I find it stupid that Left and right fight so much internally and are so bitter amongst eachother sometimes...I guess I'm moderate...but I favor liberals, cause all the conservatives I know are stuck up little pricks that never have any fun(not trying to be insulting, this is just my experience)
Another tactic of the left is to claim that their freedom of speech is under attack when someone criticizes them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.<hr></blockquote>
What, exactly, is "the left" that you speak of? A covert terrorist organization made up entirely of left-handed individuals?
I've worked at two newspapers in my graphics career and ended up knowing many of the editors, writers, reporters, etc. quite well.
Not one in the bunch was even REMOTELY moderate or certainly to the right of moderate. The most left-leaning, platitude-spouting, kneejerk types...straight from Central Casting.
Not saying that's the case everywhere and at every paper, of course, but jeez-louise...
And I witnessed instances, while filling in on the production/paste-up staff, where an editor's bias or particular leanings totally played a role in how he/she cut or edited a particular story.
[EDIT: corrected about 13 ridiculous spelling/grammatical errors...sigh...disregard post below]
Some of it is funny. But is is mostly just a load of garbage. The First lady's message to the victims of the Enron collapse showed a total lack of class. And it only gets worse from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I kinda thought it was weird when Bush mentioned that the Enron collapse had a financle impact on his family. His mother in law lost $8000. That's pale in contrast to the contributions Enron made to bush's election campainge. And let's not forget the employees who lost all of their 401k money.
Ugh. Such* bandwagon politics by some of you. The cartoon above was tasteless. Much of the site was humorous. Politics isn't serious enough in the first place to make its satire that funny. You kids gots ta think for yourselves! I swear most self-proclaimed liberals are liberal to feel morally superior, and most self-proclaimed conservatives are hateful by nature. This only proves one thing: people really into politics have no sense of humor. Get out of politics for your own sanity!
I kinda thought it was weird when Bush mentioned that the Enron collapse had a financle impact on his family. His mother in law lost $8000. That's pale in contrast to the contributions Enron made to bush's election campainge. And let's not forget the employees who lost all of their 401k money.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that makes this site funny? Hardly. Unless of course you believe that there is a hint of truth to it, which is usually what makes a satire somewhat funny and deserving. I see nothing in this story that matches. It was simply in bad taste and a way to drive hits to their site. Funny how it is ok for them to profit on the misery of the Enron collapse and anyone in the Bush administration or elsewhere cannot even appear to have made anything... sigh.
Ahh, I swore to my self that I wouldnt argue here no more,it wasnt worth dealing with the righties (Facists my family calls them, yes, beleive it or not I am the middle groundman of it) but I leave my self free to comment.
If you can't take it then don't dish it out.
Time to kill the thread.
To tell you the truth, I find that site (whitehouse.com) to be even funnier than the whitehouse.org site. This has got to be the biggest dis to the government
Any how, Ill leave it up to my commie comrads Artman and agent302 (keep up the good work) to protect us from the evil facists like Scott H. and groverat
Hey, if you wanna delude yourselves that the media is liberally biased that's fine, but at least think....do you think it's possible that the media is neither right nor left biased, but rather biased to the protection of it's corporate self?
Hey the <a href="http://www.theonion.com"; target="_blank">Onion</a>is the best site around no matter which way your political compass swings. thewhitehouse.org just sucks.
Thank goodness for the liberals and the GOP for all the humor.
[quote]BTW, the media is not really biased to the left, it is biased towards huge multinational media conglomerates<hr></blockquote>
That's putting it a bit simply. To what part of the media are you referring?
In the media heirarchy, rank and file journalists/reporters tend to lean left. Editors tend to lean center. Managers tend to lean more to the right, whereas top management and media company owners are definitely conservative.
Not in all cases, in all categories, but that's a general rule of thumb.
Maybe another way of defining how the media leans is "what kind of stories get column inches?". Or maybe "what stories don't get any coverage at all?". And why or why not?
The New York Times has set the standard in the practise of journalism, and has been dubbed the "gray old lady", and has the motto "All the news thats fit to print". That seems to suggest something perhaps.
Each medium, radio, TV and newspapers (even record labels) are owned by a very small handful of extremely large multinational corporations, which control the vast majority of what the public sees, hears and learns about. The bottom line is of course, the news content, stories and opinions that are seen to be acceptable to the public in general will be those that are deemed acceptable by their sponsors, ie corporate advertisers. Mainstream media tend to avoid publishing material that puts any big corporate advertisers in a less than favorable light, unless it is so blatant or criminal as to be deemed a national concern, such as Enron, S&L, etc. Sex scandals...well...thats a another thing altogether....
There has been so many a young eager journalist/reporter/writer who uncovers a controversy, writes a piece on it thinking they are about to become the next star of the trade, only to see it (seemingly arbitrarily) rejected by senior editors/management. Small/boutique media, magazines, community radio (whats left of it) will put out controversial content, since they dont as a rule have big corporate sponsorship, but they have miniscule readership/listenership/viewing when compared to the media dinosaurs...and as a result, the vast majority of the public will never hear about it.
It's always been about not what the media covers....but about what they refuse to cover. If the news don't fit...then dump it. Just like the New York Times.
SJOs got it. And then you get the card carrying people at the top who will lean the paper a little in one or the other direction.
eg. a guy up here in Canada recently decided that none of his newspapers could say anything that could be seen as negative towards Isreals side in the Isreal/Palestine conflicts.
The creator of that cartoon should be strapped to a chair so everyone with a relative inside the WTC can take one clean shot at him. If it's a "her" she should be publicly ridiculed and possibly slandered (hey, I can be a gentleman! )
And finally, W still needs to work on his speaking ability / overarching message. With the advent of the Evil Axis he has pretty much gone overboard in his approach. Now all the media whores are plastering it on the screen as if it is demonstrably true, the same way it was demonstrably true the WWII Axis was evil to the core. Not so IMO, except possibly Iraq - but one country does not an axis make.
Comments
<strong>
Always the last word...
Yup.
BTW, the media is not really biased to the left, it is biased towards huge multinational media conglomerates.
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: Wrong Robot ]</p>
Another tactic of the left is to claim that their freedom of speech is under attack when someone criticizes them. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from criticism.<hr></blockquote>
What, exactly, is "the left" that you speak of? A covert terrorist organization made up entirely of left-handed individuals?
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
<strong>sounds about right agent...you live in santa barbara??? I'm in Ojai.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, college in Santa Barbara. Must be the warm SoCal air that is enhancing my wittiness today.
As a journalism student, I am semi-faux-qualified to make statements much less broad and final than that.
Not one in the bunch was even REMOTELY moderate or certainly to the right of moderate. The most left-leaning, platitude-spouting, kneejerk types...straight from Central Casting.
Not saying that's the case everywhere and at every paper, of course, but jeez-louise...
And I witnessed instances, while filling in on the production/paste-up staff, where an editor's bias or particular leanings totally played a role in how he/she cut or edited a particular story.
[EDIT: corrected about 13 ridiculous spelling/grammatical errors...sigh...disregard post below]
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Uh, yeah, funny.
Some of it is funny. But is is mostly just a load of garbage. The First lady's message to the victims of the Enron collapse showed a total lack of class. And it only gets worse from there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I kinda thought it was weird when Bush mentioned that the Enron collapse had a financle impact on his family. His mother in law lost $8000. That's pale in contrast to the contributions Enron made to bush's election campainge. And let's not forget the employees who lost all of their 401k money.
<strong>
Scott H I respect your comments on most occasions and expect these kind of terse remarks (a la Rush Limbaugh). </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it was Al Franken who best summed up Rush Limbaugh by calling him a Big Fat Idiot.
[edited my Freudian slip.
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>
I kinda thought it was weird when Bush mentioned that the Enron collapse had a financle impact on his family. His mother in law lost $8000. That's pale in contrast to the contributions Enron made to bush's election campainge. And let's not forget the employees who lost all of their 401k money.
And that makes this site funny? Hardly. Unless of course you believe that there is a hint of truth to it, which is usually what makes a satire somewhat funny and deserving. I see nothing in this story that matches. It was simply in bad taste and a way to drive hits to their site. Funny how it is ok for them to profit on the misery of the Enron collapse and anyone in the Bush administration or elsewhere cannot even appear to have made anything... sigh.
If you can't take it then don't dish it out.
Time to kill the thread.
To tell you the truth, I find that site (whitehouse.com) to be even funnier than the whitehouse.org site. This has got to be the biggest dis to the government
Any how, Ill leave it up to my commie comrads Artman and agent302 (keep up the good work) to protect us from the evil facists like Scott H. and groverat
Thank goodness for the liberals and the GOP for all the humor.
[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: jhtrih ]</p>
That's putting it a bit simply. To what part of the media are you referring?
In the media heirarchy, rank and file journalists/reporters tend to lean left. Editors tend to lean center. Managers tend to lean more to the right, whereas top management and media company owners are definitely conservative.
Not in all cases, in all categories, but that's a general rule of thumb.
Maybe another way of defining how the media leans is "what kind of stories get column inches?". Or maybe "what stories don't get any coverage at all?". And why or why not?
The New York Times has set the standard in the practise of journalism, and has been dubbed the "gray old lady", and has the motto "All the news thats fit to print". That seems to suggest something perhaps.
Each medium, radio, TV and newspapers (even record labels) are owned by a very small handful of extremely large multinational corporations, which control the vast majority of what the public sees, hears and learns about. The bottom line is of course, the news content, stories and opinions that are seen to be acceptable to the public in general will be those that are deemed acceptable by their sponsors, ie corporate advertisers. Mainstream media tend to avoid publishing material that puts any big corporate advertisers in a less than favorable light, unless it is so blatant or criminal as to be deemed a national concern, such as Enron, S&L, etc. Sex scandals...well...thats a another thing altogether....
There has been so many a young eager journalist/reporter/writer who uncovers a controversy, writes a piece on it thinking they are about to become the next star of the trade, only to see it (seemingly arbitrarily) rejected by senior editors/management. Small/boutique media, magazines, community radio (whats left of it) will put out controversial content, since they dont as a rule have big corporate sponsorship, but they have miniscule readership/listenership/viewing when compared to the media dinosaurs...and as a result, the vast majority of the public will never hear about it.
It's always been about not what the media covers....but about what they refuse to cover. If the news don't fit...then dump it. Just like the New York Times.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
eg. a guy up here in Canada recently decided that none of his newspapers could say anything that could be seen as negative towards Isreals side in the Isreal/Palestine conflicts.
Fran probably *should* move to Berkley,
The creator of that cartoon should be strapped to a chair so everyone with a relative inside the WTC can take one clean shot at him. If it's a "her" she should be publicly ridiculed and possibly slandered (hey, I can be a gentleman!
And finally, W still needs to work on his speaking ability / overarching message. With the advent of the Evil Axis he has pretty much gone overboard in his approach. Now all the media whores are plastering it on the screen as if it is demonstrably true, the same way it was demonstrably true the WWII Axis was evil to the core. Not so IMO, except possibly Iraq - but one country does not an axis make.
[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>