Posted on 07/24/2005 6:23:10 AM PDT by PolishProud
The scene on C-SPAN was surreal. Two editors; Mark Whitaker from Newsweek and Jim Kelly from Time telling their audience that, no, journalist were not liberal. Editors from two of the very most liberal mags in the MSM were commenting on the state of journalism.
Although Whitaker did concede that journalist were hard on Ronald Reagan until it was clear that the public supported the President, and now that Bush's approval numbers were down the press has turned negative on GW.
So, according to Whitaker, public opinion drives press coverage. That seems to be a strange conclusion unless its the other way around and Whitaker is deflecting charges that negative press coverage is responsible for Bush's low approval rating.
Study after study has shown that Bush received from 32 to 71 percent negative press coverage compared to Kerry during the last election; but, according to Whitaker, the press is just now turning negative against Bush because his numbers are down. Evidently the press smells blood and is giving the public what they want to hear.
Journalists saying they are not liberal are using the same measure of truth used by Muslims when they say they are not murderers.
No, the press still tries to direct public opinion same as always. Their problem is we've seen the major socialist media (they're not mainstream) with their pants down, exposed for what they are, and now they're using the "Wizard of Oz" defense of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain>"
Time and Newspeak are irrelevant, infotainment rags. I spend more time on the front page of an average WSJ.
IMHO, he has a deep in the gut bias against the President and he's going to do all he can to give voice to those with whom he agrees.
So let me get this straight- Journalists bias their coverage to reflect the popular will of the people? What about the pure unbiased journalism we've heard so much about?
What a bunch of BS liars. The MSM was putting negative articles out there against President Bush since he won against Gore and they have not let up since. They tried to push polls during the last election to show Kerry was going to win then magically Bush takes it by over 4 million votes and they've now run out of excuses. Now they are on their last leg and they are going to try every angle they can on Rove even though Rove committed no crime but they probably did and because their obsession to "get Bush".
Witness the recent Iraq body count claim of 25,000 based on uncritical acceptance of Al Jazeera claims. It's also where the US is blamed for Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists. The only thing tempering coverage wasn't its left-wing roots, it was the obvious contradiction with the bogus 100,000 number touted last year.
Amen!
I'm sorry; I haven't gotten past this sentence yet. My tears of hearty laughter are making the rest of the article difficult to see on the screen.
They believe that they are "in the mainstream" as do most of the elites. In fact, they are too narcissistic and solopsistic to see just how foolish they seem to much of America.
BTW, I disagree on Brian Lamb. I have never been able to pin an ideology on him. He is one of the few interviewers (including Brit Hume) who actually seem interested in what the other person has to say, rather than focused on either kissing butt (with liberals) or asking gotcha questions (with conservatives).
"I'm sorry; I haven't gotten past this sentence yet. My tears of hearty laughter are making the rest of the article difficult to see on the screen."
That's the same reaction I had reading an article in which a NYT editor stated that the Times has managed to keep opinion out of it's news reporting. Any of these media members could have happily worked for Pravda.
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.