Keep looking for media bias hard enough and I'm sure you guys will eventually find it. Just as before, now it's no longer enough for articles to identify the partisan identification of corrupt officials, now it has to be mentioned in a paragraph that is pleasing to the right wing.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll: This has been observed for a long time and is not something new. It's well known that many times if you do not see the party designation as Democrat you may have to look further down in the article. For you and any other people who wish to ignore the reality of the situation - fine - wallow in your own ignorance if you wish.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
*Pats CAD on the head*. There there dear crazed right wing hack. There there.
Isn't CAD cute when he tries to act like he knows something?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
lol, that's not my head.... Maybe if you removed your blinders you'd see what's going on and what you are patting....
1) Who observed it and when (that's called "evidence")
2) Among whom is it well known (that's called "being specific")
George Bush is a lizard. This has been observed for a long time and is not something new. It's well known.
You make yourself look like an idiot, as you usually do, when you attack your betters this way.
As for the 'substance' of your post, you don't prove a generalization with anecdoatl evidence as you tried to here.
I can prove that all Governors are corrupt, by naming Blagojavich, then.
But even using your cherry picked example, Spitzer, you're wrong:
MSNBC
The Republican Governors Association called on Spitzer, a Democrat, to resign to "allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership."
CNN
Los Angeles Times
NPR
Now, can you shut up for a while and show some shame?
Edit: credit where it's due that you pointed out Fern's example was wrong, at least.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Actually you're kind of proving CAD's point as per his post above. It's not that news outlets don't ever state the corrupt politician is a Dem, it's that you have to get to the middle of the article to find that out whereas a Republican is typically identified as such in the opening paragraph.
This isn't true of all media and it's not fair to just blanket-label all the MSM as having a 'liberal' bias. There are some outlets that play fair and simply report the news. Of the links you cited, I would put NPR and MSNBC in that category. I feel, from what I read of them that they are relatively fair in how they report the news. In some ways I'd even put MSNBC in the 'slightly conservative' category.
Case in point - From your links:
NPR called him a Dem right out of the gate.
MSNBC hit him as a Dem in 2.
But CNN and the LA Times are notorious for this kind of bahavior... Protecting Dems and liberal causes while slamming Reps and conservatives. They are what people complain about when they talk about a liberal bias in the media. Why do you think CNN was so often refered to as the Clinton News Network?
Again, from your links:
Your LA Times link took nine paragraphs to ID Spitzer as a Dem.
CNN didn't mention party affilliation until the very end of the article.
USA Today is another accused liberal media outlet. In the same story as reported in your other links, they fail to mention party affilliation until 10 paragraphs into the article... See, the idea is that MOST people read the headline, skim the first few paragraphs and move on.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2008-03-10-spitzer_n.htm
I'm sure even you can see why some people get upset at this, especially where there is an established pattern of this kind of favoritism. I pretty much knew, before I even clicked on your links, which links would call Spitz a Dem right away and which would avoid the tag. I was right. Why? Because a pattern of behavior has been established by the organizations you cited. You'd have to be blind to deny that there is a large, left-wing presence in the media.
Libruhl Media! Libruhl Media!
How lame. Let's face it, there are crimes, and then there are great crimes, monumental crimes that affect the lives of millions.
Lemme know when Dems come anywhere near the kind of criminality it took to invade Iraq, ladle out the pork to their pals, or when they sponsor a class warfare looting spree like we've seen over the last 8 years, and before that in the Reagan years...
"They're just as bad! They're just as bad!" It's like comparing Stalin to a garden variety murderer....
How lame. Let's face it, there are crimes, and then there are great crimes, monumental crimes that affect the lives of millions.
Lemme know when Dems come anywhere near the kind of criminality it took to invade Iraq, ladle out the pork to their pals, or when they sponsor a class warfare looting spree like we've seen over the last 8 years, and before that in the Reagan years...
"They're just as bad! They're just as bad!" It's like comparing Stalin to a garden variety murderer....
That deal with Black was kinda funny. Most folks in NC knew he was a Dem, anyway.
You have to wonder what he was thinking meeting a guy in a Waffle House to pass off a a bunch of checks in the bathroom :laugh:
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Yup... All politicians are in the same game.. The difference between reps and dems is on policy issues, not ethics. Both parties are corrupt to the core. =(
If I were to answer your question about your conclusion, and you are wrong, would you take any pause that you might lack judgement on policies, too, and shut the hell up a bit?
I usually don't discuss personal information like that because it seems to me to corrupt the discussion (appeals to authority and such), but I might make an exception if you'd agree.
First, I want to compliment you on the *tone* of your response, even while I disagree; you may have to hand in your wingnut card for admitting *any* 'conservative MSM' but Fox.
Having said that (or 'second', to justify the 'first' above), I'd like to mention a couple things.
First (I get a new first for this section), we're talking about, as I said, an amorphous issue difficult to discuss accurately, not suited to selected anecdotes for evidence.
Second, there is a psychological effect that when you are watching for something, you see it more. If I said "Japanese people drive badly", and you start checking to see if bad drivers do, you are likely to dismiss non-Japanese drivers but when you see one driving badly, for it to reinforce your expecation and lead you to overestimate their percentage among bad drivers. It's related to 'the big lie', whenyou hear something repeatedly, you tend to beleive it. This applies to 'the media is liberal', too.
Third, there are many factors as to the placement of the party having nothing to do with bias. They include how much it's common knowledge that the person is of that party (references to 'the mayor os San Francisco' leave little question as to the party of the person), whily unknown figures have more need to establish the party; the role party plays in the story matters, too. "Mayor charged with drunk driving" has little relevance to party, while "Mayor charged with illegal party contributions" has more party relevance.
Note that Spitzer involved something close to the drunk driving example - a purely personal scandal with hookers and not involving party.
A story about Rove or Obama's campaign manager on the others hand - they're all about being a Republican or Democratic political operative, respectively.
Fourth, as to your conclusion, you're just wrong, the kind of wrong that occurs from getting one-sided information, and the sort of biased monitoring I mentioned previously.
I'd ask you to read Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?", and then comment on the issue.
I'll post an excerpt here for you since you certainly won't immediately read it if at all:
Originally posted by: jonks
I guess if you ignore the first 12 words of your linked article...
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Before Monday, Eliot Spitzer was a rising star in the Democratic Party
Ahahahahaaha. Oops!
Now the 'librul media' conspiracy tards are going to complain that CNN didn't create a flash animation series to go along with it in order to illustrate his party affiliation.
The rightwing is desperate for a scapegoat, a distraction, anything- just so long as they don't have to look at the results of their own party being in power, just so long as they don't have to look at themselves and what they believe in so fervently and foolishly...
It's like battered wife syndrome.
It's like battered wife syndrome.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Republican scandal on the front page --> "OMG it's the culture of corruption, they HAVE to go!"
Democrat scandal on the front page --> "Let it go already, we all know both parties are corrupt."
Democrat scandal on the front page --> "Let it go already, we all know both parties are corrupt."
So they instead base it on corrupt the Republicans are and how Democrats are the better option... not helping your case here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter