Texsox Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If a person looks through news stories, pulls out negative articles about Republicans, then screams liberal bias over and over again, you have the GOP PR campaign that their die hards have bought into. They have insulated themselves from criticism and that scares me. Are there cases of liberal bias? Yes. Stories are written by humans. Are there cases of conservative bias? Yes. Stories are written by humans. There is also religious bias in the media, gender bias, racial bias, and every other kind of bias. There has never been a totally bias free human. You will never be able to read a single article and not find it positive or negative to someone. With a two party system, any positive article to one party is a negative to the other party. It is impossible to add up the column inches each day and write enough positive articles to balance the negatives. During the Lewinsky junk, should the press have not written some articles until some positive could be found? If someone is screwing up the coverage will never balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:23 AM) You will never be able to read a single article and not find it positive or negative to someone. With a two party system, any positive article to one party is a negative to the other party. That is simply not true. There's plenty of articles and op-ed pieces that are written that are critical of the president that are right on the money and tactfully done. Mostly, it's because they stick to issues instead of launching into "this president did this and this and this and this wrong and screw him"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:34 PM) That is simply not true. There's plenty of articles and op-ed pieces that are written that are critical of the president that are right on the money and tactfully done. Mostly, it's because they stick to issues instead of launching into "this president did this and this and this and this wrong and screw him"... I agree with you, but you aren't usually the hard core "all media can't be trusted because they are biased". If someone wants to build a case that some of the articles, op-ed pieces, etc are poorly written, I'd agree in a heartbeat. If you want to blame it on bias and not just not being good writers, then I will disagree on some of them. If it is critical of the President, it is biased by the definition I keep hearing around here. The first reaction is the biased media is making a big deal out of nothing, then they point to something Clinton did and it goes on and on and on . . . That's what I object to the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:22 AM) I agree with you, but you aren't usually the hard core "all media can't be trusted because they are biased". If someone wants to build a case that some of the articles, op-ed pieces, etc are poorly written, I'd agree in a heartbeat. If you want to blame it on bias and not just not being good writers, then I will disagree on some of them. If it is critical of the President, it is biased by the definition I keep hearing around here. The first reaction is the biased media is making a big deal out of nothing, then they point to something Clinton did and it goes on and on and on . . . That's what I object to the most. The reason for that is, if Bush does something, it's usually evil and has 'power trip and ego' written all over it. Clinton could do the same thing, and it was 'presidential perogative'. It shouldn't be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 But at the same time, you put a lot of onus on a lot of people that criticize the President as having done just that - and you have no idea whether they have or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:23 PM) If a person looks through news stories, pulls out negative articles about Republicans, then screams liberal bias over and over again, you have the GOP PR campaign that their die hards have bought into. They have insulated themselves from criticism and that scares me. Are there cases of liberal bias? Yes. Stories are written by humans. Are there cases of conservative bias? Yes. Stories are written by humans. There is also religious bias in the media, gender bias, racial bias, and every other kind of bias. There has never been a totally bias free human. You will never be able to read a single article and not find it positive or negative to someone. With a two party system, any positive article to one party is a negative to the other party. It is impossible to add up the column inches each day and write enough positive articles to balance the negatives. During the Lewinsky junk, should the press have not written some articles until some positive could be found? If someone is screwing up the coverage will never balance. As I've said before, my view is not based on story picking. It's based on 30 years of watching and reading the MSM. There is a definite strong liberal slant in the mainstream media. I know it's just my opinion but it is not going to be changed by anything I read on Soxtalk. Edited January 25, 2006 by YASNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:38 PM) The reason for that is, if Bush does something, it's usually evil and has 'power trip and ego' written all over it. Clinton could do the same thing, and it was 'presidential perogative'. It shouldn't be that way. Clinton would do something and it was an impeachable offense. In the search for liberal bias, the right will point to a couple articles and try to claim a more widestream bias. If neutral is 50, it seems that GOPers reject all media reports if the story is written at a 49 or 51. They use it as an excuse to deflect all criticism of Republicans, which is exactly why the RNC strategy has been so effective. All the GOPers here will argue the other, but from reading SL&P the past couple years, all media stories critical of the President are quickly labeled as unreliable and biased. Perfect if you are in the business of needing votes. Since Republicans can't trust the media to report the "truth" where do they turn? Sources that are favorable to the GOP. Brilliant! You have to admit, the GOP has hit a huge homerun by smearing the media at every turn. How many times a day does Rush say, this is the leftist media . . . Now the Soviet Union had a great system. The government ran the media, so you knew you were getting the truth and only the stuff that was fit to print and wouldn't compromise any missions. Isn't that what the RNC wants to get to? A White House controlled media? Edited January 25, 2006 by Texsox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) Now the Soviet Union had a great system. The government ran the media, so you knew you were getting the truth and only the stuff that was fit to print and wouldn't compromise any missions. Isn't that what the RNC wants to get to? A White House controlled media? Conversation over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 10:35 AM) Conversation over. Sorry, that should have been in green. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts