You may be too young to remember, but I recall when you got your news at 6 or 11, fed by the main networks and nothing more. That allowed for some serious manipulation. Consider JFK ( that reference is a bit dated but the point is valid) the media, along with the WH were able to perfectly craft an image causing lots of folks to see him as a sort of god. No drug use, not womanizing...JFK would be torn up in todays media. Bill Clinton was really the first President to face that sort of intense scrutiny.
Even with Clinton, major outlets that knew of his affair wouldn't touch it until they had to, their hands forced by the upstart Drudge.
Today, theres MSNBC and CNN, NBC, ABC etc..clearly not focusing on the negative aspects of Dem pols. Thats been proven time and time again so it's not really worth going into except to point out that those negatives, rather than the positives, are what we should be aware of and focusing on.
The line has blurred between reporting and commentary. FOX is as guilty as any of them in the bias area, but take away FOX and it's a love fest.
The media in general does a real disservice to the American people by pushing an agenda one way or the other.
If you want negative views of the President, they are very easy to find today between Fox News, talk radio, and the internet.
Today, thanks to technology, its easier than ever to get different points of view on any topic.
Bush got a free ride for the first couple of years of his presidency. It wasn't until the press finally realized that they dropped the ball and allowed themselves to be steam rolled on Iraq that they turned on the president.
You make two comments that caught me..."you guys" and "if you want negative views".
Are you implying that you would rather your info on pols and politics to be sugar coated?
I already realize there massive negatives to any President or pol, without being fed. These people are Human, and theres few groups as corrupt as politicians. That goes back to Roman times. What I would like is an end to protectionism based on party, nothing more.
And as far as print news goes, it used to be that you had to rely on local newspapers. Not anymore. Today, you can read newspapers from all over the world online.
I accept that there's bias from all sides of the media and use multiple sources for news before forming my opinions...
Study Finds Obama Received "Unrelentingly Negative" Media Coverage
In short, title and opening post are complete baloney.Conservative media figures have frequently argued that President Obama has received favorable coverage from a supposedly adoring media, but a new study from Pew finds that "negative assessments of Obama have outweighed positive by a ratio of almost 4-to-1." While some observers (including Media Matters) have in the past questioned the usefulness of similar studies, conservatives have cited past Pew reports to portray the rest of the media as biased.
The leftwingers are just angry and bitter that their incompetent, lazy -- what did Joe Biden call him ... a "homeboy"? -- comes off in public as little more than an inept, desperate racist with a huge chip on his shoulder.
And there's not a darn thing the leftwingers can do about that other than whine and stamp their feet like petulant little teenagers.
|Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv |
Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel
The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette
Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278