AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Statement to Nations That Hate the US
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Statement to Nations That Hate the US - Page 12

post #441 of 512
6/21/02 at 4:03pm
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I would reply to pfflam, but I as I said, I stopped reading.

Here is one his posts:

"blah blah blah *jingoism* blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simplistic flag waver blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GWB blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *antiestablsihment* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *WTO and IMF* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah :eek:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah Europe is more intellectual blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *pacifist* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah xenophobia blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simpleton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Golf claps.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #442 of 512
6/21/02 at 10:34pm
I must admit, the pure novelty of SDW's "pfflam-filter" is hilarious.

Liberals cross the finish line:

-0.01 seconds! First Place in Mens Downhill World Cup Skiing!!

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
Reply
Reply
post #443 of 512
6/22/02 at 8:48am
I gaurentee that I have never used the word xenophobia on these boards
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #444 of 512
6/22/02 at 9:39am
sjpsu,

" I must admit, the pure novelty of SDW's "pfflam-filter" is hilarious ".

Well I guess that shows how much he listens to what others have to say. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #445 of 512
6/22/02 at 9:41am
pfflam,

" I gaurentee that I have never used the word xenophobia on these boards "

Faulty filter.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #446 of 512
6/22/02 at 9:45am
Damn it, missed the fight.

Who won then?
Was it guy who made the statement, or the rest?
Toast.
Reply
Toast.
Reply
post #447 of 512
6/22/02 at 11:46am
I thought sure this thread would have played out about the time it got to:

i said it before

again i said it before... ad nauseam

Without inflaming the ego blustering here, i have to say that a lot of .... "lalala i can't hear you" is used by both sides. That said, I didn't get a good point for the liberal side here that has made me question my beliefs. A good point would be:

The liberal side believes :insert opinion here: the good side of it is :insert positive here: the conservative side believes :insert same opinion here: and the positive side of it is :insert good point here:

That would give a forum to debate, not radical points of view expressing the bad of conservative versus the good of liberal (interchange liberal and conservative to fit). There is nothing to concede. You can't see the good of my side and i refused to paint a one sided picture for yours. I left everything open ended, not because i lack confidence in my opinions or even because i feel the need to listen to most of the opposition but because i form my beliefs on my own. I weigh the sides with, and hopefully with self truth, equal measures of good vs good.

Jimmac, to you i have to say. i gave you the option to set the stage for this. I then gave 3 different iteration of answers all from different points of view. The only thing you said was... lalala i can't hear you. How could you possibly make a point based on the foundation that:

1) there is only one side to anything

2) one incident makes the entire argument; ie there are not exceptions to the rule

3) a group would never sacrifice one of their own
Reply
Reply
post #448 of 512
6/22/02 at 1:01pm
Sometimes a point can be made from one incident.

This by the way wasn't a slight incident.

No matter what you didn't address the question which put SDW's assertion in doubt. Nothing will change that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #449 of 512
6/23/02 at 1:11pm
Ruhx, accept your poor understanding of the English language, and do something about it. Otherwise speak in your native tongue and we'll find better translations <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Reply
Reply
post #450 of 512
6/24/02 at 8:00am
Thread Starter 
Liberals didn't win. The conservatives just went away for the weekend. Hold on.......

[pflam filter activated]


Ok, proceed:
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #451 of 512
6/24/02 at 8:05am
Thread Starter 
And the the Lord said:

"Let not this thread dwindle, for only the power of Administrator Closeth shall be sufficient to topple the great beast known as thus".
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #452 of 512
6/24/02 at 9:49am
Let's face it, it's not got anything to do with the topic title any more. Americans fighting EACH OTHER over semantics and media bias.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #453 of 512
6/24/02 at 3:01pm
And the lord said: Let not yourself be troubled by the denial of the beast for thou has truly put him in his place and bound him with chains that can not be undone ( even by statistics which have nothing to do with the question ). He will howl and bay at the moon and there will be a great gnashing of teeth but the outcome will remain the same. So sayth the lord.

[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #454 of 512
6/24/02 at 3:19pm
Now back to the topic at hand:Anyone who hates the US is a doodyhead..................................
www.numbersusa.com
www.fairus.org
www.usenglish.org
Reply
www.numbersusa.com
www.fairus.org
www.usenglish.org
Reply
post #455 of 512
6/24/02 at 3:38pm
Is that Howdy Doody head or something else? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #456 of 512
6/25/02 at 6:26am
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Well, that is a provoking contention. But, I would argue (and it would be quite difficult to prove or disprove this) that the media reported the story, but also interjected the "sex doesn't matter angle" through polling of Americans, commentators, debate, etc. It is this intrinsic bias that people miss. It isn't always about downplaying a story (though that seems to be a tactic as well).

I still don't think the assumption that the media would have ignored the problem if it was run by liberals is a valid one. They did, in fact, downplay various angles and emphasize others (e.g. "sex should be private" or "the popular President said today....." and "the republican leadership today continued its assault...." )

These are all simliar quotes to what was actually said by some news networks during the incident. I also don't think that determining whether or not the media is biased to the left, based on one issue is a valid procedure.

Let us not forget that there were very staunch defenders of what the President did. In addition, the whole thing was quite huge in stature. A President lying directly to the American people? A President willfully deceiving a grand jury? Sex INSIDE the oval office on the people's dime (and time)? These are all a little to big too ignore. To suggest that the press wouldn't have covered it if they were liberally biased is perhaps a provoking suggestion, but that is about all. I don't think it holds water given the magnitude of the situation.

Remember, in the Watergate scandal it was, finally, the Republican leadership that went to Nixon and told him he needed to consider resigning. Even the liberal media couldn't ignore Clinton's unbelievable antics, which stretched back some 20 years. Even THEY could not simply ignore it. Not sexual acts with a whitehouse intern inside the oval office, concealed by blatant lies and a cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Not even them.

In any case, your argument is nullfied by what I posted earlier above. Even if you could somehow prove that there WASN'T liberal bias during the Clinton scandal(s), that wouldn't reflect on the media over a long period of time, say, 25 years.

I would further argue that there was quite a motivation for the media to cover the republican assault, which many Americans also didn't agree with). That too, could damage a political party, one with whom most of the media disagrees.

This is a very moot argument anyway. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. And, the damning statistic, for the fourth time, is that it votes 9 to 1 democratic. That is hard number. It can't be spun. What is your answer to that?

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

jimmac,

This was my reponse to the questions. To summarize for you:

1) I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage.
2) The incident was so large in stature that the media couldn't ignore it.....they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue.
3) There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident.

And, I will add this:

5) The media is virtually obligated (by history, if you will) to cover the impeachment of the POTUS.
6) The media unquestionably villianized Kenneth Star.

Your whole point seems to be that "the media would have given the incident less coverage if it was liberally biased". I have presented five points countering that claim, as least to a reasonable degree. What I have said may not be enough to change your mind, but it would seem it is certainly enough to stir debate.

Yet, I'm sure you'll make some assanine comment about me not making my point or not answering the question. I have done so repeatedly.

[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #457 of 512
6/25/02 at 10:44am
SDW,

They would have done a lot more than that.

Come on.

How's it possible to have an liberal bias media ( that's bias enough to matter ) and to have something like this happen?

They may have lost a presidential election because of it. In turn many other races suffered.

I watched it's progress every day ( how could you help but, not ) and saw NO signifigant resistance from the media to the idea that the president was guilty. They covered it and then some.

This is just stupid : " There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident ".

This however helps prove my point about their REAL motivation : " they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue ".

If what you say is true there would have been more than this : " I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage ".

Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue.

There is no big boogyman liberally biased media. If there was we would have seen a lot more than what you have listed. There is however a money and ratings biased media.

Still in check.

Give it up.

[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #458 of 512
6/25/02 at 7:14pm
Thread Starter 
[quote] I watched it's progress every day ( how could you help but, not ) and saw NO signifigant resistance from the media to the idea that the president was guilty. <hr></blockquote>

Perhaps because he admitted it? And I disagree, when he shook his finger and lied the media ate it up.

[quote]Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue. <hr></blockquote>

Says who? You and spjsu?

AND, as I said, this argument is total **** . Your real point is that you think there is no liberal bias, and I firmly disagree. I presented several examples. I also offered several possible reasons for the media's conduct. To base your whole argument on this rather weak point (which is all anecdotal, BTW) is ludicrous. You are trying to prove that there is no liberal bias in the media as a whole based on its overall reaction to the Lewinski affair. This is insane.

I believe someone once said of me (way back on page one) "By missing the point you have made it so well".......Though I don't think I missed the point the poster was referencing, it was an excellent statement.

In this case this statement applies to you. I agree....there is no vast liberal conpiracy. That's the point. It's innate bias. It is, as one author put it "the inability to seee liberal views as liberal" that is the problem. However, many media outlets have no trouble labeling conservatives as such.

Another statistic for you: A study was done several years ago regarding the major networks' editing of conservative and liberal politicians comments. The study showed that conservtive's comments were edited THREE TIMES as often as their liberal counterparts. I do not have the link for the study, but it was well publicized when it was conducted.

I am not going to change my mind. You have challenged me to answer you question, which I have now done, three or four times over. You may not agree. That is fine. I know beyond any doubt that there is a serious liberal bias in the media as a whole. I could literally spend all day, linking to hundreds of slanted articles on mainstream news sites. The only network that leans to the right is Fox News. ABC, NBC, and CBS are all either flat out liberally biased or at least lean to the left.

I will not concede. How about some proof that the media IS NOT biased? Or, do you insist on clinging to your rather tired Lewinsky argument?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #459 of 512
6/25/02 at 7:20pm
Thread Starter 
Oh, and I almost forgot:

[quote] This is just stupid : " There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident ". <hr></blockquote>

No it isn't. Villainizing Republicans would be a bad idea? Or, do you deny this happened too?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #460 of 512
6/25/02 at 10:46pm
SDW,

Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. On the one hand it seems really dire when you want to jab at liberals but when pressed it's " innate bias ". So how is that " criminal "?

I'm beginning to think spjsu has a point. That you really aren't saying anything.

It's not important that I change your mind. I've made my point here. I knew I coudn't from the start anyway. Anyone this polarized is unreachable.

You can stay at the board forever if you want. It won't matter. You really deal in symantics when pressed so you can't be pinned down.

It still remains that logically you're still in check. If you must insist you can have the last word since I believe this thread is done and is now repeating itself.

I'm outta here.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #461 of 512
6/26/02 at 6:25am
Thread Starter 
Right, because you are SOOOOO objective, jimmac.

Your point is just WEAK.

1) It cannot possibly represent the media as a whole over a long period of time.
2) How the media treated the issue is open to interpretation.
3) You have based your entire position on one example which is questionable.

[quote] Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. <hr></blockquote>

Yes. ONCE AGAIN, it is intrinsic bias. It is bias that presents itself as point-of-view. It is subtle at times, enough so that some people, particularly those that don't think critically about what they hear, will miss it. My point hasn't changed at all.

I "can't be pinned down" because you are *unable to prove* there isn't liberal bias in the media. I, on the other hand, have given several examples of it. Why is it me that must prove my point to you? As I said, even if you unequivocally proved your point on Clinton (beyond any reasonable doubt, so to say) it still would be a quite leap to then conclude that there is no liberal bias in the media.

You have offered no other evidence of "lack of bias". None. And yet, it is me who is accused of being "so polarized he is unreachable". What about you? You are the one who is offered evidence from mainstream news sites and ignores it, only to cling to his one glimmer of hope.

This is ridiculous. I answered your friggin question. Four times. Go back and read.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #462 of 512
6/26/02 at 8:00am
What was the point of this thread again?

Something like, you all hate us because you´re all jealous that we´re brilliant and you´re not.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...

Reply
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...

Reply
post #463 of 512
6/26/02 at 10:51am
SDW, it is ridiculous that you still argue that point. General liberal bias in the media would have downplayed the Clinton Sex Scandal to decrease public awareness. Ramping up coverage while generally downplaying it is a piss-poor way to benefit the President. Like, jimmac said, it cost Democrats the Presidency in 2000. I'm certain that some anchors, commentators, and guests on the major cable and broadcast news networks attempted to downplay the story. BUT the mere existence of it and its magnitude reveals a total lack of general liberal bias in the media. In fact, I'm sure the networks as a whole slanted far more rightward concerning this story than you think- thanks to FOX News. I didn't watch FNC back then and only now for entertainment, but I WONDER what they said?

[quote]<strong>I "can't be pinned down" because you are *unable to prove* there isn't liberal bias in the media. I, on the other hand, have given several examples of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Will you quit using my "examples" argument. That's the second time I believe.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
Reply
Reply
post #464 of 512
6/26/02 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 
[quote]Like, jimmac said, it cost Democrats the Presidency in 2000. <hr></blockquote>

You don't know that. I'm sure it had quite a bit to do with Gore himself.

[quote]BUT the mere existence of it and its magnitude reveals a total lack of general liberal bias in the media. <hr></blockquote>

Ridiculous. How could the media completely ignore a story like that?

As far as Fox News goes, are you suggesting that one network's leanings influenced the entire media? Also ridiculous! I agree FNC leans conservative. But, I would not go so far as to say it is biased. I cannot say the same of ABC and CBS.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #465 of 512
6/26/02 at 10:19pm
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
You don't know that. I'm sure it had quite a bit to do with Gore himself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Correction: It contributed to Gore's election loss because he did not use Clinton as a campaign asset. (which retrospectively he should have done regardless of scandal)

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
Ridiculous. How could the media completely ignore a story like that?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly, the President messes up once again in his private sex life. [sarcasm]How could the media NOT resist a story like that?[/sarcasm]

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
As far as Fox News goes, are you suggesting that one network's leanings influenced the entire media? Also ridiculous! </strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I said: (see below)

[quote]Originally posted by SJPSU:
<strong>
In fact, I'm sure the networks as a whole slanted far more rightward concerning this story than you think- thanks to FOX News.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Doesn't the phrase "networks as a whole" suggest every major cable and network tv news station? (Answer: "Yes") It's been proven that every one is centrist in nature (slightly center-right, in fact). When you include FNC, the spectrum turns even more conservative color

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
I agree FNC leans conservative. But, I would not go so far as to say it is biased. I cannot say the same of ABC and CBS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

How can you NOT equate bias with an entire network's tilt to a political party? Answer that one for me. It's clearly not possible.

On a side note, why can't the FCC sue FNC for truly misleading advertising?
Reply
Reply
post #466 of 512
6/27/02 at 11:34am
SDW2001 = Sore Loser
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #467 of 512
6/28/02 at 3:56am
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001:
[QB]We all know there nations on earth, entire populations that hate the US. We can speculate


It is true that there are entire nations who hate you. It may not have come to your feeble little mind, however that this is not due to jealousy over your economy but mainly because of your nations double standards. You throw a wobbly whenever you see another country like Chechnya being attacked and yet you are happy to barge into Vietnam, guns blazing. You can't even win in that situation. The worlds biggest military power proves to be the worlds most inept. And that's not all. The rest of the world has started paying attention to the environment and is trying to cut down CO2 emissions yet still we have our old buddies in America driving round in their gas guzzlers and not donig a thing about it. If your economy is so good then surely you can afford to help the environment. And to top it all off your president is, in a word, incompetent.
Reply
Reply
post #468 of 512
6/28/02 at 6:18pm
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Doctor von Evil:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001:
[QB]We all know there nations on earth, entire populations that hate the US. We can speculate


It is true that there are entire nations who hate you. It may not have come to your feeble little mind, however that this is not due to jealousy over your economy but mainly because of your nations double standards. You throw a wobbly whenever you see another country like Chechnya being attacked and yet you are happy to barge into Vietnam, guns blazing. You can't even win in that situation. The worlds biggest military power proves to be the worlds most inept. And that's not all. The rest of the world has started paying attention to the environment and is trying to cut down CO2 emissions yet still we have our old buddies in America driving round in their gas guzzlers and not donig a thing about it. If your economy is so good then surely you can afford to help the environment. And to top it all off your president is, in a word, incompetent.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Two words: **** You.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #469 of 512
6/28/02 at 6:28pm
Thread Starter 
sjpsu writes:

[quote]It's been proven that every one is centrist in nature (slightly center-right, in fact). <hr></blockquote>

What? Now you are saying the media leans CONSERVATIVE????? Yeah, that's been proven. OK.

[quote] Correction: It contributed to Gore's election loss because he did not use Clinton as a campaign asset. (which retrospectively he should have done regardless of scandal) <hr></blockquote>

Agreed.


[quote] Exactly, the President messes up once again in his private sex life. <hr></blockquote>

Opinion. Some wouldn't consider it private if in the Oval Office, but I suppose we just differ on that one. Though, attempting to deceive in a deposition isn't too good.....(Clinton and his people have admitted this since his leaving office).


jimmac=person who can't see he has yet to prove his point, and that even if he did it wouldn't really prove anything.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #470 of 512
6/28/02 at 10:55pm
[quote] What? Now you are saying the media leans CONSERVATIVE????? Yeah, that's been proven. OK. <hr></blockquote>SDW... go back ad read all my posts rather than use your ignorant filter . . .maybe you simply can't understand the prose . . . but yes, the media has a conservative bent . . the news anchors might have a social-left lean but the FORM of the media (commercial media) and the ownership with their managerial policies contribute to an over-all sense of rooting for consumerism over social concerns, and, a conservative business oriented slant . . .

you haven't addressed these issues: the form of the media (probably because I don't think that you understand this issue) nor the corporate ownership of the media.

[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #471 of 512
6/29/02 at 6:52pm
Thread Starter 
[quote] you haven't addressed these issues: the form of the media (probably because I don't think that you understand this issue) nor the corporate ownership of the media. <hr></blockquote>

Of course I understand, you ignorant, condescending asshole.

Please present proof that the media, as a whole, leans conservative. Not one person here has done that.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #472 of 512
6/29/02 at 7:13pm
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Please present proof that the media, as a whole, leans conservative. Not one person here has done that.</strong><hr></blockquote>As for reporters themselves, <a href="http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html" target="_blank">here's the only study of journalists' political beliefs that I've seen.</a>

Here's part of their summary:
[quote]*\tOn select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
*\tJournalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
*\tThe minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues. <hr></blockquote>


I always hear this stat cited by conservatives that reporters are "9 to 1" liberal, but I've never actually seen that study or know where it comes from. So it sounds like it could be one of those urban myths.

I don't know if they're really conservative, but the argument is that since they're now owned mostly by large corporations rather than independents, they tend to support the status quo and conventional ideas.
Reply
Reply
post #473 of 512
6/30/02 at 8:03am
Thread Starter 
I've read that study. It is the only study I have seen that gives that point of view. I have seen many others that present the exact opposite one.

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #474 of 512
6/30/02 at 12:02pm
The media sucks , they did not reflect my own opinion
Reply
Reply
post #475 of 512
6/30/02 at 12:08pm
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I have seen many others that present the exact opposite one.
]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Provide them for us.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Reply
Reply
post #476 of 512
6/30/02 at 12:12pm
I am an American and a Texan, just like our President. I think the rest of the World should shut up. You are all jealous of us . We have to do what we have to do to protect our people and our interests. It is high time we got tuff with those who hate us. From now on we fight back at those who mess with us.
God Bless America and God Bless George W. Bush!

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Dell_Iron ]</p>
Reply
Reply
post #477 of 512
6/30/02 at 2:16pm
^ Arrogant Assh0le.
Reply
Reply
post #478 of 512
6/30/02 at 2:54pm
Thread Starter 
I'm not getting into that again. We both know I could and would post them. I'm done with this thread once and for all.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #479 of 512
6/30/02 at 6:47pm
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #480 of 512
6/30/02 at 11:03pm
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Statement to Nations That Hate the US