Is this the same WaPo that apologized the week after the 2008 election for their love affair with Obama?
When my son was only a child we drove past the St Petersberg Times rack. He said, Wow, Gore is so much taller than Bush”.
Even kids notice. It’s the small things - the conservative point of view in the bottom half of the article, the “Here is Mr Kennedy, and now far-right Jesse Helms”, the interest in digging through Palin’s garbage while totally ignoring Obama’s associations with criminals, the rapidity with which a scandal involving a conservative appears in the news while only the Enquirer chases John Edwards down the stairs.
Over and over and over.
Excuse me, we aren’t stupid.
My personal recollections of the 1950s and 1960s. Cities had newspapers that represented both sides (and more) back then. Then a not so funny thing happened..
TV news replaced newspapers and one side emerged as dominant, the bias became obvious to conservatives but liberals did not see it. It's what they always did.
My letters of complaint to the TV networks were answered with "We're professionals and you're not."
For example, the networks saw nothing wrong with 24/7 demands that South Viet Nam hold honest, supervised elections as a foreign-inspired insurgency raged; and hardly a discouraging word reported about the COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP OF THE FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT CREATED THE WAR AND WOULD NEVER HAVE ANYTHING RESEMBLING A HONEST ELECTION.
.. and it wasn't just Walter "Communist North Viet Nam's most trusted man in America" Cronkite waving the "Red, blue, and yellow protest banner" opposing America in the war.
However Time and U.S. News and World Report were real news magazines back then and you could trust them, it seemed to me.
One big flaw in their story, FR doesn’t report news (with rare exceptions), this site is a forum where people comment on news. Of course there will be a bias of opinion to that of the membership. FR doesn’t pretend to be an unbiased media outlet.
The early part of those years there were multiple newspapers in cities all over America representing all sides. Most are gone and disappeared as TV "news" took over.
Do two studies of “Media Bias in Presidential Election Coverage 1968-2008: Evaluation via Formal Measurement” and get back to us in the morning.
The “everyone thinks like me,” fallacy. Also known as the psychiatrist’s or historian’s fallacy.
(Or the Polly “Wants a Cracker” Kael-fallacy.)
You see a lot of it here, too. Known in the vernacular as “pure, unadulterated b***-s***”.
I just watched a C-Span show this morning from the American Historical Association annual convention which had a panel discussing the nexus between journalism and history.
Not surprisingly, the entire panel was made up of professors who self-described themselves as “left, progressive, or socialist” and who criticized O’reilly’s book on Lincoln as ridicluous, Beck ridiculous, Gingrich ridiculous and FOX News as ridiculously biased. Apparently there are no voices on the conservative side which are worthy of consideration by the public, although past history shows that these views can mislead the public into error.
On the other hand, they agreed that journalism should serve to create a “moral, poetic and decent narrative” of history and events. In other words, current events and historical perspective must be creatively in the service of ... wait for it ...progressive ideas.
So, according to this theory, the ‘creative’ editing of the 991 Treyvon Martin tape is OK because it was an attempt to create a moral poetic and and decent narrative.
What we have here is a complete universe of closed minds. In the famous story about Pauline Kael of the NYT. “I don’t know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him.”
The percentage of biased articles may not have changed much, but the level or degree of bias has, to the point where it's assumed that no one could seriously take the other side on the issues the paper cares about. A generation ago, it was assumed that argument was still necessary. Today they simply dismiss opposing viewpoints as ridiculous.
bttt
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE! From creating their own facts to leaving facts out, slanting articles and quoting unnamed sources the media from top to bottom is a despicable representation of factual information. With very few exceptions, there is no lower echelon of career opportunity than becoming part of this biased and purposeful herd that thinks America needs to be punished for holding to the values that allows for them to practice their cesspool trade.
". . . some key [events] exacerbated the national debate, fraying trust, and national cohesion just a little more each time . . . The two-party system that had governed America . . . begin to fall apart . . . interest in politics took the place of all other forms of news-related entertainment . . . politicians were the celebrities . . . [Politics/ideology] was becoming such a habit, the reactions so automatic, that [journalists] taking sides on every news story became inevitable." .. sound familiar? this is from for Love & Liberty by Robin Young and it's about 1857 America at the start of the administration of James Buchanan.
This term Obama wanted us to believe that he was a Lincoln and a Teddy Roosevelt (with a taunting of Reagan to rock and roil the Ship of State).. if the second term proves he's a Buchanan and the professionals (military and LEO) do not act Lord help us.
How hard-working is the MSM? So hard-working that the FOLLOWING people have proven able to break MAJOR political scandals:
1. A former gift-shop clerk - Drudge
2. A former LA party boy - Breitbart
3. A freeper in his pajamas - Dan Rather TypewriterGate
4. A college guy who said Lucky Charms demeaned Irish - O’Keefe
5. A girl with a hot caboose and a mini skirt - O’Keefe’s girl buddy
THE ABOVE PEOPLE ARE DOING THE JOBS OF COLUMBIA J-SCHOOL GRADS