What media bias???

[subroc]

The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

[YardleyLabs]

The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

How is that evidence of bias? The inauguration of a new administration (the first, not the reelection) is a big deal and receives lots of coverage. Obama's adds the historic element of the first Afro-American President. Bush's first inauguration was clearly marred by honest questions about the election itself -- both the fact that the majority of voters voted for Gore and the fact that the SCOTUS declared him President by halting the vote count in Florida. That clearly and appropriately affected his coverage. Despite that, his inauguration was also celebrated, as were those of Clinton, George Sr., Reagan, and so forth.

The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.

[backpasture]

FYI

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ly_cost_4.html


Cue the 'liberal bias!' posts. (Reality does have a liberal bias after all.)

[M Remington]

You don't get to pick. You either believe in the constitution or not. If not, there is an amendment process to change it.

I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

[Gun_Dog2002]

I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


/Paul

[IowaBayDog]

I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.

[YardleyLabs]

Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


/Paul

Uh, actually it is true. Obama won with 52.9% of the popular vote vs. McCain's 45.7%. Bush also won a majority of the popular vote in 2004 with 50.2%. In 2000, Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote to Gore''s 48.4% making this one of only two elections in our history where the candidate winning the plurality of votes actually lost the election in the Electoral College.

[YardleyLabs]

Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.

The Constitution protects free speech to speak in public and to plot in private. Conspiracy laws passed under Nixon do not outlaw any form of speech. Rather, they outlaw actions that further an attempt to overthrow the government or to commit any other crime.

The Constitution protects all persons in the jurisdiction of our country, whether citizens or not. By tradition, spies (or so called enemy combatants) are not treated as prisoners of war but are handled in accordance with the laws of the country that arrests them. The administration did not want to do this since that would provide the detainees with rights of due process.

The Geneva Convention explicitly addresses both prisoners that are captured while in "uniform" or otherwise clearly identifiable as combatants, and those captured who are not identifiable as combatants. The latter group is covered by some, but not all, provisions of the treaty. That was the basis for the court orders directing the administration to comply with the applicable portions of the treaty. The Bush administration's efforts to define a distinct class of so called "illegal combatants" that would be under U.S. government control but not subject to any legal process whatsoever has been rejected completely by every court.

Presumably the new administration is ending this sad and shameful story by ordering an end to such detentions and a return to forms of interrogation generally accepted under international law.

[Julie R.]

The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.

Jeff my friend, you are so wrong here that it makes me wonder if this shrill and inaccurate reply didn't come straight from the MoveOn.org website instead of your usual measured responses.
The press most certainly did not 'roll over' for Bush, although the same cannot be said for the fawning, 'lite' coverage they gave your boy Oboma.
Fact: a reporter that prints a press release verbatim as news is not going to last long at any major daily. Fact: ALL administrations send out press releases that present their policies in favorable lights. I know, I worked in the Reagan White House press office and also the U.S. Dept. of State press office. I've also worked on the other side of the desk, at newspapers and at a weekly news magazine both as a reporter and as an editor.
If any reporter was banned from the credentialed White House press corps, it was probably for a good reason. No doubt your boy Obomo will do the same thing when he doesn't like the negative coverage he's bound to receive eventually.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed your Bush bashing seems to be growing exponentially as this thread wears on. I'm disgusted to hear you blaming Bush for the Katrina disaster when your own party is squarely at fault for that. Next you'll be saying Bush engineered that hurricane to put the black man down. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Your guy won, so stop bashing Bush for things he didn't do, it makes you look petty and ignorant.

Kind of how Obomo looked when he admonished Republicans to 'quit listening to Rush Limbaugh'. And my favorite narcissistic comment, in response to a (GOP) Virginia representative's objection to more welfare for the non-taxpaying segments of society: "I won. I will trump you on that." What a loser! He could at least try to explain how giving more money to welfare leaches will stimulate the economy?

[Steve Amrein]

While I am not sad the PETA ad will not run during the super bowl the mainstrem media is making sure you know about it still and see it.

The other commercial that is also banned is a anti abortion ad. I am really surprised it was not allowed because it mentions the chosen one. I have yet to hear see any mention on any of the news outlets. Hmmmmmm.

Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

To be fair the peta ad links have been posted on this site elsewhere