Printable View
Thank you. I'd also like to add "find alternative fuels". Really, it aint that hard.Quote:
If you don't l;ike paying so much for gas, drive less. Drive a more fuel efficient car. Get rid of you SUV and get a Honda civic. Ride a bike. Move to Alaska and travel by dogsled.
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.Quote:
Like I mentioned in the post Sasquatch linked to, try checking "Matthew Shepard" vs. "Jesse Dirkhising" or "Jeffry Curley" and see which event the media thinks is more important--a homosexual brutally murdered by two heterosexuals or a heterosexual brutally murdered by two homosexuals. I guarantee that Shepard got more coverage than Jesse or Jeffry combined.
Then try checking "James Byrd" vs. "Ken Tillery" to see the same bias in racial matters.
I don't see why "left-wing extremists" plan to ban all mention of religion. I have met many left-wing extremists that do not wish to ban religion. Even though most of the left-wing extremists I have met do wish for that, but well, it's not always like that.Quote:
IMHO, there is a real difference between being a left-wing extreamist, and being a liberal. Banning all mention of religion, for example, is not in line with most liberal values.
First, an anti-conservative organization isn't exactly an objective source--and MediaMatters in particulary is well-known for, well, sucking.Quote:
here are examples of Conservative Bias.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412200001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407060009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270003
And at least one liberal bias study has proven to be less than 100% accurate.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005
At any rate, if the media were as liberal as conservatives say it is, then why are liberals calling the media conservative?
Second, MediaMatters notes--in order--Novak, a conservative columnist (note that Novak almost certainly meant the Deficit rather than National Debt--since the deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower... but either way, he's not a journalist, he's a columnist); a piece that also has the correction acknowledging it was incorrect at the bottom; an unreported poll which, not being able to see the poll myself, I can't say said or did not say what they claim it does (although the law of averages suggests it didn't), that came from someone giving them 4 days to report it and then running the critique; a writer pissed that CNN didn't report a "Bush Flip-flop" that the New York Times reported--a perusal of the NYT article shows that the "flip-flop" doesn't exist; and a piece that claims Stossel relied upon one study to find a result when there were actually several such. Six non-exmples out of six "examples"--not a very good record.
Likewise, the piece claims that people were labeled "conservative" more than six times as often as folks were labeled "liberal" because there are that many conservatives and liberals out there--logic a fourth-grader could pierce, they call it. Which makes sense, because the rebuttal sounds like something a fourth-grader would try.
Actually, the political views of the victims are indeed a non-issue. However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched--and the media publicizes events that uphold that view while ignoring events that would downplay it.Quote:
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.
*shrug* There's not a real answer to this question because there are innumerable facts that tell you innumerable things, and everyone is going to slant them in favor of their argument. Every reporter on the planet is biased because they're human just like you. If you don't think you're getting accurate information, find another media outlet, it isn't like you don't have options.
Out of curiosity, if the names of Ken Tillery and Jesse Dirkhising AND Jeffry Curley are so very absent from the media, how exactly do you expect anyone to find out anything about them? Doubly curious is why you expect no one else to have heard of them, because I have and while I do have a substantial interest in the news, I am by no means a media fiend.
Just curious.
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape? Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?Quote:
However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched
Once again, Shadow Nexus has nailed it.Quote:
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape? Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?
The first one probably is a columnist, I'm not really familiar with his work specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
But why would the "law of averages" automatically point to bias if they don't report the poll the way conservatives have spun the story. The party line of Republicans says that it was "values" that won the election. It might not have actually been that way.
And I've never seen any studies that proved that doctors order more tests specifically because of lawsuits, which is the gist of the claim.
he sites HHS as doing a study, but the only similar "study" was one done in 2003, and all they did was site a poll from a group dedicated to ending a "lawsuit culture". That is not unbiased. A poll funded by people opposed to trial lawyers will find that trial lawyers are causing problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stossel
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency. So it makes sense that 1.) they talk to more conservatives. This includes people labeling themselves as conservative commentators. How else would you label an Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity if he's commenting on a news story? 2.) They do label liberals, they name people as "former clinton advisor". There's no way that a person with an IQ above room temperature can't figure out that a person who worked for Bill Clinton is a liberal, nor is there any way that a person labeled as "former Bush advisor" is going to be mistaken for a liberal. Just because they don't use the actual word liberal does not mean that a person has not in fact been labelled as such.Quote:
Likewise, the piece claims that people were labeled "conservative" more than six times as often as folks were labeled "liberal" because there are that many conservatives and liberals out there--logic a fourth-grader could pierce, they call it. Which makes sense, because the rebuttal sounds like something a fourth-grader would try.
Actually, the political views of the victims are indeed a non-issue. However, it's liberals, not conservatives, presenting a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals can't go outside for fear of being lynched--and the media publicizes events that uphold that view while ignoring events that would downplay it.[/QUOTE]Quote:
How is the race or sexual orientation of the victim relate to the media being liberal or conservative? Can't a black homosexual be conservative? Can't a white heterosexual be liberal? I don't see your point. I don't see why race/sexual preference and political orientation are related.
But republicans gain from people being afraid of crime too. If people are afraid of criminals, they'll favor harsher punishments for criminals, concealed carry, more money for police. All things conservatives favor.
No, but we don't try to pretend there are race wars going on out there. Racism is certainly out there, but it's not an epidemic and it's not some problem requiring more government intervention.Quote:
They are? And conservatives present a view of the world where black folks or homosexuals go outside to lynch and rape?
Well... basically, yeah.Quote:
Or the conservatives tell the truth and the liberals are liars?
The "law of averages" refers to MediaMatters' track record--more likely than not, their info is going to be false, because it almost always is.Quote:
But why would the "law of averages" automatically point to bias if they don't report the poll the way conservatives have spun the story. The party line of Republicans says that it was "values" that won the election. It might not have actually been that way.
The problem is, that's not the only study. Footnote 42 of the HHS report cites a Florida study of 1573 doctors that got the same results--66% confirmed it. So why would they claim Stossel 'relied' on one study, when there was obviously more than one cited right there in the report?Quote:
he sites HHS as doing a study, but the only similar "study" was one done in 2003, and all they did was site a poll from a group dedicated to ending a "lawsuit culture". That is not unbiased.
Because there aren't any liberals making war protests, or filibustering, or slandering Bush like they have been for the last few years, or chipping in about any of the various issues people are concerned about? But assuming that conservatives are "making news" more--6 times more?Quote:
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency.
Actually, ABC News chose George Stephanopoulos and David Gergen for their opposing analysts of the 2000 election. Both of whom worked for Mr. Fluffy Bunny.Quote:
There's no way that a person with an IQ above room temperature can't figure out that a person who worked for Bill Clinton is a liberal, nor is there any way that a person labeled as "former Bush advisor" is going to be mistaken for a liberal
OK, I get it. Wow, liberals really are evil. However, in a conservative biased media, there would be no other bias than the golden and shiny truth.Quote:
Well... basically, yeah.
Yes, because conservatives are all good Christian people who follow biblical values, and therefore never lie, kill, steal, ect. and liberals are just evil liars and black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
There isn't much coverage of war protests. though. The only "protest" coverage I've seen (not counting c-span) is a guy who put up a soldier hung in effigy on his house. That's really it. They don't show anti-war protests anywhere in the US. If the media was liberal, i'd expect them to show the war protests. It would make it seem that the people of the US oppose the war. According to you, that's what the liberal media wants you to think, right?Quote:
Quote:
You didn't read it very carefully. They said that there were more people labelled conservative because there were more conservatives making news. That makes perfect sense, as right now conservatives hold most seats in congress and the presidency.
Because there aren't any liberals making war protests, or filibustering, or slandering Bush like they have been for the last few years, or chipping in about any of the various issues people are concerned about? But assuming that conservatives are "making news" more--6 times more?
And if you want to talk about "slandering" presidents, if the media was liberal, why did all the charges by Republicans about Bill Clinton get so much coverage? They investigated Whitewater for years, and it was reported heavily by the press, yet they never actually found anything.
Other than the memo CBS thing, there hasn't been any slander of Bush by the media. One story that was big for maybe two weeks vs 3-4 years of reporting on the investigations on Bill Clinton (Which included rape charges from Arkansas btw). I just don't see a lot of Bush slander.
They "NEVER ACTUALLY FOUND ANYTHING"?!? Are you serious? They found that he was having the AK State Patrol bring women to a hotel room to trade sexual favors for jobs! Where the hell did you pull that they "never actually found anything"? Or are you intentionally ignoring bad things that liberals do?
Kind of like you guys ignore or rationalize the bad things conservatives do? *gasp*Quote:
Or are you intentionally ignoring bad things that liberals do?
That's a long way to drive, all the way from Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
That wasn't whitewater. Whitewater was a land deal of some kind that was investigated and reported on four at least 6 years, even though they could never find any wrongdoing. That's why the conservatives decided to impeach the president for having an affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch