General discussion

Time Magazine writer admits "extreme bias" during campaign

Of course when some of us pointed out that the media was in the tank for Obama we were ridiculed and called names....

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_bias_halperin/2008/11/23/154417.html

The mainstream media's support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.

Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin called the media's performance during the campaign simply "disgusting."

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."

He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time's political site "The Page," zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

"The story about Cindy McCain was vicious," Halperin said. "It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."
****************

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post's ombudsman recently conceded that the paper?s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.
*************

NOW they admit the fraud that was perpetrated. Great work "independent, free" press. This isn't even the worst of it. Where was the "investigative journalism" they are so proud of? No one investigated Obama even the least tiny bit.

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Time Magazine writer admits "extreme bias" during campaign
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Time Magazine writer admits "extreme bias" during campaign
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
This is the "confession"
- Collapse -
Wrong...

That was the Washington Post's confession. I was referring to Time Magazine's.

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."

He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Of course it was fraudulent. Shameful the way they scammed the public.

- Collapse -
Shameful the way they scammed the public.
Who knew?!

If you want to read an opposing point of view, read a source with an opposing point of view, weight the evidence/facts, make YOUR decision.

failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."

Reporting on the Iraq War was biased?

I'm shocked!
- Collapse -
Mark Halperin

Mark Halperin is dusting his tracks as will most of the BIG MEDIA newsies over the next few weeks. They knew what was going on all along and did nothing because they were part of the scam!

Just as Bill Clinton accused the opponents of things he WAS doing, BIG MEDIA is trying to buff their image.

I will no longer watch the alphabets or read their trash. The internet offers too much quality read.

- Collapse -
There will, of course, be consequences for this bias.

A large part of the public now knows that the media cannot be trusted. The media simply pursues its various agendas, and ignores all evidence that could discredit those agendas. The demand for the media's product will continue to decline, and all of its claims will be met with increasing scepticism.

- Collapse -
A large part of the public now knows...

Naaah! They DON'T know, and that's the tragedy.

- Collapse -
ALL media SHOULD be met with skepticism

It is those who have become complacent enough to think what they are told to think, and do what they are told to do, that present the most danger to a society. The problem is that most will only take this POV with the issues they disagree with, rather than apply it to everything.

- Collapse -
(NT) No kidding.
- Collapse -
re: ridiculed and called names

You gave as good as you got. Wink

- Collapse -
That made so much sense...

If nonsense is sense that is.

Let me put it another way... people here claimed the media wasn't in the tank for Obama when clearly it was. They were wrong wrong wrong. It was shoot the messenger on a grand scale. These same people resisted all efforts to uncover information about the ONE and in so doing helped perpetuate this massive fraud.

The "free press" is supposed to keep us informed, yet they did the opposite. They knowingly helped pull the wool over countless eyes and produced a clueless electorate. And some here helped. Good work!

Garbage In, Garbage Out.


And NOW the media admits what they were doing!

- Collapse -
I don't recall people claiming the media...

... was not "in the tank for Obama", so much as many here said they believed that the amount of bias shown by the press was unremarkable.

I do recall that when some here pointed out that Fox was up to its' usual "conservative spin at almost any cost" coverage, that there was a vehement championing of Fox being the most fair and unbiased of all the news outlets.

Look, you make these broad sweeping generalizations fit a puzzle of your own making. Some news outlets... strike that... some news pundits, are coming out and saying that the press went easy on its' coverage of Obama as opposed to other candidates. Heck Ed, Saturday Night Live was pointing that little factoid out this past spring during the primaries. Why you feel the need to resurrect this issue over and over again is understandable since you are partisan. It is your tendency to go of point and lump other opportunities for comment into your original post that bring up these sideboard conversations.

Your comment about being sorely mistreated... "Of course when some of us pointed out that the media was in the tank for Obama we were ridiculed and called names...." is what I was addressing. I said you gave as good as you got. If you don't understand that very simple phrase, then I will be make my comment even simpler... you were as prone to calling people names and ridiculing other people's points of view as they were prone to to doing the same to you.

Distortions and exaggerations are nothing new here. Denials of responsibility and denial of participation are status quo as well. I know you will now precede to say you were innocent and others were at fault. There will be distortions of what I have said, even after I have gone out of my way to clarify the issue... but that doesn't really matter. You clearly know what I am saying and my message to you is as plain as day, just as it is obvious that you will raise similar threads in the future, to goad people about how right you are (pun intended) and how wrong everyone else is.

We get it Ed. We think it's a load of horse manure that you think we haven't seen this a hundred times before... but we get it.

- Collapse -
Who is "WE"?

How many personalities do you have? Or do you imagine you speak for the entire forum?

Totally bogus, therefore not read. Stop the garbage please.

- Collapse -
RE: Who is "WE"?

How many personalities do you have? Or do you imagine you speak for the entire forum?


Who are "SOME OF US"?

How many personalities do you have? Or do you imagine you speak for the entire forum?

- Collapse -
now there's a paradox for you

Totally bogus, therefore not read. Stop the garbage please.

all that without reading the post.....

.,

- Collapse -
I don' t need to read his crap...

it's always the same. Nonsense accusations and misrepresentations of what people said. You tolerate it, but I don't have to.

Told him long ago when his BS starts I stop reading.

- Collapse -
RE: I stop reading

But you don't stop responding?

The person would know you stopped reading IF you stop responding.

- Collapse -
If you didn't read it, how were you able to quote him?

I mean really, Ed. Who do you think you're kidding?

- Collapse -
I'm not lying.

I read the first and last lines. That was sufficient to realizing it was the usual trolling garbage.

See?

- Collapse -
Uh huh

Sure, Ed. If you say so. {snicker}

- Collapse -
Please don't call me a liar again.

It is as I said. I am NOT lying. Got it?

- Collapse -
nobody called you a liar

please stop it, now.....

thank you

.,

- Collapse -
If you wpould read the posts...

you would see that he did.

YOU stop it now, 'kay?

- Collapse -
Mark Halperin, of course, was in the

tank for McCain. Big time!

His commentary on this issue should be taken with a trainload of salt.

Dan

- Collapse -
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

I don't believe it is accurate.

- Collapse -
Perhaps you are confusing him with Mark Helprin

Different writer.

- Collapse -
i very much doubt that :)
- Collapse -
Is that an example of being in the tank for McCain???

Ha ha! I think you just busted Dan on that one.

Really, you'd have to be in very deep denial NOT to know the media was rooting hard for Obama all the way and steadfastly refused to do ANY investigative work on him at all.

- Collapse -
no, it was an example

of someone who is NOT Mark Helprin


.,

- Collapse -
ED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do us all a favor and DO NOT RESPOND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could give you a bazillion examples of "not Helprin".

DON'T DO IT !!!!!!!!!!

CNET Forums

Forum Info