Media Bias

[Wild Cobra]

I have said this before, and looking though my bookmarks for something else, I found this:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664)

It's the original story from the UCLA study on media bias.

[George Gervin's Afro]

these studies say that conservatism is mental disorder..
something about easily scared, whiny kids tending to conservatives.. maybe i should feel sorry ray wc, and yoni

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34935.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060326/ai_n16174721

[Wild Cobra]

yeah that study was bullshit -- precisely because the guy who did it was a poly sci professor and didn't assess the news products objectively or measure them accurately

Sure, some will say such things are B.S. Still, it coincides with what many people see and understand. The study sure makes sense to me.

Why should I take your word on the issue?

[Wild Cobra]

these studies say that conservatism is mental disorder..
something about easily scared, whiny kids tending to conservatives.. maybe i should feel sorry ray wc, and yoni

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34935.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060326/ai_n16174721
Well, when you start by saying the studies claim its a mental disorder, we know they are politically motivated and biased. One of them from Berkley... Isn't that the most liberal campas in America?

[FromWayDowntown]

Sure, some will say such things are B.S. Still, it coincides with what many people see and understand. The study sure makes sense to me.

Why should I take your word on the issue?

There are some who think that 9/11 conspiracy theories make sense, too. There are some who think that men still haven't landed on the moon.

That you choose to see things one way does not make all contravening opinions invalid; nor does it conclusively establish your opinions as the prevailing viewpoint from an objective standpoint.

[101A]

yeah that study was bullshit -- precisely because the guy who did it was a poly sci professor and didn't assess the news products objectively or measure them accurately


it's pretty well-documented (since the 70s...I don't know why UCLA thinks their guy is the first to do this sort of thing...) that media organizations tend toward the political bias of their particular owner

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.

That's their method right there. The researchers used objective criteria in establishing a pattern. The fact that he is a political scientist is irrelevant to the methodology. The question is: Is the methodology a reliable means of determining bias?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Another example of liberal bias in the media. I bet we won't see this story in the evil MSM!! Of course we can thank the Fair and Balanced network for bringing up this story that everyone is trying to bury.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303808,00.html


Report: Dumped Cat Could Come Back to Haunt Hillary Clinton Campaign
Sunday, October 21, 2007

As the “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks anymore. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

Some believe the abandoned pet could now come between Hillary Clinton and her ambition to return to the White House as America’s first female president.

Clinton has been boosting her prospects in the past week with some homespun references to her gender as part of a series of events with the theme Women Changing America, during which she chatted girlfriend-to-girlfriend and mom-to-mom with female voters.

The softening of Clinton’s image seems to be working. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, predicts that up to a quarter of Republican women will vote for her. She leads Democratic rivals in the polls by 26 points and is scooping up more donations to her war chest from Wall Street and defense contractors than any candidate from either party – an unmistakable indicator of who they think will win in 2008.

Clinton’s treatment of Socks cuts to the heart of the questions about her candidacy. Is she too cold and calculating to win the presidency? Or does it signify political invincibility by showing she is willing to deploy every weapon to get what she wants?

“In the annals of human evil, off-loading a pet is nowhere near the top of the list,” writes Caitlin Flanagan in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. “But neither is it dead last, and it is especially galling when said pet has been deployed for years as an all-purpose character reference.”

Flanagan’s article, titled "No Girlfriend of Mine," points out that Clinton wrote a crowd-pleasing book "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets," in which she claimed that only with the arrival of Socks and his “toy mouse” did the White House “become a home.”

Being Clinton, she also lectured readers that pets are an “adoption instead of an acquisition” and warned them to look out for their safety. (Buddy, the chocolate labrador in the Reagan White House, bounded into a road soon after leaving the White House and was promptly run over.)

Despite these misadventures, Peggy Noonan, President Ronald Reagan’s former speechwriter, believes Clinton is doing a good job of humanizing herself. “I am not saying she has learned to be herself,” she observed. “I think after a year on the trail she has learned how not to be herself, how to comfortably adopt a skin and play a part.”

Clinton has been coming up with some teasing one-liners, telling trade unionists “I’m your girl” and laughing on daytime television about the differences between her and her male rivals: “Well, look how much longer it takes me to get ready.”

At another event, she joked about how the other candidates were focusing on her. “I didn’t know what to make of it, and then a friend of mine said, ‘You know when you get to be our age, having that much attention from all these men ...”

It is a disarming tactic, which her rivals are finding difficult to counter without appearing unchivalrous. But the outline of a “stop Hillary” campaign is taking shape, with critics accusing her of being an inexperienced, flip-flopping opportunist who owes her success purely to dynasty.

Rudy Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner, has sharpened his attacks on Clinton for lacking experience. “She’s never run a city, she’s never run a state, she’s never run a business, she has never met a payroll,” the former New York mayor said. “She has never been responsible for the safety ... of millions of people.”

He has gone after Clinton’s tax-and-spend policies, including an uncosted suggestion that every newborn child should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” that would grow over time and help pay for college. The last Democratic candidate to propose a similar scheme, George McGovern, lost 49 out of 50 states in the 1972 election.

Soon after Giuliani went on the warpath, Clinton discovered she had other priorities and shelved the idea.

Barack Obama, Clinton’s closest Democratic rival, has begun to criticize her more directly, claiming last week: “We’ve had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics.” In one such example, Clinton backed a Senate resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, earning rebukes from Obama and John Edwards, the third-placed candidate. She then co-sponsored another resolution that would prohibit an attack on Iran without authorization from Congress.

The financial sleaze that dominated the final Clinton years is also making a comeback. After Norman Hsu, one of Clinton’s biggest campaign “bundlers”, was exposed as a fraud, it emerged last week that waiters, dishwashers and street peddlers in New York’s Chinatown have been handing over $1,000 and $2,000 sums to her campaign – some with genuine pride, others because they were ordered to do so by neighborhood bosses.

Clinton said last week that her frontrunner status made her uncomfortable. “It makes me nervous and we will still work to earn every vote,” she said.

But the advantage she enjoys with women is considerable. Penn believes the “emotional element” of being the first woman presidential nominee in history will “throw the Republicans for a loop.” So far every attack has bounced off her.

Perhaps the cautionary tale of Socks the cat will make a difference. “Hillary’s insistence that we follow her example in pet ownership, when she really should be on Cat Fancy’s Most Wanted List, makes her a tiresome bore,” Flanagan writes.

“But exploiting the emotions of good-natured people – well, that’s just another example of her three-decade-long drift from the girl she once was to the woman that circumstance and ambition have made her.”


Thanks Fox news for not backing down form the Clinton slander machine!!

[xrayzebra]

It's real simple to prove WC is right. Just listen to the MSM
networks and read their papers. Like you know the donations
to Hillary by the Chinese dishwasher. Seen much of that in
the MSM? I rest my case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's real simple to prove WC is right. Just listen to the MSM
networks and read their papers. Like you know the donations
to Hillary by the Chinese dishwasher. Seen much of that in
the MSM? I rest my case.

So let me ask you this ray. Who decides if a story is worth reporting? maybe one news organization feels it should be reported and another does not. Does that indicate bias? I believe there are a few more people than one dishwasher or are you misrepresenting facts again?

[xrayzebra]

So let me ask you this ray. Who decides if a story is worth reporting? maybe one news organization feels it should be reported and another does not. Does that indicate bias? I believe there are a few more people than one dishwasher or are you misrepresenting facts again?


Oh, I get it now. If the Publicans do it, it should be
reported, if the dimm-o-craps do it it is misrepresenting the
facts. And the news organizations make the call. Got it.

Now you know why I listen to Rush. Oh, by the way one
of the Liberal Newspapers, LA Times, broke the story and
if I remember correctly only one other paper picked it up
the New York Post.

I am not sure you live in SA, but the E-N seems to have
overlooked this little news item.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Oh, I get it now. If the Publicans do it, it should be
reported, if the dimm-o-craps do it it is misrepresenting the
facts. And the news organizations make the call. Got it.

Now you know why I listen to Rush. Oh, by the way one
of the Liberal Newspapers, LA Times, broke the story and
if I remember correctly only one other paper picked it up
the New York Post.

I am not sure you live in SA, but the E-N seems to have
overlooked this little news item.


it's very confusing to figure out who exactly is the MSM.. one it's the Times the next it's anothyer paper. seems to me that if one national paper doesn't pick up a story then it indicates MSM bias.. You actually have it pretty good. Even if all but a few news organizations pick up a story then that indicates bias.. I guess you expect 100% of all news orgainzations to carry all of the stories you find important ..

so if the SE EXpress News eventually picks it up does that mean they aren't biased anymore?

[FromWayDowntown]

it's very confusing to figure out who exactly is the MSM.. one it's the Times the next it's anothyer paper. seems to me that if one national paper doesn't pick up a story then it indicates MSM bias.. You actually have it pretty good. Even if all but a few news organizations pick up a story then that indicates bias.. I guess you expect 100% of all news orgainzations to carry all of the stories you find important ..

so if the SE EXpress News eventually picks it up does that mean they aren't biased anymore?

I'd argue that media would be the outlets to which people go to obtain information -- in this case, news. I realize that talkers like Rush and Hannity exclude themselves from being characterized as journalists, but I have no idea how they can expect any reasonable person from thinking that they're not media. They clearly disseminate information ("news") along with their own opinions about what qualifies as "news." In that sense, they're absolutely media and there cannot be any dispute that those two (among many others) are as partisan as partisan gets.

The notion that they are not media strikes me as an insane form of denying facts.

[Nbadan]

For wing-nuts the M$M is Rushbo, Insannity, FAUX News, and to a growing extent ABC News (what the fuck is up with John Stousel?!?) ....for everyone else, it's the corporate media and their propaganda... CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ...the only real liberal news is the BBC....

[Yonivore]

For wing-nuts the M$M is Rushbo, Insannity, FAUX News, and to a growing extent ABC News (what the fuck is up with John Stousel?!?) ....for everyone else, it's the corporate media and their propaganda... CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ...the only real liberal news is the BBC....
:lmao And, he's being serious.

[xrayzebra]

For wing-nuts the M$M is Rushbo, Insannity, FAUX News, and to a growing extent ABC News (what the fuck is up with John Stousel?!?) ....for everyone else, it's the corporate media and their propaganda... CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ...the only real liberal news is the BBC....


Oh, damn, we have been found out. Now we will have to
admit Dan was right all along about the born again guy and
the WTC.

Oh, crap, Dan, MSM hasn't reported you views yet on
WTC.

[Jamtas#2]

Considering that both sides claim that the MSM favors the other (and each can give opinions/facts to back that up) I think the real issue is that the media controls the info that we are given and does it's best to keep us distracted from government with entertainment stories and non-news crap. And I don't think it is the republicans doing it too keep the people under-informed. It benefits both parties for the general public to have the elections become dog and pony shows rather than about the issues. IF the democrats encouraged the media to make the american voter more critical of government and policies, then when a democrat was in the white house they wold face the same scrunity of the public. Instead, those who want to become educated on the issues have to do lots fo their own investigating and research, and while that is the way it should be, the vast majority of americans don't have the time/desire to do so and thus let the media decide for them what is important. That is more of a problem than trying to decide which political point of view the media slants towards (not to mention that is an argument with no right or wrong answer)

[Nbadan]

The difference being that only one side of 'supposed' news bias is trying to get us into another stinking war that we can't afford...

[Spurminator]

Go team! Rah rah rah!

[101A]

because this is one of my areas of studyYou study the media, or are in the media?

You a journalist?

Okay.

Doing my own "study" on the biases of the media. I have a different methodology.

[George Gervin's Afro]

CNN MEMO: USE FIRES TO 'PUSH' 'PLANET IN PERIL' SERIES; DON'T 'IRRESPONSIBLY' TIE TO GLOBAL WARMING
Thu Oct 18 2007 14:11:42 ET

According to notes from CNN's Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to "push" their "Planet in Peril" special, but warns reporters not to "irresponsibly link" the fires to "Global Warming."


but,but the MSM is biased...Clinton News Network.. you pukes are a joke...

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305485,00.html


Hillary Clinton Accuser Claims New Evidence of Fraud in Documentary
Friday, October 26, 2007

By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

E-Mail Print Respond Digg This! del.icio.us
Peter F. Paul


Hillary Clinton and Peter Paul pose at an Aug. 12, 2000, Hollywood gala to benefit Clinton's New York Senate campaign.
Hillary Clinton and Peter Paul pose at an Aug. 12, 2000, Hollywood gala to benefit Clinton's New York Senate campaign.
WASHINGTON — One gift that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to enjoy on her 60th birthday Friday is the premiere of "Hillary Uncensored," a scathing documentary whose 13-minute trailer has been No. 1 on Google Video since Oct. 10, with more than 1.1 million views to date.

The film's first full-length showing is scheduled for Friday night at Harvard University, followed by viewings at universities through the weekend and a wrap Tuesday at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

Among the allegations summarized in the documentary:

— Bill and Hillary Clinton solicited cash from Peter F. Paul, an international lawyer and businessman, even after Hillary Clinton's campaign manager told The Washington Post she would not take money from him;

— FBI agents and U.S. attorneys colluded with the Clintons to keep Paul, who was convicted of cocaine possession and fraud, tangled up in the criminal courts for years;

— The Clintons later made sure Paul was kept in a Brazilian prison for 25 months, including 58 days in a maximum security cellblock nicknamed the "Corridor of Death," while the Justice Department waited to extradite him;

— Hillary Clinton still hasn't filed reports to the FEC enumerating Paul's excessive contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign spares no kindness about its view of Paul, whose long arrest record, officials say, demonstrates his inherent deceit.

"Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee," Clinton's campaign said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

While it's a coincidence that the film about the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate is being released on her birthday, the movie's producers say it is no accident the film's trailer is getting such attention.

Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the film, said he's made it his mission to expose what he calls "the greatest campaign finance fraud that ever has been committed."

The Clintons think "they are truly above the law," Cogan said. "My country has never seen anyone like Hillary Rodham Clinton."

The allegations in the film are not new, although much of the video is. The film resurrects claims made by the thrice-convicted Paul that he unwittingly agreed to violate election-funding laws in exchange for a pledge from Bill Clinton to work with him in his new venture, Stan Lee Media, after Clinton left the presidency.

The documentary revisits Paul's claim that, in exchange for Bill Clinton's promise to promote Stan Lee Media overseas, for which Paul said he was willing to pay $17 million, he also agreed to produce an August 2000 fundraising gala in Hollywood for Hillary Clinton's 2000 New York Senate campaign.

"My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton," Paul told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview, noting that Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign "concocted" the whole idea of the fundraiser.

Paul said he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, "I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work with me when he left the White House."

The gala cost $1.2 million, which was under-reported to the Federal Election Commission and led to the arrest of Clinton's then-Senate campaign fundraising chief, David Rosen.

Rosen was found not guilty; a co-host of the gala, Aaron Tonken, was sentenced in a separate case to more than five years in prison for misappropriating funds for charity to pay for fundraisers featuring Hollywood celebrities.

Paul never got to work with Bill Clinton. Stan Lee Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2001, long after it became apparent to Paul that Clinton wasn't going to join the company and, Paul alleges, had stolen one of Stan Lee Media's chief investors.

Paul writes off his convictions in the 1970s for cocaine possession and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million as part of an international anti-Castro effort gone wrong. He adds that the securities fraud plea that he agreed to cop in March 2005 was to get out of jail after 43 months in Brazilian and New York prisons. He still is awaiting sentencing on that plea despite being under house arrest since then.

As for the Rosen case, he calls that a farce aimed at getting a Clinton crony off the hook. The accompanying civil case, he said, also set a legal precedent Hillary Clinton later used to get out of being a defendant in his case against her and her husband.

"I am not the one-dimensional villain that I am portrayed to be, but I am the victim not only of the Clintons" but of their associates, who Paul says tried to steal his assets and wrap him up in a corrupt court system.

"Not only was the indictment and the trial (of Rosen) a scam, the judge ... turned it into a referendum on the credibility of Peter Paul," Paul said, also faulting the prosecutor for not objecting to Judge Howard Matz's characterization of Paul as a con man during his instructions to the jury.

"You conclude either that the prosecutor is incompetent or, worse, that the prosecutor is dogging the case."

Paul claims that while he has been prosecuted and marginalized by the Clintons, his video evidence proves his case against them — that the power couple defrauded him by falsely pledging the former president's post-White House services in exchange for footing the bill for all the gala's expenses.

That video documentation, however, may be worth only the revenue from copies sold. The California Court of Appeals last week upheld, 3-0, a lower court's ruling to excuse Hillary Clinton as a defendant in that suit. The court also noted that the new video isn't new evidence.

"In his motion to admit new evidence, Paul also seeks to admit the videotaped recording of the July 17, 2000, telephone call to demonstrate Senator Clinton had sufficient knowledge of Paul's business enterprises and the president's involvement with Paul such that it would not have been a 'fishing expedition' to depose her. While the recording itself may have only been recently obtained by Paul, the substance of the conference call is not new evidence," reads the ruling written by Judge P.J. Perluss.

Nonetheless, the conference call with then-first lady Clinton is among the most compelling moments in the new documentary. The video, taken in Paul's Beverly Hills office a month before the gala, shows on one end of a teleconference, Paul, Tonken and their business partner Alana Stewart, Rod Stewart's ex-wife. On the other end is Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can be heard saying: "Whatever it is you're doing, is it OK if I thank you? ... I am very appreciative and it sounds fabulous. I got a full report from Kelly (White House adviser Kelly Craighead) today when she got back and told me everything that you're doing and it just sounds like it's going to be a great event. But I just wanted to call and personally thank all of you. I'm glad you're all together so I could tell you how much this means to me, and it's going to mean a lot to the president, too."

Paul's attorney, Colette Wilson, argues that Clinton's conversation proves she was in violation of campaign finance rules preventing candidates from personally having a hand in coordinating fundraising events in excess of $25,000.

The appeals court's ruling to dismiss Hillary Clinton as a defendant is flawed because "my evidence showed that this gala was coordinated between the candidate and Peter Paul," Wilson said. "The whole basis of (Clinton's motion to dismiss) was her right to solicit campaign contributions, so she admitted" she knew about the gala planning.

Wilson said that the appeals court also erred when it cited the lower court's claim that they were on a "fishing expedition" by demanding to depose Clinton about her knowledge of the gala.

"I would attack that by saying that the case is defined as too broad [when it] is asking to take a lot of people's depositions. A fishing expedition means you don't have a clue whether the person has any evidence or not," she said.

But Wilson acknowledged that it's the court's discretion to admit new evidence or not.

"They don't have to allow it in. The cutoff is what was available during the lower court submission," she said.

Wilson contends that several of the videotapes, including the would-be smoking gun, weren't available to Paul because they were confiscated by the FBI when the securities fraud investigation began in 2001 and were withheld from Paul until April of this year, long after the lower court heard the case.

"They still have the originals," she noted, adding that the FBI sent the videos to a vendor to be copied and sent to Paul.

Wilson said she's not certain she wants to appeal for an en banc hearing of the entire appeals court or to ask the California Supreme Court to take the case because it could mean a delay of two years before they can return to the underlying case — the alleged fraud committed by the Clintons in pledging that Bill Clinton would work for Stan Lee Media.

Of that, Wilson and Paul claim to have plenty of evidence and still are able to depose Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

Paul said he also is prepared to keep open the case against the Clintons through other means. He is filing a new complaint with the FEC and is requesting that when Michael Mukasey is confirmed as U.S. attorney general, he investigate how the government could have prosecuted Rosen when authorities knew he did not commit a crime.

Cogan said he hopes the film also shines light on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

"Hillary can no longer feign ignorance in what went on here," he said. "I think she is absolutely an unthinkable commander in chief."



Gee I wonder why dems want to avoid Fox news... I would be curious to know how many bush documentaries were featured on the front pafe of Faux_news.com...

no fox is fair and balanced.... :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

This isn't news?

And, I believe it would have been hard for FoxNews.com to avoid the "Fake but Accurate" nonsense over President Bush's TANG service.

Have there been any documentaries on Bush?

Oh wait, I think They'd also have been hard pressed not to report on the controversy surrounding Farenheit 911, the Michael Moore offering.

I don't know, I don't watch FoxNews but, somehow, I doubt they buried those two stories when they were hot.

[Yonivore]

I searched "Bush Texas Air National Guard" on FoxNews.com and there were over 10 pages of story links returned. Much of the first page were FoxNews.com stories featuring Dan Rather defending his "fake but accurate" story on 60 minutes.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I searched "Bush Texas Air National Guard" on FoxNews.com and there were over 10 pages of story links returned. Much of the first page were FoxNews.com stories featuring Dan Rather defending his "fake but accurate" story on 60 minutes.


I will go out on a limb and assume most of those stories defended bush.. rather than questioning his service..

[Yonivore]

I will go out on a limb and assume most of those stories defended bush.. rather than questioning his service..
Okay...I would have no idea.

I don't see the Peter Paul story as being biased simply because it is a negative story about Hillary Clinton.

[TLWisfoine]

For wing-nuts the M$M is Rushbo, Insannity, FAUX News, and to a growing extent ABC News (what the fuck is up with John Stousel?!?) ....for everyone else, it's the corporate media and their propaganda... CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ...the only real liberal news is the BBC....

People who actually think that any of the MSM is liberal don't know what the hell liberalism is.

[Wild Cobra]

People who actually think that any of the MSM is liberal don't know what the hell liberalism is.
I think most people accept in the context of this conversation that liberal is left of center and conservative is right of center.

[TLWisfoine]

Considering that both sides claim that the MSM favors the other (and each can give opinions/facts to back that up) I think the real issue is that the media controls the info that we are given and does it's best to keep us distracted from government with entertainment stories and non-news crap. And I don't think it is the republicans doing it too keep the people under-informed. It benefits both parties for the general public to have the elections become dog and pony shows rather than about the issues. IF the democrats encouraged the media to make the american voter more critical of government and policies, then when a democrat was in the white house they wold face the same scrunity of the public. Instead, those who want to become educated on the issues have to do lots fo their own investigating and research, and while that is the way it should be, the vast majority of americans don't have the time/desire to do so and thus let the media decide for them what is important. That is more of a problem than trying to decide which political point of view the media slants towards (not to mention that is an argument with no right or wrong answer)

Great post!!! I doubt anyone here thinks much of it though as you don't take a side.

[TLWisfoine]

I think most people accept in the context of this conversation that liberal is left of center and conservative is right of center.

So just because they may put President Bush and his administration to task on many of the policies they put forth, and in my opinion the MSM doesn't this enough, makes them liberal? What you call liberalism I call having common sense.

[xrayzebra]

So just because they may put President Bush and his administration to task on many of the policies they put forth, and in my opinion the MSM doesn't this enough, makes them liberal? What you call liberalism I call having common sense.

Would kinda expect you to call it "common sense". But
that doesn't make it so. We still call it "liberalism".

Common sense reporting does only: Reports, who, how,
when and where. I and others are grown up and we can
figure things out for ourselves. And it means reporting
all the news not just what they want to report that looks
good for their side and bad for the other side.
Which is what most of the news does now days. Fox
comes closest to doing it, but they do lean right of
center.

One reason I like Rush, it cites both sides of the press.
Liberal and Conservative. He voices his views, but he
lets you know right up front which side he is on. You
wont find that in any other media.