world

As Gingrich surges, Romney attacks

61 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

For Republicans to support Newt proves they do not actually believe in the family values they pimp.

For Republicans to support Newt proves they don't actually have a problem with extra-maritial affairs, politicians having them, nor power disparate sexual relationships, they just use them all as political tools. See what they did to Clinton. Newt does the same, worse actually since he dumped his wife for his mistress, and Newt surges??

Remember when they went after John Edwards for having a mistress while his wife was in the hospital? Meanwhile, their hero Newt not only had a mistress, but visited his wife in the hospital to sort out divorce details! If they think that what Newt did was bad, then they should have proclaimed John Edwards as Saint John! But no, Edwards was not a Republican. So they flamed him.

It is plain as day that Republicans put party before all. Before decency, before honesty and before the country. It is plain as day just because Newt Gingrich is even in the running without being a complete laughing stock.

But lets be clear. I don't have a problem with Newt's affairs. I have a problem with his hypocrisies, his lies to cover those hypocrisies, his hypocritical attack of a president for political gain at the expense of the country, and his utter lack of loyalty displayed by dumping his wife for a mistress...TWICE! It is abundantly clear that power is his master, and he would sell his own mother or America herself to have more of it.

Republican silence on Newt is more deafening than the voices supporting him.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Gingrich will not win the nomination. He has too much baggage from his decades in the House, and has made far too many enemies along the way.

Romney, for better or worse, will ultimately win the nomination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember when they went after John Edwards for having a mistress while his wife was in the hospital? Meanwhile, their hero Newt not only had a mistress, but visited his wife in the hospital to sort out divorce details!

Nice try. But Gingrich's daughter has refuted that one repeatedly.

Edwards' mistress was carrying his child. You do know this?

For Republicans to support Newt proves they do not actually believe in the family values they pimp

Anyone who conceives of family values as something that can be 'pimped' strikes me as someone who opposes the very structure of the family and probably thinks the almighty State should run our lives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Gingrich’s quick rise in national and early-state polls threatens Romney’s claim as the likeliest Republican to be chosen to challenge Obama next November.

You could swap out the word "Gingrich" with quite a few others over the past 6 months or so.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Gingrich has years of baggage and flip flops that the Dems will aim at.

But Romney's different because he has years of baggage and flip flops that the Dems will aim at...hey!... ?? .

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SushiSake: It's not a coincidence that the U.S. continually elects a president that has had little to no experience in the U.S. Congress. (Carter-zero-Reagan-zero-Bush Sr.-a few years-Clinton-zero-Bush Jr.-zero-Obama-a couple of years)

Candidates who have been state governors or short-termers in Washington do not have to spend all their time defending their voting records. Gingrich has too much baggage from his days in the House, and some of his doings with Fannie and Freddie not so long ago will hurt him as well. Romney has to defend in some cases 4 years as a state governor. There's a huge difference here-right or wrong.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As Gingrich surges, Romney attacks

Shouldn't it be "As Gingrich surges, Media attacks?"

Be more accurate in the reporting on him now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You could swap out the word "Gingrich" with quite a few others over the past 6 months or so.

The same as happened 4 years ago as Giuliani, Thompson and a few others were at the top and then fell by the wayside. Gingrich will fade in the coming months as his dirty laundry is aired daily and offends the senses of more and more of the electorate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich will not win the nomination. He has too much baggage from his decades in the House, and has made far too many enemies along the way.

I agree. He has too many character flaws as a politician, as David Brooks & Mark Shields say. His message doesn't have a bearing for more than 5 seconds. That's really quicker than any of the GOP candidates. Phew!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Google " brokered Republican convention" to see the angst ripping the Republican establishment. I disagree with posters who claim Gingrich can not win the nomination; he could, which would be farcical, but then Romney's nomination would be tragedy: a candidate rejected due to his religion (he'd lose to Obama because he doesn't "inspire"). After all, what on earth is it they see in Gingrich that makes him preferable to Romney?

Still, as the GOP seems deficient in the White Knight department, one of these two will likely end up the nominee. It's like that whole Tea Party thing never happened at all, isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gingrich has problems of his own, with his conversion to Catholicism..."

Conversion to Catholicism is a problem?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, it's safe to say the Republican nominee will be either Romney or Gingrich?

Looks like 4 more years of Obama, lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna - "After all, what on earth is it they see in Gingrich that makes him preferable to Romney?"

Gingrich has been unfaithful to his first, and second wives, which sits just fine with conservatives' fake religious conservatism.

This is going from disastrous to catastrophic for GOP/TP chances.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Still, as the GOP seems deficient in the White Knight department, one of these two will likely end up the nominee. It's like that whole Tea Party thing never happened at all, isn't it?

The Tea party is a movement was based on fiscal conservatism first and foremost. It was not a movement based on religious conservatism, anyone who has actually looked at the movement knows this. Gingrich through all his faults is also remembered for his role in thwarting Bill Clinton's big government schemes and restoring fiscal sanity to Washington when he was Speaker of the House and controlled the Government's purse strings. The Tea party movement is looking for that type of leadership again in Washington and Gingrich has that fiscal and policy making experience. It is no shock or surprise that he has significant Tea party support. As Bill Clinton famously said "It's the economy stupid".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...thwarting Bill Clinton's big government schemes and restoring fiscal sanity to Washington when he was Speaker of the House and controlled the Government's purse strings.

Hope you're enjoying the cake you're having while keeping it, too, Sailwind! Republicans "control the Government's purse strings" now, but Obama is to blame for the deficit? And what of the role of the 39.6% upper-bracket tax rate on that "fiscal sanity" - or is "fiscal sanity" only on the taxing side? Or that the growth of Federal employment under Obama has been quite small compared to that under Bush?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"As Gingrich surges, Romney attacks"

And JT posters still blame the negative press it "the left."

Some of these cats have the stick so far up their butt that anything this side of Ghengis Khan is a flaming liberal so EVERYTHING is an attack from the left.

There's a word for people like that. It's not winner.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hope you're enjoying the cake you're having while keeping it, too, Sailwind! Republicans "control the Government's purse strings" now, but Obama is to blame for the deficit?

Congress control the purse strings. The house when the Republicans took control passed a budget and the Democrat controlled Senate has not seen fit to move on it. As as matter of fact the since Obama took office the Congress has not even passed a budget period. For three years!!!! Obama has had a free reign more or less to spend as he pleases which he has and has only turned to Congress to raise his credit card limit. The deficit, he owns it all right, well not really we own the debt he's incurred which would have been a heck lot less if Congress would have done its job in the first place and had passed a budget in the first place, a real budget based on reality and not fiscal fantasy and they couldn't even pass a fantasy one.

And JT posters still blame the negative press it "the left."

You can take this to the bank. Most every main stream press article from now on despite the fact that Gingrich was a public figure and there is really nothing new to report negatively in his past that hasn't already been reported a thousand times before. That is not going to stop the press though they are going to report his past foilbles a thousand times more and treat it like its the latest news that came out of them. The same negative thing will be reported over and over again in every article. Starting with this one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gingrich’s self-promotion is not new: while in Congress, a massive book deal led to a $300,000 fine from the House ethics committee.

I commend "the media" for reminding the public of this fact.

It is also a fact that Gingrich, in 1988, filed charges against the then-Speaker, Jim Wright, for exactly the same infraction that got Gingrich in so much trouble later. One can only draw the conclusion that either Gingrich is stupid (which he is not) or morally craven.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And when the same media was hounding the president about the lack of a birth certificate, where were you? Under a rock? Every news channel gave those clowns there time in the sun and didn't show them for the idiots they were until the president actually stooped to their level to show it to them. Were you on a media black out when that occurred? When every media outlet allowed people to question his patriotism because he didn't wear a damned flag lapel pin, that was still liberal to you? How conservative do you want the media to be, for crying out loud?

The idea that the media is liberal is simply not true. I challenge you to watch Sunday morning news, the most important news time slot of the week and see who is on. It's dominated by Republicans. John McCain has appeared more times on Meet the Press than Hillary Clinton. Why is that? Who is more relevant in today's politics? Honestly, I'd wager that Dick Cheney has been on Meet the Press more times than Hillary Clinton. Again, why is that? Liberal media bias? With all due respect, I don't believe you are accounting for your own personal bias.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Every news channel gave those clowns there time in the sun and didn't show them for the idiots they were until the president actually stooped to their level to show it to them.

And now some of the same fools are clamoring to see the president's college grades. As if accomplishments like heading up the Harvard Law Review wasn't indication enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh....an alleged sex-pest, a divorcee and a mormon.

No wonder Sailwind is claiming media bias.

Brace yourself for the next five years mate!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact they should wheel out palin.

She'd stomp on the poor candidates the GOP have trundled out, albiet before being defeated in a landslide. But we deserve the humour, Americans and non-Americans alike.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American politics is strange, I sit back and eat pop corn. Not sure I would vote for any of them. Pointing the finger at each other when things go wrong. Only working for their agenda and not working with the other side since it would help them in the elections. They are a bunch of self serving deleted and not sure if McCain could of done better. It is easy to point the finger but hard to actually do something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea that the media is liberal is simply not true.

You are in the minority few of Americans on that one. Story is dated Sept 23 2011

Record numbers of Americans consider the news media to be “immoral,” “inaccurate,” and “biased,” a new poll says.

A plurality of Americans, 42 percent, said that the press was “immoral,” compared with 38 percent who viewed the news media as “moral” — a record high according to an annual Pew Research poll on the media.

By a large margin, respondents said reporters were “politically biased in their reporting,” with a record high of 63 percent agreeing with this view and only 25 percent disagreeing.

Meanwhile, another poll out this week reaffirmed the continuing American perception of liberal bias in the news media, and showed deep mistrust in the accuracy of their reporting.

Americans were asked whether they have much trust and confidence in the mass media, and a majority — 55 percent — responded “not very much” or “none at all,” according to a Gallup poll. A majority of respondents have remained distrustful of the media since 2007.

A significant majority of respondents, 60 percent, also perceive bias in the media — 47 percent said the media is too liberal, and 13 percent said that that it was too conservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's convincing to me that the US media is leaning toward liberal in the last decade. But it's also true that some media have successfully maintained a high ethical standard of professional journalism (i.e., NPR, PBS), which is now seriously questioned because of the way media corporations and political institutions work on the public affairs today. That's exactly what media conservatives should be aware of in the first place. Unfortunately, there are always some crazy, whacky media celebrities who attempt to shock-jock the people with so much misinformation day and night. And the media corporations are having them to woo the viewers for raising the Nielsen's rating at the expense of professional journalism in news reporting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's nice Sailwind. A poll taken at my house 5 years ago, showed that 50% of my household believed in Santa Claus.

Watch the Sunday morning lineup. That's what dominates the week's news. It's all republican, all the time. You'd swear John McCain actually won the damn election he gets on the news so much. Why is Arizona so special? It's not. They just keep propping the guy up.

Why is Dick Cheney given a bully pulpit to spew hatred toward the president and rewrite history if this is such a liberal media? Why aren't any of those liberal reporters calling him out?

A little serious thought into the subject and not just looking into at the surface will reveal that not only are 3 major news organizations owned by conservatives, they are driving the news. If you don't like it, it's because they are peddling a sleezy product.

Real reporters get shut out. Greg Palast can barely find work in the U.S. anymore because he's liberal. He's been blackballed and he's probably the country's best reporter. It's a shame.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sailwind, I offer this in the sake of debate:

Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[41] The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS. Mr. Tomlinson chose to reject the results of the study, subsequently reducing time and funding for NOW with Bill Moyers, which many including Tomlinson regarded as a "left-wing" program, and then expanded a show hosted by Fox News correspondent Tucker Carlson. Some board members stated that his actions were politically motivated.[42] Himself a frequent target of claims of bias (in this case, conservative bias), Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on November 4, 2005. Regarding the claims of a left-wing bias, Bill Moyers asserted in a Broadcast & Cable interview that "If reporting on what's happening to ordinary people thrown overboard by circumstances beyond their control and betrayed by Washington officials is liberalism, I stand convicted."[43] Many[who?] also point to the rising tide of Talk Radio's popularity as evidence of an underlying conservative bias in the American Press.

You see, there's an example of a guy who was told there was no bias and whose personal bias caused him to act irrationally instead of accepting the fact. I'm not accusing you of acting irrationally but I do believe many people's personal bias cloud their opinion. Now if you want to accuse the news of being bad, to that, there is no argument. The reporting is shoddy. People are allowed to say whatever they want, even when it's known to be untrue and it goes unchallenged. In the past 3 months, we've heard Dana Perino claim that there were no terrorist attacks on George Bush's watch, and it went unchallenged. Yesterday, Sean Hannity claimed that George Bush was responsible for getting Osama Bin Laden. And you're telling me that they're fair and balanced? ABC employs George Will. If they were such a liberal basstion, why would they keep him around? By the way, who is their liberal commentator? Do you know? I don't. Cokey Roberts? Is she on ABC? If so, she's not a major player if I'm asking if she even works there. And then there's CBS. If there so liberal, why the hell does Pat Buchanan have megaphone to preach his weird craziness? If CBS was so liberal, why would they employ Pat Buchanan and give him a voice? Moving on MSNBC. They're practically commies, right? So why did they fire their best liberal commentator, Keith Olbermann? Being liberals and all. Can't you see. When you look deeper into this. This whole liberal media thing just doesn't hold up. It doesn't pass the common sense test. Now you may counter that Fox employs a liberal therefore they are balanced but they put the biggest nutless case they could find on there. Alan Colmes constantly allowed himself to be shouted down by Sean Hannity. It was a disgrace to television.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

One word for The Truth Matters:

Journolist

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[

I did some research and re-enforced my conclusion that PBS is a waste of tax dollars and really is nothing more than a political propaganda outfit at its core management level and reflects whatever administration be it Republican or democratic that is power at the time to press its talking points. Kenneth Tomlinson short bio.

Tomlinson was appointed as chairman of the CPB board by President George W. Bush, for a two-year term, in September 2003. He embarked upon a mission to purge CPB of what he perceived as "liberal bias".[6] His efforts sparked complaints of political pressure.

Bush hack appointee. One of Obama's appointees at NPR a Vivian Schiller got into a lot of hot water for firing Juan Williams at NPR along with many other issues later on such as promoting the idea that the Tea party was racist and filled with extremists that she was finally was forced to resign. The chief executive officer of NPR resigned Wednesday after a series of controversies at the public broadcaster formerly known as National Public Radio.

Which is unfortunate because the folks that were are not in management there has done some outstanding investigative journalism over the years. Frontline is a prime example of what objective journalism should inspire to attain at all times and I have watched it on many occasions. But the bottom line is the Federal Government needs to get out of using our tax dollars to fund Public broadcasting, its nothing more than political hacks at the top and cheapens the real efforts of journalistic professionals who do still try to maintain objectivity in their stories.

As for the rest of your examples. Anyone who does watches Fox news and doesn't know it has a Conservative bias is to put it bluntly a moron. Secondly the reason Fox news even exists as a counter to the rest of the mainstream media is because there was an actual market for a conservative news organization to compete with the monopoly the liberal media had already established. You mentioned common sense. Common sense tells you that if a market exists and the dominate liberal media powers ignored it through its blatant liberal bias reporting that someone would step up and fill the void. Which is exactly what happened and Fox came into being. Common sense also tells you that very existence of Fox news as a competitor in the Media market place and in fact thriving there makes a mockery of the fact in the mainstream media claims that it was fair and balanced and objective in its reporting in the first place. If that was really the case Fox news could have never have existed.

And for examples of a Conservative being on talk show host panels at the major networks. The networks have to try show some semblance of objectivity if they don't there falling ratings as it is would be so bad that they would go completely under, which many already are teetering on brink as it is with their Liberal bias shoddy reporting, all except for Fox that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I bet $10,000 Romney will not become the next president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Secondly the reason Fox news even exists as a counter to the rest of the mainstream media is because there was an actual market for a conservative news organization to compete with the monopoly the liberal media had already established....Anyone who does watches Fox news and doesn't know it has a Conservative bias is to put it bluntly a moron.

Perceived "liberal" bias does not equal actual liberal bias. It is only because the conservative morons -- and anyone who believes Fox is "fair and balanced," according to your statement, is a moron -- felt the news wasn't skewed enough to their liking that they created Fox. Fox, in other words, was a right-wing response to fair and accurate reporting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The new ads not only from Romney but also Ron Paul are really attacking Gingrich. The fight is on!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in other words, was a right-wing response to fair and accurate reporting.

Enjoy being in the 25 percent of Americans that share your "view".

By a large margin, respondents said reporters were “politically biased in their reporting,” with a record high of 63 percent agreeing with this view and only 25 percent disagreeing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

How many Americans still think that Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9/11? See, I've already refuted that idea.

Also, I stated why would these stations hire radical conservatives like Pat Robertson and George Will if they were so liberal. You said it was to offer balance to the libeals. Who are they? CNN is now known as TeaNN it's gone so right wing.

You have one channel that has purposely decided on a political agenda in their programming. You cannot say that for any other channel. Fox News is decidedly Anti-Obama. Just this week, Sean Hannity gave credit for Osama Bin Laden's death to George Bush.

No channel has a decidedly anti-right or republican agenda in their programming. That just doesn't exist.

Your idea of media bias reminds me of the old Adlai Stevenson quote: “If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”

Perhaps your idea of bias is just that the truth isn't what you want to see.

Again, why is the Sunday morning lineup dominated by republicans? Did you see who was on today?

ABC’s This Week: Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman; Diane Sawyer, ABC; George Stephanopoulos, ABC; George Will, ABC; Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist; Leslie Sanchez, Republican strategist; Kathie Obradovich, Des Moines Register

CBS’ Face the Nation: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Fox News Sunday: Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX); Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY); Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal; Mara Liasson, National Public Radio and Fox News; Liz Cheney, former State Department official; Juan Williams

CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum; former congressman Bob Walker; John Sununu, former New Hampshire governor; Anita Dunn, former White House communications director; Tom Davis, former congressman; Patrick Donahoe, Postmaster General

CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria: Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman; Tarek Masoud, Harvard; Daniel Yergin, energy expert

CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz: Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg; John Harris, Politico; Matt Lewis, Daily Caller; David Frum, Frum Forum; Rachel Sklar, Mediaite; Robert Thompson, Syracuse University.

NBC’s Meet the Press: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA); Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad; Ted Koppel, NBC; Lisa Myers, NBC; Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist; Chuck Todd, NBC

NBC’s The Chris Matthews Show: Major Garrett, National Journal; Kelly O’Donnell, NBC; David Ignatius, Washington Post; Gloria Borger, CNN

Look at how that is dominated by republicans. Guess what, it was last week, the week before and the week before that too. And I'll bet you a slice of pizza that it will be that way next week also.

You conveniently skipped that part of my post. It was very important. The Sunday morning news shows set the tone for the week.

How many Democratic strategists do you see on the docket on these so-called liberal stations?

Your theory doesn't pass the sniff test.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

By a large margin, respondents said reporters were “politically biased in their reporting,” with a record high of 63 percent agreeing with this view and only 25 percent disagreeing.

The poll is invalid because people were asked to judge "reporters" as a generic whole without any specifics. Are respondents lumping in non-reporting commentators like Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, etc., in with the mix? (Who knows?) Were people asked to evaluate individual news outlets? How about the breakdown of responses by education? (I know some people who never watch the news who will nonetheless claim it is biased without having the ability to cite the slightest bit of empirical evidence.)

Enjoy being in the 25 percent of Americans that share your "view".

On matters that are somewhat subjective such as this one, I will follow my own reason and judgment rather than a herd of sheep -- or lemmings. PBS's NewsHour is about as straight-up meticulously fair reporting as it gets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look at how that is dominated by republicans. Guess what, it was last week, the week before and the week before that too. And I'll bet you a slice of pizza that it will be that way next week also.

You conveniently skipped that part of my post. It was very important. The Sunday morning news shows set the tone for the week.

How many Democratic strategists do you see on the docket on these so-called liberal stations?

Your theory doesn't pass the sniff test.

Your counter points are strawman points. The democrats are not running any challengers to Obama in the next election cycle. The focus is on the republicans and who they may run and what policies they will pursue against him in the next election. Primary season is soon here with Iowa and on the political front all the attention is on the republicans at this stage. they are the ones that are newsworthy for now. So of course they will dominate the talk shows at this stage. Where your argument falls apart is not that they are on the shows but are they being treated on the shows without any bias in their questioning or on their positions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So of course they will dominate the talk shows at this stage. Where your argument falls apart is not that they are on the shows but are they being treated on the shows without any bias in their questioning or on their positions.

The only network that fails that test outright is Fox.

Because of their obvious and blatant conservative bias, they throw only softball questions to their conservative guests while oftentimes are rude to any liberals/Democrats who come on. Even MS-NBC puts tough questions to their liberal and Democratic guests. Anyone who saw Piers Morgan's interview with Michael Moore last Thursday on CNN, to name but one recent example, saw Morgan indicating his firm disagreement and skepticism with Moore on many of his points.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who saw Piers Morgan's interview with Michael Moore last Thursday on CNN, to name but one recent example, saw Morgan indicating his firm disagreement and skepticism with Moore on many of his points.

That would be the same CNN that asked this super tough question a few weeks ago to President Obama I take it.

“Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls, they hope to get your job, they defended the practice of waterboarding which is a practice you banned in 2009. Herman Cain said, quote, ‘I don’ see that as torture.’ Michele Bachmann said that it’s, quote, ‘very effective.’ So I’m wondering if you think that they’re uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?” CNN’s White House correspondent Dan Lothian asked President Obama in Hawaii.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That would be the same CNN that asked this super tough question a few weeks ago to President Obama I take it.

Lothian has asked pointed and tough questions to President Obama. But he's never been overtly rude as the Fox interviewer who kept interrupting President Obama -- something he'd never do a conservative guest he fawns over.

This is just the typical example of conservative lack of forthrightness in trying to cherry-pick out a question that isn't as tough as some of his other ones. I guess it can't be helped: any question that includes the thoughts of Cain and Bachmann will automatically qualify as a "softball," as conservatives are quick to point out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

Your counter points are strawman points.

Just because you believe something to be so, doesn't make it the case.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4148

A year and a half of studies, after the Obama election, non-primary time show that republican and conservatives dominated the Sunday news lineups. How do you explain that? Well, I know you don't. You ignore it, and move on to another point but I digress.

I ask you to read the following blog on the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the media bias the came about over that:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-conservative-media-bias

These are facts. I'm not making them up. You can call it whatever you want, but if you insist on believing their is a liberal bias in America's media. You are flat out wrong.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Truth matters,

I checked out your links.

First one..........

As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

A progressive group?????? They have left wing bias right off the bat. Non-Profit sources of information? The Soviet Union had the same thing for their media.

Your blog link.....

States right on the banner "Real Liberal politics"

Let's try this link instead.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

And pay attention to the last part of their research and avoided being labeled bias themselves.

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@The Truth Matters

I like your handle. The truth does matter. It should be the only thing that matters, in fact. And it is something that so many people can not or will not accept.

I've given a fair amount of thought to this thread and the discussion of bias. I believe it is a simple fact made plain by common sense that there are multiple sides to every issue. It is no coincidence that I became a liberal around the same time the formal education I received helped me hone my critical reading and thinking skills.

A journal or writer who presents multiple sides of an issue and weighs them equally will definitely be called "liberal" or (worse) "left-leaning" by today's modern right-wingers. The Fox News and Limbaughs of the world will not give any time or weight to points of view that are not their own. In fact, they make a special effort NOT to do it. The conservatives must have a pre-defined outcome that shows them to be infallible. By contrast, I continually see a Chris Matthews or a Dylan Ratigan agree with conservatives and criticize Democrats on a number of issues.

That is why it really gets interesting when two conservatives start to disagree with each other, like Gingrich and Romney are into now. Both are total hypocrites who pretend to be holier-than-thou. It's kind of like King Herod and Pontius Pilate squaring off to see who's going to lead the scribes and Pharisees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That should read, accept facts. My apologies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But lets be clear. I don't have a problem with Newt's affairs.

That's interesting only because you spent the previous paragraphs telling us your problems with him having an affair.

The Truth Matters - have you ever considered the logical conclusions that so many Republicans are slated as guest on Sunday morning news programming might be because the Republican nomination is so hotly contested, and therefore of greater news interest, particularly since the left already know the President will run for re-election? Just sayin. If a major hurricane is going on, you don't lead off with the 'best pumpkin' contest in East Nowhere.

That being said, of course there is media bias in both directions. As a University trained journalist (although I opted not to follow said career path) I can tell you that, being in my mid-40's, back in the day we were taught that above all else any media story should be a total reporting of the facts, and without bias and opinion (unless an op-ed piece of course). This was pre-tabloid days when everyone knew that the craziness was confined to the rags in the checkout line. But with the electronic media explosion that mandated reporters 'look good' rather than having any real training or abilities - you get the present. Add to it the American public's (and I should add world's) fascination with celebrity, gossip, and the tawdry dragging of skeletons into the hard spotlight and the media loses their purpose and credibility. Now rather than arguing the suitability of a candidate to govern based upon policy, we instead focus upon their personal lives. Some of the greatest people in history probably could never stand up to the media scrutiny we put potential leaders through today. Does that make them less great, or us insane? I go with the latter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's interesting only because you spent the previous paragraphs telling us your problems with him having an affair.

No he didn't. He was telling us he had a problem with the hypocrisy -- not the affair itself. Looks like you got that basic fact wrong.

back in the day we were taught that above all else any media story should be a total reporting of the facts, and without bias and opinion (unless an op-ed piece of course)

That's what reporting starts with. If it leaves it at that, it will be like serving a meal that has no taste to it, and people will not eat it, much less buy it. Not unless they are starved for other choices, which they are not.

But with the electronic media explosion that mandated reporters 'look good' rather than having any real training or abilities - you get the present.

And I think you got it wrong again. It has little or nothing to do with electronic media, and more to do with looking at reporting as a business with a bottom line. The commodification of "news,"in other words. The reporter does not have to look good -- but they have to serve up something that people want to eat. Failing that, they have to put on a show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's what reporting starts with. If it leaves it at that, it will be like serving a meal that has no taste to it, and people will not eat it, much less buy it. Not unless they are starved for other choices, which they are not.

I know that you 'know it all' but have you been professionally trained in journalism? (according to you, seems you've been professionally trained in every bloody thing in the world - one wonders that you have the time to hang about here and type things). Where did I say it shouldn't be interesting? It just shouldn't contain the reporter's point of view.

And I think you got it wrong again. It has little or nothing to do with electronic media, and more to do with looking at reporting as a business with a bottom line.

Well, and there you have it - seems i didn't 'get it wrong' - sorry to contradict your advanced knowledge base once again. The bottom line is a business, hence the reason the reporters can't be ugly fat slobs for the most part. American males will tune into the hot blonde reporter with the nice rack, even if what she's spewing is rubbish. It's about appearance shock value rather than talent - which is what sells these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'about appearance and the shock value of the 'news' is what I really wanted to say. Suppose I 'got it wrong' once again. Poor old me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The poll is invalid because people were asked to judge "reporters" as a generic whole without any specifics.

You're a pollster as well - is there anything you cannot do!!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

By contrast, I continually see a Chris Matthews.....

I'm glad you brought him up. Let's go straight to the horses mouth on this one. Chris Matthews discussing Romney Nov 25th on his show Hardball.

And that’s what we call a dynamic. He goes in there and says, “I’m running, I can win,” and because we know he doesn’t take chances, the national media, which leans a little to the left I could argue, could smash him.

I rest my case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And that’s what we call a dynamic. He goes in there and says, “I’m running, I can win,” and because we know he doesn’t take chances, the national media, which leans a little to the left I could argue, could smash him.

He "could argue?" You mean as in the expression "for the sake of argument." In other words, not to be taken as fact.

And you "rest your case" on that opinion? How silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

He didn't say he could argue that the national media leans to the right. We all know that would be silly. Only Fox news does.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He didn't say he could argue that the national media leans to the right. We all know that would be silly. Only Fox news does.

No, the counter-argument is no lean at all. Perfectly balanced. (Something we know Fox is not.)

Additionally, the other media outlets would necessarily "lean left" in relation to the full conservative tilt at Fox.

Case closed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the counter-argument is no lean at all. Perfectly balanced.

Guess that is why the most recent Gallop poll has the American people at 50 / 50 on this.

A significant majority of respondents, 60 percent, also perceive bias in the media — 47 percent said the media is too liberal, and 13 percent said that that it was too conservative.

Case Closed

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A significant majority of respondents, 60 percent, also perceive bias in the media — 47 percent said the media is too liberal, and 13 percent said that that it was too conservative.

So, subtract the 13 percent from the 60 and then derive that we've got 53 percent of the American people who don't believe the media is too left leaning. Unfortunately, among the 47 percent that still do believe it, there's a substantial portion who have heard the right-wing whining and bleating that the media is too liberal and just blindly follow along (as you have done) without really investigating the matter.

Not sure if Colbert was the one who made the statement famous, but in America today, but conservatives exposed to any article that doesn't toe their line 100% -- in other words, exposed to the truth -- will cry liberal bias. That's how emotionally invested they are in their ideological delusions. Any compromise or seeking of middle ground with a political opponent is viewed by them, absolutists as they are, as appeasement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see conservative commentator Michael Savage has, um, savaged Gingrich, and offered him a million dollars to drop out of the race. He doesn't think Gingrich can beat Obama, but for some reason he thinks Romney can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, as is often the case with your postings, you prove the opposite of your arguments in your own actions. Lets take this one:

conservatives exposed to any article that doesn't toe their line 100% -- in other words, exposed to the truth -- will cry liberal bias. That's how emotionally invested they are in their ideological delusions. Any compromise or seeking of middle ground with a political opponent is viewed by them, absolutists as they are, as appeasement.

I've never, ever, ever, ever (ad infinitum) read any of your comments where you gave an inch and agreed or even considered anything said on the conservative side as anything but nonsense in your world. Now of course you're going to tell me that is because you have never heard anything logical uttered by a conservative that you might find cause with which to agree. But that is a BSer's way out. You continuously berate conservatives for not listening to anything outside of their "ideological delusions" but do the same thing in your hypocritical little liberal world. You have the propensity for compromise equal to that of a serial killer.

Of course there is media bias on both sides, depending upon the network outlet. To indicate otherwise is to stick one's head in the sand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've never, ever, ever, ever (ad infinitum) read any of your comments where you gave an inch and agreed or even considered anything said on the conservative side as anything but nonsense in your world.

Wrong. But well above 90% of the conservative drivel that is posted on this board is just that. Absolutist nonsense.

You continuously berate conservatives for not listening to anything outside of their "ideological delusions" but do the same thing in your hypocritical little liberal world.

Wrong about that too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Methinks you doth protest too much. But in fact most of the rabid liberals on here, in the media and elsewhere are similarly affected, so don't feel singled out.

We've reached a critical mass in our political landscape where it is most definitely an 'us vs. them' mentality. Even being somewhat more conservative in nature, I always kind of thought that conservatives were more apt to attack liberals without pausing for deeper consideration, but I no longer believe that to be true. That is particularly evident on this forum - but that is a small microcosm - but still is evident everywhere, the media not excepted. The seething hatred is hardly disguised these days and very incongruous to the fact that we're supposed to be 'brothers in arms' of sorts as Americans trying to get through tough times. But I think we've pragmatically been forced to long ago give up on that 'one nation under God' nonsense. Wouldn't be cricket or PC in these days of multiculturalism now would it.

So now it's come down to media smears, and a sort of a 'which side has the most scandals' sort of a deal. While under Bush perhaps we were hated as Americans, I think now we are just laughed at as banal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sailwind,

When you present an argument that states that the Drudge Report is actually liberal and then state that everything I state is biased, I get confused. The Drudge Report. Really?

I think the problem here, with a lot of people, is what they conisider to be liberal.

The politico story about Herman Cain paying off two women for sexual harassment isn't a case of liberal media. It's a case of investigative media. You have the two confused or you seem to think they can be interchanged at any point.

That is simply not the case. The world is not as liberal as you believe it is. If it was, we'd be in a hell of a lot better of shape than we are now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world is not as liberal as you believe it is. If it was, we'd be in a hell of a lot better of shape than we are now.

or broke and in gulags.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

or broke and in gulags.

It's such a scummy, hate-filled comment -- one worthy only of those who despise the true proponents and practitioners of freedom, creativity and progress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites