I'm ready to go to bed. I went to Youtube for a little while. There they have a big banner on top of the page for Obama- 'Forward'. That might be a purchased ad, I admit.
Much worse is CNN and NPR. During the RNC, NPR gave it 2 minutes daily- one brief story.. The DNC got a 2 minute story plus one 10 minute special segment each hour. CNN, as previously noted, never made the RNC a headline story. It was always a second lead, even when Romney gave his acceptance speech. Obama's acceptance prompts a page-wide banner and a full frame picture of Obama with a 'breaking news' banner about his acceptance speech.
I want someone, anyone, to tell me why this is not media bias.
We are back in the 1880s, when a man' political affiliation was clear by what papers he read. The day of 'balance' is so long over. Once again we know a person's values by what web sites they use and what papers they read.
Mine-
-foxnews
-realcearpolitics.com
-Washington Times
-Wall Street Journal
If I want to read socialist propaganda I can see it anywhere. Something closer to truth, or at least truth stripped of most party message, is found onRealclearpolitics and Fox. As just one of many examples, Fox ran a story about the muscling and then punishment of Gallup when they ran their poll results showing a 6 point lead for Romney in April. CNN doesn't have that story on their site. Think it's worthwhile? I do, and the media not carrying the story are just dead for me.
We also got today, again courtesy of Fox, the story of Michelle Oboama's thesis. In it she advocates for non-testing ofdesired minorities and blasks. Not a whimper on CN or elsewhere.
If you do not read the papers, you are uninformed
If you do read them, you are misinformed.
Ted
Much worse is CNN and NPR. During the RNC, NPR gave it 2 minutes daily- one brief story.. The DNC got a 2 minute story plus one 10 minute special segment each hour. CNN, as previously noted, never made the RNC a headline story. It was always a second lead, even when Romney gave his acceptance speech. Obama's acceptance prompts a page-wide banner and a full frame picture of Obama with a 'breaking news' banner about his acceptance speech.
I want someone, anyone, to tell me why this is not media bias.
We are back in the 1880s, when a man' political affiliation was clear by what papers he read. The day of 'balance' is so long over. Once again we know a person's values by what web sites they use and what papers they read.
Mine-
-foxnews
-realcearpolitics.com
-Washington Times
-Wall Street Journal
If I want to read socialist propaganda I can see it anywhere. Something closer to truth, or at least truth stripped of most party message, is found onRealclearpolitics and Fox. As just one of many examples, Fox ran a story about the muscling and then punishment of Gallup when they ran their poll results showing a 6 point lead for Romney in April. CNN doesn't have that story on their site. Think it's worthwhile? I do, and the media not carrying the story are just dead for me.
We also got today, again courtesy of Fox, the story of Michelle Oboama's thesis. In it she advocates for non-testing ofdesired minorities and blasks. Not a whimper on CN or elsewhere.
If you do not read the papers, you are uninformed
If you do read them, you are misinformed.
Ted
I guess I'm screwed either way :-O
ReplyDeleteOne decent website for trying to separate fact from spin is http://www.factcheck.org/
ReplyDeleteDavid Graham