| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: Former NBC page skews TVN even further |
Topic: Former NBC page skews TVN even further
| Author | Message |
| brother-trucker | Posted – 12/29/2007 6:14:51 PM | show profile "SteveK" was all over this site yesterday posting pro-MSNBC propaganda yesterday. Big surprise - associate editor "SteveK" is a former NBC page! He joins the editor Chris, a pro-MSNBC producer. After all the heat Brian Stelter took for his inappropriate ties to MSNBC, Olbermann, Matthews, Shuster, political bias, etc., you would think Mediabistro would have learned and tried to balance out this site a little more. Yet somehow, they actually let it get even worse! My question is: how can CNN or Fox expect to get a fair shake on this site? In just over 4 hours, "SteveK" posted 5 items, and every single one was either pro-NBC or anti-FNC. 1. "Nightly News Wins Adjective Battle Too." Touts NBC's ratings and mocks a New York Post (surprise, surprise!) media critic for doing his job and criticizing NBC's press release, saying he must have been "bored." 2. "Foxnews.com: 'Benazir is Alive'" Blasts a FoxNews.com headline, saying it was misleading readers into thinking Bhutto wasn't dead. I guess NBC pages aren't taught the meaning of quotation marks. 3. A spat between FBN and MSNBC. Selectively quotes FBN host to make him look threatening and childish, when of course, MSNBC started the entire thing when Abrams again attacked a competitor out of the blue on-air in an effort to boost his network's awful ratings. 4. "FNC Most Fair and Balanced (At Least According to One Study)" The most obviously slanted post of them all. Instead of reporting the results of the study, the entire post is arguing with GMU's methodology and saying it is meaningless. Need I say more? 5. "Chryon of the Day: 12/28." You guessed it - MSNBC is the winner! Have you ever seen a CNN or Fox News Channel font used on TVNewser by Brian Stelter or these new guys for any other reason than to mock them? Yet somehow, MSNBC's get chosen for praise! I want to know how CNN or Fox will get unbiased coverage on this site when two former NBC employees with similar backgrounds and political beliefs are running it. Brian Stelter was bad, but these guys are worse. TVNewser readers should demand better from MediaBistro. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 6:34:13 PM | show profile 4. "FNC Most Fair and Balanced (At Least According to One Study)" The most obviously slanted post of them all. Instead of reporting the results of the study, the entire post is arguing with GMU's methodology and saying it is meaningless. Need I say more? yes, you need to do your research - the money trail leads back to the who's who of right wing disinformation! |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 6:50:36 PM | show profile CNN and FOX can't expect this site to be fair The pro MSNBC, pro Olbermann ,slant runs deep here. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 7:08:54 PM | show profile Olby - you're full of shit! |
| Dead Air | Posted – 12/29/2007 8:27:03 PM | show profile According to the website newscorpse, Steve Krakauer is formerly of FOX. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 8:44:48 PM | show profile He also worked at NBC.Either way it fits what this site does. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 9:35:06 PM | show profile Posted-12/29/2007 7:08:54 PM "you're full of shit!" crimedog what a journalist!!!! |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 9:41:18 PM | show profile Frank and pet parrot Olby you still have time to redeem yourselves and answer the posts truthfully and honestly. It's obvious this is the most difficult moment in your lives. The two of you spread ugliness wherever you perch - ask us for forgiveness. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 9:57:28 PM | show profile Frank and pet parrot Olby you still have time to redeem yourselves and answer the posts truthfully and honestly. It's obvious this is the most difficult moment in your lives. The two of you spread ugliness wherever you perch - ask us for forgiveness.-- crimedog This was before crimdog said this" "you're full of shit!" |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 10:43:17 PM | show profile Olby - my mistake the both of you are full of rat dung - now do your best to redeem yourselves and respond honestly to the original post. Turn over a new leaf - no O'Reilly or Olbermann or kill the ACLU - baby torturing liberals - just answer the post. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 10:47:32 PM | show profile crimedog-- shouldn't you answer the post before you ask someone else to? |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/29/2007 11:33:15 PM | show profile CMPA's claim to be 'non-partisan' is undermined by an analysis of its sources of funding. Information provided by mediatransparency.org [4] reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations. The funding information, covering 1986-2002, lists the following donors: Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $267,000 from 5 donations Earhart Foundation John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations Thus, out of the total of $2,523,916, nearly all of it ($2,173,916) came from just three sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its funding from those 3 donors. Here is a sample of other right-wing causes funded by these 3 donors, as listed by their respective SourceWatch articles: John M. Olin Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Project for the New American Century Scaife Foundations - American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation Smith Richardson Foundation - American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute According to Salon journalist Joe Conason, the availability of this information does not indicate an openness on the part of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. In a Jan 2003 exchange of views with Lichter, Conason said "The IRS form 990 returns filed by [Lichter's] center redacts the names of all the individuals and organizations that contribute to it, thereby concealing them from public scrutiny. But the watchdogs at Media Transparency have collated the 990 returns filed by the conservative foundations, which disclose their contributions to Lichter's outfit." [5] |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/29/2007 11:38:26 PM | show profile crimedog why can't you stay on topic?? Those liberal talking points have nothing to do with this topic. You not much of a journalist. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/30/2007 12:10:27 AM | show profile You not much of a journalist....Olby You not much on intelligence. Why aren't you watching the Patriots? |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 12/30/2007 1:37:08 AM | show profile Maybe I don't get Can some of you tell me, what CNN and FNC should be looking for as far as respect? Now I'm just asking, because honestly I don't see it. The GMU post, was just pointing out the fact its one study. The Foxnews.com post shocked me, because it reminded me of the President news conference back in October where he said, "Mandella is dead." I mean don't you all see a problem with a site having something like that up? Its not like, it was made up. It was on there site. Don't you all think those types of things can be misleading. I'm not trying to be pro anyone, I'm just asking. I think we all should know that things run in cycles. I mean, as of the time I'm writing this post, there is the Kristol story, a story about Cody Willard doing a tongue and cheek takedown of Dan Abrams, and other pro FNC post. I mean there is a post about the fact Anderson Cooper is in the middle East covering the Bhutto death. On the main page there are pro CNN and FNC material. I feel as if when I read these post, every post by Chris or SteveK has nothing but NBC/MSNBC post. That is not the case. Also, I feel like there is some type of insecurity by those who like CNN and FNC. Especially those who like Fox. They always feel like, they have to scream and shout about respect. I really think the fact FNC most nights beats CNN and MSNBC combined should be enough. I honest want to know what type of post you all are looking for? I ask this because I just don't get it. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/30/2007 9:52:12 AM | show profile I do agree with you on the FNC headline.That was misleading. If this site is gonna post 5 negative stories aboutCNN, FNC or BOR they should do the same with MSNBC and Olbermann.But they don't. I don't mind negative stories posted about Fox,i just want this site to be fair. This sites history of bias is there.Just look back at what has been posted. This site should be more like Inside Cable News. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 12/30/2007 11:29:03 AM | show profile Frank,Brother Tucker and the other conservatives.... Why does this liberal bias suprise any of us on the right....the left has a lock on the media...the 4th estate,ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,CNBC,and HeadLine News.....as well as Time,US News and World Report ETC...... We get the Talk Radio market and the Ed. page of the WSJ as well as the Washinton Times.....but remember that this is how it was when Reagan took 49 of the 50 states...Voters see through the bias filter...Thank God. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/30/2007 11:32:40 AM | show profile Cable news is a manufactured - manipulated farce: Jeff Cohen: As I learned when I was on the inside, there are a whole bunch of stories -- whole categories of stories -- that would be exciting, that would get ratings, that everyone in TV news knows you cannot do. I tell the story in the book. One story I repeatedly tell is about the mighty Hudson River in New York State which was contaminated by General Electric. For decades now, through their political power, they?ve blocked the cleanup. Now, this story is made for television news. When you talk to the hypothetical producer, they will tell you that what has been drilled into their heads by management is that you need "villains, victims and visuals." BuzzFlash: That kind of sounds like Karl Rove?s master plan. The villains are the Islamic fascists; the victims are the people who were oppressed by Saddam Hussein; and there are visuals at every photo op. Jeff Cohen: Right. Media management works the same way, whether you?re a political operative like Rove or you?re a high-ranking TV news manager. |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/30/2007 12:20:43 PM | show profile "villains, victims and visuals." Right out of the Democrat/Liberal playbook. villains----White people,Republicans,Christians victims---illegals,blacks,liberals and atheists visuals---Every chance democrats and liberals get they parade victims out for photo ops and for tv news.[And you dare not criticize theses poor poor vicitms]. |
| JIMBO99 | Posted – 12/30/2007 12:40:48 PM | show profile Hey ...did ya ever notic how Libs.. use sorces like Cohen,Buzz Flash,Moveon....etc. as a "Proof" of the lib talking points....they really don't see the bias.. anymore than a fish pays attention to the water it swims in... to them it's mormal,and is as it should be. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 12/30/2007 12:55:48 PM | show profile Now, I understand the point about the stories and that they are negative. I however must say, if the stories aren't there, then what should be done? Would you rather that the editor not put up any stories up because they negative towards CNN and FNC, since they put up so many other stories that can be viewed as negative. If that is what you would like, then that is too much censorship for my taste. I do think a story that was posted back on Thursday about Sen. Arlen Specter saying how he heard about the death of Bhutto on CNN, while he was MSNBC, was a negative slap to MSNBC. I can see however the fact Chris/SteveK tried to slant it to MSNBC, because Specter was over in the area, and they got him on first. My point in all of this is, MSNBC is just trying to hang in the game. FNC and CNN do stupid things that should be point, and the same should go for MSNBC. However, if its not there, what can you do? I do remember a negative story about Olbermann and a article about comments comparing Murdoch to a war, or something of the like. I seriously encourage you all to look for the negative MSNBC and email them to the tip box. If they don't put it up, then you guys are totally in the right. These guys are way to pro NBC/MSNBC. |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/30/2007 2:01:48 PM | show profile 'Hey ...did ya ever notic how Libs.. use sorces like Cohen,Buzz Flash,Moveon....etc. as a "Proof" of the lib talking points....they really don't see the bias..' Jim - was that ever a brain dead posting. Try again with thought! |
| Olbypocrisy | Posted – 12/30/2007 2:18:48 PM | show profile Jim - was that ever a brain dead posting. Try again with thought!--crimedog pot -kettle- black |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/30/2007 3:02:59 PM | show profile Olby you have a golden opportunity to prove yourself to be more than and board jerk. Stick with the subject! |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 12/30/2007 3:09:36 PM | show profile On the Political Grapevine segment of Special Report for December 12, 2007, Brit Hume put words in the mouth of Pope Benedict. "The pope, it seems, is a global warming skeptic," he reported, referencing the pontiff's annual World Peace Day message. "Benedict XVI is warning that solutions to climate change must be based on solid science, not politics and that the welfare of humans must take precedence over animals and plants." Read the message yourself, which contains nothing to suggest any doubt about global warming. What global warming skeptic asserts that "the problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short," so that wealthy countries "have a pressing need' to "reassess the high levels of consumption" and "search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency"? Hume lied. Or he didn't quite lie, since he inserted the words "it seems" to suggest an opinion rather than a fact. But that little qualifier doesn't absolve him or his reporting of dishonesty. Viewers still got a false impression that the pope challenges the scientific consensus on global warming. Hume's Political Grapevine is the one segment on Special Report where his deceitfulness shows up night after night, year after year. Don't take my word for it. Just access the Political Grapevine archive, which, unfortunately, only goes back a few months. Pick five prior segments at random, and then carefully fact check each of the stories. David Fiderer |
