Nope, your own bias means you think that, while others in this threads bias means they think MSNBC has "some liberal leaning but they do their best to be objective".
So we have Fox News having Brit Hume (a News anchor) cover both conventions with both liberal analysists and conservative analysists in one corner on prime time. And on MSNBC we have two left wing commentators one of which bashing the Republicans for having taking time to remember those that died on 9/11/2001. Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.
Regardless if you think that is true or not, it is the truth. That is all I have to say in this thread, I'll only be here to moderate it from now on.
I don't recall anyone from Fox News saying that the Clintons were "Pimping out" their daughter.
Or better yet, let's all behave like grown ups and admit when one of our favorite media sources has a political bias instead of trying to play the "more objective than thou" game. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Fox News has a conservative bias. Neither is very good about hiding it.
While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.
While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.
Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.
I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.
Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.
Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter. Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints. That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.
Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.
jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party. Fox News may have some conservative leaning, but they do their best to be objective.
Compare that to MSNBC's using Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews for their coverage of the political conventions.
Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.
Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.
And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?
You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.
While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.
You’ll need you use the same adjectives for both.
I’ll say CNN and NBC have liberal leanings if you admit Fox News has a heavy right-wing tilt (I only watch those three, two for news, one for entertainment). :D
Love your use of word play tonight.
Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.
O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.
And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?
I've got my own complaints concerning President Bush, but the idea that Fox News is that biased doesn't hold water because it wasn't Fox News that made those comments about Hillary's daughter.
You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.
Actually, the Patriot Act did not suspend Habeus Corpus, you can't read someone miranda rights on a battlefield with people shooting at you and if someone was shooting at you, you have just cause to arrest them. Furthermore despite what the media would like people believe, the government did not wiretap domestic conversations without a warrent.
You want a violation of Freedom of Speech try the "Fairness Doctrine" which is in reality the censorship doctrine.
Anyways, last I checked studies showed (at least ones that didn't have their own agenda) that Fox News was actually fairly close to center (the news programs not the commentary programs). CNN was supposedly close to center as well. The ones that were way out there were NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:
Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter.If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.
They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.
I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.
(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)
Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints.Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?
That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.
Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.
Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.
Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.
If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.
They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology. The most intelligent thing written in this entire thread.
I do believe that Achilles has just won the internet, my friends.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:
Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.
If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.
No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.
They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.
Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.
I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.
The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.
(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)
Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.
Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?
I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.
That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.
It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.
Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.
That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.
Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.
Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.
If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.
I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.
A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.
Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.
No, no you haven't, besides Fox News and Newsbusters.
No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.
Source please.
Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.
So... basically... You just proved that MSNBC isn't pandering to corporate interests for the cash, and Fox is...
How does that work to your advantage, exactly?
The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.
By who? You? I have seen no sources corroborating this statement.
It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.
Fox discredits itself on a regular basis. Try watching it objectively once in a while, if that's even at all possible for you.
That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.
Research? Really? Sources.
I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.
You have never posted sources beyond a conservative blog and Fox news to support the majority of your arguments, so this statement is false. PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS.
Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.Legitimate sources, sir. Legitimate sources.
No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting.More false premises leading to unsupported conclusions.
Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.Smear campaign?
Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings,For which hour? You are aware that ratings are determined by hour, right?
and New York Times is now in financial trouble.1) They aren't the only ones
2) I don't suppose that the mass exodus to electronic media has anything to do with it
3) This actually supports my argument re: corporate media rather than refutes it (hint: the newsprint media outlets are in trouble because investment dollars are drying up. This has more to do with ebay and craig's list than whatever political conspiracy you're selling).
If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.See above :rolleyes:
The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.I've already given you my criteria for legitimacy. Either you can meet those criteria or you cannot.
Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.I'm aware of the spin. I'm also aware that it's spin.
I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.This doesn't answer either of my questions.
It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox. You were saying something about you not saying there was a conspiracy.
That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.This doesn't address my question.
I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point. You don't need to, as I've already seen a majority of what you consider "legitimate sources". They are not, so you can save yourself the trouble. Hence the part of my post that you quoted.
A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.
I had to dig around to find it on this forum since I had already posted it but here.
But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.
I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.
--
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=2)
That was on page 2 of the article. There was more on page 3
But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.
I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election. --
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3)
And it continues on page 3
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
--
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3)
This is from ABC News, and it's a liberal source.
Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.
Wrong it is the thread for this because it was a perfect example of media bias and outright dishonesty.
Story 1Let's assume for a moment that everything here is accurate and true.
Now, do you think this helps your argument or hurts it? As has been discussed in another thread, the Israel lobby in the U.S. isn't exactly brimming with godless liberals. If the conservative christians are supporting Israel and the corporate news machine is reporting a story re: Israel with a pro-Israel bias, do you think that's because that station has a liberal agenda or perhaps a conservative one? Or maybe even a corporate bias?
Story 2 & 3Please help me understand how an opinion piece from a source that you labeled as liberally biased a few post ago, which slams "the liberal media", supports your argument.
Are you familiar with the term "echo chamber (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_echo_chamber)"?)
jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!
How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.
So, please, reliable sources.
--
As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.
How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.Link (
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html)
What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.
O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.
I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.
Link (
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html)
What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.
Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.
_EW_
I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.
Actually I can say he's more honest and objective than Olbermann, Hillary Clinton campaigning for herself is more objective than Olbermann, I'm saying he's that bad.
Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.
Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.
@ Achilles
I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long. Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).
Fact is even Pew Research despite trying to hide it, is left wing though the numbers is probably much higher than what they're saying.
In the most recent survey, 40% of journalists described themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum (31% said they were “a little to the left” and 9% “pretty far to the left”). But that number was down notably, seven percentage points from 1992, when 47% said they leaned leftward. -- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation (
http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)
It is easy to argue that the bias is far worse than the numbers portray, because it has been pointed out that many of them don't even realize they're biased.
If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall.
When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%. (There was actually a notable bump in the percentage journalists who named another political affiliation or declined to answer the question in 2002) -- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation (
http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)
The data here is kinda skewed because of 9/11/2001. But still Pew Research shows a rather large gap.
Furthermore, if you'll look at the information presented, it appears that they don't even closely resemble the actual populace concerning leanings, so it isn't about corporate interests, it's about ideology.
Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.
Source? That doesn't sound like me.
_EW_
Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.
I'd watch the videos, but I'm on a slow connection right now, so I'll get back to you on that. Still, I'm not arguing that Olbermann isn't biased. He is, yes, very much so. But O'Reilly is also just as biased, that's my only real point of contention here. I'm tired of the double standards.
The blogger included a video of what was said and what he was commenting on.
That's not a source that has any credibility, regardless of how he twists a video of Olbermann to his advantage.
Oh I have sources, in fact I'm having no problem backing up the stuff I'm saying concerning Olbermann.
Let me see sources for every argument you've made in this thread, then. Surely, if you've made arguments here that are corroborated, then the sources would be here, right?
It's not a conspiracy theory, and I've been providing sources, as to other things, it's hard to find things on the web that were deleted from the web though.
This isn't an argument, it's a farce that can neither be proven, and probably has no basis in fact anyway.
jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!
How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.
So, please, reliable sources.
--
As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt, church committee findings, or court cases related to people the government ****ed over with all the illegal **** they did.
try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt and church committee findings.
I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.
I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.they cite external sources and many of them are government documents released under the freedom of information act.
they cite external sources and many of them are government documents released under the freedom of information act.
Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...
Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.
Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.
The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)
Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.
Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.
-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)You) already posted this, here (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2572529&postcount=67). And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.
Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...
Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.
Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.
-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)lol) ok, i'll play your game in place of you just admitting you were wrong.
http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm)
http://www.asu.edu/alumni/vision/05v09n01/paperchaseends.html)
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra.shtml)
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html)
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm)
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp)
you can file for the release of documents if you think the scans hosted on those sites are some sort of liberal conspiracy too if you like
You already posted this, here (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2572529&postcount=67). And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.
I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.
Basically they were harping on Israel killing UN observers and it turns out the UN knew that Hezbollah was using the location as a rocket launching platform and they refused to pull the observers out.
I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.
lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.
PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?
PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?QFE :lol:
Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.
Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. If you can't find it, then it never happened. I wouldn't say what you claim I said.
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.
I would disagree.
_EW_
@ Achilles
I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long. You're right, I only clicked on the link for the 2nd and 3rd quotes because I didn't need to click on the link to make my point for the 1st.
But I do think it very telling that you're trying to hinge your argument on one article.
Oh, and did you intend to address any of points? I do think they are quite pertinent and probably in your best interest to address if you hope to maintain any sort of credibility here. I did shoot an awful lot of holes in your argument, after all.
Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).I'm concerned that you cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.
Fact is even Pew Research despite trying to hide it, is left wing though the numbers is probably much higher than what they're saying.Pew is part of the conspiracy now, eh? And "probably much higher" doesn't sound very convincing.
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.Which is why well-sourced articles are always a wonderful thing. Even if they do read "Wikipedia" at the top.
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.
But the Newsbusters BLOG, however lacking in source material as compared to the wikipedia given by jmac, is perfectly legit.
How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.
So, please, reliable sources.
I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.
Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...
Again, you never felt the need to do that with your blog links, so why should anyone feel the compulsion to meet your demands? I believe it was you, when you were asked to cite sources for some claims you made, similar to what you asked of jmac, who said:
Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.
To me, the lack of proof for your arguments means that you are inventing instances where you've given sources, but when you're asked to find them, you either claim that they were deleted, or that you don't want to look for them. Yet you feel justified in asking someone else for sources, someone who cared enough about the credibility of their words to concede and give you the sources.
There's a word for that. Starts with "h" and ends with "ipocrisy".
I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.
Of course, that necessitates being involved in the debate enough to have a chance to call Garfield on using Blogs as the end-all for evidence. Besides which, I can't say I'm in Kavar's enough to see "Oooh! Garfield posted! Let's jump on him about using Blogs!"
But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.
Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.
But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.
Something that is one person’s opinion is more reliable than a source that is edited. :rolleyes:
Sure, I will go along with that and I will cite this Blog to end all debate on who is most bias of all Media Outlets. ;)
The Ultra-Supreme All Accurate Blog (
http://www.lucasforums.com/blog.php?b=459)
all that doesn't matter, man, reality's a lie (
http://end-times-data.blogspot.com/)
But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.
Seriously? One man can write anything he wants without any consequence, and it's more reliable than a wiki page that is constantly being checked/corrected by... oh, I don't know... the whole internet?
RELIABILITY, IN ACTION. (
http://enderwiggin229.blogspot.com/)
_EW_
Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.
Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.
And, if you'll see the bottom of that post... well, I'll just quote myself.
Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.
But even if Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, what about its citations? It's all there.. just click at those citations and determine for yourself if they are reliable.
So, for example, if the wikipedia entry for G.W. Bush had a statement along the lines of "Furthermore, it has been proven that Bush is a blithering idiot" in it, and there's not source then it should not be used in a debate...
Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.
So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.
People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.
Ergo, wiki > blog. Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.
Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.
:rolleyes:
So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.
Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.
People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.
Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.
Ergo, wiki > blog.
I got news for you, Pew Research is not a blog, and it is a better source than a wiki. ABC News isn't a blog site either, and it was a liberal source saying there was a left-wing bias problem in the media.
Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.
When a person that is trying to cover up a said bias admits there is a problem, then excuse me there is a problem.
The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs. This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.
A link to a wikipedia article: Reutergate (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reutergate)
I'll try to find some other sources, but the point is it was conservative bloggers that caught Reuters using doctored photos.
The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs.And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.
This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...
Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.
Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.
1. Wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just any human being, as it is a fact of humanity that individuals will be biased and our viewpoints will be subjective. There are varying levels of willingness to hear both sides, and tolerance for other perspectives, but nobody is going to be perfectly objective. They can get close, but never to an absolute. That goes for me as well, and you, though you have proven that you have little to no tolerance for other perspectives, and condemn any who disagree with you.
This was about wiki vs. blogs, and in my opinion, wikipedia is a better source because it tends to encompass more perspectives and can often be more corroborated by many sources than single-minded blog entries by a solitary man or woman.
2. You keep saying that, but your words are always filled with vague non-facts and lack any real meaning. Truth is, you can't prove it, so I'd prefer if you'd just stop bringing it up.
The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News,
You're right, it wasn't a democrat attack dog, it was a republican attack dog, and a vicious and insatiable one at that.
Fox news is just as biased as every other news station on the air, IF not more, and to claim otherwise is to have such a severe lack of realisation in how biased YOU are, and to reveal a clear and blatant double standard between conservative and liberal content.
As a certain member of this forum said earlier:
"All news is biased, and so are you.
[/thread]"
And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.
That explains why Sean Hannity had to defend Hillary because he thought the rest of the Media went over the line. Fact is even Pew Research's own data shows that Fox News was the most balanced news source, even though they tried to portray it as they were too the right of Rush Limbaugh.
This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...
Why do you think I was rather upset that the Democrats nominated a left wing ideologue by the name of John Kerry. I wouldn't have minded voting for Joe Libermann for President, but the 2004 election was one of those lesser of two evils.
And McCain didn't become as vile as Bush in 2008, that was just the press doing the Democrat's smear work. Fact is that what McCain brought up is legit as we're seeing with the Governor of Illinois, Tony Rezko, etc. So the difference is McCain used truth, whereas Bush used a bunch of lies.
Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.
^_^
Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.
What ludicrous charges were made about Obama, aside from the citizenship thing which was started by a Hillary Clinton Supporter.
... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.
... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.
<snipped>
Or Rev. Wright? Which is true
Or Rezko -- which is also true
Seriously, the media's shear lack of investigating of Obama's ties is proof in and of itself that there is a serious bias problem to say the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html)
An Opinion article from the New York Times, we've already established when they accuse a conservative of anything they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3174101/Barack-Obama-called-terrorist-at-Republican-rallies-as-US-election-campaign-turns-nasty.html)
What does this have to do with a news agency? Furthermore, Obama kept calling McCain, George Bush. And further Palin never called him a terrorist, she said he pals around with terrorists, which William Ayers is a terrorist. Instead you just showed again the bias of the media.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html)
See above statement.
http://www.humsurfer.com/newsbusters-obama-threatens-to-bring-a-gun-what-if-mccain-had-done-same)
What the heck site is that cause it sure isn't Newsbusters and I've never even heard of humsurfer.com.
How many ways can the staff say 'NO AYERS OUTSIDE THE AYERS THREAD' before you realize we're serious?