Comments on: Defining MSM

By: Bettina

Bettina — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:09:24 +0000

“You have to go outside the mainstream to get something that is non left leaning. Try talk radio or teh internets to get non left biased news.”

So, what’s the opposite then to “left biased news”?? “Right biased news”?? I think, that’s not the solution. What you really want is “right biased news” with the claim for objectivity, don’t you? That’s just as bad. I have long recommended the Spiegel to you…. (ha).

I am personally appreciating the surprising moment in reading so-called “biased” newspapers: That happens once in while, when you read your favorite left-leaning newspaper, and you discover slight (at times blunt) inconsistencies with the current (biased) ideas. Those moments are the really “truthful” ones.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:48:18 +0000

Bad news, they lean to the left too. The term Main Stream is to indicate nearly all news sources lean left. You have to go outside the mainstream to get something that is non left leaning. Try talk radio or teh internets to get non left biased news.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:32:17 +0000

I wish they had NPR or PBS on here–I’m curious to see how they stack up.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:10:00 +0000

Probably because it isn’t. Relevant that is.

Good point Einstein. Thanks for settling the issue.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:08:12 +0000

The MSM clumps a non-electable president into the same category as potential republican candiate for the next presidency which explains the difference in coverage. And somehow this demonstrate that the MSM is not bias. LOL.

One would think the editors would be wise enough to serparate coverage on the president from coverage on potential canidates. Well at least if you wanted to avoid charges of bias you would do that.

One should also note that the more bias sources are CNN and MSNBC. According to the argument of coverage, one would expect these news sources to spend much more time on the president relative to the broadcast channels. I suspect this is not the case.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:43:27 +0000

Probably because it isn’t. Relevant that is.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:16:05 +0000

because the the electorate as a whole swings back and forth, generally away from the party in office. while the findings are telling of what is going on now, jamie makes a good point. plus, the “MSM” as you call it wants to cover the party that is going to win in 2008.

By: boose

boose — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:05:45 +0000

It is true, that the democrats have gotten into the down-and-dirty of politics a lot faster than the republicans have. Dirty politics tends to result in more news for the same reason that anna nichole smith was all over the news. I’m with you on the MSM being biased as all get out, but this isn’t necessarily a good measure of it. More study would be necessary.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:04:31 +0000

Umm…. maybe its relevant because if it were historically more common for more press to be dedicated to the candidates from parties that were out of office, then that would explain the data you presented. It’s not clear why you miss that point.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:45:10 +0000

It’s not entirely clear why thats relevant.