Media Bias

[madness31]

A lot of Republicans try to claim a liberal media bias despite the existance of Fox News as well as a media that never looked critically at the run-up to the Iraq war, etc. You can now add economic doom to the list of bias favoring the Republicans. How many realize that this is the strongest job recovery of the last 3 recessions? How many realize it is the strongest GDP recovery as well using the same sample size?

Considering this is a recession brought about by a housing and credit bubble that is a staggering short-term accomplishment. I'd be the first to point out that it is likely a false recovery or at least a very short lived recovery as the next recession will take hold quicker than in previous cycles but if the Republicans controlled the presidency and congress you can guarantee they would be shouting the strength of this recovery from the roof tops.

Admitedly it is still a weak recovery by historical standards but if the economic question is who is more capable of leading the country out of a recession the recent evidence points to the Democrats. The Bush recovery from the internet bubble which is undoubtedly a much easier point to recover from was statistically weaker than the current recovery. Recovering from a housing collapse and a financial collapse more quickly than from an internet stock bubble is absolutely mind blowing. I heard this on CNBC just a moment ago but the story is getting no legs because they have a Republican bias and simply want low taxes.

Along the same lines how frequently do you see the stats of incomes rising faster for all income brackets during Democratic presidencies or the stock market rising faster in these situations? These are facts yet the media doesn't cover it other than a one time mention if a Democrat states it on their program.

As previously stated I dislike Democrats but since I hate Republicans I feel it is important to question common and misguided "wisdom" that favors the worse evil. Of course if you take liberal media to mean entertainment content then I can agree with the statement. There is no doubt television has become more liberal in acceptible subject matter such as clothing (though fox news tends to be one of the biggest offenders of this as they take every opportunity to show clips of women wearing practically nothing), language, violance, etc. The news however is anything but a liberal media.

I do not watch evening news so maybe this is where all the supposed liberal bias takes place but unless you can point out the networks calling out the injustice of the Iraq war before the war began or the touting these favorable economic statistics I will call BS on this assertion. I primarily watch CNBC with a bit of Fox News, MSNBC and random political shows thrown in. Fox has been limited to investment shows due to incredible quantities of factually incorrect statements in their other programing as well as minimal actual journalism taking place.

[DC Muskie]

87 will be sure to tell you Big Oil has no reason power in this country, but ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Times have managed to elect Democrats to the White House for the last 40 years.

I don't watch Fox News. If I wanted to watch idiots without college degrees talk about how to fix the country I would...oh wait I don't. Other seem to do, and that's what's great about this country. People love idiots.

[XU 87]

A lot of Republicans try to claim a liberal media bias despite the existance of Fox News as well as a media that never looked critically at the run-up to the Iraq war, etc.

The news however is anything but a liberal media.



The Republicans may have Fox. But the left has NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, AP, Washington Post, and the LA Times, to name a few.

And Fox's news department is fair and balanced. Some of its commentators (Hannity and Beck), who offer opinons, are conservative, although O'Reilly is more of a moderate.

As for your second paragraph, if you want to ignore all facts and evidence, I suppose you can hold that opinion. I suggest you read the book "Bias", which discusses the left wing bias of the media. And the book was written by Bernard Goldberg, a self described New York democrat who worked at CBS News for 20 years.

[GuyFawkes38]

The Republicans may have Fox. But the left has NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, AP, Washington Post, and the LA Times, to name a few.

MSNBC undoubtedly leans left.

And nearly all of the op ed contributers from the news outlet listed lean left. Cnn is just bad (which is sad, because it used to be great).

But as for the rest, the news gathering operations are fairly balanced, IMHO.

[XU 87]

But as for the rest, the news gathering operations are fairly balanced, IMHO.

If that's the case, "Bias" is on your mandatory reading list.

Did you watch any of the '08 election coverage? The media fell in love with Obama. Compare his coverage to how the media covered Palin, particularly when she was first announced as VP candidate.

How about when every network traveled to Germany during the election to watch Obama give his speech there? How many traveled to Iraq with McCain when he went there? None.

How about when the NY Times ran that front page hit piece on McCain inferring he had an affair 10 years ago? On the other hand, when then President Bill Clinton got sued for sexual harrassment, the NY Times thought that story was so important that they buried it on page 17.

McCain was a media darling in 2000 when he ran against the Republican establishment. Once he became the Republican establishment the media turned on him.

The NY Times hated the Iraq war. Accordingly, they ran story after story after story about the so-called torture in the Iraqi prison. In fact, they ran 32 front page stories in a row about this.

Left winger Chris Mathews once admitted on his show that the media wanted Bill Clinton to win and therefore gave him a free pass in the '92 election.

The last study I saw showed that something like 90% of Washington D.C. reporters voted democratic.

When Trent Lott made the comment at Strom Thurmon's birthday party that Strom would have been a great President, he was national news for 2 weeks and had to resign being the Senate majority leader. When Harry Reid referred to Obama as being very electable since he doesn't speak the "negro dialect, unless he needs to", the press mentioned it a day or two and we never heard another word. What do you think the press would have done if Newt Gingrich said that?

The Lewinsky story was broken by Matt Drudge. The mainstream media had the story but was going to sit on it until Drudge broke it.

How about Dan Rather's falsified story about George Bush? Thank God for bloggers or we wouldn't have known what a farce that story was.

And these are just a few of many, many examples.

[GuyFawkes38]

Well, yeah, I think mainstream media outlets lean a little left. But it's not dramatic.

I think a lot of the negative coverage of Mccain stems from the fact that he was a sh*tty candidate who even most Republicans didn't like. I think it's somewhat natural that they get a little behind the perceived future winner (I remember a lot of negative mocking of Gore and Kerry too).

I'm a big fan of the NYtimes. It's a fine, balanced paper (except for the op ed, which really sucks). I just went to their site and saw this article on the front page about the looming troubles of Obamacare: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=1&hp

[XU 87]

But I think a lot of the negative coverage of Mccain stems from the fact that he was a sh*tty candidate who even most Republicans didn't like.

I think it's somewhat natural that they get a little behind the perceived future winner (I remember a lot of negative mocking of Gore and Kerry too).

I'm a big fan of the NYtimes. It's a fine, balanced paper (except for the op ed, which really sucks).

1) So if a candidate isn't that strong, it's ok for the "objective" news to have biased coverage of him? But why did the media love McCain in 2000 but not like him in 2008? The only thing that changed is that he got the nomination in 2008.

2) Do you think Bush received positve and favorable coverage in 2000 or 2004?

3) The NY Times is probably the leading leftist media outlet in the country. See a few examples listed above.

[Pete Delkus]

I stopped reading at:

"as well as a media that never looked critically at the run-up to the Iraq war."

You lost right there.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

I think a lot of the negative coverage of Mccain stems from the fact that he was a sh*tty candidate \ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html?_r=1&hp

So how do you explain the positive coverage for Obama?
________
Vapir One Vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/vapir-air-one/)

[DC Muskie]

If that's the case, "Bias" is on your mandatory reading list.

Did you watch any of the '08 election coverage? The media fell in love with Obama. Compare his coverage to how the media covered Palin, particularly when she was first announced as VP candidate.

How about when every network traveled to Germany during the election to watch Obama give his speech there? How many traveled to Iraq with McCain when he went there? None.

How about when the NY Times ran that front page hit piece on McCain inferring he had an affair 10 years ago? On the other hand, when then President Bill Clinton got sued for sexual harrassment, the NY Times thought that story was so important that they buried it on page 17.

McCain was a media darling in 2000 when he ran against the Republican establishment. Once he became the Republican establishment the media turned on him.

The NY Times hated the Iraq war. Accordingly, they ran story after story after story about the so-called torture in the Iraqi prison. In fact, they ran 32 front page stories in a row about this.

Left winger Chris Mathews once admitted on his show that the media wanted Bill Clinton to win and therefore gave him a free pass in the '92 election.

The last study I saw showed that something like 90% of Washington D.C. reporters voted democratic.

When Trent Lott made the comment that at Strom Thurmon's birthday party that Strom would have been a great President, he was national news for 2 weeks and had to resign being the Senate majority leader. When Harry Reid referred to Obama as being very electable since he doesn't speak the "negro dialect, unless he needs to", the press mentioned it a day or two and we never heard another word. What do you think the press would have done if Newt Gingrich said that?

The Lewinsky story was broken by Matt Drudge. The mainstream had the story but was going to sit on it until Drudge broke it.

How about Dan Rather's falsified story about George Bush? Thank God for bloggers or we wouldn't have known what a farce that story was.

And these are just a few of many, many examples.

And yet all of this done by the mainstream media, they still can't produce consistent Democratic leadership in the White House, Congress and especially in the Supreme Court.

Does anybody remember when the mainstream media covered McCain in 2000? The Bus tour and how the media loved him then? I guess not because the 4 millionth time he goes to Iraq is and should be on the same level of interest as the first serious African American president in history giving a speech to people who weren't that fond of Americans. Yeah I can totally see how the media basis wouldn't want to cover McCain the same way as a huge conspiracy to get people to vote for Obama. Are you telling me it is a better story about a guy who is 180 degrees different then who he was 8 years earlier? That's downright laughable.

Sarah Palin was named VP and was COMPLETELY unknown. Did you know her? Did anyone know her? She was out of her league, and it was proven time and time again and we didn't need the New York Times to prove it to us. The woman quit her job as a leader so she can give canned speeches about restoring leadership. Yeah, I can see where the media should have treated her better.

Did no one cover the Whitewater scandal? Was there ever a scandal in the Clinton White House that wasn't covered? Did you just missed the entire 90's?

I like how the media cost Lott his job. That's awesome. Do you remember who replaced him? Bill Frist. Huge Bush ally. Lott lost his lob because Bush and John Nicholson didn't want him to have the job. He even wrote about Frist, Bush and Powell in his book. But you're right the 90% of liberal reporters wanted to make sure he left and became a powerful lobbyist.

Newt Gingrich called the Democrats Nazis. Fox News still employs him.

There is still a large group of people who still think the president isn't a US citizen. Nor do they think he is Christian. Are they getting this through mainstream media?

It is absolutely downright hilarious that anyone thinks this country is influenced solely by one side of the media.

But it's fun to talk about. Even though Americans are able to get information where and when they want to, there are still people like 87 who seem to think that the media is left leaning and influential.

[DC Muskie]

1) So if a candidate isn't that strong, it's ok for the "objective" news to have biased coverage of him? But why did the media love McCain in 2000 but not like him in 2008? The only thing that changed is that he got the nomination in 2008.

2) Do you think Bush received positve and favorable coverage in 2000 or 2004?



You realize McCain in 200 was not the same guy in 2008, right? You know that? You can't even remotely suggest that people who covered him in 2000 would cover him the same way in 2008. If you think they should, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Was Bush treated any differently than any other candidate running for president? Did the media back off Clinton both election years? And also, who gives a shit, the guy won.

[DC Muskie]

I stopped reading at:

"as well as a media that never looked critically at the run-up to the Iraq war."

You lost right there.

The CISSM report notes that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report’s major findings were that:

1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.
2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration’s formulation of the “War on Terror” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.
3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.
4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “inverted pyramid” style of storytelling.

[BandAid]

But it's fun to talk about. Even though Americans are able to get information where and when they want to, there are still people like 87 who seem to think that the media is left leaning and influential.

I personally am not interested in the left versus right angle, but I am going to go out on a limb and say the media is influential. For example (and I may be completely wrong on this), but didn't Glen Beck essentially start the tea-party movement? I would say that it is influential.

Unless I am misunderstanding your post and purely meant the media cannot be left leaning AND influential. (Meaning only right leaning media can be influential). If that is your case, I would like to refer to the first sentence in my post and politely duck out before the usual suspects begin their political onslaughts.

[X Factor]

I personally am not interested in the left versus right angle, but I am going to go out on a limb and say the media is influential. For example (and I may be completely wrong on this), but didn't Glen Beck essentially start the tea-party movement? I would say that it is influential.

Glen Beck had nothing to do with the start of the Tea Party.

[AdamtheFlyer]

To say the media isn't influential is just wrong. Most Americans are mindless drones that believe what the media people they like tell them to believe. Oprah gets a book on the NYT best seller list by mentioning it on her show. Media. Glenn Beck got between 200,000 and 500,000 people (depending on the source) to show up at a rally. Media. Obama basically won the election on coverage of his 2004 speech and puff piece 60 Minutes like profiles. He was going to be President from the day he announced he was running. That's why potential GOP stars like Jindal and Pawlenty backed away early and let McCain be the sacrificial lamb. He won it in the media, not on issues, and certainly not on an body of actual work. He was barely even a Senator. Whether he's good or bad is ultimately still up for debate and a matter of opinion, but there's no denying he won the election by being the media's superstar. Reasonable minds simply cannot disagree on that fact.

Media is everywhere, and it sure is influential. And of course it's biased. There's bias in everything. It's comical to say Fox isn't right wing, and that many other media outlets don't lean left. You can't be that obtuse. Straight down the middle media doesn't generate eyes and ears, and ultimately disappears. People want biased media, whether they admit it or not. They want to hear people tell them their way is right, and they have an even stronger need to watch and read people they despise. Americans love to hate almost as much as they love boobs.

[XU 87]

1) Does anybody remember when the mainstream media covered McCain in 2000? The Bus tour and how the media loved him then?

2) Did no one cover the Whitewater scandal? Was there ever a scandal in the Clinton White House that wasn't covered? Did you just missed the entire 90's?

3) I like how the media cost Lott his job.

4) But it's fun to talk about. Even though Americans are able to get information where and when they want to, there are still people like 87 who seem to think that the media is left leaning and influential.

I'll address a few of your arguments paragraph by paragraph:

1) I sure do remember when McCain was the media darling. But that was when he was running as the anit-establishment republican and George Bush. But when he won the nomination and became the establishment republican, the media turned on him. You appear to admit as much.

2) The Clinton scandals. They were reported-sort of. The media tried to bury the Lewinsky story- Drudge broke the story. And in the first time in history, the media investigated the independant prosecutor- Ken Starr- complaining that he was unfair and biased. I don't remember the media being upset with the independant prosecutor when he indicted Cap Weinberger three days before the 1992 Clinton-Bush election, an indictment which possibly changed the election results.

How about when the NY Times put the sexual harrassment lawsuit againt Clinton on page 17? How do you think the Times would have reacted if, say, a potential conservative Supreme Court judge was accused of sexual harrassment? Think that story would be on page 17?

How about the Juannita Brodderick story? Most people don't even know who she is. But she accused the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, of raping her in the late 70's. The media touched on it for a few days and we never heard it again. Suppose some other accused Geoge Bush of raping her. I doubt the media would say a few words about the allegation and then move on.

3) Trent Lott- you missed the point. Compare the media coverage he got for making a gratuitous comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party to how the media covered Harry Reid's statements. Lott's statement, and Lott himelf, was THE news story for 2 straight weeks. He was even on the cover of Time Magazine. Reid- the media ran a few stories for a day or two and we never heard another word.

4) Are you seriously arguing that the media is not influential? Are you arguing that people don't listen to the news and form opinions about what they watch, hear or read? And do you really believe that the mainstream media is unbiased and objective?

[PM Thor]

People need to get over the "bias" angle as to where they get their news. People should never, ever take one source of information as the end all, be all source for their news. Is Fox, or CNN, or any of them right? No. It's all about perception and what they want to report.

This is why everyone should use multiple sources for their information, and especially use foreign news too, because they have a level of separation that the US news channels can't get. I'm a news junky. I love the stuff, but the way most of the American news gets reported is absolutely terrible, IMO.

I HATE dayton.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

People need to get over the "bias" angle as to where they get their news. People should never, ever take one source of information as the end all, be all source for their news. Is Fox, or CNN, or any of them right? No. It's all about perception and what they want to report.

This is why everyone should use multiple sources for their information, and especially use foreign news too, because they have a level of separation that the US news channels can't get. I'm a news junky. I love the stuff, but the way most of the American news gets reported is absolutely terrible, IMO.

I HATE dayton.

I couldn't agree more.
________
Blowjob Amateur (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/329/amateur/videos/1)

[GuyFawkes38]

I really think posters on this thread are overestimating the influence of the media.

Most of our cultural beliefs are very similar to our parents.

And most people vote their economic interest. If your a small business owner, you tend to vote for republicans who offer tax cuts, less regulation, etc.. If your a lawyer, you tend to vote for democrats who create more regulations, oppose tort reform, etc...

Even swing voters vote their own interests. It really ins't all personality and media bias that influence voters.

[Strange Brew]

Madness, I've read your condescending tripe long enough.

Yes, the media has a left bias and it's not just cable. Please remember that CBS news actually forged, literally forged documents in an attempt to "prove" that W was AWOL. Whether he was or not he was in fact AWOL is up for debate but CBS literally forged docs to discredit a sitting POTUS.

Let's go further. Palin may not be Presidential material and the media made that very clear. BUT. where oh where was the hard core deep investigation into Biden's intellect?????? Don't bother, it was not existent. That man is a complete moron. He makes Dan Quayle look like a Noble Prize winner. Nevermind, they give those to just about any idiot these days.

BTW, madness. You have repeatedly stated on other threads that others do not understand economics at the level that you obviously have acheived. If you honestly believe as you stated in another post that gov't spending is a key to reversing a downturn then YOU do not understand economic history and are cleary a believer in the failed economic idiology of the Fabian Socialist. If you're wondering who the Fabians are, please see Keynes and Krugman (sp) (another, ahem Nobel Prize winner). I suggest you enlighten yourself by reading a little of the economic works of the Austrians (Hayek) and compare that to actual historical results before you ever criticize someone elses ecomonic understanding.

[Xman95]

One quick, easy example of the media bias...

Look at how Biden gets treated. When he says something stupid (which happens quite often), the media usually laughs about it and gives the "it's just Biden being Biden" treatment. But if a Republican/Conservative were to make the same statements, that person would be ripped up and down for weeks.

[DC Muskie]

I'll address a few of your arguments paragraph by paragraph:

1) I sure do remember when McCain was the media darling. But that was when he was running as the anit-establishment republican and George Bush. But when he won the nomination and became the establishment republican, the media turned on him. You appear to admit as much.

2) The Clinton scandals. They were reported-sort of. The media tried to bury the Lewinsky story- Drudge broke the story. And in the first time in history, the media investigated the independant prosecutor- Ken Starr- complaining that he was unfair and biased. I don't remember the media being upset with the independant prosecutor when he indicted Cap Weinberger three days before the 1992 Clinton-Bush election, an indictment which possibly changed the election results.

How about when the NY Times put the sexual harrassment lawsuit againt Clinton on page 17? How do you think the Times would have reacted if, say, a potential conservative Supreme Court judge was accused of sexual harrassment? Think that story would be on page 17?

How about the Juannita Brodderick story? Most people don't even know who she is. But she accused the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, of raping her in the late 70's. The media touched on it for a few days and we never heard it again. Suppose some other accused Geoge Bush of raping her. I doubt the media would say a few words about the allegation and then move on.

3) Trent Lott- you missed the point. Compare the media coverage he got for making a gratuitous comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party to how the media covered Harry Reid's statements. Lott's statement, and Lott himelf, was THE news story for 2 straight weeks. He was even on the cover of Time Magazine. Reid- the media ran a few stories for a day or two and we never heard another word.

4) Are you seriously arguing that the media is not influential? Are you arguing that people don't listen to the news and form opinions about what they watch, hear or read? And do you really believe that the mainstream media is unbiased and objective?

1. Again. McCain was a different person. What kind of coverage would you have liked? McCain used to be against the establishment, then became the guy he used to fight against.

The media turned on Bill Clinton as soon as get elected. You remember the Haitian refugee situation? That's what media does, it loves someone and when that story line dies they turn on them.

2. I'm just going to laugh at the suggestion that the Clinton scandals were reported sort of. Anybody who died near him there was a conspiracy about his involvement. He spent almost his entire second term about whether or not he lied about getting a blow job. But you're right the Times did a good job of not mentioning a sexual harassment suit.

3. I missed the point? The story was mentioned in the Washington Post for two days. Like you mentioned before, it was only bloggers that discovered that Lott had said the same thing in 1980. So on one hand you're grateful for bloggers who bring to light information about Democratic politician, but a Republican one, forget it. Oh and Trent Lott blamed the president himself. Not the media. Maybe you should go ahead and correct him.

4. How has this overwhelming baised left winged media done in accomplishing their agenda? How has that been going?

People who want to get their information from Glenn Beck, whom no one heard of a few years ago will get it from Glenn Beck. Same thing about the Times.

I actually don't know one person who reads the Times regularly. I doubt you do either. But most of my family listens to Rush.

Let me ask you this....have we heard any more about McCain's affair? Or have we continued to hear about whether or not the president is a US citizen or a Christian?

And someone needs to explain to me what the hell Mainstream means anymore.

[DC Muskie]

One quick, easy example of the media bias...

Look at how Biden gets treated. When he says something stupid (which happens quite often), the media usually laughs about it and gives the "it's just Biden being Biden" treatment. But if a Republican/Conservative were to make the same statements, that person would be ripped up and down for weeks.

Yeah stuff like the Shirley Sherrod never gets reported. Stuff like the Salahis' crashing the a state dinner never get reported.

What stuff has Biden said lately that hasn't been properly ripped up and down for weeks?

How long did the former Speaker of House get ripped for calling the president a nazi?

I think it's funny there is some sort of necessary time that needs to spent on idiot VP statement about how he wouldn't let alone in family out of the house with the swine flu problem. What is it two weeks? Three months? How long is the proper flogging?

[MCXU]

"If you're wondering who the Fabians are, please see Keynes and Krugman (sp) (another, ahem Nobel Prize winner). I suggest you enlighten yourself by reading a little of the economic works of the Austrians (Hayek) and compare that to actual historical results before you ever criticize someone elses ecomonic understanding."

I would be careful about commenting on the Fabians, You may end up getting smothered with a pillow... For your own good of course. Remember, they know what is best for you and are only doing it out of love.

[Xman95]

I think it's funny there is some sort of necessary time that needs to spent on idiot VP statement about how he wouldn't let alone in family out of the house with the swine flu problem. What is it two weeks? Three months? How long is the proper flogging?

It's not necessarily the length of time it's discussed, but the tone with which it is done. When Bush said something stupid (and he did say some dumb things) the comments were very sharp and critical and the news liked to bring up how dumb Bush was. When Biden says something stupid it's covered in more of a comical way. "Ha, there goes Biden again. But, you know, that's Joe being Joe. Ha-ha-ha." To this day Dan Quayle hasn't lived down the misspelling of one word, yet Biden is still presented as a wonderful, bright VP who just says the wrong thing from time to time.

Look, I'm in the media and I see it all the time. But, unlike many, I don't necessarily think it's a "planned" bias. I just think that the news business, in general, attracts more left-leaning people. It's similar to Hollywood in that way. For whatever reason, those types flock more to the news/media business than those leaning to the right. That being the case, it's only natural that much of the reporting will have a left slant to it. Even if someone is trying to stay totally neutral, they're still going to see things from their own perspective and that view will naturally influence their presentation of the story. I see it happen all the time.

Now, I will say that the best reporters/anchors/interviewers can do such a good job that their personal side is almost buried completely. But that's rare. Example: Matt Lauer vs. Katie Couric. Katie is a liberal all the way and it shows. Why people think she's so good I will never understand. Matt Lauer, well he's a, um... The general public has no idea what Matt Lauer is because he's very good at his job and seems to do a terrific job of burying his personal views. But it's difficult to do that and that's why I think the personal beliefs bleed through into a lot of reporting.

[DC Muskie]

I was unaware people still bring up Dan Quayle in conversation. Who knew there was this still huge bias over Quayle. Joe Biden also sells himself as a goofy, ah shucks moron. I don't remember Dan Quayle having that persona.

Nobody actually watches Katie Couric. Actually my mother does to see what she is wearing then she turns the channel. She has the worst ratings for CBS evening news in over 20 years. Why in the world are people concerned over what a woman, whom NOBODY watches, conducts her interviews that NOBODY watches? I just don't get it.

I mean is it so different that people called Bush "stupid" while now people call Obama a Nazi? Which is worse? accusing the president of doing drugs 50 years ago, or accusing the president of not being a citizen? It happens all the time, I just get a little tired of hearing how picked on the Republicans are.

To me it boils down to whom do you like to get your news from? If it's the radio, it's going to be conservative because it is dominated by right wing people. If you like Katie Couric you are going to be left minded. If you like Matt Lauer, you are probably gay.

Who cares? Democrats are not getting elected more because Katie Couric is pulling under 5 million viewers. 4, 999,9999 after my mom sees what she is wearing actually.

[madness31]

Now that everyone is all worked up it seems fairly obvious the media is both bias and lazy. The bias goes both ways and leans one way or another depending on the point in time or topic of discussion. Laziness is the real issue as pointed out in the comments regarding the lead up to the Iraq war. I agree with others stating that foreign news sources are better sources of actual information.

Brew, I am very familiar with Austrian economics and believe they are correct on most issues. As with most subjects however you are best to combine multiple theories to get to the correct answer. Government spending will not fix a recession and I never claimed it would. What I stated was that governments should increase spending during recessions to help soften their impacts. Most importantly however is that the spending must be done on projects that have long-term beneficial effects. Replacing sewage pipes that are old and leaking or at the end of their useful life is a great way to employ people during a downturn. The other equally important aspect of this policy is to run surpluses during economic expansions. This is where the US government and most if not all governments around the world mess up. They never slow their spending after the recession ends or after the necessary projects are complete. Would someone not familiar with Austrian economics really be preaching about buying gold? Really?

The Republican hero, Ronald Regan, ran huge deficits for that time. The most recent Bush took that to a whole new level and left Obama with a $1 trillion hole that he then expanded. I have huge issues with what the stimulus money went toward as it was primarily one off items but the Republicans must share in that blame as they didn't offer better ideas, simply resistance. History shows that Republicans are just as big of spenders when in control so I suspect their defiance over the stimulus was political posturing and nothing more. Most likely we will get a chance to see if I'm right after the next presidential election. When the next recession hits or continues on the Republican watch or another country doesn't have the leader they want then we will see how tight their budgets are.

[XU 87]

She has the worst ratings for CBS evening news in over 20 years. Why in the world are people concerned over what a woman, whom NOBODY watches, conducts her interviews that NOBODY watches? I just don't get it.



She may be last but she gets around 5-6 million viewers per night, which is almost double of O'Reilly, cable's top news show. So I wouldn't call Couric's viewership NOBODY.

[XU 87]

What I stated was that governments should increase spending during recessions to help soften their impacts.

Most importantly however is that the spending must be done on projects that have long-term beneficial effects. Replacing sewage pipes that are old and leaking or at the end of their useful life is a great way to employ people during a downturn. .

As for your first sentence, I would rather cut taxes and let people spend their own money as opposed to government taking people's money and then wasting it on worthless or inefficient spending programs.

As for your second paragraph, it appears you are referring to spending money on construction projects. One problem with that theory is that those projects can take years to get going. Once started, the recession may be over.

And contrary to what some liberal economists think, you don't help the economy by hiring someone to dig a ditch and then hiring someone else to fill the ditch back in.

[DC Muskie]

She may be last but she gets around 5-6 million viewers per night, which is almost double of O'Reilly, cable's top news show. So I wouldn't call Couric's viewership NOBODY.

Do you watch her?

Do you think you can convince others who might like her to stop watching her?

If the answers to these are "no" I have a nice wall you can ram your head into as many times as you can as a more positive alternative.

Who is watching Katie Couric? Anybody have any idea?

[XU 87]

Who is watching Katie Couric? Anybody have any idea?

I don't know their names, but there are 5-6 million people per day who do.

[DC Muskie]

I don't know their names, but there are 5-6 million people per day who do.

The numbers I see and said before are less than 5 million.

What do you think the people who watch her vote? Do you think they would vote another way if she wasn't last in evening news and didn't have a job?

How big of a threat is Katie Couric to our American way of life?

There are 5 - 6 million people out there who may not know that Katie is a huge liberal with an agenda and bias.

[madness31]

Most economists are idiots and that includes liberal economists. Most government spending is wasteful and that is my complaint about government. There is no reason it has to be wasteful except people get caught up in partisan BS and most politicians are both dishonest and unqualified. The government should be run like a corporation with bonuses paid to management that is able to cut costs and exceed objectives.

The point about construction projects taking too long to initiate also doesn't have to be valid. The government should know what projects need done and initiate the process once the economy begins slowing. Even if the economy recovers before the spending takes place it doesn't matter because it was a needed project.

Tax cuts are great but only after you prove you can spend responsibly and get control of the budget. Cutting taxes as I've argued before can end up in increased tax revenue but can also end up decreasing tax revenue depending on what taxes are cut and what the economic circumstances are. Most Republicans and Democrats are clueless on this issue as one believes it always increases tax revenue to lower taxes and the other believes it always does the opposite.

The other concern with lowering taxes everytime their is a recession is that eventually tax rates are at 0 and their is no way to further stimulate the economy. I would argue that the economy should never be stimulated as corrections are healthy and avoiding them eventually results in disaster as the mistakes pile up. It might not be until the next generation but it eventually happens.

The infrastructure spending I prefer is not with the intention of stimulating the economy but to time necessary services (where possible) with economic slowdowns to minimize the impact of recessions. Sewage pipes must be replaced at some point as do gas and water pipes, electrical lines/grids, etc. Some of these are likely privately owned and those companies/individuals must take care of them but those controlled by the government must be maintained by the government. I personally favor subways and other public transit in cities as I believe it benefits the country as a whole by lowering energy consumption and therefore lower energy costs. It also better positions the country to deal with eventual spikes in energy costs. These projects also make sense to initiate during recessions. Ideally the government would aid corporations in developing these transit options rather than operating them internally but as long as breakeven is kept in mind it can work either way.

[boozehound]

I get most of my news from Fox News online. I also read CNN. I don't think that either source is unbiased. I think it depends on where you want to get your news from and what kind of spin you want put on it.

People who lean to the right watch Fox, people who lean to the left watch anything else. I am more right leaning so I prefer Fox. I don't think that I am getting unbiased news though.

I think that it is a little ridiculous to say that every single news source is biased except for Fox News. These guys put Glenn Beck on the air (although I don't know if I would call him a republican, or just a lunatic). They are an entertainment channel just like the rest of them and they are playing to an audience just like everybody else. I don't really think you can separate the 'news department' from the 'entertainment' department either.