Bias in the Media, LOL

[TheProwler]

Also, he did create his own Bible.

Don't we all?

[GabonX]

Bias in the media?

[GabonX]

Rarely is there as transparent an example of liberal media bias as the tantrum thrown by CNN's Susan Roesgen yesterday while "reporting" on a tea party, but the full extent of her bias only comes into light when you look back at her attitude toward anti-Bush protesters.

In video posted by Paul Chesser from yesterday's CNN broadcast, Roesgen harassed a man who had a sign in which Obama was portrayed as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?" an indignant Roesgen hollered.

Yet back in 2006, when she was covering protests against the Bush administration's response to Katrina, she jokingly referred to this photo of a man wearing a mask with devil horns and a Hitler mustache as a Bush "look-alike." (Video available at NewsBusters).

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate -- or helpful -- for any protesters to portray the President in such a light, but this isn't about me. The point is that when an anti-Bush protester assailed our last president with offensive imagery, Roesgen viewed it as harmless fun, but when somebody dared portray Obama in a similar fashion, she sanctimoniously attacked the protester on national television.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/16/flashback-in-2006-cnns-roesgen

[PLAYER57832]

Rarely is there as transparent an example of liberal media bias as the tantrum thrown by CNN's Susan Roesgen yesterday while "reporting" on a tea party, but the full extent of her bias only comes into light when you look back at her attitude toward anti-Bush protesters.

In video posted by Paul Chesser from yesterday's CNN broadcast, Roesgen harassed a man who had a sign in which Obama was portrayed as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?" an indignant Roesgen hollered.

Yet back in 2006, when she was covering protests against the Bush administration's response to Katrina, she jokingly referred to this photo of a man wearing a mask with devil horns and a Hitler mustache as a Bush "look-alike." (Video available at NewsBusters).

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate -- or helpful -- for any protesters to portray the President in such a light, but this isn't about me. The point is that when an anti-Bush protester assailed our last president with offensive imagery, Roesgen viewed it as harmless fun, but when somebody dared portray Obama in a similar fashion, she sanctimoniously attacked the protester on national television.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/16/flashback-in-2006-cnns-roesgen

If this were the only example of media bias and if it were limited to supposedly liberal newscasters (who mostly are just not quite as Republican as some wish, but not truly liberal). or even predominantly by them, you would have a point.

The reality is that Fox and CBN each make no bones about being biased. The closest relative in the liberal forum is NPR ... and that is continually cited as being UNbiased by independent sources.

Once again, this is just another example of moving the term "liberal" further and further to the right.

[Nobunaga]

Avoiding Criticism: CNN Shuts Down Anti-Tea Party Reporter's Email Address

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-tod ... ters-email

CNN Questions 'Rationality' of Tea Parties, Hints They're 'Out of Step'

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-ba ... e-out-step

Palin 'Media Malpractice' Documentarian Thrown Off USC Campus

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... usc-campus

This one cuts to the hypocritical chase:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motl ... ve-bush-hi

... Don't throw Media Matters at me, Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc... don't pretend to be journalists.

... I got thousands more.

...

[Simon Viavant]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

[Nobunaga]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

... Generalization, Simon. Be spefific, cite examples.

...

... The President's head of the Automobile Task Force busted for taking kick-backs to the tune of millions. Goes unreported nationally (somebody show me a "Big-4" source):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/1 ... 88020.html

...

... MSNBC "news" with some spot-on reporting. The "Teabaggers are redneck racists".

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -president


.. Not reported or aired, CNN speaks with rational people at Tea Part in Chicago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2tg8gx ... r_embedded

...

... Bias? LOL.

[joecoolfrog]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

You forgot all the fallbacks;

'' Its all a conspiracy ''

'' You cannot see the light because Satan has hold of you ''

And of course that perenial favourite '' God works in mysterious ways ''

[captain.crazy]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

You forgot all the fallbacks;

'' Its all a conspiracy ''

'' You cannot see the light because Satan has hold of you ''

And of course that perenial favourite '' God works in mysterious ways ''

Sure... never mind that the masses are vastly medicated, and indeed can barely function in the controlled society without their prescriptions... this is called mind control where I come from. People replace a real diet for manufactured supplements and wonder why they are depressed, turn to pharmaceuticals to relieve them and if they go off of them, they find themselves in a homicidal or suicidal fit. How the hell do you think that 68 million mindless Americans voted Obama for President? Standing around, holding hands singing about Change? Change is all that America will have left by the time that he has cleared out your bank account.

Wake Up! Your mind is snoring so loudly that you can't even hear your self think!

[GabonX]

Rarely is there as transparent an example of liberal media bias as the tantrum thrown by CNN's Susan Roesgen yesterday while "reporting" on a tea party, but the full extent of her bias only comes into light when you look back at her attitude toward anti-Bush protesters.

In video posted by Paul Chesser from yesterday's CNN broadcast, Roesgen harassed a man who had a sign in which Obama was portrayed as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?" an indignant Roesgen hollered.

Yet back in 2006, when she was covering protests against the Bush administration's response to Katrina, she jokingly referred to this photo of a man wearing a mask with devil horns and a Hitler mustache as a Bush "look-alike." (Video available at NewsBusters).

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate -- or helpful -- for any protesters to portray the President in such a light, but this isn't about me. The point is that when an anti-Bush protester assailed our last president with offensive imagery, Roesgen viewed it as harmless fun, but when somebody dared portray Obama in a similar fashion, she sanctimoniously attacked the protester on national television.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/16/flashback-in-2006-cnns-roesgen

If this were the only example of media bias and if it were limited to supposedly liberal newscasters (who mostly are just not quite as Republican as some wish, but not truly liberal). or even predominantly by them, you would have a point.

The reality is that Fox and CBN each make no bones about being biased. The closest relative in the liberal forum is NPR ... and that is continually cited as being UNbiased by independent sources.

Once again, this is just another example of moving the term "liberal" further and further to the right.

This is absolutely false. Prior to this I defended CNN as having a left lean but trying to maintain an objective and neutral stance. This blatant disregard for the standards of objective journalism has made me reconsider my stance on CNN.

Fox is a right leaning network but one of their top anchors, Shepard Smith, is probably the most objective personality on cable news today.

Thats right and you can quote me, a Fox anchor is the most objective anchor on cable news today.

Even Snorri and PimpDave referenced him on the first page of this thread as being "smart." I disagree with what Smith was saying there, and I have provided empirical evidance to the contrary of what he says, but I still have a lot of respect for him because he embodies what journalism should be.

NPR is liberal but it is far from the most liberal network. That award goes to MSNBC by their own admission. Have you ever seen either Keith Olbermann OR Rachel Maddow's shows?
Top google result for Olbermann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8WwTPxVqdM
Top google result for Rachel Maddow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHw773EO314
These are not specifically selected clips but rather the first ones that come up if you search their names.

There's a whole class of people who get all of their news from faces like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and a couple of politically biased online publications who think they have a well rounded and well informed perspective based on these sources.

If you watch either Fox or MSNBC and do not watch the other network respectively, you will not have a balanced and well informed view. You will become jaded.

*Edit: The link below (first provided by Nobunaga) perfectly embodies the worst of Kieth Olbermann. What is said in the clip on that page borders on hate speech. It is Neo McCarthyism but instead of branding people as "communists" now they are "red necks" and "racists" because they disagree issues of policy. Watch the video:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -president

[TheProwler]

How the hell do you think that 68 million mindless Americans voted Obama for President? Standing around, holding hands singing about Change? Change is all that America will have left by the time that he has cleared out your bank account.

[thegreekdog]

There's a whole class of people who get all of their news from faces like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and a couple of politically biased online publications who think they have a well rounded and well informed perspective based on these sources.

If you watch either Fox or MSNBC and do not watch the other network respectively, you will not have a balanced and well informed view. You will become jaded.

This has been my point for a couple of years now. When one only gets one's news from one source, or from one type of source, one becomes less enlightened. It doesn't matter if you are conservative and only watch FoxNews and only listen to Rush Limbaugh. It doesn't matter if you are liberal and only watch MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. It definitely doesn't matter if you are a college student and only watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. In all three of these cases you are getting inbalanced news. And people should be less inclined to listen to you when you espouse your views on the issues.

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

[GabonX]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

[thegreekdog]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

Yeah, me neither. That's why I used the word "should."

[InkL0sed]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

Give me a break. You don't watch Keith Olbermann (regularly at least).

[TheProwler]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

But you are often dealing with a few people that are totally closed-minded here in CC-land.

If you were addressing a large, random sample of intelligent people, you would find that the majority would be open to your ideas and there would be more effective and progressive communication and less childish bickering. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people here are argumentative and have decided that they already know everything; if you disagree with them, they will only argue and never really listen to your points.

I've watched you, GabonX. I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your ability to keep an open mind. You listen to what others say. Even when they repeatedly ignore, misunderstand, and misinterpret what you say.

[thegreekdog]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

Give me a break. You don't watch Keith Olbermann (regularly at least).

I will not give you a break. I watch Mr. Olbermann when I have time (I work a lot). His diatribes are very entertaining and his grammar is inpecable. Many of his critiques of President Bush were spot on.

[thegreekdog]

*Edit: The link below (first provided by Nobunaga) perfectly embodies the worst of Kieth Olbermann. What is said in the clip on that page borders on hate speech. It is Neo McCarthyism but instead of branding people as "communists" now they are "red necks" and "racists" because they disagree issues of policy. Watch the video:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -president

I'd really like to engage Ms. Garafolo in a debate. Although, I'm not her in targeted demographic (i.e. I'm not a red neck, I'm not a rascist, and I'm not confused). But, well, she's the expert... she would probably mop the floor with me.

[GabonX]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

Give me a break. You don't watch Keith Olbermann (regularly at least).

I don't watch him everyday but I do watch him every week, probably for a total of between half an hour and an hour and a half.

I make a point of flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC while the pundits are talking. I never watch Olbermann, Maddow, Hannity, or O'Reilly from beginning to end because I'm always trying to watch two shows at once

[GabonX]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

But you are often dealing with a few people that are totally closed-minded here in CC-land.

If you were addressing a large, random sample of intelligent people, you would find that the majority would be open to your ideas and there would be more effective and progressive communication and less childish bickering. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the people here are argumentative and have decided that they already know everything; if you disagree with them, they will only argue and never really listen to your points.

I've watched you, GabonX. I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your ability to keep an open mind. You listen to what others say. Even when they repeatedly ignore, misunderstand, and misinterpret what you say.

Thanks

I get annoyed when I'm trying to be serious about serious things and people who disagree start to ridicule instead of debate.

[InkL0sed]

If, however, you watch FoxNews, The Daily Show, and Keith Olbermann, you get a variety of views and you're better equipped to make an informed decision on issues. And people should be more inclined to listen to you.

Ha!

Doesn't work like that in my experience!

Give me a break. You don't watch Keith Olbermann (regularly at least).

I will not give you a break. I watch Mr. Olbermann when I have time (I work a lot). His diatribes are very entertaining and his grammar is inpecable. Many of his critiques of President Bush were spot on.

Was I asking you?

I don't watch him everyday but I do watch him every week, probably for a total of between half an hour and an hour and a half.

Well, I can buy that I guess.

[PLAYER57832]

Rarely is there as transparent an example of liberal media bias as the tantrum thrown by CNN's Susan Roesgen yesterday while "reporting" on a tea party, but the full extent of her bias only comes into light when you look back at her attitude toward anti-Bush protesters.

In video posted by Paul Chesser from yesterday's CNN broadcast, Roesgen harassed a man who had a sign in which Obama was portrayed as a fascist with a Hitler mustache. "Why be so hard on the President of the United States though with such an offensive message?" an indignant Roesgen hollered.

Yet back in 2006, when she was covering protests against the Bush administration's response to Katrina, she jokingly referred to this photo of a man wearing a mask with devil horns and a Hitler mustache as a Bush "look-alike." (Video available at NewsBusters).

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate -- or helpful -- for any protesters to portray the President in such a light, but this isn't about me. The point is that when an anti-Bush protester assailed our last president with offensive imagery, Roesgen viewed it as harmless fun, but when somebody dared portray Obama in a similar fashion, she sanctimoniously attacked the protester on national television.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/16/flashback-in-2006-cnns-roesgen

If this were the only example of media bias and if it were limited to supposedly liberal newscasters (who mostly are just not quite as Republican as some wish, but not truly liberal). or even predominantly by them, you would have a point.

The reality is that Fox and CBN each make no bones about being biased. The closest relative in the liberal forum is NPR ... and that is continually cited as being UNbiased by independent sources.

Once again, this is just another example of moving the term "liberal" further and further to the right.

This is absolutely false. Prior to this I defended CNN as having a left lean but trying to maintain an objective and neutral stance. This blatant disregard for the standards of objective journalism has made me reconsider my stance on CNN.

Fox is a right leaning network but one of their top anchors, Shepard Smith, is probably the most objective personality on cable news today.

Thats right and you can quote me, a Fox anchor is the most objective anchor on cable news today.

Even Snorri and PimpDave referenced him on the first page of this thread as being "smart." I disagree with what Smith was saying there, and I have provided empirical evidance to the contrary of what he says, but I still have a lot of respect for him because he embodies what journalism should be.

NPR is liberal but it is far from the most liberal network. That award goes to MSNBC by their own admission. Have you ever seen either Keith Olbermann OR Rachel Maddow's shows?
Top google result for Olbermann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8WwTPxVqdM
Top google result for Rachel Maddow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHw773EO314
These are not specifically selected clips but rather the first ones that come up if you search their names.

There's a whole class of people who get all of their news from faces like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and a couple of politically biased online publications who think they have a well rounded and well informed perspective based on these sources.

If you watch either Fox or MSNBC and do not watch the other network respectively, you will not have a balanced and well informed view. You will become jaded.

*Edit: The link below (first provided by Nobunaga) perfectly embodies the worst of Kieth Olbermann. What is said in the clip on that page borders on hate speech. It is Neo McCarthyism but instead of branding people as "communists" now they are "red necks" and "racists" because they disagree issues of policy. Watch the video:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -president

A. I am not wrong.

B. This began long before CNN or Fox were even in existance, before the internet was even here. By the time they came around, the definitions were already changed and set.

C. CNN is considered "objective" by conservative individuals, not objective sources from ALL sides of the spectrum. Fox doesn't even pretend to be objective. I have no experience with MSNBC, so no opinion (however, the NBC part doesn't give me a great deal of confidence, given the NBC pablum reporting)

(oh and pablum = watered down, not much content a few "sensational" stories on stars, a few crimes, brief coverage of really BIG news, etc.... otherwise, not too much).

[PLAYER57832]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

... Generalization, Simon. Be spefific, cite examples.

Global warming.

Evolution

Conservative bias in the general media

Effects of pollution on our kids

effects of oil drilling on our marine life

etc.

Just picked some of the really BIG ticket items.

[captain.crazy]

I love it how conservatives wave away data.

If they don't like the science, then it's biased, and the same with news.

"I'm right you're not blahblahblah."

"Then why do all the scientists, news, statistics, etc, say you're wrong?"

"uh... uh... Those are biased."

... Generalization, Simon. Be spefific, cite examples.

Global warming.
Theory... not proven, has been known to be occurring on other planets...
Evolution
agreed

Conservative bias in the general media
Bull shit! The general media has a liberal bias.

Effects of pollution on our kids
agreed

effects of oil drilling on our marine life
fair point, debate on the pros and cons... pros being energy independent, less war for oil, less transporting of oil...

etc.

Just picked some of the really BIG ticket items.
By big ticket items, you, of course, mean the ones that you are most biased about!

[TheProwler]

And now, for the surprise of the day!!!!

A. I am not wrong.

Hahaha!!

Global warming. caused by increased solar activity?

Evolution Where'd that Missing Link disappear to?

Conservative bias in the general media Commie.

Effects of pollution on our kids Don't smoke in the car! The little rug rats are getting a healthy dose of steroids in their meat....why worry about pollution? They are strong like bull.

effects of oil drilling on our marine life The ocean is home to the most important ecosystem on the planet.

etc. Etc.