Earlier this week the New York Times published an editorial in which the author calls President Obama’s 2.0 GDP a “’Slow but Steady Improvement’ and at this pace there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment, currently 7.8 percent, from getting much worse.” We will find out if the unemployment rate goes up or down on Friday when the October job reports comes out. Twenty years before this, the New York Times also published an editorial in which the author calls then President George H.W. Bush 2.7 GDP, greater than Obama’s 2.0 GDP, a “’Gross National Letdown’ and that it almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace.”
Both of these articles were published within a week of each candidate facing the presidential elections. Fox News Channel, Bret Bair, added during his Tuesday night show: “The New York Times seems to be changing with the time when it comes to interpreting the country’s economic outlook.” I think that the New York Times is a very bias newspaper, and has this to run off of that assertion, among many other instances. This is also just another example of how the media doesn’t just report the facts; they all have to add their own propaganda. When Bush had a better GDP rating that Obama, he was criticized and it was reported negatively, I’m not saying that he shouldn’t of been criticized, I am saying that Obama should have had the same criticism and negativity reported when he had a lower GDP than Bush.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn a fairly recent blog post from Give Me Liberty or Give Me My Money Back, the blogger had a post on how the media tends create propaganda and how different types of media networks tend to bias. However, what the blogger fails to note is that the reason why the media tends to be bias and creates propaganda is because that’s what the people want. If the media outlooks didn’t create controversy and weren’t bias then they wouldn’t be as popular as they are now. It common knowledge that most Conservatives tend to keep up with the Fox channel because it too is a right leaning media network and tends to be very critical of the Democrats. I being pretty Liberal, watch the Fox channel because I find it entertaining how they tend to over exaggerate and blow unimportant issues out of proportion and it’s not just Fox it’s other channels as well. It’s safe to ask would the channel have such high ratings if it weren’t bias? Not really. People enjoy controversy that’s why every other day there is a new celebrity sandal because that what people enjoy reading and listening to.
ReplyDeleteNow even though there are many very bias media outlooks, most of them try to give insight into both sides of the controversy and they tend to be very equal about covering both sides of the issue. This is a horrible way to cover an issue because the coverage itself becomes vague and unoriginal. If someone is reading the article or hearing about it in the news they don’t want the highlights they want author and or reporter’s opinion. The reason being--especially when it comes to politics--is that Americans are very uneducated about politics. They’ll hear one thing from one place and something completely different from another place and then they’ll formulate their own opinion based off the information that they have gathered. The job of the report and the author is to influence their audience and the only way they can do that is if they are extremely bias. The reporter and author have to back their opinion up with facts. Without facts their news report will be dry and public will look over it. That is why even though people criticize newspapers and television networks for being bias, what they fail to note is that because they are bias they are successful.
Why do you think the Presidential Debates are so boring? It’s because the debate conductor gives each candidate equal amount of time talking about their issue and criticizing the other candidate. If the debate conductor was to let each candidate go on for as long as he or she wanted and there was civilized argument between the two candidates then the debates would be more intriguing to watch.
So it is evident that the more bias media networks tend to be more successful than the ones that aren’t bias.