What media bias?

[ArlJim78]

There is some enlightening stuff coming out now from the journolist. If you don't know it is or was a group of hundreds of liberal journalists, academics, and activists who conspired to get Obama elected. The Daily Caller has rec'd copies of their correspondence, and in this article (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/)they publish some of the journolist strategy sessions during the Jeremiah Wright flare up in April 2008. its an eye opener.

example:

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:





I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.









And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.


The highlighted part sure does sound familiar doesn't it? Every time an issue comes up, out comes the dirty race card. it's a time worn tradition of the left. Its their bread and butter play. Of course we've seen them run wild with it this year, which is to be expected given the ruinous agenda they have foisted on us. I'd say we're looking at a full election season of non-stop race baiting.

[TJDave]

If you don't know it is or was a group of hundreds of liberal journalists, academics, and activists who conspired to get Obama elected.

Last time I checked, a journalist only gets one vote.

[JustRalph]

good piece. Collusion and absolute scandalous activity by media power brokers.

I hope Daily Caller has more.........if they are smart they are only leaking the least of the info first. This could be fun and enlightening.

[rastajenk]

Last time I checked, a journalist only gets one vote.I don't really believe you're that naive. If what these guys and gals think about, then write about, has no effect, then why does any news organization pay them anything at all?

[ArlJim78]

Last time I checked, a journalist only gets one vote.
I didn't figure this had to be said, but the issue is not about their votes, but about how they used their platform as journalists to actively support Obama and in this case to run interference for him on the Wright issue and in turn influence OTHER peoples votes. They were essentially working on the Obama campaign while pretending to be journalists.

[Robert Goren]

If you want to see Media Bias just follow Fox's coverage of BP and release of the Lockerbie bomber. It hardly gets a mention because they haven't figured out a way to link it to Obama yet. Nobody could figure why he was released a year ago. It is now slowly coming out despite stonewalling by the British Government.

[thaskalos]

I didn't figure this had to be said, but the issue is not about their votes, but about how they used their platform as journalists to actively support Obama and in this case to run interference for him on the Wright issue and in turn influence OTHER peoples votes. They were essentially working on the Obama campaign while pretending to be journalists. Could it be that the American people decided that BOTH presidential candidates were unworthy of their vote...and, because of the "pessimism" prevailing at the time...the majority of the voters chose the "unknown" rather than the "known"?

[bigmack]

It hardly gets a mention because they haven't figured out a way to link it to Obama yet.
I see the story as we speak on one of my screens. Looks like they put several minutes into it. Nice try though.

[TJDave]

I don't really believe you're that naive. If what these guys and gals think about, then write about, has no effect, then why does any news organization pay them anything at all?

Are you suggesting that all news organizations attempt to influence, or just the ones with which you don't agree? ;)

Then it would appear that the other side did a better job. Maybe everyone at Fox should be fired.

I just got a call from a siding salesman. He wasn't very influential.

The naive are those who are influenced.

[skate]

Last time I checked, a journalist only gets one vote.

I gots to admit:lol: that's one funny funny line.

thanks, TV Dave

[ArlJim78]

Could it be that the American people decided that BOTH presidential candidates were unworthy of their vote...and, because of the "pessimism" prevailing at the time...the majority of the voters chose the "unknown" rather than the "known"?
Maybe but why didn't we know more about Obama? Why didn't his record receive proper scrutiny by the MSM? Why were all of his past associations swept under the carpet?
I know why because the press was consumed with making up things about Sarah Palin and her children. At the time of the election we knew more about Todd Palin than Obama.

[bigmack]

Are you suggesting that all news organizations attempt to influence, or just the ones with which you don't agree? ;)
You're the one who made the goofy comment about one journalist/one vote. Now your position is they all do it?


The naive are those who are influenced.
How do you think BO got in office?


1

[BenDiesel26]

If you want to see Media Bias just follow Fox's coverage of BP and release of the Lockerbie bomber. It hardly gets a mention because they haven't figured out a way to link it to Obama yet. Nobody could figure why he was released a year ago. It is now slowly coming out despite stonewalling by the British Government.

A quick can of the three websites, Fox, MSNBC, and CNN, shows that Fox's is the only website in which I could find an article dealing with the BP/Lockerbie Association on the front page.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/british-pm-cameron-says-government-cooperate-lockerbie-hearings/?test=latestnews

I have also seen it covered at least twice today earlier when I was home. I'm curious, where did you get your information from? Can you please post the link.

[JustRalph]

journolist is a Listserv (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LISTSERV)

just in case some don't understand the term used in above

[TJDave]

You're the one who made the goofy comment about one journalist/one vote. Now your position is they all do it?

Anyone who suggests otherwise is foolish. News collection and dissemination is a for-profit business and news reporters and commentators are its sales force.

The naive are those who are influenced. How do you think BO got in office?

One marketing campaign was simply more successful. There's plenty of naïvety to go around.

[bigmack]

Anyone who suggests otherwise is foolish. News collection and dissemination is a for-profit business and news reporters and commentators are its sales force
I get it. Now I know why so many are in the red. They're the ones who have the honesty of a con man.

[TJDave]

I get it. Now I know why so many are in the red. They're the ones who have the honesty of a con man.

No, you don't. Neither side can claim the high ground. There's no such thing as 'fair and balanced'. Those in the red are peddling a product no one either wants or can afford. It's just poor marketing.

[bigmack]

No, you don't. Neither side can claim the high ground. There's no such thing as 'fair and balanced'. Those in the red are peddling a product no one either wants or can afford. It's just poor marketing.
Spare me your take on the media and the lack of varying degrees of bias. You're simply obfuscating the story at hand.

Marketing? :lol: How 'bout irrelevancy? The public gets shoveled 18 views of the world from the same set of eyes. If you don't get it, you're blind.

[delayjf]

One marketing campaign was simply more successful. There's plenty of naïvety to go around.

I still say it was the economy.