Well, we need a clever "Faux News" type of tagline for MSNBC. Remember to toss around "sheeple" and "brain-washed" when speaking about it's viewers. Wonder if other left-leaning news orgs. will take up this example and drop the facade.
Don't hold your breath. dems don't like viewpoints that challenge their current "beliefs." I say current, because their "beliefs" change in direct proportion to current polling data.
Remember, they are the champions of the "fairness doctrine."
Finally, I'll give you an example of the differences between a Republican and a liberal dem: I welcome msnbc.
I even watch it to see their reaction to certain events. You can get a flavor of dem talking points by watching them. I find the advance notice of these little tag lines to be invaluable. It gives me plenty of time to develop devastating counters.
While the dems are threatened by anyone who doesn't regurgitate dnc talking points, most of us Republicans welcome fair competition and exchange of ideas.
If their ideas are better, more people will tune in.
If not, well, you have msnbc.
I did find it amusing how the times was trying to polish the turd that is msnbc. I liked how they stated that olberman was "close" to O'Reily. In the next breath, they mentioned that he routinely gets 1,500,000 more viewers per show.
Yeah, that's the thing, I don't care that MSNBC (or any other news org) is left-leaning. It's the constant denial of bias that's laughable. Singling out Fox as right-wing biased, while ignoring Harvard based studies demonstrating an overall leftist bias in news media, is what irritates me.
Again, could care less if they are left-leaning.
Have they been denying this? (Serious question) I remember Keith Olbermann (probably the most left of all their hosts) after one of the Dem Debates making a comment re: Edwards (he ran a campaign ad after the debate) and said he wouldn't be in unwelcome territory if he wanted to just come on and say what he had to say instead of buying ad space.
That sounded to me a lot like acknowledging the bias they have towards the Democrats. They do have Tucker Carlson though, so at least have someone who isn't entirely liberal (and thankfully I haven't seen him in a bow tie in a while either)
Have they actually denied that most of their shows are to the left? (Serious question once again)
I feel like I missed a day in school. Are they actually ignoring this study? I hadn't heard of this study at all until this post (which of course suggests they are), but I'm surprised I didn't see it on Fox either. I find MSNBC to be just about on par with FOX in the biased bullshit category, but they aren't going around calling themselves "fair and balanced", or saying "we report, you decide". I really haven't gotten the impression from MSNBC that they try to hide their bias, but of course they don't openly come out at the beginning of every broadcast and call themselves a liberal network.
If you have a link, would love to read about it (link in original post isn't working for me, not a member).
I was actually more focused on denials made right here on the forum. As for the NYT link, I'm at a loss. I'm not a member either, but I can open it and read the article. As for the Harvard Study, it was posted in the "Democratic Debate" thread. I personally do not have the link. I'll retrieve it if you can't find it, but it's presented there as a response to 100 meters. You should be able to locate it quickly.
MSNBC has a liberal bias. FOX News has a conservative bias. MSNBC as a channel has many liberal shows, a few that cater to the crazy-treehugging liberal, and a few not so liberal ones, though none that are neo-conservative friendly. FOX as a channel has many conservative shows, and many that cater the the crazy-Christian right.
Do you guys really worry that much about 100m and wreckless's opinions that you'd create a whole thread because you're pissed off they "deny any liberal bias in the media"?
Yes. In fact, it keeps me up at night.
Oh. In that case, by all means, continue.
Of course- when I think of Pat Roberston, Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter- I think open-minded people who welcome fair competition and exchange of ideas.
That's funny. Not haha funny- but still funny.
Found it, thank you.
Here's the link to the study.
Removing Obama, it actually shows both parties get the exact same coverage.
The study does not involve bias.
again, the coverage in terms of tone is exactly the same if you remove Obama. Tone does not indicate bias, other factors would be involved (accuracy, etc.)
But still other than the press being mysteriously fascinated by Obama's fundraising, the coverage is exactly the same. So pretty much the opposite of what's being said.
You make it sound as if the paper didn't go into favorable and unfavorable coverage. Yes, bias.
Remove Obama? What kind of argument is that? We're not talking about a hypothetical race here. Obama IS actually running! You'll have to excuse me if I don't follow your point about a non-exist presidential race. Again, Obama is running. Now, if you're hurt over media outlets covering the wrong Democrat, that's an entirely different topic.
However, if Obama doesn't get the nomination, the benefits of favorable coverage will not jump across the aisle. Obama's favorable coverage is far more likely to benefit the Democrat's nominee. After all, Hillary or Edwards will espouse policies much closer to the guy who had been receiving favorable coverage. Besides, who do you think Obama will endorse if he has to exist the race, a donkey or elephant? The big picture 100. The big picture.
The tone is not a reflection on policies advocated. If it were, then all democrats would have better coverage. And again the study has nothing to do with bias. Tone is not Bias and tone is not related to policy. McCains "negative" coverage due to finance troubles or dropping in the polls has as little to do with his policies as Obama being able to pull in the same amount of cash as Hillary. Get it now?