If 'The Media' Dislike Hillary, How Do They Feel About Those ----- Republicans?

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This article includes some of the best examples of media bias I have ever seen.

Clinton fulfills campaign promises while Bush panders to his base.

And the media love affair with Obama is a major problem.
If it wasn't for Hillary dragging the primary campaign into June we would still be looking at Obama the messiah who can't do anything wrong.

We are on track to elect the least qualified and least experienced President in decades, that can't be a good thing.
link
"I was struck when I got to Iowa and New Hampshire in January," said Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief of the liberal Web site Salon.com, "by how our media colleagues were just swooning over Barack Obama. That is not too strong a word. They were swooning. ? The downside, though, is that they hate ? hate Hillary Clinton, most of them. Hate is not too strong a word."

What, media bias in favor of Obama, a leftist Democrat? Yet the same left-leaning media "hates" Hillary Clinton? Really? How about a little evidence?

From January 2007 through May 2007, Harvard, along with the Project for Excellence in Journalism (part of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press), examined 1,742 presidential campaign stories. The stories appeared in 48 print, online, network TV, cable and radio news outlets. Their conclusion?

"Obama's front page coverage," said the study, "was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative." For Republicans, however, only 25 percent of the stories had a positive tone, and 40 percent were negative. As for network TV newscasts, Democrats were positively portrayed more than twice as often as they were negatively. For Republicans, however, fewer than 20 percent of the stories were positive, with a negative tone twice as often.

May I offer some examples from my files?

Dan Rather, CBS News, Jan. 22, 1993, reporting on the first working day of Bill Clinton's presidency: "On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Clinton fulfills a promise (emphasis added), supporting abortion rights. It was 20 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark abortion rights ruling, and the controversy hasn't stopped since. Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years."

Dan Rather, CBS News, Jan. 22, 2001, reporting on the first working day of George W. Bush's presidency: "This was President Bush's first day at the office, and he did something to quickly please the right flank in his party (emphasis added): He reinstituted an anti-abortion policy that had been in place during his father's term and the Reagan presidency but was lifted during the Clinton years."

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, Jan. 22, 1993, reporting on the first working day of Clinton's presidency: "Today President Clinton kept a campaign promise (emphasis added), and it came on the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion."

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, Jan. 22, 2001, reporting on the first working day of Bush's presidency: "We'll begin with the new president's very active day, which started on a controversial (emphasis added) note."

Peter Jennings, ABC News, Jan. 22, 1993, reporting on the first working day of Clinton's presidency: "President Clinton keeps his word (emphasis added) on abortion rights. President Clinton kept a promise today on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors."

Peter Jennings, ABC News, Jan. 22, 2001, reporting on the first working day of Bush's presidency: "One of the president's first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives (emphasis added). The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era policy that prohibited federal funding of family-planning groups that provided abortion-counseling services overseas."

And how about this for sheer gall?

The New York Times, Dec. 30, 2001, editorialized on Rudy Giuliani's waning reign as mayor of New York City: "It would be easy to go on about the things Mr. Giuliani failed to do ? New York City has so many problems and crises and needs that all mayors leave office with far more losses than wins. The most its residents can expect of a mayor is that he ? or someday she ? accomplish one big thing. ? When measured in that way, Mr. Giuliani more than did the job. He restored New Yorkers' confidence in their ability to control the city's destiny. The long years he spent fighting crime and disorder became the platform from which he showed us how to fight terrorism and Osama bin Laden."

The New York Times, Jan. 25, 2008, re-editorialized the tenure as mayor of the then-presidential candidate: "The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square. Mr. Giuliani's arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn't share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges."

Any questions?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Least qualified? That's certainly debatable.

Least experienced? Well, there are two things to say about that. First, experience is worthless unless you have truly learned from it and can apply it properly for the greater good. There are ridiculous numbers of people out there with experience in one field or another who are incapable of using it right. Second, if Obama is elected, he will not be the first young president to take the throne and do a good job. Only time will tell.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,224
659
126
Is it just me, or is this just a rehash of the same crap PJ and co. have been spewing for years on this forum? These quotes are quite old, nothing new here to say the least.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Maybe the media is trying to atone for its sins with giving a free pass to Dubya on Iraq.
 

hellod9

Senior member
Sep 16, 2007
249
0
0
I'll tell you what...the republicans that I've seen usually are twice as nasty as their democratic counterparts. Hence twice the negative coverage. For example, the state rep. in Ohio that I went to see speak. One of his main points was that people who earn minimum wage are generally lazy, stupid, and barely even worth anything anyways. He was more blatant than most republicans...but that same current of disrespect seems to run through the whole party. .

After living in ohio for two years and seeing what kind of people the Republican Party whole-heartedly includes...I have grown to be pretty much digusted by that entire party...and am not surprised how negative so many of the articles are about them. You gotta report the facts ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,224
659
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

I know you didn't quote me or anything, but I'd just like to clarify that my earlier statement wasn't to say that there isn't a left leaning bias from certain media sources - it was more to point out that this has been debated ad nauseum here and is just more PJ trolling.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

I don't think anyone here will claim that the media in general is not biased. They are always biased despite which side they happen to lean towards this month or the next. It goes way beyond politics. How one reads and interprets the news is very important. I'd say that it is more important than how that news is actually reported.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

I don't think anyone here will claim that the media in general is not biased. They are always biased despite which side they happen to lean towards this month or the next. It goes way beyond politics. How one reads and interprets the news is very important. I'd say that it is more important than how that news is actually reported.

what he said.

I think media is biased when it comes to MONEY. All cable news has its viewership, all written media has it's readership.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Five years ago, everywhere I looked in the media I saw a gigantic right-wing bias. Despite this I heard nothing but bitching from conservatives about the liberal bias in media. They would say this if the media didn't portray everything Bush said as the next gospel and the most brilliant thing ever. So, now that it's so beyond obvious the incompetent fuck-up GWB is, the media is switching.

The media tends to take something and glorify and make a huge huge deal out of it. The reasons the media glorifies Obama isn't because of a bias, it's because the public views him highly favorably right now and so glorifying him sells! Same reason Republicans are being villified in the media. Anyone with association to the most hated and incompetent president ever are gonna be ripped apart. And McCain is just spewing most of the same rhetoric Bush has been.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Umm... The New York Times isn't allowed to run editorials with different slants? Do you even know what an editorial is? Were both editorials written by the same author? If so, maybe he changed his/her mind about Giuliani. If not, maybe the two authors never agreed about Giuliani. If the NYT runs an editorial with an obvious bias to the right, should they never be allowed to run an editorial with an obvious bias to the left? What a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid argument.

As for the conflicting news reports, I can see how this could be indicative of media bias. The problems inherent in the study seem fairly obvious though. First, you are comparing two disparate time periods. Compare any news broadcast from 1993 to 2001 and I think you'll see a markedly different tone. News reporting has constantly been changing to be faster and harsher, with more focus on action and conflict; I imagine that more reporting in 2001 was negative across the board (though I haven't personally done any studies to verify this, I did read similar findings through my communications classes in college).
Second, the reporting makes it sound as though Clinton campaigned heavily on rolling back abortion restrictions, while Bush did not campaign heavily on reinstating them. Is this true? I'm too young to remember either campaign, but if one candidate pledges to do something throughout the entirety of their campaign and then does it, it makes sense that it would be reported as following through on his/her pledge. If a candidate didn't campaign on an issue at all, save to a small faction of extreme (right or left) wing voters, and then does it, it would be seen as pandering to a small group. Did Bush campaign heavily against abortion?
Third, those "negative" comments don't really strike me as negative; are you honestly going to claim that limiting abortion isn't a controversial issue that appeals to anti-abortion conservatives? You'll notice the word controversy also comes up when discussing Clinton's action; how come it isn't highlighted there? That makes it seem as though the researchers went in with a foregone conclusion and merely looked for data that supported their hypothesis; that's not good research.

And why is it that new Presidents always tackle abortion on the first day?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Least qualified:
1. Only held national office for 4 years, half of which he has spent campaigning to be President.

2. Never been an executive at ANY level. The only thing he has ever actually ran is the Harvard law review, not exactly a warm up to be President.

3. The last two 'lightly' experienced President were Carter and Bush 43, and we all know how well they turned out.

4. On the flip side, Reagan was a two term governor who had been a national figure for nearly 20 years and Clinton was governor for 13 years.

The fact that Reagan and Clinton are viewed at the two most successful recent Presidents and Carter and Bush are the two worst shouldn't be dismissed.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Least qualified:
1. Only held national office for 4 years, half of which he has spent campaigning to be President.

2. Never been an executive at ANY level. The only thing he has ever actually ran is the Harvard law review, not exactly a warm up to be President.

3. The last two 'lightly' experienced President were Carter and Bush 43, and we all know how well they turned out.

4. On the flip side, Reagan was a two term governor who had been a national figure for nearly 20 years and Clinton was governor for 13 years.

The fact that Reagan and Clinton are viewed at the two most successful recent Presidents and Carter and Bush are the two worst shouldn't be dismissed.

So what you mention above are qualifications to be president?

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,110
53,493
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

PJ literally took a singular pair of incidents (abortion decisions) and decided this meant some sort of media bias. Did you ever think that maybe these newscasts were actually all just getting their information from the same AP wire story or something? NO IT MUST BE THE LIBURL CONSPIRACY.

As for the media swooning over Obama, they certainly do. They swoon no less over John McCain, the guy who calls the media 'his base'. God people, what world do you live in?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and then PJ starts quoting EDITORIALS as an example of bias? Of course they are biased! Do you even know what an editorial is?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Least qualified:
1. Only held national office for 4 years, half of which he has spent campaigning to be President.

2. Never been an executive at ANY level. The only thing he has ever actually ran is the Harvard law review, not exactly a warm up to be President.

3. The last two 'lightly' experienced President were Carter and Bush 43, and we all know how well they turned out.

4. On the flip side, Reagan was a two term governor who had been a national figure for nearly 20 years and Clinton was governor for 13 years.

The fact that Reagan and Clinton are viewed at the two most successful recent Presidents and Carter and Bush are the two worst shouldn't be dismissed.

Carter and Bush do not have nearly enough in common with Obama for me to base my decision on it. There are far too many other factors to consider this election.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
-snip-
I think you missed the point, most likely because you agree with Clinton on the abortion ruling.

When Clinton signs a ruling on abortion he is fulfilling a campaign promise.
When Bush overturns that same ruling he is pandering to his base.

Why isn't it the other way around?

Why are imposing anti-abortion regulations bad, but lifting those regulations good?
Why does the media make it look like Clinton did the right thing and Bush did the wrong thing?

Do you not see that?
Why isn't the media just reporting on the event instead of adding it's personal commentary?

The whole bit on abortion is media bias in a nut shell. When someone on the right does something that a left leaning reporter doesn't like it is cast in a negative light. However, when someone on the left does something that a reporter agrees with it is cast in a positive light.

Add to this the fact that the VAST majority of reporters admit that they lean to the left and you have a major problem.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,110
53,493
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I think you missed the point, most likely because you agree with Clinton on the abortion ruling.

When Clinton signs a ruling on abortion he is fulfilling a campaign promise.
When Bush overturns that same ruling he is pandering to his base.

Why isn't it the other way around?

Why are imposing anti-abortion regulations bad, but lifting those regulations good?
Why does the media make it look like Clinton did the right thing and Bush did the wrong thing?

Do you not see that?
Why isn't the media just reporting on the event instead of adding it's personal commentary?

The whole bit on abortion is media bias in a nut shell. When someone on the right does something that a left leaning reporter doesn't like it is cast in a negative light. However, when someone on the left does something that a reporter agrees with it is cast in a positive light.

Add to this the fact that the VAST majority of reporters admit that they lean to the left and you have a major problem.

We only have a major problem if you ignore virtually all academic research on the subject. But hey you just KNOW that the media is biased and so it must be, right? You have more nerve endings in your gut then you do in your head from what Stephen Colbert tells me. If you want me to I'll go find some stories that paint things in a pro right wing way right now. If I post them will it prove that the media is conservatively biased? Of course not.

Now go find and link me the UCLA study on media bias and claim that it proves your point.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

PJ literally took a singular pair of incidents (abortion decisions) and decided this meant some sort of media bias. Did you ever think that maybe these newscasts were actually all just getting their information from the same AP wire story or something? NO IT MUST BE THE LIBURL CONSPIRACY.

As for the media swooning over Obama, they certainly do. They swoon no less over John McCain, the guy who calls the media 'his base'. God people, what world do you live in?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and then PJ starts quoting EDITORIALS as an example of bias? Of course they are biased! Do you even know what an editorial is?

Absolutes are fun to toss around.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

Only if you don't know what "the left" is, Gen...

Usually I see this complaint come out whenever Republicans like to circle jerk that they're somehow libertarians (or even anti-authoritarian). It's a crock of sh!t and nobody buys it after these last 8 years.

And to PJ: if pure talent and the ability to work hard and effectively counts as qualification (and I think it does), then Obama is by far the most qualified candidate in the field. But hey, you can keep playing the "experience"/incumbent card in the wake of the worst administration in decades. I hear that tactic worked well for Hillary... ;)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,110
53,493
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

PJ literally took a singular pair of incidents (abortion decisions) and decided this meant some sort of media bias. Did you ever think that maybe these newscasts were actually all just getting their information from the same AP wire story or something? NO IT MUST BE THE LIBURL CONSPIRACY.

As for the media swooning over Obama, they certainly do. They swoon no less over John McCain, the guy who calls the media 'his base'. God people, what world do you live in?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and then PJ starts quoting EDITORIALS as an example of bias? Of course they are biased! Do you even know what an editorial is?

Absolutes are fun to toss around.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

First of all, I didn't use an absolute. Even if I did though, the UCLA study is not widely considered to be 'responsible'.

Second of all... you just walked face first into the post that I wrote about 5 minutes previously to yours. That UCLA study has been so thoroughly trashed from so many directions it's not even funny. Every time a thread on this comes up the right wingers come rushing into it clutching that one pathetic study like a shiny new truck.

This exact same debate has been had on these boards several times, you can search for it. I've provided several meta-analysis and other studies showing that media bias does not exist in any meaningful way.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Bias in the media from people in the media:
?I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.?
? CBS?s Andy Rooney

?Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you?ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.?
? New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, ?Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper??

?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. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ? most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume?s bosses are liberal and they?re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.?
? Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas

"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."
David Brinkley speaking of liberal bias in the press
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Sorry Non Prof John, its not my job to get excited by every little cherry picked article that supports your fantasies. And just because it comes from a liberal website, does not mean I will agree that Walsh is making a valid point just on the basis that Liberal=right only in the minds of intellectual lightweights.

But of the three major candidates, Hillary, McCain or Obama, yes one can make the case that Obama has the shortest political resume, and then one can be tempted to make the somewhat logical leap to inexperienced and the even larger logical leap to unqualified.

But part of the reason both Hillary and McCain both got bad press is exactly on their own records. And while their longer political resume's do translate into experience, what was missing in each, was a record of good future judgments and a larger political record on pandering.

And when you have two supposedly qualified candidates who had records that self disqualified them from having " the right stuff when it comes to experience", Obama somewhat shines because, (1) Obama had the correct call on Iraq and McCain and Hillary did not. (2) Both McCain and Hillary have shown with their partisan messages during the primary that they cannot be the uniter and not the divider, and Obama has consistently shown he has the correct unity message. (3) Ever since Iowa, it was clear, on both the republican and democratic sides, that the American voting public desperately wants a change away from the failed policies of GWB&co. And every single candidate in a 20+ early Presidential contender field early on claimed to be the change candidate. And there, inexperience is an asset and not a liability for Obama. And now that Hillary is out
of the running, the major three is down to only Obama v McCain in the general election, the Obama message seems to hold up, and the GOP are stuck with McSame.

And its simply that McSame record that John McCain must shed if he wants to stand a chance in the general election. I have long posted to the effect that McCain must take charge of the GOP and kick GWB to the curb, gutless pandering McCain is unwilling to do so, and that is why he will lose in November.

Hope that explains it to you PJ.