DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on October 27, 2011, 01:41:55 PM
-
Recalling that its not so much what's reported that reinforces the predominant left leaning MSM bias, as much as what's NOT reported.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats are increasingly calling it a ‘Republican Congress’
By Alexander Bolton - 10/27/11
President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly referring to the Congress as “Republican” even though their party controls one-half of the unpopular institution.
Obama and his allies have started to deploy the phrase “Republican Congress” in what some experts see as a clear attempt to gain a political advantage.
“I’m the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it’s not for lack of effort,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier this month.
“It has to do with the fact that, you know, they’ve made a decision to follow what is a pretty extreme approach to governance,” he said.
And other Democrats have used the term.
“I’m sure the president would like it to be creating jobs more quickly. And if the members of the do-nothing Republican Congress would actually put a couple of oars in the water and help us, [we could] do these things like [Mississippi] Gov. [Haley] Barbour mentioned that make so much sense,” Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” earlier this month.
Is it a harmless slip of the tongue, or a subtle messaging strategy? Political experts believe it’s the latter.
“I think it’s to convey a message and I think it’s great they’re doing it. There’s so much dissatisfaction in Washington. It’s very important for Democrats to label that dissatisfaction. It’s important to say who’s being the obstructionist and who has real plans,” said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said, “Democrats are trying to give ownership of Congress to Republicans because the institution is dysfunctional and not addressing the jobs problem, and this is a way to tie blame to the GOP.”
Political scientists have said that Obama is using a game plan similar to that used by Presidents Truman and Clinton. Both won their reelection by railing about Congress. The difference, however, is that both chambers in 1948 and 1996 were controlled by Republicans.
Article (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/190107-dems-increasingly-call-it-a-republican-congress)
-
When referring to Bachmann we often call her a Congresswoman. When referring to McCain we often refer to him as Senator. I don't know if this is more an example of media bias or if it is a byproduct of the stupefying of the Citizenry.
Yes the term Congress refers to both houses. But the vernacular often indicates Congress is the House of Representatives. Which the GOP does control.
Whatcha gonna do?
-
And when you look at the article you nitice the MSM is quoting the dems. Do we want the media correcting these pols in each article or would that be just another example of them inserting themselves into the story.
And in the end whose responsibility is it to critically read these articles and know the difference between the term Congress and the House of Representatives.
Perhaps a strongly worded letter to the editor is called for.
-
Whatcha gonna do?
Keep highlighting the bias
-
you wear victimhood well
-
Strange how I never claimed I was being "attacked" or even reported negatively on. I'm sure you'll be able to find the post where I must have made that reference, to validate some twisted claim of victimhood. Or are you playing some 6 levels of connection to Kevin Bacon game??
-
Strange how I never claimed I was being "attacked" or even reported negatively on. I'm sure you'll be able to find the post where I must have made that reference, to validate some twisted claim of victimhood. Or are you playing some 6 levels of connection to Kevin Bacon game??
Never claimed you claimed you were being attacked. You are on a crusade against what you perceive as media bias, and then you post an article that i don't think is biased. And you haven't shown where it is. And i explained why. I'll wait patiently for you to catch up on your end.
-
Not perceived when even you have acknowledged, nor is it playing some victimhood, since I'm merely reporting it. Are you implying that every reporter in every news organization, when they report on something, they're doing so as a victim??
REALLY?
-
Not perceived when even you have acknowledged, nor is it playing some victimhood, since I'm merely reporting it. Are you implying that every reporter in every news organization, when they report on something, they're doing so as a victim??
REALLY?
No I'm not. But I am waiting for you to explain how the article is biased.
-
Asked and answered already, in the article itself.......this is NOT a Republican Congress, yet the media is allowing folks like Obama and other Democrats to repeat that mantra, without correction or question
My "query", in posting this thread, is will this continue to be repeated, helping to reinforce the bias all that much more, or will outlets start reporting, correcting, even questioning those same folks as to why are they using such an inaccurate claim
So, now how about answering my question......where the hell do you get off my reporting the bias as playing some victim card??
-
Guy Benson...10/27/11
In short, the new Democrat messaging strategy is centered around employing intentional dishonesty to manipulate marginally engaged voters. Imagine that.
Oh yes, it's very important for Democrats to affix the "Republican" label to all that "dissatisfaction." Who cares about, you know, actual facts? Perhaps conservatives should borrow from this playbook and ask voters to return America to the flourishing days of the mid-to-late nineties, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House! (They only had two of the three, of course, but who's counting? It's all about applying politically convenient labels, baby).
Up next: Who's responsible for this, er, "Republican" Congress' alleged do-nothing approach? The Republican-held House has passed over a dozen jobs bills this term. Most of them deal with excessive government regulations because -- I know this is crazy stuff -- business owners overwhelmingly cite excessive government regulations as their top barrier to growth. Those Republican efforts have run into a brick wall: The do-nothing *cough* "Republican" Senate. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office has a helpful chart (http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/) to illustrate this point. That's the same do-nothing Democratic Senate that has blocked multiple elements the president's terrible jobs bill on a bipartisan basis, in case you'd forgotten.
One last note. This "Republican" Congress actually has passed several elements of the president's overall jobs plan. They've approved three free trade agreements, they've passed patent reform, and just today, the House approved a three-percent withholding rule repeal -- a move the Obama White House has advocated. Do these bipartisan accomplishments also count as "doing nothing," or should all of the credit go to the Democrat minorities?
-
Asked and answered already, in the article itself.......this is NOT a Republican Congress, yet the media is allowing folks like Obama and other Democrats to repeat that mantra, without correction or question
From the article:
President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly referring to the Congress as “Republican” even though their party controls one-half of the unpopular institution.
So where is the bias?
-
Answered already: My "query", in posting this thread, is will this continue to be repeated, helping to reinforce the bias all that much more, or will outlets start reporting, correcting, even questioning those same folks as to why are they using such an inaccurate claim
-
As long as we keep having such close elections , ou don't have to fool many.
Just that small swing.
Oh sometimes I am so frustrated at the Democrazticly controlled Washington government.
-
The article you posted as an example questioned the assertion, so again i don't see this perceived bias you are referring to.
What would you have them do?
-
Answered already: start reporting, correcting, even questioning those same folks as to why are they using such an inaccurate claim
-
Then why in the world did you post an article where they did just that? Doesn't make sense.
-
It does when you consider this is NOT being reported from the likes of the far more predominant news sources, messers NYTimes, Wash Post, LA Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN....etc., etc., etc.
I guess we can also assume you're not going to address the obviously flawed allegation of my supposed victimhood. Perhaps that's a good thing
-
here's a clue. If you are going to bitch and whine about bias, it would behoove you to post an article that helps buttress your complaint. The article you did post, did just the opposite.
-
Actually, the reporting of it by a far lesser source, that the predominant MSM folk is PRECISLY the buttressing I need. Reporting something that's not reported is kinda like posting ............ nothing
But thanks for the advice
-
No problem.
BTW whose responsibility is it to know and understand the meaning of the word congress?
Is it the speaker, reporter or reader?
-
D) All of the above
-
So if the speaker gets it wrong, and the reporter dowesn't make an issue of it, preferring to quote exactly without editorial comment, the reader still can absorb that the speaker doesn't know what they are talking about?
And if that is the case, where is the bias? Are you requiring that reporters report in a certain way (pre-censored so to speak) , or are you satisfied that ultimately the responsibility for determining truth is on the reader.
-
And for those who are not privvy to what they should know about congress, (perhaps having undertaken a Canadian education) places an appropriate level of REPORTING, if not CORRECTING the inaccurate claim being made by the speaker, by the reporter
It's not rocket science.....its called objective reporting, MINUS any bias
-
It's not rocket science.....its called objective reporting, MINUS any bias
Objective reporting would be to report the quote as given without editorializing as to the correctness of the content quote. That doesn't appear to be what you are after.
-
AND....to report a mistake. That's not editorializing Bt. If Speaker says 2+2 is 5, and the reporter leaves it at that, there may be readers who are not privvy to what 2+2 is...OR, are now confused as to thinking they thought they knew 2+2 = 4 was, and here this speaker says its 5, and the reporter says nothing?? Maybe it is 5 then. I mean, the speaker is supposed to be credible
Point being a reporter correcting a factual inaccuracy is NOT editorializing. It would be reporting an error, if not a follow-up question as to why they made the error. The why would enter the realm of editorializing, but not the what, in this case the inaccurate factual statement
-
AND....to report a mistake. That's not editorializing Bt. If Speaker says 2+2 is 5, and the reporter leaves it at that, there may be readers who are not privvy to what 2+2 is...OR, are now confused as to thinking they thought they knew 2+2 = 4 was, and here this speaker says its 5, and the reporter says nothing?? Maybe it is 5 then. I mean, the speaker is supposed to be credible
Point being a reporter correcting a factual inaccuracy is NOT editorializing. It would be reporting an error, if not a follow-up question as to why they made the error. The why would enter the realm of editorializing, but not the what, in this case the inaccurate factual statement
What the dems are doing is using the vernacular of Congress equals the House of Representatives as illustrated by the naming of Senator McCain and Congressman Ryan. Technically it is incorrect. In the parlance of the day not so much. What you keep appearing to be pushing is some kind of regulation with teeth that forces reporters to present news in a narrow rigid way, with the assumption that the general public is too dumb to understand the difference between constitutional language and common usage of various terms.
I would be interested in what that type of regulation would look like.
-
Technically it's being used to push a political portrait....that of its Republicans running congress, and congress is seen with highely negative poll #'s, vs simply along the lines of referencing Senator McCain as a Senator. And you KNOW THAT
and its a good thing I'm not advocating anything remotely along the lines in the regulation of speech. One wonders why you would bring that up as well
-
Totally bias free reporting doesn't seem likely.
I suggest reading from a reporter who understands the liberal position , then read a report from a reporter who understands the conservative position.
Of course all reporters seem to think that they understand everything , but this is evidently not so.
Since the public seems quite evidently evenly divided by left vs right and but the press is 75% or more left, the situation is one of an overserved population and an underserved population.
Over at NBC they can't buy a clue , why does Fox do such a much better business?
-
Technically it's being used to push a political portrait....that of its Republicans running congress, and congress is seen with highely negative poll #'s, vs simply along the lines of referencing Senator McCain as a Senator. And you KNOW THAT
and its a good thing I'm not advocating anything remotely along the lines in the regulation of speech. One wonders why you would bring that up as well
Technically the GOP does run the House of Representatives and they have an increased voice in the Senate. All Obama is doing is saying don't blame me. Look what i have to work with. And he may have a point what with extra constitutional supercommittees to hammer out budget cuts and revenue improvements.
It's politics, what do you expect?
So do you have any suggestions to improve the accuracy of reporting or are you satisfied with just complaining?
-
I know politicians play politics. That's not where my beef is, if you haven't been paying attention. But I know you have, which makes your "technical" defense pretty flimsy
-
No your beef is with bias in the media and then to prove it you provide an article that doesn't show bias. I don't think you have earned any snark rights on this thread. But feel free to remain giddy.
-
By all means, continue to misreperesent everything I've clearly said. Everything from claiming how posing of the story from a far lesser source than one of the biggies, like the NYTimes supposedly refutes my point about MSM bias, to how my criticisms is tantamount to advocating anti-speech legislation
It's something you've apparently developed a fondness for
-
By all means, continue to misreperesent everything I've clearly said. Everything from claiming how posing of the story from a far lesser source than one of the biggies, like the NYTimes supposedly refutes my point about MSM bias, to how my criticisms is tantamount to advocating anti-speech legislation
It's something you've apparently developed a fondness for
Well i don't see how i can misrepresent your post when you did in fact post an article from the Hill that disputed your allegations of bias. If it was such an unworthy publication why did you choose it. What is even stranger is the Hill at one time had in for GWB running stories about how he was a dry drunk and all, yet they had the professional responsibility to point out the error of the admins misuse of GOP Congressional slurs.
I have rarely seen a poster shoot his own messenger when they are questioned on their point, but you did. Congratulations. Novel tactic.
And i am curious if there is an end game to this bias campaign you are on, because i see a lot of complaining but few suggestions for improvements.
-
No, as I already clearly stated, which you continue to try to turn upside down, the article was in a far lesser news source, and the fact its NOT being reported in the far larger and more predominant sources, like the Washington Post, nor a peep heard on any of the major news networks, is precisely the butressing I've demonstrated in presenting just the latest bias effort.
The question then has been WILL the more predominant sources follow-up with their own reporting, or will it go ignored. Why you keep ignoring precisely that major point, and instead trying to affix that the article posted supposedly refutes it, is the misrepresentation in question
And I have no end game. Never have despite your continued efforts to imply I must have one, be it legislation or some other form of regulation of the press. You keep pushing that misrepresenting tactic as well. Then when I repeat the prior point, now I'm playing the victim card......that you can't be bothered to demonstrate either.
Must be nice to sit there and throw all forms of allegations at me, and see if something, anything sticks. I have to wonder why I've been blessed with such a calling of yours
-
No, as I already clearly stated, which you continue to try to turn upside down, the article was in a far lesser news source, and the fact its NOT being reported in the far larger and more predominant sources, like the Washington, nor a peep heard on any of the major news networks, is precisely the butressing I've demonstrated in prsenting just the latest bias effort.
Well i certainly see why you abandoned your original source of this alledged non bias- them being a second rate publication and all.
The question then has been WILL the more predominant sources follow-up with their own reporting, or will it go ignored. Why you keep ignoring precisely that major point, and instead trying to affix that the article posted supposedly refutes it, is the misrepresentation in question
I have no idea if they will or not. I know the difference between the generic Congress and the two houses.
And I have no end game. Never have despite your continued efforts to imply I must have one, be it legislation or some other form of regulation of the press. You keep pushing that misrepresenting tactic as well. Then when I repeat the prior point, now I'm playing the victim card......that you can't be bothered to demonstrate either.
Hard to see how you aren't claiming some sort of victim hood, if all you are willing to do is complain and not offer solutions.
Must be nice to sit there and throw all forms of allegations at me, and see if something, anything sticks. I have to wonder why I've been blessed with such a calling of yours
Poor baby, BT is picking on you. Bet you think this song is about you.
-
Well, at least your gross misrepresentations are consistent. As long as it makes you feel good, keep up the good work