Obama vs Fox News; does the US media have a left wing bias?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by saturn5, Oct 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    You really have to have your head stuck pretty far up the *** of the whole left-right mindset to believe that just because someone votes Republican or Democratic in an election that they're interested in pushing a political ideology in their professional life.
  2. shinjo_jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 5
    Wow, pick and choose much? If you include the Huffington Post, then you would have to include the Drudge Report. You include the NY Times & LA Times, but have left off Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune (two of the bigger "right leaning" newspapers). I wouldn't exactly include "Hollywood" in the media, even if most celebrities tend to lean left (unless you include "big business" under the right, which would be a roughly equal counterpart). SNL takes swings at both sides, so it's not fair to include them (they usually take them at who is in power or presents itself; their Hillary Clinton was not exactly flattering and with Sarah Palin they had way too much material to pass it up). I wouldn't label CNN as either, and I think that most people would agree.

    So, balancing it out a big more you would get... MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Huffington Post, Washington Post v. Fox News, Talk Radio (Hannity & Limbaugh), Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Drudge Report

    I don't really see one side outweighing the other, given the "major" news media organizations listed above. Either way, lining them up against one another doesn't really prove anything. The above list doesn't factor in the influence they have over society's perception, or factor in the organizations that are left out, or account for the audience total. Not to mention that blogs and other "new technologies" play into the topics being discussed to a level we'll never truly know.
  3. KGhobgoblin Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 5, 2009
    star 1
    Shinjo, I'll agree that if you take all forms of media into account, things probably balance out. I think the term "US media" is commonly understood to focus only on TV, although it really shouldn't (as you pointed out). All the focus is on TV because even after the internet, TV remains the primary source of entertainment in America. In fact, Americans watch more TV now than they used to.

    Minor point, but I'm not sure the Tribune qualifies as a right-leaning newspaper (have they laid a finger on Obama yet?), but it's not left leaning either. To their credit, they don't get as involved with political opinion pieces as the NYT or LAT.

    Also, a lot of right-leaning people wouldn't agree that CNN doesn't lean left some. They're the best (in terms of bias) of the three cable networks, but their popular commentators tend to lean left (Rick Sanchez, Anderson Cooper, Roland Martin).

    Keynote, there are a lot of variables you'd have to test before making the assertion that because journalist are the most informed, they tend to lean left. You'd have to establish that at least some were right leaning at the outset of their careers and later turned left. You'd have to establish that they're more informed than other experts (PhDs, M.D.s, etc.). It would also be almost impossible to show that the facts for one point of view are more numerous than for another point of view because "facts" inherently change based on who is interpreting them. In fact, in law school they taught us that the one thing you can "change" on an appeal is (paradoxically) the facts of the case. We spent months of law school learning how to downplay and conceal bad facts in our briefs, while accentuating the ones that helped us. The point is the same one someone made early on the first page: you're always going to have reasonable disagreement on what's important or what facts help what point of view, or which fact/story deserves more attention than another story, and this reasonable disagreement stems from the beliefs people bring to the table in the first place.

    On a different thread a while back, someone made the point that people want validation for their viewpoint, implying that opposing facts wouldn't change a person's view. In fact, such facts might actually entrench someone deeper in her existing beliefs. Since beliefs are more of a gut feeling and have more to do with how one views events than the events themselves, it's more likely that journalists came to the table with whatever viewpoint we see reflected in their reporting.

    Watto, like they say on the Monday Night Football pregame show: "C'mon man!" Everyone knows what left leaning means. People who are right are (generally) pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, distrustful of government, anti-welfare, pro-free market, anti-gay marriage, anti-marijuana, anti-affirmative action, don't believe in global warming, and pro-1950's style families. Left leaning folks are (generally) the mirror opposite of all this, with the caveats 1) "free market" is a complex term and I don't mean to imply that left necessarily means socialist, although socialists represent the far left 2) the left has no
  4. keynote23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 26, 2006
    star 1
    From my experience I'd venture that the more informed informed just about anyone gets, the more they lean left.

    There's a reason we: don't hang people, don't go to church as frequently, have greater intolerance for the death penalty and have by and large become more humane and less "traditionally" conservative with time.

    I'd go so far as to say that the more people learn about the world about in general, the more left leaning they become (or the more reality they have to deny) because left-leaning thinking tends to be filled with more shades of gray. A general statement? Yes. But on average as you've gotten older and become more world-wise, have you yourself cut out or put in more shades of gray in your views on most controversial issues since you were 10 years old?

    A man's ability to interpret is based on his prior experiences. Varied experience viewed objectively and free of emotional bias regarding many controversial issues tends to force people to widen, not narrow, their views. Again, shades of gray. A trait more associated with the left.

    Downplaying and concealing unflattering facts implies that the downplayer/concealer has already acknowledged the existence of that which needs to be downplayed and concealed. That means the facts are not themselves in doubt. Once you become aware of facts, you cannot become unaware of them (barring forgetfulness or medical conditions) which leaves you only with the option (internally) of incorporating the fact into your views or seeking some way to deny or disprove them. The acknowledged existence of a fact itself must by definition affect a man's view even if only to provoke his denial of a fact.

    Those beliefs themselves are in a constant state of evolution. While initial beliefs are important so is the evolution of belief which tends to happen due to new experiences and exposure to information. As a journalist, that's a specific requirement of the position thus if there was anyone whose views were being tested constantly for their durability in light of new data it would be them.

    "Might". Keyword there.

    I've long held the belief that gut feeling is nothing more than a subconscious response created by a man's prior experiences and knowledge that can no longer be immediately and consciously recalled. Since they cannot recall cognitively the experiences that are creating this reaction they chalk it up to "gut" feeling. It's similar breaking an arm and then
  5. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    I don't see this is in this thread, but usually in these discussions people hate on Fox because of Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly.

    THEY'RE NOT NEWS. THEY'RE TALK SHOWS.

    Do you expect Rush Limbaugh not to be biased?



    But honestly, so far, there hasn't been too much of that. But please, just because those guys are on the Fox News Network doesn't mean that they're news.
  6. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    I suppose I should respond to this. I did not say CNN is = to Fox News. If anything I was actually quite defensive when it comes to CNN.

    Also, perhaps I did not distinguish well enough between bias and slant. I love the Daily Show, but it's clearly slanted. I also mentioned, that I don't think that necessarily makes it dangerous or something--it's just slanted, take it as you will.

    EDIT: I'm often confounded by your responses--did you read my post? I shouldn't have to explain most of this to you as such explanation seemes redundant. I think I mostly made myself clear in my original post. So, I can't for the life of me, understand how you started pulling out strange ideas like CNN = Fox News.

    Shinjo, I see your point--I was naming names off the top of my head, so forgive me for not offering a complete listing. I think you underestimate the power of Hollywood, however--that includes comedians, talk show hosts, and programs like SNL. Not to mention the film industry--the sheer amount of left-leaning humor/attacks at the right in film is astounding.

    And yes, again, I do equate MSNBC with Fox News. The only people I tend to hear scoff at such a notion are already quite left-leaning...so not surprising really. Most conservatives I know would claim that Fox News is above MSNBC just as many liberals I know would claim the opposite. It's silly. Both are clearly slanted and both report news. Both are also littered with partisan talk show hosts.

    Organizations like the BBC and CNN clearly stand apart. Although, I would continue to support the notion that CNN is left-leaning. However, their slant seemed rather irrelevant to me--it doesn't seem so extreme.

  7. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    I haven't watched MSNBC, but from what I've seen of Fox they are clearly over the top in terms of the amount of unwarranted (for the lack of a better term) political hatred they put into their commentary. Seriously, cheering Obama's failure to secure Chicago for the Olympics? I haven't seen any mainstream news organizations actually hoping for Bush to fail when handling the economic crisis.
  8. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I have to say I find the BBC also having a left wing bias as the recent Question Time demonstrated. Obama has got a pretty free ride so far whilst Bush could do no right. I recently watched the excellent Frost vs Nixon film and was suprised how people wanted to crucify him but let Clinton off scot free (the Vietnam montage and talk of 'radicalising' Cambodia was the only poor bit in the film)


    Oh PLEASE. Commentary like this annoys me.

    Everyone forgets that... Bush got a free ride TOO! IT was only AFTER he chose to go to Iraq that things started getting heated for him. And even after he went, it took years for things to get as bad as they did. But most of his first term, once the election debate was over that January and he was elected, was in his favor.

    Chinese Spy Plane incident? Anyone remember that? Remember how Bush was lambasted for everything he did about that? No? Probably because he WASN'T and so nobody remembers that he wasn't. But everyone who wants to feel bad for the GOP can just conveniently forget about those days, I suppose.

    I actually admire Richard Nixon in several ways I DON'T admire Bill Clinton -- I think Richard Nixon was in fact a genius whereas Bill Clinton was not. But there are very good reasons Clinton got off 'scott free': because the man was caught in lie... about his personal life that nobody had any business poking thier noses in in the first place. Nixon was caught in lies about arranging, among other things, a BREAK-IN directed at his domestic political enemies. One is a lie about something that is clearly illegal activity, the other, having an affair on your wife, is not. Whatever Nixon's accomplishments, you can't just allow that sort of thing to go by once it's revealed -- even the Chicago Tribune, whose Republican history was pointed out on this thread (and who few people really rail against like, say, Fox News) spoke out very forcibly against Nixon.

    But having an affair is not illegal. That's why it was difficult for an actualimpeachment to take place. In order for it to take place, it had to be concentrated on the fact that he DID lie rather than pay any attention to what the lie was about -- his personal life which, as slick as many people believe Clinton to be, is his own business.

    But the difference in what happened has NOTHING to do with the media, regardless of what Richard Nixon himself might have believed -- who, despite his genius, was also a very paranoid individual that was likely in need of psychological therapy. And the difference between Bush and Obama is not the media either, regardless of what sore right-wingers that want thier turn at the bat want to believe.



    Minor point, but I'm not sure the Tribune qualifies as a right-leaning newspaper (have they laid a finger on Obama yet?), but it's not left leaning either. To their credit, they don't get as involved with political opinion pieces as the NYT or LAT.

    Here's a case in point in how arbitrary the 'right-wing media' has become and how it's just a newly made-up thing. If there was a legitimate arm of right-wing media before the days of Rush Limbaugh, the Tribue would certainly have been it. The Tribune has been a staunch supporter of the GOP in the past. When it endorsed Obama for the presidency, it was the first time EVER in 161 years that it had endorsed a Democratic presidential nominee. Its editors were against the New Deal and were pro-Senator McCarthy. It's own editor in the 50s campaigned for the GOP. It was the paper of "Dewey Defeats Truman" -- there are reasons it happened to be that paper Truman holds up and why it was noteworthy then, but nobody today thinks of it with the same significance.

    But only NOW in our own debate, of which this thread is just the latest permutation, is the Tribune even being included among 'right-wing' media. If the Tribune's right-leaning nature was ever noted before, it was probably by mr44 who mentioned it one to several years ago and is easily forgotten from the list. If Shinjo hadn't brought it up, nobody would have mentioned it here, and KG doesn't e
  9. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Are you serious? People were practically chanting for Bush to fail on just about everything on most of the mainstream news organizations.

    Also, I think it's easy to confuse the political "hatred" of the talk show hosts on Fox with the actual reporting--that's not to say that Fox News isn't slanted to the right, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that their reporting takes a stance of hatred. That word is just bit strong.

    I watch MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News--MSNBC is similar in that how they select and present stories when presenting news is often geared towards dismantling the right-wing (as opposed to the left). And, like Fox, they are loaded with talk show hosts: Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olberman for example.
  10. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Nice bit linguistic gymnastics. Do you have any proof of their 'cheering' or is this one of those, "You have to look it up for yourself," type statements?
  11. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    What if Bush did that?

    From the Pew research center:

    See, coverage of transition--Press Coverage of Incoming and Outgoing Presidents

    "The American public is more likely to
    say the press has been too critical of President
    George W. Bush in his last days in office than
    to say the same about coverage of Presidentelect
    Barack Obama. About three-in-ten (29%)
    see coverage of Bush as too critical, while just
    11% see coverage of Obama that way. Still, a
    plurality (41%) says press coverage of Bush has
    been fair, while a substantial majority (61%)
    says the same about coverage of Obama. About
    one-in-four find coverage of both not critical
    enough."



    These are just basic statistics based on party, rather than actual analysis of the news stories themselves. Nontheless, there you go.

    Edit: Here's an example of a CNN reporter being disrespectful to Bush around 2006: video
  12. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Maybe you should put a little more effort into it Astrix, because that poll isn't saying what you're claiming.

    Lets review " People were practically chanting for Bush to fail on just about everything on most of the mainstream news organizations."

    Evidence? "About three-in-ten (29%) see coverage of Bush as too critical."

    ...
    Perhaps you could explain how that follows, because I'm going to tell you right now without a pretty convincing explanation it looks like you're just throwing links up to see what sticks.
  13. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    "The American public is more likely to
    say the press has been too critical of President
    George W. Bush in his last days in office than
    to say the same about coverage of Presidentelect
    Barack Obama. About three-in-ten (29%)
    see coverage of Bush as too critical, while just
    11% see coverage of Obama that way. Still, a
    plurality (41%) says press coverage of Bush has
    been fair, while a substantial majority (61%)
    says the same about coverage of Obama. About
    one-in-four find coverage of both not critical
    enough."


    Hisd last days in office? Well, duh. He was an unpopular president. His performance had an impact on the news items concerning him. You don't come out empty-handed on the search for WMDs and just have it go away.

    Are you saying Bush was any different in August 2001? Are you seriously saying there's any comparison from Bush's position in late September 2001?
  14. saturn5 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2009
    star 4
    I don't think many would doubt that Richard Nixon was a clever man. Towards the end of his life many from both Republicans and Democrats sought out his advice on foreign affairs. Whether he was a crook or not in regard to the Watergate cover-up is another question. You could compare him to Machavelli's The Prince in some ways?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's some big leftwing conspiracy. I think the bias is more subtle than that, like Clooney's infamous quote, they don't realise they're being slanted, they think everyone thinks like them. I'm reminded of the story of the New York film critic who couldn't understand how Regan got elected because she didn't know a single person who voted for him?
  15. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Only 41% saw it as fair? And that's only based on his last days in office. Moreover, that's only based on opinion polls between people who they sampled rather than, as I said, an analysis of actual coverage--story by story.

    Also, don't leave out that I offered a very basic example via a video.

    Let's not forget the article from Politico either.

    Furthermore, I think this is rather easy: What if Bush did it?

    What if Bush waged war against MSNBC--claiming that they are not a news organization? What would the response have been?

    What about the White House urging people to report "suspicious e-mails" that seemed opposed to the White House's agenda?

    The think the general media bias against former President Bush was fairly obvious (and not just in the news).
  16. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    I'm gonna do some simple math for you.

    29% say it was too critical, 41% say it was fair, therefore roughly 30% say it was too uncritical*.

    What do you think you're proving? You can't just say "hey look, these are numbers" and then step back and nod.


    *From the actual break down this is 26% since 4% said they didn't know. The point isn't changed, I just simplified the math.
  17. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    You're still side-stepping my point. 29% say it was too critical compared to 11% who say coverage of Obama is too critical.

    In fact, you're right--they're just numbers. I'll quote myself again:

    "These are just basic statistics based on party, rather than actual analysis of the news stories themselves."

    Moreover if you go to the link I provided:

    62% of Republicans thought coverage of Bush was too critical
    A whopping 30% of Independents also thought coverage of Bush was too critical

    Compare the statistics to those of Obama and you'll find that most find his coverage to be immensely more fair than Bush's.

    Fairness: 50% of Republicans compared to 27% for Bush
    69% of Democrats compared to 50% for Bush
    61% of Independents compared to 41% for Bush
  18. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    N, that wasn't your point, that was your mealy mouth way of including a link that doesn't show what your actual point was. Let me remind you of that, again.

    "People were practically chanting for Bush to fail on just about everything on most of the mainstream news organizations."

    And, as evidence, 29% of people say that the News coverage was too critical.

    What are you trying to prove? Maybe you should clarify that before posting random polls and links.

    29% of posters think I'm being too critical of you, 41% think I'm being fair, and 26% think I'm not being critical enough. Clearly this is evidence, under your view, that I am "practically chanting for you to fail on just about everything"

    4% remain undecided.

    Edit// Comparisons to Obamas number are inherently not related to your claim that the main stream media was chanting for the bush administration to fail on just about everything. It's simply a false comparison, even leaving out the time frame issues.
  19. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    First of all I'm responding to FID,

    secondly, I offered you a link to studies about media bias dealing specifically with people's views on the media coverage of Bush vs. Obama, which is a direct response to FID. There is nothing at all "random" about it.

    Third--you clearly have not even gone to the links I have provided, but are choosing time and time again to take what I say out of context to promote what appears to be your own agenda. You selectively ignore comments I made such as "These are just basic statistics based on party, rather than actual analysis of the news stories themselves" in order to prove some sort of point--rather than actually looking at everything.

    You clearly have not read the politico article I posted and are apparently uncomfortable with the notion that yes, the media seemed to want Bush to fail.

    You realize that when polled, most Democrats admitted to wanting President Bush to fail?

    Yes, I have not put down a comprehensive framework for some large scale debate in the senate. What I have done, is to provide the start--a way towards actually looking at the media coverage rather than continuing with pointless banter, as you seem so inclined to do:

    "What you posted is rubbish." "no it isn't," "yeah, huh!"

    Read the links, look at the data, and maybe actually do a little research of your own before arguing against the idea as if it's absurd.

    Edit: and to add, to my opinion that yes, I think much of the mainstream media was practically chanting for Bush to fail--I watch Fox News, I watch MSNBC, I watch CNN, I read the BBC news, I read my local paper--I look at a lot of news and have been doing so for some time. The type of coverage with regards to Bush was almost always negative despite anything he ever did--people were up in arms about what he did in ways comparable to the recent crazy Tea Party folks--but actually covered on the news. The reporter in the link I provided is just one example of countless examples depicting disrespect towards the President (her comments about "kool-aid"). The fact that even in front of a Presidential address--the majority of Democrats booed the President yet were not covered like Wilson is preposterous. And it's true that both presidents whether you like it or not have been extremely polarizing.



  20. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Tsk Tsk Tsk, posting unsupported allegations?

    FID asked you to support your allegation, he specifically mentioned cheering. Your poll does not do that. IT simply doesn't and every tme you post explaining it you again underline the lie that it somehow does. To put it another way, if 61% think what you call cheering is fair, and 41 % call what you claim is trying to make them fail in everything is fair, then the populace as a whole is inherently biased against the Bush administration.

    Second, I have read every single one of your links. I'm unconvinced. I am, however, focusing on what is an absurd attempt to bolster your point by making an unrelated poll appear to support your allegation.

    Sorry Asterix, but you are simply parroting links and not critically examining them. If you want to call that "providing a way to start looking at media coverage" you're free to, of course, but you can't do it accurately.


  21. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    Hmm, so you are still saying what you want to say with no regard to my comments. I can see that any form of debate with you would be hopeless on this particular issue. You clearly have your mind made up.

    Alright, that's fine. Like I said, I would prefer if you didn't attempt to side-track my comments, but it seems you've already succeeded--ever since we entered into this particular conversation.

    I have examined the links I provided--yet you continually claim that I have not without actually examining them yourself. Why not, pause, read what I posted--look at the politico article, look at the charts at the PEW link, the comments I just made two posts ago with regard to the percentages of people who thought coverage of Bush was fair vs. those who felt it was fair for Obama, think about the possibility that despite those numbers--they are opinion polls and I have admitted they don't offer much more substance than that.

    So, then mosey on over to the video example of a reporter being disrespectful to Bush on CNN--and maybe play a little devil's advocate before accusing me of not examining things.

    I admit, I may be wrong. Coverage of Bush may have been more fair than I thought--and Obama is perhaps not getting special treatment. But, I'm certainly, at the very least, not ruling out that coverage of Bush was in actuality--quite unfair compared to Obama.

    If you want better sources than the links I provided--go ahead and find them, but why not grapple with the ones I provided first. You've so far talked about the small quote I took from the link to the PEW study, which is maybe a tenth of the information I provided--and turned that into some argument about the legitimacy of all the links.

    Edit:

    Fairness: 50% of Republicans compared to 27% for Bush
    69% of Democrats compared to 50% for Bush
    61% of Independents compared to 41% for Bush

    "and 41 % call what you claim is trying to make them fail in everything is fair, then the populace as a whole is inherently biased against the Bush administration."

    I also did say they were practically aimed at them failing. I think my comment is being taken a little too literally here--translation: I think media coverage of Bush was overwhelmingly negative on the whole (and not just because he was a bad president).

    Yeah, only 41% (around 2/5 people) thought it was fair according to that particular opinion poll.

    You claim to have watched the video, and read both links. Your only response is to those opinion poll numbers?
  22. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Once again asterix, 29% of Americans agree with you that the Media was too critical, 67% do not. This, you feel, proves your point the media was too critical.

    Once again asterix, 23% of Americans thought the media wasn't critical enough of Obama, 72% did not. This, you feel, proves your point that the media isn't critical enough of Obama.

    Your argument hinges not only on everyone agreeing with your minority view, but that the 3% or so beyond the margin of error is absolute proof.

    J'accuse!

    Moving on. I think, perhaps the most idiotic thing in the Politico article is citing OBama playing more golf than Bush. If you'll recall, Bush mentioned he gave up playing golf because there was a war. I suppose one could argue FDR refused to play golf during WW2, but you'd kind of be missing the point. Beyond that there's the complaint about him not visiting New Orleans enough. I as unaware that Obama had particularly wronged New Orleans and needed to make up for it. Can anyone imagine why in the last few years in office Bush repeatedly visited the Gulf Coast?

    Speaking of videos, how about Chris Wallace going on O Reilley that they were the biggest bunch of crybabies he's ever dealt with in Washington in mid September.

    You tube

    I'm directly linking the video to prevent complaints about site bias from Media matters.

    Stupid tit for tat, but it does neatly make the point that those trying to create an arbitrary distinction between fox's opinion shows and news shows are lying to themselves.

    Are you lying to yourself Asterix?
  23. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
    YES! :_|

    I take it all back. Most of the media coverage of Bush was not overwhelmingly negative. He was SATAN HIMSELF--the President of Venezuela said so.

    The coverage of the Iraq War always was balanced--never did it constantly report negative stories without commenting on positive efforts. Bush was not mocked by every talk show host constantly, or by SNL...constantly, or MSNBC constantly, or many of the biggest Newspapers like NY TIMES and LA TIMES.

    He was not overly criticized for his gaffes or called stupid because of them. People like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore didn't paint him and Cheney as pure evil.

    Bush had daddy issues, he wanted oil, oh so much oil, and he was in bed with corporate America (laughing--I might add, at the poor because he wanted them to suffer). He also summoned Hurricane Katrina! THOSE are the facts from the unbiased source.

    AND even though this was about comparing Bush and Obama and EVEN THOUGH, MOST PEOPLE think Obama has received coverage that is more fair--most Americans know that the media was not too critical of Bush--BECAUSE HE WAS THE DEVIL HIMSELF

    ARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!!!

    o_O

  24. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    I'm glad to see you finally admit most people know that the media was not too critical of Bush.

    You represent a 29% view. I'm sorry you feel that everyone else is wrong and that you're right, but citing polls that show that everyone else thinks your wrong does not prove you right.

    Yes, independents are about evenly split on if the media was too critical, but a wide plurality thinks it was fair, and your cherry picking of numbers does not, and will never change the fact 7 out of ten dentists think the media was not too critical of Bush during that time period.

    For my own part, as evidence for my belief the Media was not constantly chanting for the President to fail on everything, I've found this study which says roughly 70% of Americans think the Media was not "too critical" of the Bush Administration during the last months in office.

    I posted it about 10 posts prior under the name Asterix of Gaul.
  25. Asterix_of_Gaul Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.