...but will the MainStream Media and the Democrats mock Chicago's Mayor Daley for HIS all-time low approval rating of 35 percent? Don't hold your breath.
This post is more about widespread liberal media bias than it is about Mayor Daley's horrible approval ratings.
The hypocrisy is stunning, as demonstrated by the Chicago Tribune in a Sept. 13 article by Dan Mihalopoulos:
For the first time since he became mayor two decades ago, Daley's critics outnumber his fans, a Tribune/WGN poll found. The mayor's approval rating is at an all-time low of 35 percent in Tribune polls, according to the new survey.
Mihalopoulos reveals a certain bias with his fourth paragraph (emphasis added):
None of this is to suggest that Daley is losing his dominance of the City Council or his luster with the city's business elite. There is no serious challenger on the horizon if Daley, who regularly wins re-election by landslide, chooses to run for a seventh term in 2011. Even more than his legendary father, the 67-year-old Daley is the only game in town.
Why does Mihalopoulos feel a need to apologize for his report of Daley's miserable approval rating of 35 percent? From mid-2006 to early 2008, President Bush hovered at or near a 35 percent approval rating. When The Chicago Tribune - or any of the other MSM - reported Bush's low ratings, did any of them quickly qualify those reports with phrases such as "None of this is to suggest that Bush is losing his dominance of the US Congress?" They did not, and yet that was essentially the case. Even after losing the Congress to the Pelosi Gang in 2006, Bush continued to have his way with the Iraq War and other issues. Although not quite the rubber stamp that is the Chicago City Council, the US Congress was more compliant than most average Democrat voters had hoped it would be after they won it two years into Bush's second term.
When the MSM reported on Bush's low approval ratings, did they feel it necessary to also note that Bush won "re-election by [a] landslide?" They did not, of course, even though Bush handily defeated the John "Frenchy" Kerry and John "The Adulterer" Edwards in 2004.
The MainStream Media have yet to catch up to the ACORN-Prostitution sting of last week. The MSM virtually buried the story of Obama being forced to dismiss Van Jones. Yesterday's March on Washington, a gargantuan Tea Party, is estimated by the US Parks Service and the D.C. police at over 1.5 Million people, yet most of the MSM has either ignored it or downplayed it as "tens of thousands." MSNBC admitted to "hundreds of thousands" of people, but oddly said that police estimated "tens of thousands." MSNBC, one of the MSM, just couldn't bring itself to honestly relate the much larger, actual, official estimates.
The MSM, which we on the Right have accused of bias for decades, has bent over backwards in the past weeks to prove just how correct we have been. They've done it unintentionally, of course, just as a drunk who fails a breathalyzer test unintentionally proves himself guilty of having a few too many drinks. They cannot help it. It is they way they behave. Hold on, here's another metaphor: Like a duck, if it quacks like one and walks like one, it is one. The MSM has been quacking very loudly of late.
RELATED:
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration - Daily Mail (UK)
ABC Denies It Ever Said Yesterday's Protest Rally Had 1 Million People
Two Million Man March
Size Matters; So Do Lies
The 9/12 March on Washington (Wizbang)
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Media Bias Of The Day Black & Right
Your Friendly Media Bias Reminder - Mark Hemingway
PROOF: SADDAM HAD URANIUM
AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
Cool Hats & Shirts for Cool Conservatives
Leave a Comment...
Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
We're on Twitter...
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
MSM Bias and Mayor Daley's Lousy Approval Rating
...but will the MainStream Media and the Democrats mock Chicago's Mayor Daley for HIS all-time low approval rating of 35 percent? Don't hold your breath.
This post is more about widespread liberal media bias than it is about Mayor Daley's horrible approval ratings.
The hypocrisy is stunning, as demonstrated by the Chicago Tribune in a Sept. 13 article by Dan Mihalopoulos:
For the first time since he became mayor two decades ago, Daley's critics outnumber his fans, a Tribune/WGN poll found. The mayor's approval rating is at an all-time low of 35 percent in Tribune polls, according to the new survey.
Mihalopoulos reveals a certain bias with his fourth paragraph (emphasis added):
None of this is to suggest that Daley is losing his dominance of the City Council or his luster with the city's business elite. There is no serious challenger on the horizon if Daley, who regularly wins re-election by landslide, chooses to run for a seventh term in 2011. Even more than his legendary father, the 67-year-old Daley is the only game in town.
Why does Mihalopoulos feel a need to apologize for his report of Daley's miserable approval rating of 35 percent? From mid-2006 to early 2008, President Bush hovered at or near a 35 percent approval rating. When The Chicago Tribune - or any of the other MSM - reported Bush's low ratings, did any of them quickly qualify those reports with phrases such as "None of this is to suggest that Bush is losing his dominance of the US Congress?" They did not, and yet that was essentially the case. Even after losing the Congress to the Pelosi Gang in 2006, Bush continued to have his way with the Iraq War and other issues. Although not quite the rubber stamp that is the Chicago City Council, the US Congress was more compliant than most average Democrat voters had hoped it would be after they won it two years into Bush's second term.
When the MSM reported on Bush's low approval ratings, did they feel it necessary to also note that Bush won "re-election by [a] landslide?" They did not, of course, even though Bush handily defeated the John "Frenchy" Kerry and John "The Adulterer" Edwards in 2004.
The MainStream Media have yet to catch up to the ACORN-Prostitution sting of last week. The MSM virtually buried the story of Obama being forced to dismiss Van Jones. Yesterday's March on Washington, a gargantuan Tea Party, is estimated by the US Parks Service and the D.C. police at over 1.5 Million people, yet most of the MSM has either ignored it or downplayed it as "tens of thousands." MSNBC admitted to "hundreds of thousands" of people, but oddly said that police estimated "tens of thousands." MSNBC, one of the MSM, just couldn't bring itself to honestly relate the much larger, actual, official estimates.
The MSM, which we on the Right have accused of bias for decades, has bent over backwards in the past weeks to prove just how correct we have been. They've done it unintentionally, of course, just as a drunk who fails a breathalyzer test unintentionally proves himself guilty of having a few too many drinks. They cannot help it. It is they way they behave. Hold on, here's another metaphor: Like a duck, if it quacks like one and walks like one, it is one. The MSM has been quacking very loudly of late.
RELATED:
Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration - Daily Mail (UK)
ABC Denies It Ever Said Yesterday's Protest Rally Had 1 Million People
Two Million Man March
Size Matters; So Do Lies
The 9/12 March on Washington (Wizbang)
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
Media Bias Of The Day Black & Right
Your Friendly Media Bias Reminder - Mark Hemingway
PROOF: SADDAM HAD URANIUM
AFP: Iraqi uranium transferred to Canada
Cool Hats & Shirts for Cool Conservatives
Leave a Comment...
Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
We're on Twitter...
ABC, NBC Refuse Health Ad Critical of Obamacare
Nah! The mainstream media isn't biased! ABC (All-Barack Channel) and NBC (Nodding to Barack Constantly) refused to air a health care ad from the League of American Voters.
Why? Because it's critical of Obamacare? Oh, no, it must be because it's so outrageous! It's just one more example on the mountain-high pile of Democrat and attempts to stifle dissent.
Cool Hats & Shirts for Cool Conservatives
Leave a Comment...
Chicago News Bench RSS Feed
We're on Twitter...
ABC Messed With Palin Interview
Nah, really??? You mean, the Media might be biased? Yup.
From uberblog Little Green Footballs:
Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin was heavily edited by ABC News to make Palin appear more hawkish and less knowledgeable....what ABC News tried to pull here is a textbook example of media malfeasance... FULL POST
NewsBusters is reporting on Charlie Gibson's Attempt to Twist Sarah Palin's Words too.
OH, BY THE WAY:
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden is loose cannon, but tight wad on charity donations
Obama: Hiding Behind Oprah's Skirt
Turn it off. Stop watching it. Take a walk instead.
Oprah Winfrey, America's favourite daytime TV star, has refused to have Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a guest on her talk show. [Source]
Apparently Winfrey, who supports Obama, is afraid that Palin is just too good to have on. After all, buddy Barack can't measure up to Palin for style or substance. Winfrey, a smart woman, knows this. So for political reasons, and power reasons, and personal reasons, Oprah Winfrey will be damned if she'll be party to allowing the American voters become more educated by hearing Sarah Palin in a one-on-one interview.
How objective of her. Remember, she wants a Marxist in the White House. Barack Obama has conned Winfrey, just as she was conned so easily by fraud author of "A Million Little Pieces," James Frey.
By the way, how would the Democrats square this behavior with their intended resurrection of the unfair Fairness Doctrine? Winfrey has every right to not put Palin on her show, but you have every right not to watch her show.
Meanwhile, Oprah is risking serious harm to her ratings:
A poll is here from TMZ and it doesn't look good for Oprah, with over 100,000 votes 71% of those that took the time to vote say she is biased. Who wins this "Behind the Scenes" battle - ]Oprah Winfrey or Sarah Palin? [Source]
Why are you still watching that crap?
RELATED:
Obama-backer Oprah says no Sarah Palin on her TV show - Los Angeles Times
US election: Storm as Oprah says no to Palin interview - The Observer
Fashion store sues Winfrey's mom for unpaid bill - AP
Oprah Winfrey’s mom sued by clothing store for pending bill of $155K - Newspost Online, India
Eight Great: Oprah's Most Epic Failures - CollegeOTR, NY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)