Comments on: Press Bias and Campaign 2008

By: Beth Wellington

Beth Wellington — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:49:18 +0000

I submitted this post to NewsTrust. Here is the link, in case your readers want to write a review of this or other stories or submit an example of quality journalism...

http://www.newstrust.net/webx?14@@.fa7e5dd

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:58:27 +0000

What is missing (which you can see at the link) ...

There was a link?

Seriously, it's annoying and I'm surprised you're not getting caught by the spam filter.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:50:36 +0000

Is it stupidity, lack of intellectual curiosity, bias, out right lying? Here is an example where it wasn't just a slant, but an outright lie. On Wednesday the BBC reported the speech under the headline 'Bush speech hails Iraq "victory"'. The headline was supported by the following sentence in the story: He said recent troop reinforcements had brought about "a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror". However, this isn't what Bush said. What he said was: The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around – it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. and the impact is real. By this time the dishonestly headlined, mendaciously edited BBC story had been displayed prominently on the website for two days. With the site attracting around 13 million unique viewers per week, we can safely assume that several million people around the world saw the report of President Bush 'claiming victory' in Iraq. As I noted in my second post (linked by Pajamas Media) the BBC's 'Have Your Say' thread on the story was filled with comments hostile to President Bush and the US, with many commenters citing and ridiculing the 'victory claim' which Bush never made. At least two commenters called for Bush and Tony Blair to be hanged, and this in a 'fully moderated' thread. ... Even as I write this post, the Middle East page of the BBC site still features a link to the Have Your Say thread (comments are now closed) which takes the form of a quote from one of the comments, accusing Bush of 'arrogance' for declaring victory: It's inconceivable that the headline and sentence which created such a misleading impression of Bush's speech were simply 'editing errors'. I used to work as a sub-editor on a daily newspaper in the UK, and a story as important as this would one have been seen by perhaps six different journalists before the paper went to press. I've no doubt that at least as many BBC journalists would have been involved in putting together the Bush story, and senior ones too. The BBC is fat with British taxpayers' money, and its news-gathering operation is probably the best-resourced and most over-manned in the world; they wouldn't have farmed this job out to the intern. What is missing (which you can see at the link) is the comments coming out of the Mideast such as "Bush's arrogance is astonishing in declaring victorious a war which he lost. Ahmed, Tripoli" Add to this the general 'Name that party' lapses, Rathergate, etc. and you see that something is causing the MSM to not just have problems with shading, but with missing or misstating important facts. In short, if you are trusting what the MSM is telling you all the time, then you are feeding on lies at least some of the time.

By: John Huckans

John Huckans — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:45:49 +0000

It is easy to mischaracterize Ron Paul as a "nut" because he is spontaneous and rarely self-censors. What you hear coming out of his mouth is usually the unfiltered reflection of his mind at that moment. This is unlike the communication style of most politicians whose messages are focus-grouped, crafted, polished, and practiced in front of a mirror.

Cheers,

John H. Huckans

By: Garrison

Garrison — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:54:51 +0000

I still don't get how Ron Paul is a nut. Because he opposes senseless wars? Because he wants to fix the economy? Because he wants to put more money in the taxpayer's pocket? Because he wants to run the country the way the constitution says we should?

I'd say that the only nuts in this race are the media.

By: rodney dill

rodney dill — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:37:21 +0000

Everybody already knows that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a pathological liar. The Bosnia sniper fire LIE is her Dukakis tank helmet or Kerry 'baby blue clean suit' moment.

By: Iris

Iris — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:34:14 +0000

If Hillary is the smartest person in the room, why does she have to exaggerate, spin, and misrepresent her experience? She's smart enough for Day 1, as she says, to attend balls and shake hands. She has lots of experience with social events. After that, I'll take Obama, who was at the top of his law class, knows what wars to avoid, is more courageous about taking on hard issues, and writes better books (without ghost writers).

PS. On second thought, the nation would be better off with an Inauguration Speech from Obama. Day One is a day when words matter a lot. If Hillary was so smart, she'd know that.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:33:46 +0000

I'm not sure its bias so much as sloth.

I've also noticed that the definition of bias doesn't seem to be settled. For some “bias” means slanting the coverage unfairly and unevenly. For some it means not slanting it enough.