Under the MSM radar

[sirs]

*disclaimer......sirs' position on MSM bias is that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other.  It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is, which should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right*

[BT]

Like i said i appreciate your disclaimer, but i don't see where that requires me to accept your position blindly especially when it doesn't match observable fact.

But let's explore your position more closely and examine the parameters that would ease your concerns.

Is there a percentage of MSM outlets that must carry the story so that the story is considered covered?

Is there a number of days the same story must be repeated or regurgitated before it is considered covered?

Should the release of a story be coordinated amongst the MSM so as to make sure their is adequate dissemination of the information so as to inform the public at large?

Should the government get involved in this perceived disparity?

[sirs]

What I "expect" is that you allow me to have my disclaimer for me, that provides you and everyone else, what my position is, as it relates to MSM bias.  Which means, presenting 1 story by the LA Times, in no way debunks my position.  If you then presented 1 story by the NY Times, that also wouldn't

What WOULD, would be multiple MSM stories, with significant & repetative efforts at scrutinzing the donar, Obama's times, the Democrat's ties.  What WOULD, would be frequent, repetative reporting on Obama's poll #'s, consistent with how Bush was reported on, on a daily basis by both the MSM and news anchors at the big networks

I'm not requiring anyone to agree with it, I'm merely pointing out the clear bias, and why its so.  If your effort is to try and debunk it, you merely need to wait for additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them yourself.  But referencing 1 report from 1 MSM does not a debunk make

[BT]

Actually i gave you three reports.

But you are confusing me. Should a story about a vaccine and it's makers being given sole source status by the Obama administration and the connections of the owner of the company to the democrat party be  required to include Obama's poll numbers in one of the paragraphs?

[sirs]

Say what??  And the 3 reports aren't the "repetition" that I'd be referring to.  Especially when 1 is Fox and the other a blog.  Now we're back to 1.  As far as to your inquiry, no idea where you're going with that

As i said,  if your effort is to try and debunk my conclusion on MSM bias (that you yourself have claimed present as well), you merely need to wait for additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them yourself....in order to debunk the both of us, I suppose.

[BT]

except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?

So far i have the LA Times and Fox plus the mention on Drudge, but you say Fox doesn't count, for some reason. 

[Plane]

   I kinda agree with Sirs that there is a definite bias in the main part of the media.

    But I am not surprised that he is having a hard time demonstrating it.

   The easy part is finding surveys that reveal that Reporters and editors vote overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal.
    The effect on their reporting is more subtle than a total ban on positive stories on Conservatives. They are generally smarter than this and they actually think that they can manage to produce unbiased reporting, perhaps they really do try .

     The leaning is more like where they decide to place the middle marker, they just can't avoid making a judgement call on things like that and their judgement has to vary from the general public by their own values being to the left a bit.

      How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.

      Recently the radio news staff at NPR attempted to survey their own stories and with an eye to finding bias, the effort was lucridous. Ira Glass predicted "you won't find any" and he was perfectly right, they were totally unable to find evidence of their own leaning to the left.  Hehehehe! it is like the people in China trying to discover themselves upside down, of course they are , but not from their own point of view.

      Down at Fox News they really try to be "fair and balanced" and are not averse to the hiring of an occasional real leftist like Alan Combs or Juan Williams. Nobody is thinking that they are completely fair unless you are a righty or a real centrist, the more they attempt to be unbiased the more their unconscious rightness shines thru  the real balance is in the choice of the audience.

       Most of the left is well served by most of the media. The Right feels well served by only a few outlets.The best measure of this effect is that Fox is serving about half of the whole public and the other half is divided among all the rest.

Good business for Fox!

[BT]

How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.

What is the remedy? Market-driven, which we have or government driven which some would like to apply to at a minimum to radio airwaves.

[Plane]

How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.

What is the remedy? Market-driven, which we have or government driven which some would like to apply to at a minimum to radio airwaves.

    I am absolutely sanquine about it.

     AS it IS!

      The invisible hand of the market corrects without mercy or favor.

      Fox does ten times the business of NBC because NBC serves an overserved market and Fox serves an underserved market.

      Fox grows fat while all those left leaners graze the denuded pastures.

      They even gaze wistfully through the fence at the greener grass on the other side.

      As a conservative, I don't see the wisdom of requireing fairness when I benefit so well from the natural unfairness.

[BT]

Would the same apply to the dead tree MSM?

Let the market sort it out?

[Plane]

Would the same apply to the dead tree MSM?

Let the market sort it out?

   I am afaid so, even though I don't like the results I expect.
    I have a near relation in Woodstock Ga., working on that paper.

   It isn't the left vs right causing the Paper media to struggle , it is the paper.

[sirs]

except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?

Let me re-introduce the word "predominance".  Include that with the ongoing useage of the words repetaive and scrutiny.  Then you'll grasp that at no time does trying to pull up just 1, even 3 single stories from MSM outlets, Fox notwithstanding, since they are one of the few that is actually balanced, come remotely close to debunking.  We need a level of saturation that generally only occurs during Republican administrations.  But be patient, maybe they'll surprise us both, though given the track record, don't hold your breath.  Also try to remember that Drudge is merely a link.  It's not a MSM outlet like NBC or Fox, though on occasion, they will breal their own story

[Plane]

except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?

Let me re-introduce the word "predominance".  Include that with the ongoing useage of the words repetaive and scrutiny.  Then you'll grasp that at no time does trying to pull up just 1, even 3 single stories from MSM outlets, Fox notwithstanding, since they are one of the few that is actually balanced, come remotely close to debunking.  We need a level of saturation that generally only occurs during Republican administrations.  But be patient, maybe they'll surprise us both, though given the track record, don't hold your breath.  Also try to remember that Drudge is merely a link.  It's not a MSM outlet like NBC or Fox, though on occasion, they will breal their own story

   The problem with Predominence is that it refers to the whole.

    Reading everything is a huge task.

[sirs]

*disclaimer......sirs' position on MSM bias is that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other.  It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is, which should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right*

I'm not requiring anyone to agree with it, I'm merely pointing out the clear bias, and why its so.  If the effort is to try and debunk it, one merely need to wait for a plethora of additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them.  But referencing 1 report from 1 MSM (or even 3) does not a debunk make

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't help but notice no further reporting on the 2 specific prior posts, presented.  Imagine that   

[sirs]

Good Morning, Barack!

With his poll numbers dropping like dissidents in Syria, President Barack Obama has to be hoping the national media will continue to help him out. Last time around, the network news organizations swooned over the junior senator from Illinois and marginalized his opponent, Sen. John McCain, as much as possible.

According to a new study by the conservative Media Research Center, the president has some reason to be optimistic about the media in 2012. The group examined the morning shows on ABC, CBS and NBC in order to ascertain campaign attitudes. The headlines are these:

-- So far in 2011, morning network correspondents have labeled Republican candidates as conservative 49 times. But only once have they referred to Obama as a liberal.

-- By a four-to-one margin, the morning show hosts have used adversarial questioning against Republican interview subjects as compared to Democratic guests.

-- The morning programs routinely run positive "human interest" stories about the president and his family. No Republican contender has received that kind of coverage.

The conclusion reached by the MRC is that the morning programs are not likely to "cheerlead" for the Obama campaign as some did in 2008. Instead, they will be more likely to scrutinize his Republican opposition.

Having worked at both CBS News and ABC News, I can tell you there is a managerial culture that is decidedly liberal. Some places are worse than others. Under Dan Rather, the CBS landscape was openly left. Under the late Peter Jennings, ABC News was more politically correct than agenda-driven. Jennings did not like political advocacy on either side.

Americans can expect a vicious campaign next year. The Republican candidate will have to go after Obama on his record, and that will bring hard blowback. Obama, himself, rarely uses personal attacks. But some of his supporters, especially on the Internet, certainly do. Gutter sniping will be all over the place.

Last time around, McCain did not take the fight to Obama, preferring to highlight his own experience for the country. That was a mistake that the Democrats exploited. Sen. Obama's political record was weak; he was essentially running on charisma. Instead of pinning him down on specific solutions to targeted problems, McCain allowed his young opponent to dazzle the public with rhetoric.

This time around, the Republicans have cold, hard facts to present to the American people. And the only answer to those damning statistics is diversion, pettifogging the issue with ginned up controversy and smoke.

We can expect the national media to embrace the pettifog and flog it all morning (and evening). The media are loath to admit any mistakes, and their support of Obama is on the record. There is little chance the Republican challenger will receive fair and balanced coverage.

Will media support for the president be enough to give him the edge in 2012?

If the vote is close, the answer most likely is yes