Proof of Liberal Bias?

[chrisms]

The media could murder this administration if they had the balls to. Look at a show like Frontline, that actually does what the press was intended by the framers to do: expose government problems. I don't see anything about the Bush/Saud ties on World News Tonight, or about the Halliburton/Cheney connection on NBC Nightly News.

Sure, we might hear a blurb now and then on the major networks if we are lucky. But no way Bush would have been re-elected had the media done its job, they could have seriously butchered this guy.

 

[nageov3t]

what if Bush got theee times the bad coverage because he's fvcked up three times as much?

what's with all these '04 election threads? it's over!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: chrisms
The media could murder this administration if they had the balls to. Look at a show like Frontline, that actually does what the press was intended by the framers to do: expose government problems. I don't see anything about the Bush/Saud ties on World News Tonight, or about the Halliburton/Cheney connection on NBC Nightly News.

Sure, we might hear a blurb now and then on the major networks if we are lucky. But no way Bush would have been re-elected had the media done its job, they could have seriously butchered this guy.

You know why it's not on those news stations? BECAUSE IT'S ALL CONJECTURE WITH NO PROOF. Just because Michael Moore, the godfather of failed liberalism, says it's true, doesn't mean it's true in reality. Show me concrete proof of it, and I'll believe it. Until then, anything like that that comes out of liberals' mouths is a pack of lies with no proof.

 

[Strk]

Why do people make comments like "such and such since Reagan?"

I mean, ok, it's true, but there have been two Presidents between Reagan and Bush, not exactly huge number. If it was something like "This hasn't happened since Wilson," then I'd be impressed; but seriously, who cares about something that hasn't happened since Reagan?

Also, speaking of Reagon, this was his fault

 

[Michaelbgrant]

I seriously can't believe that people think there is some sort of liberal media conspiracy. It's one thing if you just don't read the news, but it's just weird to suggest that basically all but one are falsely reporting information. Fox news is just not good news in general, if you want good news you pretty much need to read the NYTimes, bbc, or just watch the Daily Show. Fact is that news is what these companies do, you can't blame them for being informed and providing information which doesn't put your favorite canidate in good light, right?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic...on_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/

Bush got three times the bad press that Kerry did. How much evidence needs to be stacked up for liberals to finally realize there is a liberal bias, that they've been brainwashed, and they hate to see a positive news station like foxnews on because it actually has a positive outlook and gives a different point of view they are used to.

Well counting everytime the Press ask President Bush what 0-0 is as being hard then they where hard on him!

 

[Tom]

why wouyld us liberals by upset by a liberal bias anyway ?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Michaelbgrant
I seriously can't believe that people think there is some sort of liberal media conspiracy. It's one thing if you just don't read the news, but it's just weird to suggest that basically all but one are falsely reporting information. Fox news is just not good news in general, if you want good news you pretty much need to read the NYTimes, bbc, or just watch the Daily Show. Fact is that news is what these companies do, you can't blame them for being informed and providing information which doesn't put your favorite canidate in good light, right?

Spoken like a true liberal. "Good News" is the NY Times and the BBC, probably the two most liberal media outlets there are. Good call, liberal.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: chrisms
The media could murder this administration if they had the balls to. Look at a show like Frontline, that actually does what the press was intended by the framers to do: expose government problems. I don't see anything about the Bush/Saud ties on World News Tonight, or about the Halliburton/Cheney connection on NBC Nightly News.

Sure, we might hear a blurb now and then on the major networks if we are lucky. But no way Bush would have been re-elected had the media done its job, they could have seriously butchered this guy.

You know why it's not on those news stations? BECAUSE IT'S ALL CONJECTURE WITH NO PROOF. Just because Michael Moore, the godfather of failed liberalism, says it's true, doesn't mean it's true in reality. Show me concrete proof of it, and I'll believe it. Until then, anything like that that comes out of liberals' mouths is a pack of lies with no proof.

If you have pieces of evidence supporting a relationship between the President of the United States and the Sauds which was in the best interests of the Bush family rather than the people, you'd better either prove or disprove it while there are Michael Moores running around spreading their message to millions. Instead the major news networks are focused on a little boy seeing Michael Jackson's penis.

There is no liberal bias, there is no conservative bias. At least not one to be concerned about. The thing we should be worried about is a press with no balls to challenge anything whatsoever, whether it be from the right or the left.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic...on_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/

Bush got three times the bad press that Kerry did. How much evidence needs to be stacked up for liberals to finally realize there is a liberal bias, that they've been brainwashed, and they hate to see a positive news station like foxnews on because it actually has a positive outlook and gives a different point of view they are used to.

the only reason bush got 3x more bad press is because bush is 100x worse and guilty of past wrongdoings than kerry is.

the press, honestly, has been very, *VERY* lenient on that Bush-whack.

And further, bias is purpetrated by those who are just pissed off that something isn't reported on their angle the way they want to see it. Those worried about bias typically have a strong bias themselves. Just like in a relationship; those worried about their partner cheating have probably been guilty of cheating themselves.

 

[PatboyX]

it is worth noting both that
1. kerry was not actually president. he probably got less coverage overall.
2. bush had recently been given a "free pass" during the lead up to the iraq war and at the time of the election, many news organizations were publicly apologizing for their self-styled "war mongering." for various reasons, there was very little negative said about the war and the administration directly before we attacked. during the election, perhaps many news groups were attempting to even things out and gain back lost readership/viewers by making it clear that the news people in question were not afraid to question the administration.

there is a larger bias at play during news broadcasts. dont waste time trying to figure out if the person telling you the news is liberal or conservative.

 

[polm]

when you screw up as much as Bush has, you tend to get a lot of bad press...especially when you are running for re-election.

the truth is, Ntdz, you are absolutely correct. The media is biased towards telling the truth. And the truth is that Bush is, at least, 3 times more awful than Kerry.

 

[phillyTIM]

exactly polm....clinton lied, hillary put him out on the couch to sleep at night

bush lied, 1500+ US military & 100,000+ Iraqis DIED.

kerry flip-flopped a bit, as bush does a lot, and only hurt himself.

hmmm...i wonder why bush gets bad press.

 

[BBond]

Proof of Liberal Bias?
Study shows media three times harder on Bush

And just think, this is the result with the Bush administration spending millions of taxpayer dollars on deceptive ad campaigns. :roll:

If our subverted "free" press was actually doing its job studies would show the media being hundreds of times harder on Bush -- simply by telling the truth.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
exactly polm....clinton lied, hillary put him out on the couch to sleep at night

bush lied, 1500+ US military & 100,000+ Iraqis DIED.

kerry flip-flopped a bit, as bush does a lot, and only hurt himself.

hmmm...i wonder why bush gets bad press.

It is a conspiracy by the Liberal Media I tell you!!! They are teh eval!!! Bush is god!!! He is the best president evar!!!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic...on_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/

Bush got three times the bad press that Kerry did. How much evidence needs to be stacked up for liberals to finally realize there is a liberal bias, that they've been brainwashed, and they hate to see a positive news station like foxnews on because it actually has a positive outlook and gives a different point of view they are used to.

:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
REPOST.

Proof that Republican supporters are biased against using the search bar.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1543126&enterthread=y


Why is this thread still open?

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kibbo
REPOST.

Proof that Republican supporters are biased against using the search bar.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1543126&enterthread=y


Why is this thread still open?

Well hey conjur, for once we can agree on something! As the OP in the original thread, I too am suprised they are allowing the reposts. On the other hand, it's probably more to do with balance. After all, look at how many Bush bashing threads there are. Most may have different titles but they all contain the same pitifull diatribe and "conjured up facts" .

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Kibbo
REPOST.

Proof that Republican supporters are biased against using the search bar.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1543126&enterthread=y


Why is this thread still open?

Well hey conjur, for once we can agree on something! As the OP in the original thread, I too am suprised they are allowing the reposts. On the other hand, it's probably more to do with balance. After all, look at how many Bush bashing threads there are. Most may have different titles but they all contain the same pitifull diatribe and "conjured up facts" .

So, I can see you've killed mannnny kittens haven't you?

 

[Alistar7]

No bias in US media coverage of Iraq: study

NEW YORK (AFP) - Accusations of an anti-war bias in the US media's coverage of the conflict in Iraq (news - web sites) in 2004 are unfounded, according to a study.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s.../ts_alt_afp/usmedia&cid=1506&ncid=1473

While individual news sources are of course biased (Fox, CNN), overall there is a well balanced amount of information reported if you choose to take an honest, objective look.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
You have been brainwashed by the rightwing establishment that two different people should be getting identical press coverage regardless of their actions. Additionally, this sample does not include radio, which was spewing anti-Kerry propaganda every time I tuned into one of them local "news" stations.

So you are saying that Rush Limbaugh's program is a news program? So is Hannity's program? Give me a break! Those aren't news they are editorial programs. Rush is not the equivalent to a reporter on Fox News or CNN.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
No bias in US media coverage of Iraq: study

NEW YORK (AFP) - Accusations of an anti-war bias in the US media's coverage of the conflict in Iraq (news - web sites) in 2004 are unfounded, according to a study.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s.../ts_alt_afp/usmedia&cid=1506&ncid=1473

While individual news sources are of course biased (Fox, CNN), overall there is a well balanced amount of information reported if you choose to take an honest, objective look.

The study was done by "Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism." here is info on them:
http://www.journalism.org/who/pej/about.asp

They are people from MSNBC, Columbia University, American Enterprise Institute, and CBS News. I am wondering if they are the best people to trust on a study of journalistic bias.

 

[Michaelbgrant]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Michaelbgrant
I seriously can't believe that people think there is some sort of liberal media conspiracy. It's one thing if you just don't read the news, but it's just weird to suggest that basically all but one are falsely reporting information. Fox news is just not good news in general, if you want good news you pretty much need to read the NYTimes, bbc, or just watch the Daily Show. Fact is that news is what these companies do, you can't blame them for being informed and providing information which doesn't put your favorite canidate in good light, right?

Spoken like a true liberal. "Good News" is the NY Times and the BBC, probably the two most liberal media outlets there are. Good call, liberal.

Are you one of those southerners that don't believe in evolution or something. Call me liberal if you want, I'm just curious?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic...on_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/

Bush got three times the bad press that Kerry did. How much evidence needs to be stacked up for liberals to finally realize there is a liberal bias

Boy, have you opened my eyes.

And using similar reasoning, I went over the U.S. press during WWII. And I noticed that there were 20 times as many negative stories about Adolph Hitler as about FDR. I guess this proves the American press is biased against Nazi dictators.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: ntdz
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic...on_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/

Bush got three times the bad press that Kerry did. How much evidence needs to be stacked up for liberals to finally realize there is a liberal bias

Boy, have you opened my eyes.

And using similar reasoning, I went over the U.S. press during WWII. And I noticed that there were 20 times as many negative stories about Adolph Hitler as about FDR. I guess this proves the American press is biased against Nazi dictators.

Actually that was a great time in our country. We labeled who the enemies were and this country united and fought against them. Today, its a divided country and most people don't know who we're even fighting.

The enemy isn't Bush, the enemy isn't religion, the enemy isn't morals and traditions and family values. And on the opposite side, the enemy isn't the democrats, the enemy isn't liberals, the enemy isn't gay rights and equality.

We have to understand that although we may disagree with each other, we are not enemies. At least thats what I believe. And, I lie in between the modern conservatives and modern liberals. As we speak there is a major disaccord between conservatives and liberals, and democrats and republicans. One polical ideology doesn't necessarily translate into one particular party.

Instead of working jointly to solve the many hurdles that ail this country, we are denegrading each other.

I hope this country wakes up and stops this political hatred for one another. This hatred comes from both sides and that makes it that much difficult to settle the differences and move forward. We have to be united if we're going to succeed as a nation and win against the enemies who are out to destroy us.

As for Fox News being opinionated, well there is no denying it. They are certainly far more opinionated in their coverage than CNN or even MSNBC. CNN is the best cable news channel, INO. Best news coverage and overrall great staff who know how to bring real news. I rarely, if ever, watch MSNBC.

But seriously, I rarely watch tv news now. I watch the extremely liberal "Daily Show with John Stewart" more than I watch any tv news. I think the Daily Show has better news coverage than all three of the cable news networks, albeit from a very liberal angle. I really don't mind it to be honest. It's a very funny show and if John Stewart is a lefty, so what? Besides, people who watch the Daily Show tend to be more aware of whats happening in the world and in tune with current events, according to a study.

Fox News has strong, opinionated hosts and anyone who is honest will realize that. I think its the opinion, flasy graphics, close-ups and hot chicks of Fox News that lures so many people to watch it.