^^ftw

5/22/2008 2:19:33 PM

he's an loony idiot

that's why no one takes him seriously

there's always one in this fucking section

slap one down another rises to take his place

5/22/2008 2:20:05 PM

Quote :

"OMG LIBERAL MEDIA THREAD !!!! WOO WOO WOO, LOOK AT ME!!!!!!!!!!! "

5/22/2008 2:24:07 PM

PERSISTENT MEDIA BIAS
David P. Baron
Stanford University

Abstract

Quote :

"The news media plays an essential role in society, but surveys indicate that the media is widely viewed as biased. This paper presents a theory of media bias that originates with private information obtained by journalists through their investigations and persists despite profit-maximizing news organizations and rivalry from other news organizations. Bias has two effects on the demand for news. First, rational citizens are more skeptical of potentially biased news and thus rely less on it in their individual decision-making. Second, bias makes certain stories more likely than others. This paper presents a supply-side theory in which bias originates with journalists who have a preference for influence and are willing to sacrifice wages to exercise it. News organizations can control the bias by restricting the discretion allowed to journalists, but granting discretion and tolerating bias can increase profits. Citizens have a demand for news they can use in their everyday lives, but their skepticism reduces demand and leads the news organization to set a lower price for its publication the greater is the bias it tolerates. Lower quality news thus commands a lower price. Bias is not driven from the market by competition from a rival news organization nor a news organization with an opposing bias. Moreover, bias can be greater with competition than with a monopoly news organization. If citizens collectively choose regulation in place of their individual decision-making, bias increases the stringency of regulation."

Quote :

"One source of bias may be from self-selection into journalism. Journalists are younger, better educated, and more liberal than the American public. In the ASNE survey of journalists, “At the bigger papers, 61 percent of newsroom respondents described themselves as Democrats (or leaning toward Democrat) and only 10 percent as Republicans (or leaning toward Republican).”7 In 1992 89% of the Washington journalists surveyed voted for Bill Clinton and 7% for George Bush. Sixty-one percent of the journalists rated themselves as liberal or liberal to moderate and 9% as conservative or conservative to moderate (Povich (1996), p. 137).8"

Quote :

"Based on data from three Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveys in 1999 and 2000, Hamilton (2004, Ch. 3) examined the political bias of news outlets. He found (p. 73), “Of those survey respondents who identified themselves as ‘very liberal,’ only 25.3% perceive a ‘great deal’ of political bias in news coverage. In contrast, among those who say they are ‘very conservative,’ 44.5% report there is a great deal of bias.” Similarly, Republicans were much more likely to perceive news coverage as having a Democratic bias than Democrats were to perceive it having a Republican bias. Hamilton developed a measure that identified the ideological location of news outlets based on the political orientation of their audiences. Respondents listing themselves as ‘very conservative’ perceived nightly TV network news and print news magazines as the most biased, and respondents listing themselves as ‘very liberal’ perceived cable political shows and Sunday network talk shows as the most biased."

Quote :

"How is bias created in a news story? One possibility is the fabrication of information as practiced, for example, by Jayson Blair. The interpretation preferred here is analogous to the measure used by Groseclose and Milyo (2003). To create bias a journalist can include in her story quotations from advocates of particular perspectives. The advocates then can present their perspectives, make assertions and allegations, draw conclusions, and argue for particular actions. The favoring of interest groups on one side of an issue is contrary to the journalistic objective of balance, but Groseclose and Milyo show that news outlets are far from balanced. They find “a very significant liberal bias” in the news media.12 Seven of the eight news outlets studied were found to be more liberal than the average member of Congress and “closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives.”13 Their methodology requires no judgments about which media outlets were liberal or conservative or the degree of bias. They simply count the number of citations a news publication made to each of 20 think tanks and compute a score by comparing the citations to those think tanks in speeches by members of Congress. The positions of Congress members on a left-right scale are determined using a statistical procedure standard in political science based on rankings by interest groups."

Quote :

"The following results have been established for the model considered: 1. Bias reduces the demand for news because citizens are more skeptical of news reports from news organizations that tolerate bias. 2. A profit-maximizing news organization tolerates bias only if that allows it to hire journalists at a lower wage. This is a necessary condition for the existence of media bias. 3. When it tolerates bias, a news organization lowers its subscription price. Price and bias are negatively correlated. 4. With competition between like-oriented news organizations citizens self-select with the more risk averse subscribing to the publication with the greater bias. 5. With competition between two like-oriented news organizations the one with the greater bias has a lower price but can have higher profits. Moreover, aggregate bias can be greater with competition than with a monopoly news organization. Lower quality (more biased) news commands a lower price, but low quality news can be more profitable than high quality news. 6. With news organizations with opposing biases citizens sort based on which news report leads them to change their prior decisions. High risk aversion citizens subscribe to the publication biased toward greater precautions, and low risk aversion citizens subscribe to the publication biased toward fewer precautions. The news organization with the greater bias can have higher profits. 7. Although citizens fully adjust for bias, they are influenced by the greater likelihood of certain stories. This can lead the public to overreact in private politics. 8. In public politics the expected stringency of regulation is increasing in media bias toward greater precautions. That is, media bias results in less stringent regulation given a news report, but the news report leading to the more stringent regulation is more likely. The orientation of a news organization could be aligned with the orientation of interest groups;e.g., those that want citizens to take greater precautions and those that want citizens to take fewer precautions. The former could be a consumer activist group and the latter the producers of GMOfoods. Conversely, interest groups may align themselves with the orientation of news organizations if doing so is likely to attract coverage that furthers their interests. The interest groups may view the publication on the other side of the issue to be biased. The interpretation given to the model has been in terms of private politics, but it could be extended to a partisan dimension. If greater and fewer precautions against GMO foods are interpreted as liberal and conservative, respectively, then high risk aversion citizens subscribe to liberal publications and low risk aversion citizens subscribe to conservative publications. Citizens subscribing to the liberal publication are more skeptical of a news report ß, but they see those reports with higher probability. From an ex ante perspective they take greater precautions than do the subscribers to the conservative publication. The impact of the media on political attitudes and behavior has been studied empirically, and rather than develop the implications of the present theory for those studies only one observation will be made. Some studies of elections have shown that citizen beliefs are not affected by news reports, and the model has this feature in the sense that citizens adjust their beliefs anticipating bias. Empirical testing using ex post data; i.e., after a story has been published, would show that bias reduces the number of citizens taking precautions, i.e., ˆaL is increasing in s. Moreover, citizens would report that they took bias into account and adjusted their beliefs appropriately. The journalist’s decision to bias her news report, however, is an ex ante decision; i.e., when preparing the news report, and bias results in a higher probability of a biased story being reported. Media bias thus would not be found using ex post data but could be found using ex ante data on the frequency with which particular stories appear."

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/baron.pdf

Quote :

"he's an loony idiot that's why no one takes him seriously there's always one in this fucking section slap one down another rises to take his place"

notastute

I don't give a flying fuck what you think, motherfucker. If you don't like it, don't fucking post here, shithead. Either get on topic or get the fuck out, get it, you dumbass piece of shit?

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 2:43:27 PM

are you going to address anything anyone posts in this thread or are you going to run off, find another google search article and post it verbatim without anything written in your own words?

5/22/2008 2:45:11 PM

^ Present evidence to counter my position. As usual, you're disputing everything while producing virtually nothing--except your self-important opinion, of course.

All the while the foaming fucking moonbats circle, screeching and flapping and flailing. It's typical.

5/22/2008 2:50:48 PM

Let's see, I have already shown how your talking points from page one were misleading at best and outright lies at worse. You post and run, only to return with either insults or another post and run.

5/22/2008 2:55:57 PM

hooksaw just laid the shat all over nutsmacker. lol

5/22/2008 2:57:20 PM

^ Hell, I always do--he offers nothing but his opinion. I mean, so what if some of the evidence is from surveys--it's more than he has presented. I'll bet if the survey said Obama was the shit, nutsuckr wouldn't have a problem with that.

In any event, that last paper is about as academically sound as you can get on this type of subject. Where is all the evidence that the media does not exhibit liberal bias?

Quote :

"Their methodology requires no judgments about which media outlets were liberal or conservative or the degree of bias. They simply count the number of citations a news publication made to each of 20 think tanks and compute a score by comparing the citations to those think tanks in speeches by members of Congress. The positions of Congress members on a left-right scale are determined using a statistical procedure standard in political science based on rankings by interest groups."

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 3:11:08 PM

Nice logical fallacy. It is not my job to present the evidence. You are the one claiming the liberal media bias, therefore, it is your job to present the evidence. I am allowed to critique said evidence and throw out the evidence that is completely bogus.

I also guess you won't be complaining about people insulting you in this thread now.

Also, when speaking about political biases, it is all subjective as to what liberal and conservative are. There is no empirical means of determining a liberal and conservative view.

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 3:46:31 PM

Quote :

"Also, when speaking about political biases, it is all subjective as to what liberal and conservative are. There is no empirical means of determining a liberal and conservative view. "

ding ding ding

couldn't have said it better myself.

5/22/2008 3:48:33 PM

^ I've presented a great deal of evidence--and I have more. You have presented nothing but your opinion--you'll pardon me if I question it.

^^ and ^ You're fucking stupid or something. Read the paper above.

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 3:48:50 PM

Using a member of Congress' speech as a means of determining political tilt is specious at best. Considering that many members of Congress don't even bother to make speeches on the matter and are handed their talking points by the party. Not to mention that conservatives and the republican party have done a good job at maligning liberal think tanks, so much to the point that they are avoided is even more telling.

I have merely shown that your evidence is nothing more than "people think."

Furthermore, you have not posted anything in response to this. Instead you have ignored it and attempted to post another hit and run.

Quote :

"Let's actually look at the polls in question in the 2000 poll where they got the 9 out of 10 numbers. We find out by Most Americans it means 47% thought the media was helping Al Gore in the 2000 election. 23% thought it was helping Bush. So what about the remaining 40%? Let's look at another one of their polls: September 2006 - 44% of Americans thought the media was too liberal and 19% thought too conservative. Where is the remaining Americans? Don't they count? 2003: 53% of Americans thought the news media was biased. This is also were we find out what plurality means, only 41% of democrats think the media has a liberal tilt. Now we have this whopper in 2004: 45% of Americans "thought the media coverage has not been biased toward either candidate." 35% of Americans "said the coverage had been biased in Kerry’s favor" 16% of Americans "thought coverage had been biased in favor of Bush." And now we have s 2007 survey which makes us wonder what did they mean by plurality originally? 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal 66% of political independents said the media are liberal (had to assume since it didn't provide the real numbers) Just 66% of Democrats were certain the media skewed right (notice the different wording here)? 17% of Democrats said the bias favored the left (notice the different wording again, and I could have sworn that 17% was not a plurality)."

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 3:53:46 PM

I don't expect you to, so I will give you more

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030224/alterman2

Quote :

"Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election--and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one.""

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

Quote :

"The findings include: # On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public. # Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation. # The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues. # Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst. "

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 4:03:54 PM

^ Can you STFU with the stupid "hit and run" shit. It's total bullshit and you know it--you're posting blather.

And there's this:

Quote :

"The positions of Congress members on a left-right scale are determined using a statistical procedure standard in political science based on rankings by interest groups."

I actually do have to go now, though. But if you want any credibility whatsoever, post a significant amount of evidence other than your opinion, which you obviously hold in very high esteem. I don't share that feeling, however.

5/22/2008 4:07:22 PM

Quote :

"They simply count the number of citations a news publication made to each of 20 think tanks and compute a score by comparing the citations to those think tanks in speeches by members of Congress."

This isn't the standard used. But good luck on that one.

You still haven't addressed my post about the polls.

5/22/2008 4:09:28 PM

^ 1. It is a standard statistical procedure in political science, you dumbass.

2. I did address it--it's bullshit.

3. FAIR?! Are you fucking serious? STFU!

Quote :

"FAIR describes itself on its website as 'the national media' and defines its mission as working to 'invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.' FAIR refers to itself as a 'progressive group that believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

Quote :

"In 1990, Walter Goodman wrote an editorial in The New York Times comparing FAIR and Accuracy in Media and stated that the two group's 'criticism of television and the press is often provocative. But it is always tendentious', he also noted that FAIR's 'target invariably is bias on the right.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 4:20:45 PM

Quote :

"I've presented a great deal of evidence--and I have more. You have presented nothing but your opinion--you'll pardon me if I question it."

what did you question?

are you saying that definitions of liberal and conservative aren't subjective?

5/22/2008 4:32:55 PM

Quote :

"^ 1. It is a standard statistical procedure in political science, you dumbass."

so how would the organization determine my political bias if as a member of Congress I only used sources such as the GAO or CBO? Don't you get the point now. That is not the standard procedure for determining a political lean of a candidate. Bill sponsorship and votes is the standard procedure.

Also, if you are going to play the ad hominem game on sources you might not want to use the Media Research Center. After all, they are a "a conservative media criticism organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission, according to its website, is "to bring balance and responsibility to the news media", and the MRC catalogs and reports on what it asserts to be widespread liberal media bias in the United States press."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

So if you are going to scream about liberal soruces, you better not use an organization that has its own political bent and misseion to "catalog and report on widespread liberal media bias in the United States." Creating a conclusion and finding the evidence that supports your conclusion is not a sound academic method.

Also, the standard procedure in the Soap Box is to post links and provide your own thoughts and opinions on them. not quote them verbatim and post nothing of your own.

of course, we have this great quote concerning the method used by Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, the same one used by your boy David Baron

Quote :

"Common sense offers no reason to think that either politicians or journalists should behave like this, and everyday experience suggest that they don't -- the role of ideology in choice of sources, whatever it is, doesn't seem to be qualitatively different in this way across the political spectrum. Certainly Groseclose and Milyo don't offer any evidence to support such a theory. ----------------------------- First, on a quantitatively symmetrical political spectrum it's the centrists -- those with a political position quantified as 0 -- who don't care about ideology, and are just as happy to quote a far-right or far-left source as a centrist source. This also seems wrong to me. Common sense suggests that centrists ought to be just as prone as right-wingers and left-wingers to quote sources whose political positions are similar to their own. ---------------------------- that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement -- just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored.""

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html

[Edited on May 22, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2008 4:38:10 PM

Andrea Mitchell Calls West Virginians 'Rednecks'

http://www.wikio.com/video/270476

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Apologizes for 'Redneck' Remark

Quote :

"MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell issued an on-air apology Monday following a remark last week in which she referred to an area of southwestern Virginia as 'redneck, sort of bordering-on-Appalachia country.' Mitchell last Thursday was discussing a campaign stop by Barack Obama alongside popular former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner — a current U.S. Senate candidate — when she began describing the territory where Obama's campaign trail led him that day: Bristol, Va. 'Interesting images today: Barack Obama, Mark Warner in southwest Virginia. This is real redneck, sort of bordering-on-Appalachia country. This is not the Northern Virginia, you know, sort of high-tech corridor, and these are voters that he would not logically be, you know, gravitating to. This is the beginning of a pivot,' Mitchell said, speaking on-air last Thursday with NBC political director Chuck Todd."

http://tinyurl.com/6yg3py



[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 7:00:24 PM

are sharpton and jackson demanding that she be fired?

6/11/2008 7:01:54 PM

^ Exactly. Who do West Virginians turn to for redress of their grievances--the "watchdog" press?

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 7:05:25 PM

definitely not dick cheney

6/11/2008 8:03:02 PM

^ OOH, OOH--YOU TOO! YOU TOO (SLOBBER)! IS IT TIME FOR ME TO JACK OFF--AGAIN?!

NB: BUSH-CHENEY ARE NOT RUNNING THIS TIME, MOTHERFUCKER!!!1 AND CHENEY WAS OBVIOUSLY JOKING--WAS MITCHELL JOKING? WAS SHE IN A FORUM THAT JOKES WERE APPROPRIATE, YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKER?

GODDAMMIT--I'VE HAD IT WITH YOU!

STFU, GTFO, AND I INVITE YOU NEVER TO POST IN ONE OF MY THREAD'S AGAIN!!!1

6/11/2008 8:21:21 PM

are you cddweller? i can see cddweller posting some shit like that

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 8:26 PM. Reason : i'm still not convinced...i cant see anyone but an alias posting something like ^]

6/11/2008 8:24:18 PM

"Time is a train / Makes the future the past / Leaves you standing in the station / Your face pressed up against an ass" (hooksaw).

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 10:10:49 PM

Quote :

"We find out by Most Americans it means 47% thought the media was helping Al Gore in the 2000 election. 23% thought it was helping Bush. So what about the remaining 40%?"

Kim Jong Il has a 120% approval rating. You're leaving out 10%.

6/11/2008 10:22:58 PM

lets blast every lib into the sun and make a 24-hour nancy grace channel so every time a blonde girl goes missing it can be on tv instantly even if she just went to the store or something

fucken libs

6/11/2008 10:32:17 PM

they were likely raped.

6/11/2008 10:36:17 PM

Non-Aryan girls deserve equal TV representation

6/11/2008 10:37:39 PM

I was a working journalist for two years. I still freelance for my local paper. I am the journalism adviser at a high school. I am very liberal.

I also do my job, which is to stay objective.

Anyone who has ever read a hard news story I've written would be hard pressed to pick up on my politics. The same goes for damn near any hard news story that is put out by any journalist in America.

If you want to whine about the talking heads and columnists leaning one way or the other, that's another thing altogether. They're paid for their opinions, and they're not expected to be objective. They're expected to incite commentary from their viewers and make idiots complain about them on message boards. Looks like they're doing a good job.

What I blame when people start talking about media bias is the blurring of the lines between news and opinion, a movement that is pretty much entirely spearheaded by the cable news networks.

6/11/2008 11:00:52 PM

^
Perhaps you could post a link to a hard news article you've written about a controversial political topic for us to examine.

6/12/2008 12:33:27 AM

Quote :

""Time is a train / Makes the future the past / Leaves you standing in the station / Your face pressed up against an ass" (hooksaw)."

ActionPants

WTF is this bullshit? Could you not muster anything related to the topic?

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 12:57 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 12:56:47 AM

nah not really

6/12/2008 1:09:08 AM

^ Then GTFO.

Quote :

"Anyone who has ever read a hard news story I've written would be hard pressed to pick up on my politics. The same goes for damn near any hard news story that is put out by any journalist in America."

If you truly believe the latter, moonman, you can't be a very good journalist. The evidence is overwhelming that the mainstream media has a left-wing bias.

Just a few examples:

The Liberal Media: It's No Myth

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/files/bw04_0614.pdf

Cable Channel Nods to Ratings and Leans Left

Quote :

"Having a prime-time lineup that tilts ever more demonstrably to the left could be risky for General Electric, MSNBC's parent company, which is subject to legislation and regulation far afield of the cable landscape. Officials at MSNBC emphasize that they never set out to create a liberal version of Fox News. 'It happened naturally,' Phil Griffin, a senior vice president of NBC News who is the executive in charge of MSNBC, said Friday, referring specifically to the channel's passion and point of view from 7 to 10 p.m. 'There isn't a dogma we're putting through. There is a "Go for it."'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/media/06msnb.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Steinberg,%20Jacques

It's at NBC News, too.

Quote :

"As one of the last broadcast news journalists from the era of the 'Big Three' network news primacy, Rather was highly regarded within his profession by many long-serving journalists. Rather has, however, been subject to criticism from many people who accuse him of having a liberal bias, and others, including longtime colleague Bernard Goldberg."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather

Is Walter Cronkite a conservative?
Is Katie Couric?
Was Peter Jennings?
Is Charlie Gibson?
Is Tom Brokaw?
Is Brian Williams?

You get the picture.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 1:50 AM. Reason : .]

6/12/2008 1:48:53 AM

24 hour news = the worst thing to ever happen to this country

6/12/2008 2:35:14 AM

^ Oh bullshit--aren't you being a little melodramatic? The worst thing ever? Really?!

Besides, if there weren't a legitimate market for it, 24-hour news wouldn't exist. Don't you believe in the free market?

6/12/2008 3:24:58 AM

crack was pretty bad for the country

there was a market for it

but we kept that shit on lock down

as we should with 24 hour news

6/12/2008 8:46:36 AM

Quote :

" as we should with 24 hour news"

So should we shut down the internet for several hours a day? The last time I checked, its a 24-hour news source. What about NPR and the BBC? They operate 24/7.

6/12/2008 9:20:45 AM

It's not the availability of news that is the problem, it's the way the media is fighting for rankings. It really started with Fox news many years ago and then spread to NBC and the rest of the news outlets. It has very little to do with liberal/conservative bias either, which is just a result of the problem. Fighting for ratings is like working for the lowest common denominator and makes the news companies do shit that is dishonest and sensationalist - neither of which informational news should be.

6/12/2008 9:27:55 AM

^That's true. I'm so disgusted by that crap that I typically don't watch TV news.

The only exceptions are:

CNBC (Kudlow & Company, daytime news)
Fox News (yes, they're biased, but I know where they stand and I have a brain to help me sort through it)
PBS (evening news with Jim Lehrer balances things out, sometimes the nightly business report)
Face the Nation & Meet the Press

I just don't have a stomach for the local evening news or Katie Couric/ Tom Broke-aw's nonsense.

6/12/2008 9:36:11 AM

How about this story. My brother served a year in Iraq (he is a crew chief on blackhawks). A reporter came to visit and while they flew him around to tour the country, the "journalist" read a book the ENTIRE trip, then went home and wrote a chop piece about how bad it is over there. So screw the media and what they say.

6/12/2008 4:42:39 PM

Quote :

"Don't you believe in the free market?"

This is deliciously ironic coming from a thread you started bitching about media bias.

6/12/2008 8:26:11 PM

Media bias and the 'subprime six'

Quote :

"The editorial page at Investor's Business Daily today joins with the Wall Street Journal in asking for a full investigation of the 'sub-prime six' -- the six named movers and shakers, among them two Senate Democrats, who received special attention from Countrywide Financial because of their VIP status. For the record, those named in media reports as 'Friends of Angelo' -- Countrywide Chairman Angelo Mozilo -- are Democratic insider James Johnson, formerly an advisor to the Obama campaign; Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota; former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala; former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke; and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson. If you are keeping track, five of the six are Democrats. IBD: 'The Democrats' initial response has been to stall. They hope the problem will disappear until after the election. Given the media's lack of curiosity so far — a small handful of news organizations, including our competitor, the Wall Street Journal, have pushed this story ahead — it looks like the Democrats might get their wish.... These revelations suggest that, at the very least, the Democratic Party is afflicted with a kind of corruption that taints all recent decisions on the sub-prime crisis. They need to investigate it fully, immediately and without prejudice — or risk having it blow up in their faces. Bloviation: Why the lack of media curiosity? My gut tells me the mainstream news media would have much more enthusiasm for the story if it had been broken by The New York Times and had begun with a sweetheart deal for a top campaign advisor to John McCain and had then spread to two Republican U.S. senators. That's just my two cents."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/06/media-bias-and.html

Investor's Business Daily

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298595185267130

Hear, hear.

[Edited on June 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2008 1:50:58 AM

TV anchors hunt for Obama exclusives on foreign trip

Quote :

"All three broadcast television network anchors, ABC's Charlie Gibson, CBS's Katie Couric and NBC's Brian Williams, are negotiating to tag along, and according to the Washington Post they could each have an exclusive interview in different countries."

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/07/17/tv-anchors-hunt-for-obama-exclusives-on-foreign-trip/

Un-fucking-believable.

7/19/2008 8:08:18 AM

Because they wouldn't do the same for McCain? That's a stretch rickshaw.

7/19/2008 9:20:15 AM

^yeah it is. Just another outlet for obama's campaign. "in the bag" haha.

Despite the evidence of this trip and the total amount of coverage (in mins) they both are getting, alot of people still wont admit to the bias.

7/19/2008 9:23:00 AM

There's going to be bias wherever you go. The largest TV network and all of AM radio is largely biased to the GOP, other media has a Democratic party bias, others fall largely in the middle. If you can't find your way through the bias and see the truth then you're an idiot and shouldn't be voting anyway. The same people that bitch about the NYT and it's liberal bias are the same people that read the shit everyday looking to find the bias, same with Fox News.


As long as we have people on the prowl watching out for the bullshit we're fine. Just don't pretend that your side is being oppressed because you don't have 100% media control. Suck it up and be a man.

7/19/2008 2:49:48 PM

Quote :

"everyday"

7/20/2008 2:41:20 AM

^ so that's all you got?

7/20/2008 4:35:45 PM