Media strongly favors Democrats

[bz2010]

<p>^^ yes, tega!</p>

<p>And I hope no one on here ever forgets that in order for the gov’t to give you anything, it has to take it from you first.</p>

[ejr1]

<p>If you want behavior as an example, let’s look at Obama’s trip overseas. They are sending the anchors with him. That’s so they can report his flipflop on foreign affairs policy, which I can’t believe. He was just too adamant before. Apparently, he will say anything to be elected. McCain has been over there numerous times, and no coverage. Behavior it is!!!</p>

[Newjack88]

<p>

Do you have the data to back this up because I know a lot of educated people who are economic conservative. They don’t believe in the left-wing ideology of taxing the rich to the max, and redistributing that income. They believe in government creating an environment to help people succeed financially. The government should not be in the business of wealth distribution.

</p>

<p>You could benefit from taking a remedial level high school government or political science class.</p>

<p>

Do not spend money you don’t have, don’t buy a house, car, or things you can’t afford. If you mess up, man up and accept responsibility, don’t blame others for your own mistakes. Government should make sure that market institutions are running perfectly so that people can afford health insurance, retirement plans, good schools, etc.

</p>

<p>Where did that come from?</p>

<p>Anyway, if you consider yourself a conservative, you’re going against that ideology if you believe “government should make sure that market institutions are running perfectly.” (It can’t make sure it runs “perfectly.”) That’s a pretty liberal belief right there. Conservatives believe in deregulation, eliminating oversight, and essentially just allowing the market to take its course. True conservatives are actually for letting failing companies like Bear Sterns, Freddie, Fanie, etc. fail. Moreover, true conservatives are against having the government oversee speculators to make sure they don’t overspeculate on things like oil or electricity. <em>cough</em> Enron <em>cough</em> They don’t believe in government should intervene in the market.</p>

[tega]

<p>

You could benefit from taking a remedial level high school government or political science class.

</p>

<p>I don’t remember discussing data on political affiliations of “educated liberals" with my high school government teacher. </p>

<p>

Anyway, if you consider yourself a conservative, you’re going against that ideology if you believe “government should make sure that market institutions are running perfectly.” (It can’t make sure it runs “perfectly.”) That’s a pretty liberal belief right there.

</p>

<p>That is not liberal ideology at all. Economic conservative believe government should strengthen property rights, make sure that companies are reporting accurate figures to their investors, etc. These things will help markets institutions run perfectly. </p>

<p>

Conservatives believe in deregulation, eliminating oversight, and essentially just allowing the market to take its course.

</p>

<p>No, conservatives believe in limited oversight (there is a huge cost to both companies and consumers to unnecessary oversight). </p>

<p>

True conservatives are actually for letting failing companies like Bear Sterns, Freddie, Fanie, etc. fail.

</p>

<p>Bear Sterns made unwise investment decisions, so why shouldn’t they suffer the consequences? I don’t remember Bear Stearns writing checks for the tax payers when they were bringing in records amount of profits, why should the tax payers cover their losses? </p>

<p>On the other hand, I understand why the Fed bailed them out.</p>

<p>Fannie and Freddie should be allowed to be completely private companies; they shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy this government favoritism at all. This distorts the market, and also, they are not afraid to make stupid investments decisions because they know that tax payers will cover their losses. The executives were given multi-million dollar packages to absolutely do nothing; they had to restate their earning reports recently. </p>

<p>They also built a $200 million lobbying arm to lobby congress to get sweetheart deals. Do you think that is an appropriate use of their funds? </p>

<p>

Moreover, true conservatives are against having the government oversee speculators to make sure they don’t overspeculate on things like oil or electricity. <em>cough</em> Enron <em>cough</em> They don’t believe in government should intervene in the market.

</p>

<p>Not all speculation is bad. Some force management to put their act together.</p>

[katliamom]

<p>I bet there would be PLENTY more right-leaning journalists if journalism paid better Ditto with college professors.</p>

[barrons]

<p>[LAT</a> bans its bloggers from discussing Edwards charges. - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine](<a href=“Is the MSM about to turn against Edwards?”>Is the MSM about to turn against Edwards?)</p>

[mathmom]

<p>Obama attracted a larger crowd in Berlin, than he’s had in any stadium in the US. That’s news. John McCain hasn’t generated that kind of excitement in Europe. But I’ve certainly heard about his previous trips overseas in the news I get (New York Times, NPR (incl BBC) for the most part.)</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Don’t forget mathmom (et al.), Obama’s appearances have been in conjunction w/ rock concerts and other crowd-generating attractions. It’s not “all him”.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>The media will jack up anyone that they can make a buck on, liberal or conservative. They are in it for the $$$'s. That being said, if it’s a slow news day they are more likely to favorably cover the Democrats than the Republicans. What troubles me more than anything is they don’t just report the news any longer…it’s always a commentary. </p>

<p>I recall a month or two ago hearing a story about the economy. They were talking about some of the economic indicators and how they were better than anticipated. Everything was fine with the reporting until the last sentence “the numbers indicate we are not in a recession…at least not yet”. Like they are hoping and praying for a recession. What’s up with that. It would have been a perfectly good NEWS story before they decided to turn it into a commentary. If I want comments I’ll read the editorials or tune in to talk radio.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>I’m wondering if any of you have turned on a radio lately? Wall-to-wall right wing propaganda and hate-mongering.</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>Sadly, I think you’re right on the money, pmrlcomm. …</p>

<p>Consolation–It sure does seem that way. Wish I could get Air America, but in the bowels of my Red State, we’re not allowed to hear anything other than Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and the rest of the right-wing gang.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>katliamom - I meant to tell you before - I liked your comment #26!</p>

<p>p-comm - I agree. Where have all the “newscasters” gone? You hardly ever hear a “straight news story” these days! It’s all commentary. Edward R. Murrow must be rolling in his grave.</p>

<p>Everyone thinks s/he’s a pundit nowadays!</p>

<p>Conso - just heard a bunch of left-wing (sort of) stuff on the radio about an hr. ago (and that wasn’t even NPR!).</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>

Just heard a bunch of left-wing (sort of) stuff on the radio about an hr. ago (and that wasn’t even NPR!).

</p>

<p>biz–You must live in a far more civilized and enlightened part of the world than I do! :)</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Well, I’m a little further South! :)</p>

<p>I was surprized at the “fairness” on the radio - not sure which show it was.<br>
See, not all Republicans are fire-breathing dragons who want to cast the masses adrift w/out Health Care & proper school lunches! haha!</p>

<p>Speaking of Health Care - McCain DOES want to see it available & affordable for all! (Sorry, couldn’t resist!).</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>I’ve known a couple of decent Republicans in my lifetime. :)</p>

<p>But seriously, in Kentucky we get nothing on talk radio but the conservative side of the story. Even the local pundits are all pretty far to the right.</p>

<p>You keep right on praising your beloved McCain, bz. I’m enjoying it.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>

You keep right on praising your beloved McCain, bz. I’m enjoying it.

</p>

<p>Will do Hindoo! Thanks!</p>

<p>When all is said & done, if I’ve convinced you to vote for McCain , then it will be worth it!</p>

[Hindoo]

<p>And I would love to switch you over to the Obama side. You seem like a bright person, so I still have hope. …</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Don’t hold yer breath Hinny! :)</p>

[parent2noles]

<p>“Hinny”…that kind of sings, doesn’t it? :D</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>As I have stated, more attention isn’t necessarily a positive thing.</p>

<p>Pretty much every little mis-step by Obama has received heavy media coverage while McCain has been able to “skate-free” on numerous blunders.</p>

<p>

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.</p>

<p>You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.</p>

<p>During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.</p>

<p>Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

</p>

<p>[In</a> study, evidence of liberal-bias bias - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story]In”>In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias)</p>