Unbiased Media, kind of

green1 · Post by **green1** » July 22, 2008 9:20 am

Senator Obama wrote an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times detailing how he thought the US should fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to include troop withdrawals, troop redeployments to Afghanistan etc. Additionally he took some shots at McCain's stance on the war and how they differ.

Senator McCain wrote a rebuttal for the New York Times, which the Times refused to print. Stating, as their excuse, that McCain give detailed information of his plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_ ... ewspaper_3

Personally I believe that setting timelines and deadlines gives our enemies the exact knowledge of when they can come out of hiding. But maybe that is just me.

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » July 22, 2008 9:41 am

Oddly enough, McCain will get more positive coverage because of the snub then he would have if the rebuttal had been printed.

green1 · Post by **green1** » July 22, 2008 10:11 am

Skibo wrote:Oddly enough, McCain will get more positive coverage because of the snub then he would have if the rebuttal had been printed.

Great point. If they had printed to rebuttal it would have just been one more salvo in the campaign war. Now it has blossomed into this major event. Interesting.

C-Dawg · Post by **C-Dawg** » July 22, 2008 12:03 pm

it really shows the liberal bias that the NYT has. Used to be the media was unbiased and just gave facts.....now they all spin it to their own liking. More and more I find I have to read or watch the same news piece from 3-6 sources before I get the real story...sad

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » July 22, 2008 12:17 pm

bias in the news media really isn't a new thing

C-Dawg · Post by **C-Dawg** » July 22, 2008 12:23 pm

Maybe not new, but the jounalists out there are taking their bias to new levels.
Here's more on the NYT story:

Sen. John McCain submitted an opinion piece in response to Obama's, but the Times rejected it. In an e-mail to the campaign-- leaked to the Drudge Report and quickly picked up by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and several conservative Internet web sites--Times opinion page editor David Shipley lamented, "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written." He went on to provide advice to the campaign on what The Times would consider a worthy submission.

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."
That drew howls of bias and censorship from Republicans and conservatives. They charge that Shipley let his personal opinion on the superiority of Obama's Iraq position interfere with the news value of McCain's piece. They also charge that The Times has an obligation to provide equal access to its editorial page to both candidates, regardless of the content of their submissions. The fact the Shipley is a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton did not help soothe conservative anger over the incident.

Supporters of the Times' action see the issue differently. They say that a newspaper is under no obligation to print material from the candidates that does not offer new information or merely restates campaign talking points. They say that the opinion page is a place for serious discussion of the issues, not an outlet for the partisan back and forth of the campaign trail. The public, however, seems to support the Republicans' claim that the media is biased in its treatment of the presidential candidates.

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 49% of respondents believe that the media will actively attempt to assist Obama's campaign, compared to just 14% who say that the media will try to help McCain. Just one in four respondents believe that journalists will present unbiased coverage of the two candidates. More Republicans (78%) than Democrats (27%) say that media coverage is biased in favor of Sen. Obama. Among independents, 50% say that the coverage is skewed in the Democrat's favor. Perhaps most alarming, though, is the result that shows a full 70% of respondents do not completely trust reporters to present information that may be harmful to their preferred candidate. Forty-five percent say that reporters would actively hide such information with 25% not sure that it would be presented.

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » July 22, 2008 12:36 pm

Hard to believe the election is considered close at this point when you consider the media bias for Obama, the national displeasure with the current Republican administration, the lack of passion from his own party for McCain, the funding of the Obama campaign and the rock star status of Obama bringing in all the new voters. Obama should be up by 40 points right now, not neck and neck.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » July 22, 2008 12:42 pm

C-Dawg wrote:Maybe not new, but the jounalists out there are taking their bias to new levels.
Here's more on the NYT story:

I have to disagree that it's taken to new levels. Simply look at the history of the nation. For as far back as pre civil war publishers have reported what they wanted to, even if it was false. The difference now is that they are being caught in their falsehoods easier than ever before. As far back as the 1700's when Benjamin Franklin wrote under a pseudonym proposing the printing of more money (which his printing company had the contract to print). Lincoln claimed bias in favor of the Southern states and forced newspapers to close. The Hearst empire is another example.

The difference now is that there has been a shift in recent years towards the more liberal viewpoint and the conservative viewpoint is now crying foul.

The bias has always been there and will always be there anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.

jonesbeach10 · Post by **jonesbeach10** » July 23, 2008 12:26 am

[quote="Skibo"]Hard to believe the election is considered close at this point when you consider the media bias for Obama, the national displeasure with the current Republican administration, the lack of passion from his own party for McCain, the funding of the Obama campaign and the rock star status of Obama bringing in all the new voters. Obama should be up by 40 points right now, not neck and neck.[/quote

Sure, but when it comes down to the election and the electoral college, how many states are actually going to switch into the blue category? Virginia??? Nevada??? I still think Obama's going to have a tough time with Florida and Ohio, not to mention holding Michigan and Pennsylvania. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if we have a repeat of 2000 in the sense that Obama wins the popular vote but McCain takes the electoral college and White House.

flyboy55 · Post by **flyboy55** » July 23, 2008 8:15 am

I agree that there is no shortage of media bias, but I don't agree with the simple idea that the national media has a Liberal bias. I also don't think the national media has a Conservative bias. This proposal (for some a deep-seated belief) has been discredited by a number of authors.

I think the real bias in our national media is a bias that serves power. Not only the power that is temporarily invested in politicians (who come and go) but the power that resides in the elites who really run this country. The bias that does exist is one which sets the limits on debate. Certain subjects are not discussed or receive little media scrutiny in this country because they fall outside the acceptable limits of discourse, as defined by the power elites.

When you get right down to it, the range of public discourse in this country is quite narrow. Contrary to how these matters are portrayed in the national media, there is very little to distinguish between the Democrats and Republicans overall. We really do live with the comfortable but serviceable (to some) illusion that we are important parts of a functioning democracy.

These ideas are at the core of two excellent books by Noam Chomsky (one of them coauthored with Edward Herman):

I highly recommend them both.