You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. They waste no time in making up stories about McCain and Ahnold, but devise a heavy handed silence policy regarding Edwards. It's a sad day in journalism when the National
They waste no time in making up stories about McCain and Ahnold, but devise a heavy handed silence policy regarding Edwards. It's a sad day in journalism when the National Enquirer is the publication setting the standard of honest reporting. Maybe there really is a bat boy?
Where were they months ago before Edwards finally admited it.
Do you really not remember when Arnold was running for governor and the times was running fabricated stories about him having affairs outside his marriage? Same with the NY Times earlier in the primary season reporting similar garbage that turned out to be false.
Meanwhile there's been this story out there that reporters were told by management to stay away from for over a year.
Do you really think today was the first the manistream media ever heard of this?
Next time forget all your other garbage andjust stick with "uhhhhh".
But a sexual affair can have just two people who know the truth. Without witnesses, documents, photographs or some form of irrefutable evidence pointing to the truth, news organizations will not endanger their own integrity.
That made it difficult to prove — and to print — the rumors that John Edwards had cheated on his seriously ill wife while running for president. Reporters were left to poke around the edges of a potentially career-ending scandal in search of an opening.
Story continues below ↓advertisement
"It's not like they didn't know it was there," said Mark Feldstein, a former investigative reporter who teaches journalism at George Washington University.
"Proof is the biggest issue," Feldstein said. "The National Enquirer is not well-regarded as a news source by the news media."
......
"We began pursuing the story soon after it first appeared. But the standard for proof in this kind of intimate behavior is and should be very high," said Michael Oreskes, AP's managing editor for U.S. news. "Better to get it right even if we couldn't get it first.
September 2007. Huffington Post. "Liberal Bias" publication, was actually the first to break the story. OMG Liberal bias.
Is the mainstream media even supposed to be digging into each politician's sexual affairs and disregarding journalistic integrity without any proof? I would hope not. And if the Times or any major publication did what you claim they did to the Governor, then yeah, that's pretty bad. Send me some links.
And no, I don't remember the publications about Arnold because I generally don't give a **** about alleged affairs (from either side). And if this is your "proof" that there IS a liberal media bias, then that is a major ****ing stretch (considering all the "facts" and "numbers" posted in previous threads that exhibit otherwise).
EDIT: Are you talking about this? http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov...cal/me-arnold8
The groping "scandal"? That's not an affair (unless there was something separate about an alleged affair that I'm missing)...but regardless, it sounds like women were coming forward to make the accusations and the outlets were reporting that. It's not really comparable to the current situation with Edwards.
Is the mainstream media even supposed to be digging into each politician's sexual affairs and disregarding journalistic integrity without any proof? I would hope not.
You seem to forget that the NY Times had no problem printing speculation about a potential McCain affair with a lobbyist.
They really had no facts, but yet there it was on the front page. They had plenty of facts to follow in Edwards' case and chose not to do so. This is an organization that believes that they are the paper of record in the United States. What a joke.
Fortunately Michael Kinsley did a great job of explaining how the NY Times didn't screw up and that they weren't trying to smear McCain:
You mean the free pass the Bush adminstration had to develop a false and misleading case to send the country to war wasn't ENOUGH to settle the debate for you?
You mean the free pass the Bush adminstration had to develop a false and misleading case to send the country to war wasn't ENOUGH to settle the debate for you?
I seem to remember that there were plenty of Democrats that were backing the Bush position too. Maybe that's why the media wasn't too critical of going to war in Iraq.
It couldn't be that the mainstream press and media didn't want to oppose the judgment of these leaders in the Democrat Party could it? Your right, I am sure that if this vote had been split straight down party lines that there would have been no criticism of the Bush administration by the media.
Of course, once we got there the LA Times was running pictures of dead and injured Iraqi civilians of the front page everyday, but that probably wasn't anti-war enough for you either.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
Of course, once we got there the LA Times was running pictures of dead and injured Iraqi civilians of the front page everyday, but that probably wasn't anti-war enough for you either.
What's the difference once we were already there? By then it was too late to do anything. In the run up to the war, when the administration should have been challenged, the media was largely silent except for the Knight Ridder/McClatchy organization. And also, what pictures should the newspapers be showing of a war? Flowers and candy? Does reality ever enter this equation?
This does not excuse the Democrats for their part either. There's plenty of blame to go around. But to act like the press didn't give Bush a free pass on this is just silly.
What's the difference once we were already there? By then it was too late to do anything. In the run up to the war, when the administration should have been challenged, the media was largely silent except for the Knight Ridder/McClatchy organization. And also, what pictures should the newspapers be showing of a war? Flowers and candy? Does reality ever enter this equation?
This does not excuse the Democrats for their part either. There's plenty of blame to go around. But to act like the press didn't give Bush a free pass on this is just silly.
They didn't give just Bush a free pass. They gave everyone associated with it a free pass. The question is why? I think I have already provided a plausible answer, because there sure as hell would have been a lot more articles opposing the Iraq war prior to its inception if prominant Democrats hadn't been supporting it.
So tell me again that there isn't a bias in the media.
Regarding the pictures. We all know that war is a nasty business. This was basically the only angle that the LA Times covered. There was a lot more to the story.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
I've always been pretty down the middle when it comes to politics, and when I have leaned to one side, it's been left (sorry, don't have a link). With that said, my personal impression is that there absolutely is a clear cut biased towards the left side in the media. I can't even begin to understand how so many people don't see it. I guess some people are so far left, that almost everything is to the right of them.
They sell papers. If a story that Bush is an ex-Coke addict that married a woman who is responsible for the death of a man would sell papers they would print it. The fact that it's true doesn't sell the papers.
The grim beast in the closet that the right likes to drag out when it suits them that is the idea of the liberal media is just that.....an idea. It doesn't exist. It's like Bigfoot, the Boogey-man and our balanced budget....it doesn't exist.
__________________ I'm no theologian. I don't know who or what God is. All I know is he's more powerful than Mom and Dad put together.
I've always been pretty down the middle when it comes to politics, and when I have leaned to one side, it's been left (sorry, don't have a link). With that said, my personal impression is that there absolutely is a clear cut biased towards the left side in the media. I can't even begin to understand how so many people don't see it. I guess some people are so far left, that almost everything is to the right of them.
Concur with this. Having worked as a newspaper journalist for a few years I never met anyone who would admit to being a republican. Everyone was either a democrat or a "moderate." That was several years ago, but this 2004Pew Research Centerarticle suggests that conservatives are a rare breed as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pew Article
In terms of their overall ideological outlook, majorities of national (54%) and local journalists (61%) continue to describe themselves as moderates. The percentage identifying themselves as liberal has increased from 1995: 34% of national journalists describe themselves as liberals, compared with 22% nine years ago. The trend among local journalists has been similar * 23% say they are liberals, up from 14% in 1995. More striking is the relatively small minority of journalists who think of themselves as politically conservative (7% national, 12% local). As was the case a decade ago, the journalists as a group are much less conservative than the general public (33% conservative).
I also seem to remember a study that showed that only 19% of TV and newspaper journalists voted for Bush over Kerry.
Now everyone I knew thought they kept their personal bias in check and reported stories fairly. These days though I think the line between news and commentary is becoming blurred and more bias is coming through. Plus in an election year emotions run high and more personal bias comes through. I watched Chris Matthews the other night on Leno and it was embarassing. He practically got down on his knees and pleaded with the audience to vote Obama. Talk about being "in the tank."
They sell papers. If a story that Bush is an ex-Coke addict that married a woman who is responsible for the death of a man would sell papers they would print it. The fact that it's true doesn't sell the papers.
The grim beast in the closet that the right likes to drag out when it suits them that is the idea of the liberal media is just that.....an idea. It doesn't exist. It's like Bigfoot, the Boogey-man and our balanced budget....it doesn't exist.
...and talk radio doesn't lean to the right either.
__________________ Hockey's original bad boy. The "Cowboy" Howie Young
They didn't give just Bush a free pass. They gave everyone associated with it a free pass. The question is why? I think I have already provided a plausible answer, because there sure as hell would have been a lot more articles opposing the Iraq war prior to its inception if prominant [sic] Democrats hadn't been supporting it.
There were also plenty of prominent Democrats against the war from the get-go.
- Over 60% of Democrats in the House opposed the war resolution.
- Over 40% of Democrats in the Senate were against it, with plenty of big names: Kennedy, Feingold, Boxer, Byrd, Graham, etc.
Perhaps you guys are just intent on giving Bush a pass on his leadership decision? I have no idea. It was Bush's war, and it's always going to be Bush's war. That doesn't mean Democrats weren't cowards who opportunistically backed down to political pressure/hysteria either. They're not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17
So tell me again that there isn't a bias in the media.
The "media" isn't biased. Journalists, as individuals just like every other human being, are biased. Every journalist has different views, and they're supposed to ask questions and muckrake. We've had a GOP administration for several years now, so of course the criticism is going to go mostly in that direction.
Maybe reality just has a liberal bias when you have a conservative perspective because most views (including the center) run to your left. I mean seriously, just look at this thread. Should the traditional media have reported on the Edwards story because the National Enquirer reported on it? I mean, really? The Enquirer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17
Regarding the pictures. We all know that war is a nasty business. This was basically the only angle that the LA Times covered. There was a lot more to the story.
Violence sells papers. Like you said, war is a nasty business. If you can't handle the press showing the reality of war, don't read. People need to see their tax dollars at work--that's journalism's job.
Seriously, and here I thought the liberals were supposed to be the whiners...
At least the left wing media bias debate is settled. 
KINGS17
