Meme Alert: MSNBC, Left Wing Equivalent Of Fox, Proves White House Hypocrisy?
The White House’s hard pushback against Fox News has spawned a backlash meme of sorts: That whatever the excesses of Fox, the Obama administration has no trouble benefitting from an equally biased network on the left, MSNBC.
Come on, this is B.S. Bias is a very difficult thing to quantify or measure, but it’s a real stretch to claim that MSNBC, while left-leaning in many ways, is Fox’s left-wing equivalent.
This meme got a boost last night when CNN’s Cambell Brown grilled White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett on the Fox affair. After Jarrett said that “of course” Fox is biased, Brown pushed back: “Do you also think that MSNBC is biased?” Jarrett demurred. Ben Smith dubs this the White House’s “MSNBC problem.”
Sure, MSNBC has Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. But it’s debatable, to begin with, that they are polar opposites — in terms of their ideology or their relationship to reality — of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
Put that aside, however. More to the point, it’s plainly obvious that there’s a much brighter line between reporting and commentary at MSNBC than there is at Fox.
Consider MSNBC’s daytime content. Morning Joe is hardly a liberal program. Throughout the day you get lots of reporting and commentary from Chuck Todd and David Shuster. Todd fits squarely in the “nonpartisan Beltway analyst” category. Shuster? Sure, he’s aggressive in debunking conservative attack lines, but agree with him or not, Shuster calls them as he sees them on the facts, and he’s fundamentally a reporter.
More to the point is MSNBC’s news judgment throughout the day, which contrasts sharply with that of Fox. You’d be hard pressed to argue that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices. There’s simply no equivalent on the MSNBC news side of Fox’s constant “news” coverage of the tea partiers, the czars, the ACORN story, the crusade against gay education adviser Kevin Jennings, etc. etc. The point is that Fox’s news judgment is far more ideologically motivated than MSNBC’s is.
I’d be very interested to know what other reporters and journos think on this one. Again, measuring “bias” is a very dicey thing to get into. But this one seems like an easy call.
******************************************
Update: Josh Marshall put it nicely the other day, noting that efforts to call Fox a legit news outlet akin to calling professional wrestling a “real sporting event.”
Update II: Check out this and this for more documentation.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
“Bias” isn’t the issue. FOX lies for a living.
A one-sided conversation where the dishonest exploit the stupid.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=90c_1252771803&c=1
Obviously,MSNBC is just pro-Obama propaganda. Tweety spends his time asking over and over: Has Obama lost his popularity? is Obama really doing anything? Keith and Rachel both have lambasted the administration constantly on everything from health care reform to gay rights to the damn Nobel Prize.
agreed on both counts, but to me the real tell is comparing the news coverage on both sides. never mind the commentary.
The problem is that what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Until the right quits just standing there sticking out its collective tongue and saying “nyah nyah nyah! I’m rubber you’re glue…” they aren’t going anywhere. If they refuse to speak the same language as the rest of us and instead insist on going around making false equivalencies on everything like they are all about 4 years old, then they will just continue to be useless.
News has a left-wing bias because facts have a left-wing bias.
OT, this is absolutely incredible and yet oh-so-typical:
New GOP Health Care Website Fails To Mention Seniors
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) held a press conference today to explain why progressive health reform would hurt seniors and to highlight the GOP’s “better solutions.” In an email yesterday, Boehner instructed readers to go to the GOP healthcare website “and you can see all of our proposals.”
The website ostensibly outlines the “Republican Plan” for “common-sense health care reforms” — but seniors are not addressed in the plans presented. In fact, there are no occurrences of the words “senior,” “elderly,” or “older Americans” at all. An archived version of the website can be found here.
Think Progress asked Pence to address the notable omission. Seemingly unaware of the failure, he merely instructed us to “stay tuned.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/28/new-gop-health-site-seniors/
Pathetic.
IDK. Shultz on a nightly basis rails after this President to get more progressive. Rachel does the same. KO doesn’t go after the pres as much as those two do I’d say.
Are they more favorable towards the administration? They do agree with many of his policies. But they make it known when they don’t.
Fox is non stop 100% anti Obama administration all the time. Non stop propaganda. It never ends.
Greg – this stuff is really bizarre – but I think it’s the only way the Right can deal with it’s failed legacy.
They can’t really defend Bush or their much desired majority they worked for 40 years to get. The blew it completely – completely. And you notice they never really say otherwise.
Instead they just continually turn it back on us – they have nowhere else to go.
As Norquist has approvingly observed, the mainstream media believes that it ought to be fair and reprise the commentary from both left and right but the rightwing media makes no such presumption.
The related factor here is the lazy-mindedness of cable news TV where fact-checking and actual reporting fall far behind that non-discerning he said/she said coverage. Equivalences become structural.
This post is risible. Really. Come on. Have you ever watched Ubermoron? Ed?
Joe is almost always surrounded by liberals including Mika, and he isn’t really much of a conservative to begin with. He is another lib-certified “true” conservative, which means he reliably trashes conservatives.
Your attempt to distinguish MSNBC’s “news judgment” is farcical. David Shuster, unbiased??? Is he still appearing on Ubermoron’s show as one of his puppet’s? Go look up some objective research on NBC/MSNBC’s coverage leanings. You are simply WRONG. You are grasping for some justification for Obama’s selective attack on Fox. There isn’t one.
Are you even aware that the Fox commentary shows routinely have liberals on as guests??? Hannity and O’Reilly (no conservative) do it all the time. Good grief, Hannity had Michael Moore on recently for practically an entire show.
It says a lot as well that you are reduced to trying to minimize Chris-Tingle’s liberalism. He might ask how Obama is doing politically, but he worships the guy and Dems generally — after all, he is one — and he trashes Republicans in ugly terms.
This post is beyond weak.
Isn’t this meme rather easily debunked by going to the tape of K.O., Rachel, and even Ed taking down Obama and his team a number of times during the past year? Is this stuff not available in the Dan Senor household or on the Politico office TV?
“IDK. Shultz on a nightly basis rails after this President to get more progressive. Rachel does the same.”
But Sargent made clear that he his comments were aimed at the choices of stories at Fox’s news division, not its political opinion shows.
I apologize for Indiana. We not only have Bayh and Lugar, we have Pence.
Even though our governor, Republican Mitch Daniels, is decent compared to some of the other states’ boneheads.
qb, Mika is a Republican just so you know.
Hilarious. MSNBC is unbiased because Ubermoron and crew go after Obama for not being liberal ENOUGH?
You all realize what contortions you are going through to try to make an unmakeable case?
“This post is beyond weak.”
True, but I knew that as soon as I saw your handle.
mike,
Mika is a liberal like her father. Listen to her sometime and learn.
It’s another pathetic talking point to demure the attempts of keeping the full truth given to the news.
And it a testament to how bad CNN has become, when it’s 8 PM anchor thinks that MSNBC is fully liberal bias when Scarborough exist in the morning.
Not only that, but even if MSNBC was fully “left-leaning”, that does not even mean that they will worship everything that the Democratic party or a Democratic President does like Fox does on the other side.
Let’s be fully clear on this please, for the last time.
MSNBC is the Default “left-leaning” channel. But where is the “Liberal” channel? Where is the “Progressives” channel? They don’t exist. But Fux Noiz makes a false equivalency of MSNBC because it’s the only criticism they get; now that the WH has manned up to reality a little bit, they let the dogs out.
But even if those imaginary leftwing channels existed,they wouldn’t be a counterpoint to Fux, which is propaganda, lies and distortion ala the Rethuglicants’ talking points. Liberal, progressive, leftwing ideology has an agenda, but it is more or less based on variants of the “golden rule”; the spew from Fux and the conservative right is invariably based on corporate greed, selfishness, hate, and fear.
@Greg: “The real tell is comparing the news coverage.”
So why don’t you offer us some quantifiable data that compares their news coverage? You don’t offer any data here – you don’t prove your point with data.
@Greg
Seriously, kudos on recognizing this…but you have to be out of your mind if you think the rest of the media will make this distinction. They’ve been playing the false equivlency game for years – and they’ve been doing it on this STORY since it started.
And, to be frank, you do it in this post as well.
You think it’s “debatable” for Maddow, KO, and Ed to be the poles of FOX opinion shows – Beck/Hannity/O’Reily?
Really? Ed is bombastic and loud (I don’t like him) which might compare to Beck’s style…but Beck lies, repeatedly on nearly every show. KO and O’Reily might be a closer match, but even then their ethics standards (see: FOX producer bumrush) are miles apart. And Maddow to Hannity is a flat out insult to Maddow. Her reporting and interviews are the best we’ve seen in the business in years, even if she has a liberal outlook.
There’s no debate to an objective observer. The above IS an objective observation – if I was to take into account my own person views on FOX, I would have been harsher on them, and on you for even saying it was debatable.
I’m glad you realize the complete lie that MSNBC is the left version of FOX. Morning Joe says it all. Show me the THREE HOUR BLOCK of programing on FOX, daily, that’s hosted by a ex-Democratic Congressman. Case closed.
I should hope that you can convince some of the beltway villagers of this total fallacy. But you won’t. This is why I don’t respect the villagers. They place “parity” over “reality” because of the fear of being called biased. They are willing to sacrifice truth, in a profession that’s built around spreading truth, to make sure they don’t rock the boat. F***ing cowards.
I think the “Czars” nonsense is the clearest recent example of how FOX makes the stupid useful to conservatives. They know (surely they must know) that there are fewer “Czars” now than in the Bush administration, that many of those they said were unaccountable were in fact confirmed by the Senate, and that the title is in fact a media shorthand that has nothing to do with responsibilities.
But FOX knows that their idiot audience doesn’t know any of this, so they wind them up like a bunch of tiny toys.
“Joe is almost always surrounded by liberals including Mika, and he isn’t really much of a conservative to begin with.”
Apparently you know nothing of Scarborough’s track record in Congress. Perhaps you’re not even aware that he was a GOP rep in the Gingrich House, where he received a 95^ rating from the American Conservative Union. Or that the GOP approached him earlier this year to run for Mel Martinez’ vacant Senate seat? But no, he’s not a real conservative. Dumbass…
“Mika is a liberal like her father. Listen to her sometime and learn.”
Who thinks that “real Americans” love Palin and was giddy over a poll that showed Americans becoming more conservative?
See? QB is the kind of exploitable FOX idiot I was talking about.
qb. MSNBC does not act as a propaganda wing for this administration as Fox did for the Bush administration and is now acting as the propaganda wing for the GOP.
It’s as clear as day and everyone knows this.
Greg, Kudos on concentrating on the news content in US msm. Unfortunately, “opinions”, either on teh teevee or in news rags, only sell as news, because they play on the people’s emotions rather their brains. This is true for both sides of the political spectrum.
Americans have been dumbed down so much over the decades that they can’t differentiate between the two.
“you don’t prove your point with data.”
Omg, isn’t THAT rich!
Tena
They’re trying to distance themselves from Bush by creating the new Conservative movement, like the race in NY23. Fox is facilitating this with Beck and the 9/12ers at the same time they continually beat the anti-Obama drum. I posted a video link last week of the first 100 days of his Presidency that was pretty telling as far as both their news and opinion sides of the network. Every single day, for 100 days, negative.
Not to mention that MSNBC has no qualms about criticizing Obama.
How much did Fox News criticize Bush?
@sbj
Media Matters has been showing FOX’s bias conclusively for years, using plenty of data.
http://mediamatters.org/
“So why don’t you offer us some quantifiable data that compares their news coverage?”
See? We’ve had the data for years, but someone who gets all their news from FOX doesn’t know about it.
On some simplistic level one might be able to equate Fox as “right” and MSNBC as “left”.
The real difference as I see it is that Fox really is an organ of the GOP, whereas MSNBC does not routinely take its talking points from the DNC.
The idea that FNC covered the tesa party protests much more extensively than MSNBC is not quite accurate or the whole story:
“And as was the case during the 2008 election season, the protests revealed large editorial and ideological chasms among the cable channels. Both the Fox News Channel, which leans conservative in prime time, and MSNBC, which tilts liberal, gave the story big play. It accounted for 20% of the Fox newshole last week and 16% on MSNBC. By contrast, CNN devoted 7% of its coverage to the story, which matches the level we found in the media overall.
But the tone on Fox and MSNBC of that coverage was dramatically different. On the April 17 edition of Sean Hannity’s Fox show Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele began an interview segment by praising the host’s extensive attention to the tea parties. “I want to say you’re [a great American] this week for really putting a light on over 300,000 people out there who stood up for freedom, who stood up for their families and stood up for their communities by saying ‘no more, the line has been drawn in the sand,’” Steele told Hannity.
There was a far more skeptical view offered by MSNBC’s newest host, Ed Schultz, who like Hannity is also a talk radio personality. “Folks what happened in cities across America today was anything but grassroots. These tea parties were filled and fueled with one network,” Schultz said, referring to Fox. “What was the mission today…How many jobs were created today?”
http://www.journalism.org/node/15614
BBQ, it doesn’t matter if mediamatters can prove it with transcripts and video, the rightards will stick their fingers in their ears and scream “SOROS!!! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!! SOROS!!!”
Just FYI right now Senator Gregg is on MSNBC squirming because he is still trying to say health care reform won’t be deficit neutral but he was challenged to quantify his lie. He started stuttering and everything lol
Yea, pointing me to media matters is like me pointing you to newsbusters…
“The idea that FNC covered the tesa party protests much more extensively than MSNBC is not quite accurate or the whole story”
Correct. FNC helped organize them, inflated their numbers, and cheerleaded off-camera to help them seem less lame than they were.
Fewer than 70,000, and no one was impressed, poor dears.
deficit neutral? If you assume the $500 billion in medicare cuts won’t be reversed. If you start counting the ten year window now when virtually none of the intiatives have been implemented.
ha sg, thanks. i’ll go watch.
sbj, what’s wrong with media matters?
sbj, media matters is factual.
Big difference.
right wingers don’t like media matters because it makes them look like hypocrites on everything so they cast it as a non-credible source.
“Yea, pointing me to media matters is like me pointing you to newsbusters”
I invite anyone who doesn’t already know how stupid this is to visit both sites and see how different they actually are.
Whether sbj is stupid or just dishonest remains a mystery.
“sbj, what’s wrong with media matters?”
It hurts his wittle fantasy world, that’s what.
I think MSNBC is trying to carve out a niche for themselves as the “left” leaning cable news network, but they are nowhere near where FoxNews is today. How frequently do the straight MSNBC news segments lead with some kind of bad or embarrassing news for Sarah Palin? Meanwhile, over at FoxNews the top stories are often ACORN, Obama’s gay pedophile advisor, Obama’s commie black radical advisor, czars, etc, etc, etc.
..
Let’s also not forgot that Fox – the news shows, not just Beck – actively promoted the tea party events. Some of the “reporters” covering those events actively participated in chants and/or firing up the crowd.
..
Conservatives should be proud that they have a successful and popular (relatively – remember, only about 1% of the population are regular viewers of FoxsNews but that still puts them at the top of the cable news ratings…but well behind the network news) cable news network that actively promotes the stories they want covered and has a right-wing bias. Just admit and and say, “that’s right…it’s our news network, it’s conservative, and we love it.” That’s all the Obama folks are saying – it’s a biased, conservative news network that often pushes the agenda of the Republican Party. I’d love it if there was a liberal equivalent of FoxNews…I don’t get why righties go so far out of their way to try to portray FoxNews as “fair and balanced”. It’s a conservative news network – be happy you have one.
I want to hear from him. sbj, what’s wrong with media matters?
The No. 4 story (also at 7%) involved the April 15 tea party protests. But it also proved to be something of a journalistic Rorschach test, generating very different levels and kinds of coverage in different media sectors. In some quarters (most notably the Fox News Channel), the protests were largely treated as an outpouring of grassroots dissatisfaction with tax policy and expanding federal government. In others (most notably MSNBC), they were often dismissed as anti-Obama anger fests centrally orchestrated by Republicans looking for an issue.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1196/economic-good-news-but-less-of-it
I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but don’t think it’s quite as clear-cut as you seem to. MSNBC’s liberal turn was a (very good) business decision, and the network coverage as a whole does tend to be very friendly toward the White House.
I agree that the level of vitriol and disgraceful commentary is not equivalent, but the same could be said for politics as a whole, could it not?
P.S. I like the guy most of the time, but there is no way in hell that Shuster is a down-the-middle reporter.
Luckily, here in the great white socialist north (that means Canada for the lurking wingnuts), we can’t get FOX without paying for it, so their influence is hardly felt (though we do have our right wing fringe — but ask them if they’d give up their government health care).
I used to watch a lot of CNN but can now barely stand to check in. Rachel Maddow is discussing CIA payments to Karzai’s brother while Larry King is discussing Hulk Hogan’s recent troubles! MSNBC covers the ongoing health care debate while CNN has a panel discussion on visitors to the White House (wonder where that one was cooked up!).
MSNBC may have a left leaning perspective, but it largely comes from the truth (except Joe Scarborough who really should retire from the program if he is exploring a Presidential run). Their biggest problem is the old “left vs right” mentality that allows the likes of Pat Buchanan or Frank Gaffney to get far more airtime than their opinions warrant.
I haven’t seen it pointed out, but it isn’t just that they put on Scarborough for 3 hours a day – they put him on IN DRIVE TIME, mornings – the most watched time of the day.
I don’t know what MSNBC is trying to be but it ain’t liberal, or a left-wing version of Fox News.
When FNC replaces Fox & Friends with “Morning Kucinich”, runs trashy prison reality shows all weekend and MSNBC operates as an official White House operation, trading Rachel Maddow for Robert Gibbs then maybe we can start making those comparisons. But it still wouldn’t be close.
“In some quarters (most notably the Fox News Channel), the protests were largely treated as an outpouring of grassroots dissatisfaction with tax policy and expanding federal government.”
Treating astroturf as grassroots is a perfect example of how FOX lies to exploit the stupid.
Mindboggling delusion you guys are under.
So MSNBC is fair and balanced because they regularly criticize Obama for not governing liberally enough. How exactly does that work?
Does Fox get the same unbiased evaluation then, because its personalities criticize him for being too liberal? Or because they criticized Bush for not being conservative enough?
A little hard to explain your logic, isn’t it?
And Media Matters is now the objective standard? How exactly does that work?
“Apparently you know nothing of Scarborough’s track record in Congress. Perhaps you’re not even aware that he was a GOP rep in the Gingrich House, where he received a 95^ rating from the American Conservative Union. Or that the GOP approached him earlier this year to run for Mel Martinez’ vacant Senate seat? But no, he’s not a real conservative. Dumbass…”
Don’t make foolish assumptions. Let’s just say I probably know more about Joe’s record than you. He’s sort of a moderate to conservative. I’ll take him in a pinch. But he is on MSNBC to act as their court-approved conservative, and he diligently does his job of criticizing conservatives for being conservative.
When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference, according to a new study.
In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign.
Things look much better for Barack Obama—and much worse for John McCain—on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.
http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
First, it’s not a backlash meme, it’s a marketing stance for CNN. The last-place network is trying to distinguish itself as the old-fashioned non-ideological choice.
And, really, it’s a fair point from CNN’s perspective. CNN is the cable news version of the longstanding journalistic mainstream. It’s a liberal network, but it aims to present its liberalism as objective. MSNBC and FNC both claim objectivity, but their programming is clearly aimed at particular political parties.
This is not about ideological bent. Never once has the Obama administration said anything about Fox’s conservatism.
This entire episode is about Fox’s lack of journalistic integrity (e.g., promoting “tea parties,” selective editing of quotes, verbatim reproductions of the talking points and opposition research of the RNC, etc.).
It’s incredible that so many in the media do not understand that it does their profession no justice to defend an agency that has done so much to diminish their cogency. Defending the indefensible is only further undercutting the (”mainstream”) media’s rapidly declining credibility.
“It’s the lies and dissembling, stupid!”
Trying to compare MSNBC and Fox “News” is about as relevant as comparing apples and chihuahuas. I constantly challenge my friends who are Fox fans to sit through fifteen minutes of Fox “News” (time of their choice) and fifteen of MSNBC. I’ll highlight the lies of Fox and they can do the same for MSNBC. None have yet to take me up on the offer.
I guess they know they’re being lied to, but they enjoy the circle-jerk of having their paranoia about the socialist-communist-fascist black president fed back to them more.
“So MSNBC is fair and balanced because they regularly criticize Obama for not governing liberally enough”
No, it was a counterexample to the meme, above.
It’s right there! At the top of the page! It’s in the freaking title, you moron!
FOX NEWS NETWORK – “Fair and Balanced”
Fox News claims that it does not favor either political party or viewpoint in its coverage. As support for this proposition, the network claims that they always interview representatives from both sides of a political issue and cover stories in an unbiased way. Do they keep that brand promise? A recent Pew Research Study on the tone of the Political Coverage indicated that Fox News was in fact, fair and balanced. Of Fox’s presidential stories, 40% of John McCain/Sarah Palin stories had a negative tone and 40% of Barack Obama/Joe Biden stories were likewise negative. Furthermore, Fox had a positive tone on 22% of McCain stories and 25% of Obama stories. Interestingly, Fox’s audience breakdown was the most “Republican” of the networks studied with 39% describing themselves as “Republican,” 33% as “Democrat”, and 22% as “Independent” – slightly higher than the nation as a whole, but not overwhelmingly so. Does Fox News Network keep their brand promise? Verdict: YES. From this study, it appears that Fox delivers on its promise of being “Fair and Balanced”
MSNBC – “The Place for Politics”
MSNBC claims that through its slate of politically savvy and entertaining pundits such as Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, that it is truly the place for politics. Does MSNBC keep their brand promise? The same Pew Research study indicated that 73% of MSNBC stories on McCain were negative vs. 14% for Obama. Positive stories were consistent – 10% of MSNBC McCain stories were positive while 41% Obama stories were positive. Not surprisingly, only 18% of MSNBC’s viewers identified themselves as Republicans vs. 45% as Democrat and 22% as independents. Does MSNBC keep their brand promise? Verdict: NO. From this study, it appears that MSNBC only fulfils the promise of being the place for liberal politics.
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/ReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=24026&CFID=26178778&CFTOKEN=85324197
“I agree that the level of vitriol and disgraceful commentary is not equivalent, but the same could be said for politics as a whole, could it not?
”
That’s true. No one on Fox can hold a candle to Ubermoron and FathEd for irresponsible vitriol. It isn’t even close. If you think it is, please cite some examples that match Ubermoron’s infamous rants against Bush and Cheney, or his recent personal slur against Michelle Malkin for that matter.
You have lost all sense of judment if you think you can defend your position on this with any semblance of logical or factual integrity.
Calling David Shuster an honest reporter who calls facts as he sees them completely nullifies any argument made by this piece. The guy is a joke who made juvenile oral *** jokes about Tea Party protesters. He is about as neutral as Keith Olbermann.
“MSNBC has Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Ed Schultz. But it’s debatable, to begin with, that they are polar opposites — in terms of their ideology or their relationship to reality — of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.”
In what way is it debatable? Are you actually trying to argue that Olbermann and Schultz are moderates of some sort? Heck Olbermann refuses to even have anyone on his show with whom he disagrees. Yeah, a guy who said that Fox has done more damage than the Taliban is really in touch with reality. A guy that claimed Bush and Cheney were worse than al qaeda and constantly called them fascists is really in touch with reality.
And at least Fox isn’t blatantly editing videos to try and fit a particular narrative like MSNBC did with the now-famous “rifle at a protest” footage.
And mentioning Morning Joe as some sort of balance is an absolute joke. That would be like mentioning Alan Colmes and Shep Smith when discussing Fox.
The only real difference between MSNBC and Fox is the fact that virtually no one watches MSNBC.
Here’s that video of the first 100 days of the Presidency from Fox, both opinion and news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0
So, sbj, what you’re saying is that MSNBC was correct in its assessment of the likely success of Obama’s presidential aspirations and its estimation that McCain would lose. And that’s exactly what happened. And you aregue that this proves MSNBC’s left wing bias? I’d say it simply shows which network is more likely to draw conclusions based on facts rather than ideology or wishful thinking.
sbj, are you going to answer me?
What’s wrong with media matters?
Do I have to yell it out to be heard?
What’s Wrong With Media Matters?
“No one on Fox can hold a candle to Ubermoron and FathEd for irresponsible vitriol.”
And no one can hold a candle to Hannity doctoring video to exploit the stupid.
“Equivalences become structural.”
Is that what it is? Because it’s driving me nuts. You cannot talk to someone who just continually says: “I’m rubber you’re glue…” and that’s all they say – that’s all the trolls say.
JM,
Your distinction is non-existent. See, MSNBC and Obama are still fundamentally working in the same direction — way left. So his pet network is actually helping him out by “criticizing” him this way.
I am guessing that, likewise, you didn’t think Fox was more fair and balanced because when its personalities criticized Bush for moving to far to the center. No, to you folks that just makes Fox even more extreme and propoganda oriented. Works both ways, see?
And look at what Greg actually writes above. He is questioning whether Ubermoron and crew are “really” liberal and polar opposites of Hannity and crew. As if Ubermoron could move farther left? How exactly???
I realize you face the unenviable task of explaining the unexplainable. Calling me a moron isn’t a substitute, though.
“Let’s just say I probably know more about Joe’s record than you.First of all”
Well, let’s not say that unless you spend most of your day studying and writing about politics as I do.”
“He’s sort of a moderate to conservative.”
Horseshit. Check his voting record in Congress. And the district he represented is one of the most conservative in the state. Plus, do you really think that the GOP would recruit him to fill Martinez’ seat if he were “sort of moderate to conservative?” The GOP doesn’t DO “moderate” anymore, or hadn’t you noticed?
It helps if you actually read the Pew report:
“On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.”
Well, it seems to me that one of the differences is that Fox is in the business of *making* news, not reporting it, vis the teabaggery stuff.
QB or SBJ Name ONE partisan astroturf promotion like the Faux’s teabaggers created by, promoted by, and covered by MSNBC. The LIES on Fox have been well documented. When Rachel Maddow makes a mistake she corrects it ON AIR…have we ever heard Beck/Hannity do that.
Faux’s greatest problem however is the old axiom about fooling some of the people some of the time etc.. My 84 year old mother is (used to be) a Fox lover…of course much to my dismay. However in the past two months she has confessed that Hannity NEVER covers both sides of the story equally…and that while she watches Beck she believes he is full of hot air and is there simply for entertainment. She still likes Bill O which makes her hate KO…she respects Shep Smith…as do I btw…but she now watches Rachel stating even though she doesn’t always agree with her viewpoint…unlike Hannity she is respectful to her opposition when interviewing them and does consider BOTH sides of any issue.
In other words Faux had gone soooo over the top for sooo long now that even very conservative 84 year olds can see they are not fair and balanced…more like unbalanced…sort of like quarterbrain and sbj.
“Hannity doctoring video to exploit the stupid”
Agreed.
But the handsdown funniest thing I’ve ever seen Hannity do was to ask a farmer: “You are the salt of the earth and you don’t ask your government for anything, do you?”
And the farmer had the good grace to hesitate a half a second before he said: “That’s right.”
[rolls eyes]
Shuster ONLY goes after Conservatives. He rarely attacks liberals. He is a mouth piece for the DNC
“Your distinction is non-existent.”
Not my distinction, moron. You can play with straw men all you want, but don’t expect any respect.
“And at least Fox isn’t blatantly editing videos to try and fit a particular narrative like MSNBC did with the now-famous “rifle at a protest” footage.”
Because they “edited” the image to conceal the carrier’s ethnicity, right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/
Right?
““I’m rubber you’re glue…” and that’s all they say – that’s all the trolls say.”
Reversal of reality again. The whole liberal meme of a “conservative” media was a counter-factual propoganda project started ten years ago or so to try to counter the growing realization of the public that the media was in fact monolithically left-wing.
I’ve regularly cited facts to prove your inane contentions false. You just call me names and move on to the next leftist dogma. You should know better.
“sbj, are you going to answer me?”
Stupidity + cowardice = conservative.
“Reversal of reality again. ”
See what I mean? You cannot talk to these people. They honestly believe that up is down, black is white – if they’ve been told that by Fox, Rush, and the GOP.
“I’ve regularly cited facts to prove your inane contentions false”
As others have already shown repeatedly, you’ve blathered a bunch of someone else’s nonsense, demonstrating that you are a fool.
Nah, sbj is just a plain dishonest troll.
This is all you need to know:
“During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.”
And qb, is the offical stupid of this blog. Hey, someone got do it and qb volunteered.
Laugh. Fox considers CNN in the tank.
Where are the polar opposites equivalencies at CNN?
Someone ask CNN the same question.
People get suckered into false equivalencies too easily.
Media Matters is not an objective critic of media in general. Their entire purpose is to pursue “conservative misinformation.
“Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
“Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.”
Golly gee wilikers, SBJ, I’ve asked you three times what’s wrong with media matters. I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that you haven’t responded.
Of course, I’m hoping that you’re able to prove whatever point you are making “with data”
I know the mission statement.
What’s wrong with them?
You haven’t said what’s wrong with Media Matters.
I am expecting you to prove your point with data. Thank you. Looking forward.
sbj, thanks for the link but it doesn’t dispute Sargent’s point. The differences they point out between Fox’s and MSNBC’s coverage of the tea parties is between the nightime opinion programming of both channels. I would be interested in seeing data for the actual news coverage.
Also, CNN is playing a part here when they try to paint Fox and MSNBC as opposite sides of the same coin. They are trying to frame themselves as the only neutral news organization out there.
sbj. So what. MM is still factual.
Fox is propaganda and distorts truths by editing film and coordinating with the rest of the GOP propaganda machine.
ruk,
You as usual are just making up facts to suit your narrative and have no sense of what is an apple or an orange. I don’t want to waste much time with you, since I’ve been through too many attempts to reason with you and found that, indeed, you have no conception of the difference between a fact and your opinion. But just a couple.
Hannity isn’t a reporter. He’s an opinionated talk show host. He and Beck have no problem giving on-air corrections. I don’t watch either one regularly, but I’ve heard both of them make corrections. They just don’t run with blatant falsehoods with the regularity of the serial liars and propogandists on MSNBC.
With respect to your mom, I really couldn’t care less. Madcow isn’t respectful at all. So you’ve been able to convince your mom otherwise. Good for you. I’ll trust my own eyes and ears, not your opinions or those of your mom.
The fact that organizations like media matters exist and are popular speaks volumes about the quality and truthfulness of the american news media.
Ethan,
No one would bother to do any reseearch or quantitative analysis of MM BECAUSE IT IS A SOROS-FUNDED ORGANIZATION EXPLCITLY DEDICATED TO LIBERAL PROPOGANDA. No one except apparently you loons claims it is neutral. TRY to use your head just once sometime.
Quarterback, same offer I make my Fox “News” viewing friends: Show me MSNBC’s “lies” or “falsehoods”.
I’ve got a library full of to show you from Fox.
sbj
This is exactly why we like Media Matters. Someone needs to call this stuff out.
“Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.”
qb, sbj just posted the MM mission statement.
They don’t do liberal news. That is an obvious fact. I don’t know where you got your comment from. Oh wait, yeah I do. You got it from where you get all your talking points. Where the sun don’t shine.
Sbj, you haven’t answered my question.
“Media Matters is not an objective critic of media in general. Their entire purpose is to pursue “conservative misinformation.”
Another strawman. What should I expect?
No one said they were objective (except QB, playing with another one of his straw men, since that’s all a conservative is up for). You compared their content with newsmax, which is so ridiculous I invite anyone to compare them.
Mediamatters documents examples of rightwing disinformation by citing, transcribing, and linking their content and providing feedback contacts.
““During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.””
Jesus wept!
The US is not in danger of Muslims taking over, one convenience store at a time; it’s already been taken over by Rupert Frakking Murdoch who has destroyed our 4th Estate. They frakking wrote the first amendment to enshrine a free press and this is what Rupert has done with that truly noble idea.
*heavyfrakkingsigh*
This too, Capitalism hath wrought. It’s either reined in by serious regulation or the US is doomed. We’ll go the way of the USSR. This man has made a mockery of one of this country’s most important ideals – and he’s done it strictly for the money.
“As others have already shown repeatedly, you’ve blathered a bunch of someone else’s nonsense, demonstrating that you are a fool.”
Idiot. I’d like to see Tena actually deny what I said — that I have repeatedly proved her claims FACTUALLY wrong on this site. You can spout this garbage as many times as you want, but she knows it happened, and she was the one spouting nonfactual talking points. Deny it, Tena. Are you that dishonest?
It is explicitly dedicated to calling out conservative misinformation.
“Madcow isn’t respectful at all.”
Truly, irony is not dead.
“No one would bother to do any reseearch or quantitative analysis of MM BECAUSE IT IS A SOROS-FUNDED ORGANIZATION EXPLCITLY DEDICATED TO LIBERAL PROPOGANDA.”
I told you that was where he was going to hide.
Except that Soros does not fund mediamatters and they spend all their time debunking the lies of the conservatives who have done so much damage to this country.
If that’s “liberal propaganda,” then good for them.
“Mediamatters documents examples of rightwing disinformation by citing, transcribing, and linking their content and providing feedback contacts.”
Exactly so – it’s their own words. But you won’t get them to admit it. I gave one of the trolls 44 pages of at least 50 links per page that go directly to Rush Limbaugh himself saying what MediaMatters said he said and it still squished itself past the whole thing and claimed he never said just one stinking thing someone claimed he said. In the face of a good couple thousand direct links to Rush himself saying hateful, racist things.
SMH
“Idiot. I’d like to see Tena actually deny what I said”
Moron. I was talking about what you actually said, which (as I said) has already been dealt with.
I asked you for facts before, but as usual, you wussed out.
Where’d sbj go? Off collecting “data” to prove what’s wrong with MM?
“The fact that organizations like media matters exist and are popular speaks volumes about the quality and truthfulness of the american news media.”
Substitute NewsBusters for Media matters and what does that tell you?
Keith is a loudmouth, but he isn’t a liar. Hannity is a liar, and not a particularly bright one. Fox fabricates “news” and then reports on their fabrication from a conservative/paranoid worldview. MSNBC at worst reports on actual news from their perspective. There really is no actual comparison to be made.
I have a job so the wingnut howls for proof may have to wait till after. Not sure what QB does all day outside of masturbatory wingnut news-farming.
“Substitute NewsBusters for Media matters and what does that tell you?”
That you’re still hiding behind a straw man.
This is not news.
Yes but media outlets like CNN love this kind of false equivalence, it is what they consider “balance.” Also, I’m sure CNN would like to present itself as the “straight down the middle” alternative to the equally biased Fox and MSNBC.
sbj, do you even have a point ?
“This is exactly why we like Media Matters. Someone needs to call this stuff out.”
Fair enough. (That’s also why NewsBusters is an extremely popular site.) All beside the point. The post contends:
“More to the point is MSNBC’s news judgment throughout the day, which contrasts sharply with that of Fox. You’d be hard pressed to argue that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices.”
Greg offers no data to back this up. Media Matters is hardly the way to go to get this info because its sole purpose is to go after FNC and conservative media. I am using Pew – well regarded by all sides and an objective source of news coverage analysis – to prove that MSNBC covers the same stories that FNC does and simply presents a different spin.
sbj, are you going to answer me or not? this is getting old.
“that I have repeatedly proved her claims FACTUALLY wrong on this site. Yo”
You want to see me deny this? I’m denying it. Hope you saw it.
You’re full of s*h*i*t.
@ethan: I’m sorry – what’s your question?
“Media Matters is hardly the way to go to get this info because its sole purpose is to go after FNC and conservative media.”
“FNC and conservative media”? Clear evidence that you’ve never read mediamatters.
And you’re already misrepresented Pew’s findings, which I corrected above, just as FOX has been running a year-old study to “prove” they’re fair and balanced … without citing the up-to-date Pew poll that shows otherwise.
What’s wrong with Media Matters?
The most striking difference between MSNBC and FOX is that FOX actually promotes events, i.e. Tea baggers. It practically created the Tea Partiers. The commentary that accompanies the “news” has an unvarnished agenda. They are hardly the same.
Bonus coverage: mediamatters mock the whiners at NewsBusters:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910290009
I can’t wait to see how all the MSM handle two interesting stories today. GDP growth and the President’s visit to Dover. You would think both stories are good for all Americans, but I can’t wait to find out how the MSM sees it.
@ethan: If you’ll read their mission statement you will see that their purpose is to identify conservative misinformation – or something like that.
So what’s wrong with that?
P.S. to my last post. Maybe we’ll shed a little light on where any media biases may live.
“They are hardly the same.”
Hardly.
I’m so tired of the equivalency game – what happened to the Conservative Movement? Conservatives used to see things in terms of hard and fast moral rules – not this constantly shifting ethic with no ideals except: “We hate liberals and liberalism.”
The right does not stand for anything at all anymore except: “We don’t like you.”
“The whole liberal meme of a “conservative” media was a counter-factual propoganda project started ten years ago or so to try to counter the growing realization of the public that the media was in fact monolithically left-wing.”
Wow, you really are clueless, aren’t you? Newt Gingrich himself has admitted that the whole “liberal MSM” meme was created by the Republicans as part of their electoral strategy in the 1990s. Rich Bond, the heard of the RNCC admitted this in a Washington Post interview in 1992 in which he compared journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is “work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’Gingrich himself has also characterized the meme as an effort to “work the refs.” In a 1995 New Yorker interview, Bill Kristol said “I admit it. The whole idea of the ‘liberal media’ was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
Your own team admits they ginned up the whole thing as a way to get more favorable coverage for their ideas. So why do I not believe you’ll accept even their ord for it?
sbj, i have been over at the pew studies and cannot find any comparison of the news during the day at MSNBC and at FOX. Every study, when you read it more closely, points out the differences in the evening opinion shows. According to how they collect their data they only cover a 1/2 hour during the day on the three cable news networks — 2 to 2:30. If you know where I can get raw data, I’d appreciate it. But nothing in the Pew studies that you point out contradict what Sargent is saying here: that the news coverage is entirely different between FOX and MSNBC.
@ethan: There’s nothing “wrong” with that – it just means that they are not neutral. Greg’s asserts that one would be “hard pressed to argue that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices.”
Greg offers no data to back this up. Media Matters is hardly the way to go to get this info because its sole purpose is to go after FNC and conservative media. It’s purpose is not to analyze the “news coverage” of all media – they are looking for conservative misinformation.
@batirl: “But nothing in the Pew studies that you point out contradict what Sargent is saying here: that the news coverage is entirely different between FOX and MSNBC.”
Can you point me to any studies that support what Greg is saying?
“@ethan: If you’ll read their mission statement you will see that their purpose is to identify conservative misinformation – or something like that.”
… whereas NewsBusters is part of a media operation dating to 1988 that claims to sniff out liberal “bias” in the media and spends a lot of time attacking moderate Republicans. Not even remotely the same thing.
Both are partisan, but their different MO’s reflect the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to media. Conservatives win when they can enforce message unity on the media and their own party. Liberals expect the facts to win the day, so they spend a lot of time playing catch-up. For conservatives, “liberal” is a relative term, a term of abuse for anyone who disagrees (which is why conservatives spend so much time calling each other “liberal”). For actual liberals, conservatives are an identifiable political machine whose pursuit of elite interests has damaged the country but still has a reserve of useful idiots who are willing to march in support of their own exploitation. The numbers will be inflated later.
For the trolls on this site, things have to be more simple than that. Each side has to be equivalent simply because they are in opposition. You can see that in the false equivalents and impotent outrage of our resident trolls, and in the fact that they can’t seem to muster many facts without revealing that same mental defect.
I’m beginning to think that conservatism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a disability.
“Can you point me to any studies that support what Greg is saying?”
I already did.
Right. The answer is: there’s nothing wrong with Media Matters.
“Update: Josh Marshall put it nicely the other day, noting that efforts to call Fox a legit news outlet akin to calling professional wrestling a “real sporting event.”
I bow in Josh’s general direction for that:
(-.-) (_ _) (-.-)//******** (applause, too)
“In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.
By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists’ own views.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32631-2005Mar13.html
What’s so hard about that?
quarterback, who are you taking to prom this year?
sbj – there you again, displaying your dishonesty. While you wilfully ignore the ‘facts’ staring right at you, you continue to whine about ‘data’.
And no, I don’t intend wasting my time to educate you about facts.
I’m sorry, JM – please repost the link to a study that shows “that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices.”
Much ado about nothing.
Those cable news channel viewer numbers are not very large, in the whole scheme of things.
FOX pioneered the cable news network political affiliation, or “bias” if you will. There was a void on the left, so MSNBC decided to try and occupy that niche.
FOX is Conservative, and MSNBC is Liberal.
Which every party is in The White House is going to always get far more heat from the News Channel that is aligned with the party that is out of power.
Does anyone have the viewer age demographics, for both of those channels? I recall one, some time back, on FOX viewers, but I can not locate it now. As I recall, it was skewed heavily toward viewers 50 and older. Is that still the case, and is MSNBC’s viewers age demographics different?
Looking at the coverage of the people who showed up for those teabagger events, there were not very many young people to be seen. Some yes, but the vast majority of them, were in the older age brackets.
You will always find much more people in the older age brackets being unhappy with change, and longing to go back to the good old days, which never were. Nostalgia is a deceiver which filters out all the bad memories, and puts a rose colored gloss on “The Good Old Days”.
A lot of old people still believe that Leave It to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and Lawrence Welk were what made America Great, and all this Hippity Hop Music is ruining America, and causing it to go to hell, and all together now: Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!
I’m sorry, JM – please repost the link to a study that shows “that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices.”
****; the troll can’t even read. JM never argued ““that MSNBC’s choice of stories to report on is as ideologically driven as Fox’s editorial choices.” That’s your argument, apparently. And now you want JM to prove it for you? Can you get any lamer/stupider without trying really, really hard?
“The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington-based research group, offers a three-part breakdown of cable journalists voicing their opinions. From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC.”
Hmmm, 52 to 50, resoundingly different!
“Among news-oriented evening shows, journalist opinions were voiced on 70 percent of the stories on Fox’s “Special Report With Brit Hume,” due in part to its regular analysts panel at the show’s end.”
Hmmm, due in part to its regular analysts panel.
“As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story — 97 percent — contained opinion on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor”
Imagine that – an opinion show where they express opinions!
I sometimes wonder if the trolls bother to read the thread.
And, in other news, a whole 10 teabaggers showed up to protest the House bill on HCR.
Weak tea indeed.
“That’s your argument, apparently.”
Umm, yes – that’s been my point all along, actually.
“The real tell is comparing the news coverage.”
“So why don’t you offer us some quantifiable data that compares their news coverage? You don’t offer any data here – you don’t prove your point with data.”
“Hmmm, 52 to 50, resoundingly different!”
As opposed to the part I already quoted? From the lede?
Weak cherry picking. No wonder you’re dumb enough to be a conservative.
By the way, the cut and paste smear about the Akre lawsuit that someone posted above is disinformation — virtually complete BS. You are doing nothing but cutting and pasting the plaintiffs’ characterization of the case, as filtered through internet Fox haters. Go run down the sources and you will see you are posting BS.
I’ve actually read the court of appeals decision. Your version bears little relation to the truth. In fact, the court of appeals actually found that the plaintiffs refused to provide substantiation for the the claims they were making in the story when asked for it by the local station (not Fox News, btw). That’s just one of many falsehoods and distortions embedded in your little internet-rumor hatchet job.
But, hey, you all think MSNBC is straight news, so I’m not surprised.
It’s a shame he hasn’t discovered the google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#Studies_and_reports
“The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent.”
Of course, the false equivalencies will never cease.
… and for those who prefer their data anecdotal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU
cha cha cha,
When do you go into rehab again? Or are you there now?
Brown’s ‘grilling’ is likely more tied to CNN’s ratings than anything else. What she was really saying is isn’t our competition all biased, only CNN is news.
Riiiight, QB.
‘The court agreed with WTVT’s (Fox) argument “that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”[1]‘
Intentional falsification of the news isn’t protected under the whistleblower’s statute. So, FOX can lie at will and their employees can be fired if they talk about that.
Nothing new there.
@JM: So who’s doing the cherry picking? And what does an expression of opinion have to do with their choices of news coverage? Greg asserts that FNC picks stories based in ideology and basically says it should be obvious to all that MSNBC doesn’t. I’d like to see some data that backs that up. It’s my opinion that they generally cover the same news items – they just offer markedly different takes. There’s no denying that FNC is more critical of Obama and Dems, but I don’t think one can credibly claim that MSNBC is not more critical of Republicans. It’s also my opinion that I feel some items FNC has covered (that others have not) are, indeed, newsworthy. FNC encourages their reporters to express their opinions – maybe that’s why their ratings are so good compared to the other cable news channels?
@sbj: You’ve quoted the media matters mission statement often to show that they aren’t neutral – they focus on debunking conservative arguments
you then compare media matters to newsbusters – one focuses on conservatives, the other on liberals.
but you miss the whole point. this is media research center’s mission statement (the people who run the newsbusters blog): “The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. ”
media matters admits it is not neutral. media research center claims to “bring balance.” If you asked media matters if, by watching mainstream media and reading media matters you would have a neutral perspective, they would say No. It isn’t about achieving neutrality, it’s about exposing misinformation.
But media research center seems to imply here that if you were to watch the news, then read newsbusters, you would correct for the systemic liberal bias and achieve neutrality. And notice the difference there – they don’t claim to correct liberal misinformation, they intend to correct liberal media bias – there is a huge difference between making a false statement of fact and characterizing a story in a way that emphasizes certain aspects for political reasons.
“FNC encourages their reporters to express their opinions”.
sbj, hoisted on your own petard.
sbj is playing dumb, I see.
‘67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization” (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS).’
But then the study I cited at the top of this thread already told you they were dumb.
‘The belief that “The US has found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq” was held by 33% of FOX viewers and only 23% of CBS viewers, 19% for ABC, 20% for NBC, 20% for CNN and 11% for NPR/PBS’
This is what makes FOX’s audience useful to their betters. That’s why it exists.
“FNC encourages their reporters to express their opinions”
And, since Mark Lamont Hill has been purged, those opinions would be …
@JM: The notion that FNC viwers are misinformed does not prove that FNC’s news stories are selected based on ideology while MSNBC’s are not. You keep going back to the accuracy of FNC – that is not the point of Greg’s post.
I think the line was irrefutably crossed when Fox News decided to sponsor the partisan Tax Party protests. None of the “liberal” MSM has ever provided the promotion and backing of a leftwing protest that this received. And I’m not talking about the coverage of the actual event, if you want to provide more/less coverage of a news event, that’s just an editorial decision. What crossed the line was all of the advance promotion, lending of Fox celebrities, the running of advertisements and creation of webpages on Fox Nation. I’m in marketing and this type of behavior is called being an event Sponsor.
This was an outright partisan propaganda campaign and required a White House response.
@sbj: “From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC.””
As of September 9, 2009
“Carlos Watson, anchor of MSNBC’s 11 a.m. weekday show, “Live with Carlos Watson,” will no longer be anchoring that hour on the network.”
“And, since Mark Lamont Hill has been purged, those opinions would be …”
I rather liked Mark – too bad he’s gone. What show was he on?
At any rate, I guess your point is that FNC employs conservative reporters so they express conservative opinions. For one thing, I’m not sure the study quantified the relative conservativeness or liberalness of the opinions expressed. But even if they did, that has nothing to do with the choice of news stories to cover, again.
“The notion that FNC viwers are misinformed does not prove that FNC’s news stories are selected based on ideology while MSNBC’s are not. You keep going back to the accuracy of FNC”
No, I don’t.
Misinformation is the point of FNC, in service of their ideology. These are the results. I’m sorry that I have to spell that out for you.
Thanks JoeIsuzu, for your spot-on post. Hope you don’t expect a response from sbj or quarterback – they’re adept at ignoring posts that undermine their arguments.
“But even if they did, that has nothing to do with the choice of news stories to cover, again.”
For instance their choice to cover the tea party protests, and lie about their numbers?
I’m sorry, you were saying?
“When do you go into rehab again? Or are you there now?”
thanks for asking, but i’m not having surgery until after the season. i appreciate your concern, and as always, it’s nice to hear from young fans.
What was the point of FOX recycling a five-year-old, corrected story about Kevin Jennings? What is the point of FOX pretending there is a sudden explosion of ‘czars’? What is the point of FOX pretending that a little criticism is the same thing as Nixon’s enemies list? What is the point of FOX pretending that Obama is running around “apologizing for America”?
It’s hard to say FOX isn’t selecting material for partisan purposes when it spends so much time lying through its teeth with a clearly partisan bent. In fact, that’s pretty much all they do.
@sbj: you miss my point entirely. Not only do you select the 11am-noon news broadcasts comparison, as if that were representative of the ideological intentions of the network’s pogramming as a whole, but MSNBC no longer employs that anchor.
Would it make any sense to call CBS biased and cite as an example when Dan Rather broke that story about Bush’s dubious service record from the Texas Air National Guard which turned out to be fake? He resigned. CBS apologized and retracted. Does fox do that?
Has fox retracted its coverage of Obama’s forged Kenyan birth certificate? Cmon.
# consumetheconsumer | October 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Brown’s ‘grilling’ is likely more tied to CNN’s ratings than anything else. What she was really saying is isn’t our competition all biased, only CNN is news.
…………………….
That surely is a big part of it. She also happens to be married to Dan Senor, a big player in the George W. Bush admn.
Here is who Ms. Brown engages in pillow talk with. Notice that he does work for FOX NEWS.
“n early 2003, Senor joined the Administration of George W. Bush, as deputy to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.[4]. In the lead-up to the Iraq war and during the war, he was a Pentagon and White House advisor based in Doha, Qatar at U.S. Central Command Forward; he was subsequently based in Kuwait working with General Jay Garner during the final days of the war and in southern Iraq when the Iraqi regime fell; and formally re-located to Baghdad on April 20, 2003, when he traveled with General Garner’s team in the first post-war civilian convoy. Senor remained in Iraq until the summer of 2004.
While in Kuwait and Iraq, Senor was an adviser to both the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and later the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), for which he was Chief Spokesman and Senior Advisor. Senor was one of the longest serving civilians in Iraq. For his service, he was awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, one of the Pentagon’s highest civilian honors.
In September 2004, the White House controversially employed Senor to coach and ghostwrite the speeches of Iraq’s interim prime minister Iyad Allawi during his visit to the US, in an effort to enhance the Bush reelection campaign. At the same time, Senor appeared on cable news programs claiming that Allawi’s positive remarks (vetted by Senor) supported the Bush Administration’s rosy view of the Iraq occupation.
Current activities
Senor is a founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a global investment firm and a hedge fund.
In the Spring of 2008, Senor became an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.[5]
He is currently an analyst for Fox News, where he has also hosted two investigative documentaries – on Iraq and Iran. He is also published frequently by The Wall Street Journal,”
Before MSNBC showed up, Fox claimed the whole media had a liberal bias. Now just MSNBC?
I think it should also be pointed out that Maddow has on several occasions gone after the Obama administration, something that Beck, Hannity, and O’ Reilly would almost never do if the administration of their choice was in the White House.
JM:
“Intentional falsification of the news isn’t protected under the whistleblower’s statute. So, FOX can lie at will and their employees can be fired if they talk about that.
Can you really be this obtuse? You realize how idiotic your assertion here is? You realize that if your “logic” is correct it means all media lies, and nothing more? Becaues it can?
Here is a link to a page maintained by the plaintiffs themselves. Go ahead and start by reading the complaint and answer. If you aren’t a lawyer, sorry, it just further means you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. But here’s the link anyway:
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
So what lies an we see in the smear you are defending? Let’s see:
It is implied that the story aired. It didn’t.
It is implied that it was a Fox News story. It wasn’t. It was a local station.
It is directly asserted that the defendant didn’t dispute that it pressured the reporter to air a false story. That’s flatly false.
It is implied that the station’s only defense was a right to lie. That is absolutely false.
The smear posted leaves out oceans of significant facts, like the fact that the station reviewed the proposed report under strong and detailed threats of a defamation lawsuit from one of the largest law firms in NY. Kind of changes the perspective, doesn’t it.
The court of appeals opinion explicitly states that the plaintiff reporters failed to substantiate claims made in their report during the editorial review process.
The court of appeals explicitly states that it wasn’t necessary to review the defendant’s other defenses, because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the whistleblower act. Oh, and the jury rejected all the plaintiffs’ other claims.
I could go on. But why should I?
Your smear is total garbage. Way to follow the new liberal “news” method of recylcing garbage posted by other anonymous blog posters.
“What crossed the line was all of the advance promotion, lending of Fox celebrities, the running of advertisements and creation of webpages on Fox Nation.”
Fox Nation is an OPINION website.
Advance promotion — meaning what? When and by whom? You understand that Fox News has a number of OPINION shows? Beck and Hannity are OPINION talk shows, you do understand that, right?
Lending of celebrities — you mean whom? Beck, Hannity? You’re aware that they are OPINION commentators who have radio shows as well as Fox television shows? In what way did Fox “lend” them? Can you substantiate that in any way?
And what in the world is your point? You seriously think Ubermoron and the rest of the MSNBC can be differentiated from this as somehow less partisan?
How did MSNBC — not to mention CNN and other networks — respond to the tea parties? By mocking them and deligitimzing them, right?
Your supposed point is fatuous.
And then there is this, lefties:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091008081635.aspx
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/24/maddow-s-hypocrisy-fox-not-normal-news-channel-due-tea-party-promo-msnbc-
What was that you were saying? “None of the “liberal” MSM has ever provided the promotion and backing of a leftwing protest that this received.”
Wrong again.
It’s fascinating isn’t how FOX started out claiming it was “fair and balanced” and the only network that “does real journalism.” And now it is reduced to making excuses that it no worse than the other guys. That is because extremists need extremists on the other side in order to justify their extremism. That is why FOX desperately needs people to believe that MSNBC is simply its mirror image. It is not. Bill O’Reilly bullying guests and ordering them to shut up or having his producer cut their mikes when they argue too effectively against him is not the same thing as Rachel Maddow constructing an argument with real facts and evidence like a lawyer in a courtroom. Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck going vaguely on and on about socialism or dictatorship and the end of Western Civilization as we know it is not the same thing as Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment about a secret spying program on Americans or a President whose lawyers actually believe that he has the constitutional authority to imprison any American for as long as he wants without a trial just so long as he declares him an enemy combatant in a vaguely defined war on terror. One is advocacy journalism and the other is propaganda.
Ted,
Fox isn’t reduced to anything. Don’t mistake the liberal support group here for reality.
The rest of your post is just more fact-free opinion. You are out of touch with reality if you think Olbermann’s unhinged rants have some higher journalistic standing than anything on Fox.
The major distinction is the care with which those invited on both the news shows and the opinion shows are treated. There is no yelling over the top of what anyone says; Maddow in particular is careful to give even her farthest right wing guests any rope they need to hang themselves.
Ted,
you should listen to quarterback’s words. you should also dress up as orly taitz for halloween, just like quarterback.
Actually, Quarterbrain, is dressing in a Neiman Marcus, Tundra Chic, Costume, just like his beloved Quitter Granny Palin.
“Two weeks ago, CNN rejected an advertisement from Media Matters and America’s Voice, an immigration reform group, to “drop” host Lou Dobbs because of his immigration views.
“Today, America’s Voice announced that the “Drop Dobbs” ad will get some play in major markets beginning tonight on one of CNN’s rivals: It will air during MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
Too funny! Naw – Media Matters/MSNBC – no ideology here, move along now.
Well, don’t I feel special. I have my own little board stalker.
Cha, you’ll have to do better than that. Go ahead, surely you can do better.
can’t a man find another man’s posts to be insightful, charming, and witty without the word “stalker” being thrown around? also, liam seems to know you better than me. not that i’m jealous or anything.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091008081635.aspx
“MSNBC Goes Into Astroturf Mode: Advocates Using Free Clinics to ‘Shame’ Senators
“Olbermann, Maddow exploit poor people to target Democratic senators reluctant to support a public option. “
MSNBC and other networks were really unbiased on tea parties:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090416130347.aspx
David Shuster, what an objective journalist.
Simple comparative example: How many errant Dems have been labelled ‘(R)’ on the MSNBC chiron? Meanwhile, even Sanford was labelled ‘(D – S.C.)’ for much of FOX’s first day of reporting the Appalachian tale (tail?). This has been remarked on over and over.
Another: how often does MSNBC mis-name the Repub-lick Party? But even FOX’s “news” shows call the opponent the “Democrat” Party. NOTE: ‘Democrat’ is a noun, only and ever a noun. In all adjective and adverb uses, it’s Democratic, as in “The Democratic Majority In Congress.”
techstyle: “Would it make any sense to call CBS biased and cite as an example when Dan Rather broke that story about Bush’s dubious service record from the Texas Air National Guard which turned out to be fake?”
Sorry to call you on this, but the story Rather reported on 20/20 about Bush’s Guard record was never disputed. Nor was it proven false. One of the pieces of evidence, admittedly a major piece of evidence, was later proven false.
Fox and other outlets used that guard record that wasn’t properly vetted by the producers of the report to link it to the story and, in turn, attempt to prove the story false. It worked, didn’t it? You and others were duped into believing that the story was false and thereby reinvigorate Bush’s personal history,…which stinks to high heaven. They did it time and time again, wherein a story discrediting Bush or Cheney would be reported, they’d stay silent on the facts, surrogets would find a something to attack the messenger or the message and the whole thing would end up being about something else instead of the facts.
I still can’t believe people voted for him to lead this country.
Cal,
if you just check newsbusters’ site, i’m sure you’ll get all the answers. however, numbers and statistics often have a liberal biased…
“Sorry to call you on this, but the story Rather reported on 20/20 about Bush’s Guard record was never disputed. Nor was it proven false. One of the pieces of evidence, admittedly a major piece of evidence, was later proven false.”
Rubbish. It was debunked in innumerable specifics and as a “story,” and, more to the point, NO PROOF was ever produced FOR the Rather/Mapes “fake but accurate” “story.” How low can you stoop to try to defend a story entirely made up of forged documents passed off by a crackpot???
Think about it, we had a major network air a completely fraudulent story — going back over 30 years — attacking the integrity of a candidate weeks before the election, and you are imagining conspiracies on the other side to evade such “stories.”
And now we have a radical leftist President who attended a hate “church” for twenty years, and who responded to stories about that by attacking the messengers and denying he ever heard the hate. Same story with Ayers and many other stories in the 2008 election — Obama and surrogates attacked and impugned the messengers.
I still can’t believe people voted for him.
Yeah, Tamron Hall and Schuster really play it down the middle. And CNN may not have legs tingling, but it is in the tank as well. By the way, I guess the FTC finally came down on Campbell Brown and said you can’t tout a show as “no bias, no bull” that features both so prominently.
These are the people who buried the Tony Rezko story, for example. I guess because it is so normal for a political fixer to pay for the yard for a politician’s house. Of course, woe betide that politician if he or she doesn’t believe that bigger government and higher taxes are the answer.
Good luck convincing people that Obama is fighting a media headwind because there is one cable news channel that doesn’t celebrate his “achievements” enough.
Cal,
Good luck finding the statistics to prove your theory. While you are at it, please find the statistics on how often each network fails to identify Dems caught in scandals as Dems versus identifying Reps as such. That’s been a common liberal bias phenomenon for many years.
Also find the statistics on how often networks use pejoratives like “far right” versus “far left” and identify people and groups as “liberal” and “conservative.” The liberal networks routinely identify liberals as either nothing or as “nonpartisan.” Conservatives are always labeled as such or worse. In fact, the other networks virtually never use the term “liberal.”
Actually;
Democrats do not consider FAUX NEWS to be “a head wind”; more as: An Arse Wind!
i see your Ayers and your Rezko, and raise you 1 Kenyan birth certificate, 2 secret Muslims, and 5 radical Socialists
Sorry you don’t like the facts, chachie.
Reality is a grim teacher and clearly Quarterback and his crew of reality-impaired partisans failed the course. All the mewling of Faux News lover and all the mewling of Faux News itself won’t put the NeoCon egg together again. Whining won’t change reality and the reality is America no longer trusts wingnut fantasies. Good thing to because it’s a scary world and my country needs adult leadership to wend these treacherous waters.
“Reality is a grim teacher and clearly Quarterback and his crew of reality-impaired partisans failed the course.”
not at all! they’re all very intelligent folks. which is why i’d like to invite them to take part in a nigerian investment opportunity that will, no doubt, prove very lucrative.
there are some really brain dead trolls around here
faux gnus lies, it’s that simple
mark foley, craig vitter, john ensign, mark sanford, and that vitter creep from Lousianna who was paying prostitutes to put diapers on him, all of these republicans were pictured with captions identifying them as Democrats on faux gnus
once might have been a mistake, twice should have resulted in a mass firing, three times is a reason to drug test the entire news room
five times ???
that’s no mistake
its a flat out lie
can’t argue with that, can ya
go to medai matters and watch the evidence
and then crawl away in shame
MSNBC doesn’t mislable anybody, neith does CNN
faux news has no peoblem identifying corrupt Democrats
but corupt republicans are always identified as Democrats on faux gnus
it’s a flat out lying propaganda outfit
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
correction:
mark foley, LARRY craig, john ensign, mark sanford, and that vitter creep from Louisiana who was paying prostitutes to put diapers on him
I mixed vitter an larry craig together in the initial post
A question:
The fact that certain personalities on Fox News were involved in promoting the Tea Party tax protests, and FOX gave extensive coverage to them before, during, and after the events, is often used by many people on this board as the perfect example of how FOX is engaged in propaganda, and a reason that disparagement of the credentials of FOX as a news organization is legitimate.
So I wonder if those same people also question the credentials of the vaunted BBC and consider it also to be a propaganda tool, Afterall, the BBC has also been involved in promoting a political protest in the past. Indeed, unlike FOX, the BBC explicitly declared itself a “partner” in the protest. In 2005, Bob Geldof organized a protest concert in London’s Hyde Park called Live 8. It’s aim was to call on politicians “make poverty history”, with specific demands such as the expenditure of $50bn on aid to poor nations, including $25 billion specifically for Africa, 100% debt cancellation by the G8 nations for “all countries that need it”, and a change in trade laws among the G8 nations. The event was timed to occur as the members of the G8 were meeting in the UK, and was very clearly not a charity event on the order of Live Aid, but was instead undoubtedly a political protest, a call to political action. Even the BBC itself acknowledged that the aim of the event was to “put pressure on political leaders.”
The event was much publicized by the BBC in the weeks leading up to it, with the BBC calling itself the “broadcast partner” of the event, and on the day itself the BBC broadcast from Hyde Park live for several hours with essentially uncritical coverage.
So, my question for people here is this: If FOX’s promotion of and coverage of the Tea Party protests suggests that it is a tool for political propaganda, do you also consider the BBC to be a tool for political propaganda? If not, why not?
(see http://theamericanexpatinuk.blogspot.com/2005/07/make-bbc-history.html)
fred,
I was enjoying your little polemic and prepared to compliment you until this:
“Good thing to because it’s a scary world and my country needs adult leadership to wend these treacherous waters.”
Adult leadership for a scary world = Barack and Joe. Right. This would be very funny if it were not so frightening.
New Pew poll seems appropriate for today:
http://people-press.org/report/559/
The wingnuts cannot tolerate any challenge to their party or their leaders. Merely not exercising abject fealty to the Republican Party is evidence in their minds of liberal bias.
***** all you want about MS-NBC and their supposed liberal bias. Can you cite factual errors on their part? I sure can cite dozens, if not hundreds of examples of factual errors on the part of FauxNews. Does MS-NBC alter their transcripts? I have not seen any evidence of that odious practice. However, FauxNews regularly edits and alters its transcripts in order to hide inconvenient truths and to try and edit the historical record of what was said on their programs.
It is utter b.s. to try and paint MS-NBC with the same brush as FauxNews. FauxNews are a pack of disingenuous liars who ignore actual news in order to push manufactured faux-news; they advocate, promote, and organize purely conservative political events; and they essentially lie full time. Cite any evidence of reciprocal behavior by MS-NBC or STFU.
oooooh, the BBC. Big scary BBC. oooooh.
Perhaps we can also then compare Radio Rwanda to FAUX NEWS. It would be just as valid as comparing the BBC to MSNBC.
“Cite any evidence of reciprocal behavior by MS-NBC or STFU”
Same old strident, purple prose “devout Christian” Gasbag. Laughable stuff “cannot tolerate any challenge . . . . dozens, if no hundreds . . . odious practice” blah blah blah. What a waste of everyone’s time.
If they were just “liars” that would be enough. But to be “disingenuous liars” — why, it’s unconscionably odiously outrageously awful what those horrible Nazi Fauxnews people do.
LOL
Again, measuring “bias” is a very dicey thing to get into. But this one seems like an easy call.
For you, yeah. It’s not bias if you agree with it. Easiest call there is.
Three hours of Republican politician Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is “balanced” on Fox how?
If the Fox Republican channel gave Dennis Kucinich three hours every day, there might be some comparison to MSNBC.
As it stands there is NO realistic comparison (except by right wing enabling hacks trying to blur reality).
Well FAUX News did give being Fair and Balanced a shot. It just did not work out.
They found that 110LBS(Soaking Wet) Alan Colmes, was just too much counter balance, so they too him off the Raw Insanity SeeSaw.
Caller: Mr. Hannity I think That Obama is a Muslim Terrorist, Fascist backer of Big Wall St. Bankers, and he wants to kill all our Grannies.
Raw Insanity; Thank you for that Caller. You are a great American.
# Jim Treacher | October 29th, 2009 at 06:35 pm
“Again, measuring “bias” is a very dicey thing to get into. But this one seems like an easy call.”
“For you, yeah. It’s not bias if you agree with it. Easiest call there is.”
“The” Jim Treacher?
sbj | October 29th, 2009 at 07:02 pm
someone has a broner
Was MSNBC founded by a former media advisor to a Democratic president?
Roger Ailes, the head of Faux (he has a sense of humor) was the media advisor to several Republican presidents and candidates — most notably Nixon, Bush Sr., and Reagan. He worked with Lee Atwater to produce attack ads against Democratic candidates. He is a lifelong political hack, and he owns a network.
Fox is about as unbiased as the 700 Club is ecuminical.
The BBC is a government owned news service and is indeed the propaganda arm of the British government. It has a very respected news service (like VOA used to) because that is what makes the propaganda effective. Look at their coverage of the Falklands war. Fox is not effective because they are so over the top, when the BBC throws a curve many people accept it because of their reputation.
However, promoting a concert to end poverty is a pretty bad example — how many people out there support poverty? Ending poverty is no more of a political issue than ending AIDS is.
I have to say that Fox News very definitely DID criticize Bush harshly on a number of occasions.
Anytime Bush did anything that didn’t make the Democrats puke – they ran Bush into the ground for it.
That is clearly evidence of Fox being “Fair & Balanced”.
Mark-NC,
Under the standard being applied here to exonerate MSNBC of bias, yes, indeed, you have to accept that Fox is fair and balanced beceause Bush was criticized for not being insufficiently conservative.
Your comrades here claim that MSNBC is unbiased for that very reason — it criticizes Obama for insufficient liberalism.
George:
However, promoting a concert to end poverty is a pretty bad example — how many people out there support poverty?
The concert was not simply an apolitical appeal to “end poverty”. As I already pointed out, It advocated and explicitly called for specific policy prescriptions, Obviously no one “supports poverty”, but plenty of people oppose throwing $50 billion of public funds down a sinkhole in a foreign land, or encouraging the moral hazard of unconditionally cancelling debt, or altering our international trade laws. The event was undeniably political advocacy. Far from being a bad example, it is, in fact, the perfect analogy to FOX coverage of the Tea Party protests.
Quaterback:
You make a good point, but that only addresses a tiny slice of the argument. And, Fox is “Fair & Balanced” on that tiny slice where they criticized him for not bowing to the wishes if Limbaugh, and co.
The stunning and obvious propaganda that Fox does for the Republicans is about things like – not mentioning that Bush doubled the national debt (while the economy was strong), constantly blaming Obama for the current economy when it was in a deep downward spiral BEFORE he walked through the door of the White House, calling Valerie Plame a low-life desk secretary and claiming the story was without merit, ACORN (nearly around the clock) when this group has been convicted of NOTHING, flaming the Birther ****, pushing the 9/12 **** as obvious advocates against the government, spreading junk ideas like “Obama is going to have the government take over Soc. Security and Medicare and ruin them” (and Fox has faith that their viewers are too dumb to already know these are government run services), pushing for endless war and calling anybocy not on board a traitor, pushing the John Kerry is a liar/coward theme (Sen. Kerry came home with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts), calling Obama every nasty word in the lexicon that’s not banned (liar, America hater, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Anti-Christ, Hitler, Stalin – I’ll stop there!)
I’m sorry Mr. Quarterback – you haven’t seen ANYBODY ELSE behave like this and never will – unless they come up with ANOTHER Republican channel!
Mark-NC,
You’re right, I haven’t seen any network behave like that, because your foaming-at-the-mouth description is a litany of lies — laughable ones. Not just exaggeration or hyperbole but lies. Not even you can actually believe some of that nonsense.
Two other points. There actually is at least one person who does behave like that — Keith Ubermoron, with Fat Ed a close second.
And, your smear actually doesn’t address my point anyway. Your comrades here have defended MSNBC as unbiased despite all its patent bias and vitriol because it also criticizes Obama for governing with insufficient liberal zeal. So you aren’t making a distinction at all.
I’m getting in on this late I see. Work interferes sometimes. I watch both MSNBC and FOX, and I have no trouble at all sorting through what is editorial and what is news on either network.
I have to say that I believe that the news portion of MSNBC is further left that tha news portion of FOXis right, while the editorial portion of FOX is further right than editorial content of MSNBC is laft.
Larbo,
That’s an interesting take. On the editorial side, what’s your breakdown more specifically? Is it quantity versus quality based?
Good lord. nearly everyone posting here is wrong. If you look at any of the polls there is one organization that is recognized to lean “Right”. There are 5 organizations that lean “Left”. Anyone here bashing Fox, should if they are honest with themselves, be bashing the others as well. Shame on you for lying and not recognizing the REAL TRUTH. They are ALL corrupt and do the bidding of those that patronize them.
this is ridiculous. let me take your first point that olbermann and maddow are different from hannity and i also noticed you used glenn beck instead of o’reilly who is on opposite olbermann. that is ridiculous. have you ever seen “a special comment”?? your second point that david shuster is a reporter???!!!! only on msnbc could david shuster be considered a journalist. if msnbc was right wing and fox news was left wing you would change your opinion entirely. because lets face it, your left wing
quarterback,
You are a hack. You are also pathetically predictable. You cannot cite evidence to back up your beef with MS-NBC so you launch into ad hominem attacks on me.
If you do not cite any factual evidence to support your bogus claims, it is because you cannot. I can trot out hundreds of examples that expose FauxNews and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to back up your shrill bleating. You a fraud.
I’m still just laughing at you Gasbag.
Yeah, right, hundreds of examples . . . blah blah. I love how you always make those absurd assertions of what you “could” cite. You’ve never cited a fact having to do with anything. Your opinions are rather those of a psychotic. No one can or need try to dispute you with facts. No one’s more predictable or unoriginal than you.
I do so appreciate your way with words, though . . . shrill bleating. LOL you’re a real poet.
Btw, I can see you’re still enraged at how I exposed and labeled you as a fraud months ago. Or rather how you exposed yourself, when you weighed in with turgid and out of the blue ad hominem attack on me.
What was it you said again? Oh yes, “I am a devout Christian. . . . Bite me.”
And you’ve been living up to that creed ever since, just as you did above. You will know them by their fruits — and yours are the poison fruits of hatred, bitterness, anger, envy, and spite.
Very useful post. Always good to learn about biased coverage so as to save time by avoiding them in the future. In this case: Greg Sergent
lol. sargent thinks that MSNBC has a “bright line” separating its news and commentary shows. he better get his eyes checked.
Very good post! It really got me thinking more about this topic.