sarainitaly says:

Jim R says:
October 12, 2009 at 8:50 pm

“When anyone still believes the Washington Post is liberal, with the largest stable of neocon war cheerleaders of any media staff, a paper recently on the cusp of conducting corporate salons to sell access to their “reporters”, someone’s definitely gone over the edge irretrievably.”

They were selling access to the WH administration and Congressional leaders, as well as reporters.

Politicoreported this morning that The Post has been soliciting lobbyists to pay from $25,000 to $250,000 to underwrite off-the-record “salons” at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth that would provide access to administration and congressional leaders and the paper’s reporters and editors.

In a November 19, 2008 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: “I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo”. Responding to criticism of the newspaper’s coverage during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Howell wrote: “The opinion pages have strong conservative voices; the editorial board includes centrists and conservatives; and there were editorials critical of Obama. Yet opinion was still weighted toward Obama. It’s not hard to see why conservatives feel disrespected”

In an June 2009 article on the conservative website newsmax.com, journalist Ronald Kessler reported that “… recent developments at the Washington Post demonstrate that a return to fair coverage attracts readers,” and that, “Since Katharine Weymouth became publisher more than a year ago, and she named Marcus Brauchli, a former Wall Street Journal editor, executive editor in September, the paper has been making an honest effort to be fair.

On October 17, 2008, the Post endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Beginning with Richard Nixon, conservatives have often cited the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of “liberal media bias”. More recently, liberal critics have accused the publication of bias, as well.

Originally due to the perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials, The Washington Post has been called “Pravda on the Potomac”, an allusion to the official newspaper of the Soviet communist party. Since then, the appellation has been used by both liberal and conservative critics of the Post.

sarainitaly says:

m says:
October 13, 2009 at 5:34 am

So come on… put up or shut up… give me a some evidence, not just goofy “I hate FOX” ramblings.

It’s always fun when someone accuses someone for something, when they do the exact same thing themselves.

In the other thread I posted about 20 videos links, and numerous CNN examples…

So, it’s your turn. You are avoiding the challenge, and pointing fingers. I know exactly what it looks like when someone doesn’t watch FOX and just repeats the MSNBC talking points about FOX – I know because I used to do it. Then I started watching FOX, and discovered it’s not true – they are more balanced. They just seem biased to liberals because they are saying things no one else is saying, and things liberals don’t want to hear. Check out O’Reilly’s Talking Points memo from 10/12.

The news reporting on FOX is very very fair. The commentary of Beck is conservative, Hannity is Republicans, O’Reilly is an Independent Conservative. Geraldo – liberal, Greta – Hillary supporter, not sure where she falls now, Cavuto- I think he was a Hillary supporter, at least he was very fair to them…

That is the difference. The news reporting on MSNBCNNABCNBC blah blah is slants liberal. The NEWS reporting. Commentary ok, news reports should not be biased, and they are.

I watch Morning Joe – who has his share of liberal guests. I watch Today show – very favorable to liberals. I watch videos from Beck and O’Reilly, and occasionally Hannity, Greta, the others, depending on the story. I read Memorandum, HotAir, Newsbusters, and all the stories of the day they feature. Which oftentimes takes me to Sullivan or HuffPO, videos of Olbermann or Tingles, etc. I read msnbc.com and foxnews.com every day. I get my fair share of exposure to both sides every day, because I feel it is important to listen/read both sides. So, I notice a slant, and feel a difference between the two (conservative vs. liberal bias) and overall, FOX is more fair and balanced.

Here’s an example – the other day, when the Nobel Peace Prize was announced, this was the original story on msnbc:

Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

Within minutes, it was changed to this:

The Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.

The first was an entire article that was picked up from USAToday by NBC news Services – but MSNBC revised that paragraph to be more positive towards Obama.