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

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation?

From what I saw, they reported that Weiner claimed his account had been hacked. That's different from reporting that the account actually had been hacked. It was Luke Russert of NBC News that asked the question that got Weiner to say he didn't know for sure if the picture was of him.

 

[jon_mx]

The science behind gloabal warming is overstated and skeptism is rightfully growing.

Skepticism is growing in part because the media gives credibility to crackpot theories in an effort to appear balanced.

Skeptisism is growing because a little bit of light was shined on just how shakey the science is. I think a lot more light needs to be shed on the issue and it needs to be reported in a much more balanced way. Blindly accepting one side as fact because you happen to agree with that viewpoint is biased reporting. Thanks for making it clear that is your stance though.

 

[Bronco Billy]

That doesn't make much sense. Didn't FOX and Conservative radio, become successful and make money because they perceived a liberal bias in news reporting and decided to create a product that promoted a conservative bias? By your rationale...they should have just tried to be the MSM.

Of course it makes sense. One way to be successful in business is to find a constituency with a need and to fill the niche. Fox is successful because they offer a manistream aletrnative to all the liberal bias in the industry. That Fox should have just tried to be another liberal source as you suggest and then expect to be more successful than all the others is what doesn't make any sense.

 

[urbanhack]

Are they reporting the Weiner story with a slant?If so, please list some examples.

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation? A lot of blame was aimed at the messenger until the lies became unsupportable. When the elephant in the room is that large, even the LSM can't make it invisible.

Who is they?

 

[jon_mx]

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation?

From what I saw, they reported that Weiner claimed his account had been hacked. That's different from reporting that the account actually had been hacked. It was Luke Russert of NBC News that asked the question that got Weiner to say he didn't know for sure if the picture was of him.

I really did not see that much bias in the Weiner story. In years past prior to the explosion of information available on the web, it might have been buried. But in this case it was not.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The science behind gloabal warming is overstated and skeptism is rightfully growing.

Skepticism is growing in part because the media gives credibility to crackpot theories in an effort to appear balanced.

Skeptisism is growing because a little bit of light was shined on just how shakey the science is. I think a lot more light needs to be shed on the issue and it needs to be reported in a much more balanced way. Blindly accepting one side as fact because you happen to agree with that viewpoint is biased reporting. Thanks for making it clear that is your stance though.

Do you think the media should make an effort to shed light on the possibility that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Lots of people believe that too.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Are they reporting the Weiner story with a slant?

If so, please list some examples.

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation? A lot of blame was aimed at the messenger until the lies became unsupportable. When the elephant in the room is that large, even the LSM can't make it invisible.

Who is they?

Here's one: CNNNot much discrediting his claims of being hacked in that story, is there? There are quite a few others - do a web search yourself and look for LSM sources with dates prior to this weekend. Easy to find if you're willing to look.

 

[jon_mx]

The science behind gloabal warming is overstated and skeptism is rightfully growing.

Skepticism is growing in part because the media gives credibility to crackpot theories in an effort to appear balanced.

Skeptisism is growing because a little bit of light was shined on just how shakey the science is. I think a lot more light needs to be shed on the issue and it needs to be reported in a much more balanced way. Blindly accepting one side as fact because you happen to agree with that viewpoint is biased reporting. Thanks for making it clear that is your stance though.

Do you think the media should make an effort to shed light on the possibility that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Lots of people believe that too.

Their claims were reported but they did not stand up to scrutiny. If they could produce arguments which has some rationale basis, yes it should be reported. But lots of their claims there was video evidence to the contrary, so they came across as the nuts they are.

 

[honky kong]

Liberal bias? No. The most commonly discussed forms of bias occur when the media support or attack a particular political party, candidate, or ideology, but other common forms of bias include

[*]Advertising bias, when stories are selected or slanted to please advertisers.

[*]Corporate bias, when stories are selected or slanted to please corporate owners of media.

[*]Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to avoid stories that will offend anyone.

[*]Sensationalism, bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary, giving the impression that rare events, such as airplane crashes, are more common than common events, such as automobile crashes.

Other forms of bias including reporting that favors or attacks a particular race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic group.

I voted for corporate bias but this more closely aligns with the way I view things.I also think Tim's assertion that Fox isn't mainstream is ludicrous, at least where I live. If there is a single news channel on in public, whether it be a doctor's office, restaurant or where ever, there's a 95% chance that it is tuned to Fox. It doesn't get much more mainstream than that.

The reason I think that the "liberal media bias" is a myth is that 90% of the media outlets are owned by six corporations in this country. While individual reporters may have a liberal bias, they don't control what gets on the air or in the papers. Editors do and they are beholden to corporations - corporations that are anything but liberal. Also, IMO, if the media were truly liberal, wouldn't we see more news about workers' issues and all that? The financial/corporate side of things is well represented with entire channels dedicated to the market in addition to market updates on regular channels, but I don't see much about stagnant wages over the last 30 years in this country. And how have they done on reporting about the financial crisis of 2008 and how it happened? If the media were liberal, wouldn't we see more reporting that is critical of the military? Compare the military reporting of today with what we saw in Vietnam.

I believe the media in this country took a wrong turn when news divisions went from having a focus on informing the public to becoming profit centers. News departments at the major networks were not profitable until fairly recently and that was ok, as it was seen as a lead-in for their other programming. Once it became all about profit, sensationalism and dumbing down the news kicked in and now we find ourselves where we are today.

 

[urbanhack]

Are they reporting the Weiner story with a slant?

If so, please list some examples.

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation? A lot of blame was aimed at the messenger until the lies became unsupportable. When the elephant in the room is that large, even the LSM can't make it invisible.

Who is they?

Here's one: CNNNot much discrediting his claims of being hacked in that story, is there? There are quite a few others - do a web search yourself and look for LSM sources with dates prior to this weekend. Easy to find if you're willing to look.

Wrong.Why would they discredit anything there? They were just reporting what he said. That isn't the media being liberal, that is the media being lazy.

 

[urbanhack]

If the media were truly liberal, they would be giving Trump and Palin all the media coverage they currently get.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you think the media should make an effort to shed light on the possibility that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Lots of people believe that too.

Their claims were reported but they did not stand up to scrutiny. If they could produce arguments which has some rationale basis, yes it should be reported. But lots of their claims there was video evidence to the contrary, so they came across as the nuts they are.

Nuts don't usually know that they're nuts. Those guys think there's a media bias to cover up a 9/11 government conspiracy. How would you explain to one of them that the media is not biased against 9/11 conspiracy guys?Maybe I should have gone with a line of questioning about the birthers. They were also pretty convinced that the media was biased against them.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Are they reporting the Weiner story with a slant?

If so, please list some examples.

Weren't they the ones who faithfully reported Weiner's lies about being hacked without any corroboration or investigation? A lot of blame was aimed at the messenger until the lies became unsupportable. When the elephant in the room is that large, even the LSM can't make it invisible.

Who is they?

Here's one: CNNNot much discrediting his claims of being hacked in that story, is there? There are quite a few others - do a web search yourself and look for LSM sources with dates prior to this weekend. Easy to find if you're willing to look.

Wrong.Why would they discredit anything there? They were just reporting what he said. That isn't the media being liberal, that is the media being lazy.

Nevermind. I should have known better.The whole piece is obviously cover, and page 2 makes specific reference to Breitbart being an attack conservative, and well as CNN's legal analyst being quoted as saying it's a prank that ought to be dismissed.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Nuts don't usually know that they're nuts.

:deepirony:

 

[NCCommish]

Study after study refutes liberal bias in the media and pins bias directly on the corporations who aren't all that liberal.

They certainly proved what they set out to prove, but I would hardly classify those as 'studies'. You would have an easier time convincing me the sky is purple. Sure there might be rare times when the sunset where there are different colors in the sky, but my eyes see blue skies enough to know what color the sky usually is.

Of course reality also has a liberal bias.

 

[Boston]

There's nothing wrong with a bias as long as you admit to it...that's why I have zero issues with a Rush, Hannity, Beck, Stewart, Maddow or Olberman...they tell you where they are coming from or in Stewart's case say they are in it for entertainment. The issue is when you don't admit to what you are...is there anyone who doesn't believe the New York Times or Newsweek isn't coming at the news from a leftward slant? Seriously? As for the "big" networks when is the last time there was an anchor that was considered to the right...Jennings, Brokaw, Rather, Cronkite, Couric...look at the list of the anchors from the past thirty years or so and is there one that would be considered even slightly conservative?

 

[Slapdash]

The media absolutely has a corporate bias.

 

[RCon]

Study after study refutes liberal bias in the media and pins bias directly on the corporations who aren't all that liberal.

They certainly proved what they set out to prove, but I would hardly classify those as 'studies'. You would have an easier time convincing me the sky is purple. Sure there might be rare times when the sunset where there are different colors in the sky, but my eyes see blue skies enough to know what color the sky usually is.

Of course reality also has a liberal bias.

fatguyinalittlecoat beat you to this one by a full page. For shame, NCC.

 

[Slapdash]

Study after study refutes liberal bias in the media and pins bias directly on the corporations who aren't all that liberal.

They certainly proved what they set out to prove, but I would hardly classify those as 'studies'. You would have an easier time convincing me the sky is purple. Sure there might be rare times when the sunset where there are different colors in the sky, but my eyes see blue skies enough to know what color the sky usually is.

Of course reality also has a liberal bias.

Why does reality hate America?

 

[NCCommish]

Study after study refutes liberal bias in the media and pins bias directly on the corporations who aren't all that liberal.

They certainly proved what they set out to prove, but I would hardly classify those as 'studies'. You would have an easier time convincing me the sky is purple. Sure there might be rare times when the sunset where there are different colors in the sky, but my eyes see blue skies enough to know what color the sky usually is.

Of course reality also has a liberal bias.

fatguyinalittlecoat beat you to this one by a full page. For shame, NCC.

Was it a contest? Oh well sorry Fatguy didn't mean to stomp on your line.

 

[Willy]

Are they reporting the Weiner story with a slant?If so, please list some examples.

It looked slanted 90° to the left to me.

 

[timschochet]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

2. Honky Kong states that I should have made FOX part of the mainstream media. That's an interesting question, but I excluded FOX since including it would have changed the dynamic of the question. Obviously when conservatives refer to the MSM they are not including FOX, so I decided to stick to their definition in order to discuss if their charge (that the MSM is heavily biased) is largely true.

3. Jon, I asked for some examples of how the MSM is heavily biased, and you came the closest to responding- you offered several subjects in which you feel they are biased. However, you didn't offer any specific examples. What I'd like to see is a specific example of how something was reported, and then how YOU would have reported it differently. TIA

 

[jon_mx]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.

OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices.

How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

 

[Hooper31]

Results are a surprise when you consider the voting population. The FFA has a conservative Republican majority.

Not really. The board leans right but it is more libertarian than conservative per se.

My error. Results AREN'T a surprise.Libertarian? You aren't going to convince me that's how they vote. When it comes time to cast the ballot the majority of members here are voting Republican. I've run two polls through the years on this board and a majority of members here both times identified themselves as conservative. This board is populated largely by middle class white men.

Here was one from 2007.

 

[jon_mx]

This board is decisively liberal socially. And by a very large margin. Not at all in line with the typical middle class white male. This board is fairly conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. I would place the bias of the media at extremely liberally biased on social issues and mildly biased on fiscal issues. Overall, I think this boards approval or disapproval of Obama for instance ends up being pretty close to what the national polls show. Perhaps for different reasons though.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.

OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices.

How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in 1929-1933. Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.

So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.

So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.

OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices.

How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in 1929-1933. Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.

So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.

So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

 

[HellToupee]

Results are a surprise when you consider the voting population. The FFA has a conservative Republican majority.

Not really. The board leans right but it is more libertarian than conservative per se.

This board is populated largely by middle class white men. Here was one from 2007.

How do you know anyone's race here?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

 

[Da Guru]

Since you restricted the news media to inclue, I answered that they do have a liberal bias.However, radio is so dominated by the right wing it's hard to say there is an overall liberal bias.And this is all relative... if the US media were at the same place in the spectrum as the rest of the civilized world, then they are "liberal". The right wing in the US is on an island.But the biggest problem with the news media is that they don't report the news. They are entertainment. Have you ever been in another country and seen what it's like when they just report the news?

It was the mainstream media that spawned opposite views like Rush and networks like FOX.

 

[Sinn Fein]

To answer the original post - yes bias exists in every medium.

If you look at "mainstream" as you have defined it, you will see largely a college-educated, liberal arts type, reporter.

That profiles as someone who leans liberal - free and open expression and debate of ideas is more of a liberal viewpoint than a conservative view point.

 

[Ilov80s]

The mainstream media has a money bias. If it makes money, they like it.

If that were true, they'd report the news without a slant. The liberal facets of the news media, and most especially the newspapers, are losing their followers. People have caught on and simply don't trust them any longer and won't invest in them.

Of course it makes sense. One way to be successful in business is to find a constituency with a need and to fill the niche. Fox is successful because they offer a manistream aletrnative to all the liberal bias in the industry. That Fox should have just tried to be another liberal source as you suggest and then expect to be more successful than all the others is what doesn't make any sense.

Ok, you made my argument for me here. Liberal bias vs conservative bias= Coke vs Pepsi to the people who run the mainstream media. They find what people like and shove it down their throat.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Results are a surprise when you consider the voting population. The FFA has a conservative Republican majority.

Not really. The board leans right but it is more libertarian than conservative per se.

This board is populated largely by middle class white men. Here was one from 2007.

How do you know anyone's race here?

I am a white catholic terrorist. HTHDepends on how you classify middle class as to whether I fit that definition.

 

[Hooper31]

Results are a surprise when you consider the voting population. The FFA has a conservative Republican majority.

Not really. The board leans right but it is more libertarian than conservative per se.

This board is populated largely by middle class white men. Here was one from 2007.

How do you know anyone's race here?

I don't, but is this really where you want to go with this?Joe and David collected demographic data on their clientele long ago, but I don't remember if race was one of the questions.

 

[jon_mx]

FBG middle class.... $500K plus per year

 

[SofaKings]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup he doesn't do himself any favors in his long winded reply in 1).

 

[tommyboy]

To answer the original post - yes bias exists in every medium.

If you look at "mainstream" as you have defined it, you will see largely a college-educated, liberal arts type, reporter.

That profiles as someone who leans liberal - free and open expression and debate of ideas is more of a liberal viewpoint than a conservative view point.

not really. Liberals, starting in kindergarten teaching all the way to the college compus, tend to ignore conservative views, discount them, mock them and also tend to exclude conservative teachers. You see this in the 96% democrat voting records of the mainstream media employees. You see this in bills sponsored in congress by liberals that want to restrict free speech, restrict the right to bear arms, restrict the right to an open health insurance system, restrict the free market. Liberals generally are pro-restriction, pro-government power at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[RCon]

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

Now do it by which party controlled Congress.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

Now do it by which party controlled Congress.

Go ahead share the results.If you have a point to make, make it. The point here was a comparison of Bush and Obama, which arose from jon_mx's complaint about the media bias in reporting the jobs data in Bush's term, versus Obama's term.When you get your results, let me know your thoughts on whether congress influences current terms, or future terms (two-year terms really are short to enact policies and measure their impact). Also - do we criticize/praise congress for job loss/creation, or the president. I just want to be consistent. Anxiously awaiting your research.

 

[NCCommish]

Results are a surprise when you consider the voting population. The FFA has a conservative Republican majority.

Not really. The board leans right but it is more libertarian than conservative per se.

My error. Results AREN'T a surprise.Libertarian? You aren't going to convince me that's how they vote. When it comes time to cast the ballot the majority of members here are voting Republican. I've run two polls through the years on this board and a majority of members here both times identified themselves as conservative. This board is populated largely by middle class white men.

Here was one from 2007.

And I vote Democrat mostly although they don't suit my political temperament fully. So yes Libertarian despite voting tendencies.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Interesting results, but MSM is definitely a pejorative these days. Same thing with liberal.

You have to question the OP's bias and/or intent. I'm quite certain traditional media and progressive are in his lexicon, I've seen him use both. Oh what might have been...

 

[Thorn]

Do you believe the "mainstream media" has HAVE a liberal bias?

It's a plural noun. Come on now.

 

[jon_mx]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices. How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in . Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I stated or the OP. My example was to illustrate bias in reporting, not to argue which president was better. Even when there were good years under Bush, the media still crapped on him.

 

[jon_mx]

Do you believe the "mainstream media" has HAVE a liberal bias?

It's a plural noun. Come on now.

At least it is original work. Give him props.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices. How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in . Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I stated or the OP. My example was to illustrate bias in reporting, not to argue which president was better. Even when there were good years under Bush, the media still crapped on him.

The context did not help Bush, and does help Obama. Coming off tremendous growth under the Clinton administration, Bush looked REALLY bad. While coming off the tepid growth under Bush, Obama does not look as bad (although his numbers are worse thus far).The mainstream media story is simple - Clinton created a bunch of jobs, Bush ruined the economy, Obama inherited a bad economy and is making the best of a bad situation. This influences the tenor of the articles/reports on the subject.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Fox News's conservative bias far exceeds the cumulation of all the liberal bias. There's no one even remotely closely to the likes of Hannity and Beck. Even the so called moderate on Fox news, O'reilley, is worse then anyone I've seen on the other cable news stations.

Most people that voted that the news has a heavy liberal bias are probably conservative so like, duh, of course they're going to vote that way. Just look at the discussions that go on this board and you'll see that objectivity and impartiality left the building a long time ago. Its all about taking a side and defending it at all costs. The hell with acknowledging that almost always, both side have some valid points and trying to reach a middle ground.

FAILED! I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you might have a slight liberal view. Absolutely, FOX News has a conservative bias. I am sure you have watched "Ed" (I guess he doesn't want to use his last name), Miss Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Matthews and lets throw in Keith Olberman (good thing he left MSNBC - he looked like he was going to have a heart attack when he would go on his rants about various conservatives). I am sure you think they have a an unbiased view.

 

[timschochet]

Interesting results, but MSM is definitely a pejorative these days. Same thing with liberal.

You have to question the OP's bias and/or intent. I'm quite certain traditional media and progressive are in his lexicon, I've seen him use both. Oh what might have been...

Not sure where you're going with this. My intent is pretty straightforward: it seems like every time we have a political discussion these days, one of the conservative posters comments that the "mainstream media" is biased against them. This argument is constantly used to defend against criticism of FOX, of Sarah Palin, of anytime a conservative figure or group does something questionable. Therefore, I decided to have a discussion about it. As to my "bias", I stated it in the OP- I generally believe that the network news tries to be objective in its reporting. But I haven't really attempted to argue that, because it's an impression of mine rather than a set political position. What I really wanted to do was to explore what other people here thought. So far, it's been very rewarding.

You seem to want to accuse me of trying to steer this discussion in a certain direction. If so, I'm unaware of it.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Actually, they usually call it lamestream media, in lock step with their inspirational leadership.

 

[jon_mx]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices. How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in . Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I stated or the OP. My example was to illustrate bias in reporting, not to argue which president was better. Even when there were good years under Bush, the media still crapped on him.

The context did not help Bush, and does help Obama. Coming off tremendous growth under the Clinton administration, Bush looked REALLY bad. While coming off the tepid growth under Bush, Obama does not look as bad (although his numbers are worse thus far).The mainstream media story is simple - Clinton created a bunch of jobs, Bush ruined the economy, Obama inherited a bad economy and is making the best of a bad situation. This influences the tenor of the articles/reports on the subject.

The context argument is a lame excuse and a way to confuse the issue and I really don't see the point. In both cases it was far enough into their term when they both had to take ownership of what was going on. In fact, 2005 was Katrina so Bush had a good excuse for things like rising gas prices, and yet we still had a very good year even by Clinton years standards. As far as Obama, we are going into the third year of the largest stimulus spending package ever, and job numbers are still poor. Why are we still making excuses? Obama made promises and he came far far short. He deserves criticism, but the MSM isn't doing it. All you are doing by allowing the DNC talking points into this discusions is illustrating why you don't see the bias. You are blind too it, and still believe MSNBC are straight shooters.

 

[jon_mx]

Actually, they usually call it lamestream media, in lock step with their inspirational leadership.

Yiu have it backwards. It were bloggers and individuals who first used the term and the leadership followed.