Shepard Smith on media “bias” regarding Obama…

Shepard Smith appeared on FNC’s “Strategy Room” when the subject of media “bias” towards Obama came up… (via WorldNet Daily)

About these ads

32 Responses to “Shepard Smith on media “bias” regarding Obama…”

  1. Shep! “How did George Bush win twice?” Good question. And Reagan, and 41. I might have to change my username. Shep tells it like it is and Fox lets him.

  2. The media isn’t THE reason Obama won, but they sure did they best to help him along the way.

  3. That’s ridiculous. Shep explained it succinctly, and his own network – which I have to keep reminding you IS part of the MSM – did it’s level best to stop Obama.

    Listen to what he said. It was Obama’a to lose and he didn’t lose. You can’t put that on the media. McCain’s campaign was a mess, his choice of a running mate was a mess, and the opposition to the Iraq war coupled with the nose-diving economy sealed the deal. The only thing that could have saved McCain would have been for Obama to have a major meltdown, which didn’t happen.

    If Rev. Wright couldn’t turn the voters away from Barack Obama, nothing could. That is NOT the media’s fault.

  4. Just to clue you in buddy, ABC-CBS-NBC are the MSM..

  5. If fox is the most watched cable news, doesn’t that make them the mainstream? I don’t get all this MSM sh*t.

  6. nf, read my post again. I didn’t put Obama’s win on the media. I said they did their best to help him. And that is a FACT. It’s been proven that overwhelmingly, the national media votes DEMOCRAT in election after election…by a margin of 80/20 percent.

    The Washington Post admits their coverage overwhelmingly favored Obama.

    We don’t need admission from the NY Times. That’s obvious to even the blindest of libs. And the networks get their cues from the NY Times.

    FOX is the anti-thesis of the liberal-leaning MSM. Yes, their commentators slant right. But their reporters ARE fair & balanced. Their main anchor is obviously not a right winger, as he proved in the above clip.

    But Shep is wrong here. The media did overwhelmingly favor Obama. Just as they did Kerry in ’04, Gore in “00, Clinton twice, etc.

    Except, it was worse than ever this time around.

  7. It’s been proven in bigred’s head and that’s all that matter. And bigred, is this the same Washington Post that employs Fred Hiatt, Charles Krauthammer (sp?) and various other warmongers? You lost this fight long ago, especially considering BILL FREAKING KRISTOL writes for the NEW YORK TIMES.

    BTW, THANK YOU Shepard Smith (of all people) for pointing out the fact that lib’rul media bias is a bunch if bullsh*t! Our media is full of corporate cronies. Period. They are only interested in furthering their own business interests and that means putting more Republicans in office. There are few people who would argue that Dems are more big-business friendly than Reps.

    There may have been a liberal media bias 30 years ago before news divisions were asked to turn a profit, but this has not been in my adult lifetime. A “lib’rul” media bias is something Republicans have brainwashed their minions into believing. Now they have turned into mindless sheep repeating whatever Rush and Hannity tell them to think and say.

  8. NBC-CBS-NBC are the MSM? Who watches the evening news anymore? Most people under the age of 60 get their news from cable, the internet and radio. And nobody can refute a single statement I made about the success of the Obama campaign and the failure of McCain’s. “Yeah, but the MSM was still in the tank for Obama.” BS. FNC was for McCain when not doing straight news, MSNBC was for Obama when not doing straight news, and CNN mostly did straight. That IS the MSM.

    And spare me about the WaPo and NYT. Nobody reads the paper anymore.

  9. And one more thing. During the Clinton years the MSM was a giant horde of right-wingers decimating that guy 24/7. The liberal MSM is a fantasy of right wing victims. It doesn’t exist.

  10. And Spud, I’m just curious… You posted this on your site. I would assume it was to start a bit of a discussion (maybe not the exact discussion that we are having now), but to start a discussion nonetheless. What is your viewpoint on what Shep was saying here? Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

  11. I posted it because I know red meat when I see it…I’ve already made my views on “media bias” known several times. It’s become a catch phrase that roughly translates into “they didn’t present the story they way I thought it should have been”. Certainly there are biased journalists and organizations out there who have an agenda and wear it on their sleaves (WorldNet Daily, The American Prospect, etc…) But I give the benefit of the doubt to a majority of the mainstream media on both sides of the political spectrum. For me it boils down to intent. If you can’t show intent, you can’t positively prove bias.

  12. unclearthur Says:

    The Washington Post admits their coverage overwhelmingly favored Obama.

    Once again, some reality on ‘favorable’ and ‘unfavorable’ news coverage. When Pew Research et al do a report on the percent of ‘unfavorable coverage’ a candidate receives, you need to know what is considered ‘negative’ or ‘unfavorable’. A news story that reports the fact that a candidate is losing the polls counts as a negative story. A story that reports that a candidate is ahead is a positive story.

    So unless you want the media to stop reporting THE NEWS, you can’t get perfectly balanced coverage of an election because … someone has to lose.

  13. gettingpwned Says:

    wow did shep just tool dipaolo!

    i liked his comedy (though i haven’t heard from him in a looooooooong time). he’s actually one of the rare conservative comics. and shep was head and shoulders above the rest of that table. i don’t think that that’s what he envisioned the “strategy room” as…
    talking politics with the judge (which he can do everyday on studio b), an old comic, a guy who’s a sidekick on a 3am show, some girl i’ve never seen before and god only knows who the white haired dude is!

  14. My God, you people are butt-blind. I tell you the Washington Post ADMITS their coverage was tilted toward Obama, and your response is they couldn’t be liberally biased because they employ a few conservatives.

    Good grief. smh, if I hit you over the head with a hammer, you would tell me I didn’t hit you.

    So here’s the hammer……note the title of the article…..

    “AN OBAMA TILT IN CAMPAIGN COVERAGE”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

    And are you freaking kidding me with the NY Times??? Bill Kristol is one columnist. Their liberal bias is on the top fold of the FRONT PAGE, and every page in between. Care to count how many liberal columnists they employ?

    Need more proof there is a liberal bias in the media?

    It’s here: “In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.”

    And here: “A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”

    And a more recent survey, in 2008, here: “A newly released survey indicates that conservatives in the national press corps are a lonely lot. 585 [the total of national, local and Internet] journalists were polled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they’re moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal. The Washington Times quotes project deputy director Amy Mitchell as saying that the findings are about the same as in a similar survey done four years ago. ”

    Now, I know actual facts don’t mean anything to you clowns, so feel free to post more of your nonsense in response.

  15. asleeporawake Says:

    The media ran negative stories on the McCain campaign for one reason: they ran an incredibly negative campaign. They screwed up at almost every single move they made up to and including their pick for VP. How could the media run “positive” stories on such a badly run campaign? There’s also the little matter of the lies that McCain & Palin and the GOP tried to tell to win this election. What was the media supposed to do? Put a positive spin on that somehow or do what they’re supposed to do: tell the truth. The Obama campaign of course also made some dubious claims but the MSM, to their credit, corrected errors and tried to do a bit better job of fact checking than they did in the 2004 race. So to say that Obama got more positive coverage is a misnomer in the study cited here earlier. Perhaps if the Republicans want more favorable coveraqe in 2012, they’ll think about running more positive campaigns in the future. The public is at a place when they don’t want to know what’s wrong with the other guy, they want to know why they should vote for you. McCain could never articulate that, neither could Palin and both began to go increasingly negative as the campaign went forward. It cost them the election. Shep was right about this 100%. Not a huge fan of Fox but I’m a big fan of Shep Smith’s.

  16. jpconway451 Says:

    The msm did not report on Rev Wright in depth nor on Obama’s votes or lack thereof while a state senator. Here in the Charlestown, NH area only the Union-Leader is a “conservative” paper. But for local news one has to buy the Eagle Times a “liberal” paper. Most people cannot buy more than one paper. Whether for money reasons or time constraints. These liberal msm papers don’t ignore a problem they just insert a 2 line mention and drop any further reference.

  17. My God, you people are butt-blind. I tell you the Washington Post ADMITS their coverage was tilted toward Obama, and your response is they couldn’t be liberally biased because they employ a few conservatives.

    Good grief. smh, if I hit you over the head with a hammer, you would tell me I didn’t hit you.

    So here’s the hammer……note the title of the article…..

    “AN OBAMA TILT IN CAMPAIGN COVERAGE”

    Spud doesn’t like links being posted, so look it up for yourself. They admit that their coverage was slanted toward Obama.

    And are you freaking kidding me with the NY Times??? Bill Kristol is one columnist. Their liberal bias is on the top fold of the FRONT PAGE, and every page in between. Care to count how many liberal columnists they employ?

    Need more proof there is a liberal bias in the media?

    It’s here: “In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.”

    And here: “A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”

    And a more recent survey, in 2008, here: “A newly released survey indicates that conservatives in the national press corps are a lonely lot. 585 [the total of national, local and Internet] journalists were polled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they’re moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal. The Washington Times quotes project deputy director Amy Mitchell as saying that the findings are about the same as in a similar survey done four years ago. ”

    Now, I know actual facts don’t mean anything to you clowns,
    so feel free to post more of your nonsense in response.

  18. Are you on Mars? Cable news IS the MSM. They all reported on Rev. Wright extensivelly. FNC pounded the story for months. Give me a break.

  19. BR, I will reiterate once again that having more liberals than conservatives in the press does not automatically infer a liberal bias. Your supposition presumes that every reporter slants their reporting towards their political point of view. This is in essence an accusation against all reporters that none of them are objective journalists.

    I can’t claim that all reporters aren’t biased, but you can’t claim the opposite. I’m not going to argue the merits of WaPo and NYT. I don’t read them and you could be right. I do watch cable news, listen to talk radio and surf the blogs. I get plenty of journalism and left and right opinion from the mainstream media.

    As I’ve said before, the liberal MSM is a fantasy. Remember, FNC is No. 1 on cable, Rush is No. 1 on radio. It doesn’t even matter if it’s true that there’s more left-wing news sources than right-wing. It isn’t about the number available, it’s the number consumed.

    Right-wing news sources are still a very powerful voice in this country, and they are very much a part of the mainstream media. How Republicans ever convinced themselves that the most viewed cable news channel was outside of the mainstream is a mystery to me.

  20. nf, cable news and talk radio make up a very, very small part of the overall media.

    Network news still dwarfs cable news by a wide margin.

    Here’s a typical week during the summer, when ratings are down, for the network news..

    Total viewers: ABC: 7,700,000 / NBC: 7,250,000 / CBS: 5,920,000

    O’Reilly, the highest rated program on cable, gets about 3 million viewers on a good night. In other words, only HALF of the lowest rated network news broadcast.

    And while Rush & Hannity get millions of listeners to their radio programs, compare that to the ultra-millions of people who read newspapers, which, again, overwhelmingly tilt left.

    It’s not that the conservative media has NO voice. Thankfully, it does, but it’s not exactly “mainstream”.

    And I didn’t say all journalists are slanting their coverage, but the facts are the facts. THE NATIONAL MEDIA HAS BEEN PROVEN TO OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL. Read the facts in my earlier post.

    And it’s not easy to be objective when you already have a certain mindset. You have to work hard to be fair to both sides. In this election, the media did not work hard to be objective. They rooted for Obama, many of them openly. And that’s not their job.

  21. topthecharts Says:

    I will reiterate once again that having more liberals than conservatives in the press does not automatically infer a liberal bias.

    NF: Perhaps more than liberal bias, the media was deathly afraid of being called racists if they were negative toward Obama and mentioned his race even in an oblique manner.

    If it happened to such prominent Democrats as Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, it could easily happen to any reporter.

  22. Clinton and Ferraro were tagged with racist remarks because they made racist remarks, not because they sad negative things about Obama’s policies.

    I don’t know why the right insists on complaining that the media somehow won the election for Obama. He couldn’t have been a better candidate in this election cycle. McCain, especially after he sunk the other-guy’s-inexperienced argument with his own choice of VP, couldn’t have been worse.

  23. nf, I’ll agree Obama ran a great campaign and McCain won a horrible one.

    I”ll also say again, for the third time in this thread, that the media didn’t win the election for Obama. But they did help him.

    They also helped him in the primaries. MSNBC has practically admitted they favored Obama over Clinton. I loved the irony of Mrs. “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” Clinton suddenly finding a media bias with the media favoring an opponent who was to the LEFT of her.

    Everyone who has any interest in news should read Goldberg’s “Bias”. It offers fascinating insight into the thinking that goes on inside network news, and practically predicted the CBS Memogate fiasco several years before it happened. The book is a true eye opener.

  24. Goldberg has his own disgruntled bias. He’s also one of the most humorless people I’ve ever seen. And anybody could have predicted Memogate. Dan Rather is bonkers.

  25. MSNBC caved into the accusations of sexism from the Clinton camp. I thought their reporting of her chaotic and sometimes mean-spirited campaign was pretty fair [Shuster excepted, he's an idiot].

    She succeded in convincing the media that questions about her continueing a hopeless primary campaign – possibly to the detriment of the obvious Democratic nominee – were unfair and wouldn’t have been applied to a man. She wasted millions of campaign donor’s money for no good reason, then whined about the coverage of it.

  26. unclearthur Says:

    And I didn’t say all journalists are slanting their coverage, but the facts are the facts. THE NATIONAL MEDIA HAS BEEN PROVEN TO OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL. Read the facts in my earlier post.

    Well, studies show that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be liberal. Which probably explains it.

    Heh.

  27. Then how do we explain your liberalism?

    BTW, studies also show Republicans are much more charitable. What does that tell you?

  28. unclearthur Says:

    BTW, studies also show Republicans are much more charitable. What does that tell you?

    Uh… charity is stupid?

    the more likely explanation is that Republicans use charity to assuage their guilt over the non-charitable policies they support. Like, oh… say, torture?

  29. Can’t back you up on that one, unclear. The torture thing lays squarely at Bush’s feet. A lot of Republicans are just as fed up with W as we are. I’ll betcha some of them voted for McCain just to piss him off!

  30. unclearthur Says:

    A lot of Republicans are just as fed up with W as we are. I’ll betcha some of them voted for McCain just to piss him off!

    What, did W endorse Obama? How would voting for McSame piss him off?

    .. oh wait – you’re being ironic.

  31. No, I’m not. I think Bush detests McCain and is happy Obama beat him.

  32. [...] FNC anchor Shepard Smith visited The Strategy Room on Foxnews.com on Tuesday, and delivered a complete dressing-down of comedian Nick DiPaolo after he charged that the mainstream media was responsible for Barack Obama‘s victory (via ICN): [...]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 222 other followers

%d bloggers like this: