Good Morning America
 

This show has come out against Bush in a BIG way. They've been giving all of this free pub to every single negative Bush book credible or incredible now for the entire campaign.

I actually was fairly angry this morning when they introduced the lady who was selling her book that discusses the Bush Family and all the bad things they've done. They started by giving her a statement by the White House just so she could refute it. She's now been on two days in a row.

They never even acknowledged the Swift Boat Veterans' book until there were allegations by the Kerry campaign against them. I have not seen them give one shred of postive press to the Bush campaign. Everything negative. I've never heard them question anything about Kerry either or allow someone on their program that does.

Is there anyone that wants to argue that this is not a biased program?

Wasn't GMA... NBC's Today show got the Kitty Kelly exclusive.

That's what I meant :D

Today Show.. NBC.

Never paid attention to the name.

Well, maybe I'll give GMA a try.

Re: Good Morning America
 

I dont think its possible at this point. These people have showed their true colors. Those really looking for honest answers can see their political agenda. Its so obvious that is sickening. :mad:

Actually she was on the TODAY show yesterday with sharon bush and this morning as well as a follow up

i mean honestly why the heck does it matter? all of these "news" channels pander to the presidential candidates and the scandals and stories that go with them. i don't see many shows on Fox News, MSNBC or CNN really focusing on what really matters: Bush and Kerry's stands on issues.

I could care less honestly what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago. What i care about and what others should care about is what they will do for us in the next four years. i'm sick and tired of hearing the words swiftboat veterans, flip-flopper, national guard duty, bush family scandals and naughty doings. all that crap just gives the nation's talking heads something to gripe about and to hash over daily. it gives them face time and makes chris matthews look conservative or really liberal, depends on the freakin day.

i honestly don't know whom i'm voting for but i'm voting come Nov. I just wish the media, of which i am a member of, would help me make an informed decision by giving me what i need: the real, factual issues.

I hate when this type of story comes out because it just distracts people from the real issues.

Does anyone really care if he might have possibly used drugs over 20 years ago? Personally, I don't.

peaches, that's what i argue day in and day out.

can you imagine the things people do when they're teens or in their early 20s that they would never want to come out?

i mean who's thinking at those young and wild ages that they will be running for president in their 40s and 50s and even 60s? no one. it's ludicrous that this stuff has gotten all the attention that it has. we media types are followers, afraid to break out of the box that everyone is standing in, and say "THIS IS NOT NEWS."

so because no one will let the story just end, we have to hear about it over and over again. it's crazy.

Bluz4, I completely agree with both of your posts. :)

Forget Kitty Kelly. Just get to the issues: taxes, health care, education, Iraq, unemployment, Social Security, etc.

That's what I meant. Had my morning show titles confused.

As a member of the media, you should know better. A factual, intelligent discussion of the issues can be found -- on PBS.

What are their ratings like?

Uhm..it matters because its not supposed to be the job of the media to sway opinion..its supposed to be to REPORT the news. And at least FOX has shown both sides of the issues.

Look everyone, Love_Spell _6 made a funny! :cool:

I know I had a good laugh.

For a while it made me SICK that she could just spew such blatant lies but then I saw her political agenda and LAUGHED.

Look everyone, GP didn't read the study on news media bias!


-RC
--I'm not much funnier . . . sigh

Look everybody, Rob didn't read what I posted in that thread!

-GP
--I'm not funny either

i get off at midnight at my paper but i have heard that PBS and BBC are good for balanced news. BBC more for Iraq coverage though.

As for Love_Spell, your comment made me laugh. You actually think that Fox News is balanced. Are you kidding me? Even those news channels that profess to be balanced make jokes about how unbalanced Fox News is.

have you heard about the documentary Outfoxed? About how Rupert Murdoch influenced the reporting on that station?

Give me a break.

I'm not saying that any media outlets do it right. I just want someone to just tell the truth and stop jumping on these bandwagons of sometimes baseless, irrelevant news....

yeah, I cracked up about the fox news being unbiased comment. I needed that chuckle.

That's not a documentary. That's basically a movie that is trying to make money. In fact there are few studies out there comparing news networks against each other. I posted one done by academics. It showed that all the news media networks were biased, but Fox was the least biased. Do a quick search for it.

-Rudey

You should read the study since it involved the Harris school.

-Rudey

:confused: the hell do I care about the Harris School? I went to the College. I have no allegience to "those other schools".

Besides, no study is better equipped to influence my opinion of the biasness of these networks than my own eyes.

How do you know that your own bias isnt interfering with the perception of the biasness of a media outlet?

(It's like my dad saying Rush Limbaugh isn't biased)

Oh really? Do you really want to put yourself on the spot? Fine, then tell me how it's biased with examples and how others are unbiased with examples. I hope in law school you don't make arguments like that.

And for once, IowaStatePhiPsi makes sense.

-Rudey

I'll paraphrase: "This one study isn't conclusive, i've heard of others but nothing in print to post to retort, we should do more research to get real conclusions." This is close, no?


I read it; it just doesn't do a good job of subtracting from the valuation of the information we DO have. It's an imperfect game, true, but that's how it works: we study, then continue to perfect our data. Right now, the data says, "All are biased, but Fox is less right than its competitors are left."


Just saying is all.

I thought she said her prof has said that Fox was the least biased as well. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly. Whatever, I'm too fricking burnt out to remember this shit anymore.

-Rudey

That's what I think I said he said - I don't even know anymore.

I hate watching all news channels - I usually watch Fox at 9 and NBC at 10 and average the two.

I watched the Today show interview yesterday and Matt Lauer ripped her good. He confronted her on the timing of the release of the book, asked her voting record (to show that she's a Democrat and trying to slam Bush), challenged her accusations about Bush doing cocaine at Camp David and how uncredible her "sources" were. He challenged that Sharon Bush (the only source she will name) says that she is lying and her words were twisted and taken out of context. He asked her if she had taped that interview and she said no, despite the fact that she claimed to have taped 95% of the interviews. He made her look like the idiot that she is, in my opinion. The entire interview was aimed at discrediting her and implying that she released this book close to the election in an attempt to sway votes in a very attacking manner.

In spite of not agreeing with Bush policies/belief systems in general, I hate these kinds of books and slams and was glad that Matt Lauer was so tough on her.

Dee

Wow. I had no idea there would be so much interest in my fan club..didn't you read my location? only 6 more spaces left! But I can always make room for the small minded folks :cool:

Continue flattering me today..I need some on this dreary day in VA :D

Chris Matthews did the same last night. She's still getting plenty of free pub out of this. NBC has *REALLY* changed their tone with this book. Her first two days (why does she get 3 days?!?) were very powderpuff interviews. Then she gets slammed on Chris Matthews last night and then this morning. Maybe NBC is trying to become credible again?

If they want to be credible, stop promoting political books! Period.

Totally makes no sense.

ESPECIALLY books by Kitty Kelley. I mean, come on, the woman is a tabloid writer, at best. Her past books have been trashy, and I'm guessing this one is as well.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I mean, come ON people, it's Kitty Freaking Kelley.

Aaron Brown (is that his name? -- Don't watch CNN much) pretty well took her apart last night, too, albeit in a fairly polite way which seems to be his style.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. The conservative members of Congress decry PBS as being liberal. In fact, they have basically cut all government support -- which is why we have to live through all of these damned pledge drives.

Newt Gingrich led the charge to "zero out" Federal support for NPR and PBS.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's important food for thought. It's not a new idea. We talked about it when I was in college. It seems to be much more strident, though, in this election year.

"The more people believe passionately in an issue, the less they want to see anything critical about it in a paper. People want to see only the justification of the conclusion they've already reached. I think my highest concern as a journalist is not to become a propagandist, and so I get an almost mischievous delight in going against the grain."
- TONY AUTH, political cartoonist, 2003, on questioning prevailing "Wisdom"

I don't like it when people say that PBS or the BBC are unbiased. They are strongly biased - especially about a topic I care about dearly. This is about as empty as statements about Fox.

I have yet to see any type of journalism that isn't biased, and I read and watch a lot.

-Rudey

Exactly. It's unavoidable, human nature being what it is. Of course, some journalism is more biased than others.

And to say that a particular media outlet is biased is not the same as saying "unreliable" or "not deservedly respected." The tricks, it seems to me, are to recognize the bias ("consider the source" if you will) and to read/watch/listen to a variety of sources to try to get a more complete picture.

I don't recall your study 100%, but wasn't PBS one of the lesser biased sources of news along with Fox?

Nope.

And don't worry about what arguments I am making in law school...not quite your territory.




I still love ya though

;)

i think mystic you make a good point. and that's what i do. i read as many papers as i can and then go home to watch everything from the daily show to hardball. but the problem is that with many of these outlets, the same stuff (ie., swiftboats and kitty kelley) is being covered and the same extremist heads are talking. you always have the extreme Dem against the extreme Repub, not listening to each other and trying to out-quip each other.

it can be hard for the average person to decipher.

and i still don't see how fox is not biased. any media outlet that has the american flag flying high behind the heads of its anchors and is shoving the whole idea of patriotism (ie., iraq bad, bush and goonies good) is hardly bringing an objective perspective to the situation....

just my .20 cents.:rolleyes: