[Buckaroo]

When ever a Republican does anything wrong, or makes and error, the left wing headlines the story with "Republican" every where in the story and headline. They do every thing they can to vilify the Republican party. But when a Democrat commits illegal acts and they report it, you can NOT find any mention of his political party in the story. They NEVER print anything that might cast a negative image on the Democrat party.

I didn't read the whole story, but I did search for even an abreviation including "Dem". Nothing came up.

This is why I hate the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

A deal in the desert for Sen. Reid? Senetor Reid is a Democrat.

[Buckaroo]

Besides, I wouldn't be suprised if they don't bury it in the middle of some obscure section of the paper.

[Railroader]

What the media has a left-wing bias? Say it ain't so!!!

[Buckaroo]

If he was a Republican, they would have mentioned Republican atleast 20 times along with blasting it in the headline on the front page.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

If he was a Republican, they would have mentioned Republican atleast 20 times along with blasting it in the headline on the front page.

I'm exagurating slightly. Actually they would have metioned it 100 times and it would have covered the first 10 pages of the paper for 10 days.

[larrinski]

Only in the USA, is a Democrat considered Left wing. They are quite a right wing party. The media is owned by corporations. Those corporations are not left wing. if they advocated revolution, maybe they'd be left wing...

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

They NEVER print anything that might cast a negative image on the Democrat party.

I didn't read the whole story, but I did search for even an abreviation including "Dem". Nothing came up.

[Chuckit]

Besides explicitly putting "D-Nev," it also says right in the lede that he's Senate Majority Leader, which means Democrat. I'm calling paranoia.

[BRussell]

Oops, haha. Yeah, they're so biased.

I remember during the Foley page boy scandal how many liberal websites were critical of the news media for not mentioning that he was a Republican. And you could count on Fox to take it to a whole new level:

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by larrinski 

Only in the USA, is a Democrat considered Left wing. They are quite a right wing party. The media is owned by corporations. Those corporations are not left wing. if they advocated revolution, maybe they'd be left wing...

Shhh!

Ultimately, the joke's on them.

[Atomic Rooster]

When the Dems have control and the presidency, the press is the other way around.

Bias is all relative.

[lpkmckenna]

I tend to ignore anyone who complains about bias in the press. Suggesting that the entire mainstream press has a conservative bias or liberal bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

Another thing about press bias: it's not that bad a thing. I tend to expect that the press has a bias against fringe groups. I don't think everyone deserves to be treated as if they are a credible movement. The mainstream press is fairly hostile to the Church of Scientology, for instance, and that is as it should be. Here in Ontario, I don't expect the press to talk about separatist parties like they have a legitimate platform.

[vmarks]

Newspapers in America have historically been openly biased.

They put their bias in the title of the newspaper, in the masthead.

"The Mason County Democrat"
"The Yakima Herald Republic"

Somewhere along the way there was a push to declare complete objectivity. This didn't succeed as much as it pushed the bias from the story content to the editorial choice of which stories to cover, which to run. But there's still a bias present in that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Newspapers in America have historically been openly biased.

They put their bias in the title of the newspaper, in the masthead.

"The Mason County Democrat"
"The Yakima Herald Republic"

Somewhere along the way there was a push to declare complete objectivity. This didn't succeed as much as it pushed the bias from the story content to the editorial choice of which stories to cover, which to run. But there's still a bias present in that.

Less than the conspiracy whackos think. The simple fact is, most newspapers want credibility. If they show significant bias, they throw that away. Thus, even if an editor has a message he wants to get out, allowing that bias to harm his news coverage is counterproductive. There are some cases where some hidden bias shows through, but most of the instances people bitch about (as in this thread) are pure paranoia.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The simple fact is, most newspapers want credibility.

Ha. They want customers. If customers want bias, they'll give 'em bias.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Ha. They want customers. If customers want bias, they'll give 'em bias.

Yes, but in that case, they are not going to pretend not to be biased. There are some newspapers like this that have a very obvious slant — that's fine and well, they're still being honest. But there's very little to be gained from letting some dark, hidden agenda control your news pages. In general, a newspaper that isn't taken seriously as an information source isn't worth very much. (This is part of the reason why national newspapers are declining in popularity — people don't view them as a worthwhile source of information as much anymore.)

[Sky Captain]

All "news media" is garbage.
Maybe if we all ignore it, it'll go away.

[Chuckit]

Eh, you can go ignore all information in the world. I'll be well-informed, thanks.

[Sky Captain]

And if the information is flawed?
Nothing like being bombarded woth propaghanda.
I'll ignore the garbage.
Todays "news" is to sell prodducts through advertising. Consumerism.
Garbage sells garbage.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but in that case, they are not going to pretend not to be biased. There are some newspapers like this that have a very obvious slant — that's fine and well, they're still being honest. But there's very little to be gained from letting some dark, hidden agenda control your news pages. In general, a newspaper that isn't taken seriously as an information source isn't worth very much. (This is part of the reason why national newspapers are declining in popularity — people don't view them as a worthwhile source of information as much anymore.)

Let me propose a different hypothesis to you: People want bias. They want their own views spit back at them so they can nod their heads. That's why talk radio and blowhard opinion "anchors" are outselling traditional newspapers. If people don't trust traditional media it's not because those media are biased, it's because they're not biased enough.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

And if the information is flawed?
Nothing like being bombarded woth propaghanda.
I'll ignore the garbage.
Todays "news" is to sell prodducts through advertising. Consumerism.
Garbage sells garbage.

Like I said, that sounds like a good deal to me. You go be willfully ignorant, I'll actually sift through the information and control the world.

[Sky Captain]

CBS fiasco = willfully ignotant. Dan Rather - willfully ignorant.
I get the local news.
I get the world news. I ignore the "personal opinion" injected by the "reporter".

[Sky Captain]

Here - USA Today isn't biased in reporting.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

CBS fiasco = willfully ignotant. Dan Rather - willfully ignorant.
I get the local news.
I get the world news. I ignore the "personal opinion" injected by the "reporter".

By that logic you are basically telling us to ignore your person opinion you've just injected.

Can do!

[Sky Captain]

I didn't tell anyone to do anything.
I said I ignore the usless personal opinion injected by the loosely titled news reporters.

And I could give a ratsass on what who chooses to ignore my personal opinion.

Can do?

[sek929]

So your post was just to let everyone know that you don't like the news?

Didn't you accomplish that about 500,000 times so far?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I tend to ignore anyone who complains about bias in the press. Suggesting that the entire mainstream press has a conservative bias or liberal bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

Another thing about press bias: it's not that bad a thing. I tend to expect that the press has a bias against fringe groups. I don't think everyone deserves to be treated as if they are a credible movement. The mainstream press is fairly hostile to the Church of Scientology, for instance, and that is as it should be. Here in Ontario, I don't expect the press to talk about separatist parties like they have a legitimate platform.

Anyone who claims the mainstream press doesn't have a leftist bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by sek929 

So your post was just to let everyone know that you don't like the news?

Didn't you accomplish that about 500,000 times so far?

And it's your concern why?
When someone starts a topic on bias in the "news media", the last that I checked, I was allowed to express my personal opinion on the matter.

K?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Anyone who claims the mainstream press doesn't have a leftist bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

I recall a couple of years ago when people were complaining about how much the press seemed to be sucking up to Bush. I can clearly see how you could infer liberal bias there.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I recall a couple of years ago when people were complaining about how much the press seemed to be sucking up to Bush. I can clearly see how you could infer liberal bias there.

Well, if "people" do it, then it must be true eh?

And FWIW, I don't recall that.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Well, if "people" do it, then it must be true eh?

And FWIW, I don't recall that.

Of course not. It's easy to forget something that doesn't support your argument.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Of course not. It's easy to forget something that doesn't support your argument.

And it's easy to make a claim without supplying proof.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Anyone who claims the mainstream press doesn't have a leftist bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

Sorry I took so long to respond. I couldn't stop laughing. At you.

Ever heard of Fox News? Ever heard of 20/20? Ever heard of Readers Digest? Ever heard of Sun Media (probably not, it's Canadian)?

There are many examples of mainstream news media and programs with a conservative slant, as well as examples of liberal slant. Only an idiot thinks the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal.

But you didn't even use the word "liberal," but "leftist."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I get the local news.
I get the world news. I ignore the "personal opinion" injected by the "reporter".

That's weird. What did you mean by this:

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

All "news media" is garbage.
Maybe if we all ignore it, it'll go away.

[Millennium]

Both sides seem to spend a lot of time insisting that the media is biased against them. I take this as a sign that on balance, it's probably about where it should be. You just have to be careful to get your news from many sources.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Both sides seem to spend a lot of time insisting that the media is biased against them. I take this as a sign that on balance, it's probably about where it should be. You just have to be careful to get your news from many sources.

My thoughts exactly.

[analogika]

Typical right wing paranoid-biased idiot MacNN thread

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Typical right wing paranoid-biased idiot MacNN thread

So true.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Typical right wing paranoid-biased idiot MacNN thread

Yup.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sorry I took so long to respond. I couldn't stop laughing. At you.

Ever heard of Fox News? Ever heard of 20/20? Ever heard of Readers Digest? Ever heard of Sun Media (probably not, it's Canadian)?

There are many examples of mainstream news media and programs with a conservative slant, as well as examples of liberal slant. Only an idiot thinks the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal.

But you didn't even use the word "liberal," but "leftist."

Sorry I took so long to respond. I couldn't stop laughing. At you.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I tend to ignore anyone who complains about bias in the press. Suggesting that the entire mainstream press has a conservative bias or liberal bias is so laughably, demonstrably wrong, the advocate of such is typically a fringe nut-bar.

[VADER] All too easy [/VADER]

[Rumor]

If you are suggesting that he contradicted himself, you might want to read a bit closer.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

If you are suggesting that he contradicted himself, you might want to read a bit closer.

Sorry, I bolded the wrong spots.

[Uncle Skeleton]

He wasn't complaining, he was saying the various biases are balanced.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Let me propose a different hypothesis to you: People want bias. They want their own views spit back at them so they can nod their heads. That's why talk radio and blowhard opinion "anchors" are outselling traditional newspapers. If people don't trust traditional media it's not because those media are biased, it's because they're not biased enough.

Pretty astute, but you've got to factor in the psychoses of those folks who watch the biased media so they can disagree with them. A large part of Rush's audience, for example, has always been against him. They listen to get angry I guess.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

"The Mason County Democrat"
"The Yakima Herald Republic"

So am I a Tribunican or a Timesocrat?

OT: I can barely take the N.Y. Times and the Washington Post seriously, and I'm a liberal. There are people out there who actually take the L.A. Times seriously?

Newspapers are rags. All of them.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

[VADER] All too easy [/VADER]

Your intended meaning isn't clear. Oh well....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sorry I took so long to respond. I couldn't stop laughing. At you.

Ever heard of Fox News? Ever heard of 20/20? Ever heard of Readers Digest? Ever heard of Sun Media (probably not, it's Canadian)?

There are many examples of mainstream news media and programs with a conservative slant, as well as examples of liberal slant. Only an idiot thinks the MSM is overwhelmingly liberal.

But you didn't even use the word "liberal," but "leftist."

I don't think it even matters whether there is a left or right bias in the media. What it boils down to me is whether the reporting is substantive or lazy.

[Sky Captain]

The problem is there's no accountability in "reporting".

There's one story floating around right now that's completely inaccurate.
And no one seems to care that thier information is wrong.
Or that they chose to take lies over facts.

I think Chuckit said to me:
Eh, you can go ignore all information in the world. I'll be well-informed, thanks.

Go ahead, consume the misnformation, play into the hands of the media and those with an adgenda.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I think Chuckit said to me:
Eh, you can go ignore all information in the world. I'll be well-informed, thanks.

Go ahead, consume the misnformation, play into the hands of the media and those with an adgenda.

You missed Chuckit's point, though. He argues that you need to consume media from a variety of sources. That way you are more likely to find the real story about a subject after discounting all the various biases presented in the various media. How is doing that not being "well-informed"?

Your sentence above about "consuming the misinformation" seems to imply you think ALL media is deliberately trying to misinform people. Is that what you really believe? You didn't specify national media versus local media or television media versus print media: Do you really think ALL media cannot be trusted?

[Sky Captain]

I trust all media as much as I trust all politicians.

Are we through with this "all about me moment"?