Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77

Thread: Yet More Proof Of Bias In The Criminal Liberal Media

  1. #1

    Yet More Proof Of Bias In The Criminal Liberal Media

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485[/url]
    Last edited by DeanPatsFan; 06-21-2007 at 11:53 AM.

  2. #2
    "MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."

    "The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms at least among the donors, who are a tiny fraction of the roughly 100,000 staffers in newsrooms across the nation."

    Well, that's certainly not surprising.

  3. #3
    But I thought MSNBC --home of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews-- was a charter member of the "Criminal Liberal Media."

    Why are they investigating their own conspiracy?

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]But I thought MSNBC --home of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews-- was a charter member of the "Criminal Liberal Media."

    Why are they investigating their own conspiracy?[/QUOTE]

    I don't know, but it sounds like criminals of one sort or another behind it.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]But I thought MSNBC --home of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews-- was a charter member of the "Criminal Liberal Media."

    Why are they investigating their own conspiracy?[/QUOTE]

    [B][U]Exibit A:[/U][/B] Dodging the Topic at hand, and attempting to change it (i.e "threadjacking") to avoid a very uncomfortable topic.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7,000
    I don't see the issue here. Objectivity in the newsroom is a necessity and should be made a standard practice by all news outlets. However, what a journalist does with his or her personal money and time is a private matter and should not be regulated in any way. Has this country seriously reached a point where journalists are not allowed to have personal political viewpoints and cannot privately contribute to causes they are passionate about? It is their right as Americans.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish][B][U]Exibit A:[/U][/B] Dodging the Topic at hand, and attempting to change it (i.e "threadjacking") to avoid a very uncomfortable topic.[/QUOTE]

    OK, I'll engage it:

    125 out of 100,000 is, on a percentage basis, essentially no different than 17 out of 100,000. It is a useless sample, made moreso by the fact that it includes a number of opinion journalists like George Packer who make their viewpoints clear within their articles.

    Further, it also ignores the obvious counterpoint: The people who own the media outlets by and large vote and donate Republican. Take a look at the political contributions of the top execs at NBC parent General Electric --a major defense contractor-- or of the biggest newspaper publishers by circulation, Gannett, Tribune or McClatchy -- they skew the other way, and, unlike this study, they do so in significant percentage terms.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]OK, I'll engage it:

    125 out of 100,000 is, on a percentage basis, essentially no different than 17 out of 100,000. It is a useless sample, made moreso by the fact that it includes a number of opinion journalists like George Packer who make their viewpoints clear within their articles.

    Further, it also ignores the obvious counterpoint: The people who own the media outlets by and large vote and donate Republican. Take a look at the political contributions of the top execs at NBC parent General Electric --a major defense contractor-- or of the biggest newspaper publishers by circulation, Gannett, Tribune or McClatchy -- they skew the other way, and, unlike this study, they do so in significant percentage terms.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting. So Polling (i.e. asking questions, with all the various ways such questions and sample groups can be manipulated) 1,000 of 300,000,000 Americans (0.0003%) has Validity and should be taken as the "Will of the people".

    But in-stone unquestionable facts regarding 144 (of the most powerful and well known media figures) of a supposed 100,000 (0.144%), (likely including the mailboy in thtat 100,000) is a "useless sample" and meaningless because of some shadowy conspiracy by evil Republican Media Owners to blah blah blah.....

    No wonder you dodged the issue. :rolleyes:

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Interesting. So Polling (i.e. asking questions, with all the various ways such questions and sample groups can be manipulated) 1,000 of 300,000,000 Americans (0.0003%) has Validity and should be taken as the "Will of the people".

    But in-stone unquestionable facts regarding 144 (of the most powerful and well known media figures) of a supposed 100,000 (0.144%), (likely including the mailboy in thtat 100,000) is a "useless sample" and meaningless because of some shadowy conspiracy by evil Republican Media Owners to blah blah blah.....

    No wonder you dodged the issue. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    The issue is that the fact that newsroom are filled with Democrats (according to this) and owned by Republicans is not in itself proof that coverage is biased, which is what this thread suggests.

    Journalists are living, breathing Americans, and most of them vote, one way or the other. It doesn't mean they don't do their jobs right.

    And the existence of this article, by a news organization many on this site consistently decry as leftist, appears to prove the point, no?
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 06-21-2007 at 12:45 PM.

  10. #10
    Furthermore, there's another problem here: It cites donations by 144 people who were identified as journalists.

    As in any industry, most of journalism's rank and file is anonymous. And even in the most powerful newsrooms, editors --the people who decide what story goes where in the paper, which ones get assigned and which ones get the most time on the evening newscast-- are anonymous.

    Most gripes about media bias focus on story selection and story placement/emphasis: The people in charge of that aren't going to register in a study like this.

  11. #11
    You're just desperate to believe the Mainstream Media is either unbiased, or (lol), Conservative, eh?

    But what else would I expect from a guy who thinks today's Democrats are nothing more than mainstream middle-of-the-road Moderate Liberals, in tune with mainstream America (Not far left at all! Not them!) while all Conservatives are far, far, far, far Right extremist, fundamentalist Right-Wingers.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish]You're just desperate to believe the Mainstream Media is either unbiased, or (lol), Conservative, eh?

    But what else would I expect from a guy who thinks today's Democrats are nothing more than mainstream middle-of-the-road Moderate Liberals, in tune with mainstream America (Not far left at all! Not them!) while all Conservatives are far, far, far, far Right extremist, fundamentalist Right-Wingers.[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe the media is unbiased, I just think it's a different bias than you do.

    I work in the media --although I do not cover politics at all-- and can tell you that reporters are biased in favor of a good story. That means conflict, sensationalism, the prospect of misused power, etc. is always played up, and things that suggest a story may be more boring than it appears is played down.

    The more exciting a story is, the better play it gets, and the better the person who wrote it fares, career-wise. (Can you imagine people being more motivated by making more money and getting ahead than they would be by their political preference? What shapes your day to day job performance more?)

    The perfect illustration of this is the NYT's coverage of Whitewater, which was by far the most aggressive of any news organization's. (I saw the primary reporter on those stories, Jeff Gerth, hawking an anti-Hillary book on Fox News earlier this week.) Did the NYT newsroom during the Clinton years likely skew liberal? Sure. It's an elitist, NY institution -- how could it not? But that didn't impact the coverage nearly as much as the ambition of the reporters --and the desire of the editors to hawk a sensational story-- did.

    At the end of the day, the news business is a business.
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 06-21-2007 at 01:03 PM.

  13. #13
    can we stop calling the media criminal?

    I could sit here and say George Bush is a criminal

    that doesn't make it true

    just because someone does something you don't approve of, that doesn't make them criminal.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=bitonti]can we stop calling the media criminal?

    I could sit here and say George Bush is a criminal

    that doesn't make it true

    just because someone does something you don't approve of, that doesn't make them criminal.[/QUOTE]

    Can we stop using the term "Illegal War" too? In concept, I fully agree with you Bit, these fluff terms based solely on opinion of the poster waste more time on this forum than anything. "Criminal" media, "Unelected" president, pah! Crap on both sides.

    Too much of that, too little honest debate.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,890
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Interesting. So Polling (i.e. asking questions, with all the various ways such questions and sample groups can be manipulated) 1,000 of 300,000,000 Americans (0.0003%) has Validity and should be taken as the "Will of the people".

    But in-stone unquestionable facts regarding 144 (of the most powerful and well known media figures) of a supposed 100,000 (0.144%), (likely including the mailboy in thtat 100,000) is a "useless sample" and meaningless because of some shadowy conspiracy by evil Republican Media Owners to blah blah blah.....

    No wonder you dodged the issue. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


    He does raise a good point though Warfish. I'm not here to defend the left side, because there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the left. However, the media is ran, almost exclusively, by corporate powers that in a majority of the case lean heavily to the left. Chomsky makes a valid point of this in Manufacturing Consent. The media is not going to rock the boat on REAL controversial issues when their meal ticket comes from advertising dollars from corporations who have a vested interest in what the public sees, reads etc...

    But yes, it truly amazes me how left leaning ideologists tell us how and what we should do because its killing us, yet they don't see the contradiction in how they live (Al Gore anyone)?

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=bitonti]can we stop calling the media criminal?

    I could sit here and say George Bush is a criminal

    that doesn't make it true

    just because someone does something you don't approve of, that doesn't make them criminal.[/QUOTE]


    I agree.

    The media is certainly biased, but that does not make them criminals.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,195
    So...

    Is the media liberally criminal because of their donations to politicians

    or is the criminality in the fact that their own story about their own criminality isn't being reported as a front page story in their own newsrooms?


    Would it have been more liberally criminalistic for them to not report their own criminal donations to liberalogical politicians or is it made even more criminal-esque for them to come right out and proclaim their medialogical liberal criminality as an affront to the American people.

    I report and criminally overuse suffixes....you decide, if you want to...

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Can we stop using the term "Illegal War" too? [/QUOTE]

    well specifically, there are reasons to call the war illegal.

    Iraq was a sovereign nation, we invaded pre-emptively, that's questionable in the court of world law. The league of nations, the treaty of westphalia, the geneva convention, by these standards the war and trappings of the war (gitmo, torture) is in fact questionable legally.

    Whether we choose to abide by these outdated conventions is a different story... but in specific, there is far more of a case that the war is illegal than the media is criminal or that Bush was unelected.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=bitonti]well specifically, there are reasons to call the war illegal.......[/QUOTE]

    Of course there is. :rolleyes: See Bit, we're never going to get anywhere like this.....

    The Congress of the United States (who makes out laws) authorized the use of Force. The President then used his authority to wield that Force. So far, no one has gone to the Supreme Court to have either the Authorization to Use Force ro the Actual use of Force found illegal/unconstitutional.

    So where is the "illegal" Bit? Right, in the exact same place as the "Criminal" Media. I guess the Saddam regime found it illegal, maybe that is good enough for you?

    I should have known better that think you actually meant what you said Bit. :(

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Warfish]
    So where is the "illegal" Bit? Right, in the exact same place as the "Criminal" Media. I guess the Saddam regime found it illegal, maybe that is good enough for you?
    [/QUOTE]

    Warfish - whether you choose to admit it or not - neo-conservative pre-emptive war is in direct opposition to Westphalian-conventions. The soverignty of nation-states is accepted globally. There is a case for the illegality of this war and it occurs on the world stage. Just because it is legal in America doesn't mean it's legal in the world. but this whole war from the word go has been about ignoring what the world wants or expects. Well, that's fine but there are consequences to that thinking.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us