So, why do we borrow money from our enemies again?

Oh wait, we play with our own poop so now I understand.

Nevermind...

 

Harley, again, respectfully, I don't want to get into a discussion of "liberal bias" here. I feel confident that if President Obama was caught in something "juicy" though, the MSM would be all over him like "flies on feces". Some of them MAY, give him a "pass" as long as he doesn't blatantly "step in it", I really don't know though, since I'm not part of that world. (And I doubt you are either.)

The concept of "liberal" though, in the free press is rooted in the 1st Amendment. They don't want to be controlled, but they DO want to sell "news". And, the 1st Amendment guarantees this right.

If you move to invalidate the "freedom of press" clause of the 1st Amendment, what's next? Does that open a crack in the 2nd Amendment too?

Maybe you're right. Maybe the MSM really DOES "love" President Obama (but not the sources I pay attention to though, they think he's failed). But, I don't pay much attention to MSM anyway, since I know they're in the game for profit.

Now, do I think he's "failed"? You bet! He COULD have united his party and accomplished something, but he didn't. In my view, it was an opportunity squandered.

- Jack

 

Frank, I missed this post! Good on ya!

Good grief - Is it possible we may actually learn to discuss things properly?

Maybe there's hope for the world after all. (And Frank, I'm not being sarcastic here - I hope you see that.)

- Jack

 

It's like Yit or Poo (but spoken with an Italian accent).

 

I don't

 

This is one topic you and I do not agree on, and I am good with that.

I just think back to GW Bush in office, the MSM kicked him in the crotch almost every night.
The MSM quite often sold this type of reporting ( entertainment ) when it was GW Bush, but now that it is not GW, this type of reporting does not sell advertising space anymore.

Think back to the Nobel prize fiasco.
Not in office even a full year, and he is awarded this "honor" ( and I am using that term loosely ). "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve" is the reason given by the committee.
Now the award is for what you might do, not what you have done with your life to that point.
Makes Dr Martin Luther King's Nobel honor seem a bit cheapened in my opinion ( he was awarded the honor in '64 after quite a bit of work ).
How did the MSM report this, it was a great honor, and we should all be proud as a country.
Not 1 mention of how Dr King devoted quite a bit of his life to his work, and paid the price for it, where this one is for what one might do, or a call to step down from it. I still stand by if he had any class ( and not a media monger ) he would have recused himself.

Media Monger, how he was on TV every week at least, and how the advertising revenue lost due to him constantly having a speech to give. Let's not forget how Fox the TV station refused to carry it, due to Fox news carrying it, and the stink that caused in the MSM ( although House that night had huge ratings ).
The MSM reported on how Fox was biased, and should not be viewing normal schedule ( not the outcry of the revenue and the taxes on it lost, it was in the Millions ). He stopped the "fire side" chats every week after this.

Where was national coverage of the Black Panther type actions at the voting places, that was a complete 180* from what they did before ?
One could find that in a corner here or there, but it never made national headlines. Given it is not ( or never proven ) to be a direct link to the POTUS, why hide it ( the results it provided ? ).

Let's not forget how the Blago trial sanitized anything that might associated him with that action. One quick blurb on how someone working for the POTUS was involved in the actions, and then never to be heard from again ( got too close ? ).

The Current Mayor of Chicago, and how the previous Mayor's brother replaced him in DC.
Strange how perfect that worked.....Any reporting on how this looks ?

This is Chicago politics at its best.
The Democratic party is trying to implement Machine politics in DC, and this never is compared by the MSM ( but the Bushs it was compared and complained about ). CA just passed a law, that the winner of the popular votes in CA gets all 54 of the electoral votes from the state ( why the change now ? ). MSM coverage of this ??

I do not know what the POTUS would have to do to get GW Bush type reporting done on him.
It would have to be huge and so public it cannot be hidden or spun a different way ( look how much cover up was done for Rostinkowski )

This is just the supporting facts why my opinion is the MSM is biased, in favor of the POTUS.

I do understand that the MSM is out to make money, but what about NPR or PBS ? Why are they pumped into the MSM category on this ?

 

Fair enough, Steve. I guess we'll just have to wait for him to really "step in it", to see. But, since I listen to NPR, PRI and occasionally watch PBS, I hear a lot of criticism there about the POTUS. It's one reason I was able to say, in my view, "He's failed". When commentators and guests on those networks criticize his performance and supply cogent reasons for doing so, there's no argument.

But, I don't really put NPR, PRI and PBS into the MSM category. They really seem (to me) to be pretty "open minded".

- Jack

 

Not too sure what the topic was.
I do recall reading the NPR transcripts on the Blag seat mess, and the host had a thin attempt at reporting the facts, but left off the part where one of the people on the POTUS's staff was involved.
Just blanket forgotten about, change the topic to Jesse Jackson Jr.

That is valid, point well taken.

I just tried to look up the lost ad revenue from Obama regular scheduled "fire side chats" and found nothing.
Put into google, and the 1st one up is about how 3 weeks in a row, he sucked up 1 hour each week, and this 3 hours cost the networks ( that covered it) $ 9M in revenue.
Funny phrase, "Obamavision" is what it was called back in 2009. After a bit of harassment he cut the Monday 1 hour speeches.
Fox was the winner on these, House ( when the speech was airing ) netted them $ 3M each time they refused to carry it on the TV station ( Fox news covered it in whole, and this was the MSM's rif over how dare Fox do this.. ).

I am using this as a known case in point, but I have not done a full search to know if it is a corner case, or reality, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Obama did step in it. It's called Operation Fast and Furious. I have only seen it reported extensively on Fox News and various internet news sites.

 

Fast and Furious has certainly been talked about in Public Broadcasting, but it's been a while since I've heard anything there. It was also covered rather extensively in our "left-leaning" local paper, The Arizona Daily Star.

- Jack

 

I have not seen it reported on any major national media outlet except Fox News. And I watch Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox Business at some point almost daily.

 

Ive seen it mentioned on msnbc, but fox had a one hour special with sean hannity and michelle malkin........michelle is insane I cant take her seriously.

 

Coming from you I am sure she would take that as a compliment.

 

- Jack

 

She probably would because according to her everything bad that happens in the world is "the lefts fault." Frank you should be able to admit shes insane