To you.
We can agree to disagree, since we're definitely reading/viewing different things (both only accessing a teensy bit of the vast US MSM)-- to name one of the multiple factors that shape our perception of bias.
Oh yes, most definitely.
That's been something I've been trying to get at, although very clumsily.
All I said was that I find money on the whole more persuasive than ideology. But it's not an either/or proposition.
That was my point. I'd also add to that list of variables, btw.
I do, however, dispute the conventional wisdom in the US (evidenced by the Gallup survey of Americans who feel the news is more liberal) that coverage is defined by a liberal tilt alone.
I'm not familiar with this poll, but am going to ask anyway.
How did Gallop define "news". For most Americans, I'd guess that would mean TV major network news. But that news source has a limited audience these days. It also depends, I gather on demographics. For example, I saw one poll that indicated that more Americans under the age of 30 cited The Daily report as their major news source. Really?? Were the respondents being ironic?
So, back to my question how did the respondents define 'news'? How did Gallop?
I am also skeptical of the idea that the media has *always* treated Obama with kid gloves and continues to do so.
I've certainly never made that claim, nor have I seen it here on the mbs. "Always" is an extreme term.
This is such an important election - the issues the US faces are daunting, perhaps the most serious of the last 60 years. Sadly, there is no more wiggle room.
c.
