Flashback: AP Slammed Bush's Extravagant Inaugural

[theeedude]

I don't have those. Plus they don't apply to Obama anyways

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's hear what Walter Cronkite had to say about liberal reporters

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal

And here are some other members of the media admitting to their bias.

"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."
-- CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."
-- Walter Cronkite at the Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias."
-- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

The only people who don't see the MSM as having a liberal bias are people who are liberals.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Which is funny to say considering how much more open Obama has already been to the press than Bush ever was.

As for the idea of taking a single article from a single source about Bush's second inauguration, trying to compare it to one that is historic by any person's standards, and declare the 'librul media' myth yet again... is once again stupid.

It's amazing considering how much time so many people spend trying to find examples of the 'librul media' that things like this are the best they can come up with. Must be the librul internet erasing all the evidence.

Obama open??? WTF are you thinking??

The press has complained about him for months.

There have been quite a bit of stories about how Obama treats the press and the press isn't happy about it. Seems the problem spring from the fact that Obama is not used to the 24/7 media glare and is having a hard time adjusting to it.

I'm thinking about reality. Bush has held 40-odd press conferences in 8 years. Obama has already had quite a few and he isn't even in office yet. At this rate he will probably triple or quadruple the accessibility to the press that Bush gave.

Why, WTF are you thinking?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let's hear what Walter Cronkite had to say about liberal reporters

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal

And here are some other members of the media admitting to their bias.

"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."
-- CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."
-- Walter Cronkite at the Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias."
-- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

The only people who don't see the MSM as having a liberal bias are people who are liberals.

That and all the people who have done scientific analysis of media bias. But hey, what does 'librul science' know?

We've been over this before, you've been proven wrong through objective academic and meta-analysis. I'm sorry that you don't want to admit it, but parroting 'librul media' over and over again won't make it any more true.

 

[Zebo]

I too remember a big brouhaha about Bush pricey inaugural but not a peep about Obama's.... It's actually worse times now, economically - so I question the press not drawing attention to it. From comments here, Democrats are as bad as Republicans about looking though partisan glasses it seems.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let's hear what Walter Cronkite had to say about liberal reporters

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal

And here are some other members of the media admitting to their bias.

"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."
-- CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."
-- Walter Cronkite at the Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias."
-- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

The only people who don't see the MSM as having a liberal bias are people who are liberals.

You still rambling on about this? I mean the country has just trounced conservatives out of power, and all you have to cling on to is bashing the media? Not some self reflection, not retuning message and philosophy, nope, bashing media, bashing Obama.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I too remember a big brouhaha about Bush pricey inaugural but not a peep about Obama's.... It's actually worse times now, economically - so I question the press not drawing attention to it. From comments here, Democrats are as bad as Republicans about looking though partisan glasses it seems.

I thought conservatives believed in trickle down economics. Here is Obama throwing an inauguration party that is going to employ and feed thousands of contractors at a time when such jobs are desperately needed, and you guys are b!tching and moaning about it.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
So you can't even acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy?

Fern

I most certainly can, and you can definitely acknowledge how absurd a conclusion is being drawn from the two, right?

Well, I'm glad you can.

If this were the only thing such a conclusion is based on I would. If I understand the OP correctly, this is just another example of what he sees as bias. Collectively, examples such as this carry far more weight than any one isolated incident.

Fern

If you really want me to go collecting cases of conservative bias in the media I will, but we all know how many of those there are as well. An astute observer would look at the totality of American media, not just incidents that confirm their worldview.

The myth of the librul media is laughable when you actually look at it from an objective standpoint.

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am not 'bashing' the liberal media, I am just pointing out that they are what they are and to deny it is pretty sad.

Was it a writer for the NY Times or LA Time who came out post election and admitted that his paper was heavily biased toward Obama is the election?
Hell, even SNL was making jokes about heavily biased the media was in Obama's favor.

Finally... David Brinkley on liberal media bias
'"Well, it's there and it doesn't show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there, and I think we're all used to it, we discount it. Some of the press also is more conservative and it's just the way the action is in this country and I don't know any way to change it. You just have to live with it."'

So Walter Cronkite AND David Brinkley both admit to liberal media bias. I think I'll take the opinion of the two most prominent TV reporters of the past 40 years over the opinion of a poster to P&N.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Actually, there are many studies confirming in measurable objective ways that in general the media is liberal, so no, that's not "laughable". For example, it's a simple fact that more people in the general media are registered democrats than republicans. Linky. The laughable part is that liberals can't even see it. As a conservative, I can still be objective enough to see when a source is biased towards the conservative view, but apparently liberals cannot see bias towards liberal ideas. Heck, even NPR did a story showing how Obama got the vast majority of media coverage time versus McCain, and that the coverage towards Obama (when broken down as "negative", "neutral" or "positive") was much more positive. I don't believe in some vast liberal media conspiracy, but anyone who doesn't see how the majority of media outlets lean to the left is delusional.

OP, yes, it is clear hypocrisy, and I'm sure we'll see much much much more of it over the next few years. When Obama does something the exact same way as Bush, he'll be praised for it while Bush got trashed.

Members of the media voting does not equal reporting by the media being biased. Basic attribution error there.

I have linked numerous studies on numerous different occasions studying alleged media bias. If you are interested, use the search function and read up about it yourself.

As far as Obama and McCain go, you act as if both sides were equally deserving of media coverage and equally deserving of positive media coverage. You have on one hand a historic black candidate, funded by a legion of enthusiastic followers, running an extremely well oiled campaign that is leading for the vast majority of the time with a largely positive message, from the party that most Americans polled stated they wanted to win. On the other hand you have an elderly candidate from a deeply unpopular national party running a disjointed, highly negative campaign that is reliant upon increasingly outrageous ads and hyperbolic personal attacks, while nominating possibly the worst VP candidate since that guy who underwent electroshock therapy. Gee, I have no idea why one candidate would get more positive coverage than the other.

The only mark of a truly biased (and insane) media would have been to treat both of them equally.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not 'bashing' the liberal media, I am just pointing out that they are what they are and to deny it is pretty sad.

Was it a writer for the NY Times or LA Time who came out post election and admitted that his paper was heavily biased toward Obama is the election?
Hell, even SNL was making jokes about heavily biased the media was in Obama's favor.

Finally... David Brinkley on liberal media bias
'"Well, it's there and it doesn't show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there, and I think we're all used to it, we discount it. Some of the press also is more conservative and it's just the way the action is in this country and I don't know any way to change it. You just have to live with it."'

So Walter Cronkite AND David Brinkley both admit to liberal media bias. I think I'll take the opinion of the two most prominent TV reporters of the past 40 years over the opinion of a poster to P&N.

I don't care what you think you're doing. I'll take... you know... scientific analysis. Media bias is not the examination of individual sources, it is the examination of the media as a whole. For each NYT there is a New York Post, and a WSJ. For every Fox News there is (unfortunately) an MSNBC. You can deny the results of objective science all day if you want, it won't make you any more right. The modern US ultra right viewpoint is reliant upon a sense of persecution in order to justify their world view, and this helps you get there.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Zebo
I too remember a big brouhaha about Bush pricey inaugural but not a peep about Obama's.... It's actually worse times now, economically - so I question the press not drawing attention to it. From comments here, Democrats are as bad as Republicans about looking though partisan glasses it seems.

I thought conservatives believed in trickle down economics. Here is Obama throwing an inauguration party that is going to employ and feed thousands of contractors at a time when such jobs are desperately needed, and you guys are b!tching and moaning about it.

Heh - I'm no conservative. Economically I'm socialist which constitution allows for Art1 sec8, socially I'm libertarian. Anyway you have trickle down confused - the rights assertion is that you let Joe billionaire keep all his money and he's sure, someday, to spend it on the rabble. It's a myth all they do is improve their market position to make even more and weaken everyone else's market position. Here Obama is actually spending the money.

 

[umbrella39]

Ah, I see the one-liner crew is at it again, pushing the fringe further and further into the corner and away from reality... before the race has even begun :roll:

The next 8 years should be fun. I should be enjoying this more than I am, though. It isn't fun to watch insane people repeat the same mistakes over and over all while expecting different outcomes. It's already way boring. There is no medication for their disease sadly. The only way they ever change is when the dementia sets in.

 

[NeoV]

gee, I can't think of any reasons why coverage of Obama was more positive than coverage of McCain was during this campaign, since they both made so few mistakes....err...wait a second - McCain's campaign was a literal comedy of errors - hence more negative coverage - PERIOD

Here's the media situation in a nutshell - conservatives are more likely to watch conservatively spun news - aka Fox News. Liberal people, on the other hand, are more likely to watch liberal-leaning news shows, like Olberman - middle of the road folks probably make their viewing choice based on other factors, like which anchors they like better - it's really that simple.

As for the radio - there certainly is no liberal lean in that segment, it's dominated by conservatives. Newspapers - a mixed bag really.

Bottom line - if this vast 'liberal media bias' was real, liberal candidates would rarely lose major elections. Voters in this country - who aren't predetermined on who they are going to vote for - for the most part believe what they read and hear from the news.

Funny how the whole issue wasn't discussed nearly as much when Bush was winning two elections.

Obama's presidency is a touch more historic than Bush's 2nd term - don't you think? While I agree that a huge cost for this event is somewhat out of touch, comparing the two without any consideration for what else is or was going on is overly simplistic too.

 

[MikeMike]

ive never seen people who are more self centered, wont listen, and dont give a rats ass about the other side than i do on this forum...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ive never seen people who are more self centered, wont listen, and dont give a rats ass about the other side than i do on this forum...

Your post is self centered and adds nothing to the topic at hand.....


/offer something or stay out...

 

[DaveSimmons]

The media is generally biased left of center, but this is a bad example to try to prove it.

GWB was the 43rd white boy in a row to get (re)elected, and there was nothing special about his ceremony besides the cost.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ive never seen people who are more self centered, wont listen, and dont give a rats ass about the other side than i do on this forum...

Your post is self centered and adds nothing to the topic at hand.....


/offer something or stay out...

stfu...

i would offer something, but 95% of this forum would either A ignore it, or B completely say no no no, say something about how something disproves my view, but then they wont link to it, ever, and then they will never even think about it from a different perspective... and the 5% who actually would look at what i said, think about it, and then either research my view, or offer their own opinion with counter points to mine, while at the same time offering links to sources where they are basing their views off of, already are smarter than I and I dont want to bother them.

 

[abaez]

I'm not sure how reporting the opinions of "fashionistas" and "fashion directors" have anything to do with anything. Does anyone think that they would say anything different than to be as extravagant as possible? Would they say anything otherwise for any type of party or celebration, inauguration or not?

I'm curious to think what other members of congress think like the older article quoted - not what some fashionista says

 

[sammyunltd]

Fail. A US dollar in 2005 is/was worth more than an actual 2009 USD. So $40M of 2005 USD is worth more than $45M 2009 USD.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Fail. A US dollar in 2005 is/was worth more than an actual 2009 USD. So $40M of 2005 USD is worth more than $45M 2009 USD.

So lets say Obama's inauguration will cost $160 million ... how much is that in 2005 dollars?

 

[Strk]

MRC is such a joke. Any of these "bias-finding" websites are usually more biased than the things they claim are biased. From what little they actually provided from the original article, it seems far-stretched to call it slammed.

I'm also getting annoyed how you keep having these same sites claim bias by using op-eds. Op-eds aren't news.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Fail. A US dollar in 2005 is/was worth more than an actual 2009 USD. So $40M of 2005 USD is worth more than $45M 2009 USD.

So lets say Obama's inauguration will cost $160 million ... how much is that in 2005 dollars?

I don't know why I respond.

First of all the private spending:
Bush : $42.3 million
Obama: $45 million
Bush costs more in net present value dollars.

Tax payer money:
Obama: $49
Bush: It claims that Obama's tax payer input is 3 times as much as Bush's 2001. CLEARLY since the biased article didn't list Bush's 2005 tax payer input it is significantly higher than his 2001 input. It's so easy to infer this from the article.

Transportation request from DC transit:
Obama: $75 million
Bush: doesn't list it.

So for transportation it's Obama's fault so many people want to come? Should the government shut the borders of DC and inact martial law to save transportation cost?

To be honest I love bias articles they are fun to pick apart and laugh at.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Which is funny to say considering how much more open Obama has already been to the press than Bush ever was.

Obama open??? WTF are you thinking??

The press has complained about him for months.

There have been quite a bit of stories about how Obama treats the press and the press isn't happy about it. Seems the problem spring from the fact that Obama is not used to the 24/7 media glare and is having a hard time adjusting to it.

I'm thinking about reality. Bush has held 40-odd press conferences in 8 years. Obama has already had quite a few and he isn't even in office yet. At this rate he will probably triple or quadruple the accessibility to the press that Bush gave.

Why, WTF are you thinking?

no diggity.

And Obama needs to adjust because he's "not used to the 24/7 media glare"? You mean other than the past 14 or so months of round-the-clock coverage from every media outlet? How you can type that out and not collapse in a fit of giggles is beyond me.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Fail. A US dollar in 2005 is/was worth more than an actual 2009 USD. So $40M of 2005 USD is worth more than $45M 2009 USD.

So lets say Obama's inauguration will cost $160 million ... how much is that in 2005 dollars?

I don't know why I respond.

First of all the private spending:
Bush : $42.3 million
Obama: $45 million
Bush costs more in net present value dollars.

Tax payer money:
Obama: $49
Bush: It claims that Obama's tax payer input is 3 times as much as Bush's 2001. CLEARLY since the biased article didn't list Bush's 2005 tax payer input it is significantly higher than his 2001 input. It's so easy to infer this from the article.

Transportation request from DC transit:
Obama: $75 million
Bush: doesn't list it.

So for transportation it's Obama's fault so many people want to come? Should the government shut the borders of DC and inact martial law to save transportation cost?

To be honest I love bias articles they are fun to pick apart and laugh at.

If you think this is hilarious, wait until he actually TAKES OFFICE. I can't even speculate what kind of weekly "scandal" will be dredged up, because I'm not nearly as creative as the right-wing slime machine. I'm sure we'll hear about his outrageous dry cleaning bill or whatever at some point.