sorry, I should have been more specific. They are losing ground with their target demographic at the 8 and 9 pm spots. Oreilly has been behind KO many times this election cycle, and with them being the big boys for each network, considering fox had 2x msnbc viewership a year ago, shows that they are in fact losing power.

not EVERY day, but again, considering they had double MSNBCs viewership a year ago, even having MSNBC close at all shows how far Fox has fallen. O’Reilly complains about it in his own show, claiming Nielsen is biased now.

I did not mean to portray them as being behind, I said that part wrong – but as I also said, they are losing power – which is completely true.

fox news, which is losing power and is now #2 – behind MSNBC.

Excuse me?.

Which by the third and final debate, led an exasperated Tom Brokaw to say on air something akin to – I tend to look at these debates one way. I don’t know what the public is looking for.

Had it not been for the insta-polls, McCain would’ve “won” every single debate.

But yea, we have a totally biased media. Uh huh.

There is a lot of free press if you take advantage of it. Palin would have had 24/7 coverage if they had let her out of the cage.

news is a business, it sells what people want to hear. that is why conservatives watch fox and liberals watch msnbc. though CNN is more center, moderates watch PBS

this idea that they didn’t correct falsehoods about palin – well, they didn’t correct falsehoods about obama either – according to you, their job is to report and nothing else.

robert has a problem with the coverage of palins wardrobe, but forgets the converage of lipstick on a pig, being a muslim, being a marxist. let’s be honest here, these things are not true either. The media reported what each party said.

the problem for us? the McCain campaign couldn’t quite figure out what they wanted to say.

go ahead and refuse to talk to journalists that you don’t think are fair – you’ll get no media exposure. You’ll have to pay for every 30 seconds you are on TV.

we need the media more than they need us.

all we would have left is fox news, which is losing power and is now #2 – behind MSNBC. the only people that watch fox are conservatives = people that already agree with us. the only way to get away from 45% is to appeal to the people who don’t watch fox – hence, we need the media more than they need us.

the difference between democrats and republicans getting in trouble, is that democrats are not the ones that run on a platform of moral superiority. We say that our families are stronger, that our god is better and our morals higher – and then we have more instances of corruption and sexual deviancy. even if there were equal amounts – heck, MORE democrats – we are the ones that pride ourselves on our superiority, so when that is gone what do we have ?

Not only in recent years! Gen. Isenhower was considered a great hero by the media. Truman wanted him to run as president on the Democratic ticket. But when Ike decided to run on the Republican ticket, the media made a nose dive. The political cartoonists, according to Time magazine, pictured Ike with all of his marbles. They had all just rolled to one side,. The media soon found out that the people (The Greatest Generation) could not be fooled so they turned their hate toward the Vice President, which they kept up until they were able to drive him out of office.

And the bias continues.

Ron Fournier, the Washington Bureau chief for the Associated Press, was an obvious McCain supporter.

Sooooo…..the liberal media and MediaMoronswithSorosCash leave you with a pearl necklace and you obligingly lap it up.

No doubt, if the Washington Bureau chief for the AP had considered taking a job with the Obama campaign, that would be cited as a high crime in this blog entry.

As you said, he wasn’t the Washington Bureau chief at the time. What’s more, the Associated (with terrorists) Press was already working for Comrade Obama gratis(?). Why would any of us be surprised?

But there is no way the media could simply be reflecting public sentiment?

One only has to look at their ratings, revenues and circulation to see that they don’t.

Is it the media’s job to prop up the sinking electoral prospects for the Republican Party?

Is it the media’s job to serve as the Glavlit for Comrade Obama?

Seems to me that Fournier is a pretty bipartisan person. You know, the kind of person liberals claim they wished we all were? Given the treatment of Fournier, what’s our motivation? Why in the hell would anybody want to “unite” with the Neo-Socialists hell bent on destroying the foundations of our country?

The thing is, you have the majority of the population who can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion,

Doesn’t that stem from the liberal public education system keeping people as dumb as a brick?

Once they decide what their word is.

A tall order, but I see no other solutions.

Somehow, I don’t think Erik has trouble with that kind of bias.

You really are a piece of work. The job of the press is not to “reflect public sentiment”. The job of the media is to report the facts, no matter who they help.

That you have to have that explained to you is staggering.

No doubt, if the Washington Bureau chief for the AP had considered taking a job with the Obama campaign, that would be cited as a high crime in this blog entry.

But since that doesn’t fit the narrative,

the most biased media in a generation

I guess we’ll just ignore it.

The running tally in the last two elections is a GOP loss of (at least) 51 House seats, (at least) 12 Senate seats and the White House.

But there is no way the media could simply be reflecting public sentiment? It has to be media bias? Is it the media’s job to prop up the sinking electoral prospects for the Republican Party?

For the next presidential election, barring any fascist take over from Obama, keep the press at bay and no one on one interviews unless the journalist has a reputation of giving people a fair shake. The only way to tell is how difficult they ask questions of liberals. There may be some frustrated liberals asking tough questions of Democrats in order to gain access to conservatives. But you still not grant interviews unless they have a long history of being tough to all politicians of any stripe. During the presidential debate always insist on a specific conservative journalist to moderate along with a liberal one of their choice at all times. Each can take turns asking the equal amount of question. If the Democrats don’t agree to those terms then NO DEBATE!

The point is, this is a WAR and we should never appease are adversaries. We must have a win win attitude or conservatism then eventually this country will parish and freedom will be no more. As General Gorge Patton once said, you never be nice to your enemies, you grab by the nose and kick them in the ass!!!

That’s how the Democrats won the last two election cycle, conservatives can beat them at their own game!!!

The media is, will be, and always has been about selling advertisements w/information.It only become “un-biased” in order to appeal to a broader audience.

Stations, Papers, writers, hosts, will always have their own view. I would rather know where they are coming from, then be told they have no opinion.

The thing is, you have the majority of the population who can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion, and can’t be bothered to look to more than one news source – and form their own views.

Then MSNBC & Fox, who both represent different ends of the spectrum, and both try to act as though they are impartial. If they just laid out the truth, you’d have people who made an actual choice in what bias they want to hear, and then have that in their minds when they hear it.

I hope people would then start being a little more aware of the opinion mingled with fact, and then maybe even look to more than one source.

I hope.

They were not nice to McCain, but they didn’t even cover the issues. Just “Voting for McCain is a vote for Bush!” over and over. that’s a campaign slogan, not issues coverage. Even when they went after Obama, they didn’t cover any issues. Just stuck to who his friends are. That may be an important issue, but it’s certainly not the only issue.

It was only the week before the election a major paper asked “how will Obama pay for all this?” like out of the blue suddenly someone realized federal programs cost money. It would have been nice for that question to be asked a year ago when he was debating Hillary. Or ask someone who voted for Obama and blames “Bush economic policies” for the recent bailout: “who is Barney Frank and how is he related to Fannie and Freddie?” you’ll just get a blank stare.

And the sad thing is for most Americans voting based on emotions alone was enough. It’s like the media checked their brains at the door every day, and so did most of us.

I wish I could say McCain was defeated on issues, or Obama won on the issues, but neither were.