Bias Media and People? Really?

Question

I understand people having gripes about the media not doing a thorough fact check against the DNC speeches. BUT do you at the same time deny that their fact checking against the RNC shows a lot of spin and outright lies within their speeches. I hate when people do that. I've come to see it a lot in politics with both sides. They don't answer questions they just say ...hey those other guys have lied and used spin too. That is not the question here.

After the Yahoo article did a fact check against Palin speech make you suspicious of her or doubt her authenticity?

Answer 1

Yes, the media is obviuosly bias in favor of the DEMS.  

Answer 2

The media fact checked the dems, the problem is, is that Palin's lies were much bigger and more blatent.  The only bias the corporate media has is making money, they have a left wing bias when it suits them and a right wing bias when it suits them.  The republicans have repeated liberal media enough that people have started to believe that it may be true.  It is not, it is typical republican politics, repeat a lie long enough and loud enough and over time people will start to believe it.

Answer 3

I already knew Palin, Giuliani, and Romney were lying left and right.  I didn't need the fact check.  Both parties get fact-checked - any claim of bias is ridiculous.  Romney's speech probably had the most lies of any speech I have ever heard.

Answer 4

The fact check results are convoluted spins in and of themselves. They have to come up with something in order to undermine the GOP ~ even if they have to twist words and parse statements to do it.

The media bias has never been more obvious than it has been with this presidential race. If you can't see it, then you are utterly blind. The media clearly does not hold the Democrats to the same standards they hold the Republicans to, they clearly want Obama to win, and they're doing everything within their power to make sure that happens.

Answer 5

Check the updated web page, the DNC's fact checking report is now posted.  Now you defend that.

Fair enough, but if you are asking the other side for answers, then the libs should have to defend their candidates as well.

Answer 6

Rove didn't write her speech, and neither did Bush's speech writer as reported by the AP.

A man by the name of Mathew Scully wrote it. Just other examples of what you point out in your question.

Both sides are desperate to point out all of the inconsistencies and anything thing else that might discredit their opponent. The really sad thing is that it gets to the point where the real issues are put on the back burner and we have to put up with personal attacks and smears - usually totally irrelevant to the actual issues and concerns presently facing this nation.

Answer 7

Bias to the Democrats?  The media is having a love fest with Palin after her mediocre Rove written speech.  You do remember Sarah Palin calling Hillary a whiner, don't you?  She'd be ashamed of you whining for her.

Your candidate was the one that traveled with the media on His bus until they actually started taking him to task on the things he said, then he kicked them off.

Answer 8

Actually, I noticed quite a bit of "stretching" in the fact check article.

I don't know what the "special federal spending" was supposed to be for, but I would think that since Alaska is by far the largest (land-wise) state, they would need more money per-capita to maintain things than, say New Hampshire or Connecticut.  I do not see a comparison of the per-capita spending for other states from the federal govt.

Obama has "worked with Republicans to pass legislation" and "co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation"...?  I would love to know how much he actually wrote or did for that ONE example they give here.  First-time Senators are known to get little to nothing accomplished, other than tacking their names on someone else's hard work, as I would be willing to bet Obama did here.

As for the taxes, they don't point out that Obama raising taxes on businesses would affect the "poor and middle class" people's paychecks - how are companies supposed to give raises, hire more people, and keep prices for their products down when forced to pay more in taxes?  That's ridiculous!  Therefore, they neglect to point out how the poor and middle class WILL be paying MUCH more in taxes under Obama, just under the guise of higher prices for merchandise.

In fact, all the "fact-checking" in this article is absurd and trite at best, other than the Huckabee one - not sure where he got that from.

Answer 9

Hi