|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
So? Fox News isn't anywhere near the extreme right, but even most conservatives are willing to concede that it is right-leaning. Most non-conservatives would say that Fox News has very considerable right wing bias.
No one is accusing the mainstream media of being on the extreme, Chomskyite left.
|
On December 07 2008 05:51 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 05:48 QibingZero wrote:On December 07 2008 05:38 Sadist wrote:On December 07 2008 05:34 Savio wrote:
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing. LOL? of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church. It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!" Wait, why is giving to the church a good aspect of religion? For the matter, I can't see why giving people false hope is a good aspect either. Unless you were being sarcastic, of course. I mean, say someone is living in a war torn country or something and their family has been murdered... or they have aids or something. I dont see religion (as long as it isnt fanatical) as that harmful, if it gives them hope and a will to live then I think all is fine. I dont believe false hope is necessarily a bad thing either.
Does Obamamania qualify as "false hope"?
|
Please point me to the nearest Marxist Channel.
Thats right, Marxists are GREAT at telling the truth and being unbiased is their reports. Worked great in the Soviet Union and North Korea. Such truthful governments.
|
It might be a good idea to look into CMPA's own bias... I did a quick google search on "CMPA bias" and this was the first result.
+ Show Spoiler +"Lichter [CMPA's founder][...] is a paid Fox commentator."
"In 1987 and ‘88, the Center looked at 225 PBS documentary programs, concluding that there is a liberal bias in its programming. The study, however, left out some important source material, excluding conservative programming such as William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” and Morton Kondracke’s “American Interests” in order to ensure “a group of programs that were similar in style and content, to maximize the comparability of judgments.” In other words, CMPA stacked the deck in order to demonstrate liberal bias."
"Given the CMPA’s declared “independent” status, it’s also worth looking into where it gets its funding. Again, Media Transparency has the breakdown, and the donor list looks like a “Who’s Who” of conservative foundations. That’s not to say that CMPA is automatically in the pocket of big money conservatism, but [...] foundations generally give out money to those who have viewpoints not too far removed from their own."
|
On December 07 2008 05:45 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left. Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal. I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
Of course it's biased - biased toward corporate interests and preserving the status quo. Is that not obvious? Certain stations are more 'right' or 'left', but even that has little to do with the 'bias' for Obama in this election. He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that. Things were going well, he was up in the polls, and McCain/Palin was absolute failure (denying this is dishonest).
The poster you quoted is right. The notion that any mainstream opinion espoused by the media or prominent political figures in the US is leftist is laughable at best. The 'backing' on that is a little thing called perspective. I suggest investing in some.
|
I'd like to think that I am the most anti-religion poster on TL. I gotta get on that.
|
What about the rest of the data sources I cited later? Remember these:
According to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
|
On another note, what Americans consider "left-wing" the rest of the world considers "moderate-right". So from another perspective, the media is just tending towards the political center, away from the far-right views held in many southern pockets of the country.
|
It's still essentially off-topic.
|
On December 07 2008 05:58 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 05:45 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left. Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal. I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree. He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that.
Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign?
|
Thats right, Marxists are GREAT at telling the truth and being unbiased is their reports. Worked great in the Soviet Union and North Korea. Such truthful governments.
Dear Captain Strawman,
I can see through your ploys.
-L
|
On December 07 2008 05:59 Savio wrote:
What about the rest of the data sources I cited later? Remember these:
According to LA Times survey of journalists:
Yawn. Scary 'liberal bias' in the time of Clinton who had a huge approval rating.
Just like the current 'liberal bias' in reaction to a Democrat possibly replacing the most unpopular president in history.
Do you also claim that the aftermath of 9/11 and the treatment of the Iraq War in the media (during the run-up) were obvious conservative bias?
|
This thread fucking sucks.
|
On December 07 2008 05:59 Savio wrote:What about the rest of the data sources I cited later? Remember these: According to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
hahaha
only 1/4 of people consider themselves liberal because the conservatives have made it a loaded word
somehow I doubt obama won with 23% of liberals americans and 28% conservatives + independents
|
Well, Dukakis pretty much handed Bush Sr. the election in 88, then Clinton won largely in part to Perot stealing a lot of votes in 92. Not sure about 96, but 2000 was a total smear job by Bush and the Rove cronies. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Democratic candidates have run more positive ads in the last few elections.
|
On December 07 2008 06:07 fusionsdf wrote:
hahaha
only 1/4 of people consider themselves liberal because the conservatives have made it a loaded word
somehow I doubt obama won with 23% of liberals americans and 28% conservatives + independents
There are also considerably more registered Democrats than Republicans. 72 million vs 55 million
Doesn't quite fit with what your pie-chart is attempting to convey.
|
On December 07 2008 06:01 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 05:58 QibingZero wrote:On December 07 2008 05:45 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left. Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal. I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree. He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that. Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign?
Despite the fact you're picking and choosing what to respond to, I'll bite.
Your '1988' argument is silly. The study completely disregards the fact that there is far more media coverage now than there was 20 years ago (thus this election has had proportionally more news than the last, and so on). Also note how it conveniently starts after the Reagan years.
Besides that little tidbit - yes, the Democrats usually run the more positive campaign. Look at how incessantly Dukakis was trashed for the tank image, Gore for the internet and the lockbox, and Kerry for the swift boat thing. That stuff was all over the media. Meanwhile, those Democrats stuck to the issues. It was the same thing with this campaign (the attacks on Obama, while Obama always said he respected McCain), it's just that the tactics backfired.
|
I cannot believe we seriously have people denying that there is a strong liberal bias in the media. I say strong as in far reaching, not as in extreme leftist (they aren't THAT bad). I have liberal friends who openly admit most of the media is left slanted. Fox News is the same way, only on the right, and yet get crucified for it.
About this election: Obama won because the republicans have fucked up the last couple of years with bush and all, thats no surprise. It's also no surprise that with HIM WINNING he got more positive news coverage. But it also exposes the bias in years where republicans won. Where were all of the positive news stories then?
|
On December 07 2008 06:17 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:01 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 05:58 QibingZero wrote:On December 07 2008 05:45 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left. Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal. I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree. He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that. Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign? Despite the fact you're picking and choosing what to respond to, I'll bite. Your '1988' argument is silly. The study completely disregards the fact that there is far more media coverage now than there was 20 years ago (thus this election has had proportionally more news than the last, and so on). Also note how it conveniently starts after the Reagan years. Besides that little tidbit - yes, the Democrats usually run the more positive campaign. Look at how incessantly Dukakis was trashed for the tank image, Gore for the internet and the lockbox, and Kerry for the swift boat thing. That stuff was all over the media. Meanwhile, those Democrats stuck to the issues. It was the same thing with this campaign (the attacks on Obama, while Obama always said he respected McCain), it's just that the tactics backfired.
Yes, the democrats sure do run positive campaigns, what with their attack ads and all. Both parties are the same in their campaigns, this is a case of the media portraying it more positively, so people begin to believe it's more positive, like you.
|
What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg)
