A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 08:12 PM

That isn’t because of any secret cabal of international liberals

I never said it was “secret cabal”  It’s clearly not secret, since the study I linked to earlier proved it to be liberal.  And it’s not a cabal.  It’s just that most of the people who gravitate to journalism as a career happen to be liberal.  I just said, generally speaking, the media is biased from a liberal standpoint, which it is.

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 08:12 PM

- it’s because the US media does such a lousy job of analyzing the news.

They shouldn’t analyze it.  They should report it.  Who, what, when, where and if possible, why.  That’s it.  If they report those 5 facts and have room or time left over, “analyze” it all they want. 

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 08:12 PM

Christie Brinkley getting a divorce from her latest dumb ass husband is easier to understand.

On this we agree.  Most people get their “news” from Entertainment Tonight, People Magazine or the Daily Show.  Such people should not vote!  When they do, they are a danger to our Republic. 

A Voice of Sanity - 13 July 2008 08:12 PM

Blaming the liberals is the last resort of the truly desperate…

I’m not blaming liberals.  I’m jut pointing out the fact that most of the media has a liberal bias.  And it does. 

Liberals have come up with the term “Faux News.”  Because Fox News has a conservative bias and the left knows it.  And that’s where the left stops with their pejorative terms for media outlets!  That’s important.  Because over on the other side…

Conservatives have come up with:

The New York Slimes
Washington Compost
PMSNBC
al-Reuters
PBS (Political Bull S***) 
NPR (National Politburo Radio)
Dan Rather Biased
Seattle’s Dumb as a Post Intelligencer

Why do you think the political left limits their criticism to just Fox News while the political right has much, much more of the mainstream media to criticize?  I’ll tell you why:  Because besides Fox News, the vast majority of the mainstream media has a liberal bias. 

Just because the media isn’t frothing at the mouth with BDS or more journalists aren’t lining up to felate Democrat politicians doesn’t mean rabid right wingers control the news media.  The liberal bias manifests itself in a variety of ways, from the subtle, such as almost always identifying a Republican politician involved in a scandal, but not nearly so much for Democrats, to the more extreme such as simply making up events to put into stories.

Rocinante - my compliments for a thorough, well-researched and devastatingly well-argued thread. I happened to come across this forum when Googling the term “Obama halo” today after seeing another reference to the media’s tendencies to portray the senator in a messianic light. I joined up just to let you know that the time and effort you applied here is admired and appreciated.

Who says the Iraqi surge is working?Who?Working towards what?How can you say you know the Iraqi surge is working?Even if you were a Full bird Colonel who did 4 tours over there,your statement” the Iraqi surge is working” would mean nothing to me or millions more in this country.Count billions,if you include all the nations of the world.including Iraq!
I’m sure some of the media coverage has dropped off due to the fact that there all too busy running around photograhping Obama.(with halos)
someone just mentioned that 99% of all media is controlled by mega corporations,if you do not deny this,then you must understand the implications of it!Flat-out!
The only cover-ups by that corporate media,concerning Iraq,is the almost complete lack of reporting on the fact that even the Iraqi puppet government wants us out of there…NOW.The Iraqi president is demanding a definite timeline for withdrawl.Fast withdrawl.It wont even be interesting to see how McCain or Obama forestall that little inconvenience.

Rocinante - 13 July 2008 08:49 PM

Why do you think the political left limits their criticism to just Fox News while the political right has much, much more of the mainstream media to criticize?  I’ll tell you why:  Because besides Fox News, the vast majority of the mainstream media has a liberal bias.

No, it doesn’t. The reporters may or may not prefer the progressive arguments - this indicates that they aren’t completely unintelligent, however the owners set the policy and they are almost all greedy reactionaries. T. Boone Pickens, now being lauded for trying to arrange multi million dollar subsidies for his wind farms, spent $$ millions to defeat an actual, be-medaled, war hero who gave great service to his country and to push, instead, a cowardly dodger of military service and a fool who led the US into a disastrous $3 trillion attack on Islam.

Little John,

Thanks for the kind words.  Such kindness is rare when one dares point out anything negative (even if true) about Senator Barack Obama and/or the friendly media treatment he is afforded.  Not even the late night comics will touch him – even though he is a gold mine of material.  57 states?  How did actors in a fictional movie get on top of Mount Rushmore (They used 1950s special effects for crying out loud!  Anyone could tell it wasn’t real!)  Come on!   

I kept waiting for some web site to compile all the Obama’s Halo Pics.  After waiting and waiting, I did what one usually must do when one wants something done: I did it myself. 

But I do hope you didn’t join just to say thanks - as much as I appreciate it.  I hope you will stick around and join in many of the various discussions on a wide variety of topics. 

Your posting to this thread reminded me of a couple more Obama Halos that I have since come across:

Rocinante - 19 August 2008 05:09 PM

Thanks for the kind words.  Such kindness is rare when one dares point out anything negative (even if true) about Senator Barack Obama and/or the friendly media treatment he is afforded.

John McSame keeps jamming both feet in his mouth and gets a pass every time. Senator Obama makes a slip of the tongue and it is analysed like the Sermon on the Mount. I know where the bias is.

I was recently asked to give a talk at a local Unitarian Fellowship.  The title of my paper was “Demagoguery is Much Harder to Recognize When you Agree With the Ideas.”  I certainly wouldn’t be aiming this at a poster who registered today, but it may be something to consider.

Occam

A Voice of Sanity - 19 August 2008 05:06 PM

No, it [media tilt to the political left] doesn’t. The reporters may or may not prefer the progressive arguments - this indicates that they aren’t completely unintelligent, however the owners set the policy and they are almost all greedy reactionaries.

I posted a study pointing out the leftist media bias.  If you don’t like that study, you can check out this one from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. 

You claim (without anything backing it up) that people who own most media outlets are “greedy reactionaries” - which sounds very close to the conspiracy theory that those money-hungry, greedy Joooooooooos control everything.  Even if “greedy reactionaries” (which, apparently can’t ever be liberal?) somehow own most of the media and pull the strings as to how things get reported, it would seem, if your claim is correct, that as long as they make money, they wouldn’t care what goes on in their newsrooms.  And the proof is in the pudding when it comes to what comes out of those newsrooms - not who owns them, or how “greedy” they are. 

I’m not the only one saying the media has a liberal bias:

Walter Cronkite admitted,“…most of us reporters are liberal.”

Mark Halperin, ABC Political Director admitted the media has a liberal bias.

NPR’s ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

Salon’s editor-in-chief Joan Walsh admitted most of the media favored Obama. (She actually used the word “swooning.”) 

Keith Olbermann admitted MSNBC Is liberal.

Even the BBC admits it is liberally biased. 

MSNBC.com identified 143 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 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Give this one up and just accept reality.  Liberals should be happy that the majority of the media is biased in their favor.  There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Occam - 19 August 2008 06:58 PM

I was recently asked to give a talk at a local Unitarian Fellowship.  The title of my paper was “Demagoguery is Much Harder to Recognize When you Agree With the Ideas.”  I certainly wouldn’t be aiming this at a poster who registered today, but it may be something to consider.

Occam

You mean kind of how liberals can’t see the liberal bias in the media, while someone who is neither liberal nor conservative would be in a better position to recognize such bias? 

Rocinante - 19 August 2008 08:17 PM

You mean kind of how liberals can’t see the liberal bias in the media, while someone who is neither liberal nor conservative would be in a better position to recognize such bias?

How about how moderately intelligent people definitely would prefer an intelligent president over one who wants the job at any cost, even his own ethics and dignity? Which McCain are you supporting, the one who had a sense of self and ethics, or the one who threw them out for his last chance at the job?

If you want to understand the world, follow the money. The media are liberal like I’m Queen of England. They answer to the people who write their paychecks. This is not a close question or even much open to debate.

If the media were liberal, the Iraqi war would have been covered honestly instead of being sanitized. They would have called the Bush administration to account for this disaster long ago.

If the media were liberal, they would have been beating the drum for development of renewable energy sources for the past 35 years, instead of going along with the prevailing assumption that oil is the natural source of energy forever - or as long as it and the money last.

If the media were liberal, we’d be hearing about the necessity of international economic regulations, given the reality of the global economy. They’d be talking about trade-offs between national sovereignty and stability in the world.

If the media were liberal, they would be telling everyone from the upper middle class on down the economic ladder about the grotesque abuses inherent in unregulated capitalism. They would be pointing out every day how dangerous this latest massive redistribution of wealth is to the nation’s economic health and ultimately its stability.

If the media were liberal, they would have covered the irresponsible deficit spending, “financed” by tax cuts for the rich, by Republican presidents since Reagan.

If the media were liberal, we would be hearing regularly about advances in science, including evolutionary biology, global warming, medicine and cosmology. Discussions on science would be about real issues, not phony “teach the controversy” claptrap.

If the media were liberal, they would be railing against the hypocrisy by the right wing hacks who now effectively control the U.S. Supreme Court. We would be getting a steady diet of reminders about how fragile liberty is and how hard it is to regain after it’s given up.

If the media were liberal, we’d be looking at real news, like we see on PBS, not tripe meant to sell the advertisers’ product. We’d be looking at real-in depth news analysis, not all-election-all-the-time or Paris, Lindsay, Britney and Anna Nicole.

If the media were liberal, we’d get the kind of political analysis we used to get before Ronald Reagan made our politics stupid with a wave and a smile. News would be about what’s real, not about the Hollywood fantasy.

Get in the real world, Rocinate. Your argument is an all-too-familiar fantasy.

Ain’t that the truth. The three nightly newscasts are actually comic books, with a simple structure and clichéd stories. How many times must we see a kitten rescued from a drain, a cat from a tree, see a ‘newsman’ in a storm, an animal trapped in ice? What does the repetition teach us? And for this the ‘anchor’ is paid over $10 million per year?

Even the network reporters know the news is biased.
Give it a listen - Lara Logan says it all.
Rocinante, as soon as you feel resistance - pull the Q-tip out!!!

Rocinante - 19 August 2008 05:09 PM

...But I do hope you didn’t join just to say thanks - as much as I appreciate it.  I hope you will stick around and join in many of the various discussions on a wide variety of topics. 

This is an interesting forum, and I’ll probably come by to offer a comment or observation from time to time.

BTW, it looks like we’ve got the peanut gallery up in arms again. 

Little Johnson,
Perhaps you’ll have some actual ideas at some point.