Nope. No Media Bias Here.

#26
#26
TennNC said:
True. And much of the country has bought into his candidacy. Just like much of the country bought into W's, and Clinton's, and Reagan's.
Click to expand...

But it's different for the press to do so no? Where's the vetting they're supposed to do?

The Times digs deep into Cindy McCain's drug use and writes a pretty scathing piece. Nothing on Obama's past.

The press digs deep to expose Joe the Plumber but looks less into William Ayers and Obama

It's absurd - at virtually every turn the press has played hands-off with Obama while digging for all they can on McCain.
 
#27
#27
BigPapaVol said:
I think the idiot box and media absolutely drive public sentiment. While it's sad, it's still true.
Click to expand...
I always tend to think that is borderline fact.
The thorny thing, is the exceptions...

Like the media annointing Hillary the presumptive Dem nominee before the primaries had even begun, and then sticking with her for a long long time even after momentum had begun to push Obama some...

I dunno, maybe the exceptions only prove the rule...
 
#28
#28
orange+white=heaven said:
I always tend to think that is borderline fact.
The thorny thing, is the exceptions...

Like the media annointing Hillary the presumptive Dem nominee before the primaries had even begun, and then sticking with her for a long long time even after momentum had begun to push Obama some...

I dunno, maybe the exceptions only prove the rule...
Click to expand...

Hard to say and that's why I won't blame the media for a specific outcome.

I will call them out for this bias though. This coupled with the fracturing of media sources could cause some major changes in how the mainstream press is viewed. Even Obama supporters see how the media has bought into his candidacy. They are smart enough to see that this type of loss of objectivity calls much reporting across issues into question.
 
#29
#29
orange+white=heaven said:
I always tend to think that is borderline fact.
The thorny thing, is the exceptions...

Like the media annointing Hillary the presumptive Dem nominee before the primaries had even begun, and then sticking with her for a long long time even after momentum had begun to push Obama some...

I dunno, maybe the exceptions only prove the rule...
Click to expand...
good points. The exceptions definitely happen much to the chagrin of the major media folks.

In fact, every Republican that wins a race is bucking the media push. I think there are times that the media goes overboard and actually hurts a candidate.

In the case of Hillary, the media was too blinded in its love affair to appreciate just how divisive she is, even in her own party.

I think the media has played a tremendous role in making Obama the unblemished star that he has become. His problems have been conveniently swept away and questions about those issues are met with contempt on the part of the greater media. This has been a very unique race and the media role greater in this one that any other. Again, Bush and recent economic events have been the ultimate drivers here, but the media has made an empty suit into a viable candidate, IMO.
 
#30
#30
volinbham said:
But it's different for the press to do so no? Where's the vetting they're supposed to do?

The Times digs deep into Cindy McCain's drug use and writes a pretty scathing piece. Nothing on Obama's past.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. And I think you know it.

On Obama's drug use (published in February):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/08cnd-obama.html

On Obama's relationship with Ayres:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Both from the NYT.
 
#31
#31
#32
#32
BigPapaVol said:
good points. The exceptions definitely happen much to the chagrin of the major media folks.

In fact, every Republican that wins a race is bucking the media push. I think there are times that the media goes overboard and actually hurts a candidate.

In the case of Hillary, the media was too blinded in its love affair to appreciate just how divisive she is, even in her own party.

I think the media has played a tremendous role in making Obama the unblemished star that he has become. His problems have been conveniently swept away and questions about those issues are met with contempt on the part of the greater media. This has been a very unique race and the media role greater in this one that any other. Again, Bush and recent economic events have been the ultimate drivers here, but the media has made an empty suit into a viable candidate, IMO.
Click to expand...

the bolded sentence is more pathetic, unsubstantiated whining. don't mind that the press completely fell asleep during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. there have been numerous studies of how the press was in W's pocket.

However, BPV, how can you make all these assertions about the media when you don't read, watch or listen to it?
 
#34
#34
TennNC said:
That is simply not true. And I think you know it.

On Obama's drug use (published in February):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/08cnd-obama.html

On Obama's relationship with Ayres:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Both from the NYT.
Click to expand...

Okay - what in the drug piece was critical of Obama? He was a good boy that puffed a joint and spoke out against injustice -- the end.

Did you read the Cindy McCain one? It was a totally different. She lied, schemed, intimidated, blackmailed was out of control. This is exactly what I'm talking about - one story is accusatory while one is dismissive.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
Wow, that Ayers piece was really hard hitting journalism.
Click to expand...

and what do you want it to say?

should they concoct something? maybe a meeting that never happened? Perhaps they should insinuate. Perhaps they should assume. Perhaps they should float out rumors and then foment them once people start wondering.

Is that more like it? And where have I heard that before?
 
#38
#38
TennNC said:
and what do you want it to say?

should they concoct something? maybe a meeting that never happened? Perhaps they should insinuate. Perhaps they should assume. Perhaps they should float out rumors and then foment them once people start wondering.

Is that more like it? And where have I heard that before?
Click to expand...
CBS, a national platform, had no problems floating rumors out there about Bush's military service, unvetted as it clearly was.
 
#39
#39
TennNC said:
and what do you want it to say?

should they concoct something? maybe a meeting that never happened? Perhaps they should insinuate. Perhaps they should assume. Perhaps they should float out rumors and then foment them once people start wondering.

Is that more like it? And where have I heard that before?
Click to expand...

Again I ask you to compare it in tone and content to a story about McCain such as the implied affair that was front page news and totally unsupported.

This story dismisses the idea that Ayers had any influence - they make no real attempt to dig up any influence and make this type statement through out the piece.

Mr. Obama’s friends said that history was utterly irrelevant to judging the candidate, because Mr. Ayers was never a significant influence on him.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe the NYTs has treated these candidates equally?
 
#40
#40
volinbham said:
Again I ask you to compare it in tone and content to a story about McCain such as the implied affair that was front page news and totally unsupported.

This story dismisses the idea that Ayers had any influence - they make no real attempt to dig up any influence and make this type statement through out the piece.
Click to expand...

what "influence" did you want them to dig up? You know something that they didn't report?
 
#41
#41
TennNC said:
what "influence" did you want them to dig up? You know something that they didn't report?
Click to expand...

This apparently doesn't stop them on the McCain stories - why should it on Obama stories? In the "affair" story, they didn't talk to anyone directly involved - it was all second and third hand but it was front page headlines.

I'll ask again - do you believe that the NYT has reported equally on these two candidates?
 
#42
#42
volinbham said:
This apparently doesn't stop them on the McCain stories - why should it on Obama stories? In the "affair" story, they didn't talk to anyone directly involved - it was all second and third hand but it was front page headlines.

I'll ask again - do you believe that the NYT has reported equally on these two candidates?
Click to expand...

the NYT has endorsed Obama. It has reported on the stories that have been floated about Obama. I'm sure there is some bias in some language and other stories about him. Do I think they've intentionally buried any stories to protect Obama? Of course not. That's absurd.

Do you believe Fox News has reported equally on these two candidates?

Let me try to articulate your frustration about the NYT. They dug too hard on Cindy and John. But there's no skeleton in Obama's closet that they didn't dig into enough, correct? Did Fox news find anything on Ayres or Obama's coke use? Surely you are just as upset with them for not digging into those stories, right?
 
#43
#43
TennNC said:
Let me try to articulate your frustration about the NYT. They dug too hard on Cindy and John. But there's no skeleton in Obama's closet that they didn't dig into enough, correct? Did Fox news find anything on Ayres or Obama's coke use? Surely you are just as upset with them for not digging into those stories, right?
Click to expand...

No. My comments are the manner in which they reported. Both the stories you linked are dismissive of anything negative about Obama. It's not a matter of burying stories - it's a matter of not looking for stories and minimal reporting. Again, look to study after study and you see the coverage is tremendously more negative on McCain than Obama.

My point is that the NYT isn't interested in digging up anything negative on Obama. When a potentially negative story is out there, they take a cursory look and proclaim "nothing to see here, move along". Conversely, at the slightest whiff about McCain they dig and present the story in a negative light.

As for Fox - I have admitted time and time again that they are biased.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top