The Media and This Election (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

inthysite -> The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 1:53:21 PM)

This topic has been mentioned and briefly discussed in several threads and rather than hijack a thread to continue the subject matter I thought I would give it a home here.

Me and others here have been mocked, laughed at and totally disregarded when we have quoted or otherwise used as a source the Fox Network. The liberals on this board have the belief that this channel is, well rather than paraphrase them and possibly get it wrong I will take a quote from Saved9201:

quote:

Just an observation, but you can tell that most conservatives who post here get their "news", whether they admit it or not, from Fox and/or the Conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity. I listen to some of these clowns myself, for entertainment mostly, and some of these statements are almost direct quotes from these guys. You've got to realize these guys are entertainers first and foremost. And there's a difference between entertainment, opinion, and facts. With those guys, you never get just plain facts. They have to juice it up, add a little drama to it. Of course their whole spin is that they have the facts and the "liberal media", whoever that is, is lying and giving you misinformation or not telling you the whole story. For example , its funny how night after night, Sean Hannity brings up Rev. Wright, and complains that the mainstream media didn't put as much emphasis on the story as he did. How dare the libral media! With earthquakes and cyclones and other things going on, they should have done like Hannity and led in with Rev. Wright EVERY night. Huh? My point? We live in the 21st century and we have countless outlets for real facts without people relying on some loudmouth knucklehead to tell you how you should think about something and give you ridiculous reasons to back these opinions up. And instead of realizing it's just jokes, some people actually go out and repeat these ridiculous rantings and think they're making plenty sense. Not talking about anyone in particular here, but if the shoe fits...............


However it is my opinion that the Fox News channel is more honest and fair than any other network. Even Hillary's campaign had admitted this.

The only place I ever hear good news about the war is on Fox.
The only place I ever hear the truth about Barack is on Fox.
The only place I ever hear good news about the economy is on Fox.

Now I don't agree with everything that Sean Hannity has to say, and I'll admit that he annoys even me quite a lot. But in his defense the reason he continues to repeat himself over and over is because no one else in the media is reporting this stuff.

Hannity was on to Rev Wright a full year before the rest of the media reluctantly started reporting on it. And what did we find out? We found out that a lot of America thought it was an important issue.

Hannity was one of the first to bring up Obama's dealings with Reznick, which the liberal media is hardly reporting but I'll bet that come the general election this issue will come up again.

All the rest of the media is biased and have an agenda and it's basically smear Bush and his administration. Under Bush we had 6 years of economic growth, record highs in the stock market, below average unemployment, record property values, but to listen to CNN, NBC or others you would think that for the last 7 years we have been in a depression.

I'm not saying everything Bush did was great, but what I am saying is that not everything Bush did was bad either. But this isn't about Bush, it's about the media.

All you had to do is watch some of these channels to see how they were kissing up to Obama. Several "news anchors" on CNN, MSNBC, and NBC have come right out and announced their support of Obama. Several of them were called on this by the Clinton campaign, by the very people that they used to be in the tank for before this election. Funny[:D]

Now of course when the liberals use one of their biased news outlets such as CNN, NBC, or Media Matters well then that's just fine and dandy.

quote:

PhunkD
yup. I got the information from a biased source. But that doesn't mean it's not true.



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 2:35:27 PM)

Fox News used to be good but they have gone the liberal way in recent years which is why I rarely watch them. I mean they have Geraldo Rivera, one of the most liberal reporters of all time working on their network. If they were truly Conservative, they would be touting the alternatives to the Democrats and the Republicans since there is no real difference between the two parties.



henny -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 4:34:07 PM)

I really don't take any cable news channel seriously anymore. It's very rare that you find any real "journalism" on any of the three major cable News networks. It's all just "soundbite" news cycles during the day, and then editorial/opinion shows at night. To me the most insidious thing about these networks is not any political bias, but rather their tendency to sensationalise, flatten out, and dumb down all the "news" they can get their hands on.

Fox News is basically just Talk Radio translated to a TV format. Except for a few hours in the afternoon, most of their content is just editorial and tabloid shows headed by talk radio guys (and the vast majority of these editorial shows are headed either by conservatives or conservative leaning moderates, which I think is where the accusations of right wing biases come from). They've basically tapped into the same loyal demographic that conservative talk radio has tapped into, and present their editorial shows in a similar format, which I think has a lot to do with their success. But "Hannity and Colmes," "O'Reilly," (And the vast majority of Fox's -as well as MSNBC's and CNN's programing) are not news programs -they are editorial, tabloid, or political debate shows.

And the worse thing about this, I think, is that the other competing networks have followed suit and are now remodeling their programing after a similar Fox type format to try to match their success. MSNBC, especially in the past two years with the rise of Olbermann (who's basically just a liberal version of Sean Hannity -which I mean as an insult), has basically repositioned itself as just a liberal version of Foxnews (and unfortunately its ratings have gone up as a result, so I don't think they are going to "wise up" any time soon).

So I say a pox on anyone who watches Cable News and takes it seriously.

The only real journalism left on TV is "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS. There's no talking heads shouting, stories about celebrities, over the top rhetoric, blatant political baiting, or shallow political personal attacks. When they do host political debates they're always civil and more nuanced -which of course means that no one watches it, as it's not "entertaining" enough. They don't tap into the overly simplistic us vs them political bloodsport that dominates most of the media (and these forums) and draws audiences in by giving them a cheap rush.

It seems like people are only interested in having what they already believed validated for them nowadays, which is kind of disturbing, as I think it results in a sort of niche climate where people seek their news primarily from organizations that catter to their political interests. And I think there will be a greater level of segmentation as the internet begins to take over (although, this isn't all bad, either, as I think more voices are always good -it's only a problem if these voices appeal to just the lowest common denominator).



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 5:18:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

They've basically tapped into the same loyal demographic that conservative talk radio has tapped into, and present their editorial shows in a similar format, which I think has a lot to do with their success. But "Hannity and Colmes," "O'Reilly," (And the vast majority of Fox's -as well as MSNBC's and CNN's programing) are not news programs -they are editorial, tabloid, or political debate shows.

The only real journalism left on TV is "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS.


It's interesting that you mentioned Bill O'Reilly because he did host a tabloid show for several years - Inside Edition, so what he does is nothing new for him. He's a Libertarian too, not a conservative.

The News Hour is one of the few things I like on PBS because it is one of the few things that they show that is not liberal. Ever watch Bill Moyers? He's almost as liberal as Geraldo. Actually, he may be even more liberal than Geraldo, and Geraldo has publicly admitted on several occasions that he is a Ted Kennedy liberal.



amosgirl -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 5:32:13 PM)

All media is biased. If I buy the Daily Telegraph I know it'll be rightwing; if I buy the Guardian, I know it'll be leftwing. Know and understand the source and judge their perspective accordingly.

This is from the Guardian, a famously leftwing paper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton

Now while this is obviously biased reporting, no-one - even the rightwing media - would deny that a significant proportion of the Appalachian population will never vote for Obama for no other reason than the colour of his skin.

....and no mainstream, self-respecting journalist whether on the right or the left would ever try to justify their point of view.



saved9201 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 8:33:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: henny

I really don't take any cable news channel seriously anymore. It's very rare that you find any real "journalism" on any of the three major cable News networks. It's all just "soundbite" news cycles during the day, and then editorial/opinion shows at night. To me the most insidious thing about these networks is not any political bias, but rather their tendency to sensationalise, flatten out, and dumb down all the "news" they can get their hands on.

Fox News is basically just Talk Radio translated to a TV format. Except for a few hours in the afternoon, most of their content is just editorial and tabloid shows headed by talk radio guys (and the vast majority of these editorial shows are headed either by conservatives or conservative leaning moderates, which I think is where the accusations of right wing biases come from). They've basically tapped into the same loyal demographic that conservative talk radio has tapped into, and present their editorial shows in a similar format, which I think has a lot to do with their success. But "Hannity and Colmes," "O'Reilly," (And the vast majority of Fox's -as well as MSNBC's and CNN's programing) are not news programs -they are editorial, tabloid, or political debate shows.

And the worse thing about this, I think, is that the other competing networks have followed suit and are now remodeling their programing after a similar Fox type format to try to match their success. MSNBC, especially in the past two years with the rise of Olbermann (who's basically just a liberal version of Sean Hannity -which I mean as an insult), has basically repositioned itself as just a liberal version of Foxnews (and unfortunately its ratings have gone up as a result, so I don't think they are going to "wise up" any time soon).

So I say a pox on anyone who watches Cable News and takes it seriously.

The only real journalism left on TV is "The News Hour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS. There's no talking heads shouting, stories about celebrities, over the top rhetoric, blatant political baiting, or shallow political personal attacks. When they do host political debates they're always civil and more nuanced -which of course means that no one watches it, as it's not "entertaining" enough. They don't tap into the overly simplistic us vs them political bloodsport that dominates most of the media (and these forums) and draws audiences in by giving them a cheap rush.

It seems like people are only interested in having what they already believed validated for them nowadays, which is kind of disturbing, as I think it results in a sort of niche climate where people seek their news primarily from organizations that catter to their political interests. And I think there will be a greater level of segmentation as the internet begins to take over (although, this isn't all bad, either, as I think more voices are always good -it's only a problem if these voices appeal to just the lowest common denominator).


You said exactly what I meant to say, but you said it better!

- Julius



saved9201 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 8:57:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amosgirl

All media is biased. If I buy the Daily Telegraph I know it'll be rightwing; if I buy the Guardian, I know it'll be leftwing. Know and understand the source and judge their perspective accordingly.

This is from the Guardian, a famously leftwing paper:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton

Now while this is obviously biased reporting, no-one - even the rightwing media - would deny that a significant proportion of the Appalachian population will never vote for Obama for no other reason than the colour of his skin.

....and no mainstream, self-respecting journalist whether on the right or the left would ever try to justify their point of view.


One of Sean Hannity's famous statistics he likes to drag out is that in West Virginia and Kentucky, over 50 percent of the democratic voters found Obama untrustworthy. What he doesn't say is a lot of those people also claim that race was an issue in their decision. So basically, some of those white people don't trust ANY blacks, period.
But Hannity won't tell you that.

Sean Hannity has flat out lied and misrepresented a lot of other stuff too. No doubt some of you loyal listeners will want examples and I'll be glad to give them, but here's the catch 22 with some of you guys: If I quote a thousand sources and they're not Fox, then you'll discount them as being part of the libral media. That's how they get away with it. They lie, then wonder in amazement why the rest of the mainstream media isn't telling the same lie and of course it's because they're libral, and that's why you should get all your news from them.

- Julius



colliefan -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 9:02:33 PM)

How about Chris Mathews who gets a hot flashes every time he hears the Candy Man speak?



saved9201 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 9:24:49 PM)

I wonder sometimes, what would our history be like if the current cable "news" lineup was around back then? President Kennedy probably wouldn't have survived Sean Hannity's investigative reporting. Martin Luther King's name would have been drug through the mud and the civil rights movement would have been discounted as another libral, communist plot against hard working Americans. Who would have survived the media onslaught from the left and the right? FDR, Truman, Lincoln? Would the American people be treated to selected sermons of Thomas Jefferson's preacher and who he knew for 20 years?

Here's what I'm concerned may eventually happen. I think many people will agree that the choices we have as president this time around leaves a lot to be desired. Could part of this be that good people, people who would make great presidents, don't want to subject themselves and their families to the intense personal destructive smear tactics used by these outlets? Before you say, "Well, the American people need to know EVERYTHING about our new president."
Well, the American people who voted for some of the great leaders in our history didn't know who their candidates' preachers were, who they slept with on the side, they didn't have Limbaugh to tell them what to think, and they made some pretty good decisions, I think. I guess some people who read history now wonder how they survived without Hannity and the rest of Fox to expose the "truth".

- Julius



Jeff_from_Kentucky -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/8/2008 10:26:09 PM)

You know Julius, your rantings almost make me want to start watching Fox News again, even though I personally feel they are too liberal. [:D]



SuspenseWriter -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 12:35:36 AM)

Knowledge is power. And anyone who thinks Barack Obama won't be the next President of these United States is in need of a wake-up call. Because the fix is in, folks. And I don't mean from the Dems and the media, those people who, like teenage girls at a rock concert, grow absolutely weak in the knees over the guy.

I mean the fix is in from God.

You see, I believe that for years there have been two forces at work here in America, one dynamic, and one frought with internal bickering. The first, and far stronger force, are those who for years have been weeping and crying out for a secular messiah, since they refuse to acknowledge the real One; in Obama, they have their man. And they're gonna love him. Every left-wing social program one can imagine, every deviant behavior, every weak-tea pansy idea will get a full tryout from this guy. Frankly, I predict disaster.

And that brings me the second force, and the far weaker one: the American church. To put it plainly, our Christian family is a mess. Far too many of us spend our time attempting to one-up each other as to who's the most righteous, the most holy, the most attuned to things that won't matter a bucket of warm spit in eternity. On Christian forums across the nation--here at CW and elsewhere--we have self-proclaimed "heresy hunters", people who've seemingly made it their life's work to go on "search and destroy" missions against their own brothers and sisters in Christ. God must weep. It's sickening, and it's maddening, and I do believe He has had quite enough of our silliness, thank you.

In a nutshell, I think God has orchestrated this far-left neophyte's rise to power. Because sometimes there's simply nothing that draws a family together like horrendous tragedy. And we'll get a boat-load of it from this man.

So as I said, the fix is in; Barack Obama will be our next president. I didn't say we have to like it; God calls us simply to endure it, and rise up stronger.

So may we not squander the pain, the embarrassment, and the ridicule Obama will bring to us as Christians. May we use the heartbreak of these next four years to truly put our differences aside, and come together, as Jesus said in John 17, in the unity of the faith.

May His banner over us ... be love.



inthysite -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 10:40:09 AM)

quote:

One of Sean Hannity's famous statistics he likes to drag out is that in West Virginia and Kentucky, over 50 percent of the democratic voters found Obama untrustworthy. What he doesn't say is a lot of those people also claim that race was an issue in their decision. So basically, some of those white people don't trust ANY blacks, period.
But Hannity won't tell you that.


Link? Do you have evidence that race was also an issue in their answers? But, even if it was I don't see that Hannity not mentioning it constitutes as lying or being deceitful. His point in bringing this up is that Barack is going to have a problem to deal with because 50% of Democrats in those states are saying they don't trust him, for whatever reason. Which could mean that they won't vote for him.

That's the point Hannity is trying to make, why bring out the race card when you don't need to?

quote:

If I quote a thousand sources and they're not Fox, then you'll discount them as being part of the libral media.


And if I quote Fox News am I treated any different?

quote:

They lie, then wonder in amazement why the rest of the mainstream media isn't telling the same lie and of course it's because they're libral, and that's why you should get all your news from them.


So when the rest of the media refused to first report on Barack's pastor that was a lie? When the rest of the media didn't report on Bill Ayers that was a lie? What about when they didn't report on Michelle Obama's racist thesis? I guess that was a lie as well.

The liberal media isn't reporting on a lot of things that Fox reports not because Fox is lying but because the liberal media is in the tank for Obama and they don't want to report anything that will make him look bad.

Hillary Clinton's campaign even complained about this. It was so obvious and so ridiculous that all the comedy shows picked up on it and started all their parodies.

Again, explain to me why the "mainstream" media doesn't report that there is progress being made with the surge? Why don't they report that the Iraqi military is making tremendous progress? Why don't they report that the Iraqi government is making progress as well? Because anything positive coming out of Iraq is bad for the Dems and good for the Repubs.

Why does the liberal media harp on Global Warming and tout their experts (I actually heard one of them use Al Gore as their source for an expert, please![8|])

Why don't they mention any of the world renown scientist who dispute this evidence? Why don't they talk about all the "green" companies Al Gore invested in prior to his movie?

Why don't they report on the hypocrisy of all the "green" supporters who leave a bigger carbon footprint in a day with their private jets, limos, etc. than the average American does in a year? And they have the nerve to tell us we should walk to work, we should sell our SUV's and buy electric cars.[8|]

Fox News is running an investigative about "Earmarks for Profit" that no one else is reporting. They are showing senators, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are making a personal profit of the earmarks that they pass in congress. Why doesn't the liberal media report this?

You say that Fox News is so biased and lying all the time and the the liberal media just doesn't want to repeat those lies, well why won't the report the truth?



lightshineon -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 11:47:51 AM)

Fox is no more biased than NBC, CBS, ABC, CNBC, or CNN. It is ridiculious how they spin what they want. I really do not watch any, but, bits now and then. I do not sit that long, and most is just opinion anyway, and what makes these " experts" opinion better than mine?



henny -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 7:02:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite
What about when they didn't report on Michelle Obama's racist thesis?


This is completely off topic, but since when is Michelle Obama's thesis racist?

I actually read the whole thing when it was posted out of curiosity and I saw nothing racist in it, and I've only seen far right wing blogs who are looking for any reasons what so ever to attack her claim that it is "racist."

The media didn't report this because it's a completely unfounded attempt at smearing her, not because they have any "liberal" bias.



inthysite -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 8:48:27 PM)

quote:

This is completely off topic, but since when is Michelle Obama's thesis racist?

Not to get off topic but out of respect I will reply to your comment.

Let me ask you what you would call it?

Michelle basically makes the following statements:

"I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

She admits that people are being open-minded towards her which I take as meaning they are treating her with respect. But her "feelings" make her assume that the "white" professors and students will always see her as black. She doesn't say that it is anything that they do or say about her, so maybe it is because of her preconceptions that give her this attitude.

"These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

So now black people can only hope to become observers of a white culture, never being allowed to become a participant? She is basically stating that the white culture feels it is so superior that it will not, cannot tolerate blacks becoming a part of it. To me that is racist.

Now to get back on topic the question is why is this important? Why should the media even report on it? Because it is another piece of the puzzle that is Obama. We do not know who he is or what he stands for because he has not been in public office long enough for us to know.

Obama himself says that leadership is more than longevity in public office, that it is about judgment:

"We're up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor and judgment and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose, a higher purpose."

So we look at Obama's judgments, the wife he chose, the church he chose, the friends he chose, the business partners he chose, and now the staff he chose.

Obama has chosen Eric Holder to be a part of his team to search for a VP. Eric Holder is the guy who advised Bill Clinton to give a pardon to Marc Rich, a guy who was indicted in 1983 for tax evasion and tax fraud among other things.

So when we look at the type of people Barack has chosen to surround himself with we can get an idea of the type of people he will choose to be part of his cabinet. We get a picture of the type of judgment he uses. But you won't see this in the liberal media.



saved9201 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 10:05:38 PM)

I heard Obama eats the WHITE middle of an oreo first, and saves the chocolate part for last because he said he likes to save the BEST for last. You'll never hear THAT in the libral media - that racist Obama cares so little for white people, he won't even save them for last!

- Julius



henny -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 10:24:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

"I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

She admits that people are being open-minded towards her which I take as meaning they are treating her with respect. But her "feelings" make her assume that the "white" professors and students will always see her as black. She doesn't say that it is anything that they do or say about her, so maybe it is because of her preconceptions that give her this attitude.



And? Where's the racism exactly? She says she feels like she doesn't fit in fully because she is black. I don't see anything racist about admitting that.

quote:

"These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

So now black people can only hope to become observers of a white culture, never being allowed to become a participant? She is basically stating that the white culture feels it is so superior that it will not, cannot tolerate blacks becoming a part of it.


I don't see anything racist here, and in this section she's mostly talking about her own experiences and feelings. She says that she hasn't felt like she's fit in fully at princeton because she's black, and she's worried that she will not be able to fully integrate into a white dominated society.

You can disagree with her that this racism exists, but there's nothing racist about anything she says here.



colliefan -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/9/2008 10:44:35 PM)

Andrea Mitchel and rednecks

So, she is perfectly unbiaded? NOT



inthysite -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 9:05:20 AM)

A Further Note:

Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain went one on one with Bill O'Reilly and everyone raved about the interviews. The reviews were that it was tough, honest and fair and that the candidates came off looking better for having done it.

However Barack Obama refuses to do the same. Why is that do you think? Is it maybe he is so used to the softball questions he gets from the left media that he couldn't handle the tough questions? We all know that if he doesn't have a prepared speech and a teleprompter in front of him the magic disappears and he sounds worse than George W. Bush.



djv1255 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 9:17:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite
We all know that if he doesn't have a prepared speech and a teleprompter in front of him the magic disappears and he sounds worse than George W. Bush.


Yea. Check out the two clips in the Breathalyzer thread.



ljmac -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 11:58:41 AM)

The media is in the bag for B.O. A few years back we had incessant hand wringing because the Constitution made GWB winner by electoral count, not popular vote. This year there has been no such wailing about Democrat delegates and popular votes even though the Constitution is law, but the Democratic nomination process could be changed any time.

When B.O. made his racially insulting remark about "typical white people," at least one major news outlet edited his remarks to omit the slur. I wrote about that before.

When he said that dead soldiers were in the audience for his memorial day speech, at least one major news outlet edited his remarks to remove his blunder. I wrote about that before too.

The Democrats always have the media on their side. For the most part, they are Democrats on the left of their party. They approve of abortion. They desire high taxes. They minimize our military. They like gay so-called marriage. They are liberals. I'll guarantee you one thing, no so-called journalist will rush to bring down Obama based on phony documents the way Dan Rather did with GWB.



henny -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 3:21:26 PM)

Apparently Fox is going to give yet another Conservative radio talk show host their own show.

How original of them!

quote:

Struggling to hold on to viewers in an early-evening time slot, Fox News has decided to give a controversial right-wing radio host a trial run hosting a new show.

The New York Times reports that conservative talker Laura Ingraham will join a rotating series of personalities on a new 5 p.m. program. Network executives "appear to be grooming her as a new talent for the network," according to the report.

Ingraham, who frequently fills in for the brash Bill O'Reilly on Fox, has made a name for herself with a popular talk radio show that is among the top-rated in the country. Fox will need the rating help, as its previous 5 p.m. report -- America's Election HQ -- placed third last week in the advertiser-coveted 25- to 54-year-old demographic, the Times reports.

It's not just at 5 p.m. where Fox is struggling, either. The network's most recognizable loud-mouth slipped from his No. 1 spot last week among the viewers advertisers want most.

MSNBC is gloating that their star Keith Olbermann bested O'Reilly among 25- to 54-year-olds last week. It's the first time Olbermann has beaten his primary competitor among the key demographic.


http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Report_Fox_hires_conservative_talker_to_0610.html



davemiller7 -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 3:29:54 PM)

In 2000 there was the "every vote must count" mantra. This year, the votes of Florida and Michigan Democrat Primary voters were severely compromised because those states didn't obey the edict that came down from on high, concerning when to have their primaries. And the media doesn't pick up on the hypocrisy. Oh well, that was then, this is now. We have a Messiah waiting for his November date with destiny.

-Dave



henny -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 4:33:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

This year, the votes of Florida and Michigan Democrat Primary voters were severely compromised because those states didn't obey the edict that came down from on high, concerning when to have their primaries. And the media doesn't pick up on the hypocrisy.
-Dave


Most media outlets I saw covered the May 30th meeting of the Democratic counsel to decide the fate of the votes pretty thoroughly. I'm not sure which "media" you are referring to (I try not to watch the three cable networks anymore, so I can't vouch for their TV coverage -although I check their websites quite often. I can vouch for NPR's coverage, though, which was especially good -as it usually is).

But if you want the media to cover it with the headline "Hypocrisy!" I think you are out of luck. Claiming that it is hypocrisy is something for the editorial pages, or for pundits like Hannity/Olbermann, et al -not "Straight" journalism. "Straight" journalism can and will include political opinion, but usually it will be once removed (So for example, in this case, several stories I saw that covered it did include allegations of hypocrisy by way of interviews with Hilary supporters on the issue -but again, this is "once removed." It's not the job of the journalist writing the story to point out hypocrisy in a straight news story -that's something for the editorial pages).

I think a lot of you are confusing traditional journalism with editorializing. It seems like what you are asking for is not so much less bias in the media as much as just more "conservative editorializing" or more "conservative opinion pieces." There's nothing wrong with opinion and editorializing at all (I think they are both good and necessary -especially in a democracy), but we need to understand the difference between the two, just as we also need to try to keep traditional journalism in tact (which is why traditionally Newspapers have tried to keep the two separate -with "straight journalism" comprising the body, and "Editorials" relegated to the back sections). This isn't to say that people are or can be perfect and that there can be "straight journalism" that his wholly free of bias. I don't think that this is ever possible, really, as various biases will creep in anyway, often unintended -but I also think that we still need to hold it up as an ideal, and aim for this ideal, even if this ideal will be entirely unreachable (which I think is where eliminating the sensationalism and striving for nuance will do a great deal to help out, as usually the deeper you go into a story, the more time you spend on it, and the more opinions you survey -there's a greater chance that biases will be lessened).

One of my criticisms of Foxnews, MSNBC, and the like, is that I think they are continually pushing the envelope when it comes to blurring the distinction between editorializing and traditional journalism. They really don't keep the two separate or as "marked out" as they should. Which is why I think they have more in common with talk radio than with traditional journalism.



inthysite -> RE: The Media and This Election (6/10/2008 5:46:21 PM)

Editorials and Opinions can be a biased or left/right leaning as they want because they are just that, the opinion of the writer/journalist.

However, my problem is with the journalism that becomes opinionated, or biased. To many of the liberal media/newspapers have either ignored or edited pieces so that the story fits their agenda.

Ljmac has made a point about this:

quote:

When B.O. made his racially insulting remark about "typical white people," at least one major news outlet edited his remarks to omit the slur. I wrote about that before.

When he said that dead soldiers were in the audience for his memorial day speech, at least one major news outlet edited his remarks to remove his blunder. I wrote about that before too.


Then there is the MNSBC interview with President Bush that they edited to make it appear as though Bush agreed with the reporter.

These are but a few examples showing how the "main stream" media's traditional journalism does not keep to the standards of honest, unbiased journalism.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI