Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-10-27 15:50:03 +0000
Thanks BQ.
Interesting to see even ABC spreading the 'media bias towards the left' angle. Fascinating. Who do we have 'left of center' in the media now? Village Voice? Mother Jones?
Mr. Malone's lack of objectivity is startling, and contains no hard examples, just questions. Any Joe can do that. Isn't he a journalist?
I am still waiting for the day when the 'traditional media' gives us a story explaining the bias to the right.
Posted by tgl on 2008-10-27 16:28:36 +0000
I blame the Jews.
---
Gimme 10 things about McCain that I don't know that the Liberal Media hasn't reported on. Five things?
Posted by tgl on 2008-10-27 19:56:13 +0000
Circulation declining, but that's not correlated with perceived bias.
I don't want to give too much credit to the "radical middle", but if 1/3 of your readers think your paper is too liberal, and 1/3 of your readers think it's too conservative.... what's the problem?
Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-10-28 03:16:24 +0000
So if the traditional media has a bias toward to the right, then explain to me why ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The L. A. Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Associated Press, Reuters, The Financial Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine and Newsweek have all endorsed Obama?
Posted by tgl on 2008-10-28 03:18:58 +0000
For two reasons:
Op/Eds are not news
If the forecast is for rain, and it rains, that doesn't mean the forecaster is "rain biased"
Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-10-28 03:38:51 +0000
Terry... huh? What the hell are you talking about?
Posted by tgl on 2008-10-28 14:16:41 +0000
An endorsement is not news. I agree that editorial boards prefer Democrats. But you're taking a big, unsubstantiated, leap to then say all newspapers skew their news reporting to support their endorsements.
Secondly, the preponderance of endorsements is not enough to support your conclusion either. It's just as accurate to say that Obama is the overwhelming choice. For example, if every paper endorsed "2 + 2 = 4" as correct isn't evidence of a "knows proper addition" bias.
neat-o
Posted by G lib on 2008-10-28 17:52:10 +0000
The neat-o link is really neat-o. GLib endorsed.
Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-10-28 18:42:58 +0000
That link is hosed at the moment, but let me guess:
* he doesn't talk with the press anymore
If anything, McCain was getting very favorable coverage from the press up until recently. I'd say his coverage has since evened out. They are his "base" after all. Can you imagine Romney or Giuliani having the same sort of rapport with the press corp, or even David Letterman?
An aside:
If David Letterman is now considered "liberal", then the right-wing has gone much farther off the reservation than I thought.
----
Now that the link is responding:
I agree. Balanced coverage is not what we need. Do we need more positive coverage of serial killers?
Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-10-28 20:42:27 +0000
I'd say that any established political party that adopts the "where's the balanced coverage" meme might as well be saying "our ideology and/or tactics are loathesome". Newspapers DO tend to be centrist, even these days leaning to the right - it is large corporations, after all, that provide advertising dollars which newspapers so desperately need. McCain's been reaping the rewards of the media's "maverick" storyline of his career for years. His persona is a media creation! Being in the spotlight for a presidential election creates situations even the media can't ignore. All they're doing is reporting that his campaign is crap, which is true. And so are serial killers!
Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-10-28 21:11:59 +0000
First off, I didn't know the WSJ, the AP, and Reuters, broke from tradition and endorsed a candidate. Do you have links?
Why the endorsements? Their editorial staffs believe Obama is the better candidate. Maybe I don't understand your question.
If FoxNews endorsed Obama would that make them left of center?
If the Village Voice endorsed McCain would that mean they lean right?