Media Bias - Booing Bush in MSNBC Newsroom

[Shadowplay]

I thought this was an interesting story.

I see how people bash Fox News all the time for its Right Wing Bias, which is true and the Conservative domination of Talk Radio and Left wingers are sooo upset about this...

Whats the big deal?

Conservatives like to listen to the radio and watch 1 cable channel.

Liberals still have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and thousands of websites.

I have a buddy who is a producer at CNN and he was marching in an anti-war march earlier this year. I always thought that was against journalist's ethics.

Anyway.... here is the link

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/msnbc-newsroom-booed-bushs-state-union.html?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/16/msnbc-newsroom-booed-bushs-state-union

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that you're getting this information from a site that prides itself in "exposing and combating liberal bias in the media"? I'm not saying this incident didn't happen, but it's in their best interest to build stories like this up. I have no problem with reporters cheering when Karl Rove was fired, because Karl Rove and the entire Bush administration has made life hell for reporters and anyone in the media that doesn't fall in lockstep with the administration's policies.

[81artmonk]

And yet again, a lib proves he has no understanding of how the media actually operate. To compare "right wing radio" with "liberal media" is like comparing a Washington Post op-ed to the Wall Street Journal.

Rush Limbaugh hosts an editorial program. As does G. Gordob Liddy. As do many other conservative hosts. In NO way do they try to project the topics they cover as news stories. They generally summarize the events of the day and then offer their comment on it.

FOX ALWAYS has the word "Editorial" or "Opinion" on the screen when someone is spouting off about whatever is going on. However, I watched the 60 Minutes piece on George Bush's supposed "skipping out" on his military service, and at no point did they have the words "Fake Documents" anywhere on the screen.

Sure, conservative talk show hosts are biased. That's what editorial comment IS. The difference is that many liberal bastions present their editorial comment as hard news.

Wow, I think you hit the nail on the head!! I personally like the episode on Bill O'Rielly(who many don't like) where I believe it was andrea kramer and she stated that she doesn't think her news or any other news is biased toward the left. So he asked her, out of all the people she works with at NBC name one who is republican. She couldn't.

I think the other point I's like to point out is that people are allowed to hold their own opinions on the president, one wouldn't have that type of outburst at a business meeting during hours. The fact that it is a news meeting, only shows where their opinions lie while doing their job, and we wonder why the news is so anti-Bush??

[Spaceman Spiff]

Everyone sucks.

I posted in the O'Reilly thread that people like him are why this country is coming apart at the seams.

Look no further.

[NoCalMike]

Whenever people claim the media is liberal, I have to wonder if they forgot about 2002-2003 and the media's response or lack thereof in the run up to the Iraq War where all the major news networks basically rolled over and died instead of trying to do any investigative reporting.

[chomerics]

Whenever people claim the media is liberal, I have to wonder if they forgot about 2002-2003 and the media's response or lack thereof in the run up to the Iraq War where all the major news networks basically rolled over and died instead of trying to do any investigative reporting.

Heh, they only did that to throw you off the track. They wanted you think they are objective. . . ahhh the evil liberal media :doh:

[Buddy Dude]

The Neilsen media report they showed on ABC the other night said the 4am EST repeat of the O'Reilly factor still beats any of the liberal shows in ratings, which I find strange and humorous all at the same time.

So, while the Liberals love to dog the Conservatives for only watching Fox News, they rank with the other 80% of the population that watches as well.

Speaking of biased media, has anyone else ever noticed that no matter what election is going on, the media exit polls always lead you to believe the Democratic candidate is winning by a huge margin, only to lose at the last second when actual results come in?

I've always wondered, do they intentionally ask people who they know voted Dem., do they go to largely Dem. areas to poll, or do they just lie in the hopes of influencing those who have yet to vote?

Another thing I just realized.....Even though Fox is right wing as the liberals say, has anyone noticed they have an equal balance of left and right wing hosts and guests? Watching CNN and the like, is like watching Bill Maher on HBO. It's just a gigantic liberal circle-jerk talking **** about anything and everything republican.

[Bang]

Our media is disgusting.

Everyone has an agenda, everyone has a slant. It gets harder and harder to find objectivity.

One would hope that they would at least try to pretend to not be so damned biased.

But they don't care. Why should they?

They **** on the plate, and we eat it.

Arguing over which news source is less biased is like arguing over whether you like your plate of **** with peanuts, or without.

Yummy.

~Bang

[Burgold]

There really is only one piece of evidence that should settle this debate.

In the entire history of the United States, only one press secretary has been hired directly from a role in the media... FOX's Tony Snow.

Now, if that doesn't answer your questions, nothing will.

Edit: And for the last time, they didn't even boo... They were crying out Booo-sh. They were cheering him for God's sake.

[headexplode]

Again, the "bias" we see in media is largely superficial. There are certainly conservative and liberal outlets, but the mainstream media generally is more biased towards making money than presenting some limited political worldview. News in this country is more entertainment than news, regardless of what "slant" one perceives it to have. The right/left bias we see in the news is based mostly on the perspective of the audience. Because we allow them to separate us into two rigid and distinct camps, and because the "culture wars" are so profitable, the news outlets will continue to exploit these largely manufactured divisions. We now give more allegiance to our party or our idealogical milieu than we do our country. The media recognizes this tendency and, in fact, exaggerates it to profit by it.

When the war was popular, no mainstream media outlets questioned it. When Bush was popular, no mainstream outlets questioned him. When Powell made his now infamous presentation to the UN, the Washington Post went so far as to say if you didn't believe him you were an idiot. Late night talk show hosts weren't making fun of Bush and his administration.

Now, it's completely acceptable to call Bush an idiot on TV or criticize the war. In 2003, that wasn't the case.

The fact of the matter is that if CBS didn't think it would get higher ratings for bringing down a sitting president on the eve of an election, they wouldn't have used those fake documents in the first place. If Sean Hannity's and Bill O'Reilly's hyper-aggressive personality-driven politics wasn't so profitable they wouldn't be on the air.

But we buy it and it feeds the mythologies created by the media and politicians. Until we discard the "liberal vs. conservative" fiction, they will continue to make money off us.

On another point, I think it's true that perhaps more democrats or liberals are in mainstream media than conservatives. I think this, mainly, is a matter of demographics. There is a conservative "bias" in the military, but we don't seem to think that is so bothersome. There is liberal "bias" at the universities, but there is a conservative "bias" in the business world. The bias we see in our everyday lives is mostly a product of our perceptions. Since we see these perceptions validated so often it becomes reality. Of course, when we choose sides in this way we are only seeing a limited reality, but it doesn't make it any less real to us.

[USS Redskins]

There really is only one piece of evidence that should settle this debate.

In the entire history of the United States, only one press secretary has been hired directly from a role in the media... FOX's Tony Snow.

Now, if that doesn't answer your questions, nothing will.

Edit: And for the last time, they didn't even boo... They were crying out Booo-sh. They were cheering him for God's sake.

Very common actually - Snow Worked as a speechwriter for Bush I, so he really just went back to work there.

Diane Sawyer worked for the Nixon White house and so did Pat Buchannan.

Look who runs ABC's This Week - George Stephanapolis (not sure of spelling) - the Clinton Lackey!

[Burgold]

You misunderstood. It's very common for politicos to enter the media, but it has never happened that a member of the media has become Press Secretary before Tony Snow.

The fact that he was once a politico himself makes it less interesting, but still... Press Secretaries have traditionally not come from within the working press.

[Thiebear]

I would expect journalists to be more professional..

I personally never outloud booed Clinton ... I didnt like most of what he / Bush have done...

Especially around others in your office that are younger, less experienced.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Whatever....while I agree talk radio for both sides can get way out there, Fox News is as objective as CNN. Especially Brit Hume and his show.

ooops....excuse me, I just threw up a little in my mouth.

I'm sorry but Brit Hume's show is not objective, who are the people that are on his panel week in and week out. Here's a hint, some of their signatures can be found on PNAC principles: Kristol, Krauthammer; not to mention Fred Barnes. They have Mort Kondracke and he is technically a democrat, but he doesn't even agree with the Democrats, and the "liberal" Mara Liasson is not a liberal just because she works for NPR.

[alexey]

Again, the "bias" we see in media is largely superficial. There are certainly conservative and liberal outlets, but the mainstream media generally is more biased towards making money than presenting some limited political worldview. News in this country is more entertainment than news, regardless of what "slant" one perceives it to have. The right/left bias we see in the news is based mostly on the perspective of the audience. Because we allow them to separate us into two rigid and distinct camps, and because the "culture wars" are so profitable, the news outlets will continue to exploit these largely manufactured divisions. We now give more allegiance to our party or our idealogical milieu than we do our country. The media recognizes this tendency and, in fact, exaggerates it to profit by it.

...

Until we discard the "liberal vs. conservative" fiction, they will continue to make money off us.

...

The bias we see in our everyday lives is mostly a product of our perceptions. Since we see these perceptions validated so often it becomes reality. Of course, when we choose sides in this way we are only seeing a limited reality, but it doesn't make it any less real to us.

:applause:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Whenever people claim the media is liberal, I have to wonder if they forgot about 2002-2003 and the media's response or lack thereof in the run up to the Iraq War where all the major news networks basically rolled over and died instead of trying to do any investigative reporting.

I've said it again and again on this board: Bill Moyers "Buying the War" a must see.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, while the Liberals love to dog the Conservatives for only watching Fox News, they rank with the other 80% of the population that watches as well.

We watch just to see what stupid things O'RLY is going to say. Its like watching a nightly train wreck, and its made even more humorus when we see those same talking points show up on this board the next day.

[USS Redskins]

huh? Did you think journalists weren't allowed to have opinions or that they simply weren't allowed to express their opinions on their own time? Either way...

Journalism 101 - stay objective. Jounalists, in the past, were fired for this.

That's part of the job. How can they be objective about a war if they are taking sides?

[Buddy Dude]

We watch just to see what stupid things O'RLY is going to say. Its like watching a nightly train wreck, and its made even more humorus when we see those same talking points show up on this board the next day.

Sorta like the people who "claim" to listen to Howard Stern to hear what he'll say, but they "hate" him? Come on now, nobody buys that ****.

I hate Rush, I don't listen to him, I hate CNN, I don't watch it, I hate Bill Maher, I don't watch him, I hate Bob Costas, I don't watch him.

It's not like watching a train wreck, it's like watching teletubbies.

[AsburySkinsFan]

How can they be objective about a war if they are taking sides?

Are you saying that journalists are to have no opinion, I guess we should not allow them to vote either. The trick for journalists is to limit the amount of their own opinion when they are reporting the news, what they do on their own time is none of my business.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sorta like the people who "claim" to listen to Howard Stern to hear what he'll say, but they "hate" him? Come on now, nobody buys that ****.

You obviously don't understand the terms "opposition research". And if only O'RLY were as harmless as Teletubbies, if only, if only.

[thedoc4454]

Everything was fine with the leftists in this country a while back when they had a complete monopoly of the media, but when conservatives gained a voice through Rush and then Fox News, just to name the two largest, the liberals in this country offically lost thier stuff.

Apparently, the conservatives in this country have no right to voice their opinion - at least not in public.

The left loves the First Amendment when applied to themselves, it just wasn't meant for anyone who disagrees with them.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Are you saying that journalists are to have no opinion, I guess we should not allow them to vote either. The trick for journalists is to limit the amount of their own opinion when they are reporting the news, what they do on their own time is none of my business.

Everything should be limited to "Who, what, where, when and why"

These political talking heads like O'Reilly, Franken, Colmes, Hannity and others all need to go to hell.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The left loves the First Amendment when applied to themselves, it just wasn't meant for anyone who disagrees with them.

This is very true as well.

My first college was full of dumbass hippie liberals who were all for "open mindedness" and "respecting others opinions"...of course until it didn't jive with theirs.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Apparently, the conservatives in this country have no right to voice their opinion - at least not in public.

Not so, they have every right to do so, just don't call it objective journalism when it shows up in their work.

The left loves the First Amendment when applied to themselves, it just wasn't meant for anyone who disagrees with them.

And how is this any different than the right? Take this thread for instance, what is the complaint? Aren't some complaining that a bunch of Liberals were booing Bush in a news room? Do they not have the same 1st Amendment rights? I guess since some folks on the right don't like Bush being booed that they aren't allowed to do this....sorry but the Right is no different than the Left on this one. Heck just look at Bill O'RLY and his complaint about the rapper Nas upcoming performance at Virginia Tech.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Everything should be limited to "Who, what, where, when and why".

The Who, what, where and when are all easy, the problem comes when they start explaining the why, that's when interpretation is required and this is where objectivity is so difficult.