I think I am officially over the false claims that the media is "liberally biased" and I'm gonna start a series of threads that will, hopefully, disprove this notion. The poll here should reveal whether people have been told that Clinton's white women supporters will not vote for Barack Obama in the fall because they are so upset over the end of the Clinton campaign. I can't tell you the number of editorials and talking head pundits who have repeated this claim over and over in the coming weeks. But does it have any basis in fact?

Apparently not in every post-concession poll, Obama smacks McCain among women voters ranging from 14-30 points. Why isn't the supposed "liberal media" not talking about this? Why do they continue to fan the flames of the non-existent divisions within the Democratic party. Does that somehow help liberals? Thoughts?

Since Matt raises a good point, the poll should be read as Will the MAJORITY of women vote for Obama or McCain.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

Some will, some won't. We won't know until November.

Claiming they all will or all won't as a homogenous block is, IMHO, silly. The poll is thus fatally flawed (again, IMHO)

Matt

__________________

There were Clinton supporters who said they'd vote for McCain rather than Obama if Clinton lost during the primary, but that is heat of the moment passion. There are always people who support candidates in the primaries who claim they will switch parties if their candidate loses, but very few do.
If these people are reporting to pollsters that they are intending to vote for McCain at this point, all the better for Obama, because once they calm down, Obama gets there votes in November.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

CMS, why the title of "Right ing media myth"?

As Goober said, a lot of these nutty women's groups were ones who said what they did; not some media outlet you couldn't fit into your username...

There will likely be some number of voters who refuse to vote for Obama because their candidate wasn't chosen.

How big that number will be will only be known after the election.

I suspect it will be somewhere between the number who now claim that they won't vote for Obama and Goober's wishful thinking that they will all be good party drones and vote for everyone with a "D" next to their name down the line.

It is also worth noting that they have a couple other options:

1. Write in a different candidate (probably Hillary in the case the poll is examining), or
2. Not vote.

I do expect the Dems to take a serious beating at the polls here in Florida. I've talked to quite a few people here who feel the candidates betrayed them during the primaries.

Matt

__________________

The title is Right Wind Media Myth, because when you watch the MSM they act as if this fringe element of the Democratic base represents some serious challenge to Obama'a candidacy. Despite the fact that these groups have, at best, thousands of supporters that are linked by the internet. There is no sense of how these voters actually fit into their states electoral college. How many are in swing states, how many are in safe Republican/Democrat states. In essence, it is a manufactured "conflict" the media is using to attempt to split the base and make Obama seem weaker than he is. Can we AT LEAST admit that stories like these, and many others, challenge the false myth that the media is "in the tank" for Obama.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

So am i to take it from your first line that while the rest of us realise the media is generally liberal you actually think its right wing?

And now women with hormonal issues who need a woman on the ballot are also right wing are they?

There are any number of things that should prove to anyone that the media is very, VERY far from being liberally biased. The very first and most obvious is the last 8 years vs the previous. One President, a liberal, does one act of absolutely legal oral sex and is impeached, the next, a conservative, commits war crimes and lies to America and the world so he can start a kleptocratic war of aggression that costs trillions and the lives of numerous thousands. The media goes along with the impeachment of the liberal and expresses shock that such is even suggested for the conservative.

As for suggesting that women will vote for a rabidly anti-choice warmonger vs the extremely pro-choice candidate with the fastest withdrawal time from Iraq of the three candidates, it's just ludicrous. bin Laden would sooner support the Pope because they're both not Protestants.

This is not 2004 and Obama is not Kerry. There is a wide gulf between the candidates

I recognize that the notion the media is liberally biased is a popular myth and I argue that it's not. Using this issue as only one but MANY examples.
How odd that you would call a legitimate civil rights issue "hormonal." Is it "hormonal" when men are threatened by strong women, talk about fearing for their testicles when Hillary Clinton is around and produce toys that suggest she, quite literally, cracks nuts? But more to the point. Dissapointed women aren't right wing. The media's false claim that the minority of Clinton supporters who are thinking of voting for McCain represent a "major schism" in the Democratic party, THAT's rightwing. There's also the media's constant race baiting on the "white vote" in this election absolutely right wing and helping McCain.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

Wow i have no idea where you think men are afraid of Hillary....

Anyway what would you call if not hormonal that they won't nobody but a woman to vote for and if not they throw a hissy fit like this?

In that case it should be fair that all whites basically (irrelevant of their politicial ideology) saying they can vote McCain because he's white in your book.

But its them who are saying they're gonna vote for him, not the media, they just give an outlet for these lunatics to vent.

Which would be fine if there was a balance of coverage between the tiny, yet vocal, minority that represent PUMA or JustSayNoDeal. But they get ALL of the coverage when talking about the women vote for November. I'm not sure if MSNBC, Faux or CNN have actually realized that the internet group represent a tiny minority of the electorate and only if you put them together nationally can they reach any kind of measurable number at all. They get coverage as if they were some huge voting bloc, and they aren't.

__________________
If you stop trying to bring the Bible into the classroom, I'll stop secretly sneaking biology textbooks into the pews on Saturday nights. Deal?

If the flag is precious to YOU, then don't burn YOURS.

ALL THINKING PEOPLE know the media is biased to the left.

This is common sense to anyone who has watched and read the news for over a decade.

FOX news and the WSJ are clearly biased to the right. Many talk radio shows are biased to the right, but the REST of the media all tilts to the left. Now, this does not mean they are liberal on every issue, on every topic. For instance, the war on drugs, all media outlets support the war on drugs, if you exclude marijuana. While this is considered more of a conservative issue, the liberal media supports the war on drugs and even ruthlessly attacked Gary Webb, causing him to kill himself.

Some people in the media have even "admitted" to this bias. The voting habits of people in the media prove that the individual journalists are liberal, but this doesn't prove they let their bias effect their reporting. Of course, thinking people will ask, how can they not let their bias effect their reporting?

Here is a recent piece from Bill Moyers....

His speech at the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform yesterday is burning up the Internets (though I have Joe to thank for directing me to it). In the speech Moyers says:

Edward R. Murrow told his generation of journalists, no one can eliminate their prejudices. Just recognize them.

Here is my bias.

Extremes of wealth and poverty cannot be reconciled with a truly just society. Capitalism breeds great inequality that is destructive unless tempered by an intuition for equality which is the heart of democracy.

When the state becomes the guardian of power and privilege to the neglect of the people who have neither power nor privilege we can no longer claim to have a representative government.

Bill Moyers admits bias

Last week, NPR’s own official ombudsman, Jeffrey Dvorkin, admitted a liberal bias in NPR’s talk programming.

Bozell's News Column -- 10/21/2003 -- NPR Admits a Liberal Bias -- Media Research Center

ABC political chief admits liberal bias....

YouTube - Political Chief Admits Liberal Media Bias

Shocker: Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is 'Overwhelmingly to the Left'
By Dave Pierre | September 25, 2006 - 13:52 ET

On the Thursday, September 21, 2006, episode of his radio show, host Hugh Hewitt interviewed Thomas B. Edsall, who up until recently was a senior political reporter for the Washington Post. He had been with the paper for 25 years. Through precise and direct questioning by Hewitt, Edsall admitted something that is rarely heard from a liberal these days. In a shocking admission, Edsall articulated that the biases of the mainstream media are "overwhelmingly to the left." He also proposed that Democratic reporters outnumber Republicans "in the range of 15-25 to 1"!

In the interview, as Hewitt and Edsall discussed the rise of conservative talk radio and the biases of the mainstream media, Edsall stated the following:

EDSALL: ... I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.

Shocker: Veteran WaPo Reporter Admits MSM's Bias Is 'Overwhelmingly to the Left' | NewsBusters.org

BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left
Acknowledges failure to offer debate due to inherent liberal culture of staff

BBC network admits it: We're biased toward left


THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

y DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? - New York Times

The above piece is a great article from the public editor at the NY Times.

I doubt a single person at this forum has read it.

I could post more, but if you don't see the liberal bias in m ost of the Mass Media, then you are blind.

Period.

Nice spanking of the thread OP.

__________________

I agree - sometimes a humiliating spanking in front of a crowd is all it takes for someone to see how hopelessly wrong they have been. In this case, I doubt it will help, but Norrin Radd did a terrific job of "debunking" the "debunking".

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

This makes perfect sense. The mega corporations that own all the media outlets are notorious for their left wing views

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice