Friday, October 31, 2008
Comments:
<< Home
This idiotic attitude also speaks to the claims of "liberal media bias" that the right parades about constantly: When a candidate says something that is not true, it is "biased" to point it out.
Likewise, when a candidate structures their entire campaign around attacks, even devoting 100 percent of their ad buys to negative ads, it is "biased" to point it out.
The McCain campaign claims this exactly. It is "biased" of the media to point out that his campaign has been overwhelmingly negative for the past 30 days---and it is really "biased" to point out that Obama's campaign has not stooped to this gutter level.
Therefore, the media is "in the tank for Obama". See how simple it is to see the world like a right-winger?
Cap'n John
Likewise, when a candidate structures their entire campaign around attacks, even devoting 100 percent of their ad buys to negative ads, it is "biased" to point it out.
The McCain campaign claims this exactly. It is "biased" of the media to point out that his campaign has been overwhelmingly negative for the past 30 days---and it is really "biased" to point out that Obama's campaign has not stooped to this gutter level.
Therefore, the media is "in the tank for Obama". See how simple it is to see the world like a right-winger?
Cap'n John
# posted by 
: 3:04 PM
: 3:04 PM
Palin indeed said something silly here about the 1st Amendment (tempered only somewhat by her immediate example of Joe the Plumber, who was investigated by media and state government merely for asking an inconvenient question of Obama).
It's a good think Biden never says such silly things, like volunteering an argument based on total confusion between Article I and Article II of the Constitution, since he's been head of the Judiciary Committee and will probably be the VP soon. Oh, wait...
That said John, there are clearer examples of media bias than the media's claims that McCain's campaign is more negative than Obama's. Like the selective editing of the Palin-Gibson interview.
It's a good think Biden never says such silly things, like volunteering an argument based on total confusion between Article I and Article II of the Constitution, since he's been head of the Judiciary Committee and will probably be the VP soon. Oh, wait...
That said John, there are clearer examples of media bias than the media's claims that McCain's campaign is more negative than Obama's. Like the selective editing of the Palin-Gibson interview.
Dave, Having not read the criteria of the study you site, I have one question:
Would a media report that McCain has been running 100% negative ads while Obama has been running a 50/50 mix, be considered a "negative" story for McCain and a "positive" one for Obama?
If so, I would suggest that, in the words of Stephen Colbert, the facts have a liberal bias.
Would a media report that McCain has been running 100% negative ads while Obama has been running a 50/50 mix, be considered a "negative" story for McCain and a "positive" one for Obama?
If so, I would suggest that, in the words of Stephen Colbert, the facts have a liberal bias.
greg,
We are not in disagreement that it is silly to consider the press to be biased when they are merely reporting inconvenient facts. My point was that one can indeed find bias in the form of dishonest coverage in other stories, for example in the editing of the Palin-Gibson interview, or in the fact that the press widely reported the news that Palin was avoiding press conferences in the initial days after her selection, while ignoring the news that Palin has had several full press conferences in the past couple week, while the other 3 candidates had had none in over a month, at least as of a couple days ago.
You of course also highlight any story you think benefits the Democrats, while ignoring any story which benefits the Republicans. Since you are a blogger -- essentially a columnist -- and make no secret of your ideology, there is nothing wrong with this. For ABC News to act in the same fashion is more problematic, and yes, "biased."
Post a Comment
We are not in disagreement that it is silly to consider the press to be biased when they are merely reporting inconvenient facts. My point was that one can indeed find bias in the form of dishonest coverage in other stories, for example in the editing of the Palin-Gibson interview, or in the fact that the press widely reported the news that Palin was avoiding press conferences in the initial days after her selection, while ignoring the news that Palin has had several full press conferences in the past couple week, while the other 3 candidates had had none in over a month, at least as of a couple days ago.
You of course also highlight any story you think benefits the Democrats, while ignoring any story which benefits the Republicans. Since you are a blogger -- essentially a columnist -- and make no secret of your ideology, there is nothing wrong with this. For ABC News to act in the same fashion is more problematic, and yes, "biased."
<< Home
