More Evidence Of A Liberal Media Bias

View attachment 616

Study: Networks seized on Romney's hidden-camera remark, downplayed Obama's​

​

The big three broadcast networks devoted dozens of stories last week to Mitt Romney's supposed "47 percent" gaffe but gave just a fraction of that air time to covering an audio tape of controversial remarks by President Obama, according to the Media Research Center.

The MRC examined how much total air time each story got last week and found coverage of the Romney remarks overpowered coverage of the Obama remarks by a 13-1 ratio.

The center found that ABC, CBS and NBC - on their evening and morning shows -- spent 88 minutes and 42 total stories on Romney. They spent six and a half minutes and eight stories on Obama.

The Obama quote purportedly was from a 1998 conference at Loyola University. In an audio recording posted online, the young Obama could be heard telling the audience he believes there has been "a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy."

"I think that what we're going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all," Obama said. "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

The Romney campaign tried to draw attention to that clip after Democrats had hammered him over hidden-camera footage of remarks he made to donors in May about people who don't pay taxes.

He said: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. ... "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Romney said that, as a presidential candidate, he didn't have to "worry about those people."
The Media Research Center estimated that if the coverage of each was compared starting with when the Obama recording emerged last Tuesday night, the coverage of Romney still outpaces that of Obama by a 10-1 ratio.
"The double-standard within just one week of the news cycle is staggering," the center wrote in its analysis.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/study-networks-seized-on-romney-hidden-camera-remark-downplayed-obama/#ixzz27gkwoAkn​

 

As I predicted, it isn't Romney and his patheticly run campaign that is at fault, but rather the "liberal media" that is to blame for using Romney's own words.

Face it! Your candidate is a dog and will lose handily no matter who you choose to blame.

 

So this "study" by the MRC who's claim to fame is, "The Media Research Center Celebrates 25 Years of Fighting Liberal Media Bias!", and reports their results on the obviously biased Fox News Media channel is predictably reporting that the liberal media is biased. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. I might believe the reporting if so many of Romney's advisers didn't work directly for Fox News....Wait a minute, no I wouldn't.

 

Did you predict this also;
Network Morning Shows Completely Skip Report That Obama WH Knew Libya Attack Was Terrorism

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/u-s-diplomats-killed-in-libya.4604/page-11#ixzz27grjcHQ7​

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...iscovers_liberal_media_bias_in_wisconsin.html

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/msnbc-s-chris-matthews-admits-liberal-media-bias

 

They also skipped reporting the fact that congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle and Romney himself were also briefed at the same time as the Obama Administration about the Libyan attack.

Why do you suppose NewBusters failed to mention that fact in the story you forgot to reference?

DUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!! UHHH I DON"T KNOW!

 

Really? Obama lied and continues to lie to the public. Rice lied to the public. Carney lied to the public. Clinton lied to the public. And still you are worried about who was told to begin with? Not only that, but I do not remember hearing about their lying No wonder your side is so screwed up.

 

It really depends on whether or not you believe our government (Republican-led or Democrat-led is irrelevant) would intentionally ignore a threat to it's ambassadors. Only a Republican mind would question our government in such a way, and only if the government was Democrat-led.

One more example on why it's now necessary to push Republicans out of politics. If they were mature enough to be rationale, such an effort wouldn't be necessary.

 

Let me here. The government admitted that it knew within 24 hours that it was solely a terrorist attack in Benghazi but Obama, Rice, Carney, Clinton, et al continued to say that the attack was (is?) solely because of that movie that no one has heard of. And you think it is a partisan question whether or not our government lied? Are you really that far off the deep? There is no possible way both can be truthful.

 

First off, your comment is about our government's knowledge of the incident after it occurred, where mine was of it's knowledge before the incident occurred.

Secondly, the 24 hours after the incident is one of investigation, one of assessing the situation, and people have different interpretations of that to this day, you included. But, instead of wanting to know the truth of what happened, your party insists on hampering that effort with accusations that are pointless.

That's the typical nonsense America gets from immature political hacks bent on creating problems instead of working on solutions to real issues.

One more reason why it's now necessary to limit the Republican party's power. They are too immature and irrational to be allowed back into power.

 

Ah ha ha ha ha! Changing your attack eh? The fact is that it is standard protocol to inform both candidates and top congressional leaders of incidents like these.

So everyone knew and it still makes no difference whatsoever and all you have is that the administration didn't give us all the details immediately which one would assume was for national security since once they tell us everything our enemies also know everything we know.
Sounds to me like you guys are siding with the enemy. Is there any other information you would like us to divulge to the terrorists? Are your Muslim terrorist friends annoyed at the pace of information coming from our government? You really shouldn't be palling around with terrorists.

 

I answer your post, but I am changing topic! Right? You need to blow more smoke than that.
Not only that, but you have no answer for why the fact that "congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle and Romney himself". I still say it is of no import compared to the lies Obama keeps giving out.

 

I'll just interject a thought or two here. Take them as you please.

First is why didn't MRC look at the big FOUR but just three?

Shouldn't the "fair and balanced" Fox be in that study? They tout themselves and are touted as BIG and it's true. How many people watch Fox news and, what I feel is, the right wing slant?
Wouldn't that change those numbers substantially if they are so big?

Second is really simple. Not saying it's right but it is reality.

The year is 2012. The Presidential election is in 2012.
What Romney had to say he said 4 months ago. What Obama had to say he said 14 years ago.

It doesn't matter if one likes it or not. There is a difference of basically 14 years here. People are interested in more current news I believe.
Doesn't matter if one thinks it's right or wrong. It's the nature of the beast and I certainly won't deny ratings come into play.

Now if President Obama had said something like "I want this country to be communist by 2012 and I intend to be it's leader" it would be a totally different scenario.

We'd be just waiting to swear Romney in as President.

Instead the Republican party is grasping at straws. Real old straws.

It's not working.

Mitt Romney is becoming or has become his own worst enemy I believe.
He's had help for sure and I think the GOP is finally seeing it.

Might be a bit too late.

 

First, Fox is cable only while ABC, NBC, and CBS are local channels only. Although they are carried on cable, it is only from local channels for most cables, anyway.

I tend to agree with you to a great extent about the timing. On the other hand, you will never get atraight apple to apples comparators for this. So how about this one. Would you believe Obama has admitted that he is lying on purpose with his commercials? But he did. Anybody but Fox cover it - Nope! And he even did it during a CBS interview. Somehow, CBS decided not to air that part of the interview.

Now just imagine what would have happened to Romney on CBS, NBC, and ABC if he admitted his ads were over the top. You would not hear another story until Romney resigned. You might not even have heard that Obama and company were lying to us about Benghazi. But then you did not hear about that anyway, now did you?

 

OK. Fox is cable. Does that make them that much smaller these days?
So many times I have seen it stated here on this forum that Fox is BIG.
I acknowledged that.
How many people do you know that don't have some sort of cable or some type of dish? I watch my local news via satellite these days.
Same with Fox. Funny thing is I might still be able to get all 4 with rabbit ears.

Show me he how he is lying and then explain how anyone can lie and NOT mean it to be on purpose.
I actually worked for a guy like that.

Damn you got me there rlm. How would I have heard about that after all.

Not like there was a thread about it here or anything like that. Something about four Americans being killed.
It got stupid IMHO real fast but yet I commented on it.

Then I saw the thread get even more stupid IMHO.

Still, I have followed the thread somewhat as I follow other threads that are not worth commenting on.

I generally do not comment on these threads as I see "the usual suspects" both left and right getting involved in "hissy fits". A waste of my time basically.

The media is out there and one can choose whatever story they want to believe in.

 

My in-laws have cable, but not Fox. Yes, Fox is big - when compared to other cable news outlets. It is actually getting close to ABC, NBC, and CBS, but not quite there yet. BTW,

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/itfacts/51-of-us-households-have-cable-tv-26-satellite/9778

Those are his words, not mine. You will have to ask him what he meant.

 

You are a difficult man to entertain.

(begins stretching and other warm-up exercises)

I am going to have to pull out all the stops here, I guess.

(yelling to people out of screenshot) Ok guys, the elephants gotta have bigger flames than that if this is gonna work! Is the cannon ready yet? What do you mean you 'have issues' with this? Look, they'll be fine! Just add more padding, you whiny little...

(turns back to clembo)Yeah, this may take a while. They're non-union.

(turning back to workers) Juan! Don't give me that, I know you understand English! Look, just drop what you're doin' and feed the cheetah, please. It keeps staring at me and pacing like it wants to try to take me down. (to cheetah) Don't even think about it, you little @#$%^&*! You may be fast and all, but I have tons of spot remover on hand and ain't afraid to use it!

 

While media bias has always existed, the American public seems to finally be realizing the ObamaMedia is in the tank for Barack Obama (hence the label, the ObamaMedia). This bias has become incredibly blatant because the ObamaMedia feels the need to defend itself, because it is largely responsible for the election of Barack Obama in 2008. His failure is their failure, so they will do what they can to make sure that he does not fail in November.

 

And the "liberal media" explains why Romney is losing this campaign? Maybe, just maybe, it is because Romney is a deeply flawed candidate. Let the excuses and poorly thought out justifications begin. Romney is simply the worst guy the Right-wingers have put up since Bush, end of story.