Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on September 25, 2003, 11:33:01 AM
-
And try to prove it!
-
I believe even the most famous news anchorman admitted it was bias left by nature. (Walter Cronkite)
-
Darn conservative owned media.
-
They are way left on some stuff like Guns, hell CNN had to make **** up about asault rifles.
I think they are left on the war, but its prolly less about politics and more about ratings.
I think they sway back and forth, based on ratings on money.
-
Good topic. Hold the hyperbole and just cite examples.
-
Lewinskigate
-
The dominant media are left and there's no use proving it, books have been written on the subject. For the last 15 years or so the right has made big inroads, mainly through talk radio and on Fox News. Before that the only conservative on TV was Archie Bunker.
But the NYT and other major newspapers, the networks, and Hollywood are leftist. Not as leftist as they'd like to be, though, which is why they claim there is no bias.
ra
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
They are way left on some stuff like Guns, hell CNN had to make **** up about asault rifles.
Dateline NBC fabricated a story about the safety of saddlebag-style gas tanks on GMC trucks and got everybody in an uproar about how unsafe they were when struck from the side. In a dramatic video segment, NBC showed a GMC truck being broadsided and going up in flames.
But GMC isn't stupid.
They investigated the segment and found the trucks that were actually used in the demonstration. Seems that after NBC was done with them, the smoldering hulks were sold to a junkyard for salvage. GM traced the VIN numbers and found the trucks in the yard untouched since delivery from NBC's wrecker. Attached to the beds of the trucks, under the sheetmetal, were model rocket motors. GMC sued NBC (for demation I believe) and won.
-
Here's a good example... The Wellstone Memorial service.
Everyone thinks it was a huge Democratic partisan rally. In reality only one speaker mentioned the election to any great extent in the entire 3 hour program. The boos received by Lott were reported as a "smattering" the next day in the Minnesota press, but have been blown into "20,000 liberals screaming" by Limbaugh and his ilk. Think about what you have heard or think you know about the service. Do you think your information was skewed right or left?
-
Originally posted by ra
The dominant media are left and there's no use proving it, books have been written on the subject.
He read it in a book, it must be true. QED
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Dateline NBC fabricated a story about the safety of saddlebag-style gas tanks on GMC trucks and got everybody in an uproar about how unsafe they were when struck from the side. In a dramatic video segment, NBC showed a GMC truck being broadsided and going up in flames.
But GMC isn't stupid.
They investigated the segment and found the trucks that were actually used in the demonstration. Seems that after NBC was done with them, the smoldering hulks were sold to a junkyard for salvage. GM traced the VIN numbers and found the trucks in the yard untouched since delivery from NBC's wrecker. Attached to the beds of the trucks, under the sheetmetal, were model rocket motors. GMC sued NBC (for demation I believe) and won.
All quite true to my recollection. I think they had to report a full retraction and apologize, too.
-
Wouldn't the GMC think really fall under ratings and being sleazy?
How other then the sleazy part how is that left? :D
Erlkonig You should tone it up. I mean really let is all hang out, then maybe your proby tag will go away.... with you.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Wouldn't the GMC think really fall under ratings and being sleazy?
How other then the sleazy part how is that left? :D
Erlkonig You should tone it up. I mean really let is all hang out, then maybe your proby tag will go away.... with you.
Against big business?
*shrugs*
-
Free press is in nature biased a bit to the left, for a very good reason, but sometimes not so good results.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
He read it in a book, it must be true. QED
Perhaps you could have somebody read one to you some day. FU
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here's a good example... The Wellstone Memorial service.
Everyone thinks it was a huge Democratic partisan rally. In reality only one speaker mentioned the election to any great extent in the entire 3 hour program. The boos received by Lott were reported as a "smattering" the next day in the Minnesota press, but have been blown into "20,000 liberals screaming" by Limbaugh and his ilk. Think about what you have heard or think you know about the service. Do you think your information was skewed right or left?
BS flag
From a LEFT leaning publication in Minnesota (St.Paul Pioneer Press)
"I can still hear that strong, clear voice calling for me that it is now our time to stand up for the people he fought for," Rick Kahn, a former student of Mr. Wellstone's at Carleton College, said of the late senator in a spirited eulogy that sounded like a get-out-the-vote speech. "Can you not hear your friend calling you, one last time, one step forward on his behalf, to keep his legacy alive and help us win this election for Paul Wellstone."
Some 20,000 people packed into two sports stadiums on the University of Minnesota campus here tonight to remember Mr. Wellstone, his wife of 39 years, Sheila, their daughter Marica Markuson and three other victims of Friday's fiery crash in northern Minnesota, in an unusual service that was, at once, a touching memorial for beloved friends and a rousing political rally for Democrats desperate to retain control of the Senate.
At Mr. Kahn's words, people sprang to their feet, as the face of Walter F. Mondale, the former vice president who is likely to replace Mr. Wellstone on Tuesday's ballot, flashed on the Jumbotron. The spontaneous chant was a muddle of "Wellstone, Wellstone!" and "Mondale, Mondale!"
Later, the Wellstone's youngest child, Mark, would lead the crowd in a roar of "We will win!"
In attendance were former President Bill Clinton; former Vice President Al Gore; the Rev. Jesse Jackson; the actor Michael J. Fox; and at least half the Senate.
-
Where's the BS Rip. Kahn was the one guy I'm talking about. Read the Eulogy by Wellstone's Son. Hardly term that as mainly political.
-
what's the point?
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Dateline NBC fabricated a story about the safety of saddlebag-style gas tanks on GMC trucks and got everybody in an uproar about how unsafe they were when struck from the side. In a dramatic video segment, NBC showed a GMC truck being broadsided and going up in flames.
But GMC isn't stupid.
They investigated the segment and found the trucks that were actually used in the demonstration. Seems that after NBC was done with them, the smoldering hulks were sold to a junkyard for salvage. GM traced the VIN numbers and found the trucks in the yard untouched since delivery from NBC's wrecker. Attached to the beds of the trucks, under the sheetmetal, were model rocket motors. GMC sued NBC (for demation I believe) and won.
Found more info about this and wanted to clear up misconceptions. Seems NBC avoided the lawsuit by issuing an on-air apology for misleading the public.
Failure Analysis has been called in on many high-profile cases. When Dateline NBC showed a car plowing into the side of a GMC truck with side-saddle gas tanks, a made-for-TV collision that produced a dramatic fireball, General Motors got suspicious. GM scored a major PR body-slam when Failure Analysis showed, using computerized video enhancement (and searching dozens of junkyards to find the actual vehicles), that puffs of smoke appeared a fraction of a second before the collision. NBC had rigged the truck with rocket motors to ensure it exploded telegenically. The network wound up eating on-air crow to forestall the libel case of the century.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kahn was the one guy I'm talking about.
Ah, sorry. But, the entire thing was a show, for good reason though...they (the Dems) were desperate for power and control.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah, sorry. But, the entire thing was a show, for good reason though...they (the Dems) were desperate for power and control.
Your knowledge of the memorial proves my point. There were some partisan moments, but the vast majority of the 3 hour show was a spontaneous tribute.
The right wing press twisted it, then the lazy press used the twisted story as if it were fact. Look it up for yourself.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Erlkonig You should tone it up. I mean really let is all hang out, then maybe your proby tag will go away.... with you.
Originally posted by ra
Perhaps you could have somebody read one to you some day. FU
haha no.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Your knowledge of the memorial proves my point. There were some partisan moments, but the vast majority of the 3 hour show was a spontaneous tribute.
The right wing press twisted it, then the lazy press used the twisted story as if it were fact. Look it up for yourself.
What made news that day was the behavior of his son...or was he not accountable for the direction he tried to take the event?
It was a non-event, all of it, for me personally.
MT....we can all find ammunition to support our premise...the real question is as a whole, is the media biased to the left or the right?
Fox and Friends has become slanted to the right...embarrassing for me to watch sometimes....the whole network however, stays centered with some exceptions.
I watch more liberal news coverage than I do conservative...I find the content and perspective interesting.
-
Read Bernie Goldberg's BIAS.
*shrug*
BB
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Your knowledge of the memorial proves my point. There were some partisan moments, but the vast majority of the 3 hour show was a spontaneous tribute.
The right wing press twisted it, then the lazy press used the twisted story as if it were fact. Look it up for yourself.
The very fact that it was brought up at all at a funeral is appalling enough MT, and if you "don't get that" then its not worth explaining.:rolleyes:
-
Which news services do you think are most extreme?
For example:
New York Times: Very Left
New York Post: Very Right
Fox News: Right
CNN: Left
etc.
-
Right, left... whatever... they are all sensational.
-
It wasn't a funeral. The participants and speakers had already attended 5 or 6 funerals. It was a memorial to the people who lost their lives in a plane crash. Including a man who spent his adult life as a politician. Try to leave politics completely out of that. Once again, I bet everyone on this board got "the facts" on the memorial from the press. I bet no one actually watched the whole thing on C-span.
-
the media sux, all of it, well most of it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It wasn't a funeral. The participants and speakers had already attended 5 or 6 funerals. It was a memorial to the people who lost their lives in a plane crash. Including a man who spent his adult life as a politician. Try to leave politics completely out of that. Once again, I bet everyone on this board got "the facts" on the memorial from the press. I bet no one actually watched the whole thing on C-span.
Can you remember any other memorial service where people were chanting political slogans? I can't. The fact that some of the dead were not public figures made it even less appropriate. The event was hijacked by partisans, even if not everyone there was interested in partisanship.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Can you remember any other memorial service where people were chanting political slogans? I can't. The fact that some of the dead were not public figures made it even less appropriate. The event was hijacked by partisans, even if not everyone there was interested in partisanship.
ra
Well... Wellstone was a politician. It wasn't just something that he did for a living. It's something that he lived to do. You can hardly separate this from his eulogy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
. I bet no one actually watched the whole thing on C-span.
I watched enough to realize it wasn't a Eulogy, but a political rally instead.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Well... Wellstone was a politician. It wasn't just something that he did for a living. It's something that he lived to do. You can hardly separate this from his eulogy.
He lived for being a politician? That's a scarey thought. He pretended to be a humble teacher who just wanted to make the country a better place for the little guy.
You shouldn't speak at a memorial service if you can't separate the memory of the dead from an upcoming election.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I watched enough to realize it wasn't a Eulogy, but a political rally instead.
Did they stick a little "Go Democrats" flag in the corpse's stiff hand?
I'd vote DEM if they had the balls to do that!
-
This liberal bias thing is a convenient myth; a useful piece of reverse psychology.
The whole thing is a clever smoke-and-mirrors trick in much the same way as is the equally bogus left vs right proposition that dominates modern political discourse.
-
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I watched enough to realize it wasn't a Eulogy, but a political rally instead.
Who and what did you personally see?
-
Has anybody here read "Bias"?
BB
-
There is left socialist media and there is right socialist media.
There is also independent and correct media written by smart people with knowlege of history, sociology and economics. There is not much of it - comparatively, but how much does one really need to be educated and kept current? Whatever is there is more then can be read in a few hours a day anyway.
Same as with the right books or schools of knowlege - it takes a while to find the right ones it but once found, one is set for life.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
There is left socialist media and there is right socialist media.
There is also independent and correct media written by smart people with knowlege of history, sociology and economics. There is not much of it - comparatively, but how much does one really need to be educated and kept current? Whatever is there is more then can be read in a few hours a day anyway.
Same as with the right books or schools of knowlege - it takes a while to find the right ones it but once found, one is set for life.
miko
Please point us to the independent and correct media.
-
The really sad thing is that the media is being mistaken for historians.
MiniD
-
Anne Coulter - "I'm not making that up!" she declares during lunch while pounding home yet another argument. Then, never one to doubt herself, she settles the matter with head-spinning proof: "It's in my book!"
:rofl
-
She probably means "A detailed proof with the references to the sources is in my book."
You do not expect a to person start spewing bibliography and extsnsive quotes from memory during an interview or have her book ready and read it verbatim.
Ann Coulter is nothing else but an author of some articles and a couple of books. She is not a politician, radio personality, etc.
Anyone who interviews her is expected to have read her books or at least to be ready to read them afterwarfds.
miko
-
The media is conservative.
Reporters are liberal, however their editors are conservative.
Editors choose which stories get published and the coverage.
Fox news is owned by Rudolph Murdoc who is a conservative.
He also owns magazines and newspapers.
Al Frankin's new book "Lies, and the lying liers who tell them", pretty much gives the facts, with citations of legite souces, he pretty much spells out with researchable verifyable PROOF that the media has a Conservative to the RIGHT slant.
-
DMD,
did *you* read BIAS?
C'mon guys, its a quick read.
BB
-
Originally posted by BB Gun
DMD,
did *you* read BIAS?
C'mon guys, its a quick read.
BB
Don't think we are all gonna run out and get it.. why don't you fill us in?
-
*sigh*
I'll grab the book when I get home and post some relevant quotes.
In the meantime, google Bernard Goldberg BIAS and you'll get a ton of links. Unfortunately, I can't say if they are still valid links, our work proxy seems to be choking at the moment.
BB
-
Right or left, the mainstream media is violently against guns:
TIME Misrepresents BATF Firearm Transaction Tracing Data
7/23/02
TIME magazine long ago admitted that its position on "gun control" is that of an advocate. In 1982, it declared, "The point has now been reached where, in our judgment, the solution is not tighter controls but an outright ban. . . . A nationwide ban on private possession of handguns . . . would be a start--a movement in the direction of common sense and responsible social policy." In 1989, it said, "The time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growing threat to public safety." And over the years, TIME has periodically published articles intended to generate public support for restrictions on guns.
On July 12, 2002, TIME.com, the magazine's website, ran "America's Most Wanted Guns: A new ATF study reveals the country's Top 10 crime guns," an article by Elaine Shannon of the magazine's Washington Bureau. Shannon's central claim: that BATF's firearm transaction traces had identified "The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000."
The claim was incorrect in two respects. First, the "10 guns" are not the types of guns that were most often used to commit crimes, they were the types of guns that for various reasons were most often traced. The distinction is important, because most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, many have not been used to commit any crimes, and most guns that are used to commit crimes are never traced. Second, traces are not representative of anything nationally, let alone criminal gun use. BATF acknowledges that its tracing system is "not designed to provide a representative sample of the United States, or even of large urban jurisdictions." Similarly, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says, "Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or of any subset of that universe."
A trace is not a scientific process by which a gun is linked to a crime scene. A "trace" is a procedure in which BATF, in an effort to identify persons involved in repetitive illegal sales of guns, contacts a particular gun's manufacturer or importer, asks to whom the gun was sold, and repeats the inquiry through the chain of commerce as far as it can. Tracing statistics should not be confused with those that state and local law enforcement agencies compile on the kinds of weapons that have been used to commit crimes.
According to the CRS, "data from the tracing system may not be appropriate for drawing inferences such as which makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes." This is because of the reasons noted above and because traces are often disproportionately conducted on guns in which there is a particular political interest. For example, police reports have always shown very little use of "assault weapons" in crime, but those guns were frequently traced during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when they were a hot "gun control" issue. For additional information on how BATF traces have been misrepresented to promote restrictions on guns, visit http://www.nraila.org/search.asp and type the word "traces."
Posted: 8/1/2002
The "Public" Broadcasting Service and Bill Moyers are using your tax dollars to deliver their biased view of the Second Amendment to the nation's high schools.
by Robert G. Pew
It is well documented that the media elite are hostile to Second Amendment rights. That hostility is now taking shape in a direct effort to influence the way American children are taught about civil liberties.
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program now with Bill Moyers has included on its Web site (http://www.pbs.org/now/classroom/gun.html) an extensive "lesson plan" for teachers to instruct their high school students about the Second Amendment. Its title is the first sign that objectivity will not be a paramount goal: "Gun Control and Terrorism: Laws or Loopholes."
While the plan arguably has a paper-thin veneer of balance, an examination of the materials recommended as resources and the links provided to information sources quickly reveals that this "plan" has an ulterior motive: to promote the view that there is no individual right to bear arms.
The plan admits that NRA is a part of this debate, but provides only the most general information on NRA activities and positions, while providing specific links to fact sheets and opinion pieces from the gun-ban lobby--groups such as the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Of the 12 people appearing in the piece, one is neutral, two are pro-gun rights and nine are hard-line anti-gun zealots such as u.s. Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jack Reed, D-R.I. And that does not include the "reporter," Deborah Amos, who takes a pointedly anti-gun rights view throughout her report. Fairness is nowhere to be seen in this "lesson plan."
The PBS Web site promotes a November 2002 episode of now described as an "in-depth report of gun control and terrorism." In reality, however, it is simply an attack on Attorney General John Ashcroft and the rights of gun owners. The "in-depth report" makes no attempt to provide facts, instead providing a forum for an anti-gun diatribe. PBS' message is clear: America's lax gun laws allow terrorists to arm themselves, and, therefore, the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be curtailed and their privacy invaded. The show fails to provide, however, any real evidence that the claims have merit.
The plan relies on sensationalized, politically charged hit pieces, such as the article "How u.s. Dealers Arm the World" from the hard-left The Nation as a resource recommended for teachers and students. It also provides direct links to two "fact sheets" from VPC that try to tie our Second Amendment freedoms to terrorists. It fails, however, to provide meaningful links to accurate, dispassionate information on firearms, firearms laws or the Second Amendment.
Most glaringly, the plan purports to lead a discussion in the meaning of the Second Amendment, but studiously ignores the multitude of scholarly articles that present the real issues of this debate. While the Brady Campaign's distorted and ill-conceived arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment are linked to directly, there is not even a partial listing of the myriad independent scholarly articles that have been written on the origins and evolution of the right to bear arms in America.
There is no reference to law journal articles or comprehensive studies by leading scholars such as William Van Alstyne, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Cottrol, Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, Don B. Kates, David Kopel, Sanford Levinson, Nelson Lund, Joyce Lee Malcolm, Glenn Harlan Reynolds or Eugene Volokh, to name but a few. All these scholars have published widely on the right to keep and bear arms, and their research supports the historically accurate view that the Second Amendment protects an individual--not a collective--right.
The bias continues throughout the information provided. One link provides a "history" of gun control laws, with prefacing remarks that lament the lack of new gun control legislation or the passage of handgun registration. Moyers even provides a link to a site called "Sane Guns" which provides a "History of the NRA" that is simply an undisguised--but embarrassingly sloppy--attack on the Association. Perhaps it never occurred to Moyers to allow NRA to provide its own brief history. The message is easy to understand: current and additional gun laws are vital, reasonable and needed, and the "special interest" gun lobby is standing in the way of the national good.
This is not the first attack on the Second Amendment that has been financed by PBS with your tax dollars. It is simply the latest. However, its target should be of particular concern to all who value our liberties and the quality of education our youth receive.
By attempting to turn classrooms into echo chambers of anti-Second Amendment dogma, Moyers and PBS erode public trust in our schools.The future of our rights can only be protected if our children are taught that the fight is constant. To continue the fight, they must be armed with the truth, not shackled by revisionist history force fed them by an anti-gun elite. This effort by PBS to undermine the Second Amendment by spreading anti-gun propaganda in our schools will only succeed if we stand by and silently allow it.
-
This is from the Washington Times:
CNN rapped over gun segment
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
CNN has found itself the target of criticism for misleading viewers about the types of weapons prohibited by a federal law due to expire next year.
Two CNN broadcasts last week, which featured firing demonstrations by the sheriff's department in Broward County, Fla., suggested that firearms banned under a 1994 law are more powerful than similar, legal weapons. Yesterday, CNN admitted that was not true.
"In fact, if you fire the same caliber and type bullets from the two guns, you get the same impact," CNN's John Zarella told viewers yesterday.
One of the Thursday broadcasts incorrectly reported that fully automatic weapons are included in the 1994 ban on 19 types of semiautomatic rifles. Fully automatic firearms have been federally regulated since 1934.
"Either it was a deliberate attempt to fake the story, or the reporter had a complete ignorance of the story he's covering," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
In one of the segments, Broward County Sheriff Ken Jenne introduced a detective with "an old Chinese AK-47 that has been banned." Mr. Zarella, CNN's Miami bureau chief, then said: "That is one of the 19 currently banned weapons."
In fact, that weapon is not covered by the 1994 ban.
After the detective fired six shots, Mr. Zarella said: "OK. Now that was semiautomatic," and Sheriff Jenne said: "Now this is automatic."
The detective then fired a machine-gunlike burst at a cinder-block target, prompting Mr. Zarella to exclaim: "Wow! That obliterated those blocks. ... Absolutely obliterated it. And you can tell the difference."
Fully automatic weapons, such as machine guns and AK-47s, are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not among the semiautomatic guns prohibited by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
The 1994 law — which will expire in September 2004 if Congress does not renew it — banned some military-style rifles that are semiautomatic, meaning they fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled.
The NRA and other gun rights groups say the banned guns are only "cosmetically" different than many legal types of firearms, and that the news media have consistently confused the semiautomatics with fully automatic weapons, such as the M-16.
"This whole ban was lied into law 10 years ago, and it seems to me we can do better than lying again," Mr. LaPierre said.
Yesterday, CNN aired another broadcast that clarified which weapons are banned under the 1994 law, saying the ban is based on whether the gun has external features, such as a flash suppressor or a pistol grip.
A CNN anchor introduced yesterday's segment by saying: "On this program on Thursday, we aired a live demonstration CNN set up with law enforcement officials of a banned semiautomatic rifle and its legal counterpart. We reviewed that demonstration and one on another CNN program, and decided that a more detailed report would better explain this complex issue."
"We caught them red-handed, in the act. Now they're backpedaling," Mr. LaPierre said after yesterday's broadcast.
In the first of the two segments that aired Thursday, a Broward County detective fired the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode, and the camera showed bullets hitting a cinder-block target. The detective then fired a legal semiautomatic weapon, and CNN showed a cinder-block target with no apparent damage. On Friday, CNN admitted that the detective had not been firing at the cinder block.
Some law enforcement officers who saw the Broward County sheriff's presentation on CNN called the NRA to say they were "horrified that a law enforcement official would mislead the public this way," said "NRA Live" host Ginny Simone.
In 2000, Sheriff Jenne, a former Democratic state legislator, supported a bill in the Florida Legislature, HB-363, that would have banned several types of rifles under a broad definition of "assault weapons" and also would have prohibited many handguns. The bill died in committee.
-
Oh...THAT Bernie Goldberg..
Funny how I was just reading about him. Chapter 6 of Al Franken's latest book is titled "I *****slap Bernie Goldberg".
Here is a small taste: (I will give only the highlights for brevity and because I don't type so good.)
There is a chapter in "BIAS" called "The most important story you never heard" about latchkey kids and working mothers.
Franken shows (with back-up information) that through Dec. 2001 there have been CNN 11 stories, CBS 11 stories, NBC 3 stories, ABC 10 stories. Now thats 35 stories about the most important story you never heard.. hmmmmmmm?
-
Originally posted by ra
Whatever. You're the one alleging some evil liberal conspiracy in the media. The US has a relatively free media market; are you claiming that the market has failed somehow? If you're claiming that the media does not reflect the views of ordinary americans, then the implication is that the free market is failing somewhat. Is this what you're saying?
The news networks along with the whole US media in general just follow the money. It's a simple formula; don't piss off the sponsors and advertisers and pander to the prejudices of your viewers.
If there's any potential for bias, you only have to look at who owns the major networks to realise that any bias is likely to be to the so-called "right".
Don't let it spoil your little fantasy of victimhood at the hands of the evil liberals though. :)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Whatever. You're the one alleging some evil liberal conspiracy in the media. The US has a relatively free media market; are you claiming that the market has failed somehow? If you're claiming that the media does not reflect the views of ordinary americans, then the implication is that the free market is failing somewhat. Is this what you're saying?
The news networks along with the whole US media in general just follow the money. It's a simple formula; don't piss off the sponsors and advertisers and pander to the prejudices of your viewers.
If there's any potential for bias, you only have to look at who owns the major networks to realise that any bias is likely to be to the so-called "right".
Don't let it spoil your little fantasy of victimhood at the hands of the evil liberals though. :)
Who said anything about conspiracy? You did.
-
I did? Where?
The common thrust of the "right's" argument is that the "liberal" media deliberately distorts coverage in order to push a certain agenda. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and it's quite clear you subscribe to the general thesis. Does the tin foil hat suit you? ;)
-
Miko.....still waiting
-
Since when does bias translate to conspiracy?
Seeing news anchors cry because a republican was elected doesn't really denote a conspiracy... but it pretty much screams bias.
The media loved the 90's because they were used like the tool they are by the Clinton administration. They're trying to get that back by helping this administration out the door in hopes of a media friendly replacement that will recognize their contribution and potential power. That's not a conspiracy theory... it's cause and effect. They don't need to conspire... just to make sure they dig in the right places and put the dirt in the right places.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I did? Where?
The common thrust of the "right's" argument is that the "liberal" media deliberately distorts coverage in order to push a certain agenda. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and it's quite clear you subscribe to the general thesis. Does the tin foil hat suit you? ;)
"The whole thing is a clever smoke-and-mirrors trick in much the same way as is the equally bogus left vs right proposition that dominates modern political discourse."
Sounds like conspiracy to me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh...THAT Bernie Goldberg..
Funny how I was just reading about him. Chapter 6 of Al Franken's latest book is titled "I *****slap Bernie Goldberg".
Here is a small taste: (I will give only the highlights for brevity and because I don't type so good.)
There is a chapter in "BIAS" called "The most important story you never heard" about latchkey kids and working mothers.
Franken shows (with back-up information) that through Dec. 2001 there have been CNN 11 stories, CBS 11 stories, NBC 3 stories, ABC 10 stories. Now thats 35 stories about the most important story you never heard.. hmmmmmmm?
Sorry, was son's birthday and he's had 4 friends over monopolizing the computers in the house. At any rate...
The chapter was NOT solely about "whether there were stories about latchkey kids". He plainly tells about the latchkey kids stories. What the chapter was about, was how the stories were ALWAYS the same - that "the solution" was always more daycare funding, after school programs, etc etc etc. That the stories, except in a VERY few instances, did not take a deeper look into the social issues surrounding latchkey kids.
If that's how Franken "debunks" people, you guys who read him are being led down the primrose path. Hope it smells good down there.
And if you choose to believe AL FRANKEN, failed comedian and political agitator, over Bernard Goldberg, a nearly 30-year CBS newsman - well, there's not much more I can say about how you choose your sources, is there?
*shrug*
Read the book. Its at the library, so it free. And its fast.
A few paragraphs about his "epiphany"
...Hurricane Andrew...*snip* ...brought me into contact...*snip*...with a good old boy named Jerry Kelley, a chain smoking, fifty-something building contractor who grew up in Enterprise Alabama.
Jerry Kelley saved my family and me. He repaired the damage the hurricane had done to our house. He was always there when we needed him. And we bacame friends, a kind of odd couple. We talked often, mostly about politics and current events, which he loved.
...*snip*...
On Feb 8, 1996, Jerry Kelley called me at home, wondering whether I had caught the CBS Evening News that night. *snip*...he told me to get a tape of the news and watch it. Then "you tell me if there's a problem."
...*snip*
...
Rather introduced Engberg's piece with the standard stuff about how it would "look beyond the promises to the substance"...Engberg's voice covered pictures of Steve Forbes on the campaign trail. "Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir, good for everthing that ails us."
Scheme? Elixer? what the hell kind of language is that, I wondered? These were words that conjured up images of con artists, like Doctor Feelgood selling worthless junk out fo the back of his wagon.
But that was just a little tease to get us into the tent. Then Engberg interviewed three different tax experts. Every single one of them opposed the flat tax. Every single one! Where was the fairness and balance Rather was always preaching about? Weren't there any experts - even one - in the entire United States who thought the flat tax might work?
Of course there were...Mitlon Friedman and Merton Miller, James Buchanan, Harvey Rosen, William Poole, Robert Barro
Engberg sould have found a bunch of economists to support the flat tax, if he had wanted to. But putting on a support of the flat tax would have defeated the whole purpose of the piece, which was to have a few laughs at Steve Forbes's expense."
...Engberg decided to play David Letterman and do a takeoff of his Top Ten list.
"Forbes's Number One Wackest Flat-Tax Promise," Engberg told the audience, is the candidate's belief that it would give parents "more time to spend with their children and each other."
...snip...
Maybe its true, and maybe it isn't, but is "wacky" the fairest and most objective way to describe it?
Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton's health care plane "wacky"?
There's more, but this is what we are talking about when we say "biased" - the language chosen (liberal think tanks are "think tanks" conservative think tanks are "conservative" or "right wing" think tanks) etc etc etc.
All words and phrases chosen because they sound ok to the anchors, writers and newspeople, who don't even stop to question how it sounds or how the words pass judgement. Its innate, not designed.
Al Franken or Bernie Goldberg. Take your pick.
BB
-
Al Franken or Bernie Goldberg. Take your pick.
BB
I choose the "failed comedian" over the "failed newsman".
-
ROFL.
Says a lot about ya.
:p
I hardly think someone who spent nearly 30 years in the business counts as a "failure". And yes, he is a newsman and we're arguing about bias in the media, so it seems funny. But he was there. He lived it. You choose not to believe it. Your choice. Ignorance is bliss.
BB
PS - you might want to read chapter 8.
-
Rush is on ESPN, nuff said.
-
Originally posted by BB Gun
ROFL.
Says a lot about ya.
:p
I hardly think someone who spent nearly 30 years in the business counts as a "failure". And yes, he is a newsman and we're arguing about bias in the media, so it seems funny. But he was there. He lived it. You choose not to believe it. Your choice. Ignorance is bliss.
BB
PS - you might want to read chapter 8.
Well BB (small barrel?) one of us is ignorant... lets look at another example from "BIAS"...
The Heritage Foundation is always called a "conservative" think tank while the Brookings Institute is never called a "liberal" think tank.
Look! Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
that is from http://www.heritage.org/about/
MISSION
The Brookings Institution is an independent, nonpartisan organization devoted to research, analysis, education, and publication focused on public policy issues in the areas of economics, foreign policy, and governance. The goal of Brookings activities is to improve the performance of American institutions and the quality of public policy by using social science to analyze emerging issues and to offer practical approaches to those issues in language aimed at the general public.
from http://www.brook.edu/index/about.htm
Now one of these calls themselves "conservative", but neither calls themselves "liberal". Sounds like that dastardly media is failing to make watermelon up again. You need a new hero BB.
-
*sigh*
I notice you left the synopsis of Bernie's "epiphany" alone. No comment on "wacky" tax plans?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/
"People For the American Way (PFAW) and People For the American Way Foundation
(PFAWF) work to protect the heart of democracy and the soul of the nation. ...
Description: Conducts research, legal, education, and advocacy for a wide variety of liberal causes. Current issues,..."
(quote from the google search results)
When was the last time you hear PFAW called "liberal" by anyone other than Bill O'Rielly?
I have no problem with conservative organizations being called such. But liberal/progressive/socialist organizations are rarely called such. In one instance, pains are taken to make sure the viewer knows that the view point is conservative, but in the other instance - no effort is made to point out the objectives or direction from which the viewpoint is coming. Its THAT imbalance that permeates the system.
Tell ya what. Once franken's book is in the library. I'll read Franken's book if you read bernie's book.
We'll each have to post a synopsis of each chapter to prove we read it. at least one a week.
Deal?
BB
-
All I have to go by is my own perception after 39+ years.
The media that I was seeing, reading and hearing for many years has always, in my opinion been at best, just in the center of the political spectrum. Mostly its been moderate left to hostile left.
Then I found Limbaugh. Years later I have Fox news so now I can allow a hell of a lot more divergent opinions and points of view to cross my temporal lobe and it feels great! I always knew the media I grew up with was biased to the left but today its much better.
I still read the liberal city paper and watch CNN and MSNBC.
My local tv news tends to be really good at reporting just news and weather and stays pretty much out of the editorial business, mostly.
Finally, the media has choices today that for many years it didnt simply provide. I am much happier with the mdeia today just because it offers so many more choices.
I get a kick out of those that hate limbaugh and fox tv. They are upset that the media is no longer cornered to their POV bu truth is we are all better off with more opinions.
:D
-
Deal?
I guess not...
:p
BB
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Here's a good example... The Wellstone Memorial service.
Everyone thinks it was a huge Democratic partisan rally. In reality only one speaker mentioned the election to any great extent in the entire 3 hour program. The boos received by Lott were reported as a "smattering" the next day in the Minnesota press, but have been blown into "20,000 liberals screaming" by Limbaugh and his ilk. Think about what you have heard or think you know about the service. Do you think your information was skewed right or left?
And his son yell "WE WILL WIN" over and over and over. Go back and whatch the tape.
-
Just 'off the top of my head':
The 'CIA selling crack cocaine in the inner cities' 'scandal' (later proved to be total fabrication).
The 'Tailhook' 'scandal' (accusers eventually found unable to actually ID their 'assailants', but that didn't let a couple of female democratic congresswomen/senators/etc. try to ruin the retirement of one of the U.S.A.'s greatest Admirals - because he was a Naval Aviator and spent ~1 hour at Tailhook that year). My favorite was when Coughlin ID'd her 'primary assailant' by facial recognition from a 'chest-up' photo, then somehow thought he was '5'10" tall, average build' when he was actually 6'5" tall and built like an NFL player. The media played it in classic form however - never let the truth get in the way of a good bashing of the U.S. military.
The massively biased coverage of the Danny Ortega/Sandinista fiasco (Sandinistas taking lefty news crews to 'massacres of Priests...who were actually Sandinista terrorists KIA, then moved and dressed up in Priests' robes, etc. - not to mention the almost total lack of reporting about how Ortega failed to get elected once there was an actual vote)
The news crews catching every pro-Osama rally in Pakistan immediately after 11SEP01, and somehow managing to miss every single counter-rally - some of which took place less than a block away and ended up as full-scale brawls between the 2 rallies. Let me get to a scanner in a month or two and I'll post some pictures of those.
General stateside coverage of the most recent war in Iraq.
Civilian casualties occuring when U.S. forces are involved in combat - have you ever noticed that they go with the highest initial casualty report...then never report on the matter again? In Afghanistan the total reported by CNN and parroted by every other major outlet was 7000+. Within 3 months it was known that this was off by almost a factor of 10. Why no update or correction?
The 'Jenin massacre'. A great example of liberal (media) hatred of Israel. The report issued by the PA - stating that "no Palestinian civilians were killed in Jenin" - was a 2 sentence blurb some months after the initial reports of the 'massacre'. The sweeping under the rug of Arafat's direct involvement with the Karine-A is another good example.
Reuters putting quotes around terrorist (i.e., "14 Israelis die in 'terrorist' attack when dumb-prettythanged Palestinian kid blows himself up so Hussein can buy Daddy a new Isuzu"), as if to add their own 'alleged' to the label of terrorist.
The moral equivalence that is constantly assigned to the deliberate targeting of innocent Israeli civilians by terrorists as compared to civilian casualties caused by Israeli military strikes that target specific terrorists. "We didn't mean to kill any civilians" is by no means an absolute defense to any potential accusations. It is also by no means as morally reprehensible as saying "We target Moms and little Kids because they can't fight back and we want to cause terror amongst the civilian populace".
I could go on. I'd like to go get some breakfast though. :)
Far worse than any liberal slant however is the '24/7 coverage' addiction which probably pushes them to allude to scandal, conspiracy, etc. at the slightest hint of the wildest possible collusion of events - because they have to have something new to say every hour. When all else fails, they reword what they've said for the past 6 hours and say "Don't miss our next guest! 'Retired' (they never mention he was sacked by SECDEF for being a political potato of a general, etc.) General So-and-So explains why we are being defeated in Iraq!".
Basically, if you base any opinion off of TV media alone you are a retard. If you base any opinion off of internet media reports without taking the time to read 3, 5, maybe 7 local regional media outlets from the applicable area - using an internet translator - you are a retard. I remember CNN explaining the 'massive Philippino resistance to U.S. troops fighting A-S terrorists in the Philippines'. I knew this was not true due to numerous and varied sources (such as buddies coming home from the region), but the best joke of the hour was reading the reports from the Southernmost towns in the Philippines as opposed to the reports from the North (the ones parroted by CNN). The South was more than ready to have U.S. troops start zapping A-S cells - they had to live with them day to day. The North, mostly insulated by the bulk of the Philippino military, "Didn't see the need for armed U.S. intervention against the terrorists".
Part of it also is that 'bad news sells'. And 'bad news' for Joe the American truck driver is that 'people don't like the U.S.A.'. Once a 'reporter' has 2 or 3 people on record talking about the 'Evil U.S.A.' he's done for the day.
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc. - if you form an opinion on an international news event based solely on U.S. based internet media and U.S. based television media alone you are a clueless retard. You're a tool. You're being told what to think and how to spout it.
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by JBA
And his son yell "WE WILL WIN" over and over and over. Go back and whatch the tape.
Your perception helps make my point. Yes his son did that. But MOST and I mean 90%+ of the service was a memorial to the people. Your opinion is based on a 15 second sound bite.
-
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
-
Originally posted by JBA
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
Oh, that's a trustyworthy and unbiased source.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Just as trust worthy as say...
New York Times
-
Originally posted by JBA
Just as trust worthy as say...
Did you just suggest that a hopelessly biased and untrustworthy news source somehow offsets another? Amazing.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Well I guess I did.
I'm just not in the mode to look for all the bias statements in today’s newspapers and TV.
For example; whenever Judicial Watch investigates a Dem they are a "conservative" group, when they investigate a Rep, the are "non-partisan" group. It's in today’s Boston globe. They are looking into Dean’s records, and of course are a "conservative group, the second word in the article.
Why do you suppose it is that liberals don’t find ABC NBC CBS CNN MSNBC New York times, Washington post, LA times, Chicago tribune (damn that’s a long list) bias, Because maybe they expound the same beliefs. Yet they hate FOX because they don’t agree with them. This is all the proof you need that there is bias in the news.