Ever notice what everyone here says about the press?
Basically everyone here who mentions the slant the press puts on a topic claims that they are always taking a stance against the person making the claim. Conservatives always attack the "liberal" or "anti-American" media, and liberals always rant about how the media promotes Bush and the war.
Maybe... maybe it's just a sign that the media is actually pretty neutral on the matter and everyone is just putting their own slant on it so the media looks terrible in their eyes. They don't actively support war so the conservatives get angry at them. They don't actively oppose war so the liberals get angry at them. Or maybe they're not neutral, but as a whole, they balance out, and people with heavily swayed viewpoints only see the side they're against.
I mean, it's not possible for the ENTIRE media to be both conservative and liberal at the same time. Is there something I'm missing?
Maybe... maybe it's just a sign that the media is actually pretty neutral on the matter and everyone is just putting their own slant on it so the media looks terrible in their eyes. They don't actively support war so the conservatives get angry at them. They don't actively oppose war so the liberals get angry at them. Or maybe they're not neutral, but as a whole, they balance out, and people with heavily swayed viewpoints only see the side they're against.
I mean, it's not possible for the ENTIRE media to be both conservative and liberal at the same time. Is there something I'm missing?
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Maybe... maybe it's just a sign that the media is actually pretty neutral on the matter and everyone is just putting their own slant on it so the media looks terrible in their eyes.
That's definitely possible. It's also understandable for American networks to report mostly positive info only to boost troop morale.
However, you only need to check out the coverage from sources other than the CNN and the big 4 US networks to see how information is reported. The BBC and CBC are two examples.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Basically everyone here who mentions the slant the press puts on a topic claims that they are always taking a stance against the person making the claim. Conservatives always attack the "liberal" or "anti-American" media, and liberals always rant about how the media promotes Bush and the war.
Maybe... maybe it's just a sign that the media is actually pretty neutral on the matter and everyone is just putting their own slant on it so the media looks terrible in their eyes. They don't actively support war so the conservatives get angry at them. They don't actively oppose war so the liberals get angry at them. Or maybe they're not neutral, but as a whole, they balance out, and people with heavily swayed viewpoints only see the side they're against.
I mean, it's not possible for the ENTIRE media to be both conservative and liberal at the same time. Is there something I'm missing?
Are you kidding me?
Okay okay so that image could also be construed as offensive just as calling Michael Moore a racist is offensive. I just find it funny so that's why I put it there
One of my favorite sites for this joke of a guy is moorewatch.
In any case... I don?t hate Michael Moore, I pity him. He will die like the kids in Columbine did.... alone and without friends. (how poetic)
Ah now for Michael Moore. No he is not racist, thats nonsense. No intelligent person would say that: "Bowling for Columbine" clearly addresses his conerns with the FOCUS on crime and blacks!!
FOX, if its true then should be ashamed.
I know a lot of you are pissed off at him so I'll leave my defenses of him off this post, BUT the site defaming his is just that, defamation.
Stating that anyone with a brain would say he is highly fallacious is a plain old baseless insult and making fun of his weight is ad-hominem and hopelessly revealing of this site's potential to assess his views in the light of sense and logic. (see the lard in his hand)
This site is devoid of journalistic integrity:
They speak of "doublespeak and falsehood " which is clearly a massive assumption since these people must have fallen asleep whiel watching his MOVIE! It addresses all kinds of problems with media, guns and it was put together very well being that it was not a documentary.
Furthermore they call him "a disingenuous danger to this country" which is a travesty of a statement since things such as the statistics used in his movie WERE valid and were implemented properly supporting his arguements against gun ownership! He brought in Charleton Hestons HASTY visit to the town where the young girl was shot by the boy who brought his uncle's gun to school...which is certainly also valid.
His concerns are certainly as valid as any other persons!
In the end this site's intention is to MUZZLE Michael Moore by dissing him, someone who is interested in the security and safety of North America.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
[Michael Moore?] someone who is interested in the security and safety of North America.
But seroiusly, conservatives have overrun the media with Fox News and ummm... errr... who else again in the mainstream TV media? Funny that they lump Matt Drudge in there, he's hardly the public antithesis of a Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.
A few examples of liberal bias that will be ignored by liberal posters here
Oh and did anyone catch the anti-war rally on tv the other night.. uhh I mean the Oscars?
Glad you have the time to come along, pick out one thing I said and laugh at it and use that to validate yourself to others. Thanks.
Now for your implication. I beleive what you're implying is that the quote is not true...
Tell me. Does being against a war, a war which has been debated steadily by many nations and a debate finally shut down because parties interested in going t o war do so, imply that the person or group against war is NOT interested in the "security and safety of North America" as much as anyone else?
The debate being heavily debated and finally shut down like it was validates that it is still an open issue...
The answer by the way is No.
I am interested in the safety of me and you. I do not like the war situation for so many reasons which we need not delve into....Contradiction? No not here either.
Try words, I hear that educated people are making out quite well with them.
lists all the awful things the U.S. has supposedly inflicted on the world
So they're denying that these things happened??! Thats pure propaganda, denial and using the falsity to help defame him. Thats entirely dishonourable.
I mean do the people who dislike Moore deny these historical facts?!! Thats gross man! Thats like the ****ing Holocaust. Shame on CyberAlert Extra.
And no I do not think ""Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.'" Was a smart comment.
Originally posted by dviant
Ha that article sounds like Salon is just sour because no one will give them a show
But seroiusly, conservatives have overrun the media with Fox News and ummm... errr... who else again in the mainstream TV media? Funny that they lump Matt Drudge in there, he's hardly the public antithesis of a Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.
A few examples of liberal bias that will be ignored by liberal posters here
Oh and did anyone catch the anti-war rally on tv the other night.. uhh I mean the Oscars?
.STttttttreeecccchhhH!!!!
Oh no, "Diversity." Those bad liberals.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
dviant, about your link there.
So they're denying that these things happened??! Thats pure propaganda, denial and using the falsity to help defame him. Thats entirely dishonourable.
I mean do the people who dislike Moore deny these historical facts?!! Thats gross man! Thats like the ****ing Holocaust. Shame on CyberAlert Extra.
And no I do not think ""Except I would alter that to say, 'Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.'" Was a smart comment.
I don't deny these things happened but the blithe manner in which moore relates deaths to American input is seriously seriously misleading . . . to the point that it virtually invalidates any point that he might want to make in the rest of the film: it is facile and manipulative in a manner that if I had seen the likes from a Conservative on their agenda I would be angered and flabergasted that people could swallow it
Its sentimental distortion of cause and effect and funding and support being equated completely with enacting of deeds all done over cheap emotional music just makes me sick . . . I just have to say again the word Manipulative . . .and yes . . .propaganda
and I'm usually lumped tgether with the Libby-ral crowd . . .
now, as far as teh "overwhelming biase" of ABC or CBS that's a whole other story . . . but for the most part I'll just say that their goal is to sell airtime . . . the form of the programming (meaning the shape of how it does what it does) is so necessarily biased towards a commodity fetichism that it naturally would overwhelm any supposed Liberal biase . . . a biase which is, besides, 'fictitious'
Originally posted by Eugene
The conservative press was seen prying heat tiles off of the Shuttle orbiter Columbia. SPJ won't say it anymore, but that's because the government's assassins are everwh
Will you get off that already lol? Let's talk about Segways. Or college. Or upcoming movies. Or Jennifer Connelly. She's hot.