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

[jc456]

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.

Good God you are an ironic dick.

matty slid down a rabbit hole and hasn't recovered. He keeps slipping further rather than closer to getting out.

He now doesn't know a bias news source he didn't like.

 

[WillReadmore]

Headline from today's New York Times...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office
Bad bad GOP Gutting ethics!!! Per the headline!

Now unless you read further you'd say GEEZ those stupid BAD GOPs! Gutting the office!

Guess what?
READ a little further down from the HEADLINE!!!

House Republicans have reversed their plan to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, after intense criticism from President-elect Donald J. Trump and others. Read the latest coverage.

WTF? I just now had the time to look at the content at the link you provided. You didn't even accurately copy and past the New York Times' headline. Click your link. The headline you'll see there says:

"House Republicans Back Down on Bid to Gut Ethics Office"

No.

They liked the idea. They voted for it. They worked out a way to do it with the hope their individual support would be relatively secret.

Backing down is NOT even SLIGHTLY good enough.

And, let's remember that Trump's comment on the subject was that the office of ethics is "unfair".

 

[rdean]

It was the main stream media that got Trump elected.

Trump has gotten nearly $3 billion in ‘free’ advertising

Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump
By HADAS GOLD


10/25/16 03:00 PM EDT

A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.

The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.
For the study, MRC analyzed all 588 evening news stories that either discussed or mentioned the presidential campaign on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from July 29 through October 20 (including weekends). Of the total newscasts, the networks devoted 29 percent of their time to the campaign. The study did not include comments from the campaigns or candidates themselves, instead focusing on what the correspondents, anchors, expert commentators, and voters on the street said in order to try and hone in on any sort of slant from the networks.
Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump

So your link is exposing liberal media bias?

 

[rdean]

Headline from today's New York Times...
With No Warning, House Republicans Vote to Gut Independent Ethics Office
Bad bad GOP Gutting ethics!!! Per the headline!

Now unless you read further you'd say GEEZ those stupid BAD GOPs! Gutting the office!

Guess what?
READ a little further down from the HEADLINE!!!

House Republicans have reversed their plan to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, after intense criticism from President-elect Donald J. Trump and others. Read the latest coverage.

WTF? I just now had the time to look at the content at the link you provided. You didn't even accurately copy and past the New York Times' headline. Click your link. The headline you'll see there says:

"House Republicans Back Down on Bid to Gut Ethics Office"

There is no substantive difference between that headline and what you "yelled" at me "READ a little further down from the HEADLINE!!!"

And you have the nerve to be ticked enough to "swing back" at me for having declared you "half a bubble short of plumb?" Dude! You are! What did Bette Davis say? "You are, Blanche. You are...."

​

I'm done with you. Every one of your posts in this conversation with me has in it, and created by you, major misrepresentations of fact. What I see is bias, but in this conversation, it's all created by you!

• You ragged on me over statistics. You were factually wrong.
• You say words matter, but you ignore context.
• You copy and paste a long article that I read and respond to in detail and you don't show me the same courtesy.
• You just keep repeating your same point and do not respond directly to the central themes of the counterargument I've made in rebuttal to your points.
• You complain about bias in the media while fully ignoring the fact that journalists and writers in general are taught how and when to be objective vs. subjective.
• You misrepresented or misunderstood (I don't know which) at least one major aspect of every linked article you've provided and that I've commented on.

You are just one big mess of confused I-dont-know-what. It's good thing you don't have a bird brain because if you did you'd fly backwards. So, please, just stop. I've had my fill of your foolishness for a month of Sundays.

There Is No Such Thing As ‘Objective’ Journalism — Get Over It
Every journalist has a political point-of-view and they don’t magically check that at the door the minute they land a job. Many pretend to pursue some noble cause of pure “objectivity,” but it is truly in vain. Every good journalist is informed about what the subjects they cover and it would be near-impossible to be informed and not have an opinion.

Aside from outright disclosing a political bent (or as we do here at Mediaite, labeling an article a “column”), there are plenty of ways “objective” journalists can unwittingly reveal their biases.
There Is No Such Thing As ‘Objective’ Journalism — Get Over It


I was taught in school that it was the duty of a reporter to report the news, not make it. I recall being told of a survey back in the 1970s of recent journalism school graduates. When asked about the reason for selecting the field, the overwhelming response was, “in order to change the world.” Frankly, I find that a bit scary.
Objective journalism impossible to find


Finally being TAUGHT????:
The new journalism tends to be more personal. It prefers transparency to objectivity or self-effacing neutrality. Across journalism programs, there is a trend toward teaching a perspectival journalism that draws conclusions, and argues for interpretations.
This challenges the previous dominance of objectivity as an ideal.
Rethinking Journalism Ethics, Objectivity in the Age of Social Media - MediaShift

How much more proof to you idiots that naively support the "objectivity" of news hacks have to get?
They voted for Democrats! FACT!
What Was That About Media Bias? Research Shows Just 7% of Journalists Identify as Republicans
But conservatives are just "whining" about unfair coverage.

And self-proclaimed Democratic journalists outnumber Republicans by 4-to-1, according to research by Lars Willnat and David Weaver, professors of journalism at Indiana University. They found 28 percent of journalists call themselves Democrats, while just 7 percent call themselves Republicans — though both numbers are down from the 1970s. Those identifying as independent have grown.

Among Washington correspondents, the ones who dominate national political coverage, it’s even more skewed, said Tim Groseclose, author of “Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.” More than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees, the author said.

What Was That About Media Bias? Research Shows Just 7% of Journalists Identify as Republicans

7% of journalists identify as Republican? What does that tell you? I know, it's better than the 6% of scientists that identify as Republican.

When smart people don't want to be connected to that odious party, there has to be a reason. Why the GOP base supports Republicans is beyond me. They are the ones who suffer the most from Republican Party Policies.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The MSM is primarily interested in ratings which translates to $$$. They've turned into insidious entertainment shows.

Bias sells. Bias entertains. Sensationalism sells. Pure news reporting is boring.

The media has created the political division in the American people thru it's bias reporting. It's not that they care one way or another about politics...it's all about ratings.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Starting around 2:00, this pretty much shows Trumps relationship to the MSM:

 

[Norman]

Objective and unbiased...

 

[usmbguest5318]

I was going to respond again, but after checking healthmyths' posting history, I see that he is a shill for the Media Research Center and so-called News Busters.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There Is No Such Thing As ‘Objective’ Journalism ...

If that were true and you believed it, you would condemn all journalists not just the ones you feel are biased for the left. If that were true and you believed it, you would not recognize, as you have in your OP, the distinction between news and editorial content, both of which is composed by journalists. If that were true and you believed it, you wouldn't ever cite anything written by any journalist.

 

[usmbguest5318]

When smart people don't want to be connected to that odious party, there has to be a reason. Why the GOP base supports Republicans is beyond me. They are the ones who suffer the most from Republican Party Policies.

I think the answer to your quandary is tacitly given in your first sentence.

 

[usmbguest5318]

healthmyths if you want to be taken seriously, why don't you provide some rigorous research that answers questions like these:

For the period January through June 2016:

• Why did Trump receive so much more coverage than the other presidential candidates, and why was his coverage positive in tone when the Republican race was still being contested and yet negative in tone after it had been decided?
• Why was Rubio’s coverage so much more negative than that of another unsuccessful Republican contender, Cruz?
• Why was Clinton’s coverage substantially more negative than Sanders’, and why did Sanders get so much less coverage than she did?
• Why did the candidates’ character and policy positions receive so little attention relative to the candidates’ chances of winning?

Some BS pat answer like "liberal media bias" is insufficient for rigorously answering those questions.

You see my issue with you and this topic has little to do with whether I agree with you or not and everything to do with the fact that you, MRC and NB spew shit and would have us believe that it is credible.

• The basic assumptions that underlie everything you've had to say about media bias against Trump is this: the candidates were equal in terms of their depth of factual knowledge about policy matters. They were not.
• You cite things as being studies, yet the actual report from the study's authors is nowhere to be found, not even on MRC's own website. Neither are peer reviews of these purported studies to which you've referred.
• You present lists of "cherry picked" information as though it's statistically sampled content.
• You equivocate. For example, you talk about journalists, yet one of the stories you cited says "employees," not journalists.
• You cite predominantly a source that talks out of both sides of its mouth. Currently, you and the MRC are on a liberal media bias kick, yet not long ago the MRC wrote, "NBC has spent more than a decade building his brand as a successful businessman of almost mythic proportion. The network’s coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly and consistently positive. MRC Business found only 15 stories (out of 335) on Trump’s business failures, and 320 stories promoting him as a businessman, his businesses and his shows....When the network covered The Donald’s business shortcomings, NBC failed to disclose its business partnerships with him." Yet now, NBC is among the scum of liberally biased media.
• What methodology does MRC use for its studies? Counting. It counts the instances in which they find an event and report that that is how often it occurred. For example, in your earlier post you referred to Politico story based upon an MRC editorial that states that coverage of Trump and Clinton amounted to some 10 or 11 hours of controversial personal matter coverage between the conventions and the week before the election. Do the math and tell me how many hours there are in 12 weeks.

That kind of information dissemination is what's called "yellow journalism," and if you and your buddies at MRC intend to be taken seriously, you'll stop doing it.

 

[g5000]

There is bias, and then there is partisan hackery.

ABC News biased? Sure.

Breitbart is partisan hackery.

Big difference.

The tards use the "MSM bias" bullshit to excuse their mass consumption of partisan hackery.

Most of the pseudocons around here get their news from propaganda outlets.

Fool Me A Thousand Times

 

[Norman]

Fair and balanced:

Revelations from the Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s emails yet again prove mainstream, corporate media serves as Hillary Clinton’s personal cheerleading squad — and is devoid of any iteration of journalistic integrity.

Thanks to Wikileaks and the Intercept, in fact, we now have a list of no less than 65 mainstream “reporters” whose campaign coverage constitutes propaganda for the Clinton campaign — and no wonder, considering the obscenely lopsided drivel presented by their outlets.

As (actual) journalists Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang reported on October 9, the Intercept exclusively received documents obtained by the source known as Guccifer 2.0 evidencing Clinton campaign tactics to court journalists portraying the former secretary of state in a positive light.

“As these internal documents demonstrate,” the Intercept reported, “a central component of the Clinton campaign strategy is ensuring that journalists they believe are favorable to Clinton are tasked to report the stories the campaign wants circulated.

“At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted ‘on background’ and what should be described as ‘on the record.’”



Read more at WikiLeaks List Exposes At Least 65 Corporate 'Presstitutes' Who Colluded to Hide Clinton's Crimes

Only a complete retard could possibly convince himself that there is no media bias against Trump.

 

[g5000]

Tocqueville: Book 1 Chapter 11

In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Nothing has changed in the nearly 200 years since that was written, except the medium by which the American "journalist" caters to the rubes. It amuses me, but does not surprise me, the topic starter brags he is a member of this low class.

 

[healthmyths]

Tocqueville: Book 1 Chapter 11

In America there is scarcely a hamlet that has not its newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of action can be established among so many combatants, and each one consequently fights under his own standard. All the political journals of the United States are, indeed, arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but they attack and defend it in a thousand different ways. They cannot form those great currents of opinion which sweep away the strongest dikes. This division of the influence of the press produces other consequences scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which newspapers can be established produces a multitude of them; but as the competition prevents any considerable profit, persons of much capacity are rarely led to engage in these undertakings. Such is the number of the public prints that even if they were a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of the United States are generally in a very humble position, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform; the aggregate of these common habits is what is called the class spirit (esprit de corps) of each profession; thus there is the class spirit of the bar, of the court, etc. The class spirit of the French journalists consists in a violent but frequently an eloquent and lofty manner of discussing the great interests of the state, and the exceptions to this mode of writing are only occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passions of his readers; he abandons principles to assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life and disclose all their weaknesses and vices.

Nothing has changed in the nearly 200 years since that was written, except the medium by which the American "journalist" caters to the rubes. It amuses me, but does not surprise me, the topic starter brags he is a member of this low class.

I never said I was a journalist. I took journalism classes in college.
But as far as being part of the "deplorables" that voted for Trump I'm one of them! Yup even though I have a college degree, have been a stock broker,
and now own my own business where 10,000 times a day people come to my web site to see if they'll get paid by Medicare, I am one of those members of
at least an unpretentious class.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

You are incredibly stupid, read his OP again, retard.