Well, it's about time! I guess a day late is better than never. That's kind of their typical practice when it comes to news that sheds a negative light on government under Obama.

But if you decide someday to check it out for yourself, there are tons of resources and proof on the internet, and I'd be happy to steer you to them.

As for me, I would expect nothing different from CNN or MSNB, other than to ignore negative political news– they are liberal “journalists.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/18...

Only 6 percent of the national press corps describe themselves as “conservative” in a population that includes reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources.

Those who consider themselves “very conservative” amount to just 2 percent, according to a wide-ranging survey of 585 journalists and news executives released yesterday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.”

A prime example is the ACORN scandel and the Van Jones fiasco. They didn't report on them for a couple of days. When they did, they spun them in order to manipulate the public into believing that they really were not that big of a deal. They also left out key facts, thus, leaving the public unaware of some very important things.

But no, they do not always neglect to report negative commentaries. How can they? Their bias would be too obvious. And they can't completely ignore news that is being covered on a multitude of other news outlets.

But I did see a negative story tonight from Katie Couric on Obama's 49% approval rating. Actually watched her tonight, and she was fairly bearable, maybe because most of the stories tonight were not political.

How do I know what CNN or MSNBC reported on? Well, it wasn't too difficult to find out. I went to their websites to search for it, and I also googled it. They did not cover it.

No, the neglect by CNN and NBC to cover this story is not the “basis” of my assertion. It's an EXAMPLE.

My claims are actually very strong and are backed by statistical evidence and reputable studies.. Do an internet search on “media bias” or “liberal media bias.”

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/chapter%20p…

1) “Cable news provided the most limited range of coverage in 2008. Roughly two-thirds of the cable prime-time programming studied (65%) was devoted to the election—almost twice as much as the media over all. And within the cable universe, MSNBC lived up to its “Place for Politics” slogan by devoting 80% of its primetime air on the election, far more than CNN (62%) and the Fox News Channel (57%).”

2) “The ideological leanings of the cable hosts not only affected what they said about the candidates but what aspects of the campaign they talked about. On the Fox News programs hosted by conservatives Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, for example, Barack Obama’s connection to Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the top campaign storyline of the year. On the MSNBC shows hosted by liberals Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, by contrast, a favored subject (No. 2 after the economy) was John McCain’s attacks on Obama.”

3) “In its campaign coverage, the press was
more reactive and passive and less of an
enterprising investigator of the candidates
than it once was. In 1992, the Washington
Post produced 13 major profiles examining
the past record and biography of the eventual
winner of the race.”

– Former CNN Correspondent Chris Plante on Lou Dobb's exit from CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wj7bCnE8WA

1) On Dobb's exit: “His opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media.”

2) Dobbs is “the last conservative voice on the channel,” who “no longer fit in.”

The Interview:

DOBBS: A cable news network should be fair always…. my viewers, my audience, expect to come at them with the unvarnished reality and the truth irrespective of how the chips fall in the political spectrum.

KURTZ: So was this television divorce inevitable and what does it mean for Dobbs and for CNN?…. Chris Plante, many liberals cheering Dobbs' sudden exit. A “New York Times” editorial called him close to a right wing ranter who distorts the facts. Is the media being fair to Lou Dobbs?

PLANTE: Well, of course not. Well the reason Lou Dobbs was in trouble is not because he has opinions, it's because of what his opinions were and his opinions are out of lockstep with the rest of the mainstream news media. “The New York Times” in their — pretty much every report also say that he's a crusader against immigrants, or immigration and that's false. It's a misrepresentation and it speaks to their point of view. And maybe “The New York Times” should be taking a look at itself rather than Lou Dobbs.

PLANTE: In Washington, we've got a chief White House correspondent for CBS News Chip Reid who was a former employee on Capitol Hill of Joe Biden. We've got a senior White House correspondent of NBC News who was a former staffer for Tom Harkin.

KURTZ: Let's stick to CNN.

PLANTE: We have a senior Washington correspondent for ABC News who is a Clinton administration official. David Axelrod is a former “Chicago Tribute” reporter. We've got Jay Carney leaving his job at “Time” magazine to go to work for this administration. Look, the pattern is clear, everybody knows it except you guys, you know?

KURTZ: What does it is say about CNN? None of those people work at CNN.

PLANTE: It's the news media as an industry and as a company, the last conservative voice on the channel is gone. They had Glenn Beck, he's gone. They had him, now he's gone. Lou Dobbs is gone.

PLANTE: I was having a conversation with a friend of mine in Washington, a longtime Washington journalist type and we were talking about a reporter that we both know who is very liberal. And my friend said, yes but I think that he does a great job of hiding it. The idea is not to have a room full of people who are hiding their political beliefs and failing, by the way. Lou Dobbs wore it on his sleeve and he at least put it out there. You knew where he stood unlike others.

When I said CNN and MSNBC failed to report a story, I was referring to the ex-NIH Chief story that was reported today. You were referring to the mammogram story in general. When I said, “Yes, it's been everywhere,” that was a reply to your comments about the mammogram story, not the ex-NIH Chief story.

The particular ex-NIH Chief story was reported today by the Associated Press, and yet, NBC (MSNBC) and CNN failed to even mention it. Both ABC News and CBS News covered it, though. It was also reported by several major newspapers and journals, including the WA Times, the Star-Tribune, and even The NY Times. In addition, many internet news sources (AOL News, Yahoo, Comcast, etc) and local news stations reported on it.

It's pretty “fishy” that the only major news networks that did not report on it were NBC (MSNBC) and CNN, the two most liberal mainstream media networks. Pretty telling, if you ask me.

A story or two here or there, when it can't be avoided because it's all over the news at other outlets, is all they'll offer. But as for the mammogram recommendations, even liberal women are upset about them because it's personal.

In fact they did not say that women under 50 should not have mammograms. They found that mammograms in women under 50 were less significant in detecting cancer.

I think it is irresponsible to spread wildly scary speculation about what this means and what will occur in the future as a result. I am glad to hear representatives of the American Cancer Society as well as members of the medical community discuss the actual facts of the study. They have all stated that they do not intend to change their recommnedations. I am also happy that women in particular have taken such a vocal interest in it.There was a time when it was considered unseemly to discuss breast cancer.

The other day, there was an article on how govt has really mismanaged the Swine Flu shots. Then there was Cash for Clunkers where the auto dealers weren't getting their reimbursements, and only after a day or 2, the program went through all the money allocated for it, until of course govt. gave more money to it.

There was an Associate Press article on Friday “Gripes aboout swine flu vaccine abound.” http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=9... It was a very lengthly analysis of all the problems with this national program, and it wasn't reported by Limbaugh, Beck, or Fox News. It was reported by the Associated Press.

Here are a few things said:

“Health officials have been terrible at predicting when and how much vaccine would be available.”

“Vaccine shipments have been inexplicably lopsided.”

“Health officials have stressed that people… should go to the head of the line, but they haven't tried to make sure that acutally happened.”

“Despite pledges that they would be transparent… some officials have refused to disclose where all the doses are going, and they have held back on public service announcements telling people who should be coming in for shots.”

“…complaints have been mounting, with lawmakers this week holding hearings in Washington and elsewhere, pressing for explanation.”

“People are frustrated everywhere….”

“…layers of misinformation and miscommunication.”

“It is not working right at all.”

This is one program, much smaller than providing nation-wide health care coverage. This is a prime exampled of what we can expect.

We are completely naive and in denial if we think that govt. (esp. this very inexperienced administration) is going to run a highly effective, timely, fair, and well-managed health insurance program.

It will give government tremendous power in our lives! And when cost is the bottom line for government, there will without a doubt be rationing, although they will not call it that nor will they be truthful about it. But it will come in subtle ways. New “guidelines” that will deny things like mammograms to women under 50. Or perhaps care not being given to someone because they are obese. Think of all the recent articles on obesity that talk about how costly medical care is for the obese. Care might be denied because someone is disabled. Or elderly. Or a smoker.

Not only this, but what kind of care are we going to receive? Considering that there already is a shortage of nurses and doctors, to suddenly open the floodgates of coverage to many millions more people, this shortage will pale in comparison to how it will be if the govt. health care passes. I do believe that all people need affordable access to health care, but this govt. plan fails to address many important things. Instead, it's like putting a band-aid on top of a growing sore.

But it's much worse than a bandaid because it's the government, and they can use their power of lawmaking to force us to do things. In fact, under the Pelosi bill, we will be fined or imprisoned if we do not have health care.

And, yes, private insurance will be obliterated. There is no way it will be able to survive in the face of govt. care. It's like a huge cruise ship vs. a rowboat. Businesses will exchange private coverage for their employees for govt. coverage because it will be cheaper. Their employees will have no choice in the matter. Also, Reid's Senate bill plans on raising taxes on health insurance companies.

I could go on and on, but we must stay informed on these bills. There are many people in our nation who are uninformed or misinformed, or they just simply refuse to believe the truth of what these bills will do.

I do not understand why anyone would willingly want more government control over their lives. Or why they would be so loyal to their party or candidate (Obama), that they accept every single thing said by him or the party as truth or as something good for them.

I will check out the link you provided. I get alot of my information from sources like HotAir, Townhall, Newsbusters, Fox News, and then emails I receive from AFA (Amer. Family Assoc.) and FRC (Family Research Council). You should check out some of these sources if you have the time and don't already go to them. God for all these news and commentary sources! If it were not for “watchdogs” like these, we'd only have liberal news sources and we'd all be duped and manipulated.

I really, really hope that in 2010, there is a clear referendum on Obama. It looks like it's very possible. Hopefully, many of these health care supporters (esp. the ones who ignore the voices of their constituents) are voted out of office, including Reid. They refuse to listen to us. The majority of people against the bills and do not want to lose their current health plans. They dismissed people at the townhall meetings, calling them things like “manufactured astroturf,” even though across the nation, there were many, many townhalls filled with concerned citizens.

As for reading the bill, Reid wouldn't even put it online at first. I'm sure it was only because of Republicans that it's now online. However, you won't find it at CNN or MSNBC. Of course not. But Fox News has a link to it. Who has time to read 2000+ pages filled with garbly govt. language though? Not even our own senators read it!

People call Fox News bias, but providing news and sources that liberal media simply won't provide for us is not bias. Here's a link to the bill: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/111909_Reid...

It's one big ugly mess of regulations, rules, and government-speak. Let's pray that it fails! And maybe then some real reform can take place that will help those w/o health insurance while allowing our nation to be the free people that our Constitution wants us to be.