Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anna B:
Can you provide a link? The NYT's coverage has been driving me up the wall because of its pro-Hillary slant, but I hadn't seen an actual endorsement yet.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by beza:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zwingli:
Here, and as I understand it in the UK, the two most powerful politicians in a party are usually leader and deputy leader, unless No.2 is actively plotting against No.1 (or in Gordon Brown's case, number 11 against number 10.)

---

I'd say this is often not the case in the UK. The Labour Party deputy leader is elected separately and is not chosen by the leader. They are sometimes given the title deputy Prime Minister (which is at the PM's discretion) when Labour is in office. I think they are usually "influential" (and sometimes not even that) rather than powerful figures. Of the ones I can think of since the war, Herbert Morrison and Roy Jenkins are the only ones who had real power bases in the Labour Party. The "big beasts" prefer a prominent post like Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, etc. Rather like prefering to be Sec of State in the US rather than VP.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Well, on one level I'm not surprised that the Times chose to endorse the "local" candidate in the same way that the Trib endorsed Obama. (Although the Trib, ever the Republican rag, will no doubt endorse the GOP candidate in the general election, even if the party nominates a garden slug.)

---

quote:

---

However, I don't think Hillary truly represents the bests interests of the Democratic Party, and I question how much she really holds to the progressive values espoused by the Times editorial board.

---

Spoken like a True Democrat.

I'm going to say the same thing I would say to a Republican that was wanting a "Real Republican". Candidates don't generally win by moving to the Left and showing their Left cred, that's how Democrats lose, they listen to the radicals in their party, which are legion. I think Hillary is a True Believer, but she also Has To Get Elected! Democrats in particular have this Code where they expect cadidates to live up to select Litmus tests or else they won't elect them. Republicans, not so much, with the exception of the relgious right and abortion.

I think you Dems do a grave disservice to Hillary by voting in the biggest liberal in the room, with virtually no experience, and is likely to get shot down in the general election where people like me that are in the middle on a lot of issues will RUN from Obama.

quote:

---

In fact, her only real core value seems to be her own career advancement....

---

If you don't think that Obama has "Political Slut" written on his resume, you aren't apying attention.

Mark my words, he will sell you out if it is in his best interest, and with a mixed party congress (assuming), I can pretty much guarantee he will have to sell out something to get anything done.

quote:

---

The Times also endorsed McCain for the GOP slot, but as one letter said, "The New York Times’s editorial page endorsing a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is a bit like the Hatfields recommending a leader for the McCoys."

---

Gotta love the liberal media bias......



--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Democrats in particular have this Code where they expect cadidates to live up to select Litmus tests or else they won't elect them. Republicans, not so much, with the exception of the relgious right and abortion.

---

Minor details, easily dismissed. Religious litmus tests, they're nothin'.

How quickly some people have forgotten the hoohah over the present Governator. Without his famous name, he'd not have survived a primary. Compromiser! Kennedy-lover! Centrist! RINO! would have been the cries. I certainly heard some of them on this very Ship. Even with his famous name, he might have had trouble, but he short-stepped that whole process.

But Ah-nuld is a bit off-topic in a POTUS thread, except to see who he's backing.

(MG seems also to have forgotten that Rs who were pro- or neutral on choice have been the only ones who've done well in statewide elections for a while, although they don't often seem to be in particularly good odor with many elements of their own party.)

Charlotte

--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
\
The Times also endorsed McCain for the GOP slot, but as one letter said, "The New York Times’s editorial page endorsing a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is a bit like the Hatfields recommending a leader for the McCoys."

---

Gotta love the liberal media bias......

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
How quickly some people have forgotten the hoohah over the present Governator.

---

Some people might have forgotten, but then I'm not some people.

State elections are a whole 'nother kettle of tuna. Might as well be comparing Hollandaise with sushi for all the good it'll do. Getting elected in one state is nothing. Getting 26 states worth of delegates? Now that's impressive.

SeraphimSarov

Notice the wink I made. I'll grant you those specific media outlets are conservative, if you admit EVERYTHING else is liberal.

ALthough I will grant you that the Clinton News Network is now the Hilton News Network. Pretty bad when Fox does better "news" than CNN.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
How quickly some people have forgotten the hoohah over the present Governator.

---

Some people might have forgotten, but then I'm not some people.

State elections are a whole 'nother kettle of tuna. Might as well be comparing Hollandaise with sushi for all the good it'll do. Getting elected in one state is nothing. Getting 26 states worth of delegates? Now that's impressive.

SeraphimSarov

Notice the wink I made. I'll grant you those specific media outlets are conservative, if you admit EVERYTHING else is liberal.

ALthough I will grant you that the Clinton News Network is now the Hilton News Network. Pretty bad when Fox does better "news" than CNN.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
\
The Times also endorsed McCain for the GOP slot, but as one letter said, "The New York Times’s editorial page endorsing a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is a bit like the Hatfields recommending a leader for the McCoys."

---

Gotta love the liberal media bias......

---

um, yeah like Fox News, Most of Talk Radio, the 700 Club, the Washington Times, the National Review etc etc etc

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
...Chicago Tribune...

---

The Trib pretty much founded the Republican Party, and is still the biggest GOP shill this side of the New York Post. "Dewey Defeats Truman", anybody?

--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
How quickly some people have forgotten the hoohah over the present Governator.

---

Some people might have forgotten, but then I'm not some people.

State elections are a whole 'nother kettle of tuna. Might as well be comparing Hollandaise with sushi for all the good it'll do. Getting elected in one state is nothing.

---

Tell that to the other 150 on the ballot, baybee.

It's not hollandaise to sushi, or even apples to oranges, as a restoral of context and a basic knowledge of what it takes for statewide races here will show. Seriously, what's the deal here? Are you one of those INTJs who just can't admit being wrong?

quote:

---

I said earlier:But Ah-nuld is a bit off-topic in a POTUS thread, except to see who he's backing.

---

It's rip and read, right off the ticker - apparently from my thoughts to the AP wires. The Governator is confirmed to be on the Straight Talk Express.

Anything else folks would like me to think about along those lines while I'm apparently on a roll?

Charlotte

--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:


The NY Times simply reflects urban liberalism in which one votes Democratic simply to remind yourself that you are not one of "those people", the people Europeans cringe at when they think bad American stereotypes. A New York Times Democrat is a UK David Cameron Tory or a Canadian Joe Clark conservative.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GoodCatholicLad:
... Newsweek Magazine, ... I wouldn't consider any of those conservative.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choirboy:
Yes Being outside of the New York sphere, we call them 'Public Radio Liberals' around these parts. A friend has described them as 'the champions of affordable liberal suffering'.

---

A friend of mine always calls it 'National Pinko Radio'. I gave a contribution in her name

--------------------
"To eat bread without hope is still, slowly to starve to death." --Pearl S. Buck

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by ebeth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choirboy:
Yes Being outside of the New York sphere, we call them 'Public Radio Liberals' around these parts. A friend has described them as 'the champions of affordable liberal suffering'.

---

A friend of mine always calls it 'National Pinko Radio'. I gave a contribution in her name

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
The trouble with the whole liberal/conservative media thing is that it's not a dichotomy. It's a spectrum, and the appearance of bias, I suspect, is often subjectively based on the position of the reader.

---

quote:

---

We require some means of defining the existence of bias in the news. Bias cannot merely be in the eyes of the beholder, because each of us would like news stories to confirm the validity of our views.

Consequently, I apply the spatial model of politics to the news media’s product.5 The most reasonable way to define bias is relative to the views of the median voter. A liberal news organization would be located to the left of the median voter. And the deviation from the median voter’s position must be nontrivial for bias to be a policy issue of significance.

---

quote:

---

Journalists themselves are a second supply-side source of bias. Charges of a liberal bias in the news place great weight on surveys revealing the liberal views of a majority of journalists. The survey evidence is consistent and strong. In Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter’s (1986: 20–53) 1979–80 survey of journalists at elite media organizations, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as left-of-center, versus 17 percent right-of-center. The journalists who voted for a major party candidate in presidential elections between 1964 and 1976 overwhelmingly went for Democrats: Lyndon Johnson 94 percent, Hubert Humphrey 87 percent, and George McGovern and Jimmy Carter 81 percent each. David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit (1996: 15–19) in 1992 found that 47.3 percent of journalists identified themselves as left or left-leaning versus 21.7 percent right-of-center. In terms of party affiliation, 44 percent identified with the Democrats versus 16 percent Republicans and 34 percent Independents. Of the Washington journalists surveyed by Stephen Hess (1981: 87), 42 percent identified themselves as liberal versus 19 percent conservative.13

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

We require some means of defining the existence of bias in the news. Bias cannot merely be in the eyes of the beholder, because each of us would like news stories to confirm the validity of our views.

Consequently, I apply the spatial model of politics to the news media’s product.5 The most reasonable way to define bias is relative to the views of the median voter. A liberal news organization would be located to the left of the median voter. And the deviation from the median voter’s position must be nontrivial for bias to be a policy issue of significance.

---

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The way to establish bias is by fact-checking.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The whole notion is stupid beyond belief.

---

quote:

---

Groseclose and Milyo's analytical method begins not with the media but with the voting records of members of Congress. They use the well-known ratings of members' voting records issued by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal organization. First, they adjust the members' ADA ratings for the 1990s to ensure comparability over time and between the House and Senate. The ADA score has a 0-100 scale, with 0 meaning that a legislator voted with the ADA 0 percent of the time and 100 signifying 100 percent agreement. The researchers use scores scaled to correspond to the House ratings in 1999. On this scale, the average ADA score for 1995-99 in the House and Senate was 50.1, when senators were weighted by state population, and the District of Columbia was assigned phantom liberal legislators. If members of Congress reflect the views of their constituents, we can view "50" as close to the position of the average voter.

snip

On the conservative end, the only two outlets below 50 were the Washington Times (35) and Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume (40). Although right of center, these ratings are much closer to the centrist position of 50 than to congressional Republicans' average position of 16.

The other 18 outlets are on the liberal side of 50. Particularly striking are the high liberal ratings for the New York Times and CBS Evening News (both 74), not too far below the average score of 84 for Democratic members of Congress. The news programs of the other two traditional television networks are closer to the center--62 for NBC Nightly News and 61 for ABC World News Tonight.

The one Internet representative, the Drudge Report, comes in at 60, moderately left of center. The most balanced reporting shows up in the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN News Night with Aaron Brown, and ABC's Good Morning America, each of which had a score of 56. Interestingly, these balanced programs provided three of the four anchors for the main election debates--Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill from PBS and Charles Gibson from ABC. (It's hard to understand how Bob Schieffer from CBS made it in.)

One surprise is that the Wall Street Journal's news pages have the most liberal rating of all, 85, about the same as the typical Democrat in Congress. The rating for the Journal's editorial pages would of course look very different. (As one quipster observed, James Carville and Mary Matalin probably agree more often than the news and editorial divisions of the Wall Street Journal.)

The bottom line from the Groseclose-Milyo study is that the political slant of most of the mainstream media is far to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the political opinions of viewers, listeners, and readers are similar to those of their elected representatives, the political leanings of most of the media are far to the left of those of most of their customers. This mismatch suggests profit opportunities for conservative-oriented, or at least balanced, media outlets. Fox News is probably only the beginning. Maybe the next conservative entrant will be a recreated CBS News.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
All very interesting, but surely the subject of another thread.

---

quote:

---

On topic, Obama's camp is reporting he collected $32 million in donations in January. Which is a boatload of dough and will buy a fair amount of advertising.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
All very interesting, but surely the subject of another thread.

---

Indeed, indeed.

---

Damn, this is a tough crowd.

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
The way to establish bias is by fact-checking.

---

Is it though? Surely bias is recognised by how those facts are presented rather than by the facts themselves? Unless, of course, the media concerned is using outright lies, but that suggests propaganda rather than bias, which I think is a different beast.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
And with regard to pure "fact checking," even that can be very difficult in political stories, as illustrated here in yet another Tribune article on the same subject. Competent politicians control their "facts" very jealously, and even when they're more or less up front, what constitutes a particular "fact" versus "interpretation" isn't exactly as clear as a test tube experiment.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you look at the metric, and can honestly say that you find it to be a reasonable basis for establishing bias, then one of us is seriously out of touch with reality.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you look at the metric, and can honestly say that you find it to be a reasonable basis for establishing bias, then one of us is seriously out of touch with reality.

---

Another of Tom's even-handed contributions.

Unless of course he does speak for 'reality' in which case I stand corrected.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But you are not, to my knowledge, a union member, a Latino, or a blue-collar worker, i.e., a member of one of the groups who stand a good chance of caring about Kennedy's endorsement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
(Although the Trib, ever the Republican rag, will no doubt endorse the GOP candidate in the general election, even if the party nominates a garden slug.)

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by 206:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
All very interesting, but surely the subject of another thread.

---

Indeed, indeed.

---

Damn, this is a tough crowd.

---

and it's getting more then tiresome with comments from the peanut gallery at every divergence from the main topic

--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Mother Tribune dropped the Col. McCormick-crazed Republican thing decades ago, and is now just another member of the New York Times-Washington Post Conventionally Liberal Cabal.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
Spoken like somebody who rarely, if ever, actually reads the Trib....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
I've never seen the Trib back the Iraq War, but I do think they're a little more conservative than the New York Times or Washington Post. They also tend to be more locally-centric, focusing more on Chicago stories than on national ones, most of the time.

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Most political observers believe that a Bloomberg run is less likely if Arizona Sen. John McCain - who is considered less conservative and has a record of bi-partisanship - emerges a big winner in Tuesday's primaries.

"You are much more likely in the Republican Party to come out with somebody who is the prohibitive favorite after Tuesday than you are in the Democratic Party and so for the Democrats, there's more of a chance of the process going on much later, even maybe all the way to the convention," Bloomberg said.

"But both parties have wide-open races at the moment, there's more than one viable candidate in both parties and that's good for the country."

On Thursday, speaking to Google employees at the company's New York offices in Chelsea, Bloomberg responded to a question about running for the White House with his stock "I'm not a candidate" answer, but added a new, and newly decisive kicker: "And I plan to stay that way."

---