Bias, lapdogs and the media's dying credibility.

[monovillage]

It's always nice to be reading Real Clear Politics and see a few opinion pieces that you agree with, especially when they're aimed at the biased establishment media. There are always going to be partisan fluffers that try to deny bias, but these media experts obviously don't agree.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...vid-axelrod-and-the-medias-dying-credibility/

David Axelrod and the media’s dying credibility

Reading NBC News’s announcement Tuesday that it was hiring David Axelrod, a top adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, as a “senior political analyst,” I had a sinking feeling in my stomach: No wonder the American public increasingly mistrusts the news media. We are obliterating the line between the political players and the people who are supposed to act as commentators and referees. .................

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/obama_obedient_lap_dog_DRQ1tuRbuWEfU5TZjI1hsN


Obama’s obedient lap dog

Yet WaWaWa went the wail when the White House press corps traveled to Florida and couldn’t get a staged picture of Obama playing golf with Tiger Woods. The First Duffer wouldn’t even reveal his score.

The outrage! The drama! How dare he treat us this way!

The answer is obvious. The media gave Obama the milk without making him buy the cow. It’s a little late to demand respect.

For more than four years, the fawning mainstream coverage of the president has been a national disgrace. The only standard was a double standard, and Obama accepted the adoration and demanded more. Never lacking in self-reverence, he came to believe that he can arbitrarily set the terms of news coverage, and cleverly uses carrots and sticks to get his way.

He doles out interviews and chances to ask questions at news conferences to organizations whose coverage flatters him and promotes his agenda. Critical coverage is met with punishment in the form of complaints and being frozen out. To judge from the results, a cold shoulder from the president spurs more fawning!

Just yesterday, with Congress in recess, Obama emerged to demand that Congress stop looming budget cuts. Never was it mentioned that the automatic plan, known as sequester, was his idea and he signed it into law. Now he calls it a “meat cleaver” and wants Congress to reverse course — and pass even more tax hikes, of course.

He was rewarded with front-page stories across the Web that, to the uninformed, made him look like a leader on a key issue. As The New York Times put it, “Obama Turns up the Pressure for a Deal on Budget Cuts.”

Next time, the paper should just send a stenographer.

......................................................As if to taunt the frustrated wretches, the president repeatedly proclaims that his administration “is the most transparent in history.”

It’s hubris wrapped in a lie, but it serves to distract from a far more important angle than the dispute over mere access. Too many news organizations are shockingly uncurious about Obama’s second- term agenda. They apparently don’t want to know, and certainly don’t think the public does, either.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/02/19/liberal-bias-central-to-obama-media-edge/

Liberal Bias Central to Obama Media Edge

Politico writers Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen are on to something with their feature published today about President Obama’s mastery of the mainstream media. Their conclusion that the president and his staff have broken new ground in manipulating journalists and shaping favorable coverage of the administration is so obvious that it is almost inarguable. As I have argued several times over the past four years, no president since John F. Kennedy has enjoyed the sort of advantage or lack of serious scrutiny that the president has received. Vandehei and Allen are right when they point out that the calculated leaks and softball interviews combined with a command of social media and other methods that limit press access have combined to build the Obama juggernaut that won him re-election as well as give him an edge in any battle with Congress.

Yet Vandehei and Allen’s insistence that this has nothing to do with the conservative belief that “a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated” ignores some of the same facts that they amass in discussing the way the president has played the “puppet master” with the media. No matter how smart the strategies employed by the White House, the president’s ability to skate through four years without getting seriously challenged by the mainstream media would not have been possible if most of those being played were not willing accomplices. Due credit must be given to the administration’s ability to take advantage of technology as well as their brilliant if unscrupulous game playing with journalists. But without the liberal bias of most of the mainstream outlets that let the president play them like a piano, he would come across as a bully and a demagogue rather than the reasonable nice guy seen in those “60 Minutes” interviews he loves to give.

It seems there are some reporters and pundits that have a bit of buyers remorse after doing what they could to get Obama re-elected.

 

[OverVolt]

I watch it to make fun of it. No joke. Its legit a good laugh. Just about every single news segment has some kind of push behind it. Its so obvious now they should feel embarrassed.

 

[monovillage]

I watch it to make fun of it. No joke. Its legit a good laugh. Just about every single news segment has some kind of push behind it. Its so obvious now they should feel embarrassed.

I've been watching for over 40 years and it seems to get worse and worse, or more and more biased as the years go by.

 

[Farang]

The media is not biased because they refuse to regurgitate GOP talking points. For example, the sequester. The notion it was ' all Obama's idea' is laughable, he wanted a clean increase in the debt ceiling. Whatever came out of the August 2011 negotiations was a result of Republicans taking the country hostage and sending the stock markets into a nosedive.

 

[monovillage]

The media is not biased because they refuse to regurgitate GOP talking points. For example, the sequester. The notion it was ' all Obama's idea' is laughable, he wanted a clean increase in the debt ceiling. Whatever came out of the August 2011 negotiations was a result of Republicans taking the country hostage and sending the stock markets into a nosedive.

You need to re-read the lapdog article.

 

[Farang]

I did read it. It has nothing to do with liberal bias. It explains why the administration is so effective in getting its message across. Actually it refutes the notion that the media is culpable for this effectiveness.

 

[Farang]

I apologize I was referring to the POLITICO piece. The lapdog piece was more opinion than fact

 

[monovillage]

I did read it. It has nothing to do with liberal bias. It explains why the administration is so effective in getting its message across. Actually it refutes the notion that the media is culpable for this effectiveness.

He's been very effective at manipulating the media. A media that is ready, willing, able and eager to be manipulated by the Democrats and to show Democrats in the most positive light and Republicans/conservatives/Libertarians in the most negative light possible.

It's called bias.

 

[Farang]

Ok.. I've just never seen a lot of hard evidence to back it up ( bias claims). Usually it's stuff like why won't they go along with our phony coverup story about Benghazi, or some talking point that is factually incorrect. For example the piece you cited, it would be intellectually dishonest to say the sequester is something Obama wanted and to insinuate he is now changing his mind and trying to blame Republicans for it. That austerity package was a capitulation to Republican austerity efforts during August 2011. It's like saying House Republicans wanted to increase taxes during the debt ceiling, because it happened.

So basically the author is complaining the media is not a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. I'd rather they continue to stick to facts

 

[monovillage]

Ok.. I've just never seen a lot of hard evidence to back it up ( bias claims). Usually it's stuff like why won't they go along with our phony coverup story about Benghazi, or some talking point that is factually incorrect. For example the piece you cited, it would be intellectually dishonest to say the sequester is something Obama wanted and to insinuate he is now changing his mind and trying to blame Republicans for it. That austerity package was a capitulation to Republican austerity efforts during August 2011. It's like saying House Republicans wanted to increase taxes during the debt ceiling, because it happened.

So basically the author is complaining the media is not a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. I'd rather they continue to stick to facts

It's obvious that even the media people involved feel that they've gone too far in giving Obama and the Democrats too favorable of coverage.

From the lapdog link.

There was a time not long ago when journalists believed their mission was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It was a rough formula, but also formed the basis of a consistent standard that helped build trust with the public and wary respect from politicians of all persuasions.

Those days are gone. Now most journalists are neither trusted by the public nor respected by the pols. Count that as another legacy of the Age of Obama.

The press has let the American public down, this country needs them to be as open, honest and brutal with Democrats as they are with Republicans. The nation suffers when the free press doesn't do their jobs.

 

[Farang]

Those are statements of opinion, not substantiated with facts. It's just a very hallow argument. I'd be glad to hear a substantial argument why he believes that is the case, but not really impressed that his main complaint, again, is not buying debt limit crisis spin

 

[irishScott]

I'd say the larger problem is the bleed-over from media to entertainment.

Back before ratings/cable, it was typically enough to just report the news and be done with it. Then ratings came along, and started determining ad revenue. Then media conglomerates figured out that if they offered more entertaining/engaging coverage, as opposed to just dry news, they'd make more money. So, like any business, they endeavored to make more money and are continuing to do so.

 

[michal1980]

The liberals will deny there's a bias in the media, just like Lance Armstrong denied he took steroids and blood doped for years.

But just like Lanced doped, the MSM is in the can for liberals. No one in the MSM will admit it, or even look at it, and anyone and everyone that tries to, will be destroyed/discredited by the MSM, just like Lance destroyed anyone that tried to tell the truth.

 

[ivwshane]

The liberals will deny there's a bias in the media, just like Lance Armstrong denied he took steroids and blood doped for years.

But just like Lanced doped, the MSM is in the can for liberals. No one in the MSM will admit it, or even look at it, and anyone and everyone that tries to, will be destroyed/discredited by the MSM, just like Lance destroyed anyone that tried to tell the truth.

If Fox News has, on average, more viewers than CNN and msnbc combined doesn't that make Fox News the mainstream media?

http://press.foxnews.com/2012/01/fox-news-channel-marks-decade-as-the-number-one-cable-news-network/

 

[Double Trouble]

Anyone who's willing to be even remotely objective in their views can acknowledge that most of the media is left leaning and overly supportive of the president and his political agenda. That said, the charge of media bias is also often used when conservatives do stupid things and the media calls them out on it.

I do think the nature of journalism has changed significantly over the past 15 years. The role of media as sort of an independent arbitrator and presenter of news is quickly vanishing and being replaced by media as an echo chamber for a particular political ideology. Fox is simply the echo chamber for those who hole conservative views, as CNN, MSNBC et al are echo chambers for those who hold liberal views.

There are precious few examples of objective journalism and journalistic integrity left.

 

[Double Trouble]

If Fox News has, on average, more viewers than CNN and msnbc combined doesn't that make Fox News the mainstream media?

http://press.foxnews.com/2012/01/fox-news-channel-marks-decade-as-the-number-one-cable-news-network/

No it doesn't. FN might have more than cnn and msnbc, but it doesn't have a majority of the overall media market. While it has good ratings compared to other individual outlets, it still represents a small part of the overall media world.

 

[Farang]

Anyone who's willing to be even remotely objective in their views can acknowledge that most of the media is left leaning and overly supportive of the president and his political agenda. That said, the charge of media bias is also often used when conservatives do stupid things and the media calls them out on it.

I do think the nature of journalism has changed significantly over the past 15 years. The role of media as sort of an independent arbitrator and presenter of news is quickly vanishing and being replaced by media as an echo chamber for a particular political ideology. Fox is simply the echo chamber for those who hole conservative views, as CNN, MSNBC et al are echo chambers for those who hold liberal views.

There are precious few examples of objective journalism and journalistic integrity left.

I reject this premise that the media is liberal. There was a really, really good piece written recently about one of the major newspapers editorial pages contradicting itself numerous times over the last few months. Because as the sequestrian fight continues, they are determined to maintain a "middle ground" position even as the ground shifts beneath them. The author basically pointed out numerous times where they said 'Obama should do this' and then later said 'Obama shouldn't do this, it's extreme, etc.'

Basically the media's reaction to confrontation is to try to be in the middle and say both parties are equally responsible.

The problem is you can easily shift ground over time if you become more extreme.

This country has gone far rightward the past 40 years because of this. Obama is, in terms of policy, in many ways basically Richard Nixon. But because the media must always play middleman referee they've been moved far to the right as well, or at least not willing to call out extremism

 

[michal1980]

I reject this premise that the media is liberal. There was a really, really good piece written recently about one of the major newspapers editorial pages contradicting itself numerous times over the last few months. Because as the sequestrian fight continues, they are determined to maintain a "middle ground" position even as the ground shifts beneath them. The author basically pointed out numerous times where they said 'Obama should do this' and then later said 'Obama shouldn't do this, it's extreme, etc.'

Basically the media's reaction to confrontation is to try to be in the middle and say both parties are equally responsible.

The problem is you can easily shift ground over time if you become more extreme.

This country has gone far rightward the past 40 years because of this. Obama is, in terms of policy, in many ways basically Richard Nixon. But because the media must always play middleman referee they've been moved far to the right as well, or at least not willing to call out extremism

Ok there Lance, we believe you, if you say you never took roids, you didn't.

 

[waggy]

of course there is media bias. anyone that says diffrently is being dishonest.

though i do not care all obama's fired workers go to msnbc. really i don't think its going to change how msnbc tells a story.

they are the total flip side of fox.

 

[zsdersw]

So, the point is that the media should have a clearly conservative/Republican bias.. and that will make everything OK?

 

[soulcougher73]

Did you ever think their just isnt as much bad stuff to talk about with Dems as their is with GOP? Maybe its not bias, but facts

Only semi serious. Of course their is bias on both sides by different news networks.

 

[Ausm]

The liberals will deny there's a bias in the media, just like Lance Armstrong denied he took steroids and blood doped for years.

But just like Lanced doped, the MSM is in the can for liberals. No one in the MSM will admit it, or even look at it, and anyone and everyone that tries to, will be destroyed/discredited by the MSM, just like Lance destroyed anyone that tried to tell the truth.

<---This one doesn't because the bias is clearly slanted toward the Conservative side.

 

[Ausm]

Did you ever think their just isnt as much bad stuff to talk about with Dems as their is with GOP? Maybe its not bias, but facts

Only semi serious. Of course their is bias on both sides by different news networks.

That's why they are getting their asses handed to them Election after Election...it's because their policies suck ASS.

 

[waggy]

<---This one doesn't because the bias is clearly slanted toward the Conservative side.

pfft. it slants in all directions. depends on the station.

 

[OrByte]

quit making the media a scape goat