Kurtz again suggested false comparison between MSNBC, Fox News
In his May 21 Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz suggested that MSNBC is the liberal equivalent of Fox News. Kurtz asserted: "While several of the Democratic candidates have appeared on Fox, the top tier has been shying away, even as the Republicans have debated on MSNBC." Kurtz was referring to the May 3 Republican presidential debate sponsored by MSNBC and The Politico, which was moderated by Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball and the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, but Kurtz offered no support for the comparison he drew. In fact, Media Matters for America has documented numerous occasions in which Matthews and his colleagues have showered praise on several of the Republican presidential hopefuls or baselessly attacked Democrats.
Kurtz's May 21 column echoed his earlier suggestion that, because of his Democratic roots, Matthews favors Democrats. On the May 6 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz said of the Democratic presidential candidates' refusal to appear in a debate sponsored by Fox News: "Republicans were willing to participate in an MSNBC debate with a guy who used to work for [former President] Jimmy Carter and [former House Speaker] Tip O'Neill [D]. Should Democrats be refusing to debate on Fox News?"
As Media Matters has documented, Matthews has asserted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "deserves to be president, based on his contribution to this country over the years." Matthews has also lauded McCain as a "maverick," "kind of a party renegade," and a "lone gun." On the June 14, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews said that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "may well be the perfect candidate to replace [President Bush]" and that he "spoke a lot like the best of [former British Prime Minister Winston] Churchill." Matthews has also claimed that Giuliani "has street cred" on the issue of "protect[ing] this country against the bad guys." On the January 19 edition of Hardball, Matthews said of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R): "He has the perfect chin, the perfect hair, he looks right. He looks like a Mountie. He looks like from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police." Media Matters has also documented numerous examples of Matthews praising President Bush (here, here, here, here, and here), whom Matthews acknowledges having voted for "at least once."
In contrast to his praise of Republicans, Matthews has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). As Media Matters documented, during the debate on MSNBC, Matthews asked the GOP candidates, "Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?" Later, when he reiterated the question, Matthews asked, "Should the Clintons come back to the White House, especially Big Bill?" Matthews has obsessed over what he has referred to as Bill Clinton's "social life," "personal behavior," "current behavior," and "personal life." Meanwhile, Matthews has compared Sen. Clinton to a "strip-teaser," complained that her voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard" to "some men," and falsely claimed that she is "for" the Iraq war. He has referred to her as "witchy" and "sort of a Madame DeFarge of the left."
Also, Tucker Carlson, host of MSNBC's Tucker, has attacked the church that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attends as "racially exclusive" and "wrong," adding that "it's hard to call that Christianity." Carlson has also claimed that Obama's faith has become "suddenly conspicuous" -- suggesting that Obama has only recently begun addressing his religious background as part of "a very calculated plan on the part of the Democratic Party to win" religious voters in the 2008 presidential race. He has also described Hillary Clinton as "castrating, overbearing, and scary," and suggested that Sen. Robert Menedez (D-NJ) is "a dues-paying member of the Mafia."
Where does Kurtz suggest than MSNBC is the liberal equivalent to Fox in his column today? That is flat out misinformation. He does not.
He simply says that the top tier Democratic candidates have shyed away from Fox, but have appeared on MSNBC, why is that by the way, do they not get tough questions there?......there is no equivalency measurement in Kurtz's column.
Sure there is. IF the two are not equivilent then the question makes no sense. Unless you take the equivelence as a premise the question would be like saying why dont the Crips go to Blood stronghold Puente like they go to THEIR stronghold in La Mirada?
The equivalence is in the fact that the top tiered Democrats are apparently afraid of Fox, or something......while they gush over to MSNBC. That is the comparison Kurtz is making.
The false equivelence is that Fox is hostile to Dems and MSNBC is NOT hostile to the GOP. The false equivelence is that Dems have no reason to give Fox any added credibility with their presence. Its not fear its disgust. Why bother? Why give them the patina of being what they arent, a legitimate news organization?
"The false equivelence is that Fox is hostile to Dems and MSNBC is NOT hostile to the GOP."
Have you ever watched Countdown? Apparently not.
I have seen it in bits and pieces and Joe Scarborough? Tucker Carlson? Give it up. MSNBC isnt even the lefty EQUIVELENT of Fox much less more left than Fox is right
It is spelled EQUIVALENT.
Holy Crap!! A grammar Nazi!!
No, it's just solon thinks he is more educated than everyone on here and his spelling, among other things, proves otherwise.
"... just solon thinks he is more educated than everyone on here and his spelling...."
Stop right there. From what I can see, an Elitist English Teacher Extraordinaire (grammar nazi) like you are really insecure about your education level, since you feel the need to correct someone else's spelling. Dude, everyone on here mistypes, forgets a letter or three, or misspells a word.
I intentionally made a grammatical error in the above statement.. can you find it? I know you can't resist!!
can you find it
LOL! I not only found the grammatical error I think you meant, I found two other errors plus one of logic.
See how a little silly nitpicking can divert us from the topic at hand? Which really is, after all, the point of posts like that from DEATHTODISSENT.
He GOPLOVESTOGETAMERICANSKILLED
You never see me claim higher education nor correct spelling or grammer. I in fact know I spell badly. so what. I didnt even go to college other than a few courses for my own satisfaction. In other words YOU ARE A LIAR.
If the law is on your side, argue the law.
If the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, assassinate the character and credibility of the other side's witnesses, even if they are speaking the gospel truth.
I really do like your posts.
Solon has owned his poor spelling since I have been reading here.
Your attempt to call him out on his spelling mistakes only showcases your lack of character and your inability to refute his points.
His spelling mistakes makes YOU look stupid and jealous. Spelling is not always linked absolutely to intelligence and is rarely linked to the amount of common sense one has.
First of all you don't know what Solon thinks.
Secondly, bad spelling on a word or two doesn't "prove" anything, no matter how desperately you seem to wish it were so.
That makes 2!!
Countdown is the one liberal program on MSNBC. Everything else is right of center, except for the odd morning temp. Contrast that with Fox's line-up.
I would also add that anyone who isn't hostile to the GOP, seven years into this disaster, isn't paying attention.
Right here, Tommy;
"Republicans were willing to participate in an MSNBC debate with a guy who used to work for [former President] Jimmy Carter and [former House Speaker] Tip O'Neill [D]. Should Democrats be refusing to debate on Fox News?"
That was not in his 5/21 column.......which MMFA clearly states in the first line of this thread.
You're right, I thought that quote was from the 5/21 column.This one is;
"While several of the Democratic candidates have appeared on Fox, the top tier has been shying away, even as the Republicans have debated on MSNBC."
Another example of Tommy's hypocrisy.
When he can object to your mistake of using an inaccurate quotation, he comments on it.
When you make an accurate quotation, he never acknowledges that you made a point he cannot refute.
Media Matters was right to point this out. Tommy will never admit it now that he started out saying that there's nothing to see here.
That was not in his 5/21 column
Irrelevant since the headline says "again." The assertion is that the statement is part of a pattern of declaring an equivalence between Fox and MSNBC and in that context it is perfectly legitimate to cite it as such.
The Democrats are just being plain stupid on this one. Fox News has more Democrat viewers than either CNN or MSNBC. By shutting out Fox, they miss an opportunity to share their messages with those viewers.
And, let's face it. Anyone who lacks the courage to take questions from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace lacks the courage to take on terrorists and dictators.
When a candidate for the most powerful office in the world is asking for your vote so they can be as tough fighting the world's villians as anybody else - yet they are fearful of a stuffed Washingon suit sitting across from them on a cushy cable chatshow who just may ask them a loaded question that they can't get their talking points around........well, it sort of shines a new light on their toughness, doesn't it?
Tommy, can you provide some backup for your assertion that Democratic candidates are "afraid of" Fox, rather than avoiding them much as you or I might avoid a nice steaming pile of dog doo?
I mean, I'm not "afraid" of the pile, but it takes so much effort to get the stuff off my shoe, and hardly any to just walk around it...
By that measure, GWBush should have been impeached during his first term. The man held far fewer press conferences than any recent president. What was he so afraid of?
"Bush has held 16 solo news conferences, compared to 43 for Bill Clinton, 84 for George H.W. Bush and 26 for Ronald Reagan at this point in their presidencies, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University." [The article was from December 1st, 2004.]
Kevin, the whole "scared of Fox" BS, and equating it with national security isn't even a good dittohead point.
Fighting terrorists hurts them. Providing programming for Fox helps them.Completely opposite and backwards, but aside from that, pretty close.
There is no such thing as a Democrat viewer there are DemocratIC viewers and ReNAMBLAcan viewers. And Fox doesnt have NEAR as many as CBS or NBC. So what? Why give Fox any of the legitimacy they have not earned as IF they are a legitimate news organization, which they are not? Fox is GOP propaganda why should Dems pretend otherwise?
Fox is as much a propaganda machine for REPUBLICANS as NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, And The Washington Post are a propaganda tool for the DEMOCRAT party. You people go crazy on the left because REPUBLICANS have one lonely cable outlet that leans right. While DEMOCRAT party has the vast majority of print and TV media. Just because Fox does not toe the leftist line does not make them illegitimate. So get over yourself and go find a job and quit living off me.
Karl Rove thanks you, now move along, you have made your baseless assertion.
Hey GOPWANTSAMERICANSTODIE
That is ludicrous. The networks are not in the Democratic party's pocket like Fox is in the GOP pocket, also there is no such thing as a Democrat Party there is a DemocraIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party. The thing is NOT slavishly parroting rightwing propagand is NOT the same as liberal propaganda. I know you cant tell the difference as it is a reality based phenomena and you simply have no ability to RECOGNIZE reality. You can TRY to tell us the sky is pink if you want. Good luck with that.
The problem, Solon, is that the right views the world as split into two... & only two... factions. There exists only THEIR point of view & ANT OTHER points of view. As Dubya' used to say, "if you're not with us, you're against us."
Whenever ant news organization takes a neutral view on an issue, all that these wingnuts see is that they're not championing THEIR point of view. They see this as the equivalent of supporting their opponents. You're either with them or against them.
Faux News virtually ALWAYS champions the right wing view, & so they are viewed by wingnuts as "fair & balanced." ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times. the Los Angeles Times, et al will often service the right & assist them in the spreading of their wingnut gospel, but will also report stories that are AT ODDS WITH RIGHTWING IDEOLOGY. This, they 'reason', puts them firmly within the liberal camp, & proves them guilty of 'media bias'. You're either with them or you're against them.
So, the ABSENSE of progressive spin in the corporate media DOES NOT... in the wingnut mind... make up for the absence of constant, lock-step conservative spin. The media either serves them or it doesn't. You're either with them or you're against them.
Another term for this is paranoia.
Exactly so. Any deviation from total conformity to the rightwing message brings on hysterical condemnation.
It's a good point. The right wing is concerned about partisan political advantage and everything is geared to that end.
But for that very reason, they imagine - I use the word deliberately - that everyone else thinks the same way they do and so everything everyone else does is likewise for partisan political advantage.
Therefore, anything (such as news coverage) that is not advantageous to the right must be consciously intended to be advantageous to the left. Since, as has been well noted, reality has a liberal bias, that leads naturally to the laughable fantasy that most major media are in the pocket of the Democrats, who encompass in their worldview every single person on the left half of the American political spectrum.
Pretty much all we got is Air America, and someplaces even that is not availible. Pretty much (Corporate) mainstream media does liberalism no favors. Your liberal ideas are more likely to come from comedy or in print than your tv set.
Thats democratIC TO YOU repube...
Gee, after watching that pathetic republican debate with the talking point questions I'm glad Dem's don't go on fox to debate their side. The republican debate was solely based on republican talking points, to suggest the dem's would get a debate based solely on democratic talking points would be absurd in the least. At best, the talking point questions would be republican bias about democrat talking points. No thanks!
What questions might they ask? Questions about grooming,possible personal defects, a few leading questions? Set the stage with a few demoncrat slights. Its their turf, they're, hostile, they have control. What part of a losing proposion isn't here? Where would be a better place to express your position and possible programs? Almost anywhere that doesn't have that much control and expressed hostility. That lets Rush Co. out.
There is no equivilence between facing Fox on their turf and dealing with terrorists as an appointed statesman.
Tommy your original statement was a misquote. It was the Republicans who were appearing on MSNBC. The implied equivilence was that if MSNBC was good enough for the Republicans then FOX should be good enough for the Democratic contengent.
What little credibility MMFA has left is squandered with this item. MSNBC is further to the left than Fox News is to the right. Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill, is a constant critic of George W. Bush, plays host to an assortment of moonbats such as Joe Wilson, and thre a hissy fit over Huckabee's joke about John Edwards and beauty salons. And, hello, Keith Olbermann anyone? Olbermann's show is essentially talking points from MoveOn, MMFA, and Howard "Howlin' Mad" Dean strung together for an hour.
Even Joe Scarborough, an erstwhile Republican, has been forced to turn left on MSNBC. Here's Scarborough from his interview with Mrs. Bill Clinton last week:
"And I apologize for anything that I’ve ever said that may have been unkind about you or the president, and wasn’t really serious about that whole impeachment thing. It was really guys who recommended that I do that. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18615393/page/4/
Give me a break.
And who's Tucker Carlson?
The fact is liberals hate Fox News because it is the one network that does not lean to the left. They don't have Fox News in their pocket and that infuriates them.
YOU are the one with no credibility. I MEAN NONE. The statement alone that MSNBC is farther to the left than FOX is to the right is ludicrous on the face of it. Matthews worked for O'Niell what thirty years ago? Back when Weiner was still a radical lefty? That means WHAT? So Tweety is critical of Bush that only shows marginal rationality. Bush is a catastrophe that walks like a man. Scar has always been a rational conservative not a koolaid drinker Tweety a conservative Dem. Fox is outright rightwing propaganda, the memos Ailes sent to the reporters telling them how to slant the news alone is evidence of this. Everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun is not a liberal. It is YOUR slant that is devoid of reality thus the entire premise of your arguments is flawed.
SOLON:
You become more irrational with every new post. You completely glossed over Keith Olbermann. The only person on Fox News who is as partisan as Olbermann is Sean Hannity. However, Hannity's conservative views are balanced by Alan Colmes' liberal views. Their is no such balance on Countdown. Olbermann merely recites talking points from MoveOn. MMFA, and other far-left groups.
Where is the Fox News equivalent of Dan Rather's fake national guard records? Where is the Fox News equivalent of George Stephanopoulos, Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert, former Democrat Party operatives who now report the "news"? I've challenged liberals many times to cite a specific example of Fox News being biased and, thus far, no liberal has met that challenge. The problem with many liberals is that they are so out of touch with the mainstream that they think Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are conservatives.
I've challenged liberals many times to cite a specific example of Fox News being biased and, thus far, no liberal has met that challenge.- kevin1007
Kevin! Kevin! Wake up, you're having that dream again! Mom's getting tired of washing the sheets.
You are simply WRONG again. The problem with brainwashed rightwingers is they THINK they make sense when they spout baseless assertions and plain nonsense. Tweety is not a liberal. O'Reilly is as far right as Olbermann is left, Hannity is HARDLY balanced by colmes as the format makes clear. colmes is a wishy washy moderate who as often as not agrees with the conservative guests and Hannity. THAT isnt balanced. BALANCE would be having Olbermann with Hannity. I DID provide you with evidence of Fox bias, the memos that told their newsguys how to slant the news that is the very DEFINITION of bias. Its not really our fault that you IGNORE evidence and pretend that means there isnt any.
I'll see your Sean Hannity and raise you a Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, Brit Hume and Neil Cavuto.
"Where is the Fox News equivalent of Dan Rather's fake national guard records? Where is the Fox News equivalent of George Stephanopoulos, Chris...etc"-kevin
Okay, so you do not read any of the articles on MMFA, your only purpose here is to attack people. Nearly everyday MMFA posts articles highlighting the glaring mistakes made by fox news. The factual errors, the mis-quotes, the false readings of polls, etc.
Perhaps you should read what MMFA posts before you head to the forum to attack everyone.
As far as intelligence, Solon and the rest have established themselves as highly intelligent individuals on this board. You have not. If you wish to do so, add something of consequence to the discussion, not just rants and sloppy links to articles that prove you wrong. If your goal is to convince us that you are correct, provide correct information, otherwise you just weaken your own arguments.
You had me at "little credibility", Kevin.
If you're gauging the left-ness and right-ness of Fox & MSNBC by the personal perceptions you've listed above, you might be getting a slightly skewed reading.
I actually cited as many examples as MMFA's highly selective quotes. To argue that Chris Matthews is not a Democrat-leaning liberal strains all credibility. Is there any doubt that Matthews voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004?
what do you base that on?
Pretending Tweety is a liberal shows only your complete disconnect with reality
There is certainly reason to doubt that Matthews voted for both Gore and Kerry for example he SAID he voted for Bush
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505310005
Those who label Matthews a progressive have evidently ignored telling indicators to the contrary. As recently as the May 27 edition of Hardball, Matthews responded to documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi's suggestion that members of the media -- including Matthews -- have portrayed President Bush as a "dunce" by asserting that he has voted for Bush "at least once" and that he has "defended [Bush] against the liberal elitists":
Sure, Solon- your documentation from a left wing smear site against Kevin0000's wild guess and no doubtiness. ;0)
And thats why, repubicans (Yeah... I misspelled it...) hate Keith Olbermann, because HE is the only one calling out rightwing pundits and media on their B.S. and seeking the real truth. And thats also why you hate this site Kevin.
Quit whining dude, you and the other mission statement nazis on here need to look in the mirror:
www.newsbusters.org
The weakness of the left's argument here is so obvious that Godwin's Law can be invoked before there is even 20 posts. Congratulations. You lost.
Here's a nice one,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_Nazi
if you don't see the parallel, then you clearly have no grasp of when and when not to invoke Godwins law. I think we know someone who comments on MMFA that's a grammar nazi.. I'm not gonna say any names... MichealSavageforPresident!!! By the way, I think I just coined a new nazi term...
Nice try though Kevin, really.
DTrain, you might have also mentioned that it should be " before there are 20 posts".
What the hell are you talking about HBL? What the f**k are you supposed to be some kind of MMFA post correctness nazi or something?
Oh and don't think I forgot about the last time you went nazi on my post. I posted (in response to an idiot who was talking about the lack of comments in an olbermann thread - who eventually got booted leaving my comment out of context) about the amount of comments here on MMFA with examples, in comparison to RIGHTWING MEDIA WATCHDOG websites. I have visited newsbusters.com and could not find a comments section for a single thread or article that surpasses 100 posts not to mention the scarcity of opposing viewpoints, its like a freakin echo board on that website. And even if there was, its not even remotely close or as consistent as MMFA. Do your homework before you come around here correcting people.
Look, Godwin's Law has nothing to do with the amount of posts or time until a nazi reference is made. Now I know you have been here a long time and all, and I'm kinda new, but how about you address what's IN my post and not about what YOU THINK should be in my post.
Whoooaaah DTrain-- Sorry if my comments aren't clear sometimes, but I think you've seriously misinterprted my posts.
The above grammar comment was only poking fun at previous grammar and typo nit-picking, and noting that you didn't resort to such insignificant details.
My comment the other day was to reinforce your point about the emptiness of the comments you cited , as I pointed out that sometimes there are a lot of comments on the righty boards, just not many with much substance.
I'm tired of apologizing to people whose posts I really like. My lame humor and sarcasm don't translate well into writing, so once again, I'll watch that. Sorry for the confusion.
I appreciate that HBL, I guess I need to get used to your style of humor and wit. I'm sorry about that.
Well it's like saying that compared to the Fox netwit..,, er, network that the RNC is liberal. The liberal media is the biggest lie since WMD.
Didn't the Post break Watergate? What the hell happened to them?
PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO FOX MSNBC OR CNN ARE ALREADY POLITICAL MINDED BUT NBC CBS AND ABC ARE THE THE NETWORKS WHERE THE VIEWERS CAN BE INFLUENCED.
Huhg?!! I don't follow....
"Kevin 1007" illustrates the dillema of the archconservative perspective; he believes that MSNBC has a liberal agenda in its reporting despite the appearance of Carlson and Scarborough. Matthews has been critical on numerous occasions of those who stray left of center and in addition- continues to perpetuate the Reagan mythology. In one instance- the former would praise the inclusion of the Teflon executive in a "Greatest Presidents" Poll yet was indignant about Clinton's rather high rank. "Kevin 1007" also claims that there is a pervasive "liberal" slant throughout the mainstream media and that Fox is the one of the few entities without such a bias. It's not an accurate assessment- but he believes as much.
Howard Kurtz suggested that MSNBC is the liberal equivalent of Fox News.[MMFA]
Where?
He made no such suggestion. MMFA is editorializing again.
Several people have already pointed out where.
Media Matters pointed out where.
It's right here:
That statement hardly justifies the claim that MMFA is attempting to make here. Fox is clearly the propaganda arm of the Bush White House. No where does Kurtz suggest that MSNBC is a Liberal network. He's simply pointing out that Democrats & Republicans appear on MSNBC, while the [top tier] Dems shy away from Fox.
MMFA suggesting that Kurtz is saying "MSNBC is the liberal equivalent of Fox News" is false.
"He's simply pointing out that Democrats & Republicans appear on MSNBC, while the [top tier] Dems shy away from Fox."
What do republicans going MSNBC have to do with Democrats not going on FOX? They're apples and oranges. I don't see any reason to make the statement he made other than to say republicans were willing to go on a liberal network while the Democrats refused to go on a far right network. And Kurtz makes that statement after quoting Hannity calling the Democrats wimps for not appearing on the far right FOX News (as though the republicans were brave for going on MSNBC).
IF it doesnt justify the claim MMFA made then the original statement makes NO sense and has NO point.
Solon, I don't think Kurtz is suggesting MSNBC was the Liberal alternative to Conservative Fox.
It seemed to me that he was only saying that while [many] Liberals/Democrats are shunning Fox that they'll appear on MSNBC because it's a less hostile network. Or not as biased towards one side.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you see it differently, that's fine, I just disagree.
"It seemed to me that he was only saying that while [many] Liberals/Democrats are shunning Fox that they'll appear on MSNBC because it's a less hostile network. Or not as biased towards one side."
He said Democrats are shunning FOX even though republicans appear on MSNBC. He does not say or imply what you're suggesting.
I agree. It appears to me that Kurtz is indeed creating an analogy.
C'mon Jeter, get on the trolley, Daddy-O.
There was an equilivence brought forth by Kurtz, that because Republicans were appearing on MSNBC in debate. The implied equivilency being politically, Democratic candidates on FOX in debate.
At least thats how I see it. Out right suggestion no, but are you willing to allow anything that is not obviously explicite?
Media Finds Their Own WMDs
It's called "Words of Mass Distortion" and they were found ten years ago by Fox news. This has been one of those stories I find a "breath of fresh air." This has got to be one of the most underreported stories in this country. The right-wing media has affected our elections, our sense of "fair and balance," and our once proud culture of quality news. In addition to Fox news, there is a host of other news organizations devoted to right-wing propaganda.
We have not officially accounted for all of the power institutions in our country. We have always knew the true power of government exist within our three branches of government: The Legislative, the Judiciary, and the Executive. However, we missed the media as another power broker that has acquired enough power to make and break careers, elections, and the lives of those they come in contact with.
Like any money making idea, it is catchy. CNN was the first to follow right-wing media organizations with slanted news, followed by MSNBC, and CSPAN's Washington Journal. I call them the Fox wantabees. They all have a right-wing bias in reporting and supporting news. When that does not fit their agenda, they go out and create news to fit their special commentator's ideologies. Their news is clearly minus any since of fairness, and the balance they do display is laughable.
Examples, there are many. I could fill this post of instances of one sided examples showing right-winged slanted news. Take the current issue with gas prices. MSNBC has been reporting the Oil companies lies about price increases like they owned the oil companies. 24/7, they have reported the price increase was the result of refinery fires and shutdowns. They report this line in favor of the oil companies 5 to 6 times within one hour. This a form of "flooding," a psychological technique that involves over stimulation exposure, as a way to become familiar with the thing you were flooded with. They don't report any counter arguments associated with why gas prices are so high.
The last I hear refinery fires don't make record profits. They are supposed to create losses. The oil companies, throughout the whole high gas price dilemma have made record profits. I would have two fires every year if I made record profits. When the fires don't manipulate the market enough, they shut down the refinery to make sure they create a demand unbalance for which the oil companies claim they don't have enough gas to meet the demand. Try turning back on the refinery.
My point is this: the media of today has a lot of power. In itself, that is not a bad thing. When the power media enjoys is slanted firmly in one side, you have a problem that could affect this country's government down to its core. We are in desperate need of media reform to bring media back into balance.
Joseph
The media is the 4th estate. The positive effects of the correct use of their power has many preasent and historical adherents. In sort their supposed to watch the rest of our government and give an accurate account of its actions and some speculation, ignorent or wise, mostly inbetween, on the results.
It doesn't happen today, hopefully on some tomorrow. Its just that missuse is so easy, and missuse gives a short trem benifit to powerful sociopaths. This population, while small, shows no sign of shrinking much less disappearing.
Countdown has a liberal bias only because the truth has a liberal bias.
Yeah, but what about all those times Fox News criticizes Republicans and praises Democrats? Well, ......... I'm waiting...............crickets