I disagree with both GAM and Jackalope...
ALL media has spin on it--MSNBC and FOX are sucking the big giant elephant penis, and CNN has it's mouth firmly affixwed to the giant donkey penis.
When i want the real story, i'd look at a conglomerate of foreign sources...then i take what they say, disseminate things out, and form my own opinion.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Since FOX goes after both parties I can't see it keeper but you nailed CNN dead to rights.
I don't watch MSNBC enough to comment on who they're blowing at this time.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
trust me, fox leans to the "right". Just like most leftists claim that their news sources are unbiased, rightists will tend to do the same.
not that there's anything adherently wrong with it. Really, every news source, foreign or domestic, has a slant to it based upon where their income is, and not based upon reporting the actual news.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I guess. But they do seem to go after both parties, I've seen it.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
like i've seen CNN after democrats, but i will say that they have a slant as well.
Still, i think you're better off if you watch, say, Both CNN and Fox, then realize that the reality of the given issue likely lies somewhere between, and will vary from issue to issue. Then you just have to worry about the issues that requre you to actually think beyond the lockstep march that you've been indoctrinated to do and come up with something outside the box.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Fox goes after the RNC with kid gloves. The chair is a registered Repbulican and heavy contributor.
Jack: Before you attempt to crash my work comp again with the rollies:
Read this, then, [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400048753/qid=1128474048/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/102-8323883-7637746?v=glance&s=books]Read This[URL].
Same author, but before you get up in arms, Michael brock worked for the RNC as a Media analyst, and on several campaigns. He's broken down the arguments (using info from actual neutral sources, not ones funded by a political committee and claim neutrality) and the data shows NO bias. They're
selling you news, so good or bad, they're selling what's interesting.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Dammit!
David Brock - Blinded By The Right
David Brock: The Republican Noise Machine
I'd also like to say that if you want to read
Goldstein's - Bias Go ahead, but if you hear more about a guy that was pissed off because he was fired and the sour grapes that go with it, than actual news coverage... Don't say I didn't tell you so. Similarly,
The News Twisters is pretty short on actual studies and hard information. Efron assumed anything not pro-Republican or Libertarian, or anti-Democrat was conversely anti-republican/libertarian. Just to put it short, it's based on broad assumptions, and really had little in the way of supportive facts, or critical analysis.
Just because you've been told for years that there's liberal bias in the media, it doesn't mean that it's actually there. Kinda like drinking coke and eating poprocks...
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Jackalope wrote:Dude the mass media is sooo far to the left its lying on the ground on its left arm !
I refer to my 2 previous posts.
Quote:
Why do you think CNN used to be referred to as the Clinton News Network?
I dunno, because the Republicans started a witch hunt into some sorta shady real-estate deals, and that somehow involved him poking an intern? They sell the news Jack.
Quote:
Now they're just the Communist News Network. Out of all the news channels there are I'd say either MSNBC or FOX are the closest to center there is.
MSNBC, maybe... Fox, you've GOTTA be joking. Look into the people that run Fox's day-to-day news operations, and you'll see a fully right wing news netowork. If you want to sat that there's Hannity & Colmes, you find a milquetoast Republican, and put him against a sharp (and loudmouth, obnoxious, overzealous... etc.) Democrat and put him on an DNC leaning news network... oh wait.. there isn't one.
Quote:
I know you hate FOX cause they actualy report the news without slanting it either way but I feel they are the best out there. They'll blast both sides just as equal Dems and Reps alike.
News, fine... I can get the same s**t from CNN/MSNBC/CTVN1/BBCC... Political commentary? 3 words that I'll oft say: Gimme A Break.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507010004 <-- Have a read.
Quote:
But poor CNN and the rest are too far gone for help so they're not even worth the watch.
Other than Hurricane coverage, I haven't watched any major news channel. I still read the paper
Quote:
But I know you rebut this and its cool but we all know the truth about the mass media in this counrty.
No, sadly, you know what you've been FED from people that want to tell you something that makes them seem like they're the underdog.
Quote:
Just a couple off the top of my head for you to explain away Gam. Clinton going into Serbia because they were produceing WMDs inwhich to kill his own people when we got there found none. BUT Clinton was hailed as a hero for saving all those poor Serbs.
No, There was a UN/NATO humanitarian mandate because Serbs were committing genocide upon Muslim Croats and Bosnians. There weren't any WMD's... Get your
facts straight.
Quote:
Bush goes into Iraq for the SAME reason and finds none but liberates the country from a dictator and saves all those poor Iraqes BUT hes blasted for it.
Different circumstances completely. Also, if the plan was infact liberation, then why, please tell me, was Tommy Franks' original requirement of 300,000 troops in the area halved? Why is it, that 2 years hence, there is STILL no lasting peace, at best the US/Iraqi forces are staving off Civil war? I'm not knocking Bush, but at least under Clinton, the idea was entertained and put forward to the incoming Bush Adminstration.
For information.
For More information.
Also, it's interesting that it's overly convenient that the Whitehouse saw fit to drop gifts of no-bid contracts into the laps of heavy RNC contributors instead of even a preremptory bidding process.
Quote:
Do YOU see a double standard there? If not I'd L O V E to hear why its not. This countries mass news media has always been so far to the left that when an actual organization thats center ( FOX ) comes along you automaticly think they're right leaning.
They're not THEY'RE CENTER.
Only if you're that far on the right. Look, Jack, I'm not going to concede this point, and I'm going to stop trying to prove you wrong, because you've clearly not read much about Fox, about CNN, or about the news industry at large. Being "fair" implies that you're beig fair to someone at the exclusion of the others, while being objective means telling what is happening, without inflection.
Quote:
George Carlon is nothing more then a hipocritical hippy rich guy who sucks as much cash from the poor and the middle class as he can by peddleing his bull s--t left wing retorick. I haven't heard an original or funny thing come out of that mans mouth in years. Hes a wahed up has been who needs despritly to throw in the towel and get off the stage.
Personally, I think he's got more than a few sage comments that are to be not only laughed at because of the utter obsurdity of the current situation, but also, thought about more deeply... If you reject someone out of hand because you don't think they're funny, that's your deal. If you reject what they're saying out of hand because you don't agree with what some of their ideals are, that says more about you than the person you reject.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Hey whats with the personal attacks there Gam old buddy old pal? And here I thought we were past that kind of stuff. You know kinda like mutual respect and all. But I guess
I was wrong, cool no biggie. I see that you as a Canadian have lived in a socialist enviroment for sooo long that your objectiveness has been clouded beyond the ability to see how leftist this country and subsiquently your countries media actualy are. Thats fine I except the fact that you'll never conceed even tho your clearly off base with this issue. I'm a registed dem belive it or not thats why I could care less what you say about Bush but even I can see how far left this country actualy is cause its further left then I would ever consider myself to be. I believe in the rights of the little guy over the rights of big business. I believe that everyone should get a second chance ( not murderers tho
) But I don't believe I should have to pay for welfair babies or the hoes that keep pushing them out, Or in letting illegal aliens stay here. Am I too far to the right to consider myself a dem? Or am I just too far right for you? But Rep or Dem the reason why I hate Clinton now is cause hes a bad lyer. Why is he a bad lyer? Simple he goes on natl. tv and says "I did not have sexual relations with ms.Lewinski" Then he admited he did what a week later? Thats why he SHOULD have beem impeached he was and still is a worthless lyer. Is Bush any better? Probly not but since he hasn't come on natl tv and lyed to our faces and been busted yet then hes ahead of Clinton there. Don't try saying WMD's where are they? Ask the intell community that provided the bad info don't ask him as he went off what the "BEST" people in the intell community told him.
Is Iraq a fu(k up? Your damn right it is but to dump the blame on Bush is a cop out.
I'll get off my soap box now as you've already said your opinion won't change and again thats cool no biggie just don't you think mine will either.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Where was I personally attacking you?
I was saying, read a few books on the subject of media bias... educate yourself. I wouldn't call that personal at all. I'm sorry if you felt that way, it wasn't my intention at all. If you took my trying to get you get your information correct, I'll admit I can get a little perturbed, if my memory doesn't serve me, I'll admit it upfront, and if I'm corrected, you know I thank whomever did me a favour. I have my ideas on an issue, and I'm not trying to exclude yours, but if you're forming your ideals on faulty information, I'll point it out, and if it's a bit too brusque, I apologise.
Canada is left, leaning, no doubt, but, you can't say it doesn't work...
(Our dollar is forcasted to be trading higher than the US Dollar within 5 years if things don't improve in the US... I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing, I just know it's nice not to have to pay 40 cents on the dollar when I want to buy something on eBay
)
As far as Clinton Vs. Bush/Iraq/Illegal aliens/welfare/partisan politics... that's another thread entirely, I probably should have done a snip job on that.
What I'm saying is that from the literature I've read and digested (from the left/right and centre. I've given you the centrist ones as reference (Brock that is.. he's still a registered Republican, Zinni's and Franks' books are for reference about Kosovo, Iraq and the problems with the Bush Administration's approach to the military & terrorism pre and post 9/11)), it's pretty clear that:
a- No liberal bias in mainstream news reporting (I quoted Efrom's book because it's where the "liberal bias" idea first took root, it's also soundly refuted by Brock in the Republican noise machine)
b- Political commentary is dependant on the commentator, but that doesn't in most cases declare the political affiliation of a network.
c- More people get their news from television, and that medium is suited for superficial examination of issues. The printed media is more readily suited for indepth issues.
Basically FNC is okay for sports, weather, and that's about it. I don't watch CNN or MSNBC for my news information because I frankly don't care for the television format. With the exceptions I mentioned earlier, and some community information, I don't care about the television news, because, it's more about meeting a target audience, and slanting things so it grabs MORE of an audience... I just want the facts, Jack. Just the facts.
I don't need an Ann Coulter, a Rush Limbaugh, a Sean Hannity or an Alan Colmes, a Bill O'Reilly, an Al Franken, a Bill Maher or a George Carlin to do my thinking for me... Nor would I ever allow any one person or single group of people to dictate to me what I should think. I also do not discount that they may raise a salient point at some time, when based on well-founded information, and it's not a good idea to dismiss what they're saying out of hand. I'll listen, and if it works with how I think, I'll agree, if not, I'll know why I disagree, if I'm not sure, I'll read a little more... Maybe its because I've got a background where detail is king, but I don't like not knowing where I stand on something, and I don't like falling in line with a group about something just because I like the company.
As for placing blame where it belongs: The buck stops somewhere... Someone has to be ultimately accountable. If the President is going to accept the adjulation of victory for those that are under his command, then he must at the same time accept the weight and consquences of their mistakes and losses.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
We're posting all out of whack here... sheesh!
Jackalope wrote:
How was that Gam?
Better, but I'm @ home now.
Quote:
Articles about how the news is slanted don't impress me much cause we all know it is.
Actually, the Books I posted were about how it's NOT slanted. News and op-eds are 2 different slices of the product.
Quote:
We'll skip nat'l news for now and focus on the local news around here. We have a rep govonor in a highly dem state every time he sneezes while makeing a speech its anilized as to its "true" meaning on all the local networks save one fox.[/qoute]
First, come up with something concrete. You're assuming that First, I know what state you're talking about (I see MD, I hope to be able to cross-train with some of the FBI guys in Quantico, maybe we could hang?), second that I know how the local op-eds are treating that story, and third, that I know what issue you're talking about in the first place, and fourth, that I've watched other networks AND Fox from your area regarding this issue. That's a lot of assumptions, man.
Quote:
They report he sneezed. Now, and you'll love this he he, the local dem
party "somehow" got a hold of the lt.govs. private info and guess what they were gonna
post it on-line till the reps found out and then the dems had to fire some people and got to look very stupid on t.v.
OK.. hold it here. When was the last time the Republicans looked foolish on Television? AND did Fox make an issue of it? I would say that News on television is supposed to be OBJECTIVE... not fair. If someone makes an ass of themselves.. objectively, they did... being fair, you'd probably grind a little salt into the wound by dredging up more, and if someone you're affilliated with had a hand in it, you'd be fair and not mention their full involvement, whether or not it's germaine to the issue.
Quote:
Guess which was the ONLY network who even reported on this? Thats right Fox the other guys didn't even mention it.
Here's a couple of questions: was this a real issue to begin with? What was the nature of the personal information that was supposed to have been posted, and would it have exposed misdeeds by the other person that at least equal or outweigh the exposure? Have other parties tried this before? How were they treated in the wake of the discovery?
I'm asking you sincerely to answer those. Past track-records speak more than indiviual incidents.
Quote:
The media in this country has been liberialy biased for so long
No. It has not. I'm telling you very sincerely to read the 2 books I posted by David Brock. You've been fed that line since Barry Goldwater's attempt at the Republican Nomination, and it only picked up force when the Washington Post picked up the line about Nixon and Vietnam (I'm not going to be the first president to lose a war) and then the Watergate Scandal.
Seriously, I bought into the idea that there was a liberal bias, but after reading (and verifying a little afterwards), I changed my mind.
Quote:
that when someone comes along that actualy reports the news and not there political views then all the dems who have been getting away with what ever they wanted to do for so long that when someone calls them on there stupid s--t that they do they're suddenly labled a "right wing news agency". Whatever, At least they report ALL the news not just a select little bit.
It's called editorial discretion, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Fox is loose on the former (ie. the fact that no less than 3 major primetime shows have overtly right wing hosts, and that any counterpoint is "filibustered" or shouted down) and exceedingly good at the latter.
Quote:
Now I'm not saying your wrong Gam all I'm saying is that out of all the garbage news being reported FOX seems to at least report more unbiasedly then the rest do.
Actually, you were saying I was wrong (a few times actually ), but in reporting every little piece of something that might even somewhat newsworthy, they're doing something that CNN did in their early days before they established a concise editing style: namely flail in the wind. Not everything is earth shattering news, and filling up time with that kind of fodder isn't worth it. Most major news agencies (AP/Reuters, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, other Wire Services) know this, and pare down the fodder with meaty issues, or investigate something that is big a little further to articulate the issue. Fox is the notable exception, I've found, and is partly responsible for the reason why I don't bother with television (except for primetime dramas) and radio (except for classic rock) for news.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Doh!
Dave: edit button, pronto please!!!!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I'll distill this down for both of you:
None of the sources you read, watch, or listen to are 100% unbiased. While some are more biased than others, there's going to be a slant in there somehow, because you have biased reporters, biased editors, and biased anchors delivering it.
It's like anything in life--you have all the opposing sides, and the awful truth lies somewhere in between.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
/\ /\ /\ I'm more inclined to agree with Keeper as to the reporting practices of the major news stations.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Now Thats a good point !
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Agreed that there is some bias from personal inflection, but I'm talking more of a systemic pervasive and organised bias for/against anyone or group.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
...and yet, how much do other sources try to push an agenda, like the 700 club, TBN, and the like?
Hell, there are radio stations here in seattle, that won't let DJ's play estabished local bands because....the station manages don't like them.
The point is, there is bias in everything. Hell, with the triple-swing gubernatorial election here last fall (first gregoire, then Rossi, then finally gregoire again), each side, once they felt they had one, wanted to have the election (which was decided by less than 300 votes, if i remeber correctly) stopped--while the other side called voter fraud, and each side took the opposing sides' stance when things swayed the other way.
Bull@!#$ if you ask me--and even when both candidates were tired of the bull@!#$, the state's political parties kept pushing them to go on.
The truth as i saw it of the election is this-both sides used voter fraud to get that election done--despite every left-biased newspaper slamming Rossi and the republicans and every right-based newspaper slamming Gregoire and the Democrats.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
They all suck who can we believe anymore!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Well, i think there should be a no-party system, where we mesure issues and candidates based upon merit and shortcommings, rather than political party dogma.
After all, it would be intresting to see the results if Kerry, Bush, and Nader weren't attached to parties and came out based upon their agendas....
Also, i believe that every year, for every elected office, they should have a vote: Do you think XXX is doing a good job? <yes/no>, and if a simple majority say no, we have another election year next year.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:Makes me prefer Parliamentary governments, and the coalitions they cause. The ability to call instant elections on a vote of 'no confidence' is mighty appealing too...as we all know, with regularly scheduled elections, our 'leaders' spend way too much of their term (and our payrolling of them) preparing for the next muck-raking/hand-shaking/money-taking "ELECTION".
Trust me... parliamentary governments are hairy messes on their own as well.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
