Representative Press Blog

Sharon writes, "Is it unusual that more conservative think tanks would be quoted about conservative policies when conservatives are in power?"

It isn't OK if that is your question.

First of all Sharon, you ignored the point that the FACTS do not support the claims made by the study.

Second, media isn't supposed to be a mouth piece for those in power, it is supposed to be a watchdog not a cheerleader. If anything, the "fourth estate" is supposed to be a check and balance on political power not an echo chamber for it.

No matter what is pointed out to you, you always illogically twist things in order to refuse to admit the truth. Really amazing, you immediately drop the premise that they aren't doing what they are doing and start making excuses for what they are doing.

You ask if they get quoted not if they are simply referred to. So why should the media be quoting more of them as opposed to liberal think tanks? As if liberal think tanks don't have something to say and would not want to be quoted? If it was just references to certain think tanks then we could not know if their message is getting communicated, but since you said "quoted" we know that their message is getting presented to the public.

Now since those in office are already pushing the conservative message and are already quoting these conservative think tanks, where is the counter balance? How is the media the "fourth estate" that stands as a check and balance? All it is is an amplifier of the same conservative message.

So in answer to your question, yes it is "unusual" if we want to think that the media serves a service to the public as something that challenges power instead of assisting them with their message. Assisting conservatives with their messages undermines the entire premise of what this site tries to argue.

Liberals are concerned with the same topics and if the media is doing their supposed job of presenting the whole story, a complete reporting of all sides of the issues, then there should not be disproportionally more conservative think tanks being quoted.

If the media is quoting the conservative think tanks more and thus over-represents one side of a story then they certainly can't be biased towards liberals can they? Are you still maintaining that the media is "liberally biased"?

Sharon writes, "So for Ted Koppel to try to spin it into "the system broke down. We've done it in other countries but can't do it here" is at best disingenuous and at worst fraud. THIS is the media you idiotic leftists advocate?"

Holy ****! NO, I don't advocate a Ted Koppel type media. You are ridiculous Sharon. And you probably didn't notice how Koppel went after Kucinich with "Barbed Questions" during the debates, he was down right nasty. This is how a true liberal gets treated by the MSM.

If you honestly think the media was making excuses for Clinton you have serious problems. The media crucified the man. If you didn't see this, I would like to know what planet you were on during those years.

In fact the same WP man that REFUSES to do a poll on whether Bush should be impeached actually did a poll on if Clinton should be impeached. and contrary to your delusion that the media talked about sex as an excuse, the poll used it as one of the reasons for him to be impeached! So no, Sharon, the MSM did not try to give Clinton a free pass. And I point that out with a specific example of the double standard of the WP:

"A January 1998 Post poll conducted just days after the first revelations of Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky asked the following questions:

• "If this affair did happen and if Clinton did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"
• "There are also allegations that Clinton himself lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman. If Clinton lied in this way, would you want him to remain in office as president, or would you want him to resign the presidency?"
• "If Clinton lied by testifying under oath that he did not have an affair with the woman, and he did not resign, is this something for which Clinton should be impeached, or not?"

Morin was the Post's polling director at the time, and he wrote the January 26, 1998, article reporting the poll results.How is "If the president did not tell the truth about the Iraq war, should he be impeached?" (which Morin refuses to do a poll on!) a more biased question than the questions the Post -- under Morin's direction -- asked in 1998?" - mediamatters.org

Sharon, do you have any idea how wrong you get things?

And when some of the most dramatic points are pointed pout to you you go into denial and outright lie.

I pointed out that MSM did not report how the Ba'ath party were put into power in Iraq in the first place. Instead of admitting this point you resorted to a complete lie pretending that the MSM reported that the U.S. was the one that backed the coups that put the Ba'ath party into power!

Not reporting this fact indicated incredible subservience to power on the part of the MSM. You could not deal with this fact so you lied and pretended that the MSM reported it.

And let me guess, you never wrote the WP ombudsman.