hiaasenrocks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:43 PM
Original message |
CNN is biased towards the Clintons. MSNBC is biased towards Obama. |
|
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 10:49 PM by hiaasenrocks
All of this talk of media bias reminds me of the way fans of any given sports team view the refs.
Watch any game in any sport and if the home team has a foul or penalty called on them, the home team fans will boo like crazy. If the visiting team suffers the same fate, the fans will cheer and clap. Of course, this is all objective right? Fans will readily admit, each time, that their guy committed the foul. Right? OK, wrong.
When you're rooting for a team (candidate) you are going to agree with the refs (media) when they make a call you agree with, and you agree with the call because it went your team's way.
The same is true with this media bias bullshit, whether it's coming from supporters of one or the other of our Democratic candidates, or whether it's the incessant complaining of media bias that we hear from the right-wing. If anything, there's a bias towards sensationalism, not a particular candidate or ideology.
It is all about perspective.
When Newt Gingrich says the media has a liberal bias, he is correct from where he sits on the far right. When someone from, say, The Nation magazine, accuses the media of having a conservative bias, they are correct from where they sit on the left.
It is all about perspective.
Unless someone can show me a completely objective analysis -- with a wide range of examples, none of this fallacy of dramatic instances -- I'm calling b.s. on the "bias" whiners.
|
Mojambo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. And both are biased by trying to make a shit-ton of money. n/t |
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. They are for-profit corporations. I don't even know if we can consider them |
|
news organizations anymore.
|
ingac70
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
2. They all sat on their asses... |
|
and did no investigative reporting in the lead up to war with Iraq...and that isn't BS.
The media is full of corporate whore Repubs and DLCers... one in the same.
|
hiaasenrocks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Are they cheerleading for the war now? |
|
Again, that's the bias towards sensationalism, not a particular candidate or ideology.
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
3. IF that's true, and if it's true that Clinton is thinking of canceling an MSNBC |
|
debate, we can expect this to become even more so.
|
hiaasenrocks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. I didn't say it (the bias) was true. |
|
Did you only read the title?
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Sorry - I didn't mean to indicate that I though YOU said it was true, just if |
robbedvoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I don't think so. CNN is barely slightly less stridently biased towards Obama |
|
Edited on Sat Feb-09-08 11:13 PM by robbedvoter
Non-partisan group finds huge media bias against Senator Clinton. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4406175&mesg_id=4406175Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton
|
Thrill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-09-08 11:13 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:11 PM
Response to Original message |