If it really was a "liberal" media......

[OzmO]

Please enlighten me   

You seem to know so much, yet remain a loser, mystery. 

If you can't figure it out with what i wrote in the same post you quoted it from, then you will always be naive.

Being naive is nothing to be ashamed of youandme.   You are still entertaining.   

[youandme]

Heavy reporting on Obama is negatively correlated with media profits. Meaning the more they report on one candidate, the more money they keep losing. Example: The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek. Who is making money: WSJ, Time, Fox.

The numbers don't lie

[MB_722]

Let me guess your his son, that can't read English or speak Spanish.

LOL

No I started a thread like this earlier and fortunately OzmO went further with it. 

He's asking good questions that seem to be stumping you. You don't want to see media conglomerates have an agenda. I'm not attacking your intelligence here and I don't want to. That isn't up for debate atm.

This whole idea that the media is liberal is hogwash.

[OzmO]

38 percent want to hear more about his opponent Sen. John McCain.

What percentage wants to hear about rape, death and child abduction?

McCain isn't making news, Obama is. 

get over it already.

McCain may just be too old to make news.

Maybe McCain doesn't know what TV is.   

McCain will make news.  Its not all his fault, it's partly BUSH's fault becuase he will always be tied to BUSH.  IF BUSH's ratings weren't so low, people would want to hear more about him, possibly.

[OzmO]

Heavy reporting on Obama is negatively correlated with media profits. Meaning the more they report on one candidate, the more money they keep losing. Example: The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek. Who is making money: WSJ, Time, Fox.

The numbers don't lie

Not true.   When Obama goes to Europe it's news.   when the first black or half black presidential candidate gets nominated by a major party it's news.  People are interested in what Obama is doing.  That's news.  that doesn't mean they would vote for him or want to, it just means Obama is news.  McCain isn't AT THE MOMENT.

[OzmO]

No need to get all pissy youandme.   geez.

[OzmO]

I hope this continues, and doesn't get out of hand.  this is a great discussion IMO.  Sorry about calling you naive youandme.

[youandme]

Ozmo what's the matter you can't make a real point without trying to come up with some witty remarks? I posted factual evidence, the news is better off reporting in a non biased matter....it's what brings in more viewers, more money.

This whole idea that the media is liberal is hogwash.

Media is not liberal? So what are they conservative? I'm only seeing one conervative MSM channel and that channel seems to be lagging on being ultra right, and coming to the center, FOX. The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek - Ultra Left, and they are losing money.

Media is left. Show me otherwise?

[OzmO]

Ozmo what's the matter you can't make a real point without trying to come up with some witty remarks? I posted factual evidence, the news is better off reporting in a non biased matter....it's what brings in more viewers, more money.

So you are saying the media is purposely losing money?

And the owners of these companies are ok with that?

What are they stupid capitalists? 

Media is not liberal? So what are they conservative? I'm only seeing one conervative MSM channel and that channel seems to be lagging on being ultra right, and coming to the center, FOX. The Trib, NY Times, NBC, Washington Post, Newsweek - Ultra Left, and they are losing money.

Media is left. Show me otherwise?

The media is "capitalistic"  They are neither conservative or liberal.  They are what ever gets them money.

[youandme]

Not true.   When Obama goes to Europe it's news.   when the first black or half black presidential candidate gets nominated by a major party it's news.  People are interested in what Obama is doing.  That's news.  that doesn't mean they would vote for him or want to, it just means Obama is news.  McCain isn't AT THE MOMENT.

It was biased news, that backfired? Agree? Dropped 9% point lead, and then the networks dropped their viewership, after the trip. That points to the fact that the liberal media, was too biased for even liberals, and they go burnt out.

Why was McCain such a hot ticket back in the day? His left views? His constant arguements with the President Bush?

McCain is a con. headache the media went after him, because he would side with their views, and ATTACK his own party, did you forget that? He still attacks his won party too much!!

Then, he went right again...sang "bomb Iran" and then the coverage went negative, on CNN etc, and then FOX gave at him, and started to run his speeches, and trails.

Media is biased people don't like that.

Hannity and Colmes great example. Colmes may be a secret con. that is in love with Clinton, but he shuts Hannity up, which people love because it's an arguement that follows two sides, and gets interesting.

[MB_722]

Ozmo answered your question towards me. Thanks OzmO

did you watch the video on the first page?

[OzmO]

It was biased news, that backfired? Agree? Dropped 9% point lead, and then the networks dropped their viewership, after the trip. That points to the fact that the liberal media, was too biased for even liberals, and they go burnt out.

IUt was news.  That didn't backfire for the media.  If it back fired, it back fired for Obama. 

Don't confuse the media with Obama.

Why was McCain such a hot ticket back in the day? His left views? His constant arguements with the President Bush?

McCain is a con. headache the media went after him, because he would side with their views, and ATTACK his own party, did you forget that? He still attacks his won party too much!!

He hasn't been attacking his party much lately.  His spent quite a bit of time firming his based with in the party to get nominated and now he's mostly, it seems, going after Obama.

Then, he went right again...sang "bomb Iran" and then the coverage went negative, on CNN etc, and then FOX gave at him, and started to run his speeches, and trails.

Singing Bomb Iran was done far before he was in the running to get nominated and that was such a stupid move by him.  REally stupid.  You think Obama does stupid things?  Com on.  Bomb Iran made news becuase it was good news to report for the media.  "good" in being people will want to here about it.

Media is biased people don't like that.

People perceive it that way,  mainly conservatives.  the media is capitalistic

Hannity and Colmes great example. Colmes may be a secret con. that is in love with Clinton, but he shuts Hannity up, which people love because it's an arguement that follows two sides, and gets interesting.

Both those guys are great.  But look at hannity, the "stop Obama Express".   WHY?  becuase Obama IS news and MCCain Isn't.  ATM. 

[Dos Equis]

I reference web sites because that's where you get the most radical stuff.   If the media was really liberal, we'd get that.

There are plenty of liberals in the media, but that doesn't make the media Liberal.

And you assertion about objectivity goes out the window, because if the media was liberal they wouldn't have to balance out their content so much.  Think about the power the media has.  they can create whatever truth they want and sow distrust in our government in a heartbeat

My position is the liberal bias is usually subtle, so your examples really don't apply.  If you pay attention to stories that are highlighted, how headlines are worded, what stories are covered, who gets better and/or more coverage (like the excerpt I posted above) it really isn't that hard to piece things to together. 

I remember a story on CNN about Bush talking with food in his mouth.  The headline was something like the "cussing, talking with food in mouth president" or something like that.  It didn't last long. 

I created a thread about this a while back with some other examples. 

[OzmO]

My position is the liberal bias is usually subtle, so your examples really don't apply.  If you pay attention to stories that are highlighted, how headlines are worded, what stories are covered, who gets better and/or more coverage (like the excerpt I posted above) it really isn't that hard to piece things to together.

Who gets better coverage or wordings, or, who warrants better coverage based on what attracts viewers?

You are acting as if a media company has to be fair to 2 different points of view.  A business doesn't have to be fair to anything when it comes to reporting news.  It only has to fair to its customers.......the advertisers and there commitment to their customers is viewers, becuase the more viewer the more happy the advertisers, the more money they give to the media company.

As if the a media company is supposed to be completely objective?  In theory and in a perfect world.  but not in a capitalists system and certainly not a communists system.

I remember a story on CNN about Bush talking with food in his mouth.  The headline was something like the "cussing, talking with food in mouth president" or something like that.  It didn't last long.

I created a thread about this a while back with some other examples.

You could cite and argue a thousand points and instances.  It doesn't matter becuase it's not about a bias, it's about what MAKES news. 

[Dos Equis]

Who gets better coverage or wordings, or, who warrants better coverage based on what attracts viewers?

You are acting as if a media company has to be fair to 2 different points of view.  A business doesn't have to be fair to anything when it comes to reporting news.  It only has to fair to its customers.......the advertisers and there commitment to their customers is viewers, becuase the more viewer the more happy the advertisers, the more money they give to the media company.

As if the a media company is supposed to be completely objective?  In theory and in a perfect world.  but not in a capitalists system and certainly not a communists system.

You could cite and argue a thousand points and instances.  It doesn't matter becuase it's not about a bias, it's about what MAKES news. 

I'm not necessarily talking about fairness.  The media does report/cover "bad" stories about both parties. 

Yes the media is supposed to be completely objective.  I know it will never happen, but no harm in pointing out bias when you see it. 

It's not about what makes news most of the time.  It's how the news is reported. 

[OzmO]

I'm not necessarily talking about fairness.  The media does report/cover "bad" stories about both parties. 

Yes the media is supposed to be completely objective.  I know it will never happen, but no harm in pointing out bias when you see it. 

It's not about what makes news most of the time.  It's how the news is reported. 

Then it's not much of a liberal media is it? 



So some program director or journalist who's liberal writes in a way that subtly reflects their opinion?  Works both ways.

The media will never by objective.   Objectivity doesn't sell.   

[Dos Equis]

Then it's not much of a liberal media is it? 



So some program director or journalist who's liberal writes in a way that subtly reflects their opinion?  Works both ways.

The media will never by objective.   Objectivity doesn't sell.   

Depends on your perspective.  Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.

I agree the media will never be completely objective.  They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion.  They are a necessary evil.   

[MB_722]

Depends on your perspective.  Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.

I agree the media will never be completely objective.  They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion.  They are a necessary evil.   

they are an unnecessary evil

we shouldn't be calling them media companies. We should call them propaganda distributors.

[Dos Equis]

they are an unnecessary evil

we shouldn't be calling them media companies. We should call them propaganda distributors.

They are a necessary evil because they shine the light on government and in many ways hold them accountable.  I just don't always agree with how they report the news.   

[MB_722]

I believe they do the opposite. They are only a necessary evil if they are doing their job properly. If you are happy with that POV, fine.

I read earlier you said it's more important how they give the news. That's one aspect but what I think is more important is what they are saying and more importantly what they are not. Especially in these times. But it isn't happening.

[OzmO]

Depends on your perspective.  Some people think there is a liberal bias, some don't.

I agree the media will never be completely objective.  They constantly manipulate the news and public opinion.  They are a necessary evil.   

Manipulate the public to what gain?

[Dos Equis]

I believe they do the opposite. They are only a necessary evil if they are doing their job properly. If you are happy with that POV, fine.

I read earlier you said it's more important how they give the news. That's one aspect but what I think is more important is what they are saying and more importantly what they are not. Especially in these times. But it isn't happening.

You think the media covers up government activity?  How so? 

What quote of mine are you referring to? 

[Dos Equis]

Manipulate the public to what gain?

To keep their current readers/watchers and gain new ones. 

[OzmO]

To keep their current readers/watchers and gain new ones. 

To what end?

[Dos Equis]

To what end?

$