If there is no Left-Wing News Bias it can't get worse....

RMNIXON · 08-17-2007, 06:22 PM

With President Bush's poll numbers very low, the radical left has become emboldened and more aggressive, especially in the once cautious elite media.

For example, it would have been impossible for NBC News in the days of Huntley and Brinkley to espouse a decidedly left-wing point of view, but that's exactly what is happening now over there.
And if you don't believe me, listen to what NBC's Joe Scarborough said this morning:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: My first night here at MSNBC was the president's State of the Union Address in 2003. And I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president basically from the beginning to the end.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now as slanted as things are at NBC News, they are even worse at many of the nation's newspapers. Two days ago the editor of The Seattle Times, Dave Boardman, sent a memo to his newsroom saying, "When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people here started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom."

We applaud Mr. Boardman for trying to impose some kind of discipline on his liberal newspaper. No such discipline at the radical left San Francisco Chronicle, which continues to routinely spew out anti-American and anti-Christian hatred. Chronicle columnist Mark Morford, who despised people of faith, wrote this yesterday: "The thing that modern Christianity seems to do best, and I don't mean to justify brutal, unwinnable wars, or slam gay people, or bash women's rights, is to splinter and divide and segregate. You know, to exclude."

Morford's vicious attack on Christians goes on to say that many believers in God are simply bad people because of their beliefs. It is stunning that a responsible newspaper would even print hatred like that.

But wait, there's more. Far-left radical Robert Scheer is also a Chronicle columnist and he's now calling America a terrorist nation because the USA used atomic weapons to defeat Japan. Scheer writes, "Just what exactly distinguishes the United States' use of the ever so cutely named "fat man" and "little boy" atomic bombs on cities in Japan from the car bombs of Baghdad or the planes that smashed into the World Trade Center? Of course, we had our justifications as terrorists always do."

Stunning. Scheer's hatred for his own country and his ignorance of World War II should disqualify him from any serious journalistic enterprise. Would The San Francisco Chronicle allow a column to attack Jews or Muslims? Would it allow a staffer to disparage homosexuals or blacks on its pages? No, it would not. But that newspaper is more than happy to print that this country is a terrorist state and Christians are villains.

The publisher of The Chronicle is Frank Vega and he's responsible for hiring these hateful people. Circulation of The Chronicle is declining faster than any other major newspaper in America. But that doesn't seem to matter to the powers of that paper, does it?

"Talking Points" is actually glad this stuff is coming out, that the radical loons in this country are showing their true colors. Now there's no longer any debate about The Seattle Times, NBC News, and the grossly irresponsible San Francisco Chronicle, is there? That's "The Memo."

FOXNews.com - Exposing the Media - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor

__________________________________________________ ____________

Can you image a report on Fox News staff booing the 2006 victory of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in the new congress?

How about someone at Fox who said this:

"The thing that modern liberals seem to do best, and I don't mean to justify failure and retreat, or slam christian people, or bash the military, is to splinter and divide and segregate. You know, to exclude."

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Can you image a report on Fox News staff booing the 2006 victory of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in the new congress?

How about someone at Fox who said this:

"The thing that modern liberals seem to do best, and I don't mean to justify failure and retreat, or slam christian people, or bash the military, is to splinter and divide and segregate. You know, to exclude."

Sadly some people don't see it that way. Not that Fox News is innocent of bias, their competition is clearly not neutral by any means. It's sad, but it seems the average reporter in this country has the mentality of a DailyKos blogger, which is not a good thing. It should be more balanced.

garbagemanlb · 08-17-2007, 06:53 PM

O'Reilly.

Hold on...let me get a Michael Moore article to refute...

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

O'Reilly.

Hold on...let me get a Michael Moore article to refute...

Everything he mentioned has been documented. When Michael Moore makes a stupid movie people refute his points...

You can disagree with his conclusions, but the evidence presented should be alarming.

Darko · 08-17-2007, 06:59 PM

So what. There is a thing called freedom of press and speech. They can do whatever the fuck they want. I don't give two fucks if they are republican or democrat.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 07:25 PM

So, in the past 4+ years, we've had two incidents, and one newspaper most people don't even read has had a number of problems

Yeah, the media is out of control

garbagemanlb · 08-17-2007, 07:42 PM

I also don't see what is wrong with questioning the use of the atomic bombs on a civilian population and asking if it was a terrorist act....one could easily make a logical argument to support such a claim.

The fact that O'Reilly thinks this is deserving of him being fired and never allowed to work again in journalism is more telling of O'Reilly's lack of intelligence and understanding than of Scheer's credentials.

garbagemanlb · 08-17-2007, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Can you image a report on Fox News staff booing the 2006 victory of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid in the new congress?

How about someone at Fox who said this:

"The thing that modern liberals seem to do best, and I don't mean to justify failure and retreat, or slam christian people, or bash the military, is to splinter and divide and segregate. You know, to exclude."

Can you imagine the head of the elections desk in 2000 at Fox being Bush's first cousin?

SoFlaJDM · 08-17-2007, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So, in the past 4+ years, we've had two incidents, and one newspaper most people don't even read has had a number of problems

Yeah, the media is out of control

if 2 incidents make the 'liberal' media out of control, what does that make fox?

garbagemanlb · 08-17-2007, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

if 2 incidents make the 'liberal' media out of control, what does that make fox?

That argument doesn't mesh with the 'conservative as victim' mindset.

motivez · 08-17-2007, 09:16 PM

So,

a) he's shocked there's people in the newsroom who have political opinions
b) he's shocked a newspaper might hire a columnist with extremely liberal views in an extremely liberal city

Of course, we've known Mr. O'Reilly has hated San Francisco and the people who live there since he said Al Qaeda should attack it, blow up the Coit Tower, and then not receive any federal assistance in the wake of such an attack... all because there are people there who have a different world view than he does.

That's what's shocking.

RMNIXON · 08-18-2007, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

if 2 incidents make the 'liberal' media out of control, what does that make fox?

Im am not sure where Bill O said "this is the only evidence of media bias."

"In a major nationwide conservative netroots search this is all we found."

Yet any small thing from any Fox News Show, political commentary or otherwise, any out of context Youtube or Crooks and Liars edited clip, is absolute proof the whole network is a Bush puppet.

Give me a break!

RMNIXON · 08-18-2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So,

a) he's shocked there's people in the newsroom who have political opinions
b) he's shocked a newspaper might hire a columnist with extremely liberal views in an extremely liberal city

Booing en masse the President is not the same as having an opinion. That is just dumb.

If you were and editor would you not suggest more respect for other points of view in the column? You do claim to be a liberal. Or do you wish to defend the comments as quoted?

JaJae · 08-18-2007, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So,

a) he's shocked there's people in the newsroom who have political opinions
b) he's shocked a newspaper might hire a columnist with extremely liberal views in an extremely liberal city

Of course, we've known Mr. O'Reilly has hated San Francisco and the people who live there since he said Al Qaeda should attack it, blow up the Coit Tower, and then not receive any federal assistance in the wake of such an attack... all because there are people there who have a different world view than he does.

That's what's shocking.

I don't think reporters should bring their extreme biases to work with them. It wasn't just one person, it was the entire newsroom essentially. I expect them to at least be able to control themselves and attempt to act like mature reporters to uphold the integrity of their establishment.

Imagine if the entire Fox Newsroom was actively booing John Kerry during his speeches at the last presidential debate or something of equally important value. What a news story that would have been...

RMNIXON · 08-18-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Can you imagine the head of the elections desk in 2000 at Fox being Bush's first cousin?

And Fox waited til the wee hours to predict the Bush win unlike the NBC false reporting even before polls closed! Stop reading Michael Moore crap and do some fact checking!

"This just in: ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox and AP now are blaming their blatant election-night reporting errors on a polling service they all had a hand in creating.

Soon 7:49 p.m. may go down in history as the beginning of the end for confidence in TV-network political reporting. It was precisely at that moment on Nov. 7 that senior NBC newsmen Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert became first among the major networks to announce that Florida's 25 electoral votes had gone to Al Gore, coloring the state blue on the electronic map and effectively sending the vice president on his way to a big win -- at least momentarily.

It now has been two weeks since the vice president won, lost, conceded and withdrew his concession to Texas Gov. George W. Bush. The only thing that is certain -- other than the increased population in Florida due to the small army of attorneys that since has invaded the Sunshine State -- is that the history books forever will reflect the responsibility of the electronic media in what has become an embarrassing election debacle.

The media-driven roller coaster took off at 7:49 p.m. with Americans having no idea how bumpy and long the ride would be. Within minutes of NBC's call, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and even the Associated Press (AP) fell like dominoes to predicting Gore the winner in Florida. The announcement of Gore's "win" lasted only long enough to deter GOP turnout in the rest of the country, when at 9:54 p.m. CNN became the first to retract its prediction for Gore, changing Florida back to "too close to call."

Media Culpas - media coverage of election 2000 Insight on the News - Find Articles

Thorgrim · 08-18-2007, 05:50 PM

The entire newsroom, i must have missed that?

motivez · 08-18-2007, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't think reporters should bring their extreme biases to work with them. It wasn't just one person, it was the entire newsroom essentially. I expect them to at least be able to control themselves and attempt to act like mature reporters to uphold the integrity of their establishment.

I love the label 'extreme', what makes it so extreme?

I'm also interested in where you get the numbers to say it was 'essentially' the entire news room.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Imagine if the entire Fox Newsroom was actively booing John Kerry during his speeches at the last presidential debate or something of equally important value. What a news story that would have been...

You think they weren't?

I'd be willing to bet their behavior is similar, we just don't hear about it since everyone who works there is cut of the same cloth, so to speak.

JaJae · 08-18-2007, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I love the label 'extreme', what makes it so extreme?[

I'm also interested in where you get the numbers to say it was 'essentially' the entire news room.

How is it not extreme? A major media press room was booing the leader of their own country. A man who would shortly after go on to win the popular vote by a rather large percentage compared to previous elections.

Thorgrim · 08-19-2007, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

How is it not extreme? A major media press room was booing the leader of their own country. A man who would shortly after go on to win the popular vote by a rather large percentage compared to previous elections.

2.4% is rather large? huh?

Re-election numbers-
Clinton: 8.5
Reagan: 18.2
Nixon: 23.2
LBJ: 22.6