Bias in the Media, LOL

[Nobunaga]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

[Symmetry]

This just seems odd as a statement. The debates were pretty softball, and while tough questions were occasionally asked, the answers were pretty poor. One can always expect something substantive from Ron Paul, but do you really have any strong sense of what a Bachmann administration's policy position with regard to China would be? Or what Perry would change if he came to power and was faced with terrorism? How would Santorum deal with the mounting evidence of climate change?

What type of agenda would you hope that a Republican candidate have regarding China? What is Obama's plan for China? He's been the president and we have no idea what his China agenda is after 2 1/2 years.

It's all softball stuff. Compare the birtherism faced by Obama, or the swiftboating of Kerry, or the impeachment calls against Clinton. The Republicans have an easy ride in comparison.

Bush easily faced more hate and disdain than any president in history. Your easy ride call is bologna.

And if you want to talk about easy rides from the media; the media gave Obama a pass on every issue in the 08 General Election. Worse than that, they covered up his immigration status, his loyalty to a racist church and his communist roots.

Furthermore, the media tried to focus on Palin's so-called lack of experience even though she was the VP candidate on the ticket and Obama, the presidential candidate on the other ticket had less experience than she did. That was the most pathetic display of journalism I've ever seen. It shows how much they now rely on the actual stupidity of Americans. That never would have been a talking point even 30 years ago.

And btw, the swift-boating was mainly PAC commercials. It was hardly a point of emphasis by the media.

To the point. Yes, Fox News is biased towards the right. But that is the only visual main stream outlet with that bias. Everything else is left and often far left.

Hilariously confused stuff as ever, VOL. You seriously think that Bush faced more hate and disdain than, say Nixon? Or how about Lincoln- half the US seceded and fought a war against that president.

Gotta love the idea that Obama had less experience than Palin though, and the weird birtherism thrown in for good measure. Palin couldn't even answer a softball question on what papers she reads. Rough media treatment for Palin essentially equated to asking her a question.

[Symmetry]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

Much as I disagree with your basic stance in this thread, I do think you raise an interesting point here on the idea of balance in reporting, and political neutrality.

Basically, how far should a reporter or news channel go in terms of balancing perspectives on a subject.

Apologies, but I'll go all out and pull the Nazi analogy, as it best illustrates the most ridiculous extreme of what I'm trying to say, and is something we can probably all agree on. Let's say a news report is being put together on the anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz. How much space should be given to those who sympathise with the Nazis, or those that deny the Holocaust occurred?

[ViperOverLord]

This just seems odd as a statement. The debates were pretty softball, and while tough questions were occasionally asked, the answers were pretty poor. One can always expect something substantive from Ron Paul, but do you really have any strong sense of what a Bachmann administration's policy position with regard to China would be? Or what Perry would change if he came to power and was faced with terrorism? How would Santorum deal with the mounting evidence of climate change?

What type of agenda would you hope that a Republican candidate have regarding China? What is Obama's plan for China? He's been the president and we have no idea what his China agenda is after 2 1/2 years.

It's all softball stuff. Compare the birtherism faced by Obama, or the swiftboating of Kerry, or the impeachment calls against Clinton. The Republicans have an easy ride in comparison.

Bush easily faced more hate and disdain than any president in history. Your easy ride call is bologna.

And if you want to talk about easy rides from the media; the media gave Obama a pass on every issue in the 08 General Election. Worse than that, they covered up his immigration status, his loyalty to a racist church and his communist roots.

Furthermore, the media tried to focus on Palin's so-called lack of experience even though she was the VP candidate on the ticket and Obama, the presidential candidate on the other ticket had less experience than she did. That was the most pathetic display of journalism I've ever seen. It shows how much they now rely on the actual stupidity of Americans. That never would have been a talking point even 30 years ago.

And btw, the swift-boating was mainly PAC commercials. It was hardly a point of emphasis by the media.

To the point. Yes, Fox News is biased towards the right. But that is the only visual main stream outlet with that bias. Everything else is left and often far left.

Hilariously confused stuff as ever, VOL. You seriously think that Bush faced more hate and disdain than, say Nixon? Or how about Lincoln- half the US seceded and fought a war against that president.

Gotta love the idea that Obama had less experience than Palin though, and the weird birtherism thrown in for good measure. Palin couldn't even answer a softball question on what papers she reads. Rough media treatment for Palin essentially equated to asking her a question.

I don't think Nixon faced nearly the disdain that Bush did. Absolutely not. Nixon eventually was shamed out of office. But that does not mean that he took more crap in the media. Bush was constantly harassed by countless media every day. Nixon was still part of a time in which the media had a significant reverence for the office regardless of who was president.

Going back as far as Lincoln__ I think you have to find that a lot of people were at odds with Lincoln due to his political positions. IMO, not so many people internalized a deep seated hatred for Lincoln though. I'd certainly love to hear from the historical scholars out there as to what their opinion would be.

BTW - The south did not secede b/c they merely hated Lincoln. They seceded due to state rights and obviously slavery issues. You tried to minimize those issues into a hatred of Lincoln. That's pretty silly of you.

[Symmetry]

This just seems odd as a statement. The debates were pretty softball, and while tough questions were occasionally asked, the answers were pretty poor. One can always expect something substantive from Ron Paul, but do you really have any strong sense of what a Bachmann administration's policy position with regard to China would be? Or what Perry would change if he came to power and was faced with terrorism? How would Santorum deal with the mounting evidence of climate change?

What type of agenda would you hope that a Republican candidate have regarding China? What is Obama's plan for China? He's been the president and we have no idea what his China agenda is after 2 1/2 years.

It's all softball stuff. Compare the birtherism faced by Obama, or the swiftboating of Kerry, or the impeachment calls against Clinton. The Republicans have an easy ride in comparison.

Bush easily faced more hate and disdain than any president in history. Your easy ride call is bologna.

And if you want to talk about easy rides from the media; the media gave Obama a pass on every issue in the 08 General Election. Worse than that, they covered up his immigration status, his loyalty to a racist church and his communist roots.

Furthermore, the media tried to focus on Palin's so-called lack of experience even though she was the VP candidate on the ticket and Obama, the presidential candidate on the other ticket had less experience than she did. That was the most pathetic display of journalism I've ever seen. It shows how much they now rely on the actual stupidity of Americans. That never would have been a talking point even 30 years ago.

And btw, the swift-boating was mainly PAC commercials. It was hardly a point of emphasis by the media.

To the point. Yes, Fox News is biased towards the right. But that is the only visual main stream outlet with that bias. Everything else is left and often far left.

Hilariously confused stuff as ever, VOL. You seriously think that Bush faced more hate and disdain than, say Nixon? Or how about Lincoln- half the US seceded and fought a war against that president.

Gotta love the idea that Obama had less experience than Palin though, and the weird birtherism thrown in for good measure. Palin couldn't even answer a softball question on what papers she reads. Rough media treatment for Palin essentially equated to asking her a question.

I don't think Nixon faced nearly the disdain that Bush did. Absolutely not. Nixon eventually was shamed out of office. But that does not mean that he took more crap in the media. Bush was constantly harassed by countless media every day. Nixon was still part of a time in which the media had a significant reverence for the office regardless of who was president.

Going back as far as Lincoln__ I think you have to find that a lot of people were at odds with Lincoln due to his political positions. IMO, not so many people internalized a deep seated hatred for Lincoln though. I'd certainly love to hear from the historical scholars out there as to what their opinion would be.

BTW - The south did not secede b/c they merely hated Lincoln. They seceded due to state rights and obviously slavery issues. You tried to minimize those issues into a hatred of Lincoln. That's pretty silly of you.

I didn't minimise them, I ignored them as entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether he faced more hatred and disdain than Dubya. Silly me. Apologies though, for going as far back as Lincoln, but you did say any president in history.

[Nobunaga]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

Much as I disagree with your basic stance in this thread, I do think you raise an interesting point here on the idea of balance in reporting, and political neutrality.

Basically, how far should a reporter or news channel go in terms of balancing perspectives on a subject.

Apologies, but I'll go all out and pull the Nazi analogy, as it best illustrates the most ridiculous extreme of what I'm trying to say, and is something we can probably all agree on. Let's say a news report is being put together on the anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz. How much space should be given to those who sympathise with the Nazis, or those that deny the Holocaust occurred?

... Is Cantor the Nazi sympathizer in this analogy?

... As for balancing perspectives, Cantor's views match those of at least 50% of the US population. It's probably safe to assume that Nazi sympathy and Holocaust denial doesn't approach those numbers.

... If you look at both Obama's interview and Cantor's you will see it basically comes to this:

> "Obama, shame on you for budging a little under Republican pressure... tsk tsk, laugh, laugh".

> "Cantor, you and your Tea Party cons are an obstruction to anything at all getting done. Why the hell can't you compromise"?

... That bit about "humanizing" is also absurd. Why the need to humanize himself? Is Obama doing likewise? Has he been reported as attempting to, or even needing to do likewise?

... Backing up to your previous response to another poster... Palin was absolutely mauled by the major media. Granted, I've no desire to see her as a president or even a VP, but the coverage of Palin on the major networks was consistently negative, occasionally hostile. The same is now true for any conservative who attains a position of leadership.

... Should you disagree with this assessment, we can swap news stories from major media - you show me Obama, or even Biden, Pelosi, Reed (or other big name liberal Dem) being raked over the coals and I will show you Palin, Newt, Cain, Santorum and Paul being intentionally discredited. We'll match - one for one.

... I'll ignore the blatantly biased MSNBC if you ignore FOX.

... What do you say?

...

[Symmetry]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

Much as I disagree with your basic stance in this thread, I do think you raise an interesting point here on the idea of balance in reporting, and political neutrality.

Basically, how far should a reporter or news channel go in terms of balancing perspectives on a subject.

Apologies, but I'll go all out and pull the Nazi analogy, as it best illustrates the most ridiculous extreme of what I'm trying to say, and is something we can probably all agree on. Let's say a news report is being put together on the anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz. How much space should be given to those who sympathise with the Nazis, or those that deny the Holocaust occurred?

... Is Cantor the Nazi sympathizer in this analogy?

... As for balancing perspectives, Cantor's views match those of at least 50% of the US population. It's probably safe to assume that Nazi sympathy and Holocaust denial doesn't approach those numbers.

... If you look at both Obama's interview and Cantor's you will see it basically comes to this:

> "Obama, shame on you for budging a little under Republican pressure... tsk tsk, laugh, laugh".

> "Cantor, you and your Tea Party cons are an obstruction to anything at all getting done. Why the hell can't you compromise"?

... That bit about "humanizing" is also absurd. Why the need to humanize himself? Is Obama doing likewise? Has he been reported as attempting to, or even needing to do likewise?

... Backing up to your previous response to another poster... Palin was absolutely mauled by the major media. Granted, I've no desire to see her as a president or even a VP, but the coverage of Palin on the major networks was consistently negative, occasionally hostile. The same is now true for any conservative who attains a position of leadership.

... Should you disagree with this assessment, we can swap news stories from major media - you show me Obama, or even Biden, Pelosi, Reed (or other big name liberal Dem) being raked over the coals and I will show you Palin, Newt, Cain, Santorum and Paul being intentionally discredited. We'll match - one for one.

... I'll ignore the blatantly biased MSNBC if you ignore FOX.

... What do you say?

...

Hmm, you're asking me to ignore the most viewed news network in the US as not being representative of the major media. A network that actually employed Palin, not to mention other major Republican politicians. In response, you offer to not talk about MSNBC, a network that I haven't mentioned, and you brought up?

That seems like a strange deal for me to make.

Would I still be allowed to talk about Rupert Murdoch's control of the press? That might implicate Fox. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to mention that Fox received briefings from the Bush administration on how to spin their reporting of the news.

Why would I make that deal?

[Nobunaga]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

Much as I disagree with your basic stance in this thread, I do think you raise an interesting point here on the idea of balance in reporting, and political neutrality.

Basically, how far should a reporter or news channel go in terms of balancing perspectives on a subject.

Apologies, but I'll go all out and pull the Nazi analogy, as it best illustrates the most ridiculous extreme of what I'm trying to say, and is something we can probably all agree on. Let's say a news report is being put together on the anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz. How much space should be given to those who sympathise with the Nazis, or those that deny the Holocaust occurred?

... Is Cantor the Nazi sympathizer in this analogy?

... As for balancing perspectives, Cantor's views match those of at least 50% of the US population. It's probably safe to assume that Nazi sympathy and Holocaust denial doesn't approach those numbers.

... If you look at both Obama's interview and Cantor's you will see it basically comes to this:

> "Obama, shame on you for budging a little under Republican pressure... tsk tsk, laugh, laugh".

> "Cantor, you and your Tea Party cons are an obstruction to anything at all getting done. Why the hell can't you compromise"?

... That bit about "humanizing" is also absurd. Why the need to humanize himself? Is Obama doing likewise? Has he been reported as attempting to, or even needing to do likewise?

... Backing up to your previous response to another poster... Palin was absolutely mauled by the major media. Granted, I've no desire to see her as a president or even a VP, but the coverage of Palin on the major networks was consistently negative, occasionally hostile. The same is now true for any conservative who attains a position of leadership.

... Should you disagree with this assessment, we can swap news stories from major media - you show me Obama, or even Biden, Pelosi, Reed (or other big name liberal Dem) being raked over the coals and I will show you Palin, Newt, Cain, Santorum and Paul being intentionally discredited. We'll match - one for one.

... I'll ignore the blatantly biased MSNBC if you ignore FOX.

... What do you say?

...

Hmm, you're asking me to ignore the most viewed news network in the US as not being representative of the major media. A network that actually employed Palin, not to mention other major Republican politicians. In response, you offer to not talk about MSNBC, a network that I haven't mentioned, and you brought up?

That seems like a strange deal for me to make.

Would I still be allowed to talk about Rupert Murdoch's control of the press? That might implicate Fox. I certainly wouldn't be allowed to mention that Fox received briefings from the Bush administration on how to spin their reporting of the news.

Why would I make that deal?

... Of course you should ignore FOX, as the network is biased. But what the hell? You show me news stories of liberal dems (President, cabinet, senators and representatives) being abused. I really want to see it. Should First Ladies be considered?

... Major newspapers should qualify as well.

... Of course if you show me FOX, I am permitted to show you MSNBC. That expands my reservoir of abuse from a few hundred items to potentially thousands.

... Gawd, this is going to be fun.

...

[Symmetry]

Dude, you're permitted to post anything you want as long as it's within the forum rules.

[Nobunaga]

Dude, you're permitted to post anything you want as long as it's within the forum rules.

... I am asking you to show me comparative abuse, Symm.

...

[Symmetry]

Dude, you're permitted to post anything you want as long as it's within the forum rules.

... I am asking you to show me comparative abuse, Symm.

...

Comparative to what? You seem to be asking for an endless tit for tat thread until one of us gives up.

[Nobunaga]

Dude, you're permitted to post anything you want as long as it's within the forum rules.

... I am asking you to show me comparative abuse, Symm.

...

Comparative to what? You seem to be asking for an endless tit for tat thread until one of us gives up.

... No, that would be tiring, in spite of the fact that I have an endless stream of stellar examples. I believe that major media (FOX excepted) gives the lib dems a pass on damned near everything and I would like someone to prove me wrong. I have zero faith in US major media since 2008, though I'm sure there were problems well before. I want to believe that we have a news media in the US that is somehow above 3rd world examples. At present, I do not believe that. It is all shite, and "the masses" are so preoccupied with Biggest Loser and Fantasy Football that the idiots believe the shit that passes for news on the TV.

...

[Symmetry]

Dude, you're permitted to post anything you want as long as it's within the forum rules.

... I am asking you to show me comparative abuse, Symm.

...

Comparative to what? You seem to be asking for an endless tit for tat thread until one of us gives up.

... No, that would be tiring, in spite of the fact that I have an endless stream of stellar examples. I believe that major media (FOX excepted) gives the lib dems a pass on damned near everything and I would like someone to prove me wrong. I have zero faith in US major media since 2008, though I'm sure there were problems well before. I want to believe that we have a news media in the US that is somehow above 3rd world examples. At present, I do not believe that. It is all shite, and "the masses" are so preoccupied with Biggest Loser and Fantasy Football that the idiots believe the shit that passes for news on the TV.

...

Ok, I see what you're getting at now. I think you see the problem, but maybe you're going about the solution in the wrong way. Take a look at the BBC or Al Jazeera from time to time.

[ViperOverLord]

I didn't minimise them, I ignored them as entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether he faced more hatred and disdain than Dubya. Silly me. Apologies though, for going as far back as Lincoln, but you did say any president in history.

You brought up an interesting point. It's been a couple years since I watched a Lincoln documentary or read up on him. My very rudimentary understanding would be that he took more heat than any other president during the 19th century. I do think that much of the heat was political more than it was personal. There's a case to be made that Lincoln was the most beloved president of the 19th century. Again, I would defer to anybody who might have some insight.

[ViperOverLord]

... No, that would be tiring, in spite of the fact that I have an endless stream of stellar examples. I believe that major media (FOX excepted) gives the lib dems a pass on damned near everything and I would like someone to prove me wrong. I have zero faith in US major media since 2008, though I'm sure there were problems well before. I want to believe that we have a news media in the US that is somehow above 3rd world examples. At present, I do not believe that. It is all shite, and "the masses" are so preoccupied with Biggest Loser and Fantasy Football that the idiots believe the shit that passes for news on the TV.

...

The news media is a modern phenomenon. Originally, the networks had to perform a certain percentage of news to retain their license. When they began it was with the clear cut understanding that they would be the fourth estate or watchdog .

Much good in history came from the formation of the modern television news. However, as early as Walter Kronkite manipulating Vietnam news coverage it was learned that the message could be crafted to fit a narrative.

I think we all grew up watching Dan Rather or whoever and thought, oh well these guys are just smoother than milk. But then we saw how he tried to sabotage Bush 04, using no journalistic integrity and we were reminded that the celebrated Konkrites and their agendas were still in full force.

I think the media transformation from network news to multi media also opened up many windows for manipulation. Although we have more information at our disposal than ever and no filters truly do help truth seekers; the effect still is that accountability has been extremely lessened.

Actually, that is why Fox News became so big from the start. They came out and showed people how much the corporate driven news stations were rigging information. Fox News rocked the establishment and that is why they faced a wave of hate in return.

The only problem is that while Fox News did do a lot of good initially they have drifted right some. That drift allows for the MSNBC's of the world to mirror them on the left (though more extremely) and they have effectively been marginalized. CNN or whoever starts to look good again even though they never stopped spinning or filtering news.

To the point of 08, I was not shocked by the terrible standards of journalism. We had been trending towards politically filtered news for years. What shocked me, was America's meek acceptance of it. I think 08 was very reflective that the me generation was in full swing. That is why Obama basically became the first rock star in chief. It didn't matter that his experience, motives and even immigration status were highly suspect. Idiots went on television and talked about how they didn't have to worry about filling up their tank and paying their mortgage any longer.

I think it's important to realize that while the media is very left, that does not mean that Republicans are truly right. Frankly, there isn't even a dollar's worth of difference between most Republicans and Democrats these days. The same Americans that don't hold the media responsible are the same people that don't hold politicians accountable.

[PLAYER57832]

Three weeks after CBS’s 60 Minutes delivered a friendly sit-down with President Barack Obama in which Steve Kroft gently chided him for being too willing to compromise with Republicans, the show didn’t even attempt a matching approach to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Instead, Lesley Stahl relayed a portrait painted by liberals (“He’s working on humanizing his image, and presenting himself as more reasonable”) as she blamed him for “gridlock” and offered a caricature of Cantor as an “inflexible” ideologue putting Tea Party politics ahead of passing Obama’s beneficial policies.

Stahl abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity, repeatedly pressing Cantor to “compromise” – to agree with Obama on the rationality of raising taxes more, touting how even Ronald Reagan had recognized the need to hike taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZcDkN1NKM

... Here's the Obama interview, if you really want to make a comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5mhWTBl-k

...

Much as I disagree with your basic stance in this thread, I do think you raise an interesting point here on the idea of balance in reporting, and political neutrality.

Basically, how far should a reporter or news channel go in terms of balancing perspectives on a subject.

60 minutes is not really a news show in the sense of being objective. They take one issue and target it, usually doing some kind of expose. They are known to be credible, use hard-hitting research, but they are not unopinionated. They present one idea/side (basically) at a time.They HAVE intereviewed Pallin, etc. However, they don't do them together. That is not thier style.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with Symm (perish the thought). The way "debates" are run in the political process is not conducive to actual debate or actually getting to know the politicians policies. At the same time, I also agree with Nobunaga in that the president is not asked tough questions at all. In sum, it does not appear the media, in its current form, is prepared to or willing to ask tough questions and get good answers (but is that our fault as viewers?).

Mostly yeah, but I don't know if it's that way because their customers actually demand that, the new media perceives that their customers want this (which might be perceived incorrectly), or the customers don't care enough to create a visible demand for listening to intense questions.

[Aradhus]

I'm too lazy to read whatever you wankers are saying. Here, though, are some doozies GB was asked whilst the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nominee process was in full swing.

Until recently, a growing number of Americans and a couple of Presidential candidates were saying it might be time to think about getting out of Iraq. I know you said that you intend to stay the course, but I wonder what your view is of such sentiments, how concerned you are about that view among the public, and whether or not you think Saddam's capture should change people's thinking?

I guess I just wonder if you feel that you have failed in any way? You don't have many of these press conferences, where you engage in this kind of exchange. Have you failed in any way to really make the case to the American public?

OHMY GOD! WHY IS HE GETTING SOFTBALLS! PWOFF OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS

Also, I'm not sure if this is true but I hear that derp plus derp divided by derp and multiplied by derp derped = derp!

[Pirlo]

[Nobunaga]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with Symm (perish the thought). The way "debates" are run in the political process is not conducive to actual debate or actually getting to know the politicians policies. At the same time, I also agree with Nobunaga in that the president is not asked tough questions at all. In sum, it does not appear the media, in its current form, is prepared to or willing to ask tough questions and get good answers (but is that our fault as viewers?).

Mostly yeah, but I don't know if it's that way because their customers actually demand that, the new media perceives that their customers want this (which might be perceived incorrectly), or the customers don't care enough to create a visible demand for listening to intense questions.

The media creates the demand, that is the problem. Folks barely even recognize bias any longer.

[thegreekdog]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

[Nobunaga]

I agree with Symm (perish the thought). The way "debates" are run in the political process is not conducive to actual debate or actually getting to know the politicians policies. At the same time, I also agree with Nobunaga in that the president is not asked tough questions at all. In sum, it does not appear the media, in its current form, is prepared to or willing to ask tough questions and get good answers (but is that our fault as viewers?).

Mostly yeah, but I don't know if it's that way because their customers actually demand that, the new media perceives that their customers want this (which might be perceived incorrectly), or the customers don't care enough to create a visible demand for listening to intense questions.

The media creates the demand, that is the problem. Folks barely even recognize bias any longer.

... Interesting... FOX is liberal... CNN, MSNBC, et al are conservative...

... Btw, still waiting for your constitutional justification for the federal mandate forcing me to purchase insurance.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... CNN labels the GOP racist for not campaigning in a majority Hispanic town in Iowa.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... -obama-2-1

... Never mind that the town is quite tiny - candidates would meet bigger audiences at middle school badminton tournaments... and never mind that the town voted 2 to 1 for Obama... making it rather, well, pointless... No, never mind. These GOP white dudes are all just racist shits.

... Biased? Noooo... I'm imagining things. LOL.

...

Funny, given CNN's pretty conservative bias. Really all this stuff does is help shift opinion more to the right, giving the illusion that shows like CNN are somehow liberal because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly criticize) those on the right.

Beyond that, one incident just doesn't prove much of anything. To judge bias, you have to look at a pattern. The pattern shown by the media is to favor the "money" people. It really doesn't matter if they are Democrat or Repubs or what. In fact, none of those title really apply except to target a specific candidate .

Exactly! And when Fox criticizes the left, it's to help shift opinions more to the left, giving the illusion that Fox is somehow conservative because they occasionally criticize (rightly or wrongly) those on the left.

Fox doesn't even mention the left. Their "left criticism" is just those that are centrist or, on a few issues, slighly left (issues like race, etc that are now pretty universal and no longer at all liberal anyway).