• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Latest study that further proves the Big 3 have a liberal bias

If they report on this election, they also have to report on the reason things are going the republican's way... ie, that Obama is a failure in the eyes of the public and his approval rate is in the toilet. They would also have to report on how so many Democrats have distanced themselves from Obama and in many cases tossed him right under the bus. The last thing the liberal main stream media wants to do is report on the failure of a man they viewed as the American Messiah.

Running from an unpopular president is not unusual. In 2006 quite a lot of Republican candidates distance themselves from President Bush. Little good did it do them. Bush was down to 37% compared to Obama's 41% today. The Republicans lost 6 senate seats and 33 house seats that year. The prognosticators are predicting a loss of 4-8 seats for the Democrats. It would be more if Kansas hadn't raised it ugly head and Rounds in South Dakota hadn't become involved in a scandal.

But yes, it is always amusing to see a candidate dance around.
 
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

It could be the old "fallback" position - pretend it has no bearing on anything and just ignore it. Never ever give the impression that you believe the pollsters are accurately posting what those polled are telling them - that would be demoralizing...... :shock:

I would say everyone involved knows exactly what is going on. One of the tactics the Democrats are using to get out the vote is the fear of losing the senate. Perhaps Grim hit on something in his reply to me. To report on the chances of the Democrats losing the senate would mean they would have to report on the Democratic Senators distancing themselves from the president and his policies. But I think in the end, the electorate will vote their will regardless of whether the big three report on this or not.

As for the chances of the Republicans taking over the senate, they look good today, but we do not know about tomorrow. Not only are the Republicans now in fear of losing Kansas, you must throw in Georgia and the seat everyone knew the Republicans would pick up 2-3 weeks ago in South Dakota may remain in Democratic hands. If not in Democratic, an independent might win there.

Things are just getting interesting.
 
If they report on this election, they also have to report on the reason things are going the republican's way... ie, that Obama is a failure in the eyes of the public and his approval rate is in the toilet. They would also have to report on how so many Democrats have distanced themselves from Obama and in many cases tossed him right under the bus. The last thing the liberal main stream media wants to do is report on the failure of a man they viewed as the American Messiah.
What a steaming pile of fecal matter that is.
 
Well sure I do. But I do not watch the big three. I already know there is a bias there and it is not so much overt as covert. In picking and choosing which news story to run and which to ignore is a covert means of being bias. I would bet NSA and IRS have gotten little play on the big three also.

But forecasting a Republican take over of the senate does not mean it will happen. There is still two weeks to go and anything can happen. Who would have thought the Republicans might lose Kansas and perhaps fail to pick up South Dakota two weeks ago. How many more surprises await? But all of this should be covered.

IRS and NSA have both gotten play when they where fresh. The thing to remember is you are talking about half hour show times, minus commercials, minus human interest stories, leaves less than 10 minutes to cover hard news, so one big story and maybe 4 or 5 small ones with brief mention. Stories like midterm election stories are fallback stories when there is nothing bigger. Right now people are focused on ISIS and ebola, so you really are not going to see much on the midterms. It is capitalism, not political bias.
 
I wonder how the big three ignoring the story, how they expect that to help the Democrats retain control. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It does not make sense, it does not help democrats, and that should tell you something about that supposed bias.
 
Google UCLA 1995 study on media bias. They found that mainstream media leaned left nearly 20 years ago.
 
Going to the MRC to prove liberal bias is like going to Media Matters to prove conservative bias.

Edit: the big news event outside the election in 2006 was the execution of Saddam Hussein. Nothing really on the scale mediawise of ISIS or ebola. Complaining about what half hour news shows are covering 8 years apart without considering what else was in the news is silly. Biased sources find bias by not including all the facts.
Even if we assume that their motives are pure, this still benefits Democrats at the expense of Republicans, and this isn't an isolated incident; it happens consistently. I'm not the thought police. I don't care about their motives. The finished product is what matters and the finished product is liberal. There's nothing wrong with informing people about it.
 
IRS and NSA have both gotten play when they where fresh. The thing to remember is you are talking about half hour show times, minus commercials, minus human interest stories, leaves less than 10 minutes to cover hard news, so one big story and maybe 4 or 5 small ones with brief mention. Stories like midterm election stories are fallback stories when there is nothing bigger. Right now people are focused on ISIS and ebola, so you really are not going to see much on the midterms. It is capitalism, not political bias.

Possible, I forgot about the big three news coverage being only 30 minutes. I guess since the advent of cable news with CNN that has been where I have always turned. That and my radio which also has a 24 hours news channel on it. I just do not need the big three and never watch them.
 
It does not make sense, it does not help democrats, and that should tell you something about that supposed bias.

I began following politics back during IKE shortly after the advent of TV. I remember all three stations signing off at 11PM and not coming back on the air until 6AM with the farm report. But even back then and especially during the 1960 campaign the Republicans were complaining about media bias. So the idea of media bias among the over the air networks has been around for more than 50 years.
 
Google UCLA 1995 study on media bias. They found that mainstream media leaned left nearly 20 years ago.

How about you give it to us and then of course we can analyze it and see how (most likely) terribly wrong it is.
 
Here’s how 20 major media outlets rank on Groseclose and Milyo’s slant scale, with 100 representing the most liberal and zero the most conservative:

ABC Good Morning America
56.1


ABC World News Tonight
61.0


CBS Early Show
66.6


CBS Evening News
73.7


CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown
56.0


Drudge Report
60.4


Fox News Spec. Rept. w/ Brit Hume
39.7


Los Angeles Times
70.0


NBC Nightly News
61.6


NBC Today Show
64.0


New York Times
73.7


Newshour with Jim Lehrer
55.8


Newsweek
66.3


NPR Morning Edition
66.3


Time Magazine
65.4


U.S. News and World Report
65.8


USA Today
63.4


Wall Street Journal
85.1


Washington Post
66.6


Washington Times
35.4

From the UCLA study, posted by Freakonomics
Freakonomics » How Biased Is Your Media?: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast
 
Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist | UCLA

I hope you didn't want me to read it to you, also.

PS UCLA isn't considered to be a conservative university. FYI

"I hope you didn't want me to read it to you, also"

I hope you realize when people make a claim they normally present evidence along with it instead of saying "go look for it breh."

Keep up the snarkiness though, it suits you well.
 
File this under "duh".

The media is so bought-and-paid-for by the Left, it's beyond the realm of debate anymore. It's like a study to prove the mafia killed people.
 
"I hope you didn't want me to read it to you, also"

I hope you realize when people make a claim they normally present evidence along with it instead of saying "go look for it breh."

Keep up the snarkiness though, it suits you well.

Good deflection, Luff. Nice to see the left doesn't change their usual MO.
 
Good deflection, Luff. Nice to see the left doesn't change their usual MO.

Indeed, the left hasn't changed from being skeptical of hilariously antiquated information that was obtained through "prototypical" means to say the least and that they must also have to find on their own (shifting burden of proof much?).
 
Indeed, the left hasn't changed from being skeptical of hilariously antiquated information that was obtained through "prototypical" means to say the least and that they must also have to find on their own (shifting burden of proof much?).

Phototypical? Seems it was a legit, you have stated nothing to disprove anything.
 
Phototypical? Seems it was a legit, you have stated nothing to disprove anything.

PROTOtypical, the legitimacy of it is still in question and it's nearly a decade old since being published (work having started over a decade ago).

I'll look further into it but don't go thinking your **** doesn't stink because it's looking like it does.

The article even mentions all of the "preconceptions" of bias being it left or right biases in media and somehow comes up with a cool new way to measure things and suddenly says that everything leans left (even media that people consider conservative). Yes that is fishy.

It's a vague article in terms of how the information was created.

Being from UCLA means not so much to me.
 
PROTOtypical, the legitimacy of it is still in question and it's nearly a decade old since being published (work having started over a decade ago).

I'll look further into it but don't go thinking your **** doesn't stink because it's looking like it does.

The article even mentions all of the "preconceptions" of bias being it left or right biases in media and somehow comes up with a cool new way to measure things and suddenly says that everything leans left (even media that people consider conservative). Yes that is fishy.

It's a vague article in terms of how the information was created.

Being from UCLA means not so much to me.
They stated who was bias toward the left AND RIGHT.
Matt Drudge no doubt is a rightie, but his site picks up media that IS from the left, hence.....
UCLA isn't anywhere conservative.
From this study in 2005 and grim's OP, there seems to be a history you won't admit to.
 
It does not make sense, it does not help democrats, and that should tell you something about that supposed bias.

It makes perfect sense, unless your goal is to find a way so that it doesn't.

The liberal bias in the media is no different than the liberal bias that you, Pete and other liberals possess. They are people who embrace the same basic ideological views as any other liberals do, and it shows itself in the same ways.

Back in 2006, liberals were excited about the mid-terms because they were expected to gain control of at least one chamber of congress, while conservatives were much less enthusiastic. They couldn't stop talking about it on the net, to their friends, and on political boards like this one... The liberal anchors reporters and columnists were no different. They were excited about the election and it showed in the number of stories and the amount of coverage it got. This years mid terms are the exact opposite. Republicans/conservatives are very excited about this election, while Democrats/liberals would rather not talk about it. It is no different with the main stream media. They are not excited about this years elections and have very little interest in discussing it. That's the reason that NBC, ABC and CBS have done so few stories on it this year, while in 2006 they couldn't get enough of it.

This isn't rocket science here... It's a matter of understanding human nature and using a little common sense... Zero stories by ABC in the last 7 weeks... Seriously?
 
It makes perfect sense, unless your goal is to find a way so that it doesn't.

The liberal bias in the media is no different than the liberal bias that you, Pete and other liberals possess. They are people who embrace the same basic ideological views as any other liberals do, and it shows itself in the same ways.

Back in 2006, liberals were excited about the mid-terms because they were expected to gain control of at least one chamber of congress, while conservatives were much less enthusiastic. They couldn't stop talking about it on the net, to their friends, and on political boards like this one... The liberal anchors reporters and columnists were no different. They were excited about the election and it showed in the number of stories and the amount of coverage it got. This years mid terms are the exact opposite. Republicans/conservatives are very excited about this election, while Democrats/liberals would rather not talk about it. It is no different with the main stream media. They are not excited about this years elections and have very little interest in discussing it. That's the reason that NBC, ABC and CBS have done so few stories on it this year, while in 2006 they couldn't get enough of it.

This isn't rocket science here... It's a matter of understanding human nature and using a little common sense... Zero stories by ABC in the last 7 weeks... Seriously?

What a pile of steaming fecal matter. The big three don't program to inform the masses, they program to get the highest ratings. And today the highest stories are ISIS and the Ebola virus, not the elections. Oh By the way, why doesn't your "study" (LoL) include the midterm year of 2010? It was a very good year for the Republicans. I suppose it would hurt the narrative the MRC is trying to develop.
 
What a pile of steaming fecal matter. The big three don't program to inform the masses, they program to get the highest ratings. And today the highest stories are ISIS and the Ebola virus, not the elections. Oh By the way, why doesn't your "study" (LoL) include the midterm year of 2010? It was a very good year for the Republicans. I suppose it would hurt the narrative the MRC is trying to develop.

It's amazing watching people like yourself come up with excuse after excuse to dismiss the obvious. You ignore reality by any means possible.

I can't imagine living such a lie.
 
What a pile of steaming fecal matter. The big three don't program to inform the masses, they program to get the highest ratings. And today the highest stories are ISIS and the Ebola virus, not the elections. Oh By the way, why doesn't your "study" (LoL) include the midterm year of 2010? It was a very good year for the Republicans. I suppose it would hurt the narrative the MRC is trying to develop.

Like they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
 
It's amazing watching people like yourself come up with excuse after excuse to dismiss the obvious. You ignore reality by any means possible.

I can't imagine living such a lie.
What's obvious to YOU is not obvious to everyone, it's a fact of life.
Have you come up with a story yet as to why 2010 is missing?
 
Back
Top Bottom