Media Bias: Perceived or Real? To what extent, and where?

[bmags]

haha thats great. you know he was thinking "WTF is this. I want the usually softball questions the Democrats get. "

 

yeah, not the tough ones like, what newspapers do you read, and what is the bush doctrine

[Rex Kickass]

haha thats great. you know he was thinking "WTF is this. I want the usually softball questions the Democrats get. "

 

For all the foot in mouth moments Biden has, I don't think any other candidate would have handled that as well as he did. The poor anchor looks like a robot, I don't think she understood any of the words she used.

[EvilMonkey]

For all the foot in mouth moments Biden has, I don't think any other candidate would have handled that as well as he did. The poor anchor looks like a robot, I don't think she understood any of the words she used.

Lie with confidence and then refuse to gove that station any more interviews, because they were mean to poor Joe. Yup, handled that well.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow. Those were some of the most idiotic questions I've ever heard asked of a candidate. I mean, the THEMES are good themes to ask about. But... Karl Marx? The end of American world power status? Really?

 

I thought Biden actually handled that as well as anyone could have. And I've been one to point out Biden's verbal gaffes before.

 

[mr_genius]

Lie with confidence and then refuse to gove that station any more interviews, because they were mean to poor Joe. Yup, handled that well.

 

biden just comes off as a dumbass, as usual.

[Rex Kickass]

Lie with confidence and then refuse to gove that station any more interviews, because they were mean to poor Joe. Yup, handled that well.

 

I worked in local radio during the 2000 election, if Bush surrogates were asked anything approaching as idiotic and obviously baiting as that was, my station wouldn't have gotten a single other surrogate either.

[EvilMonkey]

I worked in local radio during the 2000 election, if Bush surrogates were asked anything approaching as idiotic and obviously baiting as that was, my station wouldn't have gotten a single other surrogate either.

Ant the station would have b****ed endlessly about how unaccessable the Bush admin was being, how childish they were acting, 'why can't they answer tough questions', and on and on. What the TV station SHOULD fear is that an Obama admin would try to have the FCC revoke thier license.

[Balta1701]

Ant the station would have b****ed endlessly about how unaccessable the Bush admin was being, how childish they were acting, 'why can't they answer tough questions', and on and on. What the TV station SHOULD fear is that an Obama admin would try to have the FCC revoke thier license.

And the Obama people should fear the response they'd get if they actually tried to do that for the reason that they don't like a station.

[ThunderBolt]

What the TV station SHOULD fear is that an Obama admin would try to have the FCC revoke thier license.

The Fairness Doctrine (which the leaders of the democratic party endorse) would do just that.

[EvilMonkey]

And the Obama people should fear the response they'd get if they actually tried to do that for the reason that they don't like a station.

Should Obama win, his supporters have already come to expect to get their way. The response they expect will be silence and obedience.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/s...al-brownshirts/

Where is Al Gore when you need him? Three years ago, the former vice president blasted "digital brownshirts" who "harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the president." He meant the mortal threat to the Republic of bloggers and angry Republican e-mailers. But times change, and the digital legions are greater nowadays on Mr. Gore's side. Thus we don't hear much fretting at all about the Obama Action Wire, which, unlike the brownshirts of yore, is actually managed by Barack Obama's campaign to muzzle critical media.

 

Here's how it works. A message goes out over Barack Obama's Web site with the names, phone numbers and e-mails of editors and producers foolish enough to host Obama critics. With Mr. Obama's extensive digital following, and his extensive fund-raising and contact lists, shutting up the Democratic nominee's critics with a fraction of Mr. Obama's millions of supporters is relatively simple. The digital legions plug phone lines, crash servers and intimidate the advertisers of these media outlets. This must be another instance of the "new" politics that Mr. Obama frequently talks about.

 

The latest incident, reported in the Chicago Tribune, "orchestrated a massive stream of complaints on the phone lines of Tribune Co.-owned WGN-AM in Chicago. "The offense: The station hosted National Review's David Freddoso, author of 'The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate,' a fair and rigorous but adversarial examination of Mr. Obama's record. Surely, we can't have any of that.

 

"The Action Wire serves as a means of arming our supporters with the facts to take on those who spread lies about Barack Obama and respond forcefully with the truth, whether it's an author passing off fiction as biography, a Web site spreading baseless conspiracy theories or a TV station airing an ad that makes demonstrably false claims," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the Tribune.

 

How Orwellian. Mr. LaBolt defends the very actions that prevent WGN-AM and others from airing the facts, as though obstructionism is an "airing of facts."

 

Note to the Obama campaign: Informed observers don't get "the facts" only from a political campaign. They read and listen to the independent media outlets - the same outlets the thin-skinned Mr. Obama is currently trying to quash.

 

 

As fot that station, for the moment they are just going after the reporter.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/10/27/action-i...en-hatchet-job/

 

So far they have at least absatined from illegally accessing governement records about her to try and dig up dirt, like they did to Joe the Plumber.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/conte...ics&sid=101

Ohio's inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on "Joe the Plumber."

 

Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK'd the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate.

 

She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System.

Yeah, no political reason to illegally look at Joe's records. Except maybe that she is a max contributor to The One. http://tinyurl.com/55x2uj

Can't cross The One, or you will pay!!!!

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Glenn Greenwald gives us some insight on reporting on the campaign trail. Very good read.

[Balta1701]

This is one of those things that is just, well, odd. Hotline has a listing of election-related programming this weekend. CNN has this item included:

Election Countdown: View from the Right features Townhall.com's Amanda Carpenter, Washington Times' Brian DeBose, Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes and ex-Romney press sec. Kevin Madden (CNN, SAT, 5pm).

 

That's basically just CNN handing over their network to conservatives to talk about the election for an hour.

 

The problem of course is, there's no Election Countdown, View from the Left.

[bmags]

This is one of those things that is just, well, odd. Hotline has a listing of election-related programming this weekend. CNN has this item included:

 

 

That's basically just CNN handing over their network to conservatives to talk about the election for an hour.

 

The problem of course is, there's no Election Countdown, View from the Left.

 

CNN refused to air Obama's 30 min. ad

[Soxbadger]

Thats just how liberal CNN is.

 

They wont even take Obama's money when he wants to give it to them, instead they just ran crappy programing making sure that Obama didnt have to spend extra money on their station and still had the monopoly on all the good stations.

 

Meanwhile they are further hurting the Republican party because they are letting them speak to liberals who hate god, when they could be on a real channel getting their message across to good Americans.

 

Finally the proof Ive been looking for!

[mr_genius]

why would Obama want to buy CNN airtime? their shows are all already Obama infomercials. I can't believe people still don't think CNN is in the tank for Obama if they actually watch the majority of programming the news channel offers. Well i guess there are people who think Sean Hannity is an unbiased journalist, so i suppose people will believe anything that reaffirms their political opinions.

[vandy125]

Here is a new study that was just put out by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It seems to add nicely to this thread. Its finding was that the media coverage has favored Obama.

AP News Story

[bmags]

Criticism

 

The organization has been criticized for advancing a notion of objectivity thought to be ideologically consistent with the values of liberal democracy. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky argue that the CMPA is organized around the creation of "flak," which they define as "negative responses to a media statement or program" and which they maintain is part of a project of "disciplining the media." [17]

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19] After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."[20]

[vandy125]

Criticism

 

The organization has been criticized for advancing a notion of objectivity thought to be ideologically consistent with the values of liberal democracy. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky argue that the CMPA is organized around the creation of "flak," which they define as "negative responses to a media statement or program" and which they maintain is part of a project of "disciplining the media." [17]

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19] After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as "conservative," the Post published a "Clarification," which concluded, "The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators."[20]

Interesting, and that is one of the reasons why I put the story out here. Where did you get that information from on the CMPA and FAIR? I had never heard of either of them before this.

[bmags]

wiki. The reality is since october I think it has been more pro Obama than McCain, but I don't know how any reasonable person could possibly cover the McCain campaign in any positive way this month. It's been a disaster.