You better be squeaky clean

[ChicosBailBonds]

or else


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07245/813801-373.stm

[Murffieus]

Typical!

How about Clinton getting serviced in the Oval Office (no less)----the media  painted that as a "personal discretion"----and what's worse is that they succeeded as Clinton's 60+ approval rating was maintained throughout the ordeal!

[Pakuni]

or else


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07245/813801-373.stm

Speaking of media bias ... should we question the objectivity this author, a former Reagan appointee? Somehow, I suspect had a Clinton appointee claimed Democrats can't get a fair break from the press, you wouldn't have posted it here.
Just wondering.

[ChicosBailBonds]

or else


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07245/813801-373.stm

Speaking of media bias ... should we question the objectivity this author, a former Reagan appointee? Somehow, I suspect had a Clinton appointee claimed Democrats can't get a fair break from the press, you wouldn't have posted it here.
Just wondering.

Another study came out last week Pakuni.....showed overwhelmingly the media leans left.  Remain in denial if you wish. 

[Pakuni]

or else


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07245/813801-373.stm

Speaking of media bias ... should we question the objectivity this author, a former Reagan appointee? Somehow, I suspect had a Clinton appointee claimed Democrats can't get a fair break from the press, you wouldn't have posted it here.
Just wondering.

Another study came out last week Pakuni.....showed overwhelmingly the media leans left.  Remain in denial if you wish. 

Link?

[Murffieus]

Pakuni -----one doesn't have to be a former Reagan appointee to know that the national media is overwhelmingly biased to the left. Poll after poll shows that-----most media members admit it, if asked----they're proud of it.

Why are you so sensitive about that?

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp

[mviale]

squeaky clean and dont be JUDGEMENTAL or it comes back to haunt you.

Family values - oh brother

[77ncaachamps]

Murff...I think you need to get an unbiased data source.

The Media Research Center is a CONSERVATIVE media outlet.

How UNbiased can they be looking at their history of litigation and actions?

They are far from being unbiased.

Everyone spins...it's just a matter of who's making the music you want to hear.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni -----one doesn't have to be a former Reagan appointee to know that the national media is overwhelmingly biased to the left. Poll after poll shows that-----most media members admit it, if asked----they're proud of it.

Why are you so sensitive about that?

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040524.asp

Sigh ... this is where you and Chico's continue to get the issues confused. Simply put, because one may have personal political beliefs does not mean that person is incapable of performing his or her job duties in a professional manner. Your argument is akin to me saying "Since Murff has been around the Marquette basketball program for many decades, he obviously is biased and therefore is incapable of giving an objective report of what he sees on the court."

[Murffieus]

Pew Research is a "conservative media outlet"? If you don't like Pew----read this:

http://www.picktheparty.com/person/55/Mass-Media/1

Hit "read entire report"!

[77ncaachamps]

Pew Research is a "conservative media outlet"? If you don't like Pew----read this:

http://www.picktheparty.com/person/55/Mass-Media/1

Hit "read entire report"!

All I get is a debate messageboard.

[Murffieus]

You are either not clicking on "read entire story" or you're you are pleading a lack of computer saavy.

Anyway, to paraphrase the "the entire story":

76% of the media reporters voted for Dukakis in 1988, 91% of the media voted for Clinton in 1992, and 91 % of the Washington reporters voted for Clinton in 1992 with only 7% voting for George Bush Sr.

[77ncaachamps]

You are either not clicking on "read entire story" or you're you are pleading a lack of computer saavy.

Anyway, to paraphrase the "the entire story":

76% of the media reporters voted for Dukakis in 1988, 91% of the media voted for Clinton in 1992, and 91 % of the Washington reporters voted for Clinton in 1992 with only 7% voting for George Bush Sr.

Funny that the "liberals" write the news, but the "conservatives" own the news.

Get over the "liberal bias" and see it for WHAT IT IS: news that SELLS newspapers.

Here's a little something that you should read and should debunk some of the "liberal bias myth":

In a careful 1999 study published in the academic journal Communications
Research, four scholars examined the use of the “liberal media” argument and discovered
a four-fold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned
a liberal bias in their news. But the evidence, collected and coded over a
twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view. The obvious conclusion:
News consumers were responding to “increasing news coverage of liberal bias
media claims, which have been increasingly emanating from Republican Party candidates
and officials.”58
Link

And I ask you: Whose doing those polls? Whose feeding us the "liberal bias" claims?

[holds up mirror]

www.mediamatters.org is probably the better of the "unbiased" news sites. They rag on media outlets for not reporting sides fairly. Looking at titles, you may see a "liberal bias", but that's only a snapshot of time. Are criticisms of Bush an example of "liberal bias"? If so, then criticisms of a Democratic president are examples of "conservative bias."

With readership of newspapers down coupled with the rise of blogsites and alternative news sources, the big news conglomerates have nothing else to do but to package their news to sell to the masses.

Example: Discontent over Iraq means slam Bush and military progress.

Whoever is in the White House will surely be a target of biased news reports.

It's just the way it is...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Good God, mediamatters is not "unbiased"????....look who funds them.  You have to be kidding me.  Founded by "SELF DESCRIBED LIBERAL DAVID BROCK"

In May 2004, it was reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress". Media Matters has received financial support from MoveOn.org,  Peter Lewis and the New Democratic Network.



Second, conservatives do not "own the media"....shareholders own the media and many of the top executives are not conservatives at all


Peter Chernin, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, Michael Eisner, formerly Ted Turner, Arthur Sulzberger, etc, etc.  PUHLEASE!!

[Murffieus]

Certain professions attract an abnormal amount of liberals----among them are journalists, artists, actors, authors, clergy, etc.

[77ncaachamps]

Good God, mediamatters is not "unbiased"????....look who funds them.  You have to be kidding me.  Founded by "SELF DESCRIBED LIBERAL DAVID BROCK"

In May 2004, it was reported that Media Matters has received "more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals" and "was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress". Media Matters has received financial support from MoveOn.org,  Peter Lewis and the New Democratic Network.

Second, conservatives do not "own the media"....shareholders own the media and many of the top executives are not conservatives at all

Peter Chernin, Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone, Michael Eisner, formerly Ted Turner, Arthur Sulzberger, etc, etc.  PUHLEASE!!

Interesting...

Well then between those liberal organizations and the conservative MRC, what news is UNBIASED?

I'd say absolutely none.

Besides the writer's political affiliation, I guess you'd also have to take in their parent's views, religious affiliation, organizational membership, family composition, etc. to really find an UNBIASED writer.

Like I said, if the people play the music you want to hear, you'll listen to them.

[Murffieus]

NCAA----you can't be that unaware----just can't be----you have to be yanking our chain !

I just showed you two links----there are more if you like!

The only source of the national voice/picture news that I have EVER heard  the left wing accuse of being biased is the Fox News Channel----and they are correct----the Fox News Channel is predisposed to the right!.

[Pakuni]

That cartoon says it all.
Spend some time over at a place like Free Republic and they're all 100 percent certain the mainstream media is biased against their cause.
Then venture over to a place like Daily Kos ... and they're all 100 percent certain the mainstream media is biased against their cause.

The bias exists far more in the perceptions of the viewer/reader/listener than it does in the media outlet itself.

[ChicosBailBonds]

77champs, I think we finally agree....EVERYONE is biased.  That's what I've been saying since day one.

And since the vast majority of professionals in that industry are liberal, they are going to have a liberal bias.  Same at college and universities.

Just as there are professions that lean to the right...the military, etc.

If the vast majority of the professionals in an industry of are one persuasion, and we agree that there is bias among all people it doesn't take much of a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Now some will argue that these people are so professional they can keep their bias out of their reporting.  Yeah, there's a percentage that do.  However there are is a large percentage that does not.  There is a large percentage that may not say a single slanted thing in a story, article, etc but only chooses to report certain topics that certainly slant one way or another.

The American people are not stupid, they have known for years which way the media tilts and it comes out year after year after year in every study.

[Pakuni]

The American people are not stupid, they have known for years which way the media tilts and it comes out year after year after year in every study.

Ummm ... Chico's, need I go pull every post you've authored here in which you state the American people ARE stupid.
I guess the average Joe's level of intelligence varies depending on the issue.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That cartoon says it all.
Spend some time over at a place like Free Republic and they're all 100 percent certain the mainstream media is biased against their cause.
Then venture over to a place like Daily Kos ... and they're all 100 percent certain the mainstream media is biased against their cause.

The bias exists far more in the perceptions of the viewer/reader/listener than it does in the media outlet itself.

Yeah, or just survey the Average American which has been done countless times, most recently last month and close to 65% say the media is liberal...so what that has to do with Free Republic or Daily Kos, I don't know...just average, common sense Americans seeing what most see...liberal media bias. 

[77ncaachamps]

I am happy to agree with the "everyone is biased" statement. That's a DUH, No Brainer.

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an "average American" and if they were smart, they'd read through the bias.

But alas...maybe they can't...BECAUSE THEY'RE LIBERALS!!!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's change average American than to aggregate American since it was a survey.

The problem is that libs don't see bias because they're libs.  Just as many conservatives I know don't see Fox's is bias because they're conservatives.  It's the folks in the middle that aren't conservative and aren't liberal who are saying the media mostly leans in one direction.  That, is the distinction.

And believe me, I think most people are smart enough to see through the crap the media is giving us, it's one of several reasons why the media is losing their a$$ right now in shareholder value, in the newspaper business, magazine business, and even some online sites (where you would expect them all to be growing as the dinosaur paper media goes bye bye).

[Pakuni]

And believe me, I think most people are smart enough to see through the crap the media is giving us, it's one of several reasons why the media is losing their a$$ right now in shareholder value, in the newspaper business, magazine business, and even some online sites (where you would expect them all to be growing as the dinosaur paper media goes bye bye).

Actually, just the opposite is true. Newspaper web sites are growing in terms of "hits" every month as more and more people realize they're far more credible sources of news than everything else out there on the web.
The problem with newspapers isn't the number of people visiting their sites or picking up their paper, but rather their slow transition (or in some cases, no transition) in finding ways to generate revenue from their web sites. Subscriptions are not, and have never been, a source of profit for newspapers. What you pay for your subscription covers the costs of getting it to your driveway, and that's about all. Advertising has always paid the freight, and newspapers have done a terrible job of selling their online products to their advertisers.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni---on that we can agree. The mistake IMO that Media websites make is that advertisers in MOST cases are forced to have their ads rotate (at the same spot) with quite a few other ads (in otherwords their ad will pop up on out of every 8 or 12 impressions) and therefore don't get the repetitive benefit which is necessary to drive a message home----and advertisers get discouraged.

Seems to me there should be much less rotation of ads and more fixed website advertising (where the customer sees the ad repeatedly on each impression)----but the website promoters feel they can't make as much money that way eventhough they can charge more for a fixed ad.

So the bottomline is that newspapers make more money on newspaper print/display ads than they do on the internet----but with declining newspaper readership they have a harder time getting those big ad fees. They are between a rock and a hardplace right now!

[77ncaachamps]

So the bottomline is that newspapers make more money on newspaper print/display ads than they do on the internet----but with declining newspaper readership they have a harder time getting those big ad fees. They are between a rock and a hardplace right now!

Agreed that they're in a difficult situation. This is also in response to Chico's last post: ANYONE with a computer and an ISP can create a blog that can be so radical (left OR right OR middle) people catch on.

I spend my time only perusing the paper and not deliberately reading it front to back.

I spend MORE time searching for information, and THAT is where the newspapers CANNOT compete: the time it takes to dig up information and post it is so small that the traditional newspaper process reduces the effective timeliness of the information.

The dinosaur media that is losing money due to online readership to other venues realizes this and is offsetting it (a bit) by subscription to the archives. For true researchers, historians, et al, you have no choice but to pay directly to the newspaper or to a news media clearinghouse.

[Marquette84]

Actually, just the opposite is true. Newspaper web sites are growing in terms of "hits" every month as more and more people realize they're far more credible sources of news than everything else out there on the web.

First, let's put aside the obvious stretch of reason that only credibility that could drive "hits" to a newspaper web site.   

Lets also consider the fact that newspapers are losing share of internet traffic. 

Yeah, their "hits" are up--so are everyone elses.  Where to they stand relative to other sites--that's the real measure.

In January 2006, the page rank of the Chicago Tribune based on traffic was ranked in the top 1000 web sites, according to alexa.com

They slipped to 3,033 as of yesterday.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=chicagotribune.com

Results are similar for whatever newspaper you wish to use.

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

[mu_hilltopper]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

Absolutely, but the greater point is that these traditional media outlets are losing market share.  Thank God! 

[Marquette84]

The newspapers may be attracting more hits overall, but they are attracting a smaller percentage of overall traffic. 

That suggests that they're actually losing credibilty.

Not sure you can make that logical leap.  Couldn't that also come from an expanding universe of websites, and disproportionate growth? .. And of the growth of internet users who weren't ever interested in news to begin with? 

If you could control that stat for "news, opinion, and reference" sites, then maybe that would be true.  But if you throw in Myspace and Youtube, two entertainment sites, well, their traffic has grown stupendously, making newspapers appear relatively "less popular".  But that has nothing to do with the credibility of newspaper sites.

You're right, of course.

I was trying to illustrate using similar data on site visits that I could draw the exact opposite conclusion from the previous post, which suggested increased "hits" shows an increased sense of credibility. 

The bottom line is that increased traffic may or may not have anything to do with credibility.