interesting what a few months in office does to you;

[dickay]

that's a little extreme, even to me.

I am not hurt by him lying (if you can call it that), i assumed he would. I figured this was very likely to happen, and all Republicans would get all in a huffy about it and take it too far....and democrats will continue to put all the blame on Bush....but no one is taking responsiblity for our country....it's in Obama's hands for the next four years regardless.....we just gotta accept that and support him...if you don't like, then make sure he isn't re-elected.

I just don't want Republicans to make the mistake of attacking Obama during his administration, it won't help us in regaining support.

I agree with this...i'm not really trying to make this a partisan thing. I feel though when the democrats strongly critique some of the executive powers done under bush, call them crimes against humanity, heck one even compared them to pulpots and the like....and then once in office they endorse and defend those powers including wiretapping and war commissions, what kind of detriment did those verbal attacks cause? Were they reckless and simply political with no real desire to make those changes, or were they made without researching the issue which IMO could also be reckless and harmful.

[HoustonGM]

The "crimes against humanity" aspect, as far as I've ever seen, has only really been said about the torture committed, which IS something that Barack Obama has made moves to change.

[Jeffy25]

I agree with this...i'm not really trying to make this a partisan thing. I feel though when the democrats strongly critique some of the executive powers done under bush, call them crimes against humanity, heck one even compared them to pulpots and the like....and then once in office they endorse and defend those powers including wiretapping and war commissions, what kind of detriment did those verbal attacks cause? Were they reckless and simply political with no real desire to make those changes, or were they made without researching the issue which IMO could also be reckless and harmful.

then be the bigger man here. If someone shows signs of vast immaturity what do you do? do you enable that immaturity by attacking it and defending your views? or do you one up them and become better then them?

It's like if a five year old is misbehaving. Do you then misbehave as well? Or do you be the adult and rise above the situation. I see the Democrats acting like idiots as an opportunity to rise above them (pending what you said was factual). Believe me, I get your point. But we have an opportunity to rise above, but if we behave the same way, we will only stay in our vicious cycle with partisianship runs America.

[dickay]

then be the bigger man here. If someone shows signs of vast immaturity what do you do? do you enable that immaturity by attacking it and defending your views? or do you one up them and become better then them?

It's like if a five year old is misbehaving. Do you then misbehave as well? Or do you be the adult and rise above the situation. I see the Democrats acting like idiots as an opportunity to rise above them (pending what you said was factual). Believe me, I get your point. But we have an opportunity to rise above, but if we behave the same way, we will only stay in our vicious cycle with partisianship runs America.

oh i fully agree. I didn't realize we were going that route and discussing that issue lol. Republicans should in no way give the same discourse.

What i'm saying, is as a country I think we need to begin questioning whether some of the outlandish things that are said by public officials for political gain hurt our cause and the way we are viewed at home and abroad. It can't happen, because we've become so polarized if someone with a (D) says something and we're a democrat, it must be right, and visa versa if someone with an (R) says something for republicans. Was it in fact right, was it based purely on insighting the base for political gain, and were there any real supportive evidence to the claims? Primary winners, and those in Congressional leaders hold alout of clout, and when they make claims they should be based on fact and they should know what they are talking about.

Again, if Bob Bernanke says something negative about a particular company without knowing the facts, he'll be sued this afternoon about it. Why aren't our public officials held to the same standard, republicans and democrats alike. I suppose its because we the people are the shareholders...

ya know..i apologize. i don't know wtf i mean or am trying to say right now. oh well, i'll leave this be.

[Jeffy25]

[QUOTE=dickay;1294092]oh i fully agree. I didn't realize we were going that route and discussing that issue lol. Republicans should in no way give the same discourse. [QUOTE]

sorry didn't mean to go off topic....whoopsies

What i'm saying, is as a country I think we need to begin questioning whether some of the outlandish things that are said by public officials for political gain hurt our cause and the way we are viewed at home and abroad. It can't happen, because we've become so polarized if someone with a (D) says something and we're a democrat, it must be right, and visa versa if someone with an (R) says something for republicans. Was it in fact right, was it based purely on insighting the base for political gain, and were there any real supportive evidence to the claims? Primary winners, and those in Congressional leaders hold alout of clout, and when they make claims they should be based on fact and they should know what they are talking about.

Again, if Bob Bernanke says something negative about a particular company without knowing the facts, he'll be sued this afternoon about it. Why aren't our public officials held to the same standard, republicans and democrats alike. I suppose its because we the people are the shareholders...

ya know..i apologize. i don't know wtf i mean or am trying to say right now. oh well, i'll leave this be.

You are exactly right, the problem is that so few Americans take the time to investigate information that is their civic duty to do so. They tend to just believe everything at face value...a serious problem we have in this country.

Wanna know a current problem i am having today?

A city ran non for profit is here in Cape and I am forced to deal with a director who lets her politics dictate how she runs her business....and she is stuck in this middle management mindset of reaction....she is driving me insane. I should go under my venting thread to complain, but it would take longer then is necessary.

[oriole^]

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one. If he didn't get glorified so much pre-election then his backing on a simple campaign promise wouldn't matter as much to people. I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread

Sorry, but even with all the ridiculous Obamania, the right still holds the record for this. You had conservatives trying to put Reagan on the dime, for pete's sake (conveniently pushing off FDR, who is still about ten times the President Reagan was). And even now, you have Bush administration officials echoing the "if the President does it, that means it's not illegal" line.

If you're going to have people bordering on fanaticism, I'd rather have them in the street with a sign and a bullhorn than in the highest levels of each of the three branches of government, instituting their "faith-based" policy.

[OldFatGuy]

We wouldn't be jumping up and down about it if the media didn't make him out to be some sort of savior or the one.

Sorry, but even with all the ridiculous Obamania, the right still holds the record for this. You had conservatives trying to put Reagan on the dime, for pete's sake (conveniently pushing off FDR, who is still about ten times the President Reagan was). And even now, you have Bush administration officials echoing the "if the President does it, that means it's not illegal" line.

If you're going to have people bordering on fanaticism, I'd rather have them in the street with a sign and a bullhorn than in the highest levels of each of the three branches of government, instituting their "faith-based" policy.

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

[dickay]

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

lol, you are so off based on this one OFG. It may bother you that this is true, i understand that...but truly hope you open your eyes.

Here's a few facts;

I think at least ten of the large organization journalists (CNN, MSNBC, etc) have gone to work or were heavily courted by the Obama Administration. Interestingly enough, after getting the top job Obama felt it necessary to take care of the many that "helped" him get there in the mainstream media. I don't know all there names, but you could easily google this stuff. CNN's had a middle east correspondant go to work for Obama's staff as well as others including their SENIOR Political Producer!! Quite a few members of the Washington Post have taken senior positions in the DOT & I think it was the department of science? (didn't know there was even a department of science). An ABCNews political producer is now in Obama's Justice Department.

There are also many many quotes regarding the issue from people within the media who agree with the notion. Here's a few;

“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.

“Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don’t drive pickup trucks, most of them don’t have guns, most of them don’t go to NASCAR, and every day we’re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.”
— ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry’s concession speech on November 3, 2004.

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’...”
“The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush’s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.”
— From the February 10, 2004 edition of ABCNews.com’s “The Note,” a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

of course that can go on and on and on...

and if none of those are enough, there's always wikipedia who brings up many studies on the issue. Of course, wikipedia is only believable though when it suits ones arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_b..._United_States

ABC News political director Mark Halperin stated that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views, and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]

Studies finding liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN.[17] These findings concerning liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN[18] – are echoed throughout the academic literature.

[Jeffy25]

And not only that, but this constant "librul media" crap is just that, C R A P. The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

They've (those on the right) honestly believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. And amazingly enough, lots of folks now do believe it's true.

And if you really believe the coverage of Obama was slanted, quick, tell me how many can answer off the top of their heads without looking it up the name of an old pastor of Obama's from years ago versus how many can name ANY of the other Keating Five involved with McCain in that scandal, also from years ago? If it were slanted to Obama, we'd know all of McCain's scandals by heart and Obama's would be hard to recall. In fact, it's the exact opposite. I'll guarantee you four or five times more folks can answer that first question off the top of their heads then the second.

Until those on the right stop with the ******** "librul media" I'll not stop with the more accurate "right wing media." Mine won't be quite true either, but it'll be closer to accurate than the liberal media ********.

When I state liberal media. I am basing this on what I have SEEN. not what I have heard. This past election, my gf and I followed more of it on the news then either of us had every paid attention to before. We cared and wanted to make the best informed decision that we could...it's our civic duty.

She is pretty liberal, i am pretty conservative. We would watch as much as we could from Fox news to CNN to MSNBC. The only program that had conservatives with shows was FOX, and I can admit, they were over the top, even for my liking. but CNN, MSNBC, etc....basically all the other (in our area) channels 49-55 are all incredibly biased liberally. It was constant attacks toward McCain....the so called "Republican" speakers on there never were allowed to get a word in edge wise...or...they weren't Republicans by heart. Everything I saw just made me mad at the program I was watching not because of the view, but because it didn't seem like Republicans were being given a fair shot....On Fox news it was the same problem, only in the other direction. Even Alyssa would admit what she was watching wasn't fair....and that girl HATES Bush, and all other conservatives.

Right wing, left wing, whatever it may be. Just because a program is owned by a conservative, doesn't mean that is the way the program will be ran.....it has nothing to do with personal political beliefs when you own it....it's about cash...simple...and if bashing Bush gets you ratings and sponorships...and you are on a board of directors who are looking out for themselves....who cares what they say? This is why we have so much terrible television programming....because people eat it up. Everything from the Hills to following the Kardashians (only know of that show because alyssa made me watch it last night...omg it was terrible) to the crap on QVC to MTV's attempts to entertain society....as a network owner, do you really care what is making you money so long as it brings in viewers? that's why you appoint studio heads to run it.

And to follow up, your point OFG took it really off topic. If you must reread my whole comment....i wasn't attacking Obama.....or liberal mindset. I was attacking the citizens that allow a media group to help them make informed decisions....and seeminly base everything off of that.

[Jeffy25]

The big media corporations are mostly owned and operated by the same old, white, conservative folks that own and run most other large corporations in this country. Compared to every other "media" of the other democracies in the world, this one is by far the most conservative, or "right wing," if you will.

My father, is part of owner of (now over) 45 newspapers throughout America:

Missouri

* Southeast Missourian - Cape Girardeau
* Cassville Democrat - Cassville
* Daily Statesman - Dexter
* Daily Dunklin Democrat - Kennett
* The Marshall Democrat News - Marshall
* Nevada Daily Mail - Nevada
* Daily American Republic - Poplar Bluff
* Standard Democrat - Sikeston
* Democrat Argus - Caruthersville
* North Stoddard Countian - Advance/Bloomfield
* Scott County Signal - Chaffee
* The Concordian - Concordia
* Prospect News - Doniphan
* Delta News Citizen - Malden/Campbell
* Banner Press - Marble Hill
* Missourian News - Portageville
* Puxico Press - Puxico
* Steele Enterprise - Steele
* South Missourian News - Thayer

Arkansas

* Courier News - Blytheville
* Lovely County Citizen - Eureka Springs
* Carroll County News - Eureka Springs/Berryville/Holiday Island
* Northeast Arkansas Town Crier - Manila
* Tri-City Tribune - Marked Tree
* Piggott Times - Piggott
* Clay County Democrat - Rector
* Trumann Democrat - Trumann
* Osceola Times - Osceola
* The News - Salem

Tennessee

* State Gazette - Dyersburg
* Times-Gazette - Shelbyville
* Marshall County Tribune - Lewisburg

Indiana

* Banner Graphic - Greencastle
* Brazil Times - Brazil
* Greene County Daily World - Linton/Bloomfield

Iowa

* Daily Sentinel - Le Mars
* Chronicle Times - Cherokee
* Storm Lake Pilot Tribune - Storm Lake
* The Daily Reporter - Spencer
* Dickinson County News - Spirit Lake
* Sioux Valley News - Anthon
* Kingsley News/Times - Kingsley

Kansas

* The Fort Scott Tribune - Fort Scott

Nebraska

* McCook Gazette - McCook

Idaho

* Mountain Home News - Mountain Home

Each one is considered a democratic newspaper...hell like ten of them have it in their name. My father is Republican, as well the other three people on the Executive Board that owns all of these are as well. Just because they own them and are Republican doesn't mean they aren't ran with a liberal bias.

Rust Communications owns newspapers in small rural towns where the guys are those hillbillies with guns, anti-abortion, former KKK members still exist. but the papers are ran very liberally.

I sent my dad an email this morning:

Are you kidding? Over 80 per cent of working journalists, when asked of their political leanings, say they consider themselves liberal or progressive. That happens for many reasons...especially college and j-school profs who are traditionally liberal. Most media ownership is conservative.

________________________________________
From: Jeffrey Lage
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 08:38:11 -0500
To: "Lage, Wally"

Do you believe the media as a whole is liberally slanted?

Jeffrey Lage
Consultative Marketing Group


You work hard for your time and money; we work hard so you have plenty of both.

www.cmgcomplete.com

Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

[OldFatGuy]

See??? I told you lots of folks believed this ********.

And surprise, surprise, surprise, the two most outspoken of those believers are right wing.

Big shocker there.

The fact remains, the media in this country is, compared to other democracies in the world, right of center. And the media in this country is, by and large, owned by conservatives. And owning something, when the rubber meets the road, determines too often what gets "broadcast" and what doesn't. Much like many corporations workers may lean more democratic than it's ownership, the corporation itself is steered by ownership and management, not by its workers.

[Jeffy25]

The fact remains, the media in this country is, compared to other democracies in the world, right of center. And the media in this country is, by and large, owned by conservatives. And owning something, when the rubber meets the road, determines too often what gets "broadcast" and what doesn't. Much like many corporations workers may lean more democratic than it's ownership, the corporation itself is steered by ownership and management, not by its workers.

I don't really think you know how it works. Just because you own it doesn't mean you control all of the say...there is a reason that those in power delegate...and when you delegate...this is what happens. when 80 percent of those that are working for a newspaper or program like NBC cable are liberal (or progressive) what they write and report is likely going to have some level of bias on it.

I'm pretty sure you got owned on this one OFG. the media outlets are liberal, just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't. we are at least giving some hint of proof that it is.

[Jeffy25]

See??? I told you lots of folks believed this ********.

And surprise, surprise, surprise, the two most outspoken of those believers are right wing.

Big shocker there.

and we are the only two that have had time today to respond...no one else has had a chance to state an opinion....

[Alloutwar]

It seems that most people working in media would be liberal. College (liberal arts, English, literature, journalism, etc) + desire to uncover truths and stand up for the little guy...defend the rights and such. (the people in my English and Lit classes tended to be liberal-minded; conservatives were more readily found in business admin, math or sciences, or in the frathouses.) The only media majority that would probably lean conservative would be editorial writers or talking heads, or radio "personalities" - and of course owners, as OFG pointed out. Owners like Fox make their presence extremely visible in how far outside the norm they push their programming; but others are much less authoritarian.

Now, is that so evident in how the media is handled? I don't know - I've given up on TV news, because it's going for ratings, dollars, etc. I don't do newspapers. I do NPR, and NPR makes such a huge effort to be balanced on EVERY story, that it all but eliminates the idea of bias. The anchors and reporters might ask questions that paint them as liberal, which might bother some; but overall each story manages to represent both sides as fairly as possible. No one shouts over each other, or gets pissed and turns off a mic, or harshly interrogates an ideological enemy.

There are really only two possibilities:
1) Liberals don't see the media as 'liberal' because, like me, we assume the average american is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, race, environmental issues, etc. We also assume the average american is not too well off, and is more concerned about food and bills than tax evasion and immigration. So 'liberal' labels, to us, should really mean 'normal'. But we react negatively because we don't even understand the accusations.
2) Conservatives see the normal outlook to be so far skewed from their point of view, that they have no choice but to label it all 'liberal'. t them, Fox News is still extreme, of course; but everything else seems so out of line with their personal way of thinking, that it truthfully does appear liberal, in relation to their mindset. It's like if there was one guy living in a shack in West Virginia for the last 50 years who was against interracial marraige, civil rights, and everything else fom the 1950s-60s suddenly came out and watched tv; he'd assume those news outlets were tremendously liberal and just wacky as heck, when in reality he's just in the 100th percentile of conservatism.

Maybe individual reporters having an internal morality skewed towards liberal ideals makes it appear as though the country leans in one direction 70 or 80%, when in reality its more like 50/50. Or, maybe conservatives demand equal representation and try to make it look like 50/50 by being louder and more extreme (Rush, Faux News, Coulture, O'Reilly, that nutjob Glen Beck) when it's really more like 70/30. That's what I tend to think.

It is best summed up by Stephen Colbert: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

If you want to avoid media bias, go with NPR or your own research and reading, or a balance of all sources like Jeffy.

[Jeffy25]

the corporation itself is steered by ownership and management, not by its workers.

and that couldn't be a bigger chunk of ******** if I have ever seen it. companies are ran by the people.....owners simply control the funds and direction...but by and large they are ran by the people.