"The left and its mouth piece the liberal media..." [Archive]

Goofball

09-08-2005, 22:25

Byzantine Prince

09-08-2005, 22:30

Do you actually expect a serious responce for this?

The "liberal media" is a buzzword or phrase that is often used by the neocon extremists to make it seem like they are oppressed. It's part of their apeal. They are so "smart" and "extreme" for us to understand. Instead they talk about how the uncovering of their corruptions are part of a scheme that the left has devised to destroy them.

Csargo

09-08-2005, 22:36

Its all Propaganda my friends Propaganda.

~:cheers:

PanzerJaeger

09-08-2005, 22:38

Have you ever seen Frontline back in the days of Moyers? How about the life and times of Dan Rather. All the way from "The Guns of August" where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda Memogate where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda.

If not, Bernard Goldberg's first book was a pretty good expose on the MSM. I wouldnt reccomend any of his other books though, he seems to have lost his touch since that one.. he has gotten a lot older though.

You are right in a sense though. From the 70s to the early 90s the news was very heavily biased towards the left, but these days its more of a fair fight..

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news, so stations such as MSNBC and others have tried to diversify a bit recently. Of course there are the elitist holdouts from the Watergate era, but they are quickly dying out.

9/11 also had a lot to do with some of the recent purging of the ultra leftists in some forms of the MSM. Nobody has the stomach anymore for the "Blame America First" crowd.

I, and apparently a majority of Americans, like the media to give America the benefit of the doubt. After years of living in the shadow of the Vietnam era, the media seems to have figured that out.. hence the little pins they where everyday.(The one Bill Moyers refused to where. ~D )

Goofball

09-08-2005, 22:58

Have you ever seen Frontline back in the days of Moyers? How about the life and times of Dan Rather. All the way from "The Guns of August" where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda Memogate where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda.

IIRC (and I could be wrong) it seemed that Rather wasn't so much falsifying info as he was accepting false info as fact without making any effort to verify it. And while you believe that his motive was to push a left wing agenda, I believe that his motivation was simpler (and much more egotistical) than you give him credit for: Dan Rather wanted to enhance his own reputation and add to the Dan rather personality cult/myth. Nothing more.

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news, so stations such as MSNBC and others have tried to diversify a bit recently. Of course there are the elitist holdouts from the Watergate era, but they are quickly dying out.

I'm not trying to take a shot here PJ, but I find it comical that you (and other conservatives) actually buy into the FOX's self-claim of being "balanced." They are extremely right-wing, and take very few pains to hide it. But you know what? I don't think that means they are part of any conspiracy to try to support the right wing agenda.

As with Rather, I think FOX's motives are much more base. I'll tell you why FOX takes a right wing slant: some MBA read the mood of the country correctly and observed that nationalism, hawkishness, and "right-wingishness" in general are what Americans want to see right now. Since that is what people want, that is what FOX (and to some extent, the other networks) gives them. It's simply a question of wanting to produce a product that people will buy, not trying to push a political agenda.

Tribesman

09-08-2005, 23:00

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news,
Balance ????Fox news ~D ~D ~D
Since when has any of Murdochs many media outlets shown anything even slightly resembling balance ?

JAG

09-08-2005, 23:09

It does amaze me, Fox one day suddenly comes up with the phrase 'fair and balanced' - wow what an idea eh? - then puts it all over their screen as they broadcast and suddenly they are not an extremely right wing corporation - just one of the many right wing media outlets owned by Murdoch - but a 'fair' and 'balanced' one.

Yet you still think that it is the right that sees the reality and the right that doesn't buy into media BS?

Redleg

09-08-2005, 23:09

If one only watches the Television News programs - one is only reviewing part - and I mean a very small part of the news that is out there.

The broadcast media sells to an audience - so therefor Goofball is correct - they give their audience exactly what they are wanting. Be it the truth or a version of the truth that will ensure that the willing consumer continues to tune in to their channel so that the adds will continue to sell - therefor lining the pockets of everyone involved with cold hard cash.

It is up to the individual to read multiple sources to get to a "balanced" view of events. If one refuses to read and view the multiple sources that are available for any one story - one's viewpoint becomes skewed toward the biased inherent in that source of information.

For the most part I rarely watch television newscasts unless it is for local traffic and weather reports. I rather read multiple sites on the internet with key word searches to get information - and attempt to come to an understanding of what is going on from multiple information sources.

Now my own baised views sometimes interfer with my ability to grasp the truth of what is being report - but you can normally find the problems and opinions express in the news if one does not relay on only one source for information.

Is there a slant in the American Broadcast news - indeed there is - however has Goofball has correctly pointed out - its toward what will insure ratings for the network or news agency. And it periodically shifts between the politicial spectrums that are in the United States. The exact same thing can be said for any for profit news outlet across the globe.

Thomas Jefferson's quote in my Signature applies even more to television news then it did to the newspapers of his day.

Xiahou

09-08-2005, 23:14

Balance ????Fox news ~D ~D ~D
Since when has any of Murdochs many media outlets shown anything even slightly resembling balance ?I think it's funny whenever a conservative mentions Fox, the usual suspects always come out to bash them... ~D

If media leans left, and a right leaning network comes on the scene- then yes, that is "a little more balance". I really don't think he said FoxNews was "fair and balanced"

On topic, for my part, it's tough just to march out all of the news stories that are pushing an agenda- it's not like I mark down every one that I see. But, as I see them, I'll link some of them here. In the meantime Goof, I'd suggest you watch any Whitehouse press briefing if you really want to see the wolves closing in for the kill. ~D

Here's 1 story, to get us started, that's in the headlines that I personally feel is ridiculous.
FEMA accused of Censorship (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050907/ts_nm/censorship_dc_2)

Goofball

09-08-2005, 23:23

On topic, for my part, it's tough just to march out all of the news stories that are pushing an agenda- it's not like I mark down every one that I see. But, as I see them, I'll link some of them here. In the meantime Goof, I'd suggest you watch any Whitehouse press briefing if you really want to see the wolves closing in for the kill. ~D

So is it your position then that if a Democrat was in the Whitehouse the press briefings would be nothing more than love-ins with softball questions aimed at making the President look good?

Do you really think the press are only "closing in for the kill" because it happens to be a Republican in office?

Tribesman

09-08-2005, 23:24

I really don't think he said FoxNews was "fair and balanced"
But Fox does , it also has that dickhead who says "No Spin" ~D

PanzerJaeger

09-08-2005, 23:36

Goofball

09-08-2005, 23:48

Well youve got your opinion and Ive got mine Goof.

And we all know that opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one, and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks...
~:cheers:

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 23:52

Well youve got your opinion and Ive got mine Goof.

As long as were trying to get to the bottom of the whole bias issue, can anyone give some quick examples of Fox's bias? Im sure there are plenty of them..

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1187

http://www.psqonline.org/cgi-bin/99_article.cgi?byear=2003&bmonth=winter&a=02free&format=view

Some interesting facts from the above study done by Political Science Quarterly:

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". In the aggregate, 52% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.

33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.

35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favour the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.

Odd that a "fair and balanced" network with unbiased news coverage should have that effect on viewers, isn't it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33008-2005Mar14?language=printer

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found, among other things, that in covering the Iraq War in 2004, 73% of Fox News stories included editorial opinions, compared to 29% on MSNBC and 2% on CNN. The same report found Fox less likely than CNN to present multiple points of view.

And so on...

Devastatin Dave

09-08-2005, 23:56

Aenlic

09-08-2005, 23:59

That's odd. When you consider that Roger Ailes, who one might consider one of the guiding "minds" behind Fox News, used to work for NBC. Was he a liberal when he worked for NBC? The act of Murdoch hiring him to work for Fox suddenly converted him, like a bolt of lightning from the sky, into a conservative? He had some kind of epiphany during a conference call with Murdoch? Please explain. Enlighten us.

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 00:03

Really? I get my news from CNN, and so does everyone I know.
No, the majority of Americans still get their news from the big three.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-09-2005, 00:09

Really? I get my news from CNN, and so does everyone I know.

Well then you and your friends must be the only ones watching it as its ratings cant even compete with radio. Anyway CNN is the clinton news network. Its as biased and therfore the low ratings amd credibilitystream media.

67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization". In the aggregate, 52% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.

I still believe he was working with AQ. Not because of FOX but because of numerous articles on the topic.

33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". In the aggregate, 23% of all respondants who got their news primarily from a single news network held this belief.

Well they did.

By the way this report has been debunked numerous times.

So is it your position then that if a Democrat was in the Whitehouse the press briefings would be nothing more than love-ins with softball questions aimed at making the President look good?

Do you really think the press are only "closing in for the kill" because it happens to be a Republican in office?

It may not be his but it sure is mine. The mainstream press was on Clontons side during the Monica affair just like the rest of you lefties. They made no bnes about his war in Kosovo. Even today the fact that billions of dollars went to NO and LA during his administration that were supposed to be used to improve the levees went elswhere is unmentioned. Can you imagine if Bush got caught getting a hummer in the Whitehouse what the press would do to him?

Uver the last few months theve tried to make Bush lppk bad from Cindy Sheehan to this debacle in NO and yet the American people now reject what they have to say most of the time idf the polls are to be believed. They no longer have a monopoly on the news. The truth will prevail and they dont have it.

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 00:25

The press also gave Clinton a pass on the first world trade center bombings, the Oklahoma City bombings, the embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco, not to mention now we have to explain to grade school kids about blow jobs. What a legacy. All the press does is carry the water for the Democratic party. Most papers endorsed Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000. But liberals will never understand this because they only believe in freedom of the press if its pushing their agenda, freedom of speech when its voicing their agenda, and tolerance only if its perversed and detrimental to a moral society. Thank God the left will continue to be their own worst enemy...
Man it feels good to take the gloves off once again. Up yours' hippies!!! ~D

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 00:25

No, the majority of Americans still get their news from the big three.

Not that I would pit your statement against a Christian web site; but just so I won't be accused of being unfair and unbalanced:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/112001c.asp

According to this Christian web site in a 2001 article, a Pew Center report showed that as far back as 2001, only 30% of people in the U.S. got their news from the "big three" networks' news. That isn't quite "the majority of Americans" is it? Hmmm, perhaps the numbers have gone up since 2001 for network news viewership! Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not really.

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 00:27

I still believe he was working with AQ. Not because of FOX but because of numerous articles on the topic.Even the 9/11 Commission said that much.

I honestly don't have a very clear memory of the White House press corps during the Clinton era- so I couldn't say whether they fawned on him or not. I am pretty sure they were much more respectful and much less argumentative though.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 00:27

By the way this report has been debunked numerous times.

Debunked by Fox News? Debunked by Rush Limbaugh? Would that be on oxycontin or in withdrawal from oxycontin? Debunked by whom, exactly? ~:)

Goofball

09-09-2005, 00:31

Let me see if I can explain this plain enough for our idiot neighbors north of the US to understand. The Majority of Americans get their news, not from cable (FOX,CNN, or MSNBC), but from ABC, NBC, and ABC. And if you believe that the big three do not have a left leaning element to it, then the New York Times is a newspaper that only prints the facts and gives Bush a pass on everything.

Disregarding the "idiot neighbors to the north" comment for the moment, are you going to provide your evidence that the media are baised to the left, or can we expect nothing of more credibility than your opinion on the matter?

Anyway CNN is the clinton news network. Its as biased and therfore the low ratings amd credibilitystream media.

Again, do we have to rely on your assertion for this, or can you actually back up your opinion with evidence &/or examples?

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 00:33

Gawain, I could say some very unpleasant things right now. Not wanting to get a warning from the mods, however, I will simply say this: it is the closemindedness in the American culture that will be our downfall. That goes for the Democrats, Republicans, and all the other Righties out there. (Yes, I am calling the Democrats righties, because they are to the right of my political spectrum. Just as you Righties are saying that the news, when it was not balanced on your political spectrum, was left-oriented.)

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 00:36

A great deal of FOX coverage is what most of us would consider "Talk Radio" format, with a far right tilt. Their news reports are filled with editorial comments. Sometimes it reminds me of watching chickens trying to pick a few kernels out of big stinking piles of manure. (I remember writing a paper lamenting editorial comments on newscasts when I was in 8th grade...something like 25 years ago. At that time they were few and far between by comparison.)

Yes, it is a Rupert Murdoch company, which makes it hilarious to claim they are "fair and balanced."

FOX did an excellent job picking up on the rightward shift in U.S. politics and they cater to it nearly exclusively. Never doubt the masses desire to delude themselves with entertainment masquerading as news. FOX "news" is more about creating an alternate reality, than reporting the existing one. In the first few days Shep was in New Orleans he was trying to tell people who were staying in residences to go to the Superdome...and couldn't understand why they weren't going. It was obvious to me that they were far better off staying wherever they had water and shelter of their own. Later on Shep understood, and began asking where was all the promised help. Now FOX has to try to reprogram him again...

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 00:38

Disregarding the "idiot neighbors to the north" comment for the moment, are you going to provide your evidence that the media are baised to the left, or can we expect nothing of more credibility than your opinion on the matter?

Again, do we have to rely on your assertion for this, or can you actually back up your opinion with evidence &/or examples?

Just as much credibility as any of your assinine opinions here over the past few years. Besides I thought you and the other libs in here were pissing and moaning about to maky posted articles? You don't ever consider your wrong so why should I have to go into some long drawn out explaination when all your going to do is ignore it or redicule it. So go google "media bias" and read yourself. And I'll continue to post whatever the #### I want like you do all the time, hypocrite...

AntiochusIII

09-09-2005, 00:39

Well, meatwad, I myself is currently disgusted by some of the things going on (that better be left unsaid to avoid pointless bickerings and warning points) and is trying to refrain from arguing (or flaming) with anyone about things around Katrina for sometime now, with quite some success, apart from a few remarks. I suggest you do the same as well. :bow:

Regards.

Angry remarks does not enlighten the minds of those who are in the dark.

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 00:43

Antiochus, you have a point. But sometimes I just have to vent.

Redleg

09-09-2005, 00:44

LOL - what a side show this is turning into.

Here is a bit of an update to my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote.

The man who neither views nor listens to the broadcast news networks is better informed of events then the man who only watches broadcast news networks.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 00:50

I've found the Christian Science Monitor, oddly enough, to be the most unbiased source, both online and in print. It tends to just present the facts without too much editorializing. It isn't perfect; but it's less filled with the slant of the day than the typical so-called "liberal" or "fair and balanced" media. ~;)

Goofball

09-09-2005, 00:51

Just as much credibility as any of your assinine opinions here over the past few years. Besides I thought you and the other libs in here were pissing and moaning about to maky posted articles? You don't ever consider your wrong so why should I have to go into some long drawn out explaination when all your going to do is ignore it or redicule it. So go google "media bias" and read yourself. And I'll continue to post whatever the #### I want like you do all the time, hypocrite...

So, let me sum up your input into this thread so far, just to make sure we're clear:

1) You won't post articles as proof because liberals don't want you to;

2) you don't want to provide evidence because I will never admit I'm wrong;

3) the media is baised to the left because you say so;

4) Canadians are idiots;

5) because of point 4, I would not understand the depth and complexity of your arguments even if you were to make them;

6) my opinions are assinine (sic) just because you say so;

7) I'm a hypocrite, again, just because you say so;

8) hippies can shove it all up their arses.

Okay, I think we're clear.

Thanks for your contribution, Dave.

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 00:56

So, let me sum up your input into this thread so far, just to make sure we're clear:

1) You won't post articles as proof because liberals don't want you to;

2) you don't want to provide evidence because I will never admit I'm wrong;

3) the media is baised to the left because you say so;

4) Canadians are idiots;

5) because of point 4, I would not understand the depth and complexity of your arguments even if you were to make them;

6) my opinions are assinine (sic) just because you say so;

7) I'm a hypocrite, again, just because you say so;

8) hippies can shove it all up their arses.

Okay, I think we're clear.

Thanks for your contribution, Dave.

You're welcome, my contirbution is about equal to the amount of intellectual contribution you've ever provided. I know, lets blame Bush, that's easier...

Tribesman

09-09-2005, 00:59

I still believe he was working with AQ.
Yes Gawain and you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well :dizzy2:

Not because of FOX but because of numerous articles on the topic.
Yes and your multitude of cut and paste pieces show exactly what sort of "articles" you get the information from ~D ~D ~D Still basing their claims on long disproven allegations .

Even the 9/11 Commission said that much.
Did they really , based on what ? ~;)

So go google "media bias" and read yourself.
Thats really funny Dave , not long ago in another topic about media bias someone with a tanklike name posted links to show just how bad the "liberal bias" was of a certain broadcaster , yet obviously didn't bother to read the links and ended up with a load of articles complaining about the conservative bias of that broadcaster .
So be careful what you Google for ~D

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 01:01

Somebody please lock this thread. It's just going to become a slugfest- hell, it is one already.

Tribesman

09-09-2005, 01:13

"LOCKED"

oops that didn't seem to work meatwad ~:cheers:

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 01:15

Somebody please lock this thread. It's just going to become a slugfest- hell, it is one already.

Who cares, its always a slugfest. I tried with some positive threads and attempted to moderate my views, but why the hell should I? Why should I even budge when others could give a tinkers damn about your opinion? I say to hell with civility and let us feast on the bloody remains of the innocent and grease the treads of out tanks with the guts of the defencless!!! Burn, burn in the fiery pits of hell!!! GAH!!!!!!!! :charge:

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 01:16

"LOCKED"

oops that didn't seem to work meatwad ~:cheers:

Funny... it always works for the mods...

Let me try:

L O C K E D

Nope. Nothing.

By the way, Redleg- I love your Teddy Roosevelt quote. He's my favorite president. ~:cheers:

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 01:18

Burn, burn in the fiery pits of hell!!! GAH!!!!!!!! :charge:

Not you personnaly meatwad, just the thread. Hope you didn't think I was meaning you, sorry if you did...

back to the rant...

BURN!!!! :furious3:

AntiochusIII

09-09-2005, 01:19

"LOCKED"It doesn't take God to lock a thread, just a moderator.

And you're not one, Tribesman. ~;)

I can't believe how good you'd feel when you become a weakling in a perfect sense, though: try being pacifist and optimist in this thread. Oh, and a man of humour.

It will be a hilarious thread to read. ~:)

BTW, meatwad, I'm sincerely pleased you decide to follow my advice. I often vent my anger - and badly at that, but when there're so much to vent on that you (as in "me") sometimes just shut up and sit back just so to enjoy the flow of the world. Though no need for calling for a locking of a thread instead, though. A flame war is a fun-for-all affair save for those who moderate and administer. ~;)

Jeez, I'm getting poetic. :help:

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 01:21

Uh... Dave... you're scaring me, Dave... :uhoh2:

PanzerJaeger

09-09-2005, 01:23

Back on topic, Goofball, here is a conservative site that deals with the liberal media bias.

They clearly state they are conservative, but their articles are pretty factual. Read into it how you like.

Media Research Center (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

Heres a large site that deals with it directly. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Liberal Bias (http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/)

Here's another site that deals with it. Again, the source is questionable(some random woman apparently ~:eek: ), but it seems to be factual.

Some random woman's documentation of liberal bias in the media. (http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html)

Heres a good article about it.

Folks know what Liberal Media Bias is. Even those who deny it have to know what the rest of us are talking about. Anybody can read it between the lines, see it on CBS (also ABC and NBC), hear it on NPR, and almost feel it, it's so thick at times. Like an oil slick over the news, L.M.B. permeates American journalism's elite.

But defining Liberal Media Bias isn't easy. Because its very purpose is to be slippery, hard to pin down, indefinable. At its most effective, L.M.B. isn't even noticeable. It's supposed to come naturally, even automatically. Indeed, that's the object of the game: to present opinion as news, bias as fact, so smoothly that nobody is aware of the subtle switch.

As with George Orwell's newspeak, the function of L.M.B. isn't just to condition thought; it's to make any other thoughts unthinkable. Or at least unfashionable.

L.M.B. may be hard to pinpoint but, as a justice of the United States Supreme Court once said about pornography, you know it when you see it. Or hear it. Or read it. At least you should if you've got the slightest ear for language. It can even be a kind of spectator sport. Sometimes you almost want to cheer, its sleights of mind are executed so smoothly at times.

At other times, you just groan. I take the precaution, on hearing the first groaner on an NPR newscast, of switching to the classical music station. I owe Linda Wertheimer alone a debt of immense gratitude for guiding me to some of the most beautiful symphonies in the Western canon.

But although evidence of Liberal Media Bias abounds, there's never been any proof that it's part of a conscious pattern, a deliberate decision, something ordered from above. Till now.

Because now, thanks to some public-spirited leaker at ABC, we have the full text of an internal memo from its political director, Mark Halperin, to his minions. It's dated Friday, Oct. 8, 2004, and it makes perfectly clear whose side ABC "News" is going to be on in this presidential election:

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave.

I do not want to set off (an) endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

To summarize: Yes, our candidate may falsify now and then, but the other guy's falsity is at the center of his campaign. This memo might as well be a declaration of political war on ABC's part. It's what every true believer thinks in the heat of an election season. But it's unusual for a supposed unbiased newsman to think so. Or rather say so. In writing.

Liberal Media Bias isn't just a feeling anymore; it's a documented plan. Case closed. With a full confession.

And if you honestly can't hear the prejudice in ABC's memo, try switching the names of the candidates around and it'll come through loud and clear. Unless, of course, you really do believe one presidential candidate is basically a good guy and the other is evil personified.

The bias behind much of the news Americans are fed isn't exactly a surprise. But at least when you're listening to right-wing talk radio, you know you're listening to right-wing talk radio. And when you're watching Fox News, you can be confident it's fair and balanced in favor of the right.

It's the pretense of objectivity at the old established networks that offends, or should. Now it lies shattered.

What's surprising about this memo isn't ABC's Liberal Media Bias, but that someone at the top would be dumb enough to put it in writing.

How can anybody take ABC's election coverage seriously after this? This memo makes even CBS' fake-but-accurate coverage, phony documents and all, sound semi-honest. Once again, between leakers and bloggers, The Old Media has been unmasked. The proof is in the memo.

Theres some interesting reading there. Note that I believe all those are from conservative people, but the information they provide is based in fact.

I hope that gives you an idea of where "our side" is coming from.. ~:)

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 01:30

Hypocrite land... now that's a bad place to be.

I was there once- it was confusing as hell.

I think the locals call it "DC" or something. ~;)

Devastatin Dave

09-09-2005, 01:50

Can you blame the media for taking a liberal bias when the current Reoublican Party would rather impose fascist policy's of an all-controlling government and a closed society than do anything even remotely helpful for the media?

Oh brother... :dizzy2:
Tin foil hats for everyone, are those black covert helicoptors I hear flying around?

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 01:57

Oh brother... :dizzy2:
Tin foil hats for everyone, are those black covert helicoptors I hear flying around?

It's true. I am still waiting for the White House decree that we must "FOLLOW THE WORMS!!!"

Would you like to see [America] rule again?
All you have to do is follow the worms.
Would you like to send our coloured cousins home again?
All you need to do is follow the worms.

Tribesman

09-09-2005, 01:58

And you're not one, Tribesman.
What a God or a Moderator ? ~;)

Anyway reply #3 by Russiancsar sums everything up nicely .

Its all Propaganda my friends Propaganda.
~:cheers:

Theres some interesting reading there. Note that I believe all those are from conservative people, but the information they provide is based in fact.
Yes Panzer there is ...
And when you're watching Fox News, you can be confident it's fair and balanced in favor of the right.

So with all the complaining about some media being biased to the left don't you think in fairness you should also complain about some media being biased to the right ?

PanzerJaeger

09-09-2005, 02:08

You have absolutely no idea what fascism is Cube.

Back on topic.

Tribesman, the original post asked for examples of liberal media bias. Im trying to answer Goof in a calm way with the best information I can.

I have no doubt that there is right wing bias in some media, but that media doesnt get the same stature or viewers here in America.

Tribesman

09-09-2005, 02:15

I have no doubt that there is right wing bias in some media, but that media doesnt get the same stature or viewers here in America.
Really , what are all these claims about Fox being so big then ?

Lemur

09-09-2005, 02:33

What does it take to get a thread locked these days?

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 02:37

Actually, I am really starting to enjoy this. It's funny if you just sit back and relax. I reccomend listening to some Floyd, or Beatles or something cheerful- really puts it all in context.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 02:45

Media Research Center

Heres a large site that deals with it directly. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Wow. I nearly choked from laughing at this one.

The Media Research Center! The good ol' MRC. Lovely bunch. They threaten letter writing campaigns to sponsors in order to have reporters fired who don't present a conservative viewpoint. Not bias at all in their viewpoint, is there?

Hmmm, let's examine the facts about the MRC.

Founder and President of the MRC is L. Brent Bozell III. Along with the MRC, he's the Executive Director of the very "fair and balanced" sounding organization - The Conservative Victory Committee. Now that's certainly a cause for hope that he has no agenda when claiming that the media is liberal. Then again, maybe not. Well maybe one of his other organizations will shed light on his supposed balanced viewpoint! Let's see here. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Pat Buchanan for President campaign. That darn liberal Buchanan! He was Finance Director and later President of NCPAC, the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Hmm, well gee, this guy isn't turning out to be very unbiased at all, is he?

So, we're supposed to take the word of his organization that the media is liberal? I'd be more likely to believe an article printed in a 1975 issue of Pravda - which is to say, not at all likely. ~D

I may have to start quoting commondreams.org and alternet.org and maybe even the wsws.org as "balanced" sources just to counter the "fair and balanced" sources we've been showered with in this thread.

And as an aside, I think it's appalling that some pseudo-fascist, right-wing web site would have the gall to mention George Orwell to make a spurious point. Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell was a socialist. He fought for the anarchists in Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. His great works, such as Animal Farm and 1984, were an answer to totalitarianism - whether it be communist-inspired, or fascist inspired. If you don't think Orwell was a socialist, then try reading his Homage to Catalonia about the great anarchist/communist experiment of Barcelona from 1936-1939. Quoting Orwell in that context is about like quoting Hitler to support war reparations for survivors of concentration camps.

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 02:57

I'm reminded of a funny single panel cartoon I used to have pinned up. It was about the "contract with America" which I supported mostly at the time, but still found the cartoon funny.

Two middle aged business men are standing at a crossing in a city. The crossing sign says, "Wait obediently." One of the fellows is saying to the other, "I knew we should have read the fine print in that 'Contract with America'."

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 03:06

European Media is the biggest batch of lies biasdness and propoganda I have seen seince the old CCCP days...

I doubt that the American media is worse...

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 03:35

It's worse, my friend. Much worse. Because the difference here is that people in the U.S. tend to believe what they read in the newspapers and hear on the news. During the dark days of the Soviet era, you at least had sense enough not to believe in news organizations like Pravda. Plus you had the samizdat. The internet, at least, keeps the idea of the samizdat alive.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-09-2005, 03:42

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 03:51

Why all the hullaballoo?

Far more people watch Entertainment Tonight than these news shows combined.

Aenlic:

I agree. CSM follows a wonderful old tradition in keeping most of its editorializing to the op-ed page. That's all you could ask for.

Seamus

I think CSM is likely to remain the closest thing to just news for some time to come. I just don't see the entertainment industry which most people think is the news will ever just report the news.

Your mention of Entertainment Tonight just led to a horrible image in my mind.

American Idol is on Fox. Murdoch has all the scruples of a starving rat. Most people are unable to discern the difference between entertainment and news already. Would it be that much of a leap to have, in the not too distant future, a program on Fox hosted by Simon Whathisname which mixes Faux news and entertainment? We'd be doomed. Well, more doomed. We're already doomed. Doomed faster? ~;)

Soulforged

09-09-2005, 04:56

American Idol is on Fox. Murdoch has all the scruples of a starving rat. Most people are unable to discern the difference between entertainment and news already. Would it be that much of a leap to have, in the not too distant future, a program on Fox hosted by Simon Whathisname which mixes Faux news and entertainment? We'd be doomed. Well, more doomed. We're already doomed. Doomed faster? ~;)

Well it appears to be that the phenomenum is world wide, and globalization is to blame. Here we're not conservatives, more and more left groups are appearing and the big government always blames them for certain commercial issues, while it may be right, the government itself caused it. Anyway I'm tired of all this media, it achieved to take the people out of the books where the reflexion stands, and hipnotize them with constant "fun", the media here is so ******* biased that the people today really think that the state is good, eternal and that it's the meidium to canalize their personal vengeances to other people. :wall: :furious3:

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 06:29

Wow. I nearly choked from laughing at this one.

The Media Research Center! The good ol' MRC. Lovely bunch. They threaten letter writing campaigns to sponsors in order to have reporters fired who don't present a conservative viewpoint. Not bias at all in their viewpoint, is there?It's odd that you'd get worked up over that when you've posted numerous links to FAIR, an admitted "progressive" group.

Personally, I think O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are both generally pretty poor show on FOX, but overall, I think MSNBC is probably the worst cable news channel as far as "crap" news programming goes.

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 08:26

Papewaio

09-09-2005, 08:30

Australians own your media!

Submit now, or we will send in the Wiggles! And our own B1 and B2 in PJs.

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 08:34

Australians own your media!

Submit now, or we will send in the Wiggles! And our own B1 and B2 in PJs.Send more Kylies and we will submit. ~:eek:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-09-2005, 08:40

Does anybody apart from Redleg and Lemurmania read newspapers and magazines (or their websites) anymore? Or is it all pics & blogs these days? Ach never mind. Why contribute anything worthwhile if this is going to be locked anyway.

Thats because there mostly liberal rags nowdays ~D I read US News and World Report and the Wallstreet journal now and then.

According to this Christian web site in a 2001 article, a Pew Center report showed that as far back as 2001, only 30% of people in the U.S. got their news from the "big three" networks' news. That isn't quite "the majority of Americans" is it? Hmmm, perhaps the numbers have gone up since 2001 for network news viewership! Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not really.

And your point? I said the mainstream press was losing credibility in the eyes of the average American and you just proved my point. By the way the numbers have and still are going down. As the democratic party sinks so does its mouth.

Ronin

09-09-2005, 09:05

it allways amuses me that a country with some of the most conservative media i have ever seen (it seems to range from "moderate-right" like your cnn an nbc to "man these guys are so crackpot right wing that they make me afraid" good old FOX) but you still have a good part of the population bitching about the "liberal media bias".....i don´t know what these people would have the media be.......and frankly it´s too early in the morning to freak myself out by trying to imagine it.

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 09:14

I read the local paper for my non-political news.That would be the Register-Guard?

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 09:23

And your point? I said the mainstream press was losing credibility in the eyes of the average American and you just proved my point. By the way the numbers have and still are going down. As the democratic party sinks so does its mouth.

Did you state that the majority of people in America watch the big three networks? No. That was someone else, wasn't it? Then why are you directing a response to me fr a post I made that is specifically addressing a different point made by someone else? What is it with this practice of arguing against points that aren't even made? Is it something in the water over there in Conservative Club II land? Let's try an easy one.

Apple ‡ Orange

Now, where were we?

Navaros

09-09-2005, 10:27

I have heard conservative Org members time and time again complain about how the American media are nothing more than a tool of the left, but so far I have never really seen anything to back up that complaint.

sure you have seen plenty of leftwing propaganda. you just choose to ignore it because you agree with the leftwing propaganda that stations like CNN (and all other major networks these days) propagate

ie: CNN and these other networks will often refer to the murdering of a babies as "the right to choice". that is a propaganda statement, and one which implicitly condones & endorses murdering babies, just like leftwingers do

there are many many other examples too. they are quite easy to pick up upon for anyone who cares to look

Navaros

09-09-2005, 10:36

Wait--So you're saying the majority of americans choose to ignore this so-called propaganda because they agree with it? Think about that.

not all Americans do agree with the propaganda. many speak up about it, and it is their collective outrage at it that has caused the original poster to bring up this topic

as for "the majority": in my view the majority of people are stuck in their natural, inherently evil state hence it would not be surprising if they choose to ignore any propaganda which drives an agenda that is compatible with evildoing

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 11:06

Not a trace of bias there at all.

If the "right to choose" is propaganda, then isn't "murdering babies" propganda as well? Or is the second phrase not propaganda because you agree with it? I'm confused.

Remember before responding, Navaros, that I oppose abortion. ~;)

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 11:16

CNN and these other networks will often refer to the murdering of a babies as "the right to choice". that is a propaganda statement, and one which implicitly condones & endorses murdering babies, just like leftwingers do:no: I often watch CNN on my cable in The Netherlands and I never, ever hear them refer to abortion as anything else but 'abortion'. I wonder if you ever watch CNN. I believe you are dreaming this up.

Ser Clegane

09-09-2005, 12:31

What does it take to get a thread locked these days?

It seems to me that there are still quite a number of patrons of both political camps who try to keep this thread on topic and continue a civil discussion.

If some patrons use a thread to attack other people or to drag the thread off-topic the consequence does necessarily have to be that the thread is closed.

As long as the original topic is not per se offensive and most patrons try to keep a good discussion going, I have no intention of rewarding trolls and flamers by cosing a topic they do not like - in this case individual measures seem more appropriate.

Bottomline:
Please stay on topic and keep this discussion civil
:bow:

Slyspy

09-09-2005, 14:51

I was quite surprised to find a supplement containing articles from that famous left-wing oracle The New York Times in the generally right-wing Telegraph this week.

Adrian II

09-09-2005, 14:53

I was quite surprised to find a supplement containing articles from that famous left-wing oracle The New York Times in the generally right-wing Telegraph this week.May I add that the crypto-Communist The Washington Post has been much more efficient in investigating and discrediting NO local and LA state officials' claims about Katrina over the past ten days than any right-wing or Republican outlet?

A.Saturnus

09-09-2005, 16:39

For those of us who actually like to pretend that they are interested in facts instead of just voicing their opinions, it might be interesting for once if we made a step back and talked one moment about what would possibly be evidence for or against liberal media bias.
You know, whenever this topic is resurrected, it´s the same. The usual suspects on one side name several anecdotes that "prove" their view and the usual suspects on the other side then do the same. After that it is down to yelling and pointless claims. Every time I´m asking myself - how the hell do they know that anyway? A conservative who believes ABC to be biased will probably prefer to watch other sources. Since he watches ABC only scarcely, how can he judge reliably that it is biased? Does anyone of you watch channels he doesn´t like 24 hours a day to find out for sure that it is biased? Could you - and that refers to both sides - consider the possibility that you are biased, and not the channel? Obviously, the best judges would be those how don´t give a damn. Unfortunately, they usually have no opinion on it.
Is it really a clear sign of media bias if a guy on the channel says something you don´t agree with? If you think not, the question is just what would be a clear sign. How could conservatives make their claims stronger and how could lefties disprove them?
Try for once - even if it is hard - to imagine that your opponent is not entirely crazy and would possibly yield to a superior argument. Then think about, if you were him, what would convince you? Even if that then fails to convince your opponent, you can claim to have tried it.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-09-2005, 17:00

Did you state that the majority of people in America watch the big three networks? No

NO

I made that is specifically addressing a different point made by someone else?
I see now it was Dave. Sorry Dave your wrong. The American people are not that dumb. Now in Europe most probably do get their news from the mainstream media . Namely the BBC. Yet they think its fair and balanced LOL.

Goofball

09-09-2005, 17:02

Good thread so far guys.

Redleg, I think you have probably the healthiest attitude toward the media: take everything with several grains of salt and try to take in as wide a range of sources as possible.

Aenlic, thanks for the pointer on the Christian Science Monitor, I'm going to give it a try. That may be the most valuable bit of info I've seen in this thread so far.

PJ thanks for your efforts to keep the thread on topic and for being just about the only one who actually responded to the original purpose of the thread: trying to show some evidence of liberal bias in the media. I disagree with what your sources had to say and I question their objectivity, but even so I will be watching CNN with a much more critical eye in the future.

Crazed Rabbit

09-09-2005, 17:18

Here's one example I remembered:

Remember when Cheney made a comment on the Senate floor that rhymed with 'duck moff'? The media made a great big ole deal out of it.

What you probably didn't hear of is when Kerry, in a radio interview-ie when people were supposed to be listening, when he was talking to the public!-used a word which rhymes with 'ducking'. But the media didn't make a peep.

Here's another:

The national guard 'memo', which the MSM fell over itself promoting (literally), while totally ignoring as best they could the swift boat vets for truth. The media decided not to talk about it at all because of their bias. The swift boat vets had more serious (and much more substantial) allegations, but were ignored. Just think if the roles had been switched, if a democrat group had been attacking a republican pres (cough Cindy Sheenan cough). The MSM would have had stories about them for days.

Here's another:

You may remember the MSM writing a lot of articles this last election about the terrible economy and how it looked grim and dire. In fact, the economy was stronger and better statistically in almost all (if not all) ways than in 1996, (when Clinton was running for reelection). But in 1996 the MSM couldn't stop exclaiming the vibrance of the economy.

In conclusion, the media (TV, newspapers, newsmagazines) are, mostly, just the left's mouthpiece. They spout the democrat line (the majority of people in the industry are self-proclaimed democrats) because that's what they think is best.

Crazed Rabbit

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 17:33

Remember when Cheney made a comment on the Senate floor that rhymed with 'duck moff'? The media made a great big ole deal out of it.

What you probably didn't hear of is when Kerry, in a radio interview-ie when people were supposed to be listening, when he was talking to the public!-used a word which rhymes with 'ducking'. But the media didn't make a peep.

"Big ole deal"? That is incredibly subjective. I heard almost nothing about it- and I had been watching the mainstream medai frequently. What I saw was not Dick Cheney's comment, but Kerry's wife's comment- telling a reporter to "shove it." They made a HUGE deal about that- it lasted weeks. So don't use subjective evidence; it's the next worst thing to lying.

But please, continue on your rants, everyone- it's very entertaining. ~:cheers:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-09-2005, 17:39

I heard almost nothing about it- and I had been watching the mainstream medai frequently

Do you watch with a blindfold and ear plugs on? It went on for a week at least.

What I saw was not Dick Cheney's comment, but Kerry's wife's comment- telling a reporter to "shove it." They made a HUGE deal about that- it lasted weeks

That was during the election and she told a REPORTER to shove it. What do you expect?

Look do any of you believe that if Bush were found out to be boffing interns in the whitehouse the press would defend him like they did Clinton you are in need of some serious help.

Redleg

09-09-2005, 17:57

.

Redleg, I think you have probably the healthiest attitude toward the media: take everything with several grains of salt and try to take in as wide a range of sources as possible.

Don't give me to much credit - I still fall victim on certain topics of only seeing what I want to see - regardless of the number of sources I take in.

Edit: A large precentage of the time what we are taking for baised in the Media is actual our own baised views. Or at least that is my opinion.

Futher Edit: For instance take a good look at how many times in our discussions on Same-Sex marriage we have both mis-read each other statements. That it happens with others should also provide a clue toward how baised is viewed especially when it appears in the media. I am not the only one guilty of mis-reading - all of us are guilty of it.

We read and watch the media that fits our own views for the most part. Any story that does not fit within our view - is therefore baised and should be discounted. Look at discussion points within the forum - just pick any three threads - and see how people skew things to support their own prespective of events. When someone doesn't see it the way we want to see it - we either attempt to discredit their source, make assumptions about their postions, and my favorite tactic using selective reasoning to attack the opposite viewpoint. The sad thing is that the so called professional journalists are using the same amatuer debating tactics that make discussions in the .Org so enjoyable at times - and can be frustrating at other times. But the professional journalists should be above such behavior in their reporting - because if my memory serves me correctly their used to be such a thing as Journalistic Ethics.

Adrian could probably expound more on that point then I.

Selective Reasoning is a sure sign of baised views.

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 17:59

Goof, I think what you're experiencing in the posts here is the affect of relative perception. Ronin and Jag is probably one of the more leftleaning members of the Backroom. To them, the International Workers Daily seems mainstream, if a touch to the right. On the other side, you've got, PJ. To him, even FoxNews probably seems to be a bit more left leaning then he would like.

Everyone sees what's left of them as left and what's right of them as right, never stopping to take into account how their own views are skewing that perception.

I don't think the Mainstream Media is necessarily left-leaning. But they do have a deep agenda that has little to do with providing information or perspective. Their first and foremost goal, all of them, is to sell copy. Even the Christian Science Monitor & the Wall Street Journal, two publications I respect highly from each side of the spectrum, engage in 'amplification'. Second, and people on the right tend forget just how far behind their first goal the 2nd one is, they support the Democratic party. That doesn't necessarily mean they're left leaning, as I don't think of the Democratic party as particularly left leaning (but I do see both of them as ardent secularist fundamentalists). We on the right tend to forget what 'Left' really means, and just because Democrats are left of Republicans doesn't mean they're leftsist, especially when it comes to economics, which generally is the primary classification used by political scientists. Personal morality issues (such as the right to mention God in public, gay marriage etc) doesn't actually weigh your left/right leanings in light of geop-politics, economics & role of the state, according to most theorists.

So, at the end of the day, CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/Time/Newsweek/New York Times, et. al. exist to 1) make money 2) if it doesn't impact item 1), gin up support for the Democratic party and then, as a third & distant goal, if it doesn't conflict with 1) or 2), 3) provide news of the day to the American public.

My $.02

Reverend Joe

09-09-2005, 18:00

The press DEFENDED Clinton?! Not I know you are delusional. This thread is a riot. ~D

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 18:00

Goof, I think what you're experiencing in the posts here is the affect of relative perception. Ronin and Jag are probably two of the more leftleaning members of the Backroom. To them, the International Workers Daily seems mainstream, if a touch to the right. On the other side, you've got, PJ. To him, even CBC probably seems to be a bit more left leaning then he would like.

Everyone sees what's left of them as left and what's right of them as right, never stopping to take into account how their own views are skewing that perception.

I don't think the Mainstream Media is necessarily left-leaning. But they do have a deep agenda that has little to do with providing information or perspective. Their first and foremost goal, all of them, is to sell copy. Even the Christian Science Monitor & the Wall Street Journal, two publications I respect highly from each side of the spectrum, engage in 'amplification'. Second, and people on the right tend forget just how far behind their first goal the 2nd one is, they support the Democratic party. That doesn't necessarily mean they're left leaning, as I don't think of the Democratic party as particularly left leaning (but I do see both of them as ardent secularist fundamentalists). We on the right tend to forget what 'Left' really means, and just because Democrats are left of Republicans doesn't mean they're leftsist, especially when it comes to economics, which generally is the primary classification used by political scientists. Personal morality issues (such as the right to mention God in public, gay marriage etc) doesn't actually weigh your left/right leanings in light of geop-politics, economics & role of the state, according to most theorists.

So, at the end of the day, CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/Time/Newsweek/New York Times, et. al. exist to 1) make money 2) if it doesn't impact item 1), gin up support for the Democratic party and then, as a third & distant goal, if it doesn't conflict with 1) or 2), 3) provide news of the day to the American public.

My $.02

yesdachi

09-09-2005, 19:44

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 19:58

For the most part the right sees free media as a threat and has for at least 20 years. That is why they consider the media liberal. If the media is not sending out their message, and only their message, then it is liberal.

Clinton did not get a pass from the media. Bush has gotten far gentler treatment than he deserves because he's always whining about media bias. It's a political game of media manipulation. Objective media is its own worst enemy in this regard, because if someone makes a completely partisan offensive against them, they are stuck reporting it as if it had some credibility. It is a one-sided fight. Networks like FOX get around this type of problem by dispensing with anything other than lip service to being objective--use the "fair and balanced" moniker while editorializing throughout their reports. (Turned on FOX this morning, and in 30 seconds it was again clear they were in full attack mode against New Orleans.)

Bush deserves to be savaged by the media. He hasn't been but he deserves it. They guy has no credibility at all, and he has been so arrogant towards the media (and said such stupid things) that they would be fully justified in treating him as a serious threat to a free press. I have to commend the free press for trying to maintain objectivity in the face of the endless attacks and distortions by the right wing.

When the media reports something true, but embarassing for the Administration it is labelled as biased liberal reporting. This is an Administration that fears that the truth will get out. That is why they see the media as an enemy.

Ronin

09-09-2005, 20:33

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 20:38

Ronin, I said explicitly that I DON'T think the Democrats are left-wing. And with regards to my view of you, you're proving my point. To Americans, your viewpoints seem pretty far over to the left. To you, they seem dead center. To your parents (who apparently are Marxists) you're on the right. No dig at them, I'm just pointing out that pereception of somebody else's political standing is a very relative concept. ~:cheers: And you probably weren't the best example to use, as Stefan the Beserker is pretty far to the left of you, I just mentioned you because you're posting actively in this thread. No offense intended. :bow:

Ronin

09-09-2005, 21:17

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 21:45

I found this on the News site FOX.com... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168889,00.html (Story)

I then checked the CNN.com site to see there side of the story... and they did not post it...

I then checked CBS.com... and once again... no story...

I then checked MSNBC.com... Nothing again...

ABC.com... nothing...

This is biasd... On all the news gropes other then FOX and MSNBC, they ignored several stories *The one I posted being only one* and focused on attacking Republicans, FEMA, Bush, and everything in general it seems...

At least MSNBC and FOX posted news that was reletively unbiasd... I do not understand why you would alow your media to get this way...

Goofball

09-09-2005, 21:51

Your link doesn't work.

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 21:54

Zharakov,
First, your link isn't working right.

Second, whenever a story shows up on Fox and CNN/ABC/CBS refuse to cover it, you'll just hear that Fox made it up. I've never seen anybody in the backroom prove that Fox has made anything up, but it seems to be accepted as fact by those (well let's see, y'all hate the the term liberals, now y'all claim you're not really leftists)... who favor Ted Kennedy style politics.... (how's that?) ~D

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 21:59

Crap... Ok here is what the Story said:

WASHINGTON — A new Democratic effort to whip up indignation about the Bush administration's handling of Hurricane Katrina (search) also tried to raise money for Democratic candidates.

Sen. Charles Schumer (search), a New York Democrat and the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, issued an appeal Thursday urging people to sign an online petition to fire the Federal Emergency Management Agency's director over his handling of the Katrina response.

After an inquiry from the Associated Press, the DSCC quickly pulled down the page and said they would give the Red Cross any money raised by the anti-FEMA petition.

When recipients clicked on a link to the petition, the top center of the screen — above the call to "Fire the FEMA director" — had asked for a donation to the DSCC.

Since Katrina, Democrats have contended the GOP administration badly botched the response, and some have called for the firing of FEMA chief Michael Brown (search).

Republicans hit back by accusing Democrats of trying to use the human tragedy for political gain. The DSCC letter, the GOP said Thursday, was proof.

"It's a disgrace to exploit Hurricane Katrina to raise political funds," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said: "While the content of the letter is totally valid, it should never have been linked to a Web site that asks people to contribute to political campaigns."

And I geuss that makes sence that they would deny it...

Goofball

09-09-2005, 22:06

Okay, your link works if I cut and paste it. Now, on to your point:

I found this on the News site FOX.com... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168889,00.html (http://story/)

I then checked the CNN.com site to see there side of the story... and they did not post it...

I then checked CBS.com... and once again... no story...

I then checked MSNBC.com... Nothing again...

ABC.com... nothing...

The reason noone else reported it is because this is just a blatant attempt by FOX to create a story where there isn't one on the off chance that it might make the democrats look bad. Let's look at the headline:

Dems Used Katrina to Raise Funds

But when you read the story, you see that this is not true. The DSCC posted an online petition to fire the head of FEMA. When the link was clicked for the petition, there was another link on the petition page where people could click to donate $$ to the DSCC.

All political party websites are loaded with banners/links asking for $$. This one was not "using Katrina to Raise Funds." It was just doing what all political party sites do.

This is biasd...

It certainly is. FOX should be ashamed of themselves.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:09

Don... You are right... you are right...

Ser Clegane

09-09-2005, 22:15

Hmm ... from what I've seen on the DSCC website the calls for donations seem to appear on pretty much every page as a link/banner which actually strikes me as rather normal on a campaign website.

Is there a similar organisation of the GOP that has a website? I would like to have a look for comparison.

Quite frankly, while this news might be somehow noteworthy I hardly get the impression that it is must-have material for the news.

Seems to me that the default setup of the website has also been applied to the petition-letter - and ... uhm ... actually why shouldn't it?

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 22:20

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:24

I believe the problem was that the link that led to the donatetion page, then asked for the donator to donate to the Democrat people...

The Republican site... dosn't have anything like that...

And the other thing that bothers me is that none of the other news sites picked it up...

And that it seems people in the west*Both parties* do not eccept that anything that makes there idels look bad, and call it "made up"...

I do not like that...

Goofball

09-09-2005, 22:30

Two from the other side I happen to respect immensely... and neither of you sees a problem with soliciting campaign contributions on a hurricane relief website?

Edit: Excuse me, sorry. A 'Let's fix the problems with the hurricane relief' website.

Don, come on now. You're doing exactly what FOX did. It was not a "hurricane relief website" or a "Let's fix the problems with the hurricane relief" website. It was a portion of the DSCC website that involved a petition calling for the firing of the head of FEMA. Political parties are free to solicit donations wherever they want to on their websites.

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 22:31

Networks like FOX get around this type of problem by dispensing with anything other than lip service to being objective--use the "fair and balanced" moniker while editorializing throughout their reports. (Turned on FOX this morning, and in 30 seconds it was again clear they were in full attack mode against New Orleans.)Not to waste too much time defending FoxNews, but you need to differentiate between their general news reporting and their commentary-type shows. Yes, people like John Gibson, Hannity, and the morning show crew have clear conservative leanings, but I don't think they really make a big secret of that. However, people like Lou Dobs and Chris Matthews on other networks pretty clearly lean left, and that's fine- just so they don't try to hide it.

Where I have a problem is when supposedly straight news pieces try to sneak in an agenda.

Ser Clegane

09-09-2005, 22:33

Two from the other side I happen to respect immensely... and neither of you sees a problem with soliciting campaign contributions on a hurricane relief website?

Edit: Excuse me, sorry. A 'Let's fix the problems with the hurricane relief' website.

Uhm ... were in the FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168889,00.html) article does it even say that there was a dedicated website for the petition?

The article is not very clear actually - but my interpretation of the situation would be that there was a page on the DSCC-website that had a petition - a political petition I might add.

If that petition appeared on the DSCC-website, what would be unusual about the fact that there was also a banner, asking for donations for the Democratic Party on the same page?

EDIT: GAH! Goofball beat me to it ~;)

Red Harvest

09-09-2005, 22:44

Not to waste too much time defending FoxNews, but you need to differentiate between their general news reporting and their commentary-type shows. Yes, people like John Gibson, Hannity, and the morning show crew have clear conservative leanings, but I don't think they really make a big secret of that. However, people like Lou Dobs and Chris Matthews on other networks pretty clearly lean left, and that's fine- just so they don't try to hide it.

Where I have a problem is when supposedly straight news pieces try to sneak in an agenda.

Foxnews can't distinguish between the two. If 75% of their coverage is like this (from what I've seen) then it is pervasive in their culture. They can't seem to report anything without a great deal of spin. What exactly is their "news" show, because most of what I see is editorial rather than news?

I woudn't describe Dobbs as left leaning although I don't get to watch him that often. From what I recall he is more consumer advocate oriented and he is skeptical of big business--more so after the stock market blowout. (That doesn't make him left leaning.) He does have a knack for going after those blowing smoke up our butts, which is something I like. He is unusual in a financial type show in that he is not clearly *right* leaning and isn't prone to accepting the "rah, rah" market cheer leading and such.

Aenlic

09-09-2005, 22:50

I think it would be rather difficult to paint Lou Dobbs as a leftist considering his views on immigration and English First. But why let a few facts get in the way of a good diatribe?

Goofball

09-09-2005, 23:22

The Republican site... dosn't have anything like that...

Really?

http://www.rnc.org/

There are two separate links you can click on this homepage to donate $$ to the RNC, both quite prominent. One on the top toolbar, and one in the "Action Center" on the right.

I also note that right beside the link on the right asking for donations to the RNC is a link asking for donations to the Red Cross disaster relief fund. How come fox didn't do a story about that? The Republicans are clearly trying to use Katrina trick people into donating money to the RNC.

Where is thy outrage, oh FOX!?!?

~:rolleyes:

Soulforged

09-10-2005, 01:20

IMO the media is bias to the left. I won’t bother backing it up with facts, its an issue of perspective and interpretation any examples can be discredited with other opinions and counter examples. I think for the most part the media (not obviously right or left wing talk show hosts) try to be journalistically neutral but personal feelings always come into play when reporting on something with multiple sides. It is easy to dismiss a stupid comment by someone if you agree with the point they are trying to make. One reporter/editor/author or whatever will always see an angle another won’t and if they lean to the left their work will also lean to the left. And yes, IMO most people in the media lean to the left (Plenty of exceptions). Perhaps the opinions given for patrons of other places that just USA, could have some value, when they say that the media is conservative...and don't backup it with facts? Well i cannot force you...But in all countries there're things that are tacit by nature. Many people rant about the freedom of the media in Cuba and Venezuala, but why don't look at one's country? Don't you think that the government tries to control all information during it's ruling period, that's tacit? To me it's natural policies consecuences, though the left government will consider much more the freedom of the media ar some point, the conservatives will always try to "conserve" things, generally throwing propagando to the untrained mind. It happens a lot here, so much that the left parties and almost all left ideas are treated by the government and many people as "untrascendent", "obsolete" or even "evil" ideas, i think that the signature of Redleg mostly resumes it. But anyway i'll say that your media is definetily turned to the right, even for the standars we've here. In general the media don't has to take sides, not moral not politics, it has to stay neutral and just give facts, but lately all are making interpretations and filling people's mind with it.

Another thing to consider is that the media are not charity workers (some exceptions here too). If the people want to see something, the media will delight in showing them, no matter how un-tasteful it is. Higher ratings/circulation/page counts, etc. mean more money. If not for the authors, for the companies for sure. Money keeps __insert news show here__ on the air, not journalistic integrity. If a particular news show has a higher Nielsen rating you can bet they charge more for commercials, same with newspapers with ads and websites with banners. I agree but apathy would not help.

Can you trust what the media says? Most of the time, because they will have some credible sources or risk law suits. But what you can not trust, is if you are getting the whole story. I only believe exceptionally in it, to give me a notion of social reality, almost always i expect the reflexion of some books author, who makes a thesis based on the moments, if the better source of rational and impartial information. From the times of Marx it was known that the media of all kind, sports and even schools and specially churches were the "ample media" that reproduced the way of life that the state on rule wanted, it has not changed.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-10-2005, 02:07

Where is thy outrage, oh FOX!?!?

Your kidding right? The one asking for bemocratic donations is supposed to be dedicated to hurricain relief while the other is GOP.com. Clearly a site dedicated to te republican party and it dares to ask for money for relief also. You dont see the difference? ~:eek:

Zharakov

09-10-2005, 03:24

Really?

http://www.rnc.org/

There are two separate links you can click on this homepage to donate $$ to the RNC, both quite prominent. One on the top toolbar, and one in the "Action Center" on the right.

I also note that right beside the link on the right asking for donations to the RNC is a link asking for donations to the Red Cross disaster relief fund. How come fox didn't do a story about that? The Republicans are clearly trying to use Katrina trick people into donating money to the RNC.

Where is thy outrage, oh FOX!?!?

~:rolleyes:

The page on the Democratic site was bsicly put as when you clicked on the link to give aid to the Hurricain victims... Some of the money when to help the Democrats.

Also, on the same page that asked for hurricain money, it denounced your presedent, the Fema thing, and your National Guard.

That is the diffrence.

Xiahou

09-10-2005, 03:44

I think it would be rather difficult to paint Lou Dobbs as a leftist considering his views on immigration and English First. But why let a few facts get in the way of a good diatribe?Ok, howabout a populist kook who's thinking seems far divorced from reality? ~:)

Tribesman

09-10-2005, 03:52

Ok, howabout a populist kook who's thinking seems far divorced from reality
DO NOT MENTION MEINKAMPF or THR MANIFESTO OF THE SOVIETS.

Ser Clegane

09-10-2005, 07:20

Your kidding right? The one asking for bemocratic donations is supposed to be dedicated to hurricain relief while the other is GOP.com.

The page on the Democratic site was bsicly put as when you clicked on the link to give aid to the Hurricain victims... Some of the money when to help the Democrats.

Again - where did you read anything about "hurricane relief" or "aid to hurricane victims"?
The FoxNews-article mentions nothing along those lines.

The page that is mentioned was a political petition - not a victim relief petition.

The petition's goal was to get the FEMA-director fired, not to collect money for the victims.

It is not even mentioned on the article whther this petition was hosted on the regular DSCC-website or not. If it was hosted there it would be quite normal that there would also be banners asking for donations to the Democratic Party, wouldn't it?

I find it very interesting, that some people here make up some additional facts, to make the whole story more juicy and to create a scandal.

How about some links that support your allegations?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-10-2005, 07:24

I find it very interesting, that some people here make up some additional facts, to make the whole story more juicy and to create a scandal.

I was replying to what had been posted. I had thought someone had said thats what the site was about. I was mistaken and you are correct. Damn thats twice in 10 minutes Ive had to admit to mistakes. Maybe its time for bed ~D

Ser Clegane

09-10-2005, 08:12

Maybe its time for bed ~D

Considering that it seems to be 2:30 am at your side of the ocean, that might be a sound plan to get prepared for the next :duel: ~D

Xiahou

01-30-2006, 01:35

I got the title of this thread from the content of one of Gawain's recent posts, and rather than clutter up that thread, I decided to start a new one.

Here's the thing:

I have heard conservative Org members time and time again complain about how the American media are nothing more than a tool of the left, but so far I have never really seen anything to back up that complaint.

.........

So please, here is your chance conservatives. In this thread, show us all of the examples of the mainstream media being blatantly lef-wing biased.

Remember all those news stories in 1993 about how the nomination of former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace conservative Justice Byron White on the United States Supreme Court would "tilt the balance of the court to the left?"

Of course you don't. Because there weren't any.

In the past three months, the major media have repeatedly hammered away at the theme that Judge Samuel Alito Jr. would "shift the Supreme Court to the right" if he replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

According to Lexis/Nexis, major newspapers have used the phrase "shift the court" 36 times in their Alito coverage. They have referred to the "balance of the court" 32 times and "the court's balance" another 15. "Shift to the right" accounted for another 18 mentions.

Major radio and television programs indexed by Lexis/Nexis have used those phrases 63 times. CNN told viewers that Alito would "tilt the balance of the court" twice on the day President Bush nominated him. NPR's first-day story on "Morning Edition" was headlined "Alito could move court dramatically to the right."
For another striking contrast, take a look at The Washington Post's respective headlines on the days the two judges were nominated. For Ginsburg:

"Judge Ruth Ginsburg Named to High Court; Clinton's Unexpected Choice Is Women's Rights Pioneer"

"A Mentor, Role Model and Heroine of Feminist Lawyers"

"Nominee's Philosophy Seen Strengthening the Center"

For Alito:

"Alito Nomination Sets Stage for Ideological Battle; Bush's Court Pick Is Appeals Judge with Record of Conservative Rulings"

"With a Pick from the Right, Bush Looks to Rally GOP in Tough Times"

"Comparisons to Scalia, But Also to Roberts"

"Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse," and "Alito Leans Right Where O'Connor Swung Left"

Despite the Post's claim that Ginsburg was a centrist, she has in fact been a consistently liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Research by Richard J. Timpone, director of the Political Research Laboratory at Ohio State, finds that she is the most liberal member of the Court on economic issues and virtually tied with Justices John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer on civil liberties. The Institute for Justice reviewed three years of Court terms and found: "The justices least likely to constrain government power and protect individual liberties were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer." Three years later they found the same results for Ginsburg's first seven terms: she and Breyer voted against protecting civil and economic liberties more often than any other justice.
link (http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5412)
So, how's that?

Slyspy

01-30-2006, 16:20

Goodness, you must be even more bored than I am!

This thread died months ago, leave it alone!

Xiahou

01-30-2006, 16:30

Meh, I thought about making a new thread for it- but then it occurred to me that we already had a number of threads on media bias- so, I dredged one up rather than making a new one. :shrug:

Taffy_is_a_Taff

01-30-2006, 17:02

but but but Alito is a fascist !!!

Ginsberg is a heroine!!!

:laugh4:

Don Corleone

01-30-2006, 17:37

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 'liberal' bias to the American media is nothing compared to the $$$ bias to the American media. American news, particularly television news, is short, poorly researched and all about how to draw the largest ratings with the least possible expenditure. That, I believe, is the truly great sin of American media.

Sure, the Washington Post has Left leanings. The Wall Street Journal has undeniable Right leanings. Both are (usually) sound practioners of journalism and save their editorializing for the editorial pages. Yes, the New York Times is bird cage liner. But that's because of the poor standards it employs (Jason Blair, et. al.), not because of it's viewpoint. I'm just as quick to call into question the credibility of the Washington Times, a more conservatively angled paper with equal journalistic quality issues.

At the end of the day, quality media outlets exist in the American media with a wide range of opinions. We need to quit blaming the media organizations for giving us exactly what we want (i.e. pay for) spoon fed slop & sound bytes.

Xiahou

01-30-2006, 17:58

Sure Don, I'd agree that sensationalism and grabbing headlines probably trumps all- but I think there's also an undeniable liberal bias in most of what would be considered the 'traditional' media outlets.

Look at my example- Ginsburg was hailed as little short of a hero, while the discussion of Alito has almost entirely been about how he'll shift the court right-ward and upset the 'sacred balance'. There is no attempt at balance.

Don Corleone

01-30-2006, 19:09

I'm not about to play apologist for the Washington Post. And sure, many American papers have a leftward slant. Those leaning to the left outnumber those leaning to the right. I don't argue that. I still contend that shoddy journalism, and sensationalistic journalism, which you could argue those headlines are MORE indicative of are much more damaging than biased journalism. Perhaps I should downgrade my internal quality grading for the Washington Post. Editorializing by headline is a big no-no in my book, no matter who does it or why.

Major Robert Dump

01-31-2006, 01:45

This liberal knows mainstream media is slanted to the left, and honestly I don't care. In fact, I think it's funny.

Lemur

01-31-2006, 05:43

100% agreement with the big Don. The majority of all media (newspapers, magazines, TV news, cable news, what-have-you) is slanted towards dollars. Here's a nice example: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/26/another-payola-scandal_n_14505.html) (I would link to the New Republic article, but it's subscription-only)

Another Payola Scandal... This Time Fox News Columnist On Big Tobacco Payroll...

The New Republic | Posted January 26, 2006 02:11 PM

In his final column of the year, FoxNews.com science columnist Steven Milloy listed "the top 10 junk science claims of 2005." For number nine, Milloy attacked the research of Michael Mann, a Penn State scientist who, in 1999, published research showing a dramatic rise in global temperatures during the twentieth century, after hundreds of years with little climate change. Calling Mann's science "dubious," Milloy praised Representative Joe Barton of Texas, whose calls for an investigation into Mann's methodology last June were cut short when the scientific community and members of Congress protested it as a witch hunt. Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the chairman of the House Committee on Science, wrote to Barton, "The only conceivable explanation for the investigation is to attempt to intimidate a prominent scientist and to have Congress put its thumbs on the scales of a scientific debate."

... Milloy has been affiliated with FoxNews.com since July 2000. On March 9, 2001, he wrote a column for the website headlined "secondhand smokescreen." The piece attacked a study by researcher Stephen Hecht, who found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with risk of lung cancer. "If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize," Milloy wrote. For good measure, he heaped scorn on a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that also linked health risks and secondhand smoke. Later that spring, he authored another smoking-related piece for FoxNews.com. In that one, he cast aside two decades of research on the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and concluded, "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie--the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke." You might chalk it up to Milloy's contrarian nature. Or to his libertarian tendencies. Except, all the while, he was on the payroll of big tobacco. According to Lisa Gonzalez, manager of external communications for Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris, Milloy was under contract there through the end of last year. "In 2000 and 2001, some of the work he did was to monitor studies, and then we would distribute this information within to our different companies," Gonzalez said. Although she couldn't comment on fees paid to Milloy, a January 2001 Philip Morris budget report lists Milloy as a consultant and shows that he was budgeted for $92,500 in fees and expenses in both 2000 and 2001. Asked about Milloy's tobacco ties, Paul Schur, director of media relations for Fox News, said, "Fox News is unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed." Milloy could not be reached for comment.

Xiahou

01-31-2006, 19:41

So... you dont see any liberal slant in the coverage of judicial nominees?

Gawain of Orkeny

01-31-2006, 19:48

So... you dont see any liberal slant in the coverage of judicial nominees?

Or the war in Iraq or the NSA thing?

Major Robert Dump

01-31-2006, 20:05

Media is business. Corporations in some cases. If the right doens't like it then they should contest frequency licenses and start more publications. Theres 500,000 channels on satellite televisions, surely the RNC could use some of that money to start their own programming. Of course, no one would watch it because it would suck

Gawain of Orkeny

01-31-2006, 20:13

surely the RNC could use some of that money to start their own programming. Of course, no one would watch it because it would suck

I thought FOX was the number one rated cable news network? :dizzy2:

Don Corleone

01-31-2006, 20:26

So... you dont see any liberal slant in the coverage of judicial nominees?

I never said that. I said the liberal slant was nothing compared to the 'let's do this on the cheap and to hell with doing a good job' attitude that prevails. Television especially, but media is all about grabbing your attention and selling ad space.

If you think I'm wrong, answer me this. Why would the media give more attention to the Michael Jackson trial (obviously of immediate import to everyone) then all other news stories combined while it was running? If the media was more about a leftist agenda then gathering in cheap cash, wouldn't they be running "Republicans are dirty crooks" stories every day, MORE than Gary Condit, OJ and Robert Blake?

Major Robert Dump

01-31-2006, 20:33

I thought FOX was the number one rated cable news network? :dizzy2:

Well you obviously didn't hear about the Nielson boxes and how they are sent out mostly to people who have broken remote controls, so after Seinfeld goes off no one wants to get up and change the channel. Congressional hearings are on the way

Xiahou

01-31-2006, 20:40

I never said that. I said the liberal slant was nothing compared to the 'let's do this on the cheap and to hell with doing a good job' attitude that prevails. Television especially, but media is all about grabbing your attention and selling ad space.

If you think I'm wrong, answer me this. Why would the media give more attention to the Michael Jackson trial (obviously of immediate import to everyone) then all other news stories combined while it was running? If the media was more about a leftist agenda then gathering in cheap cash, wouldn't they be running "Republicans are dirty crooks" stories every day, MORE than Gary Condit, OJ and Robert Blake?
That wasnt directed particularly at you, Don. Im sure that more pure sensationalist fluff is run in the media than biased political stories. For some reason, more people are interested in learning about who their favorite celebs sleep with than what's actually going on in their world- but I think that's a seperate issue for the most part.

What I was commenting on was how no one had a response to my previous posting/link. Goofball (and others) wanted their examples- there it is. Now what?

EDIT: Ok, I should mention that MRD did comment- thank you. :wink:

Gawain of Orkeny

01-31-2006, 20:54

Well you obviously didn't hear about the Nielson boxes and how they are sent out mostly to people who have broken remote controls, so after Seinfeld goes off no one wants to get up and change the channel. Congressional hearings are on the way

Wrong FOX. FOX news has no regular programming other than news and political based ones. Your thinking of their entertainment network. Certainly not conservative by any means.

Major Robert Dump

01-31-2006, 21:05

Wrong FOX. FOX news has no regular programming other than news and political based ones. Your thinking of their entertainment network. Certainly not conservative by any means.

No, I'm thinking of the news channel. I know this guy who knows this guy whose TIVO plays Fox news and then in in the bottom left corner is a little box with seinfeld playing, and scrolling across the bottom are all the latest golf scores and in the top corner is a deaf lady doing sign language, at least I think she's deaf, but we don't know if she's signing the news, or seinfeld or the golf scores. Anyway, his remote is broken.

Xiahou

01-31-2006, 22:23

No, I'm thinking of the news channel. I know this guy who knows this guy whose TIVO plays Fox news and then in in the bottom left corner is a little box with seinfeld playing, and scrolling across the bottom are all the latest golf scores and in the top corner is a deaf lady doing sign language, at least I think she's deaf, but we don't know if she's signing the news, or seinfeld or the golf scores. Anyway, his remote is broken.
They must not give out many Neilsen boxes anymore, huh? ~:joker:

AntiochusIII

01-31-2006, 23:25

They must not give out many Neilsen boxes anymore, huh? ~:joker:Completely OT, Neilsen box sucks badly. It only covers the so-called mainstream America while many more niche channels got starved on ads becaues those freakin' Neilsen box owners -- who somehow got to me an impression of stupid -- don't watch any other thing that what's normally on the "prime channels."

As I said, completely OT.

And I don't get this hatred against the Left-dominated (so-called) media. Please, people, watch Fox. Tell me it's freakin' Left; after all, somebody from the right rightly pointed out that it's the number one channel America. :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

02-01-2006, 00:58

And I don't get this hatred against the Left-dominated (so-called) media. Please, people, watch Fox. Tell me it's freakin' Left; after all, somebody from the right rightly pointed out that it's the number one channel America.

Please dont put words in my mouth. Its the largest cable news network. Its dwarfed by the main broadcast networks. Its the largest of those where you have to pay to watch it.

And I don't get this hatred against the Left-dominated (so-called) media. Please, people, watch Fox

FOX is fair and balanced and hence seems rightwing compared to the rest.:laugh4: But I agree more people should watch FOX.

Major Robert Dump

02-01-2006, 05:31

On behalf of the Left, I hereby offer to trade the Right the liberal media in exchange for Christians and Energy interests. We will throw in micheal moore as a bonus.

Watchman

02-01-2006, 15:29

If "FOX is fair and balanced and hence seems rightwing compared to the rest", then the New Left Review has only a mild leftist bias and hence seems somewhat liberal-leaning compared to the rest. :inquisitive:
I find your standards rather baffling, Gaw. Of the news outlets I know something of or have seen, FOX is only marginally centre-wise from Der Stürmer.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-01-2006, 17:51

I find your standards rather baffling, Gaw. Of the news outlets I know something of or have seen, FOX is only marginally centre-wise from Der Stürmer.

So I see you dont appreciate my sense of humor. I have no doubt that to europeans FOX looks as far right as the BBC looks far left to us. Or didnt you notice the smiley?

Watchman

02-01-2006, 21:59

Apparently smilies are necessary for sarcasm to get through.

The point stands, though. Far as I can tell most of the media you folks decry as "liberal mouthpieces" is at most Centre. That they don't like the part of the political field where FOX and the current Adminstration sit (which is rather further to the Right) doesn't exactly make them Leftists, or "liberals" as the term apparently goes there.

Moderates have a habit of disliking the more fervent approaches to the same basic ideas.

Tribesman

02-01-2006, 22:20

I thought FOX was the number one rated cable news network?
Yep , and Murdochs rag "The Sun" is the number one seller in Britain and Ireland .
It just shows that many many people like crap .
Humans eh , damn silly creatures .

Xiahou

02-01-2006, 22:21

Moderates have a habit of disliking the more fervent approaches to the same basic ideas.But that's not what's happening. Look at my earlier example again. Alito was attacked as an extremist, while Ginsburg was praised. She was and is far more left than Alito is right. Were they always critical of any administration, it'd be one thing- but there's no parity.

Watchman

02-01-2006, 22:31

Honestly, I could hardly care less of your Alitos and Ginsburgs.

I did take a look at your quotes a while back, though. Far as I can tell it seems to fit my theory perfectly - the moderates just plain dislike Bush et all for being too "far out" on the same branch. Sort of how Communists and Social Democrats rarely got along.

'Course, Rightists also have a bad habit of coming across as the folks who'll likely do worse damage if left to run loose too...

Xiahou

02-01-2006, 22:38

Honestly, I could hardly care less of your Alitos and Ginsburgs.Then you could care less about taking an objective look at the matter to apparently.

I did take a look at your quotes a while back, though. Far as I can tell it seems to fit my theory perfectly - the moderates just plain dislike Bush et all for being too "far out" on the same branch. Sort of how Communists and Social Democrats rarely got along.I dont understand what you're saying- the same branch as whom? And what does their opinion of Bush have to do with their treatment of a very liberal nominee appointed by Clinton?

Watchman

02-01-2006, 22:52

I fail to see reasons to to bother trying to view the matter objectively as I happen to have a severe dislike of the people Amercans tend to flag as "conservatives". Far as I'm concerned the media putting them in the hot water just shows unusually sound judgement and good taste.

Mind you, it's also somewhat late, I'm somewhat tired, and vaguely cranky. Hardly the mood for emphatizing, I'm afraid.

I dont understand what you're saying- the same branch as whom?The way I see it, most of the American media and public mindset averages about Centre-Right (or "moderate with 'conservative' leanings", if you prefer). Bush and the band, FOX and suchlike are waaaay off to the Right from that. Both subscribe to the same basic set of values, but what they extrapolate from them differs greatly (as it now tends to between the moderate and the fervent). Ergo, the former have a very unsympathetic view of the latter's standpoint if nothing else because they have a vague feeling their values have been hijacked and done something embarassing and/or worrisome with.

And what does their opinion of Bush have to do with their treatment of a very liberal nominee appointed by Clinton?Well, duh. They obviously dislike Bush more and/or like what that very liberal nominee stands for and represents. Can't blame them, I also prefer progressive liberals to reactionaries (which if memory serves the Bush nominee is a shade of). Particularly for essentially for-life posts.

Xiahou

02-01-2006, 23:01

Watchman

02-01-2006, 23:10

Show me something that does *not* have a bias. Take your time, I'm not holding my breath...

What I'm saying is that IMHO most of the "leftist media" you complain about is in fact Centre or moderate-conservative, and its "leftist bias" is not much more than a moderate's dislike of the rather more hardline Bush/FOX stance. The latter is simply *too* Right.

And you don't have to be Left to dislike *that*.

Kinda like how I'm all for protecting nature and can dig eco-activists, but have very little patience for fringe eco-nuts and "deep green" loons.

...and you like it just fine.As much as you obviously detest the slight Matterhorn-degree slant FOX and co. have. :bow:

Xiahou

02-01-2006, 23:22

As much as you obviously detest the slight Matterhorn-degree slant FOX and co. have. :bow:
Personally, I seldom watch it. Its live coverage suffers from the same sensationalism and sloppy reporting that all of the others do and their "shows" pander too much to outrage junkies. The only one I watch regularly is Special Report, which I find very informative and would recommend to anyone.

What I'm saying is that IMHO most of the "leftist media" you complain about is in fact Centre or moderate-conservative, and its "leftist bias" is not much more than a moderate's dislike of the rather more hardline Bush/FOX stance. The latter is simply *too* Right.If you think Bush is a hardline conservative, it really shows how skewed your euro perspective is. :wink:

Watchman

02-01-2006, 23:27

He seems to be as hard as now can float to the top of American political hierarchy, anyway. No doubt there are worse, but would any of them have honest chances of getting that high to begin with ?

Gawain of Orkeny

02-02-2006, 01:55

He seems to be as hard as now can float to the top of American political hierarchy, anyway. No doubt there are worse, but would any of them have honest chances of getting that high to begin with ?

Just hang onto your hat. Someday we will get another Reagan in. If Mc Cain gets the nomination he will win and in many ways hes far more conservative than Bush is. Bush is a long way from representing the far right here. Hes a moderate as far as american politics go nowdays.

The only one I watch regularly is Special Report, which I find very informative and would recommend to anyone.

Same here. Its the only show there I watch regulary. Ill tune into O Rielly or Hannity now and then for a bit of Irish humor.:laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

02-02-2006, 07:30

Bah. MacCain sponsered the campaign finance reform bill that made it illegal to mention a candidate's name in an ad 30 days before an election or something-pandering to incumbents and unconstitutional.

Crazed Rabbit

Watchman

02-02-2006, 10:58

If, for the sake of the argument, your estimate of Bush "as moderate as far as American politics go nowadays" is taken to be correct, I'll just say this - you guys are screwed.

Vote Democrat. Going by that, at least they ought to still be operating with their higher brain functions and not reality-denying ideology.

Hypotheses aside, my opinion of Americans isn't so poor as to accept Bush is what amounts to a "moderate" down there.

Ironside

02-02-2006, 15:42

Just hang onto your hat. Someday we will get another Reagan in. If Mc Cain gets the nomination he will win and in many ways hes far more conservative than Bush is. Bush is a long way from representing the far right here. Hes a moderate as far as american politics go nowdays.

Bush certainly feels flirting with the religous right on moral issues, while he's some pseudo-left thingy on goverment (he's for big goverment, social security etc, nothing to make him a true leftist though). Big goverment in the name of defence for the citizens is right-wing though.

Thus you "can" count him as moderate (clear right-wing case on this side of the pond though).

BTW Gawain you do class the extreme right as libertarian (well, the extreme at this direction is anarchism) IIRC, right? Preferbly tilting a bit into the good old 50-ties on moral issue, but nothing severe in that direction.

I think it's a bit of word mix-up involved. Libertarians is considered to be in the middle here.

rory_20_uk

02-02-2006, 21:48

I find that left and right are really terms that are extremely unhelpful as people can take different right / left stands on different issues. I believe that if a person doesn't there is something wrong with them! :laugh3:

I find that this site is extremely useful http://politicalcompass.org/ I was surprised that I apparently come out as left wing, although I am very in favour of the death penalty for criminals and a decrease in the size of the welfare state.

~:smoking:

Major Robert Dump

02-02-2006, 22:02

Bush certainly feels flirting with the religous right on moral issues, while he's some pseudo-left thingy on goverment (he's for big goverment, social security etc, nothing to make him a true leftist though). Big goverment in the name of defence for the citizens is right-wing though.

Thus you "can" count him as moderate (clear right-wing case on this side of the pond though).

BTW Gawain you do class the extreme right as libertarian (well, the extreme at this direction is anarchism) IIRC, right? Preferbly tilting a bit into the good old 50-ties on moral issue, but nothing severe in that direction.

I think it's a bit of word mix-up involved. Libertarians is considered to be in the middle here.

Heh. I didn't know Social Security was a left wing thing. Taking care of old people who paid into the system all their life is soooooo hippy.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-03-2006, 02:13

BTW Gawain you do class the extreme right as libertarian

Do you consider me extreme right wing?

I think it's a bit of word mix-up involved. Libertarians is considered to be in the middle here.

Most libetarians I know here are more lean towards the conservative side as most want to go by the constitution . Ichi is a god example of a more left leaning libertarian. You basicly have it correct.

Heh. I didn't know Social Security was a left wing thing.

Its friggin socialist even in its name.

IrishMike

02-03-2006, 03:16

Off of that political compass site I came out past Ganhi on the left learning side.
And yeah i'd say social security is a pretty left policy, nothing wrong with that though. Next step is nationalized health care in the USA.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-03-2006, 03:20

Next step is nationalized health care in the USA.

Hopefully not.

And yeah i'd say social security is a pretty left policy, nothing wrong with that though.

Except that its unconstitutional and a rip off scheme. It should be abolished not fixed.

IrishMike

02-03-2006, 03:36

Hopefully not.

Except that its unconstitutional and a rip off scheme. It should be abolished not fixed.

Just think of how many people social security has helped. If we didn't have it many more people would suffer as a result and you would lose a chuck of the elderly economy.

As for the national health care, its either that or drug company price control.

Samurai Waki

02-03-2006, 03:41

Social Security you say? Ha! only aging hippies need social security so they can buy Pot and try to get a senior discount on it.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-03-2006, 03:56

Just think of how many people social security has helped

And how many never got a penny back? Besides that youd get a better return just putting the money in the bank. But then we all know its up to the government to make us save. Were too stupid.

Major Robert Dump

02-03-2006, 04:55

And how many never got a penny back? Besides that youd get a better return just putting the money in the bank. But then we all know its up to the government to make us save. Were too stupid.

Hey man, I'm all for some sort of "opt-out" plan for Social Security. I'd be the first to jump ship because theres no way that money is going to be there in 35 years.

but that will never happen because of the AARP lobby,

and what would we do with people who have paid into it but never hit eligibility before opting out? Do they get the money back? I'm sure the SSA would burn the rug moving to get us our refund checks.

What I want to know is, when it eventually runs out of money, whats going to happen to the people who payed into it all their lives only to never see a dime back.

It could have been a great system, but:

-the first round of oldies to get paid from it never actually paid into it, so you are operating in the red from the beginning

-massive amounts of fraud, both from people claiming the deceaseds benefits, and from medical proffesionals who cooked the books, and straight up injury fraud

-and my personal favorite, politicians using the money as a rainy day fund
for other projects and replacing it with IOUs.

Hehe the letter i recived from the SSA when I turned 27 -- you know, the ones that tells you that you are officially old -- said up to that point I had paid something like 17,000 dollars into the system. That would be from 10 years of working. Considering I make more and more money each year, if we round up to an even 20k per 10 years that means by age 65 I've paid at least 100k but likely more.

I want my money back