The W
Views: 95566698
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.4.07 0524
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberal Media: A Test Register and log in to post!
(700 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3763/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#1 Posted on 19.8.04 1526.59
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1527.32
Since there has been a question about whether or not the media is liberal, guess which paper wrote which headline:

A. The veterans' group played host to both candidates this week--Mr. Bush spoke to them on Monday--as the two camps vie for the hearts and minds and votes of veterans, an important constituency in this election and one that has traditionally leaned Republican. This year, however, veterans seem more closely divided in their support of the two candidates. Today, the V.F.W. audience greeted Mr. Kerry with frequent applause, much as it had Mr. Bush on Monday.

B. "He was upset after the speech, visibly upset when he was out of public view," says a Kerry adviser, confirming the story.

Kerry was greeted by polite applause in the large auditorium, with many VFW members sitting with their arms crossed and not applauding at all. A few VFW members stood in the rear of the room with their backs turned to the dais. . . .

"He's not used to not getting a warm reception," says the advance staffer. "He can handle the Bush hooligans we get, but when he's told he'll be greeted well, he expects that to be the case."


C. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped.


Spoiler Below: Highlight text to read
A. New York Times
B. American Spectator
C. Associated Press


This is only a test.

(edited by Grimis on 19.8.04 1627)

(edited by Grimis on 19.8.04 1627)
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2887/5392
EXP: 26522827
For next: 609177

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 19.8.04 1533.44
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1535.30
Well, you have definitely proven that one publication is perhaps slightly generous in their assessment, that another looks for everything they can to attack Kerry with, and that the AP wire story is pretty much even-handed.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3764/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#3 Posted on 19.8.04 1537.55
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1538.02
    Originally posted by spf2119
    Well, you have definitely proven that one publication is perhaps slightly generous in their assessment, that another looks for everything they can to attack Kerry with, and that the AP wire story is pretty much even-handed.
I woudln't say "overly generous" instead of slightly, but all in all, right on.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1187/1528
EXP: 4001159
For next: 4920

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2641 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 19.8.04 2100.13
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2100.36
Today's Wall Street Journal Best of the Web has perhaps an even more telling example. as it relates to the leftist, Jimmy Carter-endorsed group in Venezuela.

    Originally posted by New York Times
    It is time for President Hugo Chávez's opponents to stop pretending that they speak for most Venezuelans. They do not, as the failure of a recall referendum, promoted by the opposition, decisively demonstrated on Sunday. . . . The opposition . . . needs to stop shouting foul.


The international version, the International Herald Tribune, dissented.

    Originally posted by International Herald Tribune
    All exit polls carried out on the day had given the opposition an advantage of between 12 percent and 19 percent. But preliminary results announced by the government-controlled National Electoral Council at 3:30 a.m. gave Chávez 58.2 percent of the vote, against 41.7 percent for the opposition. . . .

    Two days after the referendum, . . . evidence is growing that the software of the touch-screen voting machines had been tampered with. The opposition has requested that the votes be recounted manually and that the boxes holding the voting papers, currently stored in army garrisons, be put under the custody of international observers. . . .


And the Wall Street Journal:

    Originally posted by WSJ
    On Monday afternoon, dozens of people assembled in the Altamira Plaza, a public square in a residential neighborhood here that has come to symbolize nonviolent dissent in Venezuela. The crowd was there to question the accuracy of the results that announced a triumph for President Hugo Chávez in Sunday's recall referendum.

    Within one hour of the gathering, just over 100 of Lt. Col. Chávez's supporters, many of them brandishing his trademark army parachutist beret, began moving down the main avenue towards the crowd in the square. Encouraged by their leader's victory, this bully-boy group had been marching through opposition neighborhoods all day. From afar they began to taunt the crowd in the square, chanting, "We own this country now," and ordering the people in the opposition crowd to return to their homes. . . . The Chávez group threw bottles and rocks at the crowd. Moments later a young woman in the square screamed for the crowd to get down as three of the men with walkie-talkies, wearing red T-shirts with the insignia of the government-funded "Bolivarian Circle," revealed their firearms. They began shooting indiscriminately into the multitude.

    A 61-year-old grandmother was shot in the back as she ran for cover. The bullet ripped through her aorta, kidney and stomach. She later bled to death in the emergency room. An opposition congressman was shot in the shoulder and remains in critical care. Eight others suffered severe gunshot wounds.


So, to recap: There are substantive allegations of massive fraud. People are being murdered in the streets. The polls are off by a suspiciously huge amount. And all the "paper of record" can muster is, more or less, "you lost, shut up." A sentiment seemingly reserved for the opponents of a Venezulean socialist, and not for the American Democrats, who were defeated fairly.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 35

Posts: 218/259
EXP: 278442
For next: 1496

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2355 days
Last activity: 458 days
#5 Posted on 20.8.04 0822.47
Reposted on: 20.8.11 0823.13
So, Grimis and Palp have picked out a couple of instances where the NY Times is to the left of the American Spectator and the Wall Street Journal, and are claiming....what?

Claiming that it proves "the media" are "liberal"?

I just don't see how this proves anything - you've got more "conservative" news sources than "liberal" ones cited here. And a couple of selected quotes don't prove a systemic bias at the Times, let alone in "the media" as a whole. There are plenty of news sources that have a "conservative" spin, and plenty that call it down the middle, and plenty that have a "liberal" spin, and people generally know which is which.

You guys really need to try harder if you hope to be at all convincing. Personally, I think that anyone still whingeing about "Liberal Media Bias" needs to get a grip.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3769/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#6 Posted on 20.8.04 0855.27
Reposted on: 20.8.11 0859.01
I don't understand how any rational human being can say the media is NOT biased. The New York Times and the Washington Post have not reported indepth about Kerry's lies in Cambodia. They have both slammed SwiftVets as "Republican groups" and they have both ignored the Democratic influence behind other 527's.

To say that the media is not biased is to live with blinders on....
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 653/859
EXP: 1686593
For next: 86195

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 912 days
#7 Posted on 20.8.04 1005.29
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1005.39
So why don't more conservatives just go into broadcasting and journalism, instead of just complaining about so-called liberal people writing so-called liberal things? Is the low income too much of a deterent?

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3771/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#8 Posted on 20.8.04 1007.30
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1011.36
    Originally posted by DrOp
    So why don't more conservatives just go into broadcasting and journalism, instead of just complaining about so-called liberal people writing so-called liberal things? Is the low income too much of a deterent?


It's funny you mention that, because when conservatives doo (see "Fox News") liberals bemoan the fact that they are conservative and, therefore, lack credibility.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2889/5392
EXP: 26522827
For next: 609177

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 20.8.04 1027.05
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1027.30
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I don't understand how any rational human being can say the media is NOT biased. The New York Times and the Washington Post have not reported indepth about Kerry's lies in Cambodia. They have both slammed SwiftVets as "Republican groups" and they have both ignored the Democratic influence behind other 527's.

    To say that the media is not biased is to live with blinders on....

Kerry's "lies" about Cambodia are something which there are great differences of opinion on. SwiftVets is a group created by and funded by GOP cash, and reporting that say for instance MoveOn is a Dem group would be akin to a front page story saying "SUN ROSE IN EAST!"

I agree there is a bias in the media. But then I happen to feel that it is biased against progressives and liberals in general. It's interest is maintaining the status quo at all costs, and avoiding controversy. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen such rapturous coverage of the original move into Iraq, and such blind willingness to buy everything said by the Bush administration in the lead-up, or the constant painting of anti-war protests as kooks and dried-up old hippies and ignorant kids.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1537/4698
EXP: 21571879
For next: 264783

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 13 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 20.8.04 1104.50
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1109.08
    Originally posted by Grimis
    when conservatives doo (see "Fox News")


Your typo is funny because I think Fox News = Conservative "doo".
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 654/859
EXP: 1686593
For next: 86195

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2045 days
Last activity: 912 days
#11 Posted on 20.8.04 1132.03
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1137.33
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrOp
      So why don't more conservatives just go into broadcasting and journalism, instead of just complaining about so-called liberal people writing so-called liberal things? Is the low income too much of a deterent?


    It's funny you mention that, because when conservatives doo (see "Fox News") liberals bemoan the fact that they are conservative and, therefore, lack credibility.


I guess so but my personal opinion is that everything has an opinion or slant. As a person, you simply can not write yourself and your beliefs 100% out of what you say, do and write. In the end, I try to take it all with a huge grain of salt and move forward. All news is basically crap anyway--business and commerically-driven, ratings seeking crap.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3779/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#12 Posted on 20.8.04 1453.40
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1456.43
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    Your typo is funny because I think Fox News = Conservative "doo".
True. But it also is the highest rated cable news network in the country. Perhaps that says something...
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 2155/3018
EXP: 10962489
For next: 127516

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 20.8.04 1459.54
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1503.08
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Your typo is funny because I think Fox News = Conservative "doo".
    True. But it also is the highest rated cable news network in the country. Perhaps that says something...


I think it says the same thing that Alein VS Predator being at the top of the box office, Ashlee Simpson having the number one album and every other program on TV being some unwatchable and recycled piece of reality dreck says - America Loves Crap!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3781/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#14 Posted on 20.8.04 1503.05
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1503.16
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    I think it says the same thing that Alein VS Predator being at the top of the box office, Ashlee Simpson having the number one album and every other program on TV being some unwatchable and recycled piece of reality dreck says - America Loves Crap!
Fair criticism...well done.
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 333/1040
EXP: 2041030
For next: 56133

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2168 days
Last activity: 638 days
#15 Posted on 20.8.04 1543.45
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1544.34
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Your typo is funny because I think Fox News = Conservative "doo".
    True. But it also is the highest rated cable news network in the country. Perhaps that says something...


Is it? I'm not attacking you, because I don't know, but I've seen both Fox and CNN report that they are the highest rated. I think it has something to do with the amount of time that people watch them. Supposedly, Fox has people watch them longer, while more people tune into CNN for a few minutes at a time. At least that's what I've read. Is there a place to get reliable hard numbers on these things (if only for my own curiousity)?
jivesoulbro
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 68/103
EXP: 67187
For next: 537

Since: 25.12.02

Since last post: 2236 days
Last activity: 261 days
#16 Posted on 22.8.04 0254.35
Reposted on: 22.8.11 0254.37
I think Fox is legitimately the highest-rated, but I don't think that means much, other than there are a lot of people in the choir that like to be preached to. My opinion on the networks is that liberals have MSNBC (or at least some shows not hosted by Scarbrough), conservatives have Fox and those of us who want real news and thoughtful analysis have CNN. Unless that asshole Aaron Brown or that other asshole Anderson Cooper is on the air. Or their morning people. Come to think of it, everyone on that network is an asshole except Wolf Blitzer, Howard Kurtz and Mark Shields.

Maybe the larger point here is that we should read the newspaper instead of watching tv "news."

I think most reporters have spent enough time dealing with political flaks that they pretty much think everyone is an asshole, and to be biased is just to promote one asshole over another asshole. And what the hell is the point of that?

(edited by jivesoulbro on 22.8.04 1942)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1690/2085
EXP: 6374722
For next: 18077

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 1 day
#17 Posted on 22.8.04 1318.15
Reposted on: 22.8.11 1318.43
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrOp
      So why don't more conservatives just go into broadcasting and journalism, instead of just complaining about so-called liberal people writing so-called liberal things? Is the low income too much of a deterent?


    It's funny you mention that, because when conservatives doo (see "Fox News") liberals bemoan the fact that they are conservative and, therefore, lack credibility.


This is something that's missing. There is a huge difference between, say, the New York Sun - which is a right-leaning, good journalistic operation, basically the equivilant of the NY Times - and FOX news, which is blatant propaganda. The right - rightly or wrongly - claims this "subtle bias" to the left among some elements of the media. The way they respond, however, is to completely and blatently editorialize journalism.

Look at all the Prime-time cable shows the Right has. O'Reilly. Scarborough. HANNITY and colmes. Even Michael Wiener and Alan Keyes were given their own shows These aren't news shows. These are half-hour editorials. I mean, Keyes and Wiener getting their own shows is like Al Sharpton and Barney Frank getting their own cable talk shows - you think that'll ever happen? Even a guy like Scarborough - a former GOP Congressman - who's a pretty mainstream Republican is something you never see the equivilant of on the left. Keith Olberman is maybe the closest you come. Even former Democrats like Chris Matthews question Liberals as hard or harder as Conservatives, and have a pretty good parity of views on their shows - unlike the 4-1 ratio on FOX. The only Liberal equivilant of these shows out there is Real Time with Bill Maher - weekly late night on HBO. Not exactly the same as as Prime time daily on a standard cable "News" channel.

In addition, the "left-wing" journalistic operation are very mainstream left. They're left like the DNC is left. They don't bring up new issues, question the status quo, or anything like that. When was the last time they reported on any kind of controversal issues or anything like that? Kooky lefty ideas get no play at all. The right-leaning journalistic operations, however, aren't afraid to bring in the fringe-right nutjobs and give credibility to their far-out issues. Take, say, taxes. The lefty shows would have "should we repeal the Bush tax cuts for the upper-income or not?" The right shows would have "should we move toward a national sales tax or a flat tax?"

As I've said before, the right-wing cable TV operation is slanted right like the left-wing urban alt-weekly operation (think Village Voice et. al.) is slanted to the left. I'd rather have the cable news personally.

And I haven't even touched talk radio.

(edited by MoeGates on 22.8.04 1607)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1194/1528
EXP: 4001159
For next: 4920

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2641 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 22.8.04 1749.29
Reposted on: 22.8.11 1749.54
A flat tax is kooky? A lot of this has to do, I think, with our differing conceptions of left and right.

Also, there's a difference between a political opinion show and journalism. O'Reilly is on-air to offer opinion. Ditto Scarborough and anyone else. But what about former Democratic aides Chris Matthews and Tim Russert? Matthews is almost certainly at the top of the MSNBC foodchain, such as it is; Russert hosts the king of Sunday talk shows (which I both watch and enjoy, it should be noted). Russert, I will agree, is fair; not so with Matthews. The Hardball tour of college campuses was pretty bad. And what of Stephanopolous? Imagine if Andrew Card or Karl Rove started hosting one of the Sunday talk shows.

Also, talk radio is irrelevant, IMO. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity... all opinion. And, if it didn't sell ads, it wouldn't be on the air. Are you trying to allege that there's some kind of conspiracy keeping Mario Cuomo and Jim Hightower from dethroning Rush in the ratings battles?

And are you sure you want to use Frank and Sharpton as examples? Sharpton ruined a man's life with the Brawley hoax, and Frank once attempted to use his influence to help get a prostitute off (in the legal sense). Though, to be fair, they're about as credible as Savage (who, if stupidity were a deciding factor, wouldn't be on the air anywhere).
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 123

Posts: 3784/4700
EXP: 21123846
For next: 107480

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1080 days
Last activity: 877 days
#19 Posted on 23.8.04 0614.34
Reposted on: 23.8.11 0615.52
I also watch Russert from time to time. Usually a very good interviewer too. (Incidentally, yesterday's Tad Levine v Ken Mehlmann exchange was absolutely bizarre because nobody seemed to be listening to anybody else, but really what's new?)

EDIT: Incidentally,the tally seems to be in the ballpark of $158,750 spent by SwiftVets and roughly $105 million by a bunch of anti-Bush 527s.

(edited by Grimis on 23.8.04 1057)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1201/1528
EXP: 4001159
For next: 4920

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2641 days
Last activity: 2483 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 24.8.04 2324.53
Reposted on: 24.8.11 2324.59
From today's WSJ Best of the Web, really a terrific little publication.

    Originally posted by James Taranto
    Here are a couple of nice examples of the bias that creeps into coverage of the Kerry war controversy. An Associated Press dispatch refers to "the Republican-bankrolled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." This is an accurate description, inasmuch as the group has indeed taken money from people who are Republicans. But do you recall ever hearing a "mainstream" media reference to, say, "the Democrat-bankrolled MoveOn.org"? Neither do we.


(edited by PalpatineW on 25.8.04 0025)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Double Dipping: Voting Twice In The Same Election
Next thread: Slavery reconciliation walk
Previous thread: Pataki '08?
(700 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Liberal Media: A TestRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.227 seconds.