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

[manowar821]

Christ you're a broken record.

You know, you keep confusing a "liberal bias" with a "general social bias against douche-bags".

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

actually its just the same discredited study being parroted, dying off and then being dug up again. By the methodology of the most used of these 'studies' the wall street journal' is the most liberal newspaper in america, and if you've ever read its editorial page you would know better.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

wasn't bush 43 governor for two terms? Regardless, its funny to see you write him off.

nixon had been in dc for at twenty years when he was elected, same with johnson, and look how fantastic those two turned out.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

That the media has bias is inevitable and cannot be made to go away. Bias is not something that is tangible and measurable. What is moderate to some is radical to others. So no, you're not debating the merits of a bias within the media. You're discussing how to make that bias suit your own purpose, i.e. intervention and regulation.

Read my post again. The media is a capitalism in action. If it has a 'liberal bias,' then that's ONLY because it sells copy. Just like how Fox News and Rush Limbaugh sell copy with their bias.

Try again Vic, nowhere have I suggested we need to regulate the media in this country. That idea is something you have manufactured within your own mind.

And of course bias is not something that is tangible. But I am willing to bet between now and Nov, Obama will see positive stories about him at a much higher rate than McCain.

have you ever thought that there might be more positive stories about candidate a than candidate b because candidate a might be a fucking idiot?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

First of all, lets highlight your spin:
Clinton ... signs ...
Bush ... overturns ...

In reality,
Clinton was reinforcing the supreme court ruling which was the law of the land.
Bush was trying to circumvent that law (as had Reagan - Bush 41).
Huge difference in what the 2 presidents were doing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

That the media has bias is inevitable and cannot be made to go away. Bias is not something that is tangible and measurable. What is moderate to some is radical to others. So no, you're not debating the merits of a bias within the media. You're discussing how to make that bias suit your own purpose, i.e. intervention and regulation.

Read my post again. The media is a capitalism in action. If it has a 'liberal bias,' then that's ONLY because it sells copy. Just like how Fox News and Rush Limbaugh sell copy with their bias.

Try again Vic, nowhere have I suggested we need to regulate the media in this country. That idea is something you have manufactured within your own mind.

And of course bias is not something that is tangible. But I am willing to bet between now and Nov, Obama will see positive stories about him at a much higher rate than McCain.

have you ever thought that there might be more positive stories about candidate a than candidate b because candidate a might be a fucking idiot?

I could believe that if the positive stories didnt always favor one party. And if you come back with some BS about democrats not having their share of idiots I'll slap you!

 

[Lemon law]

Any hypothesis that there is a liberal bias in the media has to be counterbalanced with the rather powerful conservative talk radio and an entire television network called Fox.

By in large any liberal bias comes from the fact that reporters, by in large, tends to be informed human beings less likely to buy being swayed with Rovian appeals and false messages. Reporters tend to think for themselves, and if a politician does not like it they can lump it. At least in the case of LBJ, he knew he had lost the American people when Walter Cronkite came out against it the Vietnam war. Nixon spent another four years trying to prove Walter wrong, but we all know how that turned out.

But in the case of Rush Limbaugh, he is now a multi millionaire, thanks to some 14 million ditto heads snapping up his newsletters and over priced wearing apparel. And Fox is the political organ of Rupert Murdock who is not even a US citizen and a billionaire in the publishing business.

In the case of a liberal media bias, it more a case that its a natural tendency, in the case of a conservative media bias, that seems bought and paid for.