Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (18471)	12/3/2003 8:34:17 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793887

It's virtually impossible for people to point the finger at bias. It's the little things that don't stand out. I would love to see the results of a Lexus/Nexus search on the three Network Anchors' use of "Right wing" and "Left Wing" when referring to Pols. The Social Bias among the Media staffs makes a big difference in the way they handle stories. It is impossible to find a female media reporter who is "Pro-Life." Only among the columnists. This drastically influences the way they report on the subject. And don't forget that polls show the majority of people in this country are "Pro Life." Same situation exists in the BG of people reporting on Gun Control and other conservative issues. When you have polls showing better than 80% of the media votes left, you know it affects the reporting. What is going to change this is the bottom line. As the Media bosses see Conservative viewpoints getting the better ratings they will go with Conservative hires.

To: Lane3 who wrote (18471)	12/3/2003 8:52:30 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

Here is one for you "Foxy" people. Wallace readies for a new role 'Fox News Sunday' host is on this week By Peter Johnson USA Today Chris Wallace says one of the ''little oddities'' about joining Fox News, which he did three weeks ago, is that his office in Fox's Washington, D.C., bureau is across from the makeup room. ''Anyone who comes on Fox during the day has to literally walk past my office.'' This little detail might not mean much to outsiders. But when you're set to anchor a public affairs show like Fox News Sunday, which Wallace does this week, replacing Tony Snow, it's a big plus: Booking newsmaker guests is Job No. 1 on his beat. So far, he has bumped into the top strategists of the Democratic presidential campaigns and officials in the Bush White House; House Speaker Dennis Hastert; and Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services, all potential guests. Wallace, 56, the son of 60 Minutes titan Mike Wallace, left ABC's newsmagazine PrimeTime Live for his new gig. He knows he has his work cut out for him. Sunday is a distant fourth in the Sunday news arena, averaging 1.7 million viewers -- 2.3 million less than NBC's Meet the Press, which Wallace himself anchored for two years back in the late '80s. Wallace says Snow left him with a formidable roundtable: Fox's Brit Hume, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, The Evening Standard's Bill Kristol and columnist Juan Williams. And just as Snow, a newspaper columnist, ended each show with an essay, Wallace plans to bring some of his newsmagazine experience with him to Sunday. Wallace will end each program with a three-minute ''mini-magazine'' profile of a Washington mover and shaker for a segment called ''Power Player.'' He won't say who this week's player is, other than to say that this person is a familiar name to anyone who follows Washington politics. To Wallace's amazement, his subject ''never in his life has done a sit-down TV interview.'' Wallace, whose show airs on Fox's broadcast affiliates, says that on his rounds in recent weeks he has confronted a ''perception issue'' that Sunday ''leans to the right,'' just as many people think sister cable channel Fox News does. Wallace says he takes no sides. ''I am a straight newsman. I am going to treat everyone fairly and I'm going to take Fox up on its slogan and be tough but fair to all sides.'' usatoday.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (18471)	12/3/2003 1:33:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793887

Good piece on how Howie gets em. The buzz about Dean By Eileen McNamara, Globe Columnist, 12/3/2003 WOLFEBORO, N.H. -- Most of the sign holders along North Main Street have not seen their 30th birthdays. Most of the seat warmers inside are nostalgic for 50. But there is no apparent generation gap in the crowd that turns out to hear Howard Dean on a recent brisk late afternoon. A room meant to hold 300 fills with nearly twice that number. They sit cross-legged in the aisles, lean two-deep against the walls. A few sport Dean buttons, but most wear the expression of hope and doubt that is the mark of an undecided presidential primary voter. At 3:45 p.m., running a half hour late, Dean is making his fourth and penultimate stop of the day. If he is tired when he emerges from the green SUV outside the Wolfeboro Inn, he is reenergized by the reception inside. Some of these folks last saw him on Memorial Day weekend, when the former governor of Vermont was being dismissed as a long shot for the Democratic nomination. A lot has changed since spring. His remarks vary little from a speech earlier in a high school cafeteria in Merrimack or from one he delivers two hours later at a high school gym in Laconia. The invasion of Iraq was built on deception. The nation is hemorrhaging jobs. There was no middle-class tax cut. There will be no real health care reform until people are placed before profits. What, after so many repetitions, could be a tired stump speech is, instead, a call to action. Dean strikes the most responsive chord when he insists that his campaign is not just about him; it is about the retirees, the students, the seasonal workers, and the unemployed in his audience. Donors who write small checks. House party hosts newly active in politics. Registered voters who might actually vote this time around. Ralph Nader voters who are ready to move beyond protest and symbolism. It is an informed audience, open but not naive. There is the retired doctor who asks his fellow physician to describe his process of decision-making; the doubter who agrees that the attack on Iraq was a mistake, but wants to know how Dean would get us out; the conservationist who wants to know how a man who arrived in an SUV will wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil. He makes the decisions, Dean says, but takes the advice that qualified people give him. He would internationalize forces in Iraq, pressuring Arab allies to send troops. He would encourage development of renewable energy sources and the production of hybrid automobiles that use ethanol as well as gasoline. More than a dozen people respond when Dean asks for a show of hands from teachers. They respond with an ovation when he mocks President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act as "no behind left." Why, he asks, do we fail to fully fund early childhood education only to pay later to incarcerate felons who most kindergarten teachers could have identified as being at risk at age 5? What about the criticism that Dean's temperament is too volatile for the Oval Office? Well, the candidate concedes, he is sometimes short with the press. The smirking admission elicits sustained laughter, as much a measure of the media's standing in the polls as the candidate's. According to the US Census Bureau, 32 percent of Americans between 18 and 24 voted in 2000, compared with 68 percent of those over 65. Riding motorcycles on to late night talk shows or donning turtlenecks for "Rock the Vote" debates will not close that gap. Jobs are not just a concern of the young, any more than Social Security is just a concern of the aged, Dean says. "This campaign is about community, about all of us," he tells the crowd that sends him on to the next stop with a standing ovation. Dozens, old and young, stay behind to sign up to help the cause of former long shot, Howard Dean. Eileen McNamara is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at mcnamara@globe.com. boston.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (18471)	12/3/2003 4:26:30 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

"So much of that is a function of what we consider to be the truth, which is a function of our own biases. It's virtually impossible for people to point the finger at bias. What they're usually calling bias is simply a perspective different from their own." I disagree. I openly admit I'm biased. However, I formed my POV on liberal media bias based on numerous instances of personally watching them distort, deceive & lie about things that had no basis in fact or reality. Once again I'll mention those memos that have yet to get any serious attention from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or CNBC. The memo RE: Iraq/Al Qaeda link, the memo showing Democrats risking national security & abusing the traditionally non-partisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for purely political purposes & the memo showing the shenanigans by Democrats in their zeal to thwart President Bush's judicial nominees. Why is there almost complete silence on these huge stories from liberal media outlets? Do you honestly think that if Republicans did precisely the same thing that it would get almost no media attention from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or CNBC? I watched Dan Rather call Bush's budget proposal "controversial" before it was made public, ET AL. I watched countless times when they would discuss Bush or other Republican politicians in negative terms like "hard line conservatives", "very determined conservatives", "contentious conservative", "conservative agenda" etc. They don't label Democrats "liberal", unless the descriptive adjectives include words such as "respected", "good old-fashioned", "spokesman", etc. The liberal media outlets I mentioned falsely attributed that Bush claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat" directly or showed Democratic politicians repeating this lie. Not one retraction on this outrageous distortion from any of them. They had no problems reporting when Democrats falsely accused Republicans of challenging Democrat’s patriotism numerous times. They frequently showed Democrats claiming Bush "lied" & Bush "misled" without any rebuttal from Republicans. Liberal media distorted Bush's reasons for going to war in Afghanistan & Iraq. These liberal media outlets regularly talked about troops being "bogged down" during the short pause in the 17-day war. That pause was more to do with outrunning supplies & severe sand storms than any real resistance. There are numerous instances of overtly biased/negative reporting on the war that each of those outlets made, prior to, during & after the war. They never admitted how dismally wrong they were on any of them. I could go on & on with more, but what's the use. As you already stated, "What they're usually calling bias is simply a perspective different from their own." It doesn't matter that I can factually point to numerous instances of clear media bias. Why? Perception is reality..... regardless of the facts. I'll keep watching all of these media outlets because I know I'm biased. And I'll keep calling a spade a spade when I can do it factually, thank you very much.