What ever happened to journalistic integrity? FROM BOTH SIDES! When I was in journalism school (and working towards my Master's while working in the JD Dept) we were often taught an old saying from an old police series 'just the facts, ma'am'.

Today, that phrase means absolutely nothing. Every journalistic venue has their own innuendo and promotes it.

You don't know who to believe, what website to go to. I get so tired of going to Snopes to check out e-mails I get before I pass them on. And the more I check out Snopes, the more I think they are a liberal site as they hardly ever find a conservative e-mail as true if it is a positive one yet the reverse almost 90% or more applies if it s a negative one.

not so sure about this website either. People who don't check things out could easily get lost in all the garbage from BOTH sides.

BTW: I did watch the town hall meeting and the president WAS handled with kid gloves which other presidents have not been. I do get sick and tired of the media making them out to be something more special than any other president and his family in our history or any more important as a human being than you or I. Yes, he's the president and the first black president and that gives him a very special place in history but doesn't make them special people. I do believe the media swoons over them and it is sickening. I wonder how it would be handled if, God forbid, they or their children should do something wrong. Would the media cover it or sweep it under the rug. I suggest it will probably be the latter.

Stephen Colbert said it best: "Reality has a proven liberal bias!" Overall, the conservative attack on the media is pretty much tantamount to an attack on reality. As Dr. phil would say' "How's that workin' for you?"

What if it was Bush and ABC had given him a whole day to make an unquestioned case for war in Iraq? Still fair?

Just another GOP intimidation move! Now that they have no credibility with most of America (Pew, Gallup, Harris, etc.) they start whining like the grown infants they are.

As for Lou above, FOX's multitudes don't show up in the ratings. Except for an odd bunch that listen/watch to FOX as the farcical, FALSE NEWS demographics show that most of their viewers are a small choir which is dying off due to old age. MSNBC may beat FOX OPINION Net in the evening daypart, but their audience is younger & will be ad targets for decades. With FALSE OPINION, they lose more of their pre-WWII/Korean War audience.

It's plain to see that Representative Smith's "Media Fairness Caucus" is yet another attempt to play the refs from the political right. By constantly claiming bias against them, they hope to tilt coverage in their favor. This may be an effective strategy, but it is dishonest.

Media coverage must be based on experience and facts, and Representative Smith never called for *that*. He simply wants more coverage for his ideology, regardless of merit, basis in fact, or reality. He also never calls for, for example, Rush Limbaugh to give equal time for rebuttal.

**Clearly, there’s no media bias at OTM. **

Sometimes I don't even think they try. I think they have decided that media analysis has become *about* OTM and the host....their opinions, their understanding of the "bad guys", etc., etc.

The collective "eye roll" over Fox News on OTM every time it is brought up...as opposed to trying to understand why it is so popular. (I guess the multitudes that view it are just not as smart as you New York Liberals?)

Brook seems to give some semblance of balance, but Garfield doesn't realize that the things he criticizes the Right for...are just as wrong whent he Left does them. If Limbaugh is a blowhard...then so is Olberman who does the same thing, albrit with a Liberal bent.

It IS possible to do media analysis without taking and promoting political partsanship. (Somehow, media analysis has turned into partisanship...I'm not sure how.)

I get the message.

The hosts go after the republican, Westin, for his complaints of a liberal media bias. You make fun of the Bush administration for their avoidance of the term torture. You go after Bill O’Reilly for ambush interviews. Then you give a pass to 60 minutes because their cause was good. There’s no mention that torture may be effective. And there’s no challenge of the opinions or actions at all for Alicia Shephard or John Cook (other than a criticism that Cook wasn’t good at what you think is sleazy).

Clearly, there’s no media bias at OTM.

BTW, I’m against torture and think that’s the right word for waterboarding. I’m for single payer health care. And I didn’t vote for Bush or McCain. But I’d also like to see some journalistic integrity on NPR. I’m a bit of a dreamer.

Calm down everybody. This is what the party out of power does...threaten filibusters, complain about bias and the unfair (unamerican) tactics of the other party. The only reason this is raising anyone's hackles is that the Republicans were so abusive and one-sided when they were in power. Now the shoes is on the other foot, they're using the same tactics they decried in the Democrats just a year ago. It may be obvius and tacky, but it is not surprising.

Brooke, how could you not have asked Smith about the Fairness Doctrine?

Isn't Rep. Lamar Smith calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine? -- something that no one in the Obama administration is doing.

If he is not, can he explain how his call differs from the Fairness Doctrine?

Chris Gray,
Regarding Representative Ryan's interview he was answering the question, but rudely interrupted in a way that ABC did not challenge the President's assertions of his policy aims. All politicians should be given the same opportunity to say what public policy they prefer. It is the basis of an open society, not hogging the mike.

OTM seems to switch, within segments in general and this segment in particular between discussing an event and an issue in a way that disadvantages those that disagree with OTM's agenda. Changing the goal posts in such a fashion suggests a journalistic approach more in line with the operation of a House Organ and not a media watch dog enterprise.

A fairness caucus from 1 side of The Hill's aisles? The GOP continues to whine that they don't get the respect (or was it fear) that they had when W was POTUS. Now that they don't even follow Pollster Luntz's suggestions which also now fall on more skeptical ears, they have become their own parody. If they can't be respected for backing "fiscal responsibility" after GWB's $1.3 T in high-income tax cuts, GWB's giving away WJC's budget surplus + $3 T plus + 4500 US lives + lifetime VA care for many vets, they just get flustered.

They are self-destructing so well by themselves that I want to encourage the media to leave them alone. It's time to let dig their own hole deeper.

Thanks for another great show.

Well then those Republicans should go to FOX news and have their own healthcare reform meeting. Problem there is they have no--NO--program to offer. I'm sure they can come up with a one-pager as they did for the economy but where has that gone? Down the toilet which seems to be where republicans hang out these days.

This reminds me of the intimidation campaign by Nicolas Sarkozy's media bulldog, Frédéric Lefebvre, because Agence France Presse used its journalistic discretion in deciding which of the myriad press releases attacking Socialist Ségolène Royale it woud distribute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/europe/12iht-afp.4.12817824.html

BTW: Is there a link to Lamar Smith's criticism of President Bush's "town hall" events and their carefully screened guest lists?

Rep. Smith has been in Congress for over 10 years; a question about his interpretation of media bias over that entire period would have been appropriate given his sudden(!?) concern about journalistic ethics.

Perhaps health-care-reform is simply a hot-button topic for Rep. Smith that affects his impartiality; as a Christian Scientist, his ideas of appropriate heath-care coverage and funding are probably not receiving much attention.

Let us see if I can interpret. Ryan tried to hog the mike and make a sidewinder of a speech but the interviewer interupted to remind him that he or she gets to ask questions. Her job definition, it appears. Obama, meanwhile, in what little of it that my tv operated for, I saw seemed to suffer the little children.

And the complaint is that you aired what, his side's complaints... not about the issue but the event? Is that because they have a great case? You would think, at least, the commenter to address the issue. (Wouldn't want my agreement with Barack to make me take advantage and promote what he has "unfairly" promoted so effectively.)

Note to David Weston, Members of Congress that disagree with the President were elected too. No wonder ABC's coverage of The United States Congress is so poor and one sided.

While Representative Paul Ryan's interview on ABC the morning after was a great case against the President he got cut off by the interviewer three times in as many minutes, while the President got cut off in the same fashion zero time in sixty minutes. Hardly fair coverage of an legislative issue. Isn't it telling that OTM jumps right into the coverage of an event when the coverage of the issue is so one sided. No worries they will slip back into covering issues instead of events as soon as it suits their ideological preference.

Nah! Congratulations for withholding laughter this time, people. (I'd say, "folks", but you did a segment about that being denigrating, somehow!)

Publicizing this this phony outrage by spending a segment on it was simply disgraceful. The only "bias" here is the unwillingness of Republicans like Rep. Smith to acknowledge that Barack Obama is the *President of the United States*, and not simply a representative of the other party. That role entitles him to present his agenda to the American people.

There are true media watchdogs who point out improper behavior regardless of who it benefits. The sole purpose of groups like Rep. Smith's is to pressure media outlets into continuing to bend over backwards to present conservative viewpoints, an effect that was well in evidence in ABC's presentation. Shame on NPR for supporting that effort.

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas seems to me to be just a tad bit disingenuous in his complaints about ABC. Where is his outrage about Fox News’ 24/7 right wing propaganda machine? Could it be that his Media Fairness Caucus is just one more effort by the Republicans to provide conservative goof balls with a sense of righteousness?

Greetings,

WOW! Is Lamar Smith actually a Republican or has he gone completely rouge on the right wing's equal time stance? As far as I can ascertain, starting with Reagan, equal time for the "other side" has been buried in a vault somewhere in the vicinity of one of Dick Cheney's undisclosed locations. Convenience thy name is, "WE LOST." As the wheels come off of the Republican "No-Mobile" it will be interesting to see how many 180 degree they can execute...so to speak.
-ld

Haha, what a joke.

The claim of liberal media bias is a con performed on the American public.

The hypocrisy is simply galling. We've had to listen for 8+ years for Faux (sic) News who idolized every piece of propaganda GWB/the GOP had to share, misrepresenting the facts and now you're crying foul?

Might I refer Rep. Smith and OTM listeners to http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel (feel free to review the archives for 00-08) or the site as a whole.