STORM2K

The bias is so thick and blatant it is just unbelievable.

MSNBC " After months and months of Robust job growth June sees a large and surprising plummet in job creation and we still have unemployment at 5.6%.Even with consumer confidence up,owners are backing off hiring due to interest rate hikes and upcoming elections.Polls show the economy and Bush policy is not doing well." quote Alex Whitt

CNN " Job growth falls very short of expectations.Over 12,000 job lost to over seas manufacturing. With unemployment steady, job growth for the year is not as positive as once thought."

WFTV 9 " With a lackluster job reports the stocket market took it on the chin in response to negative numbers on the economy."


The spin is incredible, vertigo is setting in.Looking for duck tape so my head won't explode!


Steve O.

to be expected. they want kerry to win. but where is bush? his campaign is invisible. as long as he lets the media attacks go without him attacking them, he is doomed

It is amazing how negative a spin they have put on what is really a positive economic report. BIAS is alive and well in the US Media.

120,000 new jobs were created during the report period. Where the heck is that in the "unbiased" media reporting????

bush has to attack the media and get his message out. his campaign has been pathetic so far.

Bush will come through in the end---I feel sure--we cant have Kerry in office. Last I checked, bush was ahead anyway.

Media Bias has been prevelant since the 60's. Media sources no longer report the news they create it.

Media Bias has been prevelant since the 60's. Media sources no longer report the news they create it.

To an extent I agree with that, but the "bias" in media stems more from the drive for ratings and profit + the need to tiptoe around the advertisers and ones parent company than it does any political party loyalty.

First of all, was the job creation total more or less than the economic experts and the think tanks were expecting? If it WAS a lower number (and I have seen nothing contradicting that), then that SHOULD be reported. Facts are facts.

Second, of COURSE the media dramatizes it. They also overdramatize the threat of terror, which, in most cases, works in Bush's favor. Last summer they got the entire country worked into a frenzy over an imaginary outbreak of child kidnappings (numbers were actually normal). Remember the "potentially recordbreaking and deadly" flu season this fall that never materialized? Neither of those things had ANYTHING to do with politics at all.

The media blows things up because THAT is what makes people watch. People watching = higher ratings = pricier advertising = more PROFIT. Isn't maximizing profit one of the prime functions of a corporation??

Very VERY rarely does a corporation put an unrelated political agenda above its bottom line and the needs and wants of its executives and shareholders. Why would media companies be different?

(Quite frankly, it seems downright silly to think that corporations would intentionally push a liberal agenda from high levels or at the expense of profit, considering so much of the "liberal agenda" is essentially anti-corporate in nature)

Jekyhe32210 wrote:Bush will come through in the end---I feel sure--we cant have Kerry in office. Last I checked, bush was ahead anyway.

Bush and Kerry are within 3 points of each other and have been since Kerry got the nomination in March. Right now, either man has about a 50/50 chance of winning.

stormie_skies wrote:

Media Bias has been prevelant since the 60's. Media sources no longer report the news they create it.

To an extent I agree with that, but the "bias" in media stems more from the drive for ratings and profit + the need to tiptoe around the advertisers and ones parent company than it does any political party loyalty.

First of all, was the job creation total more or less than the economic experts and the think tanks were expecting? If it WAS a lower number (and I have seen nothing contradicting that), then that SHOULD be reported. Facts are facts.

Second, of COURSE the media dramatizes it. They also overdramatize the threat of terror, which, in most cases, works in Bush's favor. Last summer they got the entire country worked into a frenzy over an imaginary outbreak of child kidnappings (numbers were actually normal). Remember the "potentially recordbreaking and deadly" flu season this fall that never materialized? Neither of those things had ANYTHING to do with politics at all.

The media blows things up because THAT is what makes people watch. People watching = higher ratings = pricier advertising = more PROFIT. Isn't maximizing profit one of the prime functions of a corporation??

Very VERY rarely does a corporation put an unrelated political agenda above its bottom line and the needs and wants of its executives and shareholders. Why would media companies be different?

(Quite frankly, it seems downright silly to think that corporations would intentionally push a liberal agenda from high levels or at the expense of profit, considering so much of the "liberal agenda" is essentially anti-corporate in nature)

Who do you write for as a living.

That was awesome.

I don't know about anyone else but I don't believe everything I hear on TV or read in the papers. I think most individuals can judge for themselves how the economy is doing. I will never be a sheep in a flock. I make my decisions on what I see and believe to be true. That being said, I would rather cast my vote for someone who has a solid track record, and stands behind every decision he makes rather than changing them everytime it seems convenient I don't agree with everything that GWB does but at least he stands behind his decisions ..IMHO

All I have to say.. is 2 words.. GO KERRY lol

Who do you write for as a living.

That was awesome.

Thank you so much!!! Actually, Im working on a journalism degree, and I do a little freelance now and then, so this is kind of a pet issue of mine

stormie_skies wrote:

Media Bias has been prevelant since the 60's. Media sources no longer report the news they create it.

To an extent I agree with that, but the "bias" in media stems more from the drive for ratings and profit + the need to tiptoe around the advertisers and ones parent company than it does any political party loyalty.

First of all, was the job creation total more or less than the economic experts and the think tanks were expecting? If it WAS a lower number (and I have seen nothing contradicting that), then that SHOULD be reported. Facts are facts.

Second, of COURSE the media dramatizes it. They also overdramatize the threat of terror, which, in most cases, works in Bush's favor. Last summer they got the entire country worked into a frenzy over an imaginary outbreak of child kidnappings (numbers were actually normal). Remember the "potentially recordbreaking and deadly" flu season this fall that never materialized? Neither of those things had ANYTHING to do with politics at all.

The media blows things up because THAT is what makes people watch. People watching = higher ratings = pricier advertising = more PROFIT. Isn't maximizing profit one of the prime functions of a corporation??

Very VERY rarely does a corporation put an unrelated political agenda above its bottom line and the needs and wants of its executives and shareholders. Why would media companies be different?

(Quite frankly, it seems downright silly to think that corporations would intentionally push a liberal agenda from high levels or at the expense of profit, considering so much of the "liberal agenda" is essentially anti-corporate in nature)

wrong. i can cite thousands of examples, but 1 will do here.
trent lott: he gave a 100 year old man some innocent praise at a bday party that no one found offensive that was there, including the media. however, when dems pretended phony outrage the media then took the dems talking points and ripped into lott non-stop for weeks.
chris dodd: he praised kkk byrd as a great leader for the civil war on the floor of the senate, which is much worse than at a bday party. what happened? media silence.

like i said, you are totally wrong.
and by the way, veiwership is declining for the big 3 far-leftists pete, dan , and tom. and, if one of those networks were to drop thier liberal agenda and report the news honestly they would have ratings greater than the other 2 networks combined. just a fact.
the same way fox has more veiwers on cable than msnbc and cnn combined.

Jekyhe32210 wrote:Bush will come through in the end---I feel sure--we cant have Kerry in office. Last I checked, bush was ahead anyway.

IMHO....it's the presidental race for the "Lesser of 2 evils!" One's as bad as the other

Dennis

pete. dan and tom take saddams talking points. and by the way, i heard none of them rebut what saddam said. arent they supposed to report facts?

JENNINGS: This is theater to help Bush, the criminal, win the election.

WOODRUFF: Bush is the real criminal.

SCHNEIDER: The real criminal is Bush.

AMANPOUR: The criminal Bush to win his campaign.

WOODRUFF: President Bush whom he called a criminal.

COOPER: He called President Bush the real criminal.

BROKAW: Calling President Bush the real criminal.

ROCHELLE: President Bush was guilty of being a criminal.

HANDELSMAN: The real criminal is Bush.

BROWN: President Bush the real criminal.

they took saddams talking points word for word.

and by the way, veiwership is declining for the big 3 far-leftists pete, dan , and tom.

Of course viewership is declining for the network news programs - more people have cable now, and that provides them with more news options. These aren't all (or even mostly) based on perceived or real partisanship; most people now simply choose to view the news when they have time and are in the mood. They don't have to wait for the network broadcasts to get caught up on whats happening. (The internet is also starting to have an effect on television news, for the same reason.)

Oh, and for the record, the least popular network news program still gets 4 to 5 times the audience of the most popular Fox News program. Thats nothing to sneeze at.

the same way fox has more veiwers on cable than msnbc and cnn combined.

This statement is just statistically incorrect. Fox News does generally have higher RATINGS than CNN (though saying it has higher anything than both CNN and MSNBC combined is absurd). But ratings dont translate into viewers.

Let me explain.....

Nielsen ratings are arrived at by averaging the number of viewers watching a channel at any given minute. Because this is an average, not an exact count, and because viewers are counted by the minute, heavy viewers who linger on a channel longer count towards this average many, many times over.

There is another number Nielsen counts and releases to its clients which it calls the "cume," which is the cumulative number of people who watch a station for at least 6 minutes on any typical day. This number gives the same weight to the light viewer (who just watches the headlines or one program) as it does to the heavy viewer. In this department, CNN still has a strong lead.

For example, in April 2003, a peak period of the fighting in Iraq, Fox led CNN in the RATINGS 3.5 million to 2.2 million. HOWEVER, CNN's CUME was significantly higher than Fox's ..... CNN was reaching 105 million viewers a day, while Fox was only reaching 86 million.

So, in reality, more people still watch CNN. Its just that Fox viewers tend to watch the news for longer periods of time.

As far as your example goes, its pretty tough to argue with that - not because its the truth, but because it means nothing in any real sense. It doesn't consider the context of EITHER situation (which I admittedly havent researched). It is a single event and because of that fact cannot be generalized outward with any reliability.

If you have any good statistics on this sort of thing, Id like to see them (and if you drudge up that 10 year old survey showing most beat reporters voted for Clinton, Im gonna die laughing )

pete dan and tom are far leftists, and they took saddams talking points unchallenged. john kerry admitted on tape he was a war criminal and committed atrocities. i wonder if dan, pete, and tom would simply repeat bush calling kerry a war criminal without criticism?

pete dan and tom are far leftists, and they took saddams talking points unchallenged. john kerry admitted on tape he was a war criminal and committed atrocities. i wonder if dan, pete, and tom would simply repeat bush calling kerry a war criminal without criticism?

So, in other words, no statistics?

stormie_skies wrote:

pete dan and tom are far leftists, and they took saddams talking points unchallenged. john kerry admitted on tape he was a war criminal and committed atrocities. i wonder if dan, pete, and tom would simply repeat bush calling kerry a war criminal without criticism?

So, in other words, no statistics?

ha statistics. Why do you need statistics, when rainstorm can just tell you the facts. lol.

stormie_skies wrote:

Who do you write for as a living.

That was awesome.

Thank you so much!!! Actually, Im working on a journalism degree, and I do a little freelance now and then, so this is kind of a pet issue of mine

Oh, journalism. That explains a lot.

As far as your example goes, its pretty tough to argue with that - not because its the truth, but because it means nothing in any real sense. It doesn't consider the context of EITHER situation (which I admittedly havent researched). It is a single event and because of that fact cannot be generalized outward with any reliability.

It means nothing? It's a great example of the liberal bias in our media.

...Jennifer...