Liberal AP's BS story of the day

[Grim17]

No one has discussed the MSM. I doubt you would find any one to deny that MSM is liberal, in the same way that FOX is conservative. The question is whether the AP is liberal, and for some reason, whether a French news source is liberal.

I was asked "What evidence do you have that the overwhelming number of journalists worldwide have a liberal bias?". That's how AFP came into the discussion.

.

 

[Redress]

I was asked "What evidence do you have that the overwhelming number of journalists worldwide have a liberal bias?". That's how AFP came into the discussion.

.

Which could very likely be the same as using MSM to prove the point. I know nothing about AFP, nor do most of us in this country, and if they are liberal in nature(as you claim), using them to prove that the media as a whole is liberal is akin to me using FOX to prove the media as a whole is conservative. It's incomplete and misleading.

 

[Grim17]

You know, if I watched FOX news all day every day, I could compile an insanely long list of examples of conservative media bias. Know what that would prove? Nothing, it would still be a list of examples without actual data. In fact, I could do something similar with most media outlets. Working in a way similar to MRC, I could "prove" by example that every single major news outlet had a conservative bias.

I think I need to clarify my position on media bias. What I have a problem with, and what you will hear me discuss when it come to liberal bias, is it's predominance in our news media. I'm not talking about Keith Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck, or Ed Shultz. Those are opinion shows, not the hard news.

I'm talking about the liberal bias present in the news section of newspapers, on the nightly network newscasts, and on the morning news programs. Twisting the news of the day so it conforms to a certain political ideology or agenda... or allowing political bias to determine what stories are reported on, and what stories are ignored, is dishonest and just plain wrong. The news should be reported based on all the facts, not just select facts that some reporter decided to present. Special Report, the only hard news program on FOX, has a slogan that says it all. "We report... You decide".

I have watched the main stream media in America become more and more biased over the last 10 years. They have slowly been combining more and more of their political opinions and beliefs, in with the reporting of the hard news, which is a breech of trust, as well as a disservice to the American people. The American people deserve to be presented with the unvarnished news of the day, so they can form an opinion of it... Not presented with someone else's opinion of todays news.

.

 

[Redress]

I think I need to clarify my position on media bias. What I have a problem with, and what you will hear me discuss when it come to liberal bias, is it's predominance in our news media. I'm not talking about Keith Olbermann, O'Reilly, Beck, or Ed Shultz. Those are opinion shows, not the hard news.

I'm talking about the liberal bias present in the news section of newspapers, on the nightly network newscasts, and on the morning news programs. Twisting the news of the day so it conforms to a certain political ideology or agenda... or allowing political bias to determine what stories are reported on, and what stories are ignored, is dishonest and just plain wrong. The news should be reported based on all the facts, not just select facts that some reporter decided to present. Special Report, the only hard news program on FOX, has a slogan that says it all. "We report... You decide".

I have watched the main stream media in America become more and more biased over the last 10 years. They have slowly been combining more and more of their political opinions and beliefs, in with the reporting of the hard news, which is a breech of trust, as well as a disservice to the American people. The American people deserve to be presented with the unvarnished news of the day, so they can form an opinion of it... Not presented with someone else's opinion of todays news.

.

I understand you are not talking about those guys, I am using them as examples of the problem with the approach you are taking. Bias is a hard thing to pin down, as a post I am about to quote will explain rather well. This post is from Zyphlin, who is a conservative, and illustrates the problem really well. If there is a hall of fame for posts, I would nominate this post in a heartbeat.

And thank you for coming out and essentially saying what I've assumed all along.

Its not "biased" (or "as" biased) on the left because hey, that's what we believe the majority think and what the CORRECT position is so if you report things in support of that position its not biased...its just reporting the facts as they SHOULD be.

Have a segment talking ONLY about the negatives of UHC...well you're biased, because conservatives think UHC is bad, and thus its not "real" news.

Have a segment talking ONLY about the positives of UHC...well you're not biased, you're performing a service through the news of enlightening people to how good UHC is, because liberals think UHC is good, and thus its "real" news.

Have someone on ONLY talking about good things with the War on Terror? Well, you're biased and spreading propaganda because its stereotypically conservatives that think there's good things going on in the War on terror so it can't be "real" news.

Have someone on ONLY talking about the bad things going on with the War on Terror? well, you're not biased, you're just telling what's "really" going on because stereotypically liberals think that the bad things going on are all that's "really" goign on, thus its "real news".

Abortion? Schools? Gay Marriage? On and on and on. This is kind of the point I've been making for a while on the forum and one I noticed for a while. Many on the left (Not all) see bias CONSTANTLY from the right but seem to never see it on the left because in their mind its not a left slant, its "just the facts" or "just reality" or "just what the majority think". The reporters in the media are generally in such a large margin liberal that the bent there is so common that it doesn't seem like bias because that's simply the starting point you have to view the news from in most cases.

A puff peice on how wonderful UHC is is NO MORE OR LESS biased in and of itself then a puff piece about how horrible UHC is. It doesn't matter what station its on, it doesn't matter what political lean the person has, it doesn't matter what YOUR political lean is or what you think the "majority" is. If you're only giving one side of an issue, or giving a ton of time to one side and a minor half hearted look at the other side, that is bias. Now, whether that's wrong or not is a whole different debate....but it is completely and utterly hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to sit here and essentially go Bias on one side is BAD but bias on the other side is okay and good because you know, that's just what is really true and what the majority really thinks.

I give big props to people, on both sides, that are at least holding it to equal standards in regards to bias.

 

[Grim17]

Which could very likely be the same as using MSM to prove the point. I know nothing about AFP, nor do most of us in this country, and if they are liberal in nature(as you claim), using them to prove that the media as a whole is liberal is akin to me using FOX to prove the media as a whole is conservative. It's incomplete and misleading.

Your wrong. AFP is relevant to the media bias in the United States.

Nearly every national and world news story you read in newspapers, or see broadcast on the evening news, originate from 3 media services. Those 3 are AFP (French Press), Reuters, and the Associated Press.

AFP is the oldest, and one of the 3 largest news organization in the world. They have offices in the US and 110 other countries, and transmit their news in 6 different languages.

There likely isn't a day that goes by, that you haven't read or watched something that came from AFP... You just didn't know it.

That's the reason why AFP being a liberal biased news organization, is relevant to the main stream media bias here in the states.

.

 

[Redress]

Your wrong. AFP is relevant to the media bias in the United States.

Nearly every national and world news story you read in newspapers, or see broadcast on the evening news, originate from 3 media services. Those 3 are AFP (French Press), Reuters, and the Associated Press.

AFP is the oldest, and one of the 3 largest news organization in the world. They have offices in the US and 110 other countries, and transmit their news in 6 different languages.

There likely isn't a day that goes by, that you haven't read or watched something that came from AFP... You just didn't know it.

That's the reason why AFP being a liberal biased news organization, is relevant to the main stream media bias here in the states.

.

In point of fact, this post hurts your contention. If it is so large, then it becomes even easier to cherrypick articles to prove just about any point.

 

[Grim17]

This post is from Zyphlin, who is a conservative, and illustrates the problem really well. If there is a hall of fame for posts, I would nominate this post in a heartbeat.

Outstanding post... I couldn't agree more. While his description of media bias is dead on, it isn't the only way bias presents itself in the media. There are two other ways bias rears it's ugly head in the reporting of the news. One is obvious, and easy to spot... While the other is difficult for the average person to detect. Both are however, equally as bad.

Before I explain those other two, let me post the following quote from Zyphlin:

...that's what we believe the majority think and what the CORRECT position is so if you report things in support of that position its not biased...its just reporting the facts as they SHOULD be.

It is that progressive mindset, which is predominant in the main stream media, that's responsible for misinforming, and in many cases manipulating, a significant portion of the American population. It's the where media bias originates from.

Zyphlin's example of media bias, was when one side of an issue is discussed, or heavily focused on, while the other side of the issue doesn't get focused upon, or is ignored completely. As I said previously, bias presents itself in the media in a couple other ways Zyphlin didn't mention.

One of those ways, is how liberal bias effects how a story is reported to the public. This applies not only to political and ideological oriented news, but generic, non-political, and non-issue oriented stories also. A reporters job is to obtain all the relevant facts surrounding a news event, put those facts together in a coherent manner, and present them to the public. A persons ideological beliefs can easily lead them to omit important information about a story, because from their partisan perspective, they don't find appealing or relevant.

The last way that liberal bias negatively effects the news, takes place behind the scenes, with very few people ever knowing about it. It's how bias plays a role in the selection of what news gets reported, and what news doesn't. Although most of the public will never realize it's happening, it's one of the most obvious and frequently observed instances of liberal bias for me. It's this type of bias that's responsible for how uninformed the American public is, about people and issues that have a direct impact on their lives.

To put it another way, the liberal bias in the main stream media results in the deception and manipulation of the American public, by depriving them of important knowledge, which can easily change their perspective of virtually anything.

I truly believe that most people in the main stream media, don't realize the negative effects their biased political beliefs have on their presentation of the news... That is, if they even acknowledge they are biased in the first place.


.

 

[Redress]

Outstanding post... I couldn't agree more. While his description of media bias is dead on, it isn't the only way bias presents itself in the media. There are two other ways bias rears it's ugly head in the reporting of the news. One is obvious, and easy to spot... While the other is difficult for the average person to detect. Both are however, equally as bad.

Before I explain those other two, let me post the following quote from Zyphlin:



It is that progressive mindset, which is predominant in the main stream media, that's responsible for misinforming, and in many cases manipulating, a significant portion of the American population. It's the where media bias originates from.

Zyphlin's example of media bias, was when one side of an issue is discussed, or heavily focused on, while the other side of the issue doesn't get focused upon, or is ignored completely. As I said previously, bias presents itself in the media in a couple other ways Zyphlin didn't mention.

One of those ways, is how liberal bias effects how a story is reported to the public. This applies not only to political and ideological oriented news, but generic, non-political, and non-issue oriented stories also. A reporters job is to obtain all the relevant facts surrounding a news event, put those facts together in a coherent manner, and present them to the public. A persons ideological beliefs can easily lead them to omit important information about a story, because from their partisan perspective, they don't find appealing or relevant.

The last way that liberal bias negatively effects the news, takes place behind the scenes, with very few people ever knowing about it. It's how bias plays a role in the selection of what news gets reported, and what news doesn't. Although most of the public will never realize it's happening, it's one of the most obvious and frequently observed instances of liberal bias for me. It's this type of bias that's responsible for how uninformed the American public is, about people and issues that have a direct impact on their lives.

To put it another way, the liberal bias in the main stream media results in the deception and manipulation of the American public, by depriving them of important knowledge, which can easily change their perspective of virtually anything.

I truly believe that most people in the main stream media, don't realize the negative effects their biased political beliefs have on their presentation of the news... That is, if they even acknowledge they are biased in the first place.


.

Couple things. First is that the problem I think Zyphlin was getting at is that how news is slanted is based on our perceptions. So when you use a conservative group looking for bias, they will see balanced reporting as biased. As an example, I could point to the media's coverage of the 2008 democratic primary. I was a hardcore Clinton supporter, and I can tell you, from my point of view, she seemed to be buried by the media. Now is that true, or is it my perception? I look at the media's coverage of the health care debate, and to my mind, it appears to have a very definite conservative slant. Again, is this accurate, or is this my perception?

Secondly, and I think Zyphlin and I talked a bit on this in the thread I took the quote of his from, and that is while most reporters are liberal, most editors(I think) and publishers(I know) are conservative. With the people who control what content sees the light of day being more conservative, I don't think you can very well argue that there is some conspiracy to only report what is positive to liberals.

 

[mpg]

No one has discussed the MSM. I doubt you would find any one to deny that MSM is liberal

Noone said that in this thread so I guess my comment was out of place, but it's been said frequently in other threads in this particular forum. It's fairly rare for a liberal to admit that the MSM has a liberal bias but almost all conservatives admit that FNC has a conservative bias.

 

[First Thought]

Hey Hatuey, thanks for being so predictable.

It was a given that you wouldn't address the information, and instead choose to attack the source. That's the all too familiar default response I expect to get from the left, whenever the facts don't fit their arguments.

.

If your source is a joke, why would we take anything they say seriously? If I told you that my cousin Joe said "OMG the media is biased!!!!!11!!", would you take the statement as fact and trust that Joe knows his ****?

 

[Grim17]

Couple things. First is that the problem I think Zyphlin was getting at is that how news is slanted is based on our perceptions.

It's based on the medias perception also. They don't know their slanting their news stories, because of how they view the issues.

So when you use a conservative group looking for bias, they will see balanced reporting as biased.

That happens on occasion. I have read articles from the MRC, that left me wondering what in the hell they were talking about.

As for the the links I posted earlier, I rejected many more of their AFP bias examples, then I used in this thread. I pride myself on being able to distinguish between what's a true example of liberal bias, and what is just something I disagree with. The same goes for the flip side. I go to great lengths to be objective and take my partisan beliefs out of the picture, when I examine what someone claims is an example of conservative media bias.

As an example, I could point to the media's coverage of the 2008 democratic primary. I was a hardcore Clinton supporter, and I can tell you, from my point of view, she seemed to be buried by the media. Now is that true, or is it my perception?

It's true... They trashed that lady every opportunity they got. In all honesty, I have never in my life seen the main stream media attack a democratic, the way they attacked her.

Now here's one for you... Compare how the press treated Hillary, with how the press treated Sarah Palin.

I look at the media's coverage of the health care debate, and to my mind, it appears to have a very definite conservative slant. Again, is this accurate, or is this my perception?

That's a tough one, because I haven't tuned in or read anything from the networks or the main stream rags concerning health care. Based on my limited exposure to the media reporting on the issue, I would have to say that the it probably is slanted slightly to the right now. Of course, just two or three weeks ago, before the town hall explosion, it was very much slanted to the left.

Secondly, and I think Zyphlin and I talked a bit on this in the thread I took the quote of his from, and that is while most reporters are liberal, most editors(I think) and publishers(I know) are conservative. With the people who control what content sees the light of day being more conservative, I don't think you can very well argue that there is some conspiracy to only report what is positive to liberals.

Hmmm... I believe by my recollection, that most of the editors of the major newspapers were liberals, but I could be mistaken.

This however, is one of those arguments that serves as nothing more than a smoke screen. When a person fairly and objectively examine all the stories the main stream media publishes and broadcasts, there is only one conclusion anyone can reach, and that conclusion is very clear. The main stream media in America, has a very pronounced bias that favors the liberal ideology.

So when someone claims that the media has a conservative bias, bases that assertion on "a conservative controls the content", and completely disregards what they actually publish, nothing is more frustrating, and at the same time, so "falling of my chair" hilarious.

.

 

[Redress]

This however, is one of those arguments that serves as nothing more than a smoke screen. When a person fairly and objectively examine all the stories the main stream media publishes and broadcasts, there is only one conclusion anyone can reach, and that conclusion is very clear. The main stream media in America, has a very pronounced bias that favors the liberal ideology.

So when someone claims that the media has a conservative bias, bases that assertion on "a conservative controls the content", and completely disregards what they actually publish, nothing is more frustrating, and at the same time, so "falling of my chair" hilarious.

.

I disagree with this. When one fairly and objectively examines all the mainstream media stories, there is a definite attempt to present news without bias. While there may be a slight liberal slant overall, it is really small. "The liberal media" is a right wing talking point to create an impression that any critical reporting of any one in the right wing is unfair somehow, and it has been a very effective talking point.

 

[Grim17]

Now here's one for you... Compare how the press treated Hillary, with how the press treated Sarah Palin.

I was really interest to see your response to that one.

 

[Redress]

I was really interest to see your response to that one.

Oh sorry, missed that one. I have to go with an "I don't know" on that. Later in the election cycle, my personal situation was such I did not have internet, and did not see the paper much. Currently, she is getting a lot of negative reporting, but that is largely of her own doing, as she has made a number of factually inaccurate claims on her facebook page, her whole quit/retiring as governor, and so on. In that way, I do see it as similar to the Clinton in the primaries situation, in that alot of the negative coverage was brought about by her own stupidity. "Dodging sniper fire" was an incredibly stupid comment for her, much as Obama's comments about rural people clutching our guns in church was a painfully stupid comment.

 

[niftydrifty]

it would not have made "democrats" look bad, just Barack Obama vs. the other candidates.

:lol:

Stinger, is that you?

 

[Grim17]

:lol:

Stinger, is that you?

First, I don't know what in the hell you're talking about... and second, do you have any more examples you want to post that aren't examples of the AP lying to make democrats look bad? Or was looking foolish with those 6 you posted, enough embarrassment for one thread?

.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Now here's one for you... Compare how the press treated Hillary, with how the press treated Sarah Palin.
.

Its practically laughable that you would want such a comparison to be made. Hillary was absolutely demonized at times in the press back in the 90s. She had better coverage this last election year but that is only because she demonstrated a command of the issues (regardless with whether someone agreed with her or not), and had made a very strong showing in the primaries.

Palin had a hard and unfair start with all the rumors in the blogs regarding her daughter. However, Palin had some bad press coverage because she had some interviews that could only be described as an embarrassment. She was obviously completely unprepared for the office she was seeking and was doing nothing to rectify that. Hell, she could not even tell Couric what magazines and newspapers she read. Why? Because unlike any other V.P. Candidate ever, she didn't read any. She had about as much knowledge of public policy and world events that my second grade son had, and from all accounts (and evidenced by any interviews she gave) she did not so much as crack a book to rectify it. Palin's problem with the press is that she is a demagogue, a media whore, thin skinned, and willfully ignorant. Basically, the woman has proven herself time and time again to be little more than white trash with money and microphone. This last shameful stunt she pulled with her whoring her special needs son out to claim that the Democrats would have killed him with their health plan pretty much cemented that label for her.

 

[niftydrifty]

First, I don't know what in the hell you're talking about... .

of course you don't. best wishes.

 

[Grim17]

Its practically laughable that you would want such a comparison to be made.

What's laughable is the fact that it can't be made.

You can't find instances where the AP flat out lied about an event they witnessed, that made democrats look bad. That's because they would never allow a liberal to look foolish, because it would make their own beliefs look foolish.

.

 

[Grim17]

of course you don't. best wishes.

I take your lack of a response to mean, you don't want to post any more phony examples and make yourself look even more foolish.

A wise decision.

.

 

[niftydrifty]

I take your lack of a response to mean, you don't want to post any more phony examples and make yourself look even more foolish.

A wise decision.

.

LOL, keep dreaming. This has quickly devolved into a you-said-I-said "debate" rather than a discussion of things occuring in reality. I wasn't going to bother. Lucky for you, at the moment I'm feeling generous. The media deceits remain, as you neglected to refute them. On top of it all, we are left with a pile of your own deceits. You dropped or conveniently forgot the liberal agenda" part of your challenge and made a big deal about how a "democrat" is not "democrats." According to you, a story lying about a Dem occuring during the primary season is somehow different than one that runs later! Your tactics are transparent. And your thinking is sloppy.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost]Moving the goalpost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


And as long as I'm learnin' you, do read this, too:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie]Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


In article number 1, did the article ignore Obama's response? Yes it did. You failed to point out how it didn't.

In my second link, the article made a false suggestion. But Obama didn't say his records didn't exist. He said they may not. Big difference. You acknowledged it yourself, failing to notice the difference.

In my third link, the article claimed Obama attended a Muslim school. That "liberal media" lie has worked on you, too. It wasn't a "Muslim school." It was a school attended by mostly Muslims. Obama described the school in his book:

During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables.

Notice the subtle difference between "predominantly Muslim" and "Muslim?" selective omission is a ... lie.

News Flash... Obama did not vote to condemn the Moveon.org ad.

The Senate vote was taken in September, 2008, and passed 72-25, with 3 senators not voting. One of those who didn't vote was Joe Biden, and you guessed it... another was Barack Obama.

You lied pal... Not the story.

Like, wow, again, "pal." what does it say in the link below, beside Obama's name?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Again, whether the AP's claim is accurate or not, is totally irrelevant.

Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing to have to deal with.

The AP lied about Obama. But according to you, it doesn't make much sense for me to have even posted the link, in an attempt to refute your claim, "I challenge you to post an example of this type of blatant lying being reported from a main stream outlet, that makes democrats and/or the liberal agenda look bad".

And you didn't even address the last link I posted. Why should you bother? At this point, it's clear that you'll move the goalposts, neglect to notice subtle distinctions, make exceptions for stories based upon timing, and invent double standards on the spot and pretend they were part of your original argument.

Thanks for playing. If subtleties are lost on you and you don't even notice them without me pointing them out to you, then my recommendation to you is to drop all of the puffed up superior-than-thou rhetoric and acquaint yourself with basic concepts, ... or maybe just learn to read.

 

[Oftencold]

If you want to see bias, you will.

'Scuse me, he didn't see bias, he revealed a lie.

 

[liblady]

you're wrong on this. a prayer was said.

 

[Oftencold]

It doesn't seem to bother any of our esteemed Left Wing posters, that this article contained at least two complete, indefensible lies.

Interesting.

 

[niftydrifty]

'Scuse me, he didn't see bias, he revealed a lie.

The only lie here is the claim that the AP only lies about one "side." The AP are whores. They'll lie all day long about anyone or anything, to make money. It's a business. Their bias is towards sensation. Grim wants to see a bias go only one way and refuses to see or acknowledge, the rest.

It doesn't seem to bother any of our esteemed Left Wing posters, that this article contained at least two complete, indefensible lies.

Interesting.

You mean the article in the OP? why would it bother anyone, except those that work at the AP? I don't recall anyone here pledging allegiance to the AP.