Media bias - new low
 

Talk about having your mind made up! This guy wrote his article before the GOP convention even started!

Fishwrap hack's article

At least wait until it's over before you lay into a guy or a party!

Good article. The guy was on the money. Of course, sadly, the liberal press is always easy to predict.

There was a study several years ago indicating that something like 90% of the media voted Democratic. I've been unable to find it however. Anybody know of this study?

Could it be that if one doesn't agree with a media source that's slightly left (or right) of their personal opinions, then that media source is labeled as liberal (or conservative)?

IMHO, as a responsible citizen, one should listen to both sides, not just their default party of choice, then make a decision based on the "facts". It's really up to the individual to do that research.

Not to sound elitist, but generally speaking, we Americans are lazy. We like our news simple, short and sweet (I dare say, black and white). Nuances only confuse. We don't like to think. We prefer emotion and faith in others who tell us they have the simple solution rather than face situations with complex issues. We prefer being in the majority. Having a popular view is more acceptable and less controversial.

Listening to only one side, unfortunately, often reinforces both facts, partial facts ....... and disinformation (fiction).

Sherwood

We like our news simple - BUT the nuances or even simple news is so biased against Republicans it is a freakin' joke. So......we ususally can only listen to one side in depth, while the other side is portrayed as brutal animals. Guess which side is which?

Christian Broadcasting Network

Media Research Center Granted, a bit dated, but you get the point.

Another Media Research Center article

And loads of examples here...

Randy

Would you right wingers like a little cheese to go with your whine? :rolleyes:

If you people don't believe it, check out these two articles, both came from the AP, which delivers news to practically every news organization in the country:

First version of http://www.boston.com/dailynews/247/region/Audience_boos_as_Bush_offers_bP.shtml:
I was _watching_ the news when Bush made the announcement, so when I read the article, i knew the AP was talking out its ass. So doing some more research i found another article: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0903clinton-reaction03-ON.html#
That article doesn't mention boos at all.

Later, the AP retracted its comments. From DrudgeReport.com:
Hear the audio for yourself here: http://www.e4industries.com/bryan/bush.mp3

Don't tell ME the media isn't biased! There's no excuse for the outright lie printed in that article. How many news agencies do you think piecked that up and reported it incorrectly? The assertion that Bush supporters would boo the well-wishes to an ex-president is very damaging. The idea that Bush would stand by and not stop it is even more damaging. That is the plan, that's EXACTLY what they were going for.

Update: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/247/region/Audience_boos_as_Bush_offers_bP.shtml

has been changed again! That's crazy, i dont recall hearing boos. Must be covering their tracks. That's the only explination.

Edit: I don't recall hearing boos OR oohs.

I wonder. Do a large majority of Americans actually read the newspaper to get their news? I'm going to guess TV, radio, Internet or none of the above. And of those who read the paper, I think it'd be a local one and probably one more amenable to the reader's taste; someone in Nebraska is probably not reading something like the Washington Post, Boston Globe or LA Times. Didn't a recent cover of Newsweek have a macho pic of GW on it? Can't speak for the inside however.

Sherwood

Just cause you can't hear them through bush's microphone does not mean that a notible number of the audience wern't booing. The attenuation of his mike would have likely been set to filter out the low frequency range where the drone of a croud is likely to produce most of its noise, not to mention boos.

I guess you could just always accept the belief that those people were just saying OOOH really loud because they were worried that clinton was ill instead of actually booing him.

I have come to expect such actions. That is like Dan Rather saying of Arnold's speech thet he "slapped John Kerry around like a hocky puck." Arnold never mentioned Kerry in his speech.

Yes they had a field day misquoting the Republicans. I had to go back and read transcripts to make sure I heard correctly the first time. It is almost impossible to believe it is not intentional.

Of course it's intentional. Like anything else, a media outlet has to consider its customer.

That's odd! I was always of the believe that their first consideration was the FACTS. :rolleyes: Silly me, I guess!

Randy

There are facts and there are ways to spin facts to lean one way or the other. That's learned in the composition portion of English 101.

Oh. I thought this was going to be a review of the film 'Outfoxed' http://www.outfoxed.org/