This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Thank God you're not a reporter.
And, by the way, I just read that story and I guess you can't even report the news these days without being raked with the "liberal media" moniker.
No, yours wasn't biased at all, either.
Pete,
I'm sure even you have to admit that many of today's news outlets go out of their way to write stories that put the U.S. or conservatives in a bad light, even if the news they're reluctantly reporting is positive.
Why can't they just report facts without overt editorializing?
No kidding! Most supposed news stories should be on the Op-Ed page. WSJ seems to be ok for just reporting facts (although I must admist to being very opposd their illegal invasion stance).
If a "liberal media" existed, we would have spent Wednesday hearing about this...
...ongoing violence in Iraq, escalating violence in Afghanistan, Haditha massacre, Guantanamo uproar, trials of White House aides, and the GOP's current struggle as they head into the '06 elections.
Instead, Wednesday was spent gawking at the president's MOMENTUM. His SURGE of MOMENTUM...
CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Morning were all participants in this trumpeting of the incredible MOMENTUM Bush was displaying. So, why would a "liberal media" trumpet a rebound by a conservative president? Hmm...why?
A simple question. One I doubt anyone that visits here can accurately or reasonably answer.
I heard nothing about the surge in the presidents momentum. What I heard was:
...ongoing violence in Iraq, escalating violence in Afghanistan, Haditha massacre, Guantanamo uproar, trials of White House aides, and the GOP's current struggle as they head into the '06 elections.
Oh and something about Zarqawi's death being a hoax, that he'd probably been dead for years and they just now pulled him out of cold storage to score points for the 06' election.
And, of course, today there was the false moment of silence the senate democrats pulled for the 2500 soldiers lost in Iraq. Then their call for us to again cut and run by the end of the year.
Nope - I see your point - no bias there at all.
Maybe you should actually watch and read the news as a whole rather than snippets that you don't like. I do not really understand the "mainstream media" can be too liberal - from the POV of conservatives - and too conservative - from the POV of liberals.
Interesting that both sides hate the bearers of the News. Lefties go to alternative media newspapers, so righties go to talk radio, so lefties go to blogs, so righties go to blogs, and everyone forgets how they get their information in the first place.
Let's see Dave, I read the newspaper from front to back every single morning without fail. While reading that, I have the local news on.
Then, I drive to work and listen to music really loud, so as to become fully awakened. (Currently that is the Red Hot Chili's, love the new album.)
Then I sign on my computer and while working puruse the AP, MSNBC, DRUDGE, FOX and other sources of news. Including international news sources.
I like to think I have a well rounded news intake, including going to select liberal blogs to see what they've got to say, and everyday, I see the slant.
And what you need to realize, is that I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT!!! I don't want to see the slant, the liberal bias is bad, so it's not like I go looking for it.And it's not something that I have any satisfaction of reporting on. It just exists. You could do 50 million studies on it, but you have to face the fact it exists. Shit, it exists on FOX as well. I get so pissed watching them sometimes I just have to leave the room, or turn them off. I watched Bill O for the first time in months this week. He was pissing me off so bad.
My point being is that the liberal bias does exist. If you don't think so then they've been doing their job well.
Jenn,
As usual you are simply arguing from ignorance. Study after study finds that the mainstream media consistently sides with business interests. Go check out the findings of the Church Commission from the 1970s. They found the CIA had employed over 400 journalists in every major media outlet. Four-hundred! Capitalism's International Army (the CIA) clearly has a class bias; and that bias is adequately reflected in even what you would call the most liberal of rags: the New York Times.
Go back and look at the coverage of Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and compare it to the coverage of the genocide in East Timor which was U.S. backed. Go back and look at the coverage of the attrocities carried out in Panama in 1989 or the terrorist war against Nicaragua in 1985. Go back and look at the coverage of Saddam Hussein in the press when he was our friend and ally.
This is bigger than "liberal" or "conservative" Jenn. The mainstream media reflects its class interests. The media isn't influenced by corporate America; it is corporate America. So your "far left" commentary during the Vietnam war was that "while the U.S. had noble intentions, it was a failed effort, a mistake." Nowhere in the mainstream "Left" will you find discussion of the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam; and yet our journalists have no problem seeing the invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union. One brave Soviet reporter actually mentioned the "Soviet Defense of Afghanistan" as an invasion and he was sent to a mental ward. No U.S. reporter ever made the same conclusion in Vietnam. The control is not as overt, but it is control. The indoctrination is internalized.
dave
A Pew Research poll a couple of years ago or so (forgive me for not having the link, feel free to Google it) showed that about 62% of Americans believed the MSM is liberal...and 41% of DEMOCRATS agreed! Yeah, well, what do THEY know, right?
The Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media, and other sites have reams of proof that the MSM is liberal. Not that proof ever worked on you lefty nitwits.
Chrome Dome,
I'm sure you could also find a poll of eight-year-olds who believe Santa is real. Just because people believe something doesn't mean it's true. The myth of the liberal press is one of the most persistent myths perpetuated. Of course people believe it's true. This isn't about perceived bias but about the bias that is actually there. Reporters, like all educated people, tend to be liberal. But look at the people who get airtime, look at the people who get interviewed, the stories that are considered news and you see the real bias is not a Left/Right one but a bias that walks in lock-step with the elite of this country. Funny I don't recall a litany of anti-war activists on the news every night in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. In the week prior to the invasion--on the four networks--approximately 400 people were interviewed about the upcoming war. Three were anti-war. Three our of four-hundred. That's a liberal bias? That's a lefty bias?
What I don't understand is how you people can be so stupid as to believe this nonsense. How often do you see Noam Chomsky on television in this country? Michael Parenti? Naomi Klein? Ralph Nader? Howard Zinn? Arundhati Roy? Aaron Glantz? The fact of the matter is the Left is completely removed from any debate in this country.
Instead you get some idiot like Colmes playing the part of the Left. The funny thing is most of you here rail against something you don't even understand. Hell most conservative pundits don't even take the "liberal media" screed seriously. Check your satelite program and tell me how many Christian-Left stations you find. How many Christian stations preaching liberation theology? Tell me how many "Left-leaning" radio stations there are in the country. Please don't mention NPR--we call it National Pentagon Radio. A recent study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) found conservative guests far outnumber more liberal guests. Furthermore, when Liberals or those on the Left were given air-time they were often paired with a conservative to provide "balance." However, this was not the case with the Right-leaning guests.
I've written a lot on this phenomena: http://anarchistdharma.com/index...hp?
s=media+bias
dave
dave, if what you say is true.........then why are FoxNews, talk radio and conservative blogs and websites so popular? Shouldn't the MSM be sufficient if it's not so "liberally biased"?
Please tell me why you had to insert, "Reporters, like all educated people, tend to be liberal".
So only liberals are educated?
So only liberals are educated?
Darwin, let it go. Anyone that compares the electorate to eight-year-olds who believe in Santa, and who stupidly says "Did anyone see any protestors on TV before the war?" (uh...yeah. A bunch, despite the fact that the dozens who showed up were, at the time, in the considerable minority), and who hilariously says that NPR is far-right while quoting FAIR (a group that says what this schumck says: "the media isn't liberal enough!")...well, reasoning with them just isn't very productive.
Question: if liberals are so damned smart, how come they've yet to figure out how to get people to vote for them? Maybe insulting their values and their intelligence, and using the "Vote for us, you morons" approach isn't all that smart or effective? Naw...couldn't be!
Boy, for a bunch of "smart" folks, you liberals sure are stupid!
C.D. as usual... brilliant.
Dave,
Ignorance is you thinking I'll magically wake up someday and realize I'm a liberal.You and I are so far different on the political spectrum we shouldn't even share the same comment section.
You are a hard core union kissing,pro-illegal, anarchist-socialist-buddist-whatever.
I am a center conservative.
So far apart, the poles aren't far enough.
Nothing, absolutely nothing I ever say will move you to change your way of thinking, and NOTHING, you could ever utter would change my way of thinking. Hell, I have more in common with Neil than you.
In fact in the last year or so... I think you've moved even farther down the primrose path.....
You fool yourself if you think there is no lefty bias. As I said above... I do not rejoice in the fact that the bias exists. And wish it didn't. But, it does.
It's that simple.
Jenn,
As usual you sidestep the issue and avoid every point I've made. If you would actually read what I write, I made it clear that I'm not countering your argument by saying there is a "conservative" bias. This is bigger than Left/Right, Jenn, and you don't seem to be willing to look at that. Show me the Leftists Christians who have radio or TV stations. Show me one Christian station broadcasting liberation theology in America. There isn't one. But there are plenty of pro-capitalist evangelical Christian organizations on our publicly owned airwaves. It's not a matter of Left/Right, but what supports the Empire? We practically waged a war against the Catholic Church in Central America during the 1980s. Was it a war against Christianity? No, it was a war against elements within Christianity that seek to help the poor and address the unequal distribution of wealth.
Jenn, you don't even understand the political spectrum, so how can you talk about how far apart we are? Center Conservative? Since when did it become a conservative position to back preventive war and occupation, the supreme crimes at Nuremburg? When did that pop up on the conservative agenda, Jenn?
Your ignorance has you cheerleading for empire at a very real cost to you and the one's you love. You brag about how you read the papers without considering the old saying: garbage in, garbage out.
You are right about Neil, though. You two have a lot in common: neither one of you understands how the world works. Neither one of you have any class consciousness. Neither one of you knows what you believe in. He's just as vapid a cheerleader for the Left as you are for the Right. He could just as easily be on your side. It wouldnt' matter to him. He doesn't understand any of it anyway.
But it's not because of a lack of intellect. But it takes work and neither of you seem to be willing to put forth the effort. A shame, really. We could use you both.
dave
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
