another study finds conservative media bias

You are beginning to look like your avatar which is odd because your political team won.

 

My god you really are the Democrat ITN aren't you.

Semper High!

 

This isn't surprising, there is an obvious non-Democrat slant to most of the news media. Not surprising since conservative corporations own almost all of them.

 

Good morning Dave...

Chris Matthews: "I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg" As Obama Spoke"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-t_n_86449.html
"Last night during MSNBC's Potomac Primary coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were discussing Barack Obama's speech. Matthews — who, in the past, has both cried over an Obama speech and compared him to Jesus — described exactly what happens to him when Obama speaks.."

 

Wingnut idiot aside (and I mean Matthews)

----

Who has the more compelling story on a national basis, Tim Tebow or Josh Freeman? LBJ or Danny Granger? Landon Donovan or Brian ching? Which story do you think people would rather hear about? The media...is nothing more than a reflection of Americana. We ate up stories about Tebow because the kid as almost too good to be true. We didn't care about Josh Freeman, even If he is a better pro prospect. He didn't win football games as much as Tebow and he was a punk. Did the media force Tebow upon us, or did we demand more Tebow?

The media does nothing more than follow the ratings, and cover the stories people are interested in. The media didn't decide we wanted more Obama and less Hillary/McCain. We did. A young black man with be rhetorical power of JFK, making a real run for President. You add to that his ability to connect to people, his beautiful family that looks practically made for TV, well you have a story that people never got tired of hearing. From the 10s of thousands in Portland and St.Louis to the crowds on Germany...the media had no choice but to cover him. More than they covered the others. He was the story and it's their job to cover it. If Ron Paul had won more states, he would have for dang sure gotten the positive media attention on a mass scale.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this right, but Obama got the good media attention because he demanded it by his abilities and actions, and neither Clinton, McCain, nor Palin could match him in a good way. They don't have the charisma for it, nor the ability to connect to people. For proof of that look at how his approval ratings jumped 5 point from Tuesday to Wednesday. 50m people watched that speech he gave. That's ridiculous.

 

Reactionary analogy time.

Liberal Media = October Criminals

 

And who exactly other than ITN was doing that?

 

Spot on. Media is marketing now, and the Republicans are better at selling.

It's not surprising at all. Liberals are far often too sophomoric in their "let's be tolerant and snuggly" worldview, not recognizing that in doing so they become giant enablers of intolerance and, um, non-snuggliness.

When they finally come to believe that their ideals are worth fighting for, maybe they will accomplish something. That's my hope for Obama. He just has to try to convince the giant collection of ********-tards in congress.

 

You were the Martha Stewart guy, right?

LOL

 

Interesting thoughtful question.
I consider it mostly the ownership and executive management team that make up "the corporation", the employees are generally told what to do and say by the corporation that employs them. The "mission statement" to follow, if you will

Of course I may just tell myself this to feel better about some of the corporations I have worked for
When I worked for IBM, my boss asked me why I stayed since I complained about all the corporate nonsense - I told him I could only hope to change the rules from within. He liked that answer.

 

Here's another Matthews quote:

And another quote about Bush:

And one more about Bush:

The point is Matthews is prone to hyperbole regardless of party ID.

 

And just how is one supposed to face something like this? (which i saw on a newstand as i was buying a drink) and where's/what's the Democratic equivalent (the one that throws mud at Reeps? )

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272009/frontback.htm

and then they have the gall to have this online (an ad for "educators")

http://www.nypost.com/contests/NIE2009.htm

Heck they could give me their crap for free (even pay me!) and i would not take this absolute abomination of a newspaper...especially not to in any classroom whatsoever.. Even if people say their sport section is good.... i just could not care less....I'd rather read about sports off the internet/anohter newspaper.....tahn poison children's minds with their slanted/offensive bs

 

The Pulitzer-winning investigation that dare not be uttered on TV
.......
The New York Times' David Barstow won a richly deserved Pulitzer Prize yesterday for two articles that, despite being featured as major news stories on the front page of The Paper of Record, were completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Barstow uncovered. Here is how the Pulitzer Committee described Barstow's exposés:

Awarded to David Barstow of The New York Times for his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

........

 

Come to the old thread for kicks, stay for the MITH nostalgia. (sniff-sniff) Hasn't aged well.

 

Conservatives are like Russians, if they can't control the media then they decry that it's biased against them.

 

Biased means 'not following our agenda'.

 

This necro-thread has it all: MiTH, Michael Russ, ITN, purojogo...