Defining the "Liberal Media" and the "Mainstream Media"

bnilhome said:
It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.
Click to expand...
Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.

 
BigRedBuster said:
bnilhome said:
It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.
Click to expand...
Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.
Click to expand...
Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press. Moreover, with the floods from this past week in LA, if Bush were President and chose to stay on vacation and play rounds and rounds of golf, all mainstream networks would be devoting days of coverage to his lack of compassion and engagement.

Regarding the 2008 election, if that is your conclusion, you should stop pretending you are truly an Independent thinker on here. Here's yet another source showing the slanted coverage. And as I said previously, you know I do not like Hillary, but the media was even in the tank for Obama over Hillary in the primaries...it was that obvious, but I'm sure you won't admit to that either.

http://www.journalism.org/2008/10/22/winning-media-campaign/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ummmm.....I said I didn't come to a conclusion yet on the election. Notice my first statement in my post.

I simply said your article was no where close to even hiding their intentions behind writing it.

It's clear the article was written to get people's panties in a wad so they vote for McCain.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bnilhome said:
BigRedBuster said:
bnilhome said:
It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.
Click to expand...
Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.

However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.
Click to expand...
Regarding the floods/Katrina and the POTUS response, if Obama were the POTUS during Katrina and responded the same way, he would not have received as much negative press. Moreover, with the floods from this past week in LA, if Bush were President and chose to stay on vacation and play rounds and rounds of golf, all mainstream networks would be devoting days of coverage to his lack of compassion and engagement.

Regarding the 2008 election, if that is your conclusion, you should stop pretending you are truly an Independent thinker on here. Here's yet another source showing the slanted coverage. And as I said previously, you know I do not like Hillary, but the media was even in the tank for Obama over Hillary in the primaries...it was that obvious, but I'm sure you won't admit to that either.

http://www.journalism.org/2008/10/22/winning-media-campaign/
Click to expand...
So it's not left/right bias? Could that mean that he just had a well run campaign, that was making sure the media got the right message and covered it? Probably not...
 
BigRedBuster said:
bnilhome said:
It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.
Click to expand...
Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.
However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.
Click to expand...
The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.

 
Moiraine said:
BigRedBuster said:
bnilhome said:
It's apparent that a handful of you on here will not see any MSM bias no matter how obvious it is. So be it. Trying to convince you of that would be like trying to convince an ardent far right person that Fox is not biased, or a far left person that MSNBC is not biased, when they both do not see such bias. Another example I called out on here but you guys chose to ignore is the bias in the 2008 Presidential election. Here is just one of many studies done that show objective data on how the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-big-losers-in-election-2008/

The number of negative stories ran against McCain compared to positive ones was way lopsided, and guess what, the number of positive stories about Obama was way higher than negative stories, which was also lopsided. By a 6 to 1 margin even Democrats admitted that journalists were supporting Obama and showed bias toward him in the primaries and general election. But, I'm sure you will believe there was no bias in this election either.
Click to expand...
Ok....this comment by me is not claiming there wasn't bias.
However....come on....you post an article that basically is telling everyone to vote for McCain. What part of this screams propaganda?

The site linked in the article supposedly with the data had been taken down.

Now....to come to a conclusion on this bias, wouldn't you need to research and see what the articles were about? His VP candidate was pathetic. She was almost saying things as dumb as Trump.

I'm sure there were lots of reports on that.
Click to expand...
The bottom was exactly my thought. I don't remember much negative press until Palin did her first interview and that negative press was deserved.
Click to expand...
While Palin was not a good choice and I agree with that, this was press focused on the top of the ticket. If you choose not to agree with the bias or agree with how it's shown, so be it. Just as someone can argue there is no Fox News Bias, and no matter what data you present to them, they can simply refute that data or study claiming its inaccurate. I have heard some on here claim they believe Fox does have a bias but have not seen proof of that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top