Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Wait, wait.... a "we poor downtrodden conservatives" post from 'Rap, with dubiuose facts backing it up?

Golly, that like, almost never happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Blindly start hurling stones at the messenger, never mind the message, huh?

---

Quote:

---

Democrat Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year--followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage--much worse than his main GOP rivals. Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

---

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume.

---

Quote:

---

Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

---

Quote:

---

more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Blindly start hurling stones at the messenger, never mind the message, huh?

---

A: Isn't that page one of the Conservative playbook?

B: This particular messenger is relying on a paper than no one seems able to verify the existance of. Which blurs the line between messenger, and liar.

---

Quote:

---

SignyM wrote:
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 14:00
Auraptor, first of all, this is not a study about "the media", it's a study about the coverage of this election cycle. To portray the conclusion as a general bias towards liberals... across all decades ... it just fabrication.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Rap

Take a breath, take a drink, slow down and think. The study said (according to the report on the study) that candidates received virtually identical coverage and that the republicans were less well know b/c - at the time of the poll - they had simply started later than the democrats.

---

Quote:

---

Who covers the election cycle? The MEDIA!

---

Quote:

---

What were the conclusions of the coverage ? That the MEDIA gives more favorable coverage to the Democrats than the Republicans.

---

Quote:

---

As posted originally, this falls right in line w/ how THE MEDIA has viewed politcs over the past 20 yrs

---

Quote:

---

with most reporters being and voting FOR Democrats

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's not reporters who determine what gets aired or printed, it's the editors. You should look up who the editors vote for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
is this a surprise? of all people, Carl Marx, the poster-boy of Communism, admitted himself that atheism and socialism were INSEPARABLE concepts. fast forward to 21st century AMerica, where the 1st amendment has been completely undermined by a concerted secular progressive agenda among academia to 'enlighten' the AMerican masses by a strict adherence to materialism and voila! a left biased national media, fresh full of an endless supply of dehumanized converts

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
The funniest part is that the whole American political system is massively skewed to the right, so even if the majority of the media is left leaning that's the American left, which is basically centre-right as far as everyone else is concerned.

Not to mention that all AU seems to have provided is statistics on newspapers, which actually tend to a minority news share in reference to televised news. Anyone who has actually seen right leaning, left leaning and neutral news reporting, can tell you that American televised news is near exclusively right leaning. That could be why Hollywood is often liberalised, since there's no major news network catering to anyone left of centre.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Tell that to Faux news

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
"In other words," the authors say, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Left of Rush Limbourgh does not mean "Left Wing", just so you know.

---

Quote:

---

citizen wrote:
Sunday, November 18, 2007 20:58

Actually, as someone who evidently has no perspective outside the terribly right wing American political system, and it's televised medias obvious rightwing bias (obvious that is to someone who has seen balanced reporting), you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm sure your confusion stems from the fact that most American media is to the left of you. But AU, left of you doesn't mean left-wing. Your political opinions are mostly far/extreme right, so left of you can still be comfortably right-wing.

Left of Rush Limbourgh does not mean "Left Wing", just so you know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
This isn't about whether Americans fit your Universal standard of Right or Left, but how OUR media reports on the news with in the confines of US culture. Bottom line, the media here is predominitly LEFT WING. Why ? Because it routinely tilts stories which favor a Left wing ponit of view, the reporters overwhelmingly are Left wing , voting Democratic nearly 90% of the time.

---

Quote:

---

MalBadInLatin wrote:
Monday, November 19, 2007 06:30
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AURaptor:
"In other words," the authors say, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats because first....Republicans all say the exact same thing, regurgitated talking points created in a firey cauldron of deceit by white house press corp to sanitize Republican activity and demonize Democratic activity. Then it filters down to the individual Republican unit through Fox/Rush/Hannity where it will be repeated using varying forms of anger to give off the veneer of original thought.

---

Quote:

---

So that's why Republicans are covered less, IF they really are, because you talk to one, you've talked to them all.

---

Quote:

---

The coverage of Republicans is more negative because that's all they're doing, soliciting sex in bathrooms while preaching family values,

---

Quote:

---

attempting to molest 16 year old congressional pages,

---

Quote:

---

promoting unpopular wars,

---

Quote:

---

involvement in mutiple unproven cover ups,

---

Quote:

---

smearing Democrats

---

Quote:

---

, and for the God Damn life of me, and I'm honestly trying, I can't think of anything good to cover.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
And the people who decide what the reporters, err, report vote republican. Seriously AU, are you trying to tell me the Rupert Murdoch would allow a reporter to harm his interests so that they can report the news they see fit.

Because that would be somewhat naive, or, well, confirmation bias.

There's one other stop here, which is voting tendencies. Republicans tend to win the vote more often than Democrats, if the whole media really was slanted to the left, that wouldn't really happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The Democrats are not a left wing party, they are a centrist, perhaps slightly right wing party that differ from the Repubs mainly in who pays for them. So a more accurate description of your problem would be "my group of bought and paid for corporate stooges doesnt get the same attention as YOUR group of bought and paid for corporate stooges."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
The Democrats are not a left wing party, they are a centrist, perhaps slightly right wing party that differ from the Repubs mainly in who pays for them. So a more accurate description of your problem would be "my group of bought and paid for corporate stooges doesnt get the same attention as YOUR group of bought and paid for corporate stooges."

---

Sure, what ever, Michael Moore.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seriously citizen, this crap about who decides what they write is an empty claim. Most editors only care if the names are spelled correctly and they don't get sued. Otherwise, reporters are able to write pretty much what ever the hell they want. Rupert Murdoch might not hire an overly biased reporter,( though more Libs work at FOX than conservatives work at CNN ), but CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, AP, Knight Ridder et al have no problem what so ever in giving them a job.

---

Quote:

---

Dunno where you get your stats on who wins the vote more often, but your empty supposition is nothing more than your wishful thinking dressed up as specious reasoning.

---

Quote:

---

If you really think that a reporter earning less than $200K can slant the reporting of news against the wishes of the multibillion dollar conglomerate that he works for you are more than naive.

---

Quote:

---

And just to remind you Mr Rupert Murdock's newspapers in the UK just happened to support the Socialist party there when that party could help Mr Murdock push through European Satellite TV deregulation.

---

Quote:

---

So, AU back to the question I originally asked, why would Rupert Murdoch, or any other media mogul, allow one of his employees to harm his business interests?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Tell that to citizen, who thinks that Murdoch, because he owns FOX NEWS and all, could never hire anyone who might be a Left winger. Not ever!

---

That is the point. The political views of the journalists dont effect what gets in the papers, that's what editors do and editors take their orders from the owner. So if the owner needs a Labour victory to forward his business aims and then the paper's switch to Labour. That looks like cause and effect to me.

If News Corp needed a Democratic victory you can bet your britches Fox News would be sucking up to Hillary faster than you could spit. News Corp doesnt hire left wingers, it hires folks that do as they are told and if that means that "Hill and Bill" become the hotest item since "Benifer" you can be sure someone will think of their paycheck and write the copy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen, your incredulous objection asdie, CBS,et al are fairly Left wing. You wishing it weren't so doesn't make it so. Heck, Dan Rather would just as soon make up fake documents than table a story right before the '04 election which he hoped/prayed would sway the voters to vote for Kerry. Alas, there was no story.

---

Quote:

---

Ask Fletch2 I have no idea. But it seems to be the case.

---

Quote:

---

And why did you limit yourself to just Presidential races ? What about Senate or Congressional seats ? And what of Governors, Mayors ?

---

Quote:

---

Did you take into account that FDR ( a Democrat ) was elected 4 times ?? That's twice as many times as is allowed for now.

---

Quote:

---

That the media can't be biased toward the Left, or that we'd ALWAYS vote blindly for which ever candidate the PRESS tells us to vote for ?

---

Quote:

---

Don't the candidates themselves have any say in the matter ?

---

Quote:

---

Don't the issues come into play , at least a little ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Frem, I've done my home work, far more than you, it appears.

---

Quote:

---

citizen, Fletch2 kinda split his view, saying on one hand that a reporter making 200k wouldn't be put in a position to determine how a multibillion $ corp will be run ( a specious argument ) then states that the Murdoch's paper in the UK supports the Socialist party. Which hardly fits into his politically right leaning. Take what you want from it, and call it a victory. You always do.

---

Quote:

---

It seems no matter what I say, you're going to stay with your ignorance on this issue and opt out of dealing w/ the facts.

---

Quote:

---

As I'd expect any Lib to do.

---