Dumbass:
First, you haven't read the book, so you're talking out your ass, with no actual knowledge of what you're talking about.
Fuckhead:
Why would I devote the time to read any book that you use as a source? You're an idiot. This is not my belief, this is fact.
I have a very long list of books to read and only a finite time in my life to read them.
Second, Bernard Goldberg didn't make up these statistics, he just quoted them from well-known polling services, who tabulate using scientific methods. The one that caught my attention most was that reporters THEMSELVES categorize their views as "very liberal". And that 10 of 10 white house correspondents said they voted for Mondale and 0 voted for Reagan (10 of 10!).
Gee, I wonder how that might have affected coverage of the 1984 campaign.
We certainly saw that trend in the knife-jabs the media took at McCain, as contrasted with the endless fellating of Obama.
A. I give zero credence to anything you subscribe to. You're an idiot, this is fact, and I would feel foolish to spend even the little amount of time it would take to look on wikipedia for the names/sources/Klan speeches you like to site. I wasted my time on the bible talk and you proved yourself to be an idiot.
B. Maybe it's not a bias so much as an informed opinion that so many in Washington wind up not supporting the likes of Reagan and Bush. The people who study these guys, their speeches, their actions come away supporting someone else should give you pause.
C. I think the "liberal" media is actually bending over backwards to not be hard on republicans to the detriment of the American people. They were pretty nice to the functional retard who had trouble stringing words or cohesive sentences together, even after he began using ringers like the gay escort to lob softball questions. They were incredibly light in dealing with the daft old man and puffed up beauty queen while giving way more time than was needed to Ayers and Wright.
Where the media had clear evidence of Obama's marxist/radical-socialist past (ACORN, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, teaching Saul Alinsky to activists in Chicago, Cloward and Piven Strategy, Obama's own mother and father's marxism...) they simply ignored it and chose not to report it. While every half-baked rumor of a scandal about McCain got maximumn coverage, and on several occasions the lack of evidence and double-standard blew up in their faces.
This is an old tradition of trying not to hit below the belt. They all have good reasons to try and play nice with any administration to risk not losing favor and being frozen out. The fact is there was a lot on Bush that should've been mentioned but wasn't. There was alot about Cheney especially that should've been focused on but wasn't.
Similarly in November 2004 the Dan Rather scandal on the fake letter alleged to be from Bush's national Guard commander, proven fake, NOT by the media, but by bloggers more responsible than the media.
And there's proof that it was a setup. There is plenty of evidence that what was in the memo reflected real facts but the memo was released and then disproved to quell the rumors. It worked and Rather's failure to be more thorough ended a long and distinguished career.
Similarly in 2006 the Mark Foley scandal, which was proven the liberal media knew about for a year, and unveiled as an October Surprise on the Republicans (with lots of false smear to Republicans way beyond Foley)
Both of these elections were hit jobs with the media and Democrats working in concert for victory.
You do know the phrase "october surprise" comes from a republican dirty trick, right?
The polls of reporters show similarly skewed numbers of overwhelming support for Democrat presidential candidates, way above the ratio of American voters who supported Democrats.
So what? For the most part journalists are supposed to study, understand, and then dissect and report on political happenings. Them personally leaning towards democrats reflects a bias as much as the great number of "biased" scientists who agree with Al Gore on global warming. you're just an idiot who wants the "facts" to reflect your preconceived notions in the same way you see the bible as a black and white reflection of your preconceived notions.
Similarly media coverage of the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry races. But never was the media working more as an extension of the Democrat party than in the 2008 election.
So far.
All of which is more quantifiably true than you talking out your ass about things you clearly don't understand.
Not true at all. If anything I think the fact that bush pulled through both those races in spite of the numerous things that should've stopped him in the primaries only shows that the "liberal" media was playing nice and that fox news wasn't so in the end the coverage tilted right and smears against war hero kerry and the vice president from a very successful 8 years went undefended.
In 2008 you had the end of the very unpopular Bush presidency, the economic collapse, the war in Iraq, Katrina, and people in general were tired of it. Obama and Biden were simply better speakers than mccain and palin. ANd you have to admit that what was needed to win was to run against the failures of bush and that was a near-impossible sell for mccain.
That's not a biased view really, that's reality.
