2 billion media war against BUSH

[PABuck_HNTR]

The major media will give at least $2 billion worth of friendly coverage to Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry this election year, NewsMax Magazine reports in its June cover story.


In its special report, "Media War on Bush," NewsMax Magazine calculated the effect of anti-Bush and pro-Kerry coverage by the major media outlets.

Had Sen. Kerry had to spend the same money in ads - on newspaper, TV, radio and Internet ads - as provided by free media coverage, the sum would be staggering.

"It would easily come to more than $2 billion," NewsMax Editor Christopher Ruddy explains.

The NewsMax report reveals that buying just a few minutes of ad time on Howard Stern's national radio program each day until Election Day would cost Kerry $43 million. But the senator gets that free, as Stern has dedicated himself to defeating President Bush.

Often Stern spends more than five minutes a day using his national radio show, with 8.5 million weekly listeners, to urge his fans to vote against Bush.


This special NewsMax Magazine report, now available at many bookstores (including Barnes & Noble) and many newsstands as well as by subscription, reveals how the media hate machine is working overtime to defeat Bush, including:


The big networks: Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw blow the whistle on their own outrageous anti-Bush bias.

Examples of "Get Bush" propaganda reaching millions of American homes from the likes of Matt Lauer, Harry Smith, ABC's Terry Moran and CNN's John King.


The media's fiercest attack dogs - Stern, Katie Couric, Maureen Dowd and Al Franken - and why each has an agenda to beat the president.


Why the New York Times, the most slanted newspaper in America, has infected the coverage of Bush by your hometown newspaper.



Inside the bias machines of the big "news" weeklies such as Time and Newsweek.

Exposed: How the book publishing industry planned its attack on Bush two years ago - and how you see this bias in almost every bookstore in the nation today.

How Hollywood is giving Kerry a huge boost with an unprecedented amount of anti-Bush propaganda into summer films, from "The Day After Tomorrow" to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Learn the identity of the angry Hollywood sitcom queen whose anti-Bush propaganda blew up in her face.

Revealed: how the late-night comedians such as Leno and Letterman use their monologues to hurt Bush and help Kerry.


The real reason Hollywood hates Bush (no, it's not about the war; it's his Christian faith!).


YEAH FAIR AND BALANCED MY REAR!

[targetpuncher]

And NewsMax IS balanced ? What a joke ! They ADMIT on their website that they are a "conservative news outlet". Many simply love to claim that the news media in this country always shows a "liberal" bias.... most often, by quoting CONSERVATIVE news sources as proof. NewsMax has a "conservative" agenda.... just as you claim that the rest of the media has a "liberal" agenda. They ARE NOT, therefore, a credible source for this kind of reporting.

[Sswpriz]

Often Stern spends more than five minutes a day using his national radio show, with 8.5 million weekly listeners, to urge his fans to vote against Bush.

Stern, IMO, is a crackpot anyway !!!!

Whatever happened to all the celebrities that said they would leave the country if GW won the election last time ????
I don't see a mass exodus out of here by any big names !!!!

[PABuck_HNTR]

TP I see your back again!


If you can't see the slant in the news coverages your either blind or partisan. I say the latter as previous posts of yours have shown.


How many "conservative" News organizations can you name. Then I'll name the Liberal ones.

[PABuck_HNTR]

TP you know atleast us conservatives don't try to hide the fact of where are posts come from. Some of the people here remove the headlines and create their own to pretend they are smarter than the rest of us. I'm not acusing you of this, but some do.

The reference I made to being fair and balanced is the BIG PICTURE

You Know the whole ball of wax. The media in this country is reporting what they want us to see and hear and its based on politics. If you don't see it. I can't help you. Will you honestly say that President Bush has had equal airtime as compared to John Kerry and the previous 8 Dem candidates?

A prime example. Today the President spoke in Tampa. You know who covered the speech.

Fox News>>>YES
MSNBC>>>>YES

CNN >>> NO
ABC>>>>NO
CBS>>>>NO
NBC>>>>NO
CSNBC>>NO

[targetpuncher]

Look who is calling who "partisan" ! Amazing. You are shouting from the rafters, in support of the Republicans.... and you would call ME partisan ! Look in the mirror.
There are many news organizations that seem slanted one way or another... listing them here is of little use. You quoted an EDITORIAL by NewsMax.... (though misleadingly NOT identified as such, by them).... as if it were FACT.... for all the world to see. Interestingly enough, after reading your post (and checking the NewsMax page), I did a check of a number of news sources, which I regularly read - to see if this "story" has appeared anywhere else. It hasn't. These sources include the New York Times, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times,
Reuters, CNN and Fox. Nothing. Not ONE word to corroborate this "story." If you only pay attention to ONE news source, especially one that supports your pre-determined opinion on any given subject, then you will be ill-informed. Don't expect everyone to swallow it all, without question.
So you want to play "name the biased news organizations" , huh ? Well, play with yourself. I get my news from reading a VARIETY of sources - ALL of which I read with a critical eye. You have re-published an editorial as if it were a news story, which either proves your bias... or proves you a fool.
What is the "hiding the source of posts" comment about ? If you are not accusing me of this (and frankly, I don't know what the heck you're blathering about, anyway).... then how is it relevant ? Sorry, but it doesn't work to assert irrelevant points - in defense of your argument.... not logical at all.
Your argument that Mr. Bush has little opportunity for airtime is the leakiest boat I've seen in a long time.... just as any other President before, ALL he has to do if he wants to get his face on television is call an official press conference. The sitting President ALWAYS has more access to the media than others - and for FREE, as well. One of the perks of the job, I suppose. His speech in Tampa was a partisan political event.... which some organizations chose not to cover. This (especially the example of only ONE event) proves NOTHING. In fact your claim, as the claim of many "conservatives"... that the media are all against you.... sounds like paranoia.
Finally, as to your "whole ball of wax" argument. Or, shall we call it "the Big Picture" ?
The media in this country report what they want us to see, for a whole range of reasons. Some news organizations are "slanted" to the left..... some are "slanted" to the right - (NewsMax, for one). Some are not particularly "slanted" at all. The common thread with ALL commercial news organizations is MONEY, not politics. They are involved in the news BUSINESS - so they report what SELLS. If, on a given day, the Republicans create more salable news.... they will get the majority of coverage.... and vice versa. As a "conservative", who I suspect also believes in a free market, I would expect you to know that.
Have a nice day.

[PABuck_HNTR]

and you would call ME partisan ! Look in the mirror

I never claimed otherwise, but the media sure does. Isn't that what we were talking about or do you want to change the subject?

Are you back to name calling? You exposed yourself again. All your preaching on that other post was a big act. Your Pathetic!

[PABuck_HNTR]

Your argument that Mr. Bush has little opportunity for airtime is the leakiest boat I've seen in a long time.... just as any other President before, ALL he has to do if he wants to get his face on television is call an official press conference

Your not correct here either. I remember a couple weeks to a month ago there was a few MAJOR networks that DID NOT WANT TO INTERUPT their PRIME TIME SHOWS. Remember that? Or has it slipped your mind too?

[PABuck_HNTR]

Some are not particularly "slanted" at all.

Which Ones?


Oh and by the way I am having a GREAT DAY! THANKS!

[CalHunter]

I don't know how organized this media campaign or "war" against President Bush is or is not. I do know that there is a definitely recognizable bias against President Bush and an illogical bias in favor of John Kerry. Consider this current article on CNN.com.

911 Commission--Myths will be dispelled in Thursday hearing

This article is about the 911 Commission findings and an upcoming hearing. Interviewing commission members would appear to be relevant since they know what is forthcoming and can provide accurate information. Interviewing President Bush and others in his administration would also appear to be relevant to get their response to information developed by the 911 panel. Interviewing John Kerry does not appear to be relevant since he is not on the commission nor is he a member of the Bush administration. What facts can he provide? None. How can he explain the thought process of members of the Bush administration? He can't. He can give his own opinion but so can I, you and everybody else on this BB. We're not on the commission nor are we members of Bush's cabinet.

I have noticed that Kerry seems to get many of these soundbites in many articles in print. I can't help but wonder if Bush would get the same amount of opportunities if Kerry were president and Bush was the challenger. I highly doubt it.

A supermajority of the press (TV, cable, print, etc.) has admitted they are liberals. As such, it is reasonable to expect that they personally support liberal candidates. A person's own political beliefs do not automatically disqualify them from being able to do a press job effectively. Indeed, many news programs are actually more of an opinion type of program which is a pefectly legitimate venue for displaying and arguing one's personal political beliefs. However, when a press organization is a "news" organization or is putting out a "news" program, they should report the news and stick to the facts without interjecting their own personal political opinions, biases and prejudices. I think it is these news type programs who cross the line and get people riled up.

For instance, Howard Stern is definitely not a news program--he's an entertainment program for people who like that type of program and material. The same for Rush Limbaugh and many other radio and TV programs which showcase the "views and opinions" of their anchor type person or persons. Yes, these programs may make you aware of breaking news or situations but they are not designed nor intended to be news programs. As such, their slant, bias, etc. is not only expected but legitimate as they are not pretending to be a neutral fact publisher.

It is the traditional network and cable news programs who appear to cross the line by claiming they are a news program when they more often than not give you their opinion instead of just the facts. When a program says it is the 5:00 news, I expect just the news and not some blow dried idiot's personal political opinion on politics, candidates or issues.