Print

[Professor H]

I still don't see an admission of bias in the quotes you've presented.
Really doesn't matter though....my earlier post said it was the strategy of MSNBC to counter Fox News....and Fox has the most biased news of them all.

Here's something I mentioned earlier:
ANALYSIS    AIR DATE: July 16, 2012
Pew Study: More Viewers Choose YouTube for Breaking News
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study Monday showing that news consumers are increasingly trading traditional media for YouTube. Jeffrey Brown discusses the challenges and opportunities traditional media sources now face with Pew's Tom Rosenstiel and The New York Times' Brian Stelter.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec12/pewyoutube_07-16.html

Probably why you are seeing commercials on youtube... 
Not something I'd put out as a reliable source - but interesting that some take it that way.

[Frenchfry]

Probably why you are seeing commercials on youtube... 
Not something I'd put out as a reliable source - but interesting that some take it that way.

I believe my ad-block plus may be responsible for my commercial-free surfing on firefox...not complaining mind you....just letting anyone willing to listen know about that great free product.

As for the reliable source comment...I don't have cable so being able to view the cable news channels on YouTube has been fantastic! It's near impossible to watch every news source available but with the multitude on YouTube....and the 'net...it's easy to stay well informed.

[Professor H]

I believe my ad-block plus may be responsible for my commercial-free surfing on firefox...not complaining mind you....just letting anyone willing to listen know about that great free product.

As for the reliable source comment...I don't have cable so being able to view the cable news channels on YouTube has been fantastic! It's near impossible to watch every news source available but with the multitude on YouTube....and the 'net...it's easy to stay well informed.

I enjoy ad-block on Firefox as well.

I've noticed a few times when loading video's there's a short commercial at the beginning - you have the option to click "skip" - but it is probably a trend and how they make money and keep the site running...

[Frenchfry]

I enjoy ad-block on Firefox as well.

I've noticed a few times when loading video's there's a short commercial at the beginning - you have the option to click "skip" - but it is probably a trend and how they make money and keep the site running...

Well I'm not really sure how I'm able to avoid all the ads....I use several filter lists in adblock...such as fanboys....but I also utilize spywareblaster, spybot, malwarebytes, and my new favorite, superantispyware.
Not sure what each one does but they seem to compliment each other. Where one may come up short, one of the others will cover it.
Sometimes I'll surf the 'net with Internet Explorer...that way the ad revenue will help out my favorite sites.

[Frenchfry]

After Anaheim MSM ignores W. Virginia protests

[Professor H]

Here's something the Media prefers to look at from the opposite perspective

[/url]

[Professor H]

[Frenchfry]

NPR serves the banks?
For years and years, National Public Radio's news and programming were funded in part by the government and partly by listeners. Today, however, it is much more common to hear the names of sponsors on the media outlet; moreover, it turns out there are certain programs sponsored entirely by one company that may or may not have influence over the content of the program. One of the recent examples that has surfaced reveals that NPR financial program Planet Money may have stronger ties with one of its advertisers than its audience is aware of. Mark Ames and Yasha Levine are founders of the website S.H.A.M.E, or Shame The Hacks Who Abuse Media Ethics, and join RT's Kristine Frazao to discuss ethics in the media today.
NPR serves the banks?

News for sale - corporations buying positive reviews
The recent case of Oracle versus Google once again brought to light the issue of the media paying for positive reviews. Both companies were questioned about the matter at the latest court hearing in a case that could create a precedent if those who were paid are disclosed. Christopher Chambers, a journalism professor of Georgetown University, shares his opinion on the subject.
News for sale - corporations buying positive reviews

Journalism for sale?
When it comes to getting paid by a third party for their job journalists should be suspicious, but these days sometimes money means more than ethics. National Public Radio used to be funded by the government and listeners alike but in recent times has started to mention the names of its sponsors. It turns out that the banks and corporations who support NPR may have influenced the content of its programs.One such example is the financial program "Planet Money" hosted by Adam Davidson.Foster Kamer, senior editor for the New York Observer, joins RT's Kristine Frazao to discuss whether journalists could be unbiased if paid for their shows as well.
Journalism for sale?

[Frenchfry]

Cuss warning.
Liberal Bias? CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien Accused By Right Wing
"CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien struck back at critics who objected to her reading from a document printed from what they called a liberal website -- yet not citing her source -- while interviewing an operative for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on the topic of Medicare. O'Brien was substitute-hosting on Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday when she was seen flipping through a story from the website Talking Points Memo during a segment with Romney campaign adviser Barbara Comstock. Conservative media, most notably Rush Limbaugh, mocked the news anchor for what they perceived to be a journalistic transgression...".
Liberal Bias? CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien Accused By Right Wing

[Baby Hitler]

[Professor H]

[Forsythia]

More proof that the bias is against the liberals.

[Monroe Native]

More proof that the bias is against the liberals.

Maybe it isn't a bias....  maybe there is just more low hanging fruit to criticize?

I wonder what that chart would have looked like when Bush was in office.  I suspect it would have been far different?

[Frenchfry]

NPR under fire for lazy journalism

Cuss warning:
DecodeDC: Ex-NPR Reporter Seabrook Fed Up With Media BS

"After 14 years at National Public Radio, Andrea Seabrook left in July and, to hear her talk about her experience covering Capitol Hill, it's clear that she had one takeaway: It's damn frustrating. "I realized that there is a part of covering Congress, if you're doing daily coverage, that is actually sort of colluding with the politicians themselves because so much of what I was doing was actually recording and playing what they say or repeating what they say," Seabrook told POLITICO. "And I feel like the real story of Congress right now is very much removed from any of that, from the sort of theater of the policy debate in Congress, and it has become such a complete theater that none of it is real. ... I feel like I am, as a reporter in the Capitol, lied to every day, all day. There is so little genuine discussion going on with the reporters. ... To me, as a reporter, everything is spin." As a result, Seabrook is trying to do something about it. Her new project is DecodeDC, a website that will feature Seabrook's blog posts and podcasts...".

DecodeDC: Ex-NPR Reporter Seabrook Fed Up With Media BS

[Forsythia]

Hmmmm this is interesting.  Apparently Regan and Obama have something in common.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2012/09/10/fox-keeps-pushing-reagan-myth-making-about-unem/189814

Attacking President Obama for not doing enough to lower the country's unemployment rate, Fox News' Greg Jarrett and Brenda Buttner insisted on Sunday that when faced with a similar type of economic crisis in his first term, Ronald Reagan turned around the country's job rate in just four years.
 
This false comparison has become a favorite Fox talking point.
 



BUTTNER: And Ronald Reagan in fact did in four years, took the unemployment rate way down. Bill Clinton said [at the DNC] nobody could do it in four years and he did.
 
JARRETT: Reagan did it. 10.8 percent down to 7 percent within four years, down to 5 percent thereafter.
 
Why can't Obama be more like Reagan, the Fox talkers asked.  Why can't Obama deflate the unemployment rate the way Reagan did during his first term?
 
But look at the numbers from the U.S. Department of Labor. During Reagan's first full month in office, February 1981, the unemployment rate stood at 7.4 percent. It then rose steadily and peaked at 10.8 percent in November 1982, before falling to 7.5 percent in August 1984, as he campaigned for re-election. (Jarrett's mention of "five percent" was in reference to unemployment at the very end of Reagan's second term.)
 
Obama? During his first full month in office, February 2009, unemployment stood at 8.3 percent, it peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, and currently stands at 8.1 percent.
 
Note that unemployment right now is nearly identical to when Obama began his first term. And at this point in his presidency, the unemployment rate under Reagan was nearly identical to when he began his first term. So why is Fox pretending Reagan slayed unemployment in his first term when his record is nearly identical to Obama's?
 
In fact, left unmentioned on Fox yesterday was the fact that in the months prior to Reagan's first term, unemployment in America had been decreasing.