Liberal Media Bias

[Dante]

The media's customers (viewers) are liberal more than politicians want to admit, and the media is a business and has to sell it's product. It's simple economics. Conservatives don't understand that, because they do not undertake economics, supply side or whatever

 

 

How is that gold investment doing Conservatives?

Newspapers going broke. No one watches network news any more except for the old and retarded. Great business model

[RkFast]

Generally, he benefits from selling to less educated, more gullible and hateful people. That's why the gold charlatans flock to buy advertising in the media sector, its easy pickings selling to those idiots

 

 

Yup....thats why Obama says "Republicans want to destroy the environment"...or liberals run ads showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff....or why masses of liberals are parading around the streets, shutting down ports and calling for the hanging of 'banksters.'

 

And for that matter, why Olbermann, Maddow, Garafalo, O'Donnell and best of all, Ed Schultz are so calm, collected and reasonable all...the....time.

 

They are just showing their 'educated', 'refined', 'compassionate' side, you see.

Edited December 30, 2011 by RkFast

[B-Man]

Yup....thats why Obama says "Republicans want to destroy the environment"...or liberals run ads showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff....or why masses of liberals are parading around the streets, shutting down ports and calling for the hanging of 'banksters.'

 

And for that matter, why Olbermann, Maddow, Garafalo, O'Donnell and best of all, Ed Schultz are so calm, collected and reasonable all...the....time.

 

They are just showing their 'educated', 'refined', 'compassionate' side, you see.

 

 

 

You are correct sir, as a conservative, I believe that many liberals proceed from good intentions, though I think their consistently horrendous results certainly entitle us to some skepticism after a while even as to their intentions -- or at least to their ability to see past their oppressive biases.

 

I don't believe, for example, that they are racists because their policies harm minorities. (though they often do) I don't believe they automatically lack compassion just because their policies spread misery.

 

 

 

Yet many liberals do believe that conservatives are evil, uncompassionate racists because our policies don't fit their self-serving, narrow, shallow parameters of "good intentions." Many leftists are so possessed by a need to be morally superior that they can't abide the possibility that conservatives also have noble intentions. So it is that many who believe they are objective, fair and reality-based are FAR LESS SO than the objects of their scorn.

 

 

 

 

.

________________________________________

Edited December 30, 2011 by B-Man

[Alaska Darin]

here's a question: is Sean Hannity impartial?

 

jw

 

Yeah, just as impartial as Matthews, Olberman, Maddow, etc.

 

Anyone who watches any of the major "for profit" networks and believes any of the **** being shoveled at them is nothing more than a lemming.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

 

Yeah, just as impartial as Matthews, Olberman, Maddow, etc.

 

Anyone who watches any of the major "for profit" networks and believes any of the **** being shoveled at them is nothing more than a lemming.

What do you think is a good media source? Do tell us

[Jauronimo]

um, there's this perception that the media leans to the left. whether or not that's true, at the very least blind foolery isn't part of the equation, no?

 

jw

Does the existence of some right leaning media refute the idea that, overall, mainstream media is largely left leaning?

[3rdnlng]

Does the existence of some right leaning media talk show host refute the idea that, overall, mainstream media is largely left leaning?

 

 

fixed

[Delete This Account]

 

Yeah, just as impartial as Matthews, Olberman, Maddow, etc.

 

Anyone who watches any of the major "for profit" networks and believes any of the **** being shoveled at them is nothing more than a lemming.

anyone who cites Hannity as being factual is truly fooling themselves.

 

jw

[Chef Jim]

anyone who cites Hannity as being factual is truly fooling themselves.

 

jw

 

Why do you feel it necessary to pick only Hannity in the comment?

[IDBillzFan]

You are correct sir, as a conservative, I believe that many liberals proceed from good intentions, though I think their consistently horrendous results certainly entitle us to some skepticism after a while even as to their intentions -- or at least to their ability to see past their oppressive biases.

I read this great article last night that addresses this to some extent.

 

Yes, I understand the article is from the right wing American Thinker, and I also understand that many "Republicans" will shill for votes through entitlements, but what you can't help but get from the article is that liberals and conservatives truly have completely different ways of viewing problems; the difference being that while conservatives argue that the liberal approach to a problem is rarely an answer as to the root of the problem, liberals argue that conservatives who argue with them are heartless poopyheaded ninnies who want people to die.

 

From the article:

 

Consider the basic idea of placing an outdoor escalator in an undesirable part of town: both the conservative and the liberal know that, for a little more money, it can be made relatively weatherproof. But both also know that such bells and whistles make breakdowns more likely, more frequent. The liberal doesn't mind -- to him, it's the thought that counts. The conservative minds very much -- he knows that tales of elevator breakdowns in American public housing -- left unrepaired for months or years -- are ubiquitous. It is the conservative who thinks ahead, who contemplates the cost of the increased likelihood of needed repairs, of repairs that will be postponed, for longer and longer intervals, until finally the city loses interest entirely and leaves it a permanent shambles, as befitting its location. The bigger the scale of the do-gooder's project, the more crushing its eventual collapse will be to the community it was unwisely installed to serve.

 

The liberal would assume that this means that the American conservative is heartless, because the liberal sees nothing past the aching ankles and backs of the residents. But the conservative is in fact the one who really cares, because the conservative gauges the effectiveness of a proposal by whether it raises its charges out from poverty or not. The conservative knows that addressing symptoms without addressing the cause is no cure.

 

One of the best definitions of the difference between the conservative and the liberal is this (which I first heard enunciated by Newt Gingrich, though I have no idea whether it's original to him or not): the liberal defines success by how many people he has managed to help through government action; the conservative defines success by how many people he has freed from need of such assistance.

[B-Man]

I read this great article last night that addresses this to some extent.

 

Yes, I understand the article is from the right wing American Thinker, and I also understand that many "Republicans" will shill for votes through entitlements, but what you can't help but get from the article is that liberals and conservatives truly have completely different ways of viewing problems; the difference being that while conservatives argue that the liberal approach to a problem is rarely an answer as to the root of the problem, liberals argue that conservatives who argue with them are heartless poopyheaded ninnies who want people to die.

 

 

 

A very good article, thank you for posting it.

 

 

.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

You're assuming there's motive behind bias. Why not just accept that it's as simple as "Being a member of 'The Fourth Estate' attracts liberals, drawn to the idealism of being a counter-balance to the government. And when you have a group where 80% or better of its members share the same attitudes and ideas, anyone else 'outside' the group is by definition unusual."

 

Bias doesn't have to be conspiratorial, or even directed. It's just as easily (probably more easily) a result of a lack of contrary opinions in an insular like-minded group. Same fundamental lack of plasticity leads to otherwise smart Wall Street types buying shitloads of subprime mortgage bonds because they're all using the exact same risk model.

 

All of this makes sense. However, to the extent that Hearst and Pulitzer permanently exploded the propaganda industry, doesn't mainstream (read: lazy) journalism simply reflect what a pre-conceived (and then market tested) audience wants to hear?

 

And within the dollars and cents schema of big media, wouldn't the aspirations of the idealistic cub reporter be rendered moot?

 

Obama is the most ready example...most are convinced that the media consistently softens the blows earned from his incompetence, but given his exceedingly low approval ratings there MUST be more advertising revenue to be had by twisting the knife, rather than trying to pull it out.

[GG]

All of this makes sense. However, to the extent that Hearst and Pulitzer permanently exploded the propaganda industry, doesn't mainstream (read: lazy) journalism simply reflect what a pre-conceived (and then market tested) audience wants to hear?

 

And within the dollars and cents schema of big media, wouldn't the aspirations of the idealistic cub reporter be rendered moot?

 

Obama is the most ready example...most are convinced that the media consistently softens the blows earned from his incompetence, but given his exceedingly low approval ratings there MUST be more advertising revenue to be had by twisting the knife, rather than trying to pull it out.

 

You are implying that there's a direct connection between the business side of journalism and the reporting side. In reality it is much more nuanced, as most reporters resent the ad folks and balk at attempts by publishers to slant stores. You will always hear stories of editors trying to suppress pieces that are critical of advertisers, but it's more rare than not. There's also the wrong assumption that whenever a reporter writes a piece, he's thinking of boosting readership & advertising. That mindset just doesn't exist for the beat writers. They still need to filter the stories through the editors who have ultimate authority on a piece, but few reporters care about the business side.

[Delete This Account]

Why do you feel it necessary to pick only Hannity in the comment?

because he's someone in a position of power on a network that's very much watched and needs to have his knees buckled, because far too many believe in him.

 

 

You are implying that there's a direct connection between the business side of journalism and the reporting side. In reality it is much more nuanced, as most reporters resent the ad folks and balk at attempts by publishers to slant stores. You will always hear stories of editors trying to suppress pieces that are critical of advertisers, but it's more rare than not. There's also the wrong assumption that whenever a reporter writes a piece, he's thinking of boosting readership & advertising. That mindset just doesn't exist for the beat writers. They still need to filter the stories through the editors who have ultimate authority on a piece, but few reporters care about the business side.

hannity being one of the exceptions

 

jw

Edited January 7, 2012 by john wawrow

[Jim in Anchorage]

because he's someone in a position of power on a network that's very much watched and needs to have his knees buckled, because far too many believe in him.

 

 

 

hannity being one of the exceptions

 

jw

Have you ever considered collecting and publishing your 3 AM posts? God know's I would buy it

[Magox]

I don't think there is so much as a liberal media bias so much as just news bias in general. Most newspaper organizations have been bought over by other corporations thought the last 20 or so years and will display bias toward the agenda of the parent corporation. The agenda is usually getting people to watch, listen, or read so they can sell advertising and make money. So mainly they are picking a demographic, telling them what they want to hear.

 

The reporting also tends to display the bias of the person writing the story. If the majority of the AP tends to have liberal tendencies so will the stories they produce.

 

Just MHO

bull ****!

 

Its a trait sorta deal, people who go into journalism are people for the most part who sympathize with liberal philosophies, thats the answer, plain and simple.

 

The media's customers (viewers) are liberal more than politicians want to admit, and the media is a business and has to sell it's product. It's simple economics. Conservatives don't understand that, because they do not undertake economics, supply side or whatever

 

How do you go through life being so inept?

 

here's a question: is Sean Hannity impartial?

 

jw

You´re better than this

 

In other words, the press doesn't just lean to the left. There is left media bias and there is right media bias. To think that the press only leans left is a delusion.

No one who thinks rationally said only. Come on, lets stop the bull **** here, everyone with any sort of mental capacity knows that the media for the most part is sympathizes with the left.

 

His media corner is a subsection of the media. His advertisers sell to a Conservative audiance, that's why you see so many people selling gold on his show, and on Rush Limbo's show, too. Generally, he benefits from selling to less educated, more gullible and hateful people. That's why the gold charlatans flock to buy advertising in the media sector, its easy pickings selling to those idiots

 

 

The "Main Stream media" has a wider public it has to sell advertising to so its "product," the information it transmits, is less hateful, but more sensational in nature. If it bleeds it leads

Just when I thought your posts couldnt get any dumber.

 

Again (and again) we see this same mistaken argument by the liberal posters on this board (and other sites)

 

Trying desperately to equate the conservative commentators and their shows with the slant that is seen daily in the "so-called" influential newspapers and news programs of the established media.

 

 

Limbaugh and Hannity, and for that matter Lawrence O'Donnel and Rachel Maddow, are paid to give their opinions.

 

The bias that comes out the newsroom is in what stories are actually reported and how they are slanted on the front pages and the newscasts,

 

 

but keep your head in the ground and save the "everyone does it" nonsense for those of you with closed minds.

 

 

 

.

 

Exactly

 

All of this makes sense. However, to the extent that Hearst and Pulitzer permanently exploded the propaganda industry, doesn't mainstream (read: lazy) journalism simply reflect what a pre-conceived (and then market tested) audience wants to hear?

 

And within the dollars and cents schema of big media, wouldn't the aspirations of the idealistic cub reporter be rendered moot?

 

Obama is the most ready example...most are convinced that the media consistently softens the blows earned from his incompetence, but given his exceedingly low approval ratings there MUST be more advertising revenue to be had by twisting the knife, rather than trying to pull it out.

sometimes idealogy trumps practical business sense. Give you a little example, I had a night club in South America, started off the tops in our city, had a group of friends that were DJ´s and etc. after a while, we basically put on the music that we wanted hear more so than some of the customers, end result, club went down in business because of what we desired to hear and dance to.

 

Proof is in the pudding, this analogy works, look at FOX news, WSJ vs other media outlets when it comes to profitability.

 

Case closed.

[B-Man]

Liberal Media Bias- Stage 2

 

Scott wrote this morning about the absurdity of Republican debates being moderated by liberal activists like George Stephanopoulos and David Gregory, who, as Scott put it, are on a mission to take down the candidates by making them appear crazy or by separating them from the base of the Republican Party. But that is just stage one of the liberal presss effort to control the presidential election cycle. Stage two comes when Democratic Party activists posing as journalists report on the proceedings.

 

From now until November, the leading offender likely will be the Associated Press. Today the AP described last nights debate in November; its account began:

 

Three days before the first in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, Romney largely ignored his fellow Republicans and turned instead on President Barack Obama. His policies have made the recession deeper and his policies have made the recovery more tepid, he said, despite a declining unemployment rate and the creation of 200,000 jobs last month.

 

 

The APs gratuitous editorializing is intended to suggest that Romneys assertion that Obamas policies have worsened the recession and weakened the recovery is self-evidently false. But that is absurd: the nations declining unemployment rate is all the way down to 8.5%, whereas it was 7.6% when Obama took office. Moreover, that comparison understates the deterioration in the nations employment since Obama took office, since hundreds of thousands of people have given up and left the labor force. Further, as I noted here, the slow rate of job creation under Obama has made this the slowest recovery from a major recession on record.

 

So it is the Associated Press, not Mitt Romney, that has no idea what it is talking about. Nevertheless, this sort of misleading, biased and outright false editorializing will we constant from now until November.

 

 

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by B-Man

[Delete This Account]

Liberal Media Bias- Stage 2

 

Scott wrote this morning about the absurdity of Republican debates being moderated by liberal activists like George Stephanopoulos and David Gregory, who, as Scott put it, are “on a mission to take down the candidates by making them appear crazy or by separating them from the base of the Republican Party.” But that is just stage one of the liberal press’s effort to control the presidential election cycle. Stage two comes when Democratic Party activists posing as journalists report on the proceedings.

 

From now until November, the leading offender likely will be the Associated Press. Today the AP described last night’s debate in November; its account began:

 

 

 

 

The AP’s gratuitous editorializing is intended to suggest that Romney’s assertion that Obama’s policies have worsened the recession and weakened the recovery is self-evidently false. But that is absurd: the nation’s “declining unemployment rate” is all the way down to 8.5%, whereas it was 7.6% when Obama took office. Moreover, that comparison understates the deterioration in the nation’s employment since Obama took office, since hundreds of thousands of people have given up and left the labor force. Further, as I noted here, the slow rate of job creation under Obama has made this the slowest recovery from a major recession on record.

 

So it is the Associated Press, not Mitt Romney, that has no idea what it is talking about. Nevertheless, this sort of misleading, biased and outright false editorializing will we constant from now until November.

 

 

.

right, the economy needs to continue sucking for a little while longer because who the hell cares about the people. it's all about scoring debating points, no?

 

and that's the trouble with the Republicans right now. they are failing to provide a vision as to what they will do, and instead attempting to score debating points by poking holes in what someone has done -- not for the betterment of the country, but for the betterment of themselves.

it's disappointing. at a time when an incumbent president is vulnerable, and there are bona fide questions about his ability to forcefully govern, the opposition continues down a winding road of blind-foolery by standing up for the rich, who have contributed in putting the country in this mess to begin with.

 

this has the looks of Barry Goldwater vs. LBJ redux.

 

jw

[Magox]

Liberal Media Bias- Stage 2

 

Scott wrote this morning about the absurdity of Republican debates being moderated by liberal activists like George Stephanopoulos and David Gregory, who, as Scott put it, are “on a mission to take down the candidates by making them appear crazy or by separating them from the base of the Republican Party.” But that is just stage one of the liberal press’s effort to control the presidential election cycle. Stage two comes when Democratic Party activists posing as journalists report on the proceedings.

 

From now until November, the leading offender likely will be the Associated Press. Today the AP described last night’s debate in November; its account began:

 

 

 

 

The AP’s gratuitous editorializing is intended to suggest that Romney’s assertion that Obama’s policies have worsened the recession and weakened the recovery is self-evidently false. But that is absurd: the nation’s “declining unemployment rate” is all the way down to 8.5%, whereas it was 7.6% when Obama took office. Moreover, that comparison understates the deterioration in the nation’s employment since Obama took office, since hundreds of thousands of people have given up and left the labor force. Further, as I noted here, the slow rate of job creation under Obama has made this the slowest recovery from a major recession on record.

 

So it is the Associated Press, not Mitt Romney, that has no idea what it is talking about. Nevertheless, this sort of misleading, biased and outright false editorializing will we constant from now until November.

 

 

.

The AP is notorious for this sort of bias, just ask John W. how many of their journalists they hired to fact check Sarah Palin´s first book and how many they hired to cover the flailing economy back in 09.

 

Some good ****

[Delete This Account]

The AP is notorious for this sort of bias, just ask John W. how many of their journalists they hired to fact check Sarah Palin´s first book and how many they hired to cover the flailing economy back in 09.

 

Some good ****

oddly enough, why is it that the "liberal" media is allowed to be questioned, and yet that any criticism of Faux News is verboten. Pravda lives, i guess.

 

jw