I guess the fairness doctrine only works for Liberals when it is squashing conservative speech.

…but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

Because the lies, half-truths and outright fabrications of the leftie media are unacceptable.

Even the NYT has David Brooks. David Brooks stands up for the NYT as being a fair and balanced news organization.

H,

Specious nonsense! In the first place, David Brooks is a columnist, who has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the editorial (that means news to you outsiders!) policies of the NYT. Which is what is is being discussed here, by the way.

Second, Brooks is at best a Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller style conservative Democrat. The only thing that makes him look conservative is the multitude of dyed-in-the-wool, hard core, ultra-liberals that surrounds him… at the Times and in the rest of the mainstream media in general.

To suggest otherwise is to acknowledge just how little you actually know about conservative beliefs and how desperate you are to try and score debating points no matter what you have to say to do so.

Either that, or you’ve simply been out in the sun too long.

The problem with your percentage figure that you came up with Nieman is it lacked any basis in fact.

Half of the ratings that look at partisanship over fairness look a single show for a period of half an hour to determine bias. That is ridiculous.

Second, what seem like left wing bias to you may look light right wing bias to another. Ever read MediaMatters? To them, almost everything looks like right wing bias. To Rush, everything looks like left wing bias.

This is a never ending cycle.

If you are so worried about fairness, then support the fairness doctrine. To do anything less is simply ridiculous.

H’s Quotes (they surprised me so I researched them):

Kristol was quoted from 1995, Buchanan from 1996, O’Reilly was misquoted (go look up the whole of what he said). I bet the others are flawed too.

Perhaps the Right cried wolf too many times. I was too young to care in the 90s, but since 2001, I certainly notice a left-wing bias in the media.

Do you really need any other evidence than the fact that every major news reporter is falling over himself to join Obama on his eurotrip? Or my personal experience where, visiting Israel this summer, Israelis asked me whether I was voting for Obama or Hillary (apparently no one told them that McCain was running too). Pfft.

Given this kind of disgraceful shilling for Obama and the Democrats, is it any wonder that subscriptions, overall circulation, and ad revenues are all down?

Wonder where the NYT stock price will be by the end of the week?

If you are so worried about fairness, then support the fairness doctrine. To do anything less is simply ridiculous.

Yeah, right, this is a democrat tool to shut down all conservative media and shows. LIke I am going to support that!

The proof of fair and balanced is when a media outlet or program gets attacked almost evenly, on a regular basis, from both the Right and Left, like I often get angry with Fox. Yet, Fox even attracts my very liberal family members because it is seen as being more fair and balanced than any other cable new network. Now tell me of a left leaning media outlet that can say the same thing.

This continues because the people stilll buy enough of those damn newspapers and enough advertisers buy space to justify their continued operation.

None of this will make sense to you, because you are a hack. But…who expected anything more from you?

I can envision the foam and spittle coming out of your mouth as you wrote this. Not a pretty picture.. Perhaps you need a rabies shot or some other medical attentiono.

Hannitized: Media Matters is a progressive organization and they do very balanced studies on the media. Conservative extremists are simply going to attack the source of the study because for one, they aren’t able to retort the study. Second, they don’t want to believe that conservatives actually control most of the media because it’s a great thing to scream about.

They also can’t understand how they can control most of the media and find out that most of this country doesn’t agree with most of their core issues these days. Their in a real bind and rather than step up and save their party, they put their head in the sand and simply spew slander with no substance.

“It often takes more courage to change one’s opinion than to stick to it.” ~Geoffrey F. Albert

what you should do is just what i do. don’t believe anybody. they are all full of it, but don’t take my word for it.

Thanks, Sparkie! I no longer believe you, I realize you are full of it, and I take your word for nothing.
Good one!

H,

Obama has something the others don’t, as did Kennedy. Not to mention he is the first Black presidential candidate to, and a real chance at winning the White House….he is making history one way or the other.

Did you just seriously argue that the media’s fawning coverage of Obama is no biased because they rightfully concluded that he has a better chance of winning than McCain?

Nope, that’s not biased at all… you asshat.

What right wing leaning news organizations? Name one, Fox doesn’t count.

A perfect example of why trying to reason with you is a waste of time.

Some conservatives accepted Media Matters findings, why don’t you?

I’ve been really anxious to see how traditional media outlets respond to the new Media Matters report, which documents the way nation’s op-ed pages skew heavily to the right. Something is clearly amiss, and I’ve been curious to see how news outlets respond.

The Chicago Tribune’s Frank James offers a response, suggesting this may have “nothing to do with a nefarious conservative cabal,” (note the condescending conspiratorial language) and points to a generational problem.

Demographically, newspaper readers tend to be older than non-newspaper readers. An older audience is likely to be more conservative. Newspapers are generally in business to be profitable. That means, more often than not, providing consumers with products that reflect their tastes. Thus, more conservative syndicated columnists than not.

While all of us in the newspaper industry will readily agree with MM that newspapers remain important sources of news and information, the growth of the Internet, particularly of blogs, especially of the political variety, suggests that the nation isn’t exactly starved for a diversity of political viewpoints. Never have so many been able to say so much to so many others.

So even though newspapers collectively may carry more syndicated conservative than progressive columnists, maybe it doesn’t really matter as much as Media Matters would have us believe.

I appreciate that James took the time to acknowledge the Media Matters study — I suspect most journalists will prefer to ignore it — but his analysis seems flawed.

Oh, you can’t accept facts because of the source…got it. So in your world I can’t trust anything FOX News says because it is owned by Murdoch?

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party. That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

So, biased reporting is OK, if it’s done for the “right” reasons? Not surprising, as lefties think racism, homophobia and sexism are OK if they’re practiced by their favored groups.

The discussion at hand is about liberal bias. Because Obama has a draw of historic nature and thus, creates a buzz around him may indeed cause a bias, just not a LIBERAL one.

1. Obama is the liberal Democrats’ candidate, so ANY bias toward him is a “liberal bias.”

2. The “historic nature” of Obama’s candidacy is only a draw for liberals, conservatives don’t much care. So, again, a bias generated by a liberal draw is… a “liberal bias.”

H,

And next time, please phrase your “points” as statements. Begging the question is a dishonest way to debate (your questions assume what you set out to prove).

Do you really need any other evidence than the fact that every major news reporter is falling over himself to join Obama on his eurotrip?

Obama has something the others don’t, as did Kennedy. Not to mention he is the first Black presidential candidate to, and a real chance at winning the White House….he is making history one way or the other.

The fact that you guys don’t get it is hurting your perceptions. I can’t help you any more than that.

The fact of the matter is…this is how the journalists and editors view the disparity. Don’t harsh me for that reality.

The news media have devoted significantly more attention to the Democrat since Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and left a two-person contest for the presidency between Obama and Republican John McCain, according to research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

News executives say there are reasons for the disparity, such as the continuing story about whether Clinton’s and Obama’s supporters can reconcile. They even partly blame McCain. By criticizing Obama for a lack of foreign policy experience, McCain raised the stakes for Obama’s trip, “especially if he winds up going into two war zones,” said Paul Friedman, senior vice president of CBS News.

And this…

Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.

Sure, there are some weeks Obama’s going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director.

But every week?

“No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama’s candidacy, in the end it’s probably not fair to McCain,” he said.

Again, don’t blame me for being informed.

Here’s the link…

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/media_watchdog_finds.html

Sparkie: Get back on the thorazine, you are engaging in nonsensical ravings again, betraying your lunatic mind is operation and at full speed.

Conservative extremists…

Conservatives aren’t “extremists”; look it up. Educate yourself. American conservatives believe in the founding principles of this country, as expressed in the Constitution, and so are the opposite of “extremists”, unless, of course, you are a Marxist who considers individual independence “extreme”. Is that what you believe?

A promise? Credibility? Same thing happened a few years ago after the conventions in 2004. A comedian, Frankin I believe was given space in USA Today and Ann Coulter was promised same. After she submitted, her piece was rejected. Double standards. I have not bought a USA Today since. Bias in the media.

arbuckle & hannitized: Once again you manage to miss the obvious. The NYT told McCain they would be glad to run his editorial so long as it ‘mirrored’ Obama’s.

I wonder if they laid out similar parameters for Obama?

As I said earlier. People come up with their own data to support their own conclusions.

You are generalizing from your own behavior; not at all accurate, especially in your case.
The agenda of the MSM is to elect only leftie Dems(which explains their treatment of Lieberman, for example), and to wipe out conservatism; that is the causative factor in their leftie bias. The fact that they demonize all public figures who are both black and conservative proves that leftieism is their most important loyalty.

Beardsley confuses beliefs with facts.

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month.

Beliefs do not constitute a reality Beardsley. Only a clueless person could conclude that it translates into facts.

Because they left leaning ones pretend to be objective and detached when they are nothing of the sort.

Which news organization has the motto “Fair and Balanced”?

Guess that sort of puts your argument in a different light, eh Ken?

Specious nonsense! In the first place, David Brooks is a columnist, who has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the editorial (that means news to you outsiders!) policies of the NYT. Which is what is is being discussed here, by the way.

Is David Brooks a conservative? Yes. Is my point that Brooks thinks the NYT is unbiased? Yes. Has the discussion moved to what is fair and balanced? Yes.

Get off it Bat, you look like a grumpy old man yelling at kids on the lawn.

Second, Brooks is at best a Harry Truman/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller style conservative Democrat.

Not according to him.

Brooks, now a conservative, describes himself as being originally a liberal.

Sorry, take it up with him.

To suggest otherwise is to acknowledge just how little you actually know about conservative beliefs…

How am I supposed to argue with that? He votes republican and he considers himself a Conservative…..the spectrum of diversity in both parties varies greatly per certain individuals. I have no interest in debating with someone who can’t acknowledge that.

Yea… but a good chunk of conservatives here are the same–like two broken sets of clocks facing each other. Time on the con side just happens to run faster these days.

Oh, I’ve encountered that too. There are certain right wingers on this site who simply refuse to admit when they’re wrong. But on the whole, I’ve seen 90% of the conservative/libertarians here correct themselves when called on an error. With the exception of MikeAdams, no liberal here has ever done that. RBB, Hannitized, Buzz, CatMow, all continue to spout the same crap even after it’s factually shot down. And the arrogance about their flawed arguments is unique to our leftists.

I said that because Obama has made history, by being the first black nominee of any party. That reason alone, makes reporters more eager to follow him around the country and/or world.

“Dostoyevsky implied that it was precisely when the devil became a wit that the intellectual classes of the West succumbed to the most familiar form of diabolic temptation: the belief that men can transcend the limits of their condition and “be as gods”–demiurges with the power to heal the world’s pain and reshape it in accordance with a beautiful idea.”

Read the whole thing if you like think-pieces… (details humanity’s ignorant need for prophets and Obama’s capitalization on it)

Otherwise, having a good reason for fawning all over a candidate at the exclusion of the other does not make for unbiased journalism. So I’m not sure how your explanation contributes to your point.

You wouldn’t know reason if it bit you.

First of all, reason can’t “bite” you. You wouldn’t know reason if it hit you upside the head like a frozen salami stick.

I knew you couldn’t name a right wing news organization. All you do is blow smoke out of your ass..

You mean except for Fox News, the cable show you said “didn’t count”??? You idiot.

Further, most shows aren’t complete in their bias. Cable shows now have both sides representing views. You have your Glen Beck’s on CNN and you have your Olberman’s.

None of this will make sense to you, because you are a hack. But…who expected anything more from you?

As usual, Sparkie, you post pure nonsense. Obama is an Arab-American, and you can’t handle that fact. I never mentioned “race”, btw; you just made that up out of your own racist mind. Typical leftie.

Come on, Rob – you left out a couple fo salient points here. Little things like the facts that the Times has published a number of McCain’s pieces in the past, and that the paper endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination. As Shipley points out, Obama’s article contained new information while McCain’e was merely a rehash of his criticisms of Obama’s Irag policies. (And yes, an editor can suggest revisions in content and determine what gets published and what doesn’t; that’s why thet’re called editors.)

No, because he is not running on the platform of being the tallest president, but he does seem to be running on the platform of being the first black president.

He does “seem” to be? Are you kidding me?

Jeezus H. Christ that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Show me one thing Obama has put forth that suggests he is running a platform of being the first black president.

I am challenging you Hairy. You’ve got nothing man.

McCain is running on other platforms that are more important to Republicans.

Like what? Immigration reform?

Having the first black president is most important to Dems

Most important? You speak well from your ass. I would like to see you speak from your mouth, using your brain next time.

I would agree to some it is a very recognizable historical landmark that has garnered much attention. But to deny that Republicans aren’t doing the same is utter poppycock.

(I won’t even go into that stupid “Black Republicans are voting for Obama” example that you gave me–citing the outlier does not an honest point make).

What in the hell are you talking about? Your are a fucking lunatic bro. How does providing examples not make an honest point.

You are a fucking idiot.

So when the media fawns over Barack’s platform (being black) but ignores McCain’s, they are showing… liberal bias.

OMG. You are fucking dumb. And not just dumb, but pathetically dumb.

Obama is mostly getting more attention because he is the first black presidential nominee and because McCain keeps harping on his lack of experience.

Subsequently, Iraqi Prime Minister is showing us why McCain should be no where near the whitehouse with the recent news that they want a time table where US troops leave Iraq.

Heh.

This is insanity, on your part.

Yawn, hardly. If white people come out in droves to support me, in historic numbers, and cite my whiteness, there’s something there. In I promise a 30% higher turnout in the white vote than every before in history, that’s a story. You dismissing the point doesnt mean jack.

Maybe if attorney generals were enslaved, tortured, subjugated and mastered for 200 years it might have been there.

Stupid and irrelevant. When SENATORS are tortured enslaved and mastered, maybe you’ll have a point.

Yea, I know you meant blacks stupid. Barry’s daddy wasn’t a decendant of a slave, and his mammy was white. Well, damn, that shoots down that whole “decendant of a slave” thing you were going for.

Not like something that ended 50 years ago had relevance to whether or not he’s a qualified candidate.

Did he run for that office over another? And lets not pretend the jobs are similar Kenny. You are being a tedious.

It was the highest office a black person had ever held. OH. OH. We’re moving the goal posts now! Douche.

None of them were the first black presidential nominee. Also, none of them had the same type of charisma, except for maybe Powell and he is adored by the media.

Yea, try again. Barack Obama would murder infants in Satanic rituals to have Steele’s charisma. Steele had two negative draws that Barack Obama didn’t. One, he was a Republican, and therefore he was painted as an Uncle Tom. Two, as a Republican, he actually had to offer policy ideas. That made him less attractive as he could n’t just promise something without saying how he’d do it.

I’l grant you, McCain is a moron. But, if Obama went up against any of us from this site in a debate, his career would be over. He lost the popular vote to Hillary, and he very well may lose to McCain. He’s now in the general election and has to offer policy, and he’s dying. He’s been pandering to morons who want something new, and now he has to talk to people who want IDEAS, and he’s struggling. McCain is a crap candidate who’s only advantage is “I’m not Obama”.

Except he left out details and facts, like they gave a date of December 2010. If you played hardball with that remark like you do with Obama, you would see that they agree with Obama and not your twist on what you think Obama meant or said.

They said “We want flexibility.” They want us out as soon as possible as long as the ground conditions permit. As even Obama admitted, he was an outline, not a timetable.

As every story worth mentioning has said, Maliki has denied wanting a timetable (though some news sources like ABC go back to the original source to claim they’re right).

So, you’re clearly wrong here. Yet, like every other time you’re proven wrong, you simply ignore the facts and tell me how stupid I am.
Get hit by a bus.

Is it liberal bias when conservatives decide to vote for Obama because of the historical significance of the first black presidential nominee?

Let’s see how honest you are.

No, it’s utter stupidity.

No conservative is voting for Obama. Maybe some republicans are, but no conservative.

So, the basic Hannitized position is “I’m right, and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid.”

I wish I was an enlightened liberal who could shrug off all facts and evidence that proved me wrong.

Hey kenny, who are the people morphed into your avatar?

H: Voting is not “bias”; it’s the time spent on candidates and issues that is subject to bias. You seem confused about this.

Hey Kenny,

Is it liberal bias when conservatives decide to vote for Obama because of the historical significance of the first black presidential nominee?

Let’s see how honest you are.

So your position is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid?

Anyone who is conservative and votes for Obama is an idiot. Anyone who is libertarian and votes for Obama is an idiot.

Why? Because that person is saying “I’m gonna vote for the dude who doesn’t agree with me on ANYTHING.”

Which gets to the rest of the statement that you refused to quote:

No conservative is voting for Obama. Maybe some republicans are, but no conservative.

People who believe in small government, limited government regulations, and control of their own lives aren’t going to vote for the candidate who will tell them what Temp to set their thermometer to, how often they can drive their car, and how comfortable they can be. It’s that simple.

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

I mean, jeezus christ. Wake up! The media is going back to how it used to be. It was biased before it was fair.

Is your side the only side that can publish articles, editorial pieces that are biased? Show me favorable pieces by Charles Krauthammer.

Media Matters is a progressive organization and they do very balanced studies on the media.

That’s like saying (insert dictator’s name here) held very balanced democratic elections.

Eunichized the beardless catamite continues to demonstrate his lack of reading comprehension:

Beliefs do not constitute a reality Beardsley. Only a clueless person could conclude that it translates into facts.

I first cited a scientific study which does indeed show clear media bias, then pointed out that this demonstrable fact was penetrating the consciousness of the public:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month.

That perception has now nearly reached the tipping point, having climbed to 49% overall, one should note.

Small wonder Eunichized replied not at all to the quiz I posted earlier. Being beardless and ill-educated, we can easily guess how embarrassing such a reply and comparison would have been for our boy catamite.

It’s the begining of the media black-out on the opposition of obama.
/pun intended

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

Name them all and then what is left, 99.9% of all other news organizations are Leftist. That is not fair news, it is biased, partisan news controlled by the DNC!

Eunichized, as usual, is full of it:

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan | 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
UCLA Newsroom

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

“I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,” said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. “But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.”

“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,” said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

…

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Even worse for the purportedly unbiased news outlets, the public has indeed caught on:

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Rassmussen Reports
Monday, July 21, 2008

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

All y’all on the left have a large and growing credibility deficit.

pparets,

If Eunichized and sparkless-arse-fuckin-buckle are the best advocates the msm has, their continued downward slide in credibility seems certain.

OMG.
A private entity making its own decisions. Bothers the fuck outta you guys, eh?

Hey, if it ain’t paying, fuck it. I bet someone else will run it, pursue that.

Nice whining though.

From the complaints, it sounds like one of McCain’s little ghostwriters put together a list of umpteen times over regurgitated, bullshit talking points, refused to characterize his position, and so forth. isn’t that what you guys have been accusing obama of? bwahahaha!

such victims. poor babies. maybe you can get the fed to pursue some social justice for you. bwhahahaha.

Neiman
Do you have one of those straightjackets I can borrow?

When all else fails, mount a personal attack.

Like I was explaining to Proof-the-Doof and BattyOne just a day or two ago, I hear the ‘Sparkie has an illegitimate black baby’ one works well among the demographic you are attempting to appeal to.

Let me guess, Rush is whining about it too. You guys know that this shit is too funny. How can you even take yourselves seriously about this?

Seriously. Joke of the day! It must be all those Jewish liberal Israeli haters in NYC perpetrating this eh? Bwahahaha!

Can we get someone to force them to print it? Who can we call? Will Bush do it? Maybe we can get the NY legislature to intervene, pace Shaivo. Bwahaha!

Who knew that it was the place of New York Times editors to tell Presidential candidates what to put in their opinion pieces?

Its not. And Rob knows that. Its McCain’s choice. I didn’t know that the nytimes had to publish every surd mailed in to it?

bwahahaha! poor babies. sniffle. get me a hanky. DRUDGE! bwahahaha! free enterprise is a bitch eh?

That’s like saying (insert dictator’s name here) held very balanced democratic elections.

Are you making fun of Reagan? SO mean of you proof.

r108

Obama is a race-based candidate.

Oh no, its an attack on white male supremacy. Shave your head and move to Idaho.

rob

I didn’t say the Times had to run McCain’s piece, I said it was crap that they didn’t since they claim to be objective and they ran Obama’s piece.

Rob
Can you explain how OPINION EDITORIAL columns purport to be objective?

Its classic. It just betrays the fact that Rob thinks two asses ranting about how they are better than each other equals objectivity when printed in the same rag.

If you have a position that is relevant to objectivity, direct it at the front page, not the op-eds.

If Eunichized and sparkless-arse-fuckin-buckle are the best advocates the msm has, their continued downward slide in credibility seems certain.

Que? You guys are complaining that the NYTimes has a liberal bias! Give me a break. Since when did I deny that? I merely pointed out that y’all are hypocrites. You are all up in arms about the practices of a private business and how they aren’t fair, or… biased to things you agree with. Ha! Strikes me they could publish an op-ed of mine every day, if they wanted to. Its an op-ed. Its not a news article. Appreciate the distinction or is that too much for y’all. And on top of it, people like DRUDGE call it biased. Its too much fellas. C’mon.
The MSM all lie. I have said that before. TO call me an MSM apologist, in so far as I claim the NYTImes is objective, is patently false. I merely think that the NYTimes can and do do whatever they want. You guys have a problem with that. You are crying out for social justice. In the name of objectivity. Give me a effing break.

And yes, an editor can suggest revisions in content and determine what gets published and what doesn’t; that’s why thet’re called editors.

I didn’t say the Times had to run McCain’s piece, I said it was crap that they didn’t since they claim to be objective and they ran Obama’s piece.

And I’m pretty sure theTimes has run Obama pieces in the past too.

From way up the thread.

Hannitized:

Why is it Republicans accept having right wing leaning news organizations or publications, but refuse to accept left leaning ones?

I don’t have a problem with left-leaning publications as long as they admit that they’re left-leaning.

The Times claims to be objective. They’re lying.

That’s the problem.