Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SDW2001 · Oct 1, 2008, 03:43 PM

The mainstream media has long been accused of bias towards the left. With the exception of Fox News, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, the MSM has had this bias for some time. We know its leaders: NBC/MSNBC, CNN, CBS and to a lesser extent ABC. In print, we have the NYT, The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the LAT, USA Today, Time and Newsweek. All have been accused of bias in the past. At the least, we can agree that they are liberal outlets, even if some have tried to have their news coverage be fair. Sure, we’ve had egregious examples of bias before, such as Dan Rather clinging to the Bush National Guard story despite the memo in question being a proven forgery. But I have bad news…it’s gotten much, much worse.

Today though, it's become clear that we've gone beyond what conservatives have decried as "media bias." We've entered a era where it's not just points of view that come through in news coverage. It's not just liberal editorial boards and the failure to label liberal ideas/points of view as such. No, it's more than that. I submit that we've entered an era where the MSM actively campaigns for one party/candidate and tries to harm the other through manipulation of the news. We're now seemingly living in a time where certain news divisions have made a deliberate and conscious choice to embrace the hard left. In their wake, they've ignored critical stories for their chosen candidates/party and focused intently on anything that even appears detrimental to their political opponents. We've past the era of bias and entered the era of full blown Media Malpractice.

A prime example is the coverage of the Presidential campaign. Specifically? The MSM ignored the Jeremiah Wright story for a full year. Mr. Obama has not had to answer almost any question about his background as a "community organizer" or his association with the terrorist radical William Ayers, with whom he maintained a long relationship. Mr. Obama has not had to explain or apologize for his statement about American troops "air raiding villages and killing innocent civilians" in Afghanistan. Any attempt to ask him such questions is met with fierce resistance. "You're trying make an issue of my associations! That's old school politics! Swiftboater!" are all cries that are heard from the Obama camp. Aided by the MSM, Obama has seen to it that we can't even talk about who he IS. Does he believe that more social spending is a good thing? We'll never know. Would he attack Iran if he thought they had a nuclear weapon about to come online? We'll never know. What did he mean when he said that Iran and Syria and North Korea were "tiny countries compared to the Soviet Union" and "don't represent a real threat." He won't answer, but they won't ask.

Just when I thought the bias couldn't get worse, it did. It happened last week with the financial meltdown on Wall Street. As the media focused on McCain's actions, they began to get word of who exactly was responsible for the meltdown in the first place, and who was trying to fix it. Hint: They are one in the same.

That's right. The media is now committing the ultimate injustice against the American people. It's not just malpractice, it's practically treason: They are ignoring that tangled in the roots of the financial meltdown are Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and....Barack Obama.

As we all know, Barack Obama worked as a “community organizer.” But what does that mean? The man worked with ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. One of ACORN's main focuses is lobbying Congress to pass legislation making housing "more affordable." ACORN, together with the Clinton Administration and Barney Frank (who claimed in 2005 that there was no crisis at Fannie and Freddie), Maxine Waters and others (including several Republicans), helped push through the Community Reinvestment Act, which relaxed lending standards. They even went to court to force lenders to relax standards for lower income and minority Americans. They, together with Republicans who let it happen, helped lay the groundwork for this disaster. And now these people are the ones crafting the "bailout," assailing the GOP and Wall Street all the way for greediness, the failure of the free market, and of course..."deregulation." Wow. Just....wow. These are the same exact people that helped cause the problem. And now they want $700 billion dollars of our money.

And where is the media? They're busy claiming that the failure of the bailout was "both parties fault" or even just the GOP's fault alone. They've ignored the fact that Barack Obama is associated with Franklin Raines, former Fannie Mae chairman, and Jim Johnson, former Freddie Mac chairman. Both advised Mr. Obama, at least until recently. The MSM is ignoring that Obama is the second largest recipient of funds from Fannie and Freddie in the U.S. Senate, despite him only being a Senator for three years.
They have utterly ignored all of this. We thought it was just liberal bias and MSNBC being "in the tank" for Obama. But it's much worse. They are committing malpractice against the citizens of this country. They know the truth and are ignoring it to get their candidate elected. We've entered a scary, new world. God only knows what they’ll do next.

SDW

ShortcutToMoncton · Oct 1, 2008, 03:54 PM

You know, I just now realized that I haven't seen you post in the last month except to say that the Republicans are the Anointed Coming of Awesome and Doing No Wrong™, while everything that is dirty and bad with Modern Ameraca can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrats.

You're quite the partisan hack, sdw.

greg

The Crook · Oct 1, 2008, 07:23 PM

^Agreed.

Sorry, SDW. You've never really quite explained this obsession with the "liberal media."

SDW2001 · Oct 1, 2008, 08:06 PM

Nice responses, guys. Care to address the issue at hand, or would you prefer to just attack me? As for the liberal media Crook, are you implying that there is no such thing?

Horsepoo!!! · Oct 1, 2008, 08:08 PM

Free press in North America is anything but...

You might get the real news from local media...maybe. Mainstream media is totally infiltrated and controlled.

Chuckit · Oct 1, 2008, 08:15 PM

Infiltrated and controlled by what? The teeming hordes of People Who Disagree With You?

Horsepoo!!! · Oct 1, 2008, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Infiltrated and controlled by what? The teeming hordes of People Who Disagree With You?

By the neocons and Zionists, of course. You didn't know that?

Chuckit...listen to me clearly, if you don't realize that your mainstream media isn't free press, you're going to be hurt bad by your country.

The Crook · Oct 1, 2008, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Nice responses, guys. Care to address the issue at hand, or would you prefer to just attack me? As for the liberal media Crook, are you implying that there is no such thing?

I'd rather attack you.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 2, 2008, 12:08 AM

What was it Stephen Colbert said? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"?

Chongo · 05:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTb5EFZmgbs
This video was backed by NBC Universal president Jeff Zucker. NBC is now the National Barack Channel
here is a google cached page from the O'Bama web site http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a
It was pulled after word got out that Zucker and friends ponied up the money for the production.

A couple of interesting takes on the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLprurE7EVI

There are a lot more remixes.

SpaceMonkey · 12:37 AM

Godwin's Law alert! (the first of Chongo's "interesting takes")

Does Jeff Zucker (who, it should be noted, makes no journalistic decisions) have to be chaste and nonpartisan in all aspects of his life in order for you to believe that NBC is capable of professional journalism? Or does he simply have to be a competent and professional chief executive? Should we prohibit media figures from voting? I don't see how Zucker's private financing of an independent video impacts NBC's news coverage.

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Godwin's Law alert! (the first of Chongo's "interesting takes")

Does Jeff Zucker (who, it should be noted, makes no journalistic decisions) have to be chaste and nonpartisan in all aspects of his life in order for you to believe that NBC is capable of professional journalism?

Between this and the fact that one of his networks has made no attempt at non-partisan reporting (MSNBC), and has been run in a way that specifically helps Obama, you can't just stick your head in the sand and say..GEE..I wonder who these people want to win the election. The guy at the top is a big Obama supporter and one of their networks does everything but install Obama cheerleaders during their newscasts and you don't "see how Zucker's private financing of an independent video impacts NBC's news coverage?"

Naive.

ABC, CBS and NBC have no credibility when it comes to reporting anything regarding politics. Year after year they get caught with their hands in the partisan cookie jar, only to raise their hands and say "who me?". ABC might have gotten a pass if not for it's horrendous "gotcha" interview with Palin this year which put Charlie Gibson's reputation as fair in the sh**ter.

SpaceMonkey · 09:15 AM

And if your judgment of the professional bias of journalists (although again, Jeff Zucker is not a journalist) is based on their private activities, and not actually their coverage, your solution is....what? Prevent journalists from having opinions? Prevent them from donating to campaigns?

Eug · Oct 2, 2008, 09:31 AM

You might want to start watching non-American news channels to get a real perspective of the views out there on US policy.

No, you won't get 24/7 coverage of the US election campaigns for example, but IMO that's a very, very, very good thing.

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

And if your judgment of the professional bias of journalists (although again, Jeff Zucker is not a journalist) is based on their private activities, and not actually their coverage, your solution is....what?

The problem is that that both their private activities and coverage is biased toward Democrats. Zucker's private activities and those of his network (specifically MSNBC) are targeted toward helping Democrats.

Prevent journalists from having opinions? Prevent them from donating to campaigns?

How about preventing them from making their bias so obvious? You typically don't hear about what's going on privately unless it is also reflected by what they are doing professionally.

Eug · Oct 2, 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

How about preventing them from making their bias so obvious?

Hmmm... Maybe. I'd almost like to see Fox News shut down.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 2, 2008, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

You typically don't hear about what's going on privately unless it is also reflected by what they are doing professionally.

I think this statement is backward. Jeff Zucker is a wealthy man, which makes people interested in what he is doing (especially where he is spending his money) regardless of his professional activities. You can argue that he shouldn't be giving money to candidates, but do you think Jeff Zucker's donations really influence the political opinions of people who watch NBC news? Jeff Zucker doesn't normally figure prominently in NBC coverage. Even if he did keep a lower profile in terms of his political opinions, that doesn't negate his opinions themselves, does it? I would think you would welcome him making his opinions more obvious, because otherwise how would we know whether his networks are "in the tank" for one candidate or the other (BTW, "Burn Notice" on USA is clearly a swipe at McCain in the form of the Bruce Campbell character). We'd be watching NBC without even realizing that we're being brainwashed!!!

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I think this statement is backward. Jeff Zucker is a wealthy man, which makes people interested in what he is doing (especially where he is spending his money) regardless of his professional activities. You can argue that he shouldn't be giving money to candidates, but do you think Jeff Zucker's donations really influence the political opinions of people who watch NBC news?

Jeff Zucker is their boss. Jeff Zucker makes hiring decisions. Jeff Zucker is a BIG Obama supporter. MSNBC is a BIG Obama supporter.

It's not calculus, it's basic math.

ebuddy · Oct 2, 2008, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

What was it Stephen Colbert said? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"?

... and we never learn from it.

SpaceMonkey · 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Jeff Zucker is their boss. Jeff Zucker makes hiring decisions. Jeff Zucker is a BIG Obama supporter. MSNBC is a BIG Obama supporter.

It's not calculus, it's basic math.

Can you demonstrate that Zucker's opinions have affected NBC's hiring decisions? (See, that would be an example of an actual professional bias, rather than Zucker's personal opinions). If not, then this is all just subjective.

Again, this idea that media figures who are sympathetic towards Democrats automatically inject their bias into their professional life shows just contempt for media figures as a whole. Since you appear so pro-Republican, should I assume that you inject your partisan views into your daily work life? Must be hard on your co-workers.

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Can you demonstrate that Zucker's opinions have affected NBC's hiring decisions? (See, that would be an example of an actual professional bias, rather than Zucker's personal opinions). If not, then this is all just subjective.

Zucker is at the top. If there are hiring decisions made which he disagrees with, he would let it be known. MSNBC is full of liberals, commentating liberally and slanting the news in a liberal fashion that benefits Barrack Obama. What part of Zucker being in charge of everyone underneath him do you not understand?

Again, this idea that media figures who are sympathetic towards Democrats automatically inject their bias into their professional life shows just contempt for media figures as a whole. Since you appear so pro-Republican, should I assume that you inject your partisan views into your daily work life? Must be hard on your co-workers.

A. I don't talk politics at work.
B. I don't work in a profession where IT'S MY JOB not to appear partisan.

It would be like having a organization that claimed to be pro-envirnoment be found to really have been polluting, and then you learn that the guy in charge of the organization gave to politicians that supported fewer environmental regulations. I suppose this guy's "private" political activities should in no way reflect on how he choose to run his organization?

SpaceMonkey · Oct 2, 2008, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Zucker is at the top. If there are hiring decisions made which he disagrees with, he would let it be known. MSNBC is full of liberals, commentating liberally and slanting the news in a liberal fashion that benefits Barrack Obama. What part of Zucker being in charge of everyone underneath him do you not understand?

Still mostly speculative. I'll just take that as meaning you can't point to anything in particular. I would only point out that as CEO of NBC Universal, Zucker oversees MANY divisions (entertainment, sports, news, etc.), so injecting his influence into hiring of people like news directors would be the exception rather than the rule.

A. I don't talk politics at work.
B. I don't work in a profession where IT'S MY JOB not to appear partisan.

And yet you automatically assume that people who ARE professionally expected to be nonpartisan do inject their bias into their work?

It would be like having a organization that claimed to be pro-envirnoment be found to really have been polluting, and then you learn that the guy in charge of the organization gave to politicians that supported fewer environmental regulations. I suppose this guy's "private" political activities should in no way reflect on how he choose to run his organization?

Again, where this analogy breaks down is that you can't point to anything in particular that Zucker has done in his professional capacity that is biased. It's basically just your feeling that he is biased, which may reflect your bias as much as his.

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Still mostly speculative.

What part was speculative? Which part do you disagree with.

I would only point out that as CEO of NBC Universal, Zucker oversees MANY divisions (entertainment, sports, news, etc.), so injecting his influence into hiring of people like news directors would be the exception rather than the rule.

Why? Why would the head of NBC Universal who was a big Obama supporter not take an interest in who was the head of his MSNBC unit and the direction they decided to take the network? On the contrary, it would be the exception rather than the rule for a CEO to take such a non interest in such an important part of the management of a major segment of his business. And, let's not forget that Zucker's start at NBC was in news programing - not sports, entertainment, etc. That's his area of expertise.

And yet you automatically assume that people who ARE professionally expected to be nonpartisan do inject their bias into their work?

Only when it's clear that there is bias in their work. This is the guy at the top of the MSNBC food chain, let's not forget.

Again, where this analogy breaks down is that you can't point to anything in particular that Zucker has done in his professional capacity that is biased. It's basically just your feeling that he is biased, which may reflect your bias as much as his.

The major cable news channel he runs is the most partisan, biased and unprofessional excuse for "journalism" on the dial. If he didn't like that, it wouldn't be that way. HE IS AT THE TOP.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 2, 2008, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

The major cable news channel he runs is the most partisan, biased and unprofessional excuse for "journalism" on the dial.

It boils down to this. This is not a fact. This is your opinion. Since you can't get specific, I'm done.

stupendousman · Oct 2, 2008, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It boils down to this. This is not a fact. This is your opinion. Since you can't get specific, I'm done.

So you disagree that MSNBC has shown bias in a way that benefits Obama?