PDA

View Full Version : Elections The Media's Liberal Bias Bias


Direckshun
07-28-2008, 09:32 AM
I'm not going to argue that the media isn't generally liberally biased, as I generally believe that it is. But in specific instances (such as this election season), I think we focus on the wrong things to determine whether this is actually true.

Jake, for example, focused on the fact that the donations from the media have largely favored Obama. But that's just private citizens acting like private citizens -- we should instead focus on coverage.

Now a lot of the conservatives here have taken the fact that the anchors from the three networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) went overseas with Obama as surefire evidence that they are in the bag for Obama. But an interesting study has emerged about those exact news teams, which remain the most popular news outlets in the country.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which has been studying the media 20 years, has released a report (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story) showing the negative-to-positive stories aired about each candidate by ABC, NBC, and CBS.

The results intially, from the primaries, certainly vindicate some sort of media bias: 64% of statements about Obama were positive, and just 43% of statements about McCain were positive. That does favor Obama, but according to the CMPA, there was a very low frequency of these types of statements.

The frequency of positive/negative statements always picks up during the general election, however, and looky what researchers found: from the day Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, only 28% of the coverage was positive for Obama and a whopping 72% was negative. For McCain, 43% of the statements were positive and 57% negative.

Instead of a severe political bias, it's more accurate to look at this in practical terms: the media enjoyed the new guy, but when he emerged as the front runner, it became incredibly critical. This is not for political reasons, it's for basic psychological reasons.

Just thought you'd like to know.

morphius
07-28-2008, 09:37 AM
Yeah, critical like, "Why hasn't Obama taken a huge lead in a year where the republican candidate should get destroyed?" Sadly I have heard this more than once this season.

beer bacon
07-28-2008, 10:27 AM
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?

Direckshun
07-28-2008, 10:29 AM
Yeah, critical like, "Why hasn't Obama taken a huge lead in a year where the republican candidate should get destroyed?" Sadly I have heard this more than once this season.
That's not a negative story.

Guru
07-29-2008, 03:00 AM
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?

They are certainly no Walter Cronkite.

scho63
10-12-2016, 06:22 AM
Wikileaks has shown that not only is the media completely biased for the Liberals, they have now become participants and water carriers for the Democrats.

Is it any surprise they are rated so low for trust and truth? Very little true journalists left.

See if you can find any story on CNN's front page about Hillary's emails and all the nasty things she is saying about evangelicals, normal everyday Americans, and the rest of her hatred towards most people who are not elitists.

She is a SEE YOU NEXT TUESDAY

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 06:41 AM
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.

Dear readers: Please stop calling us ‘the media.’ There is no such thing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dear-readers-please-stop-calling-us-the-media-there-is-no-such-thing/2016/09/23/37972a32-7932-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

To: Everyone

From: Paul Farhi

Subject: “The media.”

Folks, I know a lot of you don’t like the people who work in my chosen profession, the news business. I’m aware you think we’re lazy and unfair (yes, I got your emails and tweets on this topic — a few thousand of them). Of course, I disagree with you. I know a lot of fine people in the newsgathering arts and sciences. But that’s not why I’m writing.

I’m writing because I have a request: Please stop calling us “the media.”

Yes, in some sense, we are the media. But not in the blunt way you use the phrase. It’s so imprecise and generic that it has lost any meaning. It’s — how would you put this? — lazy and unfair.

As I understand your use of this term, “the media” is essentially shorthand for anything you read, saw or heard today that you disagreed with or didn’t like. At any given moment, “the media” is biased against your candidate, your issue, your very way of life.

But, you know, the media isn’t really doing that. Some article, some news report, some guy spouting off on a CNN panel or at CrankyCrackpot.com might be. But none of those things singularly are really the media.

Fact is, there really is no such thing as “the media.” It’s an invention, a tool, an all-purpose smear by people who can’t be bothered to make distinctions.

Consider: There are hundreds of broadcast and cable TV networks, a thousand or so local TV stations, a few thousand magazines and newspapers, several thousand radio stations and roughly a gazillion websites, blogs, newsletters and podcasts. There’s also Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and who knows what new digital thing.

All of these, collectively, now constitute the media.

But this vast array of news and information sources — from the New York Times to Rubber and Plastics News — helps define what’s wrong with referring to “the media.” With so many sources, one-size-fits-all reporting is impossible. Those who work in the media don’t gather in our huddle rooms each morning and light up the teleconference lines with plots to nettle and unsettle you. There is no media in the sense of a conspiracy to tilt perception.

Instead, we are tens of thousands of people making millions of individual decisions about how we perceive the world and how to characterize it. We all don’t agree on how to frame a candidate, an issue or last night’s ballgame.

So even if something on Fox News alarmed or infuriated you, Fox isn’t “the media.” Nor is NBC or MSNBC. Nor The Washington Post, the New York Post, the Denver Post or the Saturday Evening Post.

Lumping these disparate entities under the same single bland label is like describing the denizens of the ocean as “the fish.” It’s true, but effectively meaningless.

We not only don’t agree from TV network to TV network, or publication to publication, but we don’t agree within our own organizations. The editorial page of The Washington Post isn’t the news side of The Washington Post. The newspaper’s bloggers aren’t the newspaper’s op-ed writers; our op-ed columnists aren’t our reporters. None of these people alone reflects the definitive, collective judgment of The Washington Post.

It’s true that many people say they mistrust “the media” and hold us in roughly the same contempt as Congress, telemarketers and Zika. (Two markers here: Gallup reported last week that “trust and confidence” in broadcast and newspaper reporting fell to the lowest level yet recorded; a poll published Wednesday by NBC and the Wall Street Journal pegged the “unfavorable” rating for “the news media” at just above that of “Vladimir Putin.”)

But I suspect that people don’t really dislike us as much as they say they do. Much of what we produce is consumed gratefully, or at least without objection — breaking news stories, investigative journalism, “human interest” features, news from up the street and around the world. People actually like and trust the news sources that they’ve selected for themselves, which is why they keep coming back to them day after day. Survey respondents just don’t acknowledge this when asked about the shapeless abstraction known as “the news media.”

And yes, many people tell us “the media” is liberally biased. I suppose it would seem that way since conservative politicians and their supporters have been saying it for decades. Surely, some stories do display a tendency to favor the liberal position. But these are anecdotes. And like all anecdotal “evidence,” they are subject to confirmation bias — the tendency to look for things that reinforce one’s worldview, thus creating a perpetual-motion machine of self-righteousness.

The vast warehouse of academic research on media bias suggests a less satisfying conclusion: It depends. “Media bias” depends on what is studied, when and even by whom; it depends, too, on one’s definitions of “liberal” and “conservative.” In aggregate, however, liberal and conservative biases in reporting appear to cancel each other out, according to a 2012 “meta-analysis” (a study of studies) of media-bias research. Researcher David W. D’Alessio examined 99 studies of presidential-election reporting from 1948 to 2008. His conclusion? Left-leaning reporting was balanced by reporting more favorable to conservatives. A tie, in other words.

In closing, a word of advice: The next time you’re tempted to grumble about “the media” for some perceived trespass against The Truth, subject your grievance to the Five Ws we learned about back in journalism class. Who. What. When. Where. Why. Who said it or wrote it; where did they say it; and so on. (Admittedly, the “why” is the most difficult part of the equation.)

You’ll discover that your complaint is specific, not general. You’ll discover, too, that calling out “the media” makes about as much sense as calling out “people.” Some are fair, some aren’t. But they’re not all the same. It pays to know which is which.

Thanks,

Paul.

BucEyedPea
10-12-2016, 07:53 AM
The worst thing about modern media is that it seems like at least half the time they just act like stenographers. Instead of analyzing the factuality of certain claims or attacks made by politicians, they repeat the claims/attacks word-for-word, and then discuss their "impact."

Very little is done in the way of investigating the accuracy of the claims or attacks. It is not whether the claims are true or not, it is how does this make McCain look bad? How does this make Obama look good? Will *insert demographic here* respond to this?

That's called editorializing which involves opinion. That is not reporting news.

BucEyedPea
10-12-2016, 07:56 AM
I'd like to see the source with a link to that original post.

80% of the media self-identify with the left per surveys. They carry water for the state.

scho63
10-12-2016, 09:18 AM
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.

My comments after reading this:

1. A Harvard Study confirmed Liberal Media bias, so a very Liberal college is evening confirming what most of us already knew. The info by this so called "journalist" in the "news business" saying the media is balanced is 100% False!
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

2. The radio media and talk radio is MUCH more biased on the right and it's the reason Nancy Scumbag Obamacare Pusher Pelosi raised the issue of the "Fairness Doctrine" ONLY for radio.

3. The reason everyone is "lumping" all these so called journalists and news media people together is very simple: They are all no longer afraid to hide their biases and report fairly or impartially and in many cases carry the water for the Democrats. It is now much easier to see one large blob of the elite media both in print and TV that all think and act alike.

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 09:26 AM
My comments after reading this:

1. A Harvard Study confirmed Liberal Media bias, so a very Liberal college is evening confirming what most of us already knew. The info by this so called "journalist" in the "news business" saying the media is balanced is 100% False!
http://scholar.harvard.edu/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf



I'm sure anyone can find a dozen different studies that find different things. You reference a 2004 study. This guy referenced a 2012 study of the media-bias studies. Another researcher studied specifically presidential election reporting.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 09:50 AM
This seems like a reasonable place to put this. I know most won't read it, and I know I'll probably catch a ration of shit about it. I usually don't post articles in full, but I figure that's the only way some of you might actually consider it.

This is not a political piece; it's a statement from someone "in the trenches" posted as an op-ed.

Thanks for this, and while I disagree with it, it does have some valid points. I agree that we lump everything in with "the media" as a giant catch all.

With that said, they have no one to blame but themselves. There is a reason that the public does not trust journalist. Here is but one reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

So sure, when we say "the media" has a liberal bias, we are in fact lumping many facets into one catch all. But as you can see from the Journolist link, they had no problem lumping themselves together to begin with.

Not only is the above a major problem, but frankly, the majority are just bad at their jobs. For most, it's not their job to editorialize a story, and yet, that is what we get. Everything is built around emotions now. Why? Because emotions and feelings are easy to manipulate. I want to know the facts of the story, not how the author feels about it, or what the author thinks it means. The how in who, what, when, why and how doesn't stand for How am I feeling about this.

fan4ever
10-12-2016, 09:53 AM
Last night on the local news here in Phoenix, they were reporting that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in trouble for disobeying court orders and may be indicted. The reporter started off the story, and I'm paraphrasing, "There's go... news today that Sheriff Arpaio is likely to be indicted..." She almost sputtered out "good news today" but caught herself but it was totally obvious. My wife and I both looked at each other and laughed...and she's a biased media skeptic.

stevieray
10-12-2016, 10:29 AM
...when you can hear the same buzzwords and phrases form fifteen different "anchors".....

ya, the "media" is on the take.

I don't want or need your personal opinion, just report.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 10:31 AM
...when you can hear the same buzzwords and phrases form fifteen different "anchors".....

ya, the "media" is on the take.

I don't want or need your personal opinion, just report.

Yeah the videos with the news parroting the exact same story and phrasing of stories are always funny. Mindless robots reading a prompter. Maybe we should go after the evil bastard that controls the prompters.

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 10:38 AM
Yeah the videos with the news parroting the exact same story and phrasing of stories are always funny. Mindless robots reading a prompter. Maybe we should go after the evil bastard that controls the prompters.

That's a wire story. Local stations (where most of those videos come from) aren't able to cover news outside of their markets, so they become reliant on news wire copy. It's not a conspiracy to report things the same way. Bad/lazy producers don't re-write. I'm embarrassed every time one of our stations ends up on one of those reels.

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 10:44 AM
I don't want or need your personal opinion, just report.

Please forgive me if it wasn't you, but weren't you one of the people arguing that "the media" should refer to rioters and protesters in Charlotte as "violent thugs"? That would be editorializing, which you're professing to not want.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 11:06 AM
That's a wire story. Local stations (where most of those videos come from) aren't able to cover news outside of their markets, so they become reliant on news wire copy. It's not a conspiracy to report things the same way. Bad/lazy producers don't re-write. I'm embarrassed every time one of our stations ends up on one of those reels.

Oh I know what it is, I work for a media company. I actually used to write news copy for radio before this gig. I'm with you, amazed at the lack of re-write. But, it is indeed a follow up to the article you posted about "the media". No wonder the populace lumps them all together, when all the average person sees is the same story on repeat, spoken the exact same way.
The sad part is it's not hard to do a re-write. Hell, just shift some paragraphs around...change a word or two...anything!
Which is also why I say they're just bad at their jobs. Journalistic integrity is almost gone...and that is sad. When you see collusion like what we are seeing in the WikiLeaks dump, it's a reminder that The Fourth Estate is leaving us. Everyone is entitled to opinions on matters, but there was a time that they kept those thoughts to themselves, or among friends. Now, you can't make it through a paragraph without being hit over the head with the authors thoughts on the topic. It's sad and bad for this country.

cosmo20002
10-12-2016, 11:07 AM
Yeah the videos with the news parroting the exact same story and phrasing of stories are always funny. Mindless robots reading a prompter. Maybe we should go after the evil bastard that controls the prompters.

They really should memorize that day's broadcast.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 11:13 AM
They really should memorize that day's broadcast.
Right...because that's what I'm saying. You really do add so much honesty and insight to this board. The world would be a darker place without you. Keep being that beacon of light Cosmo...shine on!

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 11:21 AM
Oh I know what it is, I work for a media company. I actually used to write news copy for radio before this gig. I'm with you, amazed at the lack of re-write. But, it is indeed a follow up to the article you posted about "the media". No wonder the populace lumps them all together, when all the average person sees is the same story on repeat, spoken the exact same way.
The sad part is it's not hard to do a re-write. Hell, just shift some paragraphs around...change a word or two...anything!
Which is also why I say they're just bad at their jobs. Journalistic integrity is almost gone...and that is sad. When you see collusion like what we are seeing in the WikiLeaks dump, it's a reminder that The Fourth Estate is leaving us. Everyone is entitled to opinions on matters, but there was a time that they kept those thoughts to themselves, or among friends. Now, you can't make it through a paragraph without being hit over the head with the authors thoughts on the topic. It's sad and bad for this country.

I disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate your opinion on the matter, the civility of discourse, and your willingness to read the article.

Rep. :thumb:

I understand the "why" producers don't rewrite. Many producers in local news are responsible for writing an hour or more of shows, and when it's more important to repack a VO or VOSOT from a local package, you don't waste time on wire copy. I wish it were different, but I get it. It's even worse in small market TV, as one producer might be responsible for the 4-5a block and the 6-7a block. That's why you see so much repetition.

I don't think they're bad at their jobs, for the most part. I think they have too much "job" to do.

I also disagree that the journalist's job isn't exclusively to tell the facts. It's to present the facts in context of the story. It's often taught that the journalist tells the facts, witnesses put it in context. And I think "most" journalists do this perfectly well. The author's point that people consume a tremendous amount of "the media" without complaint, I completely agree with.

It tends to be in this arena (politics) that people claim bias. Absolutely there is some bias, I don't argue that. But the point of the article that I agree with is people see bias when they don't agree with something, but don't see bias when they do. Look at the posters here who complain about WaPo and CNN, and then hold up Breitbart and Fox News as paragons of truth telling.

cosmo20002
10-12-2016, 11:27 AM
Right...because that's what I'm saying. You really do add so much honesty and insight to this board. The world would be a darker place without you. Keep being that beacon of light Cosmo...shine on!

You're the one who went on about teleprompters...I mean, what was the point of that? Is use of a teleprompter really a relevant issue?

Here's a substantive opinion on the topic.
One of the problems with these media bias studies is that they tend to measure "positive" stories vs "negative" or neutral.
Well, what if a candidate is actually, objectively, DESERVES more "negative" stories?

Its kind of like calling the media biased against the Chiefs because 90% of the stories about them were negative last week. Getting their ass kicked by the Steelers probably had something to do with that rather than bias. Same for politicians. Have a shitty week, you're going to get "negative" coverage.

BucEyedPea
10-12-2016, 11:37 AM
Thanks for this, and while I disagree with it, it does have some valid points. I agree that we lump everything in with "the media" as a giant catch all.



Which is why I refer to our media as the mainstream media. This is the reporting everyone else is getting and that includes what they decide should be news, what isn't and what gets omitted. Different people with different perspectives don't value all news the same way but may prefer other stories be covered. That right there, without editorializing, can still show a bias or an agenda.

There has been too much media consolidation with corporatist ownership. So it is inherently corporatist.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 11:38 AM
I disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate your opinion on the matter, the civility of discourse, and your willingness to read the article.

Rep. :thumb:

I understand the "why" producers don't rewrite. Many producers in local news are responsible for writing an hour or more of shows, and when it's more important to repack a VO or VOSOT from a local package, you don't waste time on wire copy. I wish it were different, but I get it. It's even worse in small market TV, as one producer might be responsible for the 4-5a block and the 6-7a block. That's why you see so much repetition.

I don't think they're bad at their jobs, for the most part. I think they have too much "job" to do.

I also disagree that the journalist's job isn't exclusively to tell the facts. It's to present the facts in context of the story. It's often taught that the journalist tells the facts, witnesses put it in context. And I think "most" journalists do this perfectly well. The author's point that people consume a tremendous amount of "the media" without complaint, I completely agree with.

It tends to be in this arena (politics) that people claim bias. Absolutely there is some bias, I don't argue that. But the point of the article that I agree with is people see bias when they don't agree with something, but don't see bias when they do. Look at the posters here who complain about WaPo and CNN, and then hold up Breitbart and Fox News as paragons of truth telling.
I don't think we're too far apart really. Hell, just look at a typical football message board, if only we had one laying around somewhere...
I've yet to read a game day thread that didn't mention how the broadcaster of said game hates whatever team said poster is rooting for. The truth is we're all biased to our own opinions and honestly, no one likes to hear negative things about their opinion or fandom. Humans...what can ya do?

Fire Me Boy!
10-12-2016, 11:51 AM
Which is why I refer to our media as the mainstream media. This is the reporting everyone else is getting and that includes what they decide should be news, what isn't and what gets omitted. Different people with different perspectives don't value all news the same way but may prefer other stories be covered. That right there, without editorializing, can still show a bias or an agenda.

There has been too much media consolidation with corporatist ownership. So it is inherently corporatist.

Most show rundowns, at least in my experience, are a team effort. Individual producers have some control over the stacking, but it's usually a team effort in what actually gets reported.

BucEyedPea
10-12-2016, 11:51 AM
Look at the posters here who complain about WaPo and CNN, and then hold up Breitbart and Fox News as paragons of truth telling.

I have always said there is no such thing as an unbiased source. I've claimed to be biased as well. I know I want reporting from the view of limited govt at least somewhere.

The way I see it, if there was more variety of reporting then viewers would have to sift through it to find what they think is true or not. That is likely to still involve some bias because we all see things from a particular viewpoint—even those who are unaligned with a party. However, it's better to have that variety there.

But there is a difference between colluding with a particular party or candidate on an election to the point of giving that candidate content control, as if it's just another arm of that campaign. Editorial or commentary talk shows are obviously going to be biased and tend to back a certain candidate. You can't help that. But people know that. It's the regular news. IMO, the answer is market with a variety of views. As it is NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC present mainly left wing views. So the right finally gets one like FOX and the left complains. It was needed. But we need more than two. We don't allow too much consolidation in markets for other businesses, I don't see why we allow it in the mainstream news which is owned by the few.

I've even read from former CIA that they plant false reports on news wires as part of psy-ops.

Shaid
10-12-2016, 12:03 PM
There is a left lean in the media. You definitely can see it. However, the right wing media tends to go so extreme right that it creates this false narrative about how all Dems are the devil, etc. It generates this almost foaming at the mouth hatred and that's why Trump rose up, it's why the Tea Party rose up. When you have a place like InfoWars literally telling people Obama and Clinton are demons and there is a smell of sulfur around them, you're off your rocker. Those places have millions of viewers though that lap it all up. It's all a money making scheme playing off peoples fears and it's why we are sitting here with horrible choices. The extremism just leaves Clinton looking like the most even tempered person in this election. I said it months ago, if they'd have nominated Kasich, the republicans would have won. The extremists have too much hate to go moderate though so here we are.

cosmo20002
10-12-2016, 12:10 PM
There is a left lean in the media. You definitely can see it. However, the right wing media tends to go so extreme right that it creates this false narrative about how all Dems are the devil, etc. It generates this almost foaming at the mouth hatred and that's why Trump rose up, it's why the Tea Party rose up. When you have a place like InfoWars literally telling people Obama and Clinton are demons and there is a smell of sulfur around them, you're off your rocker. Those places have millions of viewers though that lap it all up. It's all a money making scheme playing off peoples fears and it's why we are sitting here with horrible choices. The extremism just leaves Clinton looking like the most even tempered person in this election. I said it months ago, if they'd have nominated Kasich, the republicans would have won. The extremists have too much hate to go moderate though so here we are.

And it's no wonder that compromise has become such dirty word to the RW. After you spend every day screaming about how the Ds are treacherous monsters, secret Muslims, and traitors who should be in prison, how do you then make a deal with them? Dare to work with the other side, and you're a traitor, too. Boehner and Ryan did the bare minimum in terms of cooperation and they are hated because of it.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 12:12 PM
Most show rundowns, at least in my experience, are a team effort. Individual producers have some control over the stacking, but it's usually a team effort in what actually gets reported.

I like it when they go from happy story about a dog skateboarding to a sad story about a murder and watching the anchor try and display the proper emotion. Talk about cruel.

My company owns an Espanol TV station. Local broadcast, but Telemundo (NBC) affiliate. It's a lot of fun to watch the craziness begin around 3:45, really pick up at 4, and pure insanity at 4:30 as they try and get everything situated and ready to go. Pretty hilarious to watch. Up until last year they pretty much killed the internet in the building as they prepared and downloaded all the file footage and nat'l stories to air. Finally we put them on their own network and server. Fun to watch, and green screens are enjoyable as well.

BucEyedPea
10-12-2016, 12:18 PM
Speaking of news outlets, I read should Trump lose, he isn't going away from national politics but that he plans to create his own news network.

Sideburn
10-12-2016, 12:32 PM
You're the one who went on about teleprompters...I mean, what was the point of that? Is use of a teleprompter really a relevant issue?

Here's a substantive opinion on the topic.
One of the problems with these media bias studies is that they tend to measure "positive" stories vs "negative" or neutral.
Well, what if a candidate is actually, objectively, DESERVES more "negative" stories?

Its kind of like calling the media biased against the Chiefs because 90% of the stories about them were negative last week. Getting their ass kicked by the Steelers probably had something to do with that rather than bias. Same for politicians. Have a shitty week, you're going to get "negative" coverage.
I'm sorry, I really thought the sarcasm came across. Making a quip about the evil operator of the teleprompter isn't "going on" about it...but whatever.

It was more of a shot at the average person that screams about such and such anchor being biased and railing about oh, I dunno, Lester Holt, or whatever anchor you want. Lester Holt may in fact have a bias, but he didn't write what he reads, and he didn't position the stories. Hence, blame the guy that operates the teleprompter.
I actually do agree with some of what you say above. Have a shitty week, you're going to get killed in the media. Media loves fresh meat and a juicy story. Draws ratings and sells ads. I actually don't even fault the "mainstream" media. Sure they may hire certain demographics, but I don't believe the CEO of the news wing of a multinational corporation has the time to sit around and make sure all stories slant a certain way.

I do think that some journalist over the years have gotten to close to politicians and let their already ingrained bias come out in how they treat certain politicians, hold stories or attack the opposite side. Humans...what can ya do?

gonefishin53
10-12-2016, 01:01 PM
The media is biased for the military/industrial/international banking establishment. The same establishment that buys politicians with campaign contributions buys the media with ad revenue. The establishment doesn't trust Trump, so they're all in for establishment owned Hillary. Hillary offers the promise of armed conflict/arms sales all over the globe, bailouts for too politically connected to fail corporations, and multi billion dollar relief efforts like Haiti that have proved so profitable for Friends of Bill.

cosmo20002
10-12-2016, 02:31 PM
Contrary to popular opinion, Hillary does in fact give speeches and hold rallies.
But what do I often see when flipping through the news channels? Trump giving a speech, live. On CNN or MSNBC.

That's a huge amount of free publicity. Just him spouting off, saying whatever he wants, no one to challenge or ask a question. Just a big, fat, free ad for Trump for President. LIBERAL MEDIA

Pogue
10-12-2016, 03:07 PM
Contrary to popular opinion, Hillary does in fact give speeches and hold rallies.
But what do I often see when flipping through the news channels? Trump giving a speech, live. On CNN or MSNBC.

That's a huge amount of free publicity. Just him spouting off, saying whatever he wants, no one to challenge or ask a question. Just a big, fat, free ad for Trump for President. LIBERAL MEDIA

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/10/10/time%20trump%20vs%20hill.jpg

"No media bias"- Cosmo

GloryDayz
10-12-2016, 04:05 PM
This election has used lots of bandwidth...

cosmo20002
10-12-2016, 04:09 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/10/10/time%20trump%20vs%20hill.jpg

"No media bias"- Cosmo

^complains about bias, cites to Brent Bozell's Media Research Center:LOL: