American Media (or, Where's the Rage?)

"Again, does anybody have an example of how FOX News is biased, since I've seen quite a few accusations of such?"

Several times leading up to the election, they reported news of John Kerry's Vietnam era tours of duty and left out quite a bit of information to make it appear as if he went to Vietnam just so he could run for President. They showed prepackaged "reports" created by the Bush Adminstration during their broadcasts made to show the positives of various policies that Bush had proposed without mentioning that they weren't in fact news stories. Only when The Daily Show pointed this out did they confess to this. On top of that, at various points, toward the end of their newscasts, they closed by saying, "We support our President 100%", the exact same thing that was forced upon other news stations by Sinclair company on other news stations.

Granted, since Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it would stand to reason that his political views would come into play, much the same as the views of those owned by CBS, NBC and ABC's do, but lately, the point of view has become more pronounced than usual.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

nik0tine -- How is the media taking a stance against Mexicans? Are you confusing that with the topic of illegal immigration? I would disagree with the anti-homosexual stance, as well.

---

I am not confusing the two. They are one in the same.

No, nik0tine, you are wrong. Taking a stance against illegal immigration is far from anti-Mexican. However, you have your opinion on it, and I doubt much could dissuade you.

Captain -- So they reported on John Kerry's four months in Vietnam, his bogus Purple Hearts, and the people that served with him that viewed him as a disgrace to the uniform? That makes them biased? John Kerry brought up his Vietnam "service" (not only brought it up but based his campaign on it, instead of the 20 years he had spent in the Senate), and it's wrong for media to look into that and report on it, no matter which way the reporting goes? I'm sure it's perfectly balanced to glorify Kerry's time while villianizing Bush and his service in the Air Guard, "revealing" documents that have been falsified by somebody inside the company, right? Do you have any actual evidence of this "bias", or no?

Quote:

---

During the Bosnia conflict, the Clinton Administration told us that American forces would be home by Christmas 1997. Almost seven years later, they're still over there, and we don't have any liberal complaining--no hearings demanded, no calls for a "plan" or an "exit strategy" or references to Vietnam or the asinine use of the term "quagmire". Yet after less than a year they're whining about Iraq.

---

Hmm...remember all the whining the Republicans did about Clinton keeping our forces over there? Yet now they're complaining about the Democrats doing the same thing about Iraq.

Anyway, I don't pay attention to the mainstream media much - if I do watch it at all, I'll flip back and forth between FOX and CNN. I figure if I get two equally slanted sides to a story, I'll be able to figure out some sort of middle-ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

nik0tine -- How is the media taking a stance against Mexicans? Are you confusing that with the topic of illegal immigration? I would disagree with the anti-homosexual stance, as well.

DMKA -- As The Redneck pointed out, your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The utter ignorance of the statement concerning "racist, narrowminded redneck bastards", though not surprising, is completely irrelevant here, as is the mention of the NAACP or Affirmative Action or how they've well outserved their purpose. There are other posts here for such topics. The past oppression of black people has nothing to do with modern media bias.

You did, however, mention the media focus on the first homosexual divorce. Why did they focus on this? Because homosexual marriage is a relatively new thing, as would be the divorce, making it, well...news. The first homosexual marriages were also a big media focus, does that make them pro-homosexuality? No, because either way, it was news.

Again, does anybody have an example of how FOX News is biased, since I've seen quite a few accusations of such? As The Redneck pointed out, make a reference to their news reporting, not their commentary shows. (Which, when you look at it, are biased and balanced at the same time... Though Bill O'Reilly is conservative, he's followed by Sean Hannity and Alan "Puffy" Colmes ;) , who are conservative and liberal, respectively, and Greta Van Sustren, who I believe is liberal.)

---

sas and redneck you guys are idiots im sorry but i had to say it mainly because you probaly didn't read it.IT read what the media did in the past and they still do it.In crime reports its a half assed description of a black male with faded hair or a black male with dread locks.Witht he gay marriage thing.Fox News was all over that.The Media in america preys onthe fears of white america and dont tell me what i just said is BS because it isn't!Thats what he meant and yes the media has done this and many other things like how everyone said Gore won florida then Fox News comes out and says Bush won florida.That put everything in a uproar and Fox News purposely said that to caused confusion so Bush would get elected.Why you ask?Because Fox News most likely help fund Bush's campaign.

EDIT: Do not insult people in this forum. -Murder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

No, nik0tine, you are wrong. Taking a stance against illegal immigration is far from anti-Mexican. However, you have your opinion on it, and I doubt much could dissuade you.

Captain -- So they reported on John Kerry's four months in Vietnam, his bogus Purple Hearts, and the people that served with him that viewed him as a disgrace to the uniform? That makes them biased? John Kerry brought up his Vietnam "service" (not only brought it up but based his campaign on it, instead of the 20 years he had spent in the Senate), and it's wrong for media to look into that and report on it, no matter which way the reporting goes? I'm sure it's perfectly balanced to glorify Kerry's time while villianizing Bush and his service in the Air Guard, "revealing" documents that have been falsified by somebody inside the company, right? Do you have any actual evidence of this "bias", or no?

---

again dude they did that and The Daily Show cleared it up and the Bush admins did apologize for it. SAS no one will hand over the evidence to you on a silver platter.Go out and look for it like everyone else does.If you have already then i think you just want to say stuff.

"Captain -- So they reported on John Kerry's four months in Vietnam, his bogus Purple Hearts, and the people that served with him that viewed him as a disgrace to the uniform? That makes them biased? John Kerry brought up his Vietnam "service" (not only brought it up but based his campaign on it, instead of the 20 years he had spent in the Senate), and it's wrong for media to look into that and report on it, no matter which way the reporting goes? I'm sure it's perfectly balanced to glorify Kerry's time while villianizing Bush and his service in the Air Guard, "revealing" documents that have been falsified by somebody inside the company, right? Do you have any actual evidence of this "bias", or no?"

The fact that they only showed this aspect of his tour of duty, and never showed soldiers who actually praised Kerry as a war hero, to me, shows an apparent bias. They made it seem as if everyone in uniform had this same opinion, when in reality, it was about 50/50 split, not all one way.

Also, to be clear, the "Swift Boat Vets For Truth" which was since discredited by the Bush Adminstration, though too late for anything really to matter, was what prompted this absurd debate of Vietnam service, Kerry didn't bring it up on his own. If I recall correctly, during the primary in Iowa, "Swift Boat" began running ads attacking his service, thus Kerry fell into the trap of basing his campaign around the past, which was a crippling mistake, but he was not the one to bring it up first.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

sas and redneck you guys are idiots im sorry but i had to say it mainly because you probaly didn't read it.IT read what the media did in the past and they still do it.In crime reports its a half assed description of a black male with faded hair or a black male with dread locks.Witht he gay marriage thing.Fox News was all over that.The Media in america preys onthe fears of white america and dont tell me what i just said is BS because it isn't!Thats what he meant and yes the media has done this and many other things like how everyone said Gore won florida then Fox News comes out and says Bush won florida.That put everything in a uproar and Fox News purposely said that to caused confusion so Bush would get elected.Why you ask?Because Fox News most likely help fund Bush's campaign.

---

In crime reports, suspects are described as the reports are handed up to them--if a six-foot tall young black male with faded hair is suspected of something, that's the description they give. Just like if it was a 5'10" white male, 30 years old with brown hair, that's the description they would give out. You can't be in your right mind and say that somebody is racist because they describe a suspected criminal as that suspected criminal was described to them.

Every news source was "all over" the "gay marriage thing", because it was news. As far as I recall, none of them mentioned how "this is a tragic day for American morality" or anything of the sort, or said anything disrespectful concerning hoomosexuals. They reported the story.

By the way. Bush did win Florida. Would any news agency be wrong to report the truth?

I don't expect everything to be handed to me on a silver platter. I do, however, expect that when a particular argument is used, that the people who use that argument have the sources to back it up. As I have sources to back up my argument, I would expect any opponent to be equally prepared. If you don't have a reference to fall back on, it has already been shown that you don't know what you're talking about, and you refuse to make any attempt to learn about what you're talking about, and thus your arguments are entirely baseless and should be disregarded. I, however, still read your posts and reply to them, as if they were somewhat credible.

Captain -- I've seen at least one Fox News show where they interviewed supporters of Kerry that served with him, so it was far from one-sided. (By the way, if half the soldiers you served with respect you and half don't, you've got some big problems.)

How and when was "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" "discredited" by the Bush administration? The Bush administration refused having anything to do with the Swift Boat Vets, but that's as much as I had heard. And as far as I recall, though Swift Boat Vets may or may not have been in planning earlier, they only got more media attention after Kerry brought up his "service" in Vietnam. They might have made him direct more of his campaign towards his time in Vietnam, but they weren't the first to bring up his disgraceful record.

Okay Sasquatch...People have given why they feel Fox Slants GREAAAAATLY to the right. Now lets see if you can do the same for the "liberal" stations. Lets just narrow it down to CNN.

"How and when was "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" "discredited" by the Bush administration? The Bush administration refused having anything to do with the Swift Boat Vets, but that's as much as I had heard."

As the election was coming to a close, Bush was asked during a press conference about this group and responded that he disagreed and discarded everything that they were saying. He was responding actually to a quote that John McCain had said about them where he had called them "people just out to spread lies" because McCain himself had had people attacking HIS record in the exact same way when he first ran for senator. Bush finished off the answer by saying that he respected John Kerry for going to Vietnam, which left a lot of people off balance because it seemed to be a paradigm shift from how the campaign had been run, but it ended up that in fact, the "Swift Boat Vets" were being run by a fringe group that had at best, superficial ties to the Administration. It was on C-SPAN or C-SPAN2 as best I can recall.

Also, the fact that you can only recall one instance where they showed another view, with regard to Kerry supporters, seems to me, to be a red flag.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

No, nik0tine, you are wrong. Taking a stance against illegal immigration is far from anti-Mexican. However, you have your opinion on it, and I doubt much could dissuade you.

---

You won't agree with me, but allow me to at least explain my logic. Hispanic people come from all over latin America to get into this country so they can feed thier families. People conveniently forget that these people have nothing, not even the simplest of things. They are simply trying to feed thier families. It's either that, or die. Many of these people get beat up, assaulted, robbed, etc. on thier way just to get to mexico. That is BEFORE they try to cross the border. Taking a stance against illegal immigration is taking a stance against these people. Taking a stance against these people is the same as, indirectly, taking a stance against hispanics.

Quote:

---

because McCain himself had had people attacking HIS record in the exact same way when he first ran for senator, and that he (Bush) respected John Kerry for going to Vietnam.

---

McCain had his record attacked By George W. Bush as well when they were running against each other for president in 2000.

Also, here is my question. Why the hell does John Kerry's military service even matter? Anyone who voted against Kerry because of his military service is an idiot. Period.

I mean seriously though. Who gives a flying smurf what Kerry did over 40 years ago? It doesn't matter. Just like the fact that Bush snorted cocain 40 years ago doesn't matter. The fact that any of this stuff is brought up during an election is disgusting. And the fact that people buy into it is worse. People are stupid, they really are.

"Okay Sasquatch...People have given why they feel Fox Slants GREAAAAATLY to the right. Now lets see if you can do the same for the "liberal" stations. Lets just narrow it down to CNN"

Exactly. People have said why "they feel" things. That doesn't matter a bit. Is there any evidence that Fox News supports one political party moreso than another? That's what I'm looking for. When I get that, I'll post evidence of liberal bias in other media sources.

Captain -- According to what you said, Bush disagreed with what the Swift Boat Vets were saying. That doesn't mean it was discredited at all. And I only recall one specific instance in which they interviewed somebody who supported or was involved in the Swift Boat Vets, as well, so that means nothing. Remember, we're not talking about commentary shows, such as The O'Reilly Factor, we're talking about their reporting of the news.

nik0tine -- There is a difference in immigration and illegal immigration. Many Americans would support legal immigration, but not people crossing the border illegally. I would agree that people who disagree with any kind of immigration might could be considered anti-Mexican (or, since you've changed it, anti-Hispanic), but there's no argument against those who don't have a problem with legal immigration. It's like saying some people are anti-poor because they'd rather poor people go out and work for their money than steal it.

Kerry's military record matters because he used it as a major focus in his campaign. If he wasn't talking about how much of a war hero and great leader he was, he would have easily been able to dismiss people like the Swift Boat Vets. I believe when Bush was confronted with his alleged cocaine use, he simply said something along the lines of "I did things I shouldn't have" and moved on (I know that's far from a direct quote, but I'm sure y'all catch my drift). If Kerry had never brought up his military record (or not been afraid to release the entire thing, which he never did), when confronted with people like the Swift Boat Vets, he might would have been able to dismiss them with a simple "I did things then that I am not proud of, and I have grown since then and become more mature and responsible." Except that would mean that he'd have to base his campaign on his twenty years of failed Senate service, being one of the most liberal (and one of the most absent) Senators in office, and he knew that would have meant instant failure as well.

Quote:

---

nik0tine -- There is a difference in immigration and illegal immigration. Many Americans would support legal immigration, but not people crossing the border illegally. I would agree that people who disagree with any kind of immigration might could be considered anti-Mexican (or, since you've changed it, anti-Hispanic), but there's no argument against those who don't have a problem with legal immigration. It's like saying some people are anti-poor because they'd rather poor people go out and work for their money than steal it.

---

Only so much legal immigration would be allowed though. The government will only allow a certain amount of hispanics to immigrate into this country legally. Why? Because racism would undoubtedly be spawned from it, and thats a fact. When there is a large number of one race, the majority gets racist. Before the second world war, countries like Britain, France, etc. would only allow so many Jews to immigrate to thier countries. They were fleeing Nazi persecution, but after X amount of Jews had immigrated, they closed thier doors and said "Sorry, you're just going to have to deal with the concentration camps." After a period of time, America won't allow any hispanics to immigrate even legally.

I'm going to kind of skip around a bit, since there's been a lot of posts here and an answer point-by-point would take up a helluva lot of room.

First, on illegal immigration--
There are many, many, many immigrants who came to this country legally. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't quick. These people, to put it bluntly, are pretty dang cool--whether they come from Mexico or Argentina or Georgia (the country......) or South Korea or wherever else.

My problem is with the people whose very first act on US soil is to break the law. Supporting these people, IMnsHO, is a slap in the face to the people who worked hard and suffered to get here.

And the majority of people who get into the US pay a "coyote" large sums of money to get across--when you can afford to pay large sums of money, you're not penniless.

John Kerry wanted to be hired for one of the most important jobs our nation has to offer. We, as his employers, have a right to know the man's qualifications. He's been running as a war hero since 1984, and it was only a matter of time before someone started wondering whether he was really such a hero or not--especially since Bush's record (and the nonsense "AWOL" accusations) had been attacked in the 2004 campaign and even earlier, in the 2000 campaign. Even so, the majority of the flack Kerry took was not for his Band-Aid Purple Hearts butfor the vicious slander of American troops afterwords. Even conservatives, before the truth came out, noted Kerry's service was admirable but also noted that it doesn't change what he's done since; his acts of slander, his infamous vote against the first Gulf War, the fact that the man's a gigolo telling the 'little people' how the economy should work, the his-not-his medals, his claim that Nixon sent him into Cambodia in Christmas of 1968 (quick--who was president in 1968?), the "unnamed foreign leaders" who supported him (,a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137366,00.html">Osama bin Laden on the '04 elections: "The wise man doesn?t squander his security, wealth, and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.") etc.

And the split was more like 250/15 than 50/50....

FOX News also notes support for Kerry here, and here, and it was spoken of here, and . (I know that ain't grammatically correct, but the "ands" let me space out the links so it wouldn't look like one big hyperlink.)

Quote:

---

Okay Sasquatch...People have given why they feel Fox Slants GREAAAAATLY to the right. Now lets see if you can do the same for the "liberal" stations. Lets just narrow it down to CNN.

---

Like this? Or this? Or this (wherein Newsweek's Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas agreed that the media contribution to Kerry/Edwards may have been as much as 15 points)? Or good ol' Eason Jordan? Or CNN's admission to hiding news in Iraq?

LordBlazer--
Please tell me you're making some kind of joke.

Oh--and FOX said that Bush won Florida because *gasp* Bush won Florida. Funny how that works, ain't it?

"John Kerry wanted to be hired for one of the most important jobs our nation has to offer. We, as his employers, have a right to know the man's qualifications. He's been running as a war hero since 1984, and it was only a matter of time before someone started wondering whether he was really such a hero or not--especially since Bush's record (and the nonsense "AWOL" accusations) had been attacked in the 2004 campaign and even earlier, in the 2000 campaign. Even so, the majority of the flack Kerry took was not for his Band-Aid Purple Hearts butfor the vicious slander of American troops afterwords. Even conservatives, before the truth came out, noted Kerry's service was admirable but also noted that it doesn't change what he's done since; his acts of slander, his infamous vote against the first Gulf War, the fact that the man's a gigolo telling the 'little people' how the economy should work, the his-not-his medals, his claim that Nixon sent him into Cambodia in Christmas of 1968 (quick--who was president in 1968?), the "unnamed foreign leaders" who supported him (,a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137366,00.html">Osama bin Laden on the '04 elections: "The wise man doesn?t squander his security, wealth, and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.") etc.

And the split was more like 250/15 than 50/50...."

I think we must run in very different circles because the vast majority of ex and retired soldiers that I have talked too these last few years actually had MORE respect for Kerry because of what he did when he returned from Vietnam. The fact that he threw away his career to stand up and speak out against what he thought was an unjust war took guts and a great deal of integrity. His fatal flaw was that he backed down over the years and became just another politician from Washington as he tried to appear as if he was a War hero when in reality, he was very much against the war.

Perhaps this gap in reaction is due to the culture gap. I haven't had the chance to talk to many soldiers who are still on active duty or who served in the Gulf wars. The vast majority of soldiers I've talked to served in Vietnam, so perhaps over the years, the gap has changed the opinions of people who would serve after Vietnam, which is fine and in a way makes sense since Vietnam was a war where everyone came home damaged and many people don't really want to remember.

Also, doesn't EVERY politician tell us how the economy works? That's an age old political tactic.

Take care all.