[quote]The front page of the Tampa Tribune yesterday was all ablaze with the news about the convention of Florida's Democrats on Saturday in Orlando. There was a color photo of a smiling, waving Al Gore. Lieberman was there and so was Kerry and a host of other stars of the Democratic
Party. About 2,500 Floridians were in attendance.
But in Tampa, on that same night, I was looking out from the stage at the Sun Dome at a crowd of nearly 7,000 people who had come to the "Democracy Rising" rally organized by Ralph Nader. Tampa has now produced the largest crowd of the book tour (I signed the 2000th book of the evening somewhere around 2am). This is 3 times the crowd that the
Democrats got and, again, there is virtually no coverage.<hr></blockquote>
What is it about Ralph Nader that the republicrat dominated media is so paranoid about?
[quote]That is what the liberal media would love you to believe<hr></blockquote>
Liberal media! What kind of conspiracy theory are you spouting there?
A rough breakdown of the corporate media heirarchy which comprises some 90% of what Americans are made "aware" of about the world and current affairs is as follows:
Journalists, reporters, staff writers etc tend to have a center/ mild liberal leaning
Editorial staff tend to be be center/mild conservative leaning
Managers tend to lean right
Media company owners/directors/major stockholders are on the whole very conservative.
The political, ideological and philosophical content and mission of a media company conforms to that of their owners. After all, they own the company, and directors tend to direct. When working for big media companies, idealistic young journalists soon substitute principle for pragmatism, or they find work in the boutique media, which has a *tiny* minority regarding readership/listenership/viewership. And with the continuing consolidation of big media and the accompanying filtering or locking out of stories that don't fit the mold, the media is destined to be shunted even further to the right.
Liberal media...its not only a myth, but a blatant lie.
[quote]So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?<hr></blockquote>
How do you think that Bush got into office?
[quote]That is what the liberal media would love you to believe.<hr></blockquote>
The sad thing is that you really believe that. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I always laugh when I hear Rush Limbaugh talk about the 'liberal media conspiracy' when he thinks he's actually being somewhat 'objective' and then I realize its so sad that people actually listen and believe him.
As for the third parties, the two 'big' political parties are already so trenched in, it would be very difficult for another party to come in and make any kind of great challenge for either of them.
Edit: As for John Kerry, if he somehow gets the Democratic nomination for President in 2004, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for Bush either, but I've met with Kerry on a few ocassions (as well as his parents), and the guy is one of the least impressive people I've ever met. A lot of people in the media (including O'Reilly) seem to like him, but after talking with him for a few minutes, you'd be amazed how he doesn't stick to his guns. :-/
There is documented liberal bias in the media. Studies have actually confirmed that remarks by conservatives are edited three times more often than their liberal counterparts.
A lie? That is laughable. You are so brainwashed, you don't even KNOW they are spinning a story or taking a position.
[quote]Media company owners/directors/major stockholders are on the whole very conservative. <hr></blockquote>
ummm....Ted Turner anyone? He's probably the biggest media mogul out there....
To deny liberal bias in the media on the whole is a freaking joke.
[quote]You are so brainwashed, you don't even KNOW they are spinning a story or taking a position. <hr></blockquote>
Oh my God. You're right. I'm so brainwashed I can't even figure out that the media is giving me their opinions, and not news! Oh my God. Now that I have seen the light, I can see why the more 'enlightened' people voted for Bush! I can see that I'm being opressed by my government with high taxes! Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh now make tremendous sense to me! All of this time, I was being brainwashed by the liberal media! I bet they even throw in subliminal messages during sitcoms saying "Vote for Gore in 2004!" and "George W. Bush is a moron!"
Now I see the light! Thank you so much for telling me that I was brainwashed for so many years by the liberal conspiracy! Now I can go out into the world a better and more moral person because of all of this! Thank you so much SDW2001, thank you so much!
Gore couldn't win his home state coming off the heels of an extremely popular presidency. The Democrats aren't going to let him touch the '04 nomination with a 10 foot pole.
Bush wins again, might as well start looking forward to '08.
Oh my God. You're right. I'm so brainwashed I can't even figure out that the media is giving me their opinions, and not news! Oh my God. Now that I have seen the light, I can see why the more 'enlightened' people voted for Bush! I can see that I'm being opressed by my government with high taxes! Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh now make tremendous sense to me! All of this time, I was being brainwashed by the liberal media! I bet they even throw in subliminal messages during sitcoms saying "Vote for Gore in 2004!" and "George W. Bush is a moron!"
Now I see the light! Thank you so much for telling me that I was brainwashed for so many years by the liberal conspiracy! Now I can go out into the world a better and more moral person because of all of this! Thank you so much SDW2001, thank you so much!
/sarcasm
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran441: I wasn't talking to you, actually. Though, your stance on things makes me do spit-takes now and again.
[quote]ummm....Ted Turner anyone? He's probably the biggest media mogul out there....<hr></blockquote>
Ted Turner is singled out because he's one of the few top media figures who is *relatively* liberal. For every Ted Turner sitting in those boardrooms, there's most likely a whole gang of Rupert Murdochs.
[quote]To deny liberal bias in the media on the whole is a freaking joke.<hr></blockquote>
The bottom line:
Big media content is driven by advertisers. Big media costs big$$ in which to place advertising copy. Most advertisers are corporate America. Corporate America is largely run by conservative businessmen. That is why, if you read the boutique press, you will find a legion of controversial, gnarly, uncensored stories, many involving so-called "respectable" organizations and institutions. But 95% of Americans don't read such copy. Run that story, and we pull our commercials is what big media journalists are always aware of.
The media isn't so much represented by what is printed, but more by what is ignored, diluted, outright censored or considered taboo to print. Even the granddaddy of journalism "The New York Times" has the motto "All the News that is fit to print". In other words, *not* liberal. If you want a more comprehensive view of world affairs (not too difficult), look outside of the US media.
The more extreme left position on things is usually easily found in the editorial section of most major papers.
Outside U.S. media is good as reference, but not as pure source of information, because a lot of what you get, especially coming from France, is poor journalism (less responsibility for accuracy of quotes, editorializing in regular news space). Respected French papers are notorious for completey fabricating facts and quotes. English papers (the REAL papers, not anything for their giant tabloid market) are more reliable. I recommend <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk</a>;
Your argument sounds logical (concerning corporate influences) but I don't think it stands up in reality.
As far as a vast conspiricy goes, I don't think that is true. But I do believe that the big three networks are quite liberal, with CBS and ABC being worse than NBC.
Ted Turner "relatively" liberal? That is funny. He is almost a communist!
<strong>So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. A lot of dems out there don't really have any idea what they want in government. They tend to be the more indecisive of the two major parties' followers.
Many of the decisive ones voted for Nader.
Whatever Turner was before, he is a pretty dopey liberal right now.
i love how Rush is always talking about how more people listen to his show than any other, then talks about the liberal media....well if more people listen to him than all the liberal radio shows combined (his quote), why should he worry about the liberal media?? plus he complains that the liberal press tries to tell people what to think, but that his viewers are too smart for that, yet half his viewers just call in and say "ditto" and are called dittoheads....some real good self thinking there....and how about the up-roar when somebody used the term "brown-shirts" when talking about conservatives (an allusion to nazi soldiers) when Rush himself uses the term femi-nazi to describe women who work and think differently than him?? (personnally i always liked the term conserva-nazi to discribe fat rich white guys who dislike strong women, gay men and thinks that the government is trying to take all their money, when living in this great country has allowed them opportunities to make all that money and drive sports cars and cheat on their wives with younger women)...
anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???
[quote]anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???
just my "liberal" ramblings....g <hr></blockquote>
WOW. You certainly have an interesting version of the facts here.
1) Do you really think that Jeb Bush somehow convinced the WHOLE MEDIA to "reverse Florida"? (which didn't happen by the way, they called it neutral for several hours before awarding it and then taking it back agian from Bush). Please. He was in touch with the local precincts to find out what the numbers looked like. This is why Bush wouldn't concede Florida: Because the numbers he was getting weren't lining up with him having lost the state.
2) It is now estimated by many pundits that the liberal media calling Florida early may have cost Bush two MILLION votes nationwide, because after many heard Gore won the the "trifecta" of states they thought it was all over and went home instead of voting. There are thousands of documented cases of this. It is also estimated by many that Bush may have been cheated out of 10,000 votes in Florida alone, because the panhandle is a heavily Republican area.
3) Gore. Wow. You are amazing. People like you actually believe that Gore was somehow cheated out of the election. The fact was it was Bush who was cheated. Gore also decided to fight on and ask for up to five recounts per county. The fact is that Gore never won ANY of the recounts. He lost on election night, he lost the auto recount, and he lost every subsequent recount. Lost Lost Lost. Recounting the ballots also was equivalent to "changing the rules after the game". I agree the system wasn't all that accurate but one can't just come up with a new system of counting votes AFTER the election. That is illegal. The Supreme Court was also correct when it said that to count some counties again but not others violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. It makes my vote worth more than yours if it is counted again or has a greater chance of being counted than your does. I'm sorry, Joe Losermen, but we DON'T "count all the votes in America".....at least we didn't in that election and every one before it. Maybe we will now, but we can't go back and just make up new rules after the election until we get result we want.
Gore's behavior was atrocious. He used every tactic in the book to try and defeat Bush, but still couldn't accomplish it despite being a sitting Vice President witth a superb economy behind him (at the time). The real question is: What was wrong with Gore that he didn't destroy George Bush in the election? It shouldn't even have been close. Gore personally ordered the smear campaign against Bush (speciffically the DUI) and used a scorched earth policy in the recount process.
The real travesty, that of Gore actually becoming President never occurred. It shows that our system works. If Gore had any honor, he would have conceded after the first recount. Even Nixon had enough honor and dignity to do that.
Comments
Party. About 2,500 Floridians were in attendance.
But in Tampa, on that same night, I was looking out from the stage at the Sun Dome at a crowd of nearly 7,000 people who had come to the "Democracy Rising" rally organized by Ralph Nader. Tampa has now produced the largest crowd of the book tour (I signed the 2000th book of the evening somewhere around 2am). This is 3 times the crowd that the
Democrats got and, again, there is virtually no coverage.<hr></blockquote>
What is it about Ralph Nader that the republicrat dominated media is so paranoid about?
Therefore, no coverage for alternate voices.
Liberal media! What kind of conspiracy theory are you spouting there?
A rough breakdown of the corporate media heirarchy which comprises some 90% of what Americans are made "aware" of about the world and current affairs is as follows:
Journalists, reporters, staff writers etc tend to have a center/ mild liberal leaning
Editorial staff tend to be be center/mild conservative leaning
Managers tend to lean right
Media company owners/directors/major stockholders are on the whole very conservative.
The political, ideological and philosophical content and mission of a media company conforms to that of their owners. After all, they own the company, and directors tend to direct. When working for big media companies, idealistic young journalists soon substitute principle for pragmatism, or they find work in the boutique media, which has a *tiny* minority regarding readership/listenership/viewership. And with the continuing consolidation of big media and the accompanying filtering or locking out of stories that don't fit the mold, the media is destined to be shunted even further to the right.
Liberal media...its not only a myth, but a blatant lie.
How do you think that Bush got into office?
[quote]That is what the liberal media would love you to believe.<hr></blockquote>
The sad thing is that you really believe that. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I always laugh when I hear Rush Limbaugh talk about the 'liberal media conspiracy' when he thinks he's actually being somewhat 'objective' and then I realize its so sad that people actually listen and believe him.
As for the third parties, the two 'big' political parties are already so trenched in, it would be very difficult for another party to come in and make any kind of great challenge for either of them.
Edit: As for John Kerry, if he somehow gets the Democratic nomination for President in 2004, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for Bush either, but I've met with Kerry on a few ocassions (as well as his parents), and the guy is one of the least impressive people I've ever met. A lot of people in the media (including O'Reilly) seem to like him, but after talking with him for a few minutes, you'd be amazed how he doesn't stick to his guns. :-/
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
A lie? That is laughable. You are so brainwashed, you don't even KNOW they are spinning a story or taking a position.
[quote]Media company owners/directors/major stockholders are on the whole very conservative. <hr></blockquote>
ummm....Ted Turner anyone? He's probably the biggest media mogul out there....
To deny liberal bias in the media on the whole is a freaking joke.
Oh my God. You're right. I'm so brainwashed I can't even figure out that the media is giving me their opinions, and not news! Oh my God. Now that I have seen the light, I can see why the more 'enlightened' people voted for Bush! I can see that I'm being opressed by my government with high taxes! Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh now make tremendous sense to me! All of this time, I was being brainwashed by the liberal media! I bet they even throw in subliminal messages during sitcoms saying "Vote for Gore in 2004!" and "George W. Bush is a moron!"
Now I see the light! Thank you so much for telling me that I was brainwashed for so many years by the liberal conspiracy! Now I can go out into the world a better and more moral person because of all of this! Thank you so much SDW2001, thank you so much!
/sarcasm
Bush wins again, might as well start looking forward to '08.
If Powell ran for presidency (fat chance since he's Bush's right hand man now) would anyone here consider voting for him?
<strong>
Oh my God. You're right. I'm so brainwashed I can't even figure out that the media is giving me their opinions, and not news! Oh my God. Now that I have seen the light, I can see why the more 'enlightened' people voted for Bush! I can see that I'm being opressed by my government with high taxes! Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh now make tremendous sense to me! All of this time, I was being brainwashed by the liberal media! I bet they even throw in subliminal messages during sitcoms saying "Vote for Gore in 2004!" and "George W. Bush is a moron!"
Now I see the light! Thank you so much for telling me that I was brainwashed for so many years by the liberal conspiracy! Now I can go out into the world a better and more moral person because of all of this! Thank you so much SDW2001, thank you so much!
/sarcasm
Fran441: I wasn't talking to you, actually. Though, your stance on things makes me do spit-takes now and again.
If it's just one person, there's nothing to be concerned about then.
Ted Turner is singled out because he's one of the few top media figures who is *relatively* liberal. For every Ted Turner sitting in those boardrooms, there's most likely a whole gang of Rupert Murdochs.
[quote]To deny liberal bias in the media on the whole is a freaking joke.<hr></blockquote>
The bottom line:
Big media content is driven by advertisers. Big media costs big$$ in which to place advertising copy. Most advertisers are corporate America. Corporate America is largely run by conservative businessmen. That is why, if you read the boutique press, you will find a legion of controversial, gnarly, uncensored stories, many involving so-called "respectable" organizations and institutions. But 95% of Americans don't read such copy. Run that story, and we pull our commercials is what big media journalists are always aware of.
The media isn't so much represented by what is printed, but more by what is ignored, diluted, outright censored or considered taboo to print. Even the granddaddy of journalism "The New York Times" has the motto "All the News that is fit to print". In other words, *not* liberal. If you want a more comprehensive view of world affairs (not too difficult), look outside of the US media.
Outside U.S. media is good as reference, but not as pure source of information, because a lot of what you get, especially coming from France, is poor journalism (less responsibility for accuracy of quotes, editorializing in regular news space). Respected French papers are notorious for completey fabricating facts and quotes. English papers (the REAL papers, not anything for their giant tabloid market) are more reliable. I recommend <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk</a>;
Your argument sounds logical (concerning corporate influences) but I don't think it stands up in reality.
As far as a vast conspiricy goes, I don't think that is true. But I do believe that the big three networks are quite liberal, with CBS and ABC being worse than NBC.
Ted Turner "relatively" liberal? That is funny. He is almost a communist!
He even married a communist traitor, you don't get more liberal than that.
Check out the caption above the picture:
<strong>So you guys don't vote for your guy, you vote against someone else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. A lot of dems out there don't really have any idea what they want in government. They tend to be the more indecisive of the two major parties' followers.
Many of the decisive ones voted for Nader.
Whatever Turner was before, he is a pretty dopey liberal right now.
[ 04-19-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
Imagine if we had a president that had actual interest in the people of this country instead of the people of their party?
anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???
just my "liberal" ramblings....g
[quote]anyways, i still love how people call Gore a loser, and a sore loser too, when he managed to get over 50 million people to vote for him, he got over half a millon more votes than the ever so popular George W, and then, when the race is impossibly close in a state governed by his challenger's brother (and the liberal media calls the state for Gore, then reverses it after GW's brother makes many phone calls back to his home state), Gore actually has the gall to ask for a proper recount and tally of the voters....and when all is said and done, and even though many more americans vote for him than they do for GW, he stands up and says that we, as a country, need to stand behind the new president 100%....yeah, he's a sore loser...hell, can you image if any country we didn't like held elections like we do...do you think we would "honor" their govt and elected officals if they held office after getting fewer votes than there competition???
just my "liberal" ramblings....g <hr></blockquote>
WOW. You certainly have an interesting version of the facts here.
1) Do you really think that Jeb Bush somehow convinced the WHOLE MEDIA to "reverse Florida"? (which didn't happen by the way, they called it neutral for several hours before awarding it and then taking it back agian from Bush). Please. He was in touch with the local precincts to find out what the numbers looked like. This is why Bush wouldn't concede Florida: Because the numbers he was getting weren't lining up with him having lost the state.
2) It is now estimated by many pundits that the liberal media calling Florida early may have cost Bush two MILLION votes nationwide, because after many heard Gore won the the "trifecta" of states they thought it was all over and went home instead of voting. There are thousands of documented cases of this. It is also estimated by many that Bush may have been cheated out of 10,000 votes in Florida alone, because the panhandle is a heavily Republican area.
3) Gore. Wow. You are amazing. People like you actually believe that Gore was somehow cheated out of the election. The fact was it was Bush who was cheated. Gore also decided to fight on and ask for up to five recounts per county. The fact is that Gore never won ANY of the recounts. He lost on election night, he lost the auto recount, and he lost every subsequent recount. Lost Lost Lost. Recounting the ballots also was equivalent to "changing the rules after the game". I agree the system wasn't all that accurate but one can't just come up with a new system of counting votes AFTER the election. That is illegal. The Supreme Court was also correct when it said that to count some counties again but not others violates the Equal Protection clause in the Constitution. It makes my vote worth more than yours if it is counted again or has a greater chance of being counted than your does. I'm sorry, Joe Losermen, but we DON'T "count all the votes in America".....at least we didn't in that election and every one before it. Maybe we will now, but we can't go back and just make up new rules after the election until we get result we want.
Gore's behavior was atrocious. He used every tactic in the book to try and defeat Bush, but still couldn't accomplish it despite being a sitting Vice President witth a superb economy behind him (at the time). The real question is: What was wrong with Gore that he didn't destroy George Bush in the election? It shouldn't even have been close. Gore personally ordered the smear campaign against Bush (speciffically the DUI) and used a scorched earth policy in the recount process.
The real travesty, that of Gore actually becoming President never occurred. It shows that our system works. If Gore had any honor, he would have conceded after the first recount. Even Nixon had enough honor and dignity to do that.