back to pressing matters in the media:

THERE IS A FUCKING OBAMA T SHIRT IN THE NBC STORE. MY LIFE IS SHATTERED. OBJECTIVITY IS DEAD. THE MEDIA IS DEAD.

9/21/2009 5:27:32 PM

^ Yes, now you have it.

Quote :

"Jane Kirtley, executive director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for Media Ethics and Law, said, 'I would agree that it is problematic when you have an entity that has a news division to appear to be taking a partisan line. When you're selling memorabilia that supports anybody who prevailed in an election, you run the risk of being labeled as having a partisan affiliation.' 'To me, whatever money they're making off of this, it's not worth it. It undermines any attempt to represent itself as a nonpartisan entity,' she said."

http://tinyurl.com/mx2s3c

9/21/2009 6:20:58 PM

did you know that newspapers all used to be organs of political organizations and points of view? this was why william randolph hearst was so powerful, you know.

if the market decides that we want partisans in the news, what are we to do to stop it? implement some sort of...media affirmative action?

9/21/2009 6:42:53 PM

"The Times consistently cites liberal blogs far more than ones on the right, undermining the claim that they missed these two stories because they don't monitor online media. A Nexis search reveals 389 combined mentions of five of the left's top blogs: Huffington Post, Think Progress, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and Media Matters.

"But a search for five of the right's top blogs, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, NewsBusters, RedState, and TownHall turns up only 18 combined mentions from the Times."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/09/27/nyt-tries-deflect-charges-bias-acorn-van-jones-coverage

9/30/2009 6:47:35 PM

The left dominates the "blogosphere" (shudder). It would only make sense that their blogs are more-often cited.

Now replace

"a search for five of the right's top blogs, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, NewsBusters, RedState, and TownHall"

with

"a search for five of the right's top radio personalities, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, and O'Reilly"

And you'd get a much different answer when compared to citations of liberal radio. Would that make the Times OMG LIBERAL?

No. It'd just emphasize that this methodology is retarded.

9/30/2009 7:44:31 PM

yea, that's a good point. who can do a lexis search?

9/30/2009 7:51:56 PM

I'd be a little more comfortable with no blogs being cited, and journalists just being journalists and reporting the news

but thats just wishful thinking

9/30/2009 7:54:48 PM

Taking a brief look at all of the above mentioned blogs, the top liberal blogs seem to be in general more mainstream and credible than the top conservative blogs.

So the NY Times blog selection may have less to do with bias than it would seem.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 8:10 PM. Reason : rethought it]

9/30/2009 8:00:59 PM

mmmm....hmmm....

huffington post credible? media matters? lawl... Should've anticipated such replies.

"It's credible because I agree with it"

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM. Reason : s]

9/30/2009 8:02:23 PM

Do you think the top conservative blogs are more mainstream and credible?

9/30/2009 8:26:12 PM

no... not at all. actually, I can't handle reading any of the blogs except for Best of the Web.

[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 8:43 PM. Reason : s]

9/30/2009 8:42:49 PM

Then you can't even have an opinion. Nice try, moving right along.

9/30/2009 10:10:10 PM

Well, the discussion wasn't really about the credibility of blogs; that was merely a tangent off the main point which was that the NYT cites leftist blogs far more than it does conservative blogs.

9/30/2009 10:27:39 PM

mediamatters.org may cater to liberals, but there isn't much to be un-credible. most of their content is direct transcripts of things that happen on the news.

9/30/2009 10:39:04 PM

yes, well the same could be said for newsbusters

let's nitpick some more instead of ceding the point

9/30/2009 10:51:00 PM

Thought experiment for you:

Quote :

"In Iraq, more American service members died in August than in any month since the war began. His top military commander says that without more troops, we run the risk of losing the war. Iran admits operating a second previously undisclosed nuclear facility. Unemployment stands at 9.7 percent, with consumer confidence lower last month after a brief uptick. An important domestic initiative -- one he campaigned on -- faces a likely make-or-break month in Congress. What does the President do? He flies to Copenhagen to personally lobby the International Olympic Committee to bring the Olympics to Crawford, Texas.""

How would that have played in the press?

10/2/2009 2:39:13 PM

Which one of those is an immediate situation that requires him to be present and unable to take one day off?

It's not like people are drowning after a hurricane or anything.

10/2/2009 3:21:15 PM

Quote :

"Which one of those is an immediate situation that requires him to be present"

Afghanistan is pretty critical at the moment.


The point isn't to defend Bush, he was an abominable President. The point was to contrast the media's treatment of Bush verses the media's treatment of Obama.

10/2/2009 3:49:54 PM

it depends on what stage of his presidency bush would have been in. if it was his first 8 months, probably about the same as obama. post-9/11 to around early 2004, probably a lot lighter than obama has gotten. 2004-2008 they'd probably criticize him a lot.

10/2/2009 3:52:33 PM

Well, Bush wasn't exactly non-controversial after the 2000 election. The difference is that he managed to actually work in a bi-partisan effort with the US Congress. Don't forget that the abortion that was NCLB was a joint effort between him and Ted Kennedy.

Quote :

"did you know that newspapers all used to be organs of political organizations and points of view? . . . if the market decides that we want partisans in the news, what are we to do to stop it?"

Absolutely not, I have not problem with a partisan media. I just believe that news organizations should take a clear editorial stance instead of playing this petty dickwaiving game of "I'm more impartial than you are."

10/2/2009 3:59:28 PM

how quickly people forget SCHIP

10/2/2009 4:03:18 PM

SCHIP occured late in the administration. I was glad GWB vetoed it, but I found it puzzling as hell given his record of massive fiscal irresponsibility.

10/2/2009 4:31:44 PM

i was referring to the obama administration getting it fast-tracked at the beginning of his administration.

10/2/2009 4:40:40 PM

ahh. care to expand on that then?

10/2/2009 4:43:54 PM

your statement referring to bush (as opposed to obama):

Quote :

"The difference is that he managed to actually work in a bi-partisan effort with the US Congress. "

10/2/2009 4:46:51 PM

I'm not saying it hasn't occurred at all, just that relations disintegrated quicker. He certainly doesn't get all of the blame for this, but the political reality is that relations between congress and the executive are worse than at a comparable point in Bush's first term.

10/2/2009 5:01:43 PM

thing is: there isn't a comparable point. they're completely different situations.

10/2/2009 5:18:59 PM

Quote :

"The networks "were 13 times more negative in their treatment of Reagan than Obama." Twenty of 22 stories mentioning the Reagan administration portrayed it negatively, versus 1 out of 15 that mentioned the Obama administration. Most telling is the comparison of how the nets--and, in one case, the same newsman--treated identical unemployment rates during the two recessions: In 1982, Dan Rather reported the rate as "9.4 percent and rising." Dan Cordtz called it "rising steadily" on ABC, while Ray Brady warned that "job loss is still spreading." NBC found lines at food banks "four times what they were six months ago." In 2009, ABC found "glimmers of improvement" for an identical unemployment rate. CBS's own economic "grim reaper," Anthony Mason said the "economy's showed signs of improving." NBC also found "positive trends" to discuss--specifically mentioning "2,100 new reasons" to be "hopeful" in Georgia. But Charles Gibson illustrated how dramatically different the network coverage of Reagan and Obama really were. Gibson, who was a Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC in 1982, told viewers May 7, 1982, "There really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." He then quoted two Democratic attacks on Reagan including Rep. Henry S. Reuss, D-Wis., who charged that Reagan's "policies aren't just mistaken, they're wicked." But as an ABC anchor in 2009, Gibson was full of hope. He introduced that night's story saying "sometimes a bad jobs report can look good." "345,000 Americans lost their jobs in May, a big number to be sure. Traumatic if you are one of the 345,000. But the number was smaller than economists had predicted, and that's good news," Gibson said before admitting that the unemployment rate of 9.4 percent was "pretty bad." Neither Gibson, nor reporter Betsy Stark mentioned President Obama at all that night. On Aug. 7, 2009, Gibson suggested "the economy may be finally turning the corner.""

BOTW strikes again. Have fun making weak excuses, liberals.

10/3/2009 8:26:40 AM

What is BOTW? And please provide a source...

10/3/2009 1:42:19 PM

BOTW is Best of the Web
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574449160759683406.html

They cited this article:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2009/FlipFlop/flipflop-fullreport.asp

Please attack the source, not the content. Thx, begin.

10/3/2009 1:50:47 PM

because the unemployment number is the only relevant economic indicator..... right?

10/3/2009 1:59:59 PM

and so it begins

10/3/2009 2:00:53 PM

Why don’t we compare how the media viewed Lincoln to how they view Obama. That would surely be a relevant comparison.

10/3/2009 2:12:32 PM

yea why don't we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend liberal bias isn't rampant in the mainstream media

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : s]

10/3/2009 2:13:49 PM

This is not a scientific study. It is one Julia A. Seymour digging through network archives trying to put together evidence of bias.

Julia A. Seymour's background-

"Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor/analyst for the Business & Media Institute. She edits daily stories, writes trend pieces for BMI’s weekly newsletter, The Balance Sheet, and has co-written Special Reports including Debt: Who’$ Responsible?, Global Warming Censored and UnCritical Condition. Seymour has appeared on Fox Business Network, the Christian Broadcasting Network and has been a guest on the G. Gordon Liddy Show."

So, this person is a conservative hack who works for an organization who is "...devoted solely to analyzing and exposing the anti-free enterprise culture of the media..." Basically a republican watchdog group.

This is why I ask for the source.

10/3/2009 2:22:25 PM

wow... so predictable

10/3/2009 2:23:33 PM

Yeah, I predicted that source being bullshit too.

10/3/2009 2:29:23 PM

^^^^ lol, what do you mean by “mainstream media”?



http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/7/2/7/p67275_index.html
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-07/st_infoporn

Fox is the mainstream media, and their viewers are less informed.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 2:33:04 PM

yea, and the source for that study is... what now? that's right, just as credible as my source.


YOU'RE ONLY CREDIBLE IF I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION! RAWR RAWR! I AM INTERNET LIBERAL!

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM. Reason : s]

10/3/2009 2:52:24 PM

so, do you deny that Fox News is the most popular cable news channel, or that their viewers are the least well-informed

10/3/2009 2:59:40 PM

I would make the argument that a study could also be constructed in which NPR/NYT consumers were found to be less informed than Fox News.

It just depends on what the questions are.

10/3/2009 3:00:41 PM

oh, sorry - i guess we have to put the caveat that the questions are based on facts about the world.

how much you want to bet that the "least informed about modern events" questions are also highly correlated to "poor general knowledge about science and history", and all those are correlated with Fox News viewers and AM radio listeners?

10/3/2009 3:13:21 PM

Yes, well, since there's not enough time to ask a sample population about every fact in the world, some choices must be made about which questions to ask and which not to ask. Therein lies the bias.

10/3/2009 3:34:03 PM

Salinari, did you honestly think you could come in here with a source like that and have anyone NOT question its validity? You have to be incredibly naive to think anyone with critical thinking skills is going to accept that without any skepticism.

That, or you came here with the intention to troll because you knew the response it would get.

10/3/2009 3:47:40 PM

I don't see what's wrong with the source except for the fact that it originated from a conservative source. It's funny how you've got all these "critical thinking skills" and skepticism when it comes to this study, but I had to hold your hand through the incredibly simple thought process that leads to questions about the fox news study.

Of course, I knew that all the internet liberals would instantly dismiss it out of hand because they disagree with it.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 5:54 PM. Reason : s]

10/3/2009 5:46:15 PM

I am skeptical of it because of the source. I have not dismissed it. If a legitimate peer-reviewed study can back up the findings of that person, then I will be more inclined to believe it. But I'm not about to take the word of a political hack, I don't care which side they're on. Had you presented a study from a liberal hack I would also have been skeptical. And go ahead and give me rolly eyes for that if you want.

By the way, I have no idea what you're talking about with this hand-holding business.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2009 6:30:11 PM

instead, i'll give you a wink because we both know you're far more likely to believe liberally based studies like the fox news one cited above.

10/3/2009 6:31:52 PM

We all have biases. What Fox news study are you talking about that you had to hold my hand for? Did you confuse me with agentlion?

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2009 6:42:42 PM

does anyone else find the commentary pieces on CNN.com to be almost complete vacuous?

10/12/2009 5:24:53 PM

^ the commentary pieces on most of the major news sites are vacuous.

10/12/2009 6:08:49 PM