Full Version: MSNBC's pro-Kerry bias
I was watching MSNBC report on the coming election on 7-24-04 at around 11:00 am, and found a perfect example of the left wing bias still infesting all but FOX News.
After showing uplifting shots of John Kerry hugging children and running his “positive campaign” (which he can do because he has his friends doing the dirty work of comparing President Bush to Hitler and similar outrageously dishonest propaganda), they showed President Bush speaking at the Urban League.
They commented on his earlier refusal to attend the NAACP’s conference (which he did because they have been so hostile to him after he opposed the judge’s ruling on the Michigan State case about racist “diversity programs”) and then showed shots of him speaking.
Now I had already seen this live, so I saw the people stand up in roaring applause when he said Democrats take black votes for granted, but that was before they had a chance to edit it..
This time, they showed people yawning while running the sound of him hitting powerful points of his speech. Then they played some sounds of applause while showing video of no one clapping, so it looked like a small minority of the people were the only ones responding to his “Democrats take your votes for granted.” Statement.
Then, they rolled to this command center and said, “This is the Republican spin room, where activists can respond quickly to undermine anything John Kerry says…”
They showed some footage of preparations for the DNC convention in Boston, then the report was over.
This is what conservatives see every day in our liberal activist media. With statistics always showing that 80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals (except at FOW News), it shouldn’t surprise anyone. So, especially now that Kerry is on a mission to look less like the most liberal of all senators (now that his base is already motivated), my questions are, “How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?”
After showing uplifting shots of John Kerry hugging children and running his “positive campaign” (which he can do because he has his friends doing the dirty work of comparing President Bush to Hitler and similar outrageously dishonest propaganda), they showed President Bush speaking at the Urban League.
They commented on his earlier refusal to attend the NAACP’s conference (which he did because they have been so hostile to him after he opposed the judge’s ruling on the Michigan State case about racist “diversity programs”) and then showed shots of him speaking.
Now I had already seen this live, so I saw the people stand up in roaring applause when he said Democrats take black votes for granted, but that was before they had a chance to edit it..
This time, they showed people yawning while running the sound of him hitting powerful points of his speech. Then they played some sounds of applause while showing video of no one clapping, so it looked like a small minority of the people were the only ones responding to his “Democrats take your votes for granted.” Statement.
Then, they rolled to this command center and said, “This is the Republican spin room, where activists can respond quickly to undermine anything John Kerry says…”
They showed some footage of preparations for the DNC convention in Boston, then the report was over.
This is what conservatives see every day in our liberal activist media. With statistics always showing that 80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals (except at FOW News), it shouldn’t surprise anyone. So, especially now that Kerry is on a mission to look less like the most liberal of all senators (now that his base is already motivated), my questions are, “How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?”
I think MSNBC has given preferential treatment to both Kerry and Bush. The problem with the media these days (particulry FOX) is that they are biased towards serving politicians who represent interest. Last year, the run-up to the Iraq war was one of the worst displays of media bias I've ever seen in my lifetime. Everything was about supporting the Iraq war or you are unpatriotic. It still makes upset when I hear someone say that.
However, during this presidential campaign, both candidates will be given close scrutiny and its only fair the American people should know what they are getting in a President. (We already know what we have in Bush
)
Once the conservatives and liberals politicians stop talking about how the media is bias towards one another (acting like children in a playground argument), hopefully they can focus on the real issues Americans face daily.
However, during this presidential campaign, both candidates will be given close scrutiny and its only fair the American people should know what they are getting in a President. (We already know what we have in Bush
)Once the conservatives and liberals politicians stop talking about how the media is bias towards one another (acting like children in a playground argument), hopefully they can focus on the real issues Americans face daily.
Well, it's good to see that you are free of bias, aquapub! 
A couple of questions: Can you provide some documentation for your assertion that John Kerry has "friends" who have compared Bush to Hitler in campaign ads (or anywhere else)? Can you cite any similar "outrageously dishonest propaganda" - or even tell us what it is? Could you provide a link in which the Bush administration states that the president refused to address the NAACP "because they have been so hostile to him after he opposed the judge’s ruling on the Michigan State case" - and where they have characterized "diversity programs" as "racist"? As I, too, saw the Urban League address live and did not notice any standing ovations - or hear anything remotely approaching a "roar" - do you have footage somewhere which documents the version you saw? And do you have a source - or, sorry, numerous sources (since statistics are "always" supporting this allegation) - for your "80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals" claim?
From your description of the Urban League re-cap, it sounds very like what I saw on CNN's live broadcast. Not having seen the MSNBC report, though, I can only go by your description, which sounds pretty neutral on the basis of the address (and audience reaction) that I watched in its entirety. Is any news coverage which does not have a pro-Bush bias automatically have an anti-Bush prejudice? It strikes me that there's something in between, which we used to call objectivity.
As I see little in your preface which indicates that there is anything like a "constant abuse of power" in the media - or even at MSNBC, the only "media" which you mention (apart from FOX News and FOW News) - I see no foundation for you even asking these questions.
The only possible answers then, until such time as you do provide anything apart from unfounded claims of your own, are that the media will have as much impact as they have ever had and that it would be difficult for voter perception to be "off" due to a "constant abuse of power" which doesn't appear to exist (except, of course, at FOX News).
A couple of questions: Can you provide some documentation for your assertion that John Kerry has "friends" who have compared Bush to Hitler in campaign ads (or anywhere else)? Can you cite any similar "outrageously dishonest propaganda" - or even tell us what it is? Could you provide a link in which the Bush administration states that the president refused to address the NAACP "because they have been so hostile to him after he opposed the judge’s ruling on the Michigan State case" - and where they have characterized "diversity programs" as "racist"? As I, too, saw the Urban League address live and did not notice any standing ovations - or hear anything remotely approaching a "roar" - do you have footage somewhere which documents the version you saw? And do you have a source - or, sorry, numerous sources (since statistics are "always" supporting this allegation) - for your "80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals" claim?
From your description of the Urban League re-cap, it sounds very like what I saw on CNN's live broadcast. Not having seen the MSNBC report, though, I can only go by your description, which sounds pretty neutral on the basis of the address (and audience reaction) that I watched in its entirety. Is any news coverage which does not have a pro-Bush bias automatically have an anti-Bush prejudice? It strikes me that there's something in between, which we used to call objectivity.
As I see little in your preface which indicates that there is anything like a "constant abuse of power" in the media - or even at MSNBC, the only "media" which you mention (apart from FOX News and FOW News) - I see no foundation for you even asking these questions.
The only possible answers then, until such time as you do provide anything apart from unfounded claims of your own, are that the media will have as much impact as they have ever had and that it would be difficult for voter perception to be "off" due to a "constant abuse of power" which doesn't appear to exist (except, of course, at FOX News).
I think that aquapub is referring to the results of the Pew Research Center survey. It says that there are 5 times more reporters who label themselves as liberal. Here is a link.
It's no doubt that what journalists say will influence people's votes. Fortunately, liberal news media has been suffering in recent years. Viewership and circulation are way down for them. Hardly anybody watches MSNBC or CNN these days. So it's possible that their influence is less this year than it has been in the past.
I'm also glad that they no longer call states before the voting has finished. If I recall, in the 2000 election, the liberal news media called states for Gore quickly, but took their time to call states for Bush. This definitely influences elections as people don't vote if they heard their state has already gone one way or the other. This happened in Florida where Gore was called the winner, even though the pan handle of Florida, which is heavily conservative, had another hour to vote. Who knows how many people were turned away from voting after hearing that news?
It's no doubt that what journalists say will influence people's votes. Fortunately, liberal news media has been suffering in recent years. Viewership and circulation are way down for them. Hardly anybody watches MSNBC or CNN these days. So it's possible that their influence is less this year than it has been in the past.
I'm also glad that they no longer call states before the voting has finished. If I recall, in the 2000 election, the liberal news media called states for Gore quickly, but took their time to call states for Bush. This definitely influences elections as people don't vote if they heard their state has already gone one way or the other. This happened in Florida where Gore was called the winner, even though the pan handle of Florida, which is heavily conservative, had another hour to vote. Who knows how many people were turned away from voting after hearing that news?
QUOTE(deerjerkydave @ Jul 24 2004, 10:00 PM)
I think that aquapub is referring to the results of the Pew Research Center survey. It says that there are 5 times more reporters who label themselves as liberal. Here is a link.
I see. So by "statistics always showing that 80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals" he actually means "34% of journalists in a single study identify themselves as liberal". Overwhelming.
You are quite right that Fox News is gaining viewers at the expense of other cable news networks - though combined with network news coverage, it's not quite as significant. It does seem to indicate a trend, though - and to the extent that it does, seems to contradict the case that aquapub is trying so hard to make. If anything, television news coverage with a clear, distinct, and demonstrable bias in favor of President Bush, the Republican Party and conservatism is on the rise: a "constant abuse of power", indeed.
Part of what I feel has contributed to the declining viewership of MSNBC and CNN, though, is the fact that they, too, are becoming increasingly conservative and distinctly pro-Bush. As Steve Senti recently put it:
QUOTE
People are leaving CNN and MSNBC because they are just like FOX. All the liberals I know have stopped watching cable news because their Republican bias is so bad... They have become FOX 2 and FOX 3, there is no objective, fair and balanced media in America anymore. CNN and MSNBC have sold out their viewers and now they are all going to the internet for the news.
I couldn't agree more. When I want real news, I turn to PBS, possibly ABC, or the internet - but not the three right-wing cable networks.
Which candidate, for example, is currently being painted in the media as a "flip-flopper"? George W Bush has flipped more flops in four years than John Kerry has in twenty - yet it's the conservative spin that gets promoted ad nauseam in the "liberal media". It's all too reminiscent of the media which portrayed Al Gore as a prevaricator on the basis of three or four minor, insignificant inaccuracies, while ignoring the dozens of outright, blatant, and intentional lies of George W Bush - on issues of import.
As I said originally, the media will have as much impact as they have ever had - and that will be to nudge the voting public as far right as possible. The handful of corporate media owners wouldn't have it any other way.
Your remarks about calling elections early don't strike me as being highly relevant to the question - especially as they are so inaccurate. In Florida, the vote was called in favor of Gore by various national news media between 7:49 and 8:00 pm - at the earliest, this was a full eleven minutes before the polls closed. Woo.
Anyone who was not on their way to their polling place ten minutes before it closed was not going to vote anyway. "Who knows how many people were turned away from voting after hearing that news?" I know. Approximately zero. Now you know, too. Spread it around, 'cause you're not gonna hear it on TV.In any event, the media were most likely right. The calling of the votes is based on exit polls, not flawed voting tools. Obviously, the thousands of elderly Jews who inadvertently voted for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach would not have inadvertently told pollsters that they voted for anyone other than Gore - or possibly Nader. Their votes alone - never mind all the votes in Florida which were cast, but never counted - would have rendered the news predictions absolutely correct - the first time. All of which is beside the point - it was the Supreme Court, not the "liberal media" which decided the vote in Florida. And that is the "abuse of power" that we should be worrying about.
How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?
I really don't think it will have much of an impact at all. I'm of the opinion that people who are not already predisposed to voting, aren't likely to watch the news either. The media simply repeats soundbites from both sides, so not much is learned from television. What really chaps my hide is the total lack of any coverage for third party candidates. The media is firmly beholden to the two party system, and that's the biggest travesty of all, not whether it fluctuates in the narrow band of moderate left-right.
Wertz, I'm shocked and disappointed that you would be so intellectually dishonest concerning the media and the 2000 election.
You know very well that when the news outlets called the election for Gore at 7:49 EST, the numerically conservative western panhandle (10 counties) still had 1 hour and 11 minutes to vote. They being in CST. Woo indeed.
Link
When you mention votes never counted, you fail to include that recounts were conducted by USA Today, Miami Herald, Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Which of course, found that Bush would have actually won by a larger margin, even using Gore's standards for counting ballots.
Link
Why Wertz, why would you fall into the trap of repeating liberal mantras that have ben disproved? It's very unlike you, in your normally factual and thought provoking posts.
There are two aspects of the USSC involvement on the Florida election. 1) elections for Federal offices are within the purview of the Federal court and 2) Voting rights are considered protected under the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that to allow different standards in different counties was tantamount to discrimination, and therefore not allowed. Scotus did not decide the election, they followed the law, but then you knew that.
I really don't think it will have much of an impact at all. I'm of the opinion that people who are not already predisposed to voting, aren't likely to watch the news either. The media simply repeats soundbites from both sides, so not much is learned from television. What really chaps my hide is the total lack of any coverage for third party candidates. The media is firmly beholden to the two party system, and that's the biggest travesty of all, not whether it fluctuates in the narrow band of moderate left-right.
Wertz, I'm shocked and disappointed that you would be so intellectually dishonest concerning the media and the 2000 election.
You know very well that when the news outlets called the election for Gore at 7:49 EST, the numerically conservative western panhandle (10 counties) still had 1 hour and 11 minutes to vote. They being in CST. Woo indeed.
Link
When you mention votes never counted, you fail to include that recounts were conducted by USA Today, Miami Herald, Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and CNN. Which of course, found that Bush would have actually won by a larger margin, even using Gore's standards for counting ballots.
Link
Why Wertz, why would you fall into the trap of repeating liberal mantras that have ben disproved? It's very unlike you, in your normally factual and thought provoking posts.
There are two aspects of the USSC involvement on the Florida election. 1) elections for Federal offices are within the purview of the Federal court and 2) Voting rights are considered protected under the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that to allow different standards in different counties was tantamount to discrimination, and therefore not allowed. Scotus did not decide the election, they followed the law, but then you knew that.
“How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?”
The "abuse" spoken of is definitely not liberal. The notion of a “liberal media” is a fraud perpetrated by the right.
Can you seriously opine that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Eisner are LIBERAL?! Extremely wealthy people own the media, profit drives the news, and the extremely wealthy are conservative by nature. These media moguls sit on many corporate boards (Murdoch on Philip Morris, for example) – their interest is in keeping the cash flowing, not upsetting the conservative applecart. Clear Channel owns most of the radio waves, and has a decided conservative slant and its CEO is a major Republican contributor. Heck, the FCC is run by Michael Powell!
Of course the media will affect the election. Most of the people in this country get their political opinions via the media, and the conservative message is getting through loud and clear.
Media Dollars
Shrinking Media Ownership
As for the fallacy that MSNBC is “liberal”:
The "abuse" spoken of is definitely not liberal. The notion of a “liberal media” is a fraud perpetrated by the right.
QUOTE
…journalists are not entirely immune to the seductions of affluence. While they are not nearly as well paid as the nation’s corporate, legal, or medical elite, high-level Washington and New York journalists do make considerably more money than most Americans. They have spouses who do too, and hence, live pretty well. According to a study conducted by the sociologist David Croteau, 95% of elite journalists’ households earned more than $50,000 a year and 31% earned more than $150,000. He points out, “High levels of income tend to be associated with conservative views on economic issues such as tax policy and federal spending.” And journalists are no different. The journalists’ views on economic matters are generally consistent with their privileged positions on the socioeconomic ladder, and, hence, well to the right of most Americans. They are more sympathetic to corporations, less sympathetic to government-mandated social programs, and far more ideologically committed to free trade than to the protection of jobs than are their fellow citizens. Polls, of course, are always of limited value, and comparing different ones taken at different moments in history, based on differently-worded questions, invites rhetorical abuse. I would not take any of these individual statistics to the bank. Nevertheless the overall pattern is undeniably consistent, and it is not “liberal.”
When it comes to news content, the journalists are often the low people on the totem poll [sic]. They are “labor,” or if they are lucky, “talent.” They are not “management.” They do not get to decide by themselves how a story should be cast. <snip>
Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley, has been chronicling the concentration of media ownership in five separate editions of his book, The Media Monopoly, which was first published in 1983 when the number of companies that controlled the information flow to the rest of us – the potential employment pool for journalists – was fifty. Today, we are down to six. <snip>
The natural fear of journalists in this context is direct censorship on behalf of the parent’s corporate interests. <snip> Rarely does some story that is likely to arouse concern ever go far enough to actually need to be censored at the corporate level. The reporter, the editor, the producer, and the executive producer all understand implicitly that their jobs depend in part on keeping their corporate parents happy. <snip>
As the editors of the Columbia Journalism Review put it: “The truth about self-censorship is that it is widespread, as common in newsrooms as deadline pressure, a virus that eats away at the journalistic mission.” And it doesn’t leave much room for liberalism. <snip>
Reporters could be the most liberal people on earth. But for all the reasons discussed above, it would hardly matter. They simply do not “make” the news.
Edited: Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article. Please note that posting copyrighted images is prohibited.
When it comes to news content, the journalists are often the low people on the totem poll [sic]. They are “labor,” or if they are lucky, “talent.” They are not “management.” They do not get to decide by themselves how a story should be cast. <snip>
Ben Bagdikian, former dean of the journalism school at the University of California at Berkeley, has been chronicling the concentration of media ownership in five separate editions of his book, The Media Monopoly, which was first published in 1983 when the number of companies that controlled the information flow to the rest of us – the potential employment pool for journalists – was fifty. Today, we are down to six. <snip>
The natural fear of journalists in this context is direct censorship on behalf of the parent’s corporate interests. <snip> Rarely does some story that is likely to arouse concern ever go far enough to actually need to be censored at the corporate level. The reporter, the editor, the producer, and the executive producer all understand implicitly that their jobs depend in part on keeping their corporate parents happy. <snip>
As the editors of the Columbia Journalism Review put it: “The truth about self-censorship is that it is widespread, as common in newsrooms as deadline pressure, a virus that eats away at the journalistic mission.” And it doesn’t leave much room for liberalism. <snip>
Reporters could be the most liberal people on earth. But for all the reasons discussed above, it would hardly matter. They simply do not “make” the news.
Edited: Posting full or partial texts of copyrighted materials, regardless of ownership. Our excerpting limit is no more than two consecutive paragraphs, and no more than six paragraphs per article. Please note that posting copyrighted images is prohibited.
Can you seriously opine that media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Eisner are LIBERAL?! Extremely wealthy people own the media, profit drives the news, and the extremely wealthy are conservative by nature. These media moguls sit on many corporate boards (Murdoch on Philip Morris, for example) – their interest is in keeping the cash flowing, not upsetting the conservative applecart. Clear Channel owns most of the radio waves, and has a decided conservative slant and its CEO is a major Republican contributor. Heck, the FCC is run by Michael Powell!
Of course the media will affect the election. Most of the people in this country get their political opinions via the media, and the conservative message is getting through loud and clear.
Media Dollars
Shrinking Media Ownership
As for the fallacy that MSNBC is “liberal”:
QUOTE
The fantasy of a liberal media is dead, and fairness, civility and trust have gone down along with it. <snip>
MSNBC has been following Fox's lead by hiring Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. MSNBC also fired Phil Donahue and his top-rated show for what many said were dangerous views of dissent against the war. In place of Donahue, MSNBC hired right-winger Savage, who was rightly fired last week for calling a homosexual caller a "sodomite." As reported by the Washington Post, this was not the first time MSNBC went too far on trying to court the right. MSNBC also had to fire the compassionate conservative Coulter in 1997 for telling a disabled war Veteran on the program News Chat that, "People like you caused us to lose that war." Source
MSNBC has been following Fox's lead by hiring Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. MSNBC also fired Phil Donahue and his top-rated show for what many said were dangerous views of dissent against the war. In place of Donahue, MSNBC hired right-winger Savage, who was rightly fired last week for calling a homosexual caller a "sodomite." As reported by the Washington Post, this was not the first time MSNBC went too far on trying to court the right. MSNBC also had to fire the compassionate conservative Coulter in 1997 for telling a disabled war Veteran on the program News Chat that, "People like you caused us to lose that war." Source
QUOTE(aquapub @ Jul 24 2004, 05:27 PM)
This is what conservatives see every day in our liberal activist media. With statistics always showing that 80-90% of newsroom people, reporters and anchors are liberals (except at FOW News), it shouldn’t surprise anyone. So, especially now that Kerry is on a mission to look less like the most liberal of all senators (now that his base is already motivated), my questions are, “How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?”
We must not be watching TV in the same country...I can not comment on the report you saw, since I did not see it.
I can tell you this though - news media in this country is not "activist" or "left"
As many folks have said here - the NEWS media in this country is conservative.
Here's the evidence:
Every single network is controlled by major corporations that benefits from the conservative agenda.
Radical left agendas are not covered or broadcast - right agendas and moderates are (Dems are primarily moderate - for the record). Third parties are not mentioned for the most part. The Libertarian party, the Green party, and others get no air time. Real left movements are simply ignored.
The war is barley touched - no Iraqi casualties are reported - no outrage over the absurdly anti-press "embedding" non-sense ever hit the air waives. (and trust me, true journalists were outraged) The real war news is simply ignored.
I only see big money mouthpieces and journalism replaced by bland and sanitized conservative messages. While some networks are not as obviously biased as Fox, they all lean conservative.
The exceptions:
NPR
Christian Science Monitor
Pacifica
That's about all I can think of and NONE are on TV… Please add more "liberal" news orgs if you can find them.
Now the TV and Movie media tend to be liberal - but not the news. There's just no evidence to support the claim.
I think folks who scream "LIBERAL MEDIA" are confusing free speech with being "liberal". "I heard something I don't agree with!!! ...LIBERALS!!!"
Can't comment on the particular news coverage due to having dropped cable in favor of Internet news sources. Guess this household is typical of liberal households getting sick of spending all that money each month to be deluged with insuferable advertisements.
So my contribution to this debate is the reality of people abandoning cable companies, possibly in droves. Along with the resounding success of the Demos in taking Dean's brilliant idea of using the Internet to raise funds and get people involved, it looks like a real cultural change is happening in this country.
Who cares what bias the cable media have? Only those who find paying a monthly fee for advertising makes some sort of sense.
Regarding the cable media's impact on the coming election, I'd say it will be a lot less than ever before. The Internet will have a greater impact than in 2000, simply because more people are online and aware now. The greatest impact though is and will continue to be the raising of money from individuals giving modest donations, and more important, these same people gathering together regularly and in small venues to discuss politics.
The age of machine politics is over.
This must be driving Rupert Murdock nuts.
So my contribution to this debate is the reality of people abandoning cable companies, possibly in droves. Along with the resounding success of the Demos in taking Dean's brilliant idea of using the Internet to raise funds and get people involved, it looks like a real cultural change is happening in this country.
Who cares what bias the cable media have? Only those who find paying a monthly fee for advertising makes some sort of sense.
Regarding the cable media's impact on the coming election, I'd say it will be a lot less than ever before. The Internet will have a greater impact than in 2000, simply because more people are online and aware now. The greatest impact though is and will continue to be the raising of money from individuals giving modest donations, and more important, these same people gathering together regularly and in small venues to discuss politics.
The age of machine politics is over.
This must be driving Rupert Murdock nuts.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jul 25 2004, 08:48 AM)
Wertz, I'm shocked and disappointed that you would be so intellectually dishonest concerning the media and the 2000 election.
You know very well that when the news outlets called the election for Gore at 7:49 EST, the numerically conservative western panhandle (10 counties) still had 1 hour and 11 minutes to vote. They being in CST. Woo indeed.
Link
You know very well that when the news outlets called the election for Gore at 7:49 EST, the numerically conservative western panhandle (10 counties) still had 1 hour and 11 minutes to vote. They being in CST. Woo indeed.
Link
Florida's polling hours are from 7am to 7pm. The election was called by the first network at 7:49pm EST, 6:49 CST. That's eleven minutes before their polls closed. Not seventy-one - eleven.
The site to which you link doesn't mention that, but it does say that "if any effect is present (which we don't think there is based upon our other results), it seems that Gore (not Bush) was hurt in these counties in the central time zone... Our conclusion is that the popular media's pronouncing Gore the winner of Florida before the polls closed in these 9 western Florida counties had no significant impact on the vote totals for either Bush or Gore, and thus would not have been a decisive factor in the election." Thanks for providing a source that confirmed my conclusion. It's good to know that Model and Estimates of Bush/Gore Vote Share Difference, Model and Estimates of Voter Turnout, and Model and Estimates of Third Party Vote Share reach the same conclusion that common sense does: an eleven minute window is not going to have any impact.
Thanks, as well, for questioning my intellectual honesty. Had I been wrong, it would have been an innocent mistake, not deliberate subterfuge. Your posts, too, are normally factual and thought provoking. I expect your miscalculation was an innocent mistake.
The rest of your response follows the sidetrack which deerjerky opened and I allowed to distract me in the first place. It should probably not be pursued here, apart from noting that the media has triumphed in skewing the facts yet again. The articles you mention all cite "the standards advocated by Al Gore". Beyond exercising his right to request re-counts in the first place, what Al Gore wanted is irrelevant. What matters is what the Florida State Supreme Court wanted - which SCOTUS overrode.
The 2000 election has been debated elsewhere and I have expressed the opinion that when it comes to elections, I support states' rights. You may not. The only grounds on which SCOTUS could find to reverse the Florida State Supreme Court decision (which, by their standards - adhering to Florida state election law - would have resulted in a narrow-ish win by Al Gore), was the equal protection clause. If that were applied rigorously, the fact that different counties used different voting methods should have rendered the entire election invalid. That dog don't hunt - probably why SCOTUS made their ruling a "one time only" offer. The activist judges on the Supreme Court of the United States may have bent the Constitution to their end, but they also re-wrote Florida state election law. That I knew.
The reason I mention all of this is that all of the subsequent coverage by the national media has been promoting the Republican Party line. The Miami Herald, which you cite, had to go out of its way to "report" that Bush would have won the election by willfully misinterpreting the facts. Broadcast media didn't even try that hard - they just lied.
It is symptomatic of the media's approach to most political and electoral issues. For the third time, the media will have as much impact as they have ever had - and will continue trying to nudge the electorate to the right. The credulous will swallow whatever they hear repeated over and over and over ("Kerry flip-flops - Bush is strong on terror - Kerry flip-flops - Bush is strong on terror"). The more committed and concerned voter - like most people posting here, I would imagine - will delve a bit deeper and look beyond what the talking heads tell them. Whether that will make enough of a difference remains to be seen.
How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?
I think they have some impact, maby a big impact. I think the media and news channels now days are not very good at reporting the news though. I suggest finding the book "News Flash" by Bonnie Anderson, she talkes about how todays news (CNN..) has changed.
I think they have some impact, maby a big impact. I think the media and news channels now days are not very good at reporting the news though. I suggest finding the book "News Flash" by Bonnie Anderson, she talkes about how todays news (CNN..) has changed.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jul 25 2004, 10:41 AM)
Florida's polling hours are from 7am to 7pm. The election was called by the first network at 7:49pm EST, 6:49 CST. That's eleven minutes before their polls closed. Not seventy-one - eleven.
Ok, after a bit of research I think I have a better picture of what happened that night. Yes, the polls did close at 7PM as Wertz pointed out. This means the television networks called the state for Gore about 10 minutes too early. But there's more, and it's significant. One hour before the polls had closed in the panhandle, every news network except Fox News, announced to the public that the polls were closed in Florida!
In testimony before the United States Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Daniel B. Perrin from the Committee for Honest Politics sited studies by McLaughlin & Associates and the Yale Law School, demonstrating that thousands of Republican votes were disenfranchised as a result of the news media's announcements. Here is a link. It includes testimony from various poll workers who say that the final hour of voting was unusually slow.
This topic is NOT about the 2000 election. It is about the 2004 election. Please stay on topic.
How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?
How much impact do you think the media will have on the election and how off do you think voter perception is due to the media’s constant abuse of power?
The Laci Peterson case is proof that the news does indeed create news. It's like a soap opera you tune in to find out what new development unfolded. Millions of murders happen every year and this one is the only one worth weeks of coverage? So why is some juror saying "you're going to lose today" the biggest news of the day? Because the media started the Laci Peterson Case craze and now it's "News"
Plus I think we all can agree on this. "It's not news if nobody reports it."
Plus I think we all can agree on this. "It's not news if nobody reports it."
No, I do not think that news networks are overwhelmingly biased. Sure, they may be opinionated in some subtle form, but I have yet to see such evidence of MSNBC being like commondreams.org and FOX being newsmax.com (to get a perspective in the gaps of political affiliation).
I think the problem is is that you yourself are partisan. You only see the Democratic party's follies and concentrate your attention only to them, instead of recognizing possible biases that have been displayed by the Republican party on other news networks.
You look for the bad with the Democrats, and you look for the good in the Republicans (obviously I do not know you personally, but I have ascertained this from what you posted).
I think the problem is is that you yourself are partisan. You only see the Democratic party's follies and concentrate your attention only to them, instead of recognizing possible biases that have been displayed by the Republican party on other news networks.
You look for the bad with the Democrats, and you look for the good in the Republicans (obviously I do not know you personally, but I have ascertained this from what you posted).
Scarborough Country certainly can't be considered liberal or pro Kerry.
BoF, Being new to the site you may not know the rules very well yet. One liners are generally considered unconstructive.
§A. Post Requirements
I. All posts must be constructive and on-topic. Off-topic or non-constructive content will be edited or removed.
§A. Post Requirements
I. All posts must be constructive and on-topic. Off-topic or non-constructive content will be edited or removed.
THough BoF's comment is short, it does make a point so I will elaborate on it so as to keep it from being a "one liner"- there are plenty of right leaning shows on MSNBC to make the argument that MSNBC is "pro-kerry"- common sense would tell you, just by looking at the news magazines, that there can't be a bias with conservative programing on the channel! 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.