How "media bias" saved America
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
How "media bias" saved America
The doors to Election Day polling places won't begin to swing open for another six hours, and while I wouldn't be shocked if the GOP has one more trick up its collective sleeve, the polls are pointing strongly toward a victory by Barack Obama tonight, and that can only mean one thing.
The blame game has already begun in Red America.
And the spinning arrow is pointing directly at "the media."
It's become a staple of Sarah Palin's pep rallies, that the all-powerful (except when it comes to actually selling the product) media is out to get John McCain and elect Barack Obama. Her new spin on media bias is a tad ridiculous, but here goes:
Throughout the day yesterday, Palin hit Obama and the press equally hard, highlighting an audio tape of Obama criticizing the coal industry that surfaced on conservative blogs over the weekend and suggesting it had been intentionally suppressed by a biased media. "You hear Barack Obama talking about bankrupting the coal industry," Palin said at the
Columbus rally, referring to the tape. "John McCain and I, we will not let that happen to the coal industry." Palin also asked indignantly why the tape has been "withheld from the electorate." In fact, though the Drudge Report first highlighted the tape yesterday, audio of the interview has been available on the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle since mid-January, when Obama made the comments in an interview with the newspaper's editorial board.
It's not hard to understand why a Sarah Palin lashes out, largely in frustration, but this rallying cry has been echoing around the op-ed pages and some of the blogs for the last few days, that the 2008 election will long be remembered for its shameful media bias, that the altars of the Church of Objective Journalism are crashing down and that our democracy is at risk. The truth is that the writers of these doom-and-gloom pieces tend to fall into two categories, A) Republicans, for want of a better term and B) bitter contrarians, writers seeking to show their cleverness by seeing what the rest of the world does not.
Here's a fairly typical example -- it's an online op-ed that ran on the website of the New York Times...excuse me, the liberally biased New York Times, today. The allegation of press bias comes from, ahem, the former press secretary for Bob Dole:
After the presidential election is over and the dust, animosity, glee and shock settle into something manageable, the nation will need to tackle the subject of “media bias” in a sincere and honest manner.
As an “independent conservative,” I’m expected to see liberal media bias lurking everywhere, but it’s not just me — and it’s not just conservatives. I know liberals, including newspaper editors, who think the “news” pendulum had swung dangerously far to the left.
The author of the piece, Douglas MacKinnon, runs through what's becoming a familiar litany of complaints, citing two recent studies that tried to objectify negative and positive stories to determine that the coverage of Obama has been more positive than that of McCain, and he also points out studies showing that an overwhelming number of journalists vote Democratic. What's more, in keeping with the sorry tenor of the 2008 campaign, there's a bit of a backhanded swipe at affirmative action; since newsrooms are younger and more racially diverse than a generation ago, of course these reporters swoon for Obama.
Concludes MacKinnon:
My point is, regardless of whether the news media are right or wrong about an Obama win, shouldn’t they still be concerned about that “shred of credibility they have left?” Shouldn’t they be concerned with numerous studies and the observations of various journalists that the business has tilted too far to the left?
Actually, no.
First of all, the arguments upon MacKinnon and some of these other op-ed writers have based their arguments are full of holes. As for the tepid political leanings of journalists (most of whom greatly prefer a good scoop over electing a good president), the tilt toward voting Democratic has been out there as a fact since the early 1970s, even as a candidate who some 80 percent of votes from journalists, George McGovern, got horrific press coverage. It existed during that Reagan years, when most press coverage was so fawning that it was captured in a book by Mark Hertsgaard called "On Bended Knee." The reasons are complicated -- at a simplistic level you could say that questioning authority (a journalistic tenet too often honored in the breach) is more of a liberal trait than a conservative one. To conservatives unhappy about that, I've always argued a) recruit more young conservatives to be journalists or b) start your own conservative media outlets, which has worked for them on cable news and AM radio if no so much in print, where no kind of startup makes much economic sense right now.
As for the issue that newsrooms are too diverse, well, a newsroom where everyone looked like John McCain isn't such a great idea (and trust me because I'm nearly there, except with less hair than the 72-year-old standard bearer.) But what about the social scientific research proving that there've been more negative articles about McCain -- doesn't that prove that the media is biased?
Not really. My own unscientific perception, from reading a ton of coverage, is that McCain's lead in negative articles is because a) he's run a much more negative campaign, with harsher attacks, especially after Sarah Palin, with her know-nothing rallies, joined the varsity team and b) he's losing, which is the ultimate negative, including the flood of disgruntled GOP aides leaking bad stuff to the media. The result is something that should be obvious yet seems counter-intuitive to a lot of people: Given the state of this race and the way that McCain and Palin conducted their campaign, what really would have been bias for the media to would have been to write the same number of negative and positive stories about both McCain and Obama.
That, also, would have been business as usual – creating false equivalencies, “on-one-hand, on-the-other-hand” journalism that bends over backwards to gather evidence that both campaigns were equally bad, even if the truth is that one hand is carrying a lot more mud and filth than the other. That’s the way it’s been done in the sacred temples of what we call “objective journalism,” even in the run-up to the war in Iraq when so many bogus pronouncements went unchallenged.
Look, it would be nice to declare that the 2008 campaign was a shining moment for campaign journalism in every way, but that clearly was not the case. There was way too much “horse race” journalism, too many polls and too many stories about polls and too many stories about stories about polls, and some pretty lame articles (like this clumsy one from the New York Times about McCain). But at the end of the day, I would say that some in the traditional media – backed by bloggers and New Media types – did get it right when it mattered the most, when the election could have slipped away just as the Iraq invasion did.’
In the weeks immediately following the Republican National Convention, the McCain campaign made a conscious decision to declare war on the media and to use that “media war” as an excuse to run several ads that were misleading or egregiously false. It was a do-or-die moment, and there were enough reporters in 2008 who were willing to shed the cloak of contrived objectivity – to acknowledge the once unprintable fact that one side was lying more than other.
And it may well have been a turning point in the election. In the days that followed, the McCain team toned down some of its commercials, and many rank-and-file voters seemed to see through the sleaziest tactics. The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove strategies that decided our elections in 1988 and were adapted to 2000 and 2004, with disastrous consequences all the way from Sadr City to the Lower 9th Ward to Wall Street, were finally pushed back – maybe too late for America, but maybe just in time.
It was living proof of my personal belief that the greatest role for journalists is not to make sure that every story has 50 percent of one side and 50 percent of the other side – but that the vital function for reporters is to preserve democracy and the freedom of the press, because without those freedoms a valid media would cease to exist. Yes, they’re voicing outrage today inside the sacred sanctuary of the
But for eight years now, there’s been an out-of-control fire raging outside of that temple – a fire that was built upon the USA Patriot Act and
I myself would call it truth-telling, and honest journalism, but now we have some who want to call it “media bias.” That’s fine with me, but understand this.
“Media bias” may have just saved America .
Comments (150)
Well stated Will. It will now be interesting to see how much whine the neo-cons have left when the realization of the Obama electoral college landslide smacks them in the collective kisser.— AHiredGun- The stupidest thing about all the whining about "the liberal media" is that the media exists to be liberal. A free media doesn't (or at least shouldn't) exist to talk about how great our government is, or how wonderful life is for people in power, or how things should stay just the way they are. A free media is supposed to be the voice of the voiceless, a function which is uniquely liberal. If people think that the media is in Obama's pocket, find a new term (Demo-Media?) that makes sense. Liberal media? That's like whining about a "tyrannical oligarchy".— JGT
- But Will, you are neither a journalist nor a reporter. Would the IRS come down on me if I claimed "City of Philadelphia" as a dependent on my next tax return? Win or lose Will, just go away. McCain/Palin have been more negative than Obama because there are so many negatives to choose from. Despite efforts, I still know nothing about Obama, other than he promises "change", whatever that may be. Is it wrong to question a candidate on his judgment and integrity? Is it wrong to question a candidate on his experience? Hitting on Ayers, Wright, and ACORN are legitimate questions that are only negative because they are aimed at your candidate. The left/socialist/communist attacks on Palin have been simply patronizing and misogynistic and are far worse than anything the right has thrown at Obama/Biden. I didn't even read anything about Biden. How can a guy who quit a previous presidential race because of plagiarism and resume padding now be qualified to be vice president? Obama brings nothing but "change" to the table. Taxes and expansion of the welfare state will not fix the economy. Iraq, right or wrong, is a non issue at this point. His foreign policy will fail as leaders of other countries do not respect him and he will destroy the miltary. At least the Congress will change hands in 2010. Can you say Jimmy Carter 2?— 23
- What a surprise, no media bias found. Well you never heard a huckster cry rotten apples either. The media have influenced this election the way they want us to thinkmand it's anti democratic. To state otherwise is laughable. Obama is the least experiecned and least vetted candidate in history yet the media did it's hatchet job by villifying Sarah palin on a daily basis. Media propagandists at the Daily news are no better than Jospeh Goeebels and the third reich. They should be arrested.— tr88
- 23, if you don't know abouyt Obama by now, then you did not look. Aside from his websites, there were all the everyday stories in the papers and on TV. He will not come to your door personally to explain everything. Same with Joe Biden. He's been around for a long time, so you had plenty of time to research him other than the so-called plagiarism of 20 years ago when once he didn't say he got part of a peech from a British pol. What makes you say Obama will destroy the military, as if bushco hasn't. mccain is seeking cuts in defense as well. Will he destroy it. If you don't know something, that's your problem. All the facts are out there if you'd get off you lazy butt and look. That's called being a citizen.— mike l
- Saved America? Please. As an aerospace engineer that's a contractor to NASA, I'm going to need a job thanks to 'media bias'. We're about to elect the next George W. Bush. A well intentioned President that doesn't know much that will overly depend on his advisers. Yippee. Four more years.
Right Will, McCain got negative coverage because he ran negative ads and Obama didn't. Just remember, buddy, you do not question the Messiah or you will be a racist, too.
Comment removed.
"Media propagandists at the Daily news are no better than Jospeh Goeebels and the third reich. They should be arrested." . . . . . . And after we do that, do we go after the Jews?
"McCain/Palin have been more negative than Obama because there are so many negatives to choose from". Even if this were true, it still cost you the election. Learn from this next time RNC.— potus- "I would say that some in the traditional media – backed by bloggers and New Media types – did get it right when it mattered the most, when the election could have slipped away just as the Iraq invasion did.’" So while denying MSM bias, Will, you show your own.— db_cooper
- "A free media doesn't (or at least shouldn't) exist to talk about how great our government is, or how wonderful life is for people in power, or how things should stay just the way they are." Unless the person in power is a Democrat, in which case malfeasance is ignored or slowly dribbled out. Or if the government program in question is of liberal coinage, in which case the media puts on their pom-poms for it to be enacted.— db_cooper
- "you do not question the Messiah or you will be a racist, too." . . . That doesn't seem to deter you, theodotius, and what's great is that you can do it on a liberal media website without fear of being arrested. Just remember, "racist" is just a word, like "socialist" or "terrorist" is just a word. Freedom is real.
- This is one of the most illogical pieces I've ever read. First of all, the fact of an event is one thing that cannot be disputed, however postmodern you are. Second, a skewed or biased presentation of the fact turns news into propaganda. How did bias and propaganda save Germany... Russia... China... and countless millions of other people in around the world in socialist countries where the media was biased... hiding/distorting facts? The liberal media in countries like Russia and China continue to support those oppressive governments. Oh, but how could the media possibly hurt democracy? The first obvious answer is by hiding or distorting the truth. The second is through biased motives. The third that I would like to point out, however, is that there are too many unsubstantiated accusations and assumptions or hopes of guilt/fault stemming from the media right now. This sways public opinion before any legal proceeding begins. Nowadays, the media considers someone stained or guilty before proven innocent, whereas the courts are designed to consider someone innocent before proven guilty. As for reporters themselves, while it is common for any individual to have a biased worldview, those biased motives (i.e. trying to get people to dislike a given politician) will completely color a story. Last, if the media is supposed to be a voice for the voiceless, what about the voiceless 3rd party candidates? In fact, they aren't voiceless; but they are ignored en masse by the media. In other areas, science and medicine for instance, there are substantial attempts (although major flaws remain) to get rid of bias. In the court of law, there are some attempts to maintain objectivity. Why not in the media? If the media cannot be honest or intellectual in an attempt to deal with this epistemological problem, then it is time to supplant it with a source of information that is more open and objective.— constantine
- "then it is time to supplant it with a source of information that is more open and objective." . . . . Wow, that's a cliffhanger, constantine. Finish your thought. How about a Handicapper General for the media, as in "Harrison Bergeron"? Repeal the First Amendment and an egalitarian thought paradise is yours.
"contrived commandments of journalism " I'm glad to see that you think so highly of your profession, Will. Nevermind the Constitution, Will can't even stand up for the principles of his profession. Should Obama win, this is the kind of thinking that will run the country. The ends always justify the means. As long as liberals win, there are no principles worth standing up for. The decline and fall of journalism is complete.— jmc- The press tends to have a bias towards skill and talent. Thus, this year's bad press for the repubs.— bobcitydoc
- Comment removed.
- Also Will, if you so interested in freedom of the press, why didn't you come to the aid of your colleagues from Th Washington Times, New York Post, and Dallas Morning News who got thrown off the Obama plane because they endorsed McCain. They were replaced with Ebony, Jet, and Essence magazines. No I'm not making that up.— jmc
- "The decline and fall of journalism is complete." . . . . Let's say the decline and fall of elite corporate journalism is complete (almost). The web is doing exactly what Toffler predicted in his Third Wave/Powershift thesis.
- People who say Obama's experience is similar to George Bush's prior to his (nightmare) presidency are dead wrong. Obama didn't run every business he ever worked for into the the ground. Obama didn't get into an Ivy League school on his family name. Obama wasn't an alcoholic. Obama wasn't born a white man from a rich family with a silver spoon in his mouth. Obama worked his butt off for everything he got in this life -- that is something that shows in a person's character. You can bet someone who has had to fight their way up from the bottom won't be so cavalier about sending our soldiers out to die for questionable causes. When you grow up like Bush, you tend to get the idea that most things are disposable and easily replaceable. Unfortunately, the lives that have been lost are not.— tsamm
- jmc, were you whining for the First Amendment when Mccain banned Klein and Dowd from his fly list? It's interesting how you knew about Obama's no-fly list when the media is so diabolically conspired against you. Where do you get your insider info?
- Nice post, constantine. I would add one more observation - the media has proven once again Orwell's timeless maxim that omission is the most powerful form of lie. Palin got vastly more scrutiny as VP candidate than Obama ever received as the Presidential candidate for the Dems (CNN could send reporters to a remote island in Alaska but never could be bothered to look for Obama's missing state senate records). And the same folks who were outraged about Bush Administration actions to search records and databases for potential terrorists were silent when government systems in Ohio were abused by Obama supporters to dig up potential dirt on Joe the Plumber. We will pay dearly if Obama wins today, because the media refused to present to the American people a clear and detailed picture of the man. I am afraid if he wins, he will make the Clintons look ethical and constrained by comparison. We have seen it already in the threatening letters by his campaign to media outlets, in the attempts to shout down critics, and in his chilling call for a national security force. If the GOP loses, I can accept that, because they do not deserve to win, given how they frittered away their mandates. However, the media, in their headlong rush to adore Obama, has unleashed a candidate whose only qualification seems to be his blind ambition for power and whose past is a cipher. From what I have seen, we will be in for a treacherous four years if he wins, where it will get ever more risky for ordinary citizens to stand up to power and state opposing views.— db_cooper
- "The press tends to have a bias towards skill and talent." Really. Please list five significant legislative achievements by Obama. And tell me why Biden can't seem to get through a speech or a debate without a major gaffe.— db_cooper
- db, let's concede for argument's sake that the media is in the tank for the left. The question then is, how did this happen? Are you implying it's a conspiracy?
- Pravda— ej
- Does it start at the academic level, db? Are conservatives secretly and categorically denied admission to journalism schools to insure a liberal press? You know, we have a first amendment to insure a free marketplace of ideas. When one set of ideas can't make it in the marketplace, do we need socialism of the press? That Fairness Doctrine thingie applied to all the media?
- The way I see it there are two trains heading to hell, its a matter of which will get us there first. Unfortunately I think it will be guy who is elected tonight. Be prepared for the tough times ahead, the policies by either candidate will almost certainly reshape America for the worse. The coverage by the Daily News and the Inquirer have been nothing short of shameful. I was a loyal reader, until the past couple of months, I will never pay for a newspaper (I use that term loosely) who insinuates that I am a racist if I don't vote for Barry.— Criz2020
- Comment removed.
I'm not sure which is the more arrogant piece of fecal matter; the article or the writer.— rudytbone- Will Bunch is an idiot! What about the Republican poll watchers that were forcibly removed from Philly polling places today because they were from the wrong party? No comment from the biased media at all!— eagle8
- So, in other words, the media isn't credible. Nothing they say can be trusted. They spin everything. They package the news specifically in order to advance their agenda. They ignore the fact that Obama associated with known terrorists, but blanketed American with Palin's wardrobe. Just like the old days in the USSR...— ej
- Comment removed.
- Wow, Acorn infiltrated the voter rolls of Dixville Notch and Hart's Location too? Somebody ought to be arrested, lol!
- Hilarious. A vast portion of the MSM, a portion which is probably more influential than the other portion, a portion that Republicans constantly boast about as being so highly influential, has been focused, 24/7, on any and every possible criticism of Obama that one can imagine, and cares not one iota about creating any balance in its reporting because its marketing strategy is to, specifically, present a one-sided viewpoint. On the other hand, another portion of the MSM, that Republicans are constantly telling us is irrelevant, whether somewhat biased or not, at least attempts to be even-handed because its marketing strategy relies on creating an impression of bias. Seriously, hilarious. And yes, illogically, those same Republican lackesy will whine like stuck pigs about how "THE MEDIA!!!" handed the "elitist" Obama the election - a theory that is based on the absurd elitist logic that only they are Americans smart enough to see through the vast conspiracy.— Talking point sleuth
- "They ignore the fact that Obama associated with known terrorists" . . . . . . But somehow you know all about it. You must be a subversive who gets information from illegal foreign sources, right?
- "And tell me why Biden can't seem to get through a speech or a debate without a major gaffe." Gee - I've never seen that mentioned in the "MSM." Lol!— Talking point sleuth
- ""And tell me why Biden can't seem to get through a speech or a debate without a major gaffe." Gee - I've never seen that mentioned in the "MSM." Lol!" I guess, TPD, that it's asking way too much for you to cite that in the context in which I posted it, where the poster said the media was biased towards skill and talent, and I raised the question of just how talented and skill Joe Biden is.— db_cooper
- "We will pay dearly if Obama wins today, " Lol! Seriously, db, you've gone over the edge. Calm down, dude. Eight years of a secretive, vindictive, president who pursued disastrous policies. A man you voted for twice. And now you're worried? Bush is at 20% approval ratings. I suppose that the media has worked 80% of the public into a "Bush Derangement Syndrome" stupor. Thank god for the 20% of Americans who are the only ones who can see through the conspiracy. One question, though, why do that 20% hate 80% of the American public so much?— Talking point sleuth
- A question for the whiners? Assuming Obama get somewhere around 50% of the American public, can you just inform us what makes you soooooo much smarter than half of America? Just what keen insight allows you to see through this conspiracy, if it's as obvious and clear-cut as you claim? Is it really that you're that smart, or is it just that 50% of the American public is so stupid?— Talking point sleuth
- "db, let's concede for argument's sake that the media is in the tank for the left. The question then is, how did this happen? Are you implying it's a conspiracy?" No, just a gradual elimination of professionalism in journalism. I do agree there could well be a natural filter in the field that draws more liberals than conservatives. However, at what point does the media cross the line from having an inherent bias while still trying to report both sides to the story, to becoming an out-and-out advocacy process (otherwise known as propaganda) for a candidate or a party? IMO that line was crossed this election, and it does not bode well for the Republic.— db_cooper
- Saved America? The troubling thing is that you honestly seem to believe this, Will. For the most part, the media has chosen to ignore the tough questions for Obama--is it so hard to find & interview Tony Rezko or even Obama's former drug dealer? Forgetting that, how about asking him how his policy of raising corporate taxes is going to create jobs when businesses are already struggling? The only saving grace is that this is thankfully a center-right country, and the Democratic monopoly in Washington will be short-lived. It will either be a one-term presidency (a la Jimmy Carter, who won more than 50% of the popular vote in 1980 and then couldn't buy a friend four years later) or it will be like the first two years of Clinton's presidency, when things got so bad that America didn't even wait until the next presidential election and restored a Republican majority in Congress in 1994. Point of fact: Senator Obama, if he wins, will have been elected for all the wrong reasons, and that's not good for America.— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- Yeah, Will - your column is proof that the media is fair. Arse.— rbpeeple
- Yeah, Will - your column is proof that the media is fair. Arse.— rbpeeple
- "Calm down, dude." Sorry. Obama is a cipher who has this odd habit of having his records disappear. He has told bald-faced lies to get elected, such as not having a signficant association with Ayers or Acorn. He has called for a national security force which should scare you a LOT more than Bush wanting to wiretap terrorism suspects. And his supporters have shown a tendency to try and shout down opponents and abuse government systems against opponents, and they also seek to re-instate the 'Fairness' Doctrine in an effort to silence opposition media while reaping the benefits of having the MSM clearly slanted towards themselves. Not a good sign.— db_cooper
- Allow me to recap...the actions of a well intentioned few justify the end of electing Obama. Does that also apply to Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald? I'm sure they thought they were acting in the public good also? I'm mean, what's betrayal of the public trust and assassination when your goal is noble?— rudytbone
- What's so great about all the things that the media never tell us is that most of it is reported in the media. Almost everything referred to on this board has been in the media. What do you folks read?... Do you folks read?....Or is it just floating from board to board posting wild rants?— JimR
- "Forgetting that, how about asking him how his policy of raising corporate taxes is going to create jobs when businesses are already struggling?" Wow! I never heard anything about that "fact" in "the media." Where did you hear about that, Vandy? Man, you are so well-informed to understand such "facts" without "the media" informing you fairly. I wish that all those Obama-voters had your intelligence and your vast knowledge-base.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Conservatives claim a "fairness doctrine" (which, by the way, I oppose) is against the first admendment (and I agree), yet they scream that any part of the media that disagrees with them is unfair. Either you allow free speech, which includes both liberal-biased and conservative-biased media, or you don't. If you require "balance" in the NY Times, you must require balance on Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck. But they don't want the latter, do they? Either they are blind to their own hypocrisy, or they don't care.— what is truth?
- There are two separate issues here. One is whether there is a bias in some media outlets. The other is whether, if for the sake of argument such a bias does exist and Obama wins, his win can fairly be attributed to media bias. The second question is ridiculous. For two reasons, none of which the Republican lackeys will touch. (1) there his a hugely influential portion of "the media" which is undeniably biased towards Republicans, which in any case would more than balance out the bias of other forms of media, and (2) the notion that "the media" handed Obama the election is based on the illogical theory that only those who vote for McCain are smart enough to see through a "bias" they claim is obvious. Aside from being completely elitist, such a viewpoint defies any logical analysis. Man up, Republican lackeys. If you lose this election, it's because your candidate sucked, and because the last 8 years have been a disaster under a Republican administration. Show some accountability for a change - for God's sake.— Talking point sleuth
- " yet they scream that any part of the media that disagrees with them is unfair." Two problems - the media presents themselves as objective and covering both sides of the story. They were not this time around to a degree not seen before. And second, the media is not subject to McCain-Feingold regulations - the media, to a large extend, demanded those kind of regulations, while saying they should be exempt since they are news, not advocacy organizations - and then they turned around and abused that exemption to engage in clear partisanship in their coverage.— db_cooper
- "However, at what point does the media cross the line..." . . . . . db, surely you realize your complaint is nothing new. The media has always crossed the line into advocacy (okay, propaganda), just not always the way you'd like it. William Randolph Hurst singlehandedly got us the Spanish American War, for example. "Yellow journalism" and "muckraking" are terms as old as your grandparents. And seriously, would you argue that the media should have given Nazi grievances, some of which were legit, equal time during WW2?
- Comment removed.
- Will is admitting to and justifying media bias because he is in the tank for Obama. This guy makes a lot of the bloggers look ethical and it shows he is no reporter or journalist. Maybe he was in the past but no more. As usual, he offers a Bunch of tripe.— PhilaRocks
- "It will be like the first two years of Clinton's presidency, when things got so bad that America didn't even wait until the next presidential election and restored a Republican majority in Congress in 1994." Yeah, and then re-elected him in 1996.— phlcynic
- Comment removed.
- "One is whether there is a bias in some media outlets. The other is whether, if for the sake of argument such a bias does exist and Obama wins, his win can fairly be attributed to media bias. " And you miss the key point. The media has gone beyond biased to partisan. They went to a remote island in Alaska to research Palin's claim that you could see Russia from Alaska, but couldn't be bothered to search for Obama's missing state senate records. You don't care because you agree with their partisanship, but some of us are quite concerned with the direction the media is taking when they are supposed to be reporting both sides of the story in justification of their exemption from campaign finance limits.— db_cooper
- montani: Klein and Dowd are individual columnists who have individual opinions. It's not as if Time magazine, or the NYT was thrown out. Obama banned entire newspapers from his plane because of what appears on their editorial pages. It's not like he even replaced them with other newspapers. Ebony? Come on. That's like McCain replacing the NYT with Good Housekeeping.— jmc
- "The media has always crossed the line into advocacy (okay, propaganda), just not always the way you'd like it." So tell me, then - Will complained that the media was slanted towards the Bush Admin during the run-up to the Iraq War - yet I guess it's OK with him to be slanted (more like completely tilted) to Obama. So in other words, nakedly partisan reporting is OK as long as it's helping your guy. I have a problem with ANY partisanship in the MSM as long as they demand campaign finance reform while using their exemption from such to engage in clearly partisan coverage.— db_cooper
- Lol! db thinks that Palin has low approval ratings because of "biased" reporting about her history as a "reformer." Hey, db, the reason that Palin has such low approval ratings is because the public has watched her in debates and interviews and come to the conclusion that SHE'S AN IDIOT.— Talking point sleuth
- I couldn't have said it better myself Constantine! Bunch and his ilk remind me of the famous liberal quote," How could Nixon have won the Presidency? Everybody I know voted for McGovern."— frustrated 22
- "Lol! db thinks that Palin has low approval ratings because of "biased" reporting about her history as a "reformer." Hey, db, the reason that Palin has such low approval ratings is because the public has watched her in debates and interviews and come to the conclusion that SHE'S AN IDIOT." She has an 80 percent approval rating in Alaska, TPD, where the people who are actually governed by her are rating her, as opposed to the people in the other 49 states (or other 56 according to Obama) whose impression of Palin is from extremely slanted coverage. Try again. I guess it's too much to ask for you to emulate someone like Lorne Greene from SNL, who said, while he disagrees with her politics, gives a straight assessment of her capabilities. Nah, we can't be cleaning up the modern toxic waste dump of hyperpartisanship, can we??? No fun in that.— db_cooper
- Ok, so 8 years of a Republican administration. Economy's in the tank. We're involved in a war that most Americans think was a mistake. Opinion about the direction of the country has been shown in polls to be very low. Consumer confidence very low. You run a lousy candidate who picks an idiot as his VP candidate. Your candidate isn't even popular within the Republican Party. You have hugely influential media outlets that have been focused 24/7 on bringing about a Republican victory by attacking the Dem candidate. And, assuming Obama wins, you think that "the media" being "partisan" is the reason why? Hilarious. Man up. Show some accountability.— Talking point sleuth
- "I have a problem with ANY partisanship in the MSM as long as they demand campaign finance reform while using their exemption from such to engage in clearly partisan coverage." . . . . . . Of course you do. What can you do about it? Boycott. Or better yet, create your own media. It's a marketplace of ideas, remember? Think like a capitalist, if you really think the news consumer is getting shortchanged.
- Let's try this again, db. The public has watched her in interviews. The public has watched her in the debate. The public has heard clips of her speaking. And the public has decided that she is a joke of a candidate for VP. You might not agree with their decision, but your insistence that the reason that they've formulated an opinion different from yours is that they have been hoodwinked by a partisan media is the height of elitism. And keep ducking the points I made, db. Why start showing accountability now?— Talking point sleuth
- "Show some accountability." I did just that, TPD. I guess you're too busy preparing your next attack to bother reading what I've posted: "If the GOP loses, I can accept that, because they do not deserve to win, given how they frittered away their mandates." You really have turned into a rancorous hack. First you lift a post of mine completely out of context, then you can't acknowledge what I have already posted, and you throw in a steady mix of strawmen and reducto ad absurdium arguments. You can have the last word, because you ain't worth any more bother. There are honest liberals here like montani semper liberi with whom I can have a decent discussion without all your nonsense.— db_cooper
- Wow! Bunch's pathbreaking political analysis surely ranks up there with the Federalist Papers and other great documents of American history. Thanks to him now we are reassured that it doesn't matter that 80% of journalists, according to Pew, are of the liberal persuasion, and that their ideological bearings have no impact on how they write. The man is Pulitzer material!— prudential2
- db, just like it did the Bush administration, hubris will catch up with the media as well. Consider how William R. Hearst fell after he allowed editorials suggesting the assassination of McKinley.
- The media is biased towards liberals. So what? All you GOP whiners give me a break, do you seriously think had your party not so grandly f*cked up America Obama would have even stood a chance in this election? Please. The litany of GOP blunders against this country, its constitution and all that America represents these past eight years is so long one would think it was a B movie comedy. From lying about WMD's, legalizing torture, FISA, illegal retentions, Katrina, the economic meltdown, etc. etc. After you're done blaming the liberal media and the "others" for your loss take a hard look at yourself in the mirror and see the reason for your defeat. As Andrew Sullivan has written about it is high time for the GOP to look inward and rediscover its conservative soul, rediscover the party inspired by Edmund Burke, defined by Barry Goldwater and to some extent Reagan. What you are now, as one blogger has put it, is just a mash-up of Old Dixie, prairie gunslingers, anti-tax fetishists, end times Rapturists, militiamen and Millenarians, jingoists and misanthropes, survivalists and cranks, and the odd secessionist witch doctor. At some point there will be a reckoning between the cerebral conservatives of the GOP, such as George Will, who have for too long sidled next to the vermin and the wingnuts, who have found their new leader in Palin. I fear the GOP will go with the populist and George Will and others will find a warm and welcome reception with the Libertarians.— RIRedinPA
- "Or better yet, create your own media." Except that the media calls for campaign limitations on others while demanding their exemption from such. And the Dems wish to re-impose the 'Fairness' Doctrine.— db_cooper
- "db, just like it did the Bush administration, hubris will catch up with the media as well. " Hey, hubris caught up with all the Wall Street hotshots. Unfortunately, the object lesson is hurting a tremendous number of people who did not share in their hubris. When the media has their day of reckoning, will it be from realizing that creeping government and executive power that they helped facilitate has turned on them (along with everyone else)? That's the problem I have with your approach.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- More denial about the blatant, obvious liberal media bias. Will, it's been well documented by numerous non-partisan, independent studies. Ever hear of Pew Research?— chrissmith
- "That's the problem I have with your approach." . . . My approach? I like to think my approach is the same as the Founding Fathers approach. I suppose they could have written a constitutional amendment investing the People with a right to a "fair and balanced" press, instead of a free press. Do you see the problem with that approach?
- I've had the same opinion through this entire election. It's like this, do the Phils get a more positive analysis from the media than the Washington Nationals do? OfCourse they do. The Phils are World Champs BABY!!! And the Nationals finished in last place. If they want better press, play better. The republicans have this disconnect between the state of this country and the way the media reports their performance. It's not that complicated. A republican adminstration has just governed this country to the lowest point in my lifetime. there is not going to be a lot of positive press. A republican cnadidate just ran a scattered, disjointed, dirty campaign. You aren't going to receive positive analysis from that performance. You want a pat on the back or an Atta Boy.....do better. Duh!— gee1971
- "it's been well documented by numerous non-partisan, independent studies." . . . . Which were well reported in the "liberal media". Go figger.
- Where to even begin.. okay let's start with Will: It seems like you wrote the tag 'How "media bias" saved America' and then came up with a column around that. I agree with a lot of your arguments, but I think your conclusion is flawed. --- constantine: Apples and oranges. The examples you cite are not a free media with self-selection bias. They were/are totalitarian regimes that use censorship and violence. --- jmc even FOX had to admit that the removal of those reporters was not evidence of bias (FOX has 4 seats on the plane). No I'm not making that up. ---- db_cooper you've really gone off the deep end lately. Obama has been campaigning for 2 years. Palin, 2 months. Keep that context in mind as you answer the following. Do you seriously believe that Palin got more scrutiny? (Note, there are no "missing records". Another myth. The 'national security force' one is amusing.. all Obama did in that speech was call for more volunteerism and public service. How horrible!)— Politburo
- "And the Dems wish to re-impose the 'Fairness' Doctrine." -- Factually incorrect, unless there is a part of the platform that is written in invisible ink. While some Dems have voiced support for it, there is no institutional support within the Party, no bills have been introduced in Congress, and Obama, the de facto leader of the party, is against it. Just for context, polls have shown about 50/50 support for the fairness doctrine. I don't know where those people are coming from (I don't support the doctrine), but those are the numbers.— Politburo
- Comment removed.
- "Except that the media calls for campaign limitations on others while demanding their exemption from such." . . . . Their exemption is the First Amendment, db. They don't have to demand it. And could you please cite examples where "the media" itself calls for campaign limitations? Does "the media" have its own lobby in Washington pushing for that, or are you selectively recalling opinions or editorials you disagreed with? Finally, you cite the Fairness Doctrine as a liberal cause, but aren't you advocating for imposed "fairness" yourself?
- " Their exemption is the First Amendment, db. " Then tell me how the first Amendment allows restrictions on campaign ads.— db_cooper
- I don't see why "the media" would call for campaign limitations. They're the ones making money via advertising.— Politburo
Most of the time what the right wing sees as media bias against them is actually a bias toward reporting reality instead of imagined associations. The case of Obama and Ayers is typical. Although Palin and others (even db) claim some sinister connection over and over, there is no evidence of anything but the slightest relationship. Furthermore, although Palin and her allies, sometimes including McCain, attack Ayers as a terrorist, he has been nothing more than a liberal educator and author of memoirs for forty years. When the media reports this reality, it is attacked for its "left-wing bias." Will is right to say that nearly all reporters would rather detect misinformation in candidates' statements or previously uncovered damaging evidence against either candidate than they would like to slant news. On the other hand, another medium, Cable Television, has gone the other way, with clearly slanted coverage from Fox (who don't admit it) and MSNBC (who do). There is something to be said for this approach, especially when anyone who is a cable subscriber can choose which channel to click and there is no added cost to looking at either network's shows.- "Obama has been campaigning for 2 years. Palin, 2 months." So tell me then why, after 2 years, the media has still not tried to find all of Obama's missing records, and especially his state senate records. That's the point. The media did FAR more checking of Palin for two months than they did of Obama in two years. They ran down every aspect of Palin's comments about the bridge to nowhere while failing to vet Obama's statements about his minimal associations with Ayers and Acorn. You made my case for me.— db_cooper
- When can I expect my first redistribution check? I'm going to apply for a Jay-Z "walk-away" mortgage.— A Friend
- "Finally, you cite the Fairness Doctrine as a liberal cause, but aren't you advocating for imposed "fairness" yourself?" Nope, I am calling the media on both their hypocrisy and their deceipt. Their hypocrisy of supporting campaign finance reform while abusing their exemption from partisan speech limitations (oh, and Will DOES support campaign finace reform, and he wrote this screed). And their deceipt about being objective when they are not and have crossed the line into partisanship.— db_cooper
- "Although Palin and others (even db) claim some sinister connection over and over, there is no evidence of anything but the slightest relationship." Like heck. Obama got his political career launched in Ayer's living room. They worked on the same floor of a small office building together for a year. They served on a Pew-funded board together. Obama reviewed Ayers's book. They attended a confence together that was organized by Michelle Obama. And that's just what the right-wing blogsphere has been able to dig up - because the MSM can't be bothered to dig (or doesn't want to).— db_cooper
- All of that has been reported, db, some of it for months and months. What you seem to be disappointed with is that people haven't jumped to the same conclusions that you have reached.— Politburo
- For Those Who Happen To Have Investable Assets: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/how-obama-proof-your-portfolio/story.aspx?guid=%7BFE580663%2DDE85%2D4F15%2DB2B7%2D5DECC2FA8102%7D&dist=TNMostRead— A Friend
- "Then tell me how the first Amendment allows restrictions on campaign ads." . . . . . I don't think it does, db. Can you explain your question?
- db: McConnell v. FEC is a several hundred page decision. It cannot be summed up for a blog comment.— Politburo
- "Nope, I am calling the media on both their hypocrisy and their deceipt." . . . So, you're using your First Amendment right to do so, which was "my approach" to begin with.
- If the "liberal" media control the results of all elections, how did Bush Jr. win, twice? How did Bush Sr. ever win? Reagan and Nixon, twice? The only reason these complaints are coming up again is that the whiners are getting their asses kicked today, and rightly so.— phlcynic
- Is there media bias? Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. 'Nuff said!— A Friend
- As James Brown once sang: People, people We got to get over Before we go under Hey, country Didn't say what you meant Just changed Brand new funky President Stock market going up (sic) Jobs going down And ain't no funking Jobs to be found... ...We gotta get over Before we go under Time's getting short, Lord Country, do you know Just what I meant We just changed, we got A brand new funky President— RieslingQPR
- Campaign finance laws are content neutral, db. They protect you, for example, from Iran using its oil revenues to buy the election, in case you wondered. They're a limit on money, not speech.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Onf of the things I'm looking forward to in an Obama Administration is the closing of the Daily News and their crack journalistic staff "hoping" for a paycheck while they are begging for "change".— tr88
- I fail to understand how an Obama victory "saves" America. Obama has spent his entire life campaigning for his next job. If he wins, he'll have to ante up and govern. Does he have a record? No one has any idea how Obama will perform. Also, an Obama victory isn't going to make the record low approval Democrat controlled Congress any more competent.— jmc
- On this day in 2008, saving the White House from it's current inept occupants is enough for me.— phlcynic
- Comment removed.
- btw, db, if I were a Republican donor right now, I'd sure be clamoring for campaign spending limits on designer duds, for true.
- So batty, what IS the reason the media isn't trusted? I'm sure you can cite that survey, right?
- batch says "even less trusted than the federal government".. but in the poll he cites (presumably, as he didn't cite anything really), government got a 67% rating, and media 59%. So batch, since you implied it, how does this poll result prove that media bias exists?— Politburo
Finally, we can all agree that there is absolutely no bias in the reporting on FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They too I guess are just trying to "save America". My biggest complaint about media bias is when an opinion expressed by a newspaper is packaged into a campaign commercial as fact. No disrespect to Will and the rest of you very fine people - if I vote one way or another because the Daily News tells me to I should be publically executed.— bird11- "Obama got his political career launched in Ayer's living room. ....---}}} There ya' go. Nothing more needs to be said. This is the evidence that has db shaking in his boots about the danger of an Obama presidency. An inaccurate claim that Obama's career was "launched" in Ayers' living room. An accurate claim that has been pounded over and over by a Republican publicity machine. Turn on the radio, all you hear is this kind of "reporting" that db is so upset isn't happening more. Give it up, db. The frightwing media has played this tune far too many times. The American public - despite your claims - has heard it over and over. And the majority of them reject your perspective. Even many who will vote for McCain won't be doing it for the bogus reasons your trumpeting. The only folks who stick to this form of "information" are those who are using deliberately manipulated reporting to promote a partisan claim. You doing so renders your "concern" about "the media" being partisan impotent.— Talking point sleuth
- Reading more about this poll.. it's hilarious. Batch uses the "government more trusted than press" talking point, but ignores the fact that the poll results showed 69% of US respondents disagreed that media reports all sides of a story. Why make such a silly argument when the data is right there?— Politburo
- The status quo since Woodrow Wilson has been the left. The left gave us drug abuse, pornography, promiscious sex, and hedonism. Playing by the rules (there are no rules) is mocked. As we decline morally, our freedoms will be reduced, The only revolution occurred with Reagan. The world slides towards socialism, and the status quo does not want a different, free United States. The greatest expansion of freedom worldwise has occured since 1980. The revolution is over. Bush blew it, but what we are going to see will be far worse.— sleepy
- Looks to me like the neo-cons are reduced to whining away today on Attytood, instead of getting out to vote for the loser McCain, who they know is going down in flames. Keep whining guys - it sounds divine.— AHiredGun
- Comment removed.
- Chris Rock's quote just about sums up this entire argument: "[President Bush] has 'f'd everything up so much, he's even made it hard for a white man to become president." ...— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Batty, so you give us a survey that doesn't ask about "trust" at all. And doesn't it seem odd to you that the "media" would be listed in a survey that asks for rating confidence in leadership?
- The famous quote possibly mis-attributed to H. L. Mencken "It is the duty of the journalist to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." It may have actually originated with of Finley Peter Dunne, writing as Mr. Dooley.— Jayfar
- I was censored (shock) I'll try again. The Dems and the Dem prss are the status quo. They treat FDR like God, along with JFK. It all goes back to Wilson. The Reagan revolution WAS a revolution, but it is over. The Repubs couldn't govern. This is a case of the status quo returning to power with a vengeance. Resistance to the status quo will continue to be mocked, and will be heard less and less. It is called the fainess doctrine.— sleepy
- Comment removed.
- batch I see you have still failed to actually cite you source, and have still failed to explain what you meant by your earlier comment. When you act in that manner, people are forced to assume. So right now, I have to assume that you cannot assemble a rational argument, even when given the all of the pieces by your opponent. Congratulations.. that takes a special kind of stupid.— Politburo
- "You're a predictable hack, if anything. LOL" . . . . . . Shucks batty, nothing to it. It's the human "fly swat" impulse, I guess.
- --snip-- A majority of Americans have at least a fair amount of trust and confidence in the news media, although relatively few express a great deal of confidence in the institution, a CBS News/New York Times poll has found. Still, most think the stories the news media report are generally accurate, and that the news media generally tell the truth (something many think the administration does not do).--snip-- OK. Let's make sure we get this right. In general, the public thinks that a healthy skepticism towards the media is appropriate, although the fell that most news stories are accurate and truthful. Two questions. (1) why does batboy think this is significant? (2) why does he think that it's somehow not a good thing?— Talking point sleuth
- Just over 7 hours and then we get to start Election 2012!!! I'm so excited - bet the media will be keeping a scorecard on how many promises the new President keeps...or will all the problems in the world still be the fault of Bush/Cheney/Rove. BTW how is the war going in Iraq??? Guess no news is good news since if the news was bad we would certainly be hearing it - the media's job you know is to inform the people when government fails not when it succeeds.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- THere is no media bias. As a moderate liberal, I think press coverage has seemed basically fair. If you are on the fringes (either the left or the right) any critism towards your chosen beliefs will seem like bias. There was no complaint towards the MSM media back in 2002 from the right wingers when nothing was reported about possible inequities about WMD in Iraq. It was only later that such stories reached the MSM. The left screamed about it to deaf ears. Media bias perception is largely opinion. Some news outlets lean to the right, some lean to the left. It is up to an individual's opinion which news outlets a person frequents. Saying that all of the media is slanted towards the left is just wrong. McCain/Palin have run a negitive, poorly run campaign and after 8 years of George W Bush, where nearly everything has gone wrong, what do you exppect from the media? They are only reporting the truth. The problem some people have with this is they don't agree with it. Perhaps they should take off their blinders and realize we cannot continue the way we are going. That is why I vote for Obama. It's the Democrat's turn.— James TL
- Gee batch, you complain about putting words in someone's mouth, and you turn around and fabricate this garbage? No real point in putting together a response, it's all water under the bridge now (and you'll just make sh*t up anyway). You dead-enders are going to have to accept it: President Obama— Politburo
- I get the feeling that batboy is a tad annoyed today. Anyone have any idea why?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- sleuth - while I don't know if your statement that most people think reporting is accurate is true or not I can only tell you that I have been personally involved in at least a dozen instances in my life where the press reported the events I was a party to and not once has the reporting not contained a significant factual error. I don't think this is bias as much as I think it is laziness and a lack of resources. Could anyone imagine a major newspaper breaking a Watergate-esqu story again? If the story doesn't pan out in a week it is off to the next story. 20 years ago the press would still be pounding the Goode/Bryant story to find out the full impact of no show employees in city council, etc but now stories are really only to make headlines and not to provide detailed facts.— bird11
- b.atkinson , I guess that eveyone, having seen through the charade of liberal press, will vote for McCain in a landslide. After all, no follows what the media says.— JimR
- bird11. A good point, actually. I have had similar experiences with inaccurate reporting. But it wasn't out of "partisan" bias - just that it is difficult, sometimes, to get all the facts exactly correct. I also agree, completely, that "the media" has become increasingly sensationalized. That is, in fact, the overriding characteristic - not "partisan" bias in one direction of the other. There's no doubt that legitimate investigative journalism is a rare even these days. But I'd say that while most people have a certain level of visceral distrust of the media - they'd be hard-pressed to cite actual examples of inaccurate reporting, in particular inaccurate reporting that is the outcome of "partisan" bias. As James discusses, those who feel that way are only upset because the media doesn't reflect their "partisan" perspective.— Talking point sleuth
- SLEUTH - the "partisan" aspect isn't as much in the reporting of facts as in what stories are covered. Best example I can come up with right now is the Obama bankrupting coal statement. Was it out there to be found as Bunch indicates? I bet it was thus making Bunch "factually" accurate, but in his months of cut and paste blogs has he brought it up before soneone else - from a partisan right blog - did?? No. Now I could shrug that lack of coverage off if I lived in...Maine but Pennsylvania is a major coal producing state - that fact is important to Pennsylvanians. And I don't just blame Bunch there are how many reporters in this area that didn't report that statement. You do have to ask the question WHY?? I'll ask Will the classic double edged sword question - did he not report it because he didn't want to tarnish his golden boy Obama or did he not report it because he was lazy and didn't know about it?— bird11
- sleuth - BTW so that my only example isn't anti-Obama I would also point out that the reporting on Ayers and Rev. Wright were the types of stories that should come out in an election cycle but once there is no new news it should be dropped something the FOX news of the world can't seem to do - I suggest because of their bias.— bird11
- The coal statement isn't a good example at all.. the only way it is a controversy is if you take it out of context. That is why it was not reported until the GOP made hay.— Politburo
- Polit - "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." Full context - still completely unimportant to a coal producing state?— bird11
- That's not the full context. One sentence is not "full context" when you're talking about a 45 minute interview. Here is the context: --- But...let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100% auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market. And the ratcheted down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal--I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.— Politburo
- And, the whole thing really is unimportant in the grand scheme, coal state or not. Both Obama and McCain support CO2 cap/trade, and it's coming in the next few years no matter who wins.— Politburo
- I am a professional business journalist, Will. You do not speak for me. Bias is wrong. "Evening it up" because you opposed the war is wrong. You are a disgrace to my profession.— ProfessionalJ
- To all the wingnut posters here: today would be a good day to release that Michelle Obama "whitey" video...remember that one? What happened, did one of you leave it too close to a big magnet or something, and that's why it never came out after all your rumors? Ha ha ha! I am loving every minute of watching you losers meltdown in public.— Red Wright-Hand
- Obama has not won yet. Given the historic bias this year, I expect the polls to be closer than expected....— ProfessionalJ
- We all know Palin doesn't read and McCain has a comprehension disorder thats why they take everything Obama says out of context. Image this dual in the white house. WAR WAR WAR and more War. They can't even run a campaign effectively how the hell they gonna run the USA.— kellyfromsp
- Comment removed.
- That's the stupidest column I've ever read.— Timstigator
- Ummm, what a crock! Hey, change for Barack = bringing back Emanuel (circa the Clinton admin), and Carter admin fooling with energy pricing and imposition of taxes on business and individuals. Not much change happening unless you think Chicago thug tactics in the White House qualifies. We haven't seen anything like it. My personal favorite change is what Barack plans for those with 401K's and IRAs.— waitingforchange
- You need to read this...this 'opinion' you have here is anti-american: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13610— devnet
- "'Media bias' may have just saved America." May I quote you in the future (you partisan hack)?— bagleywilliams
- It would be impolite for me, as a former newspaper reporter, to express my full disgust with what you've said and, generally, the advocacy media, both print and broadcast. Regardless of what you may have done prior to this election -- and I do agree: this media bias began in the 1970s but blossomed fully into view with the first Clinton campaign -- none of you now deserve the moniker 'journalist.' You are a professional embarrassment to real journalists. While it's your opinion, what you express highlight exactly why what's mutated into the advocacy media betrayed the public’s trust given to the Fourth Estate. Apparently, though, with gusto and glee, what you all decided to become wasa the Fifth Column. Yes, in my opinion and many, many others, the advocacy media is traitorous. You cannot redeem yourselves. You killed at least political journalism, as it stood. And you have sullied journalism in ways that will take much hard work for years to undo the damage you’ve done, if it can be undone. I assure you that to the extent possible, every effort that can be mustered against the advocacy media, collectively and nationally, will be, to drive such pretenders out of business. BTW: To even suggest "shining moment" is something the advocacy moment didn't achieve in this campaign is for you to completely misunderstand the depth of their execrable conduct. BTW2: Too bad McCain didn't declare war on the media earlier. He had nothing to lose. At least he understood that. Of course, you in the advocacy media, with your politically correct sensibilities, were offended by that.— CKA in Red State USA
- Bias is wrong. There are standards that a journalist is supposed to uphold. Just as a doctor must vow to "do no harm," a journalist is supposed to tell the truth and not lie. Bias is nothing more than lying. It's cheating. It's not telling the truth. And, as such, it is harmful. Now that Obama has been elected president, will the media continue to protect him from criticism should he make mistakes (as surely he will)? Will they keep negative information from the public, to have access to the administration? We have every reason to believe that this will be the case, because, having been lied to, we can no longer trust the media.— debbiesym
1
Popular Posts