The liberal media bias is a myth.

[jshore]

Another fun economics number comparing Bush and Clinton’s first terms (from the historical tables of the FY2005 US Federal Budget):

Change in surplus or deficit as % of GDP from 1993 to 1996: +2.5% (from -3.9% to -1.4%).
Change in surplus or deficit as % of GDP from 1993 to 1996: -5.8% (from +1.3% to an estimated -4.5%).

Oh, and [from Eric Alterman’s column in The Nation (the real liberal media) is an interesting tidbit on the “liberal media”:

Commenting on the [third Presidential] debate, NBC offered up Andrea Mitchell, who, in response to a question on the future of Social Security that criticized Alan Greenspan, proceeded to attack Kerry for alleged demagogy. Unfortunately, neither she nor NBC thought it relevant to inform viewers that Ms. Mitchell is also Mrs. Greenspan. Can there be a clearer, more precise illustration of a genuine conflict of interest? One can barely even imagine what fresh hell the MSNBC switchboard operators would have been forced to experience had the Bush campaign been the victim of so blatant a violation of journalistic ethics. (Meanwhile, what was up with MSNBC following the debate with four pro-Bush pundits out of five?)

I found this so unbelievable (Andrea Mitchell married to Alan Greenspan?!?!) that I looked it up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan]here](]here[/url) to confirm that particular fact.

[jshore]

Of course, in the surplus / deficit comparison, the dates in the second sentence should be 2001 and 2004, i.e.,

Change in surplus or deficit as % of GDP from 2001 to 2004: -5.8% (from +1.3% to an estimated -4.5%).

[flex727]

New York Times article:

For much of Tuesday, campaign workers exuded confidence after surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mr. Kerry with an edge over Mr. Bush. But as the night wore on, the real results told a different story.

The critical moment came at 12:41 a.m. Wednesday, when, shortly after Florida had been painted red for Mr. Bush, Fox News declared that Ohio - and, very likely, the presidency - was in Republican hands.

Howard Wolfson, a strategist, burst into the “boiler room” in Washington where the brain trust was huddled and said, “we have 30 seconds” to stop the other networks from following suit.

The campaign’s pollster, Mark Mellman, and the renowned organizer Michael Whouley quickly dialed ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC - and all but the last refrained from calling the race through the night. Then Mr. Wolfson banged out a simple, two-line statement expressing confidence that Mr. Kerry would win Ohio once the remaining ballots were counted.

Nice documentation by the NYT that ABC, CBS, and CNN are the willing instruments of the Democrats, happy to manipulate their own coverage at the party’s behest.

[furt]

@kung fu lola

According to Noam Chomsky, both of those organizations are right-wing.

According to Noam Chomsky, Ted Kennedy is right-wing.

Which is always the problem with these debates, people think of “right” and “left” as absolute, and not relative properties.

[jshore]

@flex727

Nice documentation by the NYT that ABC, CBS, and CNN are the willing instruments of the Democrats, happy to manipulate their own coverage at the party’s behest.

Cite that they were manipulating their own coverage? It doesn’t say what they told the networks or what the networks’ general policy was or anything like that. You are just speculating. Perhaps the Democrats gave them valid reasons why they were still contesting Ohio and that is why the networks held off. I imagine if it had gone the other way and the Bush campaign had done the same thing, the networks would have reacted similarly.

[BrainGlutton]

@flex727

New York Times article:

Nice documentation by the NYT that ABC, CBS, and CNN are the willing instruments of the Democrats, happy to manipulate their own coverage at the party’s behest.

I think the networks just wanted to avoid claiming decisive victory for either side until all the returns were in. They got egg on their faces (at least, it appeared that way in retrospect) in 2000 when they called Florida for Gore.

[Apos]

@Shodan

I don’t see a good reason to exclude movies from the discussion in a world containing Michael Moore. Or Leni Riefenstahl, for that matter, although she’s dead.

Here we go again. But if someone compares a right wing pundit to a Nazi propagandist, suddenyl their shrill and outrageous.

[BrotherCadfael]

I think the point was that movies can be made as eithe left-wing or right-wing propaganda.

Although, if the shoe fits…