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

[Wry Catcher]

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.

The vast majority of journalists have advanced degrees and are generally bright normal or above:

 

[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.

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’

Wow...You've got it all figured out don't you? The only way there could be an equal amount of positive and negative statements would be if you'r demand for equal outcome instead of equal opportunity was required. Don't blame the media for reporting the damage your programs would do to the country. Do you really want to deny the right of reporters to make up their own minds? Do you really want to force them to report things they know to be false? Just because that is the way they do it at Fox doesn't mean the rest of the world will bow to your selfish demands.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That's all by Republican/conservative choice. No one bars the Right from the media.

 

[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.

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.

The rightwing propaganda machine effectively owns the number one cable channel Foxnews.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP starts a thread complaining about liberal-biased media,

and his first link to his argument is the Daily Caller.

good one

 

[healthmyths]

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.

The rightwing propaganda machine effectively owns the number one cable channel Foxnews.

And why do you think it is NUMBER 1 dummy?

1. 
   Fox News Channel beats out CNN for America's most trusted cable or broadcast news coverage, and MSNBC lags far behind, even among Democrats, according to new polling done by Quinnipiac University.

1. 
   The poll found 29 percent of people say they trust Fox News' coverage the most,

1. 
   followed by 22 percent for CNN and

1. 
   10 percent for NBC News and CBS News.
   Fox News is the most trusted national news channel. And it’s not that close.

When the vast majority of people don't trust it???

YOU are in the minority!

A new poll asked over 1,000 Americans, in part, “How much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media … when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly?” It turns out that less than half of respondents feel they can rely on today’s mainstream news.

Gallup released the results of their latest poll on the trustworthiness of the mainstream media last month, revealing that just four in ten of those surveyed — a random cross-section of adults from all 50 states and the District of Columbia — trust the media. Only 33 percent say they have a “fair amount” of trust in the media, and a mere 7 percent reported having a “great deal” of trust.

Gallup has collected data on the public’s perception of the media since 1972. Trust in the media has been falling since peaking at 55 percent in 1998 and 1999. Since 2007, in particular, a majority of Americans have distrusted the media.
Poll: 60% Of Americans Don’t Trust The Mainstream Media

And finally when will you learn that people depend on substantiation of statements? You make wild ass comments with NO substantiation, no links.
In that I'm far superior to pass an opinion then you because at LEAST I provide a rational for my comments!
YOU and your ilk.... guesses!

 

[Little-Acorn]

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


The MSM is not the enemy.

Militant Islamic terrorists are the enemy, people leading this country to economic ruin by wild spending (in both parties) are the enemy, Legislators and judges destroying American values by ignoring the Constitution (ditto) are the enemy, Russia trying to rebuild a communist Soviet Union are the enemy.

The MSM are merely what Stalin once called Useful Idiots.

 

[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),

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

If that were the case you'd see a stair step from the lower left to the upper right.

 

[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.

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.

MSM is guided by institutional left wing bias.

 

[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?

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.

News media is supposed to report and document, not funnel the story.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

]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.

You just illustrated the effect of left wing bias in news media.

 

[Mustang]

The GOP sure sounds like a bunch of paranoids who see enemies behind every rock and bush.

 

[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.

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.

The vast majority of journalists have advanced degrees and are generally bright normal or above:

No doubt. My kid is a journalist. He also realizes how misguided many of his colleagues are. Doesn't make them not smart.

 

[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.

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

That's all by Republican/conservative choice. No one bars the Right from the media.

Bullshit! Non-lefties are ostracized by media.
What's more, editors decide what makes copy.

 

[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.

The rightwing propaganda machine effectively owns the number one cable channel Foxnews.

Fox news success is a result of the filling of the non-left news void that was created by msm left wing bias. Duh.

 

[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.

If that were the case you'd see a stair step from the lower left to the upper right.

No, you'd see the opposite results if the bias wasn't prevalent.

 

[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),

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

If that were the case you'd see a stair step from the lower left to the upper right.

No, you'd see the opposite results if the bias wasn't prevalent.

Hilarious as always.

 

[candycorn]

The GOP sure sounds like a bunch of paranoids who see enemies behind every rock and bush.

They have to always have someone else to blame. When they lost in 2008, none admitted it was because of the policies. They blamed Obama being black and white guilt. In 2012, they blamed "free stuff" (nobody ever got their free stuff by the way) and the "stupid voters". Now that they are set to lose to Hillary, you see the excuses coming together already; "They voted for her because she's a woman".

The media, always being there, is just another useful scapegoat that is offered up to prevent/delay self examination. The fact is that they are mean spirited and that is the hardest obstacle to overcome.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

When will conservatives recognize what a loaded question fallacy is, this thread premise being one of many examples, and that the premise of the thread fails as a consequence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Rightwing whining about 'the media' concerns news sources relating facts and the truth that conflict with conservative dogma, demonstrating that dogma to be false.

In response conservatives contrived the myth of the 'liberal media.'