Spend five minutes in a room with a Republican and you are sure to hear an earful about how biased the media is. Stay another minute and you’ll hear how that bias lost the election for their favorite candidate. Of course, no one can explain how Ronald Reagan won (it was his sheer brilliance no doubt) or how George W. Bush managed to squeaked out two election victories (Karl Rove is one helluva a frickin’ genius, haven’t you heard?). Yep, that’s the pat response. If a Republican wins it’s because somebody somewhere with a GOP lapel pin and a gold cuff link was a mental giant. The GOP guy loses and the media ganged up on him. Republicans are such whiny crybabies!

Well, here’s a video of Shephard Smith defending the media - pretty cool, huh?

Oh, but it’s not just Republicans who claim media bias either. It’s the pollsters!

Evidently, there are a handful of really savvy researchers out there who have gone through the trouble of looking at news stories to see how many showed Barack Obama in a positive light versus how many were kind of John McCain. And if you listen to these jokers, they’ll tell you that the truth is in the facts. Only it isn’t. It’s more in how you interpret them, and I’m with these guys on that one.

Just remember: The next time some Republican or faux genius says that their guy lost because the media beat up on them, tell them that voters don’t vote for a guy just because newspapers and TV commentators say good things about them. Voters make up their minds based on what they see and in the Internet age when people are capable of looking for their own information at the drop of a hat, that’s not too hard to do. The media doesn’t lose elections. It reports the results of them.

If you’re tired of talk radio then maybe you’d be more interested in the online version of talk radio. It seems to be much less partisan and has broader applications. Plus, it’s more targeted and less controlled by media executives.

I’m discussing this today because I will be interviewed this afternoon on the online radio show “SEO Radio”, hosted by Chris McElroy. The subject we will explore in this interview is 4 Ways To Make Money Online Without A Website.

I love this topic because I’ve been studying various Internet marketing techniques since 2001. There are many more ways to make money online than just 4 and more than 4 ways to make money online without a website, but I’m going to focus on 4 ways today - and the don’t include eBay or affiliate marketing. There are 4 other ways that I will discuss.

If you can make the 3 p.m. EST for Chris’s online radio show then be there. This will be a great show. If you can’t make it then listen to the archives later. The live show will allow you to call in your questions and leave questions on the forum board as the show airs. Click the link below to join us at 3 p.m. EST today to learn 4 ways to make money online without a website.

Listen to talk radio for very long and you’ll hear two very divisive partisans taking up half the day’s airwave space - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

You’ll know Sean Hannity from the Fox News program “Hannity and Colmes”, which also features the token liberal Alan Colmes. Now I’m not your average run-of-the-mill liberal. I classify myself as a classical liberal, or libertarian as some people would say it. But I try to shun anything that is blatantly ridiculous and these two radio personalities are about as ridiculous as it gets. Sean Hannity is even worse, in some respects, as Rush Limbaugh. Still, I was listening to Rush around lunch time so this post is about Rush.

Rush Limbaugh likes to harp on Barack Obama’s alleged socialism. I must admit, the black man’s policies are a bit too far to the left for me. But the thing that gets me about Rush Limbaugh - and Sean Hannity - is their discussion of those policies as if they are something new. This country has been sliding in the direction of socialism for the better part of the 20th century, beginning with that stalwart Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Each successive administration, with a few exceptions, has taken us further down that road.

Even the “strict constructionist” George W. Bush has implemented socialistic policies, albeit most of them were done to benefit the wealthy. Socialism is fine for Rush Limbaugh as long as it benefits the wealthy, but let it benefit someone else and the world will collapse.

As I’ve said, I’m not a socialist and Obama’s policies are a bit too far to the left for me, but I find it extremely hypocritical and a bit asinine that Rush Limbaugh and his conservative friends keep discussing Obama’s policies as if they are something new when both Republicans and Democrats have increasingly empowered the state throughout the 20th century and the current administration has grown government to a larger extent than any other president since FDR and Lyndon Johnson. If Obama wins this election it will be the Republicans’ fault, and that includes G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.

Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue what the First Amendment means. In her mind the Amendment was written to protect politicians running for office, government employees, and high profile public servants from the criticism of news and media organizations. And I thought it was to protect individual citizens from the abuses of authority by government agents who might try to censor them.

According to ABC News, Palin made the remark in an interview that reporters criticizing her criticizing Obama were infringing upon her Constitutional right to criticize. Here’s a snippet:

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

So the Constitution is there to protect elected officials from media criticism. That’s your (potentially) future vice president speaking.

I love Salon.com’s analysis.

Oh, and just in case you think Salon.com, ABC News, and I have colluded to make this up, here’s the audio. You can hear it straight from the moose’s mouth.

Do you really want to vote for somebody that belligerent?

Twitter is not just a social application for bloggers and SEOs. It’s also a news delivery tool for savvy media organizations.

The list of news organizations using Twitter as a way to update readers and viewers is astounding. In 140 characters or less, the news agency sends out a quick “tweet” with a link to the actual story. Other Twitterers then can retweet it and send it out to their friends. It’s the online equivalent to the neighborhood “over-the-fence” grapevine.

During the vice presidential and presidential debates, Cable TV channel Current has partnered with Twitter to allow Twitterers to “hack the debate.” Thousands of people from all over the world commented on the debates as it was going on. The messages were then transferred to the TV screen so that people watching the debate on Current could read them all. I actually found a few new people to follow that way.

The way people deliver and read about the news today has changed. No longer is Walter Cronkite, or his disciples, the most trusted man in America. In fact, the most trusted man in America may very well be the Twit next door.

I mean, this is just plain stupid. Rush Limbaugh and caller to his show virtually tickle each other’s pickle. Of course, they’re brain beat by the fact that a black guy won the Democratic ticket, and I think they’re afraid he might actually win. So what do they do? They slobber all over themselves.

Hey, I have a novel idea. Rush, how about some meat to those thoughts?

I predict there will be a day when most of what you read in the mainstream press will come from a blog or somewhere else on the Internet.

Some people will read that prediction and say, “They already are”. Some will say, “Duh. I knew that”. And other people will say, “This guy is out of his mind. That will never happen”.

Some people call it Blogging. Some call it the New Media. Some call it Citizen Journalism. But anyone who doesn’t think of blogging as legitimate journalism is in for a rude awakening.

Blogs Influence Journalists, Nearly all Facets of News Coverage

Blogs are not only having an impact on the speed and availability of news but also influencing the tone and editorial direction of reporting, according to a survey of US journalists by Brodeur, a unit of Omnicom Group.

New media (social media and blogs) are having an impact on many aspects of reporting, particularly the speed and availability of news, Brodeur said.

Newspaper fell behind tv news because newspapers can’t bring you up-to-the minute news. TV news will fall behind or already has fallen behind the New Media, Blogs, because they can’t get the news any faster than bloggers can and journalists don’t get it as fast in many instances.

Another thing to point out is that there are a lot of bloggers who go much further in depth on a story and are more dogged in tracking down sources than journalists are. Bloggers don’t have a publisher with an agenda. Bloggers don’t have a marketing department that tells them the type of stories they need on the front page to sell newspapers.

Citizen Journalism critics say that bloggers are not as reliable as reporters. That’s bunk. It has been a very very long time since journalists who work for newspapers and TV stations were reliable sources for news.

From NYTimes reporters who plagiarized stories to those journalists who President Bush paid to write favorable stories about his No Child Left Behind education policies, journalists in the mainstream press have repeatedly shown they are no more reliable than the average joe who writes a news blog.

Now all newspapers and TV news shows are seen as far left or far right by people. Fox news is seen as far right and CNN as far left. In talk radio you have the al franken’s VS the rush limbaughs.

So the news we get on radio, TV, and newspapers is not unbiased, fair, or balanced as all of these claim they are. Add that to the fact they are owned by mega news corporations that have their own political, social, and marketing agendas and you cannot possibly be still under the impression that the mainstream media is more reliable than citizen journalists who write blogs.

Yes blogs can be slanted far left or far right as well. Usually they are much more open about that though. Fox news claims to be fair and balanced and claims they are not far right, while Redstate.org states right in their rules for posting on the site, “The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals.”

Citizen Journalism is much more honest and straightforward about their intent than mainstream media. Mainstream Media has a bunch of lawyers, stock analysts, marketing people, and others who judge a story’s value not on how valuable that news is to the public, but how it might imact their advertisers, their stock prices, and whether or not it might get them sued.

The biggest impact of blogs is in the speed and availability of news.

Over half also said that blogs were having a significant impact on the “tone” (61.8%) and “editorial direction” (51.1%) of news reporting.

“While only a small percentage of journalists feel that blogs are helpful in generating sources or exclusives, they do see blogs as particularly useful in helping them better understand the context of a story, a new story angle, or a new story idea,” said Jerry Johnson, head of strategic planning at Brodeur, during the “Taking the Blogosphere Seriously” seminar at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

With some mainstream journalists it has already happened. With others it will happen. They will be at a point where before they write a story or run a story in the mainstream press, they will check the blogs first to see how the public might react to that story or to get new ideas and angles for that story.

Many people who have been blogging a long time have always predicted this to happen. Now it is happening.

The Rest of The Story on journalists and bloggers here

NEW YORK (CNN) — MSNBC and CBS Radio are suspending Don Imus for two weeks after the host described the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos,” the networks announced Monday.

The suspensions start April 16, and MSNBC’s “future relationship” with Imus depends on “his ability to live up to his word,” according to a statement from NBC News. MSNBC simulcasts a television version of Imus’ radio show.

Don Imus has been saying stupid things for more than 20 years. Now all of a sudden people like the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to suspend him. Some people want him fired. If I was an executive at MSNBC and CBS, I would ask just what kind of advertising clout these two have with my media company. Do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson advertise? Even if they don’t, they likely do influence the opinions of advertisers and that can be even more dangerous.

The problem with this suspension is it doesn’t do justice to the real issue. Imus has been offending people for as long as he’s been on the air. No one has given it a whole lot of attention until now. All those years of silence must mean something to the race baiters.

Sharpton, Jackson and all the other racist hunters have a right to their opinions. They even have a right to try and influence the personnel policies of the companies that give voice to Imus and people like him. But rational-thinking people should ask these men some tough questions themselves - questions like, “Why are you making a big deal about this?”

(more…)