Posted on 11/03/2004 3:26:24 PM PST by Ginifer
I think it is fair to say the biggest loser in this election has been America's mainstream media ... the BIG media ... the three old-line television networks, ABC, CBS and NBC ... newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post and down to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. We have come to expect them to have a liberal bias in their news columns as well as their editorial pages, but never before have we seen these so-called news sources so blatantly partisan as they have been this year.
The poster child of news bias this election cycle, of course, was Dan Rather and his "60 Minutes" episode in which he attacked the military record of President Bush, and used forged documents from a long-time discredited source as the basis for his story. When he got caught, he stood by his story, arrogantly insisting we should believe him because he was who he was. And when CBS finally admitted the story was untrue, they announced an investigation by so-called impartial people, but have you noticed: the election is over and we have not heard a report from either CBS or their investigators.
And the great, gray New York Times ... which prior to the election fired its editor and managing editor because of a scandal involving non-factual reporting ... continued its liberal bias, not only in its editorial pages but also on the news pages. Close to the end of the campaign CBS and the New York Times and others in the liberal media, accused the American military of not securing hundreds of tons of high explosives in Iraq even though the military people on the ground said it was not so.
There were other examples, many of them, but the obvious point is that all of these so-called news stories were heavily biased to the left. To be effective, the free press must have the respect of the American people. But in this year's campaign, America's elite media hit a new low in trust, and in so doing became the biggest loser in the 2004 elections.
I wonder, if the guy who was fired for writing the bogus articles might be able to sue. Seems that he'd have solid ground since the nytimes has been printing lies for years and calling it news.
I actually agree with this--and FOX News had a segment on it today.
Ronny JR. (Reagan) is on Chrissy Mathews right now...
I am gonna really enjoy this!!!!
"Fox turned in a cowardly performance on election night."
Yes and no. They had the cajones to call Ohio for Bush when no one else would, but they failed to call N.M. for Bush even when 100% of the vote was in. Couldn't figure that one out.
We need to refer to the MSM as Big Media, just like they talk about Big Tobacco, Big Oil, etc.
Don't forget Michael Moore. Remember the "L"
he flashed during the Republican Convention.
Apparently he was referring to himself?
I hope people collectively remember what this
bunch tried to do to this election. The insightful,
sympathetic Kerry profiles that were ran by the
major networks immediately after a negative Bush
piece were disgusting.
Here are five and Kerry would make six (orig. source):
Bill Clinton campaigns with doomed California Governor Grey Davis, 2003.
Bill Clinton campaigns with Vice President Al Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election
Here's Bill Clinton with Walter Mondale, who spectacularly lost Paul Wellstone's Senate seat in 2002
Bill Clinton in Florida with Democrat gubernatorial cadidate Bill McBride, who beat out former Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno [corrected] for the nomination, but then lost the election to Jeb Bush in 2002.
Bill Clinton campaigns with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend as she runs for governor of Maryland, a heavily Democrat state, but she ends up losing the election to Republican Bob Ehrlich [corrected].
The MSM is shameful, I've completely stopped paying attention.
Oh yes---remember when Clinton came to Florida to unseat Jeb Bush??? Jeb made it with 13%---Then off to 'help' Gray Davis in California---he lost big time----then of course he did try to help Gore--and now Kerry----oh he went to help Bowles against Elizabeth Dole also====well that's 5 can't remember the other 2.
Basically, the bloggers, and freepers, are citizen reporters, and the good ones do it for the love of it. Whatever money they get from advertisers, or subscribers, don't really pay the bills.
The whole CBS,Rather, "memogate" thing was exposed by unpaid, amateur, "reporters" working through an "unofficial" network that the MSM doesn't have access to.
We could eventually achieve the level of access they have since we will soon be the "mainstream" source of news for most Americans.
This is where things get dicy.
To have "access" you have to have money and influence.
Here's where we get into an area amateur reporters, who "work" for the love of it, and hold a day job, get in over their heads.
If you want objectivity, and impartiality, then you have to stand back and look coldly at the facts. That's hard to do when you're being "courted" by power groups.
Remember the guys online are "reporting" to a whole different demographic then the MSM are. Take Drudge for example; although he gets paid he's mostly detached from the power groups that would love to "control" him. That's hard to do, and it's probably why there's only one Drudge.
Personally, I'd stay with the individuality of the pajamaheeden who will jump on the sins of the MSM just for the fun of it.
It's a tradeoff. You lose the "access" of the organized MSM, but you gain the expertise of individuals who are all connected through their modems. As soon as the MSM errs there are hundreds of amateur reporters pointing out the mistakes.
But, don't forget that the web is still evolving, and where, when, and how it replaces the MSM is still down the road a bit.
You guys/gals just don't realize that Bill Clinton is an undercover Republican operative (reporting only to a Right Wing cartel, and discovered by Karl Rove) charged with causing the destruction of the Demorat Party.
To: Cheapskate; cpforlife.org; All
Watch this "faith gap" talking head spin. This will be the big media buzz of the week. They will all be wiggling and scrambling to round up the usual suspects ( a motley collection of unremarkable smarmy non-Christian liberal secular humanist "experts" from the Ivy League universities)to explain this strange bizarre phenomenon - "White Christian" voters. "People who go to church..." Watch for Tina Brown in New York, Slate, Katrina van den Heuvel and the Fifth Columnists of The Nation, and the rest of the liberal secularist gloominati. They will spin this as the "American Taliban." More than likely, the Bush victory will be attributed to "homophobia" and "intolerance."
11,843 posted on 11/03/2004 1:49:38 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1266984/posts?page=11843#11843
Meanwhile...Juan Williams is busy blaming the Swift Boat ads on FOX now.
Well said. I believe Fox said the price of ads for both campaigns were over $2 BILLION.
Now that we have won the election we need to get back to putting pressure on CBS. Where is the report on Rathergate? President Bush and the American people deserve exposure of the truth and an apology.
Re your post #5, that's the thing that keeps me scratching my head. Here is a great opportunity for a broadcast TV network to differentiate itself from the competition and no one takes advantage of it. Why? Why?
Big media- the loser. Exactly!
The poor desperate Rats are sincerely baffled as to what happened to them. I would call it- "media bias backlash."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.