View Full Version : Anatomy of Political Hackery
We backroomers tend to throw around the concept of "bias!" quite a lot, especially when we don't like someone's source. I think it would be appropriate to break down what we mean a little more clearly, so here's my first draft. Pick it apart, please. I'd like to turn this into something good. Feel free to dispute the categories, add categories, dispute examples, add examples, change examples, etc. I think this will be a fun exercise.
Also note that I only have five circles of hell so far. If we're going to be properly medieval about this, there should be nine. So add circles of fire and brimstone as you see fit, and slot them in where you think they make sense.
1st circle of hell: Publications that attempt to adhere to "neutral" news and do okay. You can accuse them of bias, but you're just making yourself look petty. Examples: The Economist, ABC News, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, WaPo.
2nd circle of hell: Media outlets that espouse news neutrality but kinda suck at it. They have a bit of tilt to their coverage, but they at least try to keep out of the partisan gutter (even though they fail). Accusing these publications of bias is legitimate, but unsporting. Examples: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CBS, NPR.
3rd circle of hell: Single-issue maniacs. This would include any blogger/columnist who is fixated on a single issue, to the exclusion of all else. I don't really mind these types, since they are usually quite upfront with their agenda. Worth noting that this category includes some very talented writers. Quite a lot of pro/anti gay columnists would fall into this circle, as would some of the more lovable fringe bloggers. ("The nation that controls magnesium will control the world!") Examples: Dan Savage, Fred Dobson. (I'm sure there are thousands more, but I'm drawing a blank.)
4th circle of hell: Tribe-identifying leftists/rightists. These are the writers/news reporters who have a deep, abiding interest in seeing "their" side win. The team is more important than rational thought, although some of these writers are still very, very talented. Examples: Arianna Huffington, P.J. O'Rourke.
5th circle of hell: Single-party convenience vehicles. These people don't care about right or wrong, and they don't even care if they make any sort of consistent sense. They are devoted only to the Republican or Democratic party, and all other considerations are secondary. I place them below the tribe-identifiers because these chaps don't even have a philosophical underpinning -- their reasoning changes course when their chosen party changes course. Examples: Rush Limbaugh, Daily Kos, Fox News, Al Franken, Ann Coulter.
Marshal Murat
10-06-2007, 17:52
My thoughts...
1. Is hackery a word?
2. Why in NPR on the 2nd level. Their news reporting is definitely 1st level stuff.
3. It seems there are only American Conservatives in the 5th circle. Little unfair and, dare I say it...biased!?
Overall a fair analysis of the situation. I however, would like to suggest the 'Murdoch Circle' for Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc. :idea2:
I included an influential leftist web site and a bestselling partisan Democratic author in the fifth circle. Your idae of having a "Murdoch Circle" is interesting ...
GeneralHankerchief
10-06-2007, 17:54
3. It seems there are only American Conservatives in the 5th circle. Little unfair and, dare I say it...biased!?
Daily Kos and Al Franken are in the 5th circle... :dizzy2:
-edit- Looks like the Lemur has the faster fingers.
woad&fangs
10-06-2007, 17:57
I highly recommend The Week. It is a weekly magazine with generally short but accurate articles. It usually has both sides presented in its main articles. It also includes a lot of news from outside of the U.S.
I avoid all circles of hell.
Lord Winter
10-07-2007, 06:34
CNN, has a fair left based spin. I would nominated that them and NPR switch places in the circles of hell.
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2007, 06:48
Fox News is in the 5th circle, while CNN is in the first? That's political hackery, say I!
CR
I wonder if it would be possible to create a version of this list that everybody could agree on, or a least live with? It's worth a try, surely.
Seems like two people feel that NPR should be moved to the first circle. Fine by me. And two people think that CNN should be moved to the second circle or lower.
I'm not sure about CNN. Admittedly, I almost never watch it, but the clips I've seen floating around the tubes in the internets seem all over the place. They don't seem to have any sort of consistent viewpoint. One minute they've got some dude on who's acting like a complete and total apologist for the current administration, and the next minute they've got a guy on who sounds left of Michael Moore. I'm old enough to remember when they were a news channel, and not yet another home for shouting heads.
I'm open to suggestions on where to slot CNN, in other words. But it would be helpful if someone who is not devoted to the right wing would chime in. If our Euro-weenies and Republicans both think CNN tilts toward a recognizable side, that would be helpful.
I'm still hoping somebody will put forward some more names and organizations. Maybe even a new circle of hell? I skewed pretty heavily toward writers and print media. This is because I have a terrible TV deficit. I need help!
-edit-
Just occurred to me, by the definition I'm using right now, the First Circle of Hell really ought to be Purgatory. I'll fix that in the next draft of the list. Might as well get more feedback and suggestions before I bother, though.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-07-2007, 07:18
I'd say CNN might tilt a little to the left, but nothing beyond second circle for sure.
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 07:34
Might add a final circle though, containing the outright propaganda. Those papers who supported the nazi's or USSR, for example.
And where is the mention of pure party newspapers(as in created and run directly by a political party)? They should be in there for sure...
Uesugi Kenshin
10-07-2007, 15:05
CNN definitely doesn't belong any lower than the second circle. I watched a fair amount of it in Germany because it was pretty much my only English-language news source and it seemed too ready to accept explanations from the administration/righties on whether or not a certain plan would help stabilize Iraq or not to be any lower than the second circle. I'm not sure that I would put them in the first circle though...I'd say they belong in the second circle.
Where would some of the Euro news sites go? I read some of these occasionally but not enough to really know where to place them.
BBC
The Telegram
Reuters
France24
Deutsche Welle
Wiener Zeitung
Kommersant
Itar Tass
Marshal Murat
10-07-2007, 19:51
From what I understand, BBC has something of a left lean.
HoreTore
10-07-2007, 19:55
From what I understand, BBC has something of a left lean.
BBC World certainly doesn't. They're clearly right in the center, or objective if you will.
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2007, 20:06
CNN and Fox should be in the 2nd circle, methinks.
CR
Hmm, CNN may be confused, and it may have a bit of tilt, but it isn't devoted to the welfare of a single political party. I can't see equating Fox with CNN. Do any non-right-wingers have an opinion on this, just for perspective's sake?
Didn't the BBC conduct an internal investigation of itself, and find that it had a heavily pro-Islamic bias? (Forgive me if I'm inaccurately summarizing a hazily-remembered article.)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-07-2007, 22:51
Fox should be in the 2nd circle, methinks.
CR
Fox should stay where it is. I watch Fox TV for a laugh whenever I'm in the Americas. It consists entirely of people of one political party trying to take down another - I've even seen such blatant expressions as, I quote:
You wouldn't see this on CNN or ABC, because they don't want you to see it, they're so left wing.
In the middle of a news report. Fair and unbiased my ***.
Uesugi Kenshin
10-08-2007, 02:51
Hmm, CNN may be confused, and it may have a bit of tilt, but it isn't devoted to the welfare of a single political party. I can't see equating Fox with CNN. Do any non-right-wingers have an opinion on this, just for perspective's sake?
Didn't the BBC conduct an internal investigation of itself, and find that it had a heavily pro-Islamic bias? (Forgive me if I'm inaccurately summarizing a hazily-remembered article.)
Hey Lemur I said I think CNN should be in the second circle of hell and I'm not a right-winger!!! Course I definitely have a fairly substantial leftist lean going, but that's not when it comes to specific parties or politicians. I don't like either of the major American parties and distrust almost all politicians, so I'm not biased towards a news corporation that supports one party or the other.
Oh yeah and I try to approach issues based on how practical they are and their real-world effects rather than on an emotional basis, so yeah...Anyway that's me in a nutshell.
Oh and I agree that Fox should be in the 5th circle of hell. They're biased beyond belief.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-08-2007, 03:36
Hey Lemur I said I think CNN should be in the second circle of hell and I'm not a right-winger!!!
I agree with you, and I'm about as centrist as they get.
Uesugi Kenshin
10-08-2007, 04:05
I agree with you, and I'm about as centrist as they get.
I think my approach to politics is moderate in that I don't pursue certain policies for the sake of being "Socialist" or "conservative," but I support policies that make sense and are proven to work and/or seem like they should work or have some other evidence to support them.
For some reason that means I most often support leftist and centrist policies.
Papewaio
10-08-2007, 04:14
I included an influential leftist web site and a bestselling partisan Democratic author in the fifth circle. Your idae of having a "Murdoch Circle" is interesting ...
Rename it the Aussie circle and you'd be on to something...
DemonArchangel
10-08-2007, 05:41
NPR has somewhat of a left bias, but that doesn't really detract that much from the quality of their news, mainly because I'm at the very least socially leftist. I say it stays in the 2nd Circle. I should start reading the Economist, but my school gets copies of the American Economic Review, which is more in depth, and actually quite good reading. So I'll read that instead.
HoreTore
10-08-2007, 17:10
Read an interesting commentary in the paper today, about why the media is leftist. The answer was very simple:
The media is made to be critical of those in power. And the world today is capitalist, so it follows that the newspapers will have to be critical of capitalism. And thus appear leftie.
Ironside
10-08-2007, 17:59
The Telegram
Reuters
The Telegram = TT?
In that case both of these are probably in the first circle, as they activly try to keep bias away from the article. And are IMO fairly good at it (the biased ones usually got a name connected to it).
Of course they usually doesn't go in depth and it's hard to know what's left out, making bias hard to be seen.
Gives a lot of the international news feed here. Can't say much of the rest of that list, haven't red them enough (or at all).
Okay, based on the feedback so far, I drafted a new version of my list of the damned. Please, if you're going to list a news source, could you also suggest which circle you think it belongs in? Pape, I like the idea of an Australian circle of hell, but can't seem to make it work. Murdoch's different organs have varying degrees of partisanship, and I can't figure out how to differentiate them while lumping them into their own sandbox.
I also split BBC news up, since there seems to be a feeling that their World News is more neutral than their normal coverage. If I'm getting it wrong, let me know.
Based on the feedback, I moved CNN one rung lower, and left Fox where it is. More suggestions, more criticisms, please!
Map of the Media Circles of Damnation
Purgatory: Publications that attempt to adhere to "neutral" news and do okay. You can accuse them of bias, but you're just being petty. Examples: The Economist, ABC News, Reuters, AP, The Christian Science Monitor, WaPo, BBC World News.
1st circle of hell: Media outlets that espouse news neutrality but kinda suck at it. They have a bit of tilt to their coverage, but they at least try to keep out of the partisan gutter (even though they fail). Accusing these publications of bias is legitimate, but unsporting. Examples: The New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, BBC News.
2nd circle of hell: Single-issue maniacs. This would include any blogger/columnist who is fixated on a single issue, to the exclusion of all else. I don't really mind these types, since they are usually quite upfront with their agenda. Worth noting that this category includes some very talented writers. Quite a lot of pro/anti gay columnists would fall into this circle, as would some of the more lovable fringe bloggers. ("The nation that controls magnesium will control the world!") Examples: Dan Savage, Fred Dobson. (More examples, please?)
3rd circle of hell: Tribe-identifying leftists/rightists. These are the writers/news reporters who have a deep, abiding interest in seeing "their" side win. The team is more important than rational thought, although some of these writers are still very, very talented. Examples: Arianna Huffington, P.J. O'Rourke.
4th circle of hell: Single-party convenience vehicles. These people don't care about right or wrong, and they don't even care if they make any sort of consistent sense. They are devoted only to the Republican or Democratic party, and all other considerations are secondary. I place them below the tribe-identifiers because these chaps don't even have a philosophical underpinning -- their reasoning changes course when their chosen party changes course. Examples: Rush Limbaugh, Daily Kos, Fox News, Al Franken, Ann Coulter.
5th circle of hell: Pure propaganda outlets. Publications that are organs of or direct affiliates of political parties. Example: Party newspapers.
I'm not so sure about the New York Times, they may have slipped down somewhat. The Washington Post might have a slight slant (maybe that's just the editorials), but at least they try to get the news straight.
You might want to add a circle for bubblegum pop rags. Where would USA Today fall?
And a separate circle should be reserved for tabs like the NY Post, the Sun, etc.
Crazed Rabbit
10-08-2007, 21:37
I think the WSJ ought to be in purgatory. I recall a study where its news (and not op-ed) leaned left. It certainly shouldn't be with the NYT.
I still think Fox should not be in the 4th circle, simply because criticism against them comes from many repetitions by lefties that 'Fox News is biased'. Sadly, it seems that their strategy of whining so very often about it has worked. Yes, they've got Bill O'Reilly, but he and other pundits are not part of the news team. The idea that they are "Single-party convenience vehicles. These people don't care about right or wrong, and they don't even care if they make any sort of consistent sense. They are devoted only to the Republican or Democratic party, and all other considerations are secondary." is nonsensical.
Reuters should be 1st circle, not purgatory, due to the 'we don't want to offend by calling someone a terrorist' and manipulated photos from Lebanon.
AP should be in the 1st circle, for making up events to make Bush look bad, and general bias in coverage of democrats and republicans.
I think categorizing writers like PJ O'Rourke with supposedly objective journalists isn't right. I mean, yeah, Huffington is biased, but she's not pretending to objectively report news. I guess I could see it, as they might portray incidents to their advantage, but that seems to be confusing Op-ed with news.
CR
I still think Fox should not be in the 4th circle, simply because criticism against them comes from many repetitions by lefties that 'Fox News is biased'. Sadly, it seems that their strategy of whining so very often about it has worked. Yes, they've got Bill O'Reilly, but he and other pundits are not part of the news team.
Fox is one of the only news channels I've really watched, since I have a relative who watches all Fox News all the time. And I gotta tell ya, I was left with the impression that they were one logo shy of being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party. And I ain't exactly a lefty or a socialist, not by a long shot. Further, I have never heard anybody who was not a Republican defend them as anything else.
I'll repeat, if a non-right-winger wants to defend Fox News, or suggest a different place to put it, I'm all ears. But the consensus of everybody outside of their target audience is that they're one of the most biased sources of news available, with an easily identifiable affiliation.
Reuters should be 1st circle, not purgatory, due to the 'we don't want to offend by calling someone a terrorist' and manipulated photos from Lebanon.
"Manipulated photos from Lebanon?" What was this? Linky, if possible?
AP should be in the 1st circle, for making up events to make Bush look bad, and general bias in coverage of democrats and republicans.
Wow, you're keen to see all of the wire services in the first circle of hell? What about UPI?
I think categorizing writers like PJ O'Rourke with supposedly objective journalists isn't right. I mean, yeah, Huffington is biased, but she's not pretending to objectively report news. I guess I could see it, as they might portray incidents to their advantage, but that seems to be confusing Op-ed with news.
Yeah, it gets a little blurry when you're using a one-dimensional scale (as I am in this exercise). Look, I'm a big fan of P.J. O'Rourke, and I think he's an amazing writer, but I know he's going to back his "side" no matter what. Same goes for Huffington. What do my fellow Orgahs think? Am I allowed to include opinion writers in this list? Even though I'm not counting editorial pages for bias when I'm contemplating newspapers?
Oh, and I didn't feel like there was a clear consensus about NPR. Do we lump them in Purgatory for good reporting, or do we condemn them to the fires for bias?
woad&fangs
10-08-2007, 22:03
"Manipulated photos from Lebanon?" What was this? Linky, if possible?
I remember something about extra smoke and fire being added to some pictures of the air raids for dramatic effect. I don't remember who did that though.
I'm no lefty, but come on, Fox is heavily biased. Watching their coverage of Election Day 2006 was like watching a funeral. Also, the gem that was "Mark Foley - D(FL)". ~D
It's also very painful to watch for any extended period of time, but that's besides the point. This is about bias, not presentation.
I'm not so sure about the extra explosions in the Reuters photo. Was that just the photog/reporter trying to hype his stuff, or something condoned by Reuters editors?
Where would guys like George Will go?
I still think Fox should not be in the 4th circle, simply because criticism against them comes from many repetitions by lefties that 'Fox News is biased'. Sadly, it seems that their strategy of whining so very often about it has worked. Yes, they've got Bill O'Reilly, but he and other pundits are not part of the news team. The idea that they are "Single-party convenience vehicles. These people don't care about right or wrong, and they don't even care if they make any sort of consistent sense. They are devoted only to the Republican or Democratic party, and all other considerations are secondary." is nonsensical.I agree. You have to differentiate between the regular news coverage and the personality/talking heads shows. Even CNN has a show hosted by someone who shamelessly leans right and MSNBC has several shows hosted by left-wing hacks as well. Sourcing a FNC regular news story is far different from referencing Sean Hannity. FNC critics inexorably use excerpts from opinion-based shows as evidence of their claims. I could take select clips from Olberman and Chris Matthews and make MSNBC looks just as bad or worse.
No one is ever going to agree that any particular source is always unbiased- in fact, I doubt a source exists that doesn't have an article written by someone with an agenda at least occasionally. I guess it doesn't hurt to try though. :shrug:
Edit: Here's the Lebanon photo- the smoke is clearly cloned. I believe there are supposed to be a number of burning buildings that are also cloned.
https://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2250/hajj1ce5.jpg
Marshal Murat
10-08-2007, 22:23
I still think that NPR should be placed in purgatory. If it was PBS, then I could hear different arguments, but NPR has consistently been as centrist as possible, in my humble opinion.
You have to differentiate between the regular news coverage and the personality/talking heads shows. Even CNN has a show hosted by someone who shamelessly leans right and MSNBC has several shows hosted by left-wing hacks as well. Sourcing a FNC regular news story is far different from referencing Sean Hannity.
Again, I repeat, I have never spoken with anyone who was not a Republican who echoed this view. And as I said, I have a relative who has FN on at all times; I've seen more of it than I have any other cable news channel, so I'm not shooting completely blind here.
Unless a non-right-winger wants to come to Fox News's defense, I'm leaving them where they are.
No one is ever going to agree that any particular source is always unbiased- in fact, I doubt a source exists that doesn't have an article written by someone with an agenda at least occasionally.
You will note that my artificial scale stops at purgatory. No heaven for these people.
General opinion on the Reuters cloned smoke episode? Do they have a consistent tilt?
Crazed Rabbit
10-08-2007, 23:35
Oh, and I didn't feel like there was a clear consensus about NPR. Do we lump them in Purgatory for good reporting, or do we condemn them to the fires for bias?
The fires. They are biased. They certainly aren't as centrist as possible. I have listened to it often before, also.
Again, I repeat, I have never spoken with anyone who was not a Republican who echoed this view.
And I've never seen proof or evidence that they are a party machine except when presented by leftists who use the pundits as part of the proof. It's circular reasoning; Fox News is biased, everybody nows it. So can anyone provide proof of this, hmm? That they are supposedly so very much worse than the NYT and whichever channel Olbermann is on?
CR
I found something about the Reuters Photo fraud:
http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
EDIT AGAIN: I guess that Reuters actually admited that they did photoshop those photos, though it seems to be the work of one photographer. I am worried at their lack of oversight for something as newsbreaking as the bombing of Beirut, for stories off the mainstream I could imagine someone getting away with stuff like this, not frontpage news though. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
This is the Telegram website I go to, not sure if it's abreviated TT though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/;jsessionid=3WJXA4MLUE003QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0
I think I'll have to nominate Lou Dobbs for the 2nd circle, all though I agree with a fair bit of what he says he is 100% anti immigration and this is THE issue is always on about.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2007, 04:05
I just love the inherent irony of using "The Divine Comedy" as your metaphor for political reportage. :devilish:
I believe there were nine circles, though, my Lemury Virgil -- though it's been some while since I read it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-09-2007, 04:07
I think my approach to politics is moderate in that I don't pursue certain policies for the sake of being "Socialist" or "conservative," but I support policies that make sense and are proven to work and/or seem like they should work or have some other evidence to support them.
For some reason that means I most often support leftist and centrist policies.
I agree with you. On one hand, I think free healthcare is a good thing, and, on the other, I believe in a constitutional monarchy and a medium to large military.
I feel I'm getting off topic though. :laugh4:
EDIT: Cool, 1900 posts.
I believe there were nine circles, though, my Lemury Virgil -- though it's been some while since I read it.
I'm leaving it with room to grow. We have four circles vacant -- people, give me some more categories of damnation!
HoreTore
10-09-2007, 08:52
I'm leaving it with room to grow. We have four circles vacant -- people, give me some more categories of damnation!
I gave you two; you ignored the other and replaced the 5th with the other, bumping everyone else up a level, and introduced Purgatory. It clearly is you who are being the bottleneck in hell, so I'll give you the final one:
9th Circle of hell: The Lemur circle. You manipulative hack.
Note: the little lemurs and mrs. lemur don't have to pay for your crimes of course, so they'll end up in heaven.
woad&fangs
10-09-2007, 12:49
Just curious but where would stuff like Stephen Colbert and The Onion fit into.
Just curious but where would stuff like Stephen Colbert and The Onion fit into.
Heaven, of course! Blessed are the satirists. :yes:
I thought some more about this last night, and one thing popped into my head: sensationalist news. Any outlet that spent more than 15% of it's news coverage in one day on Anna Nicole Smith, while a war was going on, cannot be allowed any higher than circle 4. And, yes, this includes CNN. The fifth estate has responsibilities, and some outlets are blatantly ignoring their duties.
I gave you two; you ignored the other and replaced the 5th with the other, bumping everyone else up a level, and introduced Purgatory. It clearly is you who are being the bottleneck in hell, so I'll give you the final one:
9th Circle of hell: The Lemur circle. You manipulative hack.
Sorry, I thought you were suggesting a single circle. I did not realize that state-supported newspapers and party-supported newspapers were meant to be two different categories of damnation.
macsen rufus
10-09-2007, 17:53
I'm not really sure that bloggers and "single issue maniacs" should be included in the spectrum really, I don't regard them as journalists at all, rather they are activists. But hey, that's no reason not to consign them to hell, though ~D
Whoever did that photo, should be shot - if that's the best they can do with Photoshop they need to spend some prime time with their Adobe manuals :laugh4: . It wouldn't have been tolerated in Pravda, if you're going to airbrush heroes of the revolution out of the picture etc you can't leave any reminders that you've done so, defeats the object.
I think there should be a special circle reserved for 'news' outlets that seem to think that celebrity eating habits or bustlines are news, though it's not defendable on a 'bias' platform, just a downright waste of time. Maybe circle 6?
Ironside
10-09-2007, 18:28
I still think Fox should not be in the 4th circle, simply because criticism against them comes from many repetitions by lefties that 'Fox News is biased'. Sadly, it seems that their strategy of whining so very often about it has worked. Yes, they've got Bill O'Reilly, but he and other pundits are not part of the news team.
Not getting enough info to be able to place Fox news (much of the articles seen here are biased though, but they often have an odd selection), but as a test I'll ask what's the biggest international news that comes from Iran atm (looks like yesterdays news though), considering the recent news from Iran that we have a thread about?
The idea that they are "Single-party convenience vehicles. These people don't care about right or wrong, and they don't even care if they make any sort of consistent sense. They are devoted only to the Republican or Democratic party, and all other considerations are secondary." is nonsensical.
I can actually agree to this one somewhat, or are papers criticising the goverment of the same colours on a issue due to ideological reasons (aka the goverment policy isn't close enough) in the second circle? Incompetance is often a purgatory issue when reported on though.
Reuters should be 1st circle, not purgatory, due to the 'we don't want to offend by calling someone a terrorist' and manipulated photos from Lebanon.
It depends on how the policy is followed, if done well it's rather a sign of a good policy (a man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, aka both words are biased), but if poorly done, you're correct.
The photos depends on motives if it falls as poor journalistic quality or bias.
This is the Telegram website I go to, not sure if it's abreviated TT though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/;jsessionid=3WJXA4MLUE003QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0
Seems to be the wrong TT, my google fu say that TT (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå, roughly The newspaper's telegram office) is owned by all major newspaper in Sweden (and those exist in all colours) to give neutral journalistic news to to local news that cannot afford to have thier own national/international coverage. Explains why they certainly feel neutral.
BTW anybody wants to rank Pravda? The little I've red makes them feel like the onion, only that they're serious, (but very heavily biased).
I'm not really sure that bloggers and "single issue maniacs" should be included in the spectrum really, I don't regard them as journalists at all, rather they are activists. But hey, that's no reason not to consign them to hell, though ~DI agree. I generally try to refrain from blogs, ect as a primary source. They're fine to reference for their analysis, but at least take the time to link the actual news story they're analyzing so we can read the less biased (hopefully) version.
I think there should be a special circle reserved for 'news' outlets that seem to think that celebrity eating habits or bustlines are news, though it's not defendable on a 'bias' platform, just a downright waste of time. Maybe circle 6?Oh, I think there already is a special place in hell for them. :yes:
Crazed Rabbit
10-09-2007, 20:45
a man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, aka both words are biased
I'm sick of this cliche, especially since it's so wrong; the Islamic terrorists we're battling are fighting for no one's freedom, but to uphold and advance oppressive regimes.
CR
Ironside
10-10-2007, 18:16
I'm sick of this cliche, especially since it's so wrong; the Islamic terrorists we're battling are fighting for no one's freedom, but to uphold and advance oppressive regimes.
CR
Ok, you win, they would probably define themself as holy warriors or something. :book:
Point is, that they won't see themself as evil and especially the foot soldiers will fight for what they see as a better tomorrow (as they won't reallly get increased power in life when they're dead).
But more on subject on the already existing bias in the word terrorist.
Do you agree that bombing a goverment building causing multiple civilian deaths is terrorism? Should someone that's involved in terrorism be called a terrorist? How far is this involvement streched?
Should a terrorist ever be stopped being called a terrorist? If that's the case, when?
This should be seen from a objective perspective of course.
HoreTore
10-10-2007, 18:33
Some papers I've wondered where goes, since I never/rarely get to read them, due to either language or availability:
- Le Monde
- Der Spiegel
- Al Jazeera
- Al Jazeera International
- The Jerusalem Post
- Haaretz
Tribesman
10-10-2007, 20:44
I'm sick of this cliche, especially since it's so wrong; the Islamic terrorists we're battling are fighting for no one's freedom, but to uphold and advance oppressive regimes.
But its true , the fatwa agaisnt the united states by those you are battling says quite clearly it is to combat the americans propping up and advancing oppressive regimes...like Egypt , Morrocco , Saudi , Kuwait.....
Ok, you win
you give in too easy Ironside .
Marshal Murat
10-10-2007, 20:57
Tribesman, on topic.
What about the 'Drudge Report' ?
The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/)
News source that is multiple sources? I think it adds to the diversity and perspective...
Al-Jazeera wasn't all that bad, the few times that I have read it.
Ironside
10-10-2007, 22:40
But its true , the fatwa agaisnt the united states by those you are battling says quite clearly it is to combat the americans propping up and advancing oppressive regimes...like Egypt , Morrocco , Saudi , Kuwait.....
you give in too easy Ironside .
Well, they are mostly against thier leaders in thier own countries (you forgot Pakistan in that list btw), but they don't seem that keen on replacing the current leaders with something considerbly less oppressive and they do try to uphold and advance oppressive regimes. That those regimes are mostly small and insignificant atm doesn't change that part.
Besides I wasn't really interested in that point (never really liked that word either), so giving up very early simply keeps the victory from being sweet. :yes:
Crazed Rabbit
10-10-2007, 23:39
Do you agree that bombing a goverment building causing multiple civilian deaths is terrorism?
Depends on the intent. Timothy McVeigh - yes, US strikes on targets in Iraq - no.
Should someone that's involved in terrorism be called a terrorist? How far is this involvement streched?
Hmm. Interesting question. I'd think anyone who helped plan, prepare, and carry out attacks. But then those people might have supporters who provide indirect aid - housing, food, shelter. I suppose the question is again on intent - did they know they were providing aid to someone who was going to commit terrorism.
Should a terrorist ever be stopped being called a terrorist? If that's the case, when?
Like a person who gave up terrorism but was a terrorist in the past? I suppose one might forever be called a former terrorist, but when that change occurs would depend on the case.
Ok, you win, they would probably define themself as holy warriors or something. :book:
Point is, that they won't see themself as evil and especially the foot soldiers will fight for what they see as a better tomorrow (as they won't reallly get increased power in life when they're dead).
Anyone, the overall point is that Reuters needs to be beaten down into the 1st circle of political hackery Hell!
CR
HoreTore
10-11-2007, 06:53
:hijacked:
I finally got to use that smiley!!
Ironside
10-11-2007, 06:57
Depends on the intent. Timothy McVeigh - yes, US strikes on targets in Iraq - no.
The bombers are the only sides that have declared war, but the target contains some military importance, (while still filled with civilians).
Hmm. Interesting question. I'd think anyone who helped plan, prepare, and carry out attacks. But then those people might have supporters who provide indirect aid - housing, food, shelter. I suppose the question is again on intent - did they know they were providing aid to someone who was going to commit terrorism.
Yes, and they're supplying weapons amoung other supplies. But they're providing indirect aid.
Anyone, the overall point is that Reuters needs to be beaten down into the 1st circle of political hackery Hell!
CR
I'm coming to that point after your response to these questions.
ajaxfetish
10-11-2007, 07:29
I agree with the point made several times that the tabloids/celebrity news need their own circle of hell, preferably as low as possible. Satirist news I'm not sure could be fit onto such a spectrum, but if there is a place for it it needs its own circle.
I'm also curious where others would place Al Jazeera, as the most well-known Islamic news source and as I understand it one of the most unbiased from that region.
Ajax
macsen rufus
10-11-2007, 12:38
Hmm. Interesting question. I'd think anyone who helped plan, prepare, and carry out attacks. But then those people might have supporters who provide indirect aid - housing, food, shelter. I suppose the question is again on intent - did they know they were providing aid to someone who was going to commit terrorism.
And governments/states that host them?
cough - NORAID - cough
Tribesman
10-11-2007, 12:44
I'm also curious where others would place Al Jazeera, as the most well-known Islamic news source and as I understand it one of the most unbiased from that region.
I don't know where to place it , but it is quite good , it manages to rip into dinnerjacket on what he actually says rather than on what they would like to think he says as most western sources do .
macsen rufus
10-11-2007, 13:25
Al Jazeera - I used their website quite a bit during certain events in the Middle East as it was blatant that our own media (BBC included) were "supporting the war effort" rather than being objective. It certainly came across as being a lot less hysterical, anyway, and was a useful counterbalance at the time. Haven't visited them recently so don't know if it still holds true.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.