TOPIC: US Open - Day 4: Commercials, I'm Already Sick of Them!
There is plenty of sports and player related coverage of the US Open. I won't try to duplicate or surpass the excellence of those articles or blogs here. However, the US Open is one of my two favorite tennis tournaments each year. Therefore, the family TV is tuned to USA Network or CBS for most of the two weeks that encompass the US Open.
To that end, my comments today concern the commercials shown during the tourney. Even though it's only Day Four, I'm already sick of the repetitive nature of the television ads. If the US Open is going to have only 4-6 major sponsors, those companies should be required to have a variety of ads available for airing.
So far, I have seen American Express rep John McEnroe hug Claus Ullott more times than Barney the dinosaur ever hugged the kids in his entourage. And, the worst commercial of all, Andy Roddick chasing a tennis ball in a silver Lexus, has been shown so often that the stupid tunage is now stuck in my head. ARGH! Almost as overdone are the two IBM Bladecenter commercials -- heat and cables. The funny thing about those two ads are that 95% of the people watching them have NO CLUE why heat and cables are a bain to I.T.'s existence. So, who exactly is IBM selling to? -- not normal tennis fans, not the sports jock, not the average housewife who's sitting at home during the middle of the day. DUMB!
Then, there's the Aviva commercials -- that have no real message except, "Trust us." Billy May is more convincing. Lastly, Serena Williams' overdone it's all-about-me fest for HP. As if her ego isn't big enough, we have to endure repeated ads showing her celebrate herself -- including that huge booty she thinks is all that. OY-VAY!

TOPIC: Election 2008 - Fair & Balanced Coverage?

Don't hold your breath! The Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC), along with their socialist cousins (MSNBC and CNN) will be banging the drums loud and hard for liberal candidates. What ever happened to the days of Walter Cronkite -- the days when the news was reported without editorializing, without the evening anchor controlling 100% of the content and without bias that smells as bad as Michael Moore's armpits?
BTW, if you're a very left-leaning person, the cartoon above shows a caricature of Mr. Moore leaning to the left. You may not be able to see that as the drawing may look like Moore is "straight up". LOL!

Addendum: 5.10.07: U.S. Launches Probe of Moore's Trip to Cuba

TOPIC: Liberal Bias in the Media -- PROVEN
I'm not a big John Gibson fan, but his latest My Word notes something The Sope-Bocks has been saying since Day One (post regarding this bias are here, this one and one other). Here is the transcript from Gibson's MyWord:

"I have long thought the mainstream media is decidedly left wing. Now there's proof. The Center for Media and Public Affairs did an accounting of the network newscasts from September 5 thru October 22 and found an overwhelming liberal bias. On the "Big Three" network newscasts, the audit showed a clear jihad against the Republican Party. Only 12 percent of election stories that aired on NBC, ABC, or CBS could be regarded as remotely "favorable" to Republicans.
In contrast, as The Washington Times put it this morning, "Democrats basked in glory." The study showed that 77 percent of news accounts in the six-week period offered favorable evaluations of Democratic candidates and lawmakers. Robert Lichter, director of the CMPA, said: "The numbers are pretty striking. The coverage has become a referendum on Republican leadership."The killer stat from this study: Midterm elections in 2002 warranted only 35 stories from the "Big Three." Midterms in 2006 got 167 stories, and 77 percent were pro-Democrat.
Now, we've known for many years that reporters, editors and news executives are overwhelmingly liberal or Democrat. There really isn't much point debating that anymore. But what's changed here — this time around — is the willingness to come out of the closet. Instead of just tilting left in the story while pretending to be objective, the mask is now off.
The mainstream media, typified by the "Big Three," is rooting for the Democrats to win, and slant coverage to make it happen. They want to make sure the conservative argument is shouted down, buried and made entirely disreputable. They do it with coverage: story selection, interview selection, sound bite selection and snarky scripts, and lead the viewers to their network conclusions that were set in stone at the 9:00 a.m. meeting.
These are people who think so little of their own vaunted tradition of objectivity that they are willing to throw it all away just to see their favorites win an election. And why is that? It all comes down to Bush. It all comes down to the huge number of elites in this country who think it is their duty to bring the Bush era to an end, to bury it, and marginalize anyone who says Bush was really right all along.
Stand by. More of this is coming, especially if the Democrats win and they get subpoena power. This is what they have been living for.
That's My Word." -- John Gibson

What EVERYONE needs to key on from the transcript is this: "The mainstream media, typified by the "Big Three," is rooting for the Democrats to win, and slant coverage to make it happen. They want to make sure the conservative argument is shouted down, buried and made entirely disreputable." Bernard Goldberg was an award winning reporter for CBS -- and has written a book about the left leaning bias of the mainstream media. It's a very good read for anyone questioning the validity of bias claims.
This morning, Jennifer Harper, of The Washington Times, penned an article regarding the same study. Here are a couple of good quotes:

• CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric (aka Katie Communist), for example, said yesterday that 2006 would prove a "wave election, where public dissatisfaction changes the political environment" and "incumbents are washed away."

• On NBC, Brian Williams led a report from Ohio with the phrase, "Could this red state end up going blue?"

• ABC News' Jake Tapper also showcased Ohio voters, saying they showed "an extra layer of disillusion with the Republican Party."

Like negative campaign ads, negative news reports may have a destructive rebound effect on a fickle viewing public. "For the past week, the mainstream media has run story after story about the nastiness of this year's campaign ads -- perhaps as a way to distract our attention from their own dirty tricks," observed Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online yesterday.
"Viewers can get sick of negative TV coverage. They consistently rate the news coverage as one of the worst parts of a campaign, specifically citing negative content," Robert Lichter (Director of the CMPA) said.