Williams, Brokaw, Rather, Madcow, the dipshit on meet the depressed, maher, oliver, anyone that anchors tv news not on Fox and hell I think Shepherd Smith leans left.
A list of names, not evidence. Maddox is on MSNBC which is one of the two biased networks along with FOX. The other three anchors are retired. What makes them biased? Studies have been made, you know. A feller named D’Alessio wrote a book on it a few years ago, Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1948-2008: Evaluation via Formal Measurement. The research, he says, shows that news reporting tends to point toward the middle, “because that’s where the people are, and that’s where the advertising money is. . . . There’s nuance there, but when you add it all and subtract it down, you end up with nothing.” He found just as much bias on the left as on the right. The reasons that people perceive things differently . . . 1. The media landscape has changed. There’s more media and more overtly partisan media outlets, too. The Internet has given rise to champions of the left — Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc. — as well as more conservative organizations such as Drudge and Free Republic. This means your chance of running into “news” that seems biased has increased exponentially, elevating the impression that “bias” is pervasive throughout all parts of the media. 2. There are more watchdog groups focused on rooting out media bias. Long ago, a few watchdog groups, such as the conservative AIM (Accuracy in Media) and its more liberal counterpart FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), kept an eye on reporters’ work. Nowadays, not just politicians criticize the media for their alleged bias; an entire cottage industry exists to highlight the media’s alleged failings. 3. In the public’s mind, “the news media” encompasses the kitchen sink. Few people make a distinction between news reporting — which attempts to play it straight — and opinion shows, which are designed to provoke and persuade. 4. We know more and can second-guess. Thanks to technology, people have more access to more sources of news than before. Which means they can check several accounts of the same event. 5. People believe their preferred news sources are objective and fair, while the other guy’s are biased. Pew’s research suggests that people think the other guy’s media are spreading lies while one’s own are, relatively, a paragon of truth. A clear majority (66 percent) say news organizations in general are “often inaccurate.” But the figure drops precipitously (to 30 percent) when people are asked the same question about the news organization “you use most.”
Maybe you only hear what you want to. Here are some examples per your request: During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, the overwhelming majority of news media was clearly and unabashedly behind the campaign of hope and change. Time‘s Mark Halperin called it “the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq War. It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.” Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak expressed similar sentiments: “I think it’s incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we’re being fair. The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I’ve ever covered, by far.” Their statements were not only backed by traditional analyses of media coverage, but also by a more revealing statistic: the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816 from 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks in 2008, while the Republican Party received only $142,863 from 193 donors. After such blatant and self-admitted media bias in 2008, we might have expected this year’s election coverage to become far more balanced. Instead, news organizations remained blatantly in the bag for the president and his Democratic allies. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently released its report on the 2012 election, and the numbers are clearer than ever. While Governor Romney and President Obama received approximately the same amount of coverage, the type and character of coverage provided were much different. In evening network news, for example, narratives of President Obama remained approximately balanced, while the negative exceeded the positive by 17 percentage points for Governor Romney. Coverage of Romney was also twice as negative as that of President Obama (23 percent versus 11 percent). Source: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/media-bias-alive-and-well Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. Source: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664
Good. I'm very aware that there is conflicting evidence out there. At least you actually produced something corroborative for your side unlike that other guy who is lazy. It gives us something to discuss. Not overwhelming perhaps, but there was recognizable public interest in the candidate most unlike George Bush in 2008 and the media catered to it. It hurt my candidate, too. Hillary was the front-runner in 2008 like she is in 2016, but hope and change after 8 years of neocon blunders got a lot of press. I think it was less liberal bias than a fresh story for the media. The same thing happened in 1980 when the country was sick and tired of Jimmy Carter. The press fell all over themselves for Ronald Reagan because it reflected public sentiment about where the voting was headed. How about during the Bill Clinton years? Long before Monica, the press went after the Democratic, supposedly liberal president with a vengeance that took even longtime Washington observers -- many of them Republican -- by surprise. Where was the liberal media during Campaign 2000, after which two separate, non-partisan study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage? Where was it when Gore was mocked mercilessly for supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet? It didn't actually happen, but the press knows good copy when it sees it. Negative press coverage of Hillary has been very high this year, so its not all in the past. No way there is a pro-Hillary bias. Yep, the press are whores for a good story. Romney was the gift that keeps on giving with gaffe after gaffe that they gleefully reported. "The 47 percent" . . . "my wife has two cadillacs" . . . “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.” . . . “It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq is tragic.” . . . "I have binders full of women".
I just saw an interesting study on "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman". A fellow used MRI's to analyze the brains of liberals and conservatives when gambling and found that they process risk with consistently different areas of the brain. Conservatives, when risking it all, used the part of the brain where gut feelings and fight-or-flight responses are processed. Red brains process risk as a threat with a potential reward. Liberals processed risk with the area of the brain associated with perception and concern. Blue brains process risk as a problem to be solved. The interesting thing is that they both reach about the same conclusions but they get to it in wildly different fashion. This may explain why they have so much difficulty understanding each others logic about everything.
QUOTE="red55, post: 1462148, member: 701"]Good. I'm very aware that there is conflicting evidence out there. At least you actually produced something corroborative for your side unlike that other guy who is lazy. It gives us something to discuss. Just to set it straight for me, you have pounded the fact that the media is not biased over and over again. Now they were biased against a couple of Democrats that lost elections for President? Yep, the press are whores for a good story. Romney was the gift that keeps on giving with gaffe after gaffe that they gleefully reported. "The 47 percent" . . . "my wife has two cadillacs" . . . “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.” . . . “It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq is tragic.” . . . "I have binders full of women".[/QUOTE] To that bias: The 47% comment was correct but poorly presented in a PRIVATE setting. Hillary had two servers. The complete troop withdrawal from Iraq has truly been tragic. At least he recruited women and looked to hire and pay them what they were worth as a businessman, unlike Hillary or Obama. - you just proved the point that all the media did was paint Romney in a negative light. They could have very easily without bias asked him about the comments instead of playing gotcha which was absolutely not done with Obama.
I didn't say the media wasn't biased, I said it didn't have a liberal bias. The bias has worked both ways and liberals have not been spared negative coverage. Much negative coverage has been well-deserved. People read what they want to read and hear what they want to hear sometimes. That made it worse. He was saying things to inside supporters that he didn't say publicly when he was running for President. It made him look devious. You think that should not have been reported? Come on! Bullshit. Romney was asked about it many times and made even more gaffes over it. Why do you think politicians who say stupid things should not be reported on? It has never worked that way. Obama has had negative press, too. Hillary has had a ton of it because she also makes thoughtless remarks from time to time. The point is that there is not a systematic, widespread liberal slant on the media. Some media has it but other media has a conservative slant and some media is fairly balanced. It all evens out if you get your news from more than one source, which most people do.
