Bias in the Media

[fintstone]

Why is it that when the press talks about a someone who supports a liberal agenda, they are usually respectful and highlight the positive; yet when a person supports alternative values, they are demonized? Here is an article about a pro-Bush speech given by one of the most popular, respected and succesful democratic governors ever. I know Senator Zell Miller personally and don't know a finer, more honest man (in spite of being a democrat). Instead of highlighting his accomplishments, he is labled a "Democratic attack dog" in the very first sentence just to discredit his views. If he had been a Republican supporting Kerry, he would have been hailed as a hero.. one of the few men who hadn't succombed to partisan politics...much like McCain has labled.

12:39 PM EDT
Zell Miller Blasts Fellow Democrat Kerry
By DICK PETTYS, AP

COLUMBUS, Ga. (May 15) - Sen. Zell Miller, the Bush campaign's most famous Democratic attack dog, ripped into John Kerry Saturday as an "out-of-touch, ultraliberal from Taxachusetts" in a speech before Georgia Republicans.

Miller, the lone Democratic senator publicly backing Bush, made the remarks in a Bush-Cheney grassroots event during the state Republican convention, where he was greeted as a hero.

"I'm afraid that my old Democratic 'ties that bind' have become unraveled," he said in a speech that evoked sustained applause, cheers, laughter and two standing ovations.

The Georgia Democrat said the nation is more secure with Bush in the White House.

"With John Kerry on national security, it's vacillate, retreat and turn over to the U.N.," he said. "With John Kerry on domestic policy, it's tax, spend and redistribute income."

He said Kerry deserves praise for his war record in Vietnam but declared his Senate voting record on national defense "shameful," saying Kerry voted "against every single major weapons system that won the Cold War."

"The man now wants to be the commander in chief of U.S. armed forces? U.S. forces armed with what, spitballs?"

Miller said Kerry's handlers are trying to soften the Democratic candidate's image and depict him as an average guy.

"Look, John Kerry couldn't find Main Street with both hands," he said. "You can't make a chicken swim and you can't make John Kerry anything but an out-of-touch ultraliberal from Taxachusetts."

Miller, a lifelong Democrat, was Georgia's governor from 1991 through 1998 and was lieutenant governor for 16 years before that. In 2000, Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes chose him to succeed the late Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican.

Miller was a strong, early supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton back in 1992 and delivered a nominating speech for Clinton at the party's national convention.

But he has ruffled the feathers of Democratic colleagues since joining the Senate, siding with Republicans on virtually every key issue and writing a best-selling book in which he accuses his party of being out of touch with Southern voters.

The speech was a hit with Republicans.

"That was the greatest speech he's ever made," said convention delegate Ernest Dyal of McRae. "He could get re-elected today."

Miller, who will be 73 next year, is not seeking re-election and he confirmed again following the speech that he is not changing parties.

"I'm comfortable right where I am doing what I'm doing. I want to be doing everything I can to help President Bush be re-elected, and Dick Cheney. I think they're doing a superb job."


05/15/04 10:55 EDT

Copyright 2004 The Associated

[speeder]

I'm dying to know how you would have made this guy sound less like an *********, but if anyone could have done it it's you.

They all but reported his speech verbatim, I would think that they just broadcast his message to a much wider audience. And HTF is this guy a Democrat? Who is campaigning for Bush and Cheney?

Is this the guy who beat Max Cleland with help from Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks?

When I have the time, I'll post something on a politician that I admire, a Democrat who was the most "liberal" in the Senate but became veterans' best friend ever in government. His name was Paul Wellstone.

[lendaddy]

I think alot of people are Zell Miller Democrats, their party just stranded them. The guy strikes a cord with both sides. I enjoy listening to him when I get the chance. Good man, Flint, you really know him? Very cool.

[techweenie]

Media bias is not only in the words, but in what the media does not cover.

Did you see any coverage of the cuts in veterans benefits that were supported by the Bush Administration in 2002 despite his campaign statements to the contrary?

Did you read about GW's 2003 attempts to cut combat pay and support for families of soldiers?

The right-dominated press gave both issues a pass. And both were much larger issues than applying the phrase 'attack dog.' which I've seen applied on both sides.

[350HP930]

Here is good article about what the bush administration was trying to do to undercut our soldiers before the bad press made them 'flip flop' on the issue.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php

Editorial: Nothing but lip service

July 02, 2003

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.

For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.

Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.

Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.

Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.

The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.

The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.

All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.

But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.

The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.

The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.

Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”

Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.

[lendaddy]

"The right-dominated press gave both issues a pass"

Just so I understand you, are you saying

1- The portion of the press, dominated by right, gave these issues a pass.

0r

2- The press, which is dominated by the right, gave these issues a pass.

[350HP930]

The major media is owned by giant corporations and for that reason it represents their opinions and the interests of their advertisers.

By representing the interests of the wealthy powers that be its true interests are very right leaning, but delivered by messengers who would sometimes be described as left of center.

That being the case who do you think has more control over the information delivered to you by the major media?

[dd74]

Hmmm...I don't think the article demonizes Miller. He is attacking Kerry, and is noted for being a life-long democrat. I believe Miller is showcased only because he is criticizing quite aggressively his own party's nominee.

As for slanted news, I've long-since decided to not take the L.A. Times or New York Times very seriously in their ability to report unbiased stories, particularly about Bush or Iraq. These papers definitely have agendas to push that seems much more apparent with the deep rift Iraq and the presidency has caused in the U.S.

In newspapers, one is always able to read how a publication "leans" by checking out their Opinions page: this is where the true heart of the paper lies.

CNN's "News Night with Aaron Brown" has a segment in each show where it reports what the next day's newspapers will run on their front page. It's fascinating to hear - according to story and "tone of voice" the political leanings of a publication.

[lendaddy]

Yes, i can see the recent barrage of 60 minutes anti-Bush programs were pushed by the conservative corporate machine I would love to see a study on news programs. Just track the major affiliates and what percentage of their programs are pro/anti each party. I think this was done once.

[350HP930]

Well, when an administration sucks there is never a shortage of reasons why it will frequently pop up in the 'news'.

Is the media biased to report these stories? Would you prefer more self censorship of the media?

[lendaddy]

I don't see Dick Morris on 60 minutes with his new book. Hmmmm

[araine901]

Come on, Any body who suports Bush is an *********, just ask Speeder. LOL

[lendaddy]

Also, when ever a conservative is on one of those shows, it ranges from neutral to attacking on the approach. The conservative is almost always expected to "explain themselves" for whatever. When a liberal is on it ranges from lovefest to slightly critical, leaning to the lovefest. I don't know how you could possibly claim otherwise. It's pretty sickening. Especially when someone like Hillary is on, and the potenial for hard hitting questions is huge, instead they end up going down on her ewwww

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Also, when ever a conservative is on one of those shows, it ranges from neutral to attacking on the approach. The conservative is almost always expected to "explain themselves" for whatever. When a liberal is on it ranges from lovefest to slightly critical, leaning to the lovefest. I don't know how you could possibly claim otherwise. It's pretty sickening. Especially when someone like Hillary is on, and the potenial for hard hitting questions is huge, instead they end up going down on her ewwww

Conservatives should be in the hotseat. It's the agenda that got us in the trouble we're in to begin with.

[lendaddy]

DD, even if I were to accept that premise(I don't), this has gone on since lon before Iraq or even W.

[ronin]

especially when no one ever seems to want to put Dems in the hotseat

[dd74]

Originally posted by lendaddy
DD, even if I were to accept that premise(I don't), this has gone on since lon before Iraq or even W.

Lendaddy: I don't expect you to accept it. But Iraq is a mess and W. got us there. Simple.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
I'm dying to know how you would have made this guy sound less like an *********, but if anyone could have done it it's you.

They all but reported his speech verbatim, I would think that they just broadcast his message to a much wider audience. And HTF is this guy a Democrat? Who is campaigning for Bush and Cheney?

Is this the guy who beat Max Cleland with help from Karl Rove's bag of dirty tricks?

When I have the time, I'll post something on a politician that I admire, a Democrat who was the most "liberal" in the Senate but became veterans' best friend ever in government. His name was Paul Wellstone.

It is sad you would call such a fine and honorable man an ******* without knowing anything about him other than who he supports for president. If there were a few more principled and honest men like Miller in your party, you would not have to resort to name calling...you would win every election by a landslide.

The problem is not their reporting what he said, but the fact that they attempted to discredit him first by calling him "Bush's attackdog" in the very first sentence. They don't start articles about McCain by calling him "Kerry's attackdog," instead....when he attacks Bush...he is called "fiercely independent."

Why would you think Max Cleland was not reelected because of dirty tricks? It is funny that you think that is the only way a democrat can lose office. The fact is, he voted against what his constituents thought were the best interests of his district..and paid the price.

Zell Miller was appointed as a senator by the GA governor to replace another democrat who died in office. Miller had been governor of GA himself and was probably the most popular politician ever in GA...on bith sides of the aisle. He was known as the "education Governor" because he instituted the GA Lottery and made sure that by law, every penny would go to education. It has poured a huge amount of funds into K-12 and allows any child in GA that graduates from high school with a B average to go to a state university for free.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I think alot of people are Zell Miller Democrats, their party just stranded them. The guy strikes a cord with both sides. I enjoy listening to him when I get the chance. Good man, Flint, you really know him? Very cool.

I agree. Although he is a bit socially liberal to suit me, I have never met a finer, more honest man. I am not a close friend, but I worked with him and his office when he was the Governor of GA. He really did some wonderful things for the state. He was a big supporter of the military and the ROTC program. I have his picture on my wall that he sent me where he wrote an inscription thanking me for my work on behalf of Georgia students. He is the type man that does not play politics. He says and does whet he thinks is right.

He has a book out now that I have heard great reviews about. I am looking forward to reading it.

[techweenie]

"Also, when ever a conservative is on one of those shows, it ranges from neutral to attacking on the approach. "

Gosh, we certainly see things differently.

According to FAIR (lendaddy, these folks monitor who gets air time on both sides of key issues) reported that there were 393 interviews on major TV programs in a 2-week period before the attack on Iraq. 73 of the 393 were against the war. That's 81.5% pro-attack.

At the time, a CBS poll said public support was 61% in favor of letting the UN decide the next step.

So, how is this a leftward bias?

Or is it just that war makes a better story than waiting?