Nixon on media bias. Excellent. He was the king of the paranoids. AND DID YOU USE THE WORD "PROBATIVE" IN A SENTENCE? Yow!
Maybe it's not a bias. Maybe they are all really out to take over the world.
Damn, they already have!
BTW shithead, learn the difference between facts and opinion. no for a change, you're quoting a polling organization that TRENDED WRONG throughout the past cycle. But you took and still take their OPINION polls as fact...or should we ay GOSPEL? The poll you cite doesn't even indicate "knowledge" or fact. It's belief. What do the cross tabs say about the sample? what else was in the study? WHO paid for it?
You bluster a lot, Twirlyturd. Most of you Teapukes do. But you really are bitter simpletons living in a bubble.
Sucks be you!
- Yssup Rider
- 02-10-2013, 10:24 PM
- Guest040616
- 02-11-2013, 05:08 AM
Trendy, I've got a great idea. When StupidOldLyingFart finally takes me up on my kind and generous offer for a one way trip to Beautiful Downtown Damascus, you can take over his reign as King of Stupid. Unless of course, you would like to accompany him to Damascus. At which point, we could designate Joe the Bloehard to be the new King in Waiting. It should be noted that the only reason ol' Joe is 2nd in line, behind you, is due to his tendency to go on the missing persons list (for 30 days or more) when one of his "Trending" candidates gets their ass handed back to them.
In any event, should you decide to stay, for your official title as the newly designated heir to the Stupid throne, I would like to propose King StupidOldTrendingFart.
Yo Momma should be proud!
In any event, should you decide to stay, for your official title as the newly designated heir to the Stupid throne, I would like to propose King StupidOldTrendingFart.
Yo Momma should be proud!
- Whirlaway
- 02-11-2013, 05:54 AM
Feel free to post some facts fellas, it will make you look smarter....but if facts aren't on your side, then------
- i'va biggen
- 02-11-2013, 07:31 AM
Do you have any "facts" that the media won the election for him? Or just cuz you say it is so it is so.
- joe bloe
- 02-11-2013, 08:39 AM
Do you have any "facts" that the media won the election for him? Or just cuz you say it is so it is so. Originally Posted by i'va biggen
It's like being asked to prove the sun is hot. Here's an article that shows the top five ways the MSM insured Obama's reelection. I know you won't read it.
Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama
Fox News and other media outlets have projected that President Obama has been reelected to a second term. If, in celebrating his victory Obama wanted to give credit where credit is due, he might want to think about calling some of America's top journalists, since their favorable approach almost certainly made the difference between victory and defeat.
Reviewing the 2012 presidential campaign, here are five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney:
1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis
of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”
Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”
None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."
And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.
2. Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.
For example, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter writing for PolitiFact branded VP candidate Paul Ryan’s convention speech anecdote about the closing of the General Motors plant in his hometown as “false,” even though Ryan was correct in all of his details. The slanted review became TV reporters’ talking points; the next day on NBC, correspondent Chuck Todd grumped that while what Ryan said “was technically factual, by what he left out, [he] actually distorted the actual truth.” Matt Lauer greeted Ryan the following week in an interview on Today: “There are some people who are claiming that you played a little fast and loose with the truth....”
The same thing happened when Mitt Romney talked about Obama’s “apology tour” during the final presidential debate. While in 2009 Obama had, in fact, criticized the United States as “arrogant,” “derisive” and having “too often... set [our] principles aside,” the networks said to call it an “apology tour” was “false” because, as CNN’s John Berman tenuously insisted, “even if he was critical of past U.S. foreign policy, he issued no apologies.”
Writing in the New York Times August 31, correspondent Jackie Calmes scolded that “the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a level not typically seen.” That’s not true, either; Romney’s team was, at worst, guilty of highlighting those facts that best illustrated their points (something done by all politicians), and the Obama campaign certainly put out their share of tawdry TV ads and dubious campaign claims.
But with “truth cops” who mainly policed just the GOP side of the street, the media used “fact-checking” as another club to tilt the playing field in favor of the Democrats.
3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.
Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.
Crowley earns extra demerits for taking the media’s penchant for faulty fact-checking to new heights when she jumped into the October 16 town hall-style debate to validate President Obama’s claim that he called the attack in Benghazi, Libya, “an act of terror” the very next morning. Crowley endorsed Obama’s story, telling Romney: “He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”
Not according to the transcript, which had Obama only speaking generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi.
Wrong though she was, Crowley became a heroine to many in the liberal media; ABC's Matt Dowd, for example, cheered: “What Candy Crowley did, I actually thought, was laudable....I hope we get to do more of that in this discourse.”
Moderators are supposed to ensure both sides get a fair hearing, not pick sides. By leaping into the fray, Candy Crowley epitomized the media’s itch to tilt the scales this year — again, in Obama’s favor.
4. The Benghazi Blackout: Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.
News broke online in late September, for example, that Team Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack was likely the result of terrorism. That starkly contradicted claims from White House press secretary Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and President Obama himself that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Yet, ABC took nearly two days to bring this story to viewers, while CBS and NBC held off for three days.
This was, shamefully, the broadcast networks’ pattern in October: New developments exposing the administration’s failure to provide adequate security, or contradictions in their public statements, were either given stingy coverage or buried completely. The puzzle pieces revealed a disturbing failure of Obama’s national security apparatus, but the networks flitted in and out of the story, never giving it any traction.
Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?
5. Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.
According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.
In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostileto Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.
When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.
Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.
Reviewing the 2012 presidential campaign, here are five ways the media elite tipped the public relations scales in favor of the liberal Obama and against the conservative challenger Mitt Romney:
1. The Media’s Biased Gaffe Patrol Hammered Romney: The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.” Case in point: the GOP candidate’s trip to Europe and Israel in late July. A Media Research Center analysis
of all 21 ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Romney’s trip found that virtually all of them (18, or 86%) emphasized “diplomatic blunders,” “gaffes” or “missteps.”Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer blasted the news coverage
in an August 2 column, calling the trip “a major substantive success” that was wrapped “in a media narrative of surpassing triviality.”Similarly, when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories
on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."
And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report
the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.2. Pounding Romney With Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate.
For example, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter writing for PolitiFact branded
VP candidate Paul Ryan’s convention speech anecdote about the closing of the General Motors plant in his hometown as “false,” even though Ryan was correct in all of his details. The slanted review became TV reporters’ talking points; the next day on NBC, correspondent Chuck Todd grumped that while what Ryan said “was technically factual, by what he left out, [he] actually distorted the actual truth.” Matt Lauer greeted Ryan the following week in an interview on Today: “There are some people who are claiming that you played a little fast and loose with the truth....”The same thing happened when Mitt Romney talked about Obama’s “apology tour” during the final presidential debate. While in 2009 Obama had, in fact, criticized the United States as “arrogant,” “derisive” and having “too often... set [our] principles aside,” the networks said to call it an “apology tour” was “false” because, as CNN’s John Berman tenuously insisted, “even if he was critical of past U.S. foreign policy, he issued no apologies.”
Writing in the New York Times August 31, correspondent Jackie Calmes scolded
that “the number of falsehoods and misleading statements from the Romney campaign coming in for independent criticism has reached a level not typically seen.” That’s not true, either; Romney’s team was, at worst, guilty of highlighting those facts that best illustrated their points (something done by all politicians), and the Obama campaign certainly put out their share of tawdry TV ads and dubious campaign claims.But with “truth cops” who mainly policed just the GOP side of the street, the media used “fact-checking” as another club to tilt the playing field in favor of the Democrats.
3. Those Biased Debate Moderators: Upset liberals scorned PBS’s Jim Lehrer for taking a hands-off approach in the first debate on October 3, with MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman slamming him as “practically useless
” for not jumping into the debate on behalf of President Obama.Such criticism may have encouraged the activist approach
taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the vice presidential debate October 11, and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.Crowley earns extra demerits for taking the media’s penchant for faulty fact-checking to new heights when she jumped into the October 16 town hall-style debate to validate President Obama’s claim that he called the attack in Benghazi, Libya, “an act of terror” the very next morning. Crowley endorsed Obama’s story, telling Romney: “He did, in fact, sir, call it an act of terror.”
Not according to the transcript, which had Obama only speaking generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” not assigning that label to the violence in Benghazi.
Wrong though she was, Crowley became a heroine to many in the liberal media; ABC's Matt Dowd, for example, cheered
: “What Candy Crowley did, I actually thought, was laudable....I hope we get to do more of that in this discourse.”Moderators are supposed to ensure both sides get a fair hearing, not pick sides. By leaping into the fray, Candy Crowley epitomized the media’s itch to tilt the scales this year — again, in Obama’s favor.
4. The Benghazi Blackout: Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed
that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.News broke online in late September, for example, that Team Obama knew within 24 hours that the attack was likely the result of terrorism. That starkly contradicted claims from White House press secretary Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and President Obama himself that the attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to an anti-Muslim video posted on YouTube. Yet, ABC took nearly two days to bring this story to viewers, while CBS and NBC held off for three days.
This was, shamefully, the broadcast networks’ pattern in October: New developments exposing the administration’s failure to provide adequate security, or contradictions in their public statements, were either given stingy coverage or buried completely. The puzzle pieces revealed a disturbing failure of Obama’s national security apparatus, but the networks flitted in and out of the story, never giving it any traction.
Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?
5. Burying the Bad Economy: Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.
According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.
In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile
to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.
Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.
Rich Noyes, is research director for the Media Research Center.
- Whirlaway
- 02-11-2013, 09:43 AM
I have posted numerous articles, references, etc...they refuse to comment on the analysis....more importantly, they don't offer any counter analysis or set of facts.....
In most circles that is considered to be "capitulation".........the y know the media is overwhelmingly biased and left of the American center........they just refuse to admit it.....it's called stonewalling the facts !
In most circles that is considered to be "capitulation".........the y know the media is overwhelmingly biased and left of the American center........they just refuse to admit it.....it's called stonewalling the facts !
- joe bloe
- 02-11-2013, 09:56 AM
I have posted numerous articles, references, etc...they refuse to comment on the analysis....more importantly, they don't offer any counter analysis or set of facts.....The left is morally bankrupt. They steal elections with voter fraud, media bias and every other dirty trick in the book and then call conservatives sore losers. Liberals had better hope there is no God.
In most circles that is considered to be "capitulation".........the y know the media is overwhelmingly biased and left of the American center........they just refuse to admit it.....it's called stonewalling the facts ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-11-2013, 10:30 AM
Facts???
Candy Crowley got it wrong
Benghazi was not discussed
Where was the terrible state of the economy?
We heard all about the non-existent recovery
Where were the Biden gaffs?
We heard all about the non-Romney gaffs.
Fast and Furious? What's that?
Outing SEAL team six for revenge
Corruption in the green energy industry
poor fiscal management
no budget in almost four years
4 TRILLION dollars in spending and nothing to show for it
Just off the top of my head, I'm sure that there is more
Candy Crowley got it wrong
Benghazi was not discussed
Where was the terrible state of the economy?
We heard all about the non-existent recovery
Where were the Biden gaffs?
We heard all about the non-Romney gaffs.
Fast and Furious? What's that?
Outing SEAL team six for revenge
Corruption in the green energy industry
poor fiscal management
no budget in almost four years
4 TRILLION dollars in spending and nothing to show for it
Just off the top of my head, I'm sure that there is more
- WTF
- 02-11-2013, 10:51 AM
The left is morally bankrupt. They steal elections with voter fraud, media bias and every other dirty trick in the book and then call conservatives sore losers. Liberals had better hope there is no God. Originally Posted by joe bloeThere is no God , if there was you and COG wouldn't be here and yes yall are sore losers.
- joe bloe
- 02-11-2013, 11:05 AM
- WTF
- 02-11-2013, 11:15 AM
- jbravo_123
- 02-11-2013, 11:44 AM
- WTF
- 02-11-2013, 07:01 PM
- Yssup Rider
- 02-11-2013, 08:15 PM
Or whiny little bitches.
The meek shall inherit NOTHING!
The meek shall inherit NOTHING!
- BigLouie
- 02-11-2013, 10:00 PM
Straight up question; what is your answer? Originally Posted by WhirlawayWhirlaway, without insults, without insulting names, my answer is that your question suffers from faulty reasoning. You feel that because the news is not being reported the way you want it then it must not be honest. A better question would be, if the media had focused on topics you considered important would the results have been different. Personally I do not think so.
Some facts, did you know that if Reagan had won the same percentages of the ethnic groups and run against Carter the race would have been a virtual dead-heat.
You thing that to me is becoming clear is that various ethnic groups do not put as much importance on some events as conservatives do. And you cannot say that anyone viewpoint is more correct or important than the other, it just is.
Therefore the changing of the ethnic mix in the US is going to have a long term effect on who gets elected and what points are important to those voting. The Republican party cannot remain the party of angry white conservatives and hope to not just win elections but survive. And it has nothing to do with the claim the media is not being honest.
Just because they are not reporting on what you want them to means the focus has shifted. There is no right or wrong. There just is.