Does The Mainstream Media Have An Immoral Liberal Bias?

[WinePusher]

The Networks of the mainstream media are generally CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The newspaper are usually the New York Times and the Washington Post. Are these networks and newspapers NOT covering stories that may be particularly damaging for the Obama administration?

Here are a few stories downplayed or not covered by the mainstream media

1) The Black Panthar Voting Intimidation Case
2) The ACORN corruption case
3) The Sacking of the Marxist, 9/11 Truther Green Jobs Czar Van Jones

However, the state run media seemed to incorporate hours and hours on the ever important story of SARAH PALIN'S CLOTHES. Unbelievable.

1) Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias
2) Is it in the tank for Barack Obama

[Wyvern]

The Networks of the mainstream media are generally CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The newspaper are usually the New York Times and the Washington Post. Are these networks and newspapers NOT covering stories that may be particularly damaging for the Obama administration?

Here are a few stories downplayed or not covered by the mainstream media

1) The Black Panthar Voting Intimidation Case
2) The ACORN corruption case
3) The Sacking of the Marxist, 9/11 Truther Green Jobs Czar Van Jones

However, the state run media seemed to incorporate hours and hours on the ever important story of SARAH PALIN'S CLOTHES. Unbelievable.

1) Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias
2) Is it in the tank for Barack Obama

I notice you did not mention Fox news as being part of the mainstream media of which they are certainly part of.

First off of all the stories you mention the newest of them is a year old although the Black Panther one is ongoing. These stories biggest problem is that they all have been terribly overpoliticized by the right in order to try to bring some smear onto Obama so if these media outlets would have given them a lot of coverage then they would have been accused of a conservative bias and rightly so.

From what I remember from two years ago the ACORN scandal did in fact get an awful lot of coverage and according to wikipedia their national offices are closing down due to lack of funding so what possible coverage would still be warranted on this issue.

The Van Jones case is even simpler, after digging for dirt conservatives found some on this individual and created a smear campaign for which he shortly thereafter resigned his position. Again what possible further coverage is warranted for this year old story?

The Black Panther story was simply so minor that it does not warrant major coverage. It involved a man with a nightstick standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia. One person felt intimidated and called the police who made this person leave the area. He was charged, the charges were dropped and then the right stepped in to try to make this a controversy.

The Palin story also from two years ago is also no longer covered but involved misallocation of funds.

Is the mainstream media liberal, well some is and some isn't. Unless you want to declare Fox as being liberal I would say definately not all is.

[perfessor]

Here are a few stories downplayed or not covered by the mainstream media

1) The Black Panthar Voting Intimidation Case
2) The ACORN corruption case
3) The Sacking of the Marxist, 9/11 Truther Green Jobs Czar Van Jones

Why stop there? There are others:

4) The systematic and fraudulent disenfranchisement of legal voters in Florida;
5) The Diebold voting machine scandal;
6) The Downing Street Memo which showed collusion between British and American governments to manufacture evidence against Iraq

I'm sure those were well covered by Fox, right?

[WinePusher]

I notice you did not mention Fox news as being part of the mainstream media of which they are certainly part of.

Certainly not. Fox is the network being waged war on by the White House, Network News and the Press.

First of all the stories you mention the newest of them is a year old although the Black Panther one is ongoing. These stories biggest problem is that they all have been terribly overpoliticized by the right in order to try to bring some smear onto Obama so if these media outlets would have given them a lot of coverage then they would have been accused of a conservative bias and rightly so.

It also seems that they are downplayed by the left in order to defend their president. When one reports on a story that is potentially damaging to the president, that is called objective journalism, not having a liberal or conservative bias.

From what I remember from two years ago the ACORN scandal did in fact get an awful lot of coverage and according to wikipedia their national offices are closing down due to lack of funding so what possible coverage would still be warranted on this issue.

NBC, ABC, and CBS barely covered it compared to Fox or CNN. I odubt MSNBC ran the story at all.

The Van Jones case is even simpler, after digging for dirt conservatives found some on this individual and created a smear campaign for which he shortly thereafter resigned his position. Again what possible further coverage is warranted for this year old story?

A smear campagin? I would regard it smear campaign if somebody attacked Van Jones down syndrome child, or made sexual jokes about his daughters. I do not regard it a smear campaign when one reports on his past sayings, ideas and affiliations which were radical. And it is troubling that Valerie Jarret said she was watching him and that the White House wanted him. The marxist, 9/11 truther was invited into the white house.

The Black Panther story was simply so minor that it does not warrant major coverage. It involved a man with a nightstick standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia. One person felt intimidated and called the police who made this person leave the area. He was charged, the charges were dropped and then the right stepped in to try to make this a controversy.

White sheet men with weapons stand in front of a polling booth, do you consider that a story? And then, you have an attorney from the DOJ who says that the Justice Departmetns policy is NOT to prosecute cases where victims are white and
suspects are black. Is that not news worthy? I think that the Americna people have a right to know this, and it isn't the job of the state run media to decide which stories are and are not important.
The Palin story also from two years ago is also no longer covered but involved misallocation of funds.

Is the mainstream media liberal, well some is and some isn't. Unless you want to declare Fox as being liberal I would say definately not all is.

Fox is not apart of the mainstream media. Fox has shows that are conservative and do not claim to be objectivly reporting the news. MSNBC ONLY has liberal anchors on all hours of the day.

[TheLibertarian]

Hilarious.

[perfessor]

And then, you have an attorney from the DOJ who says that the Justice Departmetns policy is NOT to prosecute cases where victims are white and suspects are black. Is that not news worthy? .

Do you have a source for this?

BTW, you do know that is was the Bush administration that decided the case was not worth pursuing, right? Or is that something that Fox "forgot" to tell you?

Speaking of smear campaigns, the Shirley Sherrod case is classic. I don't know who I'm angrier at, Fox and Breitbart for dishonestly and/or stupidly promulgating a highly edited tape to give the wrong impression, or Vilsak for his cowardly submission to Fox demands for her head on a platter. But clearly the immoral actor in this case was Fox and Breitbart.

[WinePusher]

And then, you have an attorney from the DOJ who says that the Justice Departmetns policy is NOT to prosecute cases where victims are white and suspects are black. Is that not news worthy? .

Do you have a source for this?

The whistle blower former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams.

BTW, you do know that is was the Bush administration that decided the case was not worth pursuing, right? Or is that something that Fox "forgot" to tell you?

I think you need to get your facts correct. The Holder, NOT Mukasey, Justice Department got an injunction aganist the Black Panthar intimidator that barred him from going to any voting booth. After they won they REFUSED to pursue the case any further and watered down the prosecution sentence to allow the black panthar intimidator to go to voting booths after 2012.

Speaking of smear campaigns, the Shirley Sherrod case is classic. I don't know who I'm angrier at, Fox and Breitbart for dishonestly and/or stupidly promulgating a highly edited tape to give the wrong impression, or Vilsak for his cowardly submission to Fox demands for her head on a platter. But clearly the immoral actor in this case was Fox and Breitbart.

Again, your facts are incorrect. Breitbart released the tape, after the tape was released Vilsack FIRED Sherrod because he was afraid of the back lash, and after she was FIRED Fox reported the story. Do you understand that the Vilsack fired her BEFORE Fox reported the story?

[perfessor]

BTW, you do know that is was the Bush administration that decided the case was not worth pursuing, right? Or is that something that Fox "forgot" to tell you?

I think you need to get your facts correct. The Holder, NOT Mukasey, Justice Department got an injunction aganist the Black Panthar intimidator that barred him from going to any voting booth. After they won they REFUSED to pursue the case any further and watered down the prosecution sentence to allow the black panthar intimidator to go to voting booths after 2012.

So you're saying, Mukasey decided to drop, Holder got an injunction, then also decided to drop it. Sounds to me like both Holder and Mukasey saw nothing to pursue. Non-story, unless the story is, "Fox News tries to scare white people by making up outrage about a couple of knuckleheads."

Speaking of smear campaigns, the Shirley Sherrod case is classic. I don't know who I'm angrier at, Fox and Breitbart for dishonestly and/or stupidly promulgating a highly edited tape to give the wrong impression, or Vilsak for his cowardly submission to Fox demands for her head on a platter. But clearly the immoral actor in this case was Fox and Breitbart.

Again, your facts are incorrect. Breitbart released the tape, after the tape was released Vilsack FIRED Sherrod because he was afraid of the back lash, and after she was FIRED Fox reported the story. Do you understand that the Vilsack fired her BEFORE Fox reported the story?

OK, I accept your correction. Now I'm even angrier at Vilsak's cowardice. But my charge of immorality at Fox and Breitbart stands.

ETA: I see now that O'Reilly at least has apologized for their sloppy reporting and conclusion-jumping.

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Hilarious.

The rules require that posts add content to the debate - as opposed to simply announcing a personal opinion about them.
In addition, this could be seen as something of a derogatory comment. If you feel the need to post, explain why you agree or disagree with others.

[Ooberman]

The Networks of the mainstream media are generally CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The newspaper are usually the New York Times and the Washington Post. Are these networks and newspapers NOT covering stories that may be particularly damaging for the Obama administration?

Here are a few stories downplayed or not covered by the mainstream media

1) The Black Panthar Voting Intimidation Case
2) The ACORN corruption case
3) The Sacking of the Marxist, 9/11 Truther Green Jobs Czar Van Jones

However, the state run media seemed to incorporate hours and hours on the ever important story of SARAH PALIN'S CLOTHES. Unbelievable.

1) Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias
2) Is it in the tank for Barack Obama

This is a clear case of your confirmation bias, and probably listening to too much Right Wing radio or tv.

Take the beam out of your own eye before you start accusing others of bias.