Liberal media bias, LOL "Bush DEFIANTLY defends.....

[HAL 9000 96]

Well guys you're looking at two specific articles but not giving any regard to the trend that's exisited now for a few years, particularly regarding GWB and the Iraq war.

The reason the polls are so damn skewed are that the bias in the media has swayed public opinion. Liberals in the media have done so before. Vietnam anyone?

When was the last time you heard a news story on MSNBC touting the progress in Iraq? They mostly report negative things about the war, and particularly anything GWB has to do/say.

The bias is real, and it's prevalent.

So is yours. Afterall, how many anti-war people would work at a defence contractor?

I know of a couple...

[kaydee457 13]

Public opinion on this war was always low in "other countries" so that's a non-issue. We act in our own self interest, we're not vying for popularity in the world.

The media wasn't always this corrupt; it wasn't when the war began. As I remember it the media was falling all over themselves to "imbed" themselves.

Public opinion is very much skewed in this country at the moment, and IMO, and as has been written about by others, the direct result of a media bias that not only seeks to shut this war down, but seeks to choose our president for us as well.

Recently Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) commented on the applause he heard from the newsroom when Karl Rove resigned. He was amazed that these field reporters were so biased as to think themselves on a mission to right the world of evils as they themselves see it.

Objectivity and professionalism in journalism is at a low point in this country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Public opinion on this war was always low in "other countries" so that's a non-issue. We act in our own self interest, we're not vying for popularity in the world.

The media wasn't always this corrupt; it wasn't when the war began. As I remember it the media was falling all over themselves to "imbed" themselves.

Public opinion is very much skewed in this country at the moment, and IMO, and as has been written about by others, the direct result of a media bias that not only seeks to shut this war down, but seeks to choose our president for us as well.

Recently Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) commented on the applause he heard from the newsroom when Karl Rove resigned. He was amazed that these field reporters were so biased as to think themselves on a mission to right the world of evils as they themselves see it.

Objectivity and professionalism in journalism is at a low point in this country.

Conservatives sure were smart about Iraq ” in the early 90's"

It seems almost odd in retrospect, but when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John McCain was not an enthusiastic supporter of a military confrontation. At the time, McCain said, “To start putting American troops into that kind of meat grinder I just don’t think is a viable option.” As the first Bush administration began formulating plans to intervene, McCain wanted to limit the response to an air campaign.

The president chose a different direction, and McCain quickly fell in line. But the anecdote is a reminder that the McCain we see today, filled with neocon ideas and bellicose rhetoric, used to be far more cautious about putting U.S. troops in harm’s way.

The DNC’s research department highlighted an even more striking example, noting a 1991 interview between McCain and Larry King.

MCCAIN: …I’m not sure that if we did go in on the ground we could tell a Shiite from a Sunni, even from a Kurd. And who is it that we’d be fighting and battling against on the streets of Baghdad? And, if we got into Baghdad, we would lose all of our military supremacy and we would take casualties.

KING: If they’d welcome this-

Sen. McCAIN: One more point - real quick. I want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. There’s a few other dictators I’d like to get rid of, too. And I hate to use the phrase “slippery slope,” but if we’ve got to get rid of this dictator, which ones do we take on next?

That John McCain sure used to be smart, didn’t he?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

Liberal bias, eh?

[Dan J 277]

Public opinion on this war was always low in "other countries" so that's a non-issue. We act in our own self interest, we're not vying for popularity in the world.

The media wasn't always this corrupt; it wasn't when the war began. As I remember it the media was falling all over themselves to "imbed" themselves.

Public opinion is very much skewed in this country at the moment, and IMO, and as has been written about by others, the direct result of a media bias that not only seeks to shut this war down, but seeks to choose our president for us as well.

Recently Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) commented on the applause he heard from the newsroom when Karl Rove resigned. He was amazed that these field reporters were so biased as to think themselves on a mission to right the world of evils as they themselves see it.

Objectivity and professionalism in journalism is at a low point in this country.

Corrupt? That the media's job. It failed at the begining of the war for not asking the right questions and rode the ratings bandwagon into the war.

The media is not the goverment's cheerleader, unless of course, you prefer an authoritain goverment to a democracy.

You say that objectivity and professionalism is low in journalism, but what you really want, is for the media to hold your bias. That is not going to happen.

[kaydee457 13]

Here's the Scarbough thing.........

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough revealed Thursday morning that on his first day at MSNBC, on the night of President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, "people in the newsroom...were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end." A couple of minutes into his Morning Joe show, Scarborough praised the Executive Editor of the Seattle Times for scolding his staff for applauding Karl Rove's resignation.

Scarborough then recalled:

"My first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end." In doing so, they were just following the tradition set in 2000 when those at the NBC News flagship were on election night 2000 openly, according the then-General Electric Chairman Jack Welch, "all cheering for Gore."

liberal media booing the president speech

[HAL 9000 96]

Public opinion on this war was always low in "other countries" so that's a non-issue. We act in our own self interest, we're not vying for popularity in the world.

The media wasn't always this corrupt; it wasn't when the war began. As I remember it the media was falling all over themselves to "imbed" themselves.

Public opinion is very much skewed in this country at the moment, and IMO, and as has been written about by others, the direct result of a media bias that not only seeks to shut this war down, but seeks to choose our president for us as well.

Recently Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) commented on the applause he heard from the newsroom when Karl Rove resigned. He was amazed that these field reporters were so biased as to think themselves on a mission to right the world of evils as they themselves see it.

Objectivity and professionalism in journalism is at a low point in this country.

Under a different set of reasoning I might agree with this last statement.

However, it contradicts most Americans' common sense, if it exists. Its not for any of us to make blanket judgments on that issue- you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

As for Rove... well, he did everyone in this nation (and the world for that matter) a major favor. That leaves many other BushCo animals still to be dealt with.

Here's the Scarbough thing.........

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough revealed Thursday morning that on his first day at MSNBC, on the night of President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, "people in the newsroom...were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end." A couple of minutes into his Morning Joe show, Scarborough praised the Executive Editor of the Seattle Times for scolding his staff for applauding Karl Rove's resignation.

Scarborough then recalled:

"My first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the President basically from the beginning to the end." In doing so, they were just following the tradition set in 2000 when those at the NBC News flagship were on election night 2000 openly, according the then-General Electric Chairman Jack Welch, "all cheering for Gore."

liberal media booing the president speech

MRC again? C'mon... that's as subjective as what you criticize.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Well guys you're looking at two specific articles but not giving any regard to the trend that's exisited now for a few years, particularly regarding GWB and the Iraq war.

The reason the polls are so damn skewed are that the bias in the media has swayed public opinion. Liberals in the media have done so before. Vietnam anyone?

When was the last time you heard a news story on MSNBC touting the progress in Iraq? They mostly report negative things about the war, and particularly anything GWB has to do/say.

The bias is real, and it's prevalent.

So is yours. Afterall, how many anti-war people would work at a defence contractor?

I know of a couple...

all things considered (like my checkbook) i'd rather there wasn't a war, as it means more overtime.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Public opinion on this war was always low in "other countries" so that's a non-issue. We act in our own self interest, we're not vying for popularity in the world.

The media wasn't always this corrupt; it wasn't when the war began. As I remember it the media was falling all over themselves to "imbed" themselves.

Public opinion is very much skewed in this country at the moment, and IMO, and as has been written about by others, the direct result of a media bias that not only seeks to shut this war down, but seeks to choose our president for us as well.

Recently Joe Scarborough (MSNBC) commented on the applause he heard from the newsroom when Karl Rove resigned. He was amazed that these field reporters were so biased as to think themselves on a mission to right the world of evils as they themselves see it.

Objectivity and professionalism in journalism is at a low point in this country.

With all due respect - as a person from another country with a idiosyncratic perspective on the war (as indeed are many here), I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as a non-issue. Rather I think it's not only relevant but connected.

On the war there were several scandal stories in the UK media that were never aired in the US, stories that were much more critical of the UK government's conduct and which by extension pointed towards duplicity in the US administration. The UK is the US' biggest ally yet none of those stories got significant air time here... and I have to wonder why - because if the Liberal Agenda really were that pervasive, that would have been prime-time material for them.

I'll agree with you on generally lowered journalistic standards - but I do think they apply more to TV outlets than other media. Its not that the TV medium doesn't really lend itself towards comprehensive coverage, with 24 news channels there clearly is, but with the way its become homogenised through corporatisation. As I pointed out the other day - things like that recent FCC decision (voted for and supported by Republicans on the FCC board) doesn't exactly provide much of an incentive for improvement.

The other problem of course is the rise of internet blogs and so-called "citizen news". We now have immediate access to more news information than at any point in history - that being the case it doesn't automatically follow that people are always good at sorting the wheat from the chaff. I wonder if perhaps this is the reason for the persistence in 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Its broader than that too - there are educational issues to consider as well, because now we have phoney debates about, for example, the validity of evolutionary theory and other branches of science. These are debates that simply don't happen in other developed countries, or at least they don't become a national agenda.

With the exception of the internet blogs, none of this is particularly new, though I don't think this is particularly new. If you want my opinion - I don't think the media is critical enough of (any) politicians in this country. They simply aren't challenged on their ideas and allowed to get away with sloganising and party political talking points.

I certainly don't cite the BBC as a model here - but whenever a UK politician would appear on (any) current affairs programme, the guy better know his stuff because the Jeremy Paxman's of the world simply won't let them get away with it.

I personally think that the ####### quality of the mass media here is one of the reasons that someone like George W. Bush could get elected in the first place.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What happens when a call of nature disrupts your editing process

With all due respect - as a person from another country with a idiosyncratic perspective on the war (as indeed are many here), I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as a non-issue. Rather I think it's not only relevant but connected.

On the war there were several scandal stories in the UK media that were never aired in the US, stories that were much more critical of the UK government's conduct; and which, by extension pointed towards duplicity in the US administration. The UK is the US' biggest ally yet none of those stories got significant air time here... and I have to wonder why - because if the Liberal Agenda really were that pervasive, these things should have been prime-time material.

I'll agree with you on generally lowered journalistic standards - but I do think they apply more to TV outlets than other media. Its not that the TV medium doesn't really lend itself towards comprehensive coverage, with 24 news channels there clearly is a lot of possibility, but with the way its become homogenised through corporatisation. As I pointed out the other day - things like that recent FCC decision (voted for and supported by Republicans on the FCC board) don't exactly provide much of an incentive for improvement.

The other problem of course is the rise of internet blogs and so-called "citizen news". We now have immediate access to more news information than at any point in history. That being the case it doesn't automatically follow that people are always good at sorting the wheat from the chaff. I wonder if perhaps this is the reason for the persistence in 9/11 conspiracy theories. For example.

Its broader than that too - there are educational issues to consider, not least because have phoney debates about, for example, the validity of evolutionary theory and other branches of science. These are debates that simply don't happen in other developed countries, or at least not the point that they are anything but marginal.

With the exception of the internet blogs, none of this is particularly new. If you want my opinion - I don't think the media is critical enough of (any) politicians in this country. They simply aren't challenged on their ideas and are allowed to get away with sloganising and pushing the same old party political talking points. Its not coincidence that the public lexicon on any number of issues contains these phrases. For example:

"emboldening terrorists", "fight them over there so we don't have to do it over here", "flip-flop" etc.

I certainly don't cite the BBC as a model here - but whenever a UK politician would appear on (any) current affairs programme, the guy better know his stuff because the Jeremy Paxman's of the world simply wouldnt let them get away with it.

I personally think that the ####### quality of the mass media here is one of the reasons that someone like George W. Bush could get elected in the first place.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Couldn't resist.

[dalegg 143]

This is bringing up an old post, but I couldn't help thinking of it whilst watching the situation room on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer-

"Do you believe that if Borak Obama gets the nomination some angry Hillary Clinton Democrats would actually vote for Senator McCain"?

Jack Cafferty-

".....Unless there's a hint of something foul going on, I don't that's something we probably all have to worry about."

Why would an unbiased news man be "worried" about something like that?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is bringing up an old post, but I couldn't help thinking of it whilst watching the situation room on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer-

"Do you believe that if Borak Obama gets the nomination some angry Hillary Clinton Democrats would actually vote for Senator McCain"?

Jack Cafferty-

".....Unless there's a hint of something foul going on, I don't that's something we probably all have to worry about."

Why would an unbiased news man be "worried" about something like that?

That's editorial where opinions are given regularly. Just look at Fox News - most of that station is editorial news programs vs. just reporting the news. It's like the editorial page of a newspaper, which is quite the opposite of being neutral.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed - Cafferty is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. Does anyone seriously believe these guys are unbiased "no-spin" or "straight talking"?

I mean they say so right. Therefore it must be true

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed - Cafferty is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. Does anyone seriously believe these guys are unbiased "no-spin" or "straight talking"?

I mean they say so right. Therefore it must be true

And there seems to be an increasing segment of listeners and viewers that do seem to equate opinion with truth, is there not?

[dalegg 143]

Indeed - Cafferty is the equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. Does anyone seriously believe these guys are unbiased "no-spin" or "straight talking"?

I mean they say so right. Therefore it must be true

I don't know. Cafferty comes off as if he's supposed to be unbiased. When you say "we" don't have to worry about something like that, it means you have clearly taken a party's side. I can't say I've ever hear Bill O'Reilly actually say something like that even though he obviously leans more conservative. Certainly I've heard Sean Hannity say it, but Hannity gets to say things like that because of Colmes on the otherside taking the otherside (although he does it very poorly)