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

[Phil Elliott]

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.

Like, say Microsoft, or GE for example?

 

[Sarnoff]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/06/27/nbc-nightly-news-reports-bachmanns-john-wayne-gaffe-still-hasnt-menti

Like dutiful White House shills, the "NBC Nightly News" Monday reported Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann mistaking the Iowa town where actor John Wayne was born.

Hypocritically, NBC News has still not informed viewers of President Obama's horrible error last Thursday when he said he had awarded a Medal of Honor in person to a living soldier who actually had been killed in Afghanistan in 2006.

A cheap shot the folks at MSNBC and NBC seem very comfortable in taking.

But the hypocrisy doesn't end there.

As NewsBusters reported last week, President Obama on Thursday said he had literally awarded a Medal of Honor to one Jared Monti, meaning in person while he was alive.

Unfortunately, Monti was bestowed this honor posthumously in 2009 having been killed in Afghanistan three years prior. Obama later apologized to the family for his misstatement.

Despite the seriousness of this gaffe, MSNBC and NBC have yet to report it. In fact, according to LexisNexis, through Sunday, not one television news network has.

It appears a Republican presidential candidate confusing the names of two small Iowa towns most people have never heard of is far more important than a sitting president mistaking a fallen hero for a live one.

 

[jon_mx]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

 

[Mario Kart]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

Yes, an informal poll of 295 "members" have voted truthfully in this thread. Minus alias', joking votes, and others aside and the poll might have 200-225 unique voters and of those, who knows how many were joking. Run the Yahoo! article now using this poll as a reference. Good times.

 

[jdoggydogg]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

I don't think you understand polls.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

Yes, an informal poll of 295 "members" have voted truthfully in this thread. Minus alias', joking votes, and others aside and the poll might have 200-225 unique voters and of those, who knows how many were joking. Run the Yahoo! article now using this poll as a reference. Good times.

See Post #192

 

[beaux]

Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/24/michelle_obama_fortunately_we_have_help_from_the_media.html (video at link)

In an interview with CNN, First Lady Michelle Obama thanks the media for their "support" and "kindness."

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."

 

[jdoggydogg]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

Seriously, you don't understand polls.Poll 100 KKK members and ask them their opinion about voter rights for black people. Think you'll end up with an unbiased result? The demographic on this forum informs the poll results, but that has nothing to do with the "is there a liberal bias" question. I'm not even claiming no bias. I don't even give a ####. But this poll does not prove nor disprove a liberal bias.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

Seriously, you don't understand polls.Poll 100 KKK members and ask them their opinion about voter rights for black people. Think you'll end up with an unbiased result? The demographic on this forum informs the poll results, but that has nothing to do with the "is there a liberal bias" question. I'm not even claiming no bias. I don't even give a ####. But this poll does not prove nor disprove a liberal bias.

This one does.

 

[Statorama]

Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

She's a peach. One thing that's been lost in the disaster of the Obama Presidency has been the grace of America's first lady. She doesn't even know she's not supposed to say things like that. It's kind of "real" and very refreshing. Big fan of hers.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

She's a peach. One thing that's been lost in the disaster of the Obama Presidency has been the grace of America's first lady. She doesn't even know she's not supposed to say things like that. It's kind of "real" and very refreshing. Big fan of hers.

I believe that was in reference to the media not dragging their kids into the media spotlight. Wouldn't you agree that that is a good thing?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

It's so obvious

 

[jdoggydogg]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

Seriously, you don't understand polls.Poll 100 KKK members and ask them their opinion about voter rights for black people. Think you'll end up with an unbiased result? The demographic on this forum informs the poll results, but that has nothing to do with the "is there a liberal bias" question. I'm not even claiming no bias. I don't even give a ####. But this poll does not prove nor disprove a liberal bias.

This one does.

No, that doesn't prove anything. That's just a larger sample. Again, I really don't care if there's a liberal bias. That's not relevant to my point. The public perception that there's a liberal bias is not proof of a liberal bias. The public used to think the Earth was flat.

 

[Sarnoff]

No, that doesn't prove anything. That's just a larger sample. Again, I really don't care if there's a liberal bias. That's not relevant to my point. The public perception that there's a liberal bias is not proof of a liberal bias. The public used to think the Earth was flat.

You'll be happier with post #195.

 

[roadkill1292]

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.

Flawed logic, my friend. A bunch of guys, no matter who they are, believing something to be true does not make it so. It is either true or not, regardless of who or how many believe it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

No, that doesn't prove anything. That's just a larger sample. Again, I really don't care if there's a liberal bias. That's not relevant to my point. The public perception that there's a liberal bias is not proof of a liberal bias. The public used to think the Earth was flat.

You'll be happier with post #195.

 

[Black Box]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=495816&st=0&p=10925995

 

[jon_mx]

Great postings! Love all the denial. The great thing about most liberals is they don't just have a point of view, but many liberals really believe they are keepers of the truth. The reason many don't see a bias, because they think reporting their bias is simply reporting the truth and why would you report the other side since it is just a lie? It is really an amazing phenomena that they really can't see something that is as plain as day. This goes right along with their belief that FoxNews is not reporting a different viewpoint, but report mostly lies.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Great postings! Love all the denial. The great thing about most liberals is they don't just have a point of view, but many liberals really believe they are keepers of the truth. The reason many don't see a bias, because they think reporting their bias is simply reporting the truth and why would you report the other side since it is just a lie? It is really an amazing phenomena that they really can't see something that is as plain as day. This goes right along with their belief that FoxNews is not reporting a different viewpoint, but report mostly lies.

Holy ####.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Great postings! Love all the denial. The great thing about most liberals is they don't just have a point of view, but many liberals really believe they are keepers of the truth. The reason many don't see a bias, because they think reporting their bias is simply reporting the truth and why would you report the other side since it is just a lie? It is really an amazing phenomena that they really can't see something that is as plain as day. This goes right along with their belief that FoxNews is not reporting a different viewpoint, but report mostly lies.

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny on purpose or you're literally out of your mind.

 

[timschochet]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

The purpose of this poll was not to determine if the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias- that would be impossible for anyone to actually prove one way or the other. The actual purpose of this poll was determine whether a majority of FFAers interested in this subject bought into the widespread conservative propaganda of the last 40 years regarding this subject. If you listen to conservative talk radio, read conservative writers and magazines, watch conservative TV commentators, this is one of the main points that is pushed year after year. It seems like all that propaganda is paying off, because so many people believe it.

 

[jon_mx]

My favorite thread. Over 70 percent answered the poll yes, but some insist the majority said it is not liberally bias. Love the denial.....

The purpose of this poll was not to determine if the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias- that would be impossible for anyone to actually prove one way or the other. The actual purpose of this poll was determine whether a majority of FFAers interested in this subject bought into the widespread conservative propaganda of the last 40 years regarding this subject. If you listen to conservative talk radio, read conservative writers and magazines, watch conservative TV commentators, this is one of the main points that is pushed year after year. It seems like all that propaganda is paying off, because so many people believe it.

Tim, if you were only 1/10th as opened-minded and impartial as you believe you are. The media is so pathetically bias is really is not even open for debate, unless you are a faithful believer that only the liberal ideology holds the truth, then you should be perfectly happy watching the MSM.

 

[jon_mx]

I love how when poll results are not what you expect, it is because of propaganda and misinformation. When poll results are over 70% and you are on the short end, there is a very good chance you are wrong. I just don't see a bunch of mind-dead misinformed people in this forum, and FFA is not heavily tilted towards Democrats or Republicans. If anything, it is a heavily independent forum which weighs heavily socially liberal and mildly for fiscal conservatism. The MSM is clearly in favor and actively promotes things like gay rights, abortion rights, big government social programs, and global warming to name a few.

 

[timschochet]

I love how when poll results are not what you expect, it is because of propaganda and misinformation. When poll results are over 70% and you are on the short end, there is a very good chance you are wrong. I just don't see a bunch of mind-dead misinformed people in this forum, and FFA is not heavily tilted towards Democrats or Republicans. If anything, it is a heavily independent forum which weighs heavily socially liberal and mildly for fiscal conservatism. The MSM is clearly in favor and actively promotes things like gay rights, abortion rights, big government social programs, and global warming to name a few.

The results of the poll were EXACTLY what I expected.

 

[jon_mx]

I love how when poll results are not what you expect, it is because of propaganda and misinformation. When poll results are over 70% and you are on the short end, there is a very good chance you are wrong. I just don't see a bunch of mind-dead misinformed people in this forum, and FFA is not heavily tilted towards Democrats or Republicans. If anything, it is a heavily independent forum which weighs heavily socially liberal and mildly for fiscal conservatism. The MSM is clearly in favor and actively promotes things like gay rights, abortion rights, big government social programs, and global warming to name a few.

The results of the poll were EXACTLY what I expected.

Oh, so you just wanted confirmation of just how wrong you are.

 

[jdoggydogg]

When poll results are over 70% and you are on the short end, there is a very good chance you are wrong.

Again, this poll doesn't prove anything. The only thing it proves is we think the media is liberal. If this poll ended up with 90% of the voters claiming no liberal bias, would you believe it?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's what I can tell you with good certainty:

-The majority (and it's probably a large majority) of those who work in the media tend to be smart, thus liberal.

-Local news is not conspired, it is very reactionary. Thus local news is almost never slanted as they seek out ratings and usually don't have time for political high fiving.

-The national media has always been slanted in one direction or the other, and usually it probably leaned left. But until Fox News and MSNBC started this shtick war it was widely objective in nature. Now it isn't and it's unwatchable.

-The liberal media bias is generally very overrated as right wing nut jobs point to very obscure references to make points about how the media is slanted, while far left wingers laugh off any consideration to the theory. Again those on the edges have the biggest mouths and the least information.

-I'm not reading through this thread because I already know what was said.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's what I can tell you with good certainty:-The majority (and it's probably a large majority) of those who work in the media tend to be smart, thus liberal. -Local news is not conspired, it is very reactionary. Thus local news is almost never slanted as they seek out ratings and usually don't have time for political high fiving.-The national media has always been slanted in one direction or the other, and usually it probably leaned left. But until Fox News and MSNBC started this shtick war it was widely objective in nature. Now it isn't and it's unwatchable. -The liberal media bias is generally very overrated as right wing nut jobs point to very obscure references to make points about how the media is slanted, while far left wingers laugh off any consideration to the theory. Again those on the edges have the biggest mouths and the least information. -I'm not reading through this thread because I already know what was said.

Nobody is really suggesting a conspiracy. You just get a group that is 90 percent liberal and it is going to impact which stories are picked, how the stories are presented, and which points are included and which points are left out. I am sure in their hearts and mind they really believe they are being objective, but on any given night I can pick out a dozen minor examples of how stories are slanted. In most cases it is subtle, other times it slaps you across the face.

 

[Mario Kart]

Gold, Jerry. Gold.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Here's what I can tell you with good certainty:-The majority (and it's probably a large majority) of those who work in the media tend to be smart, thus liberal. -Local news is not conspired, it is very reactionary. Thus local news is almost never slanted as they seek out ratings and usually don't have time for political high fiving.-The national media has always been slanted in one direction or the other, and usually it probably leaned left. But until Fox News and MSNBC started this shtick war it was widely objective in nature. Now it isn't and it's unwatchable. -The liberal media bias is generally very overrated as right wing nut jobs point to very obscure references to make points about how the media is slanted, while far left wingers laugh off any consideration to the theory. Again those on the edges have the biggest mouths and the least information. -I'm not reading through this thread because I already know what was said.

Nobody is really suggesting a conspiracy. You just get a group that is 90 percent liberal and it is going to impact which stories are picked, how the stories are presented, and which points are included and which points are left out. I am sure in their hearts and mind they really believe they are being objective, but on any given night I can pick out a dozen minor examples of how stories are slanted. In most cases it is subtle, other times it slaps you across the face.

Not really.

 

[Statorama]

Sometimes it's the questions that aren't asked

...

A novice might also think that tax status of corporate jets is of disproportionate significance in how to move this country toward a balanced budget.

But the novice would be wrong. For starters, Obama's most recent budget calls for adding $9.5 trillion in new debt over the next decade. If you got rid of the "accelerated depreciation" of corporate jets, Reuters economics columnist James Pethokoukis calculates, it would save a whopping .03 percent of that total.

Sadly, the room was full of journalists who do not consider themselves novices but who nonetheless let Obama get away with this demagogic dishonesty. No one asked the president why he suddenly cares so much about getting rid of a tax break he himself was for before he was against it. Indeed, no one asked why, if it is such an affront to the liberal conscience, it was part of Obama's stimulus bill, which was passed without any Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate (which means Nancy Pelosi voted for special tax breaks for corporate jets and the GOP didn't).

More broadly, no one threw a flag on his claim that "every single observer who's not an elected official, who's not a politician," agrees with him on the burning need to raise taxes as part of any budget deal. This is a good example of Obama's most grating tic, his need to claim that all reasonable and serious people agree with him and anyone who disagrees must be doing so for base or ideological motives.

No one queried why he talks about the need to raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" but the fine print of his proposals defines millionaires and billionaires as people who make $200,000 a year as individuals or $250,000 as joint-filing couples. Jay Duckson at Central Business Jets tells the Wall Street Journal that the starting price for a private jet is $10 million dollars. Annual upkeep and fuel is about $500,000. You do the math.

 

[Statorama]

-I'm not reading through this thread because I already know what was said.

I have read through this thread, and been pleasantly surprised at the positive back and forth. It's a debate worth having.

 

[Sarnoff]

Comcast/NBC exec raises $1.2mil for Obama

 

[Statorama]

Comparision of network coverage of Bush and Obama

Calling Bush a murderous facist? Ok. Call Obama a weiner? Suspension.

The clips in there say it all.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I haven't read the thread.

I'd say that the mainstream media probably has a slight liberal bias. If you polled all the reporters in the mainstream press, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans would probably be something like 5-1. (Does anybody here know the actual number?) Most people, no matter how hard they try to be unbiased, end up favoring arguments they agree with over arguments they don't — or facts that support their views over facts that don't. A person who is politically liberal will generally have a liberal bias to some extent, even if he is a news reporter.

The difference between CBS and FOX, however — to overgeneralize — is the difference between trying but failing to overcome one's biases, on the one hand, and purposely exalting one's biases, on the other.

 

[greenroom]

What are we considering the media? Just TV?? or are you including radio, and newspapers and magazines.

I would agree that TV is left leaning, but radio is very far to the right. Newspaper and magazines you can pick and choose which ones you want.

But here is the main point that with the internet you can find any point of view and facts to back up what you feel is correct or incorrect depending on how you lean.

 

[jon_mx]

I haven't read the thread.

I'd say that the mainstream media probably has a slight liberal bias. If you polled all the reporters in the mainstream press, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans would probably be something like 5-1. (Does anybody here know the actual number?) Most people, no matter how hard they try to be unbiased, end up favoring arguments they agree with over arguments they don't — or facts that support their views over facts that don't. A person who is politically liberal will generally have a liberal bias to some extent, even if he is a news reporter.

The difference between CBS and FOX, however — to overgeneralize — is the difference between trying but failing to overcome one's biases, on the one hand, and purposely exalting one's biases, on the other.

5 to 1 is on the low end, it could be as high as 9 to 1.

Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

81-94% of Media votes Democrat

 

[Defenze]

Must be nice to erase somebody from your thread because ya dont like what they have said. I'll remember that next time I share an honest open opinion in one of your threads Tim. Or whoever you are. Must have hit pretty close to home huh?

 

[jon_mx]

What are we considering the media? Just TV?? or are you including radio, and newspapers and magazines. I would agree that TV is left leaning, but radio is very far to the right. Newspaper and magazines you can pick and choose which ones you want. But here is the main point that with the internet you can find any point of view and facts to back up what you feel is correct or incorrect depending on how you lean.

The Mainstream Media usually refers to the old media....the network news and the large newspapers. Talk Radio and the internet is the alternative media. The Mainstream Media tilts very decisively to the left despite their denial. No one denies that talk radio is mostly a right wing market which mostly grew out of their ideas not being expressed anywhere else. The internet is a mixed bag of everything. Cable news is also a bit of a mix bag.

 

[greenroom]

What are we considering the media? Just TV?? or are you including radio, and newspapers and magazines. I would agree that TV is left leaning, but radio is very far to the right. Newspaper and magazines you can pick and choose which ones you want. But here is the main point that with the internet you can find any point of view and facts to back up what you feel is correct or incorrect depending on how you lean.

The Mainstream Media usually refers to the old media....the network news and the large newspapers. Talk Radio and the internet is the alternative media. The Mainstream Media tilts very decisively to the left despite their denial. No one denies that talk radio is mostly a right wing market which mostly grew out of their ideas not being expressed anywhere else. The internet is a mixed bag of everything. Cable news is also a bit of a mix bag.

Thanks.. I disagree with the radio part as I think conservative radio was around before the cable news channels...But I do agree that is is more advertised today than ever before due to the TV media.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

Sorry, MSNBC, you've just been

But I will continue contributing to what little ratings you have when Lockup is on.

 

[Jewell]

Lemon ---> <--- Paul

 

[Philo]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/bill-kellys-truth-squad/2011/aug/11/media-cover-up-durbin-confrontation-reporter/

Did media cover up Sen. Durbin's confrontation with reporter?

Thursday, August 11, 2011 - Bill Kelly's Truth Squad by William Kelly

Chicago, August 11, 2011 – This week U.S. Senator **** Durbin held a press conference with members of the mainstream media to talk about the downgrade crisis. But the Senator’s scripted storyline veered off-course when a conservative reporter – me – showed up to ask an embarrassing question. Namely, “Senator, you’ve blamed the tea party…but do you bear any responsibility for this downgrade crisis?”

What, you didn’t hear about this incident in the media? For those of you that need more proof that journalism is dead, read on.

Monday was another beautiful day for a mainstream media cover-up in Chicago. But it would not have been complete without a picnic-basket full of hypocrisy from our very own U.S. Senator **** Durbin of Illinois.

You may remember ****.

He’s the Senator that hysterically compared the treatment of the Gitmo detainees to Nazis, Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot. While calling for an end to “hateful” rhetoric, he’s the one who wrongfully pointed his crooked finger at the Tea Party Movement and Gov. Sarah Palin, blaming them for the Tucson massacre and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Recently, he’s the one that, hypocritically, accused the Tea Party Republicans of “political extortion” in the debt ceiling debate.

While the markets were tanking – Durbin took some time out to have a press conference and dish to his friends in the Chicago media about the S&P downgrade of our nation’s sterling credit rating.

Given his history, I expected more of the same accusatory rhetoric about the tea party from Durbin. Since the report of the downgrade hit the newswires last Friday, members of Durbin’s party have been in full anti-tea party spin control.

“The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade,” said former White House advisor David Axelrod on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Sen. John Kerry must have received the same memo. “This is the tea party downgrade,” said Kerry on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

I went to Durbin’s press conference to set the record straight. My objective: some journalistic balance. Not only did Durbin refuse to answer the question but his cronies in the Chicago media went on the attack.

One of those crony journalists was Jim Anderson, news director for the Illinois Radio Network. You can hear him in the background telling Durbin, “He organizes tea party rallies." In media terms, that’s called being fair and impartial. That’s what a real journalist does.

I stood my ground and asked the question a number of times. “You’re not allowed to ask questions during a press conference,” bleated Anderson. “We are going to have you thrown out by the cops,” he said, running interference for Durbin. In addition to doing news for the Illinois Radio Network, Anderson apparently moonlights as an unpaid member of **** Durbin’s staff.

A special agent was soon dispatched to have me escorted out of the room, where I, as press, had a right to be. At least, that’s what I read, once upon a time, in the U.S. Constitution.

I am an independent social journalist for the Washington Times Communities and contribute to the American Spectator, and Breitbart.com among others. No other blogger, freelance journalist, or other member of the media was asked to show their credentials at this event. In fact, the event was sponsored by City Club of Chicago and was open to media and the public.

This brings us to the eternal question: Who is media and who is not? Who gets to decide? Sen. **** Durbin? His friends in the Chicago media? Are public officials accountable to the public? Do we have the right to question authority? Or must we just accept what they bestow upon us? Do we have the right to question the media? Or do we have to let the so-called “real” journalists impose their own idea of news? Of truth?

During my exchange with him, Sen. Durbin told (instructed) the media, “You guys aren’t going to cover this are you?” And the media…didn’t.

Is this collusion between a high-ranking member of the Democrat party and the supposedly unbiased mainstream media? Do I sympathize with the gripes of the Tea Party? Yes and yes.

The media and the Democrats accuse the tea party, conservatives, and Republicans in general of being “uncivil.” They compare us to terrorists “strapped with explosives” because we are trying to change Washington; because we want fairness in the media; because we are trying to put an end to corruption, fraud, and the redistribution of wealth that is considered “routine.” To an inside-the-beltway hack, to oppose the status quo - that must truly be “terrifying.”

Of course, I’ve been accused of being uncivil before. I’ve also been threatened by other journalists before. But this isn’t about civility; it’s about control.

The Democrats and their media cronies want to control the news and information. They want to control the political system and its system of punishments and rewards. This system is fundamentally anti-freedom and they – the powers that be - are “OK” with that.

I was held to a different standard because I write for conservative news outlets and Sen. Durbin didn’t like my question. The mainstream media are merely an adjunct to the Obama campaign and the Democrat National Committee. Not one of them reported this incident.

The economic crisis is not helped by a compliant, subservient media that tampers with news to help their candidates and causes. In the abscessed cavity of newsrooms around Chicago, this exchange and the remarks Sen. Durbin made to the media’s microphones exists. In Chicago, NBC, CBS, ABC, the Chicago Sun-Times, and every other news outlet, have shown their true colors. They weren’t red, white, and blue.

And neither are Durbin’s.

 

[Statorama]

The difference between CBS and FOX, however — to overgeneralize — is the difference between trying but failing to overcome one's biases, on the one hand, and purposely exalting one's biases, on the other.

You're getting the FOX News and FOX Opinion shows confused. No worries, happens a lot in here.

 

[SelenaCat]

This poll is sort of broad, but I'd have to say it works out to be neutral.

I'd actually argue that while a lot of national media has a leftish sort of lean, they're not that far to the left in general. Some make an effort to remain more neutral, some don't.

It's pretty well countered by some very strong conservative media that tends to be much further right of central. Again, a few remain neutral, although overall I think less of these media groups try.

So, lots of slightly left media combined with some further-right media, works out to about a wash.

 

[Class Dismissed]

I don't know if it was brought up, but the last option is BS.

GE is corporate and is certainly not conservative.

 

[Sarnoff]

NYTimes pretends Corzine isn't a Dem. Obama donor

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera has a scathing attack on Jon Corzine, whose financial firm just declared bankruptcy. "The idea that Corzine, who single-handedly destroyed MF Global Holdings, was in a position to command so much as a penny in severance is horrifying...."

What caught my eye was one word that never appeared in Nocera's column. I'll give you a hint: it begins with (D). Also left out of Nocera's piece, Jon Corzine this election has given the maximum to the Democratic National Committee (and thus to Obama's reelection). But it's not Nocera that's omitting these relevant facts -- it's nearly the whole New York Times.

I found 10 articles on the Times website with the words "MF Global" since it announced bankruptcy yesterday. Some numbers:

* Only 5 of 10 NYT articles mentioning MF Global mentioned Corzine

* Only 1 of 5 NYT articles mentioning MF Global & Corzine used the word "Democrat"

* 0 of 5 NYT articles mentioning MF Global & Corzine mentioned that he's $30,800 donor to Obama's DNC



Do you think the Times would omit these facts if a former Republican Senator and Governor and maximum RNC donor ran a huge financial firm into bankruptcy?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

News outlets tend to play to their demographic. So a media outlet in a conservative region will be neutral to conservative,,,same thing for a liberal area. Nationally, I think most media has a liberal bias...maybe that is what they consider the demographic they are trying to reach. Believe what you want to believe, you can find a boogeyman anywhere if you look hard enough.

 

[Socrates11]

NYTimes pretends Corzine isn't a Dem. Obama donor

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera has a scathing attack on Jon Corzine, whose financial firm just declared bankruptcy. "The idea that Corzine, who single-handedly destroyed MF Global Holdings, was in a position to command so much as a penny in severance is horrifying...."

What caught my eye was one word that never appeared in Nocera's column. I'll give you a hint: it begins with (D). Also left out of Nocera's piece, Jon Corzine this election has given the maximum to the Democratic National Committee (and thus to Obama's reelection). But it's not Nocera that's omitting these relevant facts -- it's nearly the whole New York Times.

I found 10 articles on the Times website with the words "MF Global" since it announced bankruptcy yesterday. Some numbers:

* Only 5 of 10 NYT articles mentioning MF Global mentioned Corzine

* Only 1 of 5 NYT articles mentioning MF Global & Corzine used the word "Democrat"

* 0 of 5 NYT articles mentioning MF Global & Corzine mentioned that he's $30,800 donor to Obama's DNC



Do you think the Times would omit these facts if a former Republican Senator and Governor and maximum RNC donor ran a huge financial firm into bankruptcy?

Ha! Not only would the Times not omit those facts if Corzine was a Republican, it would blaze it across the front page in the biggest type it could and would ensure it was woven into the reporting repeatedly.

 

[LHUCKS]

News outlets tend to play to their demographic. So a media outlet in a conservative region will be neutral to conservative,,,same thing for a liberal area. Nationally, I think most media has a liberal bias...maybe that is what they consider the demographic they are trying to reach. Believe what you want to believe, you can find a boogeyman anywhere if you look hard enough.

this