CNN's Rick Sanchez Puts FOX NEWS in their place

[aREDSKIN]

As it is with most of today's political arenas money talks and BS walks.

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1.

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

A good basic primer on "BIAS"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

[AsburySkinsFan]

And yet which "news" outlet promoted Bush Administration talking points for stories?

Oh that's right...Faux.

[zoony]

Buyers remorse?

I was thinking whining ****es. Or racist douchebags. Or in some cases, both.

[Ingtar]

And yet which "news" outlet promoted Bush Administration talking points for stories?

Oh that's right...Faux.

you mean just like other networks do the same for Obama's talking points?

There is no network that simply reports the news anymore. Those ceased to exist a long time ago. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to take a long hard look at things and give up their bias for a bit to see the truth. All of our networks are just propaganda machines.

[aREDSKIN]

And yet which "news" outlet promoted Bush Administration talking points for stories?

Oh that's right...Faux.

If you think that CNN, NY times, ABC News, NBC News, WaPO etc are not on the DNC talking points distribution list and then you are a blind sycophant. Not that there is anything wrong with being a blind sycophant.

[Henry]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

A good basic primer on "BIAS"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

Well, either FoxNews is more liberally biased than MSNBC or CNN, and the Fox network is more liberally biased than every other network or news outlet but NBC, or that chart isn't really an accurate indicator of bias.

[Bang]

Why, oh why oh why must everyone continue with this bias ****?

Everyone has their own propaganda networks now.

No reason to cry anymore. Just ignore the opposition and watch your own network.

Quite simple.

seriously, what does it matter anymore?

Oh wait,, let me guess.. it matters because the people who aren't smart enough to check other news sources are getting snowed?

:hysterical:

~Bang

[Henry]

Why, oh why oh why must everyone continue with this bias ****?

Everyone has their own propaganda networks now.

No reason to cry anymore. Just ignore the opposition and watch your own network.

Quite simple.

seriously, what does it matter anymore?

Oh wait,, let me guess.. it matters because the people who aren't smart enough to check other news sources are getting snowed?

:hysterical:

~Bang

You know what? It doesn't matter. Bias in the media has existed since the invention of ... the media.

That really isn't the issue. The issue is whether the Fox network flat-out lied about CNN. Apparently they did, and apparently nobody on the right seems to care.

[Wrong Direction]

And yet which "news" outlet promoted Bush Administration talking points for stories?

Oh that's right...Faux.

Fox news is clearly biased for Republicans. I wish R's would just admit that. On the other hand, they're certainly not the only news organization that promotes things like talking points for any particular political party.

One of the reasons so many people watch Fox is because they just can't believe (in a fed up sense) what they're seeing, and not seeing on other news networks or in many major media print pieces. I wish more honest people on the left would admit that.

As for this ad and subsequent diatribe by Sanchez, well, he owned Fox on that one. I hope they issue some sort of retraction to clear the record.

[Metskins]

I sat in Dulles airport last Saturday for three hours because my flight to Knoxville was delayed. The only thing that was on in the terminal was CNN. They covered this ridiculous story ad nauseum. I guess somebody promised free 'HEE HAW' DVDs for anybody who showed up.

[SnyderShrugged]

Offensive and petty. Very imature. (and I hate Fox news)

[Wrong Direction]

I sat in Dulles airport last Saturday for three hours because my flight to Knoxville was delayed. The only thing that was on in the terminal was CNN. They covered this ridiculous story ad nauseum. I guess somebody promised free 'HEE HAW' DVDs for anybody who showed up.

I just realized that Fox never said that CNN didn't cover the march on Washington. It wasn't a lie at all.

They asked how the other networks missed the story. In other words, their add (which I still believe is biased) is claiming that those other news organizations missed the story of the groundswell against Obama right now.

For those of you not on the right, you might not see how offensive it is to be characterized as a racist, nazi, irrational, hateful or as the guy I quoted does (hee haw). There's a sea of discontent that's been gaining huge momentum since the stimulus (that wasn't a stimulus) bill was passed. The cap and trade, union secret ballot and now a huge healthcare bill are all things that have resulted in legit groundswell of opposition.

Fox isn't claiming that the other networks weren't there. Why would they claim something that is so demonstrably wrong? They're claiming that the organizations in that add still don't get it, and thus have missed the story.

[Bang]

I hope they issue some sort of retraction to clear the record.

If they feel they must, I believe they'll do it at 3:30AM on Sunday, in a crawl beneath a Ped-egg commercial.

~Bang

[twa]

You know what? It doesn't matter. Bias in the media has existed since the invention of ... the media.

That really isn't the issue. The issue is whether the Fox network flat-out lied about CNN. Apparently they did, and apparently nobody on the right seems to care.

Why should I care?...I don't own stock in CNN

If it was a lie(rather than simply outraged spin by Sanchez:silly:) WTF does it matter?

Is there some moral obligation or loyalty I should feel to either one of these networks?... :hysterical:

[Metskins]

I just realized that Fox never said that CNN didn't cover the march on Washington. It wasn't a lie at all.

They asked how the other networks missed the story. In other words, their add (which I still believe is biased) is claiming that those other news organizations missed the story of the groundswell against Obama right now.

For those of you not on the right, you might not see how offensive it is to be characterized as a racist, nazi, irrational, hateful or as the guy I quoted does (hee haw). There's a sea of discontent that's been gaining huge momentum since the stimulus (that wasn't a stimulus) bill was passed. The cap and trade, union secret ballot and now a huge healthcare bill are all things that have resulted in legit groundswell of opposition.

Fox isn't claiming that the other networks weren't there. Why would they claim something that is so demonstrably wrong? They're claiming that the organizations in that add still don't get it, and thus have missed the story.

Sounds like some whining.

I sat there for three hours and heard the most ridiculous comments coming from the people they interviewed. I grew up in the South and hated Hee Haw. It always reminded me of complete idiots. It's my opinon. If you're offended, I could care less.

Next, the Congressional Budge Office has credited the stimulus with helping to pull the country out of the recession quicker. A recession that was brought on by little to no oversight in the housing market. The stimulus will also account for less than half the deficit this year. And when you bring up secret union ballots, you're really reaching. Secret union ballets or an administration that let the Securities Exchange Commision ignore the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind, what's worse?

I find these people ridiculous because for the past eight years we've engaged in gross fiscal mismanagement. We've engaged in two wars without ever raising our taxes. Where were these people then? NOW they're upset? They're sheep, led by the Glen Beck's of the world.

Your last comment about saying 'these organizations still don't get it'. Uhh huh? That's a stretch. Fox said they MISSED THE STORY. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

[twa]

If they feel they must, I believe they'll do it at 3:30AM on Sunday, in a crawl beneath a Ped-egg commercial.

~Bang

On the contrary,there will be prime time clarifications used to slap around CNN.

Which of course will be addressed by CNN in a continuing circle jerk of creating what they both call news nowadays.

[Henry]

I just realized that Fox never said that CNN didn't cover the march on Washington. It wasn't a lie at all.

They asked how the other networks missed the story. In other words, their add (which I still believe is biased) is claiming that those other news organizations missed the story of the groundswell against Obama right now.

The exact words in the ad are "Anti-Tax, Anti big Government, Tax Payers March in D.C. 9/12/09" followed by "we cover all the news" [emphasis mine.] You have to try REALLY hard not to take that to mean CNN didn't cover the story.

For those of you not on the right, you might not see how offensive it is to be characterized as a racist, nazi, irrational, hateful or as the guy I quoted does (hee haw).

Of course we do. We're called elitist, spineless, communist, traitorous cowards. Where have you been?

There's a sea of discontent that's been gaining huge momentum since the stimulus (that wasn't a stimulus) bill was passed. The cap and trade, union secret ballot and now a huge healthcare bill are all things that have resulted in legit groundswell of opposition.

Bully for you. There is always a sea of discontent against the policies of a sitting president. If it's really legitimate he'll be voted out in three years. Until then, stop pretending like a elite minority is unfairly oppressing the masses or something.

[SnyderShrugged]

Bully for you. QUOTE]

I love it when the phrase "bully" is used that way!

I think it's what was used in the WW1 era like we use "cool" or "groovy" now.

I'm gonna start using it more now.

[Wrong Direction]

Sounds like some whining.

I sat there for three hours and heard the most ridiculous comments coming from the people they interviewed. I grew up in the South and hated Hee Haw. It always reminded me of complete idiots. It's my opinon. If you're offended, I could care less.

Thanks for contributing.

Next, the Congressional Budge Office has credited the stimulus with helping to pull the country out of the recession quicker. A recession that was brought on by little to no oversight in the housing market. The stimulus will also account for less than half the deficit this year. And when you bring up secret union ballots, you're really reaching. Secret union ballets or an administration that let the Securities Exchange Commision ignore the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind, what's worse?

We could talk all day about the stimulus bill. What % has actually been spent so far? How are EHR incentives starting in 2013 stimulating the 2009 economy? How are transportation projects starting in 2010 and beyond stimulating the 2009 economy? Every job projection from this administration has failed miserably. If you want to claim success with this stimulus bill, you're sadly mistaken. It was a medium term spending bill, with some good and some bad things included. It was not an effective short term "stimulus" bill.

I find these people ridiculous because for the past eight years we've engaged in gross fiscal mismanagement. We've engaged in two wars without ever raising our taxes. Where were these people then? NOW they're upset? They're sheep, led by the Glen Beck's of the world.

Some were joining the anti-war marches. Many were not. What's your point? Obama's incompetence is different from Bush's, but still pretty clear to many Americans. Either way, the majority of this country now things both parties pretty much suck. It's not like these people were rallying in support of Bush or something.

Your last comment about saying 'these organizations still don't get it'. Uhh huh? That's a stretch. Fox said they MISSED THE STORY. It doesn't leave much room for interpretation.

What's the story? As a biased person, you're entitled to interpret that quote anyway you want. As an unbiased person, you might at least acknowledge that the "story" they're talking about was something bigger than that march.

[Wrong Direction]

The exact words in the ad are "Anti-Tax, Anti big Government, Tax Payers March in D.C. 9/12/09" followed by "we cover all the news" [emphasis mine.] You have to try REALLY hard not to take that to mean CNN didn't cover the story.

I addressed this in the other post.

Of course we do. We're called elitist, spineless, communist, traitorous cowards. Where have you been?

Didn't your mom teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not trying to clean up all of the discourse in politics, but I do like to point out hypocrites who use names like the ones you listed above and then complain with others use names like that to describe them. Both sides do it, I agree.

Bully for you. There is always a sea of discontent against the policies of a sitting president. If it's really legitimate he'll be voted out in three years. Until then, stop pretending like a elite minority is unfairly oppressing the masses or something.

These people don't want to wait three years. They have to fight now to stop the Obama agenda. If this isn't an elite minority trying to push big government and higher taxes on the country, what is? This president and Congress are trying to push bills through Congress and failing, despite having huge majorities in both houses. Cap and trade is going nowhere. The union bill is dead. Healthcare reform is gasping for air. What about that screams moderation, compromise or "every man?"

[Destino]

Is there some moral obligation or loyalty I should feel to either one of these networks?... :hysterical:

Journalism. There are ethics involved... well at least there is in the traditional media. The new "alternative" kind just randomly makes **** up and no one is ever held accountable or to any standard. Still FOX is mainstream enough to be at least expected to TRY to be accurate. To outright lie like they have done here shows their position on accuracy and ethics.

[twa]

Journalism. There are ethics involved... well at least there is in the traditional media. The new "alternative" kind just randomly makes **** up and no one is ever held accountable or to any standard. Still FOX is mainstream enough to be at least expected to TRY to be accurate. To outright lie like they have done here shows their position on accuracy and ethics.

I thought it was obvious none of them focus on journalism.

Again..If they are lying sue them.

Surely there is some bloodsucking leach(excuse me,lawyer) that will take a case of outright lying against a business??

[Johnny Punani]

Just the market who aren't capable of finding a different, more truthful news channel.

It is amusing how the conservatives treat this as a joke . . . until they rail about the "lies of the main stream press."

And what channel would that be?

Speaking of news coverage I didn't see any other channel covering the ACORN fiasco. What was the reason for that? Too truthful? :laugh:

[Johnny Punani]

Journalism. There are ethics involved... well at least there is in the traditional media. The new "alternative" kind just randomly makes **** up and no one is ever held accountable or to any standard. Still FOX is mainstream enough to be at least expected to TRY to be accurate. To outright lie like they have done here shows their position on accuracy and ethics.

Say the same about MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC and you might have a valid point.

[Henry]

Didn't your mom teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not trying to clean up all of the discourse in politics, but I do like to point out hypocrites who use names like the ones you listed above and then complain with others use names like that to describe them. Both sides do it, I agree.

Well, you were the one who started this out by saying "you might not see how offensive it is to be characterized as" as if there's some special reason for some special 'groundswell' of opposition. Sorry, none of that is special. It's politics as usual and it should be reported as such. Not saying 'this is some special group of oppressed Americans' does not mean a network 'missed' the story.

These people don't want to wait three years. They have to fight now to stop the Obama agenda.

And they are protesting which is their right. And the protests are being covered. Just because they weren't covered in a way pleasing to YOU doesn't mean they were missed, or that anyone is conspiring to oppress these people.

If this isn't an elite minority trying to push big government and higher taxes on the country, what is? This president and Congress are trying to push bills through Congress and failing, despite having huge majorities in both houses. Cap and trade is going nowhere. The union bill is dead. Healthcare reform is gasping for air. What about that screams moderation, compromise or "every man?"

The president and congress are doing what the president and congress do, wrestle with each other in order to pass laws. That they are wrestling does not mean their ideas are across-the-board unpopular with voters. The fact that none of that HAS passed screams moderation and compromise. Frankly, I'd be more worried if things were rifling through congress. That's not how our system of government was designed.