RightinNYC

More honest to you, perhaps, because you perceive your truth differently than someone else might.

I have no problem with entertainers such as Limbaugh or O'Reilly doing what they do as they make little effort to hide that they are no more than that. I personally feel ill when I listen to either, but they have a right to say what they say.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Billo_Really

The following is a quote from Craig Hulet regarding Corporatism in the media. Thanks to them buying up all the major news organizations, we are constantly bombarded by buffoons like Hannity and O'Reilly.

What we are already seeing is the media caving in to syndication programming; drive 100 miles in any direction, listen to ten different radio stations and you hear Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage until the hair on the nap of your neck gives warning that there are predators afoot. Should you stumble upon one of the local non-syndicated, or barely syndicated hosts in a market, they are discussing the importance of using caution at the tanning salon, whether biscuits and gravy cause arterial discomfort, and little Penny Pennpacker’s pet poodle was pounced upon by a panther prowling the park. That is to say, the local hosts are quietly quite systematically being forced into doing only local programming in any market, leaving the “important” issues of the day, like the warmongering of the Washington Cabal, to the likes of Sean Hannity! Hannity, who asks the question on what “authority” does Susan Sarandon speak out against the President, by what “expertise” does this rich actress have an opinion at all. Nobody thinks to ask by what “authority and expertise” does Hannity endorse the President’s every word and deed? Indeed? This very rich entertainer, and that is all Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh and Savage are, “entertainers” just like Susan, the four ponies of perdition. They have little expertise in any area of importance with the obvious exception of self-aggrandizement, self-proclaimed self-importance and their own hifalutin air of superiority as corporate whores.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

argexpat

Please answer the following questions (which I posted here and have yet to get a response from a Republican):

1. Is there such a thing as conservative media bias?

2. Is it bias per se that irks you, or only the supposed liberal kind?

3. Have you defined exactly what you mean by “liberal,” “media” and “bias”?

4. Has it occurred to you that “the media” is actually the corporate media?

5. If “the media” does indeed have a “liberal bias,” can you explain why the capitalist plutocrats who own these media corporations would want to promote a liberal agenda?

6. Is your evidence for this alleged liberal bias purely anecdotal, or can you prove systemic, institutionalized, industry-wide media bias?

7. Isn’t bias in the eye of the beholder, and thus ultimately not provable?

8. Isn’t the charge of liberal bias simply specious claptrap meant to deflect justified and necessary criticism of the Republican Party?

ACTUALLY, this is an example of an ANECDOTE, and doesn't prove ANYTHING, except that bias cannot be PROVED (see question #6 ABOVE).

An "opinion journalist" is an oxymoron. A journalist by definition reports facts and does not editorialize in a news story. Sean Hannity is not an "opinion journalist." He's just an opinion...a very narrow, uninformed, partisan opinion.

__________________
[INSERT DIMWITTED, BORDERLINE-OFFENSIVE SIGNATURE THAT BELIES YOUR IGNORANCE HERE]

argexpat

Actually, Squawker, I've been trying to get a Republican to answer these questions, without any success. Care to step up?

RightinNYC

yes

bias in general

liberal meaning left of the average voting american, media meaning print/radio/internet/television/etc, and bias meaning deliberately or unintentionally showing an argument in a light that would lead viewers to perceive it in a way that may not be entirely true.

Yes. Has it occurred to you that the actual reporters who write the stories are by a 9 to 1 margin left leaning?

Hrmm. Last I checked, George Soros was a "capitalist plutocrat." Being a corporatist does not mean you're conservative.

I don't have the time nor the desire to lay out for you what has been laid out in hundreds of studies. Google media bias, ignore all disreputable sources, and see for yourself.

In nearly all cases, yes. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Would you say that Limbaugh has a conservative bias? I would. But because it's in the eye of the beholder, does that mean it doesn't exist? Certainly not.

No.
[/quote]

cnredd

As you can see...there is a five-to-one ration of journalists who consider themselves liberal in the national press...

20% of the General Public think they, themselves, are liberal...yet 34% of journalists think they, themselves, are liberal.

And you find no discrepancy that an occupation that is supposed to inform people is 14% more liberal thanthe people they're informing?

BTW-Pew Research is the most objective source you can get. What they report is considered gospel.

Attached Images

pew.jpg (16.8 KB, 14 views)

teacher

Well known oft stated statistic is 90% of journalists vote democratic. And the debate here is.......? And don't ask for links or references, I'll just say....my massive brain. I remember stuff. It's not my fault you don't. I can't be wasting my time coming up with links about stuff I know is true. The day you all catch me lying or wrong, then that will change. Unlike champs. Funny thing about being honest. You don't have to worry about what you said.

Hoot

"Well know oft stated statistic?" ROTFL!!!!

I think it's more well known that the right tries to characterize the media as liberal to serve their own purposes.

Even if that "oft stated statistic" were true, maybe it's because most journalists are college educated, and therefore journalists have greater intelligence and skill at determining truth from BS.

RoverT

I hate all the pundits in the news, here is the definition of news: Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
.
So if there are all these pundits on the supposed "News Channels" spin the events, and fit them to there point of view, it isnt news, nor can that channel can be a news channel, see folks this is why I watch the BBC when I want news.

__________________
Ok, Abortion is bad, Guns are fine as long as they are registered by the federal government, and they have ran a backround check on you. The war in Iraq is bad, the war in Afghanistan is good. Bush's social security plan is a POS. Bush is bad.

cnredd

The Hutton Inquiry was a British judicial inquiry chaired by Lord Hutton, appointed by the British government to investigate the death of a government weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly. The inquiry opened in August 2003 and reported on January 28, 2004. Its terms of reference were to "urgently [...] conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly".

In his report, Hutton began by saying that he was "satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life". He then concluded that the British Broadcasting Corporation's allegations that the government had knowingly "sexed up" a report into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — the "September Dossier" — were unfounded. The inquiry's findings prompted the immediate resignation of the BBC's chairman, Gavyn Davies, its Director General (chief executive) Greg Dyke, and the journalist at the centre of the allegations, Andrew Gilligan. Lord Hutton retired as a Law Lord following the report's publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry