Liberal Media

[Glaiel-Gamer]

Does the media really have a liberal bias or is it just a representation of the average opinions of the public?

When Clinton had his sex scandal, the so called "liberal media" didn't have any problem blowing the whole issue out of proportion like how conservatives claim the "liberal media" blows Bush's blunders out of proportion.

If this recent election proves anything, it's that McCain's loss shows that the american public is more liberal right now than they were when they elected Bush. The Media is biased, but it's just a representation of the common opinions of the people at the time.

I don't see any news stations being blatantly pro-communist or pro-fascist or pro-nazi, despite the face that some extremists still feel that way. Is it a big deal though? Nobody complains about the lack of equal unbiased representation for minor extremist political parties. The news panders to the majority opinion, and as of late the whole country has a liberal bias, so it is no surprise that the news stations do to.

[Korriken]

If you take into account how easy it is to manipulate the average american, I would say Media's liberal bias gave Obama the election. In the past the media chose the liberal candidate. in this election they made sure to choose the republican candidate as well (not I didn't call McCain a conservative, cause he's not) and made sure they chose a man who didn't really have a chance. I remember the media praising McCain, then the day he got nominated, turned on him like a starving dog turns on his master. It was masterful, and it worked.

Of course, until the republican party becomes conservative again, or another conservative party takes its place (libertarian perhaps?) then the Democrats are going to enjoy one massive power trip.

Of course, you know your party is in trouble when the opponent elect a person who's entire Washington Political career can be summed up as a run for the white house.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

[Korriken]

At 11/16/08 07:28 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

they couldn't cover it up and it got out. They've gotten better at it since then.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 11/16/08 07:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/16/08 07:28 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

Observation has held that the Monica Scandal was more the exception than the norm. Scandals around democrats have seldom been reported with the fervor that that was reported with. Holistically, the media has largely favored liberals on nearly all issues as well as liberal candidates. However, this doesn't mean that a liberal can be sacrificed to the media dogs in the same way that a republican can. For example, Hillary Clinton was clearly shamed by the media during the democratic primary; they simply didn't want her. This doesn't mean that the media is secretly a bastion of republican influence.

Just like how the media might defend a republican rather ardently now and then, attacking a democrat occasionally doesn't make for a good argument on how biased the media is or is not.

Another possibility is that Clinton was not as beloved a president by fellow democrats as Obama. 1 Democratic president who is in his 2nd term could possibly be sacrificed because other democrats in the party disliked his tactics.

I beleive part of the reason hillary clinton was sacrificed for the democratic party was because other democrats did not enjoy working with clinton.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

The same media that blew Clintons blowjob out of proportions, covered the most minor negative Obama angles extensively, and point blank lied about Al Gore often enough to potentially cost him his presidential bid is "liberal"?

[Buffalow]

Of course the media is liberal, we have a Republican president! Wait till the media turns Conservative, and starts bashing Obama. I personally can't wait for Fox to start a media war with MSNBC, not that it already hasn't started.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 11/16/08 09:57 PM, Gwarfan wrote: I personally can't wait for Fox to start a media war with MSNBC, not that it already hasn't started.

Wow, an IRL flame war between the two. I'm sure they'll be plenty of NO U and BAWWWWW to go around for both studios.

[altanese-mistress]

Every media outlet is biased. MSNBC has a very liberal bias, CNN is more moderate-left, and I wouldn't be suprised if Fox News slapped a Swastika onto it's logo if it could get away with it. With news sources, BBC is mostly unbiased, and Al Jazeera English can be suprisingly straightforward and factual more tiems than you'd think.

Then you have non-news TV networks, video game companies, book publishers, movie studios, etc. HBO is probably libertarian more than anything else. Nickelodean is very conservative. History Channel is (slightly) right. Cartoon Network is pretty damn liberal for it's demographics. MTV is decietfully right-wing, disguised as left-wing, and blatantly compulsory consumerist. Nintendo is very conservative. Microsoft is left-wing or -possibly- libertarian, with a few right elements mixed in. Fox (not news) is schizoid with it's placement, but for the most part it's fairly liberal. DiC is like the NDSAP without the racism (which would be right-wing views mixed with environmentalism). Marvel is pretty liberal. DC is mostly a strange mix of liberal and moderate-right.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/16/08 07:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/16/08 07:28 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

they couldn't cover it up and it got out. They've gotten better at it since then.

If they got better at it why is John Edwards now suddenly an unperson in American politics?

[Drakim]

Everything seems to be full of liberal bias these days, be it the liberal media, science not supporting the Bible, or radical liberal judges. Poor conservatives, the whole world is against them.

[W31RD0]

At 11/16/08 07:30 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/16/08 07:28 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

they couldn't cover it up and it got out. They've gotten better at it since then.

Thats foolishness! The media will do what it can to make money. Obama was going to win this either way. Yet the media portrayed it as a close race because it is far more interesting.

Obama is charismatic, Mccain is not so much so (although I think he is better at humor).

Republicans are trying to say that the Obama supports were elietist yet consisted of the poorer classes and the middle class majority. Their smears simply are nonsensical.

[bombkangaroo]

At 11/17/08 01:56 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: BBC is mostly unbiased

I'd say they're good at disguising it.
There are some news stories they won't touch with a barge pole, and some they sanitise more than others if you compare them directly.
Mostly they're constrained by their mandate, but very often their reporting tends to have an angle.

[Conspiracy3]

The media is not excessively liberal. If anything it is excessively conservative (then again I am the most far left liberal to ever touch the surface of the earth so just about everything I see seems conservative to me) I think that the myth that the media is excessively liberal is put forth mostly by Fox News which has an excessive conservative bias.

How have they thrown Bush's blunders out of proportion? Clinton just had sex and lied about it (granted, he should have just come out and admitted it). That doesn't effect the average American. Bush made horrible decisions that actually had significan impacts on the world. He eliminated many of our civil liberties. He appointed incompetent people to high level positions leading to the horrible management of Katrina. He invaded a nation with no real premise, and then handled that war incompetently. He paid no attention to memos like the infamous "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" memo. I could go on and on, but you have probably already heard it all.

These are actions that ACTUALLY AFFECT REAL PEOPLE. How are they being blown out of proportion? If anything they haven't been mentioned enough. Bill Clinton's sex scandal dominated the media for such a long time, yet today a huge scandal about failed policy within the Bush administration got less attention than the Michael Jackson trial or the Anon Nicole Smith death.

[Tancrisism]

It seems to me that CNN and NBC (I don't know about ABC or others, I don't watch them) are definitely somewhat left - you can tell this by their agendas, what the programs are that they promote.

But Fox is über-right, merely for the fact that they have that talentless, hate-mongering blood sucker Sean Hannity on it in 2 programs. They do have O'Reilly and so on of course, but O'Reilly really isn't that big of a problem I think. I see him as the conservative equivalent of Keith Olbermann: both are really more of editorials talking about their opinions (slanted ones of course). Hannity though...

[AbstractPathologist]

At 11/17/08 10:57 AM, Drakim wrote: Everything seems to be full of liberal bias these days, be it the liberal media, science not supporting the Bible, or radical liberal judges. Poor conservatives, the whole world is against them.

Hey, let's try to not be negative and bitter here. Okay? Good.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

I believe that pretty much all media is biased, because we all look for what we want to look for in the issues. This includes the reporters that report to us.

It's just that we don't think media is biased if it agrees with our opinions.

[psycho-squirrel]

I dont like the news media in general. The main thing they are after is ratings. They dont give us the news, they tell us it.

What ever I hear on the news, I dont believe it right then and there. I just keep it in and try to look for more information and sources about the matter before I make my own opinion and view of it.

The liberal media, the conservative media, I dont care much for ether.

[W31RD0]

If you recall, republicans were bitching about the liberal media since Bush's second term. If an opinion is expressed that conflicts with theirs, it is obviously the Jew-bag, elietist, liberal media at work.

[aninjaman]

At 11/21/08 04:53 PM, Basspro55 wrote:

At 11/16/08 07:28 PM, Glaiel-Gamer wrote: So why wasn't the so called "Liberal Media" backing clinton during his fiasco?

Yeah they were all over him and the tabloids probably made stuff up as well

Like what?

[homor]

this whole "fox news is biased" thing is complete tripe.

seriously, there are more liberals who works at fox news then conservatives work at any other station, O'Reily treated Obama very nice, and when Obama won he didn't scream or shout, he was happy for him.

all hes ever done that could be considered even remotely against Obama is report on the rev.wright and bill ayers scandal, which no other station even put effort into report, and only reported on when they abosolutly HAD TO, and when they did, they just threw soft balls and defended Obama just like in their interviews with him.

O'Reily may have thrown hard balls at Obama, but he also did it with hilary and Mccain.

also, This stuff.

"Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. "

""For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."

thats from a non-partisan group by the way, so please don't say to me "oh yeah well they're probebly a biased conservative group."

[dySWN]

At 11/17/08 09:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: The media is not excessively liberal. If anything it is excessively conservative (then again I am the most far left liberal to ever touch the surface of the earth so just about everything I see seems conservative to me)

This is the part where you lost me.

[Musician]

At 11/21/08 07:11 PM, homor wrote: thats from a non-partisan group by the way, so please don't say to me "oh yeah well they're probebly a biased conservative group."

Not really, a quick wiki search reveals that they received the overwhelming majority of their funds from conservative foundations.

[homor]

At 11/21/08 07:36 PM, Musician wrote: Not really, a quick wiki search reveals that they received the overwhelming majority of their funds from conservative foundations.

they can't control who donates money to them.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/21/08 08:19 PM, homor wrote:

At 11/21/08 07:36 PM, Musician wrote: Not really, a quick wiki search reveals that they received the overwhelming majority of their funds from conservative foundations.

they can't control who donates money to them.

Have you ever watched Sean Hannity? Ever?

[homor]

At 11/21/08 08:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 11/21/08 08:19 PM, homor wrote: they can't control who donates money to them.

Have you ever watched Sean Hannity? Ever?

yes, hes biased as hell, but the entire channel is not like that, besides, hes just a commentator, hes allowed to say whatever he wants to.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/21/08 11:52 PM, homor wrote:

At 11/21/08 08:41 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 11/21/08 08:19 PM, homor wrote: they can't control who donates money to them.

Have you ever watched Sean Hannity? Ever?

yes, hes biased as hell, but the entire channel is not like that, besides, hes just a commentator, hes allowed to say whatever he wants to.

Right, but you can tell the general bias of a news organization based on the people they pick and the topics they focus on. You can tell MSNBC is biased towards liberals because they chose Keith Olbermann to speak on their channel; I'm not saying it's a one-way street here.

[SirLebowski]

It's partly how you filter it as well. If you are conservative, the news will probably have a liberal bias and visa versa.

However, I think it's also the public opinion at the time, the specific issue at hand, the reporter. Everything.

Overall I don't think any station is too bias, but some go out of their way to suck hard ass.

[homor]

At 11/22/08 12:29 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Right, but you can tell the general bias of a news organization based on the people they pick and the topics they focus on.

Brit Hume was the head of the election coverage, while MSNBC picked people so biased to report on it they had to issue a recall of most of them.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/22/08 01:44 AM, homor wrote:

At 11/22/08 12:29 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Right, but you can tell the general bias of a news organization based on the people they pick and the topics they focus on.

Brit Hume was the head of the election coverage, while MSNBC picked people so biased to report on it they had to issue a recall of most of them.

But Brian Williams is a common anchor on NBC, and he is known to be tough on both parties. I didn't watch NBC on the election night though, I mostly watched Fox since they presented the information more conveniently, so I noticed what you are talking about. And they had a decent selection of people comment on it, like Ted Koppel, although they also had the standard right-wing cronies on occasion, forcing me to change the channel to CNN until they had some of the cronies on the other side.

I hope you understand what I am saying though.