Study from CMPA in regards to media

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  1. Study from CMPA in regards to media


    I was reading this study and thought some of you may find it interesting in regards to media bias.
    Here is a link to the PDF:
    Study
    More on the methodology can be found at cmpa.com

    Major Finding:
    In regards to nightly news coverage, 77% of it is good press for Democrats compared to only 12% of good press for Republicans. This is new coverage from Sept. 5 to Oct. 22 regarding election stories.


  2. Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

    I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.
    •   
       


  3. Sept- Oct. Well that does not suprise me at all considering there are over a dozen Repuplicans currently being investigated for corruption. Not to mention the Mark Foley scandal and all the Republicans who are starting to point the finger at each other about who knew what when. I personally think they have been making there bed (for quite a while) and now it's time to lie in it.

  4. To me, this is surprising. A 77% positive compared to a 12% positive is a vast difference. One could make a case that there are more easy targets on one side than the other but it should not be so statistically different.
    In research and reporting, if one begins with the decision or outcome or result already formulated before actions are taken, then one can manipulate samples or information to support the desired results. This seems to be the case to me in much of reporting.

  5. The PEW Research guys put out a report back in 2000 that showed that Bush recieved far more favorable coverage than Gore.

    May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment. The reps were back in 2000, and now in 2006 they have pee'd in their own well and provided the media with almost nonstop fodder...some of which has to be orchestrated by Dem operative because the timing of many of these scandals are just too perfect..but nonetheless..more fodder.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment.
    Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

    I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.
    Well they gave Kennedy a pass. I mean, he drowned a woman and he is still a Senator???

    Let me guess...you define this a a very, very late term abortion...right?

  8. If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.
    The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

    Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

    A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

    Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

    Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by size
    Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

    well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by klugman
    The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

    Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

    A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

    Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

    Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.


    It doesn't take a crystal to see that you are an angry little fella. Maybe some Dong Quai would alleviate those PMS symtoms.

    Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter all selectively attack people with the intent of discrediting them. While the other stations you ranted on about are the equivalent of News for Dummies, it takes little effort to find more salient information. Most lightly sip the Kool-aide offered by either side, but you appear to have taken a bath in it.

    Your rants are culmination of talking point buzzwords offered up by the pundits manufactured by the White House..that much is plain to see. I suppose you give a "Pass" to the current administration simply because they share in your hatred and anger towards the cultural and ideaological diversity this country houses? So be it, but I find what this administration has done to true conservatism to be inexcusable.

    No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have. No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have. No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

  12. It doesnt take a crystal ball to see the media is completely left wing biased either. Comparing 3 people to 90% of the news media is a stretch to. Fox doens't show snipers killing soldiers. Fox doens't make deals with Saddam to stay in the country to get exculsive coverage. Fox doens't report forged and fake documents as truth (Dan Rather anyone?). Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show. Nothing better to get the point across than showing your soldiers getting blown away.

    The people bathing in the Kool-Aide are primarily liberal news orginizations.

    Your "point buzzwords" just got the Democratic party elected.

    It goes to show you, these days you don't even need a solution or plan to get elected, just complain enough, distort the fact enough and you can get elected.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by bioman

    No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have.
    I didn't know the Constitution applied to foreign citizens.

    No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have.
    The proposed budget of the Democratic Party when elected to Congress is higher than the previous Republican Congress but you won't hear that above the complaints and call for peoples heads in the media.

    The people just voted a party in that wants more government, not less.

    No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

    A bit misleading as the military and civilian leadership doesn't exactly get along no matter who is in power. 1946 the Democratic Congress was swept out of office for a new Republican one because the American public were sick of the war. A war they won.

    Civilian leaders and the military will never get along and never agree. One wants political correctness, the other could care less. Its a situation in which in this day and age you can't win. Either way, even if you win the physical war, you will be wrong in the media.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.
    Jack Murtha, Bob Menendez, Jane Harman, William Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan are all under investigation for corruption so they aren't laying low at all. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. Media bias is issue specific anyway, not necessarily candidate specific. If news organizations saw better ratings from jumping on Democrats they likely would. Likely enough people are pissed or befuddled enough with the Republicans that they are more responsive to negative stories about them than Democrats. But, you will not see a news organization telling you a school shooting was stopped by an armed citizen, as an example of issue bias. Report on the evil use of guns, not the postive use.

    All media is biased. News without bias would be a ticker of basic facts: two people aged 17 and 16 shot today by another person aged 16... Senator X casts vote for legislation Y... etc. etc. If you don't want the ticker then all news has to be to some extent analysis and contextual, and that means there will always be a bias despite the best efforts of some to be objective. Best to just admit this and deal with it instead of throwing up some BS story about objectivity.

    It would also do us well to remember that way back in the golden days of journalism, if they ever existed, at the turn of the century when reporters were hard boiled individuals who asked hard questions and did their best to get straight answers, news organizations were more biased than they are now and open about it. Editorial pages in papers would proudly proclaim support for this candidate and hostility toward the others. Reporters did not hide their political ideas like Victorian gentleman hiding their dirty books and sex toys. They were out there in the open for everyone to see. A much more honest time if the history I learned way back when about this era was true. It's easier to debate someone and respect them while still disagreeing with them if you at least know where they're coming from. But if someone hides behind a veil of bull**** called 'objectivity' to my mind at least they lose a lot of credibility.

  16. I agree, but back then most of the 'opinion' was limited to just the editorial. Now, the whole news seems like one big editorial because now its deemed more entertaintment than actual news. When you compare many of the primary docs vs. the news it wans't that far off. I can't imagine what today would like like if you examined it 50 years from now.

    Katie Couric as a news anchor?

    That tells you right there which is more important, accuracy and credibility, or ratings.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I agree, but back then most of the 'opinion' was limited to just the editorial. Now, the whole news seems like one big editorial because now its deemed more entertaintment than actual news.

    Katie Couric as a news anchor?

    That tells you right there which is more important, accuracy and credibility, or ratings.
    True. But in the end what would you rather watch: some old guy reading facts off a teleprompter or porn? It's the same choice on TV, just watered down, and the media execs know porn will bring more people in.

    I'd be the first to admit, I like my news with bias. It makes it more interesting and helps you sharpen your world view when you're listening to news from a source biased against your tendencies. In fact I think it's easier for me to pick out the bull**** in media with leftist bias than media that has a Libertarian bias. I'm more likely to get sucked in by the latter. Present me with the former and I'm more likely to do what I should do on all cases and take it with a grain of salt. I think we need more bias in media.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    True. But in the end what would you rather watch: some old guy reading facts off a teleprompter or porn? It's the same choice on TV, just watered down, and the media execs know porn will bring more people in.

    I'd be the first to admit, I like my news with bias. It makes it more interesting and helps you sharpen your world view when you're listening to news from a source biased against your tendencies. In fact I think it's easier for me to pick out the bull**** in media with leftist bias than media that has a Libertarian bias. I'm more likely to get sucked in by the latter. Present me with the former and I'm more likely to do what I should do on all cases and take it with a grain of salt. I think we need more bias in media.

    Yes but there is difference between bias and an outright refusal to report or include most of the facts. I don't mind a bias of opinion, but a bias in which the actual content is refused, acknowledged, or pushed aside is the problem.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Yes but there is difference between bias and an outright refusal to report or include most of the facts. I don't mind a bias of opinion, but a bias in which the actual content is refused, acknowledged, or pushed aside is the problem.
    True, but then you need a source with a different bias to call them on their omissions which there will always be.

  20. "Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show."

    No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.

    I suppose the question comes down to how do you prefer to be lied to? In a pessimistic manner or an overly optimistic one? ie Iraq is a quagmire or Iraq is going "swimmingly".

    There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.

    FOX initially drew a big following by depicting the conservatives, then later the war in Iraq in a glowing light. This strategy however, seems to be failing as FOX ratings have been sinking and overall opinion about Iraq worsens. Is that the fault of the "liberal" media or is it simply reality catching up to the situation?

    Military and civilian leadership never do see eye to eye, I agree. However there have been few instance where a shocking number of high ranking generals come forward and direct their ire at the Sec of Defense and paint a dismal picture of the situation on the ground. That is not an indictment of the media nor can liberals in any way be involved in the inner Defense Department circles.

    There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.
    I've actually been watching the news lately because of the election (usually I prefer the internet) and I've heard Fox reporters and commentators repeatedly tick off the death toll in Iraq, both for soldiers and civilians.

    There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.
    I don't know about Bobo, but I never assumed any shadowy network to exist. Just that the majority of people in the media are Democrat/liberal, which I believe has been demonstrated time and again, and that over time this will lead to an echo chamber/bias effect because all most people do in the end is hang out with people who are more or less like themselves. Over time this means they will present a story a certain way thinking it's objective and middle of the road, assuming some things are just understood when in fact they can be questioned.

    There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.
    Maybe your characterization of it as a conspiracy is off? I think the media is largely liberal and has a liberal bias. I don't think there's a cabal of liberals making this happen though. It's just the way the cookie crumbled for whatever reason.

  22. Truth in all of that, however look at the reverse..once the White House went to Bush, the nature of the Press's relationship with the WH changed dramatically. There was a concerted effort to shut out reporters who were not team players. For better or worse, this will change how things get reported. Lack of open discourse leads to suspicion and this can slant coverage. Had this been a more open administration..perhaps things would be different but they chose to hide behind screeners and talking points and IMO, the public wants more than that and began to distrust the govt more than usual.

    The predisposition for journalists to be Dems or "liberal" which is getting to be a far too nebulous term these days, may be simply because of where the major news outlets are situated..in the big cities and IMIO, it just represents the demographic there.

    The question is, if a news outlet formed in the "Heartland" and was run by some ideological midwestern centrist with populist leanings..would anyone watch it? In this day and age, I doubt it. I would, but then that is my background.

    Most basic, bread and butter reporting of the events of the day...McNiel-Lehrer Hour. Dry as toast and I hope it never changes.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by bioman
    "Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show."

    No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.
    Do you watch Fox because they report the violence and deaths on a daily basis. Seriously, with a comment like that you would think you don't even watch. For every Hannity, there is a Colmes. Its not Keith Olberman bashing Bush or Oreilly every night without one conservative on the show.

    I suppose the question comes down to how do you prefer to be lied to? In a pessimistic manner or an overly optimistic one? ie Iraq is a quagmire or Iraq is going "swimmingly".
    Once again, they report the death toll every day and routinely criticize the Bush administration. As for being lied too, ask Dan Rather. Even the Beltway boys who are overly conservative think the war isn't going well.

    There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.
    They aren't shadowy at all. They admit it freely.

    FOX initially drew a big following by depicting the conservatives, then later the war in Iraq in a glowing light. This strategy however, seems to be failing as FOX ratings have been sinking and overall opinion about Iraq worsens. Is that the fault of the "liberal" media or is it simply reality catching up to the situation?
    FOX drew a big following because they filled an enormous gap that wasn't present until cable news came around. Before cable news you have the big 3 which are left leaning.

    Actually, all news outlets are showing a drop in ratings, not just FOX.

    Air America is bankrupt, the New York Times stock is plummeting. Does that mean conservatives are winning? No, it means that all news outlets are not doing as well as they once did.

    Military and civilian leadership never do see eye to eye, I agree. However there have been few instance where a shocking number of high ranking generals come forward and direct their ire at the Sec of Defense and paint a dismal picture of the situation on the ground. That is not an indictment of the media nor can liberals in any way be involved in the inner Defense Department circles.
    Its not shocking at all. In fact, its nothing compared to Vietnam, Korea or WW2. Do you remember what they did to Robert Mcnamara?The difference is we have 10x the new outlets, cable stations and media adding their 2 cents in and the majority of them are left wing. I don't care how strong you are, when 90% of the media beat down on you for 4 years the opinion isn't going to be rosy.


    There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.
    I don't really care about how you get your news. It doesnt matter to me. Its not some conspiracy because Soros, Ted Turner and everyone opposite of Rupert Murdoch makes their feelings known.

    The largest media markets are left wing leaning. (New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, Philly). Its not a very large leap of faith that their papers and the media (since 99% is based on NY and LA) are going to pander to their audience. Its not a leap of faith to guess that FOX became so large because they filled and enormous gap within the media.

    Just look at the geographical locations of who won and lost last night and the patterns are pretty distinctive.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by bioman

    The question is, if a news outlet formed in the "Heartland" and was run by some ideological midwestern centrist with populist leanings..would anyone watch it? In this day and age, I doubt it. I would, but then that is my background.
    John Kasich has a program called "Heartland" on FOX.

    People of the heartland watch FOX. The heartland is generally conservative. The mainstream media is not so therefore they made FOX news the number 1 rated cable news show. Its pretty clear cut to me.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Jack Murtha, Bob Menendez, Jane Harman, William Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan are all under investigation for corruption so they aren't laying low at all. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.
    Jack Murtha is under investigation? Care to back that up? What about Menendez? Harman I know about (was any evidence of wrongdoing found?). As for Mollohan and Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi asked them to step down from their committee assignments for the duration of the investigations. Mollohan did, but Jefferson refused so the Democrats voted to strip him of his assignments soon after.

    Jefferson is now in a run off election because the Democrats fielded and endorsed another candidate to run against him in the elections. Contrast this with the Republicans who always try to cover for their corrupt members. It was the cover up and lies by prominent Republicans that kept the Foley story in the news so long. Also, they completed the investigation into the Foley affair, but have refused to release the results because of the midterm elections.

    Anyway, I don't believe there's a pro-Dem bias in the mainstream media. The coverage may have been worse for the Republicans in the last few months because legitimate news events were worse for them. And the media certainly didn't have a problem spending 2 days covering Kerry's botched joke as if that was somehow important news.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    Jack Murtha is under investigation? Care to back that up? What about Menendez? Harman I know about (was any evidence of wrongdoing found?). As for Mollohan and Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi asked them to step down from their committee assignments for the duration of the investigations. Mollohan did, but Jefferson refused so the Democrats voted to strip him of his assignments soon after.


    Jefferson is now in a run off election because the Democrats fielded and endorsed another candidate to run against him in the elections. Contrast this with the Republicans who always try to cover for their corrupt members. It was the cover up and lies by prominent Republicans that kept the Foley story in the news so long. Also, they completed the investigation into the Foley affair, but have refused to release the results because of the midterm elections.

    Anyway, I don't believe there's a pro-Dem bias in the mainstream media. The coverage may have been worse for the Republicans in the last few months because legitimate news events were worse for them. And the media certainly didn't have a problem spending 2 days covering Kerry's botched joke as if that was somehow important news.
    "Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
    In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. "

    Thats Murtha. Plus he had a history with his involvment in the Abscam investigation years ago.


    "A federal investigation has been launched into the financial dealings of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and a nonprofit agency he has helped over the years, sources said.

    The U.S. attorney's office has subpoenaed the agency's records pertaining to a house once owned by then-congressman Menendez, sources told NewsChannel 4's Brian Thompson.

    Menendez, a Democrat, has denied there was anything wrong with his renting the house to the North Hudson Community Action Corp. for more than $3,000 a month, even as he was working to obtain millions of dollars in federal grant money while he was a congressman."

    Thats Menendez.

    Yes, the big coverup of Mark Foley.

    Maybe instead of giving Foley the boot people can re-elect him like they did with Democrat Gerry Stubbs who actually DID have sex with a male page. What did the Democrats do with Gerr Stubbs? They censored him then gave him chairmanship and a standing ovation.

    You can find corruption on both ends.

    Of course you don't think there is a pro-dem bias, thats pretty clear. Yeah, they had a problem with Kerry's whole 2 days compared to Foley's 2 weeks. Of course you didn't know about Murtha because you will never hear that in the news. Most people don't even know about Jefferson and his 90k in cash sitting in his freezer. Why? Its not reported more than a day. There is no bias.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  27. A problem lies in the fact that many people are too blind to see their own bias. While I think many may not intend on being bias, in reality they are; equally so, I think some intend to be bias b/c they believe they are correct so they feel it is acceptable. Unfortunately, this encourages distortions of truth and ignorance on topics.

    I book worth reading is Bias by Goldberg.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    "A federal investigation has been launched into the financial dealings of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and a nonprofit agency he has helped over the years, sources said.
    I can't find a single legitimate source for this. Wikipedia does not cover it either, which is unusual if there's solid backing for it. Basically, I don't buy it and it's not news because there's no solid proof behind these accusations.

    Yes, the big coverup of Mark Foley.

    Maybe instead of giving Foley the boot people can re-elect him like they did with Democrat Gerry Stubbs who actually DID have sex with a male page. What did the Democrats do with Gerr Stubbs? They censored him then gave him chairmanship and a standing ovation.

    You can find corruption on both ends.

    Of course you don't think there is a pro-dem bias, thats pretty clear. Yeah, they had a problem with Kerry's whole 2 days compared to Foley's 2 weeks. Of course you didn't know about Murtha because you will never hear that in the news. Most people don't even know about Jefferson and his 90k in cash sitting in his freezer. Why? Its not reported more than a day. There is no bias.

    Murtha may have a pork problem, which is not something I approve of, but he's not under any investigation for criminal activities to my knowledge. And the national media rarely reports on the individual pork problems of members of either party.

    Gerry Stubbs? That was over 20 years ago, not exactly breaking news. And FWIW, Stubbs married and lived the rest of his life with that page. It was inappropriate for sure, but since it was apparently true love I wouldn't consider it sleazy like the Foley thing. And since the people of his state wanted to reelect him then that's their business. If Foley had stayed on and been reelected then I'd have no complaint about that either.

    By the way, do you really feel Kerry's botched joke is equivalent to the Foley cover-up as a national news story? How many days should the media have kept on beating Kerry after he apologized?

  29. The media is without a doubt biased way, way to the left. People like bioman will never admit or see this. Despite the fact that liberal Bernie Goldberg (proud, card carrying liberal) has come out and documented the incredible liberal bias in the media in his excellent book Bias (as was already mentioned here).

    Let’s look at just a few facts here:

    CNN made up the whole Operation Tailwind report accusing US troops of gassing American deserters with nerve gas in Laos.
    CNN - CNN retracts Tailwind coverage - July 2, 1998

    Do we need to rehash the whole episode where Mary Mapes and Dan Rather created fake documents critical of President Bush’s service in the national guard?

    Another great example of media bias was when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman here in the CT democratic primary. Various media outlets trumpeted this in the shrillest of voices…declaring that Lieberman, Bush’s stooge and willing yesman (another foul distortion unto itself - Lieberman votes democrat on 95% of the issues like affirmative action, abortion, etc.) was finished and that the mainstream of CT was ready to embrace the platform of the anti-war left.

    The truth of the matter was that only a small turnout voted in the early August primary and that the bulk of votes were the anti-war, anti-US pro France nutbags.

    Tuesday proved that Lamont and his retreat and defeat positions were soundly rejected. Does the media report this as a crushing defeat for the left?

    No, people like bioman are what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Or worse, he has no core beliefs and just thinks that advocating hard left, anti-American diatribes that he paraphrases from the Daily Kos or moveon.org will somehow benefit his petty, twisted ambitions.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by Number 5
    I can't find a single legitimate source for this. Wikipedia does not cover it either, which is unusual if there's solid backing for it. Basically, I don't buy it and it's not news because there's no solid proof behind these accusations.
    robert menendez investigation - Google Search

    I only follow politics rather casually, and by no means consider myself an expert. However, in my experience, the notion that there is no liberal media bias is absurd. I certainly hold Bush in a lower regard than I did a few years ago, but I have never seen anyone take a beating in the public eye that could compare to what he is subjected to. I was reading a semi-recent copy of Newsweek at the gym the other day, and there was an article about the situation with North Korea. If someone who had no idea what was going on in current events read this article, he/she would believe that Kim Jong il is a lovable, quirky eccentric whose only downfall is his insecurities. And if you have read Newsweek before, I don't even need to tell you how Bush was portrayed.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. In regards to Glycemic Index
    By Brian5225 in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 12:40 PM
  2. In regards to my Thyroid??
    By willis3 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2007, 11:05 AM
  3. In regards to Matt
    By dertynasty in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-24-2005, 03:53 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-16-2005, 01:24 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 12:23 AM
Log in
Log in