The W
Views: 100049352
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 1555
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Media Quiet about Pipe Bomber's Liberal Leanings
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2103 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (40 total)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 206/1084
EXP: 2440205
For next: 21659

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2990 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#21 Posted on 9.5.02 2241.13
Reposted on: 9.5.09 2254.21

I guess you're right, though. Those issues are not ciriticized in the media, mainly because nobody is ever allowed to air them in mainstream media. When was the last time CNN had someone seriously question the way things are run in this country? never.


I would rather fear a real threat over greedy corporations controlling everything we do than live in fear of a mythical liberal media.
BoromirMark
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 30/690
EXP: 1222954
For next: 10923

Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 274 days
Last activity: 274 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 9.5.02 2308.02
Reposted on: 9.5.09 2321.49
It's not mythical, go look at the facts. Which ya won't, since you seem to enjoy frolicking in La-La Land. ::Sighs:: There's no getting through to deluded souls.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 210/1084
EXP: 2440205
For next: 21659

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2990 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#23 Posted on 9.5.02 2346.45
Reposted on: 9.5.09 2352.30
What facts should I read?
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 485/3273
EXP: 12779585
For next: 311768

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 201 days
Last activity: 2 days
#24 Posted on 10.5.02 0003.33
Reposted on: 10.5.09 0009.03
    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    "abuses of power"? Explain that. That little phrase there always pissed me off, because nobody in this country seems to respect or abide by AUTHORITY. There's law and government in this country for a reason, and if we just all decided to ignore it and go willy-nilly, then we wouldn't HAVE a human race anymore. It'd be complete chaos. Sure, we need to check up on politicians and make sure they don't try to pull a Palpatine, but nine times out of ten whatever "abuse of power" was pulled wasn't even harmful to the public in the first place.


So which is it? Do we have laws for a reason? You think that the laws of this country should be obeyed? Or are people that abuse their power above the law, as long as they aren't harmful to the public?


    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    "Right. The press sure hammered that George W. Bush guy."


    Yes, they did. Ooh, post-9/11 praise for our leader. OF COURSE THAT HAPPENED!!!! WE HAD TO RALLY AS A COUNTRY!!! Did you want them to sit and dissect Bush's faults, one by one, as they had been doing before? Or would you have them actually try to instill pride in the people? Christ.



We HAD to rally as a country? Why? I sure wasn't into allowing that idiot we have for a president (I would've voted for McCain, but like you said big money wins out... or not because that was coporate money.. and corporations never buy anything) to go and add more bodies to the death rolls. As a matter of fact, I went to DC with another few thousand or so people (was it 20? Yes, I think it was!) to protest this war... but that damn liberal media didn't give us any attention at all. Instead they reported three misleading facts: One, a group of anti-antiwar people showed up. A couple hundred of them actually. The news stories made it seem that 20,000 antiwar people = 200 pro war people. Also, there were about 30 black clad flag burning 'anarchists' there. They also seem to equal about 200 (or 20,000) people. Of course this all can be laid to blame at the doorstep of the DC police, who reportedly only had a few dozen policemen on the ground and so could not count how many people were there. So who were all those spotters on the rooftops, and who owned the helicopter that was circling over our heads the whole day???

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the liberal media. They would've brought cameras.

-Jag


(edited by Jaguar on 10.5.02 0105)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 470/2108
EXP: 6617404
For next: 33286

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#25 Posted on 10.5.02 1259.44
Reposted on: 10.5.09 1301.15
"I'm guession this is because you don't hang out with a lot of liberals. Go read the Village Voice (or any other of the liberal urban weekly's). You'll see "while the major media ignored the story" at least 10 times every issue. Trust me, Liberals complain A LOT about the major media. Genreally the biggest source of complaints is that they don't report most abuses of power by those in power unl;ess they have to"

They don't have reason to complain, though. The media is 100% liberal-biased, and not a day goes by when they don't demonize yet another conservative, or skeet-shoot at another conservative position.


You said Liberals don't complain. I pointed out that indeed they do. Whether they have reason to or not is another story. Although I have to say, anytime you say something like "The media is 100% anything" it's hard to take you seriously. As for the media demonizing conservatives, give me three links to stories by major newspapers where they "demonize" conservatives.

"abuses of power"? Explain that.

Essentially Enron. Liberals' complaints tend to be along the lines of "Abuses of power (and the law) by huge corporations happen every day, but only get reported when it becomes so huge (Enron) that the mainstream media can't ignore it anymore. Again, just read the Village Voice for some articles on these abuses of power.

Yes, they did. Ooh, post-9/11 praise for our leader. OF COURSE THAT HAPPENED!!!! WE HAD TO RALLY AS A COUNTRY!!! Did you want them to sit and dissect Bush's faults, one by one, as they had been doing before? Or would you have them actually try to instill pride in the people? Christ.

I wasn't talking about post 9-11 (although there would be NO GODDAMN WAY conservatives would have supported Al Gore or Bill Clinton like Liberals supported Bush after the war). I was talking about how during the campaign the media gave a free pass to Bush while dissecting every little thing Gore said in an effort to discredit him.

But if you want another example, have you already forgotten about the media's love affair with John McCain? And before you say it's just because of campaign finance reform (a liberal issue I guess), McCain co-sponsored that with Russ Feingold, one of the most Liberal members of the Senate. How often do hear the media lionize Russ Feingold like they do McCain?


Travis
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 358/385
EXP: 513186
For next: 8180

Since: 7.3.02
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 4540 days
Last activity: 4476 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#26 Posted on 10.5.02 1333.32
Reposted on: 10.5.09 1334.51

    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lhletter1.html



    Apparently the kid who became a mad pipe bomber recently, was not only a violent moron, but just HAPPENED to be a psycho-liberal who published his own little manifesto. The bulk of which was NOT shown by the media, but rather hidden, much like his leftist public showings. If this isn't a clear message how biased the media is, I really don't know what is. Outside of what they did for Kennedy and against Nixon.



Do this kids' actions make his political beliefs invalid? By that logic BOTH Zionism and Anti-Zionism are "psycho". SOMEONE must be right about SOMETHING.
Heck, there IS the little matter of events like the Boston Tea Party and the storming of the Bastille.
Sorry, but just because a DUMB kid was into a certain political belief that doesn't make the concepts he believed in any less worthwhile.
Your pals in Operation Rescue would probably agree, eh?
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 6/374
EXP: 490216
For next: 31150

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2712 days
Last activity: 2702 days
#27 Posted on 10.5.02 2014.29
Reposted on: 10.5.09 2016.14

    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    "As is "liberal media," despite the media being owned by a conglomerate of under 10 companies, all of which are in the money making game."

    Yes, your point? It just doesn't matter that the reporters, the editors, the ones bringing and writing the stories for presentation are all in the Left and bias their reports as such? Not to mention that there ARE, you know, countries outside of the United States.

    "if the liberal media censors everything that might give liberals a bad name, how'd the word leak out?"

    They don't CENSOR, they are either biased or just conveniently leave facts out for others to find, that's all.

    (edited by BoromirMark on 9.5.02 0240)



You know what? Unless you can say that you personally know EVERY SINGLE JOURNALIST and their political/social/economic/moral beliefs, then do yourself a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP. Okay?

Are there liberal journalists? Yup. Are there conservative journalists? You bet yer ass. But here's an important point, and I'll try to use small words so you can understand it: Journalists -- not commentators, but journalists -- try to be objective. Is complete objectivity possible? Nope. But do journalists strive for it? Yup.

There's no conspiracy, man. There's no vast left-wing cabal trying to cover up nasty liberal doings. Journalists get into this business because they love it, not because they have some sort of agenda to push.

Buy a newspaper. Have someone read it to you. And realize that everything in said newspaper -- excluding opinion, obviously -- is based on fact and legitimate sources. Not on leftist politics and some sort of evil liberal plot to control information.
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 391/684
EXP: 1223557
For next: 10320

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4468 days
Last activity: 4377 days
#28 Posted on 14.5.02 0936.25
Reposted on: 14.5.09 0949.36

    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    The media is 100% liberal-biased, and not a day goes by when they don't demonize yet another conservative, or skeet-shoot at another conservative position.
As someone who actually *HAS* a degree in journalism and worked in the field and industry for almost ten years, I'm going to briefly sound off on this.

This statement (among others) is utterly and offensively false in favor of rabidly making your point. But I'm only going to touch on this one because it is the most blatantly incorrect of all the other political scaremongering you're buying into. Proof, you ask? Okay. Rush Limbaugh. He is a member of the media and he is republican/conservative. Therefore the media is not 100% liberal biased. I can list more if you'd like.

If the media is 100% liberal biased, why has Gary Condit been villianized and subsequently tried and convicted of a crime he may or may not have committed that may or may not have happened?

There are a number of issues that dictate what is covered by any number of outlets and mediums. Sex and death sell. Advertising revenue -- and the outlets providing said revenue can also dictate what is and isn't covered. It's happened before, from the smallest weekly newspaper to the largest daily paper in the world. It's as simple as a publication owned by AOL/Time Warner giving movies from Warner Brothers favorable reviews. Or Good Morning America giving Disney movies favorable reviews. I'm only touching on the tip of the iceberg here.

Think outside the staunch political lines you've drawn. You'll see the world isn't just divided into liberals and conservatives.
BoromirMark
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 32/690
EXP: 1222954
For next: 10923

Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 274 days
Last activity: 274 days
AIM:  
#29 Posted on 15.5.02 1919.11
Reposted on: 15.5.09 1919.28
Hm, various responses, none of which hold any kind of valid FACTS. Instead, we have the obviously biased opinion of a journalism major (Rush Limbaugh is in radio. Now aside from from militia fanatics and Pat Buchanan supporters, who in the mainstream listens to him again?) and some "go read a newspaper" remarks. Perhaps you should go do the same, and take note of what's presented. Liberal agendas, in a good light. Conservative opinions and ideas, trashed, insulted, and arguing against as if Satan himself were making them. If you really can't find proof, I suggest you go read about what the media did for Kennedy during his election. Or what they did for FDR. And, to an actual debateable degree, their influence on Nixon's paranoia and even fall from grace.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 497/2108
EXP: 6617404
For next: 33286

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#30 Posted on 15.5.02 1932.05
Reposted on: 15.5.09 1934.11
I'll be happy to read any links you post to any evidence of this. EvilJon posted 5, you can't come up with one?

Moe
BoromirMark
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 33/690
EXP: 1222954
For next: 10923

Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 274 days
Last activity: 274 days
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 15.5.02 1957.58
Reposted on: 15.5.09 1959.01
These are just a few examples, going through the CNN.com's US section. I'll get more as I actually take time and find them. Tonight is Episode 2 at midnight, sooo..

Click here = On YAHOO news? Why, the mainstream media can't handle something that shows a conservative opinion in a good light?

Click here - Bush spokesman gets in a few sentences of defense, while VARIOUS Democrats get in NUMEROUS arguments.

Click here - Liberals do all the arguing, no defending arguments whatsoever.

Click here - No mention of Democratic fund-raising, of course, with the whole story slanted against the Repubs.



(edited by BoromirMark on 15.5.02 2102)

{EDIT: Linkified to restore sane table widths - CRZ}

(edited by CRZ on 17.5.02 0125)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 225/1084
EXP: 2440205
For next: 21659

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2990 days
Last activity: 2986 days
#32 Posted on 15.5.02 2017.16
Reposted on: 15.5.09 2019.56
First, the Democratic Party is not liberal at all. And it's lower case "l" you're railing against. The entire way politics is done in America is "Liberal," but not "liberal."

1st link - couldn't get to work. Oh well.

2nd link - A story about how the Democrats are complaining about something has *gasp* quotes from Democrats. I think this whole situtation is a joke, as the DNC would use a picture of Gore doing the same thing and the Republicans would complain about it. Politics at its finest. Anyway, they quote two Democrats and two Republicans, and give nearly equal space to both. Since both Republicans seem to not want to say anything, they obviously have fewer arguments. Was CNN supposed to make stuff up for them to say?

3rd link - A Senator holds a press conference about a hearing he's going to hold (alliteration!). Does every White House Press Conference have a rebuttal? No. I don't understand the relevance of this at all.

4th link - A story about a Republican fundraising party doesn't have mention of Democrats? My word! It didn't mention any KKK fundraising either, so is it biased towards the KKK? If the Democrats had held a fundraiser which broke records the other night I'm sure you would have read about it as well, as they mentioned the Clinton record, which got as much coverage as this one.


In essence, that's the best you have?
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 406/684
EXP: 1223557
For next: 10320

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4468 days
Last activity: 4377 days
#33 Posted on 16.5.02 0855.10
Reposted on: 16.5.09 0857.00

    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    Hm, various responses, none of which hold any kind of valid FACTS.
Gary Condit is being accused of involvment in the murder of his intern. He is a Democrat. Those are valid facts counter to your point. You can't dismiss them as not being factual simply because they prove you wrong.
    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    Instead, we have the obviously biased opinion of a journalism major (Rush Limbaugh is in radio. Now aside from from militia fanatics and Pat Buchanan supporters, who in the mainstream listens to him again?)
I AM a journalist, thank you. Limbaugh, during the mid-90s "conservatism/republican chic" era, also had a highly-rated daily syndicated television show. He had TWO best selling-books, both of which are still in print. You can't dismiss Limbaugh as "not being a member of the media" on the basis of his audience. If he has a radio show, he's part of the media.


    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    I suggest you go read about what the media did for Kennedy during his election
The media MUST be to blame for Nixon's illness during his historic television debate with Kennedy. After all, it was Nixon's poor physical appearance -- he was sweating and LOOKED very very ill during the debate -- that turned public opinion toward Kennedy. That very debate is considered, above all, the one thing that got the public to vote for JFK en masse. I suppose every history teacher in America is part of the vast "liberal media conspiracy" as well, considering this is something that's in just about every history book out there.

And since I'm in the business of backing up my claims (because they're accurate and not part of some inherent psychosis) here's an excerpt from the Smithsonian Institutes' Website (I'll bet they have a secret "liberal/democratic agenda" too, don't they? And the "experts" cited are all liberals, too, right?):

Click Here

"For many who saw the 1960 debates on television, especially the first match-up in Chicago, the most apparent image remains a sickly-looking, perspiring Nixon juxtaposed with the handsome Kennedy. "I remember Nixon sweating," said Clif Webb, the Washington television news anchor who produced the Radio Smithsonian program. Recounting his childhood memories, Webb pointed to what many experts say was a disastrous error for the Republican nominee in the first debate: his decision not to use make-up. Having just recovered from a brief illness and forever battling his 5 o'clock shadow, Richard Nixon appeared gaunt and slightly haggard. In contrast, the younger Kennedy proved much more telegenic than his counterpart, immediately giving him the edge among viewers. "
Tom Dean
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 96/573
EXP: 913915
For next: 33409

Since: 30.8.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3308 days
Last activity: 2678 days
AIM:  
#34 Posted on 16.5.02 1643.54
Reposted on: 16.5.09 1644.55
Boromir: Try going one month without referring to "liberals" and "conservatives" as if they had hive minds and all felt exactly the same way about everything.

I think you will find that:
1. People will listen to you a lot more, because you will be forced to make more specific and meaningful points.
2. Your blood pressure will go down significantly.
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 7/374
EXP: 490216
For next: 31150

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2712 days
Last activity: 2702 days
#35 Posted on 16.5.02 2149.27
Reposted on: 16.5.09 2150.12

    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    Hm, various responses, none of which hold any kind of valid FACTS. Instead, we have the obviously biased opinion of a journalism major (Rush Limbaugh is in radio. Now aside from from militia fanatics and Pat Buchanan supporters, who in the mainstream listens to him again?) and some "go read a newspaper" remarks. Perhaps you should go do the same, and take note of what's presented. Liberal agendas, in a good light. Conservative opinions and ideas, trashed, insulted, and arguing against as if Satan himself were making them. If you really can't find proof, I suggest you go read about what the media did for Kennedy during his election. Or what they did for FDR.


For your information, I read at least four newspapers a day. And I find them all to be fair and balanced. Now, when I read the OPINION page, there are things that I disagree with.

Part 2: What, exactly, did the media do for Kennedy and FDR, there, O wise one? Perhaps you should take a good hard look at what Kennedy's father and some of his business associates did for JFK.


    Originally posted by BoromirMark
    And, to an actual debateable degree, their influence on Nixon's paranoia and even fall from grace.


Nixon was always a paranoid fuck. As for his fall from grace, I think a little something called Watergate -- oh, wait, you're right. All a vast left-wing media conspiracy carried out by the evil Woodward and Bernstein. Let's not let those nasty little concepts of "truth" and "blatant abuse of presidential power" get in the way.

And for the record, I'm a journalist as well. And a pretty damned good one. And you know what? When I write a story, my personal beliefs and opinions have NOTHING to do with it. That's the way it is, pal. Maybe when you move out of mommy's house and have to deal with the real world, you'll realize that not everybody is out to get you and your Young Republican pals.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple
Level: 128

Posts: 612/4964
EXP: 23923238
For next: 458528

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
#36 Posted on 17.5.02 0357.26
Reposted on: 17.5.09 0359.01
I never considered the media liberal, if nothing else I always thought it leaned more the other way.

Noam Chomsiky, (I'm sure I butchered his name here), breaks down a number of facts that the media does and does not cover. I found his work fasinating read. The problem is other than the few books I own and interviews that I've seen, I can't present a link. I'll work on that.

MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 499/2108
EXP: 6617404
For next: 33286

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#37 Posted on 17.5.02 0859.49
Reposted on: 17.5.09 0911.07
Click Here for a good Chomsky archive.

Despite beign a big lefty, I'm not really much of a Chomsky fan. He is a brilliant linguist though. Among other things, he was the first guy to figure (or maybe prove) out that there is no genetic component to learning a particular language. I.e., a baby born to 2 Swedish parents will speak Xhosa like a native if immersed in the region from a young age.

Moe


(edited by MoeGates on 17.5.02 1001)
Papercuts!
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 408/684
EXP: 1223557
For next: 10320

Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4468 days
Last activity: 4377 days
#38 Posted on 17.5.02 0904.59
Reposted on: 17.5.09 0913.54

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    All a vast left-wing media conspiracy carried out by the evil Woodward and Bernstein. Let's not let those nasty little concepts of "truth" and "blatant abuse of presidential power" get in the way.
For the record, Bob Woodward has pursued Clinton with the same amount of fervor, if not more, as he did Nixon.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 78/443
EXP: 637806
For next: 22363

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2868 days
Last activity: 2868 days
#39 Posted on 18.5.02 1904.59
Reposted on: 18.5.09 1906.00
Crimedog sez:

    And for the record, I'm a journalist as well. And a pretty damned good one. And you know what? When I write a story, my personal beliefs and opinions have NOTHING to do with it. That's the way it is, pal. Maybe when you move out of mommy's house and have to deal with the real world, you'll realize that not everybody is out to get you and your Young Republican pals.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Chomsky's main point is that there are inbuilt biases within society that are both reflected and then strengthened by the media. For example (bear with me, it ties together eventually):

Superpower A has a third-world client state which is in trouble. The military government is going to be overthrown by a hostile revolt which could have a domino effect on neighbouring countries. So Superpower A sends in tens of thousands of troops. This doesn't work, despite its military superiority over the rebels and a willingness to bend and even break the Geneva Conventions in fighting the war. So Superpower A pulls out after suffering thousands of casualties, and the client government falls soon thereafter.

Now -- did I just describe America in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Here's the kicker -- the U.S. media ALWAYS talks about the American WAR in Vietnam, and the Soviet INVASION of Afghanistan. By any objective description, the US invaded Vietnam between 1965 and 1970, just as the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The South Vietnamese military government and the American troops had about as much popular support with the people of South Vietnam as the Soviets had with the people of Afghanistan (ie next to none). Otherwise, the U.S. wouldn't have lost the war.

But try talking about "the U.S. invasion of Vietnam". It doesn't sound right, does it? This is where media bias creeps in -- underlying assumptions shared by most people in a country.

The media in the U.S. talk about the "war" in Vietnam, as if the U.S. army had any right to be there. It's not a conscious bias ... it's just a bias in the American mindset that is reflected by the people in the media. This kind of bias is rife in every country's media, and is only plainly evident to people who don't share the underlying assumptions (like foreigners or Young Republicans who don't agree with the assumptions that Dan Rather reflects).


Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 8/374
EXP: 490216
For next: 31150

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2712 days
Last activity: 2702 days
#40 Posted on 18.5.02 2219.50
Reposted on: 18.5.09 2222.12
    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    Here's the kicker -- the U.S. media ALWAYS talks about the American WAR in Vietnam, and the Soviet INVASION of Afghanistan. By any objective description, the US invaded Vietnam between 1965 and 1970, just as the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The South Vietnamese military government and the American troops had about as much popular support with the people of South Vietnam as the Soviets had with the people of Afghanistan (ie next to none). Otherwise, the U.S. wouldn't have lost the war.



Well...not really. The biggest two problems the U.S. had in Vietnam were:
1. The U.S. played the role of "advisers." The theory was that the South Vietnamese would run the war and the U.S. would help out. The theory sucked. There was no clear chain of command between the U.S. and the South Vietnamese or even between U.S. theater commanders and the White House. Nobody bothered to clearly define objectives beyond the ridiculously nebulous "Stop Communism." Theater commanders didn't have the authority to act without consent, and the government here never really decided who could give that consent.

2. Trying to fight a traditional tank war in Vietnam. If you know anything about the geography of Vietnam, then you know that was a hideously bad idea.

Anyway, you're right. It was an invasion, just as the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Germans/Russians/U.S./just about everybody else in WWI and WWII. It was also a "war", even though it's officially referred to as a "police action." And the Soviets lost because the U.S. tossed a few billion dollars Afghanistan's way. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu

    But try talking about "the U.S. invasion of Vietnam". It doesn't sound right, does it? This is where media bias creeps in -- underlying assumptions shared by most people in a country.

    The media in the U.S. talk about the "war" in Vietnam, as if the U.S. army had any right to be there. It's not a conscious bias ... it's just a bias in the American mindset that is reflected by the people in the media. This kind of bias is rife in every country's media, and is only plainly evident to people who don't share the underlying assumptions (like foreigners or Young Republicans who don't agree with the assumptions that Dan Rather reflects).



I would argue that this is cultural bias, instead of any sort of media bias. My main point is that people often paint everyone in the media with the same "liberal" brush when I can tell you from experience that that's not true. Hell, I'm a "conservative" journalist. But I'd ask President Bush questions that are just as tough as the questions I would ask President Clinton. That's objectivity.

To put it bluntly: I REALLY don't like anybody telling me that anybody who works in the media is automatically a left-wing pinko. It's not true.

/edit: Took out some extra spaces in quotes

(edited by Crimedog on 18.5.02 2320)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Michael Moore
Next thread: Bin Laden tape and a "credible" threat
Previous thread: Possible Flame Bait: What would Lieberman and Gore have done if they were in power re: Israel
(2103 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Media Quiet about Pipe Bomber's Liberal LeaningsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.255 seconds.