|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 10, 2004 18:54:50 GMT -5
Why the media is so biased toward the liberals? If it even is at all. CBS got fined $500,000.00 because a tit popped out during the SB half time show. Is it really any wonder they want Bush and his appointees to the FCC out?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProChildren on Nov 11, 2004 10:18:19 GMT -5
they are liberal because being a conservative would cost them more money and they don't want that
|
|
|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 11, 2004 18:48:58 GMT -5
they are liberal because being a conservative would cost them more money and they don't want that Plus they would have to put silly swear filters on their message boards. |
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 21, 2004 20:50:10 GMT -5
Here's one I've never seen anyone answer:
When I first heard Limbaugh, he said he was "equal time," meaning of course that the Big 3 et al were slanted leftward and he was the "antidote," being slanted to the right.
But this makes no sense.
The right's complaint about ABC, NBC, the WP, NYT, and all the rest is that they are biased. Can we agree that if a source is biased that, among other things, it is not presenting a factual picture? It has an axe to grind, right?
Anyone on the right would be justified in opposing a source whose bias is left-leaning.
But the right's answer is just as screwed up as that which it opposes: it is biased in the opposite direction. The operative term here is that the right's programming is also biased, again meaning that the facts are being skewed, only this time in another direction.
This isn't balance. You don't answer bias with bias.
You answer it with objectivity. The right's media is no more objective than the left's. It makes no sense to me to see someone complain about something then offer more of the same as an answer, just in a different flavor.
In no case is the truth being told, just two differing versions of it, like opposing lawyers at a trial, each trying to influence the jury and neither concerned with the facts.
How obvious all of this is, yet I know people who say they get their news from talk radio because it "tells the truth."
No it doesn't. If it did, no one would listen.
Because people don't want the truth. Not people on the left, not people on the right. What we all want is to hear our own biases backed up. We want our hatreds justified.
If Limbaugh or anyone else on the air just relayed the facts they'd be off the air.
It's baloney to retort that Limbaugh is "just an entertainer," because too many people don't think that: they think what he says is factual, which is pretty dangerous, because it isn't.
I have always heard that the most objective news source in this country is the Christian Science Monitor. So if we want to get as close to the facts as we can, I guess that's where we need to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by DoubleX on Nov 21, 2004 21:15:08 GMT -5
You're post is biased. How am I supposed to believe you?
EVERYTHING is biased on some way because nobody is the same. Everybody thinks in a different perspective (no matter how little the difference is).
There is a difference between the Rush Limbaugh Program and the media. Rush offers his point of few and discusses it with his listeners. The media is supposed to tell you the news and views from both sides. Which some media outlets don't do. However, they have the freedom of doing what they want! Even if it isn't the truth. Sadly...
Plus, where do you think Rush gets all the stuff for his show? The media. He reads an excerpt (of something of that nature) and then explains what he thinks about it. All he's doing is sharing his opinion, which many other conservatives AND liberals do.
So, what's the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 21, 2004 21:45:51 GMT -5
First of all, you are comparing apples and oranges. The network anchors are supposed to be journalists. Rush is just an entertainer/ commentator. There is no shortage of them on the left or the right. It's about ratings in talk radio and the liberals have all been a flop.
I don't know why anyone would assume anyone can be free from bias. I think it's a ridiculous assumption that anyone could be, and a fairly new one. It used to be common (I don't remember, but from what I have read) for newspapers to print two articles, side by side, written from two different perspectives. Sadly, most "journalism" in these modern time is just propaganda for the left as we become more and more sucked into the oxygen free vortex of the new world order. It's sad because there are so many stupid people who drink the kool-aid.
|
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 22, 2004 11:43:03 GMT -5
You can't say a "commentator" is just commenting when he himself proclaims what he says to be unvarnished truth. If Rush said "this is my opinion," who could argue, because we're all entitled.
But an awful lot of people take what he says as fact.
Mo, if you can say "I don't know why anyone would assume anyone can be free from bias" why then does the Right complain about it, accuse the media of it? One might just as well accuse the sky of raining.
The point here is not that people cannot be entirely free from seeing things (and reporting on them) through the filter of his own prejudices, but the fact that it certainly can be done to a great extent, but no one has the slightest intent of doing so. Isn't saying that people can't be free of it so why bother the same as saying teenagers are going to fornicate so we might just as well stop trying to get them not to?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 22, 2004 14:43:52 GMT -5
The main stream liberal press does not admit and it doesn't hire a ballance.
Don't insult the intelligence of the American people. Everyone knows Rush is a commentator. Those who think he speaks truth just agree with his commentary. Michael Mooron tries to tell his lies as truth. He doesn't sell it to me. I'm not buying any crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Nov 22, 2004 14:52:56 GMT -5
Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw, the anchors of the three main outlets of the broadcast news, are all liberals. Tom Brokaw could have been on Kerry's ticket for Christ's sake. And you are going to argue that the media isn't biased because Rush Limbaugh has a successful radio show. In the words of John Stossel: GIVE ME A BREAK!
|
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 22, 2004 17:02:15 GMT -5
Show me where I said the media is not biased.
So: the Right doesn't like liberal media bias. Why? Because it won't admit its bias. What's the problem with that? Well, people are so stupid that if you don't tell them you're biased they'll take absolutely anything you say as truth, and terrible things will evidently happen; if it wouldn't make any difference, the Right wouldn't be complaining.
Further: the Right doesn't like liberal media bias because it gives the Right a bad name, misrepresents the truth, etc.
The Right's answer: give the Left a bad name, and misrepresent the truth.
This is called "balance."
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 22, 2004 17:58:59 GMT -5
I'll type slowly for the (obviously) slow learner.
The elite, leftist media has a stranglehold on American journalism. They don't even try to create balance. On this they are certainly anti-choice. They make no attempts at presenting information from anything but a leftist world view. Even small, red-state newspapers are infected because so much of The NYT is syndicated.
People have choice in radio and paid programming, hence the success of talk radio and FNC. The venues that are not monopolized and exist in a free market capacity do a fine job of presenting both sides. The TV airwaves that are owned by the people only present one side. That's not news; it's propaganda.
|
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 22, 2004 20:38:59 GMT -5
Why do you keep ignoring the point? The point is not that bias exists; I've said that both Left and Right are biased at least three times.
Both sides lie. That's what bias is, lying by omission or commission. What good does it do this society to have its news reported by liars, whether it's two types (Left / Right in this instance) or 100? What good does it do to have one group of people listening to the version of the truth it prefers, and another group listening to a different version?
Neither is the truth, only raw material to help widen the divide that exists between L and R, which some are now saying hasn't been this bad since 1860. Five hundred thousand Americans paid for that divide with their lives.
Unless I mistake you, you seem to imply that telling the truth to the public is not preferable to choosing between two sets of lies, and that interests me, because I can't think of any good reason why one would prefer that.
|
|
|
|
Post by DoubleX on Nov 22, 2004 21:19:36 GMT -5
So if the left and right are all liars, please tell us what the truth is.
|
|
Mike
German Shepard
Posts: 15
|
Post by Mike on Nov 22, 2004 21:31:09 GMT -5
The question is not "what is the truth" but "who is going to tell us the truth?"
The answer is, I'm afraid, nobody.
Because people don't want to hear the truth; we want to hear our prejudices and hatreds confirmed. People read publications whose views they already agree with. They don't as a rule read stuff they think is wrong.
The closest thing to reported truth is probably scientifice journals, though we all know that scientists are as prone to petty jealousies, megalomania, and all the other sins the rest of us have to deal with. Nevertheless, peer-reviewed journals at least have that check on them.
The media and talk radio have no such checks. They just call one another names.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Nov 22, 2004 22:18:16 GMT -5
I reject your entire premise as bunk! Bias in the media is not necessarily a lie, although it can go there. Bias is simply reporting the news from an angle that is from your own particular world view. Two people can witness the same event and see different things.
There are plenty of commentators from the left and the right. Those who call themselves "journalists" are made up almost entirely of left leaning idealists with an agenda.
|
|
