Do you believe the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

nearly 70% see a liberal bias and 16% see a conservative bias. You can try to blow that off as a bias of the FBG population, but FBGers are among the straightest shooters at the net.

The results don't really surprise me. I don't think that the results contribute in any way to the veracity of the statement, one way or the other.But they DO suggest one thing, IMO, and that is that while most liberals and independents probably don't have much of an opinion on this issue (because they don't spend too much time thinking about it), the vast majority of conservatives are strongly opinionated on this.

 

[squistion]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

Do you listen to progressive radio stations? Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow are awesome.

I clicked on the Rhodes link and she had a rather amusing take IMO on the Weiner Presser.

Wow, have you ever seen anything in your life as bizarre as that Weiner presser? Usually I’d call it anything other than a “Weiner presser,” but that seems oddly appropriate. That was tough to watch… very uncomfortable. It looked almost as uncomfortable as those briefs the Congressman was wearing in the photo. At least it now seems to be the standard procedure not to drag your poor wife up to the podium for these things. I don’t know what finally killed that practice, though I suspect it might have been the outfit that David Vitter’s poor wife wore for her moment in the spotlight. I don’t want to say that was a circus, but the only thing that could have followed Anthony Weiner would have been a bear in a tutu riding a motorcycle. And I’m pretty sure Andrew Breitbart would have tried to horn in on the bear too.

Andrew Breitbart took the mic! This isn’t a hip hop show, Andrew. It was probably a good thing for Anthony Weiner that Andrew Breitbart showed up. I’m sure the whole event was mortifying for Anthony Weiner, but as long as Andrew Breitbart is anywhere, then Breitbart is the biggest embarrassment in the room. After Weiner started talking, you could have heard a pin drop… as opposed to when Andrew Breitbart was talking—then all you could hear was a pinhead.

Wow. Now women who have exchanged salacious contacts with Anthony Weiner seem to be coming out of the woodwork. It seems that Anthony Weiner was really giving his thumbs a workout, at the very least. According to Radar Online, Wiener had numerous cyber-sex sessions with a 40-year old Las Vegas blackjack dealer. At least she was 40 years old. The same rule that applies in blackjack also applies in cyber-sex—never hit on 17!

Can Weiner retain his seat? Weiner’s district straddles Brooklyn and Queens, though we should probably avoid the term “straddles” at least for a little while. It’s always been Weiner’s ambition to be mayor of New York City anyway. Can New York City still accept Anthony Weiner? Why not? New York City is used to wieners with questionable taste.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

Do you listen to progressive radio stations? Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow are awesome.

I clicked on the Rhodes link and she had a rather amusing take IMO on the Weiner Presser.

Wow, have you ever seen anything in your life as bizarre as that Weiner presser? Usually I'd call it anything other than a "Weiner presser," but that seems oddly appropriate. That was tough to watch… very uncomfortable. It looked almost as uncomfortable as those briefs the Congressman was wearing in the photo. At least it now seems to be the standard procedure not to drag your poor wife up to the podium for these things. I don't know what finally killed that practice, though I suspect it might have been the outfit that David Vitter's poor wife wore for her moment in the spotlight. I don't want to say that was a circus, but the only thing that could have followed Anthony Weiner would have been a bear in a tutu riding a motorcycle. And I'm pretty sure Andrew Breitbart would have tried to horn in on the bear too.

Andrew Breitbart took the mic! This isn't a hip hop show, Andrew. It was probably a good thing for Anthony Weiner that Andrew Breitbart showed up. I'm sure the whole event was mortifying for Anthony Weiner, but as long as Andrew Breitbart is anywhere, then Breitbart is the biggest embarrassment in the room. After Weiner started talking, you could have heard a pin drop… as opposed to when Andrew Breitbart was talking—then all you could hear was a pinhead.

Wow. Now women who have exchanged salacious contacts with Anthony Weiner seem to be coming out of the woodwork. It seems that Anthony Weiner was really giving his thumbs a workout, at the very least. According to Radar Online, Wiener had numerous cyber-sex sessions with a 40-year old Las Vegas blackjack dealer. At least she was 40 years old. The same rule that applies in blackjack also applies in cyber-sex—never hit on 17!

Can Weiner retain his seat? Weiner's district straddles Brooklyn and Queens, though we should probably avoid the term "straddles" at least for a little while. It's always been Weiner's ambition to be mayor of New York City anyway. Can New York City still accept Anthony Weiner? Why not? New York City is used to wieners with questionable taste.

Sweet. She is incredibly well-read on issues. She read the entire Patriot Act, for example.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

Jon, you and I have no idea how many people on this board are Democrat or Republican. That skews any poll taken here. And furthermore, you seem immune to the fact that our media is a corporate media. So if, for the sake of argument, 100% of reporters were radical liberals, these Liberals do not control the content of the news, nor do they decide what is censored. All of the mainstream media answers to its corporate masters, and corporations are far from Liberal.

 

[Statorama]

I voted for the leader, but still shocked at the poll results.

 

[squistion]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

Jon, you and I have no idea how many people on this board are Democrat or Republican. That skews any poll taken here. And furthermore, you seem immune to the fact that our media is a corporate media. So if, for the sake of argument, 100% of reporters were radical liberals, these Liberals do not control the content of the news, nor do they decide what is censored. All of the mainstream media answers to its corporate masters, and corporations are far from Liberal.

Based on polls over the years, I have always felt that about 70% here represent what can be characterized as the Republican base. Several times there have been polls asking "Should an employer be able to discriminate in hiring for any reason?" (race/gender/religion/sexual orientation) and consistently close to 70% have voted yes, such discrimation should be allowed. It is a laughable to say a vote here represents "the truth from the objective point of view."

 

[jdoggydogg]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

Jon, you and I have no idea how many people on this board are Democrat or Republican. That skews any poll taken here. And furthermore, you seem immune to the fact that our media is a corporate media. So if, for the sake of argument, 100% of reporters were radical liberals, these Liberals do not control the content of the news, nor do they decide what is censored. All of the mainstream media answers to its corporate masters, and corporations are far from Liberal.

Based on polls over the years, I have always felt that about 70% here represent what can be characterized as the Republican base. Several times there have been polls asking "Should an employer be able to discriminate in hiring for any reason?" (race/gender/religion/sexual orientation) and consistently close to 70% have voted yes, such discrimation should be allowed. It is a laughable to say a vote here represents "the truth from the objective point of view."

Yes. And furthermore, the majority of the American public still trusts mainstream news as an independent source for information. So this question of "is there a Liberal bias" is far less important than the question, "Should we trust the mainstream media?" The answer is no.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

Jon, you and I have no idea how many people on this board are Democrat or Republican. That skews any poll taken here. And furthermore, you seem immune to the fact that our media is a corporate media. So if, for the sake of argument, 100% of reporters were radical liberals, these Liberals do not control the content of the news, nor do they decide what is censored. All of the mainstream media answers to its corporate masters, and corporations are far from Liberal.

This corporate conspiracy makes no sense. There is no unified corporate agenda except to beat the competition and to make momey. Corporations don't care about 95% of the news stories. The board of directors are not meeting with editorial staff telling them how to slant stories or what to report. If there is an inluence it is a rare occurrence. I have seen enough polls on this forum to have a good feel for what the bias is and isn't. If anything, this board has a very indepedant outlook and support liberals on social issues and conservatives on fiscal ones. The Dem vs. GOP split is fairly representative of the general population.

 

[CBusAlex]

I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up.

That is funny actually, because I am the one who gets attacked more than anyone of this forum.

 

[geoff8695]

Media bias has been a reality since the invention of the printing press. It certainly exists today and has been documented in studies, polls, surveys, etc. as having been leftward leaning for decades now in America.

The poll simply reflects that most FBGs understand this and don't feel the need to perform mental gymnastics to rationalize a baseless conclusion to the contrary.

 

[jon_mx]

I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up.

That is funny actually, because I am the one who gets attacked more than anyone of this forum.

That was when my resident stalker was around.

 

[Defenze]

I thought the original question for this thread was: Do you believe the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias? I rather think that is a rhetorical question. Had you asked that question in say 1975 you may have been able to debate the answer. Not in 2011. The answer to the question is resounding yes it is. If anyone would love to read or study this subject I point you toward a book by Benard Goldberg entitled "Bias", A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" Goldberg was a CBS reporter for 30 years and gives a blistering account of what it was like to work for the liberal slanted network.

You see it's not of a question of, "is the mainstream media liberal"? They are liberal. But the question should be are they honest enough to admit that they are? Fox has numerous reporters and commentators and analyst (O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto etc) who readily admits on a regular basis that they are right leaning and conservetive. They are not dishonest about it. They do not hide it or deny it. In fact they are very proud of it. This is exactly why the majority of news watchers in America watch Fox news more than all the other networks combined. They know what their getting. Americans appreciate honesty in news reporting.

Alas at NBC, ABC,CBS, MSNBC, this is not the case. They fain ignorance and deny any sort of bias in their reporting. When confronted by their numbers they can't understand why no one is watching them. They slant the news so far left that is has become laughable at times. CBS tried to boost ratings by replacing an aging Dan Rather with Katie Couric and rating continued to drop. Why? In this case it wasn't just the messager but the way it was being presented. People had lost faith in CBS because of it refusal to admit it's liberal slant on things. And to replace Rather with a liberal women was the straw that broke the camels back for some.

So my answer to the question in this thread is yes. The mainstream media is liberal and left wing bias. My question would be when will the "liberal slanted media" admit it.

Did any of you people who are continuing this thread bother to read this post?. The results of this poll should be taken at face value. Nearly 50% believe the mainstream media is left leaning and biased. To continue to argue the point is useless. They are liberal and biased. The question should be then: Are they honest enough to admit it?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

There's two separate questions. Does the media have a bias, and does it show in the reporting?I don't know how anyone can doubt that the majority of the people that work in "mainstream media," however you define it, lean left. There's been studies on it. There's the general trend of the endorsements in the op-ed pages. Anyone who has spent time with large groups of reporters would tell you the same from an anecdotal standpoint. The more important question- in my opinion the only important question- is whether the media's political biases show in their work. A slight majority say it doesn't, or that it shows a "conservative or corporate" bias- a poorly worded option since most media outlets are corporations so they might be expected to have a corporate bias or at least be perceived that way.

 

[Ilov80s]

For those who voted for the first or last option here, did you ever consider that maybe it isn't mass media, but actually you yourself that has the conservative/liberal bias?

 

[jdoggydogg]

This corporate conspiracy makes no sense. There is no unified corporate agenda except to beat the competition and to make momey. Corporations don't care about 95% of the news stories. The board of directors are not meeting with editorial staff telling them how to slant stories or what to report. If there is an inluence it is a rare occurrence.

I have seen enough polls on this forum to have a good feel for what the bias is and isn't. If anything, this board has a very indepedant outlook and support liberals on social issues and conservatives on fiscal ones. The Dem vs. GOP split is fairly representative of the general population.

Jon, there's no theory. It's a fact. There is absolutely a unified agenda. I'd like you to tell me which network news shows you saw these stories reported.

1. GOOD-BYE, HABEAS CORPUS

The Military Commissions Act, passed in September 2006 as a last gasp of the Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Bush that Oct. 17, made significant changes to the nation's judicial system.

The law allows the president to designate any person an "alien unlawful enemy combatant," shunting that individual into an alternative court system in which the writ of habeas corpus no longer applies, the right to a speedy trial is gone, and justice is meted out by a military tribunal that can admit evidence obtained through coercion and presented without the accused in the courtroom, all under the guise of preserving national security.

Investigative journalist Robert Parry disagrees. The right of habeas corpus no longer exists for any of us, he wrote in the online journal Consortium. Deep down in the lower sections of the act, the language shifts from the very specific "alien unlawful enemy combatant" to the vague "any person subject to this chapter." — read more from the San Francisco Bay Guardian

2. MARTIAL LAW: COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU

The Military Commissions Act was part of a one-two punch to civil liberties. While the first blow to habeas corpus received some attention, there was almost no media coverage of a private Oval Office ceremony held the same day the military act was signed at which Bush signed the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, a $532 billion catchall bill for defense spending.

The Warner act defines a public emergency as a "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any state or possession of the United States" and extends its provisions to any place where "the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order." On top of that, federal troops can be dispatched to "suppress, in a state, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

So everything from a West Nile virus outbreak to a political protest could fall into the president's personal definition of mayhem. That's right — put your picket signs away. — read more from Daily Kos

3. AFRICOM

President Jimmy Carter was the first to draw a clear line between America's foreign policy and its concurrent "vital interest" in oil. During his 1980 State of the Union address, he said, "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Though the official objective may be peace, some say the real desire is crude. "A new cold war is under way in Africa, and AFRICOM will be at the dark heart of it," Bryan Hunt wrote on the Moon of Alabama blog, which covers politics, economics, and philosophy. Most US oil imports come from African countries — in particular, Nigeria. According to the 2007 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, "disruption of supply from Nigeria would represent a major blow to US oil-security strategy." read more from Best Articles

4. SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

As disappointing as the World Trade Organization has been, it has provided something of an open forum in which smaller countries can work together to demand concessions from larger, developed nations when brokering multilateral agreements. — read more from The IT Online

5. SHANGHAIED SLAVES CONSTRUCT US EMBASSY IN IRAQ

Part of the permanent infrastructure the United States is erecting in Iraq includes the world's largest embassy, built on Green Zone acreage equal to that of Vatican City. The $592 million job was awarded in 2005 to First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting. Though much of the project's management is staffed by Americans, most of the workers are from small or developing countries like the Philippines, India, and Pakistan and, according to David Phinney of CorpWatch — a Bay Area organization that investigates and exposes corporate environmental crimes, fraud, corruption, and violations of human rights — are recruited under false pretenses. At the airport, their boarding passes read Dubai. Their passports are stamped Dubai. But when they get off the plane, they're in Baghdad.

Once on site, they're often beaten and paid as little as $10 to $30 a day, CorpWatch concludes. Injured workers are dosed with heavy-duty painkillers and sent back on the job. Lodging is crowded, and food is substandard. One ex-foreman, who's worked on five other US embassies around the world, said, "I've never seen a project more ####ed up. Every US labor law was broken." — read more from SFBG

6. FALCON'S TALONS

Operation FALCON, or Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, is, in many ways, the manifestation of martial law forewarned by Frank Morales (see story 2). In an unprecedented partnership, more than 960 federal, state, and local police agencies teamed up in 2005 and 2006 to conduct the largest dragnet raids in US history. Armed with fistfuls of arrest warrants, they ran three separate raids around the country that netted 30,110 criminal arrests.

The Justice Department claimed the agents were targeting the "worst of the worst" criminals, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, "Operation FALCON is an excellent example of President Bush's direction and the Justice Department's dedication to deal both with the terrorist threat and traditional violent crime."

However, as writer Mike Whitney points out on Uruknet.info, none of the suspects has been charged with anything related to terrorism. Additionally, while 30,110 individuals were arrested, only 586 firearms were found. That doesn't sound very violent either. — read more from San Antonio Current

7. BLACKWATER

The outsourcing of war has served two purposes for the Bush administration, which has given powerful corporations and private companies lucrative contracts supplying goods and services to American military operations overseas and quietly achieved an escalation of troops beyond what the public has been told or understands. — read more at Bohemia.com

8. KIA: THE NEOLIBERAL INVASION OF INDIA

A March 2006 pact under which the United States agreed to supply nuclear fuel to India for the production of electric power also included a less-publicized corollary — the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture. While it's purportedly a deal to assist Indian farmers and liberalize trade (see story 4), critics say the initiative is destroying India's local agrarian economy by encouraging the use of genetically modified seeds, which in turn is creating a new market for pesticides and driving up the overall cost of producing crops. — read more from Mostly Water

9. THE PRIVATIZATION OF AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE

In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ushered through legislation for the greatest public works project in human history — the interstate highway system, 41,000 miles of roads funded almost entirely by the federal government.

Fifty years later many of those roads are in need of repair or replacement, but the federal government has not exactly risen to the challenge. Instead, more than 20 states have set up financial deals leasing the roads to private companies in exchange for repairs. These public-private partnerships are being lauded by politicians as the only credible financial solution to providing the public with improved services.

But opponents of all political stripes are criticizing the deals as theft of public property. They point out that the bulk of benefits is actually going to the private side of the equation — in many cases, to foreign companies with considerable experience building private roads in developing countries. In the United States these companies are entering into long-term leases of infrastructure like roads and bridges, for a low amount. They work out tax breaks to finance the repairs, raise tolls to cover the costs, and start realizing profits for their shareholders in as little as 10 years. — read more at Daily Kos

10. VULTURE FUNDS: DEVOURING THE DESPERATE

Named for a bird that picks offal from a carcass, this financial scheme couldn't be more aptly described. Well-endowed companies swoop in and purchase the debt owed by a third world country, then turn around and sue the country for the full amount — plus interest. In most courts, they win. Recently, Donegal International spent $3 million for $40 million worth of debt Zambia owed Romania, then sued for $55 million. In February an English court ruled that Zambia had to pay $15 million.

Often these countries are on the brink of having their debt relieved by the lenders in exchange for putting the owed money toward necessary goods and services for their citizens. But the vultures effectively initiate another round of deprivation for the impoverished countries by demanding full payment, and a loophole makes it legal.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast broke the story for the BBC's Newsnight, saying that "the vultures have already sucked up about $1 billion in aid meant for the poorest nations, according to the World Bank in Washington."

With the exception of the BBC and Democracy Now!, no major news source has touched the story, though it's incensed several members of Britain's Parliament as well as the new prime minister, Gordon Brown. US Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Donald Payne (D-N.J.) lobbied Bush to take action as well, but political will may be elsewhere. Debt Advisory International, an investment consulting firm that's been involved in several vulture funds that have generated millions in profits, is run by Paul Singer — the largest fundraiser for the Republican Party in the state of New York. He's donated $1.7 million to Bush's campaigns. — read more from Project Censored

 

[jon_mx]

1. GOOD-BYE, HABEAS CORPUS

....The right of habeas corpus no longer exists for any of us...

2. MARTIAL LAW: COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU

3. AFRICOM

4. SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

5. SHANGHAIED SLAVES CONSTRUCT US EMBASSY IN IRAQ

6. FALCON'S TALONS

Operation FALCON, or Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, is, in many ways, the manifestation of martial law forewarned by Frank Morales

7. BLACKWATER

The outsourcing of war has served two purposes for the Bush administration, which has given powerful corporations and private companies lucrative contracts supplying goods and services to American military operations overseas and quietly achieved an escalation of troops beyond what the public has been told or understands.

When does the mothership arrive?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, come on. Liberals are highly opinionated about the media. The hundreds of anti-Fox threads clearly shows that. I stand by my assertion that FBG is a highly intelligent group who shoot straight when they are not schticking it up. If 70% think the media is liberally bias, you can bank on it that is the truth from the objective point of view.

There's two separate questions. Does the media have a bias, and does it show in the reporting?I don't know how anyone can doubt that the majority of the people that work in "mainstream media," however you define it, lean left. There's been studies on it. There's the general trend of the endorsements in the op-ed pages. Anyone who has spent time with large groups of reporters would tell you the same from an anecdotal standpoint.

The more important question- in my opinion the only important question- is whether the media's political biases show in their work. A slight majority say it doesn't, or that it shows a "conservative or corporate" bias- a poorly worded option since most media outlets are corporations so they might be expected to have a corporate bias or at least be perceived that way.

No, there was one question asked, and 70% of the people selected an answer which started with Yes,. Seriously, you want to spin that as a "slight majority say it doesn't."

 

[jdoggydogg]

1. GOOD-BYE, HABEAS CORPUS

....The right of habeas corpus no longer exists for any of us...

2. MARTIAL LAW: COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU

3. AFRICOM

4. SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

5. SHANGHAIED SLAVES CONSTRUCT US EMBASSY IN IRAQ

6. FALCON'S TALONS

Operation FALCON, or Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, is, in many ways, the manifestation of martial law forewarned by Frank Morales

7. BLACKWATER

The outsourcing of war has served two purposes for the Bush administration, which has given powerful corporations and private companies lucrative contracts supplying goods and services to American military operations overseas and quietly achieved an escalation of troops beyond what the public has been told or understands.

When does the mothership arrive?

So I guess this is the end of the conversation. I've posted real stories from a reputable news gathering organization, and you're willing to dismiss them with a casual joke. If your theory about the liberal media manipulating the narrative was true, then these stories would be all over the news.

 

[jon_mx]

1. GOOD-BYE, HABEAS CORPUS

....The right of habeas corpus no longer exists for any of us...

2. MARTIAL LAW: COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU

3. AFRICOM

4. SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

5. SHANGHAIED SLAVES CONSTRUCT US EMBASSY IN IRAQ

6. FALCON'S TALONS

Operation FALCON, or Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, is, in many ways, the manifestation of martial law forewarned by Frank Morales

7. BLACKWATER

The outsourcing of war has served two purposes for the Bush administration, which has given powerful corporations and private companies lucrative contracts supplying goods and services to American military operations overseas and quietly achieved an escalation of troops beyond what the public has been told or understands.

When does the mothership arrive?

So I guess this is the end of the conversation. I've posted real stories from a reputable news gathering organization, and you're willing to dismiss them with a casual joke. Have fun living in that dreamworld of yours.

Martial law...end of our rights...slave labor. Most of those stories are known, but you use sources which wrap them in over the top rhetoric that make them a joke.

 

[jdoggydogg]

1. GOOD-BYE, HABEAS CORPUS

....The right of habeas corpus no longer exists for any of us...

2. MARTIAL LAW: COMING TO A TOWN NEAR YOU

3. AFRICOM

4. SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

5. SHANGHAIED SLAVES CONSTRUCT US EMBASSY IN IRAQ

6. FALCON'S TALONS

Operation FALCON, or Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally, is, in many ways, the manifestation of martial law forewarned by Frank Morales

7. BLACKWATER

The outsourcing of war has served two purposes for the Bush administration, which has given powerful corporations and private companies lucrative contracts supplying goods and services to American military operations overseas and quietly achieved an escalation of troops beyond what the public has been told or understands.

When does the mothership arrive?

So I guess this is the end of the conversation. I've posted real stories from a reputable news gathering organization, and you're willing to dismiss them with a casual joke. Have fun living in that dreamworld of yours.

Martial law...end of our rights...slave labor. Most of those stories are known, but you use sources which wrap them in over the top rhetoric that make them a joke.

Ok. I agree that the headlines are hyperbolic. Several streams occurring here, so I'll parse them separately:



The Liberal Media™

I've already noted the study that shows the majority of reporters are more likely to be Liberal. But, as another member noted, this doesn't prove any identifiable bias. I don't know how many reporters you've seen interviewed, but the hardcore guys like Matt Taibi are just as critical of Obama as they were of Bush.

This Poll and its Relevance

You're saying that you trust the FFA and respect many posters here. I agree with that, to an extent. But the fact is, the poll results happen to fall in line with your preconceived opinion. If the majority of FFA members voted that Bush was a war criminal, would you still agree with that poll? I think not.

The Corporate Media

I honestly don't understand why you trust the mainstream media. There are countless examples of important stories being censored simply because a corporation was a major sponser of the TV network that was to air the show. This isn't a conspiracy theory. A rudimentary google search will net you many examples of this.

Ultimately, as I said, the question "Do you believe the mainstream media has a liberal bias?" is irrelevant. Liberal, conservative, whatever. All that information is funneled through a corporate filter that keeps startling stories hidden while wasting time distracting the public with meaningless scandals and celebrity news.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Need to get back to work, but here's a story that I bet you've never seen on the news.

While the U.S. was up in arms about the Gulf oil spill, I didn't see a single corporate news source mention the oil disaster in Nigeria. The pollution and death that the oil industry is causing in Nigeria makes the Gulf oil spill look like a trifle in comparison. If we had a free press rife with Liberals and devoid of corporate control, don't you think that this story would be at the top of the headlines? Liberals hate the oil companies, I'm told.

Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it

The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

We reached the edge of the oil spill near the Nigerian village of Otuegwe after a long hike through cassava plantations. Ahead of us lay swamp. We waded into the warm tropical water and began swimming, cameras and notebooks held above our heads. We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air.The farther we travelled, the more nauseous it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and spewed oil for several months.

Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."

That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.

In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.

That disaster, which claimed the lives of 11 rig workers, has made headlines round the world. By contrast, little information has emerged about the damage inflicted on the Niger delta. Yet the destruction there provides us with a far more accurate picture of the price we have to pay for drilling oil today.

 

[tommyboy]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

 

[jdoggydogg]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

 

[jon_mx]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

 

[The Big Guy]

Need to get back to work, but here's a story that I bet you've never seen on the news.

While the U.S. was up in arms about the Gulf oil spill, I didn't see a single corporate news source mention the oil disaster in Nigeria. The pollution and death that the oil industry is causing in Nigeria makes the Gulf oil spill look like a trifle in comparison. If we had a free press rife with Liberals and devoid of corporate control, don't you think that this story would be at the top of the headlines? Liberals hate the oil companies, I'm told.

Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it

The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

We reached the edge of the oil spill near the Nigerian village of Otuegwe after a long hike through cassava plantations. Ahead of us lay swamp. We waded into the warm tropical water and began swimming, cameras and notebooks held above our heads. We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air.The farther we travelled, the more nauseous it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and spewed oil for several months.

Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."

That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.

In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.

That disaster, which claimed the lives of 11 rig workers, has made headlines round the world. By contrast, little information has emerged about the damage inflicted on the Niger delta. Yet the destruction there provides us with a far more accurate picture of the price we have to pay for drilling oil today.

But the News is still a business and no one in America cares about Central Africa. If we cared, the news stories about what is going on there could fill our news daily. If the story isn't about Somali Pirates, then we just don't care.The only story about Nigeria that we want to hear is the story about a scammer getting played by a P-P-P-Powerbook

 

[Slapdash]

Ultimately, as I said, the question "Do you believe the mainstream media has a liberal bias?" is irrelevant. Liberal, conservative, whatever. All that information is funneled through a corporate filter that keeps startling stories hidden while wasting time distracting the public with meaningless scandals and celebrity news.

Wiener's wiener!

 

[Insein]

Washington Post solicits readers to help find dirt on Palin.

[sarcasm]No of course not. No bias at all. [/sarcasm]

 

[urbanhack]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

What shows on NBC in particular?

 

[jdoggydogg]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

No. Not even close. Are you referring to MSNBC? Because that's not even an apt comparison. Fox News peddles in lies and propaganda. There is no other network equivalent.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

No. Not even close. Are you referring to MSNBC? Because that's not even an apt comparison. Fox News peddles in lies and propaganda. There is no other network equivalent.

Fox News is the mouthpiece of the fringe right.

 

[urbanhack]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

What shows on NBC in particular?

bump

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I ask myself, why would a conservative ##### about the liberal media? Surely, the media bias meets consumer demand, no? The only way it makes sense to me is if the complainers have the following thought process:

1. I am more intelligent than most people. I can see through the lies of the biased liberal media. I know "the truth".

2. The lowly masses, not as smart as I, are unduly influenced by a liberal biased media, and therefore believe things that are not "the truth".

3. The only reason that people believe in liberal causes and vote for liberal politicians is because they are not as smart as I and they don't know "the truth" because their opinions are the product of the biased liberal media.

4. If the media were unbiased and would report "the truth", more people would agree with me on important issues and would support the same politicians I support.

`

 

[geoff8695]

Is this reasoning really any different if we exchange conservative for liberal and Fox News for liberal media?

I ask myself, why would a conservativeliberal ##### about the liberal mediaFox News? Surely, the media biasFox News meets consumer demand, no? The only way it makes sense to me is if the complainers have the following thought process:

1. I am more intelligent than most people. I can see through the lies of the biased liberal mediaFox News. I know "the truth".

2. The lowly masses, not as smart as I, are unduly influenced by Fox Newsa liberal biased media, and therefore believe things that are not "the truth".

3. The only reason that people believe in liberalconservative causes and vote for liberalconservative politicians is because they are not as smart as I and they don't know "the truth" because their opinions are the product of the biased liberal media Fox News.

4. If the media Fox News were unbiased and would report "the truth", more people would agree with me on important issues and would support the same politicians I support.

`

 

[jon_mx]

Is this reasoning really any different if we exchange conservative for liberal and Fox News for liberal media?

I ask myself, why would a conservativeliberal ##### about the liberal mediaFox News? Surely, the media biasFox News meets consumer demand, no? The only way it makes sense to me is if the complainers have the following thought process:

1. I am more intelligent than most people. I can see through the lies of the biased liberal mediaFox News. I know "the truth".

2. The lowly masses, not as smart as I, are unduly influenced by Fox Newsa liberal biased media, and therefore believe things that are not "the truth".

3. The only reason that people believe in liberalconservative causes and vote for liberalconservative politicians is because they are not as smart as I and they don't know "the truth" because their opinions are the product of the biased liberal media Fox News.

4. If the media Fox News were unbiased and would report "the truth", more people would agree with me on important issues and would support the same politicians I support.

`

 

[jon_mx]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

What shows on NBC in particular?

bump

This OP is about the news media, so we are talking news. Ever watch NBC news on election night. They are popping champaign on nights when Democrats are winning. Last election is was like a funeral on NBC. It is unwatchable except for comic relief.

 

[Mario Kart]

Just to make clear:

The mainstream media is, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, (possibly a couple more, sorry for missing them)

And, then the "real" reliable media is, Fox News.

Am I correct that we have this narrowed down to the above listing or am I off base here? I think I am all smarter than you since I get my news from The Onion and Comedy Central... or are those considered mainstream media too?

 

[jon_mx]

Just to be clear, no one is claiming there is any 'real' media. I am not sure there is any source I would run with their version of a story without digging deeper.

 

[urbanhack]

the only thing more obvious than the liberal bias of the mainstream media is the desire of lefties to argue there is no bias. Then, many of these same lefties cry like babies anytime Fox News comes up in a thread. Its truly entertaining, keep it coming.

If you think that NBC and FOX News are equally biased, then you are kidding yourself.

Of all the networks, yeah NBC is as bias if not more so in reporting news as Fox. Their sister station MSNBC is by far the worst. CNN probably the best.

What shows on NBC in particular?

bump

This OP is about the news media, so we are talking news. Ever watch NBC news on election night. They are popping champaign on nights when Democrats are winning. Last election is was like a funeral on NBC. It is unwatchable except for comic relief.

This is all you have when you claim NBC has more bias than Fox which has a litany of political/news/opinion shows 7 days a week. Do you even comprehend what you post?

 

[jon_mx]

I am not trying to compare Fox opinion shows with NBC shows. Yes, Hannity is more bias than say The Firm. This thread is about news coverage.

 

[Sarnoff]

Prior to the election, the LA Times obtained a tape of Obama toasting & celebrating with former PLO operatives. They refused to release it. A couple of months ago, CBS accidentally recorded Obama calling "some" American people "slugs", but they refused to release the tape. However, when the media gets a hold of 24,000 emails from Sarah Palin, they post them all on their websites and invite everyone to scour them for any appearance of impropriety...

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

Gallup Poll- 9-19-10

Distrust in U.S. Media Edges Up to Record High

Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly — now 57%, a record high by one percentage point. Perceptions of media bias persist, with 48% saying the media are too liberal and 15% saying they are too conservative.

Dateline: WASHINGTON, D.C. —

For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% who now say this is a record high by one percentage point.

The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.

Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.

Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.

Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias.

Lower-income Americans and those with less education are generally more likely to trust the media than are those with higher incomes and more education. A subgroup analysis of these data suggests that three demographic groups key to advertisers — adults aged 18 to 29, Americans making at least $75,000 per year, and college graduates — lost more trust in the media in the past year than other groups, but the sample sizes in this survey are too small to say so definitively.

Bottom Line

Gallup's annual update on trust in the mass media finds Americans' views entrenched — with a record-high 57% expressing little to no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 63% perceiving bias in one direction or the other. At the same time, the steady nature of these views stands in contrast to Americans' views of the three branches of government, which are all down sharply this year. Thus, in an environment in which few institutions elicit high levels of trust, it appears the media are neither gaining nor losing significant ground — but are just managing to hold steady.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, with a random sample of 1,019 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling. The question on whether the media are too liberal, too conservative, or just about right is part of a USA Today/Gallup poll series conducted as part of the same survey.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.

From the article:"Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias."

This directly contradicts Big Steel Thrill's theory that People inclined to investigate and ask questions are going to be liberal. People who are more willing accept things as a "given" are going to be conservative.

 

[crackattack]

Without a doubt, and anyone who thinks not has blinders on.

 

[Statorama]

Not much media bias at CNN

(cue sarcasm emoticon)

 

[Sarnoff]

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

John R. Lott Jr., University of Maryland Foundation, University of Maryland

Kevin A. Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

October 19, 2004

ABSTRACT: Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

 

[jon_mx]

Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?

John R. Lott Jr., University of Maryland Foundation, University of Maryland

Kevin A. Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

October 19, 2004

ABSTRACT: Accusations of political bias in the media are often made by members of both political parties, yet there have been few systematic studies of such bias to date. This paper develops an econometric technique to test for political bias in news reports that controls for the underlying character of the news reported. Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans. When all types of news are pooled into a single analysis, our results are highly significant. However, the results vary greatly depending upon which economic numbers are being reported. When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats. For durable goods for all newspapers, Republicans received between 15 and 25 percentage points fewer positive news stories than Democrats. For unemployment, the difference was between zero and 21 percentage points. Retail sales showed no difference. Among the Associated Press and the top 10 papers, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Times tend to be the least likely to report positive news during Republican administrations, while the Houston Chronicle slightly favors Republicans. Only one newspaper treated one Republican administration significantly more positively than the Clinton administration: the Los Angeles Times' headlines were most favorable to the Reagan administration, but it still favored Clinton over either Bush administration. We also find that the media coverage affects people's perceptions of the economy. Contrary to the typical impression that bad news sells, we find that good economic news generates more news coverage and that it is usually covered more prominently. We also present some evidence that media treats parties differently when they control both the presidency and the congress.

This has been obvious to anyone who has been alive during the last few decades. Good to see some quantitative data which shows how prevalent it is.

 

[ren hoek]

Ultimately, as I said, the question "Do you believe the mainstream media has a liberal bias?" is irrelevant. Liberal, conservative, whatever. All that information is funneled through a corporate filter that keeps startling stories hidden while wasting time distracting the public with meaningless scandals and celebrity news.

Wiener's wiener!

The only bias the media has is to the truth.

 

[jon_mx]

Ultimately, as I said, the question "Do you believe the mainstream media has a liberal bias?" is irrelevant. Liberal, conservative, whatever. All that information is funneled through a corporate filter that keeps startling stories hidden while wasting time distracting the public with meaningless scandals and celebrity news.

Wiener's wiener!

The only bias the media has is to the truth.

Yep

 

[Mad Mike Martz]

http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/06/16/cnn-disinfo-refuses-to-use-own-poll-reports-ron-paul-at-0/

 

[Statorama]

ABC had ACORN story first, squashed it

mmmmmmm Acorn Squash

Despite slipping mostly under the radar, John Stossel disclosed something on his FBN program last Thursday that should have garnered a lot more attention.

As he chatted with guest Andrew Breitbart, Stossel admitted that the conservative publisher had offered him the James O'Keefe/Hannah Giles/ACORN scoop, but the former ABC Newser declined due to politics at the network he used to work for

JOHN STOSSEL, HOST: Speaking of the mainstream media, I am a little bit ashamed of this one, but I am revealing now for the first time publicly that when I worked at 20/20, you, who I didn't know at that time, pitched me with this story about ACORN and the sting. And I didn't cover it. And you remember that I assume?

ANDREW BREITBART: Oh, do I ever? I mean, I've referenced it in speeches that I went to ABC to a producer because I realized you can't just break a story on a blog. You have to get the mainstream media to cover it as well and so I thought what the hey.

I'll call up John Stossel. Seems like an honest guy. Seems like he'd think that the president's vaunted community organizing group -- treating a fake prostitute and a fake pimp with service with a smile in every office except for one, I thought maybe there is a story here.

STOSSEL: What did I tell you?

BREITBART: You said that it is a story and that you would probably commit a month to a story like this because it is so blatant, but you said that the politics within ABC were just, you know, that you couldn't do it.

STOSSEL: And that's true. I had all kinds of good stories I couldn't get on, but, well, I didn't. I could have had that scoop and I blew it. I'm so annoyed

Just imagine how much news organizations like ABC don't disclose to the public because the story's don't fit their liberal agenda.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?