Sad article... even sadder is Fox News' attempt to turn it into propoganda

[.blank cd]

Facepalm.

[BanginJimmy]

or are they doing it in fear of retaliation?

This right here. Reporters are afraid of decreased access to the admin so they temper their articles with that in mind.


Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[bu villain]

In answer to your question, "Do you believe that if all the MSNBC viewers who support Obama started watching Fox, they would stop being Obama supporters or vice versa?" The answer is that some, not all, would be influenced over time by a biased media that is not adhere to the basic fundamentals of journalism. You can see that if you look at our history, even over the last few years.

I certainly agree that media bias can and does have some affect on voting. What I don't agree on is that the effect is necessarily more pronounced in democratic/liberal voters.

On the second question, "does the administration get scrutinized and are the results easily available to the public?", the initial answer is yes, there is always someone looking closely into everything, and the data is usually available to the public; however, the discussion is about the mainstream public large media organizations, not small, independent ones. These large organizations have been avoiding some topics (like Benghazi) in the WH press conferences, and they have repeatedly (see the CNN video that I posted earlier) manipulated their "interpretation" of stories and events and the amount of their coverage of these stories/events to fall in line with the current Administration. This should concern you, as a free and unbridled press is one of the cornerstones that our forefathers based our American way-of-life upon.

Benghazi has been a major news story for many many months now so I wouldn't say they are avoiding it. There is a legitimate disagreement about the significance of it though and that is not purely a matter of political bias. If it were up to the current administration, there would be no coverage from anyone about Benghazi. Again, I don't disagree with you that the major media outlets as a whole are not living up to a high standard of journalistic excellence, I just disagree that the cause is primarily a political agenda.

Most of what we know is from whistle blowers..... if not for them, Obama and the media would still be lying to us. Obama does everything in his power to prevent whistle blowers from getting out and makes sure they will rot in prison of they do.

Yes, what you say about whistle blowers is true but whistle blowers have always been a major source for such news. I disagree that the media was lying to us before about say the NSA program. They were simply ignorant. Once a whistle blower emerged, they covered the story quite extensively. It is still a top topic in the mainstream media months after the story broke.

Fact: The Pew Research Center found that in the FINAL WEEK BEFORE VOTING of the last presidential campaign, MSNBC network did absolutely no negative stories about President Obama OR positive ones about Mitt Romney. MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative.
Meanwhile, the coverage improved for a positive effect for Obama in the final week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all.

The Study: Final Weeks in the Mainstream Press | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

As the article discusses though, some of the reason for that was due to horse-race coverage. Obama was leading in many polls so simply reporting those polls was taken as positive coverage for Obama and negative for Romney. This is not bias though. Now this does not say the trend doesn't clearly imply some bias, but it is not as skewed as the raw data would make you believe. It's also important to note that they compare Fox to MSNBC at the same time and you see a very similar skewing in the opposite direction. So if you ignore the very legitimate reasons why Obama might be getting more favorable coverage in the last week, how do you account for Fox's anti-Obama bias (as clear as MSNBC's) and still say the mainstream media has an Obama bias.

Why doesn't the press ask the hard questions in the WH press conferences? Watch one, and you will see that they don't dig for answers. Obama has made it clear that anyone that doesn't play by his rules (no tough questions) is out - and will be subject to a DOJ investigation (see FOX and CBS).
Why don't they ask him about entitlement reform? Congress is about to head into a new round of budget negotiations. Some Republicans leaders have suggested that they are willing to offer concessions on the budget sequester if Obama commits to entitlement reform. He has spoken in theory about making some cuts but have never presented a plan, on paper, and have rejected all suggestions, even the Simpson-Bowles commission. Why isn't the press asking the question of where is his plan to reform entitlements?

You answered your own question as to why the press isn't asking hard questions. But not wanting to jeapordize their access is not the same as being in love with the Obama administration.

One article that you might like: Media Bias and Voting

The introduction of FNC on cable had a small, but measureable effect on voting. It is not a stretch to say that the repetition of liberal media should also have a similar, but increased, effect.

I agree except I'm not sure why the "liberal media" would have an increased effect. Fox is the most watched news network in the country and it has a clear right wing bias as supported by both articles you posted earlier.

[David88vert]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

[.blank cd]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

What is the stance opposite from Fox News?

Which stations do you think take the "opposite stance" from Fox News?

[Sinfix_15]

I certainly agree that media bias can and does have some affect on voting. What I don't agree on is that the effect is necessarily more pronounced in democratic/liberal voters.

Yes........ yes it is...............

The only news organizations being critical of Obama are the only news organizations being attacked by the democratic machine. Obama himself is attacking anyone in the media who even begins to hold him accountable. His actions mirror that of any other criminal. Silence or get rid of the witnesses.... strike fear into anyone who would consider opposing him in the future.

Fox news is biased.... right wing nuts are.... nuts........

but the democratic machine has institutionalized this bias. Theyre using the power and resources of government to fight political battles. The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

[David88vert]

What is the stance opposite from Fox News?

Which stations do you think take the "opposite stance" from Fox News?

FNC is the only one that could be described as "right of center". The rest of the major news outlets are typically considered to be "left of center". I would expect you to already know this if you are interested in participating in this forum.

[.blank cd]

FNC is the only one that could be described as "right of center". The rest of the major news outlets are typically considered to be "left of center". I would expect you to already know this if you are interested in participating in this forum.

Specifically, why do you consider FNC to be "right of center" and everything else "left of center"?

[bu villain]

It appears that you do not see that while Fox News is the largest news organization on cable, it is not as large as combination of major news organizations (cable + broadcast) that take a stance opposite from it, and thus you have an increased impact size when compared to FNC.

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.

Yes........ yes it is...............

The only news organizations being critical of Obama are the only news organizations being attacked by the democratic machine. Obama himself is attacking anyone in the media who even begins to hold him accountable. His actions mirror that of any other criminal. Silence or get rid of the witnesses.... strike fear into anyone who would consider opposing him in the future.

Fox news is biased.... right wing nuts are.... nuts........

but the democratic machine has institutionalized this bias. Theyre using the power and resources of government to fight political battles. The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

You are getting off topic. This is not about Obama's use of the NSA/IRS/DHS. This is about the media and saying that left wing bias exists doesn't mean that right wing bias also doesn't exist. Both of which have prominent roles in "the media". I am not arguing that no one in the media has a liberal bias, I am arguing that both exist and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that the impact of the bias from the left is significantly greater than the impact of the bias from the right. Obama's actions are not really part of that equation. My secondary point was the mainstream media includes Fox which is a huge and severely right biased organization. When you refer to the mainstream media, you don't get to exclude them just because the liberal leaning stations are greater in number.

[.blank cd]

The NSA/IRS/DHS is the military wing of the democratic party.

What?

[David88vert]

Specifically, why do you consider FNC to be "right of center" and everything else "left of center"?

You should read some of the links that I have posted in the past. This has been discussed before.
Since I am not about to go dig through all of my old posts, and I don't expect you to either, I'll just give you a few links to get you started in research. You can form your own opinion after you have done some research.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/fil...almedia_bw.pdf

Media Research Center
The State of the News Media 2013
Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) | Understanding News in the Information Age

Numerous polls also show far more journalists describe themselves as “liberal” compared to the general public. In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers, and found those calling themselves “liberal/Democrat” outnumbered “conservative/Republican” by a four-to-one margin (61% to 15%).

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just 4% in 1995, 7% in 2004.

Prior to the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Slate surveyed its staff to find out how they intended to vote. As a case study, Slate surveys match scientific polls of the media elite: 76% picked Al Gore as their top choice in 2000; 87% said they planned to vote for John Kerry in 2004; 96% said they were supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?

[Sinfix_15]

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.



You are getting off topic. This is not about Obama's use of the NSA/IRS/DHS. This is about the media and saying that left wing bias exists doesn't mean that right wing bias also doesn't exist. Both of which have prominent roles in "the media". I am not arguing that no one in the media has a liberal bias, I am arguing that both exist and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say that the impact of the bias from the left is significantly greater than the impact of the bias from the right. Obama's actions are not really part of that equation. My secondary point was the mainstream media includes Fox which is a huge and severely right biased organization. When you refer to the mainstream media, you don't get to exclude them just because the liberal leaning stations are greater in number.

Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

[.blank cd]

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?

Balanced. Yes.

[David88vert]

Again, I think you are just comparing the number of viewers though and not the impact and level of bias. I do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news, so even if the total number of viewers of "liberal media" is larger, the impact of the bias isn't necessarily larger. From my personal experience, people who watch Fox are much more fervent and entrenched right wing advocates than people who watch the "liberal" outlets are strong left wing advocates. I think most people who watch CNN for example are simply waiting to catch a plane and thus, less beholden to that network to be the purveyors of truth. While of course this is a difficult issue to measure subjectively as we discussed, the presence of Fox (with it's high viewer ratings and high level of bias) alone seems enough to me to debunk the narrative that the mainstream media has an overwhelming liberal bias.

When you say that you "do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news", you are stating that from your opinion that you are centric. If you do not remove yourself from the equation, and view from the point of a centrist, then your understanding of the impact will be skewed. The better argument is that you do not know the native political leanings of the individual viewers, so the amount of impact would vary per viewer, and make calculations difficult.
If you take the overall media, it is recognized as having a left of center bias, and journalists are overwhelming liberals/Democrats. In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media. FNC stands alone on the conservative side. You will have extreme believers on both sides of the political aisle watching their favorite stations for certain, but to discount the overall amount of bias broadcast on a daily basis is disingenuous.

[.blank cd]

Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

So what about all the other "right wing" media that exists? You think fox are the only offenders?

How do you think the "democratic machine" is silencing fox? It's still on 24hrs a day spewing the same BS, at least it is on Comcast, I dunno about where you're watching TV at.

[bu villain]

Numerous polls also show far more journalists describe themselves as “liberal” compared to the general public. In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed 1,037 journalists at 61 newspapers, and found those calling themselves “liberal/Democrat” outnumbered “conservative/Republican” by a four-to-one margin (61% to 15%).

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center found that the proportion of liberals in the national media had actually grown over the previous nine years, from 22% in 1995 to 34% in 2004. Meanwhile, the percentage of conservatives remained minuscule: just 4% in 1995, 7% in 2004.

Prior to the 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Slate surveyed its staff to find out how they intended to vote. As a case study, Slate surveys match scientific polls of the media elite: 76% picked Al Gore as their top choice in 2000; 87% said they planned to vote for John Kerry in 2004; 96% said they were supporting Barack Obama in 2008.

With this many staffers describing themselves as liberals, do you really believe that they are writing conservative or balanced pieces?

This is an interesting side topic. Do you think that people who consider themselves liberal or conservative or that vote primarily for one party are incapable of being unbiased?

Fox is the only right wing media. The democratic machine is using it's resources to silence Fox. Their actions mimic that of typical criminal activity.

No, Fox is definitely not the only right wing media and the actions of the Obama administration and the democratic party are irrelevant to this discussion about the media.

[David88vert]

Balanced. Yes.

Thank you for showing that you have no concept of what balanced actually means.

[.blank cd]

In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media.

Are you suggesting that a repetitive narrative doesnt exist on FNC?

FNC stands alone on the conservative side.

What makes FNC "conservative"?

[.blank cd]

Thank you for showing that you have no concept of what balanced actually means.

What do you believe "Balanced" means? Reporting more of the things you believe in? Lol. Doesn't work that way.

Do you believe you can uses someone's political leanings as a barometer for objectivity in journalism, across the board?

[Sinfix_15]

Balanced. Yes.

So we're really debating if the media has a liberal bias...... ok....



anyone want to argue that the earth is flat?

Anyone think the dolphins won the superbowl last year?

lets get a serious debate going...

[David88vert]

This is an interesting side topic. Do you think that people who consider themselves liberal or conservative or that vote primarily for one party are incapable of being unbiased?

When you have that many people that have a similar belief, it is inevitable that they will start to let their personal positions creep into their writing, and influence colleagues to do the same. As it continues, it becomes less journalism and more propaganda. It has happened around the world for centuries, and America is not immune. Conservative or liberal doesn't matter, as any one viewpoint keeps getting repeated and positions become mentally reinforced.

[David88vert]

Are you suggesting that a repetitive narrative doesnt exist on FNC?

It certainly exists on FNC just as much as it does on MSNBC. There is no debate about that.

[.blank cd]

lets get a serious debate going...

A serious debate almost never includes Sinfix_15

[Sinfix_15]

A serious debate almost never includes Sinfix_15

laughable coming from you. You're the clown in this rodeo.

[David88vert]

What do you believe "Balanced" means? Reporting more of the things you believe in? Lol. Doesn't work that way.

Do you believe you can uses someone's political leanings as a barometer for objectivity in journalism, across the board?

Have you ever watched or read the news? It's pretty clear and obvious, if you would take the time to observe.

[.blank cd]

You're the clown in this rodeo.

I will agree with you here

[.blank cd]

Have you ever watched or read the news? It's pretty clear and obvious, if you would take the time to observe.

Yep. Watched it. Read it. It's all the same thing now-a-days.

[bu villain]

When you say that you "do not think the level of bias from NBC or ABC is anywhere near that of Fox news", you are stating that from your opinion that you are centric. If you do not remove yourself from the equation, and view from the point of a centrist, then your understanding of the impact will be skewed. The better argument is that you do not know the native political leanings of the individual viewers, so the amount of impact would vary per viewer, and make calculations difficult.

We have already agreed that calculation of the impact is difficult. So until some evidence is presented, I have no choice but to rely on my personal experiences. The only evidence you have presented so far shows that Fox and MSNBC are both pretty extreme. I don't see how that equates to media having a huge left wing bias. Although no one is perfectly centrist, I do regularly vote for people of both parties and even third parties.

If you take the overall media, it is recognized as having a left of center bias, and journalists are overwhelming liberals/Democrats. In advertising, one of the main methods to establishing a narrative is repetition, which we see broadcast in mass from the liberal media. FNC stands alone on the conservative side. You will have extreme believers on both sides of the political aisle watching their favorite stations for certain, but to discount the overall amount of bias broadcast on a daily basis is disingenuous.

Recognized by who? Not me. I don't disagree that journalists are more often liberals but I also believe you can be an objective journalist and a liberal. Perhaps the reason I have such a hard time recognizing this supposed bias is that I rarely watch television news and see a much stronger bias from Fox than other stations. Of course I don't think I have ever watched MSNBC in my life. I'm still waiting for evidence stronger than "it is recognized". I'm sorry if you think I am being disingenuous but I assure you I am not.

[David88vert]

I will agree with you here

Sinfix and blank agreeing on something?????
That's it - this thread needs to be locked. It's out of control!!!

[bu villain]

When you have that many people that have a similar belief, it is inevitable that they will start to let their personal positions creep into their writing, and influence colleagues to do the same. As it continues, it becomes less journalism and more propaganda. It has happened around the world for centuries, and America is not immune. Conservative or liberal doesn't matter, as any one viewpoint keeps getting repeated and positions become mentally reinforced.

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

[.blank cd]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

I think I've referenced that study here before. I told someone they were guilty of this just the other day. Pretty sure it was Sinfix.

[David88vert]

We have already agreed that calculation of the impact is difficult. So until some evidence is presented, I have no choice but to rely on my personal experiences. The only evidence you have presented so far shows that Fox and MSNBC are both pretty extreme. I don't see how that equates to media having a huge left wing bias. Although no one is perfectly centrist, I do regularly vote for people of both parties and even third parties.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am not saying that the entire media has a "huge" left bias, only that it does have a left bias, according to those who have actually studied it, and are in the industry.

In case you haven't noticed, I have been presenting the only "evidence" in this thread. No one else is backing up their own opinions with anything else by their own opinions.

20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America
56.1

ABC World News Tonight
61.0

CBS Early Show
66.6

CBS Evening News
73.7

CNN NewsNight
56.0

Drudge Report
60.4

Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume
39.7

Los Angeles Times
70.0

NBC Nightly News
61.6

NBC Today Show
64.0

New York Times
73.7

Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8

Newsweek
66.3

NPR Morning Edition
66.3

Time Magazine
65.4

U.S. News and World Report
65.8

USA Today
63.4

Wall Street Journal
85.1

Washington Post
66.6

Washington Times
35.4

Recognized by who? Not me. I don't disagree that journalists are more often liberals but I also believe you can be an objective journalist and a liberal. Perhaps the reason I have such a hard time recognizing this supposed bias is that I rarely watch television news and see a much stronger bias from Fox than other stations. Of course I don't think I have ever watched MSNBC in my life. I'm still waiting for evidence stronger than "it is recognized". I'm sorry if you think I am being disingenuous but I assure you I am not.

The bias in the media is recognized by professors, industry experts, think tanks, etc.
I gave you many links that give you the "evidence". I cannot force you to read them or believe them.

[David88vert]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

I do not disagree with this statement, but let me make this clear - there are many, many more liberal journalists with a lot more airtime, printed pages, etc, than there are conservative ones. The numbers and percentages do not lie.

[David88vert]

I think I've referenced that study here before. I told someone they were guilty of this just the other day. Pretty sure it was Sinfix.

I can't handle you and Sinfix agreeing anymore. Please make it stop!!!

[Sinfix_15]

I can't handle you and Sinfix agreeing anymore. Please make it stop!!!

I question myself anytime blank agrees with me. Soon as i found out he was an atheist, i decided to give the bible another chance.

[.blank cd]

Racism Hoax?

Anyone want to take a stab at what's wrong with this quote ere from Dollard's article about Oprah? This isn't any kind of proper writing style at all, and you'd flunk out of any kind of journalism class for doing just this. This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE pseudo-conservative movement. All of this anti-Obama bullshit was bourne by this very clever piece of literary garbage right here

[Sinfix_15]

You may be familiar with the psychological study that came out last year I believe that showed that presenting someone with facts that contradict their position can make them retreat even further into that position and build a higher mental wall to defend it. I think Sinflix is an example of this. If you expose any crack in his position, he doubles down on it and defends it even more aggressively. I also think some of the liberal bias in the media has this affect as well. So while liberal bias may influence some to be more liberal, it also influences some to be more conservative.

Please elaborate on any position i take that has been proven false. Unless by proven false, you mean that its your opinion that its false.


Please lay out a belief that i hold, that is false, that i double down on when faced with proof that its false. I'm very curious about this.

[David88vert]

Anyone want to take a stab at what's wrong with this quote ere from Dollard's article about Oprah? This isn't any kind of proper writing style at all, and you'd flunk out of any kind of journalism class for doing just this. This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE pseudo-conservative movement. All of this anti-Obama bullshit was bourne by this very clever piece of literary garbage right here

The problem with the quote is that it wasn't you that wrote it.
It's your own style of not answering a question, by asking a question, rather than utilizing facts to support your position(s). We discussed that you tend to do this in the past, and you claimed that it was a psychology technique that you were utilizing. now, if someone else uses a question mark, it is "literary garbage". Get consistent - don't be a "John Kerry".
"This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE .blank_cd psychological/religious/political/liberal/leftist/Democratic movement", isn't it?

[Sinfix_15]

The problem with the quote is that it wasn't you that wrote it.
It's your own style of not answering a question, by asking a question, rather than utilizing facts to support your position(s). We discussed that you tend to do this in the past, and you claimed that it was a psychology technique that you were utilizing. now, if someone else uses a question mark, it is "literary garbage". Get consistent - don't be a "John Kerry".
"This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE .blank_cd psychological/religious/political/liberal/leftist/Democratic movement", isn't it?

I wish blank were smart enough to realize how bad you just burned him. This may be the biggest "checkmate" post ive ever seen on this forum.

[.blank cd]

Please elaborate on any position i take that has been proven false. Unless by proven false, you mean that its your opinion that its false.


Please lay out a belief that i hold, that is false, that i double down on when faced with proof that its false. I'm very curious about this.

We don't have enough server space to list that.