Yes – but just because “everyone saw” it does not mean it existed, as you know.
So you’re saying “everybody knows” it’s true? Sounds like a stretch to me.
“Everybody knows” a lot of things which are bullshit. That’s why the Straight Dope exists — to debunk the things which “everybody knows” that aren’t necessarily true.
IIRC they were emphasizing the phenomenon that the Clinton campaign was taking pains to get us to see. I’m not saying it wasn’t there at all, just that there may be another reason “everyone saw” it.
Also, bias in the Dem primaries and bias in the general election may be two different things, for much the same reason that Obama may win some states in the general that he lost in the primaries.
You cited an organization specifically set up by the left. That’s not gauntlet, it’s paid political advertisement.
Where things get murky is the media need to appear non-partisan. When the news for the McCaininites is running the gamut from bad to very, very bad, that becomes increasingly difficult.
Add to that mix the sheer certainty that news media people are wonks, by neccesity. They are immersed in this stuff, drenched in it, it is impossible to expect that they wouldn’t form an opinion.
Appearing non-partisan is tougher than it sounds. We monkeys are hard-wired to seek non-verbal clues in posture, facial expressions, etc. If a newsie has formed an opinion, say, in favor of Obama and does his/her level best to present the facts without bias, then they have to act, not report. They have to falsify an impartiality that they do not feel. Which is trickier than it sounds.
They owe me money?
The content of that article is what’s called content analysis. What the authors consider proof of pro-McCain bias is laid out plain and clear. RW organizations can do their own content analysis if they wish, as can politically neutral scholars (assuming the existence of such) of the media. If they have, by all means bring it.
My point remains: What we’ve got this year is either a fair playing field or one that favors the Pubs. Unlike the Dems after the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Pubs will have no reasonable grounds whatsoever to complain of this one, “We wuz robbed!”
So how about my Pew Research Center cite saying essentially the same thing?
I didn’t see this skit, but I do recall Clinton, or pundits who preferred Clinton, complaining that she was being picked on unfairly for being a woman. Could that have been part of the joke as well? Sort of a “What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow” versus “What is your favorite color” thing.
One might also point out that SNL is not a news organization. They can be as biased as they please, as long as they keep the revenue stream flowing.
…nearly a decade ago.
I think that’s the case for a lot of MSM, as well. I do wonder if 24/7 news outlets haven’t killed what they claim to espouse. “News never sleeps,” but it does occasionally take a breath. What do you do when there is nothing newsworthy going on? Plug the holes in your lineup with people like Joe Scarborough or Keith Olbermann and call it “news,” and don’t even bother running a disclaimer that what’s being reported is opinion.
I’m confused as to your point. Your site showed repressed information on Obama by the media.
No, they were dramatizing a claim that Hillary supporters had already made, which was bullshit… which was why it was funny.
This is way too sensible to be accepted as true. But good try!
::sigh::
I’ll try this once again…read their conclusions (bolding mine to help):
Sure. And relevant, too… if only I had claimed that SNL was biased.
But I’m offering that observation to prove only that the SNL writers knew everyone seeing the sketch would think it was funny because they had already seen to bias at work in real life.
It’s still merely some comedy writer’s point of view, not a universal truth. You could just as well make the argument that they are making fun of the *perception *of media bias.
This suggests that George W. Bush really is an idiot, and that Palin really is a bubblehead — because if SNL is making fun of it, it must be based on a commonly understood truth.
Or is it possible that they are using humor to exaggerate a popular perception? Or to lampoon the complaints about bias? Or to provide an amusing contrast?
Is it conceivable that the focus of their humor is not media bias (as you allege) but to highlight the readiness of the candidates? Let me counter this with another example from Entertainment Weekly:
The above quote represents a question that Stephen Colbert’s writers hoped would be asked at the VP debates. Does this represent a) an example of right-wing media bias, lobbing softballs to the Republican candidate, or b) a mockery of Palin’s unpreparedness?
Oh yeah, you got me there. Since the data do not provide conclusive answers, this has altered the past and John McCain didn’t run for the presidency back in 2000.
Way to fight ignorance!
They also used to do a lot of sketches about how Gerald Ford was a total klutz. This despite the fact that he was a talented college football player who passed up a career in the NFL to attend law school. But, hey, they had Chevy Chase fall on a Christmas tree in a sketch once, so clearly Ford was a stumblebum who couldn’t cross the room with tripping over his own feet.