Comments on: Surprises never cease department: Media bias 101

By: Howard

Howard — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:59:47 +0000

The media’s continual bias in favor of Obama is not only disgusing, it’s against everything that America,
a Free Press, and Freedom of Speech stands for. To suggest that there is no media bias in favor of Obama not only robs Americans of the truth, it insults the intelligence of the American people.
TALK IS CHEAP … CHECK OBAMA’S RECORD !!!
A candidate’s track record, and associations are always a legitimate issue when running for President. Let’s take a look at the qualifications, judgement, and experience of Obama, who is running for President. Obama had 25 years to fulfill the potential he displayed as a rising start at Harvard Law School … and, how did he live up to that potential? … He chose to align himself with anti-American racist, Jeremiah Wright for TWENTY YEARS … along with Ferrahkan, Rezko, Ayers, and others. As a community organizer, he registered thousands of voters in Chicago … then, when he ran for the state legislature, he took away their votes, by disqualifying his opponent (a black woman) on a technicality. As a U.S. Senator, he voted present 160 times … he never called a meeting on the Afghanistan committee he chaired (although he NOW says we must shift all our military from Iraq to Afghanistan). He claimed Foreign Policy experience from a 9 day whirlwind photo op to 6 countries. And, he spent almost half of his tenure neglecting his responsibilities as a U.S. Senator, so he could run for President. Senator McCain served America honorably for 22 years in the military. He proved his love for America, as well as his honor, integrity and character, by refusing early release as a P.O.W., even while being tortured. He served America as a ‘contributing’ U.S. Senator, working across the aisle, for 20 years. If Obama’s Twentyfive year track record shows he lacks judgement, and can’t be trusted, who cares what he says about Health Care and the Economy! What Obama never learned is Character. He simply can’t be trusted … ask Jeremiah Wright, a friend of 20 years, who Obama betrayed for personal ambition … and, you Obama supporters really think he won’t betray you If he gets elected??? If he gets elected, you Obama supporters will be facing a HUGE disillusionment !!!

By: WebElf Report News Blog-O-Rama « The WebElf Report

WebElf Report News Blog-O-Rama « The WebElf Report — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:21:23 +0000

[...] ROGER KIMBALL– “Surprises never cease department: Media bias 101″ …. [...]

By: Liberal Media - Page 2 - ExpressJet Forum

Liberal Media - Page 2 - ExpressJet Forum — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:30:52 +0000

[...] Roger’s Rules

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:41:09 +0000

When media types are confronted with their overwhelming tilt left, their response is often along the lines of “We care so much more about the world, which is why we got into this business in the first place, therefore it’s no surprise that our personal politics tend towards the Democratic Party, since they’re the only ones who care about making things better. But it doesn’t mean we shortchange the Republicans at all.”

Say Roy M., you’re not actually Pinch Sulzberger posting under a pseudonym, are you?

By: Roy M

Roy M — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:43:42 +0000

It’s worse than you think Roger.

On the measure of money donated Americans living in Europe are also biased 10:1 for Obama. In fact even Americans living at home are biased towards Obama by nearly 3:1. (I’m not sure why I said ‘even’). Using your preferred measure of political opinion America is solidly pro-Obama.

Of course though this is all nonsense.

Tate looked at donations made by a few hundred media types, subtracted donations to two republicans for no good reason and then came up with the magic number of 100:1. Wait, THAT was the good reason for dicounting donations to two Replublicans, so he could get the magic number.

How many people work in newsrooms anyway? Tens of thousands surely. So this is built on the freakish 1% of journalists who donate to political parties. A better headline for this piece would be “99% journalists display no bias through political donations.” Actually thats a terrible headline, but more accurate and less biased.

By: srlucado

srlucado — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:21:26 +0000

“In other words, there is no media bias.”

I have to wonder whether members of the media actually believe this. Can they possibly be so blind to their own prejudices?

I’ve often said that I don’t expect media rats to be purely objective – no one is – but they should at least have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge their biases.

Scott