OT: Proof that mainstream media has a deep-seated liberal bias

[Huckleberry]

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=189C0D9F-D4E7-473C-9961-6564C60BD18E

[urbanrealtor]

So your proof is from the mainstream media?

[desmond]

“Nonetheless, leading media figures and outlets still tried to shame the Senate. CNN’s Piers Morgan, a longstanding gun control advocate, called the Senate “a pathetic, gutless bunch of cowards.”

Character building…

[SK in CV]

Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.

[Jazzman]

Mainstream media is by it’s nature progressive, or ‘liberal’ in democracies. When it’s not, it’s used as a propaganda tool by totalitarian regimes. I don’t know of anywhere, where this isn’t the case.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]

Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?

If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?

[SK in CV]

[quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]

Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?

If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?[/quote]

Where have I heard that before? The polls are all wrong. Romney is going to win by a landslide.

No, it’s not possible the Senators did their homework, unless by homework, you mean opposing everything that the administration wants or voting the way the NRA tells them to. Some of them (at least 3) stated in public that they supported background checks, but still voted against the background check amendment that was supported by overwhelming majorities in their states. So what exactly is it that these Senators knew and failed to communicate to their constituency?

[dumbrenter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=dumbrenter][quote=SK in CV]Ok, so I just got around to reading the linked article and this part stood out to me:

“I guess the liberal media get annoyed when Senators listen to their constituents and think for themselves, rather than doing the media’s bidding,” Bill Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, told POLITICO.

The odd thing about this, is that the Senators didn’t listen to their constituents. If they had, the vote would have been a landslide to pass at least some of the background check proposals, which are resoundingly favored across the country.

So the press coverage wasn’t so much partisan as much as it was reflective of listener opinion, including NRA members. Except for the gun lobby NRA members.[/quote]

Does it matter to you that it could be possible that Senators did their homework, actually listened to their constituents and are more accurate than some media sponsored polls?

If the senators listened wrong, they pay for it by losing the election. On the other hand, these media polls are setup by people who want to influence the agenda, the numbers they put out are a means for their agenda, not an end. Why would you want to trust them?[/quote]

Where have I heard that before? The polls are all wrong. Romney is going to win by a landslide.

No, it’s not possible the Senators did their homework, unless by homework, you mean opposing everything that the administration wants or voting the way the NRA tells them to. Some of them (at least 3) stated in public that they supported background checks, but still voted against the background check amendment that was supported by overwhelming majorities in their states. So what exactly is it that these Senators knew and failed to communicate to their constituency?[/quote]

SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=dumbrenter]SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.[/quote]

Where I think you’re wrong is that the polls aren’t, for the most part, done by the media. They’re done by polling firms, and while some of them do have political leanings, they still want to be right. Those that were wrong during the last polling cycle got excoriated, and will lose business the next time around. They get paid for right answers.

Example….Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire, saw her approval rating drop by 15 points (based on a poll done by Public Policy Polling, one of the companies that was near the most accurate during the last election cycle), after her no vote. There will be ramifications.

[zk]

[quote=dumbrenter]
SK, I don’t want to get into a partisan argument. My point is pretty simple:
The Senators have a motivation to get re-elected. If they communicated wrong, they get punished by their states.
The media polls are run by folks whose motivation is unknown at the very least.
If you believe that the senators can get away by voting against something that “overwhelming majorities” support, you essentially are saying we are not living in a democracy.[/quote]

We aren’t living in a democracy. I’m not talking about dictionary definitions of democracies or “federal republics” or whatever. I’m talking about to whom our politicians listen. If a Senator’s (or any politician’s) motivation is to get reelected (which it usually is), then only part of their strategy for reelection is to do what their voting constituents want. And part is to do what special interests want. Money buys influence, and that influence isn’t necessarily proportional to the number of people whom that influence benefits. It’s easily possible that a senator would choose to vote against a vast majority of his constituents on a particular issue if he thinks that going against them on that one issue will hurt his overall chance of getting reelected less than going against a particularly powerful special interest group would.

[paramount]

This is funny: CNN gets caught in a lie…

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]This is funny: CNN gets caught in a lie…

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/nancy-grace-ashleigh-banfield-cnn-parking-lot/64965/%5B/quote%5D

It seems pretty silly, but what is the lie?

[Author]

Posts