If Moveon.org was behind an attack on a Republican candidate (as they have been in this cycle with some ads) then most people would associate that attack with the left. It wouldn't be an unreasonable link, so it's an obvious statement, of course. I don't see what you're refuting. In my eyes it's quite obvious that they are a tool of the right.
But I do know the benefit of the doubt is pretty one-sided here, so I'll leave it there, before we get into semantics and what "tool" or "right" or "Republican Party" means.
Bias is also there in the application of more rigorous standards to one candidate than the other. (for example, using follow-up questions more on one candidate than the other). As well it's there in the selection of material that's presented plus the time alloted to each candidate.
Like I said in my post above, in my view the bias is towards what sells. Palin as the new addition to politics will sell stories, so reporters will pursue dirt on her at the expense of others. That is because as it goes nice stories don't sell as much as tabloid junk. Same with Obama when you place him side by side with McCain (the more appropriate comparison for coverage imo), people want to see the new kid, unless they have something else to go on. Again, the bias I see has to do with what generates money. The two examples above actually fit cleanly into this, even being outside of the US.
Also I question the unproblematic assertion (mostly peddled by the right) that Obama hasn't been vetted by the media. That's a double standard in play. As the study results suggest (the ones I posted in the interview thread), once the gen elections started the media was much more critical of Obama than McCain (again fitting into the "new kid" theory). And according to that study IIRC up until the Girbson interview the Palin coverage was pretty positive. Following the right's complaints about the Gibson-Palin interview, I immediately remembered that debate in the primaries where Obama got questioned pretty harshly about flagpins and so on--that was when
he was new--and quite a few people from the right enjoyed that grilling (lol even the Bush Doctrine came up, seems Gibson likes that topic). As it was mentioned in a previous post, he's been a candidate longer, so expecting him to get treated like Palin at this stage of the race, considering that Palin hasn't had that media spotlight and has a more unconventional/interesting story, is rather unrealistic. Cycles are by definition constant flux, so it's not as clean cut as it might seem on one side or another. It could have to do as was mentioned in the interview thread with lacking certain channels to complement the material. Watching FOX or MSNBC exclusively would give one a very different perspective than if one alternated between both and then went on to CNN, ABC, CBS.
And I also want to add that no news isn't necessarily good news either (as McCain would tell you, when he got shafted by Obama's European tour). Biden operated under complete silence from the media for several weeks despite being open to the media and seeking coverage. It was to be expected however, because he was just not selling as much as the Governor.
But I've been dismayed by the bias shown in this election by both the MSM and by websites like Salon, Slate, The Huffington Post, etc. This goes beyond editorial and journalist's columns. It's there in the selection of material for news reports, in the narrative used to cover political events, the amount of time/space given to candidates, the headlines used, the visuals, etc
For me, as I've repeated, it goes up and down in the MSM (which includes big newspapers and local ones which btw are much less left-leaning, not the online publications you mention here). McCain got focused on a couple of cycles ago (although he whined about it--my bias here-- which made the media smell blood and go after him some more). I expect it's Obama's turn now, if that non-article on Ayers is to stand as an example. Oooh and from a liberal newspaper (what was it again a "pro-Obama advocacy org"?).
And by the way speaking of the phenomenon of the one-sided benefit of the doubt, how is Palin's assertion that Obama "pals around with terrorists" not a smear when the Times article she cites concludes that the men are not close?
Oh right, it depends what the meaning of "is" is.
Which is to say, if you're right-leaning it's not a smear--unless someone from the left had made a similarly assertion about someone from the right. Then it's groundless and a smear. Double standards.
But I've been dismayed by the bias shown in this election by both the MSM and by websites like Salon, Slate, The Huffington Post, etc. This goes beyond editorial and journalist's columns. It's there in the selection of material for news reports, in the narrative used to cover political events, the amount of time/space given to candidates, the headlines used, the visuals, etc
I think HuffPo is much, much more liberal than the MSM (I don't see it as the MSM myself) and extremely unapologetic about it's bias. I wouldn't be surprised at the pro-Obama sentiment there. I personally go there when I want to get a political "pick me up," not when I want news.
Slate and Salon try to show less their leanings, but they also are both associated with the left. I'm not sure I would read them as straight news either. There's a study out there showing that the internet is extremely polarized, which makes it hard to get news online without it being substancially left or right leaning. I've come to believe that.
Now, I usually read/see something from the MSM and skim online sources from both sides to judge the validity of it. That means I trawl through Slate and Salon, but I also trawl through the Weekly Standard and NRO (I hate Drudge's layout) before figuring out how best to take it (keeping their biases in mind). Among others. I read more than watch tv (though my husband is the opposite), so my blogroll is pretty extensive and I try to keep it diverse.
That is, as I wait for the claims to hit factcheck and politifact which have that mystical non-partisanship I find incredibly helpful.
Generally though when I feel the left is being too biased, I think it's a good time to see what the right is saying (with the same skepticism of course).
alcyone
