• 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!

Is every MSM outlet except Fox News a mouthpiece for the DNC?

Is the MSM except Fox a mouthpiece for the DNC


  • Total voters
    19
If there was or is any doubt that the MSM does the bidding for the DNC, proof positive has been provided by this past weeks coverage of Hillary Clinton's announcement for the Democrat nomination and their over the top coverage of her caravan to Iowa. Several Republican candidates have announced and not one of them has received wall to wall daily coverage of the like that Clinton is receiving. It's frankly quite nauseating but there is one benefit. The media is so blatantly and transparently in the tank for Clinton that 19 months of this type of fawning coverage will surely turn the majority of Americans off as well as give them clear indication of the woman for whom she is and it won't be pretty.

CNN appears to be giving them all equal coverage.
 
If there was or is any doubt that the MSM does the bidding for the DNC, proof positive has been provided by this past weeks coverage of Hillary Clinton's announcement for the Democrat nomination and their over the top coverage of her caravan to Iowa. Several Republican candidates have announced and not one of them has received wall to wall daily coverage of the like that Clinton is receiving. It's frankly quite nauseating but there is one benefit. The media is so blatantly and transparently in the tank for Clinton that 19 months of this type of fawning coverage will surely turn the majority of Americans off as well as give them clear indication of the woman for whom she is and it won't be pretty.

What are you watching? On the three broadcast networks, I have not seen the type of coverage you claim is out there. Last night, 6:30 ABC barely mentioned Clinton, the night before 6:30 CBS barely mentioned Clinton. In fact not much was said of any candidate on those two broadcasts.
 
What are you watching? On the three broadcast networks, I have not seen the type of coverage you claim is out there. Last night, 6:30 ABC barely mentioned Clinton, the night before 6:30 CBS barely mentioned Clinton. In fact not much was said of any candidate on those two broadcasts.

I've been watching CNN the past week and it's wall to wall Clinton in the most favourable of terms - every hour segment has at least 15 minutes of the Clinton caravan and stories about how she has a new style this time around, yada yada yada, with Clinton mouthpieces for each segment and political "analysts" who are embarrassingly pro-Clinton. It's as if they're all auditioning for the job of Clinton's press secretary or White House press secretary. Truly nauseating.
 
Again, you are ignoring the poll question which you challenged me on. Being left leaning, centrist, or just broadcasting the news is not being a mouthpiece for the Democrats.

Ok. I agree with you then. Left leaning does not mean mouth pieces.
 
When Hillary clambered out of a cave on the Discovery Channel, I gave up.
 
Here's an article from CNN on CNN's and other's coverage of Clinton before and after her announcement. Name a single Republican or other candidate that has gotten that focus?

The 'Hillary beat': How the media covers Clinton - Apr. 12, 2015



Holy ****!

Some of the phrasing in her "announcement" is word for word what we, the Liberal Party of BC, used in 2012!

"when families are strong, BC is strong. Keeping families strong is Christy Clark's mandate. Working for you!"

I know, I wrote the first sentence.
 
Your post makes no sense. You acknowledge that some are more progressive than others and that CNN has a phony balance, that tells me you basically agree that every major news outlet other than fox has a left lean. In that case, American is absolutely correct when he says that Fox IS the balance; in that it provides a rightward take to balance the leftward take that exists everywhere else. Its not victimization, its fact. The reason Fox is so popular is BECAUSE it is different from every other major news source.



Thank you.

That is about the best summation of the stagnancy that is American media I have ever read.

Fox News is number one not because of right wing leanings, it is number one because it fills a hole in the market.
 
Thank you.

That is about the best summation of the stagnancy that is American media I have ever read.

Fox News is number one not because of right wing leanings, it is number one because it fills a hole in the market.

Yes, and all conservatives flock to that station specifically because it gives a conservative slant on the news. News that doesn't have a conservative bias is considered to be espousing liberal/progressive views. As this poll question clearly indicates.
 
The fact she's pretty much the heir apparent for the Democratic Primary while there are like 10 Republicans sharing the spotlight for the Republican Primary should result in her getting a lot of more focus.

A lot more focus that does not include one question. Let alone a serious question.
 
A lot more focus that does not include one question. Let alone a serious question.

Sure, she's dodging questions. At the end of the day she will have to start answering questions or she won't be winning the white house.

That is the whole purpose of having the media following you around...you don't have to work as hard to get your message out.
 
Sure, she's dodging questions. At the end of the day she will have to start answering questions or she won't be winning the white house.

That is the whole purpose of having the media following you around...you don't have to work as hard to get your message out.

At the end of the day she still doesn't have to take questions. The only time she has to take a question is during a debate and she can dodge answering them.
 
At the end of the day she still doesn't have to take questions. The only time she has to take a question is during a debate and she can dodge answering them.

If she doesn't answer any questions then people will be able to put words into her mouth and create their own version of of her views.

the whole purpose of having media coverage and the only reason any politician would want it is so that they get face time with Americans and a way to share their message.
 
At the end of the day she still doesn't have to take questions. The only time she has to take a question is during a debate and she can dodge answering them.

Don't worry, there will be plenty of time to grill her on Benghazi.
 
You know they are, don't lie.
Disappointing, but not surprising, to see yet ANOTHER ABUSE of the Poll section with a No-Choice political statement: NOT a POLL.
Garbage.

You wanna say everyone but Fox is biased, put it in 'Bias in the Media'.
It's No poll with NO real choice.
 
Last edited:
The fact she's pretty much the heir apparent for the Democratic Primary while there are like 10 Republicans sharing the spotlight for the Republican Primary should result in her getting a lot of more focus.

That's the reverse of what logic would dictate, if the media was interested in news and educating their audience. If Clinton is the heir apparent, why the need for wall to wall coverage of her ordering a sandwich or getting out of her SUV? If there are 10 Republicans sharing the spotlight, why not cover them more in depth so that their viewers get to know the choices and where they stand? You're just confirming that the media is parading the DNC's chosen message carrier because that's what they view their role as being. They're not interested in news and education - they're interesting in pimping their choice.
 
That is the whole purpose of having the media following you around...you don't have to work as hard to get your message out.

And again, you unwittingly make the OP's point. The media is the messenger for the DNC. Why pay for ads or campaign material when the MSM is a willing agent for your message?
 
That's the reverse of what logic would dictate, if the media was interested in news and educating their audience. If Clinton is the heir apparent, why the need for wall to wall coverage of her ordering a sandwich or getting out of her SUV? If there are 10 Republicans sharing the spotlight, why not cover them more in depth so that their viewers get to know the choices and where they stand? You're just confirming that the media is parading the DNC's chosen message carrier because that's what they view their role as being. They're not interested in news and education - they're interesting in pimping their choice.

Indeed. And yet there are some who still stubbornly cling to the ideological belief that the MSM doesn't have a liberal bias, beyond all common sense and reason that.
 
If there was or is any doubt that the MSM does the bidding for the DNC, proof positive has been provided by this past weeks coverage of Hillary Clinton's announcement for the Democrat nomination and their over the top coverage of her caravan to Iowa. Several Republican candidates have announced and not one of them has received wall to wall daily coverage of the like that Clinton is receiving. It's frankly quite nauseating but there is one benefit. The media is so blatantly and transparently in the tank for Clinton that 19 months of this type of fawning coverage will surely turn the majority of Americans off as well as give them clear indication of the woman for whom she is and it won't be pretty.


It will, undoubtedly, send a message of elitism, to the more than average voter.

The key to any campaign is controlling the message, something Obama and Harper have in common. Anymore, controlling the message is attempted by 'staged events', where the candidate is an actor for the camera, no questions allowed. They all do it, Reagan's people were perfect at it, Mulroney's people went too far, and in that we have an example. The public who intend to vote but have not made up their mind is always the most important primary demographic. Because they intend to vote, they are paying attention, and what they will see sooner or later is the practiced "sincerity" of her 'coverage' as opposed to the other candidates. And it backfires.

This however is the primary campaign and she had in the bag in '08, hers to lose. What Democrats need to be asking themselves is "why"? If she is the most desired candidate why the need to hammer it home so hard? With that "coverage' what is it you are not being allowed to see?

Does anyone know how she became so filthy rich BTW?
 
Disappointing, but not surprising, to see yet ANOTHER ABUSE of the Poll section with a No-Choice political statement: NOT a POLL.
Garbage.

You wanna say everyone but Fox is biased, put it in 'Bias in the Media'.
It's No poll with NO real choice.

You have a reading comprehension issue, because that's not what the poll says at all. So why don't you take your idea of what it says and start a new poll in Media Bias?
 
If Fox News were indeed as fair and balances as they claim to be, they would actually balance the leftist media.
How can one network compensate for so many other networks?
 
Back
Top Bottom