CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS

“Fox news has emerged as the most important and significant news org in the US and therefore in the world.

Believe dat!”

“Has he SAID anything? HOW many freaking HOURS of tape do you need?

Slimmer, I believe that actions speak louder than words. Sorry Yes WORDS mean things, but watching the persons body language and actions and choice MEAN stuff to me.

D'OHbama has always seemed unusually Haughty and dismissive to me. If you truly "watch" his body movements they seem to show an almost shocking DISDAIN for anything that does not relate TO HIM.

Kinda like the spoiled little trust fund baby he was he has never actually had to accomplish anything. Childhood was in Hawaii where he was obviously doted on as his Grandparents "Christian Duty" (he is biracial and I am sure in the 60's that was still not "acceptable). He pretty much found the road less challenging and used his color to move forward in liberal circles.

Result he sees only control as a positive payback.”

“Rosey, the point wasn't how many press conferences he has had. Its how much real journalistic analysis/integrity has been spent reviewing those press conferences. Obama feels completely free to state half truths and to contradict himself from past press conferences without fear that he will be hung out to dry.”

“Obama feels completely free to state half truths and to contradict himself from past press conferences without fear that he will be hung out to dry

Ain't THAT the truth.

It's amazing that some think that VOLUME of words without substance is important.”

“If you had to dance to the beat of the BIGBIZ Drum and still act presidential, you'd miss a few steps now and again,eh?”

“

" VOLUME of words without substance is important.�
ChinMusic"

I thought that I said the same thing! (in a slightly different way._”

“Rosey, the point wasn't how many press conferences he has had. Its how much real journalistic analysis/integrity has been spent reviewing those press conferences. Obama feels completely free to state half truths and to contradict himself from past press conferences without fear that he will be hung out to dry.�
hyway to hell
8:57:44 AM

that's no different than the last two adminsitrations. And only slightly different than the two prior to that. American politicians seem to think that whatever they say is the truth simply because they say it.

NO MATTER WHICH PARTY THEY ARE FROM!”

“Are you serious, Roam? Do you really believe that the last two presidents got this kind of coddling from the press? I am not talking about what the "speaker" believes to be the truth. I am talking about the job of the press to print the truth. Bill and Hillary Clinton never got this kind of coddling and protection from the press. This is so over the top obvious that you have to be actively trying not to see it to act as if this is common press behavior.”

“Bush 2.0 and Clinton didn't get coddling from the press, no. But - the press didn't report on either in a bias free format. The press reports what they think we want to hear - and what they think will gain them favor and access to the man in office (and thus more power for themselves).

Obama has gotten a silly level of favorable reporting from the mainstream - which is just as ridiculous and Fox's attack reporting, which while in some respects based on fact and in more respects based in bias and desire to sensationalize.

None of it is accurate - or helpful.

But, to my point - and to your assertion that i quoted, Bush and Clinton both felt completely free to say whatever they wanted and to present it for truth and only rarely did the press call them to the carpet on it and even then it had little to no effect on the behavior and approach taken by the man in office.”

“Bush was crucified by the press.”

“Bush was crucified by the press

Was??? Still IS.”

“Fox crucifed Bush?”

“Fox didn't crucify him. So Bush wasn't crucified by one news station, but was crucified by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and how many more?

I can see how that is similar to Obama being crucified by one news station (FOX), but getting idolized by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and how many more?”

“Clinton's free ride resulted in NAFTA, permanent MFN for Communist China, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and ended with Lewinski.

Bush's free ride resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (another 155 yesterday) and ended with us mired up to our doorhandles in Iraq.... and the economy in a near-Depression.

Fox is a sick joke.”

“I crucified him.............for his SPENDING, as did other conservatives like Cavuto (FOX).......so yes.”

“�Fox didn't crucify him. So Bush wasn't crucified by one news station, but was crucified by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and how many more?

I can see how that is similar to Obama being crucified by one news station (FOX), but getting idolized by ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS and how many more?�
hyway to hell
9:07:01 AM
10/27/09

Bottom line is, all news is biased. You either listen to what you want to hear, or you get it from multiple sources and sift through the slants.

To be honest, wtf can you learn from watching TV news anyway? A three minute production on an issue doesn't do crap for me.
last edited: 10/27/09 9:51:33 AM”

“what chili sed.

I know Bush got beat over the head by most news outlets - Fox was the extreme to the other side. Now the roles are reversed.

That wasn't really my point.

Bush said whatever he wanted to whether it was factually accurate or not.

So did Clinton.

So does Obama.

So did many others previously, just not to the levels and regularity that we are seeing now.

The overall point of this is that the news outlets are biased to report - and to criticize/demonize/idolize - based on their own views. REGARDLESS of the acutal facts involved.”

“It would be interesting to see how people's opinions would change if there were 6 broadcasters like FOX and just one like CNN.”

“So - as this trend continues - the media eventually lose their credibility and our national news all become the equivelent of Rush Limbaugh spouting off extreme points of view without any care for truth and accuracy so long as their personal agenda gets airtime.

We're #&%!$ed.”

“yeah, it would hyway - the sad part is that so many people really buy all the crap the major networks tell them.



baaaaaaaaa”

“Meanwhile, print newspapers are dwindling and this will be the demise of real, investigative news. TV news never breaks corruptions scandals. It's newspapers, and they are going broke at a rapid rate.

You think government corruption is bad now? Wait until there aren't any more newspapers around.”

““So - as this trend continues - the media eventually lose their credibility and our national news all become the equivelent of Rush Limbaugh spouting off extreme points of view without any care for truth and accuracy so long as their personal agenda gets airtime.

We're #&%!$ed.”
RoamAround
2:04:24 PM
10/27/09

Exactly. Most people don't take the time to know whats going on. They turn on the news expecting to get news and what they get is Rush style information. the problem here is that Rush isn't a newsman. he's an entertainer and biased as hell. You are comparing the main stream press news reporters to a biased entertainer/commentator.”

“I agree with rosey to some degree, but I don't think the investigative journalism will stop. It'll continue---probably mainly on the internet---but as long as both sides continue to allow themselves to be spoonfed news they WANT to believe (from their pet sources) without questioning anything, we'll continue to have the same circus we have now.”

“FOX News exploits sexuality to sell lousy news programming........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uwAKUFEZZ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcC_WhnJN-Y&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwDJE1uVsc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77pQeypTKJM&NR=1

It seems that the republican party tried to exploit sexuality to sell John McCain last year.

How many of you suckers fell for the lovely Sarah?”

“I was happy to see an article on the front page of my newspaper yesterday about how the claims that the medical Insurance industry is making money hand over fist isn't true. It reported that they have a lower profit margin than a whole slew of businesses (6% profit margin)”

“Hershey has a higher profit margin on it Kisses.

HEY, why am I seeing this thread? I have Fuego blocked.”

“The innocence of youth ...”

“Exactly. Most people don't take the time to know whats going on. They turn on the news expecting to get news and what they get is Rush style information. the problem here is that Rush isn't a newsman. he's an entertainer and biased as hell. You are comparing the main stream press news reporters to a biased entertainer/commentator.�
hyway to hell
12:37:11 PM
10/27/09

precisely. TV news - the CNN/FOX version is primarily entertainment presented under the guise of a news formatted type show.”

“typical, its only fox that is the real problem, right? FOX is biased. But FOX still reports the news whether or not its good or bad news for republicans. The comment shows will be selective on what they want to comment on both that is what they are supposed to do. You will rarely find FOX not reporting on something, but there are quite a lot of things that you will only see on FOX that the others newsies won't show you.”

“precisely. TV news - the CNN/FOX version is primarily entertainment presented under the guise of a news formatted type show.

Yes, we should get out news from the Times or the Post.....what.....oh........OH........nevermind.”

“I had hoped that E Journalism would progress at a rate faster than print Journalism is in demise.

However, I just don't see it happening.

The problem is that most people want their news/information the same way they want their lunch...fast and convenient with little regard for substance.”

“First I must say that I did not read every posting.

Second, I think all the news networks SUCK! Where is the hard hitting news investigation? Nowhere. Instead I get Tori Spelling and balloon boy and 2 days after a scandal falls into their laps it's gone with no follow up.

Forget breaking a story there won't be any more Woodwards and Bernsteins when they have to worry about ratings because of the ad revenues will suffer if ratings go down.

I don't like nor believe any of them. THEY SUCK!!!
last edited: 10/27/09 12:44:59 PM”

“i never tried to imply that only Fox is biased.”

“And it's not going to get any better. the upcoming generations have been shown to have a complete lack of attention span. They want a new and different IMAGE every second. I've been without TV for almost a year now, and I don't seem myself getting it back anytime soon.”

“Forget breaking a story there won't be any more Woodwards and Bernsteins

So far if you want anything similar to that on BHO you have to look at Hannity and Beck.

A SAD commentary of out current MSM.”

“�So - as this trend continues - the media eventually lose their credibility and our national news all become the equivelent of Rush Limbaugh spouting off extreme points of view without any care for truth and accuracy so long as their personal agenda gets airtime.

We're #&%!$ed.�
RoamAround
11:04:24 AM
10/27/09

Roam, not arguing here but we recently saw where EXACTLY the same comments were falsely made by major media outlets...so I am asking (just as if you made the same charge about Marko or Tilty) please show EXAMPLES.

Attack by inuendo is so far beneath what you do please provide examples and not 'well I heard".”

“television news is not and never was geared to present the truth about important events in the country and world. It has always been for no intent other than to get ratings and therefore sell commercials. To pretend that any news network (MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc) is any more serious than your average POS sitcom is to severely overestimate the primped and primed talking heads who seem to think that the latest sighting of Paris Hilton's gash is something the entire nation needs to know about. Fox is full of #&%!$ and has a distinctly republican slant. MSNBC is full of #&%!$ and has a distinctly democratic slant. You won't find much, if any, truth on TV”

“Its about time people are starting to admit their is a media bias. For years we have been told its only our imagination and its only FOX that is biased.

Roam, you didn't imply that only FOX was biased. That was my mistake. You typed CNN/FOX and I saw "Fox news". Sorry about that.”

“well, during the Bush years, MSNBC and CNN could deny their bias by saying "No, we're just the only networks willing to speak the truth - it's Fox that's biased"... much like Fox is saying now that Obama's in charge. They're all full of crap”

“Bottom line: kill your television.”

“amen”

“FoxNews is the most balanced Election coverage - Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (2008)
Category: News & Politics



The Pew (PEJ) report for the 2008 election cycle is out.

Among the findings?

FOXNEWS provided the most balanced cable coverage of the 2008 presidential election among major news outlets (CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS) and likely the most balanced of all six outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC included), although they oddly didnt release the latter three network's numbers. Keep in mind, while Pew bills itself as Independent, it certainly leans to the left, which is probably why they didnt release all the numbers. God forbid they stated FoxNews was the most fair of any television network, as it's doubtful any network bested the Fox numbers below since the Fox positive/negative are almost a perfect match. Interestingly, while they released the numbers for MSNBC and FOX, they didnt release individual CNN numbers, choosing to say it closely reflected the "Total Coverage" numbers below, putting it somewhere between MSNBC and FOX.

The Best (least biased) and the Worst (most biased) news coverage?

BEST (FOXNEWS)
Positive Obama Stories 25%
Positive McCain Stories 22%
Negative Obama Stories 40%
Negative McCain Stories 40%

WORST (MSDNC)
Positive Obama Stories 73%
Positive McCain Stories 10%
Negative Obama Stories 14%
Negative McCain Stories 43%

TOTAL COVERAGE (all media added together - 2,412 stories from 48 outlets)
Positive Obama Stories 36%
Positive McCain Stories 14%
Negative Obama Stories 29%
Negative McCain Stories 57%”

“

October 29, 2008
How Different Media Have Covered the General Election

When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference, according to a new study.

In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign.
Things look much better for Barack Obama�and much worse for John McCain�on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.

The tone of CNN�s coverage, meanwhile, lay somewhere in the middle of the cable spectrum, and was generally more negative than the press overall.

On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere. On the network morning shows, Sarah Palin is a bigger story than she is in the media generally.

And on NBC News programs, there was no reflection of the tendency of its cable sibling MSNBC toward more favorable coverage of Democrats and more negative of Republicans than the norm.

Online, meanwhile, polling tended to drive the news. And on the front pages of newspapers, which often have the day-after story, things look tougher for John McCain than they tend to in the media overall.

These are some of the findings of the study, which examined 2,412 stories from 48 outlets during the time period from September 8 to October 16. [1] The report is a companion to a study released October 22 about the tone of coverage overall. This new report breaks down the coverage of tone by specific media sectors�print, cable news, network television and online.

Among the findings:

MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).
On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
The distinct tone of MSNBC�more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans�was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC�s coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral�and also less negative�than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.
These findings augment what was learned from a broader report on campaign media coverage released a week earlier entitled �Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.� That study found that in the media overall�a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate�Barack Obama�s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain�s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE:
1. Secondary coding was performed on a subset of the campaign stories to further examine the tone of the coverage. That sample included 857 stories from 43 outlets.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436#fn1”

“Why would having a similar amount of positive and negative stories on 2 disparate people be less biased? If the people are say Ted Bundy and Mother Teresa would you say that if the news had the same amount of positive and negative stories it would be less biased??? I know that is a very extreme example, but just to make a point.”

“No tango, you're wrong. It's a matter of beating people over the head. COnstantly drumming it into them from every angle. Many never consider it's even possible, let alone know it's happeniong to them....”

“Tango, your example is exactly how the main stream press viewed the two candidates - one was Bundy and the other was mother Teresa.”