Reuters shows BLATANT bias in picture of Bush
Reuters shows no class by showing a picture that clearly is an attempt to make President Bush look small and weak. I am not in 100% support of President Bush's policies, but this kind of bias is unacceptable from a source that is supposed to be objective.
here is the link to the article
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: June 1, 2006 12:20 PM
This single photo completely swayed my opinion about President Bush and politics. You can expect my Liberal Movement blog to pop up any day now...
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: June 1, 2006 12:22 PM
These little things can have a big impact if used over time. I don't see how they can claim to be unbiased...
Posted by:
Posted on: June 1, 2006 02:36 PM
1 photo out of 99 that you do not agree with does not demonstrate bias. If more than half the pictures were like this, than that would be bias. I am sure it was an attempt to get the Presidential seal and the President in the same photo, but the correct angle for the photographer was just not available.
Posted by:
Posted on: June 1, 2006 02:50 PM
Holy crap! When I first saw it, I thought the photographer must have took a bad picture of the President from a bad angle. Do you really think that my first thought would be "aww the president looks small and weak." With all due respect, you should take back the name of this post because it is not a true fact.
Posted by:
Posted on: June 7, 2006 10:21 PM
No news source is objective.
::sigh::
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: June 7, 2006 10:23 PM
That is very true. It would be nice if it were not as one sided as it is. A responsible media outlet would hire people who slant both ways. This is not the case with the AP and Reuters.
Posted by:
Posted on: June 7, 2006 10:42 PM
Negativity sells.
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: June 7, 2006 11:12 PM
Does it?
Fox news is much less negative than the rest... they have the highest rankings. Negativity of the GOP advances agenda. The only thing it sells is their liberal ideas.
Set of ratings:
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2.3 [RATING]
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1.7
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1.6
FOXNEWS GRETA 1.4
CNN LARRY KING 1.1
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1.1
CNN WAVE SPECIAL 0.8
MSNBC HARDBALL 0.5
MSNBC AMBER FREY 0.6
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 0.4
MSNBC OLBERMANN 0.3
CNBC MILLER 0.1
Posted by:
Posted on: June 8, 2006 12:36 AM
CNBC MILLER 0.1 - well duh, cnbc becomes a ghosttown during the weekends.
Hey, you forgot to put American Idol there. That shows beats all the news segments by a landslide. I wonder how do the numbers stack up if you do Internet visitations. In that case, CNN would emerged as first, then probably Fox News, than MSNBC.
Posted by:
Posted on: June 8, 2006 08:34 AM
Why does it matter which news show is more negative? Why do you think Fox is more negative, when all the news covers the same stories?
We know negativity sells. If not, we would see more heart warming stories on the evening news but they are few and far between. If things are perfect or working, must people do not care. It is when the "bad" occurs, people pay attention.
People thrive on questioning the existing policies and people in charge. That is human nature. When democrats are in office, their actions are targeted as well. It does not matter which party the person wears on their sleeve, it is in our very nature to question everything, especially actions by others.