Palin is the choice

[Jack]

When you say a picture "leaked out" that usually means it existed in reality and was somehow delivered to the media by anonymous back channels. That doesn't really apply to a sports humor blog posting an obvious photoshop of an image that the GOP would probably love the average Deadspin reader to associate with their VP candidate.

Is the image sexist? Sure. Is it potentially offensive to Palin and/or moralistic fun haters? Possibly. Is it a negative for her campaign in any conceivable way? No. So how is it related to the perceived trend of liberal bias in the media?

[kchoya]

Sept 3, 2008 16:37:25 GMT -5 Jack said:

When you say a picture "leaked out" that usually means it existed in reality and was somehow delivered to the media by anonymous back channels. That doesn't really apply to a sports humor blog posting an obvious photoshop of an image that the GOP would probably love the average Deadspin reader to associate with their VP candidate.

Is the image sexist? Sure. Is it potentially offensive to Palin and/or moralistic fun haters? Possibly. Is it a negative for her campaign in any conceivable way? No. So how is it related to the perceived trend of liberal bias in the media?

It was a joke. Settle down.

[Jack]

I really need this election to be over so I can move to Canada.

[TC]

Peggy Noonan, caught off-air, on-microphone over at Kos :

"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bull about narratives and youthfulness and the picture."

[The Stig]

Well, Noonan is right about one thing: tinyurl.com/2e2qgl

The Onion News Network on the most important issues to voters in 2008.

[Bando]

Sept 3, 2008 18:12:40 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Well, Noonan is right about one thing: tinyurl.com/2e2qgl

The Onion News Network on the most important issues to voters in 2008.

That certainly appears to be the McCain campaign's assessment of the situation.

[Boz]

Well, I'll say this. I don't think Joe Biden would inspire a 17-page thread.

[strummer8526]

Yes, Sarah Palin will go down in infamy along with Hoyatalk jumping the shark, MrSixer's hanging source, and a ill-fated pre-Syracuse debacle.

[Boz]

Sept 4, 2008 22:57:53 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Yes, Sarah Palin will go down in infamy along with Hoyatalk jumping the shark, MrSixer's hanging source, and a ill-fated pre-Syracuse debacle.

Ouch!! Don't remind me. I feel responsible for that Syracuse thread. What a disaster that turned out to be.

[strummer8526]

Haha we all contributed, so the blame can go around.

On a different point, do the McCain supporters on here think this Oprah stuff is reasonable AT ALL?! I'm pretty sure the Republicans are the party of free business choices, keeping government out of your hair, and so on. Now, they're looking to ram Sarah Palin down Oprah's throat? Oprah clearly doesn't like the woman or agree with her positions. She has had none of the candidates on her show since they became candidates, so how is this unfair?

[DFW HOYA]

Apparently, the NY Times is dumbfounded that the VP candidate has religious beliefs. All these years later, anything to the right of the Episcopalians remains strange and foreign to this newspaper.

www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/us/politics/06church.html

[EasyEd]

How dare Sarah Palin believe in God. Obviously some sort of a kook.

[TC]

Sept 6, 2008 10:42:29 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

How dare Sarah Palin believe in God. Obviously some sort of a kook.

How dare they write about Sarah Palin's background!

This article portrays Sarah Palin's church in a pretty measured way - interviewing a pro-choice member, quotes that stress not taking the bible literally, devoting five sentences to criticism of the church. What exactly is the problem here?

[hifigator]

I'm just curious if I can get an honest answer from those of you on the left:

Do you still deny the general liberal bias of the vast majority of the mainstream media? I find it unfathomable that you would deny such if you were swearing on your own life. In all seriousness, do those of you on the left deny that in general, there is a prominent, noticeable and undeniable liberal bias to the majority of the mainstream media?

[EasyEd]

Sept 6, 2008 8:29:25 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Haha we all contributed, so the blame can go around.

On a different point, do the McCain supporters on here think this Oprah stuff is reasonable AT ALL?! I'm pretty sure the Republicans are the party of free business choices, keeping government out of your hair, and so on. Now, they're looking to ram Sarah Palin down Oprah's throat? Oprah clearly doesn't like the woman or agree with her positions. She has had none of the candidates on her show since they became candidates, so how is this unfair?

I think Oprah's position is entirely reasonable.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I don't watch or read enough of the mainstream media to know.

But even if there is why should I care?

[DFW HOYA]

Sept 6, 2008 12:17:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I'm just curious if I can get an honest answer from those of you on the left:

Do you still deny the general liberal bias of the vast majority of the mainstream media?

I'm not from the left, but I will answer it a different way.

There is a Democratic bias, owing to the fact that many members of the MSM comes from institutions (academia, public policy, or entertainment) where Democrats are more plentiful --as opposed to say, a corporate environment. That having been said, the liberal bias is probably less profound if you contend that not all Democrats are, per se, liberal.

Juan Williams, for example, would not be defined a liberal in the way Rachel Maddow is. Tim Russert was a blue collar-Democrat but was not welcome in the MoveOn.org crowd. To some degree, this is where a Chris Matthews is--he's sympathetic to the cause, but he's no tree-hugger. That's why he's interesting to watch on TV--you can almost see the argument going on in his head between the two.

As for conservatives and Republicans, the same adage applies. But conservatism is applied across the board when there are many factions that frankly don't get along (i.e, Obamacons).

Classical conservatives (George Will)
Idealogue conservatives (Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh)
Christian conservatism (Pat Robertson)
Neoconservatism (Bill Kristol, Karl Rove)
Paleo-conservatism (Pat Buchanan, William Safire)
Populist conservatives (Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly)
Libertarians (Nat Hentoff, Dennis Miller)

[nychoya3]

I would actually make the case that there is a liberal bias, but not a Democratic bias. Trust me, as a Democrat, I do not feel in any way that Democratic candidates get an easier ride of it from the media. Honestly, of all the biases and tendencies in the media, liberal bias doesn't strike me as the most powerful.

Elvado, I'm not sure that the idea that Obama consistently underperformed the polls really holds up. Check the results versus the RCP composites:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/dem_results.html

He beat expectations in a lot of states (VA, NC) and fell short elsewhere (PA, CA). Not sure I see any rhyme or reason here. I do know that the organization will be top notch in VA and NC.

[Bando]

Sept 6, 2008 16:33:41 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Sept 6, 2008 12:17:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I'm just curious if I can get an honest answer from those of you on the left:

Do you still deny the general liberal bias of the vast majority of the mainstream media?

I'm not from the left, but I will answer it a different way.

There is a Democratic bias, owing to the fact that many members of the MSM comes from institutions (academia, public policy, or entertainment) where Democrats are more plentiful --as opposed to say, a corporate environment. That having been said, the liberal bias is probably less profound if you contend that not all Democrats are, per se, liberal.

Juan Williams, for example, would not be defined a liberal in the way Rachel Maddow is. Tim Russert was a blue collar-Democrat but was not welcome in the MoveOn.org crowd. To some degree, this is where a Chris Matthews is--he's sympathetic to the cause, but he's no tree-hugger. That's why he's interesting to watch on TV--you can almost see the argument going on in his head between the two.

As for conservatives and Republicans, the same adage applies. But conservatism is applied across the board when there are many factions that frankly don't get along (i.e, Obamacons).

Classical conservatives (George Will)
Idealogue conservatives (Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh)
Christian conservatism (Pat Robertson)
Neoconservatism (Bill Kristol, Karl Rove)
Paleo-conservatism (Pat Buchanan, William Safire)
Populist conservatives (Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly)
Libertarians (Nat Hentoff, Dennis Miller)

Additionally, Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat of The Atlantic advocate something called "Sam's Club conservatism" in their book "Grand New Party". It's basically a merger of social conservatism with economic populism.

[hifigator]

Sept 6, 2008 16:33:41 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Sept 6, 2008 12:17:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I'm just curious if I can get an honest answer from those of you on the left:

Do you still deny the general liberal bias of the vast majority of the mainstream media?

I'm not from the left, but I will answer it a different way.

There is a Democratic bias, owing to the fact that many members of the MSM comes from institutions (academia, public policy, or entertainment) where Democrats are more plentiful --as opposed to say, a corporate environment. That having been said, the liberal bias is probably less profound if you contend that not all Democrats are, per se, liberal.

Juan Williams, for example, would not be defined a liberal in the way Rachel Maddow is. Tim Russert was a blue collar-Democrat but was not welcome in the MoveOn.org crowd. To some degree, this is where a Chris Matthews is--he's sympathetic to the cause, but he's no tree-hugger. That's why he's interesting to watch on TV--you can almost see the argument going on in his head between the two.

As for conservatives and Republicans, the same adage applies. But conservatism is applied across the board when there are many factions that frankly don't get along (i.e, Obamacons).

Classical conservatives (George Will)
Idealogue conservatives (Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh)
Christian conservatism (Pat Robertson)
Neoconservatism (Bill Kristol, Karl Rove)
Paleo-conservatism (Pat Buchanan, William Safire)
Populist conservatives (Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly)
Libertarians (Nat Hentoff, Dennis Miller)

DFW, you make some good points. Certainly some of the liberal lean comes from the osmosis type of effect you describe. As you suggest, in the corporate world there are likely to be a higher percentage of conservatives/republicans etc... while those coming from liberal arts colleges and especially journalism are more likely to lean to the left. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions to this type of stereotype, but as you suggest, I think the percentages would bear that much out.

That being the case though, I think there is almost a sort of self-perpetuating effect. In other words, if those in the mainstream and therefore, those with a more prominent voice tend to have a particular slant, then it only stands to reason, that over time that voice influences the general public more than, say, the voice of the plumber or electrician or mechanic for example. That is where the problem arises. I think often times, it isn't the a majority of people actually think a particular way on a particular issue as much as they are influenced to think they think that way. I'm not suggesting some sort of brainwashing or any type of conspiracy theory, just making the observation that if you don't "agree" with the mainstream media, then you have a very serious uphill battle. In a very rough sense, it is like a criminal court versus a civil court. The "liberal" view must have the preponderance of evidence, but the "conservative" view must be beyond all reasonable doubt. And if my theory is correct, the problem only gets worse ... which is what we are seeing now.