Ann Romney too dignified to say so BUT I'M NOT!!!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Host Chris Wallace asked, "Do you think the media was in the tank for Barack Obama?"

"I think that any time you are running for office you always think that you are being portrayed unfairly, and, you know, we -- of course, on our side believe there is more bias in favor of the other side," said Ann Romney. "I think that, you know, that is a pretty universal -- universally felt opinion."

Ann Romney: 'I'm Happy to Blame the Media' | The Weekly Standard

I don't think she knew that:


In 2008 1,160 employees (85%) of the three major broadcast television networks, GAVE The Democratic total of $1,020,816 with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 (15%) of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.

So why would someone be so stupid to donate to Obama AND THEN write negative stories and push for fair and balance information??

85% of the above employees GAVE to Democrats!

This explains how come only 29 percent of the narrative on Governor Romney was positive while 71 percent was negative.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

And Mrs. Romney here in the MSM's OWN words... how in the tank they were for Obama!!!

Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But when it comes to Obama this same Bush Bashing Editor of NewsWeek.... Evan Thomas calls Obama god!

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

So please explain how these FACTS 85% donations by news media to Democrats,
71% negative stories ran about Romney and a MSM editor thinks Obama is a god...


Definitely in the TANK for Obama!

It’s about time you and others on the right get over 2012.

You lost because the American people rejected the GOP, its message, and the conservative agenda.

The longer you continue to attempt to cast blame everywhere but where it belongs makes 2014 and 2016 that much more difficult to win.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Do ardent conservatives have an inability to face their own shortcomings and failures? It's amazing watching them squirm and try to re-write history in all the issues they've gotten their asses handed to them on.

As usual, A liberal who can't face the facts when they are presented.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Host Chris Wallace asked, "Do you think the media was in the tank for Barack Obama?"

"I think that any time you are running for office you always think that you are being portrayed unfairly, and, you know, we -- of course, on our side believe there is more bias in favor of the other side," said Ann Romney. "I think that, you know, that is a pretty universal -- universally felt opinion."

Ann Romney: 'I'm Happy to Blame the Media' | The Weekly Standard

I don't think she knew that:


In 2008 1,160 employees (85%) of the three major broadcast television networks, GAVE The Democratic total of $1,020,816 with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 (15%) of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.

So why would someone be so stupid to donate to Obama AND THEN write negative stories and push for fair and balance information??

85% of the above employees GAVE to Democrats!

This explains how come only 29 percent of the narrative on Governor Romney was positive while 71 percent was negative.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

And Mrs. Romney here in the MSM's OWN words... how in the tank they were for Obama!!!

Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But when it comes to Obama this same Bush Bashing Editor of NewsWeek.... Evan Thomas calls Obama god!

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, June 5, 2009.
Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

So please explain how these FACTS 85% donations by news media to Democrats,
71% negative stories ran about Romney and a MSM editor thinks Obama is a god...


Definitely in the TANK for Obama!

It’s about time you and others on the right get over 2012.

You lost because the American people rejected the GOP, its message, and the conservative agenda.

The longer you continue to attempt to cast blame everywhere but where it belongs makes 2014 and 2016 that much more difficult to win.

Not to mention your party hasn't pulled out of the ideological nose dive it's been in for over a decade, made any effort to expel corrupt or evil influences from it's party, made no effort to welcome anything but rich or confused white people to it's party and ran an evil sociopath who's the very embodiment of what destroyed this country's economy.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Do ardent conservatives have an inability to face their own shortcomings and failures? It's amazing watching them squirm and try to re-write history in all the issues they've gotten their asses handed to them on.

As usual, A liberal who can't face the facts when they are presented.

You think the media is to blame for the Republicans complete incompetence on a national stage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

Not were are and if you get most of the media taking the side of and supporting one party you get misleading and deceptive coverage of what is happening and what the two parties are really doing.However if you really truly feel that media outlets being pro one way or the other does not matter does that mean we will hear no more complaints about FOX being pro Republican.

I never hear conservatives complaining about the bias at Foxnews.

Media 'bias' is Freedom of the Press. How do you wish to curtail it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

If you need to be told, then you need to get two working brain cells first before you will understand.

You can't tell us why it matters either. We have a free press in this country. That includes the broadcast media.

Most media outlets are private sector for profit companies. That's how it should be, right? Their 'bias' is freedom of the press.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Says who? They are businesses trying to make money. Would you prefer to come down on them with some sort of regulation that would compel them to conform to a government's interpretation of what 'fairness' is?

Isn't that what the fairness doctrine attempted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you need it explained to you, you are too dim and/or too dishonest to bother with.

If you can't tell me why it matters, then you fit the same description.

I want someone to tell me why it's any of your business how a media outlet does its business.

Tell me why you think you're entitled to having media businesses maintain political neutrality.

WTF is wrong with you? Why did Obama take out campaign ads on the TV? Why did Romney? TV influences people you know it and I know it. So they were deluged with negative news from the MSM about Romney and almost all positive about Obama. THAT has to have an effect. And considering that there really wasn't anything wrong with Romney and he actually had a positive track record and considering Obama track record over the last four years it had to have an influence. So if playing dumb is a mistake, then you just made another.

Freedom of the press is a right. It's right there in the Constitution just before you get to that thing about guns.

Do you have a problem with freedom of the press?

 

[OKTexas]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

Not were are and if you get most of the media taking the side of and supporting one party you get misleading and deceptive coverage of what is happening and what the two parties are really doing.However if you really truly feel that media outlets being pro one way or the other does not matter does that mean we will hear no more complaints about FOX being pro Republican.

I never hear conservatives complaining about the bias at Foxnews.

Media 'bias' is Freedom of the Press. How do you wish to curtail it?

Unfortunately that requires an honest consumer, I you see someone printing or putting out a story as news when in fact they are editorializing they should be called on it. We as citizens have a responsibility in this also, I have no problem letting even people on the right know if I think they are being biased or unduly slanting a story. I emailed an on air radio guy in my local market who got something wrong and actually got an on air retraction, because I proved he go it wrong on the facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Are you aware that a 'biased' press played a very important part in the colonies, spreading the ideas of the founders, the Revolution, etc.?

What do you think Tom Paine's pamphleteering was all about?

 

[OKTexas]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Are you aware that a 'biased' press played a very important part in the colonies, spreading the ideas of the founders, the Revolution, etc.?

What do you think Tom Paine's pamphleteering was all about?

You might want to learn a bit of the difference between editorials and news, editorials should be distinctly separate from news, when they are combined all you get is propaganda. A new story should contain only the who, what, when and where of an event the why should be left to the consumer and not influenced by the slanting of facts to move the consumer one direction or the other.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Are you aware that a 'biased' press played a very important part in the colonies, spreading the ideas of the founders, the Revolution, etc.?

What do you think Tom Paine's pamphleteering was all about?

You might want to learn a bit of the difference between editorials and news, editorials should be distinctly separate from news, when they are combined all you get is propaganda. A new story should contain only the who, what, when and where of an event the why should be left to the consumer and not influenced by the slanting of facts to move the consumer one direction or the other.

To the left, A biased press in favor of what they support is simply telling the "facts".. However, one that questions their positions or disagrees with them, that is "Faux" news and to be ridiculed, boycotted, ignored, and run out of business.

They can't tell the difference between a "Commentator" and a "Journalist" and what standards are supposed to seperate them. They really don't care as long it is only their viewpoint that is getting the positive media play.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Are you aware that a 'biased' press played a very important part in the colonies, spreading the ideas of the founders, the Revolution, etc.?

What do you think Tom Paine's pamphleteering was all about?

You might want to learn a bit of the difference between editorials and news, editorials should be distinctly separate from news, when they are combined all you get is propaganda. A new story should contain only the who, what, when and where of an event the why should be left to the consumer and not influenced by the slanting of facts to move the consumer one direction or the other.

You must then prefer the structure of PBS's Newshour, which draws as clear a line between its news reporting and its commentary as anyone.

 

[J.E.D]

Ann Romney too dignified to say so BUT I'M NOT!!!

Still making excuses? How sad. Tissue?

 

[Londoner]

If the media was in the tank for Liberals, than the word Liberal would not be a dirty word.

In the 70s, the Right ramped up their rhetorical war against the Left, making huge investments in Think Tanks and popular media. They created a massive media bullhorn which they used to repetitively denounce the terms Left and Liberal. Presidential candidates like Dukakis and Kerry were forced to deny being liberals. No Conservative faces this problem because the media treats Conservatives as natural/good Americans. Indeed, Clinton had to deny being on the Left to get a second term. This is why he declared the era of Big Government over - because the media was in the tank for reaganomics and small government. Market Mantra became the norm, and it was trumpeted on every station.

If the Left owned the media, than the word Liberal would be restored to what it meant when their was a broad consensus for the New Deal.

Not one media outlet supports a genuine Labor Party in the U.S. - and there cannot be a Liberal movement in the absence of a powerful Labor Party.

Where do you think the theory of "Liberal Media Bias" comes from? It comes from the media, and it's repeated on every channel, including MSNBC. Joe Scarborough says it every morning.

Truth be told. Big Media is owned by a handful of mega-corporations. Those corporations ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT higher taxes and more regulations. Therefore, they have contempt for the Liberal Agenda. The only reason there is one primetime block devoted to the Left (MSNBC Primetime) is because advertisers want to reach Leftwing viewers.

At the behest of the Bush administration, the New York Times sat on the illegal wiretapping story until after the 2004 election. The NYT also supported the Iraq War in the beginning. They were fully in the tank for Bush. They were one of the voices which called for Gore to concede the election.

The fact is: Romney is a terrible candidate. He was disowned by his own party, who didn't turn out for him. I saw bigger criticisms of Romney from the Rightwing media during primary season than I did from the mainstream during the general. He was a disaster. For God's sakes, I would have considered voting for Huntsman or even Ron Paul - but the Right chose a loser.

 

[Dot Com]

^ good post

 

[kiwiman127]

Do ardent conservatives have an inability to face their own shortcomings and failures? It's amazing watching them squirm and try to re-write history in all the issues they've gotten their asses handed to them on.

As usual, A liberal who can't face the facts when they are presented.

Not facing the facts isn't exclusive to the left, the right falls equally into that category, denying it makes you a liar.

 

[OriginalShroom]

So what if most media outlets were pro-Democrat?

Seriously. So what? Somebody tell me why it matters.

It takes a serious communist the think a biased media is not a problem, they are supposed to be part of the checks and balances of our nation, that's why their freedom was protected in the bill of rights. When they start promoting either side of a debate instead of reporting facts it undermines our system of government. What will you say if that balance is shifted?

Says who? They are businesses trying to make money. Would you prefer to come down on them with some sort of regulation that would compel them to conform to a government's interpretation of what 'fairness' is?

Isn't that what the fairness doctrine attempted?

No it is not.

The Fairness Doctrine, which excluded News Programing which included shows such as Good Morning America, required that opionated programing have a second by second response by the other side.

By the standards which were set, if a Radio Station carried three hours of Rush, they would have to also air three hours of Ed Schultz at a time simular to Rush's. However, a program such as Good Morning America or CBS Evening News would not be subject to that requirement.

The premise being that the Government could not question the journalistic integrity of Dan Rather because of the 1st Amendment, but Ed Schultz or Rush Limbaugh had to have an opposite in order to present balance.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Do ardent conservatives have an inability to face their own shortcomings and failures? It's amazing watching them squirm and try to re-write history in all the issues they've gotten their asses handed to them on.

As usual, A liberal who can't face the facts when they are presented.

Not facing the facts isn't exclusive to the left, the right falls equally into that category, denying it makes you a liar.

And now comes along an "Above it all" who refuses to say that the left is dirty unless they can do a "Wellwhaddabout" someone on the right.

Then, to top it off, adds the ad hom if anyone would dare to disagree with them.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Are you aware that a 'biased' press played a very important part in the colonies, spreading the ideas of the founders, the Revolution, etc.?

What do you think Tom Paine's pamphleteering was all about?

You might want to learn a bit of the difference between editorials and news, editorials should be distinctly separate from news, when they are combined all you get is propaganda. A new story should contain only the who, what, when and where of an event the why should be left to the consumer and not influenced by the slanting of facts to move the consumer one direction or the other.

You must then prefer the structure of PBS's Newshour, which draws as clear a line between its news reporting and its commentary as anyone.

::KOFF:::: ::::KOFF:::::

Surely you are joking. PBS is as bad an offender as Dan Rather when it comes to putting a left wing spin on the news.