The leftist Democrat Party bias and tilt of American Main Stream Media

[MaggieMae]

In big and important ways, and in little almost imperceptible ways, the American "main stream" media demonstrates a consistent bias in favor of the politically left and in favor of the Democrat Party (pardon me if "politically left" and "Democrat Party" are redundant expressions).

So, maybe it's time to have a handy reference spot to document it when we see it.

Getting started. Has anybody noticed that the main stream media seems determined to take "subtle" and consistent note of Speaker Boehner's odd behavioral quirk of crying a bit too easily and often? I mean, hell. Many of us (on both the left and the right) have noted it. It is probably fair game to poke at it once in a while. But is THAT the job of a supposedly "objective" news organization?

From TODAY'S MSN.com:

Journalists like putting pictures with their stories. IT seems to motivate people to read the stories. Today, the MSN.com home page was fronting the NYT's piece on Republican "unity" getting "frayed."

Republicans battle turmoil in their ranks

NYT: Pressure on spending cuts, surprise floor defeats show fraying unity.

-- MSN.com

Could it POSSIBLY be that MSN was planting a little subconscious reinforcement for the propaganda message that the GOP is in such turmoil that the speaker is crying over it?

Boehner hasn't shed any tears lately, so no one talks about it (except you, so I guess it bothered you more). And maybe if it seems like MSM leans to the left it's because the left is right more than the right is right.

 

[MaggieMae]

JACKSON, Miss. – A fight is brewing in Mississippi over a proposal to issue specialty license plates honoring Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was an early leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

The Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans wants to sponsor a series of state-issued license plates to mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, which it calls the "War Between the States." The group proposes a different design each year between now and 2015, with Forrest slated for 2014.

Link to: Proposed Mississippi license plate causes controversy - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

Yep, that pesky Fourth Estate is always after conservatives, muckracking and exposing minor foibles of conservatives is so unfair. I feel your pain LIEability.

Fly Catcher, you dishonest dessicated gonad, how the f--- are you today?

As always, you miss the point and/or deliberately distort the point.

I gather that you are one of the feeble-minded useful idiots who accepts the facially false claim that the American main stream media is "objective."

I'm well, thank you for asking. Of course I don't accept that; I believe all news is tainted by some subjective leakage - some intentional and some subconscious. Claims of Fair and Balanced by Fox, for example, are absurd. The agenda at Fox, and all of News Corp, are obviously biased so the intent there is clear to everyone (though some refuse to acknowledge what is self evident to most).
MSNBC offers a different bias, one which is a necessary counterpoint to Fox.
Best those who want to be informed exercise due dilligence in forming their opinions. Because so much 'reported' today is propaganda, one needs to look at each issue and the subtle differences in how it is 'reported'.

I would add that listening to the unedited comments (such as CSPAN) from primary sources is an exercise of due dilligence, noting further that propaganda flows easily from the mouths of pols as it does from the mouths of talking heads.

Sometimes listening to some of the unedited comments from callers on C-Span's Washington Journal makes me want to scream, as I tear my hair out wondering if some people have EVER actually picked up a newspaper yet they're willing to go live to millions of people with goofy comments. I'm actually amazed some of them "found" C-Span at all, let alone thought it would be interesting. Then I think of the bright spot and think maybe they'll stick around and return on a daily basis and actually learn something.

 

[MaggieMae]

I went to your link and found an article titled:

Condi Rice on what makes a strong leader
Oh, my! The Main Stream Media is pushing some whackaloon right wing agenda.

At the risk of being serious with you, Ravi:

Are you honestly trying to make the claim that merely because some outlets in the main stream media occasionally provide some relatively fair, objective or balanced reporting or analysis, this somehow constitutes evidence that they aren't politically biased towards the left and the Democrats?

Whatever the news outlet is, whether it's a dotcom or mainstream, they all get the top news stories of the day via AP, and if you put those stories side by side, they read the same. If you're talking opinion pages, that's a different story.

 

[MaggieMae]

I went to your link and found an article titled:

Condi Rice on what makes a strong leader
Oh, my! The Main Stream Media is pushing some whackaloon right wing agenda.

That's "The Root". they focus almost soly on black people. If Condi wasn't black, you would not have found that.

Oh good gawd...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boehner's crying is either fake, or a symptom of his abuse of alcohol.

 

[MaggieMae]

Uh...no. Journalists polled are mostly liberal (at least at the time of that particular poll). That doesn't mean they believe the media has a liberal bias. Unless by liberal you mean rational.

Uh .. no. Not only are journalists much more likely to be self-identified "liberals," the main stream media has been acknowledged by rational (by which I mean logical and honest) journalists to be biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum -- by which, naturally, I mean towards the irrational.

You asserted with your example that putting a picture of Boehner scratching his nose was proof of liberal bias. Yet at your link there is a puff piece about Condi Rice.

No. What I "asserted" was that the image of Boehner apparently engaged in he act of crying (again) (not "scratching his nose") was put there deliberately. It was no accident. It is done by design and with purpose and intent. And example after example of this propagandistic meme can be found all over the lame stream liberal media.

The fact that there is ALSO (not featured in a photo or appearing at all on the MSN.com front page to which I linked) another link, which you get to only after you first see the Boehner "crying again" imagery, is proof of nothing. For, again, I have never claimed that the liberally biased and deliberately distorting main stream media is incapable of providing some information and news and analysis on the OTHER side of the political spectrum. They are blatant enough without having their bias conclusively proved by a complete lack of "demonstrable" objectivity. They are thus OBLIGED to include at least SOME material from the right.

If your assertion were true there would be no puff piece and the picture used of Boehner would have been this one.

There's no "if" about it. My contention IS true. And no; that it IS true does NOT require that they use any one particular image of Boehner "crying (again)." It suffices more than sufficiently for their agenda that they keep plugging away.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that we will be treated in the days and weeks ahead to a flood of "Boehner crying" images. They will be included gratuitously. They need have NO actual connection to the stories getting "reported." That will never be the point. The point is found within the realm of the repetition.

All Democrats aren't "liberals," and there are now more self-proclaimed "independents" than ever before. There are also plenty of Republicans as well as a few conservatives who aren't fanatics, such as David Frum, David Brookes, and Joe Scarborough. Your biggest problem is thinking that anyone that doesn't continuously espouse the right-wing positions must be a "liberal."

 

[MaggieMae]

Boehner's crying is either fake, or a symptom of his abuse of alcohol.

Oh I think it's genuine. But I do wonder if he gets that emotional when he thinks about the number of Americans who are hanging by a thread, or does he just get emotional when it's a "Wow, look what I did" moment, in which case, there's a serious disconnect there.

 

[whitehall]

If the main stream media weren't so far to the right, we never would have invaded Iraq, John Boehner, never would have become house speaker (if Americans knew he passed out bribes on the house floor, who would have elected him?), there never would have been tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, that 200 million dollar a day trip story never would have gained traction, Americans would know who brought down the economy, Americans would know women in Iraq are living in Burkas and Iraq is now under Sharia law under a constitution put into place with the help of Republicans which includes a "public option".

American media is owned by right wingers, far right wingers and foreign Propagandist who are anti American, like Rupert Murdoch and his Arabia Prince partner.

Maybe you have the wrong idea of (your?) government Dean? Congress authorized the president to invade Iraq. Who authorized Clinton to bomb Europe? Non-stop prime time coverage of alleged unverified atrosities paved the way. The left wing media covered Clinton's ass in more ways than one..

 

[Liability]

Uh...no. Journalists polled are mostly liberal (at least at the time of that particular poll). That doesn't mean they believe the media has a liberal bias. Unless by liberal you mean rational.

Uh .. no. Not only are journalists much more likely to be self-identified "liberals," the main stream media has been acknowledged by rational (by which I mean logical and honest) journalists to be biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum -- by which, naturally, I mean towards the irrational.



No. What I "asserted" was that the image of Boehner apparently engaged in he act of crying (again) (not "scratching his nose") was put there deliberately. It was no accident. It is done by design and with purpose and intent. And example after example of this propagandistic meme can be found all over the lame stream liberal media.

The fact that there is ALSO (not featured in a photo or appearing at all on the MSN.com front page to which I linked) another link, which you get to only after you first see the Boehner "crying again" imagery, is proof of nothing. For, again, I have never claimed that the liberally biased and deliberately distorting main stream media is incapable of providing some information and news and analysis on the OTHER side of the political spectrum. They are blatant enough without having their bias conclusively proved by a complete lack of "demonstrable" objectivity. They are thus OBLIGED to include at least SOME material from the right.

If your assertion were true there would be no puff piece and the picture used of Boehner would have been this one.

There's no "if" about it. My contention IS true. And no; that it IS true does NOT require that they use any one particular image of Boehner "crying (again)." It suffices more than sufficiently for their agenda that they keep plugging away.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that we will be treated in the days and weeks ahead to a flood of "Boehner crying" images. They will be included gratuitously. They need have NO actual connection to the stories getting "reported." That will never be the point. The point is found within the realm of the repetition.

All Democrats aren't "liberals," and there are now more self-proclaimed "independents" than ever before. There are also plenty of Republicans as well as a few conservatives who aren't fanatics, such as David Frum, David Brookes, and Joe Scarborough. Your biggest problem is thinking that anyone that doesn't continuously espouse the right-wing positions must be a "liberal."

Cute little pompous diatribe. But the irrelevant, baseless, inaccurate and simplistic little pointless you were attempting to make has nothing to do with the topic of the thread (other than permitting you to invoke the word "liberal").

And you are wrong, anyway. But that's a topic (maybe) for some other day and some other thread where you spin might actually be on topic.

 

[Liability]

I went to your link and found an article titled:

Condi Rice on what makes a strong leader
Oh, my! The Main Stream Media is pushing some whackaloon right wing agenda.

At the risk of being serious with you, Ravi:

Are you honestly trying to make the claim that merely because some outlets in the main stream media occasionally provide some relatively fair, objective or balanced reporting or analysis, this somehow constitutes evidence that they aren't politically biased towards the left and the Democrats?

Whatever the news outlet is, whether it's a dotcom or mainstream, they all get the top news stories of the day via AP, and if you put those stories side by side, they read the same. If you're talking opinion pages, that's a different story.

Wrong, of course.

The NYT does get SOME of its information from AP. But they also do some of their own reporting and AP sometimes uses THEM as the source of AP reporting. Kind of incestuous.

But you still miss the point. Let's pretend that what you said was accurate. In that case, it would be AP disseminating the spin. And? So what? How does THAT disprove or cast any doubt on the proposition I offered to the effect that the liberal-dominated main stream media "reports" with a serious agenda? They are agents of the liberal political thinking of this country in general and of the Democrat Parody more particularly.

 

[Liability]

In big and important ways, and in little almost imperceptible ways, the American "main stream" media demonstrates a consistent bias in favor of the politically left and in favor of the Democrat Party (pardon me if "politically left" and "Democrat Party" are redundant expressions).

So, maybe it's time to have a handy reference spot to document it when we see it.

Getting started. Has anybody noticed that the main stream media seems determined to take "subtle" and consistent note of Speaker Boehner's odd behavioral quirk of crying a bit too easily and often? I mean, hell. Many of us (on both the left and the right) have noted it. It is probably fair game to poke at it once in a while. But is THAT the job of a supposedly "objective" news organization?

From TODAY'S MSN.com:

Journalists like putting pictures with their stories. IT seems to motivate people to read the stories. Today, the MSN.com home page was fronting the NYT's piece on Republican "unity" getting "frayed."

Republicans battle turmoil in their ranks

NYT: Pressure on spending cuts, surprise floor defeats show fraying unity.

-- MSN.com

Could it POSSIBLY be that MSN was planting a little subconscious reinforcement for the propaganda message that the GOP is in such turmoil that the speaker is crying over it?

Boehner hasn't shed any tears lately, so no one talks about it (except you, so I guess it bothered you more). And maybe if it seems like MSM leans to the left it's because the left is right more than the right is right.

LOL. You are such a partisan hack, Magz, that you can't even see how your post undercuts the very point you were hoping to make.

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

 

[manifold]

A news outlet publishes a story about republicans that isn't glowing, therefore the media is biased in support of democrats.

Why even bother attempting civil debate with a peddler of such clearly nonsensical and intentionally disingenuous reasoning?

I mean...








































Seriously?

 

[Liability]

In big and important ways, and in little almost imperceptible ways, the American "main stream" media demonstrates a consistent bias in favor of the politically left and in favor of the Democrat Party (pardon me if "politically left" and "Democrat Party" are redundant expressions).

So, maybe it's time to have a handy reference spot to document it when we see it.

Getting started. Has anybody noticed that the main stream media seems determined to take "subtle" and consistent note of Speaker Boehner's odd behavioral quirk of crying a bit too easily and often? I mean, hell. Many of us (on both the left and the right) have noted it. It is probably fair game to poke at it once in a while. But is THAT the job of a supposedly "objective" news organization?

From TODAY'S MSN.com:

Journalists like putting pictures with their stories. IT seems to motivate people to read the stories. Today, the MSN.com home page was fronting the NYT's piece on Republican "unity" getting "frayed."

Republicans battle turmoil in their ranks

NYT: Pressure on spending cuts, surprise floor defeats show fraying unity.

-- MSN.com

Could it POSSIBLY be that MSN was planting a little subconscious reinforcement for the propaganda message that the GOP is in such turmoil that the speaker is crying over it?

Boehner hasn't shed any tears lately, so no one talks about it (except you, so I guess it bothered you more). And maybe if it seems like MSM leans to the left it's because the left is right more than the right is right.

LOL. You are such a partisan hack, Magz, that you can't even see how your post undercuts the very point you were hoping to make.

IF Boehner has not, in fact, done any "crying lately," then that makes the use of that particular image on the home page of MSN.com this morning all the more obviously a propaganda prop.
For that means they had to go root up some older stock "Boehner crying" image to force fit it into their fronting of the NYT's "story" about how the Tea Party has caused the GOP's "unity" to get all "frayed" and shit.

 

[Liability]

A news outlet publishes a story about republicans that isn't glowing, therefore the media is biased in support of democrats.

Why even bother attempting civil debate with a peddler of such clearly nonsensical and intentionally disingenuous reasoning?

I mean...








































Seriously?

No. NOT "seriously." What I posted and what YOU spun it to "mean" are utterly unrelated.

So, if you don't care to be honest in couching your "position," why do YOU even bother engaging in debate. Just here to play troll are you?

Since you are either pitiably stupid or just a fucking liar, I'll unspin your apparently deliberate distortion. I couldn't give a crap if the NY Times posts something "unflattering" about the GOP.

That NY Times story is pretty facially bullshit anyway. But that hardly matters. The thing I pointed to was the MSN.com effort to put a "face" on it. HOW they CHOSE to do that is pretty obvious. No subtlety points for them. They used a photographic image showing Speaker Boehner wiping a tear away, designed to give the impression that Boehner was coming unfrayed over this inconsequential very temporary set-back.

And this kind of nonsense happens all the time. As I suggested before, I can pretty much guarantee that they will hit the "copy" button on this meme. It's, of course, VERY urgently important to them to sew the seeds of doubt (about the GOP in general and about Boehner's mental state in particular) early and often. This isn't even important stuff yet. It's only the early tip of the iceberg material we are seeing.

 

[manifold]

That's quite an active imagination you've got there fatass. Too bad you're not putting it to good use.

 

[Ravi]

The only person coming unfrayed is Liarbility.

True story.



Next week I fully expect him to come out as a birfer.

 

[Liability]

That's quite an active imagination you've got there fatass. Too bad you're not putting it to good use.

Zzzz. It doesn't require "imagination" to see what IS in front of you, turd breath.

It requires imagination to deny it. So, kudos to you for your skills in dissembling.

And stop obsessing about your fevered imaginings. My ass size, fat or skinny, is not within your knowledge. And despite your drooling and wishful thinking, no. You are not permitted to gaze upon any other portion of my anatomy, either.

Don't you have a date with Dainty or sumpin'?

 

[Liability]

The only person coming unfrayed is Liarbility.

True story.



Next week I fully expect him to come out as a birfer.

Naturally, I'm not even remotely unfrayed. This is just another example (as if there aren't thousands already) of Ravi lying.

It's what liars like her do. Constantly.

And, if it helps settle your little lying pinhead, you may rest easy: I am completely convinced that President Obama was born.

 

[manifold]

 

[Liability]

[Unmanlyfold's lame-o "image" snipped]

And unmanlyfold persists in fantasizing about my ass. Kinda icky.

In reality, he has no personal knowledge about me or any part of me (for which I am indeed thankful). Unmanlyfold just likes to lie (kinda like Ravi).

Therefore, presented to unmanlyfold:

His face:

Oh, and still no meltdown from me, unmanlyfold.

Keep trying.