The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Media Bias
Emanon
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
**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
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
Treats Animals Right!
Emanon on
0
Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because that's what gets them ratings. The only real bias in the "Mainstream Media" is that.
LoL: failboattootoot
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.
It's also the reason that everyone has a news chopper.
And why I
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.
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).
Yes.
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.
I host a podcast about movies.
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.
Like they'd trust her with any sort of information.
Where's Putin's head when you need it?
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
I host a podcast about movies.
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.
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.
No need to, as with most Palin interviews, it's non-sensical bullshit.
What came first, the audience or the views?
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 in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, WTF CBC?!?!
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.
She's part of the 'real' world. The one that is comprised of 46% of the country.
It was on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulus, perhaps the most Greek name I've ever seen that's not Achilles.
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.
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.
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.
I think it's pretty important.
Well, in reality it is, but in terms of Olbermann's goals (ratings), it's not.
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.
Really? Really?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.