2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika wrote: »

Do you seriously think the biased media would admit to their bias?

But I give CNN a little bit of credit for their attempt at admitting the truth. Although that was before they became the Clinton News Network for this election.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/17/cnns-zucker-admits-network-liberal/


Taken out of context... just as I expected you to do.

It may be tempting to cheer the relative lack of overt partisanship in the descriptive political reporting of most major American news outlets. Our analysis, however, also reveals some hurdles for robust political discourse. First, given the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans—by some measures the largest of the modern political era—balanced coverage in the point/counterpoint paradigm (D’Alessio and Allen 2000) may not optimally inform voters about the issues. One might reasonably expect the facts to favor one party over the other—at least on some of the issues—and thus largely nonpartisan reporting may not accurately reflect the substantive differences between the political parties. (Coverage of political scandals is a notable exception to this convention of nonpartisanship; for example, scandals involving Democrats unsurprisingly portray Democrats more harshly than Republicans.) Second, for both Democrats and Republicans, we find that news outlets are almost universally critical rather than supportive, a practice some have called “gotcha journalism.” For example, as many political commentators have observed, the failures of the Affordable Care Act received far more media attention than its successes. This tendency to print predominantly critical news may stem from publishers’ desires to appear nonpartisan by avoiding apparent advocacy, or from readers’ appetites for negative coverage, or from a combination of the two. Regardless of the rationale, predominantly critical coverage likely masks relevant facts and may hinder readers from developing informed opinions. Finally, though the relative uniformity we observe across news outlets provides readers with a common base of knowledge, it also limits the diversity of available perspectives.

Amerika wrote: »

Isn’t the Oxford Journals based in the UK? I’m initially suspect of a UK organization rating US media in regards to media bias. But I’ll reserve judgement until I learn more about the organization as ad hominem attacks, which seem to be the basis of so many arguments for some here, are disingenuous in nature.

Also from the Oxford Journals:

Robert Barro, a Harvard University Economics professor, asserts, “The bottom line from the Groseclose-Milyo study is that the political slant of most of the mainstream media is far to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the political opinions of viewers, listeners, and readers are similar to those of their elected representatives, the political leanings of most of the media are far to the left of those of most of their customers.”[5] The book suggests that all media outlets in the United States are left-leaning.[6] He adds that conservative media outlets like Fox News and the Drudge Report are only moderately conservative.[6] Furthermore, he goes on to argue that the left-wing media bias influences American voters to lean left.[6] If it were not for media bias, he hypothesizes that the US would think and vote like a solid red state, such as Texas or Kentucky. He also hypothesizes that Republican candidate John McCain would have won the 2008 United States presidential election.[6]

RobertKK wrote: »

Don't worry, Hillary only talked about nuking Iran when she is president back in 2008, and about having a war with Iran again last year.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yet Hillary fans have done nothing to show she is not a warmonger and it is But Trump...