In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias

[Kire]

Source: Los Angeles Times

ON THE MEDIA
In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias
Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.
By JAMES RAINEY, ON THE MEDIA
July 27, 2008
Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.

Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals.


Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.

But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

[DS1]

1. Not to be flippant, but..

DUH!

[Demeter]

46. Is That a Real License Plate in Your Picture?

What a kick!

[bjobotts]

60. The poll results are flawed because they don't account for what is not said, gaffes ignored

When they cover up what McCain really said or when they just ignore gaffes like social security etc...then they down play it's importance which does not come out favorable or unfavorable but has a great impact on the campaign coverage to influence opinion. Positive or negative coverage is deeply flawed by omission or covering up or just ignoring and downplaying major gaffes which demonstrate a conservative bias. They should know this.

[merwin]

2. For the most part, the media is interested in one thing... MONEY.

As companies, they couldn't care less who wins the election. Individuals may have their own personal bias, but aside from FOX News, they do whatever is best for the bottom line, and that is usually sensationalism and controversy.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Yes, the media is interested in money, and LACK of regulation. McCain will give them both.

They CARE who wins.

[eomer]

16. I think it is more complicated than the impression you're giving.

That's the meme: that sensationalism and controversy get larger audiences and that it is just that simple -- they merely put on what people want to see. I think that it is more complicated than that.

A salient feature of this neocon takeover of the Republican party and of our country has been coercion of the news media. Recently there have been insiders admitting how the system works. The Whitehouse thugs, led by Karl Rove, have been systematically forcing the media to provide coverage that is favorable to them by threatening to deny access, by going to the corporate heads who have major concerns over media regulation, and perhaps by other tricks of coercion. And not only do they demand coverage that is favorable in a general sense -- they go much further and demand that the coverage follow the talking points that they dictate. This has been a systematic, full-blown, continuous operation throughout these dark years and it is the reason, I believe, that when I watched CNN last night for the first time in a couple of years, Wolf Blitzer's report about McCain and Obama consisted of obvious talking points dictated to them by someone on the right.

Edit: typo

[bbgrunt]

20. exactly. Let's also recall how all the retired military "experts"

they call on have been put through the propaganda machine to make sure they toe the line.

[Deny and Shred]

32. Even in print, it's been Administration talking points.

By imbedding reporters, and keeping most decisions behind National Security, it means that stations and papers have had to ASK for a story. Virtually every story reporting on Administration dealing from 2002 through most of 2007 would quote "high level Administration officials", "sources close to the negotiations", "officials speaking on condition of anonymity", etc.
Never someone with whom anybody else could fact-check or ask follow-up questions. We'd get only the part of the story they wanted out there for public consumption.
Then others (like Cheney on Meet the Press among many other examples) would refer to the article in the paper as if it's the whole story, to give the company line credence. Not once to I recall a major news outlet calling this bullshit and one-sided. The smaller ones were brushed aside and complainers, unpatriotic, unsubstantiated, leftists, wacko bloggers.
A liberally-biased media wouldn't have even played this game. Since these were major issues affecting the nation, and this was the only available info on the decisions being made, people were interested. In the name of ratings, they all played along.
Much of the Administration's ability to affect the spin has been slipping in the past months, but they had them eating out of their hand.

[cascadiance]

27. Yes it is more complicated, but they still fill the time with sensationalist crap...

... that attracts eyeballs, that attracts advertisers, gets them more money and keeps investors off their back.

The sensationalist crap that has no real bearing on mobilizing people to take on their corporate rule is something that works perfectly for that. Every once in a while a Michael Jackson event, or some other woman abduction, etc. will happen which will allow them to focus coverage on something meaningless and non-threatening to the powers that be.

While they do this, they can also "interject" what they call news coverage, which in many case is largely Republican talking points, so that they can say they cover news, and most people who don't study these issues in depth from other sources will accept it as such. This is where they keep the White house and the corporate elite in this country happy in making sure that political events/elections go the way that keeps the corporate aristocracy in place.

What is the Achille's heel they have is when some big event happens that many eyeballs know has happened and DEMAND coverage of that forces them to cover this more than the meaningless filler tripe. This would be something like Katrina. Within that context you'll still have some reporters, etc. following the company line and trying to cover it in a way that doesn't threaten the powers that be, but in other cases you empower the reporter on the street to have more editorial power over what goes over the air normally, and make it hard for the networks to justify retaliation against them if they don't follow the scripts they are given.

Like when that woman reporter cried just after interviewing that black man who'd lost his wife in the flooding after Katrina when he lost his grip on her in the flood waters. When he walked away from her on the beach and she cried, there's no way to spin that story the way the networks wanted, and that got tons of people watching questioning what was going on.

If we have another big event that arguably is NOT planned by this administration (some would argue that 9/11 was!), it also might lead to hopefully some sort of news leaking through the traditional "liberal bias" biased spoonfed crap we get each day, and make people aware of the need to re-regulate the news media marketplace to ensure we get real news and not corporate propaganda.

[davekriss]

50. I think it is wrong to speak of the major media...

...as something separate from the "corporate aristocracy" -- no, the board rooms of the 5 mega-firms that own 99% of the major media outlets are bona fide corporate aristocracy. The top shareholders of these firms are bona fide corporate aristocracy. These firms to a great part shape and control public perceptions in ways that serve the interests of the bona fide corporate aristocracy. Freedom of the press extends only to owners of the press; they control -- by chill if not always by overt edict -- the permissible agenda that slops forth daily out of their media. Just consult Ashleigh Banfield or Christiana Amanapour to learn how it works.

That "permissible agenda" is exactly what serves the interests of the corporate aristocracy plus some background noise and mindless diversion. Yes, it is all about money, but power and control ensure who makes the money, and that is what the media is all about: Ensuring power and control for corporate elites in order to preserve and enhance their ability to prosper over any and all threats to that prosperity.

Really
the police try to protect
the banks -- and everything else
is secondary
-- DA Levy

[cascadiance]

57. No, I don't disagree with you that they are "separate" from the corporate aristocracy...

They are. And no doubt that controlling stockholder shares are a part of that mix too. But there are still many shareholders who aren't, and there is also the viewing public, who though most of the time are "controlled" by them, at times are pushed to loosen their control of their corporate mantras, as in the case of covering Katrina, when it's hard for them to have a prewritten script for events like that for their minions to follow (so sometimes their minions become less "minions" and more human beings when on their own). The audience is also more demanding when an event like Katrina has information about it travelling through so many other means (phone calls, etc.) over what's happening and is more personal and therefore if they try to mask heavily what is going on, then the sheep might just wake up to what they are doing. And if they are trying to do something that clearly loses them money in terms of ratings in the interest of propagandizing us, that's when a groundswell builds up amongst stockholders to have something done about it.

I certainly don't believe you can count on events like Katrina to change the system the way we need to change it. That needs to be done by a non-corporate funded congress at some point with some big media reform legislation, but these events sometimes can help pave the way to putting pressure on congress to do this sort of legislation, or the FCC to threatent to pull licenses, etc. That's why at times like this, they aren't as in control as they'd like to be, and though tragic, may also carry a blessing in disguise of helping us further the cause of media reform that is so sorely needed to take down the fascist empire we have now.

[Indenturedebtor]

64. Rec your post! Anyone who says that the media is only concerned with "simple profit"

Hasn't been paying enough attention.

Story after story, testimony after testimony, have shown that the MSM in general is concerned with manipulating the public to their own ends. Those ends of course being the continued "deregulation" and consilidation of media markets.... as served up by Pukes on a platter.

Not to mention the fact that our "modern media" is owned by military industrialists, oil barons, and multimedia firms that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of corporations screwing the average Murikan!

Hello GE, etc!!!!!

[Festivito]

19. Money: YES, "couldn't care less who" NO

The big money is made by going to wars and sustaining wars.

Rev. Moon for example can lose money on his Washington Times newspaper, but his overall wealth increases tremedously because of the political changes it effects.

[pattmarty]

21. I believe they do care who wins the election, and what the "majors"......

....and cable outlets have been doing this year more than in the past, is try to intentionally extend out the campaigns (look at especially Clinton/Obama) so they can finance all these "specialty" election shows. They love a close horse race, it gets them more viewers.

[desktop]

33. It's always money, look at the local news media for examples

Any investigative reports for corruption and cheating the public is about maintenance workers, teachers, policemen, or maybe someones secretary stealing from the company. When was the last time you saw an investigative report on law firms ripping off their clients, or car dealerships forging documents and cheating their customers. Attorneys and car dealers are the biggest cheats in town. But you won't hear about it, as attorneys have to much power to sue, and car dealerships buy advertising on the stations.

[bulloney]

35. ON his mea culpa tour, Scot McClellan told Chris Matthews that the WH was sending talking points

to media, primarily Faux Snooze.

It's not just making money. The MSM are big business. Big business primarily backs conservatives. There is the root of the bias.

[Doctor_J]

66. This meme is horseshit

An expose of McCain's philandering would garner HUGH ratings, yet no network will run with it. The TV networks are GOP propaganda organs, period.

[Wetzelbill]

3. Yeah but the LA Times is a Librul paper nt

[Kire]

4. what about George Mason University?

that's who sponsored the study

[Wetzelbill]

5. Well just on the basis of them being a university with buk lurnin' available

that sounds librul to me.

[Cosmocat]

10. Yep ...

It proves what an person capable of free and objective thinking already knew, but ...

The right wing propogandists like Rush and Beck say it, so the corporatist MSMers like Mathews and Wolf Blitzer say it, so it is the truth ... LA times is a liberal rag, ANY study from ANY university that does not say George W Bush walks on water is a "librul" agenda ...

[NewJeffCT]

37. I believe the Center gets its funding from the far right

Scaife and company.

[cosmicdot]

54. yes ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs#Funding

"Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles:

* John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century
* Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation
* Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute"

George Mason is, also, a hang-out for Wendy 'former enron director' Gramm, Phil 'USB' Gramm's spouse. Ed Meese is a Mercatus Center Board member.
http://www.mercatus.org/People/id.106,cfilter.0/people.asp

[NewJeffCT]

56. Thanks for finding that

I knew they were RW because I wrote an LTTE on it in 2004 - as, they had a similar finding in 2004 that the media slightly favored Kerry over Bush, if you excluded Fox, who even they found was 5-1 pro-Bush.

[FreedomRain]

41. Is LAT a lib paper?

I had assumeed so, but when they buried the L.A. war protest march (10-27-07) story and gave out the government line of "400 to 700 protesters" I was very dissappointed. The organizers claimed 7,000 at the time. I and my children who were there, figured about 5,000.
But, srsly, is it supposed to be liberal or no ?

[Wetzelbill]

48. not really

They got rid of Robert Scheer because he was too critical, in their view, of the war and this administration. They are your basic status quo type of news organization. To the Right anything that isn't completely lock step with the GOP is considered liberal.

[FreedomRain]

51. thx, wetzel... nt

[Doug.Goodall]

6. Obama is going to win, there is no doubt. The media has to keep it close to sell advertising

They artificially inflate the McCain campaign to make the race seem closer than it really is. This keeps people tuned in and watching the beer commercials.

In order to sell advertisements, the media needs an audience.

Keep the race close; sell more advertising time and make more money.

[DallasNE]

17. Of Course

This is what the last several election cycles have been all about. The corporatist bottom line and whatever it takes to feed that beast. It is like I am fond of saying. We currently have a capitalist nation rather than a democratic nation. It will remain that way regardless of who the next President is.

[desktop]

18. You seem so sure Obama will win

It would seem that way today. Obama is clearly better than McCain, if for no other reason than McCain seems generally incompetent, with memory loss and poor judgment. But voters are not always rational or logical, and I sure as heck don't trust the legitimacy of the electoral process. I hope you're right.

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. And THAT'S why they have been tougher on Obama

They are looking for and hoping for and even inciting some major screw-up from him in order to ACTUALLY level the playing field. Look how they badger McSame to make accusations against his rival.

Much of them were almost expecting a big faux pas on his overseas trip, salivating at the thought, but lo and behold, he came across as so f*#king Presidential.

[creeksneakers2]

8. I was so hoping somebody would do a study

So I'm glad you posted this. Amazing that a right wing outfit came out with this. They found over 50% negative coverage of McCain. I've barely seen any. So if a lib outfit takes a look they'll find the bias is even worse.

The double standards in coverage are amazing. The networks have declared that coverage of the 2008 election will be a referendum on Obama. That means there will be no scrutiny of McCain at all.

Media bias in favor of Obama is a McCain talking point. I've seen many reporters and pundits on television agree with that. That means they are willing to falsely accuse themselves to give out a McCain talking point. That's how bad the bias in favor of McCain is.

[Frank Cannon]

13. They're probably counting coverage of McCain's numerous gaffes...

as "negative" coverage. In the old days, back when the news media simply reported facts, we just used to call that "coverage".

[creeksneakers2]

24. Before the GOP

and it may have been this outfit, counted any negative reports on the economy as bias in favor of the Democrats.

[Frank Cannon]

43. I've always reminded of Stephen Colbert's quote...

that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[rAVES]

9. I would question the sanity of anyone who buys the liberal media myth...

[DWilliamsamh]

11. And? I don't mean to be sarcastic but I can't help it.

Anyone who has watched "the majors'" coverage knows damn well that the charge of Obama-mania in the media is bullshit. It was bullshit in the primaries and it is BS to the tenth power now. I'm glad they did the study but it's not news to me, and I doubt very seriously this will get any air time in the forums where people need to hear this information. I doubt seriously ABC, NBC, CBS and or CNN will air a report on this study. Well maybe once at 3 AM o CNN.

[iamjoy]

14. The Media's Obama-mania Is Real

but it covers good and bad. In many ways, their coverage of him is like a celebrity, although at least they (for the most part) stick to issues relevant to his presidency.

Have no doubt, the media bias is sensationalism. Watching (and listening to) McCain is like watching paint dry. They have to be careful covering McCain's gaffes because they can't seem to just cover a politician making an inaccurate statement, they have to find a reason for it. You know how they play it: when Obama mis-speaks it is because his is "inexperienced" - but for McCain the only easy explanation would be that he is old/confused/doddering. They dare not portray him that way, it would piss off too many of their senior viewers. It's a different ballgame than in 1992 when they made a joke out of Admiral Stockdale. Portraying McCain as a Bush lap dog is boring - they are desperately trying to portray McCain as the maverick like in 2000, because that is compelling. The problem is it doesn't sell as well this time, so they have to scale it back.

Besides, Obama is a young, telegenic African-American. He's new, exciting, different. What is McCain - another boring (old) white man.

[ck4829]

12. It's obvious, but it still deserves a K&R

[Vinca]

15. Obama might be getting more air time, but when they spin whatever

he's doing in a negative way, that's not liberal bias, it's conservative bias.

[JAbuchan08]

25. Yes, I constantly hear the media append words like "despite"

to coverage of Obama, for example they may say that Obama is taking a certain action "in spite" of criticism, implying that the criticism is valid and that he is "spiting" conventional wisdom, rather than simply reporting the action and the criticism they use insidious manipulation of language to imply foolhardiness or arrogance.

[bulloney]

39. When Obama retuned from his Mideast/European tour,

the MSM was hammering the theme that McCain will improve his poll numbers because Obama wasn't campaigning int he U.S.

Recently, the MSM gerbils asked ad nauseum if an Obama presidency would HURT Blacks. What kind of a question is that? But, it casts negativity toward an Obama presidency.

Rev. Wright received much more air time than Hagee and Parsley, whose endorsements were sought and received by McCain. Hagee and Parsley are off-the-charts looney tunes, but you didn't see as much coverage of them as you did Wright.

Michelle Obama's "Whitey" non-event has gotten more coverage than Cindy McCain's real drug problems.

I keep hearing about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience. I don't recall that question getting hammered to that extent when Bush was running for office 8 years ago

And I can go on and on.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. While it is certainly true that Obama is getting far more airtime, it is FALSE that

the coverage has been favorable. It was FALSE during the primaries and it is FALSE now.

Here's the problem: while the M$M spins most everything he says and does into something negative or sinister, McSame, by stark contrast, is getting away with far more. The last few weeks should have ended his campaign; instead, the M$M continues to propagate the lie that this race is close. Rather than questioning McSame's electability, they are making it about Obama. As the brilliant Bob Herbert observes this week, why don't the M$M question why it is that McSame cannot seem to get beyond 42% or 43% in any national poll? I've been asking that same question until my face turns blue and all my hair falls out.

The narrative being pushed is that Obama is an empty suite; that he's unqualified and inexperienced. And yet, Dumbya and McSame continue to make major mistakes. What is more, they are co-opting ideas that belong to Obama and claiming them as their own. Why hasn't the media called them out on it?

[Demeter]

47. The Good Thing Is: The Spin Isn't Working

They keep trying and trying, but Obama is better.

He's better than Clinton, because there isn't any there, there: no nasties in the past.

He's better than Reagan, because it's reality-based and not some delusional side effect of Alzheimers and elderly movie fans.

He's lucky because the GOP have self-destructed, and don't have the dollars for swift-boating or opposition research or election fraud, and pumping up the market and faking the economic numbers isn't working any more.

All in all, it is the best of times and the worst of times.

[UpInArms]

23. A(lways)B(roadcasting)C(rap) Evening sNews is an informercial

for McLame

[waltmiami]

26. US Media Outlets ..... scary stuff!

I've been living in the USA for 3 months now... and it really scares me to see how divided this country is. I am originally from Canada and I am experiencing such a culture shock moving down here... I just wanted to share my point of view..

I find that news coverage here in the US is shocking... How can these news outlets slant news politically with such obvious distorions and lies and personal biases... these efforts are sure to tap into demographic segments of US population and stir up their negative emotions. There should be accountability... there should be penalties for lying on tv.. i used to just laugh when i would watch Fox News or Lou Dobbs.. but now it really upsets me to see how powerful and influential they are with conservative americans. I now watch every report with such suspicion... i really don't trust these news outlets in America and that includes MSNBC and CNN. They do not report facts they distort them and twist them or make issues out of nothing.

How nice it would be if news was reported as is... but that would be boring, wouldn't it?

How is it possible that it got to this point in America? Are Americans satified with this type of behaviour? Giving airtime to people like Glen Beck or Lou Dobbs or Bill O'reily can only be justified by trying to get ratings...but the shows should not be labelled as News Shows. And the fact they are household names only gives them more power of influence and credibility. I am not sure if the USA has always been like this or if things changed drastically after 911 or maybe i am just naive...

I miss my CBC and BBC...

[Deny and Shred]

34. Seeing a BBC report on Afganistan would really wake people up.

The BBC has facts, footage, interviews with servicemen who are tired, getting shot at, wounded, ... just like an actual war.
What we've had here WaltMiami, is sanitized - an attempt to portray this as Agincourt or something, with all the splendor and honor, with the flags snapping in the breeze. Like what the King imagines when he heard about the results of his victory from those who were there.

[many a good man]

38. Changed before 911

You can definitely blame consolidation of media ownership but there's more to it. One part is the market segmentation brought on by the dozens of cable channels. Just like magazines, corporations found it could squeeze profit by appealing to a smallish niche of the marketplace.

That coincided with realignment of the political parties. In the eighties bigots migrated to the Republican party and were joined by a resurgent religious right. Southern racists used to be at home in the Democratic party but switched in droves after the Civil Rights Act and it was completed with the election of Reagan.

Media has gradually become less objective and more divisive and sensational. It has a lot more entertainment options to compete with. The right sees any objective analysis or criticism as evidence of "left wing bias." The meme has taken hold and liberals walk on ice. TDS and KO were the first to counter this agonizing slide.

[treestar]

45. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

The US major media is an embarassment! It is more like entertainment than news.

[nankerphelge]

28. It's the corporate media bias

John McCain is the corporate candidate,

[still_one]

29. There is no "liberal" media in this country. There is no journalism or investigative

reporting either

There hasn't been for sometime now

In fact there is outright censorship.

There has NEVER been a war covered in this country, as this war. No pictures, and very little content. Compare that to the coverage of Viet Nam.

It was our media that propagated the lies that Iraq needed to be invaded because of WMDs, and a link between Iraq and AQ

Our media has covered up for the current administration in a way that has been unprecidented

The media has essentially become a propaganda machine for the current administration.

The two big lies they are using right now is that the surge is working, and that the media is bias for Obama. Both are not true

[bronxiteforever]

30. Radio is pretty much 100% GOP propanganda too

I know there is Air America etc but the overwhelming majority of commercial non satellite, non internet based radio air play is dominated by GOP echo chambers Hannity, Limpy, etc.

For some reason those who cry "liberal media bias" do not include radio as media
According to a Kentucky college-

"The influence of radio broadcasters in the daily lives of Americans is often grossly underestimated and occasionally altogether overlooked by even the most experienced media strategists. Radio is often described as the "captive electronic medium" because it reaches people while they are doing other things - in their cars, on the way to and from work, in their homes and offices."

[W T F]

31. The MEDIA, which is owned by RICH REPUBLICANS is.......

Liberal? explain that one to me! NEOCON!:rofl:

[NewJeffCT]

36. the Center for Media & Public Affairs is a RW organization

if I'm not mistaken.

[DeepModem Mom]

40. K&R

[ooglymoogly]

44. quelle supreeeez....To call the corporate media anything but propaganda mills

is not getting it. Excepting a very few newscasters who may not be around much longer. GOP+media=symbiosis and treason on steroids.

[Overseas]

49. What a rotten headline--better to say: Pro-Obama Bias Proven False

Liberal bias bias -- Very confusing. You have to read a few sentences into the story to finally get the point that what we have seen is true -- Obama receives MUCH MORE negative coverage.

So sad to see them burying the lead with a fuzzy headline.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

67. 49 posts to make the obvious critique.

Given just cursory examination, the headline could leave the opposite impression of the content.

:thumbsup:

[humbled_opinion]

52. LOL.... Insane...

OK so not everybody takes their marching orders from Oliely and Sean Calamity....Obviously in the mixed up world of Repukes if you have a different set of thoughts from what is programmed into your brain from watching faux news then you are being preferential to a particular political sect....

This is the world in which we live.....

I always view everything objectively and look at all sides of the issue before I draw conclusions.....

No single media outlet determines for me what the truth is...

I wish more people were like that.

[XemaSab]

53. Research has a liberal bias

:P

[AlbertCat]

62. So, apparently, does the truth...

....or anything complicated.

[NewJeffCT]

65. The organization that published the study

is a far-right organization that gets its funding from Richard Mellon Scaife and similar.

They published a study in 2004 that found the media slightly favored Kerry, if you excluded Fox, which even they admitted was strongly Bush-biased.

[PATRICK]

55. The major broadcast networks

even though they skew for the Bush TP's a vast proportion of the time have a showy ceremonial role and mindless system of following. This is the weak bloated "centrist" image of the monolithic dinosaur. Cable "news" on the other hand can descend to hate and propaganda as their first policy and never have to believe the drivel about fairness.

This is a case of one bunch of thugs accusing the old established crooks of being too soft and realizing(hopefully too late) they should get rid of them altogether. The bullying is meant to herd these dimwitted major leaguers and their mainstream viewership toward the hard right. More signs of GOP division and dissension as a byproduct of being unable to cope with the people's choice.

[progressoid]

58. I'd forward this to some RW relatives but they'd just ignore it as liberal tripe since it came from

the LA times.

[NewJeffCT]

68. well, tell them the study is from a conservative organization

funded by well-known conservatives!

[wellst0nev0ter]

59. ". . .From A Viacom Standpoint, The Election Of A Republican Administration Is A Better Deal."

Thus said Sumner Redstone, Viacom's CEO, in 2004 no less. The real surprise is that anyone is surprised by this at all

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

61. The pot loves to call the kettle black...

...Complain about liberal bias long enough and it might lend you license to implement conservative bias.

[calimary]

63. Kick! And I'm sure "teflon john" is still whining about the "lousy" coverage

he's getting compared to Obama's.

Never mind that they all used Obama as a frickin' football to kick around for months while mcthuselah got a never-ending series of free passes.