-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
Media Matters
The Objective Truth
Liberal media still think they own the copyright to it.
In its recent poll of where people get their news, Politico.com offers an apparently new definition of the word “objective.”
The poll data show that 81% of respondents receive information and news about the mid-term elections from cable TV, with 71% getting info and news from “national broadcast TV news and their websites.” Other major sources were:
Conversations with friends/family: 79%
Local TV news and their websites: 73%
Newspapers: 72%
Radio: 58%
Websites and blogs (other than the national/local news sites):
39%
Political ads: 37%
Much to the dismay of liberals, the cable news breakdown looks like this:
Mainly CNN: 30%
Mainly Fox News: 42%
Mainly MSNBC: 12%
Other cable news channel/website: 9%
Politico, which like most “establishment” news sources staffed by the usual journalism school graduate suspects, feels a need to criticize or insult the obvious dolts who are handing Fox News this media victory:
The results of the poll…also reflect a trend that many commentators and media analysts find disconcerting: Voters are turning to media sources that reinforce their political worldviews rather than present them with more objective reporting that might challenge their assumptions.
Sure, Politico says this trend is “disconcerting” to “many commentators and media analysts”…but that group of course includes Politico, which doesn’t attempt to quantify what “many” means and if “many” even represents more than a small percentage of such “analysts.”
In any case, the most objectionable part of the article was its use of the word “objective” to imply that if we turned to CBS News or a newspaper or presumably Politico.com we would get “objective” reporting as opposed to whatever it is we get from Fox.
Does anybody really believe that before the advent of Fox News and widespread availability of cable news channels, Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw was giving us “objective” news? Remember Dan Rather, the guy who tried to bury President Bush with a forged document? The earliest major cable news outlet, CNN, was and remains decidedly left-of-center.
A Harvard study of news coverage of the 2008 presidential primary season found CNN to be the most negative toward Republicans among cable news channels: “The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates — by a margin of three-to-one.” Believe it or not, MSNBC had a higher percentage of positive stories about both Democrats and Republicans than either CNN or FOX, as it simply pandered to both parties. As for Fox, the study concluded “any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.”
Also within cable news channels CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, Fox had the highest percentage of “neutral” stories about Republicans (just slightly above CNN). Also, while Fox had a higher percentage of negative stories about Democrats than either CNN or MSNBC, it had a higher percentage of neutral stories than negative stories. Taking just the difference between positive and negative stories about both parties for all three networks, Fox rated as the most neutral.
As far as the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), “The tone of coverage in the 30-minute evening newscasts was much more positive toward the Democrats than Republicans.” And for the networks’ morning broadcasts, “the shows produced almost twice as many stories focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans (51% vs. 27%).”
Also worth noting is that the most pro-Democrat bias among various forms of media was in newspapers: “Fully 59% of all stories about Democrats had a clear, positive message vs. 11% that carried a negative tone. That is roughly double the percentage of positive stories that we found in the media generally.”
So, back to “objective”: The idea that people should tune into stations (or read other news sources) beyond Fox News in order to get more objective news is, at least according to the Harvard study and the apparent decision of millions of viewers, ridiculous. Fox has shown that it lives by “fair and balanced” which, in the eyes of those only used to seeing liberal propaganda masquerading as news, might seem subjective and conservative. But that’s a problem with Politico’s perception and that of its quoted “analysts.” While the dominant liberal media see Fox as a problem, viewers are obviously seeing it as a solution.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Media Matters
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/08/the-objective-truth
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- A Nation on the Edge
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 10.8.10 @ 6:18AM
Well,I prefer Fox because,unlike CNN or MSNBC or the 3 'majors',they don't insult my intelligence by inferentially saying that what I believe is 'extreme' or 'out of the mainstream' or all the other condescending terms they use to mock and belittle conservatives....besides,Fox is the only one will really provide both conservative and liberal advocates for a hot timely issue going at it with each other hammer and tongs...as Charles Krauthammer keenly observed,Fox had found a 'niche market'...nearly half the American people
RabidAmerican| 10.10.10 @ 11:22AM
A poll (a regret remembering the source, maybe Pew or Rasmussen) but certainly very legitimate about 18 months back showed that about 80 percent of 'conservatives' actually gathered their information from a wide variety of sources: liberal, conservative and in between. Only about 25 percent of 'liberals' read anything outside their ideology.
It was only after asking the questions as to 'news sources' that the final question of political ideology was asked, purposefully. They wanted non-tained answers.
But that is something I've noted personally my whole life. The folks I know that tend liberal are myopic in their news sources, I guess so they aren't intellectually challenged. Most conservatives, I've found, entertain the thoughts and provocations of liberal musings.
But that's symptomatic of most liberals anyway. Look at how they trumpet 'tolerance' yet are the most intolerant of those not thinking like they do.
Liberals are immature. That's why they stay in their comfort zone with news etc. They need to stay in their cradle. Ever notice that most liberals start their conversations with essentially: "Wouldn't it be nice if...?" Just like a 7-year-old.
Appleby| 10.8.10 @ 6:39AM
We in Kanukistan are following this trend, much to the hysterical dismay of our left wing dominated propaganda machine, particularly our own Al-Jazeera, CBC, which we are forced to pay for although a large number of us have a Channel Block on them that is only lifted for hockey games.
We had a very hard battle to get Fox News Channel at all -- its on the high tier of digital cable , in specialty package -- which the real Al-Jazeera did not have, and currently we are about to get a new Sun News Channel that the hysterical local socialist media and a Soros-backed group from the USA have labeled Fox News North and are trying their best to strangle before it is ever born.
I honestly believe that if Canada could seal the border to American teevee altogether, it would do so. The only other country I know where the free exchange of views is so feared is North Korea.
Pay close attention, folks; this is the model King Zero admires. So far, you are ignoring them; but keep one eye on those of such desperate sincerity that they are working to choke off your access to any viewpoint but theirs.
Mari| 10.9.10 @ 10:07AM
You're right. Fox truly lives in the heads of Zero and his fellow donks. Unbelievable.
Ralph Novy| 10.9.10 @ 5:26PM
Yeah, I saw "Canadian Bacon" too.
Jerry| 10.8.10 @ 6:40AM
There are no objective news sources. All of these stories are just attempts to attract new readers/listeners/watchers to one place or another to get their news. The audience is evolving and may sample dozens of sources in a year, spend a month or two as a regular at Fox or MSNBC and then get lured to CNN or back to the network. As for myself I am 100% internet now because I can do it on my schedule. I also subscribe to some podcasts for interesting, in depth coverage. It may be a day late but I don't get commercials and I can listen in the car, while mowing the lawn, washing the car. 30 second news sound bites on TV are so yesterday.
Shamus| 10.8.10 @ 7:46AM
Fake but accurate.
Jeremiah| 10.8.10 @ 7:59AM
On the planet of the blind the one-eyed man is not made king; he is declared a conservative extremist and a nutjob. Now you know what planet the establishment media is from.
Alan Brooks| 10.9.10 @ 10:07PM
The rightwing opposition are the Jacobins this time around.
carnot| 10.10.10 @ 12:30PM
unlike the ideological wing-nuts currently in the WH and Democratic Party?
yeaaaaa.......riiiiiiight!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.8.10 @ 8:15AM
Politico is the last place I would go to in an effort to find a fact. Their stories are subjective slander masquerading as possibly interesting points of view.
As far as CNN and NBC (National Barack Channel) and PMSNBC their dwindling audiences indicate what happens when your shows are so predictable, i.e., Olbermann screaming and Rachel Madcow having another PMS inspired hissy fit. You'd have to be an idiot to watch either of those shows or any of those channels.
Louis Jenkins| 10.8.10 @ 8:40AM
It is fun to occassionally watch one of the big three, just to see the lies they are telling, otherwise I get most of my news off the internet, and some off of Fox. Let's be honest here, the big three now comes off like the Three Stooges, but that would be paying them a compliment. And getting your news from Rachel? Come on guys, that's about as plain as a stink bomb.
Kishego| 10.8.10 @ 2:27PM
I was doing the same thing until my wife recently banned me from watching any network news. She got tired of hearing me scream profane insults at the T.V.
cuban pete| 10.8.10 @ 5:16PM
Here! Here!
The internet saved my marriage.
Texas Mom 2010| 10.8.10 @ 10:49PM
This is why in our first year of marriage (Dec 1986) my husband started taking the paper to work every morning rather than leaving it at home... He got tired of the phone calls saying did you see that!!! So we are still married... He thinks all pols are crooks and I am anTEA party supporter!
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 8:47AM
Come on Louis, Rachel is a helluva guy!
AnyoneButNewt| 10.8.10 @ 9:18AM
I could write pages about this, but its finally starting to sink in that the mainstream media is just a branch of The Ruling Class, a mockery of a monarchy so to speak. The peasants are storming the castle, and all Butch Maddow can say is "Let Them Drink Tea."
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 9:48AM
Speaking of objective truth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AmjENXC3zA
davelnaf| 10.8.10 @ 9:48AM
Before the advent of Fox perhaps a majority of the news viewing population held a deep suspicion of the objectivity of the Old Media. Anyone who was a regular viewer in those days could easily see through the ideological bias in a lot of their so-called ‘news’ stories. Even the selection of what was deemed newsworthy was ideologically biased in favor of liberal causes and the liberal worldview. The unsmiling look of latent liberal suspicion on the face Diane Sawyer of ABC as she interviewed US Air Force pilots on the day after 9/11 is still a good example in my mind of where these people come from.
Americans that have parted ways with the Old Media probably did not do so all at once, but as a result of an accumulation of outrages, like the one above.
Mark James| 10.10.10 @ 11:17AM
Yeah I remember those days, and the constant bias of reporting about Vietnam. Cronkite and the other portrayed it as a huge loss while the Dems in Congress were writing laws to defund the South Vietnamese army and make it "illegal" to cross into Cambodia after the rats. Cronkite is still a traitor.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 9:50AM
Let's try that link again...if it doesn't work...go to youtube and type in governor perry rush limbaugh
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AmjENXC3zA
Ned| 10.8.10 @ 10:52AM
I'm quite proud of the fact that I stopped watching the evening news in the 1970's, because their coverage was so biased, and their attempts to sell their liberal garbage as truth were (and are) so blatant and pathetic. The most pathetic part, however, is their ongoing, feeble attempts to DENY that they are biased!!!
EVERYONE is biased in one way or another, for God's sake! Admit it, address it up front and openly and get on with your "reporting".
Since they refuse to do admit their bias, and instead pronounce themselves "professionals" and somehow above the fray, you have to suspect their motives. And that's where this all becomes a liberal criminal conspiracy (is that triple redundant?).
They lie. They know they are lying, and deny it, compounding the lie. Then they lie about the orignal lie and the denial.
Anthony| 10.8.10 @ 11:02AM
Good to see a picture of ole Dan Rather again. The Leftist MSM were dying before Dan and Mary Mapes put a stake into the heart of what was left of their "objectivity" and relevance.
Being one of the cornerstones of the four corners of deceit, they did their part very well, and frankly, but for them still, the Democrat Party woudl be long dead.
Rather made the complex simple; he showed those Americans who would not, or could not, comprehend the level of dishonesty and bias of the media, the ugly truth.
Poor Dan, he is now left to wander the face of the earth as the ultimate disgrace of the MSM, and no number of Peabody Awards, given to him by his fawning duplicitious collegues, can wipe away his disgrace.
I'm suprised Rather has landed a job at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism. Somebody needs to call that jerk Bollinger. Isn't one corner of the four corners of deceit supposed to take care of the others?
Courage, Dan, courage.
P.S. Hey Dan, why no interest in Obozo's birth certificate? Only kidding, we know the answer.
Ralph Novy| 10.9.10 @ 5:21PM
No big fan of Dan Rather.
But he was definitely "set up" in that G.W. Bush military-records thing.
I'd submit that Chris Wallace is the true "disgrace" of the MSM. Given his father's legacy, he ought to know better.
irrational| 10.8.10 @ 11:22AM
What is truth anyway? Nobody can really agree on what it is. Which says that there is no such thing. So you, and the media, might as well just make everything up. It's so much easier, and has the same effect.
Of course, if people start acting on make-believe, we might have a problem ... .
Al Adab| 10.8.10 @ 12:33PM
"Quid est Veritas?" Pontius Pilate
If truth is relative and dependant upon the reporting source then our media is right to assume they are the determinant of truth. Since they are wrong in that view, and there does exist a absolute Truth, the battle continues.
LV| 10.8.10 @ 2:25PM
I guess, by your comment, that you do not consider these to be doctors:
Dentists
Veterinarians
Psychologists
Chiropractors
Doctor of Divinity
Juris Doctor
None of the above are medical doctors or PhDs.
I guess you also consider an insult:
Dr. J
Dr. John
Dr. Hook
Doc Gooden
and others.
Are these debasements? A title is one thing, a nickname is another. You are irrational.
LV| 10.8.10 @ 2:27PM
This was supposed to be placed below your comment about what constitutes a doctor.
A. Murray Kahn| 10.10.10 @ 7:33AM
You may have no interest in truth, but truth has an interest in you.
Margie| 10.10.10 @ 10:34PM
Yes Pontious Pilate asked Jesus that question, "What is truth?"
Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him." Jn. 18:38.
He asked Him, but Truth was standing right in front of Him.
"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.
Doctor Right| 10.8.10 @ 11:22AM
I LOVE that these pompous, self-important twits in the lame-stream media simply DON'T get it:
We have tuned them out because they are Liberal-Democrats parrots, and because they suck.
They're like all those people on the upper West-side of Manhattan who couldn't believe that Nixon won in 1972 because they didn't know anyone who voted for him!!!
Such clueless buffoonery is TRULY a thing to behold!
And this November, it will be especially sweet!
Redstateboy| 10.8.10 @ 11:28AM
I didn't even recognize Liber-ul Media bias until I read Bernard Goldberg's book: "Bias"
Outstanding book.. now I can spot Liber-ul bias a mile away.
irrational| 10.8.10 @ 11:39AM
Good for you, Redstateboy. Can you also spot Conserva-tiv bias a mile away? Or is there no such thing?
Al Adab| 10.8.10 @ 12:37PM
Conservative bias exists. It holds a position that rejects moral relativism in favor of the search for Truth which is a quest that helps define 2500 years of Western Civilization. It values Liberty over materialism while providing both and recognizes the uniqueness of the individual over the group identity.
solipslip| 10.8.10 @ 5:03PM
I am stealing this big Al, thank you!
Where is our conservative Prometheus?-Solipslip
Al Adab| 10.8.10 @ 6:49PM
Help yourself. As to our firebringer, he or she is out there somewhere. History will rise up and identify.
carnot| 10.10.10 @ 12:36PM
the threat is from the liberal media....why waste time? you know...the folks who preach redistribution while negotiating multi-million contracts for themselves and colluding to fabricate news stories ala journolist.
gotta take care of the bigegst threats first. common sense.
irrational| 10.8.10 @ 11:33AM
Doctor Right - Perhaps you are unaware of it, but the term "Doctor" is a title which actually has meaning. It refers to someone who is either a medical doctor, or has earned a PhD. In case you don't know, the work involved in acquiring either of these degrees is tremendous. You insult those who have done so by mis-appropriating that title.
If you debase the language, it's not too long before you will be debasing the society you live in.
T.A.B. - M. of T., S. and D.| 10.8.10 @ 1:36PM
Irrational - Perhaps you are unaware of it, but you certainly live up to your name.
Sincerely,
The All-Being, Master of Time, Space and Dimension
Kishego| 10.8.10 @ 2:35PM
So, do you travel in a T.A.R.D.I.S. as well. LOL
Martin Treptow| 10.8.10 @ 4:11PM
Did you really just post a seven-line harangue toward "Doctor" Right that used the phrase, "debase the language"?
Doctor Loser
Troll.
Fail.
Cheers!
dw| 10.8.10 @ 11:43AM
Thank God for FOX. When a liberal says not to tune in FOX, ever the more reason to watch it.
Jack Olson| 10.8.10 @ 11:50AM
All evidence says that the vast majority of journos are politically liberal. One of a political liberal's main motives is to convince himself not only of his moral worth but moral superiority. This is why, when you criticize a liberal policy, a liberal will defend it by calling you a bigot. The MSM does the same thing, except they do it in daily papers and on network television. If you don't like Obama, they call you a racist. If you disapprove of same sex marriage or illegal immigration, they call you a bigot. If you admire the Tea Party, they actually call you a sexual pervert ("teabagger"). If you point out to them that accusing one's audience of bigotry and perversion is an effective means to drive them away, and that that is just what the MSM has been doing for years, they call you an ignoramus.
Tim*| 10.8.10 @ 12:32PM
We are in A Media War .
Bankrupt The Liberal Mainstream Media .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates
Rise Up !
joker's wild| 10.8.10 @ 2:22PM
That is, if you still can get it up.
Tim*| 10.8.10 @ 3:54PM
You could still vote with your sleeper johnson if ya wanna joker . We won't laugh at ya .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Rise Up ! (except for joker , he got a note from his mother )
Tony in Central PA| 10.8.10 @ 5:09PM
The " Politico " piece begins with a fact - free assertion and proceeds from there, like so many things that now pass for journalism. There really is no distinction between " subjective " and " objective " these days other than " yours " and " mine ". The corollary is that there is also no distinction between reporting facts and editorializing. I doubt most new journo grads could provide a coherent definition of subjective, objective, reporting or editorial. Those who can probably forget it within a year of working for most news outlets.
Pat| 10.8.10 @ 7:58PM
If you desperately need your daily jolt of righteous indignation, click over to the N.Y. Times or Washington Post website, they’ll make you crazy with their nonsense, you’ll snort in disgust while reading their peculiar slants on the news, but you’ll also help make these bastions of liberal propaganda a little wealthier. Like all businesses referred to as “mainstream media”, advertising revenue is their life’s blood and their revenue depends on being read by folks like you, they tell their advertisers the best way to reach their customers is through them and they have the facts and figures to prove it. Your visit to their website helped them, maybe that was not your intention but your visit was included in their reported circulation numbers.
Of course the liberal media is angry when conservatives or independents shun their websites or cancel their subscriptions. It’s not about objective news stories, unbiased editorials or even an alternate point of view despite their very vocal claims to the contrary. Stay away and you take the dollars out of their profit margins and the gas out of their Porsches. So, if you want to stand up and be counted, then don’t be counted by visiting their websites or subscribing to their print media. Your wallet and your descendents will thank you for it later.
tom baty| 10.8.10 @ 9:55PM
I wish everyone would stop calling them MSM, there is nothing mainstream about them. There has to be a better designation . My favorite is Socialist Liberals Undermining Truth or just SLUT for short.
Brian Mc| 10.9.10 @ 5:54AM
Not bad, Tom...I like Ruling Class Media (RCM) better, but for only one reason; I can say it in mixed company...without discomfort. With that said, it's interesting in that a few years back, there was some poll that went around to all the liberal higher schools of learning, most especially, the journalism schools, and asked the grads why they chose said subject as their major. From what I recall, almost all said they wanted to help foment 'change'. First, what gives these idiots the right? Second, funny how the alien stole the phrase during his run at the highest office, isn't it?
Coincidence? I doubt it.
ken (Old Texican)| 10.8.10 @ 10:09PM
The novel is released.
www.texassaidno.com
Blackwatch| 10.9.10 @ 1:31AM
"Much to the dismay of liberals, the cable news breakdown looks like this:
Mainly CNN: 30%
Mainly Fox News: 42%
Mainly MSNBC: 12%
Other cable news channel/website: 9%"
Ok, dropping the "other cable news channel/website: 9%" since we are now comparing news channels to websites (wtf?)...one has to wonder if anyone at Politco passed second grade math?
30% + 12% = 42% right?
for our challenged "journalists" at Politico I'll rearrange it for you:
CNN viewers 30% + MSNBC viewers 12% = Fox Viewers 42%
So the clearly partisan hack at Politco ignores the obvious fact inside his story that the same number of people watch the conservative network that watch the liberal networks combined. If there was a conservative network other than Fox then Fox would loose some viewers.
So why don't the owners of MSNBC and CNN start hiring some conservatives and boost their own ratings? Those guys are as dumb as a box of rocks that's why.
Wait let me apologize now to boxes of rocks everywhere for my unintentional put down...
Jack Olson| 10.9.10 @ 9:44AM
Blackwatch, we all hire and promote in our own image. Not only are conservative journalists as scarce as whooping cranes because it is nearly impossible to get through journalism school if you dare to voice conservative ideas, but liberal news execs cannot see any competence in those few. In Renaissance times, the Catholic Church desperately needed reform but when Martin Luther told them that they called him a heretic. Since the MSM is incapable of reform through determination at the top, it will come only through irresistible pressure from outside.
voted against carter| 10.9.10 @ 3:59AM
Lets see, what to watch, what to watch? Fair and balanced news? Which channel?
So do I watch the All Baroc Channel?
No?
How about the Complete Baroc Station?
Or the New Baroc Channel?
Maybe the More Super New Baroc Channel?
How about the Communist News Network?
No.
For Fair and balanced news, that would be FOX News.
Just Say'n.
Ken Roberts | 10.9.10 @ 7:34AM
When you break the law of journalism ( lie) you have then put the news in trouble . when they have violated a public trust such as they did with Obama they broke that rule and are now paying the price . how long will it go on , long enough to bankrupt several news outlets . shame on them all for hiding facts and not reporting the truth.
Krautner| 10.9.10 @ 3:04PM
The objectivity of Fox news is demolished when they hire GOP operatives and candidates as commentators— Carl Rove, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are under contract to Fox News.
The main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden to appear on any TV network besides Fox.
Anyone who thinks isolating candidates in a friendly arena is a good way to get the truth would have been a sure sucker for Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi lie machine.
Ralph Novy| 10.9.10 @ 5:07PM
Krautner:
What's with the "main GOP contenders are contractually forbidden...."?
Sure about that? I doubt it.
Otherwise, though, good points.
carnot| 10.10.10 @ 12:41PM
yea...that must explain Lamont Hill and all the other Dem "strategists" who regularly appear on Fox shows.
and you miss the point...of the folks who gravitate to Fox....most do so as the lesser/least of too many evils.
Ralph Novy| 10.9.10 @ 5:01PM
"...Dan Rather, the guy who tried to bury President Bush with a forged document?"
Liar.
carnot| 10.10.10 @ 12:44PM
what's the frequency Ralph?
Florida University.
objective | 10.10.10 @ 12:09PM
It is always fascinating how no one really ever thinks of the other side of the equation when making any statement. I agree that Politco.com should have wondered with CNN and MSNBC was providing in regard to viewpoint as opposed to just going on about Fox being more Republican.
Tom in Michigan| 10.10.10 @ 3:54PM
The obvious bias of outlets like the nightly news, Time and the local paper such as the Detroit Free Press has been blatantly obvious for decades.
Here's a perfect example of the insidious nature of the corrupt, leftist media. In 1968, after one of the greatest victories in military history, the utter defeat of the North Vietnamese and the destruction of the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force; Walter Cronkite called the war "unwinnable" (one friend who had fought in Tet said, "What the hell war is he watching? We kicked their axxes!") and was credited with significantly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In January 2006, he said exactly the same thing about the Iraq War.
Not only is the leftist media corrupt; it borders on anti-American. This is the reason why Fox enjoys such a huge viewership advantage over all its competitors. This is the reason Newsweek is now worth $1. This is the reason leftist newspapers are failing across the nation and are seeking a government "bail out."
I for one seldom, if ever watch CNN (MSNBC is frankly, unwatchable) and cancelled my Time and Free Press subscriptions years ago. I don't like everything on Fox (I don't like Beck's delivery and think O'Reilly is, as he freely admits-a blowhard) and fact-check any questionable matters of interest but, I can be reasonably certain they will be more "objective" on all counts than their competitors. If anybody is watching "news" that reinforces their fixed political views; it's the CNN and most assuredly the MSNBC viewers.
Tom in Michigan| 10.10.10 @ 3:55PM
To be clear; my reference was to the US victory in the Tet Offensive.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:42AM
The poll data show that 81% of respondents receive information and news about the mid-term elections from cable TV, with 71% getting info and news from "national broadcast TV news and their websites."