While Fox News Racks Up Ratings Victories, MSNBC Primetime Show Hits Rock Bottom

[Tictac]

Personally I think Zimmerman was waving his gun.

_________

Well THAT settles it. String Zimmerman up!

FairShakes personal feelings are at stake here.

After all, what are the rule of law, precedence and evidence compared to someone's feelings?

 

[Embers84]

Embers,

First, Sinclair only owns a small fraction of the several thousand news stations

37.5% of US television households is a big chunk of viewers to get right wing Sinclair news in Liberal cities and in swing states. Fox affiliates are received in 37% of US Households. Cox Media partners with Fox, and has 20 media markets and reaches approximately 52 million Americans weekly, including more than 30 million TV viewers, more than 3.5 million print and online newspaper readers, and more than 14 million radio listeners. Gannett is the No. 1 NBC affiliate group; No. 1 CBS affiliate group; and the No. 4 ABC affiliate group. These stations cover 30% of the U.S. population in markets with nearly 35 million households. They also own over 80+ newspapers with the largest circulation. Also, there is Gray, Scripps, Meredith etc. We didn't even touch upon the rest of right wing radio. Liberals don't have that kind of media outlets like conservatives have to compete against.

Second, you still have not proven they are consistently right wing

I've shown several links and sources that prove they consistently are right wing, including a direct quote from Kirby Wilbur, the head chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. Sinclair is not going to preempt corporate programming to show biased conservative propaganda, give daily biased conservative commentaries against Democrats, set up their own news bureau to broadcast local right wing news, spend billions of dollars for stations, promote a right wing candidate to serve the public with "Liberal News". Don't be stupid. That is very consistent with what they are doing, showing right wing biased propaganda on network affiliates.



Kirby Wilbur, chairman of the Washington state Republican Party and a longtime radio personality on Fisher station KVI, said “If they think the numbers tell them that a news station on TV that is a little more slanted to the right would make it more profitable, then they should do that,” he said. “It’s their TV station. We live in a new media world, and TV stations have to innovate to survive.”

Wilbur is stating that the media slants their news to the right to turn a profit. All networks are dong that, because Liberal News does not sell. It is evident with MSNBC's poor ratings, no Liberal radio stations, Al Gore's Current TV going belly up. Networks aren't going to drop a turd with Liberal News that doesn't sell to lose profits running their companies into the ground. The "Liberal Media" is a myth that conservatives sell you so they can justify buying up more media outlets. The same owners that own right wing radio own TV or are partners with the right wingers who own the TV broadcast groups.




Sinclair has also eliminated local broadcasts from many markets in favor of its "News Central" program, which airs centralized news programming from corporate headquarters in Baltimore for its regional stations. In other words, they’ve quietly created a national news program in which they disseminate their right-wing propaganda dressed up with local sports and weather segments—all of which was, until recently, under the radar of the mainstream media.

Last week, for example, WJLA viewers woke up to a new face on the morning news: Mark Hyman, a veteran conservative pundit, who offered some criticism of President Obama.

In Washington, WJLA is also partnering with the conservative Washington Times on a weekly report on government waste. It is featuring reports, too, from the Sinclair Washington bureau, peppered with critical reporting on President Obama and information from conservative D.C. think tanks.


Sinclair is providing consistent information and news from conservative D.C. think tanks. Not consistently biased and right wing enough for you at Sinclair? :crackup:

Thirdly, If they are so right wing, why did those networks constantly blare the "horrors" of Mike Brown and Trayvon and presume that the "lighter skinned folk" were guilty?

Those stories were reported since it was deemed as national news. If you watched Sinclair's right wing broadcasts, or other conservative media groups local affiliate newscasts, they had a conservative slant to the stories, which is why the people who watched those broadcasts were against Brown and Martin siding with Zimmerman and the cops. ABC Radio employs all the talk radio right wingers on their affiliate radio stations. They aren't going to show "Liberal slanted news" on the TV, when the same execs and their partners own the TV media and right wing affiliate broadcast groups like Sinclair and the rest.

Zimmerman had no business following Martin after the police dispatcher specifically told him not to. Zimmerman's actions caused the incident to occur when Martin was "standing his ground" according to Florida law.

 

[Embers84]

Who’s On the News?

Study shows network news sources skew white, male & elite


A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

Conducted for FAIR by the media analysis firm Media Tenor, the study shows that the big three nightly news shows rely heavily on society’s most powerful groups when they report the news of the day. More than one in four sources were politicians– George W. Bush alone made up 9 percent of all sources– versus a mere 3 percent for all non-governmental advocacy groups, the sources most likely to present an alternative view to the government’s.

Even before the September 11 attacks, Republicans made up a full 68 percent of partisan sources (which surged to 87 percent after the attacks). These figures should dispel the myth of a liberal or pro-Democrat news bias, but don't necessarily prove a conservative or Republican slant. Rather, they reflect a strong tendency of the networks to turn to the party in power for information. Sixty-two percent of all partisan sources were administration officials; when these are set aside, the remaining partisan sources were 51 percent Republican and 48 percent Democrat, suggesting a strong advantage overall for the party that holds the White House.

Big business, too, was overrepresented. In a year in which the country lost 2.4 million jobs, corporate representatives appeared about 35 times more frequently than did union representatives, accounting for 7 percent of sources versus labor’s 0.2 percent.

Women made up only 15 percent of all sources (14 percent on ABC and CBS, and 18 percent on NBC), and were rarely featured as experts. Women were particularly poorly represented in the categories of professional and political sources, which were only 9 percent female. More than half of the women who appeared on the network news in 2001 were presented as ordinary Americans (as opposed to experts of some kind), versus 14 percent of male sources.

Racial imbalances in sourcing were dramatic across the board. ABC, CBS and NBC each featured a lineup where 92 percent of U.S. sources were white and 7 percent were black. Other groups were even more strikingly underrepresented, with 0.6 percent of all sources being Latino, 0.6 percent Arab-American and 0.2 percent Asian-American. Out of a total of 14,632 sources, only one (on NBC) was identified as Native American.

For all the hype about the “death of network news,” the fact remains that approximately one quarter of television-viewing homes in America tune in ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News or NBC Nightly News on an average weeknight– that’s about two-thirds of the U.S. public that claims to follow current events regularly. It serves the country poorly when, as these findings show, broadcast news functions more as a venue for the claims and opinions of the powerful than as a democratic forum for public discussion and education.


Partisan Affiliation of Sources

ABC- Republican 73%, Democrat 27%, Independent 0.7%
CBS- Republican 76%, Democrat 23%, Independent 1.2%
NBC- Republican 75%, Democrat 25% , Independent 0.2%

Total- Republican 75%, Democrat 24%, Independent 1%

*62% of all partisan sources were administration officials; George Bush alone accounted for 33% of the total. When these are set aside, the remaining partisan sources were 51% Republican and 48% Democrat, suggesting a strong advantage overall for the party that held the White House.



Due to rounding, not all numbers add up to 100 percent. Based on data compiled by Media Tenor, a non-partisan German-based media analysis firm, the study includes all reports on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 – a total of 14,632 individual sources in 18,765 individual reports. Analysis by Ina Howard, U.S. Research Director of Media Tenor International.

http://fair.org/press-release/whos-on-the-news/1109/





Media Tenor

Media Tenor was founded in 1994 in Bonn, Germany as the first international institute specializing in continuous and comprehensive media content analysis. Guided by a simple yet comprehensive vision, mission and values, Media Tenor focuses on providing an objective and transparent view of media content.

Media Tenor is an independent, non-partisan organization. Founded in Germany in 1994, the institute has offices is Bonn, (Germany), London (U.K.), New York (U.S.), Pretoria (South Africa), Lugano (Switzerland), and Ostrava (Czech Republic).

With 90% accuracy, Media Tenor’s inter-coder reliability (accuracy of data) is above the industry norm, minimizing the potential effect of personal opinion on the data. Drawing qualitative conclusions based on a scientific base of quantitative information, Media Tenor’s research in the fields of agenda setting, agenda cutting and agenda surfing is recognized internationally as one of the most transparent and reliable.

Based on that data, Media Tenor can measure, without interference from subjective bias and opinions, what the media reports and what is left out.

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Media_Tenor

http://us.mediatenor.com/en/about-us




I researched Media Tenor, just so right wingers like dasien can't complain this is "left wing". Now you can see that Media Tenor is a non partisan organization with 90% accuracy, who does not have any biased political affiliation. Unlike dasien, who provided us with a right wing partisan hack organization like media research center, who's right wing founder is a hard liner with the republican party.

Here is non partisan research conducted for an entire year, that debunks the right wing's myth of a "Liberal Media" on the "Big 3 Networks." The study shows that the party in power of the White House holds the advantage in the media. The media is not slanted to the left, when Republicans during Bush's years were on TV 75% of the time to Democrats 24%. The remaining sources had Republicans 51 to 48% showing a clear advantage. Of course the party holding the office will have more coverage, since they are under the microscope. But that does not determine a "left wing" media bias, when the GOP had the clear advantage under Bush.

Of course you right wingers will deny it, but with all the evidence of the study, along with Sinclair's biased right wing propaganda on network affiliates, makes it very clear that there is no "Liberal Media".

 

[Stagger Lee]

Well if what Embers says is true (not saying it is), then republicans and "right-wing conservatives" sure do present a liberal, left-wing viewpoint. Who knew? I'd hate to see a real liberal, left-wing viewpoint. What would that be like, Jaylan lol?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

We DO know who confronted whom..Jeantel told the world when she testified that Trayvon stepped out of the shrubs and stated "why you followin me for".

And what evidence do you have that Zimmerman waved his gun around?

HEY, this is a "no fact zone." Hyperbole and speculations only. :trouble:

 

[FairShake]

We DO know who confronted whom..Jeantel told the world when she testified that Trayvon stepped out of the shrubs and stated "why you followin me for".

Asking a stalker why they are following you is not a confrontation.

And what evidence do you have that Zimmerman waved his gun around?

I've never bought the whole being beaten within an inch of his life, about to lose consciousness, stronger man on top of you who grabs your gun first yet you are able to wrestle it away from him and shoot him with it.

If the beating was as bad as he claims and he was getting his head rammed into the ground by a stronger man on top I doubt he would've had the wherewithal and strength to grab his gun from out of his pants and shoot Trayvon.

 

[Tictac]

Your opinion is your opinion MilkShake. And it means nothing in a court of law.

Who gives a crap what you think?

You didn't hear the evidence. You don't know the law.

Get over yourself. The is not the United States of MilkShake.

 

[Stagger Lee]

MilkShake, FairSnake err FairShake is another a denier of facts even scientific facts that don't fit his liberal narrative. In any matter, the "white" person just has to be in the wrong. Has to! has to!! has to!!! :cuss:

 

[( . )( . )]

MilkShake, FairSnake err FairShake is another a denier of facts even scientific facts that don't fit his liberal narrative. In any matter, the "white" person just has to be in the wrong. Has to! has to!! has to!!! :cuss:

Don't forget milkshakes little faux pas logic trap where it claimed to "love America" except for the part that it's "still too white"

Anyway it's a form of penance that weak whytes believe they must pay which in turn gives them perceived status jockeying points among the hivemind. A kind of "look at me, so selfless" if you will.

It's believe it or not, not actually about the dindus. Statistically white sh!tlibs move when an area becomes too "vibrant" . If our re-engineers all of a sudden told white sh!tlibs that Indians for example are the new protected class they're to moral preen and fawn over they would make the switch in a heartbeat. But alas uploading selfies from Africa or being seen supporting black brunch currently nets more lib-credit than a trip to India. Not that milkshake would actually go to Africa, he gets his preening points the safe and lazy way ie: by punching out "America is too white sh!tlords" from his? keyboard. With the economy the way it is and belts being tightened it's probably a wise move for a budding white cuck.

 

[FairShake]

That sure meets the standard of confrontation FairShake. And Jeantel testified for all to see that Trayvon was the one to initiate the confrontation.

She also testified that George Zimmerman then grabbed Trayvon (Trayvon saying "Get off, Get off). Quibble as we may about whether asking a stalker why he is following you is a "confrontation" nobody can argue that grabbing someone forcefully is not a violent act and that Trayvon "had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground" once he was assaulted by Zim.

The evidence was there to prove that Zimmerman's head was being pounded against the concrete. All jurors even agreed to it as well as forensics on where the bullet struck Trayvon.

Yeah I wasn't arguing that. Fat Zim picked a fight and was losing. That I'm sure of. I don't buy his story of pulling his gun from his waistband as he was mounted by stronger man who was smashing his head into concrete and suffocating him while simultaneously trying to grab same said gun. The gun being in his hand prior to the fight is the only physical way he could've been holding the gun when he shot Trayvon if the fight went down the way he said it did.

 

[FairShake]

She was not there to say who grabbed whom....Therefore the assertion that Zimmerman was the assaulter is faulty.

The probability resides that the confronter is the assaulter.

That's your assumption. The slightly better assumption in my opinion is that Trayvon was not screaming "Get Off" because he was attacking Zimmerman but rather the other way around and that the stalker with the gun asking Trayvon what he was doing around there was far more likely to be the instigator.

 

[FairShake]

When someone has a gun, they typically like to keep a distance and not physically engage the person. Additionally it is common sense that the person to instigate the confrontation with attacking words like "Why you following me for" is more likely to be the initial assaulter.

They like to keep a distance if their victim is listening to them. You are assuming Trayvon did. There is no proof he was. Common sense says he wasn't (why the hell would he?) and George attempted to "stop" him but putting his hands on him causing Trayvon to yell "Get off me."

"Why are you following me?" are now "attacking words?" Then stalking is "attacking action" and one that is directly responsible for this incident.

 

[dasein]

Who’s On the News?
Study shows network news sources skew white, male & elite
A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.
Conducted for FAIR...

Just gets better and better. So coverage of the President, positive or negative, is "conservative" if the "source," POTUS is white and male? I guess all global warming reporting/hysteria in MSM is also "conservative" because most scientists are white and male? How bout coverage of the Olympics? "Conservative" because most commentators are white and male? Seriously you can't make this horsesht up folks, they are that deluded, or think we are that stupid. Many reputable, nonpartisan linked studies over 30 years show just how skewed these "conservative" media types vote and contribute. Case closed.

I stand by all my prior posts to this thread as mostly/wholly not refuted or even addressed. Have offered links to all manner of examples of LW media bias. Troll offers only a couple of campaign spots on Sinclair stations that spend 95% of their time broadcasting what the Big Bro... Big Three tells them as examples of "conservative media bias." Have had my say on this, educate yourselves.

Oh, and a final thought? Let's take a straw poll, shall we? Who knows what the Sinclair Media logo looks like? I don't. Who knows what the CBS and NBC logos look like? Everyone does.

 

[Stagger Lee]

laughable-bias-liberal-media-meet-at-podesta-home-for-pro-clinton-strategy-session

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team held an off-the-record dinner Thursday night in Washington, D.C., for roughly two dozen journalists and staff members at John Podesta’s house, according to sources familiar with the matter.

No left-wing media bias here, right?

Podesta, the campaign chairman and a seasoned cook, made a pasta with walnut sauce for the dinner guests, which included reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, Bloomberg, McClatchy, Reuters and several major TV networks.

A Huffington Post reporter attended the dinner

Those are some big names in media, no?