Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Media Bias

EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
edited January 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
**Before you respond in the thread please watch the video**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95wkCMeUkk&eurl=http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jziegler/2009/01/07/my-interview-with-sarah-palin/

We all know there is media bias, we're human so things like that can be hard to hide. There are few in the media who I can call unbiased. However last election if you're part of a major network it should be paramount that bias be kept at a minimum otherwise you're willingly affecting an election and should just announce your endorsement of a candidate instead.

Last election I saw Sarah Palin come into the spotlight and the MSM responded with sexism and ferocious attacks on her family, especially her children, from the MSM that I never saw happen to Obama except for a few attacking his wife's patriotism. Where was the fairness last election especially regarding a candidate's children who were not adults yet? Even Obama said children & family were off limits. I guess the MSM thought it only applied to him.

Secondly, bloggers. Does Sarah Palin have a point a blogger be faceless before a MSM network reports on that story?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1002474/daily_kos_not_to_blame_sarah_palin.html?page=3&cat=9

Emanon on
Treats Animals Right!
«13456789

Posts

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    One of my favorite political cartoons after the election was one showing a woman with a backwards letter B on her face saying "the liberal media jumped me and carved a B into my face."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Is... Is this a joke?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Emanon wrote: »
    We all know there is media bias, we're human so things like that can be hard to hide. There are few in the media who I can call unbiased. However last election if you're part of a major network it should be paramount that bias be kept at a minimum otherwise you're willingly affecting an election and should just announce your endorsement of a candidate instead.

    I couldn't disagree more. There's nothing wrong with biased reporting and actually plenty of things that are beneficial about biased reporting. Provided you do a good job of it and your viewpoint is known. The Economist is extremely biased, but it's also just about the best newspaper out there to get information from. Part of that is due to the fact that I know what their belief structure is and so I know how they're going to approach a story. Someone whose 'unbiased' and 'just reporting the facts' is lying his ass off to me and I don't know how.
    Last election I saw Sarah Palin come into the spotlight and the MSM responded with sexism and ferocious attacks on her family, especially her children, from the MSM that I never saw happen to Obama except for a few attacking his wife's patriotism.

    There were ferocious attacks against Obama and some subtle/not so subtle racism throughout the entire campaign coverage. Both in terms of reporting, and what the pundits focused on. They wouldn't say anything outright hostile, but they'd sure find some Hillary dead enders who were willing to. It was all spread out over more than a month and a half, though, so I guess that makes it seem more diluted.
    Where was the fairness last election especially regarding a candidate's children who were not adults yet? Even Obama said children & family were off limits. I guess the MSM thought it only applied to him.

    She never held a press conference where they could ask her? That was one of the more stupid aspects of her roll out. Even if she would have done worse than in Gibson and Couric, you just don't not hold a press conference as VP. All it leads to is unanswered speculation that feeds on itself.
    Secondly, bloggers. Does Sarah Palin have a point a blogger be faceless before a MSM network reports on that story?

    No more so than typical gossip that gets reported on anyway. Papers and broadcasters feeding off of the rumour mill and 'unnamed sources' is nothing new, and most blog stories that get coverage aren't some Hearstian story made up from whole, yellowed cloth.

    tea-1.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    No she's blathering nonsense

    1. Neither Obama nor Obama's campaign ever attacked her family. She likes to imply they were OK with it when she admits he said exactly the opposite.

    2. She did damn near call Obama a terrorist on national television and never apologized it. The McCain campaign never denounced her statements either(well not directly). Official campaign rallies are a bit more important than internet rumors.

    3. Obama's family was put in the spotlight. Michelle Obama's statements were analyzed over and over months before Palin even appeared on he scene. By the time Palin came around Obama's family was pretty much old news.

    4. Has no one told her the campaign is over? She spends the second half of the interview spouting campaign talking points.

    5. Seriously she fucking lost. Take a rest already.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is... Is this a joke?
    Of course not. Everyone knows that the only reason Obama got elected is because the media gave him a free pass and viciously and sexistly went after Palin. I mean, did you ever hear about Obama's ties to former terrorist Bill Ayers? Never. Rumours that he was a secret Muslims, with pictures to back it? Nope. Allegations that he would ban all guns? That he was the most liberal senator in the history of civilization? Inexperienced? Constitutionally unqualified? Not once did any of these issues ever come up.

    Meanwhile, Sarah Palin's extensive knowledge of foreign policy, remarkable executive experience, sound economic judgment, brilliant policy ideas, and legendary integrity were all ignored in favour of constant allegations about Trigg. Without the shadow of a doubt, if the media had been fair and balanced instead of liberally-biased and sexist, she would have won the presidency.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    You only never saw them because you weren't paying attention. More specifically, Obama during the primaries received prolonged shit over damn near everything. Rezko, Wright, Ayers, "Muslim garb", his wife's patriotism and all the other shit. I can only assume you missed it because you weren't paying attention to the primaries. The reason none of this shit got any play during the generals was because it had been played out and beat to death months beforehand. Meanwhile Sarah Palin was a brand-spanking new source of hilarious fuck up after hilarious fuck up. Given the choice between running yet another story on Wright, who you ran stories on for 2 months straight during the Summer lull, or covering this new idiot, the new idiot wins every time.

    Because that's what gets them ratings. The only real bias in the "Mainstream Media" is that.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Given that the people that this video is coming from are ridiculously biased, I really don't see what they're complaining about.

  • BirudojinBirudojin Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The idea that news shows need to provide equal time to opposing ideas also rather annoys me; if it's for a "Are ponies or kittens cuter?", where both sides are at least defensible, then I don't object too heavily, but if the second side is something completely ludicrous, false, or otherwise nonsense, then it shouldn't get a mention. Just because someone had a dream that X is true, or wants it to be so, that doesn't make it a fact or something that should be given credence. When equal time doesn't occur, however, people seem to feel that's proof of media bias, or proof of a conspiracy to hide something.

    To be honest, I'm not sure if I hate contrived controversy or giving news and face time to stupidity more; both annoy me a fair bit.

    darleysam wrote: »
    See the Salarians they be walkin' like this: doot doot doot...
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Arkady wrote: »
    Because that's what gets them ratings. The only real bias in the "Mainstream Media" is that.

    It's also the reason that everyone has a news chopper.

    And why I <3 PBS.

    tea-1.jpg
  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited January 2009
    I never understood what was sexist about the media's coverage about her. I mean, I know it wasn't, but I don't understand what conservatives claim was sexist.

    The families of presidential candidates and their VP's have always been big news. What makes it sexist?

    This isn't a hypothetical; I'm really hoping someone can enlighten me.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Network and cable news in this country are biased towards stupidity, laziness, and greed. In what order I've never decided.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    From the guy who did the documentary in the OP:
    The John McCain Presidential Campaign has finally decided to tell (most of) the truth about Barack Obama's radical ties and the Democrat's culpability in the current financial crisis. Unfortunately, they have decided to do so at exactly the worst possible moment.

    Now that Obama has been accepted by at least half the nation as a plausible/credible Presidential candidate and the the McCain campaign is finally far enough behind in the polls to look desperate, the long overdo attacks will be easily dismissed by the pro-Obama news media as a way of changing the subject from the "really important story" of the economy (I am sure that if similar charges were leveled by Obama against a McCain team that was winning, that the media wouldn't see them as quite the same "distraction").

    As for the Palin-led attacks on Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bil Ayers, they are (despite the best efforts of the media to disparage them) dead on. However, the association that they should be concentrating on is the one between Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Unfortunately, McCain is afraid of being called a racist (despite Obama HIMSELF having called the issue "legitimate") and considering the bizarre fact that Palin has already been called racist by the Associated Press for talking about the Messiah's relationship with a white man, his fears are well founded, if also cowardly.

    The bottom line is that if you are going to go after a guy's nuts (assuming Obama has any to begin with) you do so at the beginning so that he is neutered enough to never reach the 50% level. Hillary didn't learn this lesson and niether did McCain. This is what the Republican Convention should have been for, if McCain hadn't been pretending to be so concenred about a hurricane that neverly really happened.
    Yeah, this is a really quality individual, the type we want telling our media how they should run things. Definitely a guy concerned with bias in the media (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is it the same guy that Nate Silver interviewed and embarrassed?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is it the same guy that Nate Silver interviewed and embarrassed?

    Yes.

    tea-1.jpg
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Everyone knows the media has a bias, but that doesn't make it true. "The (qualifier) media" is always how they put it, in effect making it a no real scottsman statement. "The media that is biased needs to be less biased, therefore the media is biased" is bad logic.


    The media as a whole is generally of a neutral-stupid alignment.

    Palin's specifics in the video are . . . terribly uninformed. Since she was there, I can only consider that misinformation deliberate.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to reality, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck he wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    Spoiler:
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Everyone knows the media has a bias, but that doesn't make it true. "The (qualifier) media" is always how they put it, in effect making it a no real scottsman statement. "The media that is biased needs to be less biased, therefore the media is biased" is bad logic.


    The media as a whole is generally of a neutral-stupid alignment.

    Palin's specifics in the video are . . . terribly uninformed. Since she was there, I can only consider that misinformation deliberate.

    Like they'd trust her with any sort of information.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    This is rich, coming from the dumb dipshit who spent an election calling Obama a terrorist and socialist. I wish a moose would up and shoot her or something.

    Where's Putin's head when you need it?

  • Element BrianElement Brian Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Wait wait wait, does he actually want us to watch a video of Palin..because I was pretty sure I would never have to suffer listening to her again...

    I like the idea of the carbonation in your pop being too much for your mormon body

    too worldly nooooo
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I refuse to because she makes me physically ill.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • ZoolanderZoolander Registered User
    edited January 2009
    It was quite painful to watch.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I saw her being interviewed on CBC a few days back. She was slightly less stupid, but still just... oh god no.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    I had to stop a few seconds in because I couldn't stand hearing that hypocritical fucking cunt talk about being smeared by the press after what she said.

    Emanon, you should feel bad about posting that video. Anybody that saw that aggressive, lying bitch speak should know that she has absolutely fucking no room to talk. It's because of her stupid shit that people were screaming about killing Obama at that McCain rally.

    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    Well, he got his audience by pointing out the same reality a lot of us saw, and then went completely off the deep end sometime around when? Ohio/Texas? So now he's beholden to that group and hopefully he won't just suck up to Obama. Seems like he is though. Which isn't terribly helpful.

    Maddow is more interesting now that Obama is elected, whereas before her concern trolling was obnoxious now I think it's vital.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    I refuse to because she makes me physically ill.

    No need to, as with most Palin interviews, it's non-sensical bullshit.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    What came first, the audience or the views?

    Spoiler:
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The media is biased towards that which produces ratings. During the election that just happened to be tenuous links between Obama and criminals/idiots, and Palin's disconnect from the modern world.

  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I saw her being interviewed on CBC a few days back. She was slightly less stupid, but still just... oh god no.

    As in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, WTF CBC?!?!

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    As opposed to getting your news from D&D like most of us do, which is totally non-biased. Though occasionally really pissed with our guy, so I guess there's some diversity of opinion.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    The media is biased towards that which produces ratings. During the election that just happened to be tenuous links between Obama and criminals/idiots, and Palin's disconnect from the modern world.

    She's part of the 'real' world. The one that is comprised of 46% of the country.

    tea-1.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    oldmanken wrote: »
    I saw her being interviewed on CBC a few days back. She was slightly less stupid, but still just... oh god no.

    As in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, WTF CBC?!?!

    It was on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulus, perhaps the most Greek name I've ever seen that's not Achilles.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    What came first, the audience or the views?

    It doesn't matter. He is an entertainer who interviews people with actual credentials, although usually only those who agree with him and his set demographic. His job is not to even attempt to present an unbiased view of events, it is to sell his particular narrative. Whether or not that narrative is an accurate reflection of reality is immaterial.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    The media is biased towards that which produces ratings. During the election that just happened to be tenuous links between Obama and criminals/idiots, and Palin's disconnect from the modern world.

    She's part of the 'real' world. The one that is comprised of 46% of the country.

    I like to think that a large chunk of that 46% just went to whoever shouted the loudest, and could be compelled toward sanity. It helps me sleep at night.

  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I can't believe I watched that video. Palin initial media coverage was overwhemlingly positive, and although the facts were known about her family, I never felt like that was used to convince people she was unfit for office in the mainstream media. Palin took an extremely advantageous position and screwed it completely up. She did not give interviews after getting the nomination, and when she finally gave Katie Couric one she screwed it up. Katie Couric isn't tough either, Obama showed up on Bill-fucking-O'Reilly and managed to come out of it looking ok. Her performance at the VP debate wasn't a disaster, but every single person watching that debate realized that she wasn't in the same league as McCain, Obama and Biden. Considering how far Palin went with riling up crowds and making statements implying that Obama was "palling around with terrorists" I don't think she's in any position to talk about personal attacks.

    Look, the vice president is usually ignored during presidential elections. If you enter the ring as a vice-presdential candidate and end up with a disapproval rating of 58%, that means you screwed up pretty hard.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Whether or not that narrative is an accurate reflection of reality is immaterial.

    I think it's pretty important.

    Spoiler:
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Whether or not that narrative is an accurate reflection of reality is immaterial.

    I think it's pretty important.

    Well, in reality it is, but in terms of Olbermann's goals (ratings), it's not.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    (primarily, with making sure it's biased in the direction he wants it to be).

    Well, that's what it's always about, isn't it? Sean Hannity is biased as hell. But so is Keith Olbermann. It's just that Olby is beholden to his audience, whereas Hannity feels alright saying just whatever the fuck his audience wants. The dumbfucks shouting about a bias in the media just need to come to grips with reality and drop their persecution complexes.

    This is technically correct. Keith Olbermann is not a journalist. He is a Professional Loud Guy. Fox News drones are by-and-large horribly uninformed and often quite stupid, but getting your info from Countdown or TDS isn't a whole lot better.

    As opposed to getting your news from D&D like most of us do, which is totally non-biased. Though occasionally really pissed with our guy, so I guess there's some diversity of opinion.

    Getting your news exclusively word-of-mouth from an internet forum like this is pretty fucking stupid, yes, and I thoroughly and openly mock anyone who treats it as some kind of oracle or arbiter of truth. Although most of our credible posters go to the trouble to provide links to, at the very least, blog posts which contain references to credentialed media or other verifiable information, which is more than tabloid programs usually do.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Ziegler giving a big sloppy muffjob to Sarah "How might one go about banning books" Palin is being held up as evidence of liberal media bias?

    Really? Really?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.