When will the GOP recognize the MSM is the enemy and the MSM favors Democrats?

[healthmyths]

The establishment GOP exemplified by McCain still think the MSM is not biased! These out of touch GOP don't get it after all these years that the MSM is so left wing biased and the proof is where the money goes.

Where did the MSM put their money in 2008?
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

A specific example of how the MSM loves Democrats is this quote from the Editor of NewsWeek
COLOR="Blue"]I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." [/COLOR]
Evan Thomas on Hardball,
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

And to insure the Democrat election what did the MSM do?
130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug and the Democrat Bias is very clear!
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.

• "Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
• Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:

"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

 

[Moonglow]

Have you notified anyone that counts,,,yet???

 

[NYcarbineer]

The media has always been a political force in this country.

The 1st Amendment's freedom of the press is there to protect opinion more than to protect reporting the news.

Get over it.

 

[ogibillm]

It's not the msm it's reality that is against republicans.
The news can either report accurately or how you would consider fairly

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The media has always been a political force in this country.

The 1st Amendment's freedom of the press is there to protect opinion more than to protect reporting the news.

Get over it.

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.
Journalists are supposed to have standards. Now the bias has become significantly more institutional and that perpetuates itself.
Republicans are the only ones who can do something about it but too many of them are too stupid to do that.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

 

[konradv]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

 

[healthmyths]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

Well it worked! There are 20 million of us that KNOW that the MSM is NOT fair and balanced!
Please you can ignore the facts that 85% of anchors,etc. gave $1 million to the democrats in 2008.
You can ignore the facts that over 130,000 stories showed positive bias favoring Democrats in the articles and negative to GOP.

My point is the stupid establishment GOP still thinks the MSM is "fair and balanced"!

Thanks to the alternate sources for news people like me that deal with the FACTS have these alternatives.

 

[healthmyths]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

Here is what the "people" think about the MSM bias!


Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased

The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and USA Today, was released Friday. It shows that only 24 percent of American adults agree with the statement that "overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias," while 70 percent disagree.

Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased

So most Americans think something total different from YOUR unsupported totally subjective OPINION!

GET me a link and facts to back up your "vetted statement"!

 

[candycorn]

First lets admit that there is bias in news. There is bias in sports. There is bias in weather. There is bias in fashion. There is bias in where you take your car to get it serviced. There is bias in the way the teacher grades your paper. Anytime you hear Briebart or whatever that guy's name is, you discount it out of hand since it has been so obviously biased in the past.

Bias exists.

The question is this; does it sway anyone. The answer is no.

But lets entertain the OP's whine of bias. Lets say there is bias in the media. One would have to explain the "right track" polling then.

You'd have that red line (the red line isn't necessarily republicans or consea) way below the blue one (the blue one isn't necessarily democrats or liberals),

 

[BlindBoo]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

Well it worked! There are 20 million of us that KNOW that the MSM is NOT fair and balanced!
Please you can ignore the facts that 85% of anchors,etc. gave $1 million to the democrats in 2008.
You can ignore the facts that over 130,000 stories showed positive bias favoring Democrats in the articles and negative to GOP.

My point is the stupid establishment GOP still thinks the MSM is "fair and balanced"!

Thanks to the alternate sources for news people like me that deal with the FACTS have these alternatives.

Holyfuckingshit! You and I agree on something. It worked. They have successfully bamboozled 20 million into supporting their partisan agenda and made money hand over foot to boot.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

You use a salon link to make that point? You just dmonstrated the impact of left wing news bias.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

First lets admit that there is bias in news. There is bias in sports. There is bias in weather. There is bias in fashion. There is bias in where you take your car to get it serviced. There is bias in the way the teacher grades your paper. Anytime you hear Briebart or whatever that guy's name is, you discount it out of hand since it has been so obviously biased in the past.

Bias exists.

The question is this; does it sway anyone. The answer is no.

But lets entertain the OP's whine of bias. Lets say there is bias in the media. One would have to explain the "right track" polling then.

You'd have that red line (the red line isn't necessarily republicans or consea) way below the blue one (the blue one isn't necessarily democrats or liberals),

It sways independents who fail to vet their new sources and creates more lefties who trust what they're told.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

You just perpetuated the dishonesty.
You haven't noticed the news stories referring to repubs grilling Hillary but no mention of democrats failing to grill Hillary? You didn't see the biased misrepresentation of McCarthy's words about the effect as opposed to the reported purpose of the Benghazi investigation?

 

[konradv]

Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased

You're complaining about biased media and citing the Washington Examiner?!?!

 

[BlindBoo]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

You use a salon link to make that point? You just dmonstrated the impact of left wing news bias.

Too liberal for you huh? Yeah I understand.

The Main Stream Media is made up of a large number of diverse opinions. I'm sure you can find the same history elsewhere.

 

[BULLDOG]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

You just perpetuated the dishonesty.
You haven't noticed the news stories referring to repubs grilling Hillary but no mention of democrats failing to grill Hillary? You didn't see the biased misrepresentation of McCarthy's words about the effect as opposed to the reported purpose of the Benghazi investigation?

Are you saying that the media doesn't have the right to make their own decisions about what is right or wrong? The right is constantly whining about the imagined expectation of equal outcomes. Why would you demand equal outcomes when it comes to media workers right to make up their own minds? If you can't convince them that your way is right, that's your fault.....not theirs.

 

[konradv]

]You just perpetuated the dishonesty. You haven't noticed the news stories referring to repubs grilling Hillary but no mention of democrats failing to grill Hillary? You didn't see the biased misrepresentation of McCarthy's words about the effect as opposed to the reported purpose of the Benghazi investigation?

What's more dishonest than Republicans pretending they care about the truth and dead Americans, when all they really cared about was getting Hillary? Spin it any way you like, but I don't think you're fooling many people anymore.

 

[healthmyths]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

You just perpetuated the dishonesty.
You haven't noticed the news stories referring to repubs grilling Hillary but no mention of democrats failing to grill Hillary? You didn't see the biased misrepresentation of McCarthy's words about the effect as opposed to the reported purpose of the Benghazi investigation?

Are you saying that the media doesn't have the right to make their own decisions about what is right or wrong? The right is constantly whining about the imagined expectation of equal outcomes. Why would you demand equal outcomes when it comes to media workers right to make up their own minds? If you can't convince them that your way is right, that's your fault.....not theirs.

NO they don't! There is a gross and distinct difference that obviously YOU don't know when it comes to the NEWS!

Journalism
Definition:
Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.
NOTE do you see ANY place in that definition for presenting and OPINION???
NO!
See when I took journalism courses the distinguish feature was this:
YOU don't form and opinion you present the NEWS! That's it.
But here is an example of a biased news article starting with the HEADLINE!
Misleading and biased headlines affect the way many readers remember news
Studies have shown that headlines can affect a reader’s interpretation of a story more than the text of the story.
Headlines provide the framing for the story and can determine how information is processed by the reader. Studies have also shown that headlines are often more negative, positive, controversial, and so on in tone than the stories of which they are the “head”.
Headlines are expected to be accurate in relation to stories but can often misrepresent their gist and can be misleading or biased, although remaining technically accurate. Below I present some headlines that our readers thought were misleading, and rightly so in almost all the cases.
Misleading and biased headlines affect the way many readers

Commentary/Editorial
A person who analyzes and discusses topics in politics and sports is called a commentator. If you want to hear opinions on the news rather than the news itself, listen to commentators. commentator - Dictionary Definition
But what has happened is most people and you appear to be one of them are confused between what a News report and an editorial position is suppose to be and
more importantly the MAJORITY of News reporters are just as confused as THEY do bias their reporting with their opinions.
I've shown several times here studies that have shown the MSM is liberal/democrat biased in how the present positive news stories about Obama for example:
Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors, Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

But see you have a bias obviously NOT to believe the FACTS that your opinions have been formed by perceptions presented by biased news reporters!
Again... when the Editor of NewsWeek worships Obama... what would you expect from NewsWeek... negative articles about Obama??
A specific example of how the MSM loves Democrats is this quote from the Editor of NewsWeek
COLOR="Blue"]I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." [/COLOR]
Evan Thomas on Hardball,
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

 

[healthmyths]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

You use a salon link to make that point? You just dmonstrated the impact of left wing news bias.

Too liberal for you huh? Yeah I understand.

The Main Stream Media is made up of a large number of diverse opinions. I'm sure you can find the same history elsewhere.

NO the MSM is NOT made up of diverse opinions!
Don't you read?
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

A specific example of how the MSM loves Democrats is this quote from the Editor of NewsWeek
COLOR="Blue"]I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." [/COLOR]
Evan Thomas on Hardball,
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug and the Democrat Bias is very clear!
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election