Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[Kasept]

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...cnn-are/199973

Unemployment drops to lowest level since November '08..

Note amusing news coverage differences as gathered by MM4A.

[OldDog]

That (new jobs) is certainly good news (with caveats).

Regarding media coverage, checking those sites and others, CBS, ABC and FOX are showing Hurricane Arthur, CNN is highlighting children dying in hot cars (and secondarily Arthur), and MSNBC is still on the new jobs (Arthur is #8). Mediamatters, being about the media, ought to know that these websites update constantly, so comparing them at a given moment is not necessarily . . . comparable.

[dellinger63]

Meanwhile there is a bipartisan movement to extend unemployment benefits.

Typical of not just this administration but government in general.

We celebrate Independence Day tomorrow despite a good chunk of the nation being dependent.

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/13129

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...cnn-are/199973

Unemployment drops to lowest level since November '08..

Note amusing news coverage differences as gathered by MM4A.

[GenuineRisk]

Thread title win.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thread title win.

I shudder to think of the direction of this thread had you started it.

[geeker2]

Shouldn't the title really be

A-Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

I shudder to think of the direction of this thread had you started it.

I laugh because you speak the truth.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/...cnn-are/199973

Unemployment drops to lowest level since November '08..

Note amusing news coverage differences as gathered by MM4A.

The policies of the Fed with the endless easing and the endless printing of money are good for the economy in the short-term. I don't think these policies are too good long-term. Even though any uptick is good news, most people would still say the economy is struggling.

Just to humor you, I will give Obama the credit for the uptick in the economy, whether he is responsible or not. But I still don't think most people would say that the Obama Administration doing something good is "typical". Quite to the contrary. It is not typical at all. That is why he is regarded as the worst President since World War II. GW Bush is considered the 2nd worst.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-since-wwii/

But I'm sure you will argue that people are wrong. They are right about Bush being a bad President but they are wrong about Obama.

With regard to the coverage of the jobs report by the media, they all covered it. Why would it be surprising that a channel with a liberal bias like MSNBC would want to really focus on good news for Obama, while a channel with a conservative bias like FOX would want to focus less on that story?

It's funny that people are so outraged that FOX has a conservative bias while they have no problem with the liberal bias of the other channels.

This article quotes numerous people who work for CBS and those types of news organizations and these people admit that there is a liberal bias at those stations, and their stories reflect it.

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/jo...-bias-part-one

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The policies of the Fed with the endless easing and the endless printing of money are good for the economy in the short-term. I don't think these policies are too good long-term. Even though any uptick is good news, most people would still say the economy is struggling.

Just to humor you, I will give Obama the credit for the uptick in the economy, whether he is responsible or not. But I still don't think most people would say that the Obama Administration doing something good is "typical". Quite to the contrary. It is not typical at all. That is why he is regarded as the worst President since World War II. GW Bush is considered the 2nd worst.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nt-since-wwii/

But I'm sure you will argue that people are wrong. They are right about Bush being a bad President but they are wrong about Obama.





With regard to the coverage of the jobs report by the media, they all covered it. Why would it be surprising that a channel with a liberal bias like MSNBC would want to really focus on good news for Obama, while a channel with a conservative bias like FOX would want to focus less on that story?

It's funny that people are so outraged that FOX has a conservative bias while they have no problem with the liberal bias of the other channels.

This article quotes numerous people who work for CBS and those types of news organizations and these people admit that there is a liberal bias at those stations, and their stories reflect it.

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/jo...-bias-part-one

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

I looked at that second link of Rupert's, and not only do many of the quotes have nothing to do with whether journalists are personally liberal in their views, four of the quotes are from Mark Halperin, who is notorious for following the money in the course of his career. Not to mention, a bunch of quotes doesn't exactly count as research. As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. So you're right; beaucoup de bias.

As for the Quinnepac poll, it's bad polling, for a number of reasons, the big one being that Presidents experience an upswing in favorability after they leave office (call it the nostalgia effect). In a poll run during GW's administration, he was regarded as the worst, by about the same percentage (34 percent GW to 33 percent BO). If Quinnepac runs the same poll five years after BO's Administration is over, it's unlikely he'll get the "worst" rank; it'll either be whoever is in the WH, or GWB. Because he really was the worst.

I'm going to try to attach a Gallup poll jpeg of the difference between "in office" ratings and retrospective ratings for the Presidents since Kennedy.

[Danzig]

yeah, with polls being low across the board, it's no surprise obama's is down-i can only imagine would bush jr's would be right now!

not happy right now. we came up to our property on the lake for the wknd, and someone has stolen some gear.
some people are such aholes.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, with polls being low across the board, it's no surprise obama's is down-i can only imagine would bush jr's would be right now!

not happy right now. we came up to our property on the lake for the wknd, and someone has stolen some gear.
some people are such aholes.

Oh that sucks. I'm really sorry. Yes, people certainly can be. One of the dads at my son's birthday party in the park last week had to make an unplanned run around the park after some kid came up and stole a scooter belonging to a 5-year-old guest. He found the perpetrator, thank goodness (not cool stealing from children. Not cool stealing from anybody, but especially not cool stealing from kids).

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I dont mind bias, I do mind stories being invented. Thats why I always seek.confirmation when fox.breaks something.
Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

And high unemployment is the.new normal, too much automation and too many jobs going overseas.

People accuse the unemployed and underemployed of being lazy or stupid...the facts are we dont have enough jobs, and more are going to college than ever. But degrees dont equal jobs these days.

I agree with you about unemployment and the lack of jobs.

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate. I'm sure they've botched a few stories but so has every other network. I'll say one thing. The left-wing has done a great job of smearing Fox. Fox is still very popular but there are also a ton of people out there like yourself who have the false assumption that Fox is totally unreliable. That is complete nonsense. That is just left-wing propaganda that many people believe. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a conservative station like Fox that reports important and legitimate stories that the liberal media doesn't want to report.

A high ranking member of the IRS taking the 5th at a congressional hearing is a big deal. Yet the mainstream media has not devoted much time to the story. You hear a lot more about that story on Fox than the other channels. Yet if that IRS official was a Republican under Bush, that had targeted liberal groups, and she took the 5th before Congress, you know darn well that it would be the #1 story on every news channel every night.

I'll tell you one thing that Fox does. They keep the mainstream media a little more honest. When they pick up a story that the mainstream media would normally ignore, it sometimes forces the mainstream media to at least give a little coverage to the story.

There are also plenty of times when Fox is the only station that will report a big story. Do you remember this case? This should have been a huge story. It was to anyone who knew the story, but not to the mainstream media, who didn't want to report it because it didn't fit their narrative. Obama himself called it a "phony scandal". I do give him some credit. He convinced many liberals that it was basically a "phony-story" when it was actually a huge story. I would like someone to explain to me how this is a phony story. If this would have happened under Bush with all the roles reversed, people would have demanded that the Attorney General resign.

There was a liberal witness to this whole thing, in addition to the videos of the incident. Bartle Bull was a long time civil rights activist and aide to Robert Kennedy. He called this one of the worst cases of voter intimidation he had ever seen. The lawyers at the Justice Department agreed. They were prosecuting the case. But Obama appointees who were not lawyers ordered the lawyers to drop the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate.

Okay, now you're just straight up trolling.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you about unemployment and the lack of jobs.

I totally disagree with you about Fox. They may have a conservative bias but their news is generally accurate. I'm sure they've botched a few stories but so has every other network. I'll say one thing. The left-wing has done a great job of smearing Fox. Fox is still very popular but there are also a ton of people out there like yourself who have the false assumption that Fox is totally unreliable. That is complete nonsense. That is just left-wing propaganda that many people believe. The truth of the matter is that there needs to be a conservative station like Fox that reports important and legitimate stories that the liberal media doesn't want to report.

A high ranking member of the IRS taking the 5th at a congressional hearing is a big deal. Yet the mainstream media has not devoted much time to the story. You hear a lot more about that story on Fox than the other channels. Yet if that IRS official was a Republican under Bush, that had targeted liberal groups, and she took the 5th before Congress, you know darn well that it would be the #1 story on every news channel every night.

I'll tell you one thing that Fox does. They keep the mainstream media a little more honest. When they pick up a story that the mainstream media would normally ignore, it sometimes forces the mainstream media to at least give a little coverage to the story.

There are also plenty of times when Fox is the only station that will report a big story. Do you remember this case? This should have been a huge story. It was to anyone who knew the story, but not to the mainstream media, who didn't want to report it because it didn't fit their narrative. Obama himself called it a "phony scandal". I do give him some credit. He convinced many liberals that it was basically a "phony-story" when it was actually a huge story. I would like someone to explain to me how this is a phony story. If this would have happened under Bush with all the roles reversed, people would have demanded that the Attorney General resign.

There was a liberal witness to this whole thing, in addition to the videos of the incident. Bartle Bull was a long time civil rights activist and aide to Robert Kennedy. He called this one of the worst cases of voter intimidation he had ever seen. The lawyers at the Justice Department agreed. They were prosecuting the case. But Obama appointees who were not lawyers ordered the lawyers to drop the case.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

,,I get all my Fox news from Jon Stewart..nite after nite he plays back what the talking heads catch phrase is and repeated show after show...and they are reading from Ailes script for the day..like 'I don't understand what Obama is thinking here'..even the revered O'rielly was caught on camera...whatever faux says i know the oppisite is true

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

I have said Fox has a conservative bias. There are so many of you that have such a huge double-standard. You think that since there is a conservative bias that that somehow makes them liars, shills, not a legit news source, etc.

I could say the exact same thing for most of the mainstream media (which has a huge liberal bias). Look at the Associated Press and many of the other news organizations. They won't use the words "illegal immigrants". It's a good thing their biases don't affect their objectivity. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/bu...anted=all&_r=0

In addition, you need to separate Fox News from its opinion shows. The news is almost identical to any other news. The bias is very subtle. If I got a transcript from a few different news channels on a random night, I highly doubt that any of you would be able to tell which transcript was from which channel. If I got the transcripts from 10 straight nights and you went over them very carefully, it is quite possible that you would be able to find the slight subtleties to guess which one was from Fox. It's very subtle. It's not major. Sean Hannity isn't subtle. His show is an opinion show. The news is a different story.

Let's check the news stories on the fox News website right now. Compare it to other sites like CNN. You won't see a major difference.

http://www.foxnews.com/

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

Fox News was never called GOP TV. Don't believe everything you read from left-wing blogs without fact-checking it. Where did you read that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Like the study showed, people are less informed if they watch fox than if they watch no news at all.

That study was totally flawed. Here is why:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-news-viewers/