The Liberal Media Strategy?

[GTaudiophile]

We all know the Liberal Media (TV and print) is shining the light more and more on the Dem candidates. In fact, this bunch is making more headlines than Bush's visit to Germany for the G8 summit. In other words, the Liberal Media has decided to treat Bush as a Lame Duck and perhaps rightfully so. What he does or says is a joke and doesn't count on the world stage. Time for the light to shine on one of the Dem candidates, especially either Obama or Clinton, who will save the world and mankind.

Now the Liberal Media spotlight rarely shines on the Republican candidates, and if it does, it is brief and without hype or fanfare, save one candidate. Who has been on the cover of Time recently? Who got the recent 60 Minutes interview? The least electable, Mormon candidate: Mitt Romney. Of course! The Liberal Media knows this and wants to promote him as the front runner as much as possible.

Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

Now, if only CNN wanted to elevate a candidate who truly could shake things up for the Republicans and for the good of the country, they would swing their weight behind Ron Paul. He would get the Time magazine cover and 60 Minutes interview! But he might be a threat to Hillary & Friends, so of course he'll rarely see the light of a video camera.

 

[nageov3t]

true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

 

[Rainsford]

Like the saying goes, people hear mostly what they want to hear. You see the liberal media conspiracy around every corner, so naturally EVERYTHING the media does is because of this conspiracy. A more objective observer might note that Obama and Clinton are hardly ideal Democrats, Obama is inexperienced and Clinton is hugely divisive, highlighting them as Democratic frontrunners is hardly helpful to the Democratic party. But neither is the media anti-Democratic, they are doing exactly what they ALWAYS do at this point in the competition, focus on the "interesting" candidates. Ron Paul is getting a HUGE amount of press, despite his complete unelectibility. Same goes for Romney, and Giuliani. Obama and Clinton are the focus on the Dem side for the same reason, they are "different" from the inevitable next President, who will be some boring white Christian from one party or the other. And maybe I wasn't paying much attention last time, but the last 1.5 years of a Presidential term, especially the 2nd, are almost entirely ignored in favor of the new exciting thing...the next election. It's like the media has a collective case of ADD, mostly because their AUDIENCE has a collective case of ADD. If you really want to argue that the media favors the Dems in Presidential elections, you might want to think back to 2000, when the media largely ignored Bush's failings and focused on how "robotic" Al Gore often seemed.

I think the media is a pretty good political ink blot test...what people see in it largely reflects what they are looking for. People who see "liberal bias" are largely hugely partisan conservatives who desperately want to be free to believe whatever they like, independent of inconvenient facts, so it's no surprise that's what you all find when you turn on the TV.

 

[BoberFett]

Ron Paul is getting a HUGE amount of press, despite his complete unelectibility.

Rainsford, you're a perfect example of seeing and hearing only what you want. Ron Paul gets very little from the press. Everything you see about him is "grassroots." (I hate that word, but it works here) Big Media is doing their best to ignore Paul, yet you see it the way you choose. You're one of the posters around here who is frequently condescending towards others, acting as though you have some incredible insight that others lack, yet you're no different. Pathetic, really.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

And so is the conservative media bias myth. So we can throw out this fairness doctrine campaign.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Liberal media? Where? where? OH! Corporate Media bias, you mean. A'tryin to keep both sides in its' pocket.

 

[Siddhartha]

If you have access to a library, internet, or cable you can get the news with any slant you want.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

Now, if only CNN wanted to elevate a candidate who truly could shake things up for the Republicans and for the good of the country, they would swing their weight behind Ron Paul. He would get the Time magazine cover and 60 Minutes interview! But he might be a threat to Hillary & Friends, so of course he'll rarely see the light of a video camera.

Sorry, but it has been shown on other sites that Ron Paul supporters are organized to sway non-scientific polls and attempt to sway if not control discussions on various sites.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

The Ron Paul Gang is officially starting to piss me off. You do realize that every time you click that link... you can vote again! As many times as you want! For hours on end. Click click click... RP RP RP... All night long. Yee haw!

Question 1: Close window
Who do you think won the debate?


1. Ron Paul 54% 5169 votes
2. Rudy Giuliani 12% 1177 votes
3. John McCain 12% 1145 votes
4. Mitt Romney 11% 1085 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 4% 402 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 2% 189 votes
7. Sam Brownback 1% 119 votes
8. Duncan Hunter 1% 117 votes
9. Tommy Thompson 0% 43 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 0% 39 votes

As you can see... The way this particular vote was set up, it would only take a few dozen idiots clicking away to rack up 5100 votes in a short amount of time. Oops... there goes the 1337 hacker theory. Any moron could have skewed this poll.

And the BEST part is the people who just blindly stuck RP into every category without reading the question. In addition to winning the debate, he had the third most disappointing perfomance. :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

 

[Billyzeke]

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Joke of the day.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Maybe if it wasn't for churches, 80% would equal the nation's average number of liberals- and thus through parity they'd claim there's no bias.

 

[sandorski]

It is a Myth. Useful though, as it brought the birth of unashamed "Conservative" Media who exist as a counter-balance to the Myth.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

While your factoid has great truthiness, it is irrelevant as has been pointed out dozens of times here. While journalists as individuals tend to be liberal, the media owners are mainly strong conservatives. (Employees have to keep the boss happy if they want to advance, or even to keep getting paychecks.) More importantly, they are big businesses who are most successful when they have minimal government interference and publish stories that appeal to Americans' short attention spans, i.e., simple and splashy. Consequently, the mainstream media tends to be supportive of corporate interests and the status quo, without any consistent partisan bias (except corporate interests tend to fall more on the right end of the political spectrum). One would have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to see the media's initial blatant war cheerleading and their obsequious treatment of the Bush administration and still pretend they are liberal.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

While your factoid has great truthiness, it is irrelevant as has been pointed out dozens of times here. While journalists as individuals tend to be liberal, the media owners are mainly strong conservatives. (Employees have to keep the boss happy if they want to advance, or even to keep getting paychecks.) More importantly, they are big businesses who are most successful when they have minimal government interference and publish stories that appeal to Americans' short attention spans, i.e., simple and splashy. Consequently, the mainstream media tends to be supportive of corporate interests and the status quo, without any consistent partisan bias (except corporate interests tend to fall more on the right end of the political spectrum). One would have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to see the media's initial blatant war cheerleading and their obsequious treatment of the Bush administration and still pretend they are liberal.

In case you didnt notice big business tend to be collectivists by nature, hardly a conservative attribute. And yes you can come up with any excuse you'd like, but to think 80% of the journalists out there are liberal and democrat wont skew the slant on the stories is silly.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Ron Paul is getting a HUGE amount of press, despite his complete unelectibility.

Rainsford, you're a perfect example of seeing and hearing only what you want. Ron Paul gets very little from the press. Everything you see about him is "grassroots." (I hate that word, but it works here) Big Media is doing their best to ignore Paul, yet you see it the way you choose. You're one of the posters around here who is frequently condescending towards others, acting as though you have some incredible insight that others lack, yet you're no different. Pathetic, really.

For the amount of support Ron Paul actually has, the media is giving him plenty of coverage. The problem is that Ron Paul supporters have really overplayed how popular his position actually is with internet polls and the sheer volume (as in loudness) of his supporters, so it looks like he's some sort of front-runner, deserving of more media attention than he's currently getting. But while he might be interesting and different, he has a lot less of a chance of actually getting elected than any of the media christened "front-runners". Not because of a media conspiracy, but because he simply doesn't have enough broad support.

And believe me, I'm not trying to sound condescending, but it's all relative to who I'm talking to. I think it's perfectly possible to have a reasonable discussion with a lot of the posters here without anyone getting angry or talking down to anyone. But an equally large group of posters are just ranting lunatics. If someone posts something intelligent, I'm all for having a good discussion...but don't expect me to treat yet another post ranting about the liberal media like the OP was crapping gold bricks.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

That's a dumb argument. While it's been well established that journalists in general lean Democratic, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest they can't summon the professional detachment necessary to do their jobs without bias. Your assumption that bias in their work automatically follows their political views is silly if you don't have any proof.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

I don't know, the reports shown on TV,even on Faux News, do make the Republicans Candidates look weak confused and ineffective. Those Candidates couldn't possibly be that weak confused and ineffective could they?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

The Ron Paul Gang is officially starting to piss me off. You do realize that every time you click that link... you can vote again! As many times as you want! For hours on end. Click click click... RP RP RP... All night long. Yee haw!

Question 1: Close window
Who do you think won the debate?


1. Ron Paul 54% 5169 votes
2. Rudy Giuliani 12% 1177 votes
3. John McCain 12% 1145 votes
4. Mitt Romney 11% 1085 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 4% 402 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 2% 189 votes
7. Sam Brownback 1% 119 votes
8. Duncan Hunter 1% 117 votes
9. Tommy Thompson 0% 43 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 0% 39 votes

As you can see... The way this particular vote was set up, it would only take a few dozen idiots clicking away to rack up 5100 votes in a short amount of time. Oops... there goes the 1337 hacker theory. Any moron could have skewed this poll.

And the BEST part is the people who just blindly stuck RP into every category without reading the question. In addition to winning the debate, he had the third most disappointing perfomance. :laugh:

Wow you must have a special computer. I cannot vote on that poll more than once. I sense a liar in our midst. But anyway, if you can vote for one candidate more than once, why isnt everyone voting for their candidate more than once, thus balancing itself out overall? Why is it that only Ron Paul supporters are voting multiple times? It makes no sense.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Nearly every survey or study has editors, upper management and corporate ownership claiming to be conservative and republican. You'd have to be stupid, retarded and a complete tool to believe that their own bias doesn't reflect which stories they ALLOW to be published and/or get on the air. Or just really naive to believe such a thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We all know the Liberal Media (TV and print) is shining the light more and more on the Dem candidates. In fact, this bunch is making more headlines than Bush's visit to Germany for the G8 summit. In other words, the Liberal Media has decided to treat Bush as a Lame Duck and perhaps rightfully so. What he does or says is a joke and doesn't count on the world stage. Time for the light to shine on one of the Dem candidates, especially either Obama or Clinton, who will save the world and mankind.

Now the Liberal Media spotlight rarely shines on the Republican candidates, and if it does, it is brief and without hype or fanfare, save one candidate. Who has been on the cover of Time recently? Who got the recent 60 Minutes interview? The least electable, Mormon candidate: Mitt Romney. Of course! The Liberal Media knows this and wants to promote him as the front runner as much as possible.

Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

Now, if only CNN wanted to elevate a candidate who truly could shake things up for the Republicans and for the good of the country, they would swing their weight behind Ron Paul. He would get the Time magazine cover and 60 Minutes interview! But he might be a threat to Hillary & Friends, so of course he'll rarely see the light of a video camera.

(YARPGWHGOP) Yet Another Ron Paul is the Great White Hope for the GOP thread :roll:

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Nearly every survey or study has editors, upper management and corporate ownership claiming to be conservative and republican. You'd have to be stupid, retarded and a complete tool to believe that their own bias doesn't reflect which stories they ALLOW to be published and/or get on the air. Or just really naive to believe such a thing.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

...
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

...

Link to the whole study

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Nearly every survey or study has editors, upper management and corporate ownership claiming to be conservative and republican. You'd have to be stupid, retarded and a complete tool to believe that their own bias doesn't reflect which stories they ALLOW to be published and/or get on the air. Or just really naive to believe such a thing.

Yeah really, who gives a flying ^&%$ what disposition the anchorman has or the guy behind the camera or the guy who buys coffee for everyone. What matters is what corporations own all these newspapers and news outlets and what their disposition is. And it's easy to find out they are clearly pro-neocon/pro-corporatism

 

[manowar821]

Yeah, "we all know" my ass.

Why do you people spout nonsense as if it's fact?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

That's a dumb argument. While it's been well established that journalists in general lean Democratic, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest they can't summon the professional detachment necessary to do their jobs without bias. Your assumption that bias in their work automatically follows their political views is silly if you don't have any proof.

It is human nature to let bias interfere with our decisions. Are you this naive to believe if somebody is liberal or conservative it wont leak into their work? Seriously, are you arguing such a thing?