Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Media Bias, 2010 Elections

Since we're having to skip over some of the material in Chapter 15 ("The Media"), and since we're coming up on Election Day 2010, I thought the topic of Media Bias would be a good one for our next blog discussion.

With 24-hour TV cable news, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, and of course the Internet, there is a tremendous amount more that fits under the category of "The Media" than there was even 10-15 years ago, and it's certainly unrealistic to think all (or even most) of it is always going to be completely objective in how it presents the news, but what people see, read, and hear (and FROM WHOM they see, read, and hear it) is going to have a HUGE impact on their ideas and their opinions.

But WHERE exactly is the bias? And how exactly does it manifest itself? The reality is that anyone may see bias if a story is presented with a viewpoint different from their own, but since the media is becoming an ever-increasing part of our daily lives, it's still very important to examine it in more detail AND TO TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE WHILE DOING SO!

First, you're going to do a little reading. The title link above (where it says "Media Bias, 2010 Elections") will take you to a 'Google Docs' screen with an article that will present both sides of the debate: one claiming that there is a bias in the media toward the liberal point of view, and the other claiming that there is a bias in the media that leans toward the conservative point of view.

After you read those few pages, please click on the links below to watch some video. The first one is about a 15-minute clip from the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. Ms. Maddow does not make any effort to hide her liberal views and she is not shy about criticizing Republicans, but I found this clip particularly interesting because, as a liberal, she is criticizing the media for being biased toward Republicans in their coverage of the upcoming midterm elections.

The second link below is an 8-minute segment from the "Sean Hannity Show" on Fox News, with Mr. Hannity interviewing Karl Rove, who was the chief political strategist for President Bush. This is a good clip because it addresses (from a very conservative viewpoint, of course) many of the issues that have arisen with negative advertising in this election season. It will also tie in nicely with our discussion in class about the financing of political campaigns and who it is that pays for commercials and contributes to candidates.

The final clip is also from Fox News, this one a 6-minute clip from "The O'Reilly Factor." The host, Bill O'Reilly is interviewing conservative commentator Bernard Goldberg, and this clip will provide an interesting counterpoint to the Maddow clip, because while they also discuss the media being critical of President Obama and the Democrats, they begin with the premise that this is unusual, and that normally the media has a decidedly liberal bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39731775#39731775

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4369711/rove-responds-to-dnc-attack-ad/?playlist_id=158694

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4369671/is-left-wing-media-turning-against-liberals/?playlist_id=87253

After reading the article and watching the video clips, answer these questions:
  • In the reading, which of the two sides did you find more convincing? Why? Were there ideas/arguments in either article (or both!) that you agreed/disagreed with? Which ones?
  • What were your thoughts on the Rachel Maddow video? Obviously you're just seeing her side of it, but do you agree with her overall point that the media has helped or been more favorable to Republicans in this election season?
  • What were your thoughts on the two Fox News videos? Even though you may not have all the context if you haven't been paying as much attention to the media covering politics as O'Reilly's or Hannity's primary audience, what did you think of Mr. Rove's response to the charges made against him in that DNC ad? Did you agree with Mr. Goldberg's comments on the media's treatment of President Obama and the Democrats? Why/why not?

Remember, your first post should be answers to the above questions, and then sometime later, after having read what your classmates have said, please post another comment in response to one of your classmates. Both of your comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 27. Have fun--I look forward to reading your comments!

152 comments:

  1. In the reading, I think that both of the articles are very convincing of their point of view, but also they are pretty one-sided which makes me think that they’re both wrong, and that there are both plenty of Liberal biases and plenty of Conservative biases all over the media. I think that in the end, biases are pretty much inevitable but a balance between them is not.

    In the first article, I disagreed with the argument that Democratic presidential candidates get more coverage in the media than Republicans do. I think that statistically, it may be true, but I think that in reality it depends on the popularity of the candidate among voters is why a certain candidate gets more coverage. Also, what a candidate does to get attention and the speeches they make effects the amount of coverage they get as well, but they don’t get coverage JUST because they are Democrats or JUST because they are Republicans. One of the things I do agree with is the argument that people who support the Second Amendment are “gun nuts” in the sense that it is true that people who support certain things that may be the center of large controversy and immediately judged and criticized. But, I also disagree with this because it is a one-sided argument and there are people that support Democratic values that get criticized as well such as people who support choice for abortion, etc.

    In the second article, I agree with the argument that television and journalism have to pay attention to who is advertising because advertisements make the most money, and they can’t afford to offend them which means corporate America does have a large influence on the media, more than we’d think. One argument that I disagree with are

    My thoughts on the Rachel Maddow video were that Rachel Maddow definitely has strong Liberal views and felt as if she really needed to speak out against this issue. Though she was talking about extremists, I thought some of her arguments were somewhat extreme as well. Though I did agree with some of her points and her arguments that Republican candidates’ platforms and what the media is saying about those candidates are coinciding did somewhat make sense to me. I think it’s true that the media is trying to explain why Republican candidates are going to win seats with things like deficit and big government, when in reality, none of those things are the answers.

    My thoughts on the Fox news videos were that they both contained good arguments and defenses but at the same time they were both pretty one-sided which changed the level of how convincing they were.


    I thought that Mr. Rove’s response to the DNC ad was that he was pretty outraged by the accusations. I think that he is right to be outraged because the claim is that he is “stealing democracy”. I think that not only him, but anyone would be angry with this accusation. I also think that his argument that there is no evidence behind the accusations is legitimate. But on the other hand, I think that some of his arguments were poor such as calling Obama’s campaign hypocritical because they did not release the names of their donors.


    I agreed with some of Mr. Goldberg’s arguments about the effects of Obama’s popularity rates going down and that he may not be as new and fresh as he was when he was campaigning and first took office. But I disagree with him when he said that the media is still glorifying him even though his popularity has gone down, because I don’t think that is necessarily true. But I do agree with him when he makes his point that when, in the future, Obama runs against a Conservative Republican that the biases will pick up again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought that the conservative position on the media’s liberal bias had a better argument because it stated specific evidence like the percentage of positive and negative media for candidates. The conservative position also stated “Democrats receive more airtime and more positive coverage on the evening news than Republicans do,” which could definitely have a great influence on the election because usually people watch the news at night. I do, however, think that some of this side’s accusations were a little exaggerated like when it said that “Men and women who support Second Amendment rights are portrayed as "gun nuts”.” I don’t think that anyone who supports the second amendment could be viewed as gun nuts. Or at least in not a typical case. I agreed with the conservative’s argument about how the media portrays media as bad guys because they try to make money.
    I thought that her show was really repetitive and a little annoying. I guess that the specific examples she has chosen support her point but there is probably other media that supports the same for democrats. I also thought that her point of the media supporting republicans was overshadowed with her own bashing on republicans.
    I thought that the response the charges made against Mr. Rove was well put together. Especially when it said “Foreign money really? Is that the best you can do?” The commercial looks ridiculous especially when Mr. Rove comments on it. I do agree with Mr. Goldberg’s comments on the media’s treatment of President Obama because I think it is true that the American people are over the excitement of Obama and now are just frustrated with the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Claire with she said that she disagrees when he said that the media is still glorifying him even though his popularity has gone down. I think that the media keeps talking about Obama because, after all, he is our president and there is a lot to talk about. There will always be bias in the media that is guided towards the president, but I don’t necessarily think that the president is talked about to glorify him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In reading the two articles, I found that the proponent of a “liberal media” theory was more convincing. But then again, I myself was biased in reading this article because I agree with the position taken by that particular article. One thing I did notice objectively though was just how contingent this whole debate it on your point of view. Both sides would make generalizations about the media, and then provide one or two examples to back it up. But on any given day, the media covers dozens and dozens of stories, so the use of a single example makes for little evidence. On the contrary, making generalizations without proof makes no sense either… I like how the first article used specific numbers and statistics to back up their argument though. I feel that makes their case stronger. But again, I really think this whole debate just comes down to your individual perspective, news flat out cannot be given objectively. I remember reading back in May, about protesters in Thailand who took to the capital to bring down the government. One news source I read said that troops fired upon innocent protesters, unprovoked. Another said troops fired upon a dangerous mob. A third simply said ___ number of protesters were killed in the riots, with some by deaths caused local law enforcement. So which source was the most unbiased? It’s really hard to say. The first two give a more detailed account of what happened, so maybe they were right. But then again, they do contradict each other. The last source just stated the facts, but gave little context to the situation because we aren’t told if the people were killed in cold blood or in self defense. The way I interpret it, the news is always going to biased. You just have to pick who you get your news from. Do you choose to get it from a firebrand conservative radio talk show or a large national network that has less of a reputation for bias, but will inevitably spin the story depending on its views anyway? Because both forms of bias are available, it’s just a matter of which source you decide to get it from.
    As far as the Maddow video, I have noticed some of what she’s saying, but I really disagree with her overall point. As aforementioned, I think you can get any kind of bias you’re looking for. National news networks may be giving more attention to the Republican arguments now, but I think that’s because there’s more going on in the Republican party than the Democratic one. The same thing happened in 2008 when Democrats had huge mobilization in the presidential election. On the other side, the Fox videos were biased in the conservative side. I don’t really agree with what Rove said. Goldberg made some good points, but I disagree with his general message. All three of the videos had good points, but I disagree with their interpretations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the reading, I found the media's conservative bias argument to be the most convincing, although both sides did have very valid points. The world has truly become a big business with many subdivisions (look at colleges, yes we get the education, but we have to pay our life savings to receive it!). Media is just another one of these subdivisions. It makes sense that editors and publishers are more conservative with their writings because they would rather make money than lose it by challenging tradition, which therefore has the possibility of angering readers/viewers, advertisers, etc. However, I also agreed with the argument that journalists themselves were more liberal in their writing, where they can express their own opinions and ideas more freely. Who would go into journalism to have their free speech suppressed?

    To be honest, I found Rachel Maddow's constant sarcasm to be extremely annoying. However, some of her remarks did show that the media has been favoring Republicans. For example, when she shows the videos of "big government" crawling on peoples' backs (to display too much government involvement as a result of democratic reforms) and then calls out certain candidates for their "big government"-like opinions on abortion.

    As for the Fox News videos, I didn't like how Mr. Rove replied to the charges made against him. He accused Democrats of having this "plan" of attacking various aspects/people within the Republican party, and that they view Americans as being stupid enough to fall for it. Although his thoughts were well put together, I wasn't really impressed because he was basically turning around and playing the same blame game/dirty politics the Democrats were supposedly playing as well. On the other hand, I do agree with what Mr. Goldberg has to say about Obama's magic wearing off. It is evident that he isn't as popular anymore because the election hype is gone and citizens are now looking forward to what he had previously promised, which is hope and change and a better future. What I do not agree with is his opinion that networks should not support Obama anymore just because his public opinion ratings have dropped. Whether he likes it or not, Americans elected Obama as our president and it wouldn't be fair to the population to not be informed about his actions just based on biases and opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After completing the reading I felt that both sides had valid arguments. For the Conservative position, it is true that the media tends to attack the elements of society that are in fact vital for our nation to thrive both politically and economically. Attacking the large corporations seems to be a pointless pursuit, because they are what makes and has made America such a powerhouse in the economic world. I do agree that sometimes, they may be greedy and corrupt, but without them, our country would be nowhere near as powerful as it today. For the liberal position, one could argue that in earlier periods the roles where switched and that role reversal in the media is bound to happen and is a natural occurrence. Both arguments are however extremely over generalized, and don't factor in the specifics of a situation in the media. Everyday circumstances change and so do the biases.
    Maddow is not shy about her Liberal views. She mentions all of the bad things that the republican candidates stand for, their bad actions, and the things that they say. What she fails to mention is all of the good points they have made. She also picks the most extreme of the conservative candidates to attack. Her argument is very coherent and is backed with many examples, but if one where to put some research in, I am almost certain they would find similar cases pertaining to more liberal candidates. Her saying “not this election, and not these Republicans” shows her extremism, but she does make good points about the coverage of the Republican candidates.
    Rove’s response to the ‘mudslinging ad’ is not only correct, but is certainly justified. Before they even started to comment on the commercial, I felt that it seemed like a desperate attempt by the Democratic Party to swing votes there way. To say that he is ‘stealing democracy’ is a big accusation, and needs to be backed with actual information and evidence, not rumors. Rove’s comments are certainly understandable, as anyone in that situation would be outraged by such ill-conceived comments.
    I think that his views on the attack of President Obama are pretty accurate. The general public has lost its fascination with Obama and want to see actual accomplishments out of him. The public opinion polls support this viewpoint, as Obama’s job approval rates continue to fall. However, I believe that there are still people out there who have faith in Obama’s plans to revamp our failing economy, and feel that Obama just needs a little more time to prove himself effective.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like Claire, it was really hard for me to find either article convincing, because they both seemed to be a little one-sided. However, I did appreciate the fact that the Liberal point of view conceded to the conservative point of view, acknowledging the fact that yes, the portion of journalists with a liberal viewpoint is substantially larger than that of the general population. Though I think both articles seemed a little too one-sided, I do agree with both of them: I think there must be both liberal and conservative biases in the media, it’s almost a given that there would be; however, I fail to see (and this may be just me) how the media as a whole could be overwhelmingly conservative or liberal. I did however disagree with the conservative argument in asserting that the media has a liberal viewpoint in saying that Bush was the target of fifty percent more jokes than Gore on late night television. I think that the fact that Bush was the target of fifty percent more jokes may have depended on Bush, not on the liberal bias. I’m not entirely sure, but couldn’t it be that most talk show hosts disagreed with Bush or that he himself made it easier to be made fun of?

    As far as the Rachel Maddow video, it’s not hard to see how the media may be more favorable to Republicans in this election season, and how both the media and Republicans are incorrect in their statements, as the Republicans have repeatedly “proved by their actions that they did not believe their own rhetoric”. However, keeping in mind the fact that I did only hear her side as well as the fact that she is pretty extreme, I can’t help but wonder if the media’s bias toward the Republicans is as strong as she made it out to be.

    I do understand Rove’s reaction to the misleading ads – that they were backed by no real, serious evidence, and that they attempted to mislead the American people. However, I do feel as though accusing the White House of thinking the American people are stupid and that it has “a low opinion of American people” is taking it a bit too far. Also, I do understand Goldberg when he says that “the magic is gone” and that if the general public has lost faith in President Obama and if they are not in favor of his policies, then it would be bad business for the media to continue to favor Obama and his policies. However, I do think that it is strange for one liberal to go after another liberal, because though it may be “bad business”, I think that maybe it would benefit Democrats/liberals more to see Obama succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought both sides had very convincing arguments. I really have no opinion towards either side so it's hard for me to say which one was better and what ideas I agree or disagree with. The article does bring up a great point though from the liberal position that the bias relates back to big business and what kind of stories bring back the most revenue.

    After watching the Rachel Maddow video, I can tell she feels very strongly about her liberal point of views while she constantly bashes the Republicans and gives them no praise whatsoever. She does a good job of making herself seem very convincible, but I personally don't know enough to believe or trust anything she says.

    The Fox news videos seemed very bland and one sided to me as well and in my opinion were not as interesting to watch as the Maddow video. Mr. Rove was outraged at the accusations being made against him, as he should be. Anyone being accused of something that they apparently didn't do would be just as angry, if not more. Mr. Goldberg makes a good point when he says President Obama's popularity rates are going down because nearly two years have passed now and people aren't feeling as energetic about him as they were in the very beginning. I personally believe the criticism Obama has received hasn't been deserved and he needs more time to prove himself effective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Lindsay, I also though Rachel Maddow's constant sarcasm was very annoying. To hear all of that sarcasm from someone in such high ranks like her seemed a bit immature. In my opinion there always becomes a point where sarcasm is for the weak and people use it to hide themselves from the big issues and make themselves sound like they completely know what they are talking about even when they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From the reading, both had their strong points. The conservatives felt that the media was liberally slanted because most reporters have liberal tendencies. The liberal felt though that the managers and owners of the news stations are most wealthy conservatives. I would agree that both of these are valid points, but would side with the conservatives. The reporters have more of a direct influence and connection to the viewers than the managers. The reporters can add just a small word of opinion to their coverage to obviously affect viewers while managers and owners do not have this power.

    I think that Maddow’s points were valid and shown with proof. I would imagine that there are stories in the media that have a liberal connection as well and only the conservative ones were identified. The media has profound effect on the voters and the possible conservative affiliation shown by Maddow is affecting many.

    I think Mr. Rove was trying to directly appeal to Americans. While the ad accused is trying to connect subliminally with the people and resonant false messages, Rove is trying to directly connect with the general population. He identifies and contradicts the rash statements of the commercial meant to affect the people and tries to send them an opposing message. I would agree with Mr. Goldberg that the media is a business and must try to appeal to its viewers. I think at heart the media hasn’t turned against Obama, but has temporary tried to draw more attention to itself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I found the liberal side more convincing because they had more proof, with the big businesses. This was more plausible then everyone being liberal and the "fair and balanced" news was just interpreted as conservative when it actually wasn't. One argument I disagree with is that reporters are naturally liberal and so can't help themselves. This is not true. Many reporters are conservative, exemplified by FOX News.

    I think that Rachel Maddow is very wrong in her assumptions. She said a number of things that were actually much of the same and when she disproved each she was simply disproving the same thing over and over. I disagree with her in that the media is helping the Republican candidates because she herself is in the media and there are many others like her. There is both bad press and good press for these "extremist" candidates and the media is not forcing them down the public's throat. The public is capable of making its own decision.

    I think that Mr. Rove made a good point and thoroughly disproved his attackers with pointing out that the democrats also didn't report every source of money and that there was no proof that the Republicans received foreign money. Furthermore, I agree with Mr. Goldberg in that Obama has more good press than bad. It is congress who gets the bad name rather than the President.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think bot of the readings did well at showing the different biasis in the media. There are a lot more liberal talk shows on TV than conservative ones, but the people paying for those shows are big businesses. I think it is a little hypocritical that a big business is encouraging liberal to speak out.

    I don't see how the media has been more favorable to Republicans. When Rachael showed the commercialsabout big businesses and the candidates' stand on abortion I felt like it was showing the bad side of Republicans and saying that they are too conservative.

    In he first Fox News video, I understand that Rove i mad about the false charges mde agaisnt him, however he took it a little too far when he said Americans were stupid for worrying about false scandals than what is actually happening in the White House. In the second video, I agree with Mr. Goldberg. Obama was so popular becaus ehe promised so much change, but now, two years later, people are still waiting for these changes to come.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Lindsay about Rachael's sarcasm. It was a bit over the top. She could have made her point come across even stronger if she toned down the sarcasm and stopped talking down to the Republicans. Sarcasm is used when they don't really have anything else to say, maybe she just shouldn't have said anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I disagree wholeheartedly with the ideas enumerated in both articles. Both articles failed to distinguish between "talk shows" and actual reporting of the news. FOX's conservative bias is based on conservative personalities they have hosting talk shows. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity hardly claim to be nonpartisan or balanced. Conversely, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, and Keith Ulberman do little to hide their liberal ideologies. When it comes to reporting the news, I think that all news entities generally do a good job of presenting the facts in balanced way. Furthermore, I think that the idea that just because news corporations are "corporations" they are conservative is ludicrous. Ted Turner and George Soros finance much of the liberal media. These men clearly are financially successful and could and should belong in the same socio-economic category as the "conservative corporations" that own FOX, the Weekly Standard, etc.

    I generally disagree with Ms. Maddow's points. There is a failure to recognize the similarities of the conservative arguments. The deficit, the stimulus, obamacare, and populism all represent the American citizenry's discontentment with government's ever expanding role. Also, I think Ms. Maddow counters her own point that it's the media's fault when she uses examples of online news sources such as the Huffington Post and moveon.org which offer political commentary almost identical to hers. If the majority of media outlets are spinning the elections for the Republicans how can one explain MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. and their clearly liberal fiscal agendas? Ms. Maddow is herself a prominent voice in the media and obviously does not represent a conservative spin.

    Karl Rove adequately proved that the democratic attack ads about the anonymity of donors was unfounded (as most attack ads are). As he pointed out, President Obama received a great deal of money from anonymous sources. This does not give reliable grounds to question the source of the money. I think that it is important for citizens to be able to privately donate to causes and the right to anonymously donate provides protection to those who would otherwise be persecuted or adversely effected by publicly doing so. I think that Mr. Goldberg was incorrect in his analysis of the democrats in general but correct in his analysis of Obama. Congressional democrats have been receiving a large amount of negative press. Obama on the other hand has been relatively free from negative press. This is expected as Congress is directly responsible for the increase in big government spending that has become so unpopular. Obama's remarkable political skills have spared him much of this negative press.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with Astrid's opinion of the article, that conservative and liberal influences must be in the media, even if a larger portion of journalists are more on the liberal side. It really isn't common to see overwhelmingly one-sided biases in the news, but moreso to see a balance of both/a neutral outlook. I also agreed with the point she made regarding Bush being the target of 50% more jokes than Gore not because he is conservative, but that he unintentionally has done it to himself. No offense to anyone, but his strong southern accent mixed with the occasional flubs in his speeches creates prime SNL jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In the article, I found the conservative position to be most effective because they give you convincing statistics that can't be made from thin air. I thought that their example of corporations being "heartless and criticized for the selfish pursuit of profit" was good because the claim is very generic. The response that its a corporations job to make money however, was one that could make anyone question those accusations, and plus the response was kind of funny.
    I found Rachel Maddow's thoughts hard to agree with and her show hard to watch because she was very loud and frankly just annoying. But, her point that the media has helped Republicans during election season was valid because she backed it up with several democrat based examples. All of her examples (Obamacare, Big Gov't, Deficit, Stimulus) were backed with media coverage that attacked those democrat run ideas.
    I thought that Mr. Rove's response to the attack was somewhat generic because all he really said was that is false and outrageous! Well ya, if someone is attacking your position, of course you're going to say something along those lines. I also felt that he was giving it right back to the democrats, and not really defending his position was facts. I agree with Goldberg's comments because yes Obama's ratings are down a significant number and for the media to constantly portray a public figure that isn't that popular isn't good business. Because as Goldberg stated, the people are the media's customers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Astrid and her position on Rachel Maddow because only hearing one person's side is not the best way to form an opinion and it is hard to tell whether Maddow's accusations are as real and pro-Republican as she makes them out to be. In response to DJ's comment, and although I found that conservative side to be more convincing, I can see how he thought that neither side was convincing because the claim that you couldn't tell what was talk show or actual news had some validity to it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In regards to the video, I must say I have to agree somewhat with Rachel Maddow's point of view - only because I have seen probably twice as many ads on Republicans, PERIOD, than I have on Democrats. At least the name recognition may count as a factor in the election if someone is in the booth attempting to do "eenie-meanie-miney-mo" on who to vote for. I do think she has quite a strong opinion about the matter, and found she contradicted herself a few times via referencing other news outlets to support her own opinion, especially anti-Republican ads. It turned into less of an argument against the media as an attack on some Republicans. It was almost like a "how dare they say this, and thus how dare they be poised to win" kind of message. I lost tract of if she was talking about the media or how wrong the Republicans were.

    In the reading, I found it very difficult to find either side convincing, as I could basically use each article to refute the other and vice versa. I didn't find either of them more convincing than the other. Bias is universal, the media doesn't tend to lean one way or another. If it did to the degree that these articles claim, what would be the point in having an election? People's minds would be made up then, wouldn't they?

    Even that said, both of the Fox videos seem a little valid, but keeping in mind that FOX is a conservative type network. I think Mr. Rove's reaction to the attack ad is at least a little valid, partially because the whole ad looked just ridiculous, and seemed a bit of a low blow for anyone. Mr. Goldberg's point on President Obama and the Democrats being abandoned by the media - the fact that the "magic is gone" is rather valid. We're all over his glory of him being elected, and are now wanting answers and solutions - "he may be a nice guy, but nobody cares about that stuff anymore."

    ReplyDelete
  19. After reading both articles, I found it very difficult to chose a side that I felt was more convincing because of the fact that both arguments literally were just spitting out facts about how the opposite party as gaining more attention in certain areas of the media. If I were to chose, I would have to say that the Liberal side did a better job because of the way that it described the different forms of media that the Republicans were supposedly taking advantage of, such as stating newspapers, internet and television media. This way gave clear examples of how the media was being taken advantage by the republicans by all sides, not just the television news programs. One part of the Conservative position that I did not agree with was when it was describing how journalists have backed every presidential election since the 1980’s, but it fails to show that from all the candidates listed, only two of them actually went on to win the presidency which shows that the journalist “bias” hasn’t had that much effect on the American people anyway.
    After watching the Rachel Maddow video, I was quite surprised. She was able to back her own opinions up very well and was able to openly criticize the Republican Party with plenty of detail. But ironically, as she talks about the Republicans spinning the media, here she is spinning the viewers herself by not providing any counter argument from the Republicans. Although many of the things she said about the Republican Party are true in some respects, she is obviously twisting some things out of context to prove her point that the Democratic Party is still the better way to go, which makes sense. I would agree that the media has been a little more favorable to the Republicans only on the bases that because the Republicans have been having some success in the polling’s so far, the media is kind of portraying them as the “underdogs” coming back to win the House. Whenever people don’t really know who to vote for in a baseball game, for example, they usually lean towards the “underdogs” just to try and go against the odds to win, spite the odds. The media is kind of showing the republicans in the same light. I believe that if the Democrats were handily winning the house and senate that the media would be showing them in a much more positive light and then the Republicans would be complaining. You’re only happy when your side is winning. It is either, good when you’re winning or bad when you’re losing, no middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  20. After watching the Fox Videos, it was evident that they were trying to showcase that the Liberals were going against the liberals. That the Democrats are going against each other over politics that they should be agreeing on. Based on the charges made against Mr. Roves, I believe that he made a very good counter argument by showing with great detail that the democrats had no facts to back up their claims that they made against him. He clearly showed that, from his point of view, that the democrats were somewhat struggling to find something to get voters to come back to the democratic side. Mr. Rove plainly stated that the American public can’t be that stupid to see that the Democratic struggle to regain power was only by pointing fingers at the republicans, almost like a child would “tattle tale” and point fingers at his brother, but have no way to prove what they said was true. In terms of Mr. Goldberg’s comments on the media’s treatment of president Obama and the Democrats, it really just comes down to support. He talks a lot about this “magic” that Obama once had and how the next election is not going to be about the “magic” anymore. But in reality, it’s all about what President Obama does in office. Before Obama was elected, people had no idea of what the future had to hold and the way things turned out the way they did, Obama was elected. He has been in office now for a while and his support has been dwindling, so obviously the media is going to comment on this fact and expand on what they want about it and proclaim all of their ideas of why it is happening, but it really is from Obama not doing what the majority of people in the country want him to be doing, or he is not doing it fast enough. Since Obama is from the Democratic Party, the rest of the party is going to take a hit because if the President is looking bad then usually the party he comes from is also going to look bad since they hold the same ideas. The media is only commenting on the obvious that is happing in politics. The president is doing what he thinks is best for the nation and the people can say and think what they want. If they don’t like it, then come next election, make a change.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I would have to agree with DJ about Rachel Maddow's video. She does a lot of talking about how the Republicans are doing this and doing that to take advantage of the media, but how can they be when, as DJ said, " MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. and their clearly liberal fiscal agendas" are protraying the Democrats in the lime light. It doesnt make sense. She is obviously just countering her own point. Isnt she now just creating more spin for the Republicans?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Both the articles were a bit challenging to fully comprehend in terms of which side was truly better. But I am leaning more with the conservative side. The statistics in their article convinced me that it was harder to refute their position. However, the liberal argument about how what kind of stories bring back the most revenue makes sense. Overall, the bias exists in the media.

    Ms. Maddow was just fun to watch. She poked fun of the Republicans, which clearly displays how the media has a strong bias. Her argument was hard to follow at first, but over and over again she displayed compelling evidence. One in particular was the adding 3 trillion to the deficit. I feel that the media is tied in with the Republicans on some issues.

    Rove was a bit extreme in his response, calling the American people stupid. However, I agree with him that people should not be focusing on the scandals without any real evidence. Goldberg said that the people are the media's customers. If the people do not feel that "magic" towards Obama like they had, the news portrays mostly negative issues towards Obama to keep in line with the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Astrid on the issue about Maddow. I wondered myself if the the media is really put out the way she says it is. When I watch the news, I will look out for these types on maneuvers. I also agree with Andrew when he said he was sure that the same thing is going on with Democrats. I find it hard to believe that Republicans are the only party to have some negative feedback on them. I feel that Maddow's opinions are more biased toward Democratic and liberal viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I feel that the Conservative Position: The Media’s Liberal Bias was more convincing. As the years go on the more liberal the media is on issues and makes the Conservatives seem like criminals and outrageous. Like the article stated about the men and women who support the second amendment and the news stories on faith. I see these examples in the news all the time. I feel now the media undercuts family, faith and values a lot, everything in that respect has switched to liberal. I agree with both articles when they say the media isn’t fair and balanced because it switches with popular opinion and is biased by the individual reporters and their reviews.
    The media has been no more favorable to the Republicans in this election season than they were to the Democrats in the last election season. The media has realized they get better ratings if they tell people what they want to hear.
    The chargers are unfounded and not based on any factual evidence, Mr. Rove’s response was logical and dealt with actual hard evidence of Obama’s political record.
    Mr. Goldberg’s comment show that the pulse of popular opinion is swaying away from the Democrats and in order for the media to maintain a balanced view they need to start asking the democrats the difficult questions and be responsible for the results of their policies. His take on the situation makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with Sadie and her view on the conservative position being effective. I felt the examples they used were quite effective. I also agree with it being difficult to agree with Rachel Maddow because she kept changing topics and I did not get how abortion had anything to do with Big Government. I disagree that the media has helped Republicans during this election season because so much of the media calls down Republicans and forces majorly liberal views. I feel that what sadie said about Rachel Maddow’s examples like the Obamacare, Big Gov’t, Stimulus, and deficit were all good examples. But I think they were all good examples of Republicans thoughts and why they are getting lots of votes, since that is exactly what is happening.
    I felt that Mr. Rove’s had a good response to the attack and was quite logical.
    I also agreed with Sadie on how Goldberg’s comments were all valid and how he discussed how the people are the media’s customers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In the reading of Media Bias papers, I felt that both brought up good points in defending themselves and accusing the other side which is a start in proving their on biases. However, in my opinion, the conservatives had more valid points and proof than the liberal side did. The conservative side had more recent data from polls taken in 1992 up until 2002 where as the conservative side had data dating back to the 1930’s. One example I liked from the conservative side was in 1992 Clinton received 89% of reporter’s vote in Washington but as a total public vote he only received 43%. Also, in the second pro- democrat paper their first argument admitted that the majority of reporters and news stations were liberal but said that the majority of newspaper publishers were conservatives. It is a commonly known problem that newspapers are dying out and the internet and TV are becoming more and more dominant so I don’t see this as a solid argument. Although I do believe there is honesty in big corporations paying for pro-conservative coverage, I’m sure there is plenty of proof that this happens. From what I personally see today though, is more of a liberal coverage. All I have seen especially in the last presidential election was bashing of the Republican side (Bush) and very much pro- Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I agree with Kaitlyn that Rachel brought up good points but their will be other democrats and republicans that will be equally as convincing because they are (have to be) bias towards their side. I feel like in the Rachel Maddow show Rachel brought up a convincing point where the media ( newspapers) seem to be matching up with Republican campaigns pretty well and she showed many examples. But then in the Fox news clip, Hannity shows how the democrats are being vicious in their campaigns as well. It just goes to show that both sides will always be pointing fingers at one another but will never be fully clean themselves. Politics an politicians will never be completely innocent and their will always be a bias; it just depends what side your on and what bias you will see.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I would agree with Dj that they should distinguish between news reals and talk shows. The talk shows are usually bias while the actual news will be bias only sometimes. I also think Hans had a strong point in saying both sides were fairly even on their presentations. It is also appareant to me, as pointed out by Hans, that the attack highlighted in the Fox news done by the liberals had very minimal facts and support for their statements.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with Kaitlyn and anyone else who has said that the media has to somewhat turn away from supporting President Obama, because the general public is over the excitement, and it would only make sense that the media try to represent the views of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I feel that between the two articles, the conservative one had better points and more evidence to back them up. Alot of the facts, are very specific and contain hard facts. The liberal point of view seems to have a lot of information with no numbers to back them up. I agree that the media is more bias towards liberals because alot of the liberals today, are of the younger ages. These young adults watch alot of TV so it makes it easier for the Democratic candidate to have a lot of coverage on the TV. But I can also see why the Liberals see the newspaper to be more of a conservative or Democratic thing. This is because there are alot more older people that read the newspaper than watch TV. The older people are also more likely to vote to keep how they are living the same rather than to change it. Both of these articles have valid ideas, it is just that together they would have taken stuff equally from one another. The Republicans dominate the newspapers and the Democrats dominate the TV.
    I disagree with Maddow's ideas because I believe that she is only presiding one point of the arguement. There are definently an equal amount of political videos on the TV that favor both Republicans and Democrats. She wants the people to think that Repbulicans are dominating everything, but they are truly not. In the last few weeks, for the upcomming elections in November, I have heard and seen more Jerry Brown commercials than Meg Whitman one's. They are both powerful in dertermining how the person is going to vote and I stand by my opinion of them being the same if not a little more liberal. I also think that it might have to do with the state that you live in. For example California is more liberal, so I think they would so some more liberal advertisements than conservative.
    Finally I agree with the FOX news people saying that Obama's popularity has gone down from when he was first elected into office. I feel that this is common for alot of people because they have such strong intensity after winning that they do alot at first. When they start to settle in less and less starts to go down. I also believe the media is not gloryfying Obama anymore. In the beginning of his term I saw alot of coverage on the news and no i dont see it as much. There is starting to be more and more negative stuff about Obama and I feel that it is a regular trend for the Presidents.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree with the Conservative point of view—that there is an obvious liberal bias in the media—for a number of reasons. First of all, it has been proven that most journalists are, in fact, Democrats. So, the way they present their reports naturally put down Republican candidates’ ideas. Regarding the gun control issue, these reporters refer to Republicans as “gun nuts,” a clear extreme. They care more about exploiting Republicans than building up their own party. Furthermore, they highlight Republican business and values as corrupt (ex. Corps. criticized for “making money”) rather than even mentioning liberal gov’t regulations. Lastly, many view FOX news as Conservative, though it is the closest thing to “fair and balanced” coverage; this is due to the fact that the majority of other news stations are liberal-dominated.
    Although I lean more toward Conservative ideals, I found Rachel Maddow’s points extremely convincing. She ranted about how the media is being used to the Republicans’ favor in that it presents their overall ideas without explaining them thoroughly. Maddow believes that hidden behind these repeated slogans, such as “it’s the deficit,” “reject Big gov’t,” and “oppose Obamacare,” is confusion, contradiction, and lies. The media’s publicizing of these recurring themes that don’t necessarily apply to this election may lead to incompetent gov’t officials.
    After watching the short clip made by the DNC that attacked Republicans, and listening to Rove (a target) and Hannity discuss it, I agree with them—the video was a new “mudslinging low” and “long term distraction.” There is no proof for these charges (secret activity, foreign money use etc.) and it is obvious that the DNC is only reacting to the Republican lead in the election. And I agree with Mr. Goldberg’s comments on public view of Obama: he has lost his luster due to the failing economy and debt. He pointed out that the left-wing media is now somewhat against Obama. If Goldberg is right, we might see a more mainstream media in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree with Tyler about the Rachel Maddow show. Maddow went on and on about how the Republicans are dominating the media, but did not once mention specifically her party’s propositions. With the election coming up and political announcements about Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman filling up T.V. commercial slots, I see just about equal representation of both parties. Granted, California is more liberal, so there are few more liberal advertisements than conservative ones—but not so many as to unfairly influence the election.

    ReplyDelete
  33. In terms of the reading,I would have to agree with one thing that the conservative argument said and it was that if the media covers something in a conservative point of view, then people are going to see the news in a conservative slant. But if this were true with conservative media then it would have to be true with liberal media as well. It seems as though the two sides are complaining about nothing. If each claims that the conservative or the liberal side is getting more coverage then they both must be getting about the same amount of coverage.

    In the Rachel Maddow show i found it amusing how the Republicans were doing the opposite in their actions after they stated something else. The media may have had more Republican coverage, but it did not help their campaign because they seemed to not have any answers or be doing what they said they supported.

    In the Fox News videos Mr. Rove's response to the campaign that was run was not a real response to me. If there is nothing proving that the allegations against Republicans are true it is not okay to just say, well there isn't anything proving the allegations aren't true.

    I did not really agree with Mr. Goldberg's comment that he does not understand why the media would be supporting the losing team (the democrats and Obama). If a television station supported a democratic or republican view point to begin with I don't really understand why they would not keep that view point.

    ReplyDelete
  34. After watching the news for an extended period last night, I have changed my position on the articles. I think that there is an undeniable bias in the media that favors liberal ideologies. Even if the reporting itself is unbiased, the stories news corporations broadcast tend to portray liberals in a positive light while rarely portraying conservatives positively. I also agree that FOX News clearly has a conservative bias in almost all of their news stories. I, however, like to look at this as a business decision. Since the majority of news has a liberal slant, the laws of supply and demand would favor a conservative news station. It is therefore no surprise that FOX has the highest number of viewers out of cable news networks. The numerous liberal networks divide the liberal viewers among many station while FOX has the ability to consolidate a viewing base consisting of the majority of conservative news watchers. Ultimately, as a proponent of the free market, I do not mind news networks having a political slant. The people have the right to choose which news they would like to receive and which news networks they would like to watch. Yay democracy! I <3 capitalism!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I agree with what Cristina has to say about the news reporters. It is true that many of them are Democrats, so it is against their nature to agree with the extreme conservative ideas. They want their ideology to prevail so they put down conservation and lean towards a more liberal stand point. I also agree with Cristina when she says that FOX news is the last news network that is considered fair. Alot of the other networks are liberal and they show it. Even though FOX is a conservative network, it is not very common for them to be extreme. They are more to the left side of the right wing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I disagree with Gabby's response to Mr. Rove's comments defending himself against allegations about the "dobi"ous nature (hehe) of the campaign donations. The paraphrased quote she attributed to Karl Rove was actually spoken by David Axelrod. He was defending the ad not the object of the ad's attack.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I found both the articles convincing. Each one makes good arguments on why their ads and news are “unbalanced.” For example, the conservative position talks about how Fox news, which supposedly has ‘balanced news,’ covers only liberal ideals. However, most newspapers from 1932 to today support Republican politicians. It appears that they both are a part of unfair biases, but win in different areas. For the most part, I agreed with a lot of both articles.
    I found Rachel Maddow’s video interesting and bias. She obviously talked about her own side, but I don’t necessarily agree with everything she said. Her arguments aren’t very strong. She hasn’t been able to back up her arguments with any good sources or stats. She kept saying big government or obamaism or the deficit isn’t what’s going to happen in the upcoming election. She had proof, but it didn’t really support what she was saying. Also, if it wasn’t the deficit or big government, then what is it? She didn’t give an answer even though she kept rejecting the other answers. Overall, I don’t agree with her that the media has been more favorable to Republicans. And again with the Fox News videos, they were very biased, making their claims less strong. I thought Mr. Rove's response to the DNC ad was good, especially since the attack ad was sleazy and low. I agree with some of Mr. Goldberg's arguments. President Obama's popularity has gone down. Not just because he's president but because he hasn't helped the economy that much and people are starting to get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree with DJ Rez. It really doesn't matter whether news reporters or TV anchors are more biased towards democrats or republicans. We all are bias in reality. They have every right to talk about their opinions, even though it may not be fair and equal for the other side. Because of that unfair bias, politicians compete even harder to gain support and make the right choices. That's how capitalism's suppost to work.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In the reading, I thought both articles did a fairly good job of pointing out various biases in the media, but I think that the conservative point of view was stronger. They stated relevant statistics about the media that show how there is a liberal spin, such as the fact that in the 1992 election Clinton received the vote of 89% of Washington based reporters, compared to the 43% of the general public who voted for him. I also thought that their response to attacks on corporations for making money was humorous and proved that the media is a business, and businesses do what they can to make money and succeed, so how is that bad? In the article I felt that the liberal point of was trying to make excuses about how the media is of a conservative bias. They stated that publishers choose what to publish not journalists, so how could there be a liberal spin if most publishers are typically conservative? Well, if the majority of journalists are liberal, they will write more liberal pieces and the conservative publisher will have no choice but to publish them in order to keep their business running.


    I thought that The Rachel Maddow Show was a bit difficult to watch. It was annoying how far to the left she was that she couldn’t even concede any Republican arguments; it was her way or the high way. According to the articles that she found and the way she showed them on her show it clearly make it look as if Republicans are favored, but I’m positive that there are many other articles that are more pro-Democratic/liberal ideas, even though she failed to mention this is her show.

    I thought that Karl Rove’s responses to the attacks against him were mature compared to the people who attacked him nationally without solid evidence. He came prepared to his interview with statistics, solid evidence, and examples to support his responses. A clip showed the White House Advisor’s response to when he was asked if there was evidence to the claims made against Rove. The WH Advisor simply said, “do you have any evidence that it’s not”? I thought this was extremely immature and made him highly seem uneducated for someone of his position.

    I think I agree with Mr. Goldberg’s comments on the media’s treatment of Obama and the Democrats because it is true that since Obama’s rating has decreased, that probably means people don’t want to hear as much about him as they had before. People are now more focused on the facts and what is going on in our nation. They would rather hear about our economy rather than hear about Obama’s workout regime and how the sun glistens off his pectorals and he how he has a well-toned body because he played basketball. The news will stop reporting on that and focus more on what their consumers want.

    ReplyDelete
  40. After reading both of the articles I feel that the conservative one had more evidence while the liberal one had a bunch of information and nothing to back it up. So i find the conservative one more convincing. I disagree with the liberal reading when it says that conservatives get more media coverage then liberals. I also agree with the conservative reading when it says that television and journalism have to pay attention to who is advertising because advertisements make the most money.

    I did not agree with Rachel Maddows thought process because liberals and conservatives are both in the media saying there views and there isn't one group that has been in the media more than the other. Even though i disagree with her, she does point out some of the more conservative ideologies such as the deficit, to much government and healthcare which have been all over the media for conservatives. But that doesn't mean liberals aren't in the media talking about there ideas and how they are going to help.

    After watching the two Fox News Videos I would have to agree with there comments about the medias treatment of President Obama. Since Obama has been elected President his popularity has gone from being extremely high to low which I have found to be very common among Presidents. For example most people felt strong for President Bush in the beginning of his first term but by the end of his Presidency he had a lot of negatives because of the media. So I would agree with Mr. Goldbergs comments because every president is liked and disliked by the people and I feel that there are now more negative comments about Obama then there are positive ones.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Its very hard to pick one side that i agree with more beacause both sides are so bias that they only present facts in favor of their side. because of this it makes it very hard to know which "facts" are a hundred percent truthful and help present an argument that is right. i definately here from people that the media is more liberal so in that sense i probably would side with the conservative side of these just from what ive heard from unbias opinions. one argument i found very interesting was the very first one in the conservative article, that fox is portrayed as super conservative because they present an unbias side and in comparison to the very liberal media all over they look conservative who say they are "unbias".

    in the rachel maddow i didnt really agree with her. mostly because she was so bias and so liber al she just spent most of the time talking about how bad the other side was. she didnt really present how to make things better for america as a whole but just how to make things better for liberals.

    in sean hannity's i really liked how he didnt spend the whole time talking about how republicans are the best and democrats suck. he spent the whole time talking about how the democrats created an ad that wasnt fully truthfull. he is somewhat bias for conservatives but not as over the top as the liberal media, he simply showed a commercial and gave the group it attacked a chance to defend themselves and say that its untruthfull and how the people who made it dont have any proof supporting it.

    i thought that if you wanted to call this part of the o'reilley show bias then it would have to be in favor of the democra. goldberg spent the whole time talking about how the american people dont support obama anymore, and it seemed like o'reilley was defending him, which would go agianst what people say about how fox is bias in favor of conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think both the articles are biased toward their sides. i think that any biased media must be looked at with extra caution because you are only seeing one side of the story and the media can easily spin any story the way the want. I think the Maddow video was very redundant and her constant criticism made her less believable to me. I also see that she is a very convincing person and someone who watches her videos often would be swayed toward her views. The fox video was also biased but not as biased as the Maddow video. Fox video was more watchable to me but not as convincing. Rove's response was in my opinion very fair compared to his attackers. Rove remained an adult while his attackers acted childish. I agree with Goldberg's opinion on the media's recent treatment of Obama. Since Obama's approval rating has steadily dropped the more intelligent American will stop focusing on his personal life and focus more on matters that actually matter in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I agree with Alix when she said that she feels like "the media undercuts family, faith and values". I think this is pretty true now days becuase we automatically regard those those things as discriminatory or even as "brainwashing" if we see them on TV or in the newspaper. And because of that I agree with her also when she said that the media is very liberal now in regards to those aspects. Also, I think that she's right when she points out that switches in biases within the media come from the popular opinion at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I also agree with Christina when see says that most reporters are democrats so it would make since that they would want to spin the news there way and report on the left side of things. I also agree with Tyler Smith in saying that the media has finally stopped glorifying Obama. I agree its a great accomplishment for the country who once had slaves to now have a black president, but if we are truly trying to eliminate racism i think we should have treated Obama like any other president and all the media about his race and why this election was so revolutionary shouldn't have been aired on the fact that Obama isn't white. I think it took the loss of support of Obama to bring the American people back to the reality that Obama is like any other president and he messes up and making stories about his ipod playlist isnt an important issue for this country.

    ReplyDelete
  45. In the reading I felt as though both sides had convincing arguments. To say one side has a better argument than another would only further the bias.Both sides supported their stance with a significant amount of evidence in past news stories. On the coservative side I agree with the fact that most people in the field of journalism tend to lean more on the liberal spectrum. But, I disagree with the fact that the news focuses on the negative side of conservatism. It is true that the news focuses mainly on negative events such as that of the Catholic Church, this is also true in the local evening news. You rarely hear of a any good events, living in such a chaotic world it is no wonder people focus more on the negative. On the democratic side I feel as though they should have used more evidence to support their case. But, I agree with the fact that is republicans who own the news corporations

    After watching the Rachael Maddows show clip it is hard not to see the media taking a more conservative view. But, the show is also very one sided. She does not show the liberal leanings in the media. But, she does have a solid amount of evidence backing up her arument.

    After watching both of the Fox News clips I also see how the media has taken a liberal stance in the election as well. But, similar to Rachael Maddow they do not show the conservative leanings within the media. Mr. Rove seemed extremely put-off by the negative add campaign. He even goes as far as to blame washington for the add.I sort of agree with Mr. Golberges views on the medias treatment of Obama. It is true that some of the American people have not been agreeing with some of Obama's policy's and this is why the media is being more critical. But, the fact that a lieberal network such as msnbc still recieves a lot of viewers proves that not all of the American people are fed up with Obama. Which in turn proves that not all networks are becoming critical.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree with Olivia's post. In the reading it is almost impossible to choose a certain side. The previous people who have chosen a side have done so based off of their own personal biases and not on the contents of the actual arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The reading presented both sides of the argument, one side claiming the other received more media coverage than the other in both cases. How can both sides be getting more of a bias than the other? This question makes me think that one of the sides isn't exactly factual. They do differ in how they present themselves, though; the conservatives claimed that news reporters and such were a majority liberal, and the liberals claimed that the publishers of those news networks were conservative. I thought the conservative side was more believable, only because they provided convincing statistics, though. I didn't find either of them to be particularly convincing. The Maddows clip really gave a good idea of how republicans are taking over the media coverage and the way that they'll most likely take many seats in the House. She made a lot of good points about how the republicans are going to take the House, but all of the tax increases and liberal actions coming from those republicans, it's hard to believe that it truly will be a conservative House. I definitely thought that Rove's arguments were much more convincing than his opposition. "The White House had no proof on this charge." That statement pretty much says it all; Rove's opposition really has no solidified claims of anything. When the White House was asked about it, all they had to say was, "Do you have any evidence that it's not?" I thought Rove handled the problem much better than his opposition. I agree with what Goldberg had to say because there is evidence to support it. No president is perfect, and ratings will rarely stay consistent and the same is true with Obama. Now that Obama's popular has dropped, the coverage his daily life and whatnot has too, which is completely understandable. ALthough all this is true, liberal networks still have a number of viewers, so Obama can't be that unpopular.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I agree with what tyler had to say in his post. Maddow really only showed one side of the issue, and I have also seen a fair amount of both senate candidates in the media. He also made a good point that Obama is definitely being portrayed in a more negative fashion than before, but I still don't think that he is as unpopular as everyone claims he is. He is still being covered, though not as much, but being the first African AMerican president and having to take over Bush's mess, it makes sense to me that the initial point of his presidency would gain the most coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I agree with Nate's post. Rachel Maddow was talking about how bad conservatives are and how amazing liberals are, which I don't believe is the best way to express your point. While the two Fox News videos took a different approach by addressing ideas and elaborating on certain ads created by democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I read about 6 or 7 people’s posts. I found lots of interesting and legitimate points in lots of people’s posts, so if I may be so bold, I’d like to respond to a variety of them rather than just one person. In response to Dobi the house elf’s comment about there being many conservative reporters out there, I’d refer back to the article with the statistic that showed an overwhelming majority of new reporters being liberal. I feel that such a staggering inequality inevitably creates an atmosphere where opinions, interpretations, and even details so minute as word choice are more often given in one way as opposed to another. If many more reporters are liberal, it wouldn’t be too difficult to say that more reports are presented with a liberal interpretation.
    In response to Olivia’s comment about an overwhelming majority of conservative ads on TV, I would have to point out that this isn’t exactly a new story. Historically, though with some exception, the Republican party has had more money to spend on advertizing than the Democratic party. So it makes sense that there are more conservative ads out there.
    I somewhat disagree with Aryan’s take on the Goldberg video. Though it’s true that the media is funded by the people, I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that nessecarily dictates what they put. What stories get put on the air are largely contingent on the “industry standard” of what constitutes as news. I’ve heard plenty of times people complain how poorly this standard picks its articles. Invariably, one finds that most stories aired on the news are negative. I heard an adage about journalism once “if it bleeds, it leads.” Does this content choice reflect what most of the American people view as important? I’d like to think not, but who knows? I can’t say I’ve met most of the American people :-)

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have to agree that the broadcast media is more liberal. Most talk shows present a liberal point of view and criticizes many conservatives. Still, most news sources try to eliminate bias by trying to mix liberal and conservative view points and there are many networks that are primarily conservative. Fox News is a famous conservative network that provide talk shows and news stories in a conservative point of view. MSNBC varies a little bit but it normally stays liberal. I agree with the fact that journalists sometimes get their POV into the news story but political media runs on talk shows that mainly go out and criticize the action of the government or certain public figures. In reality, talk shows would be boring if facts are stated without opinion, therefore the ratings would go down and as suggested by the second article, the media is now all about profit than informing the public.
    I agree with Ms. Maddow's point of view of how the media is helping spin the elections to favor the Republicans. The same is true of the Democrats. By airing Republican ads and repeatedly covering the Republican plan to win seats in Congress, the media is contributing in getting out Republican opinion. Even Ms. Maddow's show which criticizes these plans contribute in aiding the Republicans. Those who just see a snippet of it, especially when she's saying "The Republicans oppose Obamacare," contribute in getting numbers for the Republicans. Obviously, if the whole clip was viewed, it would help the Democrats by informing the public of the stupid reasons that the Republicans are using to shut down Democrats and build themselves up. So I acknowledge her POV about media contributing with the elections because thats what free media does.
    I think the FOX News media handled the situation well although it is still in a conservative setting. The hosts pushed for a way to criticize liberals but besides that, I agree with Mr. Rove's response. The DNC had no right to accuse him of being unpatriotic, being an abusive, careless, ruthless criminal when they had no facts or evidence backing their claims. As for the Left-Wing Media turning against liberals, I agree with Mr. Goldberg's take on it, like the second article in the assignment stated, news media succumbs to ratings and if Obama's approval ratings are down, then of course the media would try to at least address the negatives within the Democratic party's policies, statements and other things but since the network is primarily liberal, it would still show news reports in a liberal setting.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I did not find one side more convincing then the other, because I think that there is equall ammounts of bias on both sides. It all comes down to what you watch on TV or listen to on the radio.
    I thought that Rachel Maddow only showed intrest in one or two issues, and I didn't think that she did a very good job supporting her points. I found myself more or less spacing out because she was beating a dead horse more then once and not making any very good points.
    I thought the same about the O'Reilly Show and about the Hannity Shows coverage. They didn't make any other points other than the main thing that they were talking about at the beginning of the interview and just repeated what they had said already only worded differently.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I thought the conservative position of liberal bias was the best convincing due to the information constantly on why there are more liberal based media. The liberal position seemed to talk about too much stuff that had nothing to do with conservative media bias. Also the conservative position gave more statistics making it more logical to understand what they were talking about.

    Some of the things I agreed with were that more liberal news is broadcasted on the news than conservative and most reporters seem to be more liberal than conservative majority of the time. To me this is true because I watch the news for a good amount of time daily and seem to recognize it now more profoundly. A good example in this article as well stated that the news wouldn’t really cover a doctor who has a 9mm gun to protect his family but would cover the survivalist. Didn’t really disagree with too much information, but felt that the conservative viewpoint was more convincing.

    To the Rachel Maddow, I thought it was pretty entertaining, but was too fast for me to fully comprehend everything. I sort of believe what she was trying to put out there, but don’t think her supporting evidence is extremely strong.

    To the Fox News Clips, those videos seemed to be strongly supported by other live evidence and pretty interesting to know about. I thought Rove's response was influential due to the statistics and points of view he was coming from with that ad. Mr. Goldberg’s clip though caught my attention greatly and I strongly support that the media is still on the same side as Obama instead of against him. Reason forth is due to the fact that Goldberg is right about the “slobbering” being over. Obama is not loved or famed as much as he use to be and this shows that the media isn’t putting out his unfavorable stories/actions, but is still showing his positive doings to help him out.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I agree with Mr. David Visser's analysis. With all the media, there are many biases and how these biases shape a viewer's political view depends on how educated the viewer is about the topic and the type of meduim of media they use to gather information. It also depends on their preferred shows, if a person only watches a liberal network, that person would most likely have a liberal view on politics because they haven't seen the conservative side of the story.
    Also, I agree with Christina's statement of how the free media could lead voters to vote for incompetent government officials. Even though Ms. Maddows tried to slam the media for publicizing the claims of Republicans, she is also doing it and its a little bit hypocritical which I think also goes along with Mia's point of how Ms. Maddows criticizes yet doesn't give her opinion in the end or a definite answer to the question of what determines the election.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Each network station will have its own political bias. It is natural and inevitable. This is a truly sad statement about our social behavior when it comes to politics in the media. I agree with Maddow (for perhaps the first time) when she states that conservative networks are openly supporting the conservative candidates. However, the reality is that CNN and other more liberal minded networks do the same for liberal candidates. It was true in the the 2008 election. The democratic analysts on election night out numbered republican analysts by at margin of at least 4:1. I think that bias in network news is actually a good thing, (Stay with me on this one Silvy). At least the American people know what they are getting when they tune in. When you watch CNN prepare to get a barrage of pro choice/gay rights/ and social reform ideological perspectives. If this is your cup of tea, then you have a station that strengthens your ideas and helps you build upon the political knowledge you already have. If you find yourself in opposition to these ideas, don't complain, don't fight with your tv. Simply find a station that is better suited to your political needs. Not every American falls into a perfect, bias free system. That is the American way.

    ReplyDelete
  57. After the reading, I can conclude that both sides of the issue were extremely one-sided. I don't think that I can choose which one is right, but each side had very accurate opinions about the other side. The conservative position was backed up by good evidence about the claim that Democrats receive more airtime and more positive coverage on the evening news than Republicans. They use statistics and examples to prove their point. The liberal position uses very good examples of how conservatives have a bias in the media and that conservatives dominate the AM talk radio media, print journalism, and television. Each position had very good arguments, and none were any that I disagreed with.

    I thought that the Rachel Maddow show was very entertaining. She came across as very "in your face" and she emphasized her points by using repetitive phrases. Of course, she is very liberal and has a one-sided opinion, but I agreed with some of her ideas, but disagreed with the others. She did not look at the entire issue of the topics that she discussed, and there was another side to the story. She did have very extreme views, but there was some truth in her words. For example, conservatives focus on a big issue and blame it for all of the country's problems, when that is actually not the issue that is effecting us. So, I agree and disagree with Maddow, but I don't think that I can form an opinion from just watching her show.

    I thought that the two Fox News videos had good arguments and defenses, and they were not as extreme as Maddow.

    I thought that Mr. Rove's response to the charges was filled with outrage, and I also thought that he thought that the accusations were so outrageous that he thought they were humorous. I think that he has a right to feel this way because he is being targeted directly as being a "stealer of democracy". Also, he thought it was ridiculous about the claims of foreign money being used in campaigns. I think that he was right because there was no hard evidence that either of these issues ever occurred. But, I think that he was bias about Obama and his campaign.

    I disagree with some of Mr. Goldberg's comments because he says that the news is still glorifying him even though his ratings have declined increasingly. From what I have seen, I think that Obama has been bashed several times in the news recently, and most people disagree with the way that he is handling things. However, I agree that Obama's popularity is decreasing because he is not as new and a symbol of change and hope as he once was in the beginning of his campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  58. To Emily Bodkin's article... I agree that the Rachel Maddow show was difficult to watch as well due to the fact that she was so "leftist". She couldn't give one argument on the Republican side and basically presented that the democrat/liberal side would decline in candidates due to the stupidity of americans.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I agree with Micheal's opinion about the videos. I think that I felt the same way about the videos has he did. He agreed with some of the points in the videos and disagreed with others, but he overall did not approve of the interpretations that were represented in them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I thought it was a little difficult to choose which article was more convincing fairly because I am more bias towards one side than the other. So therefore, I found the Conservative point of view to be much more convincing because it provided many strong examples to support their claim. For example, the Democrats receive more air time and the majority of the journalist media hold liberal views. I felt that the Democrat article, on the other hand, provided poor arguments that showed that the Democrats have little evidence to prove their point. I also think that just from watching the news and TV, the media does tend to display more positive aspects of the Democratic party and negative aspects of the Republican party.

    Overall, I did not agree with Rachel Maddow. I thought some of her comments on the Republican platform were valid; however, I did not feel she gave a strong argument to support her claim that the media is favoring or siding with the Republicans. I think the media is just telling the public that the Republican ideas on these issues might cause them to win the elections. I also feel like she spent all her time bashing the Republicans instead of comparing them with her Democratic ideas, to show why her views are better.

    I thought that Mr. Rove handled the situation well. He could have lashed out at the Democrat party, with accusations, but instead he gave examples of how the Democrats had no evidence to back up their claims. I thought that the video made the Democrats look a little ridiculous because they could not support it. I agree with Mr. Hannity in that it was unusual and odd for such a strong democrat to attack another democrat and I also agree that Obama's popularity has decreased. Maybe this decrease in popularity has caused friction between some members of the Democratic party. I also found Mr. Goldberg's comment about hurricane Katrina and the oil spill to be interesting because it reinforces the idea that the media favors the Democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I agree with David that all media, regardless of how objective it tries to be, will have some kind of bias. I think it's like every other thing that has the opportunity to have cycles - one side goes up, then is balanced out by the other. If there was always always always a majority of one party, there would be no point in putting out all these ads to oppose the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree with Hans Henken that in some ways the media is showing more favor towards the Republicans now because the country is starting to lean more in that direction. At the beginning of Obama's presidency the country was more Democratic, but now because of the still weakening economy and other factors, the country is turning toward the other side-Republicans. I also agree that the Republicans were the underdogs because the Democrats had such a high majority at the beginning of Obama's presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  63. In response to Dobi The House Elf

    I think that Rachel Maddow is very wrong in her assumptions.

    I disagree with this statement. Maddow did a good job articulating the negative affect that conservative advertising on networks such as Fox News has on voters. We have been learning about buying airtime for commercials. Republican candidates are receiving free media from these networks.

    You go on to say, "she herself is in the media and there are many others like her."

    I agree with this statement. Maddow is not without her bias. She is liberal, a woman, older, and openly gay. All of these add to her political bias, and a bias that she is likely to pass on to voters.

    Finally, you say,"the public is capable of making its own decision."

    This is true, it is the American way, it is democracy in a nutshell. However, the real core topic is not whether or not voters can make up their own mind. It is whether they are influenced by the media. Maddow is simply pointing out that conservative media is campaigning for Republican candidates in a a nearly open manner. When Americans go to the polls, do they really vote for what they believe in? I seriously hope that most Americans can make decisions INDEPENDENT of outside sources, but I doubt this is always the case, and that, my friends, is a serious problem.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I found that the first article about the conservative position was much more convincing than the liberal. The article places solid facts and current ones where as the liberal point of view talks about things that happened in the 1930s. As for the liberal article that states “During the entire period from 1932 to 200, there was not a single election in which a majority of newspapers endorsed the Democrat”, I would beg to differ. Maybe not then, but definitely now; in this 2010 election, almost of all of the Southern California newspapers are endorsing Jerry Brown, a Democrat. As for the conservative article, I thought that they had expressed their ideas very well. They had straight facts from elections and percentages. As for news studios, pretty much all news studios except FOX are conservative, so that argument that the liberals made is not too grand.
    I didn’t really enjoy the Rachel Maddow video because she was clearly liberal in all of her views. She somewhat creates humor as she attacks the Republicans, but after all of that, she makes a good point. Republicans want to use trillions of dollars to reinstate the Bush tax cuts, when all along they have been fighting to end government spending. In the end of the clip, she made her views extremely clear as she says something like we are giving our government away to the most extreme conservatives and they are going to destroy the government… hmm…
    I felt like the Fox videos were also clearly conservative, but it was less shown than Rachel Maddow. In Hannity’s he just talks about the Democratic ad went too far with comparing Karl Rove to a robber in the Democratic ad. But I think he took it fairly well. The attacks on Obama, I would say are fairly true. When he first came into office Obama had every high ratings, because people were looking for change. People were looking for immediate change in our country, and that is not going to happen. The economy is something that needs to be fixed over time.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I felt that the conservative point-of-view was more powerful than the liberal point-of-view. It was more convincing because it did accurately portray the media than the liberal point-of-view did. While they did describe the media more accurately when it came to the m describing the news as being liberal because they dont mention the doctor with the gun but the crazy "gun nuts", the media would more likely show the "gun nut" because it is a more exciting story rather than a ordinary doctor with a gun. I agree with the statement about accusing big buisness to be bad, they fail to mention that the same big buisness that might be the one giving them jobs, or money through the taxes they pay. I disagree with the liberal point-of-view argument thatconservative buisness owners have control over the media through advertisement. I'm sure that advertising is a huge market, but the money comes from MULTIPLE advertising companies so to say that since a perhaps conservative headed company is controlling a media network just because they are buying ads from them is absurd.
    I thought Rachel Maddow seemed way too liberal and snobby.I disagree with her overall standpoint of the media's conservative bias.First, is like Mr. Silverman said that she is a liberal on a network advocating for liberals. Second, in all of the ads she showed, she did not once show an actual news media in support or having a conservative bias.And the one that she did show was of Fox questioning Fiorina (a republican) with a liberal bias.
    Mr. Rove's response was very professional even with the ridiculous claims made in the DNC ad. I believe he was right, it seems with the lack of skeletons in Mr. Roves closet they decided to make up claims, and put more ridiculous argument like "stealing democracy". It was all "peanuts".
    In Mr. Goldberg's argument about Obama, I found it intresting that they used the scheneder(?) interview which was just him grilling a liberal democrat candidate with weak answers.Howver, I did with his analogy to customers. Why would media show a person whom the public did not like if it was going to bring their ratings down even if it was a fellow liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I fail to see how either argument in the reading is convincing at all. Yes I absolutely agree with the fact that different news orginazations carry different general ideolodies which are derived from their own caricatures, i.e) Bill O'Reily and Rachael Maddow. The conservative argument shows statistics that journalists vote considerably towards the left, and the liberal argument shows that editors lean towards the right. I agree with neither for the reason that "mainstream media" is an ambiguous term and no collection of media outlets represent the mainstream. News organizations may be corperstions, but not every corperation is conservative, although it is absolutely true that news organizations hold their sponsors near and dear.

    While watching Ms. Maddow's show a few things struck me immediately, but I dismissed them because I expected her to eventually concede why Republicans were poised to retake at least the House. At the end of the show after waiting for this revalation, I was dissapointed that she was willing to give absolutely no validity to any of her arguments, and could provide no reasoning to why Republicans were winning. So, this led me to a few conclusions. First, it is easy for me to question Ms. Maddow's claims because it seems highly unlikely that one day,unbeknownst to her, she became a member of the media. She obviously has somewhat of an ego, which would usually come from the fact that people watch her show. So that confused me. Secondly, like I said, she could come up with no reasons to why Republicans were gaining seats. So either Republicans are lucky, or we just have an unintelligent group of citizens who cannot resist the evil plan set forth by those mischevious G.O.P. members.

    After seeing the Karl Rove interview, i came up with a few other points as well. He is absolutely right that President Obama recieved numerous donations from unnamed donors. But his view on democrats in general may be skewed slightly as it's not as if the dems are trying to buy elections by giving out huge sums of money. Also, I believe that it is a necessary component of the election process (it being the ability to donate anonymously). I am all for protecting individuals from scrutiny among peers or others, and i do not believe that there should be a huge public list of every donor for every campaign. Also, the interview shows that we the voters deserve a pat on the back as we voted in a president with a handfgul of political savvy, as he has been able to sidestep the negativity directed towards big government/spending, as it has fallen on those in congress.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I found the conservative side more convincing because I thought the argument about the political bias of journalists overwhelmingly convincing. Nobody can ever be truly objective,even people paid to be objective, so it is inevitable for journalists to sometimes, if not often, write with a bias toward the liberal side. However, I also agree with the liberal writer's point about how the news industry is a business, and most big businesses thrive with more conservative regulations. It is in their interest to appeal to other companies to get money for advertising and whatnot.
    Besides wanting to smack Ms. Maddow in the face because her voice is so annoying, I think she made some good points. However, overall I don't think she proved anything besides the media is projecting Republicans to pick up seats in this election. Even if the Republican candidates are saying two different things, they are mostly appealing to people by saying they will do things that will fix current problems.
    I thought the two news shows were informative but clearly very biased. I think that sometimes the bias was so strong it might drive people away, because they make it sound like an attack, which is exactly what they are scolding. However, I think that the ad criticizing and accusing Mr. Rove is completely absurd and without factual evidence, it makes the Democrats look worse than who they are trying to criticize. I thought Mr. Rove's response to the attacks on him was good and easily disproved and counterattacked the makers of the ad. I agree with Mr. Goldberg's comments because it is true that the media is out to make money and now the good money is in bashing the President.

    ReplyDelete
  68. After finishing the reading, I feel that the Conservative and Liberal sides both had compelling points of view. In the Conservative point of view, it seems that the media insults elements of society that are most important for the nation to thrive both economically and politically. For the Liberal side, I feel that change by the media is inevitable and seems like common sense and pointing out that change time and time again does nothing. Also, complaining that one side gets more coverage than the other side media wise really equals out the argument. Therefore there is equality both in conservative and liberal media. With the Maddow coverage, she is very outgoing and not afraid to speak her Liberal opinion. She emphasizes every wrong move Republicans have made. The problems with their candidates, the way they voice their opinions, the wrong that they stand for, etc with anything negative. But it also humors me how political speakers, never once mention the good the other side does, hoping that the negative will out way, or shadow in a way, the positive. She does make good points, but they are heavily one sided, and it is important remember that bias is present in every strongly opinioned contender. Rove’s coverage seemed justified and well supported when it came to the ‘Mudslinging Ad’. The whole commercial seemed like a desperate attempt to gain Republican voters and convince them to vote Democratic. ‘Mudslinging’ seems more and more common now a days because no one seems to know how to correcting support themselves and it is easier to put others down before, because they are not much better than their competitor for no one is perfect or without faults. I believe that the attacks on president Obama are legitimate. The general public has lost much belief and faith in Obama because many wanted quick relieve and fast answers to solve problems. And although the approval rate is down for Obama, I believe that people out there still have faith in Obama and his ideas. He might need more time, but how much more time are we willingly to give?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I agree with what Jack had to say about Ms. Maddow, and how she really didn't prove anything. she ranted and raved and pointed fingers and repeated herself but her point that the media is somehow supporting the Republican candidates was, to me, not proven. Moreover, I agree with his point that she is part of the media, and part of a large part of the media if that makes sense. In any case, she is doing exactly what she is criticizing, favoring one party over another.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I agree with Wright and his beliefs about the article. Both sides seemed one-sided and controvesial but only focused on the negative. Mudsliging Ads are far more common which is a shame because nothing positive or motivational is said within these ads. Saying what a competior cannot do, gives no reasons to vote for the candidate doing the mudslinging. I feel, saying accomplishments would be far more effective. The negative seem unlikely to produce positive effects.

    ReplyDelete
  71. In response to Haydens assesment of Dobi the House Elf: "Maddow did a good job articulating the negative affect that conservative advertising on networks such as Fox News has on voters." "Republican candidates are receiving free media from these networks"

    I fail to see where Maddow brought up any negative effects conservative advertising had on voters. She did have examples of conservative advertising and also blamed "the media" for supporting these ads. She showed a report from a genuine source RCP and a few other newspapers, but had nothing to say about the reports of fox news and it's affiliates. Like I said earlier, most of what she said was not backed by substantial evidence. Also I believe that it is arguable that Republican candidates get free media from the sources like fox. Seems to me that during her rant, Ms. Maddow is offering the most free media for the republicans. We learned about the fac that a last ditch effort for some candidates to gain ground in races is to shell out negative ads. Maybe this is exactly what Ms. Maddow is doing for the liberal candidates she supports. Whether or not it will benefit them is also arguable.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I agree with Kurt to an extent, there is good money in bashing the president now. However, he still has a very strong following and even though the honeymoon phase of his presidency is over, I think that some media outlets will continue to portray him in a good light.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I do understand what she is saying when she describes the things that republicans are doing to controdict what they say the foucus's of the elections are like it being about the stimulus abot big government or the deficit...etc. but it is also just her opinion on it, it seems as though she is just finding isolated incidents that do go against what they were saying but i do think that to an extent in other places it is not exactly as straight forward opposite of what they say everywhere.
    Well it is true that they did not really have any true tangible evidence of their accusations. i did think it was stupid how he called americans stupid for worrying about it. because it is the type of thing that the general public would be worried about if it was true and provable.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I agree with Tyler Smith’s opinions about Maddow’s show. The focus of her show was that Republicans are dominating the media and so they are predicted to win, but as Tyler says that’s not necessarily true. Like Tyler I’ve seen a lot more Jerry Brown than Meg Whitman ads recently. Commercials are very effective in informing the public and helping to influence their opinions, so in California for example, I would guess that since the majority of commercials are for Jerry Brown, a DEMOCRAT, not a REPUBLICAN, the media is actually favoring him and his democratic party, not republicans. Although that is only an example from California, it refutes Maddow’s claims that Republicans are completely dominating.

    ReplyDelete
  75. After reading both arguments about media bias, I actually found that neither was very effective. While the first point of view that focused on Liberal bias was explicit in describing statistics and a variety of arguments, I found that the criticisms presented were vague, unsupported, and sometimes unreasonable. For example, a statement such as “the media use their liberal spin to attack American business, American values, and Republican candidates and officials” seemed absurd to me. While yes, I would agree that liberal media may intend to put down Republican candidates, calling an attack on American values and business is unjustified. This assumes that American values are not supported by a liberal point of view, which cannot be true because there is an obvious percentage of American people who are Liberal. However, I also find that the second point of view that focused on Conservative Bias was no more or less effective. While the arguments were thoroughly explained, many seemed to me as “the pot calling the kettle black.” For example, this point of view first stated that the argument of liberal bias among reporters was unproven and did not have much of an impact, and then went on to blame editors of having a conservative tendency. To me, this seemed to simply be counterattacking the first point of view, and didn’t present any new insight or change my opinion at all. In fact, if both of these were true, it would appear as if the liberal reporter bias would balance out the conservative editor bias. The only arguments that really struck me as convincing were that money buys air-time, and ultimately the investments made will determine the bias. I think that bias will differ from program to program, but in my opinion, I don’t think media overall is dominated by any one point of view.

    In response to the Rachel Maddow video, I would agree that she made it seem as if the media was favoring Republicans, at least in Alaska. The claim that stuck out to me the most was about how Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Miller has made him famous, which will help him in the elections. However, I also believe that because the Republican party is split among candidates, the Democrats stand a fair chance.

    I thought that both Fox News clips had compelling arguments, but neither really changed my mind about how bias in the media is inevitable, but it really depends on the source and issues at hand. In regards to the Rove ad, I agree that it was an attack and unjustified. However, attacks like these are made all the time from both parties, and if anything, playing the ad on television even just to talk about how wrong it is, is giving free media to its producers. I thought that Mr. Goldberg’s comments on President Obama were insightful. However, the only concrete thing that really stuck with me was the economic strategy of criticizing or favoring a Republican point of view in the news. If a large percentage of Americans disagree with Obama and his policies, they are most likely to watch a news station that does not seem to support them either. I really just think that the bias depends on the situation and the resource.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Response to Kurt,

    I agree with what you said about how no one can be truly objective. and haha i wouldnt go as far as wanting to smack her but she did have a kind of annoying voice. and yea it was about a lot of people saying that they can fix everything when truly no one really does know who can fix what until they have all tried and one succeeds

    ReplyDelete
  77. After finishing the reading, I found it very hard to down play the fact stated in the conservative portion of the reading that many, if not most, journalists are more liberal than the "typical" American, therefore making their story inevitably biased. However, the liberal portion of the reading did point out many good arguments such as that new stations and media outlets are in essence a business and are inclined to side with those who provide them with any form of revenue, which according to the liberal positioned article are conservative businesses. In the end however, i found it hard to decide a clear-cut preference in my eyes so for me it's a draw until I'm addressed with further information.

    Regarding the fact that Ms. Maddow's show is obviously liberal and biased, from the information she provided I found it hard to not agree with her on the topic she was discussing. Again based solely on the information provided to me through her show, I do agree with her position about the media helping and favoring Republicans this election season.

    After viewing the interview with Mr. Rove, I believe that Mr. Rove was very professional with dealing with the accusations made against him by the DNC. He made a very good point that the DNC decided to air such an outlandish ad about Mr. Rove weeks before the elections in order to distract many voters from the issues at hand and preoccupy them with a false scandal. When it came to the interview with Mr. Goldberg"s I can't say that i agree completely because I really have no clue in whether what they had said was the complete truth but i can totally see scenario in which a network station that supported a candidate that won the election turn on that very same candidate in order to stay in accord with the feelings of that station's viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Overall, the conservative article presented its arguments in a more logical fashion. I agree with the conservative article in that there is definitely a liberal bias in the televised news, whether due to reporters and station owners, I do not know. However, the liberal side is correct in saying that big businesses pay for many ads to be run, so the question really becomes, which type of television time (news or advertising) has the greater effect on the public? The answer to that question should reveal which party television aids the most.
    Rachel Maddow’s video started out strong, but ended increasingly repetitively. The primary points she made were valid. For instance, by featuring the exact wording of the Republican’s ads in the news, they gain air time and are thus favored more than the Democrats. However, the Republicans are correct in that Obama is responsible for at least some of the nation’s problems, and therefore Maddow is incorrect when she states that the Republican arguments are basically unfounded.
    I think Mr. Rove responded quite well to the attack that was launched on him. Perhaps my favorite part of the video was when the Democratic representative was asked where the proof was that Republicans were using foreign money and he replied something to the extent of “there is no proof that it is not true”. On these grounds, virtually any argument could be made, and so Rove had an easier time defending himself. As to Mr. Goldberg, I believe he is correct in saying that Obama receives more good press than bad. However, although more good press than bad is received, the bad cannot be discounted because it has a powerful effect.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I agree with David Vissers' response to Kurt in the fact that some stations that romanticized about Obama have been bashing on him because there is money to be made in doing so and viewers and support to be gained as well. However, I believe Obama is handling the criticism very eloquently and in a professional manner

    ReplyDelete
  80. This was a very interesting article to read, and I hadn’t realized there was such a large issue on journalists being biased. I would have to say that the conservative side was more convincing to me. Both sides made valid arguments, but I thought the conservative side gave more actual evidence and statistics about the media being liberally biased because of the reporters being more liberal. The liberals thought the managers and owners were conservatives, making it more biased in their favor, but the reporters are who have more influence on the viewers anyway. One of the points that really stood out to me in the conservative side is when they talk about how corporations take certain actions in order to make money, and how yes, that’s the point of a corporation, so what’s the big problem?
    I thought that the Rachel Maddow show was pretty interesting to watch. It was sort of funny, and annoying at times, but I felt that she made some convincing arguments. I don’t know that I totally agree with all her arguments, because some of them were far-fetched, however she did convince me of some ways the media is favorable to Republicans. When she used evidence, such as a line from a newspaper followed by a republican ad or video clip saying the same thing, like in her first argument about ‘it’s the defecit’, I could see the point she was trying to make. I do agree that the media has helped the Republicans, but that’s just coming from the Maddow video, which was only her side (Democratic) of the issue.
    I think Mr. Rove is in the right to be pissed about the charges made against him in the DNC ad. I would be too if people said I was stealing democracy. He did a good job at pointing out flaws in the democrats as well, and that there isn’t any proof about some of the things he was charged with, such as the foreign money. I agree with Mr. Goldberg because I think he’s right about the media’s treatment of President Obama. It is true that Obama’s rating have declined, since the hype is over about him being a new president, and people are beginning to realize that not much has changed like he promised. The media uses this to make more money and talk badly about the President and democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Response to Amanda:
    I like how you pointed out that whichever type of television time has the greater effect on the public would reveal which party television aids the most. I agree with you on that question, and also know exactly what you mean about how the Maddow video started strong and ended repetitive. I liked the video at th beginning, but started getting very bored at the end, because I realized the points she was making over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  84. While reading the articles about bias in the media, I personally tried to be as unbiased and open minded as possibly, but in the end I still agreed with the conservative argument. I was swayed more by the conservative side because it used more concrete and provable numbers and facts than the liberal side did. Their use of percentages showing how democrats receive more press than republicans, as well as the percentage showing that the majority of newscasters are democrat really hit me more than the opinions that were not supported by facts used in the liberal argument. In mine as well as most people's opinions, Fox News is the Conservative News Station, and the rest (NBC, CNN, etc) lean more liberal. That's one station vs. the whole rest of news media, so I do not entirely understand how the liberal argument can state that conservative companies and conservative news programs control the media. I also feel like as stated in the conservative argument, republican candidates over the years are the butt of most jokes. Take SNL for example and the last two presidential elections. I can't count the number of times Bush, McCain, and Palin were made fun of, from Bush's large ears, and McCain's oldness, to Palin's speech about putting lipstick on a pig, Republican Candidates seem to be SNL's favorite thing to mimic and satirize, while I can only remember one or two SNL skits that attacked President Obama, and this skits were far more mild. Also I disagree with the liberal statement that Republican are more likely to be endorsed by newspapers. Think back to the 2008 election. How many times did you see Barack Obama on the front cover of a newspaper, or in an editorial, and how many times did you see John McCain. The fact is, Obama the democrat was in the newspapers way more than McCain the Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The one argument presented by the liberal side that I did agree with was that news is now entertainment. I love watching fights on Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren's shows because they become so heated, and outrageous, and the fights between the hosts and their guests are just so funny to watch. But that isn't the point of newscasts, they are supposed to be there to inform their viewers, and after watching those shows, I can tell you that I do not take very much information away from them because most of the show is taken up with the host constantly interrupting his or her guest and I’m more focused on the drama than the content.

    ReplyDelete
  86. In regards to the Rachel Maddow show, I was just simply annoyed. She drove me crazy. And although I agreed that the Republicans are getting more coverage during this year’s elections, I had different opinions as to why. Just like Obama received more coverage during the 2008 elections because he had "star power" and was so popular among the majority of voters, the same goes to these 2010 elections and the republicans gaining better coverage because in whole, they are leading the polls. I found it a little hypocritical that Rachel Maddow was contradicting the liberal viewpoint about biased news media, she is obviously a liberal democrat and yet she is bashing the Republicans on MSNBC, so not all news sources are promoting the Republicans, otherwise she wouldn't be on the show at all. She constantly and repeatedly kept on stating why the so called Republican promoting news stations believed the Republicans would win the elections, and then she would say how they are wrong. But it’s not only Republicans who have a problem with "big government", the "deficit", "obamacare", and the "stimulus" its Democrats too, so I don't understand how she can say that this new stations are only putting out the views of Republican voters when in actuality its Democratic voters as well who see problems in those previously quoted issues. Another point I'll make about Maddow's show is that she uses absolutely no facts, not one. It was all just her opinion. And it seems like she doesn't understand that she is part of this "media" she is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  87. In the Hannity clip, it is obvious that Hannity leans more conservative because he focuses on polls taken in states where the Republicans are challenging the Democrats and not the other way around, and he seems to agree with Rove, and offers his opinions and views quite often. And I also agreed with Rove's points that the only reason the Democrats are attacking the Republicans on where their money comes from whether it be from the US or foreign government with no factual basis, is because this is their last push to get votes since they are running out of time, and to distract people from focusing on the mistakes the Democrats have been making in office currently. I also agreed with Rove when he stated that Democrats are just being hypocrites because they do the exact same thing as Republicans by not releasing the info about their donors, but the Republicans just don’t call them out on it.
    In the O'Reilly clip I totally agreed with Goldberg. Obama is indeed losing his magic. His charisma and charm can only carry him so far, but as in any relationship, that fades away and the person's true character and mistakes will eventually surface. As time passes on, Obama is losing more and more support as proven by the majority of polls, so it is in the news stations best interest to just not talk about him as much because most of their views just don’t want to hear about him anymore, and those viewers are the stations "customers" so they must keep them happy. In my opinion, the news' decision to stop covering Obama in such detail is not a way to turn against him; they are just in it for the money.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I completely agree with Natalie, except on the point of the Maddow Show. Yes she was annoying haha, I agree on that aspect, but I do not find any of her arguments to be valid. I mean yes she used a clip from a newspaper and then found that same info from the newspaper in a republican ad, but what does that show? It just shows thats the news are showing what the Republicans are standing for in this election, whether that be against big government, obamacare, or anything else. I do not see how that can make a valid argument proving how the Republicans are gaining more coverage. And I mean I do not know this for sure, but I bet you some where there is a small sentence written or quote said from a news source that can be found somewhere in a Democratic ad. This isn't just a Republican matter. Maddows just won't point that out because it doesn't help her to trying to verify her opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I found the conservative side to the article, claiming that the media was biased towards liberals, more convincing because it seemed to be backed up with more concrete and understandable evidence than the other side to me. I agreed with the idea in the conservative side about how the reporters are biased toward liberals because it was backed up with polls of reporters versus those of the public. But, I did think that it was good to oppose that argument on the liberal side with the proposal that publishers are biased towards conservatives.

    I thought the Rachel Maddow video was fairly well done. She seemed to be presenting her ideas in a logical format seemed to always be proving her thesis. Indeed, she would constantly repeat herself to prove her point, just as I find myself doing when writing an essay. Overall, I would say that I partially agree with her points because she seemed to be able to back each one up with concrete and specific examples, but I could see there being counterarguments on the conservative side that she overlooked.

    I thought Rove’s response to the charges against him was justified because the ad did seem very stretched and didn’t have much evidence to back it up. It does seem, as Mr. Goldberg pointed out, that the media has treated Obama worse lately than they did immediately following his election. I have heard criticism and debate on Obama’s policy and performance that did not seem like it would ever come on the wake of his election.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I agree with Natalie that the media helps the Republicans coming from the Maddow video. In fact, I believe that evidence can be collected on either side (that the media is biased towards conservatives or liberals) but that that evidence is collected with a previous bias in mind. This immediately connects to my agreement with Hayden's comment that Americans should be able to make decisions on their own, which is 'doubtfully always the case'. Bias in general is something that will probably always be prevalent and discussed, but, paradoxically, discussed from inherently biased points of view.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I agree with Kurt's response. Maddow had a lot of things to say about the coverage that the Republican candidates are getting in this Election. But she also took the liberty of editing some of the clips in order to better prove her point. This is something that the public often fails to realize when they watch these negative commercials about the candidates. The editor of the clip can splice different words into a phrase that is worse that what they actually said. I noticed in a lot of her clips, that they were edited. This happens on both sides obviously, but in order to truly get the meaning of these statements, one must watch more in order to get the info in the proper context.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I found both of the articles to have convincing points with evidence to support them. However i could not find myself agreeing with either of them. They were both too far on either side of the extreme. I believe that the media does not have such a substantial bias that it effects the general public. People will read more of what they believe in then the opposition. I found the point the conservative article made on George Bush being made fun of more irrelevant. Theres just more to be made fun of. I also found the point that all talk radio shows are conservative to be a little too much, this i believe is not a true statement, it cant be there are hundreds of different types of radio shows, one for every opinion.
    In regard to the Rachel Maddow video I believe that it is true that the Republicans have been getting more coverage lately. I believe that is because they are leading the poles, more people want to see the foretold winner then loser, like Obama near election day.
    I found Mr. Roves defenses to be very believable and the charges against him a little out of the blue. I think that Mr. Rove had right to think it was stupid and you just cant throw that kind of mud around without any proof.
    Mr. Goldbergs comment on the treatment of the Democrats in the media I find to be very true because as he said Obama's "magic is gone" he has been too much of talking and not enough action. Therefore he is not getting as much coverage in the media.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I agree with what Elise was saying that the argument that either democrats or republicans get more media coverage is kind of a null point by both of there arguments, they both complain about the others news coverage and prove there point. So theyre both right, making it so that neither of them are right. The media isnt so far leaning to either side.

    ReplyDelete
  94. In response to Alex Reidy's comments about the bias media, I tend to agree with the majority of what she has observed. I, too, thought that while both sides presented logical arguments in the piece we read, neither really seemed any more or less effective. This goes along with how I was saying earlier that, in my opinion, bias really depends on the source and issue at hand. Also, I agreed with Alex's conclusion that "the two Fox News videos had good arguments and defenses, and they were not as extreme as Maddow". I found it a lot easier to track the Fox News videos, because they seemed to have more concrete details and the manner was more concise. Maddow seemed more like a "one-man show" through which she imposed her bias upon the audience very strongly. However, this could also be attributed to the style of interview or show.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I would like to correct myself about what i said of Mr. Rove not giving a substantial response. I meant to put Axelrod's name and I would say that Mr. Rove did a good job of asking Axelrod to explain himself in the interview.

    I would agree with Brittany when she said that Rachel Maddow backed up what she was trying to prove with evidence well, but Rachel did not say what was giving Republicans seats as Jack said.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I agree with Dobi the house elf and Hayden when they say that because Maddow is in the media, she is in essence being hypocritical. How can she criticize people who publicize their political views when she is clearly doing the same thing?
    Also, I agree with Elise in that in general, there are more negative ads because candidates don't know how to support themselves positively, and putting down others is easier. I think this represents a growing weakness in the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think that in the Media Bias articles, both of them were bias to their respective side. Both sides are going to think they are correct, since unbiased opinions on anything are nearly impossible to come by, so I am not surprised that in politics it is any different. When I was reading the article that believed that liberals are getting more media time, I felt as though I was being forced to believe what he was saying, like I was being pressured and not guided to the conclusion that the author probably wanted. I thought that the second article was not as bashing on their opponent as the first, and so I felt more comfortable agreeing with that view because I felt like I reached the conclusion on my own.
    As for the comment about more late night shows focusing their jokes on more republicans then democrats, I don't have an unbiassed answer for. Maybe more democrats just look like these politicians and want to criticize them by making fun of them... I don't know. But that comment did make me think of SNL and how funny their jokes can be, and effective.
    The Rachel Maddow show was interesting, but a little repetitive. Although she did have some good ideas, I don't think she was very effective at getting her points across. I did see her point, however, that when one party can't find an answer or a general term to use for a problem, they change the problem and blame it on something else.
    I personally didn't find the Hannity show as aesthetically pleasing as the Maddow show, and I think that might have been a reason I wasn't as interested in what he was saying. It was also longer than the Maddow show, and it was hard to keep paying attention to him. What I did realize about my own ability to pay attention to politics, is that I like to have everything laid out in front of me, then expanded on. Almost like an outline. Which I didn't find in the Hannity Show. I did think, however, that Hannity did a good job at throwing in describing words slyly to help prove the points he was making. He would put in just a small, negative word, and it would make me think that whatever he was saying was a bad thing. Even if it was just his point of view, because he comes off as knowledgeable.
    I don't really like seeing the two sides attack each other like this, because I feel like they are just putting the other down instead of putting what they have to offer out there to be voted on.

    ReplyDelete
  98. From the reading both the conservative and liberal sides had convincing arguments but u felt like the conservatives had a more leading argument.Because the conservatives were saying that the democrats get more airtime on the shows and that pres. Bush was the vicitim of more jokes on tv this shows that the liberals have a bigger hand in what is said on T.V. They also mention how the Liberals only show the bad side of the News for example the "gun nut" instead of the doctor trying to protect his family (on the issue of right to bear arms). I also agree on how the liberal influenced media is always against the corporations and falsly accuse them of only wanting to make money.
    As for the video clip of the rachel show i didnt really like it beacuse she seemed to be to "open" and loud and it really annoyed me on how she said "NOT" after every question . It seemed like she wasnt too educated and i didnt agree with most of what she said even though one thing that did stick out in particular was what she said about the rep. candidates who were pro abortion even in rape and incest cases and how the gov. wanted to control every pregnancy i didnt agree with that so i could relate with her on that aspect.

    in the Sean Hannity Show i thought that Rowes comebacks were very clever and good and that it wasnt rite for the opposing party to accuse him of MAYBE taking money. On the other show i agreed with what was said about the media siding with americas opinion on obama because it shows that the media is on our side and that a lot of americans don’t agree with what he has done for our country

    ReplyDelete
  99. I agree with Michael on what he said about the reading that on any given day, the media covers dozens and dozens of stories, so the use of a single example makes for little evidence which is true and that each political party will obviously pull out what helps their own sid eto the story. I also agreed with sarah B. on how rachel was just plain annoying and that she shouldnt be critizing the conservative media , not all news sources are promoting the Republicans, otherwise she wouldn't be on the show at all and like sarah said, she didnt use that many facts only towards the end she just kept on bashing the conservative side several times

    ReplyDelete
  100. While finishing the reading assignment I realized how much I don't fall into either the far left liberal category or the far right conservative category. I found myself considering the validity of arguments in both sides. From the conservative side I see the anger and discontent conservatives face with a majority of coverage being positive in the liberal direction. In my opinion a good example of that negative coverage the conservatives face was the late night tv jokes. As for the liberal position, I see their validity in pointing out the domination of conservatives in morning talk-radio.

    The Rachel Maddow video to me just is a sixteen minute long preach. I tend to steer away from these sorts of tv shows because to me it seems very one sided. The reason Rachel Maddow's video-clip irritated me more than others also has to do with the fact I don't agree with a lot of what she's saying. When she spoke about Pete Sessions and the other republican candidates asking for funding on the side, I can see her getting that outraged. While she brings up some important points throughout, informing some and proving wrong to others; to each their own, but I myself am against forcing ideas into people.

    Karl Rove's response to the DNC attack ad is much how I'd like myself to response to such accusations. (Relaxed.) Karl Rove sees the fact there are more important things to deal with than these false conspiracies. I understand what Karl Rove says when he speaks about the “Bunker Mindset” of the white house and it seems like a very valid point from what we've seen recently in the capital.

    I personally don't agree with what Mr. Goldberg says about the treatment of Obama. I think any young president like Obama would receive the “slobbering” he did during the beginning of his presidency and is a non-issue. I think Mr. Goldberg is just connecting the dots between the initial love many had for Obama with the depression during the waiting time Obama signed up for when deciding he wanted to change the country in four years. I believe Obama's performance will show in the long run and the media needs to realize that. But then again, that could just be my ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  101. In response to one of my classmates, Lindsay Kullmann, I too found Rachel Maddow's constant sarcasm to be quite annoying. While watching Rachel Maddow's television show I found myself wondering how she got the job as a tv-host when she really seems to be just a liberal spokesperson with a tv-show... Her “spin” of the issues, where she proposedly shows both sides, seems to me as just a “throw” where she only throws her side at the viewers while providing no leg-room for the conservative counter-parts.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I find the conservative view point more convincing than the liberal. On main reason is the number of statistics and examples the conservative viewpoint uses in comparison to the liberal. I agreed with the arguments about most reporters being liberal, most late night television is liberal, and that most newspapers are conservative. One point I didn’t fully agree with is that FOX News is not conservative. It is definitely conservative, but not nearly to the degree liberals would suggest.
    Other than me finding Rachel Maddow extremely annoying, she has few valid points. One of her good comments was Fiorina never answered the question on how they would actually lower the deficit. If the tax cuts would cause $3.5 trillion more debt, I don’t see any logical way how they could, at the same time, shrink the growing deficit. One thing I dislike about her show is she brands one Republican’s actions as what all Republicans do, is extremely biased to the liberal point of view, and says, “We are just about to elect a whole bunch of extremists.”
    On the first FOX News video I agree. The Democrats accusing the Republicans about getting campaign money from foreign donors, and producing no proof of this, make it impossible for me to believe them. Also the fact that Obama never released the donor names of his campaign makes them appear extremely hypocritical. In the O’Reilly show I agree that Obama has stopped being sensationalized by the media, but feel that they are still going to support him over the Republican candidate come election time.

    ReplyDelete
  103. In response to Michaela's I fully agree with her opinions of Rachel Maddow and that the "slobbering" is over. Also I agree with everyone who said Rachel Maddow is annoying. I got a headache watching her show and am unsure how others don't as well.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The side that I found most convincing was the article “The Conservative Position: The Media’s Liberal Bias”. To me it seemed like they had more evidence as far as what audiences are exposed to from the media. Although the other viewpoint had these views as well, the liberal bias seemed to make more sense to me. It is evident in my opinion that democratic views have become much more prominent throughout voters. This article on Liberal bias has only strengthened my opinion because of all of the statistics they had to offer. The conservative bias covered much of how editorials, journalism, and talk radio have influenced voters. But honestly there are more people watching the television than anything else. Even though I think that people are starting to have more democratic views, Rachel Maddow did a good job proving her points. I agree that the media has helped Republicans in this election season. Like I said before, television is the most influential tool. The deficit and bigger government with the stimulus were points that she made why republicans will get more seats. And I think these are the most important issues that voters focus on, therefore clearly there will be a growth in republican voters.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I agree with what Tyler Smith had to say as far as far as how the media affects people. Younger people are more likely to watch television, making it easier to only be opened to democratic viewpoints. Also, older people will read newspapers being more conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I honestly did not find either argument very convincing, but I feel that the conservative viewpoint was overall more convincing. I felt that they had more evidence to substantiate their point. I also do feel that the world is beginning to gear more towards creating businesses, and media is just another example this. Media companies have to make money, and they might find this easier to do by keeping a more conservative style than by suggesting new ideas or trying new styles that may lose them money.

    I disliked the Rachel Maddow video because I felt that it was very one-sided and didn't offer very much evidence for the other side. I feel like the only significant thing she said was that the media is projecting Republicans to pick up seats in the upcoming election, but other than that I feel like she said very little and that her evidence was very shallow.

    I found that Mr. Rove was mostly attacking Democrats and did not have strong evidence backing him up. Obama entered office as a young president, so it makes sense that people would question him or talk about him as he entered the presidency. I feel like it doesn't matter very much and Mr. Rove's points aren't worth much consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I agree with Shane Owen's analysis of the Rachel Maddow's video. I also dislike these kinds of shows and agree that the video seemed like a preach. I also like Shane's assessment of Obama. One cannot come to a conclusion about Obama's presidency so early, and one can then assess Obama's performance and come to a conclusion; good or bad. Overall, I felt Shane expressed his opinions very clearly and I find myself agreeing with his opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I agree with what Natalie said about Rachel Maddow and the two FOX videos. Maddow was interesting to watch with it being both funny and annoying at times. For the FOX videos, I also agree that Rove was very poised with what he was he was brought with. And i love her quote " It is true that Obama’s rating have declined, since the hype is over about him being a new president, and people are beginning to realize that not much has changed like he promised." Couldn't have said it better.

    ReplyDelete
  109. After reading the articles, I would have to say that the conservative side of the argument (the media has a liberal bias) is much more convincing due to the fact that it has a vast amount of specific evidence, including dates and statistics. The liberal side lacks this evidence and support for the ideas it introduces, making it very unconvincing, in my point of view. I really like how the conservative side brings up this idea of business being a frequent target of the liberal media. The media criticizes corporations for making money, and, then, criticizes other corporations for not making enough money. This proves the media to be extremely hypocritical, creating a strong argument on the conservative side that I would have to agree with. It also shows that the majority of reporters are Democrats, which the liberal side actually confirms. I do not agree with how the conservative side tries to deny that FOX news has a conservative bias because it definitely does, probably for business purposes.
    In regards to the Maddow video, I believe she is extremely hypocritical. Her whole point was to show how the Republicans are being biased in the media, when she is being incredibly biased herself. I do like all the examples she used, but she didn’t have enough support for each of the points she was trying to make. I feel like many of her points could be countered quite easily by Republicans.
    I feel like Mr. Rove had a solid response to the charges made against him by the Democratic ad. It’s quite obvious the Democrats are extremely desperate right now to bring up their stats and get more voters, so they are trying to hit Republicans with anything they can, even if they have to exaggerate it drastically, which I feel they do so, in this case. Like Mr. Rove said, there is no evidence to back up the Democrats’ claims, so I feel the ad and the charges are extremely ineffective. Yes, I do agree with Mr. Goldberg’s comments about the media’s treatment of President Obama. I like the example he uses about how the media wrote about Obama’s exercise routines and the “glistening sweat on his pectorals” a month after he became president. The media is still in favor of Obama, they are just not “slobbering” over him because the public is not as supportive of him as they once were.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I did not find either view of the two writers convincing at all. They both sound like angry ranting extremists at opposite sides of the political spectrum. Both had some pieces of truth in their writing but the majority sounded like two old grumpy men in a nursing home. I think that the point of commercial endorsements influencing the the news is a valid argument made by the liberal writer, having said that it’s a problem on both sides of the fence. The liberal writer claims that big conservative businesses are preventing true liberal news, OK clearly this person is unfamiliar with MSNBC. The conservative writer claims that just because the media is liberal and fox tells the truth they get labeled as conservatives, only conservative “sheeple” would buy that. The fact that the conservative writer complained about the negative portrayal of the catholic church is absurd considering In 2004, a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. had legal action taken against them for sexual harassment. Both writers were equally ignorant and unreasonable, and sounded the same, only pushing a different agenda.

    After watching the Rachel Maddow show I wanted to punch her in the face. Her style of obnoxious and in your face “news” is annoying. She attacked the media for being republican biased but the examples she used were from sources I have never heard of. She had one remotely valid argument about the commercial against big government on our back, and the Carly Fiorina interview wasn’t flattering either, but the majority of arguments lacked depth and substance. She was able to prove republicans wrong but not that the media was conservative as a whole, it seemed that she tried to prove her original point wright by proving republicans are bad or stupid when the two are independent of each other.

    The two fox news videos were exactly like the MSNBC video extremely biased toward one view. The style in which they presented their new was no different either. Roove’s reaction to the DNC was reasonable and I think any one would have that kind of reaction. I still think Roove deserved it because of personal bias even if the evidence to support his “stealing of democracy” was thin. Mr Goldberg's counter arguments were really, bad he tried to undermine Obama by using the same that celebrity fascination or fixation that didn’t take during the election.

    ReplyDelete
  111. respone to cassie callahan:

    i agree with cassie about Rove and him defending himself against the ad. the democrats really must have been desperate if they put out this ad and made accusations that are not proved to be true. they are definately trying to hit the republicans in any way they can. it was definately not a very effective ad at all.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I agree with DJ in his views of our free market and political bias on news networks. News networks are allowed to and should have political slants, and, like DJ said, that’s why there are many different networks available for people to choose from. I also think that people should not worry about a conservative or liberal slant in the media. These slants are going to happen, and, like Hans and Stephanie said, which kind of slant depends on the statistics of the elections and the popular interest. Right now there seems to be more of a conservative slant because Republicans are higher up on the polls at this moment. But this slant goes in a cycle, so people should stop worrying about it and complaining about it and just accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I agree with B. hall, either way you look at the media is biased, but as to what side it leans toward depends on who is paying the bills.There is no unbiased news, Both stations are going to attack each other because they disagree. It's like watching a news fight where they exchange blows instead of reporting something valid that people might actually care about.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Both political parties are going to be biassed to thier parties, and I agree with what Hayden said about Americans should be able to distinguish what is false and what might have at least a little bit of truth. I also agree with those who said that Maddow was repetitive to the point of annoying, but I think that might have been the point (not to annoy, but to ingrain). Alot of people have been saying how Maddow is hypocritical becuase she talks about media when she is the media, and this is true. But I also think that the other side does it too. Like in the articles we read, we saw that both sides are never going to be happy with the amount of publicity they recieve.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I found the conservative position to be more convincing because I feel like it was closer to the actual truth than the liberal position. As a moderate I find it very difficult to watch the big 3 networks because it seems to only give the opinion of the person reporting—sometimes it is conservative but most of the time I feel a very liberal bend to the reporting. I like when opposing views are presented on a topic which allows me to figure out what is the truth. I believe when only one side is presented, the reporter assumes we, the listeners don’t have a brain and will just follow their lead.

    I agree with Maddow that at times the media might be more favorable to Republicans. She brings up the issue of the media being easy on the Republicans who claim they can decrease the deficit. Maddow argues that the media doesn’t push the statement further in asking how they will solve it. This is an example of the media possibly favoring the Republicans. Maddow also claims that we are about to elect a bunch of right wing extremists and that the beltway media are “dressing these extremists up”. I do not agree with this statement. For the last 8 minutes, Maddow bashed numerous Republicans and I began to lose interest in her ranting.

    I believe the two Fox News interviews were pretty insightful on the subjects they discussed. Hannity discussed polls and that panic in the democratic camp has created sleazy attack ads against Republicans, specifically Carl Rove who was President Bush’s Chief of Staff. Carl Rove claims the White House and DNC are trying to distract Americans with outrageous claims of conspiracy theory involving foreign campaign investors giving money to the Republican Party. I think Carl rove is very cool headed and objective about the claims. It is his belief that the White House made up the controversy to deflect the proof that there has been a loss of 95,000 jobs.

    O’Reilly’s interview with Bernie Goldberg also discussed the subject of the media turning on President Obama. Goldberg states that the American people feel like the magic is gone with President Obama, that they have turned on his policies, and that the mainstream media knows this so they are no longer supporting him. I agree with Goldberg in his assessment that the media might be currently supporting the Republican Party.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Both of the arguments are weak. Neither side has the evidence nor support. For example the conservative article says that the majority of news programs are liberal and the only one that is telling the facts is false. Even our book says that is false. While the liberal article says that every new program is paid for by conservatives and therefore is conservative yet most viewers of news except for fox are liberal and young so if these business men want to make money they have to meet the demands of viewers which are liberal. They both had many flaws in their arguments and neither successfully puts the blame on the other.
    Maddow's arguments had some strong points however her big government argument was weak and did not help her argument. however she did make some good points about Republicans and their ridiculous candidates however i did not feel convinced that Republicans control the media from her argument rather that the Republicans taking the lead because of their message rather than their candidates.
    I liked the republican arguments the first video with Bush's media adviser was very strong talking about how desperate democrats are getting. The other video was good but it did not do much for me all issues in the video seemed to be resolved in a stand still even the one about Obama and his worship dying. They made good arguments but the arguments were not major and did not seem to be that impacting in the election. However they were sound.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I didn't really find either side that convincing because both sides made it seem that their side had absolutely so voice in the media. According to the articles all media is either biased towards the liberals or conservatives, but in reality both liberals and conservatives have around the size voice in the media, and either side saying otherwise is just showing how biased they are towards their own side, which is a bit hypocritical when they are arguing about political biases.

    I think in the Rachel Maddow video she definitely had some good points, but she really only explained the liberal point of view and may have twisted some the the video clips and facts she had on her show to fit her political views. I thought the part about how what the conservative media said matching what conservative candidates said made sense. Also, i do think all the video clips she had made the republican candidates seem pretty hypocritical.

    In the second video i think they had a right to be angry about those accusations made against them without any evidence to back it up, but i do think that they blew the event out of proportion, going as far as to say that the democrats thought that the american people were stupid, i don't think they needed to read so much into it. In the second video I agree that the liberal side of the media has not turned against president Obama, even though it may seem that way to some people because of how well they treated him before he became president and shortly after becoming president.

    ReplyDelete
  118. With regards to the two readings I found myself agreeing with both sides of the argument. From both watching news on television and am radio, I have realized that television news does seem to lean towards the liberal side and am radio does lean to the conservative side. Although I think that conservative am radio hosts can be over the top sometimes, I think that the conservatives have made a better point with their article. Although the media has both liberal and conservative bias, I think that the liberal bias out weighs the conservative bias.

    After watching the segment from the Rachel Maddow show, I could not believe that people actually watch her show. I consider myself to be a pretty moderate person in general, but Rachel Maddow made me incredibly mad. I had a tough time getting through the video because of the way she presented the topics and her lack of evidence on the topics. It makes me angry that she gets paid to make that show.

    After watching the two fox news segments, I felt like although they had a conservative bias they were both a lot less extreme. Although Bill O'Rielly can get a little angry at time, I think that both the interviews by O'Rielly and Hannity were strong interviews. They both had more facts then Maddow, but I think this may have to do with the current status of the republican and democratic parties with the upcoming elections. In general I thought that they were both better shows then Maddow's.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I disagree and agree with Sean's response. yes media is biased in both way but when he said it is biased toward those paying the bills, I find this statement not to be clear. Media is all about the audience and making money. The big corporate man is probably more interested in making money instead of his political agenda. Plus it is not usually one guy paying the bill and calling the shots.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Personally I found the conservative side more convincing that the liberal side. Based on the statistics and facts that were presented I found the conservative argument to more soundly stated. I think the main fact that can’t be overlooked is that a large majority of reporters are liberal and no matter how hard they try, whether they mean to or not, they will always report stories with a liberal bias. I also liked the point they brought up about Fox being seen as conservative only because all the other news stations are so liberal and therefore can’t tell the difference between non-biased and conservative stories.

    I don’t agree with Rachel Maddow’s view that the media has been more favorable to Republican candidates throughout the election season. She was extremely one sided and I know that was the point of watching it but of course she is going to have problems with Republicans gaining seats in Congress if she is a Democrat. For every claim she made for the media putting a conservative spin on stories, the Republicans can claim that the media puts a liberal spin on the news.

    I thought that Rove made a good argument to the charges made against him in stating that there was absolutely no evidence to back it up. I particularly liked the clip they showed of the interview in which Bob Schieffer asks “do you have any evidence that the accusations are true” and the White House advisor replies with “do you have any evidence that it’s not true”. This kind of relates to the idea that “you are innocent until proven guilty”. If there is no solid proof then accusations shouldn’t be made.

    I agree with Goldberg stating that the reason that the media spin on Obama has changed is because “the magic has gone away.” When Obama first took office, people thought there was going to be some huge change and now that time has passed and people aren’t pleased with Obama and his administration, the media can’t continue to glorify him. I definitely agree with the fact that once it comes time for Obama to face a Republican candidate; the media will go back to glorifying him as before.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I agree with Cassie's views on the Rachel Maddow video because I also did not think that she had enough evidence. I also never would have thought she was hypocritical unless Cassie had said it. She was trying to prove that the media had a conservative bias when she was being incredibly bias herself with a liberal point of view. I also thought that any republican could prove a majority of her points wrong because she did not have very good evidence for her statements.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Although I think that the two sides are both completely biased and unfair, I think that, for our somewhat less educated American public, the Fox News segments would probably be easier to follow, especially Hannity’s segment because he focused on one subject basically the whole time, the attack ad directed at Karl Rove, while Maddow kept jumping to more and more reasons conservatives were coming up with for the government not doing its job.. Although I think that most people would be more easily convinced by the conservative media’s arguments, I agreed with Rachel Maddow.
    I enjoyed the videos she showed and instead of saying that the republicans were “desperate” and using the last of their ammo, blah blah blah, she talked about how the conservative media was working to help republican’s get seats in this election. I enjoyed the part where she showed Pete Simmons talking about how bad the stimulus is and then signing off on a new stimulus proposal. I also enjoyed Carly Fiorina not being able to answer the question about being able to cut 4 trillion dollars to fill the deficit. Of course I might be a bit biased here as well because I tend to agree with the more liberal side of politics, but I saw a lot more cheap shots being taken on the conservative side rather than amusing articles showing how evidently conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot.
    I felt like the conservatives were just making cheap shots. This is especially evident when O’Reilly tried to go after Saturday Night Live when the cast made a parody skit about Gloria Allred. I thought it was shooting in the dark the way he tried to get Goldberg to make a comment like “you know it’s bad when liberals go after themselves”. I thought it was refreshing that Goldberg seemed a little more unbiased even though he is obviously conservative. He was right when he said that it would have been weird if the cast hadn’t made fun of Allred. Just because the cast tends to be liberal and the show is featured on a liberal network, they cast does not always have to defend liberals, especially if they are as ruthless and sociopathic as Gloria Allred.

    ReplyDelete
  123. In response to DJ’s analysis of the Fox News coverage, I agree with his assessment that Goldberg was correct in his analysis of president Obama. I agree that it is Congress that has led more to the “big government” spending that is so unpopular and that Obama has great political skills that have “spared him much of this negative press.” I find it refreshing for someone to be able to assess that it is not the president who makes every single decision regarding the American government and that it is, well, stupid to blame the president for everything that we are unhappy about. Obama does not control the legislative branch. He controls the executive branch. I think if someone was a legitimate reason to be displeased with his the execution of his executive duties then I would love to hear that reason(s). But if they just want to complain about the president for the sake of complaining or because they are displeased with how the government’s legislative duties are being executed then they need not voice their opinions because these arguments are so illegitimate. I think that claims that degrade Obama’s prowess as a leader are extreme and generally coming from an ill-informed public.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The two writings both did not seem to have to much evidence to me, although I think that the media does have a liberal bias. I think that the article stating that the media had more a liberal bias was correct because the conservatives had more evidence although they still did not have a lot of evidence. the article claiming that there was a conservative bias seemed to me to just be a shot at the conservatives by the liberal. This article had even less evidence and I do not think that it was sufficient.

    I thought that the Rachel Maddow show was a little over the top with ow she presented her views. Obviously showing a liberal bias, she was just saying negative things about conservatives with little evidence back up what she was saying. The ideas that she was proposing could have been good if she had the evidence to back up what she was saying, but she did not. It seemed like to me she just wanted to influence the upcoming election so that people would not put more republicans in the senate. I also did not really like her approach to the show and how she had an attitude like whatever she said was right.

    I thought that the clips from O'Reilly and Hannity were both better then the Rachel Maddow clip. I also agree with Goldberg that in order for the media to stay popular they cannot agree with Obama on everything. The networks care more about their ratings and will show what the public wants them to show as Goldberg says. The interview that O'Reilly had with Rove was also a good interview because it had a good purpose. Rove had to clear his image after being falsely accused and I think that interview cleared it up.

    In general I think that both the interviews on fox news were more fair than the Rachel Maddow shoe.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I agree with Morgan in her response to Mr. Schieffer's response to the question of if the accusattions he made were true or not, to which he answered, "do you have any evidence it's not true". This was dumb on his part because answering withthat question shows that he doesn't have the evidence and may have been making shots in the dark toward's Mr. Rove.

    ReplyDelete
  126. In response to Mara saying that the conservatives were just taking cheap shots during their interviews at the liberals, I think that that is ridiculous. In the first interview Rove was defending himself against an ad that had been aired by democrats that said he was breaking the law and taking away democracy from America. He also had evidence from the New York Times that said the democrats had no evidence to accuse Rove. In the second interview the two conservatives were talking about how liberals usually do not ask fellow liberals tough question, but a liberal talk show host had told another liberal that his answer was not sufficient. I did not really see any cheap shots during these interviews.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Although I found Rachel Maddow's show very difficult to watch because she was so one sided I do agree with what Michael said earlier about her having a good point about Fiorina not answering the question that she was asked several times. It was obvious that she avoided the question of how the government can make tax cuts of $3.5 billion and still shrink the deficit at the same time. I think that Maddow made a good argument in this case but overall it turned me off because the was so biased to the liberal side.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I agree with what Morgan said about President Obama’s loss of appeal to the American public. He made many promises of change during his campaign and the initial stage of his presidency. Now that there hasn’t been any significant improvement or “change”, he has subsequently lost the backing he once had from the media.

    ReplyDelete
  129. I think that both sides had a good point. For once, liberals and conservatives had a consensus; that republicans were given more positive treatment than in the past. I kind of agree with this but I don't think that Republicans are getting better treatment because of bias, but I think their is such an anti- incumbent sentiment in the country that the media has absorbed it literally to a point in which that they go by the anti- incumbent sentiment in performing their jobs.

    In terms of Rachel Maddow's piece, I totally agree with her. She is spot on on the point that Republicans are speaking on both sides of their mouths. She accurately points that while republicans say that the stimulus is comparable to death for America's future that in fact republicans have embraced stimulus money, but won't admit it. This just comes to show that republicans are two- faced liars that are full of themselves. They bring out this negative persona just to get votes; in reality, they might actually agree with Dems on the stimulus.

    In terms of the FOX NEWS articles, I think Karl Rove responded to the charges against him well. He made his case articulately and was concise. His side wasn't actually irrational and he made good points and arguments that made sense. The Democrats did go overboard in their charges against Rove because they didn't cite enough evidence to back up their claims against Rove. In terms of Bernie Goldberg, Goldberg was right in his analysis that the media has treated the Democrats and President Obama harshly lately. He adequately pointed out that due to the fact that the anti- incumbent sentiment has been played out in the media so much that it has consumed the media's mind, even though it is widely accepted that the media is biased towards liberals and the Democratic Party.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Response to DJ:

    I respectfully disagree with your analysis of the article. True, both Maddow and Hannity/ O'Reilly are biased, that is not disputed, but I think bias didn't get in the way of how they presented the argument as they both were of agreement that Republicans have been given more favorable treatment this election cycle. I also think Bernie Goldberg was correct in that Republicans are being treated more favorably.

    ReplyDelete
  131. After reading the online articles, although I feel as they both have strong viewpoints, I side more with the liberal stance on the issue of bias in the media. Conservative bias is indeed more apparent in today’s media and the only network you need to look at is Fox News as statistics show that it became the number one news station viewed during the election of President Obama. In the first article, I disagree that people whom have the right to bear arms and do bear arms are considered “Gun Nuts.” I have never seen this phrase used ever when I watch liberal media stations or anything or relevance to its meaning. If I am mistaken and these generalizations are being made, then I do believe the media is making a large mistake on judging the bill of rights. In the second article, advertisements are important and people have to realize who is putting them on air. This is a valid argument, because our capitalistic society ends up with one group in victory over another, but bias is shown by these groups in the media when the news stations run the groups’ ads.

    On Rachel Maddow’s video segment: I enjoy watching Rachel usually, but she seems really fired up about the opposing media. She is never this wound up and I enjoy watching her when she is more reserved. Conservative media is more pronounced this elections season, but I do not believe that it is as huge as she makes it too be. Republicans know they are going to win big in congress, so they are just securing the positions as all greedy politicians would.

    Fox’s segments had legitimate arguments, but I feel as the bias dulled down the strength of these points of view. I thought that Mr. Rove’s response to the DNC ad was that he was very irritated. His statistics given made his argument stronger and I feel he did not, despite heavy partisanship involved here, take a largely bias view. Mr. Goldberg initially avoided the first question given to him which I found interesting and voided the value of his arguments for me. I agree however that the media is no longer “slobbering” over Obama until the reelection.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I Agree with Tommy and Sean that Rachel Maddow’s style in her segment given was really annoying and was of the “Glenn Beck” category as far as ridiculousness. It did make me angry and I could only watch about half of it. Watch Rachel when she actually tells the news instead of offering up her opinions on issues. She is strong spirited, but rarely comes out in bursts like she displayed in the segment.
    These video segments selected offer a conservative bias anyway due to the fact that two fox news segments are chosen and shown to be less emotional. Next time bias in the media is brought up, we should get a fair spread of all the media including CNN.

    ReplyDelete
  133. After reading both sides, I found that the conservative viewpoint had a stronger arguement. They proved that the media has a more liberal bias by providing actual facts and examples. I think it's true that reporters tend to lean toward the liberal side. But, as mentioned in the document, when it comes to large corporations and businesses, the main objective is money, money, and money. Coropations will do what they need to stay prosperous and will take any actions needed to potentially benefit a specific canidate.
    Maddow's video clip is very interesting because I think it is a typical use of media today. These producers piece together, cut out speicifc portions, and take segments from interviews of canidates and twist and turn them to effectively show their own opinion that will draw an audience. This way, Maddow can persuade her audience that the media has a more conservative viewpoint. She also only talks about the negative actions republican canidates have taken and fails to report anything postive about republican canidates, she fails to have a equal playing field.
    I agree with Mr.Goldberg's statements about President Obama. Since Preisdent Obama isn't brand new to office anymore, he is starting to lose his "magic" as Goldberg said. Americans are no longer instersted in his personal life and background, they want to know about the jobs, spending, and the debt. As far as Rove's rebuttal, I think he makes a valid statement in proving that the ad had no evidence of ever being true.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I agree with Joey that Mr. Rove is excellent in proving that the ads produced against him were completely false. He was rational and make solid points that are understandable. He knew what he was talking about and was able to shoot down any disbelief in his campaign. Although, I don't think that Maddow was convincing in her show because you can see how completely one-sided all her arguements are.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I definitely found the conservative side to be a lot more convincing because I felt like it had real life examples of their argument and actually explained in detail their argument, whereas, I felt as thought the liberal side had very vague examples that didn't involve actual events, just something the writer came up with.

    One point in the conservative side that i completely agree with is that the stories in the media on religion are almost always a story about a scandal or being dismissive of the religion and the people who practice the religion. I can't think of a single time I have seen in the media something positive about a religious matter, but I can pick out many examples of scandals in the churches or with the people of the church.

    Another point made in the conservative side that I agree with is that the media is bias against corporations and is always talking negatively about the money that large corporations are making, when in reality the point of corporations is to make money. When the corporations, however, aren't making money there is no criticism. This is a liberal bias.

    The Liberal side does make some good points. It does make sense that a lot of the advertisements would be conservative because they do have a lot of money to put into their advertisements, and a lot of donors compared the more liberal parties.

    I also agree that the media can't afford to offend its readers/listeners because that will bring down profit for them. The media has to pay attention to who the majority of their money is coming from and try their best to please the source of their income, but I don't agree that said source is all from the republicans or all from the democrats.

    I didn't really like the Rachel Maddow Show. For one thing it was really distracting how much she resembled a man. I also didn't like how repetitive she was, and how she would say is it this, no, not this election, not these republicans. I really don't care what it isn't thats just irrelevant information. I also don't exactly follow this election at all or watch/listen to the news, so I honestly can't say i agree or disagree with her point that the media has favored the Republicans in this election, but she did show some good examples of the media helping the Republicans.

    I really liked Rove's response. I thought it was clever of him to say that the administration is basically starting rumors to move the focus away from them not doing their job. It was a very good back fire, and very convincing if I might add. I'm not very informed on the issue, but it seems like a fair enough argument because why else would the White House be accusing Rove of doing something that is illegal unless they wanted to make the public focus on something besides them.

    I think that I, for the most part, I agree with him. Obama has lost his shine and his popularity among Americans has most definitely gone down. I think it's understandable that the media would not be as for Obama anymore either because they have to follow their listeners and the people who give them money ideas and beliefs or else they would go out of business. It is also understandable that not all news stations have lost support for Obama because there is still a good amount of people who are for Obama and what he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I think that the conservative standpoint in the article made a lot more sense and was a lot more clear to me. Even though I disagree with it, if I did not know more about the issues at hand I would probably vote republican because they back up their statements more with closely related facts. The reason that I think that the democrats was less convincing is because they know who they are trying to reach out to, and with what the liberals are saying, it is very subjective and they want to influence a select group of people.

    I was shocked as I watched Maddow's video clip at how hypocritical she was. She was constantly bashing the media, but the only reason she was doing that was because the media was supporting the republicans and giving them more Free Media than the democrats. I think that she didn't really think before she started going off on it because her opinions seemed to be repetitive. But, in her defense, for other liberals that didn't realize what the media was doing in regards to giving more air time to republicans, it opened their eyes and may have made them more aware of how media can be twisted and biased in all directions.

    I do not think that Mr. Goldberg is entirely correct when he talks about how Obama is losing popularity with the population. I think that many people still have faith in him and know that what he has to dig our country out of a big ditch is hard, and that it will take more time than just one or two years. Rove did not impress me, and he did not when he was in office either, and I believe that some of his statements seem falsified and swayed to sound better on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Response to Morgan:

    I agree with your comment on Rove and "innocent until proven guilty." I think the response from Bob Sheiffer, "do you have evidence that it's not true," was so ridiculous it's funny. Comments like that just make the accusation that much more unbelievable. It also just seems like such an immature comment, it for some reason just reminds me of a kindergartner say "you can't catch me, nananana booboo." I feel like you just aren't supposed to respond like that.

    ReplyDelete
  138. I agree with Henry about the second video about how the democrats, although they may seem mad at Obama and not happy with his ratings, still have hope that things will improve and that what Obama is doing is the best that anyone in office could be doing whether or not they were a democrat.

    I also agree that they blow the idea way out of proportion and that they didn't need to read so much into the democratic side and that the whole country was losing faith in the president. I think it is a biased side from them and that they only wanted to make that huge generalization to push their own agenda as forward as they could without sounding as bias as they actually were being.

    Alex Reidy also makes a good point when saying that although Rachel Maddow's show was very leftist and had a lot of bias in it, that is the point of the show, and Maddow does a good job with it. Maddow does make some good points about republicans that are valid, even though they are hidden in the very leftist views. But, nevertheless I think that they should be noted and that Maddow should be given props to for making some sense in what may seem like liberal gibberish to some people.

    ReplyDelete
  139. In the reading I found the conservative viewpoint, that they media was more liberal, more convincing. I felt that this argument had more significant evidence. I disagreed with the argument that stated that all people who support the second amendment are “gun nuts” because I feel that it is big overstatement and exaggeration.
    After watching the Rachel Maddow video it is easy to see that the media bias towards the republican candidates. I agree with her overall point that the media has been more than helpful to the Republicans this election but not to the extent that she claims.
    I think the Mr. Roves response to the charges made against him in the DNC ad was fitting. His criticisms seem valid and understandable after watching the ad. I think that he is justified in arguing against the democratic parties weak attempts to win last minute votes by claiming that the republicans are “stealing democracy” and using illegal foreign money and not disclosing their donors.
    I agreed with Mr. Goldberg’s comments on the media’s treatment of President Obama to some extent. I feel that as his augment stated, the media is not at hard on Obama as it has been on republican leaders in the recent past. I understand his argument especially since his provided an example about GWB. It is important to keep Mr. Goldberg’s personal bias in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Along with Andrew, I also thought it was interesting when Mr. Goldberg stated that the media is like business and must try to appeal to its viewers, who are like costumers. The medias has to keep the majority of its views happy in order for them to keep making money. I thought that this was a very interesting and important analogy that proves how unreliable the media can be. I also agree with Andrew in thinking that the heart of the media has not turned against Obama but has temporarily tried to draw more attention to itself, meaning that the media is trying to attract move viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  141. In the Media Bias articles I found more convincing arguments from the pro-liberal position. I believe that it is very true that several, if not most, mediums of press are sponsored by wealthy corporations, or becoming controlled by corporate America, that typically support the Republican Party. Therefore, a stronger Republican influence is evident in the material that is published. In the pro-conservative article there is an argument claiming that cable network FOX News is the only one that ‘presents news in a “fair and balanced” fashion’ although the rest of the media regards it as less liberal. In our textbook and according to other sources, FOX News is in fact known to be more conservative with the content it chooses to portray; therefore, I disagree with the statement from the pro-conservative article. In addition, I’m not certain if the claim about the differences in air time is accurate, but I do think that it is important for networks to provide a fair amount of time to every candidate in respect to others and while trying to remain unbiased.
    It is more than obvious that Rachel Maddow has very liberal points of view. I do, however, believe that her Democratic leanings are not just the reason why she claims that the media has publicized Republicans in a more favorable manner. In the midst of midterm elections there is hardly any media that has not said it is highly likely for Republicans to regain control of the government. Such claims are too confident in assuming this outcome, for I think that many Republican candidates have been a bit hypocritical on their promises and have fooled the media into pretty much supporting the party, or more like the candidates and the media have fooled citizens into believing that all hope is lost with Democrats and consequently one should vote for Republicans. Issues like the deficit, big government, the stimulus, Obamacare, populism, and outsiders are some of the factors that Republicans are focusing on to persuade votes in their favor. Nevertheless, there are few specific explanations on how, if triumphant, the party wishes to fix the issues, there are no fresh political faces as claimed, and several proposed policies actually fall short of what Republicans say they will change.
    Karl Rove deserves credit for defending his position against the DNC advertisement. His strongest claim was that Americans should not pay too much attention to the ‘ridiculous’ claims by the White House because instead they should focus more on the alarming numbers of unemployment rates. It is always wise to use statistics since they provide more evidence to back up arguments, so this was a good strategy. I’m not certain that the President did in reality obtain the claims on the advertisement from a blog powered by former campaign donors whose names have not been disclosed. If this is true then I agree with Rove in that it is hypocritical to demand Republicans to publish a list of donors while Democrats will not do the same. Furthermore, statements that use words like “it appears…” before a claim seem to lack credibility and proof.
    There are some arguments that I agree with that Bernard Goldberg made. Like I mentioned before, the media is heavily influenced by corporate America, thus, as Goldberg suggested, it is not good for business to be on the ‘losing’ team. If Democrats are being put down as the ‘losing’ team by television networks, print sources, and the Internet, an increasing amount of media who have released positive news towards liberals in the past will begin to doubt that support in fear of losing business deals with sponsors. In addition, the President has begun to lose his ‘magic’ with some people growing anxious about the country’s situation, and so it is a bit more natural to go after him and his actions. Overall, though, I do not believe that the media has had a liberal bias for the most part.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Even though the President’s approval rating has diminished greatly since the beginning of his term, I do believe that he still has many supporters that unconditionally believe in his promise of positive change. I also think that it is crucial for more Americans to understand that, like Julian M. mentioned, “to dig our country out of a big ditch is hard, and that it will take more time than just one or two years.” It is ridiculous to consider that the President can fix the country’s many problems in a matter of months. Overcoming issues that put the U.S. in a slump certainly takes time to accomplish properly.

    ReplyDelete
  143. he conservative argument had much more evidence and in my opinion seemed stronger then the Liberal side. The liberal argument of the media being influenced by corporations was less convincing. In my opinion the media creates a political bias for the sole reason to gain ratings. Liberal media networks such as MSNBC and conservative ones such a FOX merely are doing so to get their viewer to agree with them. They are preaching to the choir, in that there political bias is usually watched by viewers with the same political ideologies. Maddow's show is a prime example of this, even as a liberal I found Maddow's show annoying to watch. Shows such as hers which are solely dedicated to presenting a extremely bias political side of any issue are harmful to the American politics and as a result the public. Her constant attack against Republicans do nothing but create a more divided America. She is not the only one guilty of this, commentators such as Glen Beck and Hannity portray radical and in some cases just insane takes on issues. Maddow's hypocritical attacks on the other media are backed with little evidence and are based on sound bites that support her argument. She comes of as arrogant as if she is the all knowing entity of American Politics. Karl Rove on Hannity was just as hard to watch, the entire show seems like a prolonged Republican campaign ad. Rove constantly attacks Liberals and offers unconvincing evidence to support his attacks. Like Maddow, the two radical Republicans talking offers no real insight into the issue of the campaign ad and no defense on the liberal side. The show is unproductive and simply a waste of prime time television. Instead of broadcasting hours of useless political bickering why cant media networks offer nothing but raw news and facts. The O'Reilly clip came off as quite a surprise to me, rarely does a Fox news commentator offer any type of defense to a the Left. The clip was more interesting to watch then the other shows, but in the end was two right wingers talking about politics to a right wing audience. These political biases in the media are creating a more divided and disunited Country by offering little moderate insight into issue.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I found the conservative position more convincing because it gave evidence for the fact that news networks and late night talk shows tend to be more liberal. The liberal position argued that newspapers and radio talk shows tended to be more conservative, but it didn’t point out that television is much more popular than these other types of media. The second argument also talked about how electronic media editors have to pay attentions to what might offend advertisers, who would generally be more conservative, but it doesn’t give any evidence to support this statement. I disagreed with this argument that media editors have to alter their programs in order to cater to advertisers because I believe the advertisers are going to advertise whatever they are selling during programs that appeal to the audience they are trying to sell products to. So, they won’t refuse to advertise on a network if their target audience watches a show on that network because they don’t want to lose sales. I thought the Rachel Maddow video lacked real purpose. She goes through all the reasons that don’t explain why we are electing “extremist” Republicans, and her point is that there is no real reason. I don’t see how this is useful to potential voters in any way other than to warn them about media bias, which most people already know about. So, she spent fifteen minutes convincing voters of something they were already convinced of. I disagree with her overall point that the media has been more favorable to Republicans because she never specifies which types of media and the percentage of voters that see or listen to those types. She also doesn’t give any evidence for this statement. I thought the Fox News videos were much more comprehensive. They presented actual evidence for claims and were more convincing. I thought Mr. Rove’s response to the charges made against him in the DNC ad were perfectly justified because there was no evidence that any of the accusations were true. I disagreed with Mr. Goldberg’s comments on the media’s treatment of President Obama and the Democrats because like the host of the show said, NBC news continues to actively support the president and they are still doing well, so desire to get more advertisers shouldn’t be the main reason for news networks switching from a more liberal perspective to a more democratic perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  145. I agree with Samantha that it is better to use statistics to back up an argument because the Democrats didn't present any proof to back up the claims in the ad. The logical choice is to believe the side with the most evidence, which is the Republican side.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Andrews comment brought up a interesting and true point on how the media most favor to their "customers". In my opinion this favoring of political sides rarely brings up new ideas or sense able bipartisan agreements on a issue. The media is simply getting more and more ridiculous, one of my favorite comedians and political commentators John Steward does a wonderful job at exposing the insanity of the politically bias media. As a Liberal he frequently attacks both sides of the media and represents a group of voters who stand for sanity. Just a hour ago I watch the President Barack Obama give a interview on his show. This is to me is good news as people are getting fed up with modern media and it shows as John Steward gains popularity.

    ReplyDelete
  147. ... this is the third time i am typing this cause my computer is trying to kill me:
    i think that different kinds of media take on a different bias. news on tv is more liberal where newspapers are indeed more conservative. this makes sense too because newspapers survive completely on advertizment money and corrperations are the kinds of people who have the money to spend on ads. newspapers are not willing to upset the people who are making their jobs possible. where as in news on tv, they do just fine without ads so the reporters are free to follow stories that they feel will most likely interest the viewers. and i dont like Rachel Maddow... she bothers me haha. but i do think that by cutting government spending, and just down sizeing government in general would help our economy a lot. and im not gonna lie, i couldnt finishe watching that video because her voice bothered me too much. if i hear her say "... no its not!" one more time............ anyways. as for the second link, the Fox one, i do think that was a "new low" for the democrats because like that guy said (im sorry names are slipping my mind right now) to accuse someone of breaking the law is a serious offence and reporters and campaign supervisers need to check their souces thuroughly before making such accusations. I loved the third video and how it talked about hos the media has changed view on obama and how it used to be putting him in a good light because "the magic is gone and hes not as popular as he was". Media changes view with the sensus. that was the most powerful thing for me in that clip.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Morgan's response to Michael's earlier post is something a agre with. the fact that Rachel Maddow was so incredibly one sided made it frustrating but she was right about the rebublican's evastion of where exactly to cut government spending.

    ReplyDelete
  149. In the article regarding bias in the media, neither argument was paticularlly convincing to me. Both relied on loosely related, non-credited quotes and "statistics" to support their statements of "fact". The argument in the consevative portion of the artcle, that presented FOX News as the only "fair and balanced news source, that by comparison seems conservative to the liberal media" is an unaccurate claim. The cable news station does take steps to insure they have a libreal guest for every consevative one, but overall reporting and "spin" is conservative.
    Rachel Maddow has a very divisive tone, refering to the "Republicans" in a very negative way. She characterizes a group of people and beliefs, with very few, specific issue examples as proof. Although most news sources have reported a likely turnover in the House the coming November elections, this stems not from a conservative bias, but rather a prediction based on polls and percentages in races. I believe the turnover comes not from media's reinforcement of a conservative message to voters, but rather the fact that Democrats are in office during a economic downturn. We also have had record unemployment lows and large stimulus spending, which is easily percieved negatively. Media reflects voter mood, it does not create it.
    In regards to Mr. Goldburg's claims, they had legitimacy. The message of hope and change Obama touted has been long coming, and economic downturn has lead to the removal of rose colored glasses. I also found legitimacy in Hanity and Rove's dicussion of the mudslinging present in the campaigns. I also have had my fill of mean-spirited ads that have become incresingly hysterical as elction day approaches.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I didn't agree with Julian's assertion that Obama is not losing popularity ratings. As the "honeymoon period" declines, it is the national progression for the President to lose popularity the longer he is office, as there id more actions that are controversail for him to take

    ReplyDelete
  151. i think both articles are biased toward the other side because they want people to believe their right, just like all politicians they think they are always right. i believe its very hard to trust the news because its so easy to change the story around. i remember one example particularly a few years back a couple of kids were convinced of murder over in birdrock after beating a kid up. i was watching the news with my mom when the kids were on trial on channel 10 they were saying how the kid wasn't showing much emotion and didn't show very much sympathy for what he did. so i got the impression that he was naturally a bad guy. but then a few hours later i flipped on channel 8 and the same trial they showed the kid crying and were saying how bad he felt about committing the crime. this just goes to show you its so easy to spin around what really happened to convince people to believe what a news channel believes. when i watched the girl all she was doing was pretty much beating on the opposite party which made me not trust her as much and i don't like that kind of stuff so i wasn't really listening. but i can see how she can convince people to believe her because she uses a lot of emotion as most women do. i liked the way rove handled everyone lashing out against him, he kept his composure for the most part so i respect that. and i agree with Goldbergs opinion on the way the media is treating Obama. i dont know much about politics but from what ive heard hes not doing much and people are starting to get tired of it so i believe the media and people will start focusing on his work and not his celebrity status thats being portrayed now.

    ReplyDelete
  152. response to andrew

    i agree with him when he says the girls interview was a little to harsh and doesnt believe most of what he says. i also agree with what he says about the Obama thing its about the same thing i had to say about the whole thing. and how his image will change if he doesnt start getting his job done. and thats all i ave to say about that

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.