Try to think back to life before cable TV and the subsequent sale of the Wall Street Journal to News Corp, i.e. Murdoch.
Don't want to turn this into a treatise on media history but at some point we really should delineate the eras of newspapers, broadcast radio, broadcast TV, cable TV and finally the blogosphere in any discussion of the media.
Are you all suggesting that the liberal bias in media is a myth in the context of print news and network news in the US?
The New York Times and Washington Post bought into Kennedy's Camelot myth, adored LBJ's Great Society entitlements, did a gang bang on Nixon (which he deserved btw), wrote off Ford instantly, still refuses to acknowledge good-intentioned Carter as one of the worst presidents ever, excoriated Reagan at every turn, flatlined Bush 41 with "it's the economy stupid" and for appointing Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court yet shielded Clinton from much critism and is still reeling over Gore's decision not to run this year.
I write all of this as a card carrying Democrat.
That's 40 years ago.
The New York Times and the Washington Post supported Bush's war in Iraq. CNN and the networks did as well. Time and Newsweek--there was not ONE national media organ that stood up to the Bush/Cheney abuses of power.
Not one of them used any significant resources to investigate Bush's cocaine use or his National Guard service or the outing of a CIA agent, when just 10 years previously everything about Clinton including his belly-button was covered 24/7.
But more significantly, they allowed the blood libel of a liberal bias in the media to become a Lie That Replaced the Truth.
You're a "card carrying Democrat"? Excuse me, but, no, you're not.
We don't HAVE cards.
"Personally I think it was the press that has made it impossible for him to be a viable candidate . They only focused on Obama and Clinton. The press has taken a far too important role in this election."
Ain't that the truth.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69

Your Homework: read this book and present a report on it to the class.
Amazon.com
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"The New York Times and the Washington Post supported Bush's war in Iraq. CNN and the networks did as well. Time and Newsweek--there was not ONE national media organ that stood up to the Bush/Cheney abuses of power."
I don't know what universe you are living in, but NYT and CNN have never supported the Iraq War. They are the ones that consistently pushed to have dead soldiers broadcast on tv.
The NYT blew the confidential information that the US was trekking bin Linden by cell phone satellite.
All media was anti-Bush about the Katrina aftermath.
Please point to situations where the media is NOT liberal.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
And Edwards received far more coverage than his handful of delegates ever warranted. Remember all his Ann Coulter-gate coverage? Or his endless interviews on the morning news shows? It's nice to say that if people knew him he'd get the votes but that simply isn't true.
PalJoey,
I deliberately omitted any reference to those morons presently in the White House because I'm sick of any mention of them at this point.
And I do have a voter notification card issued by the state of MD. See the 3rd bullet under the heading DEADLINE INFORMATION on the online form at the link below.
http://www.mddems.org/pdf/VoterRegApp.pdf
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Goth, Gore's Election in 2000. You can not look at the coverage and say the media had a liberal bias. He got slammed for being too smart, he got slammed for sighing during a debate, he got slammed repeatedly for "Lies" he never told. Meanwhile, Bush got every pass imaginable.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"Meanwhile, Bush got every pass imaginable."
Not at all true. All through the 2000 election, Bush was referred to as "W". Additionally, many comments were made about him being a "daddy's boy" and too dumb to be POTUS. You've just chosen to focus only on what they said about Gore.
But Javero, it's during the past 7 years of recent history that they myth of the liberal bias has been dismantled.
Bush and Cheney used intimidation and a cronyism to neuter the once strong American media so that it cannot cover them critically.
They actually used the Valerie Plame case to make the media accessories to the crime--which then meant that the media would not cover the crime at all!
There has not been a liberal media since early in the Clinton era.
The media have repented of their sins against Gore and extended an olive branch the minute Hillary announced her candidacy. I so hate to go there but for a lot of Dems the mantra has been "anybody but Hillary" and not due to misogyny either. Had Obama not jumped out to an early lead over Edwards after IA, Edwards would be the leading anti-Clinton candidate and Billary would have their collective guns trained on him. I'll support her if she's the eventual party nominee but it will be a tough pill to swallow.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"Meanwhile, Bush got every pass imaginable."
And in 2004, let's not forget the Dan Rather story about Bush's national guard service. (Less than 2 months before the National election, I might add).
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/18/07
Edwards didn't stand a chance in this race. It was inevitably going to be a black man versus white woman competition, and I'm just hoping that the results don't split down the middle and allow a Republican to sneak in. But I digress
And look what happened to Dan Rather? He was destroyed for attempting to cover that story.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"And look what happened to Dan Rather? He was destroyed for attempting to cover that story."
You can't be that stupid.
Rather was destroyed because the story was a LIE which somebody with a word processor debunked in 30 minutes.
"And look what happened to Dan Rather? He was destroyed for attempting to cover that story."
Agreed but encourage you to examine the media in historical perspective.
The infant terrrible (aka cable news) is not beholden to the grey eminence, her sorority sisters or broadcast news entities. I firmly believe in a free print press (with emphasis on print) but have come to resent the power wielded by cable news outlets period, from the glam squad of newsreaders to the incessant coterie of opinion mongers aka talking heads.
Print media is hobbling on one leg these days, remains all too aware that a libel suit could put them out of business quickly and is fending off encroachment from TV/cable owners Murdoch et al that want to buy up domestic newspapers blasting the gov't "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban" all to ...
I shutter at the thought of 3 corporations owning every means of dissimentating news to Americans, outside the Internet. For that reason, I actually shell out out a few coins daily to pick up a print copy of the Washington Post. This always-on 24/7 news cycle has become a monster.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Goth compare the immediate complete and utter debunking of Bush's National Guard records with any of the Gore "lies." The Myth that Al Gore "Invented the internet" or that he claimed he discovered Love Canal are still solidly believed to be true by the man on the street- because the media repeated the myth. Even John Kerry's "Swift boating" was repeated ad nauseum or presented as two sides of the story instead of as a complete and utter fabrication.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"Goth compare the immediate complete and utter debunking of Bush's National Guard records with any of the Gore "lies."
The point that was stated was that the media was conservative and gave Bush a free pass. The Rather story proves that to be false.
Ah, but Goth--the STORY wasn't a lie--the documents were false--that's not the same thing at all--it's framing a guilty man.
And the NYTimes is also the paper that falsely reported the WMD stories, remember?
javero, you have a valid point about print media, but how many people get their news there? Outside DC and NYC? Not many I'd think.
And Goth, as for the "daddy's boy" and "dumb"--it IS politics--there will be some degree of name-calling and negative press--that's to be expected on both sides.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/20/03
"Ah, but Goth--the STORY wasn't a lie"
Mary Mapes get off BroadwayWorld.com and find yourself a job!
The Rather story proves it to be TRUE either way.
If you believe that the story about Bush's National Guard service was false and that Bush was being falsely accused, then Rather's punishment proves there is no liberal bias in the media.
If you believe that the story was true, that Bush's drug use was the reason for his going AWOL or missing Guard obligations, then his punishment was unfair, also proving there is no liberal bias in the media.
And I would go further and say that the "proof" that the documents were fabricated was itself fabricated. The blowups of the word-processor letters vs. IBM Selectric letters were presented in a circus-like partisan atmosphere of hysteria.
Even if the documents WERE false, the question of Where Was George was NEVER answered.
EVER.
Proving yet again that the media has no liberal bias.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
Bush got a pass in the aftermath of 911, for a spell. He had to give up his "get out of jail free card" though during the Katrina relief debacle.
I will never apologize for Dubya but offer that the Katrina relief effort was hamstrung by the post-911 fear-mongering on the part of neocon hawks, desk generals, rightwing policy wonks.
FEMA should have never been subsumed by another agency and subjected to the leadership of an attorney whose expertise made him more suitable to manage Churchill Downs than a muthafriggin' national relief agency.
Churchill Downs? Please, he's more like Mickey Rooney in NATIONAL VELVET.
Videos