[Kerrigan]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

What's wrong with the article?

[nonhuman]

Well it is kinda moronic... (the article, I mean)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What's wrong with the article?

I don't get it either

-t

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

Yes, damn the liberal media for reporting facts. It's a bloody shame in fact!

They should report more on important stuff like traditional evangelical republican family values and find a way to get "U.S.A! U.S.A! U.S.A!" into their reports! That's much more enlightening!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well it is kinda moronic... (the article, I mean)

How so ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Problem with the article or a problem with the Republican party?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How so ?

-t

Who the **** cares? Oh no, there was a preponderance of white people at this gathering of an organization that attempts to represent a mostly white nation!

[Sayf-Allah]

If they were representative of the "nation" there should have been about 295 African-Americans at the convention. Not 36.

36 African-Americans would be OK if about 1.5% of Americans were African-American.

[SpaceMonkey]

The reason why this is a story (although I have no idea why this article doesn't mention it -- kind of undercuts the point) is that in 2000, and to a lesser extent 2004, the Republican Party made a deliberate effort to reach out more to minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos. I can't find it at the moment, but according to another article I saw, there were about half as many black delegates to the convention this year as compared to the 2004 convention.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

If they were representative of the "nation" there should have been about 295 African-Americans at the convention. Not 36.

36 African-Americans would be OK if about 1.5% of Americans were African-American.

Again, who cares how many blacks are there? If black people can't or don't want to go to the RNC, so what?

Yes there are questions stemming from this related to the relevance of the Republican Party, at least for black Americans, and clearly some over-sensative types can see this as a form of racism. But so what? It's not like they actively discouraged or prevented blacks from attending, is it? If they throw a party and blacks don't show up, that affects no one.

[Atheist]

"overboard"? That's a laugh. It may not be the most important news of the day, but it is surely news.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

If they were representative of the "nation" there should have been about 295 African-Americans at the convention.

Why would anyone think that an arbitrary sample of about 2000 people should have the same racial composition as a nation of 300 million? The only way this could happen is if effort was made to make it happen, and that would involve quotas, which don't belong in a colorblind party.

[Gee-Man]

Everything in that article is true. And not only that, it puts some context to efforts by Republicans over the past few years to really reach out to non-white voters. A noble effort, but obviously, they're doing something wrong, since it's not working at all.

I don't see how reporting the facts is somehow the "liberal media going overboard". This story isn't charging anybody with racism.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Who the **** cares? Oh no, there was a preponderance of white people at this gathering of an organization that attempts to represent a mostly white nation!

Wow, you really are that dense.
Wanna think a bit about the "representing" and "mostly" part ?

Minorities now make up a THIRD of the US. Any party that claims to represent the USA should try to represent these groups, too.

Otherwise, the Republican party can pack up shop.
If the Dems get all of these minorities, the Republicans need to get the votes of more than 70% of the white population to get to more than 50% of all votes. This will never happen.

-t

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Everything in that article is true. And not only that, it puts some context to efforts by Republicans over the past few years to really reach out to non-white voters. A noble effort, but obviously, they're doing something wrong, since it's not working at all.

You sure? One might suppose they just didn't bother considering the opposition this year.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Again, who cares how many blacks are there? If black people can't or don't want to go to the RNC, so what?

1. It's an interesting fact.
2. If a party is trying to be representative of the nation they should also try to represent the minorities.

Yes there are questions stemming from this related to the relevance of the Republican Party, at least for black Americans, and clearly some over-sensative types can see this as a form of racism. But so what? It's not like they actively discouraged or prevented blacks from attending, is it? If they throw a party and blacks don't show up, that affects no one.

It goes back to the idea that Republicans tend to focus on the wealthier demographics (true or not). The poverty rate (in 1997) for A-A and Hispanics is 26.5% while for whites it's 11%. The median income for African Americans (in 1997) was 25.000 while for whites it was 38.000. Average income per household was 12.000 for African Americans while it was 20.000 for whites.

So again, it shows perhaps whom the Republican party is focusing their efforts on.

There's nothing scandalous about it. It's just interesting and should be highlighted.

[Kerrigan]

I think a large part of the problem of the bias of the media institution is that they, like their liberal patrons, think that the press is an objective institution that serves solely to report facts. Even an academic will tell you that his or her analyses of facts are inherently shaped by one's own sensibilities and dispositions towards the relative importance of data. However, most journalists are not academics . . . . they have the air of pseudo-academics, and they don't even seem to address the rigors of institutional bias as it affects their own reporting.

Based on my own experience --I've attended a handful of conferences for professors of journalism, journalists, and aspiring college students-- the issue of media bias is getting worse, both in the sense that polarization and the internet is driving both sides further into monocularity (yes erik this is a word!! ) and that media types have so reviled the Bush administration that media coverage of McCain's campaign has evolved into an effort to prevent his election even more conspicuously than 1992's media love-fest with Perot.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wow, you really are that dense.
Wanna think a bit about the "representing" and "mostly" part ?

Minorities now make up a THIRD of the US. Any party that claims to represent the USA should try to represent these groups, too.

Otherwise, the Republican party can pack up shop.
If the Dems get all of these minorities, the Republicans need to get the votes of more than 70% of the white population to get to more than 50% of all votes. This will never happen.

-t

Perhaps if the article had drawn some of those conclusions or speculated as the the causes and/or results of this fact then it would be worthwhile. Instead, they merely stated that there were barely any black people at the convention.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Why would anyone think that an arbitrary sample of about 2000 people should have the same racial composition as a nation of 300 million? The only way this could happen is if effort was made to make it happen, and that would involve quotas, which don't belong in a colorblind party.

You can make an effort to involve minorities without involving quotas.

[Kerrigan]

Just look at the difference between, say, US Weekly's treatment of Michelle Obama versus Palin.



The fawning Newsweek covers:


The day when the NYT had three front-page stories on Palin's daughter's pregnancy. You would never see the WSJ make such a blatant attempt to smear a Democrat with that type of story.

We all know the media is in bed with Obama, the funny, or sad, thing is that Democrats won't even admit to it, like they are somehow ashamed of it. At least we on the right own up to those segments of the press that are friendly towards us. Liberals just pretend that there is no bias whatsoever on, say, MSNBC, or in the NYT.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

You can make an effort to involve minorities without involving quotas.

And without giving minorities preferential treatment en masse?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Just look at the difference between, say, US Weekly's treatment of Michelle Obama versus Palin.

The day when the NYT had three front-page stories on Palin's daughter's pregnancy. You would never see the WSJ make such a blatant attempt to smear a Democrat with that type of story.

We all know the media is in bed with Obama, the funny, or sad, thing is that Democrats won't even admit to it, like they are somehow ashamed of it. At least we on the right own up to those segments of the press that are friendly towards us. Liberals just pretend that there is no bias whatsoever on, say, MSNBC, or in the NYT.

US Weekly!?

It's a sodding celebrity magazine!

[Kerrigan]

I always know that liberals are on the defensive when they break out the LOLs and attack your weakest point in your argument, rather than address the strong points.

Lesson 1 of law school: refute by addressing the meat of the argument, not by pursuing irrelevant lines of thought that skirt around the main charge. Do they teach you that in religious school?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And without giving minorities preferential treatment en masse?

If you focus on lower income families you aren't giving preferential treatment to African Americans, so yes.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I always know that liberals are on the defensive when they break out the LOLs and attack your weakest point in your argument, rather than address the strong points.

When your weakest point is pointing to US weekly when "proving" how the US media is biased towards "liberals" then your whole argument falls apart.

[paul w]

Yeah, I'm afraid the Us Weekly covers undermine your point. It's the most braindead of all magazines out there. You've got the Obamas sharing the cover with the Hogans and the Hills. Who cares? Show me a balanced study that doesn't soundsg like the usual "liberal media" right wing whining and I'm interested.

And yes - there's bias on MSNBC - in that their commentators are largely vocally left wing, granted which counterbalances Fox nicely. I'll look elsewhere for actual journalism. And the NY Times Opinion columnists are largely left-leaning (but not all). But I'd like evidence of their news coverage being liberally biased. And if someone has another American publication that is *truly* unbiased (and that I can buy at the local newstand I'm all ears - the WSJ? Financial Times?)

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Just look at the difference between, say, US Weekly's treatment of Michelle Obama versus Palin.

US Weekly is now the "liberal media"?

The day when the NYT had three front-page stories on Palin's daughter's pregnancy. You would never see the WSJ make such a blatant attempt to smear a Democrat with that type of story.

I recall that the WSJ had multiple front-page stories about Elliot Spitzer's sex scandal. Most of the corporate-controlled media simply goes where the most interesting stories are, it's not a liberal or conservative thing. Sex sells, it's as simple as that.

We all know the media is in bed with Obama, the funny, or sad, thing is that Democrats won't even admit to it, like they are somehow ashamed of it. At least we on the right own up to those segments of the press that are friendly towards us. Liberals just pretend that there is no bias whatsoever on, say, MSNBC, or in the NYT.

No, YOU think the media is in bed with Obama. Outside the right wing echo chamber where you get all your news, I've seen them run hundreds of negative stories about Obama on a variety of issues for the past year and a half. Every day there's stories about him not being able to appeal to this base or that base of voters.

The reasons you're seeing so much Palin-mania are simple, and have nothing to do with so-called liberal bias. Palin is new on the national scene, so there's a great deal of curiosity about her. We have only 60 days to figure out who this woman is, so the media feels pressure to move fast on stories about her. She was introduced to America in general at a very high level - as a VP, not a Senator or Congresswoman, so the stakes are much higher than usual. And to top it all off, you have to be blind not to notice that there is a fair amount of drama in her family, FAR more than the boring Obama family. If Obama had a 17-year old daughter that was pregnant and planning a shotgun marriage to her boyfriend, you can bet your ass that the media would be having a feeding frenzy right now, too.

So stop whining about the liberal media. I noticed you guys get all weepy about the media when Obama's getting bad press (see: Reverend Wright).

[Kerrigan]

I'll stop whining about it as soon as you stop whining about "Faux News". To hear some of you talk it's like there are no liberals in the media at all!

[hyteckit]

US Weekly

What sells: Celebrity Pregnancy, Celebrity Baby pictures, Celebrity Wedding, Sex, and Celebrity fighting

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

What's happened to you? The article states facts about the demographics of the Republican convention and the party's elected representatives.

I'm glad this came up because it was something that really struck me after a friend mentioned it and I watched the McCain speech.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Perhaps if the article had drawn some of those conclusions or speculated as the the causes and/or results of this fact then it would be worthwhile. Instead, they merely stated that there were barely any black people at the convention.

Or any people of color. Honestly, for a country with the population we now have, the Republican party should do some soul-searching on this one.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'll stop whining about it as soon as you stop whining about "Faux News". To hear some of you talk it's like there are no liberals in the media at all!

Oh, there are a few liberals in the mainstream media. But most of them are cowering chumps who think they have to suck up to the people in power to "prove" that they're not biased, so even if they're liberals, they're worse than useless in promoting a "liberal" POV. The exceptions to this rule are extremely rare, while there are many, many right-wing pundits and commentators in the media, with lots of exposure.

As for Fox News, I have no problem with them. There should be biased networks, in fact I wish we had one for every political position, just to provide coverage. Kinda like how the web works. I just wish they'd come clean and drop the "fair and balanced" act and just come out and admit they are a right-wing-based news network. Like websites like NewsMax and CNSNews do. Stop lying to us, and we can at least respect you for it.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'll stop whining about it as soon as you stop whining about "Faux News". To hear some of you talk it's like there are no liberals in the media at all!

But can you point to anything in the "liberal" media as absurdly biased as Fox News is at any given minute of the day? You never hear CNN anchors casually use pejoratives for McCain or Governor Palin the way they do on Fox News, calling the Democratic convention a "spectacle" again and again and previous absurdities such as labeling Michelle Obama his "baby mamma" in a ticker. Not just a slip of the tongue, an actual graphic that went on screen.

With the media now controlled by a few large corporations, It's just absurd to try to fly this "liberal media" flag these days. The media has become infotainment and they gravitate toward controversy, which more than explains all of the complaints I see in this thread and the other that touched on Bush's daughters recently.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Or any people of color. Honestly, for a country with the population we now have, the Republican party should do some soul-searching on this one.

Nah, either they'll get non-white votes, or they'll cease to be nationally relevant. Either way, it'll probably be an improvement.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Who the **** cares? Oh no, there was a preponderance of white people at this gathering of an organization that attempts to represent a mostly white nation!

But we rapidly becoming a mostly non-white nation and what you see in that crowd is not representative of the country. It raises an obvious and painful question: Maybe the Republican party is only "attempting" to represent that white majority, not the nation as a whole.

At the very least, it seems reasonable to say that that's all they are succeeding in representing.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

To be fair, we should note that Minneapolis and Denver themselves have different populations, so the crowd itself being mostly white in that area that far north is probably pretty understandable.

The article, of course, points out that the party's representatives--those first rows we saw more of during the speeches--are also not diverse.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Everything in that article is true. And not only that, it puts some context to efforts by Republicans over the past few years to really reach out to non-white voters. A noble effort, but obviously, they're doing something wrong, since it's not working at all.

I don't see how reporting the facts is somehow the "liberal media going overboard". This story isn't charging anybody with racism.

Yeah. I actually thought the article was complimentary to the Republican Party for the way they have made great improvements in bringing minorities into the party.

But, watching the various speeches over the three days it was obvious the crowd was predominantly white, much more so than at the Democratic convention.

I think Sayf-Allah might have a point about the Republican Party's base targeting the wealthier portion of the nation's populace but there are plenty of wealthy, business-oriented minorities in this country and even they seem to be under-represented in the Republican Party and I don't know why. This sounds like an interesting topic for a demographer to study.

[Chuckit]

Myself, I'd rather not be viewed as Us Weekly's kind of person.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'll stop whining about it as soon as you stop whining about "Faux News". To hear some of you talk it's like there are no liberals in the media at all!

I'll stop whining as soon as FOX follows your advice and drops the "fair and balanced" tag.

Really. That's all it would take, and that's all it would take for a lot of people.

Edit: scooped.

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I just wish they'd come clean and drop the "fair and balanced" act and just come out and admit they are a right-wing-based news network.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Perhaps if the article had drawn some of those conclusions or speculated as the the causes and/or results of this fact then it would be worthwhile. Instead, they merely stated that there were barely any black people at the convention.

I guess I'm just used reading facts, and then draw the right conclusions from it for myself

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I guess I'm just used reading facts, and then draw the right conclusions from it for myself

-t

So the news you read is nothing but statements of pure fact? Even scientific publications don't accept papers tha do nothing but list the facts. There has to be some attempt to at least indicate why those facts are relevant and/or important.

[ebuddy]

I'm not seeing a huge problem with the article. In fact, they all, but addressed their own curiosity in the article itself.

This is the first time in 40 years that there has been such a weak representation of minorities at a major political party convention, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The [Democratic] party is heavily favored by African Americans: polls show that nine in ten support Obama's bid to become the nation's first black president.

For anyone having a similar curiosity, it's really quite simple. The fact that African-Americans comprise 12.4 percent of the US population and Hispanics comprise 14.8 percent means absolutely nothing in terms of who appears at the Republican Convention. 90% of African-Americans support the opposing party. You might think; "but 20% of Hispanics identify themselves as Republicans" unfortunately over half of them feel it's better to pay higher taxes to support larger government. I'm not particularly bothered by the piece, but I can see why some might find it at least a "reeeaaalllly stupid story".

On the other hand I thought it was very fair to include a real world example of an African-American woman who supports the Republican ideal. For her, the Republican platform offered her something that transcends race and the subsequent petty, vitriolic, small picture discussions that come of it. It's such a stumbling block IMO.

There's a reason why Republicans remain in the party and it has little to do with any of the people that have an (R) after their name. Personally, I buy into the ideals of it. I buy into the principle of it and the evidence that affirms it. It might surprise you how many Republicans are actually quite excited about the possibility of minorities appreciating this ideal.

Ironically, there's a voice out there that gives many the hope they need to finally embrace the Republican ideal, but he's not a Republican. One thing's for sure, the next term will be unprecedented.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

So the news you read is nothing but statements of pure fact? Even scientific publications don't accept papers tha do nothing but list the facts. There has to be some attempt to at least indicate why those facts are relevant and/or important.

No, but I don't read stuff that draws the OBVIOUS conclusions.

-t

[turtle777]

Btw, today's WSJ had the stats:



Which should make you wonder: Shouldn't the DEMOCRATS have more Blacks and Hispanics represented in their party ?

Compared to their constituency, minorities are BY FAR much more underrepresented, as compared with the Republicans.

-t

[Kerrigan]

Democrats think they "own" the media issue, and that is why we have reached such a stalemate. They think Fox News is biased--the epitome of fake conservative news--, and MSNBC, CNN, NYT etc are unbiased. They are unable to recognize that a more accurate scenario is that the left and right both have their own components in the media, and that due to the nature of the job it attracts more liberal types.

That is why I love bringing this up, as it is an issue about which liberals are especially smug, and therefore any dissension from from the established narrative drives them crazy.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Democrats think they "own" the media issue, and that is why we have reached such a stalemate. They think Fox News is biased--the epitome of fake conservative news--, and MSNBC, CNN, NYT etc are unbiased. They are unable to recognize that a more accurate scenario is that the left and right both have their own components in the media, and that due to the nature of the job it attracts more liberal types.

That is why I love bringing this up, as it is an issue about which liberals are especially smug, and therefore any dissension from from the established narrative drives them crazy.

Yes, well, we wouldn't want anyone making any sweeping and unsupportable generalizations, would we?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Democrats think they "own" the media issue, and that is why we have reached such a stalemate. They think Fox News is biased--the epitome of fake conservative news--, and MSNBC, CNN, NYT etc are unbiased. They are unable to recognize that a more accurate scenario is that the left and right both have their own components in the media, and that due to the nature of the job it attracts more liberal types.

What about the nature of the job that attracts more liberal types?

[lurkalot]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The liberal press is going to far these days. Even the wire services are misbehaving. What has happened to these people?

Sarah Palin and the entire Republican party are railing against the media after the media made her an over-night celebrity. Do you really think she would have reached these levels of popularity this quick on the "strength" of the republican convention alone? It was a brilliant strategy to use the media to do their advertising for her and then quell dissent by lambasting the media coverage. They made everyone talk about her but dictated beforehand what was and what wasn't acceptable coverage. This may not have persuaded the media but it appears to have persuaded a majority of the people who now declare Sarah Palin's stance on family related issues off limits. Stop whining about the media. The media may just have won you the election.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lurkalot 

Sarah Palin and the entire Republican party are railing against the media after the media made her an over-night celebrity. Do you really think she would have reached these levels of popularity this quick on the "strength" of the republican convention alone?

I love statements that start off with "Sarah Palin and the entire Republican party" because I know there are gems of intellectual honesty and fairness awaiting me.

Do you really think there was any way in hell they'd not cover her speech? She reached these levels of popularity this quick because she's a dynamic personality and an even more dynamic speaker. Whether you agree with her positions or not, there's no reason to deny the obvious.

It was a brilliant strategy to use the media to do their advertising for her and then quell dissent by lambasting the media coverage.

Me and 51% of voters believe that the media is trying to hurt the Alaska governor with its coverage. Even if this isn't the case it's not like we can pretend Obama hasn't had his fair share of "advertising". Not enough in the spotlight for two or something?

They made everyone talk about her but dictated beforehand what was and what wasn't acceptable coverage. This may not have persuaded the media but it appears to have persuaded a majority of the people who now declare Sarah Palin's stance on family related issues off limits. Stop whining about the media. The media may just have won you the election.

"They made" as if they're Obi-Wan Kenobi or something. They didn't dictate jack other than when to make the moves they decided to make. There's a difference between covering her teen daughter's pregnancy and suggesting the candidate's youngest is another of her daughter's babies. Questioning whether or not she's available for her kids as if daycare (yes, including special needs) is all of a sudden a reprehensible notion or her husband being more available to them unthinkable. There will be whining about the media. It is the way of things. If the Republicans won't do it, the Democrats will. As if we hadn't just learned first hand this year.

Besides, isn't Obama one of the ones who helped persuade the majority by declaring Sarah Palin's stance on family related issues (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) was off limits? If Palin can persuade Obama, why aren't you persuaded?