"The Clinton Media Machine"

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
From The New Republic:

Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience. Though few dare offer specifics for the record--"They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am"--privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."

Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage.
Click to expand...

And whose fault is it? Why, it's George W. Bush's fault, of course. Isn't everything?
...the Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House...
Click to expand...
Only, according to this story, it actually seems to be working for Clinton.
 
Given what the media did to Kerry, Clinton shouldn't be hostile, she should be reduced to bed-wetting terror.
 
What a load of crap. This seems to be part of the same media attacks on Democrats that goes back to Al Gore and all the lies the media spread about him. It happened to Kerry in 2004, so why should we expect anything different this time around?
 
Wait you mean he didn't say he invented the internet and say he was responsible for single-handedly saving Love Canal? :confused:
 
quixotecoyote said:
Wait you mean he didn't say he invented the internet and say he was responsible for single-handedly saving Love Canal? :confused:
Click to expand...

Interesting, isn't it? They had to doctor quotes from Gore, in order to frame him as being dishonest... and ignore the very obvious lies that Bush was telling, in order to play up his non-existent integrity. The media lied to America for the entire campaign. And it wasn't just or even mainly Fox "News"... the entire mainstream media got in on the act.
 
JoeEllison said:
Interesting, isn't it? They had to doctor quotes from Gore, in order to frame him as being dishonest... and ignore the very obvious lies that Bush was telling, in order to play up his non-existent integrity. The media lied to America for the entire campaign. And it wasn't just or even mainly Fox "News"... the entire mainstream media got in on the act.
Click to expand...


That is what is so infuriating. Our so called liberal media was the one inventing the Gore "lies". I'd expect that from the likes of certain conservative news sources (WND, Newsmax, Fox).

So how liberal is our media when they go after Dems harder than Repubs?

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
That is what is so infuriating. Our so called liberal media was the one inventing the Gore "lies". I'd expect that from the likes of certain conservative news sources (WND, Newsmax, Fox).

So how liberal is our media when they go after Dems harder than Repubs?

Lurker
Click to expand...

Not liberal at all when it comes to politics. The closest thing to "liberal" in the media is the fact that they aren't as reflexively anti-homosexual, sexist, and racist as the right-wing would like.

As far as the political parties are concerned, the media swings pretty hard towards the Republicans.
 
Joe:

I'd say the media tends towards the liberal for social issues but for fiscal issues swings towards the conservative side.

Why is it the media only looks for "character" concerns with Democrats and never portrays conservatives as anything but pristine?
 
Lurker said:
Joe:

I'd say the media tends towards the liberal for social issues but for fiscal issues swings towards the conservative side.

Why is it the media only looks for "character" concerns with Democrats and never portrays conservatives as anything but pristine?
Click to expand...
What's interesting is that they play up completely fictional character flaws in Democrats, while ignoring glaring problems with Republicans. The double standard is ridiculous.
 
Tokorona said:
..And those comments about Bush's langauge skills are...
Click to expand...

Well, they were used as part of the "Bush is just a normal guy, unlike that stick in the butt Gore, and all his big fancy words and facts and stuff" media spin.
 
The media loves Obama.
The media fears Clinton.

Is it better to be feared or loved? With all of the messianic coverage Obama got a year ago he never got within margin of error of Clinton (despite one poll one day that got posted to this forum whereas the RCP average showed the exact same results that had been seen for weeks).
 
Where does the idea of a "liberal media" in America come from? My own experiences with American media (which are reasonably extensive) have not led me to this conclusion, to say the least. I can understand how the rabidly conservative might be frustrated by the taboo on racism, homophobia, sexism etc., but any suggestion that news networks favour the Democrats, give the Republicans an extra hard time, or present a "liberal" take on the world politically, is pretty hilarious to this particular outsider.

In Britain, the BBC is overwhelmingly liberal on social issues, but the extent to which it's politically liberal is wildly overstated. Or rather, it does have a liberal bias, but liberal in the British sense of "neither strongly left nor right". As a state broadcaster, its news output aims for an uncontroversial consensus viewpoint which naturally manages to infuriate both the Right (by marginalising "politically incorrect" opinion) and the Left (by refusing to question the motives of the political establishment, most strikingly in times of war). Those who complain about its supposed left wing bias are usually the kind of folk who don't understand that you can move a hell of a long way to the left of their political views without reaching the centre. And yet, compared to the major American networks, it looks like its Head Of Newsgathering is Noam Chomsky.

So is this "liberal media" thing an invention of the American Right, designed to shift the boundaries of acceptable opinion, or is there some real evidence for it? I mean, I've seen Olbermann, but he's the exception, isn't he?
 
Kiosk said:
So is this "liberal media" thing an invention of the American Right, designed to shift the boundaries of acceptable opinion, or is there some real evidence for it? I mean, I've seen Olbermann, but he's the exception, isn't he?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Olbermann is really the closest thing to an actual liberal hosting any of the cable news channels.

As far as the "liberal media" lie, it is pretty much a complete fabrication of the right-wing. It is part of their overall strategy to discredit and/or corrupt every source of reality and fact. Why do you think they hate education and science so much?
 
JoeEllison said:
Yeah, Olbermann is really the closest thing to an actual liberal hosting any of the cable news channels.

As far as the "liberal media" lie, it is pretty much a complete fabrication of the right-wing. It is part of their overall strategy to discredit and/or corrupt every source of reality and fact. Why do you think they hate education and science so much?
Click to expand...
If you edit out Fox News, unapologetic Bush fans, and look at the broader media industry again, and its editorial slant, you'll get a different picture. Better yet, Joe, work in an organization that gets media scrutiny 24-7.

Then, define what you mean as "liberal" so one understands what is being referred to. The media is, when firing on all cylinders, supposed to be at least somewhat critical if it is to fulfill its role, which in the political spectrum leads to the very easy feeling, in one camp or another, that the media are against them, and thus for the opposing faction.

Add to that the uneven application of taboos, and you might see things differently.

DR
 
Kiosk said:
Where does the idea of a "liberal media" in America come from?
Click to expand...

The actual bias may be found in the viewers perception. Cook and Selltiz (1964) introduced an attitude measure called partially structured attitude measure (PSAM). It consists of an ambiguous statement that is rated by a participant. In the process, the participant reveals their own bias.

Vargas, Von Hippel and Petty (2004) used this measure to predict behavior and found it as accurate as implicit association tests.

Here's an example of a PSAM from the article:

“Mary didn’t go to church once the whole time she was in college but claimed she was still a very religious person. She said that she prayed occasionally and that she believed in Christian ideals. Sometimes she watched religious programs on TV like the 700 Club or the Billy Graham Crusade.”

Rate the above on a scale from 1 to 11. 1 being not at all religious and 11 being extremely religious.

Since the statement is ambiguous in nature, someone with deeply held religious beliefs would likely rate Mary’s level of religion low. An atheist would likely rate it high. Either one would reveal the participants bias or attitude.

Is it possible that the media is largely ambiguous, and people's perceptions are simply a reflection of deeply held bias.

Just a thought...

References

Vargas, Von Hippel, & Petty (2004). Using Partially Structured Attitude Measures to Enhance the Attitude-Behavior Relationship.
Peronality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30; 197

Cook, S. W., & Selltiz, C. (1964). A multiple-indicator approach to attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 36-55.
 
Darth Rotor said:
If you edit out Fox News, unapologetic Bush fans, and look at the broader media industry again, and its editorial slant, you'll get a different picture. Better yet, Joe, work in an organization that gets media scrutiny 24-7.

Then, define what you mean as "liberal" so one understands what is being referred to. The media is, when firing on all cylinders, supposed to be at least somewhat critical if it is to fulfill its role, which in the political spectrum leads to the very easy feeling, in one camp or another, that the media are against them, and thus for the opposing faction.

Add to that the uneven application of taboos, and you might see things differently.

DR
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The clear reality is that the mainstream media as a whole holds Democrats and Republicans to a different standard, one favoring Republicans. That's CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other so-called "liberal media" outlets. Critical of Democrats, incredibly compliant and cozy with Republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom