Headlines on this date four years ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama spends $120 million on inauguration; America needs A Big Party"
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama inauguration"
Sometimes I wonder if the media is in fact biased. If the media were biased, I wonder who our president would have been today.
Hard to dispute.
You wonder? What more evidence do you need?
Whatever people think, or who they voted for, I am hoping that all the exictement results in positive movement in our economy and consumer confidence, so we can see the housing market improve!
HAHA. The saddest part of this post is that most people either don't recognize this, or just don't care. "If the Media was biased"? I think today answered your question.
That being said, Pres. Obama is my president and I am 100% behind him. Just becareful Pres, cause that media will turn on you if you let them..
I don't think those stories are biased, rather I think they reflect the sentiment of the majority of people. Who was looking forward to Bush in 2000 let alone 2004? Certainly not the majority.
Total falsehood. Follow the link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901190004?f=h_top
Scott,
Not sure how credible your resource is, as your source is fundamentally a liberal organization. Their About page reads:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Perhaps any information not supporting the liberal cause is "misinformation" to Media Matters.
If you actually read the page on Media Matters, the article is criticizing reporting on the respective costs of the inaugurations done by MSNBC - not exactly the right's favorite station. I actually don''t think that Democrats, Liberals, the moderate middle - however you want to characterize the non-Republican side of the debate - has any sort of lockdown on the media. Especially not after suffering years of right wing vitriol on the radio and on Fox, not to mention main-stream TV's obsession with having "both sides" represented on a topic even when the other side is a freakin' lunatic - there aren't two rational, reasonable sides for each and every issue - some things are right or wrong, correct or incorrect and don't need the nutcake on the other side chiming in and diminishing the discourse.
In terms of who would be President today - the media always got along very well with John McCain and I'm sure some of his primary opponents resented that.
Biased media??? NO, what are you talking about???
Someone give me their opinion of the prayer. What did you guys think about those last comments?
MSM out of touch...they picked the candidate, ask Hillary.
Whats to wonder.
Elizabeth- The media always loved McCain? I applaud you for apparently not watching television or using the internet during the primary and general campaign.
Obama's donations are approximately $45 Million Add in the Cost of Security and get near $160 Million.
Bush at $40.2 Million in Donations and $115 Million for Security and get $157 Million.
Where is the problem?
Excuse me:
Bush Donations were $42.2 Million and $115 Million Security= $157 Million
This is a subject that is moving off the point. This is not about the 'truth'. This is about the perception of truth that is reported to us.
Can't argue with facts. The media distorts a lot of information prtrayed to us and with presidential races they are at their finest. You look through any major topic that mainstream media brings to a national stage and you can find their bias.