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

[longshot7]

genius, all we want is the truth reported. is that so much to ask?

[mr_genius]

genius, all we want is the truth reported. is that so much to ask?

 

i would imagine thats what we all want, or at least i would hope so.

[longshot7]

Actually, I was watching CNN last night and they said Palin supported the 'bridge to nowhere'. they actually covered about 8 times in 2 hours of news. i would say 90 minutes of the two hours of coverage I watched was dedicated to attacking Palin. Now, that might not be a high enough ration for some.

 

now if she was for it while she was running for Governor and against it now, how is pointing that out "bias"? Isn't it just truth-telling?

[mr_genius]

now if she was for it while she was running for Governor and against it now, how is pointing that out "bias"? Isn't it just truth-telling?

 

Didn't say reporting it was. Biden has gotten a complete free ride. Obama has too pretty much, any negative reporting about him (rev Wright is an example) is immediately followed with a staunch defense. The media should report facts, not put together a campaign ad. The media bias might not even matter, most people realize what is going on.

[longshot7]

what has Biden received a free ride on? Palin is facing scrutiny because she's a complete unknown. Biden isn't and has been vetted prior to this. What do you feel we need to know about him?

[lostfan]

Didn't say reporting it was. Biden has gotten a complete free ride. Obama has too pretty much, any negative reporting about him (rev Wright is an example) is immediately followed with a staunch defense. The media should report facts, not put together a campaign ad. The media bias might not even matter, most people realize what is going on.

Biden hasn't so much gotten a free ride so much as he's been completely overshadowed by the Sarah Palin frenzy.

[BigSqwert]

[Balta1701]

The editor in chief of the National Enquirer has an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal.

What this has to do with media bias in terms of left/right I don't know...but well, it's interesting as a commentary on our times.

[Rex Kickass]

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal.

 

They put an article on their website September 9 about Palin's earmark claims.

 

It currently ends this way:

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...1901411709.html

 

As such, Gov. Palin's image as a "reformer" is part of the storyline the McCain campaign needs to complement the top of its ticket. Her quip about passing on the bridge and "building it ourselves" has been a staple of her stump.

 

But she's drawn considerable fire as result. Sen. Obama's campaign released an advertisement4 pointing out her original support of the bridge. And on Monday, an Obama staffer emailed a photo of Gov. Palin holding up a T-shirt that was made shortly after the bridge caught national attention. It reads "NOWHERE ALASKA" and "99901," the zip code of Ketchikan.

 

The McCain campaign jumped back with spokesman Brian Rogers calling the attacks "hysterical."

 

"The only people 'lying' about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they're afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama's nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks," Mr. Rogers said.

 

However, two days ago, this is how the same story with the same dateline ended:

 

Here's the cached article. http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=in+co...9f9a36,e82145fc

The McCain campaign jumped back with spokesman Brian Rogers calling the attacks "hysterical."

 

"The only people 'lying' about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they're afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama's nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks," Mr. Rogers said.

 

At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.

[EvilMonkey]

...and none this year.

Maybe that's because he hasn't been doing his JOB all damn year? Showing up to cherry-pick which votes you take, and even then only taking ones that can't come back to bite you in the ass isn't representing Illinois, or doing his job.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe that's because he hasn't been doing his JOB all damn year? Showing up to cherry-pick which votes you take, and even then only taking ones that can't come back to bite you in the ass isn't representing Illinois, or doing his job.

On this particular topic, I agree. Both candidates are doing that, though.

 

[EvilMonkey]

On this particular topic, I agree. Both candidates are doing that, though.

Yes.

[EvilMonkey]

A short while ago I heard something on CNN as my wife had it on in the background. I rewound it on Tivo, and it was John Roberts interviewing Paul Begala He just said 'How should "we" respond to Republican attacks on Democrats'. So either he was asking as a concerned Democrat asking what he personally could do, or was just soliciting the media's marching orders from the DNC right on television now, without the discretion and pretense of doing it via email or at a bar. Somehow I think it is a combination of both.

 

[Cknolls]

now if she was for it while she was running for Governor and against it now, how is pointing that out "bias"? Isn't it just truth-telling?

 

 

The Real Story Of The Bridge To Nowhere

By Rob Safutoon September 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska, also known as "the bridge to nowhere" has suddenly become a central theme of late in the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain. The funny thing about it is that neither politician actually had a hand in the original project.

 

 

Talk of the bridge has been spurred by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she said "No" to the bridge and told Congress that "...if we want a bridge we'll build it ourselves." That's where the battle begins anew.

 

 

The backstory is that the bridge in question was used by McCain in 2005 as a symbol of wasteful spending on earmarks. Earmarks are federal funds targeted for use at the state level that are usually slipped into larger bills. As a result many earmarks get passed without having any connection to the legislation in a particular bill.

 

 

As the NY Times reports it via a story published on 12/17/2005 titled Two Bridges To Nowhere Tumble Down in Congress, "Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity." So the funding for the project was actually killed by Congress long before Gov. Palin took office in December of 2006, or was it?

 

 

The same NY Times story goes on to state that, "The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose." So the bridge project was still very much alive even after Congress had supposedly "killed" it.

 

 

The project and funding was still on the table when Governor Palin took office in December of 2006. The previous Governor had, in fact, received the earmark and set aside $113 million for the project. The word is that statements made during Gov. Palin's candidacy for Governor of Alaska indicated that she supported building the Gravina Island Bridge. An Op Ed article in the Juneau Empire dated 10/29/06 states that, "Ketchikan will support Palin because of her support of the Gravina bridge." This indicates a good possibility that at one time Gov. Palin supported the project.

 

 

But something happened between October 2006 and early 2007 after Gov. Palin took office. A letter to the Editor of the Juneau Empire dated 02/15/07 states, "Charles Fedullo, Gov. Sarah Palin's press secretary, said there is no money in Palin's capital budget for the project at this time. Palin has common sense, that's why." Later in the year another story on the Gravina Island Bridge indicates, "In September, Palin ended work on the Gravina project, acknowledging that the state no longer had a way to pay for a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars."

So there are four relevant facts in this case that are indisputable.

 

 

Fact 1: At some level Governor Palin showed support for the bridge project while she was running in the race for Governor of Alaska.

 

 

Fact 2: Congress made the money for the Gravina Island Bridge available to Alaska, although it didn't have to be used for that bridge.

 

 

Fact 3: The State of Alaska already had the federal funds in hand when Gov. Palin took office.

 

 

Fact 4: Governor Palin put a stop to the bridge project and appropriated the funds for more reasonable uses.

 

 

In September of 2007 the Alaska Daily News ran a story titled State Abandons Ketchikan Bridge To Nowhere that acknowledges the fact that Gov. Palin put a stop to the project and states, "She directed the state transportation department to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport." That same story also reaffirms the NY Times story mentioned earlier in this article by stating that, "Congress stripped the earmark - or stipulation - that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate."

 

 

Fast forward to today and the Barack Obama campaign is taking great issue with Gov. Palin's statements indicating that she put a stop to the project. Barack Obama was quoted today as saying, "I mean you can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid." Senator Obama was talking about Gov. Palin's stance on the bridge project. The Obama campaign is taking a huge risk in making this stand.

 

 

Governor Palin never said that she never supported the bridge. Governor Palin said that she put a stop to the project. And some have been saying that Congress killed the project. But the quotes from the New York Times and the Alaska Daily News prove without a doubt that there was money provided by Congress before Governor Palin assumed her duties. The money provided was eventually used on projects that were deemed more "fiscally responsible" for the State of Alaska.

 

 

So while Governor Palin should be chastised for speaking with a bit too much bravado on the subject given her early stance on the project, she did indeed realize that this effort was a waste of money and put a stop to it. And since Gov. Palin's party, the Alaska Republicans, were behind the bridge all along, she actually went against her own party to stop the project. Those two facts indicate that Gov. Palin is both a reformer and a fiscal conservative as she claims to be.

 

 

Hopefully the whole truth on this will come out. If it does then Senators Obama and Biden may just have serious egg on their faces.

 

 

As a footnote, the Alaska Democrats have been caught covering their tracks on this issue. A Democrat sponsored website until recently included information that attributed the ending of the Gravina Island Bridge project to Governor Palin. Strangely enough that page has been removed. But via the magic of Google cached search results I provide a screenshot below.

 

 

 

Categories:Politics

[lostfan]

She still took a bunch of earmark money didn't she? Money that was given to her for the project? I mean, this is the kind of thing that can be spun endlessly in circles.

Edited September 12, 2008 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

She still took a bunch of earmark money didn't she? Money that was given to her for the project? I mean, this is the kind of thing that can be spun endlessly in circles.

And they spent money building the approaches to the bridge. And so on.

[mr_genius]

Media backfire?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/palinmedia20080904

 

-----------

Point of view from an Ex-Clinton aide:

 

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject

them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

 

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/...in4442492.shtml

 

-----------

I know everybody likes to read polling trends, so here is another one.

 

55% of those polled thought media bias is more of a problem than campaign cash

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_campaign_cash

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Me tuning into the Palin speech had nothing whatsoever to do with the media coverage of her. I didn't know a single solitary thing about her, and I wanted to find out, hoping her speech would give me some insight.

 

I didn't bother watching the rest of the RNC, except for part of Fred Thompson's speech until I started falling asleep, and I was going to watch McCain's speech but I figured there was nothing for me to learn from it that I couldn't find out by watching highlights later that night and not to mention I don't even know if it's possible for me to watch McCain talk for 50 minutes.

[Texsox]

Maybe that's because he hasn't been doing his JOB all damn year? Showing up to cherry-pick which votes you take, and even then only taking ones that can't come back to bite you in the ass isn't representing Illinois, or doing his job.

Hmm, so many ways to go with this Alpha . . .

 

I said the same thing when Bush and Clinton ran for reelection. Amazing the POTUS has that much time to run for office.

 

I believe the Presidential position is important enough to have people with jobs running, not just the unemployed who have the time off to run.

 

Hell, simply, that's the way I've always heard it should be . . . we just accept it as a necessary evil of our system.

[EvilMonkey]

Hmm, so many ways to go with this Alpha . . .

 

I said the same thing when Bush and Clinton ran for reelection. Amazing the POTUS has that much time to run for office.

 

I believe the Presidential position is important enough to have people with jobs running, not just the unemployed who have the time off to run.

 

Hell, simply, that's the way I've always heard it should be . . . we just accept it as a necessary evil of our system.

I don't like the fact that any of the 4 of them are getting paid for jobs that they are not doing. Why can't they take an UNPAID leave while they run? Or at least refund portions of their pay for the campaigning they do. Voters In Illinois and Arizona elected their respective Senators to represent them in the Senate. If they are not there representing, they are not doing their jobs. It shouldn't matter if their vote 'would have made a difference' or not. In fact, all this non-voting is what hurts each guy, by "McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time" because he has only made like 10 votes all year, and Obama toeing the Dem party line 100% of the time because he has probably made just as few votes, if not less.

[Texsox]

I don't like the fact that any of the 4 of them are getting paid for jobs that they are not doing. Why can't they take an UNPAID leave while they run? Or at least refund portions of their pay for the campaigning they do. Voters In Illinois and Arizona elected their respective Senators to represent them in the Senate. If they are not there representing, they are not doing their jobs. It shouldn't matter if their vote 'would have made a difference' or not. In fact, all this non-voting is what hurts each guy, by "McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time" because he has only made like 10 votes all year, and Obama toeing the Dem party line 100% of the time because he has probably made just as few votes, if not less.

 

I want the best candidates running, the process is that important to me. It seems reasonable to me to allow them time off to run for President, and we're already funding the elections at 100sX their salaries, it's just not a big deal to me.

[bmags]

I don't like the fact that any of the 4 of them are getting paid for jobs that they are not doing. Why can't they take an UNPAID leave while they run? Or at least refund portions of their pay for the campaigning they do. Voters In Illinois and Arizona elected their respective Senators to represent them in the Senate. If they are not there representing, they are not doing their jobs. It shouldn't matter if their vote 'would have made a difference' or not. In fact, all this non-voting is what hurts each guy, by "McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time" because he has only made like 10 votes all year, and Obama toeing the Dem party line 100% of the time because he has probably made just as few votes, if not less.

 

I have disagreed vehemently with Northside with this sentiment. I just totally disagree. Is anyone to run for president then without disavowing to their job. I'm sure people of Arizona, Illinois, Delaware and Alaska pride themselves more that the potential leader of the free world is from their state than is hypothetically stonewalling action in there's. Research has shown that it doesn't matter. In Congress, the President is in his lame duck year with nothing legislatively to be done. In statewides, I'm sure they are taking it easy waiting for the results, and I'm sure Alaskans will tell you there is no pressing measure. Meanwhile, we are in the most important election of my lifetime, so some things just deserve the attention.

[EvilMonkey]

I have disagreed vehemently with Northside with this sentiment. I just totally disagree. Is anyone to run for president then without disavowing to their job. I'm sure people of Arizona, Illinois, Delaware and Alaska pride themselves more that the potential leader of the free world is from their state than is hypothetically stonewalling action in there's. Research has shown that it doesn't matter. In Congress, the President is in his lame duck year with nothing legislatively to be done. In statewides, I'm sure they are taking it easy waiting for the results, and I'm sure Alaskans will tell you there is no pressing measure. Meanwhile, we are in the most important election of my lifetime, so some things just deserve the attention.

If you were to start doing phone interviews with a potential new employer and taking days and weeks off at a time to go interview and audition for a new job, while still working at your present job, you would probably be fired. I can understand not having them quit or resign, but there has to be a way to have them not get paid. I know that its a tiny drop in the bucket compared to everything else they spend, but its the principle. There are some states where you are not allowed to run for office if you are currently in one (except for reelection to your current office).

[EvilMonkey]

FYI, here are some of the pieces that were cut out ny ABC in the palin interview. Selective editing? I think it is blatently dishonest when they edit the interview in such a way as they cut off parts of her answers to make it seem that she gave an incomplete or wrong answer. Here is just one example, the bolded part is what was edited out from the broadcast.

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

 

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

 

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

 

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

 

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

 

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

 

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

 

Nothing like reporting only what you want reported.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...palin-interview

Edited September 13, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[Texsox]

If you were to start doing phone interviews with a potential new employer and taking days and weeks off at a time to go interview and audition for a new job, while still working at your present job, you would probably be fired. I can understand not having them quit or resign, but there has to be a way to have them not get paid. I know that its a tiny drop in the bucket compared to everything else they spend, but its the principle. There are some states where you are not allowed to run for office if you are currently in one (except for reelection to your current office).

 

Even if they are not being paid, they are still not representing their district. Companies offer sabbaticals all the time. But hey, if you are not wealthy enough to take two years off without pay, why would anyone want to elect you President?

Of course since there are 50 Senators and only one Governor, you are most upset about Palin.