I kept saying this and the Libs, here, denied it.

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Now there are documents and e-mails which prove Liberal bias in the MSM.

SOURCE

Liberal Journalists Plotted to Protect Obama From Rev. Wright Scandal, Online Mag Says

Published July 20, 2010 | FoxNews.com

A group of liberal journalists in 2008 sought to sweep under the rug the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal that threatened to derail then-Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller, an online publication founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative contributor for Fox News.

The documents offer evidence to conservative critics who have long held that the mainstream media were in the tank for Obama, and bolsters the argument that reporters with major news outlets are biased in their coverage.

Journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic expressed outrage over the tough questioning Obama received from ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at a debate and some of them plotted to protect Obama from the swirling controversy, according to the Daily Caller.

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent pressed his fellow journalists to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by shifting topics to one of Obama's conservative critics, the Daily Caller reported.

"Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists," Ackerman wrote.

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, urged his fellow members of Journolist, a private listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, to do "what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have."

"This isn't about defending Obama," he wrote. "This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people."

The Journolist members went as far as issuing a statement – one that was shaped with the help of Jared Bernstein who went on to become Vice President Biden's top economist -- calling the debate "a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world."

Journolist was shut down last month after leaks exposing member Dave Wiegel's scornful remarks of conservatives led to his resignation at the Washington Post as a blogger covering the conservative movement.

Click here to read the full article.
 

spike

New Member
This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.

Absolutely correct. The Reverend Wright crap was tabloid nonsense when we should have been talking about real issues that affect the people.

I'm not sure how you think this proves liberal bias. This was anti-tabloid bias which should be commended. Even if it was

The MSM is obviously biased towards the right, especially Fox and the Daily Caller where your story is coming from. All you have to do is look at them promoting and covering even the tiniest of Tea Party rallies while almost completely ignoring gigantic rallies on immigration or gay rights.

One incident is all I need to claim the MSM is always right wing biased right Jim? Is that how your generalizations work?

I like how this is nowhere to be found in any legit publication and even Fox distances themselves form by saying "an online mag says this, not us".

"The Daily Caller, an online publication founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative contributor for Fox News." <- When Fox is telling you the mag is right wing biased you better believe it.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
I believe the point you're missing Spike, has nothing to do with Who the media were covering, Which media was covering or What they were covering ... but the fact that they Were actively covering, and in an organized fashion. The press has certain freedoms, based on the charge of reporting the news in an unbiased and honest fashion. The actions of these men comes close to falling under the umbrella of fraud where the balance of coverage rules are concerned. These press men were giving active support to one candidate or party ... to the detriment of others.

Perhaps this Rev. Wright angle was 'tabloidery' ....perhaps not. Obama acknowledged this guy as an influence. The Rev. IS a public figure as well.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
this means nothing, jim.

there's some liberal in the media, ya say?

yeah, i'm sure all the right wing pabulum pukers never talk to each other...

foxnews IS mainstream media.

at the end of the day the only real bias the MSM has today is STUPIDITY, as we've shifted into a mode of journalism that only spews out blurbs and bumperstickers into this spasmodic circus that american political culture has become.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Frankly, the MSM has a right-wing bias for the same reason that most tv shows have a similar bias...they're slaves to their advertisers (Corporations) who prefer to stand on the most safe and banal side of the left/right argument, where they think their customers (the people) are.

That's why advertisers balk at 'embarrassing news events', and threathen to remove their ad money and why news media chooses what's newsworthy.

"Don't embarrass the advertisers"
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Absolutely correct. The Reverend Wright crap was tabloid nonsense when we should have been talking about real issues that affect the people.

You are known by the company you keep. In this case he was associating with racists and terrorists; and you were okay with that?

...

The MSM is obviously biased towards the right, especially Fox and the Daily Caller where your story is coming from. All you have to do is look at them promoting and covering even the tiniest of Tea Party rallies while almost completely ignoring gigantic rallies on immigration or gay rights.

Biased to the right like the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Cynthia Tucker, Kieth Olberman, Chris Matthews, Alan Colmes, et al?

One incident is all I need to claim the MSM is always right wing biased right Jim? Is that how your generalizations work?

I have posted numerous threads on this issue and you know it. After all, you participated in those threads.

I like how this is nowhere to be found in any legit publication and even Fox distances themselves form by saying "an online mag says this, not us".

"Nowhere to be found" eh? I keep telling you to get a better search engine. There are many commentaries on this out there, pro and con.

You mean legit outlets like The Washington Examiner, Salon, The Washington Independent, USA Today, or Slate?
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
How about this commentary on the Liberal bias of the Washington Post?

SOURCE

Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?

By Andrew Alexander
Ombudsman
Sunday, July 18, 2010; A17

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

That's prompted many readers to accuse The Post of a double standard. Royal S. Dellinger of Olney said that if the controversy had involved Bush administration Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, "Lord, there'd have been editorials and stories, and it would go on for months."

To be sure, ideology and party politics are at play. Liberal bloggers have accused Adams of being a right-wing activist (he insisted to me Friday that his sole motivation is applying civil rights laws in a race-neutral way). Conservatives appointed during the Bush administration control a majority of the civil rights commission's board. And Fox News has used interviews with Adams to push the story. Sarah Palin has weighed in via Twitter, urging followers to watch Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly's coverage because "her revelations leave Left steaming."

The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.

But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore.

Andrew Alexander can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at [email protected]. For daily updates, read the Omblog.
 

spike

New Member
You are known by the company you keep. In this case he was associating with racists and terrorists; and you were okay with that?

Bush associated himself with far more unsavory characters that you were fine with and Limbaugh is more racist than Wright and you seem to like that guy. What's with the double standard.

Biased to the right like the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Cynthia Tucker, Kieth Olberman, Chris Matthews, Alan Colmes, et al?

Some of those a pretty centrist but I would say biased to the right like Fox, WSJ, Newsmax, WND, Heritage Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and so many others.

I have posted numerous threads on this issue and you know it. After all, you participated in those threads.

Yes, I remember we determined the MSM is generally biased to the right.

"Nowhere to be found" eh? I keep telling you to get a better search engine. There are many commentaries on this out there, pro and con.

You mean legit outlets like The Washington Examiner, Salon, The Washington Independent, USA Today, or Slate?

Yeah, I found those with my search engine.

Wash Examiner: You linked to a blog talking about the Daily Caller story.

Salon: A story about how Tucker is misrepresenting things in the Daily Caller.

Washington Independent: A story about Tucker launching the Daily Caller. Not relevant although it makes it clear that the Caller is a biased source.

USA Today: You actually linked to a Washington Post article disputing the Daily Caller article. Good read.

Slate: You linked to a forum post. You realize that doesn't reflect the position of Slate right?

So Jim you took a story from the heavily right wing biased Tucker that no legit outlet is reporting (except to comment or debunk the Caller article).

Now we know there's one more right wing biased news source out there though.

Here's some deliberate bias from Fox and Andrew Brietbart.
 

Gotholic

Well-Known Member
Absolutely correct. The Reverend Wright crap was tabloid nonsense when we should have been talking about real issues that affect the people.

You really think a guy preaching Black Liberation Theology that Obama has been going to see for 20 years is a non-issue?
 

spike

New Member
Black liberation theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — social, political, economic and religious. This formulation views Christian theology as a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ,"

Sounds just as reasonable as a lot of other christian teachings.
 

spike

New Member
I'm not seeing the problem. What is the issue Goth?

Seems way less nutty than the evangelicals who were close to Bush.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
this passage comes to mind...

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
http://kingjbible.com/2_thessalonians/2.htm
 

2minkey

bootlicker
wow. the truth shall set us free. now we just need to figure out whose truth that is. until then, all that stuff is directionless gobbledegook.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
Jesus said "I am the Truth"/
Those are the words I count first and for most.
IMO Those are the "Truths that are self evident".
 
Top