Media Bias: Reagan Vs Obama Reporting

Submitted by: 5cats 6 years ago

Very funny stuff! How things change yet remain exactly the same, eh?
There are 65 comments:
Male 17,512
Kougaiji: How could the Tea Party protests `Remind` you of pre-world war one Europe ? YOU WERE NOT EVEN BORN YET !

You know what scares me ? People like you that think they know everything because of what elitist liberals tell them what to think. If you had ever went to a tea party gathering you would know what it is, Not what you are told it is.

I`m guessing you were spoon fed the myth that the Tea Party is a bunch of KKK rednecks carrying guns and waving flags, Which is a total lie.

I DARE YOU to go to a Tea Party gathering and bring an open mind.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]The ignorant, violent, ignorant, ignorant, dumb, ignorant mindset of the Tea Partiers just plain old scares me and reminds of me nationalism and fascism in europe in the early-mid 1900s. These overweight, overwhite baby boomers are selling out their childrens` livelihoods and their grandchildrens` opportunities, along with lowering media coverage and public discourse for the next few years to their denominator.[/quote]
So, it`s fine for you to talk about me like this, but you want me to respect you and yours?

Go f*** yourself, Kougaiji.
0
Reply
Male 604
I think the word I`m looking for is respect. You don`t have to agree with the president. I don`t. You don`t have to support him. I don`t. But drating give the guy some human respect! I`ve never seen such a disgusting state of politics and media coverage in my life as the last two years. The ignorant, violent, ignorant, ignorant, dumb, ignorant mindset of the Tea Partiers just plain old scares me and reminds of me nationalism and fascism in europe in the early-mid 1900s. These overweight, overwhite baby boomers are selling out their childrens` livelihoods and their grandchildrens` opportunities, along with lowering media coverage and public discourse for the next few years to their denominator.
0
Reply
Male 604
Newsflash: Germany has a higher standard of living. It has shorter work weeks, and no effective unemployment. It guarantees over 3 weeks of paid vacation, unlimited sick leave, has universal health care, and better rated healthcare at that, resulting in longer lives and more babies delivered. You`ll see the same from other european nations.

Americans need to quick acting like corporatism is the only path to mere survival, they are being left in the dust in terms of livelihood so that you can boast about an economy that is weaker than much more socialist nations`.

Furthermore, most americans are too politicized and greedy to do good for their country. Speaking of germany earlier, when the chancellor (I believe it was Kohl) announced that too much wealth was going international, you know what people did that year? Over 70% of vacationers stayed home that summer and spent the money in germany, bringing the economy back up themselves. Different cultures.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Why the low rating? Liberals vote 1 but don`t comment? Chickens! lolz! [/quote]
Ever stop to think maybe it wasn`t the liberals, but people getting sick of this kind of crap on IAB?

If you think, even for a damn MINUTE, that the media isn`t biased, than you`re a f*cking retard and I`m surprised you know how to get on IAB. Media companies are funded by people, and people have opinions. Those people like their opinions, and don`t like sharing other people`s opinions in their publications.

And another thing: When the EXPECTED results are quite a bit worse than the results we got, than yeah, the media`s gonna be happy. It`s like with the Chilean Miners. They shouldn`t have ended up trapped down there in the first place, but they did. People were predicting they wouldn`t be out by CHRISTMAS. So it`s a GOOD thing we got them out faster.

Except a recession still isn`t cause for cheer no matter what`s happening...
0
Reply
Male 633
>>>We were in this recession before Obama became president. He took steps to avoid an all out depression, which is exactly what the policy of the last administration caused us to set a dive-bomb course into. <<<


Exactly what steps has he taken that actually did anything positive?
0
Reply
Male 36,430
@nnotdead It`s evidence, ok? IAB isn`t the place to show the thousands of examples of DAILY bias, especially when it comes to the Big O.

@Ogen the Reps can say "Polly wanna crackr" and it wouldn`t matter, the DEMOCRATS control all 3 offices, they have complete control over every bill & law, yet they can`t pass them? Because they cannot even get their own members to drink the kool-aid! lolz! Plz learn how American politics works before blaming the Reps, you`re just parroting the MSM`s bias (and proving my point, eh?).
0
Reply
Male 58
//Yeah you can just about spin anything toward making it fit your agenda. Except a 13 trillion deficit.//

Well, at least it`s not 14 trillion...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Ogen & nnotdead: The mainstream media has been biased toward the left for a very long time. Since you are both under 30 years old, You can`t remember the recession that Jimmy Carter drove us into.

It took Reagan 2 terms in office, But He turned the economy back around, Which lead to the longest peace-time economic growth America has ever had. Before Reagan most people believed Russia would win the cold war and that America`s best times were in the past.

You two grew up in in the growth period during & after Reagan and should be thankful for it.

5cats, Ollie, And I grew up during the Ford & Carter years and we can vividly remember the long lines for gasoline, long lines at the unemployment offices, and double digit inflation. The word `Stagflation` came into being during the Carter years, and we can see the warning signs of it`s return.
0
Reply
Male 441
We were in this recession before Obama became president. He took steps to avoid an all out depression, which is exactly what the policy of the last administration caused us to set a dive-bomb course into.

The fact that the job loss isn`t as bad as it would have been if it were just left alone is good news.

All the Republicans have been saying since Obama took office is "no." They are truly hoping Obama will fail, as some of them have even said.
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Yeah you can just about spin anything toward making it fit your agenda. Except a 13 trillion deficit.
0
Reply
Male 139
anyone watching this and saying, "yes, see this is proof of media bias," is an idiot. yes im looking at you 5cats. even if you where to believe there is a bias in the media, this video only shows 2 news reports out of millions that happened between `82 and `09. one could just as easily make the reverse seem true with the same technique.

OldOllie, you seem to miss the reason why people would want those "incentives" and tariffs. of course the reason would be to expand and grow the middle class. you know, the people who buy all the stuff. which i think is pretty important in a consumer based economy.

yes the prices of goods would go up, but i think 39 million people living in poverty would much rather have the ability to buy the basic needs to live. not to mention the money the government could save on social programs. not enough characters to go on, and doubt i`ll be able to change your mind anyways.change
0
Reply
Male 36,430
Yay! Aside from Baalth`s "predictable" attempt to change the topic (again!) It`s been fairly positive :)

Why the low rating? Liberals vote 1 but don`t comment? Chickens! lolz!

YES this is about the media`s BIAS not the actual difference/similarities between the two Presidents. They fawn over Obama`s every golf swing, but Reagan couldn`t put jellybeans on his desk without critical attacks!

The KEY difference between 2008 and 1980 is the intrest rate (as OldOllie wisely mentioned) can you imagine a 20% rate for 13 TRILLION bucks? Ouchie! You think things are bad now, wait till the rate goes to even 7-8%...
0
Reply
Male 113
its really not fair to Obama and the liberals to use facts when you debate them.
0
Reply
Male 102
The standard of living? Homeless and soup kitchens is living the high life I guess.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Dolomyte When the government gives an "incentive" for doing X, it always ends up being a punishment for NOT doing X. If we punish companies that outsource labor to foreign countries, all you do is put them at a competitive disadvantage against imported goods from foreign-owned companies who are using the cheaper labor.

Of course you can always slap on tarrifs to compensate, but that will almost certainly start a trade war. However, if you`re lucky and you don`t start a trade war, all you will have accomplished is to raise the prices of those goods thus lowering the standard of living of all Americans.

Do you honestly think that you could build a 52" LCD HDTV and sell it retail for under $1000 using IBWE labor?
0
Reply
Male 102
@OldOllie

No, tax increases only expand government. Twisting my words around to change the meanings is an absurd argument. I mean what I say not what you think I am implying. Corporations did not expand so much into foreign markets during the 80`s that is why the tax cuts worked so well, because they could only expand here. But now, that is not the case. We need some sort of incentive for companies to stay here.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Dolomyte My comprehension skills are just fine, thank you. Maybe you should take your Ritalin and reread what I wrote. You said, in essence, that tax cuts resulted in more outsourcing. Okay, if that`s true, then tax increases should produce the opposite effect. This is clearly absurd, which means that your original statement was absurd as well.
0
Reply
Male 102
@OldOllie

Wow your comprehension skills are lacking as of late. I said tax cuts not tax hikes. With the latest `Bush Tax Cuts` for the past 8 years that is what we saw, corporations outsourcing and expanding in foreign markets not here in the USA. The tax cuts resulted in less overall income for USA workers had income stayed at the 2000 year level not to mention any growth in GDP. I am saying if a company wants to be called an American company but have it`s workers in china then maybe we should make it a Chinese company by revoking it`s American corporate charter. It would add incentive to build here rather than over seas.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@nick12684 The reason you don`t remember a really severe recession is because you weren`t born yet. Also, Reagan greatly increased defense spending -- so much so that he drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy trying to keep up with us.

Also, by 1979, military spending had dropped to 4.6% of GDP -- the lowest it had been since 1948. It peaked at 6.2% in 1986 and decreased every year thereafter (the "Peace Dividend") till 2000 when it hit 3.0%. Under Bush it increased to 4.2% in 2008 -- still less than it`s lowest level under Carter.
0
Reply
Male 1,834
yup I need money :-(
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Dolomyte So, you think that if we raised corporate taxes, they would spend what little money they have left on more expensive American labor? Where did you study economics, the Bizarro world?

And Clinton didn`t balance the budget, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress did. Of course, they had plenty help from an unsustainable surge in capital gains revenue from the tech stock bubble, but if you read your constitution you`ll see that ALL spending bills must originate in the House. That`s also why Reagan never did get spending under control.
0
Reply
Male 208
Boring
0
Reply
Male 1,744
this should be common sense to everybody, the economy waxes and wanes, always has, always will.
0
Reply
Male 85
im gonna go out on a limb here and address 2 things. 1 the common factor between the two is democrats (Rep Henry Reuss (D) and the other thing was i dont remember a really server recession or perhaps depression and/or a never ending war with our troops on the ground with massive war spending in the 80`s
0
Reply
Male 102
@ OldOllie

Oh the revenues almost doubled because the more companies hire the more people are paying in taxes, quick nickel is better than that slow dime. That is how Clinton was able to balance the budget and get a surplus, because of all the effort he put in getting people off government assistance and working towards the end of his second term.
0
Reply
Male 102
@ OldOllie

Only problem is when we cut taxes on corporations now they just send that excess money overseas for the cheaper labor. How about we cut taxes and revoke corporate charters to companies that keep expanding manufacturing in foreign markets?
0
Reply
Female 612
Whether this is the 00s or the 10s depends on which system you use. The Common Era dating system holds that there WAS a Year Zero, as they don`t acknowledge the event which had previously marked the transfer from 1 BC to 1 AD (and which occurred before then, anyways). The Gregorian system, which many people still use out of habit, holds that there was not. So in the Gregorian system, centuries, decades, and millenniums begin on the year ending in 1. For the Common Era calendar, they begin in the year ending in 0.
0
Reply
Male 1,021
Republicans and Democrats are the same brand of suck. But we are better off with Republicans in office because the media is hard on them. Democrats get a free pass.

Personally, I don`t even bother voting anymore. Seems pointless to me.

But if I did vote, I sure as drat would vote for 3rd parties.
0
Reply
Male 219
OldOllie is spot-on! Reagan was saddled with much worse than what bho has dealt with!
0
Reply
Male 244
What I gleaned from this is new graphics have drastically improved since then. That is all
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@ggolbez, since you weren`t even alive then, I can only assume you have gotten all your information about the Reagan era from liberal teachers.

The economy that Reagan inherited from Carter was MUCH worse than what Obama inherited from Bush.

In 1981 unemployment was 7.5%; in 2009 it was 7.7%.
In 1981 inflation was 11.83%; in 2009 it was 0.03%.
In 1981 the prime interest rate was 21.50%; in 2009 it was 3.25%
In 1981 the Fed funds rate was 16.38%; in 2009 it was 0.16%.

Also, in order to fight the double-digit inflation from the Carter years, Fed Chair Volker kept interest rates above 10% for most of Reagan`s first term.

Reagan cut tax rates drastically, and as a result federal revenues more than DOUBLED, unemployment inflation, and interest rates plummeted, and we entered the longest period of growth in history.

Obama is doing the exact opposite, and as expected, he`s getting the exact opposite results.




0
Reply
Male 153
It`s the 10`s Ollie, jeez...
0
Reply
Male 25,416
...
0
Reply
Male 245
@Old Ollie
Yeah, the new millennium didn`t start until the year 2001. Jeez, don`t you guys remember Y2k+1?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Actually, it`s the `10s[/quote]
Actually, it`s still the `00s. The `10s don`t start till 2011.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
Except Reaganomics, was caused by Reagan. The recession under Obama, was caused by Bush.
0
Reply
Male 9
Add in Temp. Agencies,Part Time People(The ones that need to work full time),all the people living in the projects and ghetto`s(the one`s that have been looking for a job for 20 years on Government assistance,wink),and illegal`s and the real figure is at least 25% to 30%\m/
0
Reply
Male 74
Actually, it`s the `10s.
0
Reply
Male 122
she said long and deep haha
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]The decades are starting to run together.[/quote]
Old age setting in eh :P
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Oops.

00`s.

The decades are starting to run together.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]LOL 80`s 8.7% DOOM AND GLOOM.

90`S Only 9.4%?! That`s good news YAY![/quote]
This is the 90s?

Also, comparing the two is fairly pointless. This recession is far more severe than the early 80s one.
Hence why predictions of unemployment were more severe.
Hence why an actual unemployment figure lower than that predicted is a good result, even if it is larger in absolute terms than a different employment figure in a completely different recession.
0
Reply
Male 364
@brimstone - are we "funny ha, ha" or "funny peculiar"?
0
Reply
Male 102
baalth you try way to hard to defend Obama when nothing you have to say will be comprehended because you are speaking a different language.

Read this book if you have not and you will understand.

The Authoritarians
0
Reply
Male 3,482
Oh joy, another political-flame-war-waiting-to-happen submitted by 5BrainCells... Let`s see what THIS ONE is all about...
0
Reply
Male 496
This isn`t about whether Reagan was better or worse than Obama. It`s about how the media reports the issue. But good job with those stats there.
0
Reply
Male 2,229
Americans are funny ;)
0
Reply
Male 379
Baalthazaq what are you smoking? Stop pulling statistics out of *cough* the air and look at the video again. Regan had LOWER unemployment numbers and HIGHER growth and it was reported negatively where Obama Has HIGHER unemployment and LOWER growth but it was reported as pretty good. The video isn`t commenting on either presidents ability to do their job, but the way the biased media reports on the job they`re doing.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
The chocolate ration will now be raised to twenty grams this week.
0
Reply
Male 364
Of course they are unemployed - look at how they dress!!!
0
Reply
Male 740
They did something like this on The Daily Show. Except it was where Republimean persons were crying about Obama`s policies, even though the same policies they were crying about were promoted by Reagan when HE was in office.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
It`s kind of funny that all the Republicans are all over this thread jumping for joy. It`s like watching boxing fans jump for joy when their guy ALMOST hit his opponent when he fell over.

Any realistic analysis of these numbers is massively in favour of Obama.

450K jobs lost by Reagan in a MONTH a year and a half after he had been in power. US population at the time: 231`664`458 (0.2%)

350K jobs lost by Obama in a MONTH 6 months in to his presidency. US population at the time: 305`000`000. (0.1%)
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Wait, so Raegan lost more jobs, with a smaller population, and he`s one of the greatest Republican figures ever?

Interesting.

Also, this is from 6 months into Obama`s term, and 17 months into Reagan`s.

So, while we`re talking about bias:
republicans:
Ronald "our man" Reagan.
Barack " He probably wants the terrorists to win " Obama.

When Reagan is worse... even in the video you`re using to demonstrate bias... gotcha.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
LOL 80`s 8.7% DOOM AND GLOOM.

90`S Only 9.4%?! That`s good news YAY!
0
Reply
Male 808
5Cats, a true blue conservative, Stephen Harper idolizer-move to the States to be with the guy in the other post with the bumper sticker
0
Reply
Male 880
Everything is cyclical, what do we expect with the government and society full of lazy and uneducated people. But with that being said, the United States still has the highest growth rate by purchasing power.
0
Reply
Male 4,594
I got wood.
0
Reply
Male 77
meh. without context this means nothing.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
"Good news everyone! It doesn`t suck as bad as it does, even if it still sucks - FOR YOU!"

bwahahahaahha
0
Reply
Male 37,888
it only took me 1 1/2 years, but I finally found a job. the pay is so crappy even illegal aliens won`t take it which is how I got it.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Good example there 5cats. Most news outlets are giving Obama way too much support for his failing economic policies.
0
Reply
Male 199
Yep, poo sucks.

poo sucked in the 80`s, poo sucks now. Doesn`t matter who you put in office, be him a republican or democrat, your gonna get the same results, just with a different twist.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Hmm?
0
Reply
Male 36,430
Link: Media Bias: Reagan Vs Obama Reporting [Rate Link] - Very funny stuff! How things change yet remain exactly the same, eh?
0
Reply