Scam: The Liberal Misinformation Machine and it's War on America

Says the side that has their very own news channel.

Right.

:bs2:

Every major study being released on the matter seems to disagree with you. In fact, they consistently conclude that it is Democrats who have virtually the entire news media shamelessly peddling partisan propaganda for them, while they excoriate Fox for including multiple sides of the story.

Example from the book:

Fox News was balanced evenly at 40% negative coverage for both candidates."

I realize your spoon-fed media apologist talking points are at odds with this, but if you would try thinking for yourself for a change, you would realize that the only sources you have to back up this BS smokescreen are propaganda mills like ThinkProgress and Media Matters, while conservatives characteristically have actual facts and evidence from widely respected institutions.

Try again there, Sparky. :disgust:

So you're using the contents of the book to justify the contents of the book?

This is from the research YOU quoted:

On the Fox News Channel, the coverage was both more negative toward Obama and more positive toward both McCain and Palin than we found in the press generally.

It would be good to actually look at the charts, data, etc... such as positive/neutral coverage.

Citing a Pew Research study that flatly contradicts your hype is using
opinions from the book to justify opinions from the book? Are you seriously this incapable of grasping the difference between an independently verifiable fact and an opinion?

Devastating comeback there, braniac. Way to think it through. :thumbup:

Here's the evidence cited in the book and by me:

Pew Research Center: The Color Of News: How Different Media Have Covered the General Election

I love debating with liberals. :rollinglaugh:

Let's examine your counterpoint here...I cite a study demonstrating that Fox is far more balanced than any other news outlet, and you respond...by showing quotes from that study stating that Fox's coverage was more negative THAN THE EXTREMELY BIASED MSM against Obama (hence, there was ANY negativity at all) and more positive THAN THE EXTREMELY BIASED MSM for McCain (hence, there was ANY positivity at all).

That's balance, genius, not imbalance.

Congratulations on demonstrating why there can be no intelligent discussion on media objectivity in this country-liberals are involved. Thinking, adult human beings (conservatives) know how to separate themselves from mass-produced hype (hence Bill O'Reilly's viewers being more aware on the issues than most voters-according to another one of those studies you won't be able to comprehend), but the semi-literate sheep of the left are easily programmed and know only to lash out at the absence of liberal bias rather than thinking for themselves.

:bs2:

Every major study being released on the matter seems to disagree with you. In fact, they consistently conclude that it is Democrats who have virtually the entire news media shamelessly peddling partisan propaganda for them, while they excoriate Fox for including multiple sides of the story.

Example from the book:

Fox News was balanced evenly at 40% negative coverage for both candidates."

I realize your spoon-fed media apologist talking points are at odds with this, but if you would try thinking for yourself for a change, you would realize that the only sources you have to back up this BS smokescreen are propaganda mills like ThinkProgress and Media Matters, while conservatives characteristically have actual facts and evidence from widely respected institutions.

Try again there, Sparky. :disgust:

* On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.

Here it states that FOX went for the right leaning slant. Again, duh.

However you're looking at the wrong target.

Take a look at Palin. She received an amount of positive coverage vs negative that could only be defined as a harsh right slant, even if you don't look at the other networks.

CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.

However what's missing is this: any statement that FOX is balanced. Also any statement that any other media outlet is balanced. However to our new conservative friend, FOX is balanced and all else is "EXTREMELY BIASED MSM".

Looks like the only EXTREME BIAS is our friend's interpretation of the facts. But that's what reading filtered material will do. Perhaps he ought to think for himself, as he seems to recommend for others.

"while conservatives characterisically have actual facts and evidence from widely respected institutions"

Says who ? You and other consevative institutions ?

Says the evidence.

Conservatives generally operate on facts and evidence. Liberals operate on emotional hysteria and conspiracy theories. Every election they lose was stolen, every war they voted for is immediately a "quagmire" no different from Vietnam and a conspiracy for oil, and the destruction of the housing market is about "corporate greed" rather than Democrats forcing banks to operate like casinos by making them lower their lending standards while assuring them that their losses would be covered...all to give more racist handouts to blacks.

Liberals are always at odds with reality and with the facts. Always. It's simply who they are. It's why they become conservatives as they get more life experience. Now that I've pointed this out, you will see it more and more over time.

They usually don't read or fact-check anything they say, they completely ignore history (as evidenced by this violent shove they're giving us into involuntary Socialism) and they are composed of the least intelligent demographics imaginable-Hollywood dropouts (and almost every single one is a dropout), the poorest of the poor, union incompetents, public school teachers, criminals, ultra-wealthy elitist sophisticates with zero connection to the real world (George Soros, Arriana Huffington, etc.), and so on.

:rollinglaugh:

Hint: You've embarrassed yourself enough. This is when you should be looking to change the subject, not to continue dragging your laughable inability to grasp basic scientific evidence further into the spotlight.

Fox was more positive for McCain than the rest of the news media, which this study shows were wildly more negative against McCain and favorable for Obama. That would mean Fox was the most balanced, hence the results originally posted:

"• CNN was closest to the liberal slant of the overall coverage: 57% negative against McCain, 29% negative against Obama.

• NBC: 54% negative against McCain, 21% negative against Obama

• MSNBC: 73% negative against McCain, 14% negative against Obama.

• Newspapers: 45% negative against McCain, 28% negative against Obama.

• Fox News was balanced evenly at 40% negative coverage for both candidates"

40% negative on McCain and 40% negative on Obama. That's balance, not imbalance.

It says nothing of the sort. Try literacy.

How silly of me to compare coverage of the Democratic presidential candidate with the coverage of the Republican presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, those of us with functioning brains read the study's conclusions on Palin, such as that the "mainstream" media's "coverage of Palin, in the end, was more negative than positive," and interpret Fox not having that imbalance as a sign of Fox being balanced.

Right, of the "mainstream" media sources that the study told us were extremely biased, CNN was in the middle. Being in the middle of the most biased sources is not balance.

Try again.

And how did NBC's positive coverage of Obama shape up? Right, far more positive than that of Palin. NBC's coverage of the candidates in general was more positive. That in no way indicates an anomaly in the widespread left-wing slant.

This is the same news media that ran 2,210 stories in the first 10 days on Palin's daughter getting knocked up, after running 167 stories in 10 months on John Edwards knocking up his mistress while dragging his wife around the country for cancer-pity votes and preaching about family.

That's some pretty obscene partisan bias.

And those other news outlets were extremely biased for Obama. You don't get credit for being slightly less of a partisan propaganda mill. Again, you persistently struggle to grasp this very basic concept.

Sincerely, you have my condolences on your literacy issues, but I'm going to post this one more time:

"• CNN was closest to the liberal slant of the overall coverage: 57% negative against McCain, 29% negative against Obama.

• NBC: 54% negative against McCain, 21% negative against Obama

• MSNBC: 73% negative against McCain, 14% negative against Obama.

• Newspapers: 45% negative against McCain, 28% negative against Obama.

• Fox News was balanced evenly at 40% negative coverage for both candidates."

The results confirm what you are insisting isn't in the study. Learn how to read. :dunno:

Pot, meet kettle.

while they excoriate Fox for including multiple sides of the story.

Says the evidence.

Conservatives generally operate on facts and evidence. Liberals operate on emotional hysteria and conspiracy theories. Every election they lose was stolen, every war they voted for is immediately a "quagmire" no different from Vietnam and a conspiracy for oil, and the destruction of the housing market is about "corporate greed" rather than Democrats forcing banks to operate like casinos by making them lower their lending standards while assuring them that their losses would be covered...all to give more racist handouts to blacks.

Liberals are always at odds with reality and with the facts. Always. It's simply who they are. It's why they become conservatives as they get more life experience. Now that I've pointed this out, you will see it more and more over time.

They usually don't read or fact-check anything they say, they completely ignore history (as evidenced by this violent shove they're giving us into involuntary Socialism) and they are composed of the least intelligent demographics imaginable-Hollywood dropouts (and almost every single one is a dropout), the poorest of the poor, union incompetents, public school teachers, criminals, ultra-wealthy elitist sophisticates with zero connection to the real world (George Soros, Arriana Huffington, etc.), and so on.

Dry your eyes,you lost the election :thumbup:

As for your rant,that is just YOUR opinion,having a dig at liberals and their lack of intelligence is priceless,we have just seen the end of George Bush's reign as the dumbest President In History :rollinglaugh: