NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

It was so blatant even my 8yr old asked why so many news stories about kerry. Wasnt to difficult to figure out who had the agendas.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

Well, apparently most voters don't watch the news.

Personally, I think there was a lot more negative information about Bush at the time.

Originally posted by Celtund
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

Well, Bush was the president and did start a very controversial war. Him being president is a basic reason he was scrutinized. Seriously, I don;t know where they got this information, i never saw a commercial where they said "Bush is bad" or "Kerry is good." Bush won anyway so what's the big deal?

Bleach. I was willing to give Kerry a chance. Bush had already run our economy into the shits.

Well, apparently most voters don't watch the news.

Personally, I think there was a lot more negative information about Bush at the time.

The voters are more intelligent than the press gives them credit for. Your personal opinion is not supported by the scitenific study. Sorry.

Well, Bush was the president and did start a very controversial war. Him being president is a basic reason he was scrutinized. Seriously, I don;t know where they got this information, i never saw a commercial where they said "Bush is bad" or "Kerry is good." Bush won anyway so what's the big deal?

Did you read the entire article in the link provided?

Bullshit. I think that there was (for once) a fair balance between right and left criticism in the last election.

Both sides got their 5 minutes, which is more than I can say for my party.

Stop yer bitchin'!

It was inevitable. There were a hell of a lot more reasons to be negative about bush, and you must admit that whether you agree with them or not. The media coverage allways emphasises the negative aspects of the guy/party in charge simply because hes the one whos been doing things for the past years but the other guy/party is an unknown factor. This doesnt prove a bias at all.

Bleach. I was willing to give Kerry a chance. Bush had already run our economy into the shits.

No, he inherited a screwed up economy from Clinton.

Originally posted by Celtund
Did you read the entire article in the link provided?

I mostly scimmed, your point is.

No, he inherited a screwed up economy from Clinton.


Oh really? I'm beginning to think that you're a bit lacking.

Bullshit. I think that there was (for once) a fair balance between right and left criticism in the last election.

Both sides got their 5 minutes, which is more than I can say for my party.

Stop yer bitchin'!

I'm not bitchin, I'm gloating. :D I'm happy that a scientific study from a reputable and unbiased source confirmed what most conservatives, and many Americans, thought.

The voters are more intelligent than the press gives them credit for. Your personal opinion is not supported by the scitenific study. Sorry.

No they aren't. Otherwise McDonald's would not be the nation's number one restaurant, smoking wouldn't be big business, and no one would drive SUV's.

People will do things that is the opposite of their own self interest, just as long as you have the right marketing plan.

Don't tell me that people are generally smart.

As for Bush's press coverage, I can think of a lot of controversial policies that Bush had and implemented, while I can't even think of one time Kerry went out on a limb. So I think it is very likely that Bush would get more negative coverage.

It was inevitable. There were a hell of a lot more reasons to be negative about bush, and you must admit that whether you agree with them or not. The media coverage allways emphasises the negative aspects of the guy/party in charge simply because hes the one whos been doing things for the past years but the other guy/party is an unknown factor. This doesnt prove a bias at all.

I do not believe that John Kerry, a US Senator and renowned war protester was an "unknown factor." Howard Dean maybe, but not John Kerry.

Oh really? I'm beginning to think that you're a bit lacking.
*pulls up a chair*
Oooohhh, partisan bickering. Go on...

I mostly scimmed, your point is.

Point is the study was not baised on advertisement but the conten of news reported by the press.

The voters are more intelligent than the press gives them credit for. Your personal opinion is not supported by the scitenific study. Sorry.


Nor is your opinion. You Americans as a whoe don't have a clue when it comes to politics. Which would explain why Bush was able to buy votes by giving a tax cut then snding soldiers abroad with inferior equipment.

Oh really? I'm beginning to think that you're a bit lacking.

No not lacking. Possibly a little senile though. :D

Originally Posted by Celtlund
No, he inherited a screwed up economy from Clinton.

Clinton hardly screwed the economy up, Bush did. Irresponsible desicions, bad international trade desicions, stupid spending, accepting lobbying from huge corporations, etc.

Well, who can blame the press? They're smart unlike Bush.

Nor is your opinion. You Americans as a whoe don't have a clue when it comes to politics. Which would explain why Bush was able to buy votes by giving a tax cut then snding soldiers abroad with inferior equipment.
Christ, your talent at political hackery is blinding me.
For the sake of everyone involved, turn it off, please.

Nor is your opinion. You Americans as a whoe don't have a clue when it comes to politics. Which would explain why Bush was able to buy votes by giving a tax cut then snding soldiers abroad with inferior equipment.


Agreed.

As for Bush's press coverage, I can think of a lot of controversial policies that Bush had and implemented, while I can't even think of one time Kerry went out on a limb.

That's because Kerry never sponsored any legislation. Kind of hard to go out on a limb when you don't do anything substantiall.

I do not believe that John Kerry, a US Senator and renowned war protester was an "unknown factor." Howard Dean maybe, but not John Kerry.

I was simply saying there were a hell of a lot negative things to report on in bush's case than there were in Kerry's simlpy because he was the one in power and had been making decisions in the previous 4 years that inevitably a lot of people wouldnt agree with whereas Kerry hadnt made any important decisions because he wasnt in power. Surely you must see that.

Originally posted by Celtund
Point is the study was not baised on advertisement but the conten of news reported by the press.

OK, if i put press in instead of commercials would it make more sense.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.I don't live in the US and have no idea whether or not the press was biased. Regardless, your conclusion does not logically follow from the facts supplied in the article.

If he believes the Swiftboat bullshit (which he probably does), then he definately won't see "it".

Nor is your opinion. You Americans as a whoe don't have a clue when it comes to politics. Which would explain why Bush was able to buy votes by giving a tax cut then snding soldiers abroad with inferior equipment.

Our soldiers had equipment that was inferior to whose? Iraq? I think not.

Christ, your talent at political hackery is blinding me.
For the sake of everyone involved, turn it off, please.

No shit, there have been two pages of posts and about 2-3 posts actually addressed the true subject of the thread.

If he believes the Swiftboat bullshit (which he probably does), then he definately won't see "it".
That was really depressing, seeing another party down a hero for political benefit.

That was an injustice, and the Democrats have a right to throw some shit in the next election.
In my book, for that one.

Clinton hardly screwed the economy up, Bush did. Irresponsible desicions, bad international trade desicions, stupid spending, accepting lobbying from huge corporations, etc.

:eek:

Too bad Bush had things such as the .com crash, 9/11. Clinton rode out the .com boom and the housing boom, and actually didn't do shit to help the economy. Bush has been doing everything he can to help the economy

Originally posted by Potaria
If he believes the Swiftboat bullshit (which he probably does), then he definately won't see "it".

The swiftboat "controversy" was bullshit It had absolutely nothing to do with the election, it happend like 35 years ago. I hypothesize that some Republican started it to smeer Kerry.

That's because Kerry never sponsored any legislation. Kind of hard to go out on a limb when you don't do anything substantiall.

Exactly, and that is why he got less negative news coverage. That was his and the democratic party's plan all along. They assumed that Bush's policies were enough to get Bush voted out, and so they just tried to make sure that they didn't lose the election.

It is a cliche, but they played not to lose instead of playing to win.

I don't live in the US and have no idea whether or not the press was biased. Regardless, your conclusion does not logically follow from the facts supplied in the article.


Thank you

But the problem was that it wasn't even real! It was just a bunch of partisan anti-Democrat fuckers who twisted the words of John Kerry's autobiography.

Bleach. I was willing to give Kerry a chance. Bush had already run our economy into the shits.

Bush did no such thing. It pisses me off when anyone praises or denigrates a president for something he has almost nothing to do with. That is, America's economy is run by corporations, consumers, and investors... and the Fed.

A president can have a little bit of influence... but more or less, it's up to you and me and our fellow americans to forge a successful economy.

We had 9/11, which hit the Dow hard.

Since then we've been improving.

Actually, the Dow was inflated under Clinton -- many stocks were overvalued due to bold investing in little-known companies. Sometime around Spring/Summer of 2000, people began to realize that the tech boom had run out of new innovation and these stocks began to come back down to earth or die out completely.

What did Bush have to do with that?

Try to form a logical argument if you're going to slap a struggling economy on any single american, but heartily know that it does NOT depend on any one american.

I'm not bitchin, I'm gloating. :D I'm happy that a scientific study from a reputable and unbiased source confirmed what most conservatives, and many Americans, thought.

Do not be so arrogant...One study proves little.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

Um just because everything that could possibly be said about Bush was negative and the press actually talked about him doesn't mean that there's a bias against Bush.

The job of the press is not to check how many times they criticized each member of the political circus. The president was the actual president during a slumping economy a lousy war effort and a failing diplomatic policy. Kerry was a Senator trying desperatly to get some face time.

The media made a consistent point of ending every segment explaining a democratic position with what republicans had to say about it without ever bothering to point out when those things were completly and demonstrably wrong.

Stories were more likely to be negative about Bush because there was so much more to be negative about, not because of a bias. If anything the bias was against Kerry.

Christ, your talent at political hackery is blinding me.
For the sake of everyone involved, turn it off, please.


Sorry mate ;) feeling a bit vindictive. Glad you agree that attacking Kerry's war record was dispicable.

I don't live in the US and have no idea whether or not the press was biased. Regardless, your conclusion does not logically follow from the facts supplied in the article.

Exactly what he said. If you guys had any sense the thread would end here.

I was simply saying there were a hell of a lot negative things to report on in bush's case than there were in Kerry's simlpy because he was the one in power and had been making decisions in the previous 4 years that inevitably a lot of people wouldnt agree with whereas Kerry hadnt made any important decisions because he wasnt in power. Surely you must see that.

OK. I see what you are saying; however, Kerry had been a Senator longer than Bush had been on the national political scene. Kerry had a record and it was not sterling one. As a Senator for so long he had the opportunity to introduce significant legislation, but he never did. So there were negatives about his record but the liberal press chose to ignore it. That's my point.

But the problem was that it wasn't even real! It was just a bunch of partisan anti-Democrat fuckers who twisted the words of John Kerry's autobiography.
Exactly. And that's the first time I've heard anyone put my own opinion so succintly! thanx :D

Originally posted by Weinerdam
Too bad Bush had things such as the .com crash, 9/11. Clinton rode out the .com boom and the housing boom, and actually didn't do shit to help the economy. Bush has been doing everything he can to help the economy

Regardless, Bush let the economy go down. Here's Clinton's resume: The largest budget surplus in history, the lowest unemployment rate in more than 40 years, the fastest growth in real wages for more than two decades, and the biggest drop in welfare rolls seen during any administration.

OK. I see what you are saying; however, Kerry had been a Senator longer than Bush had been on the national political scene. Kerry had a record and it was not sterling one. As a Senator for so long he had the opportunity to introduce significant legislation, but he never did. So there were negatives about his record but the liberal press chose to ignore it. That's my point.

I seem to remember hearing a lot of stories about Kerry's lack of an inspiring senate career. And i live in England. And tried not to follow the election.

Hey Eichen, start up a good thread.

I want to learn something.

So, John Kerry didn't do all that much when he was a Senator. But why do you need to constantly introduce legislation when there's no need for it?

Do not be so arrogant...One study proves little.

Nope, not arrogant, just gloating. :D

Regardless, Bush let the economy go down. Here's Clinton's resume: The largest budget surplus in history, the lowest unemployment rate in more than 40 years, the fastest growth in real wages for more than two decades, and the biggest drop in welfare rolls seen during any administration.

oh, brother.

once again, no president has such control over the economy.

Nearly all of the goodness of the economy of the mid-late 90s was a result of the tech boom... not clinton.

if anything, higher taxes on business made the tech boom less than what it might have been under a republican regime. you do realize that clinton taxed us more than any president since near-socialist FDR?

tech provided jobs... tech provided great investment opportunities... tech did this, tech did that, CLINTON did NOTHING for tech. Tech made its own bacon. Tech drove the economy. Clinton was lucky that there are people who actually believe the US president is King of the Economy.

Likewise, what could Bush do to stop the tech drop? Do you have any ideas? Tell the tech companies.. they'd love to know.

Regardless, Bush let the economy go down. Here's Clinton's resume: The largest budget surplus in history, the lowest unemployment rate in more than 40 years, the fastest growth in real wages for more than two decades, and the biggest drop in welfare rolls seen during any administration.

And the Republicans controlled the Congress. :D

oh, brother.

once again, no president has such control over the economy.

Nearly all of the goodness of the economy of the mid-late 90s was a result of the tech boom... not clinton.

if anything, higher taxes on business made the tech boom less than what it might have been under a republican regime. you do realize that clinton taxed us more than any president since near-socialist FDR?

tech provided jobs... tech provided great investment opportunities... tech did this, tech did that, CLINTON did NOTHING for tech. Tech made its own bacon. Tech drove the economy. Clinton was lucky that there are people who actually believe the US president is King of the Economy.

Likewise, what could Bush do to stop the tech drop? Do you have any ideas? Tell the tech companies.. they'd love to know.
That may well be true, inasmuch as Clinton didn't have anything to do with the tech boom.

But with a Republican in power, would things have been much better with all those restrictions on how we'd be allowed spend that good money?

So, John Kerry didn't do all that much when he was a Senator. But why do you need to constantly introduce legislation when there's no need for it?

Well, Mr. Kerry said he would a lot of things if he were elected President. Why didn't he introduce legislation to do some of those things while he was in the Senate?

if anything, higher taxes on business made the tech boom less than what it might have been under a republican regime. you do realize that clinton taxed us more than any president since near-socialist FDR?

Clinton didn't tax us as much as most Presidents since FDR. Until Reagan, the tax-rates were sky high. Thats everyone from Truman up to Carter.

On the other hand this statement has inaccuracies, too :
Regardless, Bush let the economy go down. Here's Clinton's resume: The largest budget surplus in history, the lowest unemployment rate in more than 40 years, the fastest growth in real wages for more than two decades, and the biggest drop in welfare rolls seen during any administration.
The lowest unemployment rate from either today or from the end of the Clinton administration came in the late 1960's, when unemployment was under 4%, which falls under the category of "last 4 years". I think even in any other 8-year time span, the late 1960's would be lower than the Clinton administration. I'm not sure about the real wages - I have to see.

I'm not bitchin, I'm gloating. :D I'm happy that a scientific study from a reputable and unbiased source confirmed what most conservatives, and many Americans, thought.

conservatives dont think they listen and believe

As a Senator for so long he had the opportunity to introduce significant legislation, but he never did. So there were negatives about his record but the liberal press chose to ignore it. That's my point.Leaving aside the question of whether or not political restraint is a good thing, Mr X not doing something over a period of time isn't really news. Contrast:

a) "Today, we can reveal that Kerry didn't do anything much between 1982 and 1989".

b) "Today, Kerry declared that his pants were made of custard".

Only one is an actual news item; the other doesn't really fit in anywhere. You can't report on a non-event.

"...and the Dow Jones was up by eight points (and Kerry didn't introduce any significant legislation)".

That may well be true, inasmuch as Clinton didn't have anything to do with the tech boom.

But with a Republican in power, would things have been much better with all those restrictions on how we'd be allowed spend that good money?

what restrictions?

if you made (for instance) $50 more per year with a republican president, you could buy a share of someone's stock. If 100,000 people just like you invested the same amount of money in said company, the company now has $5 million in additional resources. They can use that money to hire more people, or advertise more (to improve sales or brand recognition... which will hopefully lead to improved sales), or spend it on R&D in an attempt at innovation, or spend it on a huge gala ball in an effort to boost employee morale (which is very important). There are endless possibilities for the company to use your money to improve itself.

Or you could buy that company's product, which should improve its bottom line.

Or you could invest it in some other arena/add to your nest egg/etc.

i don't know what restrictions you're talking about (gotta leave soon.. hehe) so i decided to use an old anecdote.

Well, Mr. Kerry said he would a lot of things if he were elected President. Why didn't he introduce legislation to do some of those things while he was in the Senate?


I'd have to look into it. I'm sure there's some sort of oddity involved, or just plain laziness.

Bush was the former president, he started 2 wars. That make a lot of material to say about him. It's hard to find a non-republican who will have good word for is work.

Kerry did'nt have much action to show.

Anyways, foxnews is ultra republican biased and is the only truth for most american...

what restrictions?

if you made (for instance) $50 more per year with a republican president, you could buy a share of someone's stock. If 100,000 people just like you invested the same amount of money in said company, the company now has $5 million in additional resources. They can use that money to hire more people, or advertise more (to improve sales or brand recognition... which will hopefully lead to improved sales), or spend it on R&D in an attempt at innovation, or spend it on a huge gala ball in an effort to boost employee morale (which is very important). There are endless possibilities for the company to use your money to improve itself.

Or you could buy that company's product, which should improve its bottom line.

Or you could invest it in some other arena/add to your nest egg/etc.

i don't know what restrictions you're talking about (gotta leave soon.. hehe) so i decided to use an old anecdote.
Typical Republican... :p
You missed my point altogether. I meant, can I buy a bag on payday (or for me, when a client submits payment)?
Can I get a hot hooker? :D

No, I can't even get a nice consultant for my next gay wedding.

I'll have lotsa moneyz, but only prude ways in which to spend it. :rolleyes:

Leaving aside the question of whether or not political restraint is a good thing, Mr X not doing something over a period of time isn't really news. Contrast:

a) "Today, we can reveal that Kerry didn't do anything much between 1982 and 1989".

b) "Today, Kerry declared that his pants were made of custard".

Only one is an actual news item; the other doesn't really fit in anywhere. You can't report on a non-event.

"...and the Dow Jones was up by eight points (and Kerry didn't introduce any significant legislation)".

Which means that Kerry did not stand up for what he believes in? If the President was a do nothing President, would he be a non-event or would the press lambaste him for not doing anything?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.
obviously liberal press promotes a "liberal" candidate just like conservative media mindlessly promotes bush

Bush was the former president, he started 2 wars. That make a lot of material to say about him. It's hard to find a non-republican who will have good word for is work.

Kerry did'nt have much action to show.

Anyways, foxnews is ultra republican biased and is the only truth for most american...

Bush did not "start" any war. Al Quida started one, and Saddam started the other when he invaded Kuwait. Gulf war II was not a new war, but an extension of Gulf war I. But that’s another thread.

Well, Bush was the president and did start a very controversial war. Him being president is a basic reason he was scrutinized. Seriously, I don;t know where they got this information, i never saw a commercial where they said "Bush is bad" or "Kerry is good." Bush won anyway so what's the big deal?
They are obsessed with liberals and the evil plot of liberals to exterminate the poor conservatives despite the strangle hold conservatives have on everything

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

I agree. I also hate how the Bible is so biased against Satan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

Of course they did. Which way do you think the conservative press slanted it?

There was more bad news about Bush, hence why Bush was in the news in a negative light. The only negative thing about Kerry was that he was about as electable as a grapefruit, and that isn't very newsworthy.

obviously liberal press promotes a "liberal" candidate just like conservative media mindlessly promotes bush

Hum! Liberal press promotes...but conservative media mindlessly promotes... Hum!

Of course they did. Which way do you think the conservative press slanted it?

There was more bad news about Bush, hence why Bush was in the news in a negative light. The only negative thing about Kerry was that he was about as electable as a grapefruit, and that isn't very newsworthy.


"The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator."

I hardly think Columbia University who did the study is the conservative press.

Of course they did. Which way do you think the conservative press slanted it?

There was more bad news about Bush, hence why Bush was in the news in a negative light. The only negative thing about Kerry was that he was about as electable as a grapefruit, and that isn't very newsworthy.
I agree that the man was missing a public personality (far too private to be president), but the press was not near-unanimously anti or pro Bush.

It was reasonably devided, but unreasonably ignorant of alternatives, IMHO.

"The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator."

I hardly think Columbia University who did the study is the conservative press.

There was more bad news about Bush, hence why Bush was in the news in a negative light. The only negative thing about Kerry was that he was about as electable as a grapefruit, and that isn't very newsworthy.

Sir, THIS was the meat of the argument.

grumbles something along the lines of 'typical republican'

I agree that the man was missing a public personality (far too private to be president), but the press was not near-unanimously anti or pro Bush.

It was reasonably devided, but unreasonably ignorant of alternatives, IMHO.

Did you read the article or are you ignoring it because it might not support your opinion?

Being about as electable as a grapefruit is newsworthy in American politics.

Being about as electable as a grapefruit is newsworthy in American politics.

So why wasn't Bush's original 2000 campaign laughed off the stage? ;)

"The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator."

I hardly think Columbia University who did the study is the conservative press.
Ooh, here's a question. Was the news ELECTION related or related to Bush's job as the president of the United States

Did you read the article or are you ignoring it because it might not support your opinion?
Readed it and dreaded it. It was evidently biased, and ignored other facts.

There's a large majority (not saying it's fortunate) that have tuned out all other newscasts. Let's call them, to be general, the "Fox Crowd".
Trust me, they exist in astounding numbers.

All that this article proved was that the "other" media (ironically, also controlled by capitalist anti-government individuals) was ineffective.

Their marketing campaign failed. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't have posted the article due to it's obvious implications. But that's just me.

Readed it and dreaded it. It was evidently biased, and ignored other facts.

There's a large majority (not saying it's fortunate) that have tuned out all other newscasts. Let's call them, to be general, the "Fox Crowd".
Trust me, they exist in astounding numbers.

All that this article proved was that the "other" media (ironically, also controlled by capitalist anti-government individuals) was ineffective.

Their marketing campaign failed. If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't have posted the article due to it's obvious implications. But that's just me.

OK! Here is a challange. Find some scientific study that supports your position.

OK! Here is a challange. Find some scientific study that supports your position.
Erm, You mean find evidence that Kerry lost despite more negative press coverage of his opponent?

Shouldn't the article suffice? :confused:

Ok, time to end this thread. Of course the media was biased towards John Kerry. Who was one of the most outspoken groups during the election? The people who would say "anyone but bush" and so on. Ok, so you think the media is the "liberal" media? That's complete bullshit. Sure, some publications and services have a personal bias, but that is just human nature. The goal of a publication anymore isn't to inform, hell it isn't even to spread personal bias and opinion. It is to sell their product. So back to the "A.B.B." people being the most outspoken, when you write in favor of a new canidate, the publication is going to sell more, or the program will be watched more, whatever. Simple marketing

Erm, You mean find evidence that Kerry lost despite more negative press coverage of his opponent?

Shouldn't the article suffice? :confused:

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought your argument was that Kerry received more negative coverage than Bush. If that is not your position, I apologize. If it is your position then find some credible study to support it.

Ok, time to end this thread. Of course the media was biased towards John Kerry. Who was one of the most outspoken groups during the election? The people who would say "anyone but bush" and so on. Ok, so you think the media is the "liberal" media? That's complete bullshit. Sure, some publications and services have a personal bias, but that is just human nature. The goal of a publication anymore isn't to inform, hell it isn't even to spread personal bias and opinion. It is to sell their product. So back to the "A.B.B." people being the most outspoken, when you write in favor of a new canidate, the publication is going to sell more, or the program will be watched more, whatever. Simple marketing
I disagree. I think it's BS to say that the media was "more" down on either candidate.

I think that neither major party has been utilizing the internet correctly, and has left a huge, gaping hole open concerning people with research skills.

I desagree. I think it's BS to say that the media was "more" down on either candidate.

I think that neither major party has been utilizing the internet correctly, and has left a huge, gaping hole open concerning people with research skills.

I never said the media was more "down" on anybody, but I think they gave more positive coverage to Kerry.

It's Comm 101

Ok, time to end this thread. Of course the media was biased towards John Kerry. Who was one of the most outspoken groups during the election? The people who would say "anyone but bush" and so on. Ok, so you think the media is the "liberal" media? That's complete bullshit. Sure, some publications and services have a personal bias, but that is just human nature. The goal of a publication anymore isn't to inform, hell it isn't even to spread personal bias and opinion. It is to sell their product. So back to the "A.B.B." people being the most outspoken, when you write in favor of a new canidate, the publication is going to sell more, or the program will be watched more, whatever. Simple marketing

Oh, I always thought the purpose of the media was to report events without bias. Dumb me. :(

I think that neither major party has been utilizing the internet correctly, and has left a huge, gaping hole open concerning people with research skills.

Hey Eichen, we agree on something. :fluffle:

I never said the media was more "down" on anybody, but I think they gave more positive coverage to Kerry.

It's Comm 101
If your own brief sentence didn't worry you upon reflection, I think you may need more than 101 coverage on the subject. :rolleyes:

I would imagine that ANY incumbent faces more criticism because they have to stand on their record as well as their platform, and it's always easier to make promises than it is to deliver results. I don't think Bush was particularly hard done by in that regard, and he certainly derived many benefits from being the incumbent as well.

The election is over, Bush won, why do you feel the need to bring this topic up now?

The idea of unbiased media is rediculous. We as humans all carry bias and it comes out in blatent and subtle ways. When over 90% of media personel in the US identify themselves as democrats then of course media will trend toward bias against republicans.
Bush was the sitting pres who had done things very unpopular with most members of the press, they wanted him out and they did many stories in an attempt to do so. There were negative stories about Kerry as well but many things that they let slide about Kerry.
His anti-Vietnam activities bordered on treason. Lying about his fellow soldiers, lying about crossing into Cambodia repeatedly and meeting with members of the N. Vietnamese government and Vietcong during the war were highly questionable things to do. Sure, it technically was not a war so technically it can't be called treason but the actions were still the same.
MSM bias is not that problem, it is the lie they spread about being unbiased that angers me. If they stepped up and said, okay, here is our bias accept us for what we are, then I wouldn't mind so much.

The election is over, Bush won, why do you feel the need to bring this topic up now?

Because this study shows that the press/media is biased however they claim to not be biased.

The idea of unbiased media is rediculous. We as humans all carry bias and it comes out in blatent and subtle ways.
I'm going to leave alone the rest of your post, but these two sentences are really good.

Too bad for some of the other content, although it wrapped up almost there.

:p

The idea of unbiased media is rediculous. We as humans all carry bias and it comes out in blatent and subtle ways. When over 90% of media personel in the US identify themselves as democrats then of course media will trend toward bias against republicans.
Bush was the sitting pres who had done things very unpopular with most members of the press, they wanted him out and they did many stories in an attempt to do so. There were negative stories about Kerry as well but many things that they let slide about Kerry.
His anti-Vietnam activities bordered on treason. Lying about his fellow soldiers, lying about crossing into Cambodia repeatedly and meeting with members of the N. Vietnamese government and Vietcong during the war were highly questionable things to do. Sure, it technically was not a war so technically it can't be called treason but the actions were still the same.
MSM bias is not that problem, it is the lie they spread about being unbiased that angers me. If they stepped up and said, okay, here is our bias accept us for what we are, then I wouldn't mind so much.

I fully agree with everything you said except the part about us not being able to call it treason. We were very much at war and the Gulf oF Tonkin resolution affirmed that.

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here. I don't have the actual figures to back me up, but I'm sure they are out there.

The report said that the media showed more negative reports on Bush positive, but it also said that fox news coverage was more positive than negative.

Correct me if I'm wrong (being British) but (I think) more people watch fox news, therefore the figures are balanced out somewhat. Afterall, the figures were on the total numbers of reports, *not* the total number watched.

Therefore, IMO, some people are drawing unsubstantiated conclusions from this report, and the data, in its current form, is meaningless.

Does anyone agree with me on this?

Again I ask how much of this "bad press" was related to the election as compared to him being the president and controversial one at that. Not only that but how much of the news was really negative or it was just the truth and it can only be viewed in a negative light because his decisions are stupid?

I fully agree with everything you said except the part about us not being able to call it treason. We were very much at war and the Gulf oF Tonkin resolution affirmed that.

Yeah, I know it was a war but there was no formal declaration of war by congress.

That is something that really pisses me off, the gutlessness of our congress! we should never, never fight a war without a full and formal declaration of war, it is unconstitutional. But that is for another thread.

"liberal press" bahahahahahahahahahahah

"liberal press" bahahahahahahahahahahah
I know, kinda an oxymoron isn't it?
(just my little joke).

Oh, I always thought the purpose of the media was to report events without bias. Dumb me. :(

Since when has a news service EVER reported something without bias? Like someone else said, it is human nature to give your own personal bias. The news service is always going to be biased one way or another. Most of the time, the large national news services are biased based upon popular opinion. They are going to have their bias lean towards what sells more papers and gives higher ratings on the t.v. screen.

If your own brief sentence didn't worry you upon reflection, I think you may need more than 101 coverage on the subject.

Just because someone reports more positive things about someone (meaning higher QUANTITY) does not mean they are reporting more DOWN things about someone, just means they are reporting LESS things overall.
I think YOU are the one that should be worried upon reflection....

Manawskistan- I live in New Albany

Would you assholes give it up already? Please.

OMG LIBERAL PRESS SLANT OMGOMGOMGOMG THERE IS NO CONSEVRATIEV PRESS IN AMERiKA OMG OMG OMG

Ever watched FOX or listened to the radio lately (I know you love your friend Limbaugh the fat-ass), fundies?

OMG LIBERAL PRESS SLANT OMGOMGOMGOMG THERE IS NO CONSEVRATIEV PRESS IN AMERiKA OMG OMG OMG

Ever watched FOX or listened to the radio lately (I know you love your friend Limbaugh the fat-ass), fundies?

Limbaugh? Blimp-baugh is more like it. :p

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.

Holy cow! Biased news? .... in America? Surely not!

Each side had its fair share of biased news, the only difference is that the fascist neo-cons fabricated lies from the mouth of media whores like Limbaugh, where as the commie pinko bleeding-heart liberals just left out the bits that reflected badly on Kerry, or well on Bush.

I didn't care which one won... I just wanted a Democrat Congress. Democrats can't govern, but Republicans can. Republicans can't congress, but the Democrats can. That's why Republican-Democrat arrangements of Presidency-Congress are most successful.

That is something that really pisses me off, the gutlessness of our congress! we should never, never fight a war without a full and formal declaration of war, it is unconstitutional.

YES!!! Finally, someone gets it right!

Oh, I always thought the purpose of the media was to report events without bias. Dumb me. :(

The purpose of the media is to make a profit, at least here in america. They are trying to gain a niche in the market, being bias works.

Anyways, I found this funny...

..."PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while Fox News was twice as likely to be positive as negative."

Yes, Bill O'reilly is never, ever negative... While PBS is always talking about how evil a certain political side is.

Yeah, I know it was a war but there was no formal declaration of war by congress.

That is something that really pisses me off, the gutlessness of our congress! we should never, never fight a war without a full and formal declaration of war, it is unconstitutional. But that is for another thread.

I don't think it's a matter of gutlessness anymore. I think its about becoming an empire. We're not a Christian nation, we're a Roman nation, that just happens to have a lot of Christians in it. If you take a look at the old founders writings it contains many more references to Rome than to the Bible.

And just like Rome, the legislature is ceding more and more power to the executive so that he needs less and less of their approval. They're becoming more and more a rubber-stamp congress like Saddam Hussein used to have.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=7&u=/nm/20050314/pl_nm/media_report_dc

Yep, the study proves it. The liberal press slanted the news toward Kerry during the election.


In case you hadn't noticed, the election was over 4 months ago and Kerry lost. Let's all move into the present, shall we?

It was inevitable. There were a hell of a lot more reasons to be negative about bush, and you must admit that whether you agree with them or not. The media coverage allways emphasises the negative aspects of the guy/party in charge simply because hes the one whos been doing things for the past years but the other guy/party is an unknown factor. This doesnt prove a bias at all.

Perhaps...

But this does!

http://www.fightthebias.com/fight_liberal_media_bias.htm

http://thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6351

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Regards,
Gaar