Media Bias in Favor of Republicans?

Yes, but only if you're not listening to what is being said...

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html

My friend Joe posted this on his blog/twitter/page/whatever. The study concludes that there is a Republican (i.e. conservative) rather than Democratic (i.e. liberal) bias. However, what the article does not say is that the study is based upon visual tendencies, not verbal tendencies. In other words, while Republicans may have been pictured more often than Democrats, there was no focus on what was said. So, based on this study, a big picture of President Bush is a Republican bias. However, the study would ignore that the talking head was saying Bush was an utter moron. Therefore, I question the validity of the study's conclusion. Anyway, some telling quotes from the story:

"Grace and Bucy's book is the culmination of the first major research project analyzing the relatively unexplored territory of visual coverage in presidential elections and how that influences public opinion. Between 1992 and 2004, they found, candidates were steadily shown more visually, in what they call image bites, while their verbal statements, or sound bites, decreased in average length."

"Grabe and Bucy analyzed several such visual packaging techniques employed in television coverage, including one of the most negative forms of image bites, the 'lip-flap shot' -- where the reporter's narration is overlaid on video to the candidate talking... 'Not only is lip-flap unflattering for the candidate who appears... but it distracts from the reporter's narration because viewers focus attention to making sense of what the lip flapper appears to be saying.'"

"In their research, Democrats were more likely to be subjects of the 'lip-flap' effect."

There are others, but the gist of the article is that Democrats are VISUALLY(!!!!) shown in an unflattering light while Republicans are VISUALLY (!!!!) show in a flattering light. This has NOTHING to do with what is being said. Here is the ultimate quote and summation of the article, which proves that this study does not prove conservative bias in the media...

"Visuals are underappreciated in news coverage," Bucy added. "You can have a negative report. You can have a journalist being opinionated against the candidate. But if you're showing favorable visuals, that out-weights the net effect on the viewer almost every single time."

I would much rather have a bad visual of myself than something bad said about me. But, it appears that the people who prepared this study have their own agenda.

I would venture to say that the New York Times endorsing a Democrat for president in every election since Eisenhower or NBC fawning over Obama are more telling signs of media bias than whether or not the Republican is not shown in a "lip-flap" segment.

DAMN RIGHT!!!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

The Quote of the Times

I think this quote sums up the government right now (and my views as such):

"The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." - John S. Coleman, Detroit Chamber of Commerce, 1956.

If Bush Was President - 2/4/09

The third installment -

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/500k-spent-on-dem-caucus-retreats-2009-02-03.html

Democrats using taxpayer money for a caucus retreat.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.971ca461247820662877d6aaecf06087.361&show_article=1

I actually think this is a fantastic idea. But, in light of the first link... um, how about we cap some other taxpayer-paid stuff too?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964BKD01&show_article=1

Oh Lord...

Oh Lord.

I sure hope the Colbert Report or the Daily Show report this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

Talk about out of touch... 500 million jobs lost a month??? We'd better make sure the Bureau of Smoking Cessation gets set up fast! That'll save those jobs!!!

The GOP Plan

Even though they did not win (of which they are constantly reminded), the GOP has put forward their own bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html

I mean, look how ridiculous this bill is: $55o billion divided as follows:

Education - $142 billion.
Healthcare - $111 billion.
Infrastrucutre - $90 billion.
Aid and Benefits - $72 billion.
Energy - $54 billion.
Science and Technology - $16 billion.
Housing - $13 billion.

I mean... how ridiculous is that? Seriously? Money for education, healthcare and infrastructure? Preposterous. We need more tax breaks for Hollywood and STD services!!! Polar icecap breakers!!!

Thank you Republicans, for putting forth an economic stimulus plan.

Stimulate THAT!

Here's some objections from the Republicans on the "Stimulus" Bill. I put stimulus in quotes because it only stimulates government spending, not job creation. My comments are in bold for your viewing ease.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. - So, we are re-funding something that the Department of Energy (of all Departments) determined was inefficient? That's just what we need... more inefficiencies.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. - Seriously. Do I need to even address this one?
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. - WAAH!!! I can't watch my TV anymore!!! That's in the Constitution right?
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). - I thought we wanted the polar ice caps intact? Also, with the onslaught of global warming, won't these be obselete in a year when the icecaps melt?
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. - I guess this stimulates construction. Except that I'm surprised the Dems are going for this one. I thought they hated the DHS.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. - Furniture costs half as much as the construction of the building? That's a little ridiculous.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. - In theory, I'm okay with this. It will likely stimulate the economy.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. - I heard (on conservative talk radio) that one of the programs is to hire a gay porn star cowboy to talk to students about STDs.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. - Can't the states take care of this themselves? Additionally, how does this stimulate the economy?
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. - Wow... $3 billion overbudget? How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." - Not only does this not stimulate the economy, but if it works, tax dollars from tobacco taxes decrease and Altria starts laying off cigarette employees. We should be giving tax breaks to smokers to buy more cigarettes.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. - I'm all for this one, except how does it stimulate the economy?
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. - Um... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. - I'm fine with this one. It creates jobs and should stimulate the economy.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. - Same as above.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. - Same... jobs = stimulate economy.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations. - States can do this themselves. As an aside, look at Texas, Alaska, and South Carolina. They have balanced budgets, no deficits. They won't see a dime of the money generated by this bill. Why? Because they are fiscally responsible. So, again, we are rewarding being bad at something. Go America!
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. - Hmm... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. - What? What youth jobs? Go work at McDonald's punks. I ain't paying your salary.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. - Same as DHS note above.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property. - Same as DHS note above.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. - Same as DHS note above.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. - HAHAHAHA. Paid volunteers.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. - What?
• $850 million for Amtrak. - Yes! Finally, Amtrak will run on time. Oh wait...
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. - Not going to stimulate the economy.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. - Waste, waste, waste.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. - More waste.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. - Wow... okay.

Nick again... As I understand it, the Republicans are objecting to the Stimulus Bill because it has so many pet projects and pork in it. I dare you to argue that this stuff is "economic stimulus" and not "pork." Double dare.