Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

I await a single shred of evidence on this thread proving a bias in the press toward anything but the national status quo.

 

I'm a registered Republican, but undecided given the state of the country now.
Here's my microcosm of bias: Instead of making an objective decision, I'm almost to the point where I want to vote for McCain just to spite the ENTIRE news/life/local staff at my shop. Sitting on the fringe of the sports desk, I've had to hear full-blown conversations/swipes about McCain's arms or Palin's family, etc. It's unbelievable that it's spoken as if everyone within earshot (conversations across the entire newsroom) agrees, really.
And if anyone wants to argue media bias, come sit in my chair for about, say, 45 seconds on any given weekday. You'll be indirectly bombarded with hatred, whether you like it or not.

Some surely would enjoy it here.

Someone said something earlier along the lines that the GOP considers bias 'if they aren't being sucked off'. On the other end of the spectrum, maybe many liberals don't see bias because, well, they are being sucked off.

Lastly, and I've said it before on this board, but I find it ironic that there are 5 liberals to every 1 conservative (at least) in this thread arguing about how the media doesn't have a liberal bias. Think about that for a minute.

 

Agree completely... Except it's about 20 to 1. ;D

 

It continues to amaze me that conservative journalists -- and there are a lot more of you than you think -- talk about how some copy editors at their shop or sports writers on a message board talk about how great Obama/awful McCain is, and that's proof of liberal media bias.

One more time:

I don't give a damn if every person on this board, every person you work with, every media member in the world carries an ACLU card. The only measure of media bias is in the news that is put out for public consumption.

And, by any sane measure, if you're going to make a case that the media were against the war in Iraq or have been out to get John McCain -- who, only half-jokingly, has called the media his "base" -- well, good luck with that.

The evidence is incredibly flimsy, as the column that this thread is based on shows.

 

Alabama fans probably don't think their announcers are homers either.

 

And maybe those Alabama announcers aren't homers at all. They may, in fact, be studiously neutral.

Doesn't much matter, because they're always going to sound like homers to LSU fans.

 

What gets to me is that blatant lies put out there in all the television advertisements for various propositions. No one even pretends to tell the truth, and I don't see the media doing enough to call these political action groups out on their bold-faced lies. TV stations won't do it because they only care about ratings and why piss people off by "going after" one side or another (id est, exposing blatant lies). And we know the newspapers can hardly afford to do anything anymore, assuming that anyone would read about it if they did.

Liberal bias? I get annoyed with it sometimes, too, but I'll take a somewhat transparent reporter's story over no story at all.

The saddest thing is when I talk to people and realize that they voted exactly against their own political beliefs -- whether they're liberal or conservative -- because they didn't do any real research and either misunderstood the complicated wording on their ballot or believed the TV ads. I run into way too many people like that, more than I did in past presidential election years.

 

How did you get a job at a newspaper being a registered Republican and all? Your publisher is gonna hear from the Liberal Media Elite for not vetting you properly!

 

No.
Because it's not.
Carry on.

 

Don't visit the south much do you? ;D

 

You make a good point. I have no idea if it's a tradition at my shop, and I doubt those who came up with the idea do either. They will be covering the election, though most will be writing local stories. I do not know whether they'll localize the presidential race. The copy desk will write headlines and edit those stories, though.

Basically, I just think it's dumb. I don't think a bottle of champagne or the political leanings of these people will change how the Wednesday paper looks. But, to me, it's stunningly stupid. I'd be fine with popping a bottle at home, or cracking a beer at the office after deadline. But you don't open champagne to relax after a long day at the office. You open to celebrate, and I don't think you celebrate the news in the newsroom.

 

There are two things: Liberals and non-conservatives (of which, liberals are obviously members). Conservatives often see non-conservatives as liberals, which is faulty. Also, conservatives take anyone who would villify a conservative as liberal, which is also flawed.

You certainly don't have to be liberal to want to severe all ties to the current administration and the populist, right-wing movement of the mid-90s through the 2000s. That movement is as hard to stomach for reasonable people as the liberal movement of the 1970s that led to current move to the right in this country.

There are a lot of media, and people in general, who aren't necessarily liberal who are certainly anti-Bush and, by extension, anti-republican ticket (as it represents a continuation of what Bush started).

So if there is anti-Bush sentiment and, by extension, anti-Republican sentiment being tossed around a newsroom, it doesn't necessarily have to be liberal bias. This administration is unpopular enough to draw heckles from even those who should, theoretically, be in support of them.