Media Bias confirmed...

[Guest StSE]

In 2005, the New York Times wrote an article which bashed Bush for spending a WHOPPING $40million (All coming from private donors) for his second swearing in ceremony. They, and many other national news outlets, raised hell about the opulence of this outlandish sum spent in the middle of ONE war. (Remember, economy was 'fine and growing' in 2005)

Ok, flash forward to the 2009 swearing in ceremony. This one's cost is estimated at $160million (public funds - AND - a true record breaker.) In fact, President Bush has declared a 'state of emergency' in order to allow the federal government to release those funds for this use. (Never been done in the history of the US) Right now, we're in the middle of TWO wars and Severe recession which is teetering on a total economic collapse.

But yet, outside of a news report I found from Britain, there's no PEEP of the same outrage for this outlandish expendature from those media outlets that gave the Republicans hell in 2005. In fact, all I've seen is glowing compliments by the press for this swearing in ceremony.

So if you're a Democrat - give us the reason that it was TERRIBLE for Bush to spend $40million (private donations) during a good economy - but GREAT for Obama to spend $160million (public funds) during a severe recession...

[DemonGoddess]

I think wasting public funding is a bad idea no matter WHO it is that does it, and regardless of party and/or political affiliation.

There IS no defending that kind of waste.

[Keith Inc.]

My, that is some biased reporting. Yours, not the medias.

You're comparing private monies spent (i would assume on the parties but no breakdown is given), implying that no federal funds were spent on Bush's Inauguration at all?

Compared to federal spending this year, implying that no private funds are being spent by Obama's camp at all, again with no breakdowns?

I think it's likely you're comparing apples and flatirons.

You have to know that at least some federal funds are spent each and every four years. For one example, for the Secret Service's extra efforts to secure and maintain security at any and all parties the pres may attend. And lining the streets for the motorcades. Crowd control. Overtime and extras and a few people flown in from Cleavland, maybe.

So maybe THAT cost should be compared to the 140 million, first of all? Any numbers on the federal funds spent in 2005, 2001?

Plus, I'd say that the parties this year are going to make the last ten inauguration's look like rained out events. Many, many people are real excited about Obama and not because he's a democrat. More than a few would be just as excited if Powell had won on a Republican ticket. I wouldn't be surprised if the private donors monies being spent on the parties exceeds both of Bush's inaugurations put together. But maybe not. It's hard to be concerned, though, as you pretend this number doesn't exist either.

So there will be a lot of parties, with a lot of high-profile people, many of whom would be very tempting targets for the increased terrorist threat that Bush and Co. have been getting so much mileage off of. More parties than most DC security forces are probably budgeted for. So maybe the $140M is being spent on renting metal detectors, barricades, hiring private security, overtime of federal, state and city security officers, and billeting for the army units being brought into the area for the day?

Maybe?

As i said, a breakdown would be nice.

Comparing budgets for equivalent matters is the only way to go forward on outrage, here.

[DarkInuLord]

I'm still shocked that nobody realizes Obama is no better than Bush.

Then again, people thought Bush was fine for the first four years, just look, he served two terms as president.

[Guest StSE]

Here's the article on Obama. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...soars-110m.html

Here's a CNN article. But still - no one's complaining? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/ina....tag/index.html

A Washington Times article, compares/contrasts w/Bush. Again, no complaining?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...ared-emergency/

Here's an article from 2008 which mentions the 'cap' on federal funds for inauguration (which was later conveniently bypassed by the 'state of emergency' thing) as well as the true total of $40m for the 2005 inauguration: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/n...n-cost-for-bus/

One of the Articles about Bush's. - cost $11.5m to reimberse the city.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/inaugu...ng_of_steel.htm

Another one bashing the cost of the 2005 inauguration, and mentioning what it SHOULD be spent on.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...on_inauguration

Here's another article which goes into specific amounts for the 2005 inauguration, but also grumbles about the 'extravegance' in the time of war. (Oh crap! We're in two wars now! Where are these grumblers now?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822858/

Another article which compares Bush's cost with Clinton's, and gives explicit 'security' costs. As well as listing 'griping' from different sources. Funny thing, they actually admitted that Bush was in line with average inflation of amounts spent under Clinton. But unless inflation has been 400% since 2005, Obama's far exceeds inflation and 'normal'. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/j...9-103531-1062r/

My primary point is this: Just LOOK at all the american sources I found for grumblings over Bush's inaugural cost. But I had to go OVERSEAS to find even ONE grumbling about Obama! And his is four times as much!

Media Bias is real...

[Keith Inc.]

Here's the article on Obama.

which mentions a money amount and not what it is being spent on.

Here's a CNN article. But still - no one's complaining?

I'm not sure what there is to complain on. It's the city trying to cover the city's responsibilities for the police requirements. Same as they'd do if it was a GOP inauguration, and there was this much jubilation planned.

A Washington Times article, compares/contrasts w/Bush. Again, no complaining?

"Preliminary planning for the inauguration had not taken into account the likelihood of unprecedented crowds, now expected to run as high as 1.5 million to 2 million people, Mr. Stanzel said. " What, exactly, makes this a media bias in that they're not complaining about people doing their jobs? Are you just jealous that Bush didn't have this many people dancing in the streets?

Here's an article from 2008 which mentions the 'cap' on federal funds for inauguration (which was later conveniently bypassed by the 'state of emergency' thing) as well as the true total of $40m for the 2005 inauguration:

That's what i've been saying. The party was 40 million, the security was 17.3. Based upon the expected number of guests, they're estimating the city's requirements for security this year. They're doubling the 15 million dollars the city gets for crowd control.

Bush crowds: 300,000 people, 17.3 million dollars, about 60 dollars per guest.

Obama crowds: 1.5 to 2 million people, 30 million dollars, about 15 to 20 dollars per guest.

Media bias is a poor substitute for math skills.

[Guest StSE]

"Bush crowds: 300,000 people, 17.3 million dollars, about 60 dollars per guest.

Obama crowds: 1.5 to 2 million people, 30 million dollars, about 15 to 20 dollars per guest.

Media bias is a poor substitute for math skills."

What about reading skills? In two articles it stated that the city was asking for $50m and Maryland was also asking for a significant amount. THAT's why the state of emergency was declared in order to release what they were asking for. (and next month we'll most likely learn that it was even more that we had to reimberse) Perhaps Bush is prepaying for his own pardon - if they do bring him up on criminal charges? Giving Obama a favor for a favor.

BTW, Also in an article it was mentioned that the Johnson Inauguration was attended by 1.2 million people. Yet take what was spent on Johnson's, multiply by 2.5% yearly inflation. And it's still far LESS than Obama's.

[Keith Inc.]

"Bush crowds: 300,000 people, 17.3 million dollars, about 60 dollars per guest.

Obama crowds: 1.5 to 2 million people, 30 million dollars, about 15 to 20 dollars per guest.

Media bias is a poor substitute for math skills."

What about reading skills? In two articles it stated that the city was asking for $50m and Maryland was also asking for a significant amount. THAT's why the state of emergency was declared in order to release what they were asking for.

Yes, but the bigger point is that you have to compare similar things. Throwing big numbers out without a break down of what's being spent on what is just meaningless.

It is possible to isolate their specific request for an additional 15 mil, and what they're spending it on, and compare that to the 17 mil spent four years ago. It's not an outrageous request considering the increase in crowd sizes.

If you can make any other comparisons wiht specific amounts, that might help your case. And maybe actually demonstrate some sort of media cover up. I mean, it just looks acceptable tome, and all you've shown is that numbers are big.

BTW, Also in an article it was mentioned that the Johnson Inauguration was attended by 1.2 million people. Yet take what was spent on Johnson's, multiply by 2.5% yearly inflation. And it's still far LESS than Obama's.

But that's only inflation. How much more expensive is security going to be, now that Bush's made 'the terrorist threat' so big?

[Guest StSE]

If you can make any other comparisons wiht specific amounts, that might help your case. And maybe actually demonstrate some sort of media cover up. I mean, it just looks acceptable tome, and all you've shown is that numbers are big.

Actually, this entire thread has gotten sidetracked by you. Explain why there isn't media bias shown, when the media states that Bush's inaugural costs were outrageous, excessive and of poor taste during wartime (but 'good' economy)... But the same media makes no negative comments towards Barrack's inaugural costs during two wars and a deep recession? To me, that shows bias, plain and simple.

[Keith Inc.]

Actually, this entire thread has gotten sidetracked by you. Explain why there isn't media bias shown, when the media states that Bush's inaugural costs were outrageous, excessive and of poor taste during wartime (but 'good' economy)... But the same media makes no negative comments towards Barrack's inaugural costs during two wars and a deep recession? To me, that shows bias, plain and simple.

Of course it shows bias to you. You're already convinced of the bias. Proving the premise of your argument is not the acme of skill in logical argument.

But the cost per expected person in the crowd this year is less than was spent on Bush's inauguration, so what is there to complain about, really? That many more people want to be a participant in this historic event, and the city/state/federal forces are dedicated to keeping them safe from the terrorists that Bush's administration has created and/or invented?

Sounds like something a 'liberal' media would be absolutely crowing about. That Barrack's more popular or that Bush has made it so dangerous...

[foeofthelance]

I'm not sure what there is to complain on. It's the city trying to cover the city's responsibilities for the police requirements. Same as they'd do if it was a GOP inauguration, and there was this much jubilation planned.

Honestly then, they probably should have spent some more. I can see why the media isn't complaining. I got caught in those crowds, trying to get to the mall. There were stretches as long as 20 minutes were the crowds were just still, because there was no way to move in any direction. The DCPD wasn't any help at all; I never got the same story twice any time I asked for help or directions. The only ones who seemed competent were the National Guardsmen who were holding the checkpoints. They had at least an idea of what was going on, mostly because they were sticking to a zero tolerance policy when it came to moving the crowds. The crowds didn't move until they said so, and only where they said to go.

Now, admittedly there is plenty of evidence out there for media bias, but this isn't it. The attitudes and presentations of articles has more to do with a display of media bias than anything else. This article is probably a better example:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media...-UCLA-6664.aspx

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

The original UCLA report shows up on the second page of google as a document file.

Or this article:

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/jesse.shapir...search/bias.pdf

The reasons can differ based on whether the beliefs are being written into the story for the customer's benefit, or to advance the agenda of the reporter, but it exists.

[Psychostorm]

I'm still shocked that nobody realizes Obama is no better than Bush.

Then again, people thought Bush was fine for the first four years, just look, he served two terms as president.

Jesus fucking Christ, Obama has been in office for only a few days now and you say he's no better than Bush? WOW THAT IS SOME MAJOR BIAS THERE!!!!!

I'm not a huge Obama fan but give the fucker a chance. Or just keep letting Rush and O'Reilly tell you what to think, I don't give a fuck.

[greenwizard]

Jesus fucking Christ, Obama has been in office for only a few days now and you say he's no better than Bush? WOW THAT IS SOME MAJOR BIAS THERE!!!!!

I'm not a huge Obama fan but give the fucker a chance. Or just keep letting Rush and O'Reilly tell you what to think, I don't give a fuck.

Um yeah.... Gotta love how people are all over Obama because everything wasn't magically fixed in a week. The man is only human people and everything is a huge clusterfuck. And I also love how Congress rolled over for Bush and gave him anything he wanted, but they are fighting Obama every step of the way. They refuse to accept any new concepts because gee... the old ones were just working so well....

[Psychostorm]

Um yeah.... Gotta love how people are all over Obama because everything wasn't magically fixed in a week. The man is only human people and everything is a huge clusterfuck. And I also love how Congress rolled over for Bush and gave him anything he wanted, but they are fighting Obama every step of the way. They refuse to accept any new concepts because gee... the old ones were just working so well....

Yeah, the Republitards aren't trying to fuck him every chance they get, big surprise. But I am dissapointed in Obama for trying to sway them and shit instead of just being like "fuck this, we're doing it my way". He must be pretty naive if he thinks he can be bypartisan, that's bullshit, the Republicunts aren't going to play ball, just look at how the House voted on the stimulus package(not a single Republican't voted for it) despite all the "courting" Obama did with them.

Also I am VERY FUCKING dissapointed with the Democrates in general. They had a chance to lock up the Senate but BLEW IT becuase that one Dem govenor apponted a Republifuck instead of a Democrate. WTF!? That was one for the history books kids, way to fuck your own party man you dumb shit.

[sumeragichan]

The media is largely ran by some very liberal-inclined people on the political scale. Of course they are biased as all get out. ^-^;; Try being a libertarian or some other third party supporter who would like a more moderate view in politics reflective of their own tastes.... You are a terrorist and just unpatriotic according to some media sources. Sad isn't it?