Anyone who denies that the media is overwhelmingly liberal is fooling themselves. Fox News is the one major network that is conservative, and why liberals hate it so much is beyond me. Bias is bias, whether it is liberal or conservative.
The media has been coddling Obama. This is a fact. So when Obama whines like a little girl about how Fox News is costing him votes, it's pathetic. If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor.
Obama has managed to convince a lot of people that saying anything negative about him is somehow morally wrong. He plays the victim pretty damn well for someone who's treated like a prince.
1
2
Bootyboy wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Since the news market is driven by either direct sales or advertising, the open news market should fit what folks want, eh? That is, what sells is what is presented. You're excusing bias by acting like journalism is no different than entertainment. Wrong. Besides, people don't tune into the news to only get the news they want to hear! Claiming that a show/newspaper/magazine is journalistic and selling it like it's entertainment is exactly the problem. The pretense of objectivity is disgusting. Bootyboy wrote: I would highly disagree with that. The coverage isn't what caused McCain's dramatic fall... I never said that. McCain is responsible for his own campaign. It's simply laughable that Obama would complain about media coverage when McCain certainly gets the short end of that stick. Bootyboy wrote: I don't understand. There are plenty of pundits out there who clearly do not treat Obama "like a prince", including a few bloggers here. You're talking about something completely different. Pundits and bloggers are not journalists. Bootyboy wrote: I'd rather them talk about relevant issues. Bias under the pretense of objectivity and the distortion of the truth is always a relevant issue. |
SilkWizard wrote:
You're excusing bias by acting like journalism is no different than entertainment. Wrong. Excusing bias? It's a _natural_ effect of the free market. Whether we like it or not, like you mention earlier conservative or liberal, it will exist. Consider the 1952 election between Eisenhower and Stevenson; Stevenson prided himself on his orations, however this was the first election where the television was put into play. Eisenhower had ad executives as part of his campaign staff and produced the first "meme" based ad: 'I Like Ike'. So while Stevenson was buying thirty minute slots for his long speeches; Ike's message was contained in short 30 - 60 second jingles. The media is what it is: a communications medium. You have to be able to deliver your message better than your competitor or you will lose out on advertising and sales revenue. Besides, people don't tune into the news to only get the news they want to hear! But it's their free will what they want to do with what they hear. If they like what they hear, they are likely to return to that source. Brand loyalty is in itself bias. Claiming that a show/newspaper/magazine is journalistic and selling it like it's entertainment is exactly the problem. The pretense of objectivity is disgusting. But that's how they stay in business. No company survives without a revenue stream; and no publicly traded media company can survive (nor their board of directors) without the consistency of profits. So while the underinformed think they are learning, they are actually being played upon their biases. It's up to the populace to actively search for information as opposed to passively absorbing it. I never said that. This is what you said: If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor. I inferred that you used the words "overwhelming" and "percentage losses" to indicate the six-seven point lead Obama has in polling. If you meant something else, please clarify. McCain is responsible for his own campaign. It's simply laughable that Obama would complain about media coverage when McCain certainly gets the short end of that stick. I agree with that to a degree. For a political candidate to honestly decry coverage is disingenuous. You're talking about something completely different. Pundits and bloggers are not journalists. They would beg to differ. Go to any reputable site like Politico, National Review, The Atlantic, Huffington Post. There are plenty of journalists out there blogging with their biases. The information is out there for your own scrutiny. You are the only person you can affect here; not the mass of uninformed voters that vote on emotion. Blame the nature of the underinformed voter's hunger -- not the companies that feed them. Bias under the pretense of objectivity and the distortion of the truth is always a relevant issue. It shouldn't be for the informed and logic-based voter. If one is an issue-driven individual, this is an irrelevant issue. If one is an emotion-driven individual, then well, there's not much of substance to honestly debate. |
I don't think it is right to blame Fox, since the people influenced by the commentators would likely vote McCain anyway, however I can agree with him not liking the way Fox pegs him as "the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?". Because even if that is true, why does it matter for who will be president? It has no bearing on economic, military, domestic, or any other issues that should matter. A source of News, if it wants to call itself unbiased, should stop commentating the news, like all the major players do.
By the way, McCain has been whining about the media for awhile now, and I haven't seen any Silkwizard posts on why that is wrong. |
Bootyboy: Bias in the media is not an effect of the free market... bias is the only product being offered. It doesn't appear to me that you have a very clear understanding of what journalism is.
Venom Development wrote: By the way, McCain has been whining about the media for awhile now, and I haven't seen any Silkwizard posts on why that is wrong. As stated, the media is overwhelmingly biased in Obama's favor. McCain has every right to complain. |
SilkWizard wrote:
Bootyboy: Bias in the media is not an effect of the free market... bias is the only product being offered. It doesn't appear to me that you have a very clear understanding of what journalism is. When McCain complains about the media, he is right When you complain about the media, you are right When Obama complains about the media, he should shut up because god forbid your worldview can't handle a situation where you are not persecuted by the evil lib'rul media? Is that about right? |
SilkWizard wrote:
Bootyboy: Bias in the media is not an effect of the free market... bias is the only product being offered. Exactly my point. The underinformed are attracted to bias; it is in their nature. The bulk of TV watchers passively watch and listen but are brand loyal. I'm sure I'd love to see lecutres from Stanford on prime time TV, but that doesn't sell because it doesn't keep viewers. Waiting for O'Reilly to yell or Olbermann to rant does sell; and it's biased; and it is entertainment. Heck, you're in LA trying to make it into showbiz. If you can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't make it, it _will_ be because of bias. The investors of the world are extremely biased towards making money. It doesn't appear to me that you have a very clear understanding of what journalism is. Actually, to even the novice reader, it is very apparent that I do. If you have anything of real substance in any of the comments that I have made that indicates clear misunderstanding of journalism, please feel free to do so... There's a difference between repeating "bias media bias media" and understanding the mechanisms underneath it. I would highly suggest to you that you actually read my comments. You'll actually see that I _agree_ with you that bias exists in the media. But that's what sells... so if a political movement or a political group wants to succeed in that environment; then they have to have a product that the media wants to sell. McCain's campaign has failed to sell him. By the way, can you please clarify your assertion that "If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor." |
Silk, you don't see anything weird about Fox running an article saying something negative about Obama for saying something negative about Fox?
It's also just a bit immature to take a few quotes out of context and say a grown man is whining like a little girl. |
SuperAntx wrote:
It's also just a bit immature to take a few quotes out of context and say a grown man is whining like a little girl. Out of context? How are the quotes out of context? Venom Development wrote: When Obama complains about the media, he should shut up because god forbid your worldview can't handle a situation where you are not persecuted by the evil lib'rul media? Alright, from this point forward, I'll delete all robot posts on my blog. If you are incapable of intelligent discussion, I'm not going to give you a venue to spout off here. McCain's complaints about the media have mainly focused on their vicious and unfair treatment of Sarah Palin. This is a completely justified complaint. When Obama acts like he is being persecuted because the one conservative network news outlet doesn't handle him with kid gloves, it's laughable. |
Bootyboy wrote:
Heck, you're in LA trying to make it into showbiz. If you can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't make it, it _will_ be because of bias. The investors of the world are extremely biased towards making money. If I don't "make it" in the entertainment industry, it will be no one's fault but my own. Opportunities are not handed down, they are created. Bootyboy wrote: By the way, can you please clarify your assertion that "If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor." Arg. I really, really don't like repeating myself. Media bias has obviously helped Obama and hurt McCain. I'm not asserting that the media is the main reason McCain is behind, no matter what you continue to "infer". |
SilkWizard wrote:
vicious and unfair treatment of Sarah Palin. I don't see how exposing how terrible a friggin' job she has done in Alaska is unfair. It's nice to know the truth. As for out of context quotes, Obama was talking about how much of his elitism they're showing compared to his actual political positions. Rather than just straight up throwing dirt at him they're playing the passive aggressive role. Then you have Matt Bai rambling on about a bunch of shit like I just did. See how easy it is to make up some shit based on a few quotes? |
SuperAntx wrote:
See how easy it is to make up some shit based on a few quotes? Wait... what? Were you trying to prove that quotes can be taken out of context? Yes, they can be. The quotes that I reference in this post, weren't. |
SilkWizard wrote:
If I don't "make it" in the entertainment industry, it will be no one's fault but my own. Opportunities are not handed down, they are created. ...and paid for by investors. You can be the best ventriloquist in the world not named Terry Fator; but the total available market for ventriloquists does not scale by relative skill. Yes, you need to have the dedication and skill to put yourself in the best position possible, but the market also needs to demand that particular skill in order for opportunities to emerge. Arg. I really, really don't like repeating myself. Media bias has obviously helped Obama and hurt McCain. That is not what I was referring to -- this is what you said: "If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor." I'm not asserting that the media is the main reason McCain is behind, no matter what you continue to "infer". Then clarify please. What do you mean by "percentage loss"? What do you consider "overwhelming"? |
While I'm not going to make any claims about the media not being biased (because they definitely are), you can't deny that that McCain and Palin have given the media much more to work with, as far as negative news goes. You also can't deny that McCain has been much more offensive at attacking Obama and his policies. That makes it easier for McCain to say things wrong and it makes it easier for him to be the target of attack.
I will concede that Biden has benefited from the media's bias as he's prone to saying goofy things (any cripples in the house?). Lastly, there is a reason that the majority of the media is liberal. A) The majority of Americans are liberal. B) Being conservative tends to mean that you are tying yourself to one certain type of person (i.e. Christians), and most networks do not want to alienate users. Granted, some conservatives feel alienated by the news being liberal, but not near as many as if it were the other way around. Sadly, the media is hardly about journalism nowadays, just like political campaigns have hardly been about the issues lately. |
Also, Tina Fey is hot. I already told my gf that I would break up with her for Tina Fey. After all, I'm pretty sure she'd do the same.
|
Stupot wrote:
Lastly, there is a reason that the majority of the media is liberal. A) The majority of Americans are liberal. They are? Where did you get that idea? There is actually a really good book called Bias the goes into the real reasons that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, and how most of them don't even realize it. Stupot wrote: B) Being conservative tends to mean that you are tying yourself to one certain type of person (i.e. Christians), and most networks do not want to alienate users. This may be your perception, but it certainly isn't reality. In fact, this is the kind of conclusion that someone who is biased would reach! :) The idea that the media has to be biased one way or the other to appeal to viewers is just an attempt to rationalize the existence of bias. Stupot wrote: Also, Tina Fey is hot. I already told my gf that I would break up with her for Tina Fey. After all, I'm pretty sure she'd do the same. Funny, I have the same deal with my wife, but it also includes Summer Glau! |
Bootyboy wrote:
...and paid for by investors. Finding investors is not a pre-requisite to success. It's definitely a big help. Bootyboy wrote: Yes, you need to have the dedication and skill to put yourself in the best position possible, but the market also needs to demand that particular skill in order for opportunities to emerge. There certainly isn't a lack of demand for good movies and television shows. |
Unfortunately, I cannot find the resource that I had read about a poll showing that roughly 60% of Americans fell to the liberal side of things. Then again, most polls can be easily used to show what one wants them to.
I can say that I definitely know more liberals than conservatives, but of course that could be written off as my personal preference. And of course I am biased, although I do my best to disregard it when involved in debates where intelligence is required (congrats, you qualify). I am both liberal and a Christian, btw. And the fact of the matter is that some of things that Fox News has said concerning Obama (Obama Baby Mama, Terrorist Fist Jab) are just horrible. And you missed the point of what I was saying concerning the media being biased. I'm not trying to defend it. It shouldn't be biased. But it'll never happen. Even if there was a news station that was completely unbiased (and manages to not go bankrupt), do you think the world could agree that it was unbiased? No. Everybody is biased. You most certainly are and I most certainly am. Our abilities to disregard our personal bias is tied to our intelligence and our ability to reason (opinion). Sadly, I would say that in my opinion, the vast majority of Americans are not able to think without bias having a strong influence over their thoughts. |
Stupot wrote:
No. Everybody is biased. You most certainly are and I most certainly am. Our abilities to disregard our personal bias is tied to our intelligence and our ability to reason (opinion). Sadly, I would say that in my opinion, the vast majority of Americans are not able to think without bias having a strong influence over their thoughts. I agree, and I'm not trying to say that bias is completely avoidable. One of my professors in college (half of my major was journalism) put it something like this: Objectivity in journalism in a pillar that we must always strive for, but must also understand that we can never fully reach. As reporters, we must constantly re-examine ourselves and make corrections as necessary to continue to strive for objectivity. My problem is that the national media seems to have completely given up on the struggle for objectivity, but still masquerades like they are objective. |
1
2
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Since the news market is driven by either direct sales or advertising, the open news market should fit what folks want, eh? That is, what sells is what is presented.
I mean, it would have been like Apple bitching in the 80's that all the software and R&D money was being spent on PCs. Perhaps there is bias, but it's a market response. So, like Apple, the conservative movement needs to craft its message to make it more appealing for main stream media to coddle.
I do see changes happening -- consider the effect of the market crisis. On the biz channels, you'll notice that the statist/socialist contemporary economists are basically being tarred and feathered because of their weak weak responses. There's hope yet; you and other GOPers need to recognize and be intellectual about real conservatism. The GOP cannot continue to encourage a "cheer for the red team, boo the blue team" philosophy -- it's not a philosophy at all.
Fox News is the one major network that is conservative, and why liberals hate it so much is beyond me. Bias is bias, whether it is liberal or conservative.
Folks who can't see through bias are generally underinformed. It's certainly unfortunate, but that's a side effect of the free markets. Rupert Murdoch very smartly appeals to the underinformed right, and gets good ratings for it. Conservatives within the traditional William F Buckley mode know Fox News isn't where academic conservative opinions are discussed.
The media has been coddling Obama. This is a fact. So when Obama whines like a little girl about how Fox News is costing him votes, it's pathetic. If we put the percentage losses for Obama and McCain side by side due to negative media coverage, I think we all know who how overwhelming the results would be in Obama's favor.
I would highly disagree with that. The coverage isn't what caused McCain's dramatic fall... he went 0-3 in the debates (according to unspinnable snap polls), the Palin interviews, suspension of campaign/Letterman cancellation, and the GOP's unfair association with the current economic conditions.
I'm not sure where you get the "whines" part. Here is the main NY Times article that your FoxNews link references: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/ 19obama-t.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=sl ogin
Stories about Obama sell; if it's negative on FoxNews, then it sells to their main demographic; if it's positive on MSNBC, then it sells to their main demographic. It sounds more like an observation about the effect of marketing.
Obama has managed to convince a lot of people that saying anything negative about him is somehow morally wrong. He plays the victim pretty damn well for someone who's treated like a prince.
I don't understand. There are plenty of pundits out there who clearly do not treat Obama "like a prince", including a few bloggers here.
I suppose we could apply the same litmus test to McCain; perhaps it will eventually be discussed in the main stream media. That would be a shame though; I'd rather them talk about relevant issues.