That’s not even a misspelling at all. It’s just a picture taken from the wrong side. It’d be correct for someone facing in the same direction as the President.
Maybe, but as the essay notes that is only part of the bias in terms of deciding what issues to cover/not cover.
And a number of members of the media have been caught out trying to spin things to Obama’s before.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072206024.htm l
Wait. Wait wait wait wait wait. Are you saying that sometimes human beings are more eager to have someone they like seen positively? And someone who treats them like garbage negatively? I’d say stop the press, but that’s a little too puny for me.
I think there is some validity to OP. I thought it was ridiculous that some people pretended Quayle or Gerald Ford were morons. I make a lot of simple verbal gaffes myself, as my kids constantly point out (though I think I was much less gaffish in my 40’s than now in my 60’s).
Frankly, though, I’d prefer a President who slips “intercontinental” for “transcontinental” to one who claims "47 percent of the public believe they are victims … My job is not to worry about those people, I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” And then justifies the remark because it was “unscripted.”
Was this a gaffe by you, Chen019 ? Even if we concede that the liberal media gives an easier ride to Obama, to think that Fox News is only “equally biased” seems [checks forum] under-informed.
When I saw the OIHO image and the comment that it might have been photoshopped, I wondered if it was as simple as this original image being reversed.
I wondered about magnifying the image to see if Obama’s freckle was in mirror-image position, but then realized there was a trivial way to verify that the image was not a mirror-image : zra’f fuvegf’ ohggba’f cbfvgvbaf unir unaqrqarff.
I blame Obama’s teleprompter typist, myself.
No, that’s an entirely fair representation. FoxNews has as much bias as all the other media outlets combined.
Was it really the news media heavily covering Quayle’s gaffes? They reported on some of these stories as they happened, but I recall it was primarily the late night comics that were sustaining them. Back then we didn’t really have the multiple commentary-as-“news” shows that harp on this sort of thing like we do now.
I don’t understand your spoiler, so sorry if I’m just parroting you. But, I first looked at
the shirt pockets and Obama’s watch. And everyone knows that guy on the end only gets those pit stains on his right side.
The fact that the Obama campaign is refusing to release these tests shows… something.
You know what, why bother?
If the question is whether the MSM mostly supports Obama, and if this shapes their coverage, the answer is pretty obviously Yes. Some of it is unconscious, some is deliberate.
When Obama says something stupid, the press leaps in to help. When Romney does, they leap in to attack.
This comes under the heading of “Duh”.
Regards,
Shodan
By what definition of the MSM? The most watched cable news network certainly does not do this. The second most-watched cable news network arguably does not do this. The third most-watched certainly does do this.
The top 50 or so most listened-to radio broadcasts certainly do not do this.
Of the the top 10 most widely-circulated newspapers, I’d say three or four arguably do this, and three or four do quite the opposite.
This argument is only a “duh” if by the MSM you mean that portion of the media that leans left. But that’s a rather circular argument.
If instead you actually talk about shares of the media market, the argument goes to shit.
Chen019, that quotation goes well beyond fair use. Since you included a link to the original commentary, I’ve shortened the text quoted in the OP.
Easier to look at the shirt buttons.
Having lived out of the States for the last 3 elections I have never seen such a disparity in how the international news media cover the US Presidency as opposed to how the American news media cover it.
Media houses (print or broadcast) used to hold dear to the notion of not promulgating an appearance of bias. That has totally gone out the window as the lines between hard news and opinion have become so blurred as to be meaningless.
Now we had a souvenir booth in the media center at a national political convention. The lines of separation between politicians and the fourth estate are just gone.
Once and for all, will you please give a specific definition of what constitutes the MSM? And perhaps most important, explain exactly what confers membership in the MSM, and what prevents a news source from joining this club.
ETA: Removed explicit instructions on how Shodan should make his case.
Also, you’re obliged to call it “the Lame Stream Media,” to remind us of how closely you identify with your Idiot-in-Chief’s adoration of her own cleverness.
Every media outlet that is supportive of Obama, obviously. It’s the All True Scotsmen fallacy.
Not a specific one, but I’m talking about national news outlets like CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, etc. For the most part, they favor Obama, and it shapes their coverage.
Even the most extreme leftwingers know this.
Cite.
If your next move is to try the fallacy of the excluded middle, don’t bother, or at least don’t expect a serious response. We are talking about tendencies here.
Regards,
Shodan
If, as a politician, you can’t be arsed, to make yourself somewhat likable and humanish, to the population at large, then you should put on your big girl panties and, ‘Suck it up, Sunshine!’
You want to scrapegoat the, ‘lamestream, gotcha, biased, fact checking’, media, every chance you get, that’s on you. Having done so, shrilly and often, it’s time to grow some ovaries and reap what you’ve sewn.
No sympathy for the whining petulant GOP, sorry!
That’s bullshit, and you know it. The only people who “know” there is a liberal bias in the media are right wingers.