Media Bias in U.S. Presidential Elections

[Bo]

I know I made a thread about this several months ago, but I don't want to bump it. I want to give this another try:

Since 1892:

1892:Cleveland
1896:McKinley
1900:McKinley
1904:TR
1908:Taft
1912:Wilson
1916:Wilson
1920:Harding
1924:Coolidge
1928:Hoover
1932:FDR
1936:Landon
1940:Willkie
1944:FDR
1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:JFK
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Carter
1980:Reagan
1984:Reagan
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Bush Jr.
2004:Bush Jr.
2008:Obama

If anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

[Derek]

I know I made a thread about this several months ago, but I don't want to bump it. I want to give this another try:

Since 1892:

1892:Cleveland
1896:McKinley
1900:McKinley
1904:TR
1908:Taft
1912:Wilson
1916:Wilson
1920:Harding
1924:Coolidge
1928:Hoover
1932:FDR
1936:Landon
1940:Willkie
1944:FDR
1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:JFK
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Carter
1980:Reagan
1984:Reagan
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Bush Jr.
2004:Bush Jr.
2008:Obama

If anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

The media has always been run by the far left in this country. Reagan got a little bit of a break but not much as him being president would have allowed for better stories. 66% of our nation believes the press is bias in favor of Obama and about the same number thought they were bias against Bush. Just look at how Obama's back to school tour was praised by the media compared to the criticism that Bush Sr. received.

[Bo]

I know I made a thread about this several months ago, but I don't want to bump it. I want to give this another try:

Since 1892:

1892:Cleveland
1896:McKinley
1900:McKinley
1904:TR
1908:Taft
1912:Wilson
1916:Wilson
1920:Harding
1924:Coolidge
1928:Hoover
1932:FDR
1936:Landon
1940:Willkie
1944:FDR
1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:JFK
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Carter
1980:Reagan
1984:Reagan
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Bush Jr.
2004:Bush Jr.
2008:Obama

If anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

The media has always been run by the far left in this country. Reagan got a little bit of a break but not much as him being president would have allowed for better stories. 66% of our nation believes the press is bias in favor of Obama and about the same number thought they were bias against Bush. Just look at how Obama's back to school tour was praised by the media compared to the criticism that Bush Sr. received.

I was talking about the campaigns. And the media was biased in favor of Bush Jr. in both 2000 and 2004. The media always criticized Gore and Kerry for every little thing, while treating Bush with kid gloves and ignoring things that might damage him.

[Derek]

I know I made a thread about this several months ago, but I don't want to bump it. I want to give this another try:

Since 1892:

1892:Cleveland
1896:McKinley
1900:McKinley
1904:TR
1908:Taft
1912:Wilson
1916:Wilson
1920:Harding
1924:Coolidge
1928:Hoover
1932:FDR
1936:Landon
1940:Willkie
1944:FDR
1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:JFK
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Carter
1980:Reagan
1984:Reagan
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Bush Jr.
2004:Bush Jr.
2008:Obama

If anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

The media has always been run by the far left in this country. Reagan got a little bit of a break but not much as him being president would have allowed for better stories. 66% of our nation believes the press is bias in favor of Obama and about the same number thought they were bias against Bush. Just look at how Obama's back to school tour was praised by the media compared to the criticism that Bush Sr. received.

I was talking about the campaigns. And the media was biased in favor of Bush Jr. in both 2000 and 2004. The media always criticized Gore and Kerry for every little thing, while treating Bush with kid gloves and ignoring things that might damage him.

You mean like Kerry's extramarital affair in 1998 where the parents bragged about their young daughter dating the next president of the United States?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

For the early years the press was much more localized and diverse than what would become the center-left media establishment of the post-War period that climaxed with Obama and is now probably waning with Fox, talk radio and the internet becoming more important in reaction to bias overreach. 

[Bo]

I know I made a thread about this several months ago, but I don't want to bump it. I want to give this another try:

Since 1892:

1892:Cleveland
1896:McKinley
1900:McKinley
1904:TR
1908:Taft
1912:Wilson
1916:Wilson
1920:Harding
1924:Coolidge
1928:Hoover
1932:FDR
1936:Landon
1940:Willkie
1944:FDR
1948:Dewey
1952:Eisenhower
1956:Eisenhower
1960:JFK
1964:LBJ
1968:Nixon
1972:Nixon
1976:Carter
1980:Reagan
1984:Reagan
1988:Bush Sr.
1992:Clinton
1996:Clinton
2000:Bush Jr.
2004:Bush Jr.
2008:Obama

If anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so.

The media has always been run by the far left in this country. Reagan got a little bit of a break but not much as him being president would have allowed for better stories. 66% of our nation believes the press is bias in favor of Obama and about the same number thought they were bias against Bush. Just look at how Obama's back to school tour was praised by the media compared to the criticism that Bush Sr. received.

I was talking about the campaigns. And the media was biased in favor of Bush Jr. in both 2000 and 2004. The media always criticized Gore and Kerry for every little thing, while treating Bush with kid gloves and ignoring things that might damage him.

You mean like Kerry's extramarital affair in 1998 where the parents bragged about their young daughter dating the next president of the United States?

No. I mean the media frequently criticized Gore for that Internet quote or whenever he misspoke, and also frequently called him a liar and an exaggerator. Meanwhile, they mostly ignored Bush's controversial past and tried to avoid doing research on it. Also, the media frequently reported the flip-flopping and swift-boating allegations about Kerry, and also reported a whole bunch of other crap and lies about he was allegedly unpatriotic.

[Derek]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

[Bo]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

[Derek]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

[Bo]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

Gore said the truth. He wasn't being stupid. Bush, on the other hand, did say something stupid when he was asked in a debate (in 2000) about being in favor of affirmative action, and he said "I'm for what the lady said." That was stupid.

[Derek]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

Gore said the truth. He wasn't being stupid. Bush, on the other hand, did say something stupid when he was asked in a debate (in 2000) about being in favor of affirmative action, and he said "I'm for what the lady said." That was stupid.

You don't think Jeremiah and the new black panther party should have been the main focus of the 2008 election? That is without a doubt the biggest threat to our country. They even praised Bid Laden with respect. Have you forgotten 9/11?

[Bo]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

Gore said the truth. He wasn't being stupid. Bush, on the other hand, did say something stupid when he was asked in a debate (in 2000) about being in favor of affirmative action, and he said "I'm for what the lady said." That was stupid.

You don't think Jeremiah and the new black panther party should have been the main focus of the 2008 election? That is without a doubt the biggest threat to our country. They even praised Bid Laden with respect. Have you forgotten 9/11?

I sure as heck hadn't forgotten the fact that Bush Jr. failed to prevent 9/11.

[WillK]

The media has always been run by the far left in this country.

You think Rupert Murdoch is far left?

[Marokai Backbeat]

For the early years the press was much more localized and diverse than what would become the center-left media establishment of the post-War period that climaxed with Obama and is now probably waning with Fox, talk radio and the internet becoming more important in reaction to bias overreach. 

And it's also worth noting that Fox News viewers are objectively the most uninformed of the bunch. (At least two studies in the last several years have surveyed all viewers and found Fox viewers were wrong most often and held the most misconceptions about policy.) The general uprising of stupidity and contrariness in our politics and the reign of Fox News over the last decade is certainly no coincidence. (Though, Fox is not the only reason for this.)

[Derek]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

Gore said the truth. He wasn't being stupid. Bush, on the other hand, did say something stupid when he was asked in a debate (in 2000) about being in favor of affirmative action, and he said "I'm for what the lady said." That was stupid.

You don't think Jeremiah and the new black panther party should have been the main focus of the 2008 election? That is without a doubt the biggest threat to our country. They even praised Bid Laden with respect. Have you forgotten 9/11?

I sure as heck hadn't forgotten the fact that Bush Jr. failed to prevent 9/11.

I didn't see your sign for that on Sept.12, 2001. Where were you?

[Bo]

The flip-flopping issue was reported more against Bush for being negative about it. As for Gore, they tried to justify it and say that by raising taxes and Gore breaking the tie, it allowed for a better economy leading to the dot com boom which had nothing to do with government. It's absurd.

No. The media took Gore's statement out of context and even changed some of the words in it. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He meant that while in Congress, he helped pass some laws that created a friendly atmosphere for high-tech companies and thus helped create the necessary environment for the Internet to be created later on. The media interpreted the quote as "I invented the Internet" and immediately attacked Gore as a liar for saying this.

Well what do you expect after saying something stupid like that?

Gore said the truth. He wasn't being stupid. Bush, on the other hand, did say something stupid when he was asked in a debate (in 2000) about being in favor of affirmative action, and he said "I'm for what the lady said." That was stupid.

You don't think Jeremiah and the new black panther party should have been the main focus of the 2008 election? That is without a doubt the biggest threat to our country. They even praised Bid Laden with respect. Have you forgotten 9/11?

I sure as heck hadn't forgotten the fact that Bush Jr. failed to prevent 9/11.

I didn't see your sign for that on Sept.12, 2001. Where were you?

Probably watching TV because I have better things to do.

[Roemerista]

For the early years the press was much more localized and diverse than what would become the center-left media establishment of the post-War period that climaxed with Obama and is now probably waning with Fox, talk radio and the internet becoming more important in reaction to bias overreach. 

And it's also worth noting that Fox News viewers are objectively the most uninformed of the bunch. (At least two studies in the last several years have surveyed all viewers and found Fox viewers were wrong most often and held the most misconceptions about policy.) The general uprising of stupidity and contrariness in our politics and the reign of Fox News over the last decade is certainly no coincidence. (Though, Fox is not the only reason for this.)

And it is worth noting that the wSJ reported as survey which found that most liberals surveyed did not understand basic economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Now enter your complaint that obviously it was "biased," my response? Of course it was, surveys generally are.

Now, the "media bias" believe it or not, is simply to the more popular candidate, since, well that sells. No body likes backing a loser.

[Marokai Backbeat]

For the early years the press was much more localized and diverse than what would become the center-left media establishment of the post-War period that climaxed with Obama and is now probably waning with Fox, talk radio and the internet becoming more important in reaction to bias overreach.  

And it's also worth noting that Fox News viewers are objectively the most uninformed of the bunch. (At least two studies in the last several years have surveyed all viewers and found Fox viewers were wrong most often and held the most misconceptions about policy.) The general uprising of stupidity and contrariness in our politics and the reign of Fox News over the last decade is certainly no coincidence. (Though, Fox is not the only reason for this.)

And it is worth noting that the wSJ reported as survey which found that most liberals surveyed did not understand basic economics.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Now enter your complaint that obviously it was "biased," my response? Of course it was, surveys generally are.

Now, the "media bias" believe it or not, is simply to the more popular candidate, since, well that sells. No body likes backing a loser.

Lol.

Look at the questions you've got in there:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such obviously tilted questions lead to such obviously tilted results. This is a consistent problem we seem to be having. There are things that are argued over and could be right or wrong, and then there are empirical things that you can easily observe to be true or untrue. All of these questions, with the exception of one or two, are hotly debated issues and some are outright ridiculous!

The fact that you find hotly debated economic issues to be the equivalent of "Is there WMD in Iraq?" is pretty telling in itself. Here is what I posted (and be warned, it's lengthy) about Fox News in the past:

I don't know how anyone, even many on the right, could be proud of the fact that one of the most infamous news networks with a history of their viewers having more inaccurate views of the world and politics than other networks, is the most watched and trusted.

In your opinion, no, as to the "inaccuracy" of the "views" of those who watch? That sounds to me like a subjective judgment. I think folks who agree with Olbermann's rants (as oppose to being entertained by them), have a lot of errant views. So what?

You should know by now that I choose my words more carefully than that, Torie. I don't just propose my opinions as facts, but rather the facts as facts. I was referring to a few things.

Firstly, the study from 2003-2004 that showed that Fox News viewers were considerably more likely to hold completely inaccurate views concerning the Iraq War, and the world reaction to it. For instances, Fox News viewers were 10% more likely to believe we found Weapons of Mass Destruction, which, of course, we did not. Fox News viewers were 11% more likely to think there were direct ties between Saddam and Osama, which, of course, there were not. The list goes on in the pdf. It concludes that, on average, Fox News viewers were 9% more likely than the runner-up to hold at least one inaccurate view of the situation concerning Iraq. The lower end of the list were those creepy liberal (accurate) news outlets like the papers and NPR or NBC.

Another thing I had in mind was the NBC/WSJ poll back in the far-away land of 2009 concerning the public misconceptions about the healthcare debate. Deep within the specifics, ThinkProgress and MSNBC noted that FoxNews viewers were wildly more likely to believe in the myths. Compare:

In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly.

vs

In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma.

None of this is true. Seriously. None. These are settled issues that well respected sites like fact-check.org has already dealt with, like the nonsense about providing care for illegals or pulling the plug on granny. (Not that immigrants buying healthcare is a bad idea anyway.) Point is, while there's alot of stupid in that poll, the stupid people are the wild majority if they're Fox News viewers as opposed to the minority of CNN/MSNBC viewers.

I'm also reminded of the incident in 2008, when O'Reilly tried to stick it to John Edwards, who was shaming the country on the issue of there being 200,000 homeless veterans in the street at night. O'Reilly launched into tirades against Edwards and even mocked him over the issue despite Edwards being entirely correct. But this is just one guy and neither here nor there, but still, it's indicative of the kind of attitude that facilitates the kind of environment that leads to Fox News viewers being proven completely uninformed on the issues over and over and over again.

It's just particularly disgusting for GM3 to crow about how Fox News is the "most trusted" with a thread practically vomitting the "oooh, look at this stupid libs, fox news is wayy more popular hahaha" implication all over anyone who reads it, when Fox News is observably more inaccurate than other news outlets. This is not something to be proud of.

These are not hotly debated issues that haven't been settled. They're easily observable. Is there anything in the healthcare bill that gave health insurance to illegals? Objectively no. (Not that it's a bad idea.) Does the health insurance bill fund abortions with tax money? Objectively no. Is strengthening the private health insurance sector by directly funding them a "government takeover"? Objectively no. Will healthcare kill granny? Objectively no.

These are settled issues. Observable issues. Not iffy economic sentiments that have been debated for half a century. Comparing the two and acting as if "well all surveys are biased so none of them can be believed! hyuck hyuck! no such thing as the 'truth!'" grates on me. You can argue back and forth over whether HCR was a good idea, but there are certain things you can't argue, and whether or not it was an amazing idea was not the survey question. It was about a set of conservative media established untruths.

[Mechaman]

All I'm hearing from this thread is "blah blah blah my hackish views are more correct than yours!"

Okay Roch, we know that you hate rich poeple and Republicans with an obsessive passion.

Okay Derek we know that you hate them ebil limousine librules with a burning passion.

I mean Jesus Christ, Marokai (as much as I disagree with him) probably has the most objective post in this entire thread.

[Derek]

All I'm hearing from this thread is "blah blah blah my hackish views are more correct than yours!"

Okay Roch, we know that you hate rich poeple and Republicans with an obsessive passion.

Okay Derek we know that you hate them ebil limousine librules with a burning passion.

I mean Jesus Christ, Marokai (as much as I disagree with him) probably has the most objective post in this entire thread.

You pretty much have me figured out.

[hcallega]

All I'm hearing from this thread is "blah blah blah my hackish views are more correct than yours!"

Okay Roch, we know that you hate rich poeple and Republicans with an obsessive passion.

Okay Derek we know that you hate them ebil limousine librules with a burning passion.

I mean Jesus Christ, Marokai (as much as I disagree with him) probably has the most objective post in this entire thread.

You pretty much have me figured out.

Not the hardest thing to do in the world lol..........But I luv ya D!