What is "MSM" bias? Here is a simple example.

[healthmyths]

Did you ever take ANY journalism classes in college?
I did and that is what they taught back in the 60s BEFORE journalism became biased. The 5 Ws included WHY.

Uh really Sparkles?

Is that "why" you created a thread on the topic of which hand O'bama wipes his ass with on the toilet?

You know that someone who has a fascination with feces is psychologically considered a coprophiliac.

You seemed so intrigued by Obama's bowl habits you continue to bring them up!

 

[Pogo]

Did you ever take ANY journalism classes in college?
I did and that is what they taught back in the 60s BEFORE journalism became biased. The 5 Ws included WHY.

Uh really Sparkles?

Is that "why" you created a thread on the topic of which hand O'bama wipes his ass with on the toilet?

You know that someone who has a fascination with feces is psychologically considered a coprophiliac.

You seemed so intrigued by Obama's bowl habits you continue to bring them up!

Only one of us actually started a thread about it though. And it wasn't me.

 

[healthmyths]

Did you ever take ANY journalism classes in college?
I did and that is what they taught back in the 60s BEFORE journalism became biased. The 5 Ws included WHY.

Uh really Sparkles?

Is that "why" you created a thread on the topic of which hand O'bama wipes his ass with on the toilet?

You know that someone who has a fascination with feces is psychologically considered a coprophiliac.

You seemed so intrigued by Obama's bowl habits you continue to bring them up!

Only one of us actually started a thread about it though. And it wasn't me.

Yup but you are fixated about crap and keep bringing it up.
Besides the issue was greater then being an a-hole... I was sharing how Muslims like Obama MUST even though he is left handed wipe his butt with the Left hand as it is the Muslim belief that the left hand is dirty. Evil. And as a result they don't even trust the Muslim Obama. But of course that nuance was above your fecal fixation!

 

[Pogo]

 

[ColonelAngus]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

"Why" is very relevant.

Let's say Bob killed Joe at 2pm today in Dallas. Is that all that should be reported if Bob found Joe molesting his child?

 

[usmbguest5318]

First of all, let's be clear about what a "study" is. Those articles you referenced aren't it. They are just articles or papers if you prefer that term.

This is what you could call a research review, literature review or critical essay. You'll notice that it gathers information from various sources that it clearly identifies and puts the information together in a logically sound and structured way. Where necessary, documents of this type provided contextually relevant explanatory information, usually in footnotes or endnotes, though "layman friendly" formats will occasionally do so in text boxes or appendices.

This is a research paper. A research paper differs from a review or critical essay in that a research paper reports the findings of a study, which itself is an original examination of something. A required part of a research paper is full disclosure of the methodology the researcher used to obtain the findings. The findings are not findings in the sense of opinions. They are what was observed, found, discovered. The author(s) of a study will clearly state the implications of the findings as well as what the limits of what readers can legitimately infer from the study's findings.

Studies almost always have some degree of bias, but among credible studies, which basically means ones that have passed peer review without material objections, the bias will that which comes from methodological and scope (topical, content or time related) factors. Occasionally, a study, a really big one, will apply multiple methodological analytics in order to overcome the bias inherent in one or another approach. More often, however, researchers will publish their study and leave it to their peers in the field to confirm their results by using alternative methodologies or by replicating the study or testing its findings by examining one or more propositions that result from them and determining whether those extrapolations pan out as they should given the findings of the motivating study.

I don't present the above to quibble over terminology. I don't really care what you call a research paper/study or a research review. I care that what you cited is not the originally reported findings of researchers who conducted an original study.

Finally you tell me if these two studies don't confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals/democrats/Obama/Hillary...

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

Well, assuming one is generous enough to call that article a study, it definitely does not confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals. The article says, "The rest of journalists — more than 50 percent — say they’re not affiliated with any political party."

Finally you tell me if these two studies don't confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals/democrats/Obama/Hillary...

In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This article, which is neither a study nor a review/critical essay, confirms nothing. It just identifies what about 1500 individuals did.

Source: The Evolution of the Journalism Job Market

You have to be half a bubble short of plumb to think that what some 1500 people in the journalism industry, Given that mainstream media must by definition comprise the bulk of media outlets that exist and from which people obtain news and information, it's not possible that the actions and personal political positions of some 1500 journalists/editors can credibly be taken as confirmation of the notion that MSM organization employees are biased toward liberal views. Even when selecting the ~1500 journalists whom you know are liberal in their personal views, there remains a lot to do to show that their personal views affect and bias leftward the information they report as news journalists. (When they act as editorialists, it makes sense that their personal views affect the editorial content they submit.)
​

When considering the matter of media bias, there is one thing about all journalists that politicians on both sides of the aisle hate: questions that seek to get at the weakness(s) and inconsistencies in a politician's message(s). I guess you can call those "hard questions." The issue is that sloppy thinkers don't like to answer the questions journalists' ask, and usually they don't, choosing instead to respond to the question with statements that answer a question that wasn't posed. The standard retorts of sloppy thinkers and people who haven't fully thought through a given topic is deflection, however they go about doing it: (1) attack the interviewer, (2) call the opposition stupid, (3) raise a red herring or straw man, (4) talk about something else entirely, and/or (5) shift the focus to something related but that is so obliquely so that it is irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

"Why" is very relevant.

Let's say Bob killed Joe at 2pm today in Dallas. Is that all that should be reported if Bob found Joe molesting his child?

But who says Bob found Joe molesting his child? Bob? That's fine, report that Bob said that. That's an event, him saying that.

But it's not for the journalist to decide whether Bob's telling the truth or not -- in other words to decide "why". So they can report that Bob said Joe was molesting his child --- they can't report that "Joe was molesting Bob's child" if they don't know for a fact that that's true.

Some people round these parts don't seem to get the distinction between "X happened" and "A says X happened". I've had several people try to make the case that women alleging sexual assault by Rump are "fake news" on the basis that they don't think the assaults happened. It seemed to fly over their heads that the news wasn't that "Rump assaulted women X, Y and Z" but rather "women X, Y and Z SAY Rump assaulted them". Which is a true and incontrovertible fact; they did say that.

 

[ColonelAngus]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

"Why" is very relevant.

Let's say Bob killed Joe at 2pm today in Dallas. Is that all that should be reported if Bob found Joe molesting his child?

But who says Bob found Joe molesting his child? Bob? That's fine, report that Bob said that. That's an event, him saying that.

But it's not for the journalist to decide whether Bob's telling the truth or not -- in other words to decide "why". So they can report that Bob said Joe was molesting his child --- they can't report that "Joe was molesting Bob's child" if they don't know for a fact that that's true.

Some people round these parts don't seem to get the distinction between "X happened" and "A says X happened". I've had several people try to make the case that women alleging sexual assault by Rump are "fake news" on the basis that they don't think the assaults happened. It seemed to fly over their heads that the news wasn't that "Rump assaulted women X, Y and Z" but rather "women X, Y and Z SAY Rump assaulted them". Which is a true and incontrovertible fact; they did say that.

Hands up, don't shoot agrees with you

 

[Pogo]

First let's get a definition of who is the Mainstream Media that practices "bias".
"Mainstream media" consists of:
a)major television/radio news networks...i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC
b)major newspapers ... New York Times, WashingtonPost, two major papers
c)major magazines....NewsWeek, Time...

NOTE the exclusion of MSNBC,CNN,Fox,NPR as these are primarily editorial news and almost all do NOT
pretend to hide their bias. Fox being right/conservative/GOP, the rest.. left/progressive/democrat/liberals.

Now for the differentiation between NEWS and Editorial.
NOT my definition by the "professionals" journalism schools like Columbia.

Editorial
an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor.the definition of editorial

News...
a report of recent events Definition of NEWS


So true NEWS should be absent any opinion. Any personal observation.
In journalism classes students are taught: Five Ws - Wikipedia
The Five Ws,

• What happened?
• Who is involved?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did that happen?

The example will be coming later.

"Why" doesn't belong on this list. That's analysis, not news. News is simply who/what/where/when.

It's really very simple. News is a fact. "X" happened. Details -- "X" happened in place A, at time B, involving people C, D and E.

Editorial is opinion on why "X" happened, what it means that "X" happened, why it's a good or bad thing that "X" happened.

As far as your list CNN, NPR and Fox all have at least segments where they report straight news, as in real news. They're not necessarily always clear about which is which though. Particular example is when FNC is broadcasting Sean Hannity -- a commentator not a journalist -- while the logo "Fox News" sits in the corner. That's deliberately muddying the waters.

I don't know that NPR does editorials at all, though they will have talking heads on to analyze, as will pretty much everybody.

What you didn't mention here is another distinction that's rather critical, and that is: commercial vs noncommercial.

A commercial entity has as its incentive gathering listeners/viewers/readers. That biases it toward the sensational, because that's what sells those listeners/viewers/readers. That's why you'll see a thousand stories and shows on how Michael Jackson died and the OJ Simpson trial and nary a word about the government giving away vast tracts of broadcast real estate to giant corporations in TelComm 96.

That's got all kinds of implications. When a single entity whether it's NewsCorp, Viacom, Time Inc, whoever --- controls a vast network of television, radio, book publishing, newspaper publishing, movie productions, even sports teams and venues --- it very much gets to dictate what "the news" is, and what "the news" isn't . Especially if a sponsor doesn't like the way some program is going, e.g. Monsanto pressuring Fox to the point where Fox is telling its employees "we just paid umpteen million dollars for this station -- we'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is". And then there's the conflict of interest problem --- if you're GE and you're neck deep in military contracts and nuclear power, then your TV network NBC is not going to get a whole lot of leeway to cover Defense Department spending or nuclear power issues.

To name a couple.

"Why" is very relevant.

Let's say Bob killed Joe at 2pm today in Dallas. Is that all that should be reported if Bob found Joe molesting his child?

But who says Bob found Joe molesting his child? Bob? That's fine, report that Bob said that. That's an event, him saying that.

But it's not for the journalist to decide whether Bob's telling the truth or not -- in other words to decide "why". So they can report that Bob said Joe was molesting his child --- they can't report that "Joe was molesting Bob's child" if they don't know for a fact that that's true.

Some people round these parts don't seem to get the distinction between "X happened" and "A says X happened". I've had several people try to make the case that women alleging sexual assault by Rump are "fake news" on the basis that they don't think the assaults happened. It seemed to fly over their heads that the news wasn't that "Rump assaulted women X, Y and Z" but rather "women X, Y and Z SAY Rump assaulted them". Which is a true and incontrovertible fact; they did say that.

Hands up, don't shoot agrees with you

-- whatever the fuck that means....

 

[healthmyths]

First of all, let's be clear about what a "study" is. Those articles you referenced aren't it. They are just articles or papers if you prefer that term.

This is what you could call a research review, literature review or critical essay. You'll notice that it gathers information from various sources that it clearly identifies and puts the information together in a logically sound and structured way. Where necessary, documents of this type provided contextually relevant explanatory information, usually in footnotes or endnotes, though "layman friendly" formats will occasionally do so in text boxes or appendices.

This is a research paper. A research paper differs from a review or critical essay in that a research paper reports the findings of a study, which itself is an original examination of something. A required part of a research paper is full disclosure of the methodology the researcher used to obtain the findings. The findings are not findings in the sense of opinions. They are what was observed, found, discovered. The author(s) of a study will clearly state the implications of the findings as well as what the limits of what readers can legitimately infer from the study's findings.

Studies almost always have some degree of bias, but among credible studies, which basically means ones that have passed peer review without material objections, the bias will that which comes from methodological and scope (topical, content or time related) factors. Occasionally, a study, a really big one, will apply multiple methodological analytics in order to overcome the bias inherent in one or another approach. More often, however, researchers will publish their study and leave it to their peers in the field to confirm their results by using alternative methodologies or by replicating the study or testing its findings by examining one or more propositions that result from them and determining whether those extrapolations pan out as they should given the findings of the motivating study.

I don't present the above to quibble over terminology. I don't really care what you call a research paper/study or a research review. I care that what you cited is not the originally reported findings of researchers who conducted an original study.

Finally you tell me if these two studies don't confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals/democrats/Obama/Hillary...

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash

Well, assuming one is generous enough to call that article a study, it definitely does not confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals. The article says, "The rest of journalists — more than 50 percent — say they’re not affiliated with any political party."

Finally you tell me if these two studies don't confirm the premise that the MSM is biased towards liberals/democrats/Obama/Hillary...

In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

This article, which is neither a study nor a review/critical essay, confirms nothing. It just identifies what about 1500 individuals did.

Source: The Evolution of the Journalism Job Market

You have to be half a bubble short of plumb to think that what some 1500 people in the journalism industry, Given that mainstream media must by definition comprise the bulk of media outlets that exist and from which people obtain news and information, it's not possible that the actions and personal political positions of some 1500 journalists/editors can credibly be taken as confirmation of the notion that MSM organization employees are biased toward liberal views. Even when selecting the ~1500 journalists whom you know are liberal in their personal views, there remains a lot to do to show that their personal views affect and bias leftward the information they report as news journalists. (When they act as editorialists, it makes sense that their personal views affect the editorial content they submit.)
​

When considering the matter of media bias, there is one thing about all journalists that politicians on both sides of the aisle hate: questions that seek to get at the weakness(s) and inconsistencies in a politician's message(s). I guess you can call those "hard questions." The issue is that sloppy thinkers don't like to answer the questions journalists' ask, and usually they don't, choosing instead to respond to the question with statements that answer a question that wasn't posed. The standard retorts of sloppy thinkers and people who haven't fully thought through a given topic is deflection, however they go about doing it: (1) attack the interviewer, (2) call the opposition stupid, (3) raise a red herring or straw man, (4) talk about something else entirely, and/or (5) shift the focus to something related but that is so obliquely so that it is irrelevant.

OMG!
Here you spent all your credibility presenting definitions of "studies", "papers" and then YOU write "You have to be half a bubble short of plumb to think that what some 1500 people in the journalism industry,"! Really? I thought you were smart enough to know how Polling works. That MOST polling does just that!
IT takes a statistically calculated SAMPLE of the universe and then asks questions of the sample! Do you understand what I'm writing here?
That's what polling is all about. Using a sample to extrapolate an estimate!
GEEZ... Really? By the way the "1,500" were not just any news journalists!

1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

So everything you pontificated about i.e. definitions of "studies"...etc.. is totally discounted as an ignorant discourse because YOU made fun of a
legitimate sampling of news industry!
Are you really that lame to ignore the REALITY that the MSM is biased? I really can't believe your total ignorance of the real world!
One final example!
I quoted the Editor of NewsWeek Evan Thomas...a hardened, "professional" "journalist"???
he Editor of NewsWeek, Evan Thomas was once asked about George Bush and this is his response.
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], 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.http://newsbusters.org/node/10631

RIGHT HIS job was to BASH Bush.
He is a journalist. Unbiased. Objective. Professional. RIGHT??
But when it came to Obama?
This same hard-nosed "bashing journalist"- Editor of NewsWeek gushed about Obama.....
"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god

And after reading that you still don't think Thomas is as biased as the media he works in?

 

[usmbguest5318]

By the way the "1,500" were not just any news journalists!

Well, who were they? I didn't see a list of 1500 names. Did you?

There damn sure aren't 1500 on-air personalities, producers, and reporters, ....of ABC, CBS and NBC to have contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees

And we're talking about something over $1M. That's not much in the scheme of campaign contributions.

 

[jknowgood]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

Glad you're not anymore. Hope the door left a bruise on your way out.

An example of a tolerant liberal.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Now MSM bias that's settled science. On the bright side their faces looked so grim when Trump won you would have thought their house burned to the ground the day after their insurance lapsed.

If you have HBO, I suggest watching VICE News. Comes on weekdays at 6:30pm CST. They have good coverage, and the best part is, they try to stay out of politics as much as they can, and when they DO report, they simply tell you what happened and let you make up your own mind.

I think they are becoming my favorite news source.

If some news organization can stick to the facts and keep their own politics at the door, they will do very well. If the feel the need to have commentary, they should keep score to make sure they are balanced.

 

[Clementine]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Read the OP again. Clearly points out difference between those who don't hide their bias, like Fox, and those who claim to be reporters of facts.

We're talking about shows that hold themselves out as actual news, not opinion. ABC, NBC and CBS, to name a few, claim that they are news programs yet we are getting a lot of opinions and things are presented with a definite slant.

We shouldn't know the political views of news anchors because reporting facts isn't something that should be influenced by politics. The truth is the truth. I am tired of so-called reported who spoon feed information a certain way in an attempt to shape public opinion rather than inform them. They need to report the facts and keep their snarky remarks and opinions to themselves. If they do give their take on something, it should be done as a commentary piece and not peppered throughout their delivery of news.

 

[francoHFW]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

Grabbing women by the groin isn't sexual assault now? Fake news is Hilary killing Foster,, pedophile Bill, Obama having 2 years of control, and most things many dupes believe...

also:ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Anything that disagrees with you = bias.

Fox, talk radio and most blogs are right wing...But that isn't bias as they agree with you.

Bias is bias, and facts are FACTS. Liberals (I used to be one), they think they have a lock on Facts. They of late, only seem to have a lock on the media and propaganda groupthink. Not the same thing.

Glad you're not anymore. Hope the door left a bruise on your way out.

An example of a tolerant liberal.

^ An example of a shameless retard

 

[Norman]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

Grabbing women by the groin isn't sexual assault now? Fake news is Hilary killing Foster,, pedophile Bill, Obama having 2 years of control, and most things many dupes believe...

also:ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

Grabbing women by the groin is not a sexual assault no matter HOW MUCH your STUPID ideology tries to convince us that having sexual contact with women is sexual assault and rape by definition.

Lib regressives will never be able to tell the difference between theft and charity, or lovemaking and rape. This would require more than IQ of 69 to figure out... and of course for them assaulting women is the only way to have a chance at it, unlike for a Trump who just magnetizes women on contact.


TL;DR Trump didn't brag about shit...

 

[TheOldSchool]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

Grabbing women by the groin isn't sexual assault now? Fake news is Hilary killing Foster,, pedophile Bill, Obama having 2 years of control, and most things many dupes believe...

also:ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

Grabbing women by the groin is not a sexual assault no matter HOW MUCH your STUPID ideology tries to convince us that having sexual contact with women is sexual assault and rape by definition.

Lib regressives will never be able to tell the difference between theft and charity, or lovemaking and rape. This would require more than IQ of 69 to figure out... and of course for them assaulting women is the only way to have a chance at it, unlike for a Trump who just magnetizes women on contact.


TL;DR Trump didn't brag about shit...

Go reach for a woman's crotch and report back what happens you braindead fucking idiot. It'll be fascinating to read your report.

 

[Norman]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

Grabbing women by the groin isn't sexual assault now? Fake news is Hilary killing Foster,, pedophile Bill, Obama having 2 years of control, and most things many dupes believe...

also:ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

Grabbing women by the groin is not a sexual assault no matter HOW MUCH your STUPID ideology tries to convince us that having sexual contact with women is sexual assault and rape by definition.

Lib regressives will never be able to tell the difference between theft and charity, or lovemaking and rape. This would require more than IQ of 69 to figure out... and of course for them assaulting women is the only way to have a chance at it, unlike for a Trump who just magnetizes women on contact.


TL;DR Trump didn't brag about shit...

Go reach for a woman's crotch and report back what happens you braindead fucking idiot. It'll be fascinating to read your report.

Just did, she loved it.

Of course, you won't EVER have a woman who would give you consent, so I can see why you associate all sexual activity with assault. Typical of omega liberal regressives...

Trump didn't brag about shit, nor did he assault anyone. That's #FakeNews... and the illiberal lamestream media is embracing it in full. Idiots, they are.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We are far past the point of "bias". No, this is not bias, what we are witnessing is outright propaganda.

Or if you will #FakeNews.

Grabbing women by the groin isn't sexual assault now? Fake news is Hilary killing Foster,, pedophile Bill, Obama having 2 years of control, and most things many dupes believe...

also:ACORN, Kenyan Muslim Marxist,Tides, Mosque, Death Panel, lose your doctor, huge costs, DEBT CRISIS, Obama Recession, stimulus failed, Barney Frank, Nazi Soros, Nazi socialists, Volt suqs, Iran making bomb etc etc.

Grabbing women by the groin is not a sexual assault no matter HOW MUCH your STUPID ideology tries to convince us that having sexual contact with women is sexual assault and rape by definition.

Lib regressives will never be able to tell the difference between theft and charity, or lovemaking and rape. This would require more than IQ of 69 to figure out... and of course for them assaulting women is the only way to have a chance at it, unlike for a Trump who just magnetizes women on contact.


TL;DR Trump didn't brag about shit...

Go reach for a woman's crotch and report back what happens you braindead fucking idiot. It'll be fascinating to read your report.

Just did, she loved it.

Of course, you won't EVER have a woman who would give you consent, so I can see why you associate all sexual activity with assault. Typical of omega liberal regressives...

Trump didn't brag about shit, nor did he assault anyone. That's #FakeNews... and the illiberal lamestream media is embracing it in full. Idiots, they are.

Let me rephrase it into Trump's context:
Go reach for a total stranger woman's crotch and report back what happens; you braindead, piece of shit retard. It'll be fascinating to read your report.