For an example of the nonsense I was talking about read above.
Oh look! One network didn't air the story for weeks while SDW was wringing his hands over it!
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
From the begining.
For the better part of a year.
The reason I keep coming back to this ( as well as no WOMD in Iraq ) is because they are prime examples of your " blind spot ". You see what you want to see. Not what's really there.
Sorry your explaination doesn't cut it.
Still in check.
jimmac,
You are really incapable of listening, aren't you? I'm not asking you to agree. If you want to disagree that the media is biased...then go ahead. What I care about is you running around calling be a crackpot for thinking so. Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented. In the end, if you can't see that then YOU are the one who has a blind spot the size of GMC Yukon. You denying overall media bias is like me telling you that FoxNews isn't conservative. Please.
Quote:
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
Quote:
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
So, if something is being covered in other places, that excuses a given outlet from covering the story? I suppose with all the 9/11 coverage we had, CNN could have just said "You know what...people don't need to see more of this. Screw it."
You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument here. You are also attempting to make it seem as if the arguments I just reposted were my only ones. They were just the "tip of the iceberg" of my overall answer to your question.
You are also proving my point about not taking a position and then supporting it. I contend that the overall media is liberally biased. I assume you contend it is not. I have presented facts and links in the past to support my conclusion. You have presented NO FACTS to support yours, if we can even tell where you stand at all. One either thinks the media is fair, liberal or conservative. Those are the only three choices. Choose one and back it up. If you can't provide at least some backing for your argument, then as usual you lose.
We can disagree jimmac. I have no problem with that. Whether or not your disagreement is based on reason or not is up to you.
Anyway, from what I have read recently, unemployment rising is a trailing indicator of the economy rebounding. Seems the last time around as well, the unemployment rate hit highest just as the growth was really getting started. Growth returning means that some of those who have been consulting, or not even seeking a job start attempting to return to the work force. Thus unemployment rises. Unemployment rising obviously doesn't have to mean the economy is getting better, but in conjunction with the dollar rising again against the Euro, the improving stock market picture, solid home values, high economic outlooks for lots of companies, etc. It would seem to support that conclusion.
The answer is to tax business. If Microsoft exports jobs, and those salaries don't contribute to the tax base, Microsoft (or any company) shouldn't be able to benefit and take advantage of these markets without increased contributions to the tax base.
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
You are really incapable of listening, aren't you? I'm not asking you to agree. If you want to disagree that the media is biased...then go ahead. What I care about is you running around calling be a crackpot for thinking so. Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented. In the end, if you can't see that then YOU are the one who has a blind spot the size of GMC Yukon. You denying overall media bias is like me telling you that FoxNews isn't conservative. Please.
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
So, if something is being covered in other places, that excuses a given outlet from covering the story? I suppose with all the 9/11 coverage we had, CNN could have just said "You know what...people don't need to see more of this. Screw it."
You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument here. You are also attempting to make it seem as if the arguments I just reposted were my only ones. They were just the "tip of the iceberg" of my overall answer to your question.
You are also proving my point about not taking a position and then supporting it. I contend that the overall media is liberally biased. I assume you contend it is not. I have presented facts and links in the past to support my conclusion. You have presented NO FACTS to support yours, if we can even tell where you stand at all. One either thinks the media is fair, liberal or conservative. Those are the only three choices. Choose one and back it up. If you can't provide at least some backing for your argument, then as usual you lose.
We can disagree jimmac. I have no problem with that. Whether or not your disagreement is based on reason or not is up to you.
And he slings another crock at us. Perhaps you're paranoid?
I don't recall any links directly supporting your argument. There may have been one you interpreted with that screwy logic of yours as such.
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue. The facts speak for themselves. Gore couldn't have won the election no matter who he was because of being tied to Clinton. So basically Bush ran against a handycapped opponient. If the media was controlled ( even slightly ) as you say they wouldn't have contributed to this.
Once again on the eve of Clintons apology to the american people I turned to my friend as we were watching and said " we're going to have a republican in the whitehouse next time ". If I could figure this out ahead of time so could the media. Face it they wouldn't have given the " over coverage " they did. Your " facts " are silly and just don't jibe.
I'm still waiting for you to back your position up. You made a statement. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry this thread has gotten so far off topic. But it was started by the master of misinterpretation himself.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
The point he's missing here ( his conservative colored glasses you know ) is that they have their own motivation ( greed ) like any other typical american business. They aren't controlled by liberals or conservatives. They are controlled by ratings and sponsers ( money ).
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
I believe it was CBS that refused to cover the story. I can;t seem to remember it was them or ABC. It was one of the two. I have to look into it. The exact network doesn't matter I suppose.
As far as 2 out of 3, I don't agree. The story was HUGE. Too huge to be ignored. That was one of the reasons I cited in my original answer to jimmac. For example, Fox News couldn't ignore a critical Bush story if it was big enough.
jimmac:
Quote:
And he slings another crock at us. Perhaps you're paranoid?
I don't recall any links directly supporting your argument. There may have been one you interpreted with that screwy logic of yours as such.
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue. The facts speak for themselves. Gore couldn't have won the election no matter who he was because of being tied to Clinton. So basically Bush ran against a handycapped opponient. If the media was controlled ( even slightly ) as you say they wouldn't have contributed to this.
Once again on the eve of Clintons apology to the american people I turned to my friend as we were watching and said " we're going to have a republican in the whitehouse next time ". If I could figure this out ahead of time so could the media. Face it they wouldn't have given the " over coverage " they did. Your " facts " are silly and just don't jibe.
I'm still waiting for you to back your position up. You made a statement. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry this thread has gotten so far off topic. But it was started by the master of misinterpretation himself.
Still in check.
1. You don't recall links so they aren't there? How convenient.
Quote:
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue.
2. A self-reinforcing delusion! It is a very real issue.
3. Gore: I'm not sure I agree with you there. I actually think that if Gore had relied on Clinton more he would have won. He didn't really accept his help, which I think may have been a mistake for him. Clinton still had big numbers when Gore ran, and Gore should have taken that more into consideration. But Gore is and always will be a micromanager (and I don't even mean that in a derogatory way). He wanted to be TOO independent, IMO. It is said that Gore personally designed his campaign logo on a cocktail napkin one day. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it just shows that Gore was so wrapped up in things that he had to manage every single detail. This was in stark contrast to Bush, who delagates nearly everything.
4. The media DID contribute to the election...and it sure as hell wasn't in Bush's favor. From the phony "Capacity vs. Character" debate to the portrayal of Bush as an idiot...it was all the media. The media even played up the false IQ report on Bush...which turned out to be "conducted" by a non-existent entity. The media was out to kill Bush. One of the worst offenders was the criminal/liberal Katie Couric. After the election, she interviewed military familes who had their ballots thrown out due to the postmarks. She also had another group on, which had claimed to be disenfranchised (supposedly to balance the coverage). She began the interviews by asking the military personnel: "Isn't it right that the Republican Party contacted you and encouraged you to tell your story?". She never asked anything like that for the other group...the democratic group. It's a prime example of how the media can twist something. And don't even get me started on the election night disaster with the Flordia panhandle. THOUSANDS of Bush supporters literally drove home without voting (or just got out of line at the polling place) because they heard the state was called. There's even a story of a man that worked on the CAMPAIGN that gave up and went home. The Media called the state early, despite Katherine Harris having sent a letter to the networks the week prior warning them not to call the state before the polls in the panhandle closed . But wait...there is still more! The media rountinely DELAYED calling states for Bush that he had won by large margins, while often calling states for Gore that he won by less than 5 points. The intent was clear: The media on the whole attempted to make it look like Gore was doing better than he was. My God, jimmac: Tom Brokaw even slipped into the FIRST PERSON during his coverage, when he said (in reference to Gore): "The critical states WE need to win now....[inaudible]...Gore needs to win now are X, Y, Z" Give me a break, jimmac. The evidence is overwhelming.
And no, the burden of proof in on you. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented and generally accepted fact. Ask Bernard Goldberg, (a self-described liberal and former CBS news insider) how much bias there is.
Quote:
The point he's missing here ( his conservative colored glasses you know ) is that they have their own motivation ( greed ) like any other typical american business. They aren't controlled by liberals or conservatives. They are controlled by ratings and sponsers ( money ).
While you are right about money, it can't make up for the fact that about 9 out of 10 TV news reporters, anchors and writers are registered Democrats. Tell me Dan Rather isn't a liberal. Tell me Peter Jennings isn't. Tell me talk show hosts like Couric and Laurer aren't. Come on! You cannot be serious!
We're off topic. Let's get back to unemployment thing. I agree with trumptman that it is a trailing indicator.
I believe it was CBS that refused to cover the story. I can;t seem to remember it was them or ABC. It was one of the two. I have to look into it. The exact network doesn't matter I suppose.
As far as 2 out of 3, I don't agree. The story was HUGE. Too huge to be ignored. That was one of the reasons I cited in my original answer to jimmac. For example, Fox News couldn't ignore a critical Bush story if it was big enough.
jimmac:
1. You don't recall links so they aren't there? How convenient.
2. A self-reinforcing delusion! It is a very real issue.
3. Gore: I'm not sure I agree with you there. I actually think that if Gore had relied on Clinton more he would have won. He didn't really accept his help, which I think may have been a mistake for him. Clinton still had big numbers when Gore ran, and Gore should have taken that more into consideration. But Gore is and always will be a micromanager (and I don't even mean that in a derogatory way). He wanted to be TOO independent, IMO. It is said that Gore personally designed his campaign logo on a cocktail napkin one day. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it just shows that Gore was so wrapped up in things that he had to manage every single detail. This was in stark contrast to Bush, who delagates nearly everything.
4. The media DID contribute to the election...and it sure as hell wasn't in Bush's favor. From the phony "Capacity vs. Character" debate to the portrayal of Bush as an idiot...it was all the media. The media even played up the false IQ report on Bush...which turned out to be "conducted" by a non-existent entity. The media was out to kill Bush. One of the worst offenders was the criminal/liberal Katie Couric. After the election, she interviewed military familes who had their ballots thrown out due to the postmarks. She also had another group on, which had claimed to be disenfranchised (supposedly to balance the coverage). She began the interviews by asking the military personnel: "Isn't it right that the Republican Party contacted you and encouraged you to tell your story?". She never asked anything like that for the other group...the democratic group. It's a prime example of how the media can twist something. And don't even get me started on the election night disaster with the Flordia panhandle. THOUSANDS of Bush supporters literally drove home without voting (or just got out of line at the polling place) because they heard the state was called. There's even a story of a man that worked on the CAMPAIGN that gave up and went home. The Media called the state early, despite Katherine Harris having sent a letter to the networks the week prior warning them not to call the state before the polls in the panhandle closed . But wait...there is still more! The media rountinely DELAYED calling states for Bush that he had won by large margins, while often calling states for Gore that he won by less than 5 points. The intent was clear: The media on the whole attempted to make it look like Gore was doing better than he was. My God, jimmac: Tom Brokaw even slipped into the FIRST PERSON during his coverage, when he said (in reference to Gore): "The critical states WE need to win now....[inaudible]...Gore needs to win now are X, Y, Z" Give me a break, jimmac. The evidence is overwhelming.
And no, the burden of proof in on you. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented and generally accepted fact. Ask Bernard Goldberg, (a self-described liberal and former CBS news insider) how much bias there is.
While you are right about money, it can't make up for the fact that about 9 out of 10 TV news reporters, anchors and writers are registered Democrats. Tell me Dan Rather isn't a liberal. Tell me Peter Jennings isn't. Tell me talk show hosts like Couric and Laurer aren't. Come on! You cannot be serious!
We're off topic. Let's get back to unemployment thing. I agree with trumptman that it is a trailing indicator.
It's a well known fact that after the incident Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton but it was too late the damage was already done. You've got to be kidding about this one. Clinton was political poison after this incident. Gore knew that as did everyone else. Please!
All of this is your interpretation of the facts but at the end of the day it doesn't add up. You see you look here and there and try to conjure up a plot. But, the truth ( as it almost always is ) is really simple. If the media was controlled as you say it was we wouldn't have been subjected to the unrelenting coverage. Gore might be president. And public opinion would be swayed to the left in the extreme.
However there seem to be a lot of right wing people out there. The school prayer thing has been resurrected from the dead. As has the abortion question. And the war on drugs type commercials have returned once again. The media seems to be leaning pretty conservative to me. The truth of course is somewhere in between. They are neither overwhelmingly liberal or conservative. They're out for themselves.
Your facts don't hold water ( or much else......well maybe something ).
Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented.
I guess I must just be turning on the TV right during the tiny time slots given to the likes of O'Rielly, Scarborough, Savage, Hannity & Colmes and Coulter. Those poor 'conservatives' with no air time.
How do I have such bad timing that I miss every liberal opinion show? Hell, I'm so sheltered I don't even know when Chomsky's shows are on. Amazing, isn't it, especially considering the abundant time given to 'liberals' on MSNBC, FOX and CNN?
The whole "blame the media" shtick is old. The media follows opportunites and trends, fads. CNN was considered "liberal," so FOX made a counterpoint to it, and it's considered "conservative." Reality TV shows are also popular, and after the whole "women's network" trend, there's a push for "men's programming" now. Blaming the media is a lazy cop-out. Only those who think all people are ignorant sheep blame the media. Those people have no faith in others no matter the political angle, and see themselves as self-righteous demi-gods with The Answers? for the poor mindless Masses.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
The whole "blame the media" shtick is old. The media follows opportunites and trends, fads. CNN was considered "liberal," so FOX made a counterpoint to it, and it's considered "conservative." Reality TV shows are also popular, and after the whole "women's network" trend, there's a push for "men's programming" now. Blaming the media is a lazy cop-out. Only those who think all people are ignorant sheep blame the media. Those people have no faith in others no matter the political angle, and see themselves as self-righteous demi-gods with The Answers? for the poor mindless Masses.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
About the WOMD thing. I was talking to one of my friends yesterday and he said :
" Well you know what the proponents of WOMD in Iraq will defend themselves with next ? We didn't find any so we must have got them! That means they had to have had them! "
The whole "blame the media" shtick is old. The media follows opportunites and trends, fads. CNN was considered "liberal," so FOX made a counterpoint to it, and it's considered "conservative." Reality TV shows are also popular, and after the whole "women's network" trend, there's a push for "men's programming" now. Blaming the media is a lazy cop-out. Only those who think all people are ignorant sheep blame the media. Those people have no faith in others no matter the political angle, and see themselves as self-righteous demi-gods with The Answers? for the poor mindless Masses.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
Brilliant!
See, conservatives want everyone to think that CNN is far-left, when in fact they're probably tipping the scale to the left. FoxNews claims to be "fair and balanced", but in fact they're tipping the scale to the right. The fantastic thing about FoxNews is that they've convinced middle-america that CNN is SO LIBERAL that anyone to the center of them is "balanced" when it's so obvious they're a conservative news service. Brilliant marketing on their behalf, btw.
But, in the end, who cares? To get on a soap-box and scream bloody murder that The New York Times is an extremely liberal newspaper is a red-herring. The New York Times' constituents/customers live in the most liberal city in the country. Are we to believe that a company selling newspapers to liberals should have a conservative slant? Come on! Supply and demand. Supply and demand.
hate radio (AKA conservitive talks radio shows) didn't blanket the airwaves
"Hate radio".
The media, on the whole, is liberally biased.
I'd concede this: Things are much more balanced today than say, 10 years ago. Fox News has been a major part of this. So has conservative radio. But CNN? ABC? CBS? Come on. Once again...tell me Rather and Jennings aren't hard core liberals. Brokaw seems a little better, but the morning shows and such are just unbelievable. The NYT and LATimes are probably the biased major market papers known to man.
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news. Liberal views are consistently not labeled as such. Liberals get free passes on their racist coments (and past KKK membership in the case of Robert "KKK" Byrd), while conservatives are hung out to dry. "Conservative" is thrown around like a curse word in most of the TV media. Television shows are even worse, sometimes outwardly promoting a liberal agenda (The West Wing) and sometimes pushing their agenda on us in other more indirect ways (Will and Grace). The media nearly helped defeat the President in the election with its early calls and ridiculous analysis of the candidates.
Though things have gotten better, it's only (ironically) because the public has started to demand it. People like Donahueare getting fired left and right. In that sense, jimmac is right.
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news.
Prove this, please. I've heard the conservative whiners state some version of this repeatedly - usually referring to "90%", and I've looked for an actual original reference to this information, and I've never been able to find it.
I'd concede this: Things are much more balanced today than say, 10 years ago. Fox News has been a major part of this. So has conservative radio. But CNN? ABC? CBS? Come on. Once again...tell me Rather and Jennings aren't hard core liberals. Brokaw seems a little better, but the morning shows and such are just unbelievable. The NYT and LATimes are probably the biased major market papers known to man.
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news. Liberal views are consistently not labeled as such. Liberals get free passes on their racist coments (and past KKK membership in the case of Robert "KKK" Byrd), while conservatives are hung out to dry. "Conservative" is thrown around like a curse word in most of the TV media. Television shows are even worse, sometimes outwardly promoting a liberal agenda (The West Wing) and sometimes pushing their agenda on us in other more indirect ways (Will and Grace). The media nearly helped defeat the President in the election with its early calls and ridiculous analysis of the candidates.
Though things have gotten better, it's only (ironically) because the public has started to demand it. People like Donahueare getting fired left and right. In that sense, jimmac is right.
I'm sorry SDW but it's just that you think you're right. It doesn't look as though anyone here is buying today.
I'm sorry SDW but it's just that you think you're right. It doesn't look as though anyone here is buying today.
Still in check.
That's fine jimmac. My opinions and positions aren't based on what people here think.
BRussell:
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
SDW, I don't care if the dan rather out and out says that he's voting for mcGovern. The people in power (read: NOT THE NEWSCASTERS) are not liberals.
Its not Dan rather that decides what is and is not put on the air.
BTW, Fox does nothing to balance. They (mostly roger ailes) full on crap on journalism in the abstract and titlt their propaganda to the right so far that the balance comes unhinged and flies off to moon...
Oh dear! Katie F#cking coric says something that doesn't agree with the right wingnuts out there! Oh me oh my! The frelling system must be liberal.
For a party that believes in self - reliance so much, it hilarious how fast they go to the scapegoats to blame their problems on...
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
OK, but I've still never seen that one study that supposedly 90% of reporters are democrats. I honestly think it never existed. And it's not consistent with that poll you link.
Here's another study that was done on journalist's political attitudes. They asked journalists where they put themselves on both social issues and economic issues.
Social issues:
Left: 30%
Center: 57%
Right: 9%
Economic issues:
Left: 11%
Center: 64%
Right: 19%
So they're much more left than right on social issues and moderately more right than left on economic issues.
The study was also interesting because it asked journalists the same questions that they asked the American public, so they could compare on specific issues.
On the following issues they were to the right of the public:
Medicare and Social security
NAFTA
employer-provided health insurance
corporate power
taxing the wealthy
fast-track trade authority
On the following issue they were to the left of the public:
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
For an example of the nonsense I was talking about read above.
Oh look! One network didn't air the story for weeks while SDW was wringing his hands over it!
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
From the begining.
For the better part of a year.
The reason I keep coming back to this ( as well as no WOMD in Iraq ) is because they are prime examples of your " blind spot ". You see what you want to see. Not what's really there.
Sorry your explaination doesn't cut it.
Still in check.
jimmac,
You are really incapable of listening, aren't you? I'm not asking you to agree. If you want to disagree that the media is biased...then go ahead. What I care about is you running around calling be a crackpot for thinking so. Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented. In the end, if you can't see that then YOU are the one who has a blind spot the size of GMC Yukon. You denying overall media bias is like me telling you that FoxNews isn't conservative. Please.
Probably it wasn't aired because they had the good sense to see what a circus it was going to become. And if this was before the public denial it was the Clinton's business not ours.
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
At any rate it got more than ample coverage everywhere else.
So, if something is being covered in other places, that excuses a given outlet from covering the story? I suppose with all the 9/11 coverage we had, CNN could have just said "You know what...people don't need to see more of this. Screw it."
You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument here. You are also attempting to make it seem as if the arguments I just reposted were my only ones. They were just the "tip of the iceberg" of my overall answer to your question.
You are also proving my point about not taking a position and then supporting it. I contend that the overall media is liberally biased. I assume you contend it is not. I have presented facts and links in the past to support my conclusion. You have presented NO FACTS to support yours, if we can even tell where you stand at all. One either thinks the media is fair, liberal or conservative. Those are the only three choices. Choose one and back it up. If you can't provide at least some backing for your argument, then as usual you lose.
We can disagree jimmac. I have no problem with that. Whether or not your disagreement is based on reason or not is up to you.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
The answer is to tax business. If Microsoft exports jobs, and those salaries don't contribute to the tax base, Microsoft (or any company) shouldn't be able to benefit and take advantage of these markets without increased contributions to the tax base.
Agreeance!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,
You are really incapable of listening, aren't you? I'm not asking you to agree. If you want to disagree that the media is biased...then go ahead. What I care about is you running around calling be a crackpot for thinking so. Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented. In the end, if you can't see that then YOU are the one who has a blind spot the size of GMC Yukon. You denying overall media bias is like me telling you that FoxNews isn't conservative. Please.
Probably? No, it was blatant, hard core ignoring of a story. The duration was something like nine weeks. NINE WEEKS--- when the other two major networks aired the story! That's 100% unacceptable--and undeniable proof of media bias throught the tool of omission.
So, if something is being covered in other places, that excuses a given outlet from covering the story? I suppose with all the 9/11 coverage we had, CNN could have just said "You know what...people don't need to see more of this. Screw it."
You don't have a leg to stand on with your argument here. You are also attempting to make it seem as if the arguments I just reposted were my only ones. They were just the "tip of the iceberg" of my overall answer to your question.
You are also proving my point about not taking a position and then supporting it. I contend that the overall media is liberally biased. I assume you contend it is not. I have presented facts and links in the past to support my conclusion. You have presented NO FACTS to support yours, if we can even tell where you stand at all. One either thinks the media is fair, liberal or conservative. Those are the only three choices. Choose one and back it up. If you can't provide at least some backing for your argument, then as usual you lose.
We can disagree jimmac. I have no problem with that. Whether or not your disagreement is based on reason or not is up to you.
And he slings another crock at us. Perhaps you're paranoid?
I don't recall any links directly supporting your argument. There may have been one you interpreted with that screwy logic of yours as such.
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue. The facts speak for themselves. Gore couldn't have won the election no matter who he was because of being tied to Clinton. So basically Bush ran against a handycapped opponient. If the media was controlled ( even slightly ) as you say they wouldn't have contributed to this.
Once again on the eve of Clintons apology to the american people I turned to my friend as we were watching and said " we're going to have a republican in the whitehouse next time ". If I could figure this out ahead of time so could the media. Face it they wouldn't have given the " over coverage " they did. Your " facts " are silly and just don't jibe.
I'm still waiting for you to back your position up. You made a statement. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry this thread has gotten so far off topic. But it was started by the master of misinterpretation himself.
Still in check.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
The point he's missing here ( his conservative colored glasses you know ) is that they have their own motivation ( greed ) like any other typical american business. They aren't controlled by liberals or conservatives. They are controlled by ratings and sponsers ( money ).
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but just so I understand this: there was a bad-for-liberals story out there, 2 of the 3 major networks covered it and one didn't (I thought there were more than 3 major networks, but OK...). Wouldn't the fact that 2/3 of the major networks covered this story, and 1/3 didn't, imply an overall conservative bias rather than a liberal bias?
I believe it was CBS that refused to cover the story. I can;t seem to remember it was them or ABC. It was one of the two. I have to look into it. The exact network doesn't matter I suppose.
As far as 2 out of 3, I don't agree. The story was HUGE. Too huge to be ignored. That was one of the reasons I cited in my original answer to jimmac. For example, Fox News couldn't ignore a critical Bush story if it was big enough.
jimmac:
And he slings another crock at us. Perhaps you're paranoid?
I don't recall any links directly supporting your argument. There may have been one you interpreted with that screwy logic of yours as such.
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue. The facts speak for themselves. Gore couldn't have won the election no matter who he was because of being tied to Clinton. So basically Bush ran against a handycapped opponient. If the media was controlled ( even slightly ) as you say they wouldn't have contributed to this.
Once again on the eve of Clintons apology to the american people I turned to my friend as we were watching and said " we're going to have a republican in the whitehouse next time ". If I could figure this out ahead of time so could the media. Face it they wouldn't have given the " over coverage " they did. Your " facts " are silly and just don't jibe.
I'm still waiting for you to back your position up. You made a statement. The burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry this thread has gotten so far off topic. But it was started by the master of misinterpretation himself.
Still in check.
1. You don't recall links so they aren't there? How convenient.
Look I'm not going to find any links to support my side because in the real world this is a non issue.
2.
3. Gore: I'm not sure I agree with you there. I actually think that if Gore had relied on Clinton more he would have won. He didn't really accept his help, which I think may have been a mistake for him. Clinton still had big numbers when Gore ran, and Gore should have taken that more into consideration. But Gore is and always will be a micromanager (and I don't even mean that in a derogatory way). He wanted to be TOO independent, IMO. It is said that Gore personally designed his campaign logo on a cocktail napkin one day. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it just shows that Gore was so wrapped up in things that he had to manage every single detail. This was in stark contrast to Bush, who delagates nearly everything.
4. The media DID contribute to the election...and it sure as hell wasn't in Bush's favor. From the phony "Capacity vs. Character" debate to the portrayal of Bush as an idiot...it was all the media. The media even played up the false IQ report on Bush...which turned out to be "conducted" by a non-existent entity. The media was out to kill Bush. One of the worst offenders was the criminal/liberal Katie Couric. After the election, she interviewed military familes who had their ballots thrown out due to the postmarks. She also had another group on, which had claimed to be disenfranchised (supposedly to balance the coverage). She began the interviews by asking the military personnel: "Isn't it right that the Republican Party contacted you and encouraged you to tell your story?". She never asked anything like that for the other group...the democratic group. It's a prime example of how the media can twist something. And don't even get me started on the election night disaster with the Flordia panhandle. THOUSANDS of Bush supporters literally drove home without voting (or just got out of line at the polling place) because they heard the state was called. There's even a story of a man that worked on the CAMPAIGN that gave up and went home. The Media called the state early, despite Katherine Harris having sent a letter to the networks the week prior warning them not to call the state before the polls in the panhandle closed . But wait...there is still more! The media rountinely DELAYED calling states for Bush that he had won by large margins, while often calling states for Gore that he won by less than 5 points. The intent was clear: The media on the whole attempted to make it look like Gore was doing better than he was. My God, jimmac: Tom Brokaw even slipped into the FIRST PERSON during his coverage, when he said (in reference to Gore): "The critical states WE need to win now....[inaudible]...Gore needs to win now are X, Y, Z" Give me a break, jimmac. The evidence is overwhelming.
And no, the burden of proof in on you. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented and generally accepted fact. Ask Bernard Goldberg, (a self-described liberal and former CBS news insider) how much bias there is.
The point he's missing here ( his conservative colored glasses you know ) is that they have their own motivation ( greed ) like any other typical american business. They aren't controlled by liberals or conservatives. They are controlled by ratings and sponsers ( money ).
While you are right about money, it can't make up for the fact that about 9 out of 10 TV news reporters, anchors and writers are registered Democrats. Tell me Dan Rather isn't a liberal. Tell me Peter Jennings isn't. Tell me talk show hosts like Couric and Laurer aren't. Come on! You cannot be serious!
We're off topic. Let's get back to unemployment thing. I agree with trumptman that it is a trailing indicator.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I believe it was CBS that refused to cover the story. I can;t seem to remember it was them or ABC. It was one of the two. I have to look into it. The exact network doesn't matter I suppose.
As far as 2 out of 3, I don't agree. The story was HUGE. Too huge to be ignored. That was one of the reasons I cited in my original answer to jimmac. For example, Fox News couldn't ignore a critical Bush story if it was big enough.
jimmac:
1. You don't recall links so they aren't there? How convenient.
2.
3. Gore: I'm not sure I agree with you there. I actually think that if Gore had relied on Clinton more he would have won. He didn't really accept his help, which I think may have been a mistake for him. Clinton still had big numbers when Gore ran, and Gore should have taken that more into consideration. But Gore is and always will be a micromanager (and I don't even mean that in a derogatory way). He wanted to be TOO independent, IMO. It is said that Gore personally designed his campaign logo on a cocktail napkin one day. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, it just shows that Gore was so wrapped up in things that he had to manage every single detail. This was in stark contrast to Bush, who delagates nearly everything.
4. The media DID contribute to the election...and it sure as hell wasn't in Bush's favor. From the phony "Capacity vs. Character" debate to the portrayal of Bush as an idiot...it was all the media. The media even played up the false IQ report on Bush...which turned out to be "conducted" by a non-existent entity. The media was out to kill Bush. One of the worst offenders was the criminal/liberal Katie Couric. After the election, she interviewed military familes who had their ballots thrown out due to the postmarks. She also had another group on, which had claimed to be disenfranchised (supposedly to balance the coverage). She began the interviews by asking the military personnel: "Isn't it right that the Republican Party contacted you and encouraged you to tell your story?". She never asked anything like that for the other group...the democratic group. It's a prime example of how the media can twist something. And don't even get me started on the election night disaster with the Flordia panhandle. THOUSANDS of Bush supporters literally drove home without voting (or just got out of line at the polling place) because they heard the state was called. There's even a story of a man that worked on the CAMPAIGN that gave up and went home. The Media called the state early, despite Katherine Harris having sent a letter to the networks the week prior warning them not to call the state before the polls in the panhandle closed . But wait...there is still more! The media rountinely DELAYED calling states for Bush that he had won by large margins, while often calling states for Gore that he won by less than 5 points. The intent was clear: The media on the whole attempted to make it look like Gore was doing better than he was. My God, jimmac: Tom Brokaw even slipped into the FIRST PERSON during his coverage, when he said (in reference to Gore): "The critical states WE need to win now....[inaudible]...Gore needs to win now are X, Y, Z" Give me a break, jimmac. The evidence is overwhelming.
And no, the burden of proof in on you. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented and generally accepted fact. Ask Bernard Goldberg, (a self-described liberal and former CBS news insider) how much bias there is.
While you are right about money, it can't make up for the fact that about 9 out of 10 TV news reporters, anchors and writers are registered Democrats. Tell me Dan Rather isn't a liberal. Tell me Peter Jennings isn't. Tell me talk show hosts like Couric and Laurer aren't. Come on! You cannot be serious!
We're off topic. Let's get back to unemployment thing. I agree with trumptman that it is a trailing indicator.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I can;t seem to remember it was them or ABC. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
You can't seem to get your own facts straight.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Ask Bernard Goldberg "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Who? A minor reporter who agrees with your perspective?
-------------------------------------------------------------
" One of the worst offenders was the criminal/liberal Katie Couric. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
So someone doesn't agree with your philosophy they're in on the plot. Do have any clue how delusional this sounds?
-------------------------------------------------------------
" I actually think that if Gore had relied on Clinton more he would have won. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
It's a well known fact that after the incident Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton but it was too late the damage was already done. You've got to be kidding about this one. Clinton was political poison after this incident. Gore knew that as did everyone else. Please!
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Give me a break, jimmac. The evidence is overwhelming. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Only in your mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" The media on the whole attempted to make it look like Gore was doing better than he was. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEEZ!
All of this is your interpretation of the facts but at the end of the day it doesn't add up. You see you look here and there and try to conjure up a plot. But, the truth ( as it almost always is ) is really simple. If the media was controlled as you say it was we wouldn't have been subjected to the unrelenting coverage. Gore might be president. And public opinion would be swayed to the left in the extreme.
However there seem to be a lot of right wing people out there. The school prayer thing has been resurrected from the dead. As has the abortion question. And the war on drugs type commercials have returned once again. The media seems to be leaning pretty conservative to me. The truth of course is somewhere in between. They are neither overwhelmingly liberal or conservative. They're out for themselves.
Your facts don't hold water ( or much else......well maybe something ).
You're entertaining though. I'll give you that!
Still in check.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Liberal bias in the media on the whole is well...no, VERY well documented.
I guess I must just be turning on the TV right during the tiny time slots given to the likes of O'Rielly, Scarborough, Savage, Hannity & Colmes and Coulter. Those poor 'conservatives' with no air time.
How do I have such bad timing that I miss every liberal opinion show? Hell, I'm so sheltered I don't even know when Chomsky's shows are on. Amazing, isn't it, especially considering the abundant time given to 'liberals' on MSNBC, FOX and CNN?
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The whole "blame the media" shtick is old. The media follows opportunites and trends, fads. CNN was considered "liberal," so FOX made a counterpoint to it, and it's considered "conservative." Reality TV shows are also popular, and after the whole "women's network" trend, there's a push for "men's programming" now. Blaming the media is a lazy cop-out. Only those who think all people are ignorant sheep blame the media. Those people have no faith in others no matter the political angle, and see themselves as self-righteous demi-gods with The Answers? for the poor mindless Masses.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
Ah!
maybe you had a point in the 60's and 70's (when jounalism had more ethics btw)
but back then you could not say things like:
just about 5 companies own most of the media out there
hate radio (AKA conservitive talks radio shows) didn't blanket the airwaves
Corps. did not look at their News bureaus as "profit centers"
The line between news and entertainment was still a line.
Editors had as much or more power to say "No' then the Just hired CEO looking to increase margins.
People like rupert murdoch and roger ailes were not so transparent in their bias.
Believe what you want. But to make a blanket statement like "liberal media" in this day and age proves
a) You are swallowing the tripe the corp. owned media is feeding you
b) You are naive
p.s. christ i just saw you are using katie couric and the nimrod with the bad haircut in your argument... geez....
About the WOMD thing. I was talking to one of my friends yesterday and he said :
" Well you know what the proponents of WOMD in Iraq will defend themselves with next ? We didn't find any so we must have got them! That means they had to have had them! "
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The whole "blame the media" shtick is old. The media follows opportunites and trends, fads. CNN was considered "liberal," so FOX made a counterpoint to it, and it's considered "conservative." Reality TV shows are also popular, and after the whole "women's network" trend, there's a push for "men's programming" now. Blaming the media is a lazy cop-out. Only those who think all people are ignorant sheep blame the media. Those people have no faith in others no matter the political angle, and see themselves as self-righteous demi-gods with The Answers? for the poor mindless Masses.
Anyway, I don't mean to distract this thread with a "strawman"?
Brilliant!
See, conservatives want everyone to think that CNN is far-left, when in fact they're probably tipping the scale to the left. FoxNews claims to be "fair and balanced", but in fact they're tipping the scale to the right. The fantastic thing about FoxNews is that they've convinced middle-america that CNN is SO LIBERAL that anyone to the center of them is "balanced" when it's so obvious they're a conservative news service. Brilliant marketing on their behalf, btw.
But, in the end, who cares? To get on a soap-box and scream bloody murder that The New York Times is an extremely liberal newspaper is a red-herring. The New York Times' constituents/customers live in the most liberal city in the country. Are we to believe that a company selling newspapers to liberals should have a conservative slant? Come on! Supply and demand. Supply and demand.
hate radio (AKA conservitive talks radio shows) didn't blanket the airwaves
"Hate radio".
The media, on the whole, is liberally biased.
I'd concede this: Things are much more balanced today than say, 10 years ago. Fox News has been a major part of this. So has conservative radio. But CNN? ABC? CBS? Come on. Once again...tell me Rather and Jennings aren't hard core liberals. Brokaw seems a little better, but the morning shows and such are just unbelievable. The NYT and LATimes are probably the biased major market papers known to man.
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news. Liberal views are consistently not labeled as such. Liberals get free passes on their racist coments (and past KKK membership in the case of Robert "KKK" Byrd), while conservatives are hung out to dry. "Conservative" is thrown around like a curse word in most of the TV media. Television shows are even worse, sometimes outwardly promoting a liberal agenda (The West Wing) and sometimes pushing their agenda on us in other more indirect ways (Will and Grace). The media nearly helped defeat the President in the election with its early calls and ridiculous analysis of the candidates.
Though things have gotten better, it's only (ironically) because the public has started to demand it. People like Donahueare getting fired left and right. In that sense, jimmac is right.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news.
Prove this, please. I've heard the conservative whiners state some version of this repeatedly - usually referring to "90%", and I've looked for an actual original reference to this information, and I've never been able to find it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
keyboards:
"Hate radio".
The media, on the whole, is liberally biased.
I'd concede this: Things are much more balanced today than say, 10 years ago. Fox News has been a major part of this. So has conservative radio. But CNN? ABC? CBS? Come on. Once again...tell me Rather and Jennings aren't hard core liberals. Brokaw seems a little better, but the morning shows and such are just unbelievable. The NYT and LATimes are probably the biased major market papers known to man.
You're not going to convince me here because I know the facts are on my side. The vast majority of media professionals are registered democrats, especially in TV news. Liberal views are consistently not labeled as such. Liberals get free passes on their racist coments (and past KKK membership in the case of Robert "KKK" Byrd), while conservatives are hung out to dry. "Conservative" is thrown around like a curse word in most of the TV media. Television shows are even worse, sometimes outwardly promoting a liberal agenda (The West Wing) and sometimes pushing their agenda on us in other more indirect ways (Will and Grace). The media nearly helped defeat the President in the election with its early calls and ridiculous analysis of the candidates.
Though things have gotten better, it's only (ironically) because the public has started to demand it. People like Donahueare getting fired left and right. In that sense, jimmac is right.
I'm sorry SDW but it's just that you think you're right. It doesn't look as though anyone here is buying today.
Still in check.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm sorry SDW but it's just that you think you're right. It doesn't look as though anyone here is buying today.
Still in check.
That's fine jimmac. My opinions and positions aren't based on what people here think.
BRussell:
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
Here's an interesting link though:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#THE
Its not Dan rather that decides what is and is not put on the air.
BTW, Fox does nothing to balance. They (mostly roger ailes) full on crap on journalism in the abstract and titlt their propaganda to the right so far that the balance comes unhinged and flies off to moon...
Oh dear! Katie F#cking coric says something that doesn't agree with the right wingnuts out there! Oh me oh my! The frelling system must be liberal.
For a party that believes in self - reliance so much, it hilarious how fast they go to the scapegoats to blame their problems on...
Originally posted by SDW2001
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
Here's an interesting link though:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#THE
OK, but I've still never seen that one study that supposedly 90% of reporters are democrats. I honestly think it never existed. And it's not consistent with that poll you link.
Here's another study that was done on journalist's political attitudes. They asked journalists where they put themselves on both social issues and economic issues.
Social issues:
Left: 30%
Center: 57%
Right: 9%
Economic issues:
Left: 11%
Center: 64%
Right: 19%
So they're much more left than right on social issues and moderately more right than left on economic issues.
The study was also interesting because it asked journalists the same questions that they asked the American public, so they could compare on specific issues.
On the following issues they were to the right of the public:
Medicare and Social security
NAFTA
employer-provided health insurance
corporate power
taxing the wealthy
fast-track trade authority
On the following issue they were to the left of the public:
the environment