The latest spin is because the main stream media exists within a capitalist society it cannot possibly be tilting to the left. Our perspective is tilted to the right because of capitalism an we can only view the main stream media from our own perspective. Or some such left wing rot.

__________________
I'm sick of .sig files

You guys seem to focus on why the media might tilt one way or the other. Why don't you just look at the coverage and see which way it really does tilt?

If you look at the actual coverage, it is hard to substantiate the claim that the media tilt in any direction except their own profitability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus You've got a logical fallacy in there. You've made two assumptions. At least one of your assumptions is dubious, but let's assume they are both valid. You assume that Obama is a leftist and that the media are infatuated with him. Based on those assumptions, you conclude that the media is also leftist. That conclusion ignores other factors that might explain the media's supposed infatuation.

That's quite an assumption you've made to support your opinion!

The conventional/main stream/traditional media at large has numerous times been demonstrated to be populated by a liberal majority, its reporting in numerical terms is disproportionately weighted in favor of a pro-liberal ideological slant, in qualitative terms it has been demonstrated that the language used is disproportionately favorable to a pro-liberal ideological slant. There are many studies that give evidence to all that which I won't bother to link to, but will accept that what I've stated is my opinion, of course.

Obama was seen as a sale-able affirmative action "success story" that the media "which is a victim of its already existing bias" could elevate and aggrandize in order to affirm the righteousness of its preconceived notions. There does not seem to be much doubt remaining in any corner that Obama has was afforded every opportunity to be seen as "great" and protected from and denied any opportunity to be seen otherwise, my opinion, of course.

The media created "The One" and has an inherent bias in both protecting its creation and the rationale for doing so. That bias continues to this day and is evidenced by the reality you elect to ascribe to other factors such as deference to "conventional wisdom" and pursuit of profit, my opinion, of course.

If your thesis was correct we would see media reports that the Dear Leader is ineffective, in over his head, out of his league rather than reports confined to nothing more than some people are of that opinion. The media would be bowing to the prevailing wisdom in the pursuit of profit according to your thesis.

The reality is that while the Dear Leader continues to enjoy the media's "affirmative action" predisposition the population at large and the real "conventional wisdom" is that despite the media's daily proclamations and exhortations regarding the Dear Leader's "finest of attire" all the polling suggests that the public knows it's a fraud (virtually every poll regarding presidential performance confirms this) the public is perfectly aware of who continually perpetrates that fraud! Undeniable fact, of course!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143267/distrust-media-edges-record-high.aspx


http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx


That so many of the "true believers" are only left with such weak arguments to support their opinions is a sign of desperation or mental disability, my opinion of course!

I didn't claim otherwise.I've seen reports about those studies and might have even read a few of them. I don't know what to make of them. One explanation is that the media tend to the left on the little things, but to the right on the big ones. During the 1990s, the big time media (Washington Post, NY Times, the networks, etc.) printed every anti-Clinton rumor as if it were proven fact. In 2000, they fell in love with W and continually trashed Gore. During the early 2000s, they acted as the W administration's stenographers, dutifully printing every piece of crap they put out concerning Saddam. There is just no way to read their coverage of those major issues as left-leaning.

EDIT: I should amend that. They don't lean to the right on the big issues. They lean toward what they perceive to be their own profitability. In recent years, that happens to coincide with a rightward bias on many issues.

At the moment, they do tend to fawn over Obama as a personality, but they also give too much credence to many of his nonsensical right-wing critics (McCain, Gingrich, DeMint, King (of Iowa), etc.). The media seem to live in fear that they will be branded as "liberal" if they don't pretend that pronouncements from these people actually make sense.I think that there is a lot of doubt about that. They fawn over him as a media personality, but I don't see much fawning coverage on the substance of his presidency.That's true, but I would also note that the media had a substantial assist from McCain/Palin and their ludicrous presidential campaign. It was in contrast to them that Obama looked so good in 2008.I disagree. The conventional wisdom that drives them is not measured by opinion polls. It comes from inside their own club. A few of the left-wing blogs refer to them as "Villagers": On The Origins And Meaning Of The Term, “The Villagers” | The Plum Line

I think that description fits quite well. The Villagers appear to be lead by Mark Halperin of Time magazine. He is completely worthless.

The rest of you post is, as you acknowledge, your own humble opinion. We can agree to disagree about all that, I think.

Son, all that religion bouncing around your head got your stereotypes all screwed up. Nothing a cold shower can't fix.
Jon Stewart's Extended Interview With Ron Paul | ZeroHedge

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

I have no problem with highways in Hawaii being labeled as interstates, assuming they meet all the technical specs for interstates. There are plenty of interstates that are completely within a single state.

I'm not your son and would prefer you not address me in that manner.

"son"....hm...SRJ?

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

The word "interstate" has no meaning. There are federal dollars to be had!