AP writers are slamming Republicans today
 

Democrats slam Bush's stem cell bill veto
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/...ats_stem_cells

By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 49 minutes ago


and at the same time on Yahoo News

Schwarzenegger's star falls with Hispanics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/...gger_hispanics

By LAURA KURTZMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 22, 4:33 AM ET

So people are not allowed to have an opinion?

Yeah, journalists really shouldn't be allowed to quote sources. Especially if the sources are critical of Republicans. :rolleyes:

I find it amusing that they act like he wasn't going to. I mean the guy said he would veto it. Bush has a history of conservative Christian right wing decisions, and this should not be a big surprise IMO.

yeah, im not sure how this is an opinion of the writer when he quotes someone else. I guess we would need to see the whole article but the above is certainly not incriminating of the writer.

A writer can obviously choose who he quotes, and can certainly go too far with expressing his bias through quotes alone - but I don't think this crosses that line. The negative quotes are basically the story here.

Here's another one that comes out that starts off with a rather unflattering way for a Republican to win a campaign.

Opposition research aids political wars
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
51 minutes ago

I support freedom of the press.

And freedom of speech.

Should the AP and Reuters who have a monopoly on being major producers of news support all Americans in their reporting, I mean, if they are going to be so biased in at least some of their articles?

The Democratic Party and their leaders appear to be above reproach by those sources.

What was the point of this thread, other than to get specific people pissed off and start an argument?

I'm sorry. How is "Democrats slam Bush's stem cell bill veto" slamming Republicans? Democrats are unhappy about the veto, certainly and are slaamming bush. That whole headline is fact. The quote you bolded is an example of what is being slammed. This doesn't mean that Republicans are being slammed. I'd imagine if you were in favor of the veto the headline would be "slamming" Democrats instead.

In a related vein, a conservative can cherry-pick articles that appear to be unflattering to other conservatives to create the illusion of bias when none is actually present.

In regards to the title of this thread, in other breaking news its been revealed that the Pope is actually "Catholic' and that bears relieve themselves 'in the woods.' More amazing revelations to come...

Whatever happened to reporting the news with quotes from all sides and letting the reader make up his/her mind. You don't think they are actually trying to persuade public opinion, do you? :eek:

Why do men have nipples? Some questions have no answers.

There are facts. Not everything has two sides. Democrats are slamming Bush. True statement. Republicans, in general, aren't doing as well with Hispanics as they were 2 years ago. Also true statement. Now you could argue that what they're writing about might be biased, that's a different idea, and one I would agree happens (and actually cuts both ways) but every side does NOT have two sides. That's how we get rediculous things like whether or not global warming exists when virtually every scientist agrees that it does.

Just because something's a fact, doesn't mean it doesn't have a bias. The articles here might not be the best or most blatant examples of this (but why is the fact the Democrats don't like a Republican president's veto "news"?)

Come on now, we should all take it easy on Jessie....er...Dutch.

The fact that Hispanics don't like Arnold would be news if Hispanics initially supported him (no clue if they did or not), but otherwise, what's the point other than to throw in some anti-Arnold quotes?

Because that's not what every story is about. It's rarely the job of a journalist to tell both sides of a story and simply leave it up to the reader. That's a fairy-tale vision of journalism. It's more simply up to the journalist to report what happens and what they see and hear.

This story is about the Democrat's weekly radio address. The reporter summarized the events that precipitated the address and reported what was said during the address. There's really nothing to be gained by asking Bush what he thinks of the Democratic response, since he likely won't comment even if he were available to be asked.

There is also a story on the AP right now -- as a matter of fact, at Yahoo it's listed well above the story cited by Dutch -- about the president's weekly radio address. That writer did not seek any Democratic response to Bush's address. Again, the story is about what Bush said.

Not every journalistic report is he said/she said journalism. Oftentimes that's not the point. But journalistic fairness wasn't the point of this post -- as Schmidty observed, it was really just about selectively quoting headlines to try and start a pointless discussion with no merit.

Mission accomplished!

What if another article started like this?

WASHINGTON - A Colorado congresswoman said Saturday that the Democrats were motivated by "cold, calculated disregard for life of the unborn" when they supported a bill that would expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

or

NORWALK, Calif. - Ask Jerry Morales about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 54-year-old computer technician sums him up in a word: "I like him."

----------

I don't have a dog in the fight on these specific issues. Too many people want to use the media to bolster their opinions. Printing stuff like "cold, calculated, cynical political gain" is pure hyperbole - fighting words for both sides in this game. Those that agree with it would gleefully point it out and and say, "See? That's a fact because it's in black and white!". While those that disagree gladly point out media "bias". I believe most of you are being suckered into the red/blue game and will hope any piece of "evidence" to perpetuate that.

Here is how the AP writers handle the US support for our Israeli ally against the terrorist Hezbollah. This isn't a political Republican/Democrat thing, but just a negative way to look at the Bush Administration's support of Israel.

U.S. threatened with more isolation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/...JlYmhvBHNlYwM-

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
Fri Jul 21, 5:23 PM ET


Very negative in their interpretation and subsequently, very difficult for the casual reader to not be guided to the writers intended message. Classic bias.

Because it's the first veto.

Only what they want to see and hear. How long did it take to find Arely Gonzales?

Bush just needs to start giving AP writers unexpected back rubs.

I hear he's good at that.

Is that what it takes? Seriously, I don't know, because I'm not a Democratic leader.

Then those are facts too which is my point. I've read plenty of articles whose lede is someone Republican slamming some Democrat. Doesn't make for bias.

Except, you can't find any right now, I understand.

Well
A) I hadn't looked
and
B) So by virtue of the fact that there is no article from today, as I am taking your word on it, that makes for bias?

Jeez Dutch, don't you have anything better to do on the weekends?

But since the gauntlet was thrown...

Here's another

And this whole story seems pretty pro-Bush

And my last

The last one is a perfect example. Here we have an article that's pretty easy to see is a positive article. Yet, if you read the quotes the AP writer found to use, none of them were positive.


With all that applause, they didn't find anybody who had anything nice to say about the President? Do you really believe that?

I shake my head that people still fall for the liberal press bit when almost every big media outlet is corporatized. We haven't had a liberal press in 20 years.

The real problem, of course, is the liberal bias of the internets.

Don't get me started on ABC, NBC, and CBS! But I admit, I am only picking on those who generate news in America, like the AP and Reuters.

I find absolutely none of the articles quoted to be biased, but some will find they are being persecuted no matter what. With FoxNews we are seeing that what Republicans really wanted was a conservative-biased news station. The fact they call it balanced, when it is by far the most biased cable news station is incredible.

I would point out two things.

1) That bill never sees the President's desk without Republican support in the first place, so OP's assertion that the AP is slamming the Republican Party is probably inaccurate.

2) the articles that JPhillips cited, virtually all of the bolded text is a direct quote from the President, and the rest is indirectly quoted (although example #2 is, IMO, a good instance of a counter-argument to Dutch).

By contrast, the article cited by Dutch doesn't even use indirect quotes to buttress its thesis assertion. I don't know that I would say that such slanting of an article is unique to one side of the debate or the other, but if the assertion here is that the press uses language construction to influence readers one way or the other on a particular topic, I think the general point is unassailable.

Bias in both directions? Absolutely.

That bias clearly exists in high-profile media publications(although may or may not be pandemic)? Also absolutely.

FoxNews is the primary reason I don't have a problem with CNN slanting left. There's a balance. A liberal can watch a cable news show and a conservative can watch a cable news show and both can be content. And we can all tune in to either to get a clearer picture of the news.

Liberals find FoxNews biased but think that it's ridiculous to call CNN or the NY Times biased.

Conservatives find CNN/NY Times biased, but think that it's ridiculous to call FoxNews biased.

Can't we just agree that one generally won't recognize a bias in favor of their particiular political persuasion, but they'll be more apt to find such a bias if they disagree?

Normally, I just let the article's bias slide. And if Issidiqui is any indicator, perhaps I too fail to see bias towards things I agree with. I don't deny that's not possible. Bias, if used properly, is generally subtle.

I think perhaps the issue that threw me for a loop this morning was seeing two articles start off about popular/well-known/poloarizing Republicans (Bush and Schwartzenegger) with the articles suggesting that the most folks on the street would come up with quotables like "cold, calculated, cynical political gain" or simply "Awful." As a Republican, in a Republican majority, I don't believe that.

I can't recall a time when I saw back to back articles about Democrats that started off with such contempt (or even a singular article for that matter). It's possible, there is nothing scientific about bias, but I don't think it's probable. I will admit I am limited to my own perception of things.

I always picture Dutch as the guy in blue.

Actually Dutch the reason that you couldn't find an instance of someone saying something nice when there was such applause at the NAACP is that there really wasn't such applause. The article gets its facts wrong.

You can watch video at hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KTBdAQ58Vc&mode=related&search=bush%20NAACP
to see what it is referring to and make up your own mind at how "boisterous" the applause was and what they were really applauding.

Nah, the MSM is much simplier than that cartoon...Bush bad, Liberals good. Story to follow accordingly.

Let's not forget that the MSM hates Hilary Clinton too. So it's Bush bad, Hillary bad, story to follow accordingly.

and Fox just reverses the two,

If so, only because Hillary supports or did support the war. That has made the liberals very angry with her. But, her being from New York and all, she cannot afford to lose the Jewish vote from that state until at least after her re-election.

On thing I've never understood in the supposed motives of the MSM to corrupt the nation against honest, upstanding Republicans is........ WHY?

I mean, what's their motivation? They are all huge media corporations full of white-collar, godfearing, Republican voting, shareholders. What possible reason would they have to deliberatley distort the political landscape against the side they naturally support?

The explains all of the stories about her hair over the years. Clearly the press knew she was not going to support a war and thus wanted to get ahead of the game.

So, is there any bias in that cartoon? :)