How Obama Was Elected.

[foxpaws]

Calabrio - don't you see where the poll is biased, just because of its framework, and the limited demographic?
Olbermann no doubt will be commissioning a poll soon, just given to McCain voters to see if they can name the candidate that had a running mate from Delaware... or that was involved in building bombs with a well known terrorist from the 60s and 70s. Same sort of misleading questions, given to only one side of the fence doesn't mean a thing...

As I said c*@p.

And, I would love to know more about Palin - so, why didn't McCain's campaign release this information? Obama's website had links to Illinois Senate site as well as the US Senate site so people could see his voting records...

 

[TheDude]

Don't be an idiot.
That video has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Connecting Jesus to Obama wasn't my point, obviously.

The point, the smear job laid on Obama by the Right turned around and bite the Republicans in the ass, instead of making people push away from Obama, it made them flock.

 

[Calabrio]

And, I would love to know more about Palin - so, why didn't McCain's campaign release this information?

Ann Coulter has said this very effectively in the past, "John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth." First, let's all agree, McCain had a crappy campaign. All of the those D.C. guys did not like Palin, they did not understand her, and, in my opinion, they are quite content to remain the minority party so long as someone will invite them to the cool parties around Georgetown and Alexandria.

Calabrio - don't you see where the poll is biased, just because of its framework, and the limited demographic?

But biased in regards to what?

It's not a challenge to find dumb voters. And it's not an indictment of a candidate when stupid people vote for them. However, the polling does demonstrate the power and influence of the media, and how they effectively abused their public trust in this election.

 

[Calabrio]

Connecting Jesus to Obama wasn't my point, obviously.

The point, the smear job laid on Obama by the Right turned around and bite the Republicans in the ass, instead of making people push away from Obama, it made them flock.

What criticism of Obama do you consider a smear?
And if the public has such a strong sense of fairplay, why didn't they "flock back" to McCain/Palin after they were brutally assaulted in the media week after week after week.

Obama won his majority because the economy is troubled and George W. Bush is unpopular with "independents."
The Obama campaign masterfully embraced all of the lessons learned in the past two decades of Democrat losses, and this was made possible by the fact that he didn't have to deal with an adversarial or even critical media.

 

[fossten]

Connecting Jesus to Obama wasn't my point, obviously.

The point, the smear job laid on Obama by the Right turned around and bite the Republicans in the ass, instead of making people push away from Obama, it made them flock.

Even if your assertion were true, which it isn't, your analysis is terrible. The nationwide consensus is that Obama was swept into the White House on the contrails of the financial and economic crisis.

Sheesh.

 

[Joeychgo]

What criticism of Obama do you consider a smear?

Socialist
Muslim
Hangs out with Terrorists
Gonna Tax everyone
Hussain
Not a US citizen

I would come up with more - but there is no need.

AND -- Before you try to justify ANY of that - dont bother. I believe that even though you might make some kind of argument for those that its ultimately all BS.

Thats the trouble with the right. Look at that list. Its all based on Fear.

Most of the McCain campaign seemed based on trying to scare voters that Obama hussain is a muslim, hence a terrorist, who isnt even a citizen and is going to tax everyone to implement his socialist society.

That was the message many americans got, and didnt believe. Hence, McCain lost credibility -- and the election.

 

[fossten]

Socialist
Muslim
Hangs out with Terrorists
Gonna Tax everyone
Hussain
Not a US citizen

Socialist - not a smear, the simple truth. Sorry you're so blind not to see it. Must be your BDS kicking in.

Muslim - maybe, maybe not.

Hangs out with terrorists - this has been PROVEN AND ADMITTED.

Gonna Tax Everyone - this has been PROVEN AND ADMITTED.

Hussein - THIS IS HIS MIDDLE NAME, DUFUS.

Not a US citizen - he has yet to establish his citizenship.

Sometimes I wonder why you even post here.

Next.

 

[foxpaws]

But biased in regards to what?

It's not a challenge to find dumb voters. And it's not an indictment of a candidate when stupid people vote for them. However, the polling does demonstrate the power and influence of the media, and how they effectively abused their public trust in this election.

From Ziegler...
...but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace,"

Biased in regards to demographic and leading questions.

As I stated, I think if you asked a McCain voter a question that also was dependent on the media's representation of Obama - such as - "Which candidate had a fund raiser sponsored by a convicted felon who was involved with the protesters during Vietnam war era?"

I bet a lot of the McCain supporters would say 'Obama'.... Heck, I would imagine a lot of Obama supporters would say 'Obama'...

So, the media skew wasn't all on one side or the other... Now go ahead and say "but it isn't comparable", but I believe very much in this election there wasn't any real 'delving' into the candidates on both sides. There was a ot of superficial stuff. Just like everything these days it is the sound bite, the most splash, the 15 minutes of fame. Frustrating, yes, but I think both sides of the political fence face many of the same challenges regarding the media.

 

[Joeys Lincoln]

I could have sworn he won because he crushed McCain in the popular vote. I'm of course being sarcastic I know you're trying to show bias in the media.

 

[shagdrum]

AND -- Before you try to justify ANY of that - dont bother. I believe that even though you might make some kind of argument for those that its ultimately all BS.

In other word, you don't care if any of those are true or not, you are gonna assume they are not... the truth be damned. Nice to know you are being rational.

Thats the trouble with the right. Look at that list. Its all based on Fear.

Global warming?
"Religious right"?
FISA?
The Partriot Act?
Class envy?
Race baiting?

Using fear is a common tactic on both sides. The question is weather the facts and reasons given to justify that fear are reasonable or not. More often then not, when coming from the left they are gross exagurations based on distortions or even lies, while the right at least bases theirs in reality and not distortions and lies.

Most of the McCain campaign seemed based on trying to scare voters that Obama hussain is a muslim, hence a terrorist, who isnt even a citizen and is going to tax everyone to implement his socialist society.

No, McCain and his campaign never claimed or implied Obama was a muslim and a terrorist or that he wasn't a citizen. Those were people who had no part in the campaign. In fact, McCain forbid anyone in his campaign from even mentioning Obama's middle name.

That was the message many americans got, and didnt believe. Hence, McCain lost credibility -- and the election.

Let me correct that for you...

"That was the distortion coming from the MSM that many american's got and bought into; thus rejecting McCain and voting for the white knight that Obama was presented as by the MSM."​

There, now it resembles reality.

 

[Calabrio]

"Which candidate had a fund raiser sponsored by a convicted felon who was involved with the protesters during Vietnam war era?"

I bet a lot of the McCain supporters would say 'Obama'.... Heck, I would imagine a lot of Obama supporters would say 'Obama'...

But that's a stupid, vague question.
Are you trying to make another idiotic Liddy attack again?

Which candidate dropped out of a Presidential race because of plagiarism is specific. You're hypothetical is just ridiculous.

I believe very much in this election there wasn't any real 'delving' into the candidates on both sides.

The media was horribly neglegent in this election. I guess that's in agreement.

In terms of delving- McCain has been an extremely high profile figure for nearly 30 years who has had a very open relationship with the media during the entire time. There's no mystery there anymore.

Obama was the guy who came up from no where. So if there were to be any aggressive investigating, you'd think that it'd have been directed towards him. The man who was (is) a virtual unknown.

Frustrating, yes, but I think both sides of the political fence face many of the same challenges regarding the media.

You think that the media didn't spend enough energy attacking McCain, but you fail to mention the important part. They spent virtually no energy investigating Obama.

Critical examination of all candidates is right and good, but in this election cycle, they were a cheerleader for Obama, and they acted like his pit bull too.


Answer this honestly- if Sarah Palin had dropped out of a mayoral race because she had been charged with plagiarism- don't you think everyone of those people in the video would have been aware of it? Now imagine if she'd gotten in trouble in college for plagiarism and then again when running for office. Think that might have been a punchline on SNL?

What if John McCain had said there were 57 states? Think that would have been public knowledge? Perhaps calling into question his age and faculties?

There are countless examples of this.
Clearly, Obama knows that there are only 50 states, I am not implying that he doesn't. He simply misspoke. I'm using it as an example to compare how the media treated the two campaigns. If the roles had been reversed, the reaction and media coverage would have been much different.

 

[Calabrio]

Socialist

Do you honestly think that he doesn't embrace socialism? Are you aware of any free market policies that he embraces? Is there something in his past that has led you to this conclusion? Even his "tax cutting" is little more than an aggressive program redistributing wealth.

This concern is 100% justified. There is no smear associated with this.
If you'd like to debate this point, or any of the other points we disagree with, we can.

Muslim

I tend to agree that this was used as a smear by some, and others voiced it out of ignorance.

But, be honest, that was not launched by the McCain campaign. McCain wouldn't even take issue with his relationship with Reverend Write.

Hangs out with Terrorists

This one is true too.
Bill Ayers is a confessed domestic terrorist. Obama has very close political ties with him. And Obama has helped raise money and has praised Rashid Khalidi. Rashid Khalidi used to work as a press agent for the PLO- and that was a terrorist group.

Again, I'm inclined to say that this is a demonstration of Obama's political ideology. These are the circles he's most comfortable in. These people, these groups, reflect his world view, not that he supports terrorist violence.

Gonna Tax everyone

I don't think this one is in dispute. He will.
And if you don't pay taxes directly, you're going to get hit with those tax increases indirectly through rising costs and economic slow down.

Hussain

So, using his middle name a "smear?"
Was it wrong for liberals to call George W. Bush "junior" in an effort to belittle and minimize him? That should be even more offensive given the fact he's not really a junior, since his middle name is different.

Not a US citizen

Are you 100% certain that he's a natural born citizen of the United States? If so, why is there any confusion regarding him? Has anyone ever questioned the nature of your citizenship? And if challenged, would you send lawyers in to have the question dismissed or simply respond to it?

But let's note, this concern isn't being addressed by the mainstream of any political party. The RNC avoids it, McCain wouldn't even consider addressing the issue, to the best of my knowledge, the person who's been at the forefront of this issue is a Democrat who supported Hillary (Berg).

I certainly hope that this concern goes away and is thoroughly discredited because it would be extremely hurtful and destructive for the country if it turned out to be true.

I would come up with more - but there is no need.

Considering most of the things you listed were absolutely valid concerns... there's no need because you didn't vote for Obama, you voted against the boogey man you've imagined George W. Bush to be. You seem to think Obama is a magic blank slate that you can just pin all your hopes and dreams on. As though he's the perfect candidate who always reflects exactly what you're thinking, all of the time. That's understandable, because that's how he was presented to you.

AND -- Before you try to justify ANY of that - dont bother. I believe that even though you might make some kind of argument for those that its ultimately all BS.

That's the same kind of thoughtful discussion you seem to embrace all political discussions.

Thats the trouble with the right. Look at that list. Its all based on Fear.

To the contrary-
conservative principles are based on hope and the strength fo the individual, liberal principles are ENTIRELY based on fear.

Fear that you'll lose your job. Fear that your husband will leave you. Fear that you'll go hungry. Fear that you'll starve. Fear that you'll fail. And fear that those around you won't help you. In fact, the world is so scary, so dangerous, and such a harsh place, you NEED the government to protect you. You need Obama to take care of you.

Democrats have run campaign ads saying that if Republicans are elected old people will die of starvation and be unable to afford medicine.
If that's not a dishonest campaign of fear, I don't know what is.

Most of the McCain campaign seemed based on trying to scare voters that Obama hussain is a muslim, hence a terrorist, who isnt even a citizen and is going to tax everyone to implement his socialist society.

Not true. I'd explain why, but I'd be repeating myself, and, as you demonstrated earlier in your response, it's not worth bothering.

That was the message many americans got, and didnt believe. Hence, McCain lost credibility -- and the election.

McCain certainly lost.

These are reasons why I'm NOT discussing the campaign, or even arguing FOR people to vote for McCain. That's over.

I don't care WHY you voted for Obama. I'm only interested in discussing WHO you voted for and WHAT he is going to do.

 

[foxpaws]

But that's a stupid, vague question.
Are you trying to make another idiotic Liddy attack again?

.

well, I thought I could try a new form of debate..Reductio ad Liddyism...

heck, one of Ziegs questions was 'Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?'

Answer this honestly- if Sarah Palin had dropped out of a mayoral race because she had been charged with plagiarism- don't you think everyone of those people in the video would have been aware of it? Now imagine if she'd gotten in trouble in college for plagiarism and then again when running for office. Think that might have been a punchline on SNL?

Yes, they would. But, Palin was a media star - Biden wasn't. The media was gathering around the star. Anything about Palin sold, anything about Biden was just a big yawn... Whether we like it or not, that is how it is...

Now if Biden looked like Brad Pitt we might of had a horse race...

It is easy to blame the media - but, the media in so many ways is just a reflection of the majority of the people. Money and numbers... Palin equated both. So, she got a lot of media looks... I am sure if you looked at the last 8 weeks of the election and added 'inches' or 'minutes' she probably lead easily, even over Obama. She was money in the bank.

 

[Calabrio]

heck, one of Ziegs questions was 'Which candidate started their political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?'

That's pretty damn specific...

Yes, they would. But, Palin was a media star - Biden wasn't

Obama was a media star, but he endured NO scrutiny.
Palin is a media star and they invest all of their energy to destroy her?

That's another contradiction and double standard demonstrating the bias and agenda of those in the media.

Anything about Palin sold, anything about Biden was just a big yawn... Whether we like it or not, that is how it is...

So why didn't they sell anything positive about Palin?
Where were the glowing articles about how well she was dressed. How attractive her husband was. How she could be viewed as the role model for modern women? Why not the glowing praise that Michelle Obama gets to sell magazines?

No, they weren't selling Palin, they were trying to destroy her.

 

[foxpaws]

Because Palin got the most views when she was being controversial. People wanted to see her mess up... It was sort of a running joke - furthered by SNL. Just a reflection of what people wanted - not all the people, but a majority of people.

The media fed the need.

As far as Obama being scrutinized, once again I believe that two things were in play - the media was uncomfortable with how do you place the first 'real' black presidential candidate under the microscope without seeming racist, and two, when they did, the numbers fell.

Objective reporting in MSM is pretty much a thing of the past - too much is at stake as far as money...

Even on the other side, talk radio can't be pro-liberal, the numbers would fall, and they would go out of business.

 

[shagdrum]

Because Palin got the most views when she was being controversial. People wanted to see her mess up... It was sort of a running joke - furthered by SNL. Just a reflection of what people wanted - not all the people, but a majority of people.

The media fed the need.

Do you have any proof that the media "fed" the need and didn't "create" the need?

 

[Calabrio]

The media fed the need.

They didn't feed a need, they simply have a monopoly on the market.

As far as Obama being scrutinized, once again I believe that two things were in play - the media was uncomfortable with how do you place the first 'real' black presidential candidate under the microscope without seeming racist, and two, when they did, the numbers fell.

You're half right on this. They were uncomfortable scrutinizing the black candidate.

But as for their numbers, that's simply an untrue statement.
Did Fox News ratings fall when they had the nerve to say anything remotely critical of Obama? Some of the best selling books of last season were highly critical of Obama.

Why did MSNBC have the lowest viewership of the cable news networks?

To the contrary, I think that had the media actually provided thoughtful and honest commentary and analysis, their numbers would have gotten better. Instead, they will continue to fall as they continue to lose credibility. There was a desire for real information regarding the enigma Obama and the mainstream press never filled that need.

They lost money due to their institutional racial guilt and embrace of the liberal candidate.

Objective reporting in MSM is pretty much a thing of the past - too much is at stake as far as money...

Newspapers and network news are losing money, value, and prestige at an alarming rate. Many are on the brink of bankrupcy. Their embrace of liberalism and biased journalism is a major cause of this.

Objective reporting NEVER existed in the MSM. Despite the fact that everything is at stake, they STILL can't clean up their act and find any objectivity.

Even on the other side, talk radio can't be pro-liberal, the numbers would fall, and they would go out of business.

Yes that true.
That's why Democrats want the fairness doctrine. To force radios to broadcast unlistenable liberal talks hows, forcing the formats to lose money.

 

[turborich]

There was a popular vote difference of 8.5 Million people - 53% to 46%

Republicans lost races all over the country.

Yo can clamor and blame the media, Acorn, and all this other nonsense, but this election and the last mid term demonstrate what I have been saying for about 6 years now.

The republicans are out of touch and the people are sick and tired of the BS.

Not at all Joey, non of it is nonsense either. people like you who are uninformed elected this guy. Just give it some time & see what happens to this country.

 

[fossten]

Not at all Joey, non of it is nonsense either. people like you who are uninformed elected this guy. Just give it some time & see what happens to this country.

Well said.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, shag, as far as feed/create. The campaign’s rather stupid decision to keep her away from the media made everyone (the media included) wonder why? The assumption was that she couldn’t handle the media, wrong or right. People wanted to know right away about Palin, she was charismatic, unknown, dynamic. Since the assumption started to grow about her ability, the media fed that assumption (and yes, perhaps help create it, they felt left out). I place the blame that Sarah Palin appeared to not be a bright woman entirely on the McCain campaign.

And let’s face it, people love dirty laundry – as the song goes. The media knows it. Unwed pregnant teenaged daughter, that is something the American people can grasp. The fact that Biden plagiarized a speech, unfortunately much harder for the people to get their mind around. The neighbor next door has problems with their kid running around and getting in ‘trouble,’ not that many people have friends who plagiarize speeches during political campaigns.

Calabrio – the bigger best sellers were Obama’s books, not the books which criticized him. And yes, numbers did rise for Obama’s interviews – the ‘soft ball’ ones on msm, not the ‘in your face’ one on O’Reilly.

The media never loses money pandering to the public. The Ayers thing is a good example – the public didn’t care, so as sensational as it may have been to some people, it just didn’t matter to the majority. Not as much media play.

Those numbers get scrutinized every night. Obama soft ball interview – good viewership, especially among people who buy crest. Palin hard ball interview – good viewership among people who buy coffee. That drives the media. If Obama bad/Palin good would have sold to the American people we would have been spoon fed it. Except like I said, the whole black issue was one that the media didn’t quite know how to handle. And, it will continue to be an issue into his presidency. I don’t know for how long into it, but certainly for a couple of years. By the next presidential election I would imagine that he will become our president and not our ‘black’ president.

As far as newspapers and network news’ numbers falling – yes. Creditability a reason – perhaps a small one. More importantly is where people get their news – online. It will bankrupt many things. Free, instant, a variety of POV, you got it all on your desk or on your phone. Why buy a paper when the news presented in it is already 1/2 day old?

Times change, and the Times is going out of business.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, shag, as far as feed/create. The campaign’s rather stupid decision to keep her away from the media made everyone (the media included) wonder why? The assumption was that she couldn’t handle the media, wrong or right. People wanted to know right away about Palin, she was charismatic, unknown, dynamic. Since the assumption started to grow about her ability, the media fed that assumption (and yes, perhaps help create it, they felt left out). I place the blame that Sarah Palin appeared to not be a bright woman entirely on the McCain campaign.

Actually, that was a story created by the media. She had to get on the same page as the McCain campaign and the McCain campaign had to prep her. Any VP candidate would need that, especially if they had not run on the national stage before. However, if it had been a liberal VP candidate, the media would have given them a pass. Because it was a republican, she wasn't given a pass; they harped on her.

The McCain campaign knew this would happen, and it was confirmed by the blatant smears on Palin by the media as soon as she was named the VP nominee, so they wanted to be very careful in how they prepped her before she did some interviews. Obviously they were too cautious in prepping her.

In fact, it wasn't too long until the media had more access to Palin then to Obama or Biden.

And, the media double standard is not due to "pandering to their viewers". There is overwhelming evidence that shows it is the other way around. The media determines what news to present and how to present it, they don't simply reflect what their viewers want to hear.

Besides, even if the media is simply reflecting what it thinks it's viewers want, they are still compromising their journalistic integrity and status as an objective watchdog on the government. Yet they still claim to be objective and unbiased.

Especially in elections, the media actively work to influence and dictate the national debate and dialog, they don't simply reflect it.

 

[shagdrum]

YouTube - Red State Update: Palin and the Media

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, McCain's campaign was horrendous regarding it's handling of Palin. They didn't vet her very well, and if the Dems had chosen an 'unknown' and then basically had them 'hidden' from the press, it would have gotten the same scrutiny - especially with someone who had a 'colorful' background.

Now the press may have been FOX in the case above - but, it would have happened. People want to know... the media is anxious to feed that.

The media traditionally has more access to the VP candidates, the presidential candidates are pretty booked - Biden was pretty available - probably about the same as Palin, but no one cared... And when they did interview him - wow, problems too.

And yes, the media may create some news events based on their viewership. They are pandering to their audience. The people love the story about 'can see Russia from Alaska', let's see what else we can create along those lines.

Once again, the ideal that the press is non biased is a great one, unachievable, but a really nice idea. The press, and you, need to let go of the idea that what they present is fair, or even should be at this point. It is unrealistic. I certainly know it isn't fair, and I believe that we have forced the press into that corner. They answer to the people so they can answer to the board and the stockholders. Dirt sells, the dirtier the better... We have created the press in our own image, and we have allowed them to skew left. Maybe because it was because left leaning journalists went for the dirt, and the dirt sold. Maybe right leaning journalist were more fair, but the fairness didn't sell.

I agree it is wrong, but I know it can't be fixed.

 

[Calabrio]

Shag, McCain's campaign was horrendous regarding it's handling of Palin. They didn't vet her very well, and if the Dems had chosen an 'unknown' and then basically had them 'hidden' from the press, it would have gotten the same scrutiny - especially with someone who had a 'colorful' background.

While the McCain certainly handled Palin poorly, the rest of what you said is untrue. While they initially limited access to her, in the final two months of the campaign, she was the candidate MOST available to speak with the press.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml

The media traditionally has more access to the VP candidates, the presidential candidates are pretty booked - Biden was pretty available - probably about the same as Palin, but no one cared... And when they did interview him - wow, problems too.

Again, untrue.
The campaign gave very little access to Biden. Even his announcement as VP was strategically timed to fall on a slow news day to limit Biden's exposure. The Obama campaign wanted to have Biden to prop us his foreign policy credibility with "undecideds" (read: uninformed) and through their friends in the media and their savy, they managed the narrative giving people the impression Joe Biden actually is a wise man when it comes to foreign policy. Of course, history contradicts that, but... who's going to report it?

And yes, the media may create some news events based on their viewership. They are pandering to their audience. The people love the story about 'can see Russia from Alaska', let's see what else we can create along those lines.

Nope. TV news viewership is down. The NY Times is virtually bankrupt.
The media was accommodating a demand that didn't exist. They were certainly pandering, but it wasn't to the larger audiences.

If you logic were sound, they would have devoted some time investigating Obama. They didn't.

Palin was identified as a political threat and they invested all of their energy in destroying her as quickly and as ruthlessly as possible. It absolutely WAS NOT about ratings, it was about politics and ideology.

Once again, the ideal that the press is non biased is a great one, unachievable, but a really nice idea. The press, and you, need to let go of the idea that what they present is fair, or even should be at this point. It is unrealistic. I certainly know it isn't fair, and I believe that we have forced the press into that corner. They answer to the people so they can answer to the board and the stockholders. Dirt sells, the dirtier the better...

Then where was the dirt on Obama? There certainly is plenty of it? Why don't people know more about Rezko, Ayres, Write, Marshal? Why didn't they do tabloid stories on his deceased mother? His book is full of personal and incriminating stories, why weren't they ever spoken of in the MSM? Those things would have guaranteed high ratings.

You are right, it's unrealistic to expect the press to maintain 100% objectivity. But if they're not even going to strive for it, then they should tell everyone where they are coming from.

We have created the press in our own image, and we have allowed them to skew left. Maybe because it was because left leaning journalists went for the dirt, and the dirt sold. Maybe right leaning journalist were more fair, but the fairness didn't sell.

I agree it is wrong, but I know it can't be fixed.

We didn't create the press in our image,
the press has the power to influence and shape our view of the world. In doing so, they can shape the culture without us evening knowing.

Despite this, the press still DOES NOT reflect the population. Why else is Fox News so highly rated, while MSNBC can barely sell commercial time? Why are newspapers like the NY Times going bankrupt? And why is conservative talk radio so remarkably popular and successful? And why do Democrats have to run increasingly conservative candidates inorder to pick up seats? Those aren't Nancy Pelosi clones picking up seats in Alaska, the Carolinas, or Colorado.

 

[shagdrum]

Calabrio covered the other things quite well. I just want to address this issue.

Once again, the ideal that the press is non biased is a great one, unachievable, but a really nice idea. The press, and you, need to let go of the idea that what they present is fair, or even should be at this point. It is unrealistic. I certainly know it isn't fair, and I believe that we have forced the press into that corner. They answer to the people so they can answer to the board and the stockholders. Dirt sells, the dirtier the better... We have created the press in our own image, and we have allowed them to skew left. Maybe because it was because left leaning journalists went for the dirt, and the dirt sold. Maybe right leaning journalist were more fair, but the fairness didn't sell.

I don't expect the media to not have a bias, but I expect them to work to make sure their bias doesn't cloud their judgement, and they become unobjective. The media could care less about that.

I also expect honesty in the media. Claiming to be unbias and objective when they clearly are not shows they are not honest and are being rather deceitful, thus, shooting their credibility in the foot before any reporting has taken place.

The are given a constitutionally privilaged position due to the First Amendment. It is not at all unreasonable to expect them to act responsibly with that privilage and not abuse it to their own ends, which they clearly are doing.

That is why their viewerships is declining and they are not at all trusted or viewed with any degree of credibility. Rupert Murdoch summarized it well:

It's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers...The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception​