Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you believe the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
the use of the media as basicallly the propaganda wing and cheerleaders for one of the two parties is a little scary. There are serious questions about the government ignoring warnings of the embassy attacks that resulted in the tragic murder of a US ambassador. Yet, the media is focusing all of its resources on a "gaffe" from the opponent.
The YouTube video raises all kinds of questions on free speech as the poster of that video gets arrested. Yet, the media pack isn't really paying attention.
The YouTube video raises all kinds of questions on free speech as the poster of that video gets arrested. Yet, the media pack isn't really paying attention.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Now that this new audio has come out of Obama saying "I actually believe in redistribution", NBC NEWS will not air it because it "cannot be authenticated." Despite the fact that the Obama campaign authenticated it.
Yet they're off and running with video that can be spun to make Romney look bad.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Dem Pollster Pat Caddell lays it out:
Transcription of the excerpt for the above passage (the whole thing is like 25 minutes), for context:
But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified! It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was said at all, and nothing will be said.
It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [u.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.
This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.
[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.
Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.
Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.
But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.
It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now, openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post, or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC, and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story, partly because the President of Libya appeared on [bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation] and said, on Sunday, while [u.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.
This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the [Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.
[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now, that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a member of the intelligence community that the White House and State Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared, because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories, and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening thing.
Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the bias, the polling, it’s very complicated. Some of it is error, some of it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know, really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. The reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean, they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people, “They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by not doing that.
Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know, people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets, too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in the press that they once had.
But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but, worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know, they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy, and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people. And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked about.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
I've heard plenty of media discuss the questions about the supposed ignored warnings. You should listen to different media outlets if that's what you want to hear.
timschochet
Footballguy
Prior to last night's presidential debate, it was a major theme among conservative pundits that the "liberal media" would declare Obama the victor, no matter what the reality was. I heard this everywhere. But it didn't happen. There was not a single member of the "liberal media" that I'm aware of who didn't acknowledge that Romney won.
Perhaps because the "liberal media" doesn't really exist in the first place?
Perhaps because the "liberal media" doesn't really exist in the first place?
Or maybe the President did such a piss poor job not even liberals could say he won?
timschochet
Footballguy
If they really had a liberal bias, they would have spun it much differently than they did. If anything, they gave even more praise to Romney that he might have deserved, because the "horse race" aspect of the election brings ratings. (Which, BTW, also completely contradicts the asinine commentary by Rush Limbaugh and others in recent days that the "lamestream media" was gleefully reporting skewed polling in order to depress Republican turnout.)
Rayderr
Footballguy
They can only go so far before they end up looking like Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
jonessed
Footballguy
They threw temper-tantrums instead. The best they could do this morning was a tepid acknowledgement, which is what they did. Take the edge off of a clobbering by pointing out that Romney was weak on substance, but won on style.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the media has a conservative bias. They have a financial interest in pretending that both sides' arguments and reasoning is valid and that there are really two sides to every issue. Since facts and logic generally support liberals, the news has to give more credence to the conservatives to keep balance and keep people enthralled.
I do enjoy the heavy persecution complex employed by the right though. "Oh my, everyone is out to get us, whatever shall we do? It's a good thing Fox News is so rebellious and non-mainstream, or rather, non-lamestream, so that I can get real news and not that namby pamby liberal trash!"
The very fact that the poster did not list Fox as a "mainstream" news source is extremely telling. Somehow they've convinced people that they're an "outsider" organization. What a joke.
I do enjoy the heavy persecution complex employed by the right though. "Oh my, everyone is out to get us, whatever shall we do? It's a good thing Fox News is so rebellious and non-mainstream, or rather, non-lamestream, so that I can get real news and not that namby pamby liberal trash!"
The very fact that the poster did not list Fox as a "mainstream" news source is extremely telling. Somehow they've convinced people that they're an "outsider" organization. What a joke.
17seconds
root of all aliai
What I've seen so far is exactly the same kind of tantrum Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Erik Erickson, Bill O'Reilly, and many others not off the top of my head have been doing with Romney all year.
bagger
Footballguy
i do think they have a liberal bias because facts have a liberal bias.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
The meltdowns last night were not even close to what you are referring too!'17seconds said:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
You mean when Ann Coulter said "If we nominate Romney we are going to lose."Not too mention the things that he drug addict Limbaugh has said about Romney and his campaign.The meltdowns last night were not even close to what you are referring too!'17seconds said:
No, it's just really hard to put a spin on the shellacking more than 58 million people witnessed last night.The leftist media's best friend is the apathy of the average American. When the public is paying attention though, they can't get away with half of the crap they usually pull.'timschochet said:
Flying Spaghetti Monster
Footballguy
Especially Fox News.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
You mean when Ann Coulter said "If we nominate Romney we are going to lose."Not too mention the things that he drug addict Limbaugh has said about Romney and his campaign.The meltdowns last night were not even close to what you are referring too!'17seconds said:
Keep trying guys! 
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I was thinking of it these terms: Why would anyone want a media hostile to change, content with the status quo and trusting of those in power?
Run It Up
Footballguy
No, I dont believe the "mainstream media" that is entirely owned by conservatives has a liberal bias.
MSNBC has a left leaning bias and Fox a right, because through both they create a self sustaining divisive system where people only believe what they are told by a certain network and thus, retain a high number of viewers.
I tried to watch news today. I literally could not watch news. It was debate break down on CNN, left leaning bs from MSNBC and right leaning bs from Fox.
I just wish we could get BBC World news in the states, ffs.
MSNBC has a left leaning bias and Fox a right, because through both they create a self sustaining divisive system where people only believe what they are told by a certain network and thus, retain a high number of viewers.
I tried to watch news today. I literally could not watch news. It was debate break down on CNN, left leaning bs from MSNBC and right leaning bs from Fox.
I just wish we could get BBC World news in the states, ffs.
OC Zed
Footballguy
Sarnoff
Footballguy
There are new developments in the IRS scandal almost daily that fail to be covered by the media. For example, just this week:
ACLJ Calls Appointment of Obama Supporter to Oversee DOJ Probe of IRS Targeting Scheme "Troubling" and "Serious Conflict of Interest"
Outrage! Obama Donor Picked to Head IRS Scandal Investigation, Big Three Networks Censor
Last edited by a moderator:
Rayderr
Footballguy
Good point. But that does prove that public education has a liberal bias. I learned all about the Teapot Dome scandal in history class, but not about the IRS scandal.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
It just doesn't take very long to say "Darrell Issa cherry picked anecdotes out of official documents and made the whole thing up".
Boston
Footballguy
The issue with bias always gets clouded...people tend to focus on figures like Rush, Hannity, Ann Coulter, Ed Shultz, Al Sharpton, Maureen Dowd or Rachel Maddow...IMO this group can be as biased as they want because they are upfront about what they believe...they are not pretending to be up-the-middle mouthpieces...the bias lies with members of the news media who have a bias but try to pretend they don't...I put people like Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, George Stephanopolous and pretty much every newspaper in the country in that category...while there are examples from both sides the left is more represented in this category than the right...those on the left will howl in protest but it is what it is...
timschochet
Footballguy
None of that is news, Sarnoff. Sorry.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
That's one day, Tim. The point still stands that it's being ignored over the last year. Sorry, you're still wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
The IRS thing was a very big story for about a month. Then it turned out Issa cherry picked the data, just as he did with Benghazi, and just as with Benghazi there was no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, and the story went away, except for the sort of extremist conservative websites which you seem to revel in linking. The only remaining question to me about both the IRS and Benghazi "scandals" is: why does Darrell Issa have a shred of credibility left?
Rich Conway
Footballguy
There are remaining questions in both investigations. In both, and Fast and Furious for that matter, someone or someones screwed up. Who was the someone(s), and what exactly did they do wrongly? No one has yet answered those questions satisfactorily, IMO. Hell, in the case of F&F, the someone(s) may well have been appointed by or part of the Bush 43 administration. I still want to know exactly who and what, and I don't believe that either Congress or the administration is interested in finding out or letting the public know.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not especially interested, mainly because I don't believe that either "scandal" rises to the level of executive culpability.
But even if you're correct, the reason that the mainstream news doesn't cover these issues more isn't because of some false liberal bias. It's because they bore the public, and garner lower ratings. Fox News gets high ratings from them, but only because the audience there is highly partisan and wants to hear stuff like this.
timschochet
Footballguy
It's been 2 1/2 years since I started this thread, and even in that short period of time, what is known as the "mainstream media" gets a smaller and smaller audience every day. CNN, the nightly news, the New York Times, the Washington Post, a few other dying newspapers- this is pretty much all that is left of the mainstream. More and more people are getting their news, if they bother to get it at all, from sources friendly to their point of view. I have no idea what the long term results of this cultural change are going to be, but I doubt they will be positive.
timschochet
Footballguy
If you watch MSNBC. Not on CNN.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
I watch Piers Morgan on CNN when I need an unbiased news source,
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
He's not a journalist.ETA- at least not in his role at CNN.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
Sarnoff
Footballguy
A big anti-gun Democrat State Senator was arrested for running a gun smuggling operation, purchasing M16s and rocket launchers from Muslim terrorists in the Philippines, and trying to sneak them into California by using a Chinese gangster as a middle-man. The New York Times dedicated only one paragraph to the story, buried on page A21, under the headline "California: State Senator Accused of Corruption".
timschochet
Footballguy
So you think the New York Times should pay more attention to state senators from California?
jonessed
Footballguy
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
sublimeone
Footballguy
Sarnoff
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
What about him? Seriously, when you hear that a politician is accused of corruption, is the first thing you look at whether or not it's a Republican or Democrat? Are you keeping a scorecard? Who cares about this stuff?
When a politician is pushing for some policy which I like or don't like, that's when I want to know his affiliation, and usually the media tells me. But if some state senator of mayor of a city is involved in a crime, I couldn't care less. And this idea that the media is covering it up is really dumb IMO.
jonessed
Footballguy
This is the third California Democratic Senator to go down on fraud, corruption, bribery, etc. just this year. Even the guy that was convicted still hasn't been forced to resign.
That alone is quite a story, but now you have one of them channeling money to Muslim terrorist groups to fund arms shipments to American crime syndicates? That's ####### crazy. You can't make something like that up.
Similar threads
- Poll
