Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 21, 2014, 11:51:27 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liberal Media Bias  (Read 9383 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« on: November 03, 2011, 04:08:58 PM »

Been meaning to create a thread like this for years.  Finally getting around to it.   Smiley  One example of the liberal media bias:

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals
By Scott Whitlock | November 03, 2011

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

This pattern continued on Wednesday night and into Thursday as the evening newscasts and morning shows highlighted the story 19 times. On Good Morning America, Brian Ross offered innuendo and slung gossip, recounting, "But behind the scenes, several of the campaigns are still urging reporters to continue to dig, George, saying, there's more to be found in the private life of Herman Cain." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

Without offering facts, Ross described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association: "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states. They were the new ones, the young ones. And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos trumpeted the latest: "Another woman. Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment."  "Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner," inquired the former Democratic operative turned journalist.

On the November 3 Today, Lisa Myers, with no sense of irony, declared the story "a feeding frenzy." She trumpeted, "For Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."

In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."

The nightly newscasts offered a similar tone. Both Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and Nightly News' Brian Williams led their shows by exclaiming, "Under pressure."

Williams added, "Herman Cain fights to stay on his game as reporters swarm and questions swirl about accusations of sexual harassment. Tonight, one of his accusers wants to talk, but can she go public?"

In a follow-up segment, Williams spun the story as a reminder of the seriousness of sexual harassment: "This, of course, is just the latest entry in a long list of similar situations, stories that have made headlines and come and gone over the years and a lot of people are wondering not only what really happened here but where the line is where the rules of the workplace are concerned."

The morning shows, Good Morning America, Today and Early Show, devoted 12 stories to the scandal on Thursday. Wednesday's evening newscasts, Nightly News, World News and Evening News, offered another six. ABC's Nightline also had one.


. . . .

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/03/networks-hit-cain-story-50-times-less-four-days-ignored-clinton-scan
Report to moderator   Logged
Emmortal
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5563


« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2011, 04:11:17 PM »

News flash: main stream media is biased on both sides.  What's the story here exactly?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2011, 04:12:41 PM »

News flash: main stream media is biased on both sides.  What's the story here exactly?

?  Not sure what you mean by "biased on both sides"? 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2011, 04:19:49 PM »

if there's one thing we need, it's another thread where repubs whine about being the victim of something.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2011, 04:43:29 PM »

Beside the fact that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest corporate whore the White House has ever seen, please don't forget that the Cain case had been settled.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2011, 04:52:02 PM »

Beside the fact that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest corporate whore the White House has ever seen, please don't forget that the Cain case had been settled.

There was no Cain case.  Also, Cain isn't president.  You would think allegations against a sitting president are pretty newsworthy.  And, any "settlement" was between the woman and the NRA, not Cain. 

Still, the difference in media coverage is striking. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2011, 04:54:37 PM »

There was no Cain case.

There was.  It is what generated the settlement.

Also, Cain isn't president.

He is attempting to become president.

You would think allegations against a sitting president are pretty newsworthy.

There are always accusations against every president.  Probably thousands of them over a four year period.

  And, any "settlement" was between the woman and the NRA, not Cain.

It has been acknowledged that there WAS a settlement, and it was due to Cain's actions.

Still, the difference in media coverage is striking.

Given the above, how so?
 
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2011, 05:04:47 PM »

It has been acknowledged that there WAS a settlement, and it was due to Cain's actions.

Given the above, how so?



Because Bill Clinton was president and Cain is a presidential candidate.
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2011, 05:09:16 PM »

I think most have varying degrees of bias.

But in the article you posted, they really need to compare apples to apples.  That was a long time ago, different people in the media, etc.  Something more current, but maybe not exactly the same act might be a little better indicator.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2011, 05:10:51 PM »

Because Bill Clinton was president and Cain is a presidential candidate.

Over a four year term, there are probably thousands of individual accusations made against any president.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2011, 05:12:23 PM »

I think most have varying degrees of bias.

But in the article you posted, they really need to compare apples to apples.  That was a long time ago, different people in the media, etc.  Something more current, but maybe not exactly the same act might be a little better indicator.

Not sure there is a true apples to apples comparison, but it does involve somewhat similar allegations (although Clinton's were apparently far worse).  This is the part that stands out to me:  50 news stories about Cain and

In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.


This is after Paula Jones actually had a press conference.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2011, 05:13:28 PM »

Over a four year term, there are probably thousands of individual accusations made against any president.

Over an eight year term, there are no women holding press conferences to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2011, 05:17:56 PM »

Over an eight year term,

Yes, Clinton had eight years, but most presidents have four year terms.

there are no women holding press conferences to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.   

Then you could argue that the fact this woman was given a press conference shows a bias against Clinton. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2011, 05:25:53 PM »

Yes, Clinton had eight years, but most presidents have four year terms.

Then you could argue that the fact this woman was given a press conference shows a bias against Clinton. 

You're missing the point.  I expanded your reference of four years to eight years to show how rare it is for a woman to hold a press conference accusing a sitting president of misconduct.  It is extremely rare. 

The woman wasn't "given" a press conference.  She (like anyone) invites the press.  Whether they show up is another story. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2011, 05:30:23 PM »

You're missing the point.  I expanded your reference of four years to eight years to show how rare it is for a woman to hold a press conference accusing a sitting president of misconduct.  It is extremely rare.

Any person can make an accusation.  It really is that simple.

The woman wasn't "given" a press conference.  She (like anyone) invites the press.  Whether they show up is another story. 

The fact that they showed up to report on it did in fact "give" her the conference.  Why isn't this a bias against Clinton?
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2011, 05:44:14 PM »

Any person can make an accusation.  It really is that simple.

The fact that they showed up to report on it did in fact "give" her the conference.  Why isn't this a bias against Clinton?

You said there are "thousands" of accusations against a sitting president.  That also misses the point.  We're talking about a woman holding a press conference to accuse the president of misconduct.  Point me to another example over the past 40 years where this has happened, and the media didn't really cover it. 

No, the fact some of the media showed up at her press conference isn't bias against Clinton.  The fact the media, by and large, failed to even talk about her press conference and allegations shows an attempt to protect Clinton. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2011, 06:05:34 PM »

this shit = good ratings.

they deliver what people want.  They SHOULD be talking about congressional budgets, but people turn that shit off.

Hey, why the hell did weiner's cawkshots get 24/7 coverage and nonstop breaking news?

how about comparing weiner vs cain, beach bum?  did you do that?  or was a 20 year span better to meet the agenda of your whiny thread?
Report to moderator   Logged

Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25510


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2011, 06:07:04 PM »

?  Not sure what you mean by "biased on both sides"? 

what's so hard to understand about that statement

Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2011, 06:13:52 PM »

look at what 17 or 18 years has changed as far as tv viewing habits.


I can turn on any channel at any time and see cleavage, hear words like "ass, damn, boobs, butt"...

I can watch any sitcom and see WAY more sexual innuendo than I did 18 years ago on television.

And the flow of information is way greater today - back then, it would have taken weeks for this much info to come out - many sources, responses, etc - almost instant. 


So yes, compare Cain to Weiner, and if you can demonstrate the media devoted more time to Cain than Weiner, I will agree with your point.

Until then, eh...
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2011, 06:17:30 PM »

You said there are "thousands" of accusations against a sitting president.  That also misses the point.

In a nation of our size, that seems like a fair estimate.  The point is that anyone can make an accusation.

We're talking about a woman holding a press conference to accuse the president of misconduct.  Point me to another example over the past 40 years where this has happened, and the media didn't really cover it.

Point me to one where the media DID really cover it.  I don't expect a lot of coverage for any accusation, because anyone can make one.  It really is that simple.

No, the fact some of the media showed up at her press conference isn't bias against Clinton.  The fact the media, by and large, failed to even talk about her press conference and allegations shows an attempt to protect Clinton.

Considering the accusation hadn't even been pursued legally, I'd say the fact that it got ANY coverage could be argued as a bias against Clinton.
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2011, 06:21:16 PM »

Geez, I'd forgotten about Weiner.  How about Spitzer?
Report to moderator   Logged

240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2011, 06:23:04 PM »

Clinton was amost 20 years ago.  

Viewing habits have changed.

beach bum, turn off the gilligan's repeats and military channel - turn on primetime tv and you'll discover people watch a bunch of slutty garbage these days.

also, ad revenues - compare them 90s to today... and tracking of viewer preferences... the know what people want today - it was a guessing game 20 years ago.

it's comparing apples and oranges.  Sex scandals, in general, sell like hell today.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41726

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2011, 07:16:39 PM »

In a nation of our size, that seems like a fair estimate.  The point is that anyone can make an accusation.

Point me to one where the media DID really cover it.  I don't expect a lot of coverage for any accusation, because anyone can make one.  It really is that simple.

Considering the accusation hadn't even been pursued legally, I'd say the fact that it got ANY coverage could be argued as a bias against Clinton.

Who cares if anyone can make an accusation?  We're talking about someone holding a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.  But I said that already . . . .

Go back and read the story in the first post of this thread, including this part:  "In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations."  The fact they failed to cover it shows they protected him. 

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 

Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2011, 07:32:16 PM »

BB, in your religious world, the things on tv are the same in 2011 as they were in 1992.

Sorry, but this isn't the case.

Sex sells, and they love some explicit shit these days.

Turn off PBS and turn on primetime sitcoms - this stuff is raunchy, with all sorts of innuendo of bending over, swallowing, 3-ways, and all sorts of other shit which would NEVER have made it onto the air in the 90s.

People love sex.   Well, democrats do at least.


Compare Weiner vs. Cain coverage.  BOOM!
Report to moderator   Logged

Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2011, 08:25:55 PM »

Who cares if anyone can make an accusation?  We're talking about someone holding a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.  But I said that already . . . .

Go back and read the story in the first post of this thread, including this part:  "In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations."  The fact they failed to cover it shows they protected him. 

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 



Bro, we're talking about a concluded legal action versus a simple statement.  They just aren't comparable.

By the way, I don't blame you for disliking Clinton.  He is a criminal shitbag who has damaged this country worse than almost any other politician.  Neocons should be worshipping this POS.  But you have to be real about what bias can be found.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!