More on the MSM’s anti-conservative bias re: Republican presidential candidates

Posted by: ST on January 22, 2007 at 10:40 am

I blogged Saturday about the blatant anti-conservative bias the Associated Press displayed this weekend over Senator Sam Brownback’s announcement that he was running for president versus Senator Clinton’s. Hillary’s announcement was reported in glowing terms (still happening today), whereas Brownback’s was treated as though he’d just declared he was joining up with Al Qaeda.

Mark Finkelstein at Newsbusters notes today how that bias was also on display on NBC’s Today show this morning, and has video of the Kelly O’Donnell segment.

Be ready for a lot more of this as the media lays the groundwork for letting you know what Democratic candidates you should support versus what Republican candidates you should be ‘warned’ about.

In related Election ’08 news:

  • Senator Chuck Schumer is salivating over the possibility of a Dem in the WH in 2008.
  • NM Governor Bill Richardson made his desire to run for the Dem nomination for prez. official yesterday
  • Tom Bevan takes a look at some recent polls on the ’08 Democrat hopefuls.
  • An announcement is expected any day now on whether or not Senator John Kerry will make another run for the WH.
  • Florida and California are contemplating early primaries.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 Responses to “More on the MSM’s anti-conservative bias re: Republican presidential candidates”

Comments

  1. Lorica says:

    /Yawn I am already bored with all of these Dems. Even tho it is abit funny to see them rip into each other. Hillary releasing to the world that Barak, not only has big ears, but was raised as a good Muslim. How about a show of hands on how many knew he smoked cigarettes. /Gasp Soon we will be hear stories of Rose Law Firm billing records, from sources in the know. But Hillary’s weakest point will be her Husband. Bill is most likely going to cost Hillary her presidency. We can only hope. – Lorica

  2. Baklava says:

    My conversion from liberalism to conservatism was in part due to dominant media bias that was SOOO obvious even in 1991. It’s gotten worse. I’ve listened to presidential candidate debates in the 60’s and 70’s and it existed back then. There are people who can’t and won’t see bias and it is patently obvious to others.

    These kind of examples ST are wonderful because it isn’t an interpretation of the facts on the ground in Iraq. It is a treatment of 2 different kind of Senators. Even if somebody is a leftist they would have to admit that there candidate (Hillary) was introduced by the dominant press in much better fashion than the other.

    I remember in 1991 (or was it 1992) when the LA riots were going on. You would see the same coverage over and over by the dominant press. No alternative view points or anything. It seemed as if the press was anti-cop. Any move the cops made was dumb. The forces were either not enough or overly strict and therefore reason enough for a riot as a reaction. Never were the rioters thought of by the media as “wrong” or never in a million years justified. The situation was treated like the insurgents today and our soldiers today. Journalists are above it all – all knowing – makes better decisions than police commanders and lietenants – makes better decision than the generals and commanders on the ground in Iraq. Shoot, they must have received more history and warfare and procurement training than the officers who have been through college and officer training themselves. Journalists are better economists, climatologists, judges, officers, scientists, doctors, architects, nurses, hospital administrators, car manufacturers, business owners – can you think of a job that journalists aren’t better than others at? /end sarcasm

    And Lorica. How many liberals have you seen with condescension refer to Bill’s discretion as at least only a b— j– that was a private matter but Bush is a person who has cost people there lives in Katrina and Iraq. The impaired judgment by people is so off the wall that while Bill won a second term I can see Hillary winning the Clinton’s a third and forth term.

    FDR didn’t cost 10’s of thousands of lives. Neither did Kennedy or Johnson. Only Bush and Nixon and Reagon cost lives. It’s double-standardism and substance ignoring and trump cardism. I’m on a roll here. Don’t knock my new words. :)