My Statement to Nations That Hate the US - Page 11

SDW,

" You are going to have to restate the question for me. I thought I did answer it ".

If the media is ether controlled or strongly biased by liberals as you claim then how is it so much attention was given to the Clinton sex scandal? This was the number one story everywhere for a very long time.

The logical thing would have been to tone this down. There was no such action taken. It was not subtle or slight. It went on for a better part of a year.

This didn't happen after he lied to the American people. It was that way from the start. I contend that the logical course of action taken by the media ( if they were bias ) would have been to try to gloss this over. It didn't happen. The media was in a frenzy. " ballistic " was the term you used I believe. I believe this is because what the media portrays for us is motivated by their desire to sell copy or improve rateings. They do editorialize and slant the news. Not because they are bias for liberals but because they bias for themselves.

This is a hole in your logic stating that the media is ether bias or the implication of control by liberals. If they are bias then how could this have happened? Liberals everywhere knew this would have an effect on the next election. Why all the focus? I'm sure there are liberals on any news staff. It's just that they aren't what strongly influences their content.

This is the question and a sample of what's been discussed since.

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

^ SDW, I believe now is the time to provide an actual source for that statistic .

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>

My answer to that is how could they let that happen. If the media is bias towards liberals in the sense you're inplying then they pumped up a news story and sacrificed an election. This just doesn't wash.

The Clinton sex scandal is a fact.

The way the story dominated the news for months is a fact.

Sorry I never saw ANY evidence of downplaying.

The burden of disproof is yours.

Still in check.

Well, downplaying certainly existed in well-meaning commentary.

[quote] Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. <hr></blockquote>

um... yeah, I saw that documentation... wasn't that a document that scottphd wrote?... or Finboy ? or toady of the corporate thought machine du jour . . . . .

What you point to when you shriek "see that's Liberal bias" is silly little centrism . . . it is th emere fact that most journalism attemps to present the story that peoplle want to see without alienating anybody . .

once again: why would they not want to alienate people? because teh purpose of media these days (as is made clear by the mega-conglomerates that own almost all the outlets) is to SELL!!

If you saw a real Liberal perspective in the media you would be getting class analysis: historical perspectives on almost every issue where money and class realities are shown to be effectively in play, (as they almost always really are) . . . you would have shows about labor relations that didn't always portray unions as mobsters and criminals, and you would have news shows that don't whince when they say the word 'environmentalist' as if they were saying the words AnalRapist. . . same goes for, not only the word but also the whole idea of colonialism : the media never even acknowledges that it was once a major factor in the world and that Europe and America had their own little colonial situations . . . And, You would have perspectives on contemporary globalism that didn't just show protesters and say "they don't like globalism . . .the criminals. . . they broke some windows...naughty naughty" (which granted may be a bad tactic and in many cases those involved just like playing the role of provocatuere) but you would rather get a real look at the history of corporate influence in overseas expansion, the politics behind and resulting from the World Bank's actions and the same with the IMF.

unstead of these you get a silly little language that is centrist and so you, looking for the boogy man, see Liberal bias . . . you are wrong wrong wrong and that's it!

:eek: I can't help but to say:

"There!"


<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>


powerdoc: Yes, we do have to read liberal newspapers and watch liberally biased TV stations. It is 90% of the media. Or, do you advocate I only watch stations that reflect my own views? I don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean that in a capitalistic economy system like in the USA that newspapers are read only if people want to read them. If there is a big market for conservative newspapers then there will be a lot of sales. If you said that 90 % of the market is rule by liberal newspapers, it means that 90 % of the readers of newspapers are liberal (or you suppose that conservative people are much more open minded and read liberals newspapers as well). So is it possible that the newspapers in US is divided in three kind : conservative , neutral and liberal. Don't you think that the fact you are a conservative can let you think that every media who is not strictly conservative is liberal rather than neutral and independant ?

To make the things clear, i am belonging to the right in France , i have the choice of reading various right newspapers in France, like the Figaro or Valeurs actuelles. Perhaps there is a little more left oriented newspapers i admit , but i definitevely not buy (even if don't know much about US media) your 90 % ratio because it's not logical.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I personally did a search on abcnews.com for the word "conservative". It yielded 3,928 results. The word liberal yielded "1,776" results. The media often does not label liberals as liberal. That is a big part of the problem. </strong><hr></blockquote>Does the fact that 'conservative' appears more often than 'liberal' mean there's a liberal bias? I'm sure if it was the other way around you could claim the same thing - "see, liberal views are presented more often than conservative views!"

How many politicians describe themselves as liberal? Probably a few - Feingold, Wellstone, Kennedy, a coupla others.

Now how many describe themselves as conservative? Probably the entire Republican caucus plus several democrats.

Again I think the issue is that the American people are biased - they are more conservative than liberal, and so politicians describe themselves that way. And then the media reports how they describe themselves.

Look at web sites - I've done the gun control debate over and over here, and there seem to be about a 10 to 1 ratio of conservative to liberal web sites on that issue.

So I guess I could claim "The internet is biased!"

But it's futile. Just stop whining about it and become a journalist if you think there aren't enough conservatives. It just seems to be a tactic used by conservatives to have a straw man to attack.

Some quotes from conservatives about the liberal media:

[quote]"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol <hr></blockquote>

[quote]"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."
Pat Buchanan<hr></blockquote>

Andy Rooney was interviewed recently by Larry King:

[quote]KING: A couple of other things. What did you make of Bernard Goldberg's book, critical of television liberal bias, and especially harsh on some of your folks at CBS.

ROONEY: I thought he made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the -- I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful.

I think Goldberg, Bernie -- he was a very good reporter, you know. He said some very true things...<hr></blockquote>

Dan Rather and Andy Roony . . . . two examples of people that have a liberally slanted perspective . . . however, how does it manifest itself . . . "MY GOD, MAN he said the words 'very very conservative'...clearly he is a 'criminal Liberal'"

The problem is what you SDW think of as 'Liberal' bias.... It is so far to the biased right that what is basically centrist is labelled with the "L" word.

And as far as these pictures of the ANWR I have seen the exact opposite from the right . . . unstead of showing the region in the summer or spring when there is very much obviouse wildlife that would stand to be damaged by the needed industry for oil pumping and drilling, you get pictures of a frozen wasteland . . . .

And for each of the truly tiny and trivial examples that you point to of Liberal bias, (ex: Dan Rather saying a politician, who gladly calls himself Conservative, is a conservative), you can point out ten explicitly right wing, conservative television and radio commentators . . . many of who explicitly attack the very word 'Libera'l and liberalism not as if it was merely differing political views but as if it was the work of EVIL. and do so nonstop and ery vociferously.

I don't know what news programs that you are watching that portray the Unions as heros, or environmentalists as heros but they aren't on television.

As for FLINT Michigan . . . tell us about Flint.... is it a thriving econnomy? when was the last time you saw anything on TV about the workers of Flint michigan? . . . and Roger And Me.. . with a definite agenda, is NOT on TV . . . don't talk about that movie... but perhaps you should see it to get a clearer idea of what Flint is like.

Also, perhaps the "going Ape **** " over the roll backs of Clintons environmental policies was different then the once that I read, which, all of them, simply stated that Bush was trying to reverse policies, and even stated, when appropriate, that these were policies put into place at the end of Clinton's terms, is it "Liberal bias" just to state the fact?!? After all you too are stating the fact . . . and when that wasn't the case, of 'last minute policy' reversal.... when it was one of Bush's attempts to change long standing policy, or to replace the head of the scientific advisory panel with a FORD MOTORS recommended scientist, rather than the scientist that was currently in place... who was an authority on climatology and a very highly respected scientist among the scientific community . . . the newspapers absolutely DID NOT go "Ape **** " as they should have and as they would have had they been operating under a vast "Liberal" agenda. No this CORPORATE APPROVED AND MOTIVATED change of advisory board leadership went pretty much uncontested . . . .

(why?, because without absolute (and idiotic) obescience to the absurd dependance on the auto/oil industry our hair trigger economy would collapse.)

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

How are you doing with that blood pressure medication, pfflam?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

I was making a joke about your rather heated post.

Ok i have been out for a couple of days, and didn't follow up on what i posted. There are a couple of things i would like to toss out.

First conservative by definition is more reserved, so all the posturing and hoopla don't fit well.

Next, to answer your post from a day or so ago Jimmac. Those links are from a biased and small source (and were for laughs as much as fact due to their onesidedness). As are most links or facts put into contention here. I still contend that this whole proving of an opinion is ludicruous in the extreme. Opinions are based on emotion and perception, not to be confused with knowledge which is based on facts and information.


As to the point of being still in check i provided accurate quotable info from informed poeple. The only counter i have seen is "i don't believe it so it's not true or applicable".

Now to the point of why conservative shows up more than liberal in a search. It's my opinion that the conservative issues are challenged more by a liberal media.

Lastly good ol'sp or sj or whatever, how i wish this were like a chat room and i could just put your nick in ignore. But i'll just take the more traditional route for ignoring you. Know what the funny part of that is <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> i don't miss a single point for either side doing it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>

You have presented NOTHING that pertains to or answers my question. Like SDW you dance a jig around it by trying to prove your point elsewhere.

I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.

I once watched a friend of mine play a game of chess with another friend. This friend wasn't popular and was looked at as a wall flower. Not very brite or " with it ". They were wrong and he backed the other friend ( who considered himself a great intellect ) into a corner. As soon as the second friend found out there was no other choice but to lose he tipped the board over and cried " this stupid ".

You will always be in check on this one because stats. on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.

This is the truth.

You can stay at the board and howl or ignore as long as you want. It won't change anything.

This is checkmate.

PS. By the way my friend is now the head of an accounting dept. for Farmers Insurance. You see he's very good with numbers, patterns, and logic.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>You have presented NOTHING that pertains to or answers my question. Like SDW you dance a jig around it by trying to prove your point elsewhere.

I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.

You will always be in check on this one because stats on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.

This is the truth.

You can stay at the board as long as you want. It won't change anything.

This is checkmate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok back up. I have supported the contention that the media is liberal biased. I have give points, opinions, and fluff to show that it is there.

How about this for a proof of the liberal biased, here is a site that shows a poll taken of the views of a group of americans (is it a fair representation of the nation?) at this site:

<a href="http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html" target="_blank">http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html</a>


The following are the results of a poll (December, 1996) conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs:

1) most Americans think that the media are biased. Almost half (49%) think that the media usually don't "get the facts straight."

2) some two-thirds believe the media don't "deal fairly with all sides" in social and political reporting.

3) almost three-fourths of Americans see a "fair amount" or "great deal" of political bias in the news. And by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, poll resondents said that bias is liberal rather than conservative (43%-19%).

4) more than 60% of Americans surveyed prefer the media to "simply report the facts" and not "weigh the facts and offer suggestions about how to solve problems." This is a sharp break from ABC News' motto "News With Solutions."

5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."

6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence."

7) some 47% think journalists have values different from their own.

Here's some from an article at fair:

<a href="http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#orientation" target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#orientation</a>

Here are the numbers that came up with for a group of journalists in washingtion:

Political orientation on social issues: left 30%, center 57%, and right 9%.

Political orientation on economic issues: left 11%, center 64%, and right 19%.

Is the news more social or economic? I believe it is more about social issues. So there you go. Proof from a pair of biased sources on on either side of the fence.

^ :eek: :eek: :eek: Ruhx hasn't had something to say since his "environmental compensation" suggestion. Congrats! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Those are indirect staistics. My question puts them all in doubt as being relevant to the question because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.

This game is now over.

You have lost.

Bye.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>

Sjpsu,

Thanks!

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We have already discussed this: (see below)

[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Not at all. It's undisputable that liberal and conservative bias exist in pockets of the media. </strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And, I still say the burden of proof IS NOT on me. This isn't my idea folks! This is talked about ALL THE TIME. It has been discussed for YEARS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Conservatives talk about it "all the time." Yes, they are people too. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> But they certainly aren't "all people." And to say that the burden of proof lies with an idea's creator is simply ridiculous.

These really stood out to me:

[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."

6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Two-thirds say the press shouldn't point out politicians' lies? Do we really want a media that simply reads gov't releases?

I'm beginning to think this is really the issue.

The media see themselves as questioners, skeptics, of the gov't line. They question US gov't policy, even military actions.

To a significant proportion of the public, this is seen as unpatriotic.

The press sees themselves as part of the checks and balances of our system. No less important than the Congress providing a check vs. the President.

But the public apparently wants them to be cheerleaders. Seeing our policies criticized doesn't make us feel good.

I think this is a large part of why the media are considered biased.

As far as any of the quotes from the first page.... each could be taken to task for their exclusion of salient features which render them either moot or trivial. As for the reporting about the protesters... I can't tell you how often the opposite takes place. . . during the Gulf war, the biggest protest ever seen were taking place in San Francisco and the only thing that was reported was some breaking of the law and twelve people tying a golden ribbon around a tree . . . this happens all the time. And as for the polling agency: the "nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs" . . . just go to their page and see how "non-partisan" they are... that's complete malarcky.

The FAIR page might have some correct numbers but it seems that they are described for the most part as 'centrist'. And journalists don't make the final dicisions and define the programming options,

and then there is the whole problem of the FORM of media in general which you repeatedly overlook... it is all about consuming consumption and display of commodities... in an endless parade of goods...

some good quotes from the FAIR page: [quote] The general public is more critical of the concentration of corporate power in the United States than are journalists <hr></blockquote>
[quote] This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and tradeissues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this countrynot surprisinglytend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers. <hr></blockquote>

You went with quoting from that page... well at least FAIR cites its sources and those sources are credible . . . they went right to the source. THe other page has a poll conducted by Center for Media and Public Affairs which is clearly agenda driven....they have a 'rigourous' psuedo scientific method of doing what? counting the times the word conservative was used . . . . you use it far more times than I do!!

Face it its a mellee and a melange out there... there are clearly some lefty journalists but there are many more outright right wing commentators... there are many business shows and in every show there is almost 40% of the time used to SELL SELL SELL!!! the overall impact of television and radio would probably a rezzzounding CENTER... wisth commentary by the right and reporting from the CENTER by some very slightly social issue lefties.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I am not going to rehash the same argument, over and over.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Umm, what do you call this? (see below)

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>Those are indirect staistics. My question puts them all in doubt as being relevant to the question because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.

This game is now over.

You have lost.

Bye.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok enough waving back and forth is this about Clinton's escapades getting to much air or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that biased is based on liberal beliefs?

The challenge for "my" side is over. The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no biased. So go ahead.

By the way, i really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air i won't refute it because i won't put up with him/her and read it.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> "The game is now over. You have lost. Bye."

So i am now a radical liberal? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not in your most warm fuzzy dream of making everyone feel good <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>

^ You're quite the intellectual. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> No, really, all kidding and sarcasm aside:

1. You are dense.
2. You have nothing to say
3. You can not even write correctly.

Examples:

• Ok enough waving back and forth. Is this about Clinton's escapades getting too much air, or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that bias (removed "ed") is based on liberal beliefs?
• The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias(removed "ed"). The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias (removed "ed").
• By the way, I really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air. I won't refute it because I won't put up with him/her and read it.

Here's a way to remember using "BIAS" correctly:

Q. How does J.Lo like it?
A. BY ASS

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>

You simply won't read my posts because they might say something that you don't agree with and because I make sense.

[quote] You too have stuck to your one extremely shaky argument that the country has moved so far to the right that moderates look liberal. That is the biggest load of total **** I have ever heard. Get over it. Get off it. <hr></blockquote>Several years ago it was generally acknowledged that if Richard Nixon tried to run for office he would be considered centrist . . . many conservatives also saw this as the case, many even on these boards openly conceded this.

I am willing to admit that much journalism is slightly left on social issues... just as the page that you used to make your point suggests. Journalists with minor perspectives do not make up the conglomeration which is the media business . . .

you decide to dismiss what I have to say without reading it because you have never once addressed the fact that the media you say you hate because of its bias is owned and operated by some of the largest corporate conglomerates in existence . . .and, as I would hope that you understand the most basic of business strategies... it is unwise to undermine your own business . . .

naturally, then, the business of media is to pander to the lowest common denominator so that it can sell . . . .you see in this Liberalism, and I see in this corporate business practice, you see the number count of the word 'conservative' as naturally stemming from the bias of liberals, I see it as reporting on the ever growing popularity among the media saturated masses, of the glib, facile, and simplistic beliefs of the media right . . . guess what... the media is dense and much can coexist within and between its ever shifting desplays of commodities and shallow sitcoms . . . .if you look hard enough you will create a monster out of anything and still you would ignore the most obviouse facts of the economic underpnnings that dictate and condition what goes on in the media.

follow the money
follow the money

sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>

SDW I think, unfortunately, that I overestimated your ability to think.

By the way at what level do you teach... somehow I think it must be special education . . . has it left you imbittered and defensive?

it appears that way.

wow...i don't care really...

but, I am (or was) willing to respect you as a conversant worthy of, at least, the slightest semblance of reasonable debate and you show yourself as truly a childish dolt.

For all other concerned parties in this thread: look at who your compatriot and/or ideological adversary has turned out to be and either laugh or cry....

[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>
sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
No, you're right, but I think you mean many of my latest posts. I owned for 5 pages by myself and with Jimmac. After a short break, I'm trying to get back into the groove. Give me some credit! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> :cool:

welll... after SDWs last few posts I see where you're coming from.... i think that had I stayed here trying to talk with him, I too would have started jabbing . .

luckily, though, it seems that maybe he's loosing it and soon will stop being able to type alltogether . . .

CHECKMATE!

Awwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooo! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Triple Match Point.......


ACE! Liberals win! Liberals win!