1. Even MSNBC says their biased to the left and particularly Obama:Â http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
2.
Media Bias Against Clinton and What Obama Doesn't Want You to Know Share: by BrandingIron | February 6, 2008 at 12:12 pm 10967 views | 12 Recommendations | 12 comments
Photos
I see your Kennedy and raise you a Reagan
Â
I had a hard time believing it when my friends on a different blogging site told me that the only news station that wasn't biased against Hillary Clinton was Fox News (dubbed "Faux" News by the progressive bloggers); I despised Fox News and its role in the 2000 Presidential Elections. However, the more I read online and the more I watched CNN and MSNBC--the larger cable news networks--the more I saw that Clinton victories were downplayed and Obama losses were shrugged off. Dan Abrams was the only one to acknowledge this, and even then I was still skeptical about Fox...until the day wee hours before the first polls opened on Super Tuesday.
I'd turned on CNN just to see if there was anything politically worth watching during the first few hours of Super Tuesday, and just about every minute someone said "Barack Obama". It was "Barack Obama this, Barack Obama that, Barack Obama in a few minutes to talk about--" Click. I switched the channel over to Fox News and lo and behold, Hillary Clinton was in the midst of an interview with "Fox and Friends". Â
I've watched Fox News for over 24 hours now. I'm feeling a bit dirty (perhaps as dirty as I felt when Anne Coulter said that she would campaign for Clinton if McCain is the Republican nominee). They've sofar lived up to my friends' suggestions about being the only television news source (aside from the smatterings of Dan Abrams on MSNBC) to be giving fair coverage of Clinton's campaign progress.
Â
3. Information from article in Washington Post Dated June 23, 2004But the partisan drift may grow, because distrust is spreading. In 1988 Pew found that 58 percent of the public thought there was "no bias" in election coverage. Now that's 38 percent: 22 percent find a Democratic bias, 17 percent a Republican tilt. Almost all major media have suffered confidence declines. Among Republicans, only 12 percent say they believe "all or most" of Newsweek; for Democrats the figure is twice that, 26 percent. In 1985 the overall figure was higher (31 percent), with little partisan gap. Newsweek's numbers typify mainstream media. Only 14 percent of Republicans believe "all or most" of the New York Times, vs. 31 percent of Democrats.
4. Public Sees Media's Pro-Obama/Anti-McCain and Palin Tilt
Several surveys have confirmed the public recognizes the news media's liberal bias this campaign season -- while the media's credibility has plummeted to new lows.
- By Nearly 8-to-1, Voters Say Journalists Want Obama to Win
- By 5-to-1 Public Thinks Most Journalists Trying to Elect Obama
- Rasmussen: By 10-to-1 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin'
- Pew Finds Media Credibility Plummets to All-Time Lows
- Rasmussen: '55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem than Campaign Cash'
- Fox News Poll: Two-Thirds Think Most Journalists Want Obama to Win
- Rasmussen: Three Times More See Pro-Obama Over Pro-McCain Bias
- Pew: Many Recognize Media's Pro-Obama Bias, Democrats Prefer CNN
Plus:
Journalists Vote Democratic: 1972-2004
More Polls on How the Public Views the News Media
Polls Documenting Liberal Beliefs of Journalists
Â
Â
I could go on, but sheep need to stop whining about the right winged media, and pay attention the real facts. The shearers are coming for your head of hair, and you will make a nice set of lamb chops. As for me and my house, we will watch Fox, and the left wing media, for I need to know both sides to protect myself.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 19
So what is your point? Who owns the media? Does any one source of influence control all the mass media? Is this a conspiracy? Would Clinton have been a better President?
The article has more examples of media bias than just about Clinton. If you did read it, the point is that the media leans more to the left not the right. The talk shows lean right, but that's due to their popular with the intelligencia that listen. I think both leanings are wrong, but so many on Gather claim it's just Fox that's biased, that I was making that point, and yes, I do think Clinton would have made a better president. I don't like her, but I at least she's not a full blown socialist.
As you imply, all news shows are biased. We can't help some of that. But the biases differ from show to show and from medium to medium. We can't get balanced reporting from any of them.
That said, some are more biased than others and some are more influential than others.
I still am not sure what you are trying to say with this post because it could be support for many positions and opinions. Can you take pity on an old man who tends to read things too literally and over analyzes things and just tell me in so many words?
Thanks. :-)
But repeat the idea that the media is liberally-biased in coverage, and after a while, people assume there must be some truth to it.
I agree with you, but McCain was a sacrificial lamb. He never could have won against a sweet tongue like Obama. It was a conspiracy, but the right is just as guilty. If Americans and the media would just do the right thing and vote honestly, and report honestly, the country would unite behind a president.
During this past election, I searched for what I could consider unbiased reporting, with little success, and it has continued with the media's love affair with Obama, and the one-sided reporting.
Taking bits and pieces from each source, and trying to put them together may be the best way to arrive at some semblance of truth in reporting ... if you're able to separate the bias.
It seems to me that Gather is undeniably a Liberal dominated site and it doesn't take long for readers to recognize that. Actually, a lot can be gleaned from what is intentionally left out in comments and reporting.
It's also amusing to see the various animals that are used to symbolize the types of people that are typically found in the world of politics. There appears to be inherent dangers to people who are considered sheep (or sheeple) from the people who are considered pigs and dogs. Some writers define it by implying that some of the American people are the... the sheep ... those who blindly seek a person or group to protect their rights, freedoms, and opportunities from the corrupt politicians ... the pigs .. and the media are the politically powerful, influential ...dogs...
Then there's the donkey and the elephant. Democrats say the donkey is smart and brave, while Republicans say the elephant is strong and dignified.
I guess we can "self" categorize, as well as categorize others according to our personal views.
The media is not a bunch of political activitists, it is not an NGO, it is not a non-profit group pushing a particular social agenda, it is not a political party. The media is big business, owned by a very few, very wealth individuals who have amassed most major newspapers, newsmagazines and telelvision networks under their umbrella. This is more true today than at any time in the past.
Why would these large corporate conglomerates and wealth individuals pay their own money to air pro-left-wing views, views that might espouse greater regulatory control over their businesses and investments, views that might espouse higher taxes especially for those earning high incomes, views that might espouse more government programs, more government control and simply more government?
Why would they promote views clearly not in their own personal interests?
Right. They wouldn't.
And they don't.
They mainstream media is ALL to the right of centre. Some, like Faux News, are so far right that they cannot even see the centre anymore. Those who are to the left of Faux may seem to be "left wing" from that perspective, but they are still to the right of centre.
If the media were left wing it would have been Dennis Kuncinich receiving their support, or Ralph Nader, not Barack Obama.
Some people think that everyone who is not a rabid neo-con who wants endless tax cuts and reduction of government is a left winger or even a communist. These people are whack jobs.
I can answer that. They don't live in reality. They are left overs from the sixties when it was a sin to have money and we, few, that do have it, must do penance. Look at the media. They have so much money they have nothing better to do than to fight for the down trodden. If they cared so much, why not share their own money and leave what little I have alone.
The reason you have little money left has nothing to do with the left and little to do with the media. It has to do with the fact that the average industrial wage has flatlined since the advent of Reaganism and the top CEOs are now making 250x to 2500x what their workers earn, instead of 25x like it was back in the 60s.
You're blaming the wrong people and aiding those who have impoverished you. But then, this is always the way: only rich thieves and poor dupes are conservatives.
Please explain why the media are leftists because I don't understand it at all.