Can you recall an instance of someone representing the Obama campaign responding to a direct question with an unrelated talking in which they were not reasked the question?
I’m not saying that such a thing does not exist, but my interpretation of your posts leads me to believe that you think it happens all the time. If I’m correct, you should have no trouble finding an example (or even a bunch of examples), and if I’m wrong I’d appreciate it if you could set me straight.
Furthermore, I’m assuming, and I’m willing to be wrong, that you believe that there is no instance in which someone representing Obama has had his feet held to the fire when asked a question. I can’t think of any right now but I’ll go look and get back to you as soon as I am able.
Oh, please. I said it was an example of the bias I had been talking about upthread.
I’ve seen left-wing media bias at work for decades, going back at least to Nixon and Alger Hiss. It probably existed before then as well (media types being long-time commie sympathizers, don’t you know :D), but that seemed to be the event that kicked them into high gear.
Lance Turbo, I’m not gonna go fishing for this or that specific instance of this or that question being restated. Let me just say that I was surprised…no, disgusted… to see time after time when both Hillary Clinton and Obama were given a free pass to ignore the question asked and instead give this or that pre-planned talking-point. I can also tell you honestly that I don’t recall a single instance where the reporter or interviewer pressed for an answer of the question asked.
Also, you would be wrong in your assumption that I believe there is no instance of Obama’s feet being held to the fire. My point is that reporter aggression is much more common with right-wing politicians and spokesmen than for those on the left. Everyone but lefties sees it (although some of the more intellectually honest will occasionally acknowledge it, though they do frequently seem to feel it’s understandable and not all that egregious), and whether or not a single instance can be found to the contrary, it means nothing regarding the overall manner of coverage.
Both yours and tomndebb’s posts illustrate the futility of posting examples and attempting to use them to illustrate the larger point. tomndebb by inferring that the US cover was the sole basis for my media accusations, and you by inferring that I think no instance exists anywhere of Obama being pressed for a straight answer.
As I said upthread, I’m not going to waste time explaining myself when people engage in such verbal chicanery. Your post is sincere in tone, but to extrapolate from my posts that I believe no single instance exists of Obama’s feet being held to the fire (as if it would even matter one way or the other) strains credulity.
Also, I’m tired of fighting timeouts (I feel for ya, Jerry) and composing lengthy posts only to have them lost to the hamsters, so I’m outta her for now.
You’ve articulated your feeling that reporters are more aggressive and generally show more skepticism and scrutiny towards Republican politicians and/or their surrogates, but by only pointing towards one example, it’s hard to follow your broad extrapolations (particularly when you say that such treatment goes back to nearly a half-century or more ago).
When someone feels that they or their “side” is a victim of something, you’re naturally going to notice what you feel is more victimization than someone who doesn’t see things the same way. Which isn’t to say that your some of your argument isn’t true, but due to you noticing what you feel is media bias more than examples of media objectivity, you may have a disproportionate view of any potential media bias.
His post is his cite. Whenever pressed to come up with examples supporting his broadbrush screeds, he huffily declares that he’s seen it for, like, FOREVAH! and everybody knows it, and he’s not going to waste his time scurrying around looking for samples of the massive mountains of evidence that supports his position because, well, because, um, because! You blinkered liberals just won’t pay any attention to it because it doesn’t fit within your whiny distorted fantasy world, so there’s just no point in even bothering.
It’s just that I learned early on around here that cite requests (or demands, as the case may be) prove nothing. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an instance where some site or the other (in subjective matters such as these) serve to accomplish anything other than to obfuscate points that the cite demander doesn’t like or takes offense to.
Cites that prove objective points have value; cites attempting to prove subjective points have worse than no value because all they do is bog things down and allow the person demanding the site to feel he has won a point.
I’ve thought several times about pitting the cite bullshit that goes on around here, and which is used as a refuge by the intellectually dishonest whenever they feel their opponent has made a valid point which they can’t refute otherwise.
Again, objective cites have value; subjective sites are bullshit…and I think you damn well know it!
And while we’re on the subject of subjective cites, how about some showing that I have ever, in my 5,000 plus posting history, ever referred to liberals as “blinkered”, “whiny”, or any of the other erroneous stereotypical claims you’ve made around here over the years as to how I characterize liberals.
Your assertions are verifyably false, and if you think about it you will know that.
I know I said I was out of here, but posting seems to be going okay and ETF got me cranked up. I thought highly of her at one time for some reason and I’m always shocked, disappointed and embarrassed about the esteem I once had for her when she cranks up another one of her lying screeds about how I behave around here.
But be that as it may, your post is obviously sincere and made in good faith. So I’ll say that yes, you could be right in that I only see left-wing bias because I’m a right-wing poster, but if so the numbers like me are legion. Prior to the rise of Rush Limbaugh, conservative citizens had no voice. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Hollywood and many popular magazines (Playboy being foremost among them) all projected what was really a leftist viewpoint, but which they were fooling themselves into thinking was really a centrist point of view. Similar to the characterization of Dan Rather, who was described by Bernie Goldberg as believing the country consisted of two types of people: reasonable correct-thinking Americans, and right-wing nut jobs.
To their chagrin, as it turns out the people they considered right-wing nutjobs make up approximately fifty percent of the population. Limbaugh recognized this imbalance and played upon it extremely effectively, and with the subsequent advent of talk radio and cable television, the pent-up resentment long felt by those of us on the right finally had a voice.
Simply put, had not left-wing media bias existed, the programs of Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Fox News, etc. would not exist.
Also, kindly overlook the numerous typing/spelling errors in my recent posts. I’ve been typing hastily so as to keep ahead of the hamsters. I do know the difference between site and cite, and how to spell “verifiably”. :smack:
I noticed that tonight not only did Campbell Brown go out of her way to say a whole bunch of nice things about Palin, but the after-speech panel did some soul searching about their bias. At one point, they were talking about who the speechwriter was, and Anderson Cooper pointed out that focusing on the speechwriter was an Obama campaign talking point, to deflect praise of the speech by saying she didn’t write it, and that during the Democratic convention they never once mentioned the speechwriters who wrote the speeches for Obama and Biden and the others.
Then later, when Wolf Blitzer said that the convention was being run by the right wing types on the convention floor, John King interrupted to point out that during the Democrat’s convention they never said that their convention was being run by their left-wing base, consisting of union organizers, teachers union reps, etc. And that disparity in tone and coverage was one of the reasons why the right was complaining about bias.
So apparently John McCain did a little damage by pulling his interview, or maybe caused them to do a little honest-to-God honest reflection.
This is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. Thank you for such a great laugh. Especially coming immediately after you were given an objective cite (for the second time) about news coverage.
What a great example of republican obfuscation. If you don’t have a cite, or in the face of opposing cites, claim that cites don’t mean anything. That’s classic. You know what I would like to see? You reading that post in a mirror. I would love to see if you could do it with a straight face.
The interview that launched this thread was about foreign policy experience, a McCain campaign talking point.
There was plenty of coverage about how the Democratic Convention was run. Anybody else remember the “sustainably-harvested wood” hotel key cards that didn’t work? The organic food? Union Labor?
Where’s coverage of the Republicans’ environmental and labor practices at their convention?
My point was not just that using a scandal rag does nothing to prove your point, but that despite the fact that you have used that example to illustrate your point on more than one occasion (going back into the Lost weekend) and being challenged on the fact that it is not really MSM, you have failed to provide any other example of this purported bias. If the best (and, apparently, only) example is US Weekly, then, indeed, your claim is silly.
Shodan, please provide the names of sources you would consider objective other than Fox News and the Washington Times, and what you would consider to be proof.
No offense, but I suspect you are not reading this correctly. “Peer-reviewed” means published in a publication that is peer-reviewed.
He used research assistants in his study. He was not studying college students.
What Grossclose is saying here is that this is a new approach to the study of media bias, which the author came up with as a result of his experience studying Congress.
Now then, do you have an equivalent study that shows that Fox News slants its coverage to the right? Or the Washington Times?
