More media bias fun

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Here's the lead paragraph from yesterday's Washington Post front-page story:

"Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistence":

Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of "petty grievances," President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.

Yesterday, Democrat objections to Bush's appointments in 2001 = credible "need for more time" while Republicans objecting to Obama appointments in 2008 = "obstruction"

Today, Republican concerns about spending a trillion taxpayer dollars = "petty grievance"

And so it begins, eh?

No bias here, nothing to see here...

More?

Caroline Kennedy won't be NY's next junior US Senator because of the "glass ceiling."

Never mind that the seat will be filled by a woman and was previously held by a woman. :roll:

Bias? Bias? Don't talk about bias. Bias?

PeteEU · Jan 23, 2009

Its opinion journalism, hence not biased reporting.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Here's the lead paragraph from yesterday's Washington Post front-page story:

"Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistence":

Yesterday, Democrat objections to Bush's appointments in 2001 = credible "need for more time" while Republicans objecting to Obama appointments in 2008 = "obstruction"

Today, Republican concerns about spending a trillion taxpayer dollars = "petty grievance"

I couldn't find those sections that said "obstruction" or "Petty Grievance" in the article.

It seemed to me that they portrayed the GOP's reluctance on a few things and then pointed out that people like Durbin are trying to add more partisan things to the bill that would further bother the GOP.

I'm honestly not seeing the bias in that article.

Could you quote some of the negative portrayals of the GOP for me?

Edit: Since you put those two terms in quotes, I am assuming that you must have gotten them from within the body of the article's text, or else you wouldn't have portrayed them that way, as such a tactic would be throuroughly dishonest, and even bordeline libel.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Caroline Kennedy won't be NY's next junior US Senator because of the "glass ceiling."

Never mind that the seat will be filled by a woman and was previously held by a woman. :roll:

Bias? Bias? Don't talk about bias. Bias?

I'm not sure if this article qualifies as "bias" either, at least form a partisan perspective.

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin before her, Kennedy illustrated what some say is an enduring double standard in the handling of ambitious female office-seekers.

It appears that the article is discussing the concept that there is "unfair treatment" of women in comparison to men. It was not really about partisan bias, so much as it is trying to illustrate that there may be gender bias.

And there is some truth to it. Biden didn't get nearly as much **** as Palin did for making equally stupid comments as she did during the campaign.

Some people attributed this to Palin being a conservative, but what if it was actually because she was a woman more than that she was a conservative?

What is the political bias involved with trying to point out that women, regardles of political affiliation, may be held to a different standard than men are?

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

PeteEU said:
Its opinion journalism, hence not biased reporting.

Huh?

Both stories are presented as news stories, not as political opinion or commentary and not in the form of an editorial.

I agree it's opinion journalism and that's why it's biased reporting.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Tucker Case said:
I couldn't find those sections that said "obstruction" or "Petty Grievance" in the article.

Obstruction wasn't, I was referring to my thread yesterday about Republicans holding up Holder's confirmation as AG being called obstruction while Democrats holding up Ashcroft's confirmation precisely the same way and for the same reasons (questions going unanswered) were treated as merely needing more time.

"Petty grievance" appears in the first graf:

Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of "petty grievances," President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.

It seemed to me that they portrayed the GOP's reluctance on a few things and then pointed out that people like Durbin are trying to add more partisan things to the bill that would further bother the GOP.

I was posting an observation not about the guts of the article but the relationship between the headline re: Republican resistance and the first graf referring to petty grievances and the impression I drew that the Post was drawing an equivalency between the two. I.e., calling the GOP resistance petty.

I'm honestly not seeing the bias in that article.

Ok. I don't demand that you do. It's my observation.

Could you quote some of the negative portrayals of the GOP for me?

No. My issue is the headline and the first graf. The Post takes a reader from GOP resistance to petty grievance so quickly that I cannot help but to think that the Post was attempting to charcaterize the GOP resistance as petty grievances, something their man, Obama, demands be set aside.

And I don't think spending a trillion dollars is anything petty at all.

Edit: Since you put those two terms in quotes, I am assuming that you must have gotten them from within the body of the article's text, or else you wouldn't have portrayed them that way, as such a tactic would be throuroughly dishonest, and even bordeline libel.

Well, when I link to an article I kinda expect readers to, you know, click on it and read it. Had you, you would have seen "petty grievances" in the very first graf. How you missed it, well, maybe you can explain.

As for "obstruction," again, I was referring to my thread yesterday, hence, my starting that statement with the word, "Yesterday." I assumed that readers would have seen my thread yesterday and would have caught to reference.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Tucker Case said:
I'm not sure if this article qualifies as "bias" either, at least form a partisan perspective.[/qote]

You mean from a political partisan perspective, right? Because I see a certain bias in the article...an appeal to unfair treatment based not on qualifications but on gender.

As we all saw, Kennedy was a flop during all of these interviews. She has no public positions on any important public policy. And she appointment (potential) was routinely addressed as political entitlement given her last name. That's why she was ridiculed, not her gender. The same with Hillary and Palin. While both were unfairly smeared the smears were not focused on her gender. The article says as much when referring to unnamed Hillary and Palin advisers who said the attacks were based on personal flaws and not gender.

This article's author relied on Dee Dee Myers, Donna Brazile, and Bob Shrum...as the "some people" that "think" Kennedy was a victim of gender bias and neither of them can cite anything that supports a perception that Kennedy was out of the running because of her gender.

Shrum, at least the article was objective here noting his close relationship with Kennedy, says he believes that Kennedy was unfairly treated because she was a woman by commenting, "There's something different about when women run". Well, that sews it up... :roll:

It appears that the article is discussing the concept that there is "unfair treatment" of women in comparison to men. It was not really about partisan bias, so much as it is trying to illustrate that there may be gender bias.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that the article went toward this, too. But so what?

My point is that you cannot claim that Kennedy bumped up against a glass ceiling when that Senate seat had been filled by a woman and is going to filled with yet another woman. That's absurd.

And there is some truth to it. Biden didn't get nearly as much **** as Palin did for making equally stupid comments as she did during the campaign.

Some people attributed this to Palin being a conservative, but what if it was actually because she was a woman more than that she was a conservative?

Click to expand...

What if is all you have. I believe it was simply because she was a Republican. We saw how shabbily Michael Steele was treated and I feel there that it wasn't because he was black but because he was a Republican.

What is the political bias involved with trying to point out that women, regardles of political affiliation, may be held to a different standard than men are?

Click to expand...

Of course, that's not what I am arguing. Nice job, though, attributing a completely bogus argument to me.

Once again, my issue is that idea that Kennedy bumped up against a glass ceiling. Kennedy's withdrawal reflects no such glass ceiling nor gender bias.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Obstruction wasn't, I was referring to my thread yesterday about Republicans holding up Holder's confirmation as AG being called obstruction while Democrats holding up Ashcroft's confirmation precisely the same way and for the same reasons (questions going unanswered) were treated as merely needing more time.

"Petty grievance" appears in the first graf:

I was posting an observation not about the guts of the article but the relationship between the headline re: Republican resistance and the first graf referring to petty grievances and the impression I drew that the Post was drawing an equivalency between the two. I.e., calling the GOP resistance petty.

Ok. I don't demand that you do. It's my observation.

No. My issue is the headline and the first graf. The Post takes a reader from GOP resistance to petty grievance so quickly that I cannot help but to think that the Post was attempting to charcaterize the GOP resistance as petty grievances, something their man, Obama, demands be set aside.

And I don't think spending a trillion dollars is anything petty at all.

Well, when I link to an article I kinda expect readers to, you know, click on it and read it. Had you, you would have seen "petty grievances" in the very first graf. How you missed it, well, maybe you can explain.

As for "obstruction," again, I was referring to my thread yesterday, hence, my starting that statement with the word, "Yesterday." I assumed that readers would have seen my thread yesterday and would have caught to reference.

The "Petty Grievances" line came from Obama's speech. So I didn't see it as biased. In fact, I read the entire article and could not see them actually calling the GOP grievances "petty". If anything, the article makes Durbin seem petty by trying to decrease the bipartisanship.

I did not focus on the quoted line from Obama's speech simply because that in and of itself is not making a biased statement.

It is setting the scene, so to say.

P.S. As far as the article from yesterdays thread, I'll make comment there about my views on it. I had missed that thread and didn't understand your reference because of that. Sorry.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
You mean from a political partisan perspective, right? Because I see a certain bias in the article...an appeal to unfair treatment based not on qualifications but on gender.

In the context of the post, it appeared to me that you are displaying the article's partisan bias. Are you saying, although the first referenced article was regarding partisan bias, the second was not? If so, I apologize. I misunderstood.

As we all saw, Kennedy was a flop during all of these interviews. She has no public positions on any important public policy. And she appointment (potential) was routinely addressed as political entitlement given her last name. That's why she was ridiculed, not her gender. The same with Hillary and Palin. While both were unfairly smeared the smears were not focused on her gender. The article says as much when referring to unnamed Hillary and Palin advisers who said the attacks were based on personal flaws and not gender.

I agree with you on this. I was confused and thought this was about partisan bias.

Of course, that's not what I am arguing. Nice job, though, attributing a completely bogus argument to me.

Once again, my issue is that idea that Kennedy bumped up against a glass ceiling. Kennedy's withdrawal reflects no such glass ceiling nor gender bias.

Actually, I wasn't trying to attribute that arguemnt to you. It was an honest misunderstanding on my part. My apologies.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Tucker Case said:
The "Petty Grievances" line came from Obama's speech.

Of course it did. It was, though, in the article and your question was that you didn't see it. I merely pointed it out.

So I didn't see it as biased.

You don't see what as biased?

I see the bias in the Post using the headline about GOP resistance and then immediately referring to Obama's petty grievances statements. I think the implication is clear - GOP resistance = petty grievance. Obama's petty grievance statement has no place in this article whatsoever...except to imply that GOP resistance is petty grievances.

In fact, I read the entire article and could not see them actually calling the GOP grievances "petty". If anything, the article makes Durbin seem petty by trying to decrease the bipartisanship.

Bias does not and often is not explicit.

The petty grievance line has absolutely no relevance to the article. None.

Hence, I can only infer that it's use was to create an implication of the resistance, i.e., = petty grievances.

I did not focus on the quoted line from Obama's speech simply because that in and of itself is not making a biased statement.

I know. I didn't say the line itself constituted bias.

Are you reading my comments? I've been pretty clear.

It is setting the scene, so to say.

I know. GOP resistance = petty grievance.

P.S. As far as the article from yesterdays thread, I'll make comment there about my views on it. I had missed that thread and didn't understand your reference because of that. Sorry.

Yeah, my intent in the OP was a VISA-like listing...you know, the priceless schtick? I guess it didn't work so well.

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Tucker Case said:
In the context of the post, it appeared to me that you are displaying the article's partisan bias. Are you saying, although the first referenced article was regarding partisan bias, the second was not? If so, I apologize. I misunderstood.

Both articles, imo, reflect media bias. In the first instance, an attempt to suggest that GOP resistance is just a petty disagreement rather than legitimate political disagreement. In the second, an attempt to blame gender bias as the reason behind Kennedy's withdrawal from consideration.

I agree with you on this. I was confused and thought this was about partisan bias.

Well, it is partisan bias, just not political partisan bias. It's more a bias of a socio-cultural nature.

Actually, I wasn't trying to attribute that arguemnt to you. It was an honest misunderstanding on my part. My apologies.

Fair enough. It's easy to misunderstand one another on here, eh? I do it all the time, even I don't always acknowledge it.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
I see the bias in the Post using the headline about GOP resistance and then immediately referring to Obama's petty grievances statements. I think the implication is clear - GOP resistance = petty grievance. Obama's petty grievance statement has no place in this article whatsoever...except to imply that GOP resistance is petty grievances.

I can see how it could be taken as such, but at the same time I can see the reverse.

Bias does not and often is not explicit.

True, but at the same time, sometimes something that appears to be biased can be honestly unintended. I try to err on the side of caution.

And other times it is much more blatant and clearly bias, such as the choice of the word "obstruct" in yesterday's article. That is some pretty clear bias, IMO.

The petty grievance line has absolutely no relevance to the article. None.

Maybe not. Like I said, my take on it was that Durbin was being pretty petty with his approach to further divide the parties.

Hence, I can only infer that it's use was to create an implication of the resistance, i.e., = petty grievances.

I can see how it could be taken that way, but again, I'm not sure it was done so intentionally.

I know. I didn't say the line itself constituted bias.

Are you reading my comments? I've been pretty clear.

No, you've been clear about it being the association betwen the headline and the first paragraph, but I don't necessarily think that was the intended parrallel.

It does bring up the idea that, even if the reporter did it unintentionally, could it be caused by having subconscious bias?

I know. GOP resistance = petty grievance.

See, wasn't how I took it, especially compared to the rest of the article.

Yeah, my intent in the OP was a VISA-like listing...you know, the priceless schtick? I guess it didn't work so well.

It probably worked fine with smarter people than me. :mrgreen:

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Both articles, imo, reflect media bias. In the first instance, an attempt to suggest that GOP resistance is just a petty disagreement rather than legitimate political disagreement. In the second, an attempt to blame gender bias as the reason behind Kennedy's withdrawal from consideration.

Gotcha. My bad. :doh

Well, it is partisan bias, just not political partisan bias. It's more a bias of a socio-cultural nature.

I think the difference comes form me associating "partisan" with the two parties.

AS far as teh second article goes, there may be some merit regarding women being treated harsher than men for the same stuff (I mean, come on, Biden comes across as a complete numbskull yet he didn't get half the crap Palin did). But a glass ceiling is definitely not the reason Kennedy is not going to be the senator of NY.

I think there is a degree of media bias about being more critical of female politicians. And there appears to be a clear bias regarding being extra critical of females and minorities who are conservative.

In truth, there is a cynical part of me that thinks that Kennedy would not have gotten lambasted to the degree that she did if Palin hadn't been lambasted so much. It's like the media wanted to make her the sacrificial lamb in order to scream "See, we did it to a Democrat, too!"

Fair enough. It's easy to misunderstand one another on here, eh? I do it all the time, even I don't always acknowledge it.

If I acknowledged it every time I did it, my already absurd post count would go through the roof. :lol:

JMak · Jan 23, 2009

Tucker Case said:
I can see how it could be taken as such, but at the same time I can see the reverse.

Fair.

True, but at the same time, sometimes something that appears to be biased can be honestly unintended. I try to err on the side of caution.

Given the headlines biases displayed yesterday, I won't buy that.

And other times it is much more blatant and clearly bias, such as the choice of the word "obstruct" in yesterday's article. That is some pretty clear bias, IMO.

Word. And it leads me to deny the benefit of the doubt to the media.

Maybe not. Like I said, my take on it was that Durbin was being pretty petty with his approach to further divide the parties.

I don't really care about Durbin, I was referring to the media bias.

I can see how it could be taken that way, but again, I'm not sure it was done so intentionally.

You're willing to grant a benefit of the doubt that I am not prepared to grant.

Tucker Case · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Given the headlines biases displayed yesterday, I won't buy that.

Come to think og it, I hadn't read that article when I initially read this one. Having read them in reverse order, I had initially given the benefit of the doubt. But you've got a good point, there, considering the correct order..

I don't really care about Durbin, I was referring to the media bias.

Yeah, but being from Illinois, I feel partly responsible for him (even though I've never voted for him, nor would I), So let me just say "sorry about Durbin".

niftydrifty · Jan 23, 2009

JMak said:
Here's the lead paragraph from yesterday's Washington Post front-page story:

"Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistence":

Yesterday, Democrat objections to Bush's appointments in 2001 = credible "need for more time" while Republicans objecting to Obama appointments in 2008 = "obstruction"

Today, Republican concerns about spending a trillion taxpayer dollars = "petty grievance"

And so it begins, eh?

I have no idea how you can call this "bias."

if you want to look at what the Washington Post has just said about Republicans reacting to this President, then why not look also at what the WaPo had to say about Democrats' early reactions to the last President?

Bush's Faith-Based Group Initiative Will Meet Resistance
The Washington Post, January 27, 2001 Saturday, A SECTION; Pg. A10, 774 words, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

Democrats' Response; Daschle, Gephardt Fault Bush's Tax Cut Math, Pledge a Fight
The Washington Post, February 28, 2001 Wednesday, A SECTION; Pg. A11, 1940 words

Bush Says He'll Seek $4.6 Billion Boost in Education Spending; Democrats Call Proposal Inadequate
The Washington Post, February 22, 2001 Thursday, A SECTION; Pg. A04, 924 words, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

Troubled Times For Democrats
The Washington Post, February 11, 2001 Sunday, EDITORIAL; Pg. B07, 828 words, David S. Broder

A Serious Breach In Bipartisanship; Democrats Fire 'Shot Across the Bow'
The Washington Post, February 2, 2001 Friday, A SECTION; Pg. A06, 1147 words, Helen Dewar, Washington Post Staff Writer

Hill Democrats Ready To Resist GOP Push
The Washington Post, January 3, 2001 Wednesday, A SECTION; Pg. A1, 1611 words, Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

PeteEU · Jan 24, 2009

JMak said:
Huh?

Both stories are presented as news stories, not as political opinion or commentary and not in the form of an editorial.

I agree it's opinion journalism and that's why it's biased reporting.

Everything in a newspaper (minus ads of course) is news. Everything on TV News is news. If you then use the "opinion journalism" excuse right wingers use to defend stations like Fox, then you have to apply that litmus test to every news organisation out there. And hence anything biased is "opinion journalism" on Fox News, then anything biased on every other channel and newspaper is "opinion journalism".

If a journalist saying that 9/11 was something Bush inherited is not biased reporting, but "opinion journalism" then any similar reporting is also "opinion journalism"

You can not apply one standard for one portion of the news media and not apply the same standard to the rest. And since the usual suspects on these boards claim that Fox News is not biased, because it is opinion journalism, then that same litmus test must be applied to every news organisation in the world.

JMak · Jan 26, 2009

niftydrifty said:
I have no idea how you can call this "bias."

if you want to look at what the Washington Post has just said about Republicans reacting to this President, then why not look also at what the WaPo had to say about Democrats' early reactions to the last President?

Bush's Faith-Based Group Initiative Will Meet Resistance
The Washington Post, January 27, 2001 Saturday, A SECTION; Pg. A10, 774 words, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

Democrats' Response; Daschle, Gephardt Fault Bush's Tax Cut Math, Pledge a Fight
The Washington Post, February 28, 2001 Wednesday, A SECTION; Pg. A11, 1940 words

Bush Says He'll Seek $4.6 Billion Boost in Education Spending; Democrats Call Proposal Inadequate
The Washington Post, February 22, 2001 Thursday, A SECTION; Pg. A04, 924 words, Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer

Troubled Times For Democrats
The Washington Post, February 11, 2001 Sunday, EDITORIAL; Pg. B07, 828 words, David S. Broder

A Serious Breach In Bipartisanship; Democrats Fire 'Shot Across the Bow'
The Washington Post, February 2, 2001 Friday, A SECTION; Pg. A06, 1147 words, Helen Dewar, Washington Post Staff Writer

Hill Democrats Ready To Resist GOP Push
The Washington Post, January 3, 2001 Wednesday, A SECTION; Pg. A1, 1611 words, Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

1) My problem ain't with WaPo's choice of words to describe the GOP's disagreement as "resistance."

2) My problem is what I see as the very strong implication mbeing made by the WaPo that the GOP's resistance = petty grievance.

3) I have thoroughly explained this.

JMak · Jan 26, 2009

PeteEU said:
Everything in a newspaper (minus ads of course) is news. Everything on TV News is news. If you then use the "opinion journalism" excuse right wingers use to defend stations like Fox, then you have to apply that litmus test to every news organisation out there. And hence anything biased is "opinion journalism" on Fox News, then anything biased on every other channel and newspaper is "opinion journalism".

Why am I obligated to apply this litmus test? Answer: I am not.

This is, imo, opinion journalism. And it's biased opinion journalism. Agree or not?

If a journalist saying that 9/11 was something Bush inherited is not biased reporting, but "opinion journalism" then any similar reporting is also "opinion journalism"

WTF are you blathering about?

You can not apply one standard for one portion of the news media and not apply the same standard to the rest.

Ok. However, I am not applying two different standards, chuckles.

And since the usual suspects on these boards claim that Fox News is not biased, because it is opinion journalism, then that same litmus test must be applied to every news organisation in the world.

Sorry, clown, but I am not obligated to apply these tests.

Why are you insisting that I must behave like which you have attributed to these so-called "usual suspects?"

niftydrifty · Jan 27, 2009

JMak said:
1) My problem ain't with WaPo's choice of words to describe the GOP's disagreement as "resistance."

2) My problem is what I see as the very strong implication mbeing made by the WaPo that the GOP's resistance = petty grievance.

3) I have thoroughly explained this.

from another front page story:

"I am very optimistic" about Gregory's renomination, said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.). "Hopefully the Democrats won't be playing petty partisan games and obstructing. . . . After they complained about him not having a hearing, it would make them look very duplicitous."

"Battle Brewing Over 4th Circuit Nominees"
The Washington Post, May 5, 2001 Saturday, A SECTION; Pg. A06, 952 words, Brooke A. Masters, Washington Post Staff Writer

Sir Loin · Jan 27, 2009

PeteEU said:
Everything in a newspaper (minus ads of course) is news. Everything on TV News is news. If you then use the "opinion journalism" excuse right wingers use to defend stations like Fox, then you have to apply that litmus test to every news organisation out there. And hence anything biased is "opinion journalism" on Fox News, then anything biased on every other channel and newspaper is "opinion journalism".

If a journalist saying that 9/11 was something Bush inherited is not biased reporting, but "opinion journalism" then any similar reporting is also "opinion journalism"

You can not apply one standard for one portion of the news media and not apply the same standard to the rest. And since the usual suspects on these boards claim that Fox News is not biased, because it is opinion journalism, then that same litmus test must be applied to every news organisation in the world.

Leave it to PeteEu to still feel the sting of his prior education welting his wide buttocks. You see Pete is on record ad nauseam as trying to attribute Op/Ed commentary from “Faux News” personalities as being the editorial or “official” position of “Faux News” as he likes to pretend. You see explaining the elementary differences between hard news reporting and the comments of one of his obsessions, Bill O’Reilly, to PeteEU is now the “using the Op/Ed excuse” and not the position of a willfully ignorant hack! Never mind that the same standard IS applied to all news organizations. Never mind that actual printed disclaimers are featured in all forms of media when Op/Ed commentary is presented. Just another basic decades old fact that has escaped the Sherlock Holmes like mind of PeteEU! Yet one which he actually STILL TRIES to argue. Please do try to avoid calling him an idiot if you can.

More media bias fun

JMak

PeteEU

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

JMak

JMak

JMak

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

JMak

JMak

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

JMak

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

niftydrifty

Too big to fail

PeteEU

JMak

JMak

niftydrifty

Too big to fail

Sir Loin

More media bias fun

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Too big to fail

Too big to fail

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency