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

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.

Charles Pickering has been waiting more than two years for confirmation to the Fifth US Court of Appeals, and is still being Borked. There's a filibuster out because of his support of segregation. Never mind the fact that this 'support' consists of a paper he wrote in law school wherein he spoke of but didn't protest Mississippi's anti-miscegenation (anti-mixed-race marriage) law. Never mind the fact that he testified against the KKK in the 60's. (Testifying against the KKK in southern Mississippi in 1967 wasn't exactly safe...), nevermind that he's got vigorous support from black folks in his home state--he's gettin' Borked. Meanwhile, Robert Byrd (D-KKK-WV) who used the term 'nigger' in an interview and excused it by saying he was 'raised that way'--and, by the by, used to be a Grand Kleagle for the KKK--is still high up in Democrat leadership.

The LA Times showed its support for Gray Davis by searching for women to accuse Shwarzenegger of groping them--at least one, according to the LA Weekly, came forward at the "urging" of a close colleague of Gov. Grayout Davis. Edtitorials featuring the title "Win One for the Groper" have come up, and Gary Trudeau, further proving that he hasn't had a grip on reality since 1963, referred to him as "Gropenfuhrer" in his nationally syndicated comic--combining the engineered accusations with the typical liberal tactic for when your opponent realizes you have jack for evidence: Compare Your Opponent to Hitler. Clinton, however, recieves no such condemnation for Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, etc., etc., ad nauseum, nor for the rape accusation standing against him. So where were the feminists screaming that Schartzeneggers accusers must have had a book deal, that it doesn't affect the way he does his job, that it's all about sex, or that it was just his private life? And people wonder why we don't take these broads seriously....

School vouchers are the Antichrist, according to the Democratic party--yet these same democrats send their own kids to private schools. Public teachers in urban areas are far more likely than the average parent to choose private schools for their own kids (At the bottom of this page, cited). Algore, who's children attended the exclusive St. Alban's, made opposition to school vouchers a cornerstone of his campaign. Biilzebubba, who vetoed a voucher proposal while Chelsea was attending Sidwell Friends, had the same thought in mind, apparently--choice is good for me, but bad for the peasants. And, of course, he (and they) gets a free ride on it from the press.

In the 200 primary, President Bush decided to forego the federal matching funds, which meant he also didn't have to follow the spending caps. The press went nuts. The Washington Post commented that he was "Thumbing his nose" at the campaign finance system, and Gore's media consultant claimed "He is running rough-shod over it and the American people will see that." In November, 2003, Democrat candidate Howard dean chose to forego the federal matching funds--now the Washington Post says, "One can't fault Mr. Dean--or any other dandidate--for opting out." Strange, they were able to fault the Republican candidate just fine...

House Speaker Newt Gingrich accepted a $4.5 million book deal. Politicians and the liberal media hounded him relentlessly until he gave up the advance. Senator Hillary Clinton recieved not 4.5, but $8 million from Simon and Shuster for her White House memoirs--the deal signed a few hours before she was sworn in as a senator. And the rage... just didn't flow. The same guys who were so pissed at Gingrich didn't have any problem at all with Shrillary.

But now, on to name recognition...

In October of 1998, a homosexual man named Matthew Shepard was murdered because of his lifestyle choice--beaten nearly to death and left tied to a fence in the Wyoming winter for the elements to finish the job. Probably you heard about it--after all, he was all over the news. Maybe you heard people blaming Christianity for the attack, such as Deborah Mathis on Inside Washington on October 17--"The Christian Right per se and some particular members on Capitol Hill have helped inflame the air so that the air that these bad people breathed that night was filled..." Or heard Katie Couric on the Today show asking Elizabeth Birch, head of the Human Rights Campaign, "Do you believe this campaign ? this ad campaign launched by some conservative groups ? really contributed somehow to Matthew Shepard's death?" and Birch's reply, "I do, Katie." (Interview with Janet Folger of the Center for Reclaiming America and Elizabeth Birch of the Human Rights Campaign Fund by Katie Couric, October 13, 1998. ). Or, perhaps, the piece in Newsweek, reading "Well, the consequences of condemnation can turn out to be death.... But just as the white racists created a climate for lynching blacks, just as hate radio created a climate for militias, so the constant degrading of homosexuals is exacting a toll in blood.... Discerning clergymen and moralists can hate the sin and love the sinner; but by the time the homophobic message reaches the angry guys sitting in the bar, that distinction has been lost." (Jonathan Alter, "Trickle-Down Hate," Newsweek, October 26, 1998.) (and another by Couric here, if you can watch .ram movies) But have you heard of Jesse Dirkhising? In September of 1999, Jesse was kidnapped, repeatedly raped and sodomized with objects, and then left tied in a position where he couldn't breathe while his two tormentors took a break. Said one of his rapists in this story quoted by a homosexual-advocacy news source, "I'm sorry that Jesse is dead. Jesse was a very good boy." Just try to read that and not shudder. But back to the original point, where was the media outcry? For that matter, where's the outcry about Jeffrey Curley, who was murdered during an attempted rape by two homosexual men? (Here, and commentary here and here.) Where's the media outcry over it? In fact, where's the media MENTION of either of these two? If you have access to LEXIS-NEXIS, then by all means, do a search on these three names and see how the numbers run.

While you're at it, take a look at the name James Byrd. I'm sure it's familiar--the black guy who was dragged to death by three white thugs down in Jasper, Texas. The NAACP even used his death for political gain in national ads. But have you heard of Ken Tillery? Within 5 years of James Byrd, also brutally murdered because of his race--in fact, within a couple miles of where James Byrd Jr. was murdered... in fact, pretty close to the same procedure. Ken was hitchhiking, picked up by three guys who offered him a right but instead drove him to a remote area and murdered him by dragging him beneath their car's undercarriage. The reason you saw Byrd's name all over the media and not Tillery's? Byrd was a black man, murdered by white thugs. Tillery was a white man, murdered by black thugs.

I don't trust much of what the media say or do. They just like to tear people down. I don't think the media have a major liberal bias (although some do, while others have a conservative bias) but more they just like to go for what they think will be the big story. When liberals are in power they think liberals are popular so they tend to lean more liberal. When conservatives are in power they tend to lean more conservative. Neither side should really consider the media to be on their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

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.

---

Whens the last time u heard of an American soldier dying in the Bosnian Conflict, was it even close to the blood shed going on in Iraq. Not even a comparison. Vietnam however is ALMOST a comparison in terms of blood shed, but its alot closer than the Bosnian conflict ever was.

And when u enter a war, for all the wrong reasons, and no we dont give a damn about the Iraqi people, or else we might have went in to stop the genocide going on in Darfur , Then i think people have a right to complain. Not that we should abandon the Iraqi people, but the President still hasnt admitted to even making a mistake.

Also if u think the media is too liberal, watch fox news, if they arent conservative enough for u... well u might just be a right wing radical, only alot more radical.

First of all, the Vietnam War involved 50,000 American deaths. To claim that Vietnam is almost a comparison to Iraq in terms of bloodshed is just.. unfathomable.

And in Darfur we're going through the United Nations--same thing we tried to do in Iraq before we realized that France and Germany were going to defend Sodom do the end for their sweet oil contracts... whaddaya know, blood for oil....

And finally, if you don't think the media is liberal, then go to the library and run the LEXIS-NEXIS searches on them names.

So what? Most people, especially those that are centrists, conservatives, or libertarian, already know that most of the mainstream media is biased. It's only some of the liberals that don't see the liberal slant. The only thing that has a right-wing bias to it is talk radio, mainly because that involves responding to calls from listeners and liberals would just sound too silly if they insulted EVERYBODY that called in to challenge them.

Vietnam is nowhere near Iraq. And there's no need for Bush to admit making a mistake when it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. He's already said that we didn't find the caches of WMDs we expected to find, what else do you want?

FOX News is as slanted to the right as CNN is to the left, MAYBE. But that still doesn't account for NBC, ABC, and CBS. Do you have any examples of right-wing bias by FOX News?

Quote:

---

Do you have any examples of right-wing bias by FOX News?

---

Please note, FOX NEWS. Quoting Bill O'Reilly means absolutely jack, because he's supposed to be biased--he's not very conservative, but he makes his living as a conservative show host, not as a journalist, just like Larry King makes his living as a liberal host, Sean Hannity as a conservative host, Alan Combes (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) as a liberal host, etc.

My biggest problem with the media is the love fest it has with itself right now, on either side. All the news networks in the US treat themselves as the be all and end all when it comes to news, never factoring in human error or bias, one way or the other. Stating that your news is "fair and balanced" when the slant is obvious is just as bad as stating that its "unbiased and complete" (one of CNN's taglines).

Yet the deeper issue, is that the media has helped to fuel the polarization of this country in that we are now pumped full of talking heads that just say what their side wants them to say and nothing else.
The screaming, arguing and bickering does little to solve any of the real problems that this country and world face, yet draws ratings because right now, it feeds into the frenzy that is happening everywhere.

We are a nation greatly divided, and this divide will only get worse if we feed into our differences and allow those on the far right and left to define the course of action for the country, when most of this country is actually closer together than we seem to realize on a great deal.

Take care all.

I am a student of the media, so to speak, and aspiring journalism. Much of the problem is what will and will not sell. The media is not a socialist function, and thus it must be capable of supporting itself. Thus, the media is overtaken by what sells, and given the level of education and emphasis on higher thought we have in this country, the media can only sell itself through things people want to see, which tend to be sensationalistic trash (see: Anna Coulter and Michael Moore).

Journalistic integrity is still being taught, fortunately, but it seems it keeps getting trampled by the bottom line.

I always laugh when I hear people say the media is "bias left-wing liberal". If only it were true.

Who's been more opressed through the history of this country: Whites or Blacks?

I thought so.

What's been a more common occurence: Persecution of Homosexuals by Heterosexuals or the other way around?

I thought so.

That will answer your question. Do I think it's right? No, I wish we could all just get past all the bull and live...but unfortunately, we still have a ton of racist, narrowminded redneck bastards. They are the reason things like the NAACP, Affirmative Action, and differences in what makes news and what doesn't exsist.

But then, is the news not interested in what will gain more attention? For some reason I do think a black guy being killed by two white guys, and a gay guy being killed by some other guys because he's gay would gain more attention, because they're involving big issues at hand and subcultures within our society. Plus I mean, be realistic about what happens more often. It makes me remember a few months ago when the first gay divorce was filed, a bunch of anti-gay people were like "SEE LOOK! THEY DON'T TAKE MARRIAGE SERIOUSLY! IT'S JUST A GAME AND THEY ARE DEFILING IT NOTHING MORE!"....but yet the millions of heterosexual divorces are just peachy?

I don't even watch the news, because I think it's all crap personally (save the BBC), plus it's on television...and don't even get me started on television.

DMKA--
Congratulations; black people have suffered more abuse than white people, and heterosexuals beat the hell out of homosexuals than vice versa.

What this has to do with the media's obvious underrepresentation of news that doesn't fit their agenda is still unknown, but I'm sure those are important parts of many other debates that have nothing at all to do with this thread.

Redneck, I think he means that the media tends to take the stance against homosexuals, and in the the past, took the side against the blacks. At the moment, they are also taking the side against the Mexicans. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news all seem to adhere to these rules. I cannot comment on any other news stations because I don't think I get them, and have thuse, never seen them. Also, at least around here, ALL local news stations seem to have a conservative bias.

A local Newspaper called The Daily Oklahoman is so damn biased mainly because the Gaylord family owns it and it kinda pisses me off how its so censored.They also somehow own our boradcasting stations.

You rememebr that episode of saturday night live with Al Sharptin hosting it?

Well in oklahoma no one got to see it.Instead we were shown a rerun.Now for me I was pissed because everyone has been talking aobut how funny it was.Another thing i was pissed at was how the media didnt catch this.But hey who cares about censorship?

While in the past the media often did take an anti-black stance--unfortunately, most of the nation did, after all--I disagree wholeheartedly that they do so now, nor that they take an anti-homosexual stance.

In fact, as I mentioned earlier--run the numbers on those names, and you'll see exactly the opposite.

Quote:

---

While in the past the media often did take an anti-black stance--unfortunately, most of the nation did, after all--I disagree wholeheartedly that they do so now, nor that they take an anti-homosexual stance.

---

I will agree that they no longer take an anti-black stance, and neither does the majority of our society. However, I must disagree with you about the anti-homosexual stance. The media does have an anti-homosexual stance, and so does the majority of our nation.

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.)

"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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It must be, because I've yet to meet a soldier or ex-soldier I've talked to (and with three years in I've certainly had the chance to talk with many) who enjoyed being dishonestly accused of some of the most vicious crimes imaginable--poisoning wells, rape, shooting people for fun, razing the countryside "in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn", etc.

Protesting the war is one thing; some people protested it because they hated America, some protested it because they supported Communism, and many others protested it for good and valid reasons. Outright, vicious slander is another thing entirely.

And while telling us what he or she would do for the economy (whether that's manage, replace, or just get the hell out of the way) is indeed part of a politician's job, I was referring to the irony involved in a man who made 600 million by marrying rich widows making comments on how to earn money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

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.

---

Ahh but you see its rarely a white guy ..Rarely and when someone who is arrested that fits the description.rather they did it or not they'll rot in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them.

Quote:

---

Ahh but you see its rarely a white guy ..Rarely and when someone who is arrested that fits the description.rather they did it or not they'll rot in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them.

---

I'm probably gonna hate myself for this when I check again after work tomorrow, and Sasquatch is probably gonna laugh at me, but what the hell--I'll bite.

Which African-American person has rotted in jail until they got a bogus confession out of him/her?

Let the hilarity ensue.....

"And while telling us what he or she would do for the economy (whether that's manage, replace, or just get the hell out of the way) is indeed part of a politician's job, I was referring to the irony involved in a man who made 600 million by marrying rich widows making comments on how to earn money."

To be fair, ALL major politicians, including the current occupant of the White House, live in a financial bubble that most of us can only dream of. A recent report found that in order to actually run for President, you need at least 100 million dollars, which makes sense when you factor in all the expenses of campaigning.

"Protesting the war is one thing; some people protested it because they hated America, some protested it because they supported Communism, and many others protested it for good and valid reasons. Outright, vicious slander is another thing entirely."

See that's where the difference was in the opinion of the folks I've had the honor of talking to. They felt that Kerry said what they couldn't and said that many soldiers, deep down, felt the same way, though due to their duty and oaths sworn, they'd never bring themselves to say much of anything for fear of being labeled a traitor, or slanderer, as Kerry was. It would seem that their fears were justified.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Quote:

---

Ahh but you see its rarely a white guy ..Rarely and when someone who is arrested that fits the description.rather they did it or not they'll rot in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them.

---

I'm probably gonna hate myself for this when I check again after work tomorrow, and Sasquatch is probably gonna laugh at me, but what the hell--I'll bite.

Which African-American person has rotted in jail until they got a bogus confession out of him/her?

Let the hilarity ensue.....

---

throughout the history of this country a heafty number and it really isn't just african americans its any young male..

also that thing on what fox news duirng the 2000 election.WEll when fox news said that.They created a whole domino effect and they knew this would happen.They knew a lot of BS would be created and the supreme court will most likely call in favor for bush to be president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"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.

---

Thank you for proving my point that it is the same on the other side.

"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."

As The Redneck said, there's a difference between speaking out against a war you disagree with and slandering the brave soldiers who fought that war. And I've been in the military for the better part of three years now, I would also agree with The Redneck when I say that I've never met a fellow soldier who enjoys being slandered, especially with so vicious of accusations.

"Ahh but you see its rarely a white guy ..Rarely and when someone who is arrested that fits the description.rather they did it or not they'll rot in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them."

I doubt I can say this without you thinking I'm "racist", so what the hell. THAT'S BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS RARELY A WHITE GUY. And point us in the direction of more than one instance (in recent history) in which somebody, who was not involved at all, has "[rotted] in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them," would you please?

"also that thing on what fox news duirng the 2000 election.WEll when fox news said that.They created a whole domino effect and they knew this would happen.They knew a lot of BS would be created and the supreme court will most likely call in favor for bush to be president."

The Supreme Court didn't call for anybody to be President, they simply said "alright, that's enough of the damn recounts, count the whole state or stop counting entirely." Bush won Florida. That was more than five years ago, get over it already. Be comforted in the knowledge that the Democrats will most likely try to cheat out a win in the next election, too, if they don't really earn it. Hell, it's happened two elections in a row, why not make it three?

"Thank you for proving my point that it is the same on the other side."

Proving your point? You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Fox News is biased. If and when (mainly IF) that evidence is provided, I will gladly provide evidence against the "balance" of other news outlets. In fact, after multiple requests for such evidence, you have yet to deny accusations that most media outlets are slanted to the left. So, thank you for helping me to prove my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"Thank you for proving my point that it is the same on the other side."

Proving your point? You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Fox News is biased. If and when (mainly IF) that evidence is provided, I will gladly provide evidence against the "balance" of other news outlets. In fact, after multiple requests for such evidence, you have yet to deny accusations that most media outlets are slanted to the left. So, thank you for helping me to prove my point.

---

I believe ed is saying that you proved his point that those who claim the mainstream media has a liberal bias are also unable to base this assertion on anything other than feelings and opinions. Ed is saying that you calling CNN liberally biased is just as valid as him calling FOX News conservatively biased.

When I said same on the other side, I meant not bias at all and it is the view that wants to believe it is bias. Also you are being one sided on this. You expect others to prove that Fox is bias as they claim but appearantly you don't have to prove that other new outlets such as CNN is bias. There is always going to be a bit of bias everywhere here and there but for the most part I believe the news is pretty fair. I may end up seeing it that way because I mainly read news and don't really watch the news.

Also what eestlinc said. He said what I meant, in ways, better than I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I doubt I can say this without you thinking I'm "racist", so what the hell. THAT'S BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS RARELY A WHITE GUY. And point us in the direction of more than one instance (in recent history) in which somebody, who was not involved at all, has "[rotted] in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them," would you please?

---

Thats got to be the biggest pile of BS ive ever heard. We've debated on this before. Now, while i DONT agree with what lordblazer said, your statement is equally false. The crime always being reported is usually a black guy, but you cant say that a white guy is rarely the criminal. Thats stupid. Sheer numbers will tell you that there should be more white guys as criminals than black guys. Its just that, when black guys commit crimes, its easier to point the finger. Why? Because when a black guy commits a crime, its usually in a black neighborhood against another black person. But when a white guy commits a crime, its harder to tell. Also, to me, and this is just what i see, whenever they dont give a criminal description, its usually a white guy who commited the crime. But, when they do give a description its always a black guy. Now i wont say that its like that everywhere, but thats definately how it is in DC.

Now as for the News stations being biased. Who cares if news stations biased. Its nothing wrong with that. Every orginazation has the right to take up a side on issues. I dont see the problem.

Haha, lordblazer. I'm also in Oklahellma, and the Daily Oklahoman and the Gaylords are such crap. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

DMKA -- As The Redneck pointed out, your post has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

---

Umm...it couldn't have more to do with it. o_O

"As The Redneck said, there's a difference between speaking out against a war you disagree with and slandering the brave soldiers who fought that war. And I've been in the military for the better part of three years now, I would also agree with The Redneck when I say that I've never met a fellow soldier who enjoys being slandered, especially with so vicious of accusations."

Once again, I think that we must run in very different circles, as the folks I talked to didn't view what was being said as slander, but viewed it as something that they wanted to forget, but had happened and were surprised someone was actually speaking about it and in turn, welcoming the slander onto himself.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I doubt I can say this without you thinking I'm "racist", so what the hell. THAT'S BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL IS RARELY A WHITE GUY. And point us in the direction of more than one instance (in recent history) in which somebody, who was not involved at all, has "[rotted] in jail until they get a bogus confession out of them," would you please?

---

Thats got to be the biggest pile of BS ive ever heard. We've debated on this before. Now, while i DONT agree with what lordblazer said, your statement is equally false. The crime always being reported is usually a black guy, but you cant say that a white guy is rarely the criminal. Thats stupid. Sheer numbers will tell you that there should be more white guys as criminals than black guys. Its just that, when black guys commit crimes, its easier to point the finger. Why? Because when a black guy commits a crime, its usually in a black neighborhood against another black person. But when a white guy commits a crime, its harder to tell. Also, to me, and this is just what i see, whenever they dont give a criminal description, its usually a white guy who commited the crime. But, when they do give a description its always a black guy. Now i wont say that its like that everywhere, but thats definately how it is in DC.

Now as for the News stations being biased. Who cares if news stations biased. Its nothing wrong with that. Every orginazation has the right to take up a side on issues. I dont see the problem.

---

arrggh!!! i meant the white guy is rarely reported on a criminal description on the news.

Watch the (edit:Leftist) documentary Outfoxed if u want evidence of Fox's slant to the right. Anyone with cable t.v. and a political view can see it, can we produce documentation, or hidden microphone recordings, of course not. But we can see it.

I too am tired of politcal bias, btw CNN is in NO way shape or form bias, only bias ive ever seen is Paul Begala and Robert Novak on the crossfire. CBS is lightly left so ive noticed.

I hate it when i hear someone try and blame the soldiers, like what happened after Vietnam. But i dont think we should just pretend like the crimes committed over there never happened. There were good soldiers, but there were also ALOT of disgulted teens drafted into war they wanted no part of, and they took out their anger on the fellow soldiers, subordinates, drugs, and the Vietnamese people occasionally. When it comes to a draft not everyone feels the desire to fight for the flag and defend it.

eestlinc/ed -- I have said many times over that I will gladly post evidence of liberal media bias as soon as those claiming that Fox News is oh-so biased towards the right, and I have yet to see anything remotely close to a valid point that claims such against Fox News. And I maintain that. If you believe so strongly that Fox News is leaning towards the right, it should be no problem finding statistics and examples of their bias, should it? And, once I see that, I will post examples of liberal bias in the rest of the media.

"Thats got to be the biggest pile of BS ive ever heard. We've debated on this before. ... Sheer numbers will tell you that there should be more white guys as criminals than black guys. Its just that, when black guys commit crimes, its easier to point the finger. ... Also, to me, and this is just what i see, whenever they dont give a criminal description, its usually a white guy who commited the crime. But, when they do give a description its always a black guy. Now i wont say that its like that everywhere, but thats definately how it is in DC."

First of all, you live in DC, where there's a high population of black people, and a high crime rate. That having been said, we haven't "debated" on this before, I believe most of your "debate" tactic was calling me racist and saying I don't understand anything about black people because I'm not white. Sheer numbers DO tell us that there SHOULD BE more white criminals than black criminals, because there is a higher population of white people in this country than black people, but that's not always the case. If black people commit more crimes in a certain area, you can't whine that criminal reports are more often black people than anybody else. And I don't watch local news, I only watch national news, but most of the descriptions of criminals that I see are for major crimes, like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc., and most of those are *gasp* white people! Amazing, ain't it? It would make perfect sense that criminal reports in which black people are suspected are reported as a report in which black people are suspected. That's not "racist", that's normal. I don't apologize if you think more criminals should be described as white people. Or should Affirmative Action extend to crime reports as well? Why don't we just publicly broadcast every crime report that comes by? We could make a "crime report" channel, where all the crime reports are broadcast. That way, somebody could call home and say "Mom! I'm gonna be on the Crime Report Network at 7:30 tonight, be sure to TIVO it so I can watch it when I make bail!"

DMKA -- "Umm...it couldn't have more to do with it. o_O"

You posted in a thread about the presence of absence of media bias. Your post concerned the oppression of black people and the "persecution" of homosexuals, and blamed it on...what was it? "Racist, narrowminded, redneck bastards", or something like that, wasn't it? Extremely relevant, to something, I'm sure.

CloudSquallZidane -- While it's right to acknowledge that things did happen in Vietnam that Americans are not proud of, usually it's a small minority of soldiers that participated in those actions, and they're blown out of proportion in all aspects when they're reported back Stateside.

"eestlinc/ed -- I have said many times over that I will gladly post evidence of liberal media bias as soon as those claiming that Fox News is oh-so biased towards the right, and I have yet to see anything remotely close to a valid point that claims such against Fox News. And I maintain that. If you believe so strongly that Fox News is leaning towards the right, it should be no problem finding statistics and examples of their bias, should it? And, once I see that, I will post examples of liberal bias in the rest of the media."

Since the evidence posted already has not been to your satisfaction, how about you post some of your evidence and we can get the ball rolling?

Take care all.

I'll simply re-post some of the links The Redneck posted, obviously they must have been ignored.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/Camp...NNnetwork.html

http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/worst/welcome.asp

Eason Jordon

CNN's admission to hiding news in Iraq

Would y'all like any more? Now could I expect something--anything--about how biased Fox News is? Or will it still be simple opinion?

How does Eason Jordan implying (at some press soiree in Switzerland) that it might be official military policy to target journalists reflect liberal bias for Eason Jordan, nevermind all of CBS?

Regarding the Dan Rather 60 minutes story with the fabricated TANG memos, I think that gross error can be attributed in large part to haste to "get the story first" and the media's natural desire to tear down those in power regardless of ideology. Dan Rather may have been personally pleased to "take down George W Bush" but that doesn't my default prove intentional bias.

Just to point out, the first two links have obvious political biases as well.

Also note that Rather did eventually apologize, something I've yet to hear from anyone else in the field of journalism, ideology aside, when a mistake gets made.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

I'll search for more in a bit.

I think, after much debate, that the best way to actually get fair news is to watch what both sides have to say and weigh them against one another as well as expose yourself to news sources outside the country to see their take on things. When it comes to news, it's always been my opinion that the wider variety of sources you can get, the better informed your opinion can become.

Take care all.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm

Some of this I wouldn't consider bias...just ty reporting all around.

Edit - I just realized my first link is the same one that The Captain posted >_<

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You posted in a thread about the presence of absence of media bias. Your post concerned the oppression of black people and the "persecution" of homosexuals, and blamed it on...what was it? "Racist, narrowminded, redneck bastards", or something like that, wasn't it? Extremely relevant, to something, I'm sure.

---

Go back and read the entire thread again. Do it slowly this time sweetcheeks. :)

"How does Eason Jordan implying (at some press soiree in Switzerland) that it might be official military policy to target journalists reflect liberal bias for Eason Jordan, nevermind all of CBS?"

First of all, it would reflect upon CNN, not CBS. Secondly, if he gets people to believe U.S. military personell are intentionally targeting reporters, it makes the military look bad, thus making the Republicans look bad, because after all, CNN reports it as a Republican-led war anyway.

"Regarding the Dan Rather 60 minutes story with the fabricated TANG memos, I think that gross error can be attributed in large part to haste to "get the story first" and the media's natural desire to tear down those in power regardless of ideology. Dan Rather may have been personally pleased to "take down George W Bush" but that doesn't my default prove intentional bias."

There was no story to be gotten first. They made it up. It wasn't a case of "well, we heard this and that and figured we'd get it out as an exclusive, we just later found out it wasn't true." It was "Well, we either made this up or got it from an unreliable source, and it was proven to be fabricated, but we went ahead and put it on the air anyway because it made Bush look bad."

Rather eventually apologized, but shunned any and all responsibility from himself or most of CBS, and he only came out in the first place because a large part of the public was calling for CBS to axe him. Instead, he got a slap on the wrist and a transfer.

"http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/specificbias.htm"

The first of these links is an obviously liberally-biased source, and the other two come from "www.oreilly-sucks.com". Obviously, "oreilly-sucks.com" would not be a balanced source.

I'd also like to point out the book Bias, by Bernard Goldberg, a 20-year CBS reporter, that details reports concerning the bias of CBS reporting.

While the site oreilly-sucks is bias at least the first link(middle) is just links to other places.

BTW, I just typed Fox News conservative bias into google and those are the first 3 things that came up. Not really trying on my part. Also way to completely dismiss them without giving them so much as a look. BTW. Your sites are bias also so BOO-YA!

Actually, I can somewhat understand the Media Research Center being accused of bias, but the other two links were from the Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, and indymedia, a highly liberal organization, respectively. Those are biased to the right, you're saying? So, umm...boo-ya?

Nah. I was more or less talking about Media Research Center. I really should have been more specific. I need really need more time so I can read more about what I am posting. Its just getting worse for me :D

After much thought, I'm now of the mind that "liberal" and "conservative" biases of the media is a product of the last 10 or so years. Looking back into the late 1980's or even earl 1990's, I never once heard ANYONE accuse any news media source, unless it was overt, of being slanted just because their point of view was not represented. In fact, for close to 40 years or until the middle 1990's, everyone listened to or watched the same news, which if you listen to what people are saying now, means it must have been the "liberal" media because it was the very same stations with a great deal of the same people working behind the scenes. This 24 hour news society as well as having "news and debate" shows that cater only to the bloodlust that the Democrats and Republicans have for one another has caused everything to go spinning out of control.

I think all of the media-bashing is just another move to polarize the nation and we've bitten it hook, line and sinker. Drastic changes are needed to get back to some form of balance.

Take care all.

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed. However, that doesn't suddenly make us inhuman. As reporters are human with their own views, their ideas will be flavored by how they think. Also, one of the things we DO learn is how to subtly guide someone to the conclusion we want. If you are looking for "proof" of a bias in either news medium, you won't find it (that applies for both what you accuse of being biased and what you refuse to admit is biased), because all news mediums try to at least uphold the ideal of unbiased. Note I say news, Coulter, Moore, and all the rest of them aren't news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed. However, that doesn't suddenly make us inhuman. As reporters are human with their own views, their ideas will be flavored by how they think. Also, one of the things we DO learn is how to subtly guide someone to the conclusion we want. If you are looking for "proof" of a bias in either news medium, you won't find it (that applies for both what you accuse of being biased and what you refuse to admit is biased), because all news mediums try to at least uphold the ideal of unbiased. Note I say news, Coulter, Moore, and all the rest of them aren't news.

---

Thank you :cry:

Quote:

---

You know we're taught to be unbiased? It's actually a rather big deal, they make sure we report in as unobjective a matter as possible, if you include anything even remotely like an opinion it usually gets axed.

---

I spent a year as a journalism major. and I know from experience that aspiring journalists are not taught to be unbiased--quite the contrary, in fact.

And that bias moves in one direction--the field of journalism is overwhelmingly liberal.

Quote:

---

I spent a year as a journalism major. and I know from experience that aspiring journalists are not taught to be unbiased--quite the contrary, in fact.

And that bias moves in one direction--the field of journalism is overwhelmingly liberal.

---

I can't speak for how you were taught, but I do know how I am being taught. And the media is far from overwhelmingly liberal, although it does have a tendancy to be somewhat progressive in thought.

Journalists consistently poll at 60% or higher for the Democrats, even when they're at less than 50% nationally. Less than 20% of journalists voted for Reagan in his landslide defeat of Mondale in '84.

But while you're looking up "James Byrd" and "Ken Tillery" or "Matthew Shepard" and "Jesse Dirkhising" on LEXIS-NEXIS, try looking up such terms as "hard right" and "hard left"; "extreme right" and "extreme left", and see for yourself how overwhelmingly liberal reporters--and their reporting--are.

For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think Liberal has to equals Democrat or conservative has to equals Republican, which has become such a major problem in this country.

Take care all.

The Democrats aren't liberal by any stretch of the imagination, I might add. Many Democrats claim to be liberal but are anything but. You've not seen what a true liberal is if you believe liberals and Democrats are the same thing.

But anyways, to address the matter at hand.

How a person votes is their own business. It has no place in a news room, and any good journalist knows how to keep their opinions to themselves. It's something I've been learning to do as I work on my own journalism articles. You can't expect someone to magically not have an opinion. If more "liberals" are attracted to journalism, that may have more to do with the profession than anything else. However, the fact remains that a good reporter knows how to seperate their true feelings from the article they're writing.

When you write an article, what is the most important thing that goes into it? I can assure you that opinion isn't even on the list. You want quotes, and you want facts that support the article, whether you agree with them or not. Your feelings don't matter, what matters is the story.

Also, many big name journalists have earned... let's call it a "Right to an opinion." They've established themselves, they're making money, they can say what they feel and report with their bias. Personally I think it is a double-edged sword, on one hand I enjoy reporting from my own opinion, my own point of view. On the other hand, you lose a good deal of credibility that way. I'm not talking about watching the talking heads on TV or listening to the talk shows on the radio, I'm talking about the newspaper. You write an article unbiased, your own beliefs have no business in the workplace.

As a potential and probable journalism major, I must say that I am appauled by the state of the media in America today. It really makes me weep to see Michael Jackson's trial and some American Idol scandal be reported on before anything new that's happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Speaking of which, remember them? We still have troops in Afghanistan, and it's just as much of a mess as Iraq, but no one ever reports on it. I know they're just reporting on what people want to hear, but it's sad that people don't want the news anymore. The founding fathers created our government with the idea that the media would watch over our government and tell us, the public, about it. Instead, when we turn on the television, we have Bill O'Reilly screaming at someone in split screen about rap music. It really bothers me. Opinions have become facts, and people are willing to believe them. There is no real investigative reporting anymore. Original reporting hardly even exists. Most newspapers just take Associated Press or Ryder reports and copy/paste them and call it a done deal. And the sad thing is that this is only the beginning! I could go on for hours talking about what's wrong with the media today, but I don't think I will.

My point is this: OMG, so much H8.

To say that every Democrat is a liberal and that every Republican is a conservative is indeed asking to be made a fool of. But when someone votes Democrat 80% of the time, you're not dealing with a conservative and you ain't dealing with a 'moderate'.

Quote:

---

It has no place in a news room, and any good journalist knows how to keep their opinions to themselves.

---

Wanna run them LEXIS-NEXIS numbers, then?

And the numbers don't support your perceiving blatant bias where there is, in fact, very little at all? I say again, just because a person believes in a certain thing doesn't mean they cannot conduct themselves professionally enough to not assert it in their work. Or is it that when people become journalists they lose the human ability for restraint? I hardly think so.

Quote:

---

But when someone votes Democrat 80% of the time, you're not dealing with a conservative and you ain't dealing with a 'moderate'.

---

So what do moderates vote for? Im pretty sure that they don't always vote Republican.