Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Liberal Media?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| OK, now that Obama is getting full-on criticism from all corners, does anyone still feel like the media is the pawn of the administration? I heard a lot of grousing about how "If he was a Republican, blah, blah, blah..." I think the press is doing its job, and it's time to recognize that (a) all that media criticism of Bush was earned by Bush's own record, and (b) the media is willing to be critical of any leader, regardless of party. |
Anonymous
| No the media is still soft on Obama --what they are doing is reporting 1% of his gaffes because people are getting smart and noticing that he is a fraud. |
Anonymous
ditto |
Anonymous
Agree. |
Anonymous
OK, then. So take the Washington Post as an example. Are there any gaffes that you believe it has not covered because of liberal bias? If so, which? |
Anonymous
| GMAB. Liberal media = myth. |
Anonymous
| wsj and Washington Post roughly covered the same news, it is which pages the news are on that are different. |
Anonymous
| the difference between wsj and wp is that the former predicted the troubles Obama finds him now, while the later just reacts to the facts |
Anonymous
|
OK, once again, let's see some examples so that we can compare the coverage. Anyone willing to pick a topic they feel has been ignored or buried in Washington Post?
|
Anonymous
| Oh god everyday-it's also in the "tone"--every article gives Obama or a liberal the benefit of the doubt and usually assumes the worst with a conservative. Even the Post came out after the election and admitted that they had too much bias..of course too late now that Obama is here. Regarding pages--you usually see something remotely positive on a conservative buried and not front page news. |
Anonymous
There is too much to cover. How about not fully reporting how catastrophic his economic policies are? A little here and there, but not nearly the magnitude of pain him and congress are going to unleash on this country. Clinton and Bush put the nails in the coffin, but Obama is nailing them in at record speed. Iceland anyone? |
Anonymous
C'mon. Too much to cover and yet you give me nothing. That's a BS cop-out. There have been plenty of Washington Post articles which discuss criticism about his economic policies. And have you checked the Op Ed page lately, read Krauthammer's writing for the last month? If you expect a newspaper to rant and rave like some basic cable show, that's just not gonna happen. I'm asking someone to show a topic the Washington Post has not reported accurately due to bias. And none of you are giving me anything except whining. If there is so much bias at Washington Post, pick a topic, cite articles, and make your case. Otherwise, give it up. |
Anonymous
Krauthammer is a columnist- there's a difference. We're talking general news coverage. And, didn't the WashPost do an analysis on its own coverage and issue an apology for being pro Obama? Of course, the Washington Post isn't the NYT. That paper is garbage. |
Anonymous
Did Washington Post cover Obama's reliance on teleprompter? I read from a no-name source that if he did not use it, then the quality of his speech suffered. |
Anonymous
| I am laughing at lauding Charles Krautheimer as the reason the Post is even handed--please he is on the OP page which..is buried in the back and not what is reported in the news. The large difference being that when you read the news you hope that there is not bias and it is just reported on good/bad whatever--this never happens-OP eds are what they are..just opinions |