Politics – The White House on Monday sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of "deceptively" editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran. At issue were remarks Bush made in front of Israel's parliament earlier this week.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
cptnkrk
rylandl831968
romeohoover1968
leeharris1969
cocacolerrr
investment123
Endoscopy
alamala
TemplarScribe
CactusAnnie
DebraJMSmith
mcarpentry
birddog54
avpd85
DianCor
joeeddie
sleepingbeauty2
DrRingRing
ind06
blico
saracountrygrl
chandebum
JamesMarcus
hamy
Charlson
NoSpinDave
OhDear
nickjones321
food875dog
AlphaGnosis
satansatan
Newandnew
jomarjarmo
MoinesDirt
kibasilasa
jasonlowjy
Monte G
ningyo
TonyByron
TheAttacks
corey.spring
MyWayOnNow
nightcrawlerX
jacqueline.eliana
Bkumm
julia09
ZiegfeldGirl
hurr1
newbie0420
DropkickaLib
176)
This is why it is best to videotape all interviews while being conducted -- whether you are a politician, business professional or otherwise in a position to be interviewed on camera.
Kind of refutes the whole notion of "right wing" media bias.
"Kind of refutes the whole notion of "right wing" media bias."
Not really.
You take far left views, and far right views, find the middle and the majority of media falls slightly right of middle.
You clearly have no idea where the "middle" lies. Several studies have affirmed media have a liberal bias. Talk radio is about the only venue with a right wing bias, partly because Air America sucks. Of course, Dems would love to shut down the dissenters and censor free speech.
Why would we love to do that?
I'm a dem; I don't want to. Don't know any dems that do.
Free speech and dissent are fine with us.
" I'm a dem; I don't want to. Don't know any dems that do.
Free speech and dissent are fine with us."
You weren't paying attention last summer when dems were talking about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" to shut up Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others. They were bent out of shape about not getting a chance to pass the amnesty bills.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjhlMGYwOD...
The fairness doctrine would not silence Rush or his clones. It would however, require stations that air those politcally charged rants and insulting tirades to provide air time to opposing political views. Since these stations are broadcasting on public airwaves, station who do not comply could and should be fined and/or have their license revoked.
But which one of these rabid right wing talk show hosts want to have their rants scrutinized.
"The fairness doctrine would not silence Rush or his clones. It would however, require stations that air those politcally charged rants and insulting tirades to provide air time to opposing political views."
It would be nice to hear some balance from airamerica and it's clones too. You know the ones who "...air those politcally charged rants and insulting tirades..." But would they be exempt since they only have 27 listeners?
"...the Supreme Court ruled that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." Finally, in 1984, the Supreme Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the Fairness Doctrine was flawed and that the Fairness Doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate..."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/219167...
But which one of these rabid left wing talk show hosts want to have their rants scrutinized.?
The fairness doctrine would apply to all stations broadcasting on public airwaves.
Yep, be careful what you wish for.
LOL
We had the fairness doctrine for a while. The effect is to stop ALL discussion on a topic because the other points of view are required to be given equal time. That meant that if someone gave his opinion on something like the effect of taxes each splinter party would line up to get their equal time. An if one of them mentioned something else here they come again. No station subjected themselves to that after a time or two. All discussion was stopped. The current doctrine according to Pelosi would only apply to radio. Good bye talk radio. That is her intention.
Air America is a response to Faux News Channel. It was an attempt to bring some balance to the media.
Oh please, air america is hardly comparable to fox news.
Randy Rhodes springs to mind.
What alternate universe have you been hiding in. Air America was started with much fanfare as the response to the horrible conservatives that rule radio. They were supposed to eventually move the conservatives into a splinter part of radio. The problem is they never got the ratings needed to even compete except in liberal strong holds.
That's because they are considered "news" by their listeners when they are really entertainment. To be considered "news" they SHOULD be held to a higher standard.
What you and other liberals don't seem to be able to comprehend is that the reason for the popularity of the shows is that they are saying what the people already believe.
"Several studies have affirmed media have a liberal bias."
Post the studies, then let people see the sources. Right-Wing 'research' every time.
As opposed to FAIR and their reports. The media may be owned by large corporations but the overwhelming majority of the journalists are very much liberal.
"The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s."
(continued)
"The book's most thorough case study involved nuclear energy. The survey of journalists showed that most were highly skeptical about nuclear safety. However, the authors conducted a separate survey of scientists in energy related fields, who were much more sanguine about nuclear safety issues. They then conducted a content analysis of nuclear energy coverage in the media outlets they had surveyed. They found that the opinions of sources who were cited as scientific experts reflected the antinuclear sentiments of journalists, rather than the more pro-nuclear perspectives held by most energy scientists."
(continued)
"The authors concluded that journalists' coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality. At the time the study was embraced mainly by conservative columnists and politicians, who adopted the findings as "scientific proof" of liberal media bias."
(continued)
"Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored."
(continued)
"Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
Are you completely insane?
NBC is owned by General Electric. Do you think liberals are in charge of General Electric???? Idiot.
NBC is run by Jeffrey Zucker.
Anti,
Are you saying Tim Russert is a conservative? Are any of their reporters conservative? Is MSNBC conservative? If so then I sure have the wrong definition of conservative.
Anybody can put anything in wikipedia. as if you didn't know that.
Classic, a moron righty denying the truth.
No moron, its Conserv apedia you can fill with your right wing trash.
g-man!
That clinches it. I knew your conversation on another thread was one person talking to himself.
"Anybody can put anything in wikipedia. as if you didn't know that."
ROFLMAO!!! I am going to remember you said that. Pay attention everyone! The Left have now declared Wikipedia invalid!
Boy, Neo and Aidenag are going to be peeved, wiki is their Bible!
Is that your strange way of denying that fact? Why would that make you roll on the floor laughing? I do believe however, that it is being used by some people as gospel.
Live it to a neoclown to cite a work that is 20 plus years and a least a generation old as her primary source and justification for her rant! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Sorry, but that pig won't fly these days for the social dynamic as well as media ownership has changed dramatically since then!
That's a fact. That IS a fact.
"Post the studies, then let people see the sources. Right-Wing 'research' every time."
UCLA is right wing research?
Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. I have more pressing matters at the moment than to lift your veil ignorance.
"Post the studies, then let people see the sources. Right-Wing 'research' every time."
Pew Center and UCLA. Yeah, real bastions of the right wing!! LMAO
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias...
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bar...
You can ad "Bias," by Bernard Goldberg as well. Never heard of him? Not surprising. Shows how Dan Rather and CBS news execs manipulated content slanted toward a liberal bias. But, keep pretending everything is a right-wing conspiracy. It illustrates your ignorance of media.
Hold on and I'll get you another, libsrfunny.
"A Rasmussen Reports survey on perceptions of media bias found that Americans tend to believe that the New York Times, Washington Post, and their local newspaper all show a bias in favor of liberals. A plurality believes that the Wall Street Journal delivers the news without bias.
An earlier survey found that Americans also tend to believe that the major broadcast networks, CNN, and NPR all have a liberal bias."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...
"Perceptions" - It just goes to show how effective the 30 year bleating of "Librul Media Bias" by Republicans has been. Even as the Republican A list team takes the airwaves - Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Malkin, Buchanan, Savage, Scarborough to name a few - and actually have the gall to rail on about the "Librul Bias" from their 100,000 watt megaphones. I feel like asking them, 'are you part of the big M Media?'
It's really been quite an effective strategy. The same as Republicans have worked for years against unions and trial lawyers.
Now the common worker is begging without the strength of collective bargaining.
And an unbiased jury can't be found.
"Even as the Republican A list team takes the airwaves - Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ingraham, Malkin, Buchanan, Savage, Scarborough to name a few - and actually have the gall to rail on about the "Librul Bias" from their 100,000 watt megaphones."
Yeah, Matthews, Olbermann, Williams, Gregory, Shuster, Franken, et al don't have a chance, do they?
The authors of the UCLA study are right wing conservatives. The study was funded by the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and another conservative think tank. Hardly an unbiased study.
It doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on a pig it still remains a pig! To say that the MSM has a liberal bias based upon two flawed studies (that's right flawed - look at the methodology used if you don't believe me) is ludicrous.
The most recent that I've seen was done by Harvard.
Here's two separate articles that explain the study:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?i...
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?i...
Liberal bias was much more pervasive until ownership changed to corporations from the liberal power mongers who dominated newspapers until the 1980's.
Leo Rosten wrote a book in the 30's called The Washington Correspondents that detailed how just how endemic liberal media bias was in Washington. Current studies show that the American public believe the bias to be present in the range of 65% towards a liberal point of view and about 27% towards a conservative point of view. It's a problem no matter which side you take.
The studies I've seen were done by right wing outfits and were clearly biased in their own "study"
"Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches."
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262
The Zogby brothers are hardly right wing.
and many of those people believe it leans left because they are told so over and over again by the right wing polititians, pundits, etc, etc.
How about a couple of headlines that ran on air and in the papers like NYT.
President Reagan shut down the government today by refusing to sign the appropriations bill that congress sent him.
Congress today shut down the government today by refusing to give President Clinton an appropriations bill he would sign.
I remember those vividly. They are fair and balanced of course to a liberal.
I find it amusing that there are people that actually believe that the 'mainstream' media is "right of middle"...
Some people really need to get other sources for information...
I find it amusing you don't even bother to understand who owns, who owns, who owns the american media.
Is Murcock liberal? (owner of O'Reily)
Is GE, owner of NBC universal, and owner of the building NBC news broadcasts from a liberal company?
Is CBS, owned by westinghouse, controlled by Viacom (who provides Rush Lamebaugh his aire time and signs his checks and tells him what he can and cannot say) a liberal organization?
Is ABC/Disney, owned and operated by Esiner, and held by a cabal in Israel a liberal organization?
You need to consider that the media in American is 100% owned by corporations who's only purpose it to make money for their shareholders. NOT exactly a formula for liberalism. MORON
LOL
"who provides Rush Lamebaugh his aire time and signs his checks and tells him what he can and cannot say"
What planet have you been living on. Rush says whatever comes into his head. He has information gathered to talk about but he says what he wants to. That fact is why he is so popular. Everybody that knows him personally says what you hear is how he talks off the air.
The difference between the edited and unedited interview seems to be insignificant.
If anybody does feel that it there are significant differences, it would be constructive to point out what the difference are and why they might have significance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24716118/ (link from John Q. Public; see below).
Check the next page.