Liberal BS » Liberal Bias in the Media » The media is neither conservative or liberal
http://rantweb.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=LBSM&action=display&thread=147
The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on May 12, 2004, 1:35am

They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers.

To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias.

For example:

"BREAKING NEWS: Will global warming truly destroy the planet in less than 20 years? A scientist says it will!"

= perceived "liberal" bias

"REVEALED: America's New Empire: Can scientists prove that America is God's light in a dark world?"

= perceived "conservative" bias

Result? More viewers. More money.

The media are acting like small children clamouring for attention because they finally got a taste of it.

"Is George Bush actually a doody-head? Timmy explains why!"

= perceived "liberal" bias

"Is John Kerry a flippity-flopster who likes to drink pee-pee? Little Sally has the pics to prove it!"

= perceived "conservative" bias

To see if there truly is bias in the media, you have to ignore the sensationalist aspects, which, these days, are rampant.

You also have to ignore journalistic ignorance:

"Check the facts? Why bother, it's a great story!"
"Check the facts? Nah, I know what I'm doing."
"Check the facts? No way, I understand the situation perfectly, because I'm a journalist."
"Check the facts? No, I'm lying and I couldn't care less!"

Here's how stupidity and ignorance can look like bias or propaganda even:

In the Globe and Mail, I once saw an article about Iraq. It was accompanied by a 1/3 of a page picture of a funeral for a firefighter who died on September 11th. There was nothing in the article about September 11th.

= percevied "conservative" propaganda

..and I'm sure some of you can come up with your examples of liberal "propaganda" off the top of your head.

You see, the real "bias" is that the much of the media is appalling stupid and greedy.*

*insert conservative/liberal joke here
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on May 12, 2004, 1:39am

Ok, I still want to talk about FOXNews though.

FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse (which makes their advertisers, especially the conservative ones, and FOX's bank accounts very happy).

I mean, I saw an ad for the "Special Easter Weekend edition" of "The Cost of Freedom", their business show, which talked about the "current passion for consumer spending" (consumer spending stagnated in April) and about "Cashing in on Chri$t" (yes, Christ has a dollar sign in his name now) juxtaposed over pictures of crucifixes, stock markets, and a cemetery--telling which investments "don't have a prayer."

If it's not sacreligious to tell people how to "cash in" on the Holy Son of God, I don't know what is. Don't make "liberals" fight that battle for you!

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by Herr Doktor on May 12, 2004, 1:44pm

I totally agree with your argument, although I'd say that the clamouring for advertising space doesn't create a netiher left nor right wing bias, but a pretty hefty right wing bias. There is no chance a news story on exploitation of 3rd world (and indeed american) workers, as they are most likly making the products that the advertisers are selling.
And about fox news, well, ohdear...ohdearohdearohdear :S
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on May 12, 2004, 2:36pm

::)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on May 14, 2004, 1:07am

Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer
May 12, 2004
Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.org/
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.

Re: Ann Coulter wants to kill the President
Post by rush22 on May 15, 2004, 12:11am

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he [Bill Clinton] 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or to assassinate."

-- Ann Coulter

She also would like to declare Jihad on Arabs.

"[I suggest we] invade their [Anti-American demonstrators in Arab nations] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

-- Ann Coulter

She also got rave reviews from the Los Angeles Times for her book.

Ann Coulter's Slander is "a clever, documented diatribe."

-- Andrew Malcolm, former deputy communications manager for the Bush presidential campaign, and book reviewer at the Los Angeles Times.


Re: The media is neither conservative nor liberal
Post by rush22 on May 15, 2004, 12:32am


Quote:
The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague."


Ms. Coulter misinterprets the results. The key word is NOT just "clear" but "closely". There has been no clear evidence found that Iraq was working closely with al-Qaeda. Ms. Coulter admits that no clear evidence of a close relationship has been found.

Here is the PIPA report, read it for yourself:

Questionnaire:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Questionnaire.pdf
Press Release about results:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
Report:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on May 15, 2004, 12:41am

One more thing, anybody know what she means when she says:


Quote:
How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?


Buckets? How do buckets kill children?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by MrRight on May 19, 2004, 12:07pm

Yep, More kids drowned in 5 gallon buckets that are killed by handguns every year. I believe the CDC has the statistics.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on May 19, 2004, 7:45pm

hmmm. interesting bucket-death statistic, I guess that is common knowledge? ??? who knows that?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on May 19, 2004, 8:15pm

Ok. I'm reading on the CDC site, and it looks to me that in all types of drowning and in all ages, there were 3,399 deaths. In all types of firearms related deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental, and undetermined) there were a total of 29,455 deaths.

That means you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a gun than drown. If you could provide that bucket statistic to compare to, I'd appreciate it, since the CDC numbers do not seem to fit.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on May 31, 2004, 7:19am

I couldn't help noticing this:


Quote:
One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."



Surely the the fact that only 32% of Fox viewers were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side DOES show that Fox is very heavily biased?


Quote:
There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists.


So this article is suggesting that although more Palestinians were killed, they were all terrorists so it doesn't matter? A freind of the family who went out to Palestine for three weeks saw four year old child shot in the head as he was sitting in bedroom window reading, his head facing away from the window. Israeli road blocks didn't premit the ambulance to take the child to hospital.

But I assume this child, and the nineteen Palestinians killed in an Israel incursion (most of whom were women and children) last week were all terrorists?

I'm not denying that both sides have it rough, and im not denying that civilains are killed on both sides. But far more Palestinian civilians are killed, and the Palestinians, largly due to Israeli occupation, have a much worse quality of life.

This the fact that only 32% of Fox viewers know that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, shows a terrible media bias.


Quote:
During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."


This is absurd reactionary nonscence. It seems to be imply that all Palestinians are as evil as Hitler, and the fact that more of them die is an irrelevancy.

Rush 22's original point that the media is niether conservative nor liberal was very astute. Considering it hasn't been replied to properly yet, am I to assume you will stop your wining about this ridulous perceived "liberal bias"?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on May 31, 2004, 12:37pm

I think Israel has shown great restraint by not mowing them all down.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on May 31, 2004, 1:15pm


Quote:
FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse (which makes their advertisers, especially the conservative ones, and FOX's bank accounts very happy).


Even if FoxNews is this radical conservative channel you still have CNN and MSNBC. How are CNN and MSNBC liberal you ask. Let's take a quick look:

CNN

1. Owned by Ted Turner.

2. Reliable Sources

3. Paula Zahn, Margret Carlson, Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Paul Begala, James Carville etc...

4. Tucker Carlson...lol...kind of...

MSNBC

1. Don Imus

2. The nightly lineup: Dan Abrahms, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Deborah Norville before you get to Joe Scarborough.

Then ofcourse you have the networks where I don't remember seeing one pro-bush story since 9/11, when liberals were in the phony pro-american mode.

Networks hosted by: Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. There's fair and balanced coverage for you.





Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on May 31, 2004, 2:28pm

The liberals just hate that there is a news station that gets it right about half the time. It hurts their efforts to spread lies to promote their political ideology. Their useful idiots just suck up what they say without question. For example, in 1999, when we were hearing all the rhetoric about a "surplus" the published National Debt figure rose by $124 billion dollars.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004, 6:04am


Quote:
I think Israel has shown great restraint by not mowing them all down.


So are you advocating here the murder of every single palestinian man woman and child?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2004, 1:55pm


Quote:
So are you advocating here the murder of every single palestinian man woman and child?


I think they are expressing their admiration for Israel's incredible respect for human rights in the wake of car bombers and Palestine's goal of killing every ISRAELI man, woman, and child
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004, 2:46pm

Israels incredible respect for Human Rights? The whole reasons those carbombs go off in the first place is because Isreal does not have an incredible human rights record within the occupied terrotories.

The wall built across the border of Palestine, in many cases cutting Palestinian settlements off from fresh water infringes freedom of movement. As do Israeli checkpoints.

Hapharzard incursions into Palestinian terroritory that result in civilian casualties infringe right to life.

And Israels repeated disrespect for the PA infringes Palestinian rights to form and elect their own government.

MO, you have responded to a technicality of what I have said, could you respond to all of it please? I'm curious to see what you say.

No further reply to the initial argument that the media is neither conservative nor liberal either.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2004, 5:06pm


Quote:
The wall built across the border of Palestine, in many cases cutting Palestinian settlements off from fresh water infringes freedom of movement. As do Israeli checkpoints.


Which was built for what purpose? To help stop the flow of Palestinian terrorists.


Quote:
Hapharzard incursions into Palestinian terroritory that result in civilian casualties infringe right to life.


Its called collateral damage.

The incursions are usually targeting Hamas, in retaliation to Palestinians going into Israel and killing civilians first.


Quote:
And Israels repeated disrespect for the PA infringes Palestinian rights to form and elect their own government.


This is a matter of perspective, a which came first, if you will. Your not actually going to take the position that Palestine hasn't disrespected Israel and its government are you?

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 1, 2004, 5:26pm


Quote:
MO, you have responded to a technicality of what I have said, could you respond to all of it please? I'm curious to see what you say.

What do you want me to respond to? You're either totally uneducated about Israel or you are anti-Semitic. Israel won the "territories" in a war that they didn't start. They have offered to give it up. Arafat refused! The PA wants all of Israel! Israel should not be expected to let them in to bomb them. If they would work towards building their own civilization, instead of building bombs to destroy Israel, they wouldn't need to get into Israel.


http://jewishinternetassociation.org/historynutshell/conflict.html
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2004, 5:30pm


Quote:
If they would work towards building their own civilization


Hmmm.....seems to be a pattern occuring.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004, 5:34pm


Quote:
Which was built for what purpose? To help stop the flow of Palestinian terrorists.


Who are a minority of the population. The existance of these roadblocks, and the construction of this wall, is not going to stop terrorist attacks.

There is a catch 22 here. Hamas, although it claims to be motived by the existance of Israel itself, is really motived at its grassroots by the terrible living conditions in Palestine sustained by Israeli occupation. It is no coincidence that the refugee camps in Gaza, that have the worst living conditions of anywhere in Palestine, are home to the most terrorist activity.

A question of who began what in the Isreal and Palestine conflict is meaningless as the question is too grounded in religious differences. The jews have a religious and a quasi-historical right to the land now known as Isreal. And the Arabs have a quasi-religious, and historical right to it.


We should be concerned at the moment with finding a peaceful solution. And that solution would be for Israel to pull out of both Gaza and the West Bank, demolishing its settlements in both places, and withdrawing Israeli roadblocks. Palestine would become its own indepedant country, and the powers of the PA would be restored.

Hamas would thus be unable to recruit.


Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004, 5:43pm

And Mo,

I agree that Arafat's descision at the Camp David summit was shameful.

But what Arafat chose to do cannot be assumed to be in the name of the Palestinian people.

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2004, 5:44pm

No, but as leader he has a great bearing over the actions of the "extremists".

I use quotes because I personally don't believe terrorism is an extremist position amongst those in the Muslim world, but for the sake of discussion.


It's nice not to have Peanut with us so we can actually have adult debates free of personal insults and profanity. :)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 1, 2004, 5:58pm


Quote:
I use quotes because I personally don't believe terrorism is an extremist position amongst those in the Muslim world, but for the sake of discussion.


Do you beleive that a large proportion, say, over 35% of Arabs are would-be terrorists?

If you do beleive this, why do you think there are so many terrorists in the Muslim world?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2004, 6:04pm


Quote:
Do you beleive that a large proportion, say, over 35% of Arabs are would-be terrorists?


All I'm saying is that if Christians we're repeatedly blowing themselves up to kill Muslims, and launched an attack on, let's say Tehran, that killed 3000 Iranians and continued to kill Muslims to date, do you believe that we would have leaders coming out talking about how peaceful Chritianity is? Ofcourse not. We're still talking about the Inquisition for Christ's sake.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 2, 2004, 4:55am


Quote:
All I'm saying is that if Christians we're repeatedly blowing themselves up to kill Muslims, and launched an attack on, let's say Tehran, that killed 3000 Iranians and continued to kill Muslims to date, do you believe that we would have leaders coming out talking about how peaceful Chritianity is? Ofcourse not. We're still talking about the Inquisition for Christ's sake.


And this would anger you, because as you know the majority of christians are not terrorists. So thus you have proved my point - it is wrong to brand the majority of Arabs as terrorists.

Or do you think its acceptable for the Muslim leaders to donounce all Christians in this situation?

And once again, why is it, do you think, that Muslim leaders would call for "the Inquisition for Christ's sake" in this circumstance?

Imagine it this way round.

The state of Israel is an Arab state, and it is Jewish people in Palestine who are opressed daily through incursions and road blocks. The Arabs have a claim to land that is based on religion, and 2,000 years old. The country exists because Britian colonised it after world war one.

I have absolutely no doubt that Bush would be on the side of the Jews, or Christians if they were Christians. I, on the other hand, would also be on the side of the Jews/Christians, because I wouldn't let religion, or I dare I say race, trancend problem at hand.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 2, 2004, 8:57am


Quote:
I have absolutely no doubt that Bush would be on the side of the Jews, or Christians if they were Christians. I, on the other hand, would also be on the side of the Jews/Christians, because I wouldn't let religion, or I dare I say race, trancend problem at hand.

I disagree. I know plenty of people who are secular and are very much supporters of Israel. All it takes is a knowledge of the history.

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 2, 2004, 9:20am

And yet I have many Jewish, Christian and athiest freinds who think that Palestinians should have human rights.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 2, 2004, 10:01am


Quote:
And yet I have many Jewish, Christian and athiest freinds who think that Palestinians should have human rights.

I think they should have human rights, too. I don't think they should have what the Pew poll says a majority of them want- Israel.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 3, 2004, 7:28am

I just realised that when you said this:


Quote:
They have offered to give it up. Arafat refused!


That you were referring to the Gush Shalom incident.

Firstly, Barak only made that offer because he was on his way out as a Prime Minister, he wanted to make a last ditch attempt to seem left wing. Thus it would be very unlikely that plan would have taken effect in the first place.

Sharon, who became PM less than a year later, was always more hardline than Barak, recently Sharon stated that settlements will remain in the West bank unto "eternity".

Seconldy the plan still left Isreal with at least 5% of land in the West Bank. This 5% was made up of the best famland and roads that would continue to divide the West Bank, into an unviable barely connected set of barren areas.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 3, 2004, 12:55pm


Quote:
Seconldy the plan still left Isreal with at least 5% of land in the West Bank.

So what? It's their land! They were attacked and won it in war. Anyone who was displaced is not Israel's problem. What is sad is that its neighboring Arab nations hate Jews more than they love their own people.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by scummybear on Jun 3, 2004, 1:42pm


Quote:
I just realised that when you said this:



That you were referring to the Gush Shalom incident.

Firstly, Barak only made that offer because he was on his way out as a Prime Minister, he wanted to make a last ditch attempt to seem left wing. Thus it would be very unlikely that plan would have taken effect in the first place.

Sharon, who became PM less than a year later, was always more hardline than Barak, recently Sharon stated that settlements will remain in the West bank unto "eternity".

Seconldy the plan still left Isreal with at least 5% of land in the West Bank. This 5% was made up of the best famland and roads that would continue to divide the West Bank, into an unviable barely connected set of barren areas.



What difference does it make as to why the offer was made?
The question should be, why was it refused. To answer that would be to also answer who Yassir Arrafat is. A terrorist. Yet he is treated like some diplomat to be reckoned with.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 4, 2004, 12:16pm


Quote:
What difference does it make as to why the offer was made?
The question should be, why was it refused


Arafat refused the offer because he knew Israel wouldn't follow through. He knew this because of the reasons the offer was made in the first place.


Quote:
So what? It's their land! They were attacked and won it in war


So military conquest gives any nation a right to treat those whom it conquered how it wants?

One could use the same argument to justify the horrific treatment of civilians behind the lines of the advancing Russian army in world war 2 on the eastern front.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 6, 2004, 12:48am

Give me a break! That is a pathetic analogy!
There were many displaced Jews from all over the middle east. They were tossed out of countries all over the area and forced to go to Israel. The Arabs living in Jerusalem have a better life and more freedom than any Jew or even any Arab living in an Arab state. The displaced that the Arab nations don't care about are not Israel's responsibility. The fact that they were left there and not welcomed into Jordan and other Arab nations is just another testament to their "culture."
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004, 5:20am

Before I respond to your these points can I ask you two questions to clarify?


Quote:
The fact that they were left there and not welcomed into Jordan and other Arab nations is just another testament to their "culture."


1. Do you beleive that Arab "culture" is inferior?
2. Why do you think this is?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 6, 2004, 1:19pm

I find it interesting that "enlightened" westerners think that a 120 woman should have equal opportunity to be a fireperson, yet turn a blind eye to things like the stoning of women, slavery, and female genital mutilation in the middle east. This is done under the left's ridiculous notion that all cultures are equal. They are not!

To the left, multiculturalism trumps human rights!
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf16.html#a
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004, 1:51pm

Could you please answer the two questions?
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jun 6, 2004, 3:30pm

1. yes
2. Oppressive, tyrannical dictatorships and adherence to archaic customs.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 7, 2004, 2:06am

Ah, so its a racism thing.

Just making sure.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by hotconservativechk on Jul 28, 2004, 2:04am

Hi everybody! I'm brand new to this forum and this is my first post. I don't know if its customary around here to introduce yourself or if you're just supposed to jump right in, but I think I'll choose the latter.
I'd like to put in my two cents about the Ann Coulter column. I believe that when she made the remark about only 32% of FNC viewers knowing that there have been more Palestinian deaths her point was that the amount of Palestinian deaths is completely irrelevant. Most FNC viewers, being conservative, could care less about how many deaths there have been, rather, they are concerned about the actual issues at hand. So no, this does not prove that FNC is biased. Also, I think the bucket thing was just put in there to show that buckets can be deadly but you hardly see "bucket control" laws being enforced to protect the kids. I think it was just supposed to be funny, not trying to say that more deaths are caused by buckets than by guns. But that was just my interpretation.
Its pretty hilarious to cite a Los Angeles Times column bashing Ann Coulter! Like that's a big surprise!
On to other things...the thing that drives me crazy about liberals more than anything else is that they immediately scream "racism" ( or something similar like "bigot", "intolerant", "fanatic", etc.) when a conservative makes a good point. MO is hardly "racist" for believing what she does about Arab culture. Its obviously very backward. Those people are being oppressed and abused and alot of them don't even know that it can be any better. I think the leaders try to keep them down by brainwashing them with fanatical "religious" beliefs. Anyway, all you libs should know that calling conservatives racists is the oldest trick in the book and most of us are so used to it by now that we just laugh it off. However, its one of my biggest pet peeves because I see my college professors using it every day to recruit new liberals. I see the looks on some of my mindless classmate's faces as my professors tell them all about the "intolerant, racist, bigoted" right and they eat it right up. Its disgusting. I think I do more eye-rolling in these liberal classrooms then I've ever done in my life!
As an aside, is anyone else totally freaked out that Teresa Heinz Kerry could become our First Lady? (I doubt it will happen, but its always a possibility) She has got to be one of the strangest women I've ever seen in my life! I'm watching the Dem convention and she's speaking and its the most coherent I've ever seen her (not that that says much). She usually looks like she's messed up on Vicoden or something. Her hair is usually a mess and she looks like she'd work in one of those hemp stores where they sell lots of Jerry Garcia gear and bongs. lol. Does anyone else think so? Scary. ;D
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mo on Jul 28, 2004, 11:04am

Welcome HotConservativeChk

I know what you mean about Teeerrrreeesssaaa.
She usually looks like an unmade bed.

About the palestinian deaths- how many of them are suicide bombers? How many of them were not real deaths, but deaths that were lied about, such as the false numbers reported with Jenna.

Good to see you here! Make yourself at home. :)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by hotconservativechk on Jul 28, 2004, 2:43pm

Thanks for the welcome MO!

"About the palestinian deaths- how many of them are suicide bombers? How many of them were not real deaths, but deaths that were lied about, such as the false numbers reported with Jenna."

Exactly! The number of deaths isn't important because they are suicide bombers and the like. The cause of the deaths and reason for the deaths is much more important.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by tnrighty on Jul 28, 2004, 4:22pm

Welcome aboard Hottie. John Kerry's "handler", Tereeza, reminds me a lot of Hillary. Not because she's outspoken, that's fine with me. Its just that she thinks her husband's power is somehow hers, also. I'll bet you there's not a more hen-pecked husband in America than John Kerry.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by matter on Jul 29, 2004, 9:38am

Why is this:


Quote:
They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers.

To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias.



Different from this:


Quote:
FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse ...


So, Fox doesn't report one iota of the truth? Is that the contention that this argument is based upon? ::)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on Jul 31, 2004, 6:01pm


Quote:
So, Fox doesn't report one iota of the truth? Is that the contention that this argument is based upon?


No, that's a purposeful misinterpretation of what I said. Even one lie can be summed up as 'not reporting the truth'. Really, though, I don't even care about FOXNews or 'media bias' anymore. It's all stupid. FOX wants money just the same, and they do it by appealing to knee-jerk conservatives like you by spicing their side with conservative viewpoints.

I consider most of the media to be lying, making things up, or exaggerating most of the time. FOXNews does that a lot. Would you like to say something along those lines about CNN perhaps? Does that mean they "don't report one iota of the truth?"

::)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by matter on Aug 2, 2004, 2:12pm


Quote:


No, that's a purposeful misinterpretation of what I said. Even one lie can be summed up as 'not reporting the truth'.


Misrepresentation? Hmmm....let's review the quote you made that I'm referring to:


Quote:
FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse ...


Don't know about anybody else in here....but that's exactly what you stated. If you 'don't even report the truth and is actually propaganda'...... doesn't leave much room in there for the truth.

Care to clarify the contradiction?


Quote:
FOX wants money just the same, and they do it by appealing to knee-jerk conservatives like you by spicing their side with conservative viewpoints.


How do you know I'm a 'knee-jerk' conservative? I hardly know ye. ;)

If any knee-jerking is to be found in the thread.... please review your 'Fox as propaganda' quotes above. Evidence is in the pudding, bud.


Quote:
I consider most of the media to be lying, making things up, or exaggerating most of the time.


Slanted? Yes. Lying most of the time? I totally disagree. You're call me 'knee-jerk' ?!


Quote:
FOXNews does that a lot. Would you like to say something along those lines about CNN perhaps? Does that mean they "don't report one iota of the truth?"


I can state with 100% certainty that neither Fox nor CNN lies or fabricates most of their coverage. I believe my statement is a helluva lot closer to the truth, that's for sure. ;)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on Aug 2, 2004, 6:41pm

Fine you got me, I should not have said 'they don't even tell the truth'. Instead I'll say FOXNews is a tabloid news station, just like most 24 hour news station with space to fill. Usually they just end up reporting whatever's lying around the newsroom, and in FOX's newsroom, it's all conservative stuff.

Their money show is called "The Cost of Freedom." If that isn't a conservative moniker I don't know what is. Do you really think freedom comes from investing?

Look, I don't even care about bias anymore, I never really did. I should not have insulted your precious news station by saying it was 'doesn't tell the truth'. Instead I'll say it is a piece **** news station where the journalists are greedy hacks who only want to impress their superiors.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by matter on Aug 3, 2004, 5:33am


Quote:
Look, I don't even care about bias anymore, I never really did.


Riiiiiiggghhht. I'm guessing these posts fall under the general category of 'random musings' ??!


Quote:
I should not have insulted your precious news station by saying it was 'doesn't tell the truth'.


Hmmm. How do you know it's 'my precious news station'? I thought libs generally refrained from stereotyping folks. Maybe not, huh? :)


Quote:
Instead I'll say it is a piece **** news station where the journalists are greedy hacks who only want to impress their superiors.


Yeah, that's impressive. ::)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by rush22 on Aug 3, 2004, 6:14pm


Quote:
Look, I don't even care about bias anymore, I never really did.

Riiiiiiggghhht. I'm guessing these posts fall under the general category of 'random musings' ??!


Then who said this:

The media is neither conservative or liberal

They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers.

To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias.

I would rather talk about sensationalism, or how that sensationalism can be perceived as biased. I don't care about how conservative FOX seems, or how liberal CNN seems. What I do care about is how they sensationalize stories, and additionally why people can interpret their sensationalism as bias. If you want to be a smart-ass and say 'duh, that means you do care about bias' then I'll have nothing more to say, because you've obviously not been paying attention to anything I've written and you're just looking for a fight. Biased news is not my point, nor is the comparative bias of different news outlets.


Quote:
Hmmm. How do you know it's 'my precious news station'? I thought libs generally refrained from stereotyping folks. Maybe not, huh?


People on this board generally like to argue that FOX is beyond reproach, so I made an educated guess. (Interestingly, your comment is a stereotype too. )


Quote:
Yeah, that's impressive.

I'm not trying to impress you, it's just my opinion.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by matter on Aug 4, 2004, 10:17am


Quote:


I would rather talk about sensationalism, or how that sensationalism can be perceived as biased. I don't care about how conservative FOX seems, or how liberal CNN seems.


Well, you can talk about sensationalism but it's not going away and odds are that it will not change. It's the nature of the beast in our journalism.

We can work on the bias a little more effectively, IMHO.


Quote:
If you want to be a smart-ass and say 'duh, that means you do care about bias' then I'll have nothing more to say, because you've obviously not been paying attention to anything I've written and you're just looking for a fight.


Nope, look again. I pointed out a couple of items in your posts and I'm a smart-ass? Hell, I just had to repost your post to show you I wasn't misrepresenting anything as you alleged.

You have made several posts commenting on the bias of the media and then state you 'don't really care' about bias. Excuse me, sir, but the facts point otherwise and I'm not a smart-ass for pointing them out.

Discussion? Yes. Fight? No.


Quote:
Biased news is not my point, nor is the comparative bias of different news outlets.


So why are you pointing out that some conservatives' like FNC if there's no bias, for example.


Quote:
People on this board generally like to argue that FOX is beyond reproach, so I made an educated guess.


That's your prerogative, I suppose.


Quote:
(Interestingly, your comment is a stereotype too. )


Sarcasm rocks.


Quote:
I'm not trying to impress you, it's just my opinion.


Me, too. My opinion is generally devoid of names and 'misrepresentation' charge. ;D
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by matter on Aug 4, 2004, 3:03pm

OK, I have to ask this:

If there's no bias in the media.....

....how do you explain the difference in treatment by the media that Senator Lott received as opposed to Senator Byrd's far worse behavior?

Discuss.

:)
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by tnrighty on Aug 14, 2004, 12:37am

If the mainstream media isn't biased, why haven't we heard a word from CBS/NBC/ABC about the dozens of Heinz factories located (outsourced) to Mexico and Europe?
http://www.americandaily.com/article/1200

Why haven't we been told by CBS/NBC/ABC that Kerry/Heinz owned stock in Enron.
http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=34958

I could go on, but you get the point.
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by scummybear on Aug 14, 2004, 5:51am

Why isn't the media asking questions about the accounts from Kerry's fellow veterans regarding his questionable service in Viet Nam? They didn't seem to have any problem dwelling on Bush's record.

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by norb on Sept 19, 2004, 11:27pm

It is my prediction that Dan Rather will resign from CBS news and work full time for the Kerry campaign. No more "beating around the bush" any more.

Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by scummybear on Sept 28, 2004, 2:12pm

"The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth show the role of the individual in history. It wasn't Republican strategists who finished Kerry off two months before the election; it was the American people. The Swift Boat veterans came along and kicked Kerry in the shins and no matter how much heat they took, they were brave and wouldn't give up. ... CBS was forced to run a fake story so early in the campaign that it was exposed as a fraud -- only because of the Swift Boat vets. These brave men, many of them decorated war heroes, have now not only won the election for Bush, they have ended Dan Rather's career. It's often said that we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but that the war was lost at home by a seditious media demoralizing the American people. Ironically, the leader of that effort was Rather's predecessor at CBS News, Walter Cronkite, president of the Ho Chi Minh Admiration Society. It was Cronkite who went on air and lied about the Tet offensive, claiming it was a defeat for the Americans. He told the American people the war was over and we had lost. Ronald Reagan said CBS News officials should have been tried for treason for those broadcasts. CBS has already lost one war for America. The Swift Boat Vets weren't going to let CBS lose another one." - Ann Coulter
Re: The media is neither conservative or liberal
Post by mike on Nov 23, 2004, 9:12pm

TIME ran a story in August that refutes every charge the Swifties made. I read it sitting in the doctor's office this afternoon. I hope no one replies that well, it's TIME, so you can't believe it. That kind of argument is called genetic fallacy: a thing is true or false depending upon who says it.
No, a statement is either true or false, period, regardless of who says it.

If Bush had not butted in line in front of 500 other men to get into the Texas Air National Guard to escape service in Vietnam but had served there, the whole thing would have been a non-issue; no Swift Boat Veterans For Truth would have been formed -- there would have been no need. But Bush dodged the draft and Kerry served, so the Republicans had to do something. That something was to mitigate their draft-dodger president's record by destroying Kerry's. It was fascinating to watch: first it was "Kerry didn't earn his Purple Hearts." This progressed to "Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star" and then "Kerry didn't earn his Silver Star." I don't think anyone fell for it, not even the strongest Bush supporter. It was all done to allow Bush supporters, who hate draft dodgers, to feel okay about their boy by trashing his opponent.