« ‘Mexicutioner’ tag offensive | Main | Relocate 18th and Vine »

July 29, 2008

Networks show pro-Obama bias

The three big news networks showed their true colors in reporting the news last week when NBC, CBS and ABC each sent one of their top anchors to accompany Barack Obama on his first visit to the troubled Mideast. The big three networks are not fooling anyone that this was not politically motivated to help Obama in his quest for the presidency of the United States.

This same courtesy should have been accorded to John McCain on his trips to the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shame on the three liberal networks for letting their left-leaning bias take over commonsense judgment. They ignored a candidate who is a true American patriot in every sense of the word.

May God truly bless the land that has been ours for more than 230 years.

Gerhard Schulz
Independence

Comments

Chris40

This pretty much sums it up:

'Time' Publishes Definitive Obama Puff Piece

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_publishes_definitive_obama

kcstar_is_one_sided

whispering:

"Small wonder you and your friends are confusing the "Center for Media and Public Affairs" with "Media Matters for America"."

Please show me where confused the two. (Here's a hint: I didn't)


Cassady -

You seemed to have left off the most important part of my statement. "and they try to get the "Fairness Doctrine" passed to stop freedom of speech". I know you mentioned it, but that is what I see as the real issue.

whispering_to_kc

"whispering_because_i_have_a _drool_cup ..."

Ouch!! You showed me!! Ouch!!

Small wonder you and your friends are confusing the "Center for Media and Public Affairs" with "Media Matters for America".

It must be all the "M" words.

Casady

"The big difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see inequity between reporting because they basically have 1 network and talk radio that share their views and complain about it. Liberals see inequity between reporting because there is 1 network and talk radio that doesn't share their views"

While I agree the fairness doctrine is a load of bunk, there are plenty of Conservative media outlets, both on line and in print to go around.

I've always found the whole liberal biased argument incredibly subjective. It seems that only the hard core conservatives like yourself are the only ones who complain about it. The only other group who complain about media bias as a whole are hard core liberals who claim MSM is not liberal enough so who is one to believe? KC Star too liberal? Read the Washington Times. Daily Kos too liberal? Go to Town Hall. No one is making anyone watch, read or listen. For example, just because NPR chooses to review Yo La Tengo's latest release over Toby Keith's does not make them liberal. It just means they have good taste.

solomon


Would you all feel better if all of the networks were bland and did not show a preference. They won't do that because they know you are all watching. without the drama we'd be back to waiting for commercials so we can judge which maxi pad with wings is best for bikini wear.

hurry the morning of Nov 5.

kcstar_is_one_sided

whispering_because_i_have_a _drool_cup:

"FOX is on 24 hrs/day. The nightly network news shows are only on for 30 minutes each evening. FOX may have 1/10 the viewers the network news has between 5:30 and 6:00 but they have those viewers for 48 times as long?"

And the difference between Fox and MSNBC and CNN is what? And those networks are carrying Obama jock strap.

The big difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see inequity between reporting because they basically have 1 network and talk radio that share their views and complain about it. Liberals see inequity between reporting because there is 1 network and talk radio that doesn't share their views, and they try to get the "Fairness Doctrine" passed to stop freedom of speech.

Jim

In 2006, when the Center for Media and Politics released its annual report, it found that the coverage that year favored Democrats more than Republicans. Conservatives hailed the head of that organization, Robert Lichter, as a truth-telling hero, and used his findings as proof of a "conspiracy" in the media.

Now this report, which uses the exact same methodology, has a different conclusion based on the reporting so far this year, and the conservatives are having a conniption fit. Bill O'Reilly practically carried Lichter on his shoulders two years ago. Last night, though, he ripped him a new one. Since his studies are all done in the exact same way every time, Lichter told O'Reilly he can either "take all my studies or none of my studies."

The Audacity of Selective Outrage.

kcstar_is_one_sided

So poor Obama is getting slammed by the media, or so I would expect from the comments on this thread. Yes, there is a study, but did you take time to read it. Do you know what constitutes a positive or negative comment?

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive). That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.

This is a major turnaround since McCain and Obama emerged as front-runners in the early primaries. From the New Hampshire primary on January 8 until Hillary Clinton dropped out on June 7, Obama’s coverage was 62% positive (v. 38% negative) on the broadcast networks; by contrast, McCain’s coverage during this period was only 34% positive (v. 66% negative).

Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8. During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain.

Obama’s bad press has come at a time when he was much more visible than McCain. Since June 8, he has been the subject of 120 stories on the three network evening news shows, 50% more than John McCain’s 80 stories.

Examples of Obama’s evaluations:

Positive: “Obama came to Baghdad and he brought his star power with him…..hundreds of U.S. troops and State Department personnel mobbed Obama at the embassy here.” –Terry Moran, ABC

Negative: “You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, ‘why’?” – Katie Couric, CBS

Negative: “Far more Americans say John McCain would be a good commander in chief than Obama” – Jake Tapper, ABC


Poor Obama, he has to answer why he still is against a surge that has clearly worked.

GCYL

“The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University,”

Never mind. Simple observation would indicate that this is not Media Matters. Typical Rouge. You have to give credence to their findings until you can prove it’s another den full of “evil leftist ideology”. Frankly I’m not chasing those types of boogiemen.

GCYL

“Established in May 2004, Media Matters for America is a "web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center" seeking to "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation." But in addition to "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible," the organization's concept of "misinformation" includes anything that "forwards the conservative agenda." Thus political differences of opinion are often portrayed by Media Matters as lies or worse.”

//snip//

“Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, a spokesman for the organization explained that "Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros" (emphasis added), a transparent evasion.

Nor were groups cited by CNS the only connection between Media Matters and Soros. As investigative journalist Byron York has noted, another Soros affiliate that bankrolled Media Matters was the New Democratic Network. In addition, Soros is reported to be involved in the newly formed Democracy Alliance, a partnership of some 80 affluent financiers who each have vowed to contribute $1 million or more in order to build up an ideological infrastructure of leftist thinks tanks and advocacy groups. News reports list Media Matters as a main beneficiary of the Alliance's funding. By August of 2004, Media Matters' operating budget had already doubled to $4 million.

To summarize, Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters.

Prior to founding Media Matters, David Brock met with a number of leading Democratic Party figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and former Vice President Al Gore. Today, more than a few of the organization's roughly 30 staff members are Democratic operatives. Among these are Media Matters' chief communications strategist Dennis Yedwab, who is also the Director of Strategic Resources at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Brock's personal assistant, Mandy Vlasz, is a Democratic pollster and a veteran consultant to Democratic campaigns, including the 2000 Gore/Lieberman campaign. Katie Barge, the Director of Research at Media Matters, formerly presided over opposition research for Senator John Edwards' unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign.” – end

Are we talking about the same Media Matters? Are there more than one blog site with “Media Matters” in it’s name?

GCYL

"ours"-Schulz

Any help from the gallery with who he meant? - solomon

You act as if you’re not included. Why? You’re not an American citizen?

Jim

"Center for Media Matters, isn't that the George Soros funded 501 C3?"

Try again. That's not even a real entity you've made up, Rogue. The study comes from a non-partisan media research group that is unaffiliated with Media Matters or George Soros. It drives you up the wall that they've found the truth, doesn't it?

Rogue

Center for Media Matters, isn't that the George Soros funded 501 C3? What a hoot they find a negative bias for Osama Yoamma among the three majors...right, and I have a bridge I want you to consider buying....

cooker_fox

Actually a recent poll shows that whiner McCain is getting the bias..

http://www.latimes.com/...

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

solomon

"ours"-Schulz

Any help from the gallery with who he meant?

Jim

"This same courtesy should have been accorded to John McCain on his trips to the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq."

McCain didn't invite the networks, nor offer them a place on his campaign plane. Obama did. It's as simple as that.

McCain taunts Obama about going overseas, then whines when he goes overseas and has a successful trip. Phil Gramm had it wrong. We're not a nation of whiners, there's just one giant whiner named McCain wanting to lead the nation.

T. Hanson

Saving them for you Rogue.

Rogue

Thank you T for your observation, I see you are off your meds again.

T. Hanson

Kudos to Rogue for learning to make other words out of the abbreviations. You deserve a cookie and a star. Now go get your mat and lay down it is nap time.

Rogue

I see the horsey (whisperer) is off on another window licking rant about his/her? ordained daring to be criticized.

Of course everyone knows there is absolutely no bias coming from the National Barack Company, The Columbia Barack System, and the Always Barack Company! How could anyone doubt such truths? Right Horsey?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright