This morning I have several pieces for your consideration. The issue of media bias is one often argued. I think we have several pieces of new evidence to consider in the argument. It’s becoming more clear than ever that the media is protecting Obama and his blunders, while whining endlessly about supposed Romney mis-steps. It’s a coordinated effort in some cases as well. We’ve got lots of links. Some of you may not be crazy with some of the sources but alas, this is where you find it, not from the “MSM”. That right there should be a clue, but indulge me either way.
Let’s begin with the coordination between press members to embarrass Romney and push a false meme, rather than concentrate on the Obama policies that led to what the real story actually is, the Mid East mess and their badly bungling it.
From WeaselZippers
Meanwhile, here’s what the foreign press was reporting. You’ll note it’s starkly different and much more detailed than what most outlets here in the US reported. They view it as a failure of the Obama admin. This provides a nice summary, with lots of links. The next 2 are from RedState.
Read that part here
We’re also finding out that differing versions are an issue. The US govt has one version, but the Egyptians version differs in some key areas.
Read that here
So what could possibly be of more importance than this story at present? Romney gaffes, or imagined ones at least. That’s what our press is concentrating on. This isn’t the only issue they’re running interference for the Obama admin on either. Now the DC links for Kathy Sebelious and her breaking of federal law, again ignored.
Stuff like this
And the Obama admin and DOJ coordinating with Media Matters, who provided the spin for Fast and Furious. The spin that most of the press ran with.
This here
Hey, even Hollywood is gettin’ in on the act. Yes, I know it’s the State of Cali., but don’t think for a minute this isn’t for Obama’s benefit. It pushes his crowning achievement. And what Hollywood produces goes nationwide. Broadcast of course, by the same networks who are failing to report real news. Go figure.
Read that here
Also, you can read a lot more on this kinda stuff from the MRC’s NewsBusters site. Exposing this stuff is all they do.
They’re here
So what causes this? Bias? Favoritism? Or just plain media malpractice? They’re even submitting stories to the White House for prior approval of quotes to control the message and avoid public errors. And the press has complied. They don’t even try to hide it anymore. Call it whatever you like, but it’s not working anymore. Maybe they’re all innocent of being biased, but there’s certainly enough evidence for an indictment. Let the court of public opinion judge them. Judging by the viewing and user numbers for most networks and print media, some jurors have already made up their minds.
Wandering Views 
AJ
You do realize that the right wing media would not be able to admit when the networks get it right — then there would be no reason to exist. Many of the stories are invented, some of them twist issues beyond recognition. Birthers anyone? With the treatment red state etc have given the President, with me these sources are almost worse than not credible — I tend to dismiss them out of hand as whackadoodle partisans who couldn’t utter a factual statement without coloring it to save their lives.
The specifics — there are alot of stories coming out on what happened in Libya. I think we still don’t have all the facts. The President’s foreign policy — the foreign press has been much more mixed than Erick Erickson lets on.
Sibelius — I’ve read about that in the Washington Post — at least the allegations. At this point that’s what they are allegations. I expect the press will follow-up.
fast and furious — papers and networks have covered it. They just haven’t come to the same conclusions as partisans who are looking for blood (Whitewater anyone — Starr spent how many millions and all he could get was a pathetic sex scandal)
Hollywood — I just have to roll my eyes.
Coordinating q’s — press does this all the time in all kinds of settings to make sure their questions get asked — happens to everyone in all parties. Quotes — also common practice to double check and make sure the quotes are right and something that is done for everyone.
Your media sources will take a story and twist beyond recognition the facts. The first evidence really is the Whitewater stuff which was and remains outrageous – because these guys started with President Clinton. They are not remotely interested in the truth. They are interested in fooling people.
LikeLike
oops, last para above should read starts with Whitewater and ends with Birthers which was and remains outrageous.
The sources you cite are the reason good folks who post on this blog believe that the President if re-elected will become something of a dictator — the right wing media wants you to be afraid, wants its candidates to be able to prey on that fear.
There was a poster at WMB who liked to say to people like me one of the biblical quotes — thinking they were wise they became fools. I never really told him what I thought of that kind of statement given from someone who had been convinced by right wing media that there was no torture at abu Gahraib, but you guys can guess.
LikeLike
I was expecting that reaction from you CB. There are 2 sides to every story. The MSM gives the one you prefer, the alternates work for me. The MSM isn’t the only game in town. I could throw everything you said right back at you from the other side. The foreign press, which yes, is mixed, are also more critical than the US MSM press orgs, at least where Obama is concerned.
FoF was covered? Really? They didn’t mention it until it couldn’t be ignored anymore. They had to respond because of those horrible partisan sources you mentioned. They ignored it until they couldn’t. Hundreds of dead Mexicans and an American were ignored as collateral damage by the press. Just like they’d do for a R admin, I’m sure. 🙄
Sebelious- Sorry, that’s wrong. It’s not just an allegation. Don’t worry, I’m not surprised you didn’t know that. How could you, when the press has ignored it?
“Reporters covering the White House don’t seem to have many questions about Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was last week found in violation of federal law against engaging in political activity while on the job.”
“It’s still up to President Obama whether Sebelius should keep her job or face some sort of punishment after being found in violation of the Hatch Act.”
“The ethics office said Sebelius violated the law on Feb. 25 while delivering a speech to Human Rights Campaign while serving in her official capacity as cabinet secretary. ”
I know you didn’t mean to, but you kinda just proved my point.
And you can roll your eyes, but the fact remains Hollywood will push his meme. I could live with that if they did it for both sides, but without any inkind contribution for the other side I’m not. No equal voice for them, just disdain and ridicule for R’s. Nope, no bias there.
🙄
And I also notice you like to attack the messengers and their credibility, yet not so much the actual substance of what they’re saying. I’ve attacked the messengers here as well, but on the substance of what they’re doing, reporting, and not reporting, not just on the basis of their liberal/conservative leanings. I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing, but at least explain why. Just saying they’re partisans and dismissing them is what libs do. I expect better from you CB. You’re my favorite moderate for a reason ya’ know. Tell me why they’re wrong, dismissing them just doesn’t work for me. I’m not a liberal.
LikeLike
You know, years ago when I was young and thought I knew everything I lived in Maryland. I made the comment then that I knew more about what the government was up to than when I lived in my home state. After all, it was local news. Of course the media was more un-biased then. We didn’t have the terms Liberal or Lame-Stream Media. We didn’t have Right Wing Media. This whole thing is causing paranoia all around and people like me are confused and don’t really know which side to trust.
Yesterday we had a vote in the State of Alabama. There is a little known fact that there is a trust fund in the State that is supposed to be for educational purposes only but somehow years ago the politicians and government found a way to get their greedy little hands in the pot. Becaue I have a Master’s in Education (even though I don’t teach) I voted NO for them to raid it again. There is enough money in the fund and enough tax dollars from vacation/resort on the Coast that every child in the state could have a quality education except the “government’ keeps siphoning off the funds to do other things. Yesterday they threatened to release prisoners and cut free healthcare to children. I’m sorry what does THAT have to do with education? They have also used the money to paved back roads and other things. Everyone I know voted NO without exception. Somehow it passed.
What all this left wing and right wing media has done is make me suspicious all the time. Even as I voted no yesterday I had the thought…Oh the politicians will get what they want and my vote really didn’t count. If I (a person who believes if you don’t vote you can’t complain and has voted in every election since I was old enough to vote and feels it is a right AND a priviledge to do so) can become so cynical what hope is there for some who aren’t as gung ho as I am?
I really, truly, wish they would do away with “sound bites” and snippets, and “gotcha” reporting and just report the news and events in the most un-biased way possible. I thinks a lot of journalists have become editorialists and forgotten that their job is to just report the news without sharing their opinions. Somewhere in the distance past wasn’t that what an op-ed piece was about and you were TOLD it was op-ed???
LikeLike
Allen,
Have you noticed that whenever you counter a liberal’s arguments with logic that they can’t deny, they always respond by attacking the messenger? My son and I were having a FB conversation with my [liberal] sister over Obamacare and when we disproved her points, she came back with something like “you don’t have a right to an opinion because you both work for a company that offers you good health insurance.”
LikeLike
Aj
The main issue I have with the right wing webosphere is that writers begin with a proposition that they want to prove. Left wing sites (real left wing, like mother jones, think progress, talking points memo, etc) do the same and I give them the same credibility score as redstate. On journalists and questions, I have watched live my fair share of press availibilities and yes you hear them cooridnating questions mostly it seems so that all the questions the gaggle wants to ask gets asked. Hence our news sounds remarkably similar. Quotes; I have had to verify quotes for senior officials from both sides of the aisle. It is an unremarkable practice.
On Libya; I’ve seen versions of what happened on the bbc, al jazeera, and others, what’s clear is that there are conflicting stories. I still think all of the facts are not known.
Hhs an ehtics violation is not good but as I understand the story what she did was also not a violation of the law.
Fof I am underwhelmed. At the end of the day this amounts to a badly botched operation not some sinister plot to get american law enforcement officials killed.
I do think the media is far too suppine to the powers that be in the US. This has been true, imo since news divisions were bought and folded into entertainment divisions. Its an issue, no doubt about it. Has the media given the President a pass, I’d have to say yes and no. What is certainly true right now is that Gov Romney keeps making news from sheer ineptitude.
LikeLike
p.s. Go O’s
LikeLike
CB, I call your Birthers and raise you Truthers.
LikeLike
Linda
My experience has been the opposite, mainly that when a person will not accede to conservative “facts” conservatives start questioning your patriotism, your belief in capitalism, your faith or start witht the you are an elite line of attack or simply tell you that you are not a real American.
LikeLike
See? And then there is dumb ol’ me stuck in the middle not really knowing who and what to believe.
LikeLike
Kbells,
Lol. Truthers are extreme fringe. Even the popular left wing sites pay them no mind, unlike birthers who actually can be elected in today’s gop.
LikeLike
Kim,
Try the bbc ans al jazeera english for international news, Wahington post still labels its print stories when they are news analysis.
LikeLike
Nice work AJ. CB may write these sites off as right-wing ideologues. I should say that they are able conservatives sites fed up with blatant liberal media bias . Each of those links you provided, gave definite evidence of bias.
On the Benghazi murder of our ambassador, the administration, especially State, is covering up the matter and stonewalling on any questions on the absurd ground of an FBI investigation. Can you imagine how the media would handle the Benghazi horror if George W, Bush were president?
That conversation between Jan Crawford of CBS and Ari Shapiro of NPR goes well beyond intelligent coordination; it is an obvious attempt to accord a serious attack on Romney.
The truth is that the liberal media well knows that Obama is in serious trouble on the matters of government spending, unemployment and economic growth along with his exceedingly wea presence on international matters; consequently they find ways to avoid these issues in order to focus on the myth that Romney is a rich, uncaring conservative who doesn’t care about the American people.
LikeLike
Here’s some more on the Sebelious story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hhs-secretary-sebelius-found-to-have-violated-law-that-restricts-political-activity/2012/09/12/88b74baa-fd20-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
Updated
I had to remove the snippet I had here because I don’t want to violate their rules. I’m not sure I did, but best to be safe. You can read it at the link above.
And
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/17/watchdog-obama-must-punish-sebelius-or-congress-can-impeach-her/
“Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner wrote to Obama that the OSC found Sebelius “violated the Hatch Act by making extemporaneous political remarks in a speech delivered in her official capacity” on Feb. 25.
“The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election,” Lerner wrote to the president. “A federal employee is permitted to make partisan remarks when speaking in their personal capacity, but not when using an official title or when speaking about agency business.”
“Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event,” Lerner continued. “HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”
The Federal Times suggests that Sebelius may be fired for her illegal activity. “The finding could possibly cost Sebelius her job,” the outlet reported. “Although OSC did not recommend any specific punishment, and said Obama will decide how to punish her, Hatch Act violators are usually fired.””
But don’t hold your breathe ‘cuz that won’t happen.
Also,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/sebelius-violated-hatch-act-and-may-be-fired-obama-administration-lawyers-find/
““Hatch Act violators are typically fired; however, only an unanimous vote [by] the Merit Systems Protection Board can reduce the penalty to unpaid suspension,” Tully Rinckey PLLC partner John P. Mahoney told The Daily Caller, “[a]lthough the parties can agree to settle for less severe penalties.”
But since in Sebelius’ case she isn’t allowed to have that MSPB board intervene, her future is in Obama’s hands.
Epstein is calling on Obama to fire Sebelius right away.
“This is the most high profile example of a Hatch Act violation since the Act was passed in 1939,” Epstein said. “Never before has a member of the President’s Cabinet been found to have committed a Hatch Act violation. President Obama should immediately fire HHS Secretary Sebelius for her violation of federal law. Additionally, the Justice Department should begin an investigation into any potential election crimes the Secretary may have committed through her then-taxpayer funded comments on February 25, 2012.””
I’d note that WaPo doesn’t really dig much, or ask experts what should happen as a result of this. But the alternative sources did. They did a much better job, with much more detail, than the WaPo. Gee, I wonder why?
LikeLike
Good work, A J and Sails! Keep CB busy so she can’t campaign in Virginia. I want my Mexican Coke!
LikeLike
Aj
I read the dailer caller article and then did my norm for right or left wing sites, looked up the experts they cite. Cause of action has taken several actions – all for conservative causes. It reminds me of judicial watch. That is an ad hom remark, I don’t deny it. I also don’t trust the “expert” source of Tucker Carlson’s opinion website.
LikeLike
Ricky,
Lol. Not campaigning so I’m not worried about my inaction preventing me fro a nice hefeweissen or porter.
LikeLike
CB,
That’s OK, we’re all entitled to our opinions.
Even if they’re wrong.
🙂
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
And what don’t you like about JudicialWatch? Is is that they’re right leaning, or because they’re effective at using FOIA requests and litigation to get at stuff the press doesn’t dig for and the govt doesn’t want the public to know? On issues like FandF they’ve been key in exposing what the Obama admin doesn’t want out there.
Stuff like this. Again, if they weren’t doing it, who from the MSM would be? You know the answer, no one.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-obama-justice-department-to-obtain-fast-and-furious-records-withheld-from-congress/
“Judicial Watch announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)) against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012. Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to a June 22, 2012, FOIA request filed with the Office of Information Policy (OIP), a component of the DOJ:
All records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012, as referenced in the letter of Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole to the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated June 20, 2012. More specifically, the records requested herein are those records described by Deputy Attorney General Cole in his June 20, 2012 letter as “the relevant post-February, 2011, documents” over which “the President has asserted executive privilege.”
The lawsuit was filed yesterday, on September 12, 2012.
On August 6, 2012, OIP informed Judicial Watch that the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General had determined that the documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request should be withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 which protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Judicial Watch appealed the determination. By law, a response was due September 11, 2012. However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the DOJ had failed to respond.”
I’m glad someone is paying attention to the underhanded and sneaky maneuverings of our govt. If not them, then who?
LikeLike
CB, the “extreme fringe” must be much of the Democratic party base, then – even if the party leaders and top blogs were smart enough to keep away from the theory.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/republicans-have-birthers-democrats-have-911-truthers/
For all the emphasis on the apparent hold that birthers have on a significant portion of the GOP base, it’s worth noting that as recently as five years ago it was the Democratic Party that was the home of people who believed in bizarre, irrational, conspiracy theories:
I’ve been looking for a good analogue to the willingness of Republicans to believe, or say they believe, that Obama was born abroad, and one relevant number is the share of Democrats willing to believe, as they say, that “Bush knew.”
There aren’t a lot of great public numbers on the partisan breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with Scripps Howard that’s useful in that regard.
“How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.
Dave Weigel uncovers some additional poll questions:
How likely is it that the Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but instead was hit by a cruise missile fired by the United States military?
Only 11.9 percent of all voters believed that this was “somewhat” or “very” likely, but 21.1 percent of Democrats did.
How likely is it that the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the building?
A full 15.9 percent of all voters bought that; the number rose to 24.8 percent among Democrats.
LikeLike
I’ll post this because it surprised me that anyone at NBC might question the Obama admins version of things at the embassy in Lybia. Since they did, that needs pointing out in order to be fair. Nice job Mr. Todd.
But I couldn’t find an NBC link for the piece, so here’s another from Big Govt.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/18/MSNBCs-Chuck-Todd-Exposes-Obama-Admins-Contradictions-Over-Libya-Embassy-Attack
LikeLike
Emails show Justice working with Media Matters on stories that target critics
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/emails-show-justice-working-with-media-matters-to-target-critics/?test=latestnews#ixzz26vStJ3Hr
LikeLike
Aj,
I think the federal times article did a better job of reporting what happened and of allowing readers to make their own conclusions.
Judicial watch treats foia like a legal fishing expedition. They cause a fairly large expenditure with very little result. I dislike its methods.
LikeLike
Also, the whole 47% thing…..
The MSM are all running with the video provided by Jimmy Carters grandson. What I’d like to know, is what’s in the part they edited out? They all carried on endlessly about James O’Keefe and his videos. They claim they were edited to be more damaging. Yet O’Keefe released the entire unedited versions on his Veritas website. But that didn’t matter. So where are the cries for the unedited version of this 47% piece? They’re not even mentioning that it’s been edited.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes
“Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing “one to two minutes” at the most important moment.
The Legal Insurrection blog’s William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney’s remarks.
“Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video,” Jacobson noted.
Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:
According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.”
They get a pass because the media agrees with them. James O’Keefe got no such consideration even after releasing all the complete videos.
LikeLike
Here’s the http://legalinsurrection.com/ piece.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/maybe-romney-answer-was-inelegant-only-because-mother-jones-didnt-disclose-that-part-of-tape-was-missing/
“Corn reacted vigorously to Romney’s suggestion that he only provided “snippets,” and then Corn released what purported to be the complete audio/video in two parts. The “complete” version was consistent with the original edited audio/video. Again, there was no disclosure by Corn that there might be something missing. (Corn added an “update” after my original story ran.”
To the contrary, Corn went out of his way to assert that there was no “filtering” and that the full audio/video had been released. As Corn explained to Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast (emphasis mine):
“Is the liberal media making too much of the Romney video? “It feeds into a narrative he’s been fighting all along, that he’s a 1 percenter, not one of us, doesn’t really understand it,” Corn says. And since these are the candidate’s own words, “there’s no filter here whatsoever, there’s no out-of-context argument to be made.””
But there was a filter. As reported in my prior post, Corn has admitted that 1-2 minutes of audio/video are missing. That missing audio/video includes part of Romney’s controversial answer.”
LikeLike
Submitting stories for vetting by my source would have gotten me fired back in the dark ages of journalism . . .
LikeLike
Exactly Michelle. It shouldn’t be happening, regardless of who the party currently occupying the White House is. That’s what dictators and propaganda outlets do. It shows a serious lowering of the bar by journalists.
LikeLike
Mine too Michelle.
LikeLike
“(Whitewater anyone — Starr spent how many millions and all he could get was a pathetic sex scandal)” I might have rolled my eyes at the Whitewater thing back in the day, but a “pathetic sex scandal!” You can’t get much higher up on the rung than the POTUS or much further down than an intern. CB, you don’t see any ethical problems with that beyond adultery? Clarence Thomas is still smiling. And NOW betrayed women so badly on that one they have never quite recovered from the hit they took and playing politics with that one.
LikeLike
Actually, it was pathetic. How low can you go? (Speaking of the president, not the fact that his pathetic actions made news.) Any CEO in the country would have gotten fired, but somehow the prez held onto his job.
LikeLike
From what I have read, the media is influenced at least as much by the profit motive as politics these days. They’re going to focus on stories that the most people will read/watch. How many Americans are really interested in getting the true picture of what’s happening elsewhere in the world, especially when it’s going to take quite a while to really figure it out, compared to those who want to know what foolish mistake some celebrity (whether politician, actor, sports figure, or whatever) has just made.
LikeLike
This whole time I’ve been worrying about where CB is going to find my Mexican Coke when I should have been focused on where I am going to find a “Hefeweissen”.
LikeLike
I’m not even sure what that is Ricky. Sounds like something she just made up. She probablly meant Budweiser.
🙂
We’re going to Disney in Nov., and I recently viewed some of the Coke combos from around the world they sell there, and that stuff sounds nasty. No thanks.
http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2010/07/beverly-taste-tests-at-epcot/
A Coke please. Plain please.
Sorry. Rabbit hole. I’m part dog I guess, ‘cuz I just can’t resist ’em. What were we talking about again?
LikeLike
State of the Race
The Gallup tracking poll (a seven-day rolling average) today has Obama at 47%, Romney 46%. Rasmussen’s tracking poll (3-day rolling average) has Romney 47%, Obama 46%. This agrees with two other polls reported early this morning: an AP-Gfk poll and a USA Today poll both have Obama 47%, Romney 46%. This is a very close race.
It’s good to check the Party ID breakdown in the crosstabs of polls. Today, you might hear about 3 other polls done by Quinnipiac. Obama supposedly hits 50% in Wisconsin and Virginia, and Colorado is close. But look at the crosstabs (D/R/I):
Colorado
Today – 30/31/35
2008 – 30/31/39
2004 – 29/38/33
(So this pollster expects 2008 all over again? Really?)
Virginia
Today – 35/24/36
2008 – 39/33/27
2004 – 35/39/26
(Exactly why should we trust a poll with a partisan breakdown of D+11 -5 points more favorable to the Dems than in 2008? And only 24% GOP?)
Wisconsin
Today – 35/27/32
2008 – 39/33/29
2004 – 35/38/27
(D+8 – again, more favorable for the Dems than in ’08. And only 27% GOP. Riggghhht.)
Now, going back to Rasmussen, which just released a New Hampshire poll showing Romney up 48% to 45%. The Party ID in the poll is evenly split between D’s and R’s. In ’08, it was D+2, and in ’04, it was R+7. Amazing what a reasonable party ID will do to a poll.
This is very close. Don’t let skewed polling tell you otherwise.
LikeLike
Well it’s official, the Obama admin has finally gotten around to stating the obvious.
From thecable.foreignpolicy
Here
“The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact “a terrorist attack” and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning.
“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy,” Matt Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, in response to questioning from Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) about the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
As for who was responsible, Olsen said it appears there were attackers from a number of different militant groups that operate in and around Benghazi, and said there are already signs of al Qaeda involvement.”
LikeLike
Matt Y, Thanks much for the polling data and your analysis of it.
Keep this up, as it is rare to find someone who knows what he is talking about on polls.
LikeLike
So, the truth ekes out from inside the Beltway regarding the Benghazi affair. Meanwhile, the media has done its damage to Romney who had the temerity to speak out against Washington’s weak response and the Cairo embassy apology for right wing “radicals” in the America.
LikeLike
And a skewed poll can have the same effect as calling a race early in preventing the vote in some ways…If it appears that one candidate has it locked up, what’s the point of voting? I know people in Pensacola that are still furious about 2000…
LikeLike
That’s right InButNotOf,
The reverse side of that is they know if they show Romney with a big lead, Dems will be discouraged and stay home. They won’t allow that to happen.
And it’s just one more manipulation the media, who put most of them out, does that shows their bias.
In my opinion, Rasmussen and Gallop are about the most accurate. Even the RCP average is skewed because it’s an average of bogus polls. Junk in, junk out. The 2 with it the closest appear to also have a more realistic party breakdown.
LikeLike
Has anyone else here read Goldberg’s book on bias?
LikeLike
Without commenting on the original post, in other news….
Same-sex marriage looks poised to bat 0.750 at the state referendum level this November:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures-2012
LikeLike
Why would that matter? When the states vote it down, it ends up in the courts. Do you expect it to end differently if it passes? Why does the people’s voice mean nothing when it doesn’t go your way…but if a poll says it might go your way you are ecstatic?
LikeLike
Here’s some more on polling. Swing state polling, which also looks real close.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/swing-state-polling-shows-dead-heat-too/
“Earlier today, I took a look at the Associated Press poll that shows the presidential race in a virtual tie nationally. What about the all-important swing states? Four different pollsters look at that question today, two of which are tracking polls, and all four say … pretty much the same thing.
First, Gallup reports that Obama holds a narrow lead in their swing-state polling, but within the margin of error, leading 48/46. Furthermore, they report that despite all of the media hype over this gaffe and that gaffe, the race hasn’t changed at all since Romney became the presumptive nominee:
Registered voters in key 2012 election swing states remain closely divided in their presidential vote preferences, with 48% supporting President Barack Obama and 46% Mitt Romney. Other than a nine-point lead for Obama in March, the two candidates have been essentially tied in the swing states throughout the
campaign.”
LikeLike
inbutnotof: I read Bias some time ago.
The facts in it are still true, but it’s probably dated by now.
A Slobbering Love Affair is more recent, but I haven’t read it.
LikeLike
inbutnotof, I read Goldberg’s book on Mainstream Media bias. After writing it, he was viciously treated by the media as an apostate. He said things they all know but won’t publicly admit.
Evan Thomas, a senior Newsweek editor, estimates that in any presidential election the media contributes from ten to fifteen points in favor of the liberal candidate.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s necessarily a result of liberal media bias, but characterizing the Lewinski portion of Starr’s report as *just* a sex scandal is a pretty skewed view in some direction or other.
LikeLike
Well the Inspector General of the ATF released his report on Fast and Furious.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/09/19/review-atf-operation-fast-and-furious/
LikeLike
Heh. Hefewiessen is a wheat beer. Many varities of it are made right here in the US of A. So with my American beverage I shall ask for a side of arugula… 🙂
Cheryl. My compliments for getting my meaning, the whole tawdry affair was patheric. Also said that millions of dollars were expended to catch a man lying about an extra-marital dalliance.
Somone asked me about adultry and ethic (regarding politicians presumably). I don’t view adultry as a disqualifier and if any one of you supported Gingrich or voted for President Reagan, you don’t either.
LikeLike
A more recent (2011) book on media bias is “Left Turn” by Tim Groseclose, a UCLA professor (political science & economics).
From a review summarizing the volume’s key points:
“Every mainstream national news outlet in the United States has a liberal bias.”
“Supposedly conservative news outlets are not far right. For instance, the conservative bias of [Fox’s] Special Report is significantly less than the liberal bias of CBS Evening News.”
“Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn’t exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46.” [See editorial cartoons about Barack Obama.]
The author writes in his preface:
“In at least one important way, journalists are very different from the rest of us — they are more liberal. For instance, according to surveys, in a typical presidential election Washington correspondents vote about 93-7 for the Democrat, while the rest of America votes about 50-50.
“What happens when our view of the world is filtered through the eyes, ears, and minds of such a liberal group?
“As I demonstrate, using objective, social-scientific methods, the filtering prevents us from seeing the world as it actually is. Instead, we see only a distorted version of it. It is as if we see the world through a glass — a glass that magnifies the facts that liberals want us to see and shrinks the facts that conservatives want us to see.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the reference, Donna. That looks like an interesting book.
LikeLike
“Why would that matter?”
Dunno, but it sure seems to matter to s.s.m. opponents, who frequently point out that no state has approved it via referendum. In all likelihood that will no longer be the case three months from now.
“Here’s some more on polling.”
Meta-polls are usually more reliable than single polls by themselves. Hare are Nate Silver’s numbers (fivethirtyeight.com) for Obama’s odds of winning each of the six most interesting swing states as of the time of this posting:
Colorado: 62%
Florida: 57%
Iowa: 70%
New Hampshire: 71%
Ohio: 74%
Virginia: 68%
realclearpolitics.com’s compendium of state polls is here, too, if you want to see individual ones:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Sure, anything can happen between now and election day, but as things stand it’s not looking good for Romney. Definitely not a “coin flip” right now.
LikeLike
Coyote Blue, I’m pretty well versed on Reagan, and never heard any accusations of adultery against him. I was absolutely opposed to Gingrich, and his untrustworthiness was a very big part of it.
LikeLike
The news media bias has a big effect but I think that the bias of the entertainment media is at least as significant, and probably more so. Plenty of people pay no attention to the news, but not many avoid mass entertainment.
LikeLike
Cheryl
You have to go to President Reagan’s first marriage and divorce to find any discussion of adultery.
On media bias and then you have this from Ornstein and Mann and their book: It’s even worse than it looks.
“The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.
“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2012/05/mann-and-ornstein.html#ixzz270TSI19C
Dittoheads and others have been pretty well conditioned on the issue of media bias so if a reporter states that 9 of 10 scientists say that global warming is occurring, that reporter is criticized for not explaining the reasoning of the 10th scientist. One could go on with other examples, but it would not matter to people who are certain that what they are hearing is wrong and have as Richard Cheney so famously said an ability to create their own reality.
LikeLike
CB, When I was 14 I figured out that our only three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) were biased to the left. This is the reason Fox News and Limbaugh, et al became so popular. I think most of the MSM try to be objective and think they are objective. However, as countless studies have shown, 90% of them are liberals. They don’t even understand how we think.
LikeLike
Donna, I’ve always wondered why so many journalists are left-leaning. What’s your take on this?
LikeLike
Oh my dear, that New Yorker piece you linked is terrible, CB. What a dearth of specifics.
LikeLike
The book I referenced earlier makes an effort to sort out what outlets are the most neutral. But in general, it’s hard to argue that the media doesn’t lean left. (And interestingly, the professor also notes the fierce firestorm of reaction his book received, leading a number of his liberal colleagues to go to bat for him; some of the emails they received apparently were pretty vicious, so it touched a nerve.)
It’s not a conspiracy. But it is a result, I believe, of the fact that a strong majority of journalists are, personally, liberal. Why journalism attracts liberals is a question that has received much speculation. But it is a field that has long been dominated by people who are quite liberal politically.
Even the public editor of the NY Times recently wrote in his farewell column that the paper does, indeed, lean left, noting that the journalists live in something of a bubble among themselves.
Newsrooms create an environment in with liberal ideas are simply the norm. They are mainstream. The liberal viewpoint is the rational and logical way to look at the world.
Conservative ideas sound frankly quite radical to many journalists (in part because they’re never around that many people who genuinely and thoughtfully hold to them).
And, yes, that affects what is covered and how it is covered. Unintentionally, subconsciously perhaps. But it does affect the way the news is processed and presented.
Unfortunately, readers are now prone to cry bias at every turn (in a landscape filled with wolves, they begin to be seen even where they’re not). When bias is accused ALL the time in almost a knee-jerk reaction, journalists begin to roll their eyes (understandably).
So I’m afraid the entire situation has resulted in a nation that has little trust in any news media outlet. I don’t know how we begin to restore all of that. 😦
As for Ree’s remark about the influence of the entertainment media, I completely agree. In terms of reshaping our attitudes, it has immense power and influence, for better or worse.
Personal anecdote: back in my college schoolgirl liberal days, I had walked countless precincts for (gasp) George McGovern. I had the bumper sticker on my VW. I had the T-shirt. I was a believer.
When one of the nation’s most popular television shows at the time — “All in the Family” — was set to run an episode just 3 days before election day in which McGovern was to be given a big push in the plot, the campaign was elated.
But I remember thinking to myself, that’s kind of unfair. Here’s a popular TV show that’s basically going to give a boatload of free advertising to a candidate right before the election.
Don’t get me wrong, I hoped it would help just like all my other fellow campaigners (it obviously made NO difference, however 😉 ).
But from that point forward I realized how powerful the left-leaning entertainment media was when it came to the nation’s politics and policies.
The rapid success of the push for gay marriage, of course, is the more recent example of how the entertainment media can influence a culture.
LikeLike
Other examples of the entertainment media driving cultural changes: the normalization of living together outside of marriage (a harmful change, most of us would argue); the acceptance of other races (a positive change, most of us would argue).
Television and movies were prime movers in the civil rights era, especially in the mid to late 1960s when attractive black characters, for the first time, began to show up regularly in prime time.
I suspect that Bill Cosby starring every week in “I Spy,” watched in living rooms everywhere, moved race relations forward by leaps and bounds for many average Americans. My mom was a huge fan of the show, she loved Cosby.
LikeLike
Thank you for your perspective, Donna. The book you mention, “Left Turn”, sounds very good, also. I’ll have to read the excerpt at Amazon (I looked at the table of contents, and just from that it sounds like something I would want to read), and then see if the book is in our library system.
LikeLike
Cosby was so cool in that show. So was Culp. Great team.
LikeLike
Back to the question of why journalism seems to attract liberals:
Perhaps more liberals find journalism an appealing field because it allows them to pursue what (maybe) is a natural “crusader” spirit. Maybe conservatives don’t “crusade” so much.
(And, perhaps, conservatives who do go into journalism leave the field sooner rather than later — either for more money or because they grow weary of fighting the tide in the liberal newsroom environment.)
There are other theories, of course. But it is interesting that most surveys of working journalists consistently reveal a strong preference for liberal politics and liberal cultural attitudes.
I recall surveys also that indicated a rather tiny percentage of journalists attend religious services on any kind of a regular basis, thus perhaps also explaining journalism’s ham-handed and often unperceptive/stereotype-style coverage of stories that intercept with religious themes.
LikeLike
Solar
That would be because its a book review. If you want specifics read the book
LikeLike