Conservative Media Bias
 

Check out this video from Fox News:

Fox refused to air President Obama’s speech Thursday. Here’s what they covered instead. - Daily Kos TV (beta)

Fox news has made a habbit of not showing mainstream presidential speeches since Obama has taken office. These are the types of speeches that were always shown when Bush was giving them. This is the not first time Fox has done this and likely will not be the last. When Bush was giving the speeches all the stations carried them.

Is the myth of the liberal media bias dead? Is the new bias conservative?

Conservatives will always chant the "liberal media" meme as long as they can score pity points with it, but I don't believe the media has been liberal in some time. This is, however, the first time I can remember when the leading players in political media are all right-wing

well first off faux news is a particular case. it is less an information outlet than a conservative political engine, a relay for conservative memes. rubert murdoch, roger ailes--this isn't rocket science. fox's business model is predicated on the existence of a considerable conservative demographic, and so they've found themselves moving from reflecting the memes-of-the-moment within a wider conservative movement to being a central player in effectively holding that movement together in the afterglow of george w bush et al. i think it's hard to overstate the importance of faux news for the right. and as much as i would like to see faux news erased off the face of the earth, murdoch's pockets are deep enough and his committment to reactionary politics seemingly deep enough that unless some basic seachange happens in what constitutes information (or until the equal time legislation is reinstated, the repeal of which is what opened the space for conservative-land to spread into the mainstream and get its arguments confused with legitimate ones), it'll be a feature in the ever-so-free corporate dominated american media-scape.

i think that the bigger question---of conservative biais in the american press across the board--is a complicated one. it think there is without question such a biais, but some of its features are not specifically conservative (for example narrowness of coverage of international events, the tendency, which has increased over the past 20 years, to simply repeat or rebroadcast pre-packaged infotainment because it's cheap and easy)--are preconditions for conservative arguments appearing to be reasonable. but it'd take some doing to make this case in a compelling way, particularly in a messageboard context, and at the moment i haven't the time to undertake it. maybe later. or not. who can say?

Obama speaks about 10 times more often than other presidents. He gives the same speech 15 times a week and all are televised somewhere. I wouldn't blame ANY station for skipping one of them and capitalizing on the ratings/advertising of those who don't want to watch YET ANOTHER Obama speech. Other networks have done the same, not just Fox. This is much ado about nothing.

Not to mention and according to all of you: "there is no point in broadcasting it on the mouthbreather network since the viewers are all too obtuse to understand him anyway."

i don't remember anyone saying anything about "the mouthbreather set"---personally i think it's pretty important to assume that most conservatives are reasonable people---that's what lets you start to think about the effects of ideology. if you assume these folk are simply stupid, then there's nothing to look at, nothing to think about because you've answered your own question (what is this about? how is this possible?) up front.

i think populist conservative ideology blinkers peoples' worlds, but it has to do so in a way that is compelling, so which does not feel like that is what is happening. it has to be an explanation of the world for a range of demographics. that this explanation is surreal is, to my mind, kinda interesting. and that an effect of buying it seems to be a blinkering of the world is both interesting and a Problem.

Beyond this, there was a story earlier today about how ALL the networks are refusing to run ads around legalizing medicinal marijuana.

That's bull shit.

I'm still simmering from the ridiculous assessments put forth in the 9-12 Washington March thread. Just venting.

Here we go: ABC, CBS, Fox Censor Medical Marijuana Ads-but Pharmaceutical Ads are AoK HempNews

Here's one of the ads:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Networks respond to false Fox ad - Blogs from CNN.com

This "fair and balanced" nonsense from Fox is just ridiculous.

I think conservative's blatant disregard for the facts is a huge part of the problem, and this is a prime example. There's no way to mistake last Thursday's speech for 'just another speech', no matter what side you're on. This was the president making his case for healthcare, and Fox decided not to show it.

I don't know a good way to find out how many speeches each president has made, but this was clearly a major policy speech, not a town hall thing.

it may well be that we (myself included here) are over-estimating the centrality of nonsense like faux news in generating the one-dimensional infotainment base that is shaping the current ultra-right mobilizations.

this is kinda interesting:


Republicans steal Barack Obama's internet campaigning tricks | World news | The Guardian

and it is in itself nothing particularly new: the right copped alot of organizational approaches from the left. that's one of the main things that ralph reed brought to the xtian coalition when he became it's media director: he understood the importance of grassroots mobilization. one of the things he did was to turn evangelical churches into little political machines by encouraging them to provide services like rides to election sites for constituents. and they encouraged preachers to use the pulpit as a political space. the argument was "you don't stop being a citizen just because you're a preacher" and with that the separation of church & state was vaporized insofar as the usage of churches as political mobilization tools was concerned at least. folk underestimate ralph reed & how important he was in the refashioning of the contemporary right at the organizational level, and this process is far more powerful than any number of limbaughs.

so too with net-groups, but with all the advantages and disadvantages that net-groups encounter in the process of mobilizing. for example, they narrowcast. at the same time, net mobilization isn't directed to a specific location, so it presupposes 3-space social networks that shape/make specific the reception. net mobilizations are also usually about one-dimensional infotainment, even thinner than the tv meme-circulation system it leans on.

but the infrastructure is interesting.
perhaps this calls for a new, concerted type of counter-action. you know, the sort of political actions that hacker types can do. not that i know any of course. merely doodling in my brain. la la la.

it's about time someone stood up to Fox News for their bullshit. Sadly, not enough people will have seen this

Here is my view of what has happened.

The mainstream media may lean slightly left but if it does it is very slightly. Fox news is extreme right. Some people look at fox news as honest reporting and think it is middle of the road thus by comparison all the other media is liberally biased....

This of course is ridiculous. As the man in the video said there is a difference between reporting a news story and promoting a news story. Fox news is not a news agency at all and instead is a propaganda agency. Fox news does not report the news it filters the news. Fox should be sued for truth in advertising violations.

:lol: burn

so long as cash rules everything around me, faux news will continue.
if you want it to go away, start putting pressure on advertisers who buy time on that network at all.
an organized advertiser boycott could bring it to its knees.
publicizing the boycott would be tricky, in that the defense would play straight into the dividedness that has long been the faux news mainspring. us/them, our reality/their reality. but it could be done, and if it were done, it would go a long way toward redefining the space of political discourse in the united states.

faux news does not report on reality as conventionally understood. faux news is part of a system that edits reality along certain assumptions. "fair and balanced" are relational terms. "fair & balanced" operate with respect to a set of structuring assumptions. so an entirely reactionary media outlet can call itself "fair & balanced" without exactly lying because they never say with respect to what. they just leave that part out.

personally, i'd love to see faux news go down.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Everyone knows Obama's policy on healthcare. Yet another speech about it is not going to change people's minds. That speech not being shown on one network isn't going to sway the argument.

BTW, Fox asked to interview Obama this weekend and the administration refused. If it was so important for his message to be on that network, he had his chance and refused.

I think you're wrong here because we've seen evidence that people do NOT know what the policy is. They are being fed lies by the talking heads and they believe them. Why would a network run a speech that directly conflicts with its own message?

In his first 7 months in office, Obama has done 66 T.V. news interviews. During the same time of their presidency, Bush gave 16 and Clinton gave 6. Thus, Obama has given 3 times more interviews than his two predecessors combined. In the same time period, Obama did 36 print interviews - twice as many as his predecessors combined. One more speech, one more interview is not going to change those people's minds. Let me reiterate that he was invited to do an interview on Fox this weekend and declined the request. If he isn't on that network, it's as much because he chooses not to be.

Funny I didn't know an interview and a speech were the same thing. Also I didn't know being open and transparent and giving the media a chance to express concerns was a bad thing.

It is funny how you are some how trying to state that boycotting the media is a good thing for the people.

The media is there to report the news, not filter the news nor promote the news. Since fox news both promotes stories it likes and filters stories it dislikes i'm going to say fox news is not news at all and instead is just a glorified tabloid.

what surprises me about fox is that everyone does not seem to know that it's a conservative media outlet. it's infotainment is by definition pre=chewed to slot into the political filters that the business model presupposes. so it is manifestly not a "news" outlet. it is an information stream that performs an assimilation operation, one which harmonizes it with the political viewpoints the business model assumes are held by its central demographic. i have no access to information not in the public domain, and i know the model---so it's not hard to find.

what fox's success is testimony to is the resistance to critical interaction with information that's a result of the legion failures of education to teach these skills and demonstrate their importance.
information streams are assimilated wholly into a consumer space, and what is seemingly sought from it is gratification. because "markets are rational"---the circulation of money is the confirmation in this blinkered, stupid system----it is understood as reasonable that infotainment be the norm and that the providing of gratification be the aim. there are any number of gratifications, btw: that of being horrified plays to a kind of voyeurism; the gratification of being paranoid plays to a kind of narcissism (if you are personally under threat, that fact in itself confirms in a backhanded way your Importance in the World---who would bother being a threat to you if you were not Important?); images of chaos and destruction play to an affirmation of distance (you watch it from your living room--it is a form of entertainment) across which the cheap, one-dimensional emoticons of sympathy and pity can flow (providing you the gratification of performing some act of public Largesse by giving o so deeply of your one-dimensional self)
dissonances play back into a consonance of Demand Structures.
disruptions make more desirable the Norm of buying commodities.

in this period of collapse of empire, the centrality of this Norm is the mainspring of wholesale denial.

infotainment is predicated on maintenance of that Norm and the sense of continuity which underpins it.
remember that "news" is an advertising delivery system that trafficks in particular types of "contact" with a "reality" that is always distant, like a movie that you watch.

in this context, fox is merely a particularly obvious, particularly self-referential version of the same basic machinery that is everywhere in the dominant media. from this viewpoint, conservative biais and "liberal" are versions of the same basic machine, which is geared around you as a consumer, you who wants commodities, you who needs to feel safe in order to indulge in the rituals of Purchase.

but that doesn't mean that therefore there's no difference between conservative and other forms of biais. there are differences. self-referentiality, self-confirming arguments are one indicator---more present in populist conservative ideology, slightly less elsewhere.

So do you think that Obama will retaliate in any way against fox news?

This is confusing. What would one do to "retaliate" anyways? Pass a bill that requires news networks to carry speeches?

I'm reluctant to even reply to this, but I will give it a shot.

It seems you are trying to argue that broadcasting a pre-written speech delivered before an audience with no questions will somehow better inform the people than hosting a one-on-one interview with the ability to queston, follow-up, and clarify misunderstandings. That is what Fox offered Obama, and Obama rejected it.

To suggest that Fox is the only network that avoids stories or filters news to their consumers is ludicrous. The fact that you are singling out one news agency for this behavior clearly shows your bias. If it upsets you that the media is not "fair", then make the thread about the entire media filtering their news for their viewers. EVERY media outlet is failing the American people. Drop the partisanship.

It wouldn't have to be a bill, he does have some power as president, even though he's mostly just a figurehead.

Perhaps, you might need to brush up on the first amendment.

Haha... :thumbsup:

Fox News = Fail

Obama is justified in denying the interview to Fox News; why set himself up to have his interview picked apart, edited, and distorted to feed the network's message?


In other news, an interesting article on how (and why) Glenn Beck is different than the other right-wing TV/Radio hosts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/op...rich.html?_r=2

That really is the worst excuse I've heard in quite a while.

That's fine. I don't think it's particularly prudent for the President to feed into (or even recognize) a top-down conservative propaganda network.

So he should only appear on the network on HIS terms, a canned speech to Congress? How Hugo Chavez of you - control the press and you control the country.

it's more about not legitimizing the people you just publicly blasted for spreading lies about your healthcare plan

Not legitimizing?!?! Like them or not, they are the most watched news organization in the country. I don't think Obama attempting to snub them will keep them illegitimate.

Lest we forget, Fox didn't run the speech because there have been too many speeches in primetime already and they wanted to run their regular programming for the purposes of ratings. It wasn't nefarious - they didn't see anything new coming out of the speech, the text of which was released prior to the speech, so why lose an hour of commericals for the same tired speech? Other networks have done this before and it will become increasingly more common with Obama - because he is overplaying himself.

Mayhap you need to remember Bushes reign and how they weighed in on the media.

I didn't vote for Bush either. Hmmm, what a strange dilemma you find yourself in...

Please list for me the networks/newspapers which you find as "Conservative".

Please list for me the networks/newspapers which you find to be "Liberal".

I'd say Obama's message gets a fair distribution.

Indeed? Considering I wouldn't have voted for bush nor obama... How odd.

Most of us have more in common than we think, as soon as we tear down the labels.

who has labeled you in this thread, Cimarron?

Didn't mean to imply that anyone did label me in this thread - but one can't deny that labels are the name of the game on Tilted Politics.

it's not much of a stretch to label someone (you) who is defending the conservative media outlets (while bashing Obama) as conservative.

...and yet I'm not a conservative. Wow, see how easy that was!

I understand you're not. I'm just explaining why it's easy to mistake you as one

I don't come into Tilted Politics anymore, but I can't help but remark on the STAGGERING irony of this observation, in a thread discussing Fox News. Also:

They're not actually a news organization at all, by anyone's definition but their own. And only then because calling it "Fox Propaganda" would probably cut into ad sales.

I can't help but remark at the STAGGERING irony of you making this statement in Tilted Politics! :D

To be clear, I am not defending Fox News. I am defending the media's right to print/omit whatever they want. The people can decide whether they should be "punished" by not watching them. The most recent ACORN videos (great entertainment, BTW) were ignored for 3 days by most media outlets. I don't care - they had a right not to show it. The people will decide whether they made the right call.

This manner of policing the media is far preferable to the idea that Obama would sign an executive order FORCING the media to run his political-sale of healthcare reform to Congress.

I don't think Fox News should HAVE to show anything about Obama at all.

That said, I'm free to criticize their decision not to

I am talking about post 24, 25, 27 and 28 - not about anything you have said.

I read recently that one of their producers was orchestrating tea baggers to demonstrate louder when their commentator began his live report. I guess its all part of the staged show disguised as news.

I thought they were being sarcastic, but maybe not

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------

Hey, check out the motives of the ACORN video folks:

Daily Kos: O'Keefe said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans

Even if his motif was less than honorable, it doesn't change the corruption which is so evident in those videos. We should all be thankful of when two ambitious nobodies protect us because the professional media will not.

so they caught, what, 4 or 5 bad low level employees possibly being bad? thank god they came to the nation's rescue

I would have a lot less problems with them if they released all videos, unedited. Releasing only the bad ones is dishonest, in my opinion. There is no defense for what those low level employees did, but let's not pretend that this was anything other than it was meant to be, which is an attempt to bring down an organization who for the most part registers people who are not likely to vote for a given party.

Yup, can be seen here: Fox News Producer Caught Rallying the Crowds During the 9/12 Protests | Video Cafe

The only point to releasing the alleged good-behavior videos is so that people who love ACORN can go "see, they aren't systemically bad - we don't have to listen to any of this." So, why release those videos and allow this to be ignored? If it was just one office, I would be with you - I promise. But 5 is systemic.

And you are correct, ACORN does register people who are not likely to vote...dead people, babies, Elvis, Mickey Mouse, ...

ACORN made the huge mistake of paying it's voter registration people on a "per-registration" basis, thus the long list of fake registrations.

That said, dead people, Elvis and Mickey Mouse DID NOT VOTE. Don't conflate registration fraud with voter fraud.

the conservative=specific hair across the ass about ACORN is a joke. not worth bothering with. another fake issue to keep those folk occupied with being Angry About Something. it's hard not to tip over into taking swipes at the mindsets behind this. luckily, it's not worth the bother either.

if you want to move out from repeating the obvious--that fox news is a conservative political outlet masquerading as a news source---and the problems that this fact both reflects and exacerbates---the erasure of the line between political statements and matters of fact---and go to a systemic problem, one that explains much about the sort of idiot politics that are possible in the united states, you might consider the question of framing.

infotainment in the states across media is routinely presented without context but with lots and lots of punchy, charged rhetoric. so the information is itself flat--atomized by being ripped out of the environments from which it flows and to which it refers, so the contexts that make events meaningful---but to keep you, consumer, engaged, there's lots of zippy-to-inflammatory language to help you figure out how to React to Situations the understanding of which is not possible, given your access route.

http://dartcenter.org/content/how-news-is-framed
The Effect of News "Frames" | Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma

these are a couple bullet-y corporate-speak style introductions to framing.
they give an idea of what the term means, what it refers to. the references are in the main much better, but this is a messageboard and not a seminar, so peruse at yr leisure.

LOL! The point in releasing all videos is to get a clear unbiased picture for us to make our opinions on. Right now the case against acorn would not hold up in court. Hell a case against these individual employees would not even hold up in court.

I'm glad you are not a judge. Could you imagine what our judicial system would be like if we were allowed to have trials based on edited and incomplete videos?

I can't believe your argument against releasing these videos is that it might make them look innocent. It sounds to me like you already know they are guilty and thus any evidence to the contrary should not even be shown to anyone else. How very Bush WMD of you.

Building the foundations for fraud by committing another fraud makes no frackin difference to me. It shouldn't to you...and frankly, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether dead people voted or not - so don't imply that you do.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

I know that the people on the video are guilty. Looking at 600 people NOT committing crime does not diminish the crimes committed on the videos that we saw. I have a video of a monkey humping a football, it proves these people innocent.

You do know that those registrations were brought to the attention of the authorities by ACORN itself, right? And that, by law, that is what they are required to do. They cannot toss the registrations, only flag them for the authorities, which they did. If anything, they were defrauded by the people who did this, as they paid these people by registration.

And the point of releasing all the videos is to be, you know, objective. Are those 4 bad cases 4 out of 5 places they went? Or 4 out of 200? What was in the footage edited out?

lol, wut?

So it's your opinion that the actions of these select, low-level employees should be enough to shut the entire agency down? Would you suggest shutting down, say, every McDonald's restaurant because one drive-thru cashier was selling dope out the window?

Let me try this again - you think I should not be upset about the fraud because "voter registration fraud is different than voter fraud." The first is a precursor to the second. Both are fraud and I feel the same about both of them. An untainted electoral process is the cornerstone of a republic.

I didn't say shut down the agency. If there are people stupid enough to donate money to ACORN, they can operate off of that - the way all other charities operate. I said cut federal funding until the allegations are proven false.

You seem to think because "only 5 low-level offices" were complicit in tax fraud, loan fraud and human trafficking of underage sex slaves that it is isolated. My take is that, if 5 offices won't bat an eye over these things, imagine all of the smaller fraud that occurs every single day on tax forms and loan applications filed by ACORN in general. The same fraud but without the over-the-top storyline. That is the point that none of you seem to want to accept.

You can be as upset as you want. I'm just saying one happened and the other didn't. Can I prove there was no voter fraud? No, but asking someone to prove a negative is bad form in a debate.


They have not been convicted of any crimes. And what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? You are saying they are guilty until proven innocent.

And cutting federal funding will more or less shut down the agency.

I'm sure there is fraud. It's a not-for-profit agency that is paying barely trained people minimum wage. I'm sure similar things are happening at any number of agencies. Am I excusing the fraud? Of course not. But I'm also not damning the entire agency for the actions of the lowest level employees. Cutting ACORN's funding would be far more damaging and far-reaching than the petty fraud your alleging goes on

I'm glad you know but we still need to see the unedited footage before we can say they are guilty. There isn't a judge in this country that would accept those videos as evidence. They would require the unedited versions of them in order to be admissible.

I'm surprised you don't see how only having edited footage is a bad thing. You can edit a video to say anything you want. I bet given enough footage I could make mother Theresa look like Hitler.

If you are going to use this footage to say the people in the video were bad then release all the unedited footage involving those people. If you are going to use this footage to say ACORN is bad then release all the footage including offices that didn't bite on this scam.

We really have 2 options here. We can either use the facts to create our opinions or we can use our opinions to create our facts. Which do you think is better?

No it won't - because people like you who see the wonderful work ACORN does in communites will take out their checkbook and fund them. You HAVE written them a check this week due to their funds being cut, right?

I see, so your defense of ACORN is:
1) The workers aren't paid enough.
2) The workers aren't trained enough to know that 13 year-old-sex slaves is an illegal business and should not be funded by federal housing grants.
3) Everybody else is doing it, so why can't ACORN.
4) Felony tax evation and mortgage fraud for the purposes of illegal sex trade operations is petty fraud.

Alrighty then, I can't argue with that. I'm done.

I said none of those things

YOU LIE! Oh shit, now I'm a racist.

strawman argument. Furthermore, have you even seen the part about the 13 year old sex slaves? The video shows the undercover reporters asking about it, but EDITED OUT the response.

I think that what those employees did was indefensible and that ACORN should be held responsible for them. But I would rather have the government follow due process before defunding an organization that does at least some good things.

If acorn is as bad as its claimed, due process shouldn't hurt, right?

This is off-topic, but I read a comment from the ACORN employee who stated that she knew the pimp and ho were fake actors and so she fed them as much bullshit as she could. Has this been taken into account in anyone's arguments?

I read that account and believe that she said that to cover her ass. Who jokes around about that kind of shit? Any one of us would look them in the eye and say, "You are breaking the law and asking me to break it with you. Get out."

Whether they "meant it" or not, the information that they gave to the actors was absolutely correct and valid information about how to defraud the government. Hence, it is a crime whether she was just going along with it or not.

The only correct response to their inquiries was "Get out."

Except that half the stuff she said is provably false. She said she shot and killed her husband who was not shot and is still alive. Again just release the unedited footage and we can know the truth of what happened. I don't understand why you are against releasing the full footage and having context in what is going on.....

The fact is you and fox news are on a crusade, if the truth doesn't fit your story then throw it away. You formed your opinion of ACORN long before this occurred and because of that all you care about is crucifying them regardless of what the truth is.

This is a clear cut case of certain people wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water

Farkin' A, dude. That was one part of one of the 5 videos. Go look at the first video, shot in Baltimore. Those women told him how to fill out the form for a mortgage grant and what tax code to use to replace "prostitute" with a legitimate trade. All five videos showed that same pattern. That is tax fraud and loan fraud. Plain and simple.

Each month, the government holds a gun to my head (figuratively) and forces me to write a check (taxes) to ACORN. I could be giving that money to my local food bank (I already do, but I would be able to give more.) Instead, I am forced to give it to people who are undeserving (ACORN). There are PLENTY of other charities out there that do what ACORN does with honesty and integrity and do not enjoy the money tree that ACORN picks from.

Oh so now the entire ACORN organization is guilty but we don't need to see any of the footage from the other offices this guy went to. Based on O'Keefy's completely "unbiased" sample ACORN as a whole is clearly guilty. The people in the videos were doing exactly what ACORN told them to do....

If we are going to do this logic then all conservatives are cheating assholes (Vitter, Stanford, Craig, Esign, Foley). I can't believe you are a cheating asshole like these guys. I mean these guys were clearly told by the Republican party to cheat on their wives and they are telling you the same thing and I know you are cheating asshole because everyone in my unbiased sample above is a cheating asshole.

A gallon of water weighs approximately eight pounds.

how can anyone defend at the same time the ideas that ACORN as a whole is to blame for this and that the videomakers shouldn't release their entire footage at the same time is beyond me.

I think the only thing left to say is this:

Cimarron29414 trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to have a conversation with with a dinning room table.

Never said either of those things. This notion of the "footage" all started with "why don't they release the footage of the offices where these guys were told to take a hike?" That was the ONLY footage I ever said was just...stupid...to demand. (Post #53,55, and 59) As for the unedited footage vs. the edited footage (of the 5 videos which WERE released)- my only contention has been that the footage "as-is" shows felonious behavior. I don't care if the unedited footage is released and never said that it should be withheld. I implied that it's presence would not acquit the obvious criminal activity we can already see. How anyone ever got to my saying that the unedited footage should be hidden from the public is beyond me. #58 is where Rekna morphs the footage question from your contention in 53 of how we should see even the good videos into how we should see the unedited videos. I'm certain you will reread the thread and then apologize for the accusation.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

Your post #74 was really too idiotic to respond to. You jump to so many conclusions without truly reading my post, as well as insult me by calling me a conservative. You can call me a dining room table if you like, but don't call me a conservative.

In a case where the entire organization is being accused of something, how the fuck can you say that it is stupid to request the footage from the offices where nothing happened?

Only a partisan hack can claim that footage that shows no illegal behavior is irrelevant and that requesting it is stupid.

Do you seriously think that if those videos are 5 out of 300 the implications for acorn as an organization are the same if the videos are 5 out of 6?

And certainly saying that requesting such videos is stupid is akin to defending the non-release of them, right?

Besides, the importance of releasing the full unedited video is also obvious. One of the people in the videos claimed that she played along until she called the police. Do the videos show that? In fact, the editing of the videos has played such a role, that even you, who is so convinced that the videos show enough, was misled. You have stated in this thread the myth of the 13 year old sex worker, when in reality whatever acorn said about that was EDITED OUT of the video.


If acorn as an organization is guilty, they should certainly be punished. But I believe in due process. I'm not stupid or partisan enough to believe that edited video of a handful of individuals is enough to demonstrate that the organization itself is to blame, as opposed to just the individuals.

It is utter and complete speculation on both our parts that "good" videos even exist. If you think that two college students had enough money and time on their hands to produce 300 attempts at this all around the country - well then fine, I will concede that if the ratio is 5 to 300 - it is not systemic. Now, I suspect they failed a few times. I will even say they failed 10 times. That's still 33% of the time they were helped in commiting fraud. That number is systemic.

I'm not going to argue with you about the 13-year-old sex worker part, you are just wrong. The first video from Baltimore has the ACORN woman telling the prostitute to claim the girls as dependents, "but no more than 3 because no one will believe a 20-year-old has 13 kids."

BTW, I do expect you to admit that I never said the unedited footage should be withheld.

What laws were broken by the "fraudulent" advice by a handful of workers in response to contrived questions.

Other than the possibility of a crime on the part of the video guy under Maryland law.

So when you said "So, why release those videos and allow this to be ignored?" you were not arguing against them being released? So when you said that that it would be stupid to request that all videos be released you were not being against their release? Is that what your argument really is?

As far as the 13 year old sex worker part, the only video to specifically mention a 13 year old is the San Bernardino one, and the answer was edited out. As many of the other clearly made up things that the woman at San Bernardino's were also edited out, which in turn makes 1 of the 5 videos not credible.


And with regards to how many offices they visited, these are not poor college kids. The girl is the daughter of one of a conservative talk show host.
And the locations they decided to visit is also telling: San Diego, San Bernardino, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and DC. They also claimed the Bronx office was closed. So they traveled all across the country, but did not visit any of the other 4 offices in NY? Only 1 of the 2 offices in MD? None of the 7 offices directly between NYC and DC? None of the offices in the several states in the region? And that is with the police report of them being kicked out of the Philadelphia office.
They went to San Bernardino and San Diego, but not to any of the offices around LA and between San Bernardino and San Diego?
They never tried to go to the Chicago offices, to try to tie this somehow with Obama?

I think there is a huge gap between what we actually have evidence of and what people perceive Acorn is guilty of. I would have no problem being convinced that it is indeed a systematic problem. I do have a problem with dismantling an organization based on edited video, without releasing all the material. If the original tapes were turned over, I would be easy enough to see the truth. Resistance to releasing those tapes leads me to believe something is up.

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- Just a reminder, folks, to refrain from personal attacks. Please keep this discussion above board or face the consequences. Thank you.

For the third time, when I said the quotes above, I was referring to the videos where no criminal activity occurred. That is very clear in my posts.

You know, for people who said these acts are indefensible - you guys are putting up quite a fight on their behalf.

Not quite dead, no. The evidence is Exhibit A:

NATIONAL SHU POLL FINDS ONLY ONE-QUARTER OF AMERICANS BELIEVE ‘ALL’ OR ‘MOST’ OF NEWS MEDIA REPORTING AND DECLARE OLD –STYLE JOURNALISM IS DEAD

Ø Fox News Trusted Most – and Least
Ø Large Majorities See Media Attempts to Influence Public Opinion and Policies
Ø Americans Provide News Media with Dismal Satisfaction Ratings
Ø Little Support Found for Tax Dollar Bailout of Newspapers

The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its third survey on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." The national survey of 800 Americans was fielded from Sept. 8-11 and covered new subjects as well as updating results from 2003 and 2007.


ON MEDIA TRUST, INFLUENCE AND RATINGS…
Respondents were asked if they believed all, most, some, little or none of news media reporting. Just 24.3% indicated they believe all or most news media reporting. While this is up from 19.6% in 2007, it remains lower than the 27.4% recorded in 2003.

Just over half of all respondents, 54.0%, said they believe “some” news media reporting. This is down slightly from 55.3% in 2007. Those believing little or no news media reporting dropped to 20.4% in 2009 from 23.9% in 2007.

According to Sacred Heart University Government and Politics Professor and Chair Dr. Gary Rose, "The low level of trust exhibited by poll respondents towards the media is in some respects a manifestation of the growing resentment and distrust among the American people regarding large and powerful institutions in general. The American people have become increasingly skeptical and suspicious towards institutions which they perceive as distant and manipulative. Small wonder that the media, which is now controlled by a handful of large corporations, is perceived in such a negative light."

In 2009, 86.6% (87.6% in 2007 and 70.3% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion. And, 85.3% (86.0% in 2007 and 76.7% in 2003) strongly and somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political positions and attempt to influence public policies.

"The results suggest that we are witnessing a new era of partisan media with the important difference that current news outlets claim to be offering objective coverage when they often aren’t," says Sacred Heart University Media Studies and Digital Culture Associate Professor, Dr. James Castonguay.

Researchers were asked which national television news organization they trusted most for accurate reporting. Fox News was named by 30.0% of all respondents – up from 19.5% in 2003 and 27.0% in 2007.

Those named most frequently as the television news organization most trusted for accurate reporting in 2009 included: Fox News (30.0%), CNN (19.5%), NBC News (7.5%) and ABC News (7.5%). Fox News was also the television news organization trusted least. Just over one-quarter, 26.2%, named Fox News, followed by NBC News (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%), CNN (8.5%), CBS News (5.3%) and ABC News (3.7%).

Researchers asked respondents for their perceptions of political leanings of various news sources. The Daily Show/Colbert Report was viewed, by a six-to-one margin, as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. By nearly five-to-one margins, respondents see “news media journalists and broadcasters,” the New York Times and MSNBC as mostly or somewhat liberal over those that see them as mostly or somewhat conservative.

Fox News is viewed as mostly or somewhat conservative over mostly or somewhat liberal by a four-to-one margin. And, by approximately three-to-one margins, CNN and USA Today are viewed as mostly or somewhat liberal over mostly or somewhat conservative. The Wall Street Journal is viewed as more conservative by a two-to-one margin while National Public Radio is viewed as more liberal by the same margin.

Researchers read the following question to respondents: "Many considered Walter Cronkite, who recently passed away, the most trusted television news anchor. In your view, who is the most trusted news anchor today?" A total of 25 different individuals were named in the open-end format question. The top six mentioned as most trusted were Charles Gibson (19.8%), Brian Williams (17.3%), Katie Couric (9.9%), Bill O’Reilly (9.3%), Tom Brokaw (8.0%) and Jim Lehrer (2.4%).

Over half of all respondents, 56.1%, suggested they trust the electronic and print news media for accurate news and information over blogs (7.8%), the social media such as Facebook (3.4%) and entertainers/celebrities (4.3%). Others, 28.5%, were unsure whom they trusted most.

The average, overall positive rating for the national electronic and print news media across eight service characteristics was 35.9%. Most organizations strive to attain and maintain customer satisfaction ratings in the high 80s and low 90s.

The highest positive ratings were recorded for "quality of reporting" (40.6%) and "meeting expectations" (40.0%). The lowest positive ratings were recorded for "presenting negative and positive news equally" (30.6%), "keeping any personal bias out of stories" (33.0%), "presenting an even balance of news" (33.6%) and "fairness" (33.1%).

More respondents agreed (strongly or somewhat) with the statement "The news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be" (70.4%), than disagree (25.5%). Some, 4.1%, were unsure.


ON NEWS MEDIA VIEWING HABITS…
Researchers asked respondents which television news organization they turned to most frequently. The top five news organizations were Fox News (28.4% - up from 26.5% in 2007), CNN (14.9% - down from 16.0% in 2007), NBC News (10.6% - down from 11.8% in 2007), ABC News (9.3% - down from 11.0% in 2007), and "local news" (9.3% - down from 8.5% in 2007). Other organizations respondents turned to most frequently included CBS News (7.4%), MSNBC (4.3%), PBS News (1.3%), CNBC (0.6%) and CBN (0.1%).

Respondents were asked if they selected their favorite because they offer objective reporting or because they view the issues as they did. In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues. Another 21.0% were unsure or didn’t know.

Dr. Castonguay went on to say that "the polarization we are seeing around an issue such as healthcare is being reflected in news media preferences. Those same media outlets are covering, framing, and interpreting the issues for the public, so it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy."

Nearly three-quarters of all respondents, 73.3%, indicated they did not have a personal page on a social network such as Facebook or MySpace. Another 25.5% said they did.


ON THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE…
While strong majorities of survey respondents (73.4%) believed the news media (newspapers, radio, TV and the internet) should provide equal time and space for multiple sides of issues, a similar percentage (70.9%) said the same media should be free from government involvement and allow the market to determine programming demand.

"The results once again show that Americans are not getting what they expect from the major news outlets, yet they don’t trust the government to fix the problem," says Dr. Castonguay.


ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP…
Nearly three-quarters, 71.0%, believed it is very (31.8%) or somewhat (39.3%) important that limits be placed on how many media outlets one company should own. Another 24.7% believe such limits are somewhat unimportant (8.4%) or not at all important (16.3%). Some, 4.4%, were unsure.

Over half of all respondents, 56.7%, believed it’s "bad for democracy" that six companies currently own almost all the major media outlets in the United States. Another 30.4% suggested it does not matter while 7.8% indicated it was good for democracy.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed, 62.9%, suggested that these media ownership companies provide news that mostly generates ratings and advertising income over those (22.3%) who suggested these companies provide news that mostly informs the public about issues and policies.

Dr. Castonguay suggests that "many Americans feel that the news media are not giving them what they want as consumers or citizens, and are concerned about the effects of media ownership on the health of our democracy."


ON THE FUTURE…
Nearly two-fifths of all respondents, 38.1%, said they are reading newspapers less often than they did five years ago. And, nearly half, 45.0%, agreed that the internet is adequately covering for failing newspapers, while 35.6% disagreed.

More than three-quarters, 77.9%, disagreed with a statement suggesting tax dollars be used to prop up failing newspapers.

Two-thirds, 64.1%, agreed that the health of our democracy is directly tied to the health of journalism. And, 67.9% agreed with a statement that read: "Old-style, traditionally objective and fair journalism is dead." Just one quarter, 26.5%, disagreed while 5.6% were unsure.


ON MEDIA BIAS…
Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased. Some, 2.4%, were unsure.

A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed. Some, 3.6% were unsure.

Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s healthcare reform without objective criticism. Another 39.3% disagreed and 4.3% were unsure. Further, a majority, 57.6% of those surveyed agreed that the news media appear to be coordinating efforts to diminish the record of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin. One third, 34.6%, disagreed and 7.9% were unsure.

“It is sad,” suggested Jerry C. Lindsley, director of the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, “when we find that only 55.9% say they expect the media to tell them the truth today.” He added, “This perception of bias will eventually catch up with the news media outlets – we found 45.9% have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.”


ON THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA…
A large majority, 85.3%, of those polled suggested they were very or somewhat aware of the term “mainstream media.” Respondents saw the members of the mainstream media as: NBC (37.6%), CBS (32.6%), ABC (29.5%), CNN (27.8%), Fox News (19.9%), and MSNBC (12.6%). Over half of those surveyed, 56.1%, suggested the “mainstream media” are mostly or somewhat liberal while 16.7% suggested somewhat or mostly conservative. Some, 19.7%, saw the “mainstream media” as neutral and 7.7% were unsure.


ON LT. BRADSHAW AND THE WARS…
The poll found that, by a six-to-one margin, Americans would prefer to have their national news media cover the life of 1st Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw who was killed fighting in Afghanistan than that of entertainer Michael Jackson following their deaths on June 25, 2009. Another 14.6% suggested they would have preferred an even balance of coverage and 8.0% were unsure.

“The overwhelming result is not at all surprising,” Lindsley suggested. “We found 70.4% agreeing that the national news media are not as responsive to consumer preferences and market desires as they claim to be. Just 25.5% disagreed.”

The poll of 800 Americans also found 57.4% saw too little news about the men and women fighting the wars while 7.3% saw too much and 31.3% suggested there was about the right amount. Overall, 45.1% saw too little news on the wars while 9.8% saw too much and 41.3% suggested war coverage was about right. Negative news on war development was too much for 31.3% and too little for 33.5% while 30.3% said there was about the right amount.

And, majorities saw too little truthful reporting on the wars (59.6%), news on successes (60.8%), and objective/unbiased news reporting (57.0%).


EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT


* Dr. James Castonguay, associate professor, Media Studies and Digital Culture
* Jerry C. Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute
* Dr. Gary Rose, professor and chair of Government and Politics

To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or alpf@sacredheart.edu or Tracy Deer-Mirek at 203-371-7751 or deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu.


How the Poll Was Conducted
The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 surveys nationally. All telephone interviews were conducted between September 8 and September 11, 2009. One survey instrument was used to elicit information from all respondents. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.

# # #

About Sacred Heart University
Sacred Heart University, the second-largest Catholic university in New England, offers more than 40 undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs on its main campus in Fairfield, Connecticut, and satellites in Connecticut, Luxembourg and Ireland. Approximately 6,000 students attend the University’s four colleges: Arts & Sciences; Education & Health Professions; University College; and the AACSB-accredited John F. (Jack) Welch College of Business. The Princeton Review includes SHU in its “Best 371 Colleges: 2010” and “Best Business Schools: 2010” and U.S. News & World Report ranks SHU among the best master’s universities in the North in its annual “America’s Best Colleges” publication. As one of just 23 institutions nationally, SHU is a member of the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U) Core Commitments Leadership Consortium, in recognition of its core, “The Human Journey.” SHU fields 31 division I athletic teams, and has an award-winning program of community service. Welcome to Sacred Heart University, Fairfield CT - Sacred Heart University

For additional Sacred Heart University news, please visit News & Events - Sacred Heart University.
SHU National Poll: Trust and Satisfaction With the National News Media - Sacred Heart University

And how is the fact that you are referring to tapes where "nothing happened" contradict my statement that "how can anyone defend at the same time the ideas that ACORN as a whole is to blame for this and that the videomakers shouldn't release their entire footage at the same time is beyond me?"

What fight? My position has been, from the start, that I believe in due process, and that I won't form an opinion on acorn as an organization until the full tapes are released. I have no problems finding what the individuals did indefensible, but I need more to consider this an organizational feature. That you think that this is akin to an endorsement of acorn or a fight in its behalf tells more about just how hellbent you are on condemning them than anything else. And so much resistance on the videomakers' part in releasing the rest of the footage tells me something is not right.

I would agree with you if this was the only evidence of ACORN corruption. I'm done. I'll be back when the convictions are read.

Where is the other evidence? And please don't use the voter registration forms that acorn flagged themselves as evidence.

I said I'm done. I'm wasting my time.

Nice of you to come back to reiterate that you are done. And Im amazed at this desire to constantly play the victim. Who knew that asking for full disclosure, or asking about the so called abundant evidence, would be considered such an egregious attack on you...

It isn't an egregious attack. I am not going to convince you of anything no matter what "evidence" I provide. I'm not a victim - I'm just not going to waste my time trying to convince someone of something with a 0% chance of success. When we reach an impasse I stop - and we have come to that here. It's not personal, it's just time to quit.

More acorn news.

article
I assume some will feel it is more bias, but does not change that the organization has lots of problems and needs to be shutdown from federal money and audited for fraud.

Honestly, there's not an overall bias or some conspiracy. It's a matter of corporations being squeamish about ratting out their friends or reporting something unpopular, and journalists bringing their own particular biases to their work. Any journalist that says he or she is 100% objective is either lying or doesn't understand him or herself.

After 9/11, it was financially prudent to back the wartime president. The last thing they wanted was to be labeled unpatriotic... and there's a lot of money in patriotism. Those few media members that dared speak up were, just as predicted, labeled as un-American or unpatriotic (two completely meaningless terms), and were marginalized as the acquiescing media outlets gladly gobbled up information from the wartime administration. I wish I could have seen the looks on their faces as millions of Americans protested against the war back in 2003. I'm sure they were doing advertising math, trying to pick sides, all along many journalists were falling into the same trapping of vengeance that many people were feeling.

Fast forward, and we see that wartime corporate position slowly morphed into the status quo for many because it was quite profitable. From there, corporate interests aligned themselves with either progressives (centrists, actually) or conservatives because there's a lot of money to be made in the us-vs.-them game. Just look at sports.

Is there a conservative media bias? Kinda. There are generally two camps, centrists that think they're liberal, and right-wing extremists that think they're right-center. In reality this averages out to a conservative bias, but it's a bit of an oversimplification.

Bachmann warns of abortions at school - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Just thought I'd throw out the weekly Michelle Bachmann insanity here

The media is neither Conservative nor Liberal, rather STATIST. All major Media are owned by, or own, large defense contractors. You know, Raytheon, General Dynamics/Electic, Lockheed Martin...they know where their bread is buttered. The media support whoever is, or will be, in charge of their parent company's (or subsidiaries, in the case of AOL/Time/Warner) paychecks.

I don't know if anyone has been paying attention to fox news lately but here is the jist of one story over the last few days:

Yesterday: Obama is bad because he is trying to get the Olympics in Chicago.
Today: Obama is bad because he failed to get the Olympics in Chicago.

Tomorrow: Obama's Olympic gold medal win proves he's Kenyan.

the Olympic spin was obvious weeks ago. It was lose-lose from the start

One of the random douches from ESPN published an article earlier this week about how he was against the olympics in Chicago, how it doesn't really generate improvements for the city, and etc. Today, after the decision, he wrote about how Chicago was "snubbed" and said he hoped the infrastructure aspects of the Chicago proposal are not forgotten and take place.

The general media attitude seems to be "we didn't want it, but damn you for not offering it to us." Some of the usual suspects even brought up "anti-Americanism" as the culprit, apparently oblivious to the fact that the US has hosted 4 olympics in the past 29 years...