Press decidedly left.................
- Thread starter bufordtpisser
- Start date
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, if the Center for Media and Public Affairs says it's true,then it must be. LOL. :lol:
Seriously, that organization has no credibility. They claim to be non-partisan, but that's a load of bull. They're funded and run entirely by conservatives, most notably Richard Mellon Scaife. The president of it is a paid consultant to the Fox News channel.
Seriously, that organization has no credibility. They claim to be non-partisan, but that's a load of bull. They're funded and run entirely by conservatives, most notably Richard Mellon Scaife. The president of it is a paid consultant to the Fox News channel.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
So your argument is that the organization's bent is based on its leadership and/or membership?TommyB said:
That's fine. You just busted your own point with your own logic. If I were to say, using your logic, that CNN, because it was founded by the liberal Ted Turner, is therefore liberal, you would have no choice but to agree based on your own argument. I could say the same for CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, over 70% of whose members are ADMITTED LIBERALS. Actually, I could go on and on. But I think you get my point.
As far as the Fox News Channel goes, I doubt you ever watch it, or you wouldn't use it as a slur. That channel is the most fair and balanced news channel on TV. They bring on just as many libs as cons to debate the issues, sometimes more. The fact that their reporting of the unvarnished truth more often than the other big networks automatically drops their credibility with you says a lot about you.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
This is the extent of CMPA's "study":
http://www.cmpa.com/documents/06.10.31.Bad.news.pdf
Hardly a comprehensive analysis. Nowhere do they say how they arrived at those figures, nor do they cite any specific examples of said bias. As for their "methodology", all they tell us is that they employ something they call "content analysis", but then only give a vague description of how it works. They then go on with a bunch of mumbo jumbo about databases and statistic analysis and how their "code books" are 200 pages long and their reviewers recieve hundreds of hours of training. Problem is, they don't provide any details on what that training entails, nor any details about what is contained in the code books. For instance, does simply reporting on the Foley scandal count as "negative"? We have no way of knowing.
In order for a TRUE scientific study to be accepted, it must be peer-reviewed (or at least peer-reviewable). That means EVERY last detail of the methodology and data must be provided. Otherwise we're simply left to take their word for it. Those people who are predesposed to believe their results, for example you, accept it as gospel. I don't. And there's not one bit of objective evidence you can provide to prove me wrong. Nor vise versa.
Hell, I could write up my own "code book" and conduct my own study that shows the media has a sharp conservative bias. And as long as I didn't give out my methodology and data, you would have no way to shoot me down because you'd have nothing specific to dispute. Oh sure, you could argue with me on general principle, but you couldn't look at a specific piece of my evidence and prove it wrong. Because I didn't provide it.
So until these people pony up their data and their specific methodology, their "study" is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Speaking of which, you'll be shocked to hear that I actually do watch FOX News on a regular basis. It's on in the living room as I type this. I wake up and turn on "FOX & Friends" every morning, and Tivo "O'Rielly" and "Hannity & Colmes" every night. I just watch them purely for the entertainment value. You do understand that those shows are not NEWS don't you? Those are opinion shows, only a couple of steps up from the Jerry Springer Show.
There is no "fair and balanced" way to present the NEWS. The NEWS is the NEWS, period. Once you start bringing in the "experts" and presenting "both sides of the story", it blurs into OPINION. If I had to give FOX News credit for only one thing, it would be for lowering the standards of journalism by making the "he said/she said" slugfest an accepted way to disseminate information. In the "Golden Age" of television news, the opinion was relegated to the Sunday morning talk shows. Not any more. Now most television news people are nothing more than moderators, who have no interest in getting to the truth, only in getting a good sound bite out of someone and upping their ratings. This makes for cheap entertainment, but it doesn't do much for keeping people informed.
The fact that you consider this form of infotainment credible says a lot about YOU.
http://www.cmpa.com/documents/06.10.31.Bad.news.pdf
Hardly a comprehensive analysis. Nowhere do they say how they arrived at those figures, nor do they cite any specific examples of said bias. As for their "methodology", all they tell us is that they employ something they call "content analysis", but then only give a vague description of how it works. They then go on with a bunch of mumbo jumbo about databases and statistic analysis and how their "code books" are 200 pages long and their reviewers recieve hundreds of hours of training. Problem is, they don't provide any details on what that training entails, nor any details about what is contained in the code books. For instance, does simply reporting on the Foley scandal count as "negative"? We have no way of knowing.
In order for a TRUE scientific study to be accepted, it must be peer-reviewed (or at least peer-reviewable). That means EVERY last detail of the methodology and data must be provided. Otherwise we're simply left to take their word for it. Those people who are predesposed to believe their results, for example you, accept it as gospel. I don't. And there's not one bit of objective evidence you can provide to prove me wrong. Nor vise versa.
Hell, I could write up my own "code book" and conduct my own study that shows the media has a sharp conservative bias. And as long as I didn't give out my methodology and data, you would have no way to shoot me down because you'd have nothing specific to dispute. Oh sure, you could argue with me on general principle, but you couldn't look at a specific piece of my evidence and prove it wrong. Because I didn't provide it.
So until these people pony up their data and their specific methodology, their "study" is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Speaking of which, you'll be shocked to hear that I actually do watch FOX News on a regular basis. It's on in the living room as I type this. I wake up and turn on "FOX & Friends" every morning, and Tivo "O'Rielly" and "Hannity & Colmes" every night. I just watch them purely for the entertainment value. You do understand that those shows are not NEWS don't you? Those are opinion shows, only a couple of steps up from the Jerry Springer Show.
There is no "fair and balanced" way to present the NEWS. The NEWS is the NEWS, period. Once you start bringing in the "experts" and presenting "both sides of the story", it blurs into OPINION. If I had to give FOX News credit for only one thing, it would be for lowering the standards of journalism by making the "he said/she said" slugfest an accepted way to disseminate information. In the "Golden Age" of television news, the opinion was relegated to the Sunday morning talk shows. Not any more. Now most television news people are nothing more than moderators, who have no interest in getting to the truth, only in getting a good sound bite out of someone and upping their ratings. This makes for cheap entertainment, but it doesn't do much for keeping people informed.
The fact that you consider this form of infotainment credible says a lot about YOU.
TommyB said:
I disagree with your decision to equate them to Jerry Springer, but you're right that Hannity and Colmes is NOT a news show. It was designed to be a debate, confrontation show.
O'Reilly is a bit more difficult to classify. He's not a "news" program, because he clearly an advocate on many issues. However, it is a means of getting the news.
But what is never fairly discussed is the actual NEWS content of Fox news. The Brit Humme show is the best NEWS show on TV. The News division at Fox is NOT hard leaning to the right at all. In fact, they lean a bit to the left; in contrast to CNN they just seem 'right.'
Fox and Friends is a train wreck. That's entertainment, just like the TODAY show is.
To a degree you are right. But it's not the experts on both sides that blur the lines.
Every decision regarding news in some way editorializes it. What's import to report, where in the broadcast is it address, how are the sentences phrased, what pictures do you use- these all shape the story.
Actually, by introducing competing voices, you remove some of the bias, assuming you have equal representation on both sides. In contrast to the Republican strawmen that CNN and MSNBC are so reknown for.
BULLCRAP!!!
That's one of the more destructive media myths that people still cling to.
In the "golden age" the opinion was throughout everything. Walter Kronkite, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Edward R. Murrow, and later Dan Rather, these men weren't fair, they weren't objective. To the contrary, they had the trust of the public and they abused it. They skewed the news with their warped, leftist world views.
And note, ALL OF THESE MEN were hard core liberals.
Now let's talk about the "golden age" of sunday morning shows. Have you ever seen them? They were horrible and scripted. They are infintely better now than they were 30-60 years ago.
And you can learn more in a half hour of McClaughlin Group than you can with a week of CBS Evening News. Just don't mind that annoying shrieking liberal woman.
The fact that you consider this form of infotainment credible says a lot about YOU.[/QUOTE]
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Nice to hear from a fellow McClaughlin Group fan!
I never miss it. Yes I agree that Eleanor Clift can be irritating as hell. Poor Tony Blankley can hardly get a word in edgewise before she starts in the with the "EXCUSE ME! EXCUUUUSE ME!" I'll admit that I generally agree with her analysis, but I can't stand her delivery. And I've actually come to have a deep respect for Pat Buchanan from watching that show. Although I disagree with a lot of what he says, he's one of the most thoughtful, pragmatic and honest pundits around, with no political agenda or loyalties other than what he thinks is right. It's refreshing to see. It's because of him that I'm a charter subscriber to his American Conservative magazine.fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE SOCK CONTROVERSY
A Story of Fiction, Media Bias and Democrats
CBS Evening News, February 21, 2005 - Good evening, I'm Dan Rather. President Bush set off a controversy wilder than a newly created Texas steer today as he made a President's Day appearance at a private elementary school in Cleveland. A kindergarten student asked him a question about how he put his socks on. Bush chuckled and said, "The right one, I guess." Criticism was immediate and widespread:
Senator Harry Reid - "It is despicable of the President to take an opportunity to pander to his extreme right-wing Christian conservative cronies at such a thing as an appearance at an elementary school."
Keith Olbermann - "Tonight on MSNBC: Was President Bush actually sending a secret message to the Ohio Attorney General praising his fraudulent work in the election? We'll explore tonight."
ABC World News Tonight, February 22, 2005 - "Good evening, I'm Peter Jennings. President Bush tried unsuccessfully tonight to quell the growing firestorm over his choices with clothing accessories. Responding to reporters' questions out on the South Lawn about his socks, he made the following quote:
"Well, sometimes I put my socks on left foot first."
Democrats were quick to respond, with this from Nancy Pelosi:
"It's obvious he's trying to be all things to all people, when the American people already know who he really is."
CNN, February 23, 2005 - "Good evening and welcome to Wolf Blitzer Reports. Tonight, the pressure on President Bush continues to increase over his choices regarding his donning of socks. At a question and answer session today following a speech in Nashville, Bush tried but failed to put the question to rest.
"Look, sometimes I put them on right foot first, sometimes left. Does it really matter how I put them on?"
Again, Democrats were quick to go on the attack. We get this response from Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota:
"It is exactly this kind of indecisiveness that has been the downfall of this Administration. How can we expect the President to make tough decisions on the economy and the war when he can't even make up his mind on which sock to put on first?"
Our CNN/Gallup Poll shows just how divisive this issue has become for this country. Of the 19 people we could actually get to answer the phone and answer the question with a straight face, 10 said right foot, 9 said left. This is Wolf Blitzer, good night."
New York Times Editorial, February 24, 2005 -
"President Bush told the American people yesterday that they simply didn't matter. With an arrogance such as we've not seen in a long time, he sniffed at a question about his socks, asking if it really mattered. Well, yes it does, Mr. President. The American people have a right to know how you put your socks on, and you have a duty to tell them. Mr. Bush seems to think that these kinds of issues will just go away at a wave of his hand. He is simply wrong."
The Today Show, February 25, 2005 - "Good morning, I'm Katie Couric. President Bush tried to set the record straight yesterday regarding his socks with little success. Here's his quote:
"It all depends on who picks my socks for the day, I guess. If Laura picks them, she puts them on the night stand and I put them on right foot first. If the staff sets them out, they put them on the dresser and then it's left foot first. I don't really spend that much time worrying about it."
"We're joined by Senator Hillary Clinton to get her thoughts on this issue. Senator, what about those comments?"
"Well, Katie, we Democrats have alleged for a long time that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove actually ran the government and Bush was just their puppet. Yesterday's comments clearly show that our suspicions have been confirmed beyond any doubt. The American people deserve more than this from a President. Also, there are millions of Americans who don't have someone to choose their socks in the morning and it's simply wrong for this President to rub their noses in that fact."
Fox News, February 26, 2005 - "Good evening, I'm Tony Snow. President Bush went without socks for the entire day today at his ranch in Crawford, Texas...............
A Story of Fiction, Media Bias and Democrats
CBS Evening News, February 21, 2005 - Good evening, I'm Dan Rather. President Bush set off a controversy wilder than a newly created Texas steer today as he made a President's Day appearance at a private elementary school in Cleveland. A kindergarten student asked him a question about how he put his socks on. Bush chuckled and said, "The right one, I guess." Criticism was immediate and widespread:
Senator Harry Reid - "It is despicable of the President to take an opportunity to pander to his extreme right-wing Christian conservative cronies at such a thing as an appearance at an elementary school."
Keith Olbermann - "Tonight on MSNBC: Was President Bush actually sending a secret message to the Ohio Attorney General praising his fraudulent work in the election? We'll explore tonight."
ABC World News Tonight, February 22, 2005 - "Good evening, I'm Peter Jennings. President Bush tried unsuccessfully tonight to quell the growing firestorm over his choices with clothing accessories. Responding to reporters' questions out on the South Lawn about his socks, he made the following quote:
"Well, sometimes I put my socks on left foot first."
Democrats were quick to respond, with this from Nancy Pelosi:
"It's obvious he's trying to be all things to all people, when the American people already know who he really is."
CNN, February 23, 2005 - "Good evening and welcome to Wolf Blitzer Reports. Tonight, the pressure on President Bush continues to increase over his choices regarding his donning of socks. At a question and answer session today following a speech in Nashville, Bush tried but failed to put the question to rest.
"Look, sometimes I put them on right foot first, sometimes left. Does it really matter how I put them on?"
Again, Democrats were quick to go on the attack. We get this response from Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota:
"It is exactly this kind of indecisiveness that has been the downfall of this Administration. How can we expect the President to make tough decisions on the economy and the war when he can't even make up his mind on which sock to put on first?"
Our CNN/Gallup Poll shows just how divisive this issue has become for this country. Of the 19 people we could actually get to answer the phone and answer the question with a straight face, 10 said right foot, 9 said left. This is Wolf Blitzer, good night."
New York Times Editorial, February 24, 2005 -
"President Bush told the American people yesterday that they simply didn't matter. With an arrogance such as we've not seen in a long time, he sniffed at a question about his socks, asking if it really mattered. Well, yes it does, Mr. President. The American people have a right to know how you put your socks on, and you have a duty to tell them. Mr. Bush seems to think that these kinds of issues will just go away at a wave of his hand. He is simply wrong."
The Today Show, February 25, 2005 - "Good morning, I'm Katie Couric. President Bush tried to set the record straight yesterday regarding his socks with little success. Here's his quote:
"It all depends on who picks my socks for the day, I guess. If Laura picks them, she puts them on the night stand and I put them on right foot first. If the staff sets them out, they put them on the dresser and then it's left foot first. I don't really spend that much time worrying about it."
"We're joined by Senator Hillary Clinton to get her thoughts on this issue. Senator, what about those comments?"
"Well, Katie, we Democrats have alleged for a long time that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove actually ran the government and Bush was just their puppet. Yesterday's comments clearly show that our suspicions have been confirmed beyond any doubt. The American people deserve more than this from a President. Also, there are millions of Americans who don't have someone to choose their socks in the morning and it's simply wrong for this President to rub their noses in that fact."
Fox News, February 26, 2005 - "Good evening, I'm Tony Snow. President Bush went without socks for the entire day today at his ranch in Crawford, Texas...............
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
More liberal bias...
Lauer: Shame On Dems For Not Sticking Up For Kerry
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 3, 2006 - 07:31.
This could be a first. A leading MSM member uses the airwaves to upbraid [fellow?] Democrats for being insufficiently loyal to a leading party light. Former Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card was Matt Lauer's guest on this morning's 'Today.' Matt was intent on wangling from Card an admission that the Kerry comments were a mistake:
"He made a joke and he said he blew the joke and it sounded as though he questioned the intelligence of U.S. Troops in Iraq. Look me in the eye and tell me with even a fraction of your heart you think John Kerry meant to question the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq?"
Video here.
While opining that "it was a joke that went bad," Card also pointed out that Kerry "has had a past bias that would allow people to believe that." He reminded Matt that Kerry threw his medals away and pointed out that "members of the military were offended by what he said."
After Lauer played a clip of Pres. Bush discussing Kerry's comment in a stump speech, he asked whether the president was trying to take "political advantage."
Card: "I think it's taking words that were in the public domain and calling attention to them. . . . But it's the Democrats that said 'John Kerry stay home.'"
That's when Lauer took his shot:
"I think a lot of Democrats should have shame on their shoulders this morning because they ran away from this guy as opposed to standing up and saying it was just a mistake."
And here I thought enforcing Democrat party loyalty was Howard Dean's job. Well, Katie moved on to other things, and many Dems are dissatisfied with Dean. Could there be a career move to the DNC in Matt's future?
How come Matt Lauer never called for Republicans to stand up for Trent Lott for his comment about Strom Thurmond?
Lauer: Shame On Dems For Not Sticking Up For Kerry
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 3, 2006 - 07:31.
This could be a first. A leading MSM member uses the airwaves to upbraid [fellow?] Democrats for being insufficiently loyal to a leading party light. Former Bush Chief of Staff Andy Card was Matt Lauer's guest on this morning's 'Today.' Matt was intent on wangling from Card an admission that the Kerry comments were a mistake:
"He made a joke and he said he blew the joke and it sounded as though he questioned the intelligence of U.S. Troops in Iraq. Look me in the eye and tell me with even a fraction of your heart you think John Kerry meant to question the intelligence of U.S. troops in Iraq?"
Video here.
While opining that "it was a joke that went bad," Card also pointed out that Kerry "has had a past bias that would allow people to believe that." He reminded Matt that Kerry threw his medals away and pointed out that "members of the military were offended by what he said."
After Lauer played a clip of Pres. Bush discussing Kerry's comment in a stump speech, he asked whether the president was trying to take "political advantage."
Card: "I think it's taking words that were in the public domain and calling attention to them. . . . But it's the Democrats that said 'John Kerry stay home.'"
That's when Lauer took his shot:
"I think a lot of Democrats should have shame on their shoulders this morning because they ran away from this guy as opposed to standing up and saying it was just a mistake."
And here I thought enforcing Democrat party loyalty was Howard Dean's job. Well, Katie moved on to other things, and many Dems are dissatisfied with Dean. Could there be a career move to the DNC in Matt's future?
How come Matt Lauer never called for Republicans to stand up for Trent Lott for his comment about Strom Thurmond?
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Dude, it's the Today Show. No one considers Matt Lauer to be a serious journalist. I sure as hell don't.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
TommyB said:
Do you actually read what you write before you post?
The study is on the Mainstream Media Big Three, not "serious journalists."
Nevertheless, I can make the case about serious journalists, too.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
You posted that silly blog on Matt Lauer and I responded to it. The CMPA "study" only addressed the evening news, so if you're gonna bitch at me for going off-topic, then trying staying on it yourself.
You are of course free to try and make your case, but being a totally subjective issue, you're unlikely to gain any converts.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
TommyB said:
So you REALLY think the press ISN'T biased? If you do, you're a total fool.