Media partiality hits a new low

Originally posted by Wajoma
All media is biased, this is exactly as it should be, nothing to debate here, move along.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/27/big-beck-goes-over-3-million-viewers-beats-oreilly-in-demo-cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-august-26-2009/25541

As long as Fox airs the adverts, there appears to be little doubt most will see them, due to the fact Fox trounce all other networks in viewership. Seems a logical conclusion moves like this may be why they are losing the news wars there.

Originally posted by FMF
Which factually inaccurate and disinformational pro-Democrat submissions are you specifically referring to?

Let's start with this one:

YouTube

They splice in McCain saying that he is wiling to be in Iraq for "Maybe 100" years in with fires, explosions, violence and a graphic that said "more than 4,000 dead" (meaning 4,000 US soldiers).

In fact, McCain said nothing about continuing the "war" for 100 years, but was referring to maintaining an American "presence" such as exists in Japan and South Korea, which he specifically used as analogies. In fact, he specifically used the caveat to the "100 years" statement, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html

Is that any less misleading than a bunch of speculative claims about what might happen as a result of a bill in the future? The former clearly takes a statement out of context. The latter does what is obviously speculation.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The cultural phenomenon of airing politically motivated ads is suspect by itself.

That's all fine and good in theory, but the US Supreme Court would never allow a rule disallowing such to pass First Amendment scrutiny.

Assuming the phenomenon exists, I don't think it's too much to ask for it to be applied fairly.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Freedom of speech means you have a right to express yourself.

Now when we apply the definition: A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

We see that freedom of expression does not mean others must supply you with a soap box.

There are limits, you aren't free to commit fraud, things like slander and yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

I didn't say the networks should be required by law to allow the ads to air. I said it's wrong of them, when they claim to be great bastions of news reporting, to reject ads based on viewpoint. I understand that they can't be forced to accept the ads. But, they lose respect in my eyes when the reject them based on viewpoint.

Originally posted by FMF
So you are suggesting that factually incorrect or misleading advertisements should be broadcast because network TV is heavily regulated by the FCC and network TV is dominated by a small number of networks?

I saw the ad in question and do not believe it to be incorrect or
misleading, it may be leading people away from what ABC and
NBC want for health care, but that does not make it incorrect.
Kelly

Originally posted by MacSwain
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/27/big-beck-goes-over-3-million-viewers-beats-oreilly-in-demo-cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-august-26-2009/25541

As long as Fox airs the adverts, there appears to be little doubt most will see them, due to the fact Fox trounce all other networks in viewership. Seems a logical conclusion moves like this may be why they are losing the news wars there.

FOX is so ridiculously biased that any semblance of calling it a "news channel" renders the caller his or herself without a shred of credibility. I won't even click on a link to FOX unless I am specifically researching the issue they address.