Log In Sign Up

NY Times Rejects McCain's Opinion Piece


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
July 22nd, 2008, 09:54 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,2438754.story

I posted the latimes articles which links to the Drudge Report. What do you all think? Do you think there is a liberal bias in the media?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
July 22nd, 2008, 06:57 PM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 2,306
I'll need to follow up on this tomorrow. If the NY Times has done this regularly with candidates on both sides of the aisle, then I don't necessarily have a problem with it. That being said, exactly what guidelines do they use to determine what they will publish? It doesn't sound like a smart thing for a paper to do, considering equal time/space laws for candidates.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
July 23rd, 2008, 05:38 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 2,306
Okay, I've gotten some sleep now.

In reading the LA Times piece and skimming the Drudge Report article, I'm definitely more angry at the whole thing. This from the LA Times:

Quote:
Shipley may have been on slippery ground in touting the "new information" that Obama had provided; little leaps out in a rereading. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee introduced several of his specifics with the phrases "As I've said many times" and "As I have often said."[/b]
Between that and Shipley's quotes about how "Obama's piece worked for me..." I know it's Op-Ed, but they're supposed to give equal time - period. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of op-ed is "a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, essayists, humorists, etc., of varying viewpoints" - nothing about the newspaper's opinions.

Again, I'd be interested to see how often the NY Times does this, and if it happens more with particular party affiliations. But on the surface it makes me pretty angry.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
July 23rd, 2008, 08:59 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Okay, I've gotten some sleep now.

In reading the LA Times piece and skimming the Drudge Report article, I'm definitely more angry at the whole thing. This from the LA Times:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Shipley may have been on slippery ground in touting the "new information" that Obama had provided; little leaps out in a rereading. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee introduced several of his specifics with the phrases "As I've said many times" and "As I have often said."[/b]
Between that and Shipley's quotes about how "Obama's piece worked for me..." I know it's Op-Ed, but they're supposed to give equal time - period. According to Dictionary.com, the definition of op-ed is "a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, essayists, humorists, etc., of varying viewpoints" - nothing about the newspaper's opinions.

Again, I'd be interested to see how often the NY Times does this, and if it happens more with particular party affiliations. But on the surface it makes me pretty angry.
[/b][/quote]

I am with you on this one. The whole thing ticks me off. As for media coverage in general Obama is getting like 3x the press that McCain is. It is sickening. For example his trip to Iraq is being covered by 3 journalist. McCains was covered by 1. Sigh!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
July 24th, 2008, 08:58 AM
jenn27's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: McGehee, Arkansas
Posts: 2,672
I definately think we have a liberal bias in the media. It has been that way for a while now but we are really seeing it with McCain and Obama. I have gotten to where it just makes me sick to even watch the news.
__________________




Reply With Quote
  #6  
July 25th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Christy72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is another article that I found on this:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...301702713742569
Quote:
Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT


The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Tate is a former journalist, now a novelist and the author of "A Time Like This: 2001-2008." This article first appeared on the American Thinker Web site.

[/b]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
July 28th, 2008, 12:53 PM
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 467
I think the expectation of journalism equating to impartiality is an entity that exists in the mind of the public, and the strange thing is that as such it is consumer choice that regulates... Yet the media only seems to get worse as they lose market share instead of trying to correct.

At the same time, though, as much as conservatives may tend to say the media has a liberal bias, and this is certainly an example which supports such a position, liberals too have reason to claim to think the media is biased against them.

It's all information. And whether there exists bias or not, I think for the consumer the best approach is to take in information that is both contrary and in alignment with their own preconceived notions... There might be media bias, but I should hope that isn't going to shut down the possibility for people of hearing an opposing viewpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
July 28th, 2008, 01:46 PM
$pryNinja's Avatar Zef Fre$ Mom
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 5,557
it's all about the money, for sure!! Those with the most of it obviously want Obama to win, so they are spending it on him and his campaign. Luckily for Obama they have their pockets in the media as well Just don't watch tv anymore, it really will rot your brain.
__________________

There is no greater power in the universe than the need for
freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot
stand.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 AM.