POLL: IF WE HAD AN HONEST MEDIA WOULD OBAMA HAVE WON RE-ELECTION?

Two major new stories this week that proved media bias:

The Senate Benghazi hearings were completely ignored by all 3 broadcast news networks; despite the damning testimony of Panetta and Gen. Dempsey that confirmed Obama was AWOL during the attack that killed Americans and lied about his involvement afterwards!

And,

All of the major media outlets have whitewashed the pro-Obama, leftist screed that the LA mass shooter wrote............

The recent record is clear, Democrats (and crazed Socialists) are more likely to commit mass killings......it is time we take guns away from all registered Democrats ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Is you point to all this whining you want to control the media instead of giving freedome of speech?

.........but most lefties don't want to acknowledge Big Media has an agenda that is left of american politics...

You can't have freedom of information with a big media that is controlling the spin in American politics...less so because of the internet, but they are still dominate players in defining the discussion.

Is you point to all this whining you want to control the media instead of giving freedome of speech? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Whirly wants the media to report what he tells them to report.

Whirly, if you do not like how the media reports....start your own news outlet! That is how it works in this country.

MSM CONCEALS CHRISTOPHER DORNER’S “IDEOLOGY”

by BY PAUL MIRENGOFF at Powerlineblog.com

I have long considered it ridiculous to report the political/social ravings of deranged murderers like Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter. The salient point about these people is their derangement, not its ideological manifestation (ideology actually being too serious a word in these cases). And publicizing the ideological manifestation gives the lunatic a forum he doesn’t deserve.

I’ve also believed that the publication by journalists of the political ravings of murderers is opportunistic. That is, biased journalists seek political advantage by trying (often in the most attenuated way) to connect the ravings with right-wing thinking.

Confirmation of my latter thesis can be found in the handling of Christopher Dorner’s rambling manifesto in which he purports to explain himself. Dorner, it turns out, is a fan of President Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Colin Powell, Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Soledad O’Brien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Vieira, Tavis Smiley, Anderson Cooper, and Ellen DeGeneres. Meanwhile, he reviles the NRA and Wayne LaPierre, believing that the latter’s advocacy warrants the death of his family before his eyes.

But, as Charles Cooke points out, “in the combined 3,240 words of the lead stories from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press, there is no mention whatsoever of the political contents of Dorner’s screed.” To be sure, they all mention the manifesto, but not what’s in it, even in New York Times’ specific post about the document.

Consistent with my first thesis, I agree with these editorial decisions, as does Cooke. But Cooke asks:

Had the killer instead praised Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, President George W. Bush, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA, and Proposition 8, and slammed the collection of journalists that he praised, perhaps singling out Piers Morgan for particular attention on the basis of his gun-control advocacy, what do you think the media’s reaction would have been?

The answer is obvious based on what we’ve seen in the past. Cooke reminds us:

Bill Clinton didn’t just blame Timothy McVeigh’s actions on Rush Limbaugh and others at the time, but came back 15 years later for a another shot at the apple, libeling the Tea Party in the process. In 2010, both Dana Milbank and the Daily Kos went so far as to write pieces about a shooting that never happened, blaming the attempt on Glenn Beck. Piers Morgan happily asked Gabby Giffords’s husband whether he had received an apology from Sarah Palin, and was astonished when the answer was “no.”

This sort of opportunism is, among other things, an effort to undermine robust speech by one’s political opponent. Everyone — Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Piers Morgan, whomever — should feel free strongly to advocate their positions without worrying about being blamed if a madman distorts them into some sort of justification for their deranged framework. Only if the speaker advocates violence is the speaker to blame if his speech inspires violence.

Unfortunately, the MSM plays by these rules only when doing so suits its ideological purposes.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...s-ideology.php

Your questions are irrelevant to media bias and the culture within the media that constantly pushes American politics to the left............

Do you think there is media bias ? Many, if not most, on the left think there is no bias in the news rooms of the NY Times, WAPO, CNN, NPR, CBS.......

And if profits were the driving force behind these media giants, then they would be pushing a more center-center right agenda....that is what sells in America......

All the major media giants that are left of center are LOSING MONEY and PROFITS !

They could easily adopt the Fox approach of "fair and balanced" and regain readership and viewers, but the can't, they operate under a culture of progressiveism.

And in return America gets stuck with Marxist Obama ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Ignorant post.

Fox has no competetion....once they get it, their profits will shrink.

And if you think Fox is Fair and Balanced, then you shoud go suck JD's 2 inch clit.

All news is biased. Repeat that...all news is biased.

All humans are biased. repeat that ALL HUMANS ARE BIASED.

Therefore all news will be biased. Smart folks watch multiple sources but you still wind up with your own biased view of the world.

My point is you are sounding like a whiney lil bitch on this one. Give it a rest.

MSM CONCEALS CHRISTOPHER DORNER’S “IDEOLOGY”

by BY PAUL MIRENGOFF at Powerlineblog.com

I have long considered it ridiculous to report the political/social ravings of deranged murderers like Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter. The salient point about these people is their derangement, not its ideological manifestation (ideology actually being too serious a word in these cases). And publicizing the ideological manifestation gives the lunatic a forum he doesn’t deserve.

I’ve also believed that the publication by journalists of the political ravings of murderers is opportunistic. That is, biased journalists seek political advantage by trying (often in the most attenuated way) to connect the ravings with right-wing thinking.

Confirmation of my latter thesis can be found in the handling of Christopher Dorner’s rambling manifesto in which he purports to explain himself. Dorner, it turns out, is a fan of President Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Colin Powell, Piers Morgan, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, Soledad O’Brien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Vieira, Tavis Smiley, Anderson Cooper, and Ellen DeGeneres. Meanwhile, he reviles the NRA and Wayne LaPierre, believing that the latter’s advocacy warrants the death of his family before his eyes.

But, as Charles Cooke points out, “in the combined 3,240 words of the lead stories from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press, there is no mention whatsoever of the political contents of Dorner’s screed.” To be sure, they all mention the manifesto, but not what’s in it, even in New York Times’ specific post about the document.

Consistent with my first thesis, I agree with these editorial decisions, as does Cooke. But Cooke asks:

Had the killer instead praised Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, President George W. Bush, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA, and Proposition 8, and slammed the collection of journalists that he praised, perhaps singling out Piers Morgan for particular attention on the basis of his gun-control advocacy, what do you think the media’s reaction would have been?

The answer is obvious based on what we’ve seen in the past. Cooke reminds us:

Bill Clinton didn’t just blame Timothy McVeigh’s actions on Rush Limbaugh and others at the time, but came back 15 years later for a another shot at the apple, libeling the Tea Party in the process. In 2010, both Dana Milbank and the Daily Kos went so far as to write pieces about a shooting that never happened, blaming the attempt on Glenn Beck. Piers Morgan happily asked Gabby Giffords’s husband whether he had received an apology from Sarah Palin, and was astonished when the answer was “no.”

This sort of opportunism is, among other things, an effort to undermine robust speech by one’s political opponent. Everyone — Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Piers Morgan, whomever — should feel free strongly to advocate their positions without worrying about being blamed if a madman distorts them into some sort of justification for their deranged framework. Only if the speaker advocates violence is the speaker to blame if his speech inspires violence.

Unfortunately, the MSM plays by these rules only when doing so suits its ideological purposes.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...s-ideology.php Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I thought the news media was biased...this is a biased story that can not be believed!

Obama won because of the 47%. He only need to get another 4% to win the election.

The media won him the election the first time. The secind time, he had enough handouts to get the votes he needed. All u need to see is the obama phone girl, and can see the open zeal to get freebies, to maintain freebies, and the fear of not having freebies. I doubt she was an exeption, I think they were a lot more like her.

Obama won because of the 47%. He only need to get another 4% to win the election.

The media won him the election the first time. The secind time, he had enough handouts to get the votes he needed. All u need to see is the obama phone girl, and can see the open zeal to get freebies, to maintain freebies, and the fear of not having freebies. I doubt she was an exeption, I think they were a lot more like her. Originally Posted by lostforkate

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Alexander Tytler (1747-1813)

What about if we had an honest Congress where the Republicans did not practice blatant gerrymandering. The answer; President Blackenstein, and other Democrats running would have been victorious by even bigger margins, which would have been a good thing. Originally Posted by 9676forfun

Both parties gerrymander. Surely you don't think it's just the Republicans.

Of course no one is contesting the media is in the tank for democrats. How can you argue with the sun rise. Having accepted that examine some of the thoughts here about how bad the democrats would beat the GOP (or anyone else) with a fair press.
The press is not fair, the press supports democrats, with all the union money, media support, Hollywood support,and outrageous tactics employed by the left including lying and personal attacks, the democrats can only win about half the time and only in certain places. If it wasn't for New York and California there would never be a democratic president. Take away the advantage of a tame press and the democrats would no control either the Senate or the House. We would have President Palin (I think the pressure would have offed McCain).

Both parties gerrymander. Surely you don't think it's just the Republicans. Originally Posted by joe bloe

and all media is biased, surely you don't think it is just the liberal media

t. We would have President Palin (I think the pressure would have offed McCain). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

thank god for media bias!:-) JD, you sound like a bubbling idiot, 'Take away all my opposition and nobody would oppose me!' ......what a fool!

Of course no one is contesting the media is in the tank for democrats. How can you argue with the sun rise. Having accepted that examine some of the thoughts here about how bad the democrats would beat the GOP (or anyone else) with a fair press.
The press is not fair, the press supports democrats, with all the union money, media support, Hollywood support,and outrageous tactics employed by the left including lying and personal attacks, the democrats can only win about half the time and only in certain places. If it wasn't for New York and California there would never be a democratic president. Take away the advantage of a tame press and the democrats would no control either the Senate or the House. We would have President Palin (I think the pressure would have offed McCain). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The thing that makes liberals hard to beat is that they are more passionate about their politics than conservatives. Liberalism is essentially a religion. That's why you see entire professions taken over by liberals. Liberals choose careers they can use to advance their liberal views.

David Horowitz said, a lie believed with passion, is a force too powerful for truth to defeat. Conservatives have the truth on their side but they do not have passion; that's why they're losing. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

the military is mostly made up of conservatives...that is the largest profession in the country. Where do you come up with your biased shit jb....oh yea I almost forgot, the biased media!

WTF doesn't seem to understand that the left thinks THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS.....or that the level of bias in the media constitutes a fair and level playing field....