Media Bias cannot be denied

[98valk]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/291995-bush-condemned-for-katrina-but-media-apathetic-on-obamas

So it's clear how the narrative went from "Bush waited three days to visit the Gulf Coast" to "Bush is a racist who would have acted faster if white people were victims of Katrina."

Why? Because Kanye West said so.

Fast forward to August 2016 — several storms hit Louisiana, not just a hurricane — the floodwaters have created the biggest natural disaster to hit the United States since Hurricane Katrina.

At least 13 people are dead, more than 85,000 people have applied for federal disaster aid, 30,000 people needed to be rescued and 40,000 displaced. State officials report it is easily the biggest housing crunch since Sandy.

In Livingston Parish, officials report as many as 75 percent of the 52,000 homes there had been damaged by floodwaters. In Ascension Parish, water had seeped into one of every three homes.

“We’ve been through Hurricane Gustav, Katrina, Isaac and Rita, but this without a doubt is the roughest we’ve ever had in this parish,” said Livingston Parish Sheriff Jason Ard.

A very simple question, if George W. Bush was president right now and playing golf with celebrities in one of the richest zip codes in the country, would the headlines again be everywhere that portray him as insensitive, out-of-touch, even a racist president be the same now as they were 2005? Of course they would.

Instead, President Obama continues his vacation that includes fundraising events for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and the relative silence is deafening.

Supporters of the president will argue that communications in this day and age make it easy for a Obama to monitor any situation from anywhere, therefore eliminating the need for him in this case to actually survey the damage up close.

Back to something Bush said in 2005 while touring the wreckage: 

"I don't think anybody can be prepared for the vastness of the destruction," Bush said. "You can look at a picture, but until you sit on that doorstep of a house that used to be, or stand by the rubble, you just can't imagine it."

So can President Obama fully appreciate what's happening across Louisiana now via news reports and updates via his advisers? Likely not. There's nothing that matches actually speaking to families that just lost everything face-to-face or seeing whole communities destroyed up close. Nothing.

The president has received sporadic criticism of not cutting his vacation short and surveying the damage first hand, but nowhere is it remotely a lead story despite this being the worst natural disaster since Hurricane Sandy, which was only the second-costliest hurricane in U.S. history.

CNN calls the devastation in Louisiana "historic". But only one newspaper editorial board, The Advocate in Baton Rouge, is calling on the president to end his vacation.

"A disaster this big begs for the personal presence of the president at ground zero," the paper writes in an editorial titled, 'Our Views: Vacation or not, a hurting Louisiana needs you now, President Obama.'

"In coming here," it continues, "the resident can decisively demonstrate that Louisiana's recovery is a priority for his administration — and the United States of America."

Will the New York Times or Washington Post editorial board follow suit? Of course not.

Obama mocked the Bush Administration in 2005 for its "unconscionable ineptitude" after Katrina hit. He even visited the area to report what he witnessed.

But the headlines this morning are all about Paul Manafort's resignation, Trump's alleged pivot,  U.S. swimmers up to no good in Rio, and the $400 million payment to Iran that the administration still insists wasn't ransom to free American hostages.

There is also one more headline: How funny it is that the president played golf with the guy who played Bernie Sanders on Saturday Night Live in the form of Larry David.

2005: A Republican president takes three days to survey a natural disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi after cutting a vacation short.

The media at the time declares that was way too long, far too insensitive, even pushes a narrative that labels him racist.

2016: A Democratic president will not only cut a vacation short in any capacity to survey a natural disaster in Louisiana — the worst of any kind to hit the country in four years — but hasn't even made any public statements on it. Not one.

The media of 2016 now yawns. Basically indicates its no big deal and if there is actual criticism, it doesn't lead a cable news hour or go anywhere near a front page.

[Pete]

No surprise here, thanks for the update.
Bias, stupid, deaf, dumb and blind describes it.

[Rams]

It's been this way since Obama was elected.   Nothing new today versus 7 years ago.   

It's too bad the media won't keep it a level playing field............... 

[old2soon]

You racist  s o b!  Kinda like cagers on cell phones-way more important what I'm doing now than what I REALLY SHOULD be doing! In the "leaders" case playin golf!  Nuttin  to see here-move along and kwityeritchin!  RIDE SAFE.

[G-Man]

Louisiana is a red state, has gone republican for the last 4 presidential election cycles at least.

Democrats are THAT polarizing.  He's doesn't care, and if he ever does mention it, it'll be in passing or say he's doing everything possible and look how good he's doing it.

We've heard a congresswoman scream that republicans can go to hell, a governor said there is no place for republicans within his state, lies about the other side regularly from Pelosi for 4 years and Reid for 6 years.  The other side has been labelled racists, sexists, homophobic, islamaphobic, etc. for 8 years now.  He's just reminding us how much despises half the country. 

How can the press possibly report this?

[RP#62]

I've thought the same thing for a while - here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

-RP

[..]

It doesn't matter, the dem/lib/prog supporters are deaf and blind as well as being a bunch of (enter descriptor here).

[Serk]

I've thought the same thing for a while - here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

-RP

Very good insight, thanks for posting that...

[Rams]

I've thought the same thing for a while - here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

-RP

While I do agree with that article, it's pretty obvious that those supporting Clinton had more than one sip of the Kool Aid..................   They don't give a rat's ass about her lack of integrity or (apparently) much else.   What's in it for me seems to be the biggest concern...............

If I thought Gary Johnson had a shot in hell, I'd consider him but, voting for anyone other than Trump is going to put Hillary in the White House..........   (We need a puking smiley)

[The emperor has no clothes]

I've thought the same thing for a while - here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

-RP

While I do agree with that article, it's pretty obvious that those supporting Clinton had more than one sip of the Kool Aid..................   They don't give a rat's ass about her lack of integrity or (apparently) much else.   What's in it for me seems to be the biggest concern...............

If I thought Gary Johnson had a shot in hell, I'd consider him but, voting for anyone other than Trump is going to put Hillary in the White House..........   (We need a puking smiley)

All he's got to do is get to 15% and get in the debates. THEN ITS GAME ON !!! I think if people see and hear him compared to those two he's got a good shot. But if he can't get into the debates it's game over, he has no money for advertising and he ain't getting squat out of the press.

[john]

COMAST                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   With $18.8 million spent in 2013, Comcast has the seventh largest lobbying budget of any individual company or organization in the United States.[44] Comcast employs multiple former US Congressmen as lobbyists.[45] The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which has multiple Comcast executives on its board, also represents Comcast and other cable companies as the fifth largest lobbying organization in the United States, spending $19.8 million in 2013.[44] Comcast was among the top backers of Barack Obama's presidential runs, with Comcast vice president David Cohen raising over $2.2 million from 2007 to 2012.[46][47] Cohen has been described by many sources as influential in the US government,[48] though he is no longer a registered lobbyist, as the time he spends lobbying falls short of the 20% which requires official registration.[49] Comcast's PAC, the Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Political Action Committee, is the among the largest PACs in the US, raising about $3.7 million from 2011-2012 for the campaigns of various candidates for office in the United States Federal Government.[50] Comcast is also a major backer of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association Political Action Committee, which raised $2.6 million from 2011-2012.[51][52] Comcast spent the most money of any organization in support of the Stop Online Piracy and PROTECT IP bills, spending roughly $5 million to lobby for their passage.[53]

Comcast also backs lobbying and PACs on a regional level, backing organizations such as the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association[54] and the Broadband Communications Association of Washington PAC.[55] Comcast and other cable companies have lobbied state governments to pass legislation restricting or banning individual cities from offering public broadband service.[56] Municipal broadband restrictions of varying scope have been passed in a total of 20 US States

[Alpha Dog]

I've thought the same thing for a while - here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

-RP

It is a good article, and short and concise.   Now I do not no where Michael Goodwin has been hiding but this has been the  case since circa 1980.  He is correct though in they tried to cover it up and say that the main stream media had no libel leanings and this is just the news.  Even though it was so evident it was not even an argument.   Now they make no bones about it.  Unlike feckless Republican candidates of the past, Trump has attacked these folks as dishonest and bias and it feels good to folks like myself that are so tired of the bias.  I am not sure this is the right strategy because the mush for brains low info. folks that are the majority listen to these morons.  This past week he has backed down and focused on his economic message.  Myself I would tell him go more easy on them, win the election, and then expose them for what they really are.

[Daddie O]

I won't disagree that there is media bias, but it is far from one sided.  As an example, when I woke this morning and went to CNN online, there was an article front and center derisively talking about Trump's shady business practices.  I thought to myself, if I go to Fox online what are the odds there will be a negative article about Hillary front and center?  I go to Fox online, and sure enough it was an article about Hillary's emails.  If I turn on AM radio, there will be station after station that could best be described as right-wing entertainment, specifically designed to rile up conservatives. 

With all that being said, you must admit that Bush's response to Katrina was completely bungled.  Trying to compare Obama's response to flooding in Louisiana and Bush's response to Katrina is laughable.  When hurricane Sandy hit NY and NJ, Obama was praised (and hugged) by the Republican governor.  The result of that was the death of that governor's political career.

When Katrina hit, Bush had been on vacation at his ranch for 27 days.  27 DAYS!  Imagine if Obama went on vacation in Hawaii for 27 days.  You guys nearly explode in conniption fits if he even goes golfing.  Bush declined to visit the devastated area right away. White House aides said at the time that Bush didn't want to cause disruptions in rescue and recovery efforts by diverting security and communications to himself.  When Obama does the same (as requested by the governor) he is horrible, but when Bush does it he is a wise commander in chief right?

Do I even have to point out the plethora of failings by FEMA that was headed by Bush's buddy, the arabian horse judge?  President Bush, in a vivid example of seeming out of touch, praised FEMA director Michael Brown early in the crisis. "Brownie," Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." These words would come back to embarrass Bush when it became clear how badly FEMA had botched its work.  I could go on and on, but I think I made my point.

[Robert]

Cambrian Dissenters

https://cambriandissenters.blogspot.com/2016/08/whoring-for-hillary-mainstream-media.html
The Brexit referendum in Great Britain and the presidential election campaign in the USA have highlighted what has been obvious to informed observers for some time; the control exercised by the big money donors, lobbyists and powerful vested interests over the political establishment and the mainstream media is absolute.

The Brexit campaign in Great Britain was an appalling exercise in black propaganda meticulously crafted and delivered by the mainstream media on behalf of the Europhiles and their EU nation building project.

The behavior of the mainstream media in the USA presidential campaign is equally appalling but much more obvious.

Despite a lifetime of lying, scandal and corruption in pursuit of money and power, along with her disastrous stewardship of the State Department, Hillary Clinton is the preferred candidate of the invisible power brokers and the establishment that control the levers of power in the USA.

The media have had their instructions and have set about the task with ruthless efficiency and gusto. In a campaign that would have made Josef Goebbels proud they have initiated a massive, centrally controlled propaganda campaign to erase Clinton's past crimes and misdemeanors from the public eye while simultaneously creating the image of a tireless public servant who has dedicated her entire life to the betterment of the American people.

Any propaganda campaign worth its salt would also seek to destroy the reputation and image, and consequently the electability, of any rival candidate and will use every dirty trick at its disposal.


****************Julian Assange’s Lawyer Found Dead After Being Struck by Train ***********

http://truthuncensored.net/julian-assanges-lawyer-found-dead-after-being-struck-by-train-video/
According to Before It’s News, Here’s more news you don’t get in the US’ mainstream media: John Jones 48, one of Britain’s top human rights lawyers, who represented Julian Assange was killed last Monday, when he was run over by a commuter train.  The death is being called a suicide.

British Transport Police were called to the West Hampstead train station in North London at 7:07 AM on Monday April 18, 2016  after a man was struck by a train. He was reportedly pronounced dead at the scene and his death is not being treated as suspicious. The event occurred almost one month to the day that the first batch of Clinton emails were released by his client from WikiLeaks.

The news is particularly disturbing, as Democratic Strategist and CNN host, Bob Beckel appeared in a FOXTV interview and called for the assassination of Julian Assange (or more accurately, “Just kill the sonofabitch!”)


Once Again… TWITTER Caught Censoring, Deleting Donald Trump’s Tweets from Timeline
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/twitter-caught-censoring-deleting-donald-trumps-tweets-timeline/

BIG DEVELOPMENT=> After Court Threw Out Iran’s Claim to $2.2 Billion, Obama Reinstated Liability to Pay Ransom for Hostages
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/obama-lied-us-had-no-liability-with-iran-money-paid-for-hostages-was-ransom/



Media Myopia: Huma involvement with Islamist mag for a decade no biggie
The MSM can’t stop talking about Donald Trump having brought onto his campaign the Chairman of Breitbart News.
But Hillary’s closest aide being for 12 years an editor of an Islamist magazine that among other things blamed the US for 9/11? Meh!
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/08/media-myopia-huma-involvement-with-islamist-mag-for-a-decade-no-biggie/


Israel busts 7 weapons mills in massive West Bank raid
Hundreds of Israeli troops uncover sophisticated weapons factories, seize dozens of firearms, knives, cartridges and other equipment in biggest crackdown this year • Two suspected arms dealers arrested • Twenty-two lathes located and seized overnight
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=35873

[Pete]

I won't disagree that there is media bias, but it is far from one sided.  As an example, when I woke this morning and went to CNN online, there was an article front and center derisively talking about Trump's shady business practices.  I thought to myself, if I go to Fox online what are the odds there will be a negative article about Hillary front and center?  I go to Fox online, and sure enough it was an article about Hillary's emails.  If I turn on AM radio, there will be station after station that could best be described as right-wing entertainment, specifically designed to rile up conservatives. 

With all that being said, you must admit that Bush's response to Katrina was completely bungled.  Trying to compare Obama's response to flooding in Louisiana and Bush's response to Katrina is laughable.  When hurricane Sandy hit NY and NJ, Obama was praised (and hugged) by the Republican governor.  The result of that was the death of that governor's political career.

When Katrina hit, Bush had been on vacation at his ranch for 27 days.  27 DAYS!  Imagine if Obama went on vacation in Hawaii for 27 days.  You guys nearly explode in conniption fits if he even goes golfing.  Bush declined to visit the devastated area right away. White House aides said at the time that Bush didn't want to cause disruptions in rescue and recovery efforts by diverting security and communications to himself.  When Obama does the same (as requested by the governor) he is horrible, but when Bush does it he is a wise commander in chief right?

Do I even have to point out the plethora of failings by FEMA that was headed by Bush's buddy, the arabian horse judge?  President Bush, in a vivid example of seeming out of touch, praised FEMA director Michael Brown early in the crisis. "Brownie," Bush said, "you're doing a heck of a job." These words would come back to embarrass Bush when it became clear how badly FEMA had botched its work.  I could go on and on, but I think I made my point.

No one ever said it was 100% all one sided, that is unless you said it.
What many have said is that the vast majority of the media is in the tank for Hillary and the facts bear that out. Basically  9 out of 10.

Ok so Bush did not respond to Katrina as you preferred well BO has not responded to well to being president for 7.5 years as many would have preferred.

You think FEMA was screwed up then have you checked lately, it is worse.

Have you not noticed that government does NOTHING well! The main difference between the republican and democrat governments is that the democrats tell bigger lies and introduce move theft and more repression into government.

Have  nice day.

[baldo]

Have you not noticed that government does NOTHING well! The main difference between the republican and democrat governments is that the democrats tell bigger lies and introduce move theft and more repression into government.
are better for the economy than Republicans. There, I fixed it for you....
Have  nice day.

Here's a link for you to peruse....

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php


And then the fight started.

[Gavin_Sons]

Have you not noticed that government does NOTHING well! The main difference between the republican and democrat governments is that the democrats tell bigger lies and introduce move theft and more repression into government.
are better for the economy than Republicans. There, I fixed it for you....
Have  nice day.

Here's a link for you to peruse....

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php


And then the fight started.

  thanks for all that misinformation.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Have you not noticed that government does NOTHING well! The main difference between the republican and democrat governments is that the democrats tell bigger lies and introduce move theft and more repression into government.
are better for the economy than Republicans. There, I fixed it for you....
Have  nice day.

Here's a link for you to peruse....

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php


And then the fight started.

  thanks for all that misinformation.

Seemed pretty black and white to me. What would you dispute ?

[Jess from VA]

Media Bias cannot be denied

No, but it can be ignored, and wholesale.

[Pete]

Have you not noticed that government does NOTHING well! The main difference between the republican and democrat governments is that the democrats tell bigger lies and introduce move theft and more repression into government.
are better for the economy than Republicans. There, I fixed it for you....
Have  nice day.

Here's a link for you to peruse....

http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php


And then the fight started.

Actually you took a true statement, and attempted to misdirect it.
Nice try but no cigar since you fixed nothing.

[CajunRider]

Seemed pretty black and white to me. What would you dispute ?

Every chart in that site can easily be skewed, and leave out a LOT of information needed to truly understand what's going on. 

The first one jumped out me immediately... "Per-Person Median Household Income".  I have several issues with that chart alone. 

1)
Per Person and Household are two different things. Per person, mean EACH persons yearly income.  Household Income may be two or more people (most often husband & wife).  So, which one is it?? Per Person or Per Household?? Or some strange mix??

Different areas of the country may have a larger/smaller number of stay-at-home moms.  My experience is this is more often in rural areas, which are often Republican biased.  So red dots are likely lower for that alone.

2)
What state does each dot represent and what is the average cost of living in that state?  I can easily double my salary by moving to Houston... but my cost of living would double also.  In the end, my standard of living would not change at all, even though I would make double the money. 

Louisiana, I'm sure, is quite low on the average income scale... but it is also a cheap state to live in.
New York is probably quite high on the average income scale... but is is VERY expensive (yes, I have been there).

3 *and the biggest of all*)
Left axis = Per-Person Median Household Income
Bottom axis = % of people who voted for Obama

Now, this whole article is about WHO'S IN POWER when the economy goes up/down.  But that chart has nothing to do with economy growth.  It's just a breakdown of personal income.

One more note further down the page...

The Job Creation chart is even worse.  Obama created a LOT of jobs in the Government... but that reduces wealth (by using tax money taken from others to pay salaries) instead of creating wealth (by using goods produced & sold to pay salaries). 

That chart should be changed to Private Sector Job Creation ONLY.  An increased size in the Fed. Gov. does not help economic growth. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Seemed pretty black and white to me. What would you dispute ?

Every chart in that site can easily be skewed, and leave out a LOT of information needed to truly understand what's going on. 

The first one jumped out me immediately... "Per-Person Median Household Income".  I have several issues with that chart alone. 

1)
Per Person and Household are two different things. Per person, mean EACH persons yearly income.  Household Income may be two or more people (most often husband & wife).  So, which one is it?? Per Person or Per Household?? Or some strange mix??

Different areas of the country may have a larger/smaller number of stay-at-home moms.  My experience is this is more often in rural areas, which are often Republican biased.  So red dots are likely lower for that alone.

2)
What state does each dot represent and what is the average cost of living in that state?  I can easily double my salary by moving to Houston... but my cost of living would double also.  In the end, my standard of living would not change at all, even though I would make double the money. 

Louisiana, I'm sure, is quite low on the average income scale... but it is also a cheap state to live in.
New York is probably quite high on the average income scale... but is is VERY expensive (yes, I have been there).

3 *and the biggest of all*)
Left axis = Per-Person Median Household Income
Bottom axis = % of people who voted for Obama

Now, this whole article is about WHO'S IN POWER when the economy goes up/down.  But that chart has nothing to do with economy growth.  It's just a breakdown of personal income.

One more note further down the page...

The Job Creation chart is even worse.  Obama created a LOT of jobs in the Government... but that reduces wealth (by using tax money taken from others to pay salaries) instead of creating wealth (by using goods produced & sold to pay salaries). 

That chart should be changed to Private Sector Job Creation ONLY.  An increased size in the Fed. Gov. does not help economic growth. 

Those are all valid points.  I took the per person household income as the total divided by occupants. I might be mistaken. I do think taken as a whole it is pretty good info.

[CajunRider]

Those are all valid points.  I took the per person household income as the total divided by occupants. I might be mistaken. I do think taken as a whole it is pretty good info.

Taking something "as a whole" can be good at times... but one must be very careful where it's done. 

If riding on a well maintained, closed course, for example, you can take each curve "as a whole" and trust that the road surface is uniform and true.

Do some road riding while taking it in "as a whole" can get you hurt or killed.  You'd better be looking at the details... sand, gravel, oil... that deer about to jump in the road... that car changing lanes into you spot... etc. etc. etc.

Anytime you see a chart used to prove some sort of point, ALWAYS look at the details.  Manipulating a chart is easy... TOO easy.  Especially if the person you're showing it to doesn't fully understand the concept.  NEVER trust a chart without examining it VERY VERY carefully.

I typically find some form of manipulation of the data (or omission of data) about 70% - 80% of the time. 

That old saying has a lot of truth in it... *80% of statistics are made up on the spot*.