown up.

 

Obama got soft ball interview after softball interview. Every reporter had little Obamas dripping off their chins after interviewing him.

 

There were dozens of reporters sent out to Alaska to dig dirt on Palin and her family. The media didn't even follow up on red hot scandalous leads regarding Obama. The media vetted Joe the !@#$ing Plumber more than they did Obama.

 

There's really no argument. If you have any real facts, other than that "narrative" that you posted before I'd love to hear it, but, and I believe I'm being fair here, if you can't see that the national media was in the tank for this guy from day one and carried his water from the primary to the finish line, it's because you desperately don't want to see it. You don't have to tell me I'm right. I know I'm right, everyone here (including the liberals who don't want to admit it) knows I'm right, and whether you'd like to acknowledge it, you know I'm right.