Mainsteam Media Continues To Ignore Responsibilities, Damage America

The Bulletin ^ | November 12, 2008 | Herb Denenberg

[Vicki]

Yes it was the same with the Clintons. It didn't matter what they did. The media always protected them. With Obama it's going to be worse. Question is what can we do about the media purposefully misleading, withholding facts and distorting the truth?

We need our own version of the Fairness Doctrine to deal with the MSM.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Yes it was the same with the Clintons. It didn't matter what they did. The media always protected them. With Obama it's going to be worse. Question is what can we do about the media purposefully misleading, withholding facts and distorting the truth?

We need our own version of the Fairness Doctrine to deal with the MSM.

We already have a fairness doctrine. It's called "the First Amendment."

The Right to Know

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[imintrouble]

“The First Amendment does not assign responsibilities to journalism - indeed, journalism as we know it scarcely existed in the founding era because newspaper printers had nothing like the AP as a source of news to which the general public was not privy.”

Thanks for linking me to the article as always appreciated.

I now regard journalism on the same level as the comics and sports scores - it’s all a laugh and play (or tears and loss). Nothing seems real but rather agenda driven.

[Obadiah]

My friends, I fear we are in deep weeds in this country right now.

[T Lady]

'Media bias is not new, but it has never been so blatant, outrageous, dangerous and so destructive as it was in 2008. One encouraging note is that the public seemed to know that the media was supporting Sen. Obama. A study out of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that 70 percent of the public thought in mid-October of 2008 that most journalists wanted Sen. Obama to win. Only 9 percent dissented from that proposition.

And that's not just public perception. Another study proves the public was right. A study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism found only 14 percent of the stories about Sen. John McCain were positive while 57 percent were negative. In contrast, 36 percent of the stories about Sen. Obama were positive, while only 35 percent were negative.

At least one major paper, the Washington Post, one of the icons of the mainstream media, admitted its pro-Obama bias, "An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage" (Nov. 9). That's a small bit of good news. But the bad news is that the Post buried the story on page B6 instead of running it on the front page where their pro-Obama bootlicking often took place. And the Post didn't bother to figure out its bias until after the election, when it was too late to stop the damage and flow of biased, dishonest and fraudulent journalism that helped determine ("fix") the outcome of the election.'

Talk about being a day late and a dollar short! This truly takes the cake.

'The public figured out the bias of the media. But I'm afraid they didn't take the next step and find out all the news the mainstream media was censoring out and holding from the public. Had the public got the full story, I'd bet the ranch they would have rejected Sen. Obama early and often. Because of the consequences of a biased media, Rep. Lamar Smith (D-Texas) believes the mainstream media is more of a threat to American democracy than the terrorists. I join in that view.'

Such a hard and painful truth, and the consequences America will suffer over the next four years and beyond, if Obama is given the chance to implement even a third of his proposals...and even when a fellow Democrat recognizes the Mainstream Media's disingenuous folly, you know things are bad.

This is yet another reason I refuse to bankroll and subsidize these people in any way: No cable, no newspapers, no glossy 'News' magazines which are nothing more than adult comic books with pictures.

...One can do far better by reading the Onion or MAD.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Indeed.