Thread: Does the US media have a liberal bias?

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The media does not have a "bias" because that would insinuate they are thinking for themselves.

All they do is send a reporter to where ever is needed, who then listens to what the government / authority spokesperson says, and tells that to the audience. So they have a democratic bias right now because obamas mob gives more press conferences I would guess.

Those whom insist that there are bias' and political identities throughout mainstream-corporate-establishment mediums need to deeply re-check themselves.

Then explain this, RS.

Most Biased Reporters: The list of America’s Top Ten most biased reporters includes Helen Thomas, Joe Klein, Paul Krugman. Christiane Amanpour, and others

^ Another garbage link to a looney far right blog. More spam eh booners?

Those who think the mainstream media is biased are the same people who say Fox is fair and unbiased.

^ I don't. They are all crooks.

I agree with JFK, the US's last truly President who wanted what was best to the US and the world as opposed to their sponsors.

"And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion"

The press only these days does the "amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental" but has not for some time done the "inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion"

About what though? What should the "free" press be telling us about?

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

News Flash - JFK was a confirmed Nut-case fruitloop conspiracy theorist.... oh and he was assassinated a week later.

John F. Kennedy

Originally Posted by pseudolus

^ I don't. They are all crooks.

I agree with JFK, the US's last truly President who wanted what was best to the US and the world as opposed to their sponsors.

"And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion"

The press only these days does the "amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental" but has not for some time done the "inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion"

About what though? What should the "free" press be telling us about?

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

News Flash - JFK was a confirmed Nut-case fruitloop conspiracy theorist.... oh and he was assassinated a week later.

John F. Kennedy

Don't be fooled by that mythical good-guy, open minded, enlightened shite as it appied to Jack Kennedy - he was nothing but shy of a puppet for the establishment of the time. Incredibly [and strangely] sickened by the paranoia of the worldwide communist boogeman, that he set the all-time record for covert and overt activities the world over - "protecting" the world for the American democratic way. Bollocks.

Remember how JFK came to be.
His Father was one of the most influencial unethical bastards of that century - a criminal syndicate.

His brother, Robert.....check into how he came into ptominance in his early years.
Joseph McCarthy henchman.

This slobbering romance for the Kennedys baffles me.

Everything is just fine folks.
Nothing to concern yourselves with.

...and don't be looking behind the curtain, if you would please.

Originally Posted by sabang

Those who think the mainstream media is biased are the same people who say Fox is fair and unbiased.

Negative on that...don't think so. Bad analogy.

The whining continues...

Right-wing media are falsely suggesting that First Lady Michelle Obama's Academy Awards appearance is unprecedented, ignoring that former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have previously participated in the ceremony....

Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes likewise wrote on his Twitter feed that Obama "probably felt like she was entitled to upstage" the Oscars and accused the first lady of making the ceremony about her. Breitbart.com called her appearance "obscene, and rather frightening in what it suggests about how low we have fallen as a nation."

In fact, former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have participated in Academy Awards ceremonies. In 2002, Bush appeared at the Oscars in a taped appearance. ...

In 1981, President Reagan taped an appearance for the Oscars...

Source

Right wing media shoots itself in the foot then, by being churlish and most definitely ungracious when their target enjoys a 73% approval rating (according to a December poll) amongst Americans- an awful lot higher than they do.


Michelle is the next Hillary

She dazzled on Fallon and the Oscars, and a poll has her leading for Senate. Another first lady with major options

In the months after Bill Clinton’s second election, few would have guessed that first lady Hillary Clinton would be just a few years away from a successful run for Senate, a stint as secretary of state, and the subject of front-running buzz to be the next president of the United States.

Of course, it turns out she was. And the current first lady, Michelle Obama, is more popular than Clinton was then. So, what does the future hold for her?

After a winning weekend on Jimmy Fallon’s show and the Academy Awards, it’s clear she will be in demand.
Michelle is the next Hillary - Salon.com


'The wookie' is well and truly having the last laugh. She seems to be enjoying herself too.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Right-wing media are falsely suggesting that First Lady Michelle Obama's Academy Awards appearance is unprecedented, ignoring that former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have previously participated in the ceremony....

this kind of thing happens again and again.

one that quickly springs to mind was the (feigned) outrage that obama put his up on his desk in the oval office.

how dare he disrespect the office like that!

of course within minutes, multiple photos were found of republican presidents putting their feet up on their desks in the oval office.

dopes.

Originally Posted by Humbert

The whining continues...

Right-wing media are falsely suggesting that First Lady Michelle Obama's Academy Awards appearance is unprecedented, ignoring that former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have previously participated in the ceremony....

Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes likewise wrote on his Twitter feed that Obama "probably felt like she was entitled to upstage" the Oscars and accused the first lady of making the ceremony about her. Breitbart.com called her appearance "obscene, and rather frightening in what it suggests about how low we have fallen as a nation."

In fact, former presidents and former First Lady Laura Bush have participated in Academy Awards ceremonies. In 2002, Bush appeared at the Oscars in a taped appearance. ...

In 1981, President Reagan taped an appearance for the Oscars...

Source

Your source link does not work.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Your source link does not work.

Michelle Obama Attacked For Oscars Appearance | Blog | Media Matters for America

I'm sure you'll actually read it. I see an ad hominem argument coming.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Your source link does not work.

Michelle Obama Attacked For Oscars Appearance | Blog | Media Matters for America

I'm sure you'll actually read it. I see an ad hominem argument coming.

Media Matters, eh?

OK, perhaps I'll start citing WND to balance out the bias...

^So the facts are in dispute? Laura Bush and Reagan did not participate in Academy Award ceremonies?

Ronnie was an actor - just happened that his role as president was his biggest role he ever played with his script being written for him by Bush. But he was an actor and as such was part of the Oscars. Laura Bush was a small bit part in a segment played to the audience being asked "what do movies mean to you".

Obamaette was summing up perfectly what her husband is. He is a celebrity. He is Brand Obama. They are Brad Pitt and Jolie. They are Bennifer. They are celebs who can not even bother to pretend to be serious politicians any more because they do not have to - 4 more years secured and no accountability.

At least Bush has the good grace to admit he was a phoney front man, and has quietly skulked away to count his cash on his ranch. The Clintons will be around for ever and based upon this nauseating effort, so will Brand Obama.

Seriously, if they really had their president's interests at heart, they'd steer away from encouraging these celebrity appearances. It makes both the president and the first lady seem small and grasping.
Michelle Obama Attacked For Oscars Appearance | Blog | Media Matters for America

Michelle, public approval rating 73% in December (probably up since then).
BO approval rating 55%, according to a recent Bloomberg poll- highest in 3 years.
Teflon Bazza won his second term by 332 EC votes to 206- close to a landslide.

Small and grasping, eh? Nope, mega celebrities, power couple, tinseltown, packed stadiums - all of that. And black. This isn't a black thang again, is it?

Lets talk about small and grasping shall we- mean, petty spirited, petulant, borderline racist. Very unAmerican. No, on second thoughts lets not. Let the facts speak for themselves-
Just 35 percent of respondents said they have a favorable view of the GOP
Obama Approval Rating Reaches 3-Year High In Bloomberg Poll

And there you will stay, until you start to think and act like adults.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The Clintons will be around for ever and based upon this nauseating effort, so will Brand Obama.

5 females. Potentially a 40 year dynasty. Her Majesties Hillary, Michelle, Chelsea, Malia and Natasha.

Originally Posted by sabang

Seriously, if they really had their president's interests at heart, they'd steer away from encouraging these celebrity appearances. It makes both the president and the first lady seem small and grasping.
Michelle Obama Attacked For Oscars Appearance | Blog | Media Matters for America

Michelle, public approval rating 73% in December (probably up since then).
BO approval rating 55%, according to a recent Bloomberg poll- highest in 3 years.
Teflon Bazza won his second term by 332 EC votes to 206- close to a landslide.

Small and grasping, eh? Nope, mega celebrities, power couple, tinseltown, packed stadiums - all of that. And black. This isn't a black thang again, is it?

Lets talk about small and grasping shall we- mean, petty spirited, petulant, borderline racist. Very unAmerican. No, on second thoughts lets not. Let the facts speak for themselves-
Just 35 percent of respondents said they have a favorable view of the GOP
Obama Approval Rating Reaches 3-Year High In Bloomberg Poll

And there you will stay, until you start to think and act like adults.

Well, it seems like the Left isn't too pleased with Mooch busting into the Oscars either:

Rare Criticism of Michelle Obama from the Left

(CNSNews.com) - "It’s time for first lady Michelle Obama to raise her game," writes liberal Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy in Wednesday's edition.

"Nothing wrong with telling kids to eat their peas or showing them how to Hula-Hoop. But after four years of focusing on the body, she’d do well to spend these next four on building strong minds."

Milloy says there's been too much attention paid to Michelle's body (her arms, bangs, designer clothes), and not enough attention paid to her ivy league education

Rare Criticism of Michelle Obama from the Left | CNS News

Trailer trash, the both of them...

With Rachel Madcow, Sure, this video is deceptively edited, but so what?

“At this point, it’s a given that any audio or video that’s aired on NBC News or MSNBC could be faked in some way. They’ll do whatever it takes to advance their agenda. It’s so commonplace, even their hosts have stopped making excuses for it. It’s just part of the culture there.”

No shame exhibited either. The blatant bias is something that's in a Libs DNA.

No liberal media bias? Back to you...

^ MSNBC was created as a counterpoint to the biased fox news channel. No one there has ever denied that.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

No liberal media bias? Back to you...

Has anyone claimed that MSNBC is not biased? No.
Have you claimed that Fox is not biased? Yes.

Stop whining. Change your pampers.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

No liberal media bias? Back to you...

Has anyone claimed that MSNBC is not biased?

What say you, Ray?

Meanwhile, let's explore the next in a long line of Media Bias:

DDT Ban: The biggest example of the media coming to the aid of environmentalism is, of course, is the worldwide ban of DDT. In 1962, a book titled Silent Spring written by American biologist Rachel Carson was published. The media pushed Carson’s work as settled science. It later came to light that much of Carson’s “evidence” was simply manufactured and the ban has been responsible for untold millions of deaths in places like Africa. Still, the media continues to cite Carson’s work as fact.

Incredible, huh?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Stop whining. Change your pampers.