The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

Seriously.

Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

Seriously.

Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?

---

The story reads like much of the extra cost is due to the vastly larger number of people and the necessary extra security and other costs.

GWB had about 500,000 at his 2004 inauguration. Clinton had 800,000 at his first. LBJ holds the current record at 1.2 million.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nathanm

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

Seriously.

Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?

---

The story reads like much of the extra cost is due to the vastly larger number of people and the necessary extra security and other costs.

GWB had about 500,000 at his 2004 inauguration. Clinton had 800,000 at his first. LBJ holds the current record at 1.2 million.

---

I read it that way as well. Still, though, that's a butt load of money for what is a one minute swearing in ceremony.

It's part of the "stimulus package."  [:P]

Really, even in this crappy times we need to cut loose.  I don't fault the scale, I just hope there isn't anything overly grand (aka, gold plated ice sculptures at the balls, etc.).  Remember, this is also our official presentation of our new leader to the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911


I read it that way as well. Still, though, that's a butt load of money for what is a one minute swearing in ceremony.

---

It does certainly look like a lot of money. That said, apparently a lot of folks want to go see the inauguration in person. I don't think we should tell them no. It's their money, too.

So what do you propose?  Tell people they cannot come?

By the way, that amount is way out of line with most predictions.  So far, Congress has appropriated $30 million to DC, and it is expected to cost nearly $50 million, not "100 million pounds" (which would be substantially more than $100 million).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/inauguration.price.tag/index.html

None of that takes into account the amount of money generated by the inauguration.  Given the amount of money restaurants, hotels, bars etc.... will make, I imagine that DC, VA, & MD will end up ahead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

So what do you propose?  Tell people they cannot come?

By the way, that amount is way out of line with most predictions.  So far, Congress has appropriated $30 million to DC, and it is expected to cost nearly $50 million, not "100 million pounds" (which would be substantially more than $100 million).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/inauguration.price.tag/index.html

None of that takes into account the amount of money generated by the inauguration.  Given the amount of money restaurants, hotels, bars etc.... will make, I imagine that DC, VA, & MD will end up ahead.

---

I am not proposing anything, just pointing out that are tax dollars might be better spent on other things than a party. I get it, you do not agree.

As far as the money it will generate in those areas around DC, good for them. How will that benefit us Okies that pay taxes? Also, why not address the other point I made, that being the media's double standard re: spending on the inaugeral? I am sure the DC area benefited from those that went to W's inaugural, but they still complained about W's extravagance.

Here is an example of the media's hypocrisy or double standard:

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050117.asp#1

I see a difference between what is a necessary expenditure and what is a private function.  I haven't seen any figures on what is being spent on private functions for the Obama inauguration.  Given the current economic situation, I would agree that it is a bit inappropriate for people to be throwing ultra-gluttonous parties.  But, those are private affairs, and I have no control over what they do.  

But for the expense that will be spent based simply on the number of people who choose to show up to participate in this public function, I simply don't see how you can control that.  People have a right to attend.  DC has a need to have police to provide protection.  I never expected W to call off his inauguration, and I certainly don't expect Obama to do so either.

As for media bias....whatever.  I hear some scream that the media is biased to the right, some that scream the media is biased to the left.  Is the media consistent?  Of course not.  Get your news from a variety of sources, and quit complaining.

The most expensive inaugeration in history?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost

PM:  Who do you hear claim that the media is biased to the right?  Anyway, what does that have to do with my point. I know, knowing. Changing the subject I guess is an effective way to bail out on a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

The most expensive inaugeration in history?

---

The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

Seriously.

Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?

---

It's spelled "inauguration," counselor.

Sheesh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nathanm

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

The most expensive inaugeration in history?

---

The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout.

---

They actually found out that the trasportation infrastructure wasn't anywhere close to capable of bringing in the "millions" inititally claimed to be heading to DC.  They only have approx. 200,000 seats for the event.  I'm willing to bet cold weather is going to change people's plans.

I can see the interest factor, etc. but it's not going to be as big as the media first led everyone to believe.  My guess?  1.5mm.  I believe first numbers a few weeks ago were 5mm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by nathanm

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

The most expensive inaugeration in history?

---

The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout.

---

They actually found out that the trasportation infrastructure wasn't anywhere close to capable of bringing in the "millions" inititally claimed to be heading to DC.  They only have approx. 200,000 seats for the event.  I'm willing to bet cold weather is going to change people's plans.

I can see the interest factor, etc. but it's not going to be as big as the media first led everyone to believe.  My guess?  1.5mm.  I believe first numbers a few weeks ago were 5mm.

---

That sounds like a pretty good guess. I just checked the NWS forecast for Tuesday, and it's going to be 35 and sunny ... not too bad for January, really.

However, there's a 60 percent chance of snow the day before. Nasty weather might prevent a lot of people from even getting into town.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588


However, there's a 60 percent chance of snow the day before. Nasty weather might prevent a lot of people from even getting into town.

---

It depends on how much snow. Most of the country does not nearly shut down any time there's more than a light dusting of snow like we do here.

As far as turnout goes, yes, the estimates were revised downwards to around 2 million. That's still 800,000 more than the previous record, which is also about the number that turned out for Clinton's 1992 inauguration, IIRC.

Who cares.  Let them eat cake!  Last thing we need to do is act like that bunch of liberal whiners that moaned and groaned about president Bush spending 10 million on his inauguration.

It's a momentous time.  Allow them to treat it as such.  Obama is flamboyant.  From redesigning the presidential seal before he was even elected, to rebuilding the Pantheon for a speech, to creating the "Office of President Elect" complete with seal, podium and blue curtains, before he was even officially the "President Elect".

He's the first president we've had from the "ME" generation and he likes to show it.  He realizes that his constituency doesn't really even understand the difference between 20 million and 100 million, and the flashing lights and pretty colors will burn into their minds far more effectively than any bad press he may receive from it.  This will be more of a rock concert than an inauguration.

Let Obama be Obama. God bless him.  I love the fact that other countries will see this and understand that even in tough times we're willing to be powerfully optimistic and extravagant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

The most expensive inaugeration in history?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost

PM:  Who do you hear claim that the media is biased to the right?  Anyway, what does that have to do with my point. I know, knowing. Changing the subject I guess is an effective way to bail out on a point.

---

Guido--you need to get out more.  If you haven't heard that the media is biased to the right, you haven't turned off Fox news.  Your statement is equivalent to Kael's comment "no one I know voted for Nixon" in '72.

As for the cite to the Guardian (one of the most biased papers you could find), they are distorting their numbers.  Bush's inaugural festivities was $42 million, excluding the cost spent by the Federal Government & DC for security, etc....  Estimates of that amount is around $115 million (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html"), putting the total for the Bush inauguration at roughly the same amount as Obama's.

I know that it's very frustrating to confuse facts with the fun of bashing the president.  Try expanding your news sources.

Hey Guido,  why are you being such a "Sad Alice"?   If you look at the dates, the Republican party has run the White House for 28 of the last 40 years, the Democrats have only been in office for 12 years during that time.  The Republican party has had over twice the amount of time of the Democratic party to achieve their goals.  With no direction for a home, nothing can be achieved.

FWIW:

Most peer reviewed studies show a leftist media biased.  UCLA did the most recent full scale study and found that almost "all major media outlets tilt to the left."  Of the 20 national media outlets studied, 18 tilted to the left - with FoxNews and the Washington Times scoring to the right.  NPR, The Wall Street Journal, and everything else you can think of were leftist.

The study compiled bias statistics over the last 10 years (1995 - 2005) to reach its conclusions.  It studied the NEWS content, not editorial or entertainment pieces.  For example, the editorial board of the WSJ was very conservative and the Washington post very liberal - but that did not necessarily reflect in the NEWS coverage.  Likewise, Sean Hannity is not a NEWS SHOW on Fox just like Prairie Home companion is not a news show on NPR.

Anyway, this isn't the only study to find a left tilt to media coverage.  I have not found a peer review study that lays out the RIGHT WING theory yet.  And it should be noted the study does not allege some sort of conspiracy, not that people are sitting around finding ways to make the left look good.  

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

^^^That study was so incredibly flawed, I am amazed that it still gets cited.

Putting aside that the study was funded by such organizations as the Heritage foundation, the methodology simply makes no sense.  Here is how the "rated" a news organization.  If a news organization cited to a "liberal" think tank more frequently, it received a higher "liberal" score.  To determine whether a think tank was "liberal" or "conservative", they looked to members of congress.  Each member of congress is given a rating by the Americans for Democratic Action.  If a liberal member of congress cited frequently to a think tank, that think tank was deemed to be liberal.  Same with conservative.

That methodology resulted in some pretty bizarre classifications.  ACLU was deemed conservative.  NRA was considered only slightly conservative.

To presume that if A cites B and C cites B then A and C have the same idealogy simply defies logic.

I did get this information from MediaMatters, obviously a very liberal media outlet.  But if this truly is the methodology used to determine media bias, I think ANYONE could see what a bogus study it is.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

I am well aware of the methodology and readily admit some of its flaws.  However, the fact that the "funding" allegations and other critiques are commonly addressed and as commonly WRONG goes to show that many people are interested in supporting their contentions instead of interested in the study:

quote:

---

We also owe gratitude to UCLA, University of Missouri, Stanford University, and the University of Chicago.  These universities paid our salaries, funded our research assistants, and paid for services such as Lexis-Nexis, which were necessary for our data collection.  No other organization or person helped to fund this research project.

---

ENTIRELY UNIVERSITY FUNDED.  UCLA and Standford are very liberal schools.  Missouri and U Chicago are fairly centrist.  To argue that the academics involved with the study and/or the funding source is right leaning is certainly not accurate.  Furthermore, the methodology of the study is geared to removing the subjective portion of analysis.

What makes the study has merit is that it is a PEER REVIEWED study.  It is attempting to be objective and formulated a methodology to achieve that end.  The abstract lists the studies own flaws and discusses them at GREAT length, particularly in a section entitled "Potential Biases" just before the halfway point.  

quote:

---

While most of these averages closely agree with the conventional wisdom, two cases seem somewhat anomalous.  The first is the ACLU.  The average score of legislators citing it was 49.8.  Later, we shall provide reasons why it makes sense to define the political center at 50.1.  This suggests that the ACLU, if anything is a  right-leaning organization.  The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often.  In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold.  If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9.   Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.

The second apparent anomaly is the RAND Corporation, which has a fairly liberal average score, 60.4.  We mentioned this finding to some employees of RAND, who told us they were not surprised.  While RAND strives to be middle-of-the-road ideologically, the more conservative scholars at RAND tend to work on military studies, while the more liberal scholars tend to work on domestic studies.  Because the military studies are sometimes classified and often more technocratic than the domestic studies, the media and members of Congress tend to cite the domestic studies disproportionately.  As a consequence, RAND appears liberal when judged by these citations.  It is important to note that this fact—that the research at RAND is more conservative than the numbers in Table 1 suggest—will not bias our results.  To see this, think of RAND as two think tanks: RAND I, the left-leaning think tank which produces the research that the media and members of Congress tend to cite, and RAND II, the conservative think tank which produces the research that they tend not to cite.  Our results exclude RAND II from the analysis.  This causes no more bias than excluding any other think tank that is rarely cited in Congress or the media.

---

Per your NRA suggestion - the NRA was found to have a 5% right wing bias, for perspective Amnesty International had a 7% left win bias. Given that gun rights are a strong issue for many Democrats as well as Republicans, this stands to reason.  The perception of a group is what this study is attempting to avoid, it is assigning value based on what the group's studies are being used for.  

This study did not set out to prove anything.  It critiques itself by finding what appear to be anomalies and attempting to rectify any error in data.  The core problem is trying to remove the subjective nature of the labels from the study.  

I get my information from "A Measure of Media Bias" a peer reviewed and published study on media bias.  I submit that my source is not biased, that it is a primary source and probably more accurate than an admittedly  biased source discussing the primary source in the third person.  While I admit that the methodology is not perfect and can only draw a correlation, it is the best study I have been able to find to objectively classify media outlets.

If X is a think tank specializing in lobbying for a conservative agenda, and Y is a Senator pushing a conservative agenda and Z cites to X... it stands to reason that Z is more likely than not to be supporting a conservative position.    It is not a fact, but it is a correlation.  And that is the best we can do when attempting to assign an objective value to a subjective notion.


The actual study can be found here:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Please feel free to disagree with the study, but do so with accurate information.  The funding prospect

Though I wasn't relying on the funding as a reasoning for the study being biased, I'll admit that I did mistype--the study didn't receive the funding from Heritage foundation, although the authors of the study have received funding from such organizations in the past, and have written for conservative papers.

While I understand the logic of wanting to remove the subjectivity of labels from determination, I don't see that removing it one step does this.  First, you label a congress member as either liberal or conservative based upon a subjective criteria.  Then you deduce that a think tank cited by a congress member is liberal or conservative and assert that that is more objective.  It is simply more flawed.  Is the ACLU conservative or liberal?  That is a subjective opinion.  Determining whether a media outlet that cites to the ACLU is liberal or conservative is another subjective opinion, once removed.  Basically, all the study has shown is that certain think tanks are cited more frequently.  Dow Jones, parent company of WSJ, said this about the study:

quote:

---

The research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details.

First, its measure of media bias consists entirely of counting the number of mentions of, or quotes from, various think tanks that the researchers determine to be ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative.’ By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views, which is obviously not the case. And if a think tank is explicitly labeled ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ within a story to provide context to readers, that example doesn’t count at all. The researchers simply threw out such mentions.

Second, the universe of think tanks and policy groups in the study hardly covers the universe of institutions with which Wall Street Journal reporters come into contact. What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesn’t include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition, but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Moreover, the ranking the study gives to some of the groups on the list is simply bizarre. How seriously are we to take a system that ranks the American Civil Liberties Union slightly to the right of center, and that ranks the RAND Corp. as more liberal than Amnesty International? Indeed, the more frequently a media outlet quotes the ACLU in this study, the more conservative its alleged bias.”

---

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2005/12/21/publiceye/entry1151591.shtml

I also find fault with the exclusion of commentary versus actual news.  That makes sense when you look at papers like the Wall Street Journal.  I agree that the WSJ news department is good.  You can read that, ignore the editorials, and have a good sense of what is happening in the world.  But FOX news is different.  They may have ten minutes of news (which may be accurate), followed by 50 minutes of conservative commentary.  To compare, All Things Considered might have 55 minutes of news, followed by a couple of minutes of liberal commentary (like Daniel Shore).  To put Fox news on par with NPR as both being "objective" is not right.  The person who watches Fox will see the news filtered through the constant commentary; the person who listens to NPR will not.

IMO, it is impossible to determine whether the media is liberal or conservative, because you cannot remove subjectivity from that discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk

 The person who watches Fox will see the news filtered through the constant commentary; the person who listens to NPR will not.

IMO, it is impossible to determine whether the media is liberal or conservative, because you cannot remove subjectivity from that discussion.

---

Anyone who listens to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, Prairie Home Companion, or even Car Talk will be able to ascertain that the personalities involved there are pretty liberal.  The reporters and correspondence for NPR are all very liberal in their personal affairs.  The question is does the other content or personal views spill over into news content.  I do think NPR does a reasonable job of being unbiased in their reporting and count myself as a regular listener (740 at home in the AM, NPR in the car... should balance out).

Likewise, the NEWS and the commentary are different in Fox.  I grant you that the commentary, including banter during the news segments, makes it clear that the station is conservative.  I'm not arguing that Fox is a liberal station by any means. I am merely pointing out that the NEWS they report is not statistically biased.

Also, I confess that the study ultimately relies on a subject conservative/liberal rating - even that rating has a basis in objective voting records.

Basically, it is the best study that has been conducted.  An extreme amount of research went into it.  A detailed abstract.  A meticulous methodology.  Again, it is simply the most comprehensive study that has been conducted.

quote:

---

although the authors of the study have received funding from such organizations in the past, and have written for conservative papers.

---

The primary author was Tim Groseclose.  He has a PhD from Stanford and has taught at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech in addition to his current position at UCLA.  I don't see Heritage Foundation listed among his many publication (most are peer reviewed academic journals). Not exactly a resume for a conservative pundit.  

There are a couple dozen other people given credit in the article... I did not look up each of them.  But again, you hint at the notion that this report is biased based on the author.  I urge you to read the study - disagree with the result if you will but using their parameters they have no control over the outcome.  Hence, the need to discuss anomalies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joiei

Hey Guido,  why are you being such a "Sad Alice"?   If you look at the dates, the Republican party has run the White House for 28 of the last 40 years, the Democrats have only been in office for 12 years during that time.  The Republican party has had over twice the amount of time of the Democratic party to achieve their goals.  With no direction for a home, nothing can be achieved.

---

You are changing the subject. The issue in this thread is the millions and millions of dollars the government is spending for this inaugeration while umemployment is over 7%, hoe foreclosures are at an alarming rate, and this country is looking at a trillion dollar deficit. How are we as a country responding, by spending taxpayer money to finance a swearing-in ceremony. If you are okay with that, fine.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7698

Even determining voting records is subjective--how do you determine whether a vote is "liberal" or "conservative"?  Was McCain-Feingold bill a liberal or conservative bill?  You say that "it stands to reason" that there is a correlation between citing to X and having a similar agenda as X.  But where is the empirical evidence to prove that?  How do we know that "liberal" congressmen are more likely to cite to "liberal" think tanks?  And how does citing to a "liberal" think tank prove that the media is liberal?  The study does not account for the multiple other variables that might enter the equation.  What if they are citing to it in a bad light?  Or what if the think tank takes various different positions?  

(If you want a good critique of the very proposition that citation by a liberal to a think tank means that the think tank is liberal, look at Liberman's, professor at Univ. of Penn., discussion here:  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002723.html)

As an example, based upon the study's data, Joe Lieberman is considered liberal (which I disagree with).  If Joe Lieberman were to cite to the Anti-defamation League, that league would get a liberal rating, which it probably should.  But the ADL also is a staunch defender of Israel.  If Foxnews cited the ADL in discussing Israel, Foxnews gets viewed as liberal.  To be worth anything, a scientific paper cannot base its entire foundation on a theory that is not a fact, but simply something that might be true.

Just because something is "comprehensive" doesn't mean it has any merit. As for the authors, I had read that one was a Hoover Institute fellow, and both were Salvatori fellows at the Heritage Foundation.  Again, that is not the reason I discredit the study.

I have read parts of the study; have you?  If you have, you might have noticed the inconsistencies in the length of time that different organizations were studied.  For example, WSJ was only studies for 4 months, while NPR was studied for 11 years.

There have been many, many reports on media bias, and all have their own bias.  In the end, I think the economic theories of media bias make the most sense.  Fox news has a conservative slant because its audience is conservative and wants their viewpoint validated.  If you want to determine the bias of the media, look to the audience to whom it caters.

The media has a right wing bias.  Hey, graduate students and scholars bookmark this authoritative post.  Hometown has noticed a distinct right wing bias in the chickens*** media.

That might be shifting ever so slightly to the left one of these days.

Hey, just wanted to point out that whoever is doing Obama's public relations must have studied under a master because I haven't seen propaganda like this since the last time I looked at WWII newsreels from Hitler's public events.

Of course that is where the comparison stops.

Obama's team definitely knows how to milk a public event for everything it is worth.

I'm not suprised the costs are adding up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk


There have been many, many reports on media bias, and all have their own bias.  In the end, I think the economic theories of media bias make the most sense.

---

You do realize the study we are arguing about was published in the The Quarterly Journal of Economics?  Not really to the point, but it made me chuckle.  

I have stated my case for the above study.  It is simply the best study I have ever seen on the subject.  Cite other peer reviewed studies and I'll be happy to look them over.    The study itself answers most of the questions/concerns you have posed and since you have read it in great detail I have no need to repeat them here.

Sry to hijack the thread... promise to stay on topic.
[;)]

To roll this back onto topic, it seems that Gweeds facts are a little muddy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1

Read that and whose 'inaugeration' cost how much?

It would seem that $150 million is not equal to the $45 million raised by the incoming President.

Compare that to $42.3 million spent by Dubya on his last 'inaugeration'.

The $150 million number also factors in how much it costs for things like portajohns, security and the like, all of which were needed in 2005 as well.

What do you expect when you cite a UK tabloid?

Sorry Gweed, couldn't sleep and couldn't help myself.

[:O]

Forget the presidential seal. Now they have redesigned the US flag.

(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/oflag.jpg)

I thought there were laws against this?

US Flag Code: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaspar

Forget the presidential seal. Now they have redesigned the US flag.

(http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/oflag.jpg)

I thought there were laws against this?

US Flag Code: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

---

Flag alteration?  I'd argue that she's not holding an american flag.  Just a banner with similar designs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaspar

Forget the presidential seal. Now they have redesigned the US flag.

I thought there were laws against this?

US Flag Code: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”

---

Laws against this??  Not any constitutional ones.  The right to decorate or even burn the flag is protected under the First Amendment.  Supreme Court settled that long ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:

---

Originally posted by pmcalk


There have been many, many reports on media bias, and all have their own bias.  In the end, I think the economic theories of media bias make the most sense.

---

You do realize the study we are arguing about was published in the The Quarterly Journal of Economics?  Not really to the point, but it made me chuckle.  

I have stated my case for the above study.  It is simply the best study I have ever seen on the subject.  Cite other peer reviewed studies and I'll be happy to look them over.    The study itself answers most of the questions/concerns you have posed and since you have read it in great detail I have no need to repeat them here.

Sry to hijack the thread... promise to stay on topic.
[;)]

---

Didn't say I read it in detail.  It's pretty dull.  Not to beat a dead horse, but no, the study does not answer any of my concerns.  It doesn't answer the very basic premise of why their conclusion is valid.  If their conclusion were "many media sources cite to the same think tanks as congressional members who are deemed liberal," then I would say it's a valid report.

If you are really interested, I could start another thread on media bias studies, but I think we highjacked this thread enough.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:

---

Originally posted by guido911

In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html

Seriously.

Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?

---

It's spelled "inauguration," counselor.

Sheesh.

---

Wow. Pointing out a spelling error. You're really reaching. How's that spoon fest with Obama working out for ya?