Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

CNN, MSNBC and the “liberal” New York Times websites all get significantly more hits per day than Fox’s website, but it means nothing. We’re talking about tens of thousands of hits per day versus millions of listeners/viewers regarding radio and TV. CNN’s 50,000 hits a day (compared to about half that for Fox) doesn’t mean a thing in terms of the “liberal media” when Limbaugh alone reaches 15 million listeners five days a week.

Shit, of course Fox’s website is going to lag behind the rest of the Internet news sites; all their potential readers are right here on this site.[/quote]
While I agree with your overall point (i.e. when weighted for audience size, the MSM isn’t all that liberal) I think your Internet numbers are all off by a factor of 1000. According to this link (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3i9b617dc618d4b8dd0cdfbe24d1d1b3d8) ComScore reports more than 40 million monthly uniques for CNN.com this past June.

142

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
According to a recent Pew Report, FNC has the highest “trust rating” of any news channel on the air.

[/quote]

Speaking of Pew…What do you guys want? A media echo chamber for defeating Republican Candidates?

[/quote]

From your link:

For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCainâ??s reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obamaâ??s character did hurt Obamaâ??s media coverage, but McCainâ??s was even more negative.

Contrary to what some suggested, little of the coverage was about Palinâ??s personal life (5%).

One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? The data do not provide conclusive answers. They do offer a strong suggestion that winning in politics begat winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls and internal tactical maneuvering to alter those positions.

Obamaâ??s coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obamaâ??s numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCainâ??s numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore.

143

[quote]milod wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

CNN, MSNBC and the “liberal” New York Times websites all get significantly more hits per day than Fox’s website, but it means nothing. We’re talking about tens of thousands of hits per day versus millions of listeners/viewers regarding radio and TV. CNN’s 50,000 hits a day (compared to about half that for Fox) doesn’t mean a thing in terms of the “liberal media” when Limbaugh alone reaches 15 million listeners five days a week.

Shit, of course Fox’s website is going to lag behind the rest of the Internet news sites; all their potential readers are right here on this site.[/quote]
While I agree with your overall point (i.e. when weighted for audience size, the MSM isn’t all that liberal) I think your Internet numbers are all off by a factor of 1000. According to this link (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/technology/news/e3i9b617dc618d4b8dd0cdfbe24d1d1b3d8) ComScore reports more than 40 million monthly uniques for CNN.com this past June.[/quote]

You’re right. How the hell did I fuck that up? But my point remains only slightly changed. 48,000,000 hits per month for CNN.com still represents 1.6 million hits per day. That is still less than the amount of viewers FNC has had during its slowest period in the last 5-7 years (1.8 million).

The Internet is still the second smallest of the four main sources of media coverage. TV is still a larger share of the coverage, and radio is an overwhelmingly larger source than either of these outlets. Newspapers bring up the rear, but again, the largest newspaper in the country is The Wall Street Journal and Murdoch just bought it back in August. TV is still dominated by conservatives and the radio even more so.

According to the Pew Report that Sloth linked to above, changes in positive/negative reporting from the media during election seasons (when any media bias in either direction can have its largest impact) occur in concert with, and as a result of, poll performance. Go up in the polls and you are likely to gain more positive coverage and vice versa. It doesn’t work the other way around in which people go up or down in the polls based on the tone of media coverage.

144

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I’m talking about is which media sources have the most influence…[/quote]

That’s a different question than one of liberal bias in the mainstream media.

145

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All you’ve done Zeb is explain to me that Obama was on a lot of magazine covers. And why wouldn’t he be? He was running in a highly anticipated Presidential election during a crucial time in our history, but above and beyond that, he was the first black to run for the position. Of course he’s going to be on a bunch of magazine covers. But I don’t remember Men’s Fitness specifically pushing him as a candidate, and I know exactly what Men’s Fitness issue you refer to. I also highly doubt that these pop mags you refer to were preaching to people who weren’t already in the choir. Rolling Stone hardly is known for its conservative fanbase. Many of these pop mags are either advocating someone they were already going to vote for, or pandering to the least represented segment of society in the voting booths.

Plus, these mags are obviously going to put the first black Presidential candidate on their ocver regardless of party affiliation. If George Bush was on the cover of a magazine, does that make it a conservative magazine all of a sudden? Besides the amount of people these mags reach pales significantly compared to how many people are reached by Fox and hosts like Hannity or Limbaugh.

And since when is Time a major player in the media world anymore? Their circulation is down every year, probably barely above 3 million by now. Same with Newsweek, which never had the same clout as Time to begin with. 1.5 million circulation in the U.S. and shrinking rapidly. Look, I don’t doubt that the media is liberal to a large extent. But look at who the major players are in the media world and specifically where people go to get their political news of the day. They go to TV, radio, the newspaper and the Internet. And they mostly go to the TV and the radio. Glenn Beck gets more listeners everyday on both his radio show and his TV show than will ever read Newsweek in an entire year. On TV and radio the major players are all conservative.

For instance, the top radio personalities in the country are, from top to bottom: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Dave Ramsey, Laura Ingraham and Neal Boortz. Except for Ramsey (whose show is centered around personal financial advice) all of these people are conservatives through and through. Boortz gets more than 5 million listeners every day and Limbaugh gets more than 15 million. These hosts combined have WAY more reach than Newsweek or Time combined have EVER had. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that Limbaugh alone gets more listeners than every magazine and newspaper you mentioned put together. That’s more in one day than those periodicals get in a year!

And what about cable news networks? Who has the two most viewed shows on the air? FoxNews of course. O’Reilly and Hannity own those spots, but six of the remaining eight spots also belong to FoxNews hosts. It’s consistently in the top ten for ratings amongst ALL cable channels of any kind and has even held the #1 spot. They get anywhere from 1.8 million to 3.5 million viewers a day, which is as much as seven times what CNN gets and five times what MSNBC gets. It’s more than both of them combined. Not only that, Fox ended 2009 as the highest-ranked cable channel period other than USA.

But Fox also dominates ABC, NBC and CBS, as evidenced by a comparison of their ratings during the last election, when Fox got more than 7 million viewers whereas The Big Three got anywhere from 5 million to 5.9 million viewers. And it doesn’t end there either. FNC is viewed in Canada, Ireland, France, Italy, Brazil, Australia and the UK, as well as 33 other countries. If current trends are any indicator (CNN is rapidly closing headquarters in many international locales) FNC will soon pass CNN as the dominant international news channel.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget The Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in the country and now owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, although its nothing like FoxNews. Hell, expecting me to believe that Fox is “fair and balanced” is like expecting me to believe that North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic. And although I beg to differ that the New York Times is a liberal outlet, for the sake of argument let’s say that it is. So what? It only reaches about 800,000 people now and their website gets roughly the same amount of daily hits that Fox gets.

So again, please explain to me how this constitutes a largely liberal media. I need help comprehending your assertion and I am hereby asking for it.[/quote]

When our kids were little my wife used to tell me all the time, don’t push them Zeb they’ll learn at their own pace. Foolishly I’d sit for hours counting with them and doing the ABC’s, when they were very, very young. But, she was correct, eventually they caught on to what was going on. If you can’t see how all of the media that I listed favors Obama, there’s no point in continuing as it’s obvious to all but the most partisan. You believe what you’d like. One day a light may go on and you’ll realize that the media (during these times) was most favorable to Obama. Or, you’ll continue to believe whatever it is that makes you feel good.

Either way, I don’t mind.

All the best.

Zeb

146

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
according to a recent article in the New York Times, there are more people under the age of 25 who self-identify as conservative than at any other point in the last 100 years.[/quote]

Thanks to Obama. I hope all of you Obama fans realize how much he has done for the republican party. He’s been far more helpful than even Jimmy Carter was back in the day.

147

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This HAS to be the issue that did it!

(Damn…!)[/quote]

Actually that issue and issue’s like it do sway elections. Do you honestly think that the average person sits around and analyzes the issues the way we do on this board? A woman may pick that magazine up, or walk by it and get a food feeling about Obama (and his wife) then vote for him. It’s that simple. Tell me Mufasa why would Obama and his wife take the time to be photographed on such a magazine cover if it was not going to help him? Do you realize how long that photo will stay around a typical household once purchased? It’s almost like having a campaign poster sitting on your coffee table for 4 weeks.

You’re turning out to be a real disappointment Mufasa, I honestly thought you were brighter than this.

148

Look Zeb, I think that the media was a bit on Obama’s side, but I think that you tend to inflate this issue a few magnitudes.
If Bush/Kerry would have ended in my favour: your laments would sound familiar.
The right on this board is so very sure of the liberal media monopoly.

But I believe all that arguing about who’s got the upper hand and which media fabricates more won’t solve much here.
And we know both the candidates and the party know exactly how the media works and have their own ideas about the grand liberal agenda and rightwinger radiostations.
Which brings me to my second point:

Media coverage is only one side of the equation.

Charisma -even if it’s the Homer Simpson kind- and good looks can get you a long way in politics.
It’s part of the game and I think nobody will deny it’s Palin’s most fundamental strength.
If you have no presence, you have to make up for it.
Palin certainly had nothing to make up for it, as her spectacular background story (governor, down to earth etc) quickly dissolved like a cascade of soapy foam.
Glitzy, shiny bubbles filled with temperate air.

Reagan is, I think, pretty much most republicans’ favourite politician of the 20th century.
A former actor who looked magnificient while lying to the nation.
And most won’t be able to tell more about him then his ability to inspire them, to rally america against the soviets. To act as a moral guide.

And perhaps that’s what Obama is to the voting majority?
A symbol for a more diplomatic United States. One that rather won’t go to war. (Palin: “Perhaps so?”)
One that tends to his own problems first, which this man symbolically overcame for everyone.

McCain & Palin had their shot, and frankly the old man knew his weakness and played his ace deliberately to make up for it.
Too bad his ace got dry.

149

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All I’m talking about is which media sources have the most influence…[/quote]

That’s a different question than one of liberal bias in the mainstream media. [/quote]

Not really. Liberal bias exists in the mainstream media, I’ve never denied that. But the complaint I seem to hear from people is that liberal leanings are responsible for a distorted, unfair view that people have of certain liberal politicians, specifically Obama. They complain that he gets unfair slack from the liberal press and as a result he is able to get away with more shit, whereas Palin is under constant attack.

But my argument is that while the above scenario may be true, it is true to a much larger extent regarding conservative bias in the media. My argument is that there is a much larger amount of conservative bias in the media than liberal media, and therefore it is predominantly Republican politicians that are held to a lower standard by the press. Because the major media outlets, specifically radio and TV, are dominated across the board by openly and unapologetically conservative sources (many of which lean further to the right than their colleagues lean to the left) Obama if anything comes under unjust attack much more than Palin ever does and that it is Palin who is given the benefit of the doubt.

Palin is the darling of what is overwhelmingly a conservative media. The trends toward conservative bias in the media have been in motion since 9/11 and the media will most likely continue to follow this trend and become more conservative in their bias. So when I hear complaints about liberal bias, I don’t dismiss them as totally false; I simply understand that the conservative media is guilty of the same things, but to a much larger and farther reaching extent than the “liberal media”.

150

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All you’ve done Zeb is explain to me that Obama was on a lot of magazine covers. And why wouldn’t he be? He was running in a highly anticipated Presidential election during a crucial time in our history, but above and beyond that, he was the first black to run for the position. Of course he’s going to be on a bunch of magazine covers. But I don’t remember Men’s Fitness specifically pushing him as a candidate, and I know exactly what Men’s Fitness issue you refer to. I also highly doubt that these pop mags you refer to were preaching to people who weren’t already in the choir. Rolling Stone hardly is known for its conservative fanbase. Many of these pop mags are either advocating someone they were already going to vote for, or pandering to the least represented segment of society in the voting booths.

Plus, these mags are obviously going to put the first black Presidential candidate on their ocver regardless of party affiliation. If George Bush was on the cover of a magazine, does that make it a conservative magazine all of a sudden? Besides the amount of people these mags reach pales significantly compared to how many people are reached by Fox and hosts like Hannity or Limbaugh.

And since when is Time a major player in the media world anymore? Their circulation is down every year, probably barely above 3 million by now. Same with Newsweek, which never had the same clout as Time to begin with. 1.5 million circulation in the U.S. and shrinking rapidly. Look, I don’t doubt that the media is liberal to a large extent. But look at who the major players are in the media world and specifically where people go to get their political news of the day. They go to TV, radio, the newspaper and the Internet. And they mostly go to the TV and the radio. Glenn Beck gets more listeners everyday on both his radio show and his TV show than will ever read Newsweek in an entire year. On TV and radio the major players are all conservative.

For instance, the top radio personalities in the country are, from top to bottom: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Dave Ramsey, Laura Ingraham and Neal Boortz. Except for Ramsey (whose show is centered around personal financial advice) all of these people are conservatives through and through. Boortz gets more than 5 million listeners every day and Limbaugh gets more than 15 million. These hosts combined have WAY more reach than Newsweek or Time combined have EVER had. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that Limbaugh alone gets more listeners than every magazine and newspaper you mentioned put together. That’s more in one day than those periodicals get in a year!

And what about cable news networks? Who has the two most viewed shows on the air? FoxNews of course. O’Reilly and Hannity own those spots, but six of the remaining eight spots also belong to FoxNews hosts. It’s consistently in the top ten for ratings amongst ALL cable channels of any kind and has even held the #1 spot. They get anywhere from 1.8 million to 3.5 million viewers a day, which is as much as seven times what CNN gets and five times what MSNBC gets. It’s more than both of them combined. Not only that, Fox ended 2009 as the highest-ranked cable channel period other than USA.

But Fox also dominates ABC, NBC and CBS, as evidenced by a comparison of their ratings during the last election, when Fox got more than 7 million viewers whereas The Big Three got anywhere from 5 million to 5.9 million viewers. And it doesn’t end there either. FNC is viewed in Canada, Ireland, France, Italy, Brazil, Australia and the UK, as well as 33 other countries. If current trends are any indicator (CNN is rapidly closing headquarters in many international locales) FNC will soon pass CNN as the dominant international news channel.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget The Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in the country and now owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, although its nothing like FoxNews. Hell, expecting me to believe that Fox is “fair and balanced” is like expecting me to believe that North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic. And although I beg to differ that the New York Times is a liberal outlet, for the sake of argument let’s say that it is. So what? It only reaches about 800,000 people now and their website gets roughly the same amount of daily hits that Fox gets.

So again, please explain to me how this constitutes a largely liberal media. I need help comprehending your assertion and I am hereby asking for it.[/quote]

When our kids were little my wife used to tell me all the time, don’t push them Zeb they’ll learn at their own pace. Foolishly I’d sit for hours counting with them and doing the ABC’s, when they were very, very young. But, she was correct, eventually they caught on to what was going on. If you can’t see how all of the media that I listed favors Obama, there’s no point in continuing as it’s obvious to all but the most partisan. You believe what you’d like. One day a light may go on and you’ll realize that the media (during these times) was most favorable to Obama. Or, you’ll continue to believe whatever it is that makes you feel good.

Either way, I don’t mind.

All the best.

Zeb
[/quote]

You’ve missed my point entirely here Zeb. I understand that the sources you listed previously have liberal leanings to certain extent. I would argue with you on how far some of them lean, but that’s immaterial to my main point. My main point is that the conservative media is a much larger force than the liberal media is. As a result, the leanings that you accuse these media sources have, well guess what? The conservative media is just as guilty, but their guilt reaches way more people than ragtag little magazine like Women’s Journal. The unfair liberal bias that The New York Times or some of ABC or CBS’s talk show hosts display doesn’t reach nearly the same level or the same amount of people that FNC’s blatant bias reaches.

Furthermore, if you read the Pew Report that Sloth provided a link to, you’ll see that their studies are inconclusive regarding whether or not there is any rooting for Obama within the media. Their findings do suggest that Obama’s positive press coverage is a direct function of how well he does in the polls, not the other way around. This is the case for politicians across the board. Al Gore received roughly the same amount of negative coverage in the media in 2000 as McCain did in 2008.

So, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it should be clear to you that I do not in any way discount the presence of liberal leanings or favoritism in the “liberal” press. But I very much do discount the extent to which this happens and beyond that, I feel that what you claim the liberal press is guilty of pertains much more heavily to the right.

You’ve done nothing to further your own argument here; nothing you have said comes remotely close to providing any sort of facts whatsoever that advance your initial argument. So rather than sit there and try to demean me and my argument with tales of your children (a classic move toward sophistry), do a little research and come back with some concrete evidence to support your claims, rather than figuring out new ways to express your emotions on the subject.

151

Another thing Zeb: I notice that you now argue that the media sources you listed off are favorable to Obama. Why are you not still arguing that “most of the media is liberal”, that the liberals still control “at least 65%” of the overall media outlets and that this clear domination of the media by liberal bias is swaying elections?

Because it isn’t, that’s why. I did the Google research you recommended and guess what? It bore out my initial claim that the media is far more conservative than liberal. And you know this, so now you’ve resorted to comparing me to your children because the substance of your original argument is non-existent and this is all you have left. So maybe it is I who should be asking YOU if there is anything I can help you with.

152

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All you’ve done Zeb is explain to me that Obama was on a lot of magazine covers. And why wouldn’t he be? He was running in a highly anticipated Presidential election during a crucial time in our history, but above and beyond that, he was the first black to run for the position. Of course he’s going to be on a bunch of magazine covers. But I don’t remember Men’s Fitness specifically pushing him as a candidate, and I know exactly what Men’s Fitness issue you refer to. I also highly doubt that these pop mags you refer to were preaching to people who weren’t already in the choir. Rolling Stone hardly is known for its conservative fanbase. Many of these pop mags are either advocating someone they were already going to vote for, or pandering to the least represented segment of society in the voting booths.

Plus, these mags are obviously going to put the first black Presidential candidate on their ocver regardless of party affiliation. If George Bush was on the cover of a magazine, does that make it a conservative magazine all of a sudden? Besides the amount of people these mags reach pales significantly compared to how many people are reached by Fox and hosts like Hannity or Limbaugh.

And since when is Time a major player in the media world anymore? Their circulation is down every year, probably barely above 3 million by now. Same with Newsweek, which never had the same clout as Time to begin with. 1.5 million circulation in the U.S. and shrinking rapidly. Look, I don’t doubt that the media is liberal to a large extent. But look at who the major players are in the media world and specifically where people go to get their political news of the day. They go to TV, radio, the newspaper and the Internet. And they mostly go to the TV and the radio. Glenn Beck gets more listeners everyday on both his radio show and his TV show than will ever read Newsweek in an entire year. On TV and radio the major players are all conservative.

For instance, the top radio personalities in the country are, from top to bottom: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Dave Ramsey, Laura Ingraham and Neal Boortz. Except for Ramsey (whose show is centered around personal financial advice) all of these people are conservatives through and through. Boortz gets more than 5 million listeners every day and Limbaugh gets more than 15 million. These hosts combined have WAY more reach than Newsweek or Time combined have EVER had. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that Limbaugh alone gets more listeners than every magazine and newspaper you mentioned put together. That’s more in one day than those periodicals get in a year!

And what about cable news networks? Who has the two most viewed shows on the air? FoxNews of course. O’Reilly and Hannity own those spots, but six of the remaining eight spots also belong to FoxNews hosts. It’s consistently in the top ten for ratings amongst ALL cable channels of any kind and has even held the #1 spot. They get anywhere from 1.8 million to 3.5 million viewers a day, which is as much as seven times what CNN gets and five times what MSNBC gets. It’s more than both of them combined. Not only that, Fox ended 2009 as the highest-ranked cable channel period other than USA.

But Fox also dominates ABC, NBC and CBS, as evidenced by a comparison of their ratings during the last election, when Fox got more than 7 million viewers whereas The Big Three got anywhere from 5 million to 5.9 million viewers. And it doesn’t end there either. FNC is viewed in Canada, Ireland, France, Italy, Brazil, Australia and the UK, as well as 33 other countries. If current trends are any indicator (CNN is rapidly closing headquarters in many international locales) FNC will soon pass CNN as the dominant international news channel.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget The Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in the country and now owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, although its nothing like FoxNews. Hell, expecting me to believe that Fox is “fair and balanced” is like expecting me to believe that North Korea is a Democratic People’s Republic. And although I beg to differ that the New York Times is a liberal outlet, for the sake of argument let’s say that it is. So what? It only reaches about 800,000 people now and their website gets roughly the same amount of daily hits that Fox gets.

So again, please explain to me how this constitutes a largely liberal media. I need help comprehending your assertion and I am hereby asking for it.[/quote]

When our kids were little my wife used to tell me all the time, don’t push them Zeb they’ll learn at their own pace. Foolishly I’d sit for hours counting with them and doing the ABC’s, when they were very, very young. But, she was correct, eventually they caught on to what was going on. If you can’t see how all of the media that I listed favors Obama, there’s no point in continuing as it’s obvious to all but the most partisan. You believe what you’d like. One day a light may go on and you’ll realize that the media (during these times) was most favorable to Obama. Or, you’ll continue to believe whatever it is that makes you feel good.

Either way, I don’t mind.

All the best.

Zeb
[/quote]

You’ve missed my point entirely here Zeb. I understand that the sources you listed previously have liberal leanings to certain extent. I would argue with you on how far some of them lean, but that’s immaterial to my main point. My main point is that the conservative media is a much larger force than the liberal media is. As a result, the leanings that you accuse these media sources have, well guess what? The conservative media is just as guilty, but their guilt reaches way more people than ragtag little magazine like Women’s Journal. The unfair liberal bias that The New York Times or some of ABC or CBS’s talk show hosts display doesn’t reach nearly the same level or the same amount of people that FNC’s blatant bias reaches.

Furthermore, if you read the Pew Report that Sloth provided a link to, you’ll see that their studies are inconclusive regarding whether or not there is any rooting for Obama within the media. Their findings do suggest that Obama’s positive press coverage is a direct function of how well he does in the polls, not the other way around. This is the case for politicians across the board. Al Gore received roughly the same amount of negative coverage in the media in 2000 as McCain did in 2008.

So, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it should be clear to you that I do not in any way discount the presence of liberal leanings or favoritism in the “liberal” press. But I very much do discount the extent to which this happens and beyond that, I feel that what you claim the liberal press is guilty of pertains much more heavily to the right.

You’ve done nothing to further your own argument here; nothing you have said comes remotely close to providing any sort of facts whatsoever that advance your initial argument. So rather than sit there and try to demean me and my argument with tales of your children (a classic move toward sophistry), do a little research and come back with some concrete evidence to support your claims, rather than figuring out new ways to express your emotions on the subject.[/quote]

About 80% of all reporters who work in the mainstream liberal media are registered as democrats. I have no doubt that when they write an article they put their personal bias aside and are completely fair - But then I also believe that Santa is sliding down my chimney this December.

Seriously, I get what you’re saying about reach. But that has nothing to do with the many varied forms of media that constantly push the liberal view. I have not even mentioned Hollywood yet. How many movies will be produced this year that inform people that over 60% of new HIV cases are homosexual men? Um, NONE. And how about the Universities which influence young minds, like many of the starry eyed gape mouthed little know it alls on this board.

As I said this serves no purpose. You are not even able to understand how being on the cover of a womans magazine helps. I could go into detail about media exposure and how women are influenced through such messages, but it would do no more good than when I posted the long list of well established credible news media that have a liberal bias.

As I said, you just keep on believing what you like, I don’t see that being any more harmful than the many other fallacies which are believed to be true in 2010. I recall the many gullible who believed in “Hope & Change.” I tried to tell them two years ago, they were like you, they new better, and now you know better.

Who am I to tell you different?

Bye,

Zeb

153

“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”

Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.

154

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Another thing Zeb: I notice that you now argue that the media sources you listed off are favorable to Obama. Why are you not still arguing that “most of the media is liberal”, that the liberals still control “at least 65%” of the overall media outlets and that this clear domination of the media by liberal bias is swaying elections?

Because it isn’t, that’s why. I did the Google research you recommended and guess what? It bore out my initial claim that the media is far more conservative than liberal. And you know this, so now you’ve resorted to comparing me to your children because the substance of your original argument is non-existent and this is all you have left. So maybe it is I who should be asking YOU if there is anything I can help you with.[/quote]

I apologize for comparing you to my children, it was unfair. My children are far brighter and will end up further ahead in life because of that.

155

(eye roll) why do I bother?

The liberal Huffington post even had to admit that Obama was favored.

156

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”

Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]

This is a misleading statistic to a certain extent. Most reporters may be in favor of Obama, but take a look at say, the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle. Both are large periodicals whose reporters probably ALL voted for Obama. But those reporters don’t reach anywhere near the same amount of people that Glenn Beck does or The Wall Street Journal does.

Glenn Beck is probably considered a reporter by your source. So if 65% of the reporters are for Obama, but there are one or two reporters whose conservative leanings reach more people than twenty or thirty liberal reporters, how does this constitute a largely liberal media?

And if Beck is not considered a reporter and this source only takes into account newspaper reporters, then they only take into account what is by far the smallest source of political news from the media.

157

Ask the SNL producers what the heck they were thinking when they repeatedly aired comedy spots showing Obama being favored over Hillary Clinton.

I’d post the video on Youtube, but you know it’s there go look at it if you want. Everyone, was well aware of the Obama media bias. They even threw their old favorite (Hillary) under the bus for the new guy.

The more liberal the better for the mainstream liberal media.

158

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”

Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]

This is a misleading statistic to a certain extent. Most reporters may be in favor of Obama, but take a look at say, the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle. Both are large periodicals whose reporters probably ALL voted for Obama. But those reporters don’t reach anywhere near the same amount of people that Glenn Beck does or The Wall Street Journal does.

Glenn Beck is probably considered a reporter by your source. So if 65% of the reporters are for Obama, but there are one or two reporters whose conservative leanings reach more people than twenty or thirty liberal reporters, how does this constitute a largely liberal media?

And if Beck is not considered a reporter and this source only takes into account newspaper reporters, then they only take into account what is by far the smallest source of political news from the media.[/quote]

There is a difference between broad scale reach and penetration. You also have to take into account the demographics of the audience. If Beck is appealing to 30-50 year old men then how does he reach women? However, if you have 12 reporters with liberal bias who regularly reach a varied demographic then you have a strong liberal bias which favors the more liberal candidate.

I’m tired of this, why do I have to educate you? Go ask Professor lefty who brain washed you.

159

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”

Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]

Facts mean nothing to that guy, his Professors told him that republicans are evil and don’t deserve a fair shake.

160

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“In the current campaign, Republicans, Democrats and independents all feel that the media wants to see Obama win the election. Republicans are almost unanimous in their opinion: 90% of GOP voters say most journalists are pulling for Obama. More than six-in-ten Democratic and independent voters (62% each) say the same.”

Note: the numbers extend back beyond this last election.[/quote]

This is a misleading statistic to a certain extent. Most reporters may be in favor of Obama, but take a look at say, the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle. Both are large periodicals whose reporters probably ALL voted for Obama. But those reporters don’t reach anywhere near the same amount of people that Glenn Beck does or The Wall Street Journal does.

Glenn Beck is probably considered a reporter by your source. So if 65% of the reporters are for Obama, but there are one or two reporters whose conservative leanings reach more people than twenty or thirty liberal reporters, how does this constitute a largely liberal media?

And if Beck is not considered a reporter and this source only takes into account newspaper reporters, then they only take into account what is by far the smallest source of political news from the media.[/quote]

  1. This had to with voter perception of the media, not the percentage of Obama/Democrat supporting reporters.
  2. Attracting the bigger audience has nothing to with the charge of a liberally biased mainstream media. That is, once again, a question of who is managing to draw the audience.
  3. As my source shows, this isn’t some far-right view of the media. It’s actually pretty damn widespread.