"Liberal Media"? Soft on Trump, Tough on Clinton

[Oldstyle]

You do the same thing with college faculties. They are also overwhelmingly liberal yet when a conservative points that out...you declare it to be a "myth"!

 

[Pogo]

The 'liberal media,' one of the right's more ridiculous lies and myths.

'The media' do not function as a single entity guided by one ideology or goal, save that of making money.

Yet studies have shown that the "mainstream" media is overwhelmingly liberal...which begs the question...why are you on the far left so determined to pretend that isn't the case?

Wellllllll.... no they haven't. They've actually shown, if anything, the reverse.

This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias? When the vast majority of the people who report and shape the news all vote for the same political party, there's an issue. If you think the media is soft on Trump, their tone will change dramatically as soon as he gets the nomination. It's what they do.

Someone thinking the liberal media is giving Trump "soft" coverage because the media likes him so much is simply showing how naive they are! The media is doing their level best to provide a GOP nominee that Clinton or Sanders can defeat. They think that person is Donald Trump.

Bullshit.

There is no Big Media Think Tank deciding what "side" it's going to be on, period. Mass media likes Rump for the same reason his minions do ---- he sells emotional snake oil. He's all about "rapist" this and "pig" that and "losers" and tough talk ----- and never a single word about specific policy ideas. That's why even though his ideology--- as far as he has any --- butts heads with that of his "conservative" sycophants, they don't care because that's not what they're in it for --- they're in it for what it feels like. It's a visceral, emotional, non-intellectual connection.

Visceral-emotional SELLS on TV. Big time. Always did. Intellectual --- does not. That's why you can't get an audience for a reasoned discussion on the history behind the turmoil in the Middle East, but you can instantly get one for the burning question of who Sheniqua's baby-daddy is. That's why William F. Buckley had to run his show on PBS --- it wouldn't sell commercials.

The fact that while mass media clamors around Rump for the emotional-hook ratings he provides, yet none of them press him on the fact that he has yet to get specific about anything he says, just proves the OP's point. Rump sells emotional snake oil; Hillary Clinton does not. Therefore, Hillary's going to get more scrutiny for the nuts and bolts of policy, which is the only thing she puts out. Rump on the other hand is psychological entertainment, and that $ells.

That's also why CNN put him at the center at last night's debate. Were they interested in presenting a genuine balanced debate, rather than the game show atmosphere circus they did present, they would have put him off to the side.

But that's not what they're interested in. They're interested in how much money they can milk out of a spectacle.

It ain't rocket surgery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

 

[Oldstyle]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

 

[Carla_Danger]

The 'liberal media,' one of the right's more ridiculous lies and myths.

'The media' do not function as a single entity guided by one ideology or goal, save that of making money.

Yet studies have shown that the "mainstream" media is overwhelmingly liberal...which begs the question...why are you on the far left so determined to pretend that isn't the case?

Bullshit. Is this a study done by Breitbart?

 

[Silhouette]

"Liberal Media"? Soft on Trump, Tough on Clinton"

Simple. MSNBC wants the farthest left candidate to win: Sanders. So, they're tough on Clinton to urge their flock to Sanders. Then, they play soft and easy on Trump because they know he'll divide the GOP and that's the only way someone like their Sanders would win.

Only, I think the GOP has seen that ruse now and is going to go ahead and nominate Trump. Better Trump than Sanders is the math they've done on the liberal media's little ruse..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

It's time for you and others on the right to get over the 'liberal media' myth:

'Impugning the motives of those we've entrusted with separating fiction from fact has proven an effective strategy for the right. Don't agree with a judicial decision? Blame the "activist" judge. Think an academic paper might be damaging to your cause? No worries. Academia is "liberal" and "elitist." Worried that global warming might prove nettlesome? It's the product of scientists harboring a "hidden agenda."

And today a news media that might otherwise be making reasoned judgments about what's news and what isn't has become so cowed by conservative complaints that just about any allegation, no matter how outlandish, must receive "equal time."
[…]
But suggest that the media might not be so liberal after all, and you elicit ferocious conservative push-back. Just ask Chuck Todd. Last week, when he said media bias was a myth, the conservative response was perhaps best typified by Greg Gutfeld's 90 second uninterrupted monologue on Fox, which I think can be fairly boiled down to: The media is liberal because the media is liberal and it's preposterous to think otherwise.'

Breaking News: Skepticism of Conservative Ideas Requires No Bias

Indeed, it's an article of religious faith among conservatives that 'the media' are 'liberal,' in spite of the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a ridiculous claim.

 

[Oldstyle]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

It's time for you and others on the right to get over the 'liberal media' myth:

'Impugning the motives of those we've entrusted with separating fiction from fact has proven an effective strategy for the right. Don't agree with a judicial decision? Blame the "activist" judge. Think an academic paper might be damaging to your cause? No worries. Academia is "liberal" and "elitist." Worried that global warming might prove nettlesome? It's the product of scientists harboring a "hidden agenda."

And today a news media that might otherwise be making reasoned judgments about what's news and what isn't has become so cowed by conservative complaints that just about any allegation, no matter how outlandish, must receive "equal time."
[…]
But suggest that the media might not be so liberal after all, and you elicit ferocious conservative push-back. Just ask Chuck Todd. Last week, when he said media bias was a myth, the conservative response was perhaps best typified by Greg Gutfeld's 90 second uninterrupted monologue on Fox, which I think can be fairly boiled down to: The media is liberal because the media is liberal and it's preposterous to think otherwise.'

Breaking News: Skepticism of Conservative Ideas Requires No Bias

Indeed, it's an article of religious faith among conservatives that 'the media' are 'liberal,' in spite of the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a ridiculous claim.

No evidence to support it? What's "ridiculous" is watching far left progressives like yourself DEMAND that everyone declare that the main stream media isn't biased...that college faculties aren't overwhelmingly liberal...and that the scientific community doing research on global warming isn't also liberally biased...when it's quite obvious that they are!

 

[Oldstyle]

And for you to come on here and list MSNBC's Chuck Todd as your "source" to prove that the media isn't liberal is about as absurd as it gets since MSNBC is the POSTER CHILD for liberal bias in the media!

 

[Synthaholic]

This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias? When the vast majority of the people who report and shape the news all vote for the same political party, there's an issue. If you think the media is soft on Trump, their tone will change dramatically as soon as he gets the nomination. It's what they do.

Someone thinking the liberal media is giving Trump "soft" coverage because the media likes him so much is simply showing how naive they are! The media is doing their level best to provide a GOP nominee that Clinton or Sanders can defeat. They think that person is Donald Trump.

Who is being ignored?

And why do you have such low regard for your fellow conservative voters? Are they all so easily fooled by Chris Matthews?

Did you miss the rather wry comment by Jeb Bush that he could drop his drawers and moon the press and still not get noticed? Donald Trump is getting the lion's share of media coverage and candidates like Bush and Kasich got next to none. If the people don't hear what you're saying...no matter how much sense it makes...then you don't have a prayer of winning an election.

As for Chris Matthews? Does anyone pay attention to that blathering idiot at this point?

Which shows you that the corporate media doesn't care about Liberal/Conservative, they care about ratings. And Trump means ratings. Boo fucking Hoo that Jeb! Bush has no personality and puts people to sleep. Nobody forced him to run, and just because he's running doesn't guarantee anyone is going to cover him. Just ask Lawrence Lessig.

So you can stop with the Liberal Media bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

The 'liberal media,' one of the right's more ridiculous lies and myths.

'The media' do not function as a single entity guided by one ideology or goal, save that of making money.

Yet studies have shown that the "mainstream" media is overwhelmingly liberal...which begs the question...why are you on the far left so determined to pretend that isn't the case?

No they haven't.

 

[NoNukes]

Can you imagine if Trump took even one trip to Epstein's Lolita Sex slave Island to spend quality time with 16 year old girls?

Bill Clinton was never there. Does your stupidity have no limit?

 

[Synthaholic]

"Liberal Media"? Soft on Trump, Tough on Clinton"

Simple. MSNBC wants the farthest left candidate to win: Sanders. So, they're tough on Clinton to urge their flock to Sanders. Then, they play soft and easy on Trump because they know he'll divide the GOP and that's the only way someone like their Sanders would win.

Only, I think the GOP has seen that ruse now and is going to go ahead and nominate Trump. Better Trump than Sanders is the math they've done on the liberal media's little ruse..

Then why is FOXNEWS easy on Trump and easy on Sanders?

 

[HappyJoy]

Can you imagine if Trump took even one trip to Epstein's Lolita Sex slave Island to spend quality time with 16 year old girls?

Donald Trump:
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,.. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery

 

[Synthaholic]

And for you to come on here and list MSNBC's Chuck Todd as your "source" to prove that the media isn't liberal is about as absurd as it gets since MSNBC is the POSTER CHILD for liberal bias in the media!

False. Come up with an example, with links.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine if Trump took even one trip to Epstein's Lolita Sex slave Island to spend quality time with 16 year old girls?

Donald Trump:
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,.. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery

Yes but unlike BJ Clinton, Trump isn't on the island enjoying the company of 16 year old girls

Maybe Trump's friend Epstein has some photos of Bill and the Lolitas?

 

[HappyJoy]

Can you imagine if Trump took even one trip to Epstein's Lolita Sex slave Island to spend quality time with 16 year old girls?

Donald Trump:
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,.. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery

Yes but unlike BJ Clinton, Trump isn't on the island enjoying the company of 16 year old girls

Maybe Trump's friend Epstein has some photos of Bill and the Lolitas?

Now you're just lying. But that's to be expected

How much fun did Clinton have with Epstein? Trump had "a lot", straight from the orangutan's mouth.

 

[Oldstyle]

And for you to come on here and list MSNBC's Chuck Todd as your "source" to prove that the media isn't liberal is about as absurd as it gets since MSNBC is the POSTER CHILD for liberal bias in the media!

False. Come up with an example, with links.

Are you seriously saying that MSNBC isn't liberally biased? There's stupid...Synth...and then there is EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID!

 

[Star]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

MSNBC should change their call letters to ATATT (All Trump All The Time).

If conservatives are correct, most news anchors self-describe themselves as liberals, and if conservatives are correct, networks are in it for the commercial $$$/ratings - how do conservatives square that with; America is a center right country? I agree the media are in it for the ratings/commercial $$$, so the question is why would conservative media moguls, company decision makers, etc. hire and program news anchors whose self-described political ideology runs counter to their audience?

As I Googled around looking for news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party, I found a lot of rightwing opinions/accusations/insinuations but very few news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party.

If, as conservatives think, MSNBC is the most liberal of the liberal media, how is it that, on a daily basis they program three hours of Joe (I'm a conservative Republican) Scarborough, one hour of Andrea Greenspan-Mitchell, one hour of Chuck (it's not my job to fact check Romney) Todd, one hour of Chris (the centrist) Matthews...?


.

 

[Oldstyle]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

MSNBC should change their call letters to ATATT (All Trump All The Time).

If conservatives are correct, most news anchors self-describe themselves as liberals, and if conservatives are correct, networks are in it for the commercial $$$/ratings - how do conservatives square that with; America is a center right country? I agree the media are in it for the ratings/commercial $$$, so the question is why would conservative media moguls, company decision makers, etc. hire and program news anchors whose self-described political ideology runs counter to their audience?

As I Googled around looking for news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party, I found a lot of rightwing opinions/accusations/insinuations but very few news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party.

If, as conservatives think, MSNBC is the most liberal of the liberal media, how is it that, on a daily basis they program three hours of Joe (I'm a conservative Republican) Scarborough, one hour of Andrea Greenspan-Mitchell, one hour of Chuck (it's not my job to fact check Romney) Todd, one hour of Chris (the centrist) Matthews...?


.

Did you just claim that Chuck Todd and Chris Matthews aren't liberals? Come on, Star...if you want to have any respect at all here...don't post nonsense like that!