Guess What? More conservative media bias merged with More Conservative media lies

[Jimbob]

Has Newsweek fired all their editorial staff and hired new ones?  If not, any accusation of conservative bias is going to fall short of being factual, to put it mildly.

[Big Mike Lewis]

Newsweek and TIME, New York Times, et al...

[navyvet]

From Warner Todd Huston's blog today...

OldDad, don't get your knickers wadded up. The reason why Sen. Craig gets more scrutiny than Mr. Hsu is that Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime of moral depravity this year, and Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty to fraud back in 1991 and sklpped out on sentencing in 1992. There was nothing illegal about Mr. Hsu's campaign contributions, just embarrassing.

Now if the GOP were as forthcoming about giving their donations back from felons as readily, but the GOP is not the party of true conservatives.

[zoonance]

Maybe the media would be more interested if Hsu had tapped Craig's foot.

[spurly]

You may be right Zoo.  The media does salivate over stories of sexual perversion of high profile people.

[navyvet]

You may be right Zoo.  The media does salivate over stories of sexual perversion of high profile people.

So does the GOP when the high profile pervert isn't one of their own.

[navyvet]

Hey, man; can't hear you above the GOP nutjobbery.

Your "NewsBusters: Exposing and Combatting Liberal News Bias" is just bunch of propagandistic hacks.

What Mr. Newcomb wants is for someone other than Fox News to take his slant as objective news analysis and run with it. Fact is, "OldDad", that no one has been able, on the left or right, to find anything illegal per se about Mr. Hsu's contributions, contributions that are being returned or donated to charity when the word about Mr. Hsu's criminal past became news itself.  There's no evidence that any candidate did anything illegal ion accepting the contributions.  Mr. Newcomb wants someone - anyone, please, please, pleeeeze - to make Mr. Hsu's criminal conduct - committed under the first Bush administration, for what it's worth - a dynamic equivalent to any and/or all of the Democratic candidates for President.

You're obviously disappointed that no one legitimate is taking the bait, aren't you?

As a citizen, voter, and veteran, I'm tired of this from any political party. I'm tired of the election process being dragged down in the sewer. I'm tired of people trying to use pseudo-news to accomplish this for the next election cycle, primarily for the reason that it won't work for the GOP and will hurt real conservatives who want to be heard on the issues.  I'm also sick of others who offer this kind of garbage up as a so-called counter-weight to the "liberal" media. It's not a counterweight to anything at all.

It's still garbage.

True conservatives would rather have facts instead of more spin. Your Mr. Newcomb is a hack, and you're peddling hacks here. Time to stop. If you can't win on ideas, you have no right to win at all.

The reason why Sen. Craig gets more scrutiny than Mr. Hsu is that Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime of moral depravity this year, and Mr. Hsu pleaded guilty to fraud back in 1991 and sklpped out on sentencing in 1992. There was nothing illegal about Mr. Hsu's campaign contributions, just embarrassing.

Well, not quite, but nice try...

Media Still Not Interested In Hsu Money
By Richard Newcomb

[ravenlorre]

You may be right Zoo.  The media does salivate over stories of sexual perversion of high profile people.

So does the GOP when the high profile pervert isn't one of their own.

Seems to me that if Republicans and Democrats really wanted to effectively remove one another from office - they would accuse the opposing leadership of crimes / indiscretions that are shocking to the people who elected them - rather than what appears shocking to them.

Example - Republicans should point out financial indiscretions committed by Democrats, rather than sexual misconduct because democratic voters do not care about the personal lives of the people they elect, but they do care about stealing money from the poor they were elected to care for.

The reverse is true for Democrats - they should accuse Republicans of sexual misconduct rather than wasting / stealing money.

I also think that Democrats should stop trying to be sarcastic attack dogs (Air America) and stick with being funny (Daily Show / Colbert Report).  Republicans should stop trying to be funny (Bush) and stick to sarcastic attacks (FOX News)

The mainstream media is not bias in any direction (with the exception of FOX News); they will exploit whoever they can if the story will sell.

blessings

[Jaime]

 

[marc]

Well, Bin Laden's active again with a new tape that may or may not be authentic.  An official admitted that if Osama's alive, he shouldn't have much trouble moving around and doing what he wants, because there are no active searches for him.  The sixth anniversary of 9/11 is next week.

But never mind all that; turns out that couple in Britain might have killed their daughter.  And remember to keep an eye out for any news involving Lindsay or Britney.

___________

The mainstream news media isn't so much biased as insipid.

[Bon Voyage]

Well, Bin Laden's active again with a new tape that may or may not be authentic.  An official admitted that if Osama's alive, he shouldn't have much trouble moving around and doing what he wants, because there are no active searches for him.  The sixth anniversary of 9/11 is next week.

But never mind all that; turns out that couple in Britain might have killed their daughter.  And remember to keep an eye out for any news involving Lindsay or Britney.

___________

The mainstream news media isn't so much biased as insipid.

I have no objection to the term "media."  I do object to most of the media being called "news."  It isn't news, it is tabloid fodder.

[Jim Abb]

You can read the full report at Media Matters.

Executive Summary

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.
Though they have suffered slow but steady declines in readership over the last couple of decades, newspapers remain in many ways the most important of all news media. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that each copy of a weekday paper is read by an average of 2.1 adults, while each Sunday paper is read by an average of 2.5 adults,3 pushing total newspaper readership for daily papers to more than 116 million and Sunday papers to more than 134 million. This means that some columnists reach tens of millions of readers, and one, conservative George Will, actually reaches more than 50 million.

Furthermore, newspapers are the preferred news medium of those most interested in the news. According to a 2006 Pew Research Center study, 66 percent of those who say they follow political news closely regularly read newspapers, far more than the number who cite any other medium.4 And an almost identical proportion of those who say they "enjoy keeping up with the news" -- more than half the population -- turn to newspapers more than any other medium. These more aware citizens are in turn more likely to influence the opinions of their families, friends, and associates.

Syndicated newspaper columnists have a unique ability to influence public opinion and the national debate. And whether examining only the top columnists or the entire group, large papers or small, the data presented in this report make clear that conservative syndicated columnists enjoy a clear advantage over their progressive counterparts.

   

[Jim Abb]

Of course the Hsu story is still getting more media play than the story of Romney's donation connection for fraud, so much so that I can't remember the name of the guy in that case.

It's like Edwards $400 haircut. That was all over the place, but what about Romney's big bill for make-up? Or Bush's choosing $3000 suits? Far, far less media hype.

[Jim Abb]

Fox News' Petraeus coverage commentary not fair, not balanced

During Fox News' coverage of congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker from 12:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. ET on September 10, the channel presented commentary from only one Democrat or progressive: Rep. Bob Wexler (D-FL), who appeared opposite Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). The other seven people appearing on Fox to provide commentary consisted of two conservative pundits (columnist Ann Coulter and former Sen. Rick Santorum [R-PA]), two former public officials who praised Petraeus (former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor and former CIA agent Mike Baker), Iraq war veteran Marco Martinez (who wrote a September 7 USA Today op-ed critical of Democrats who purportedly "view success in Iraq as an electoral problem"), Fox News defense analyst retired Gen. Bob Scales, and Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei.

In the 4 p.m. ET hour, Neil Cavuto, host of Your World with Neil Cavuto, said he would bring in Democratic strategist Julian Epstein to offer commentary, but then said that technical difficulties prevented Epstein from appearing.

Fox News anchors Martha MacCallum, Shepard Smith, Cavuto, and John Gibson, Fox News national correspondent Catherine Herridge, and Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin also appeared during the coverage of the testimony. During the 5 p.m. ET hour, Gibson broke away from Iraq coverage for four-and-a-half minutes to discuss the missing child Madeleine McCann with Sunday Times correspondent Sarah Baxter and former Los Angeles Police Department detective and Fox News contributor Mark Fuhrman.

A summary of those discussing the Petraeus testimony on Fox News while the testimony was being aired on the afternoon of September 10 follows:

Persons discussing Petraeus' testimony on Fox News (9/10, 12:30-6 p.m. ET)
Liberals/ Progressives   Republicans / conservatives/ pro-Petraeus guests
Fox News anchors & reporters
Other journalists
Defense analysts
Rep. Bob Wexler

former Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)

Columnist Ann Coulter

Iraq war veteran Marco Martinez

former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

former CIA agent Mike Baker

Martha MacCallum

Catherine Herridge

Jennifer Griffin

Shepard Smith

Neil Cavuto

John Gibson

Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei

Retired Gen. Bob Scales

As the blog News Hounds noted, after Coulter and Martinez spoke on Your World, Cavuto said, "I want to bring Julian Epstein into this. He's a Democratic strategist of some renown. Ann Coulter is here as well to talk about it. I think we're not quite set up with Julian." Cavuto continued his dialogue with Coulter for more than two minutes. Coverage then returned to live video from the testimony without any image or sound from Epstein. As News Hounds also noted, during Cavuto's conversation with Coulter, Coulter said: "[T]o ... hear what's actually going on, you suddenly realize how completely treasonous the media is, and the Democrats -- they want us to lose. They hate the troops."

In his USA Today op-ed, Martinez distorted remarks by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC). Martinez claimed that Clyburn said "progress with the surge might create a 'real big problem for us' in moving toward withdrawal." Martinez added: "Knowing that a politician might view success in Iraq as an electoral problem is political zealotry in the extreme. Does Clyburn's remark, though his alone, reflect a growing anxiety among Democrats that success in Iraq might complicate plans for ending the war?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted when other conservatives distorted Clyburn's remark, the full context of the washingtonpost.com interview in which Clyburn made the remark shows that he did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats; rather, he said that a recommendation from Petraeus against "back[ing] away" from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal.

From the September 10 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

COULTER: We've -- just in Anbar province alone, I believe, we've killed 100 Al Qaeda, just since the beginning of the surge. And meanwhile, our combat deaths have gone down by half since we've taken the fight to the enemy. I mean -- now that -- to act -- hear what's actually going on, you suddenly realize how completely treasonous the mainstream media is, and the Democrats -- they want us to lose. They hate the troops. They think the troops are a bunch of illiterate, toothless rapists, from what I can tell from reading the media on a daily basis.

[...]

MARTINEZ: I do believe that we need more troops on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And as you can see, the surge is working. And -- and it's actually been very good for us to have those 30,000 troops in Iraq. As you can see, it's -- it's created results in our favor.

CAVUTO: All right, Sergeant, I want to thank you again for joining us but more for your service to the country. Thank you, sir.

MARTINEZ: Thank you for having me.

CAVUTO: All right, well, you might have heard one or two congressmen referring to this MoveOn.org -- that was a front -- not a front-page but a full-page ad in today's New York Times, among other major newspapers, where it essentially accused the general you're looking at right now [Petraeus] of being a liar and betraying the facts. I want to bring Julian Epstein into this. He's a Democratic strategist of some renown. Ann Coulter is here as well to talk a little bit about it. I think we're not quite set up with Julian, but, Ann, this ad and the fact that so many are quoting it and saying, "Look, don't trust the guy who is still perpetuating a bad war." How does it resonate?

COULTER: It's just part of the same treason the Democrats have been promoting from the beginning.

From the September 10 edition of Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson:

BAKER: And, in all honesty, not to beat the drum on behalf of General Petraeus, because he himself knows the seriousness of this problem, but he's presented a very, very down-to-Earth report, and I think it's -- it's -- there's some magnificent spin going on right know to try to color it as -- as the White House version of this.

[Jimbob]

All the Democrats were too busy to talk to FN.  They were at CNN and MSNBC with previous engagements.

[Jaime]

All the Democrats were too busy to talk to FN.  They were at CNN and MSNBC with previous engagements.

The absolute truth. Remember the debate dodge!

[Jim Abb]

All the Democrats were too busy to talk to FN.  They were at CNN and MSNBC with previous engagements.

The absolute truth. Remember the debate dodge!

Prove it.
Show us evidence that Dems were invited but refused to comment on air.
Until then you're just blowing smoke to dodge the facts. Coulter and Limbaugh would be proud of you!

[Big Mike Lewis]

O'Reilly has an open invitation to anyone who wants to come on.  Hannity & Colmes, same. But you wouldn't know that because you don't listen to all sides of every argument before making up your mind.  It's called fair and balanced.  You just believe what Air America and Media Matters lies about.

Oh, and Edwards' haircuts are actually $1200...there was a mistake on that.

[Dragonfly7]

Who would want a demoncrat in office anyway?

I don't know about a "demoncrat," but if you are talking about a Democrat and just can't spell; I would much rather see a Democrat win the 2008 election rather than another Republican, considering the disastrous administration that currently occupies the White House.

Evidently more people want a Democrat as a Legislator than want a Republican, judging by the last election.

[Jaime]

Who would want a demoncrat in office anyway?

I don't know about a "demoncrat," but if you are talking about a Democrat and just can't spell; I would much rather see a Democrat win the 2008 election rather than another Republican, considering the disastrous administration that currently occupies the White House.

Evidently more people want a Democrat as a Legislator than want a Republican, judging by the last election.

Yeah, tell your comrades, to keep up the good work. I can't wait till 2008. Maybe we could bring some more Generals up in front of congress for them to deride. Great electoral strategy.

[Jim Abb]

Once again, as we see from Big Mike, the strategy of dodging the facts by changing the argument. The question was the fair and balanced reporting that did not take place. Since the obvious bias cannot be refuted, he changes the argument to focus on O'Reilly and Hannity and their open invitations. (The admittedly few times I have seen them with a viable progressive on their show they have controlled the dialogue and abused the guest. Once you have seen that a few times, you figure, why bother?)

But Big Mike could not refute the bias.

And if you can show me any lies that I have posted from Media Matters please do so, but because so far all we have gotten from you "fair and balanced" and "open minded" conservatives is a lot of hot air.

[Mere Nick]

Once again, as we see from Big Mike, the strategy of dodging the facts by changing the argument. The question was the fair and balanced reporting that did not take place. Since the obvious bias cannot be refuted, he changes the argument to focus on O'Reilly and Hannity and their open invitations. (The admittedly few times I have seen them with a viable progressive on their show they have controlled the dialogue and abused the guest. Once you have seen that a few times, you figure, why bother?)

But Big Mike could not refute the bias.

And if you can show me any lies that I have posted from Media Matters please do so, but because so far all we have gotten from you "fair and balanced" and "open minded" conservatives is a lot of hot air.

That latest Media Matters report about columnists is a load because it is extremely subjective to declare someone a so-called "progressive", "centrist" or "conservative", yet they just assume the mantle of objectivity in their declarations.