Windu, I agree with most of your points. I did wonder a lot whether things would be handled differently in Katrina if the folks were white, rich, and Republican. The cynic in me has a lot of ideas as to how it would have been different. However, the presentation? Well, it is getting a little carried away.
FOX news? It's like the Daily Show. Sure, there's news there, but there's about 70% commentary to 30% news. Jon Stewart presents his as a liberal-tilted comedy show. FOX pretends it's a legitimate news service. (Yes, I've watched both, and thought FOX News WAS a comedy show until I found out otherwise).
And the media? It's not liberal. It's not conservative. It's an Aurora Avenue whore, showing off and promising whatever sex, sleaze, and scandal will get the john pulling over to buy the goods. How else do you explain crap like Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith crowding out Darfur?
Most media outlets aren't slanted to the left, sorry but I have stuff to debunk your statement right there.
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf)
OK guys, obviously we can go around and around about media biases and whatnot, but lets not get too off-topic by arguing what is legit and what isn't. So if someone posts a link to back up a claim, if you disagree with it, please respond to points made in the link to show why they are wrong, and not just disregard it wholesale because of a bias, real or imagined. :)
OK guys, obviously we can go around and around about media biases and whatnot, but lets not get too off-topic by arguing what is legit and what isn't. So if someone posts a link to back up a claim, if you disagree with it, please respond to points made in the link to show why they are wrong, and not just disregard it wholesale because of a bias, real or imagined. :)
Media bias is actually easily proven, I just wish I hadn't loaned out one of my books that have some specific examples. Including at least one that went beyond bias to actually supporting a terrorist. The thing that got them though was when it was printed. 9/11 happened. I'm talking about the NY Times.
Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agenda, like the pullout of troops from Iraq for instance.
Example of reporting fraudulent stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents) -- CBS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict_photographs_controversies)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The academic study cited most frequently by critics of a "liberal media bias" in American journalism is The Media Elite,* a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey which found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists' attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.
In same article:
Many of the positions in the preceding study are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers: Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias)
I haven't even gotten started yet, some of what I've posted thus far I didn't even bother using as sources in my paper because I felt I had enough sources.
Media bias is actually easily proven...Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agendaRead what I wrote again.
(And you may want to avoid quoting wikipedia articles, since they have a history of being riddled with innaccuracies, as they can be edited by anyone with any agenda of their own. Your argument would be much better served if you would quote/link to the original articles that have the actual facts that support your points. ;) )
As I said, I'm trying not to dig out my paper which has a lot more sources, furthermore I posted the actual study by UCLA already.
I think you missed the point. I'm saying respond to specific points to show why they are true or false, not whether segments of the media have an agenda or not.
Media bias is relevant, when it can be shown that they are deliberately distorting things to promote an agenda, like the pullout of troops from Iraq for instance.
I just don't believe the media is bias, they are lying most likely to all sides; left wing, right wing and the middle.
It's media lying, not bias, GarfieldJL. :)
Flip a coin when you watch the news. :lol:
Journalists are biased. True. They are human beings. However, they're also bound by principles and a code of conduct.
For example, in the recent provincial election here in Quйbec, two journalists joined the ranks of two different political parties. I was quite surprised because I would never have guessed their political allegiance. Perhaps it's just an up North phenomenon. Still I think the BBC is also a good source for information, as well as many other European news sources.
American medias prefer to give a good show over giving proper information.
Okay for those of you that don't know
Posse Comitatus Act (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
President Bush, couldn't send the National Guard into Louisanna for law enforcement assistance among other things.
Insurrection Act (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)
I don't think the state of Louisanna was in the state of Rebellion...
Also Journalists being bound by a code of conduct isn't exactly true, as demonstrated by Dan Rather, if not for Bloggers and Fox News he might have gotten away with fraud and slander. The other News networks weren't going to call him on it.
Okay for those of you that don't know
Posse Comitatus Act (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
President Bush, couldn't send the National Guard into Louisanna for law enforcement assistance among other things.
All he had to do was sign another signing statement and ignore this law just like he has many other laws that got in his way.
Examples:
1. Even though the law says the FBI must keep Congress informed on how it is using the USA Patriot Act as it pertains to the searching of homes and the seizer of papers.
Bush: Sign that the president can order the Justice Department to withhold any information to Congress that HE decides could impair national security or executive branch operation.
2. Law states US interrogators can not torture prisoners or other wise subject them to cruel degrading or inhuman treatment.
Bush signing statement stated that “the president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if HE decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.”
3. Law states that when Congress request “scientific information prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted to Congress uncensored and without delay.”
Bush’s signing statement “The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if HE decides its disclosure could impair foreign relation, national security or the workings of the executive branch.
4. Law state, “The military cannot add to it files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about American in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches.
Bush’ signing statement “Only the president, as commander in chief, only HE can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.”
Need some more examples because he has done this over 100 times including when he sent active US military forces into New Orleans. Oh, all my examples come from before the Democrats took over Congress.
I blame the lack of National Guard troops on the Governor, but the State, Federal and local governments are all to blame for what happen during Katrina. I’ve asked this before but haven’t gotten a reply isn’t FEMA a part of the Federal Government?
I blame the lack of National Guard troops on the Governor, but the State, Federal and local governments are all to blame for what happen during Katrina. I’ve asked this before but haven’t gotten a reply isn’t FEMA a part of the Federal Government?
if we're all going to argue about Katrina, there's plenty of blame to go around. The governor could have easily contacted the federal government and gotten the Nat Guard down there. The Fed could have contacted the governor to see if he needed them down there asap.
Hurricanes are tricky buggers, and you can look at your satellite imagery and just miss one of these state-size storms powering it's way towards the gulf coast.
There are plenty of people to blame and there's absolutly nothing that can be done about it right now. 5 days late in the scale of the year+ that's passed is so infintessimal it's silly to squabble over it.
on Journalists: A code of conduct is just that, a "code" it's rarely laws and often includes vague things like "you SHOULD report honestly". One should never expect the truth to be told to them. If you want to truth, find it for yourself, don't assume that whoever is willing to tell it to you has no agenda to push.
On media bias: Yes, the media is biased, just like every political part, organization and human being in the world. They have an agenda, some right, some left, some inane. Is it left? is it right? that depends on which stations your watching at what times and who happens to be on them. We act all shocked and amazed that something like TV would lie to us. *gasp!* TV, Lie?! Never!
Bush will forever be remembered, unfairly, as the greatest evil the world has ever seen, and his occupation of Iraq is the sole reason for such a vicious backlash.
this is indeed the great hipocracies of many, both inside and outside the US. It's kinda sad that a nimrod can go down as worse than Stalin. Pol Pot must be rolling in his grave.
Our troops should be in Darfur stoping that genocide from happening, but because of racist Bush, in which he don't give a damn for Africans, so they continue to perish, when is someone is going to get mad as hell in that administration and do something about the
look, if you put the red letters together, it says: Bush is a racist nazi genocidist. Horray for Goodwin's Law!
In any case, the Genocide in Dafur is much the same as the "civil war" in Iraq. Although in Dafur one side has guns and the other dosent, it's still largely the same. These aren't people with differences to be resolved. Genocide is the intentional killing a group of people for whatever. They don't want to strike a deal, they want them dead. And if you throw our troops in the middle of it, they'll end up dead too. Only in Dafur, they'll likly end up dead faster because the government is against us too, or corrupt enough to be bought/blackmailed against us.
look, if you put the red letters together, it says: Bush is a racist nazi genocidist. Horray for Goodwin's Law!
I've said, He don't give a damn about the people with my brown skin color.
I'm going to leave it at that, before somebody here start thinking I'm trying to flambait you. ;)
Ha! You would've already known if I thought of Bush as a Nazi.
You would have seen my red protracted rage and anger. :)
If that was the case.
And if you throw our troops in the middle of it, they'll end up dead too. Only in Dafur, they'll likly end up dead faster because the government is against us too, or corrupt enough to be bought/blackmailed against us.
Yes excuses ! :rolleyes:
So, let the massacre continue, it's not a big deal.
Forget it !
mimartin, the Democrats in congress would have loved Bush ignoring that law because then they'd actually have a legitimate excuse to impeach Bush.
As far as the wikipedia sources Prime, I will agree to an extent, however I do remember the stories airing in 2004 and 2006 respectively and it's rather hard to find stories concerning these when CBS tried to cover it up after they got their head handed to them, and Reuters finally pulled the doctored photos after being called on it in both cases by bloggers and Fox News. MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc. did not even bother to cover the story about the memos being false, a media giant being involved with slander concerning the President of the United States, that's a pretty big story, yet except for Fox News, bloggers, and maybe some local broadcasters, there was absolutely nothing concerning this.
The memos were in a font style that wasn't even in use when the memos were apparently typed. Top that off the memos had variable spacing which wasn't even possible for typewriters of that era. Plus if they were scans of original documents it would still be in the original font. Then CBS tried to prevent people from printing out the memos to look at for themselves trying to impede people from proving them to be forgeries. That goes way beyond bias, that goes into something that people can go to jail for.
windu, the idea of pulling out of Iraq just to go to Dafur is like just leaving one place to fall into a massive case of genocide to try and stop another. It makes little sense.
Plus the fact that we have absolutely no responsibility for the mess in Darfur, since we don't trade with Sudan anyways. Iraq is something where we made a mess going in to take down Saddam, so Bush is being responsible by trying to clean up the mess.
In Darfur's case it could be argued that several European countries turned a blind eye to the situation continuing to trade with Sudan, so in my opinion the Europeans need to fix it. People complain about the US always getting into everyone's business and they can handle it themselves, then they turn around saying we need to do something about some other crisis. To be blunt, it's highly annoying.
I've said, He don't give a damn about the people with my brown skin color.
I'm going to leave it at that, before somebody here start thinking I'm trying to flambait you. ;)
Ha! You would've already known if I thought of Bush as a Nazi.
You would have seen my red protracted rage and anger. :)
If that was the case.
Yes excuses ! :rolleyes:
So, let the massacre continue, it's not a big deal.
Forget it !
The part about red was sarcasm, I see Goodwin's law pulled all the time, it's a running joke.
and....No! You misread me. I did not say it wasn't a big deal, in fact I never said anything regarding the situation in Dafur. All I said was that our troops would likly get killed faster there.
It IS a big deal, however, I don't think our troops would make ANY difference, other than adding to the body count. It's one of those kinda of situations that you could pour the entirety of the world's collective power into and nothing would be accomplished.
Much like Iraq, it is a mindset, and killing people never changed anyone's mind. it only make them think it harder or hide it. And neither one of those solutions lasts for any sort of long term.
and....No! You misread me. I did not say it wasn't a big deal, in fact I never said anything regarding the situation in Dafur. All I said was that our troops would likly get killed faster there.
Well, the U.N. is useless, so nothing isn't going to get done, otherwise.
It IS a big deal, however, I don't think our troops would make ANY difference, other than adding to the body count. It's one of those kinda of situations that you could pour the entirety of the world's collective power into and nothing would be accomplished.
It IS not a big deal, since we are still discussing it on forums and nothing haven't been done about it, by the officials in power. :disaprove
Oh so now you're saying the UN is worthless, that's basically why Bush finally ended up going into Iraq in the first place. It is also possible that we would have found WMDs if we hadn't wasted several monthes trying to get UN backing and had just gone in from the get go.
As much as I would like everyone in the world to get along, there has to be a line drawn on how far we will go. It makes you wonder why the rest of the free world is pissed off at us in one way or another. To many people, us Americans are arrogant, greedy bastards who think they know what's best for everyone. I do believe that history repeats itself and our arrogance, the imperalistic and neocolonialism policies we have show it. It's funny how we fought for the right to be free and yet we turn around and do the same thing to others less fortunate. It's like the oppressed becomes the oppressor.
If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...that's what I really hate about America...that no matter how much people complain, and how much the government complies, people will continue to complain...but w/e...it's not the government that makes America look bad...it's the general public that complains and complains no matter what...that's what is greedy...
What people dont realize is that...one of the responsibilities of a superpower is to defend the "free world" as you call it, from tyranny...but of course...the killing of thousands in Iraq (under Saddam) isn't enough for the "majority" to care...but w/e...I can't change the opinion of people that can only be pessimistic...but just remember...the world is inherently good, but those that do not act on what is wrong...are doomed to the same fate...that's kind of what the Declaration of Independence is about...
Well, the U.N. is useless, so nothing isn't going to get done, otherwise.
It IS not a big deal, since we are still discussing it on forums and nothing haven't been done about it, by the officials in power. :disaprove
And I have not once mentioned the UN. I said nothing about talking to them, asking them for help, or whatever. Either address the points I make or don't bother responding to me.
And we, the people, have been in charge of where the government goes to war and who they go to war with for how long? Oh, thats right, never.
So our discussion of this topic is entirely irrelevent to our involvement status regarding Darfur.
If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...
I don't speak for JediMaster21, but I personally am forced to stay in the USA. Society's pressure, cultural norms, my inablity to speak a langauge other than English, and the lack of a good income outside of the USA all combine to form an "Axis of Forcing People to Stay Within One Country" and is forcing me to stay within the United States of America. I'm trapped. No wonder many people are upset, being trapped and all.
Now, I could stay within this one area and form a milita and leave the United States of America, creating my own nation, and maybe, maybe then this criticism would end. Maybe then people could leave the Union and be done with it, taking away all the good things about the Union, like the land, the territory, and the economy, and leaving the bad parts of the Union. Oh wait. I can't, last time someone tried that, they got stuck in a Civil War.
An interesting solution: Allow anyone to seecde from the Union, and then maybe people will actually do such a thing.
EDIT: Oh, and to get on topic:
Blaming the troops is bad.
It may be hard to believe but they don't all speak French in Canada. In fact out at Vancouver they film part of the X Files, particularly episodes such as Darkness Falls IIRC. Interested?
It may be hard to believe but they don't all speak French in Canada. In fact out at Vancouver they film part of the X Files, particularly episodes such as Darkness Falls IIRC. Interested?
I have been there to Canada.
But, really, I still am trapped in the United States of America. While the lanaguage barrier can be crossed, what about Universal Health Care? Bad, bad socialist-style health care. Or the fact that Canada seems, well, boring and inactive. Or the fact that I secretly love being a citizen of a hyperpower. Or the fact that prehaps I don't know if I can get jobs in Canada but I can get jobs here. And on and on...
I don't complain about being trapped here, I just admit it. I'm trapped in any sort of country I go to anyway, and if I go to Canada, I'll be trapped by their own rules. Really, I don't care, because in the end, we all die anyway, and when that happens, who care what country you born into or fight for? It doesn't matter in the end.
Hmmm--topic is "Taking it Out on the Troops" and we should return to that. If you all want to start a separate thread on citizenship/patriotism, that would be cool.
If you hate it so much, no one is forcing you to stay...that's what I really hate about America...that no matter how much people complain, and how much the government complies, people will continue to complain...but w/e...it's not the government that makes America look bad...it's the general public that complains and complains no matter what...that's what is greedy...
I don't hate America and I do my part by voting down what I think is right and carry on in campaign. I have lived here all my life. I complain because at times I can't understand the logic of people or am pissed off that they misconstrue things into their own twisted ideology. I was also making a point that while we care so much for the idea of freedom, we don't stop and think that we are doing exactly what England has done to us so many years ago.
What people dont realize is that...one of the responsibilities of a superpower is to defend the "free world" as you call it, from tyranny
And my good sir are we supposed to do it in such an arrogant manner with no consideration to other cultures or beliefs? We presume so much that the US is better and right and in most cases yeah we are to those that flock to our shores. However when we force it upon a place that has been governed by thousands of years of tradition, you are going to poke the stick at the sleeping giant. That is why I think and have said that, in regards to Iraq, that by forcing a democratic system upon the people, you are coming into conflict with a religious ideology that sees democracy as a devil's invention. Plus you are dealing with tradition and tradition is hard to break.
Recently Declassified Information (
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274893,00.html)
By the way, I watched the speech live. This was up top on Fox News.
However, MSNBC Report (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18809646/) was towards the bottom of the page ahead of it included something about a kid sleeping in a trash can being named student of the year. Of course they devote a significant amount of time bashing Bush.
However this declassified information makes the Dems look like idiots.
And I have not once mentioned the UN. I said nothing about talking to them, asking them for help, or whatever. Either address the points I make or don't bother responding to me.
And we, the people, have been in charge of where the government goes to war and who they go to war with for how long? Oh, thats right, never.
So our discussion of this topic is entirely irrelevent to our involvement status regarding Darfur.
I think the one thing that Windu doesn't take into account, or perhaps discounts entirely, is that foreign policy isn't dictated by racism so much as by resources. If the Sudan had as much oil as the Saudis or Iraq, there'd likely be more involvement by outside forces to maintain some kind of stability for, if nothing else, the purposes of commerce. I don't really believe that much attention is paid to what goes on in places like Burma/Myanmar or Tibet (outside of Hoolywood, I s'ppose) for that very reason.
One thing does appear clear this time around, thankfully. That seems to be that the bulk of America won't put up with much of the antics of Vietnam era anti-war/anti-soldier behavior.
I think the one thing that Windu doesn't take into account, or perhaps discounts entirely, is that foreign policy isn't dictated by racism so much as by resources. If the Sudan had as much oil as the Saudis or Iraq, there'd likely be more involvement by outside forces to maintain some kind of stability for, if nothing else, the purposes of commerce. I don't really believe that much attention is paid to what goes on in places like Burma/Myanmar or Tibet (outside of Hoolywood, I s'ppose) for that very reason.
One thing does appear clear this time around, thankfully. That seems to be that the bulk of America won't put up with much of the antics of Vietnam era anti-war/anti-soldier behavior.
While I have yet to see any viable resources come out of Iraq, I would probly agree. But then, the government of that country, whatever it is, would also likly exert some control of it's own if they knew they had some kind of commodity the world wanted. As would the people, as the people would know that what they have, somebody wants.
But mainly what I was getting and at Windu didn't seem to get was that the guys killing people in Darfur and such areas, are doing it simply because they think a certain group of people needs to die. There's no rhyme nor reason to it beyond that, it's not for money, it's not for great ideals, it's not for resources, it's just because they feel it needs to be done. And if we throw our troops in there, regardless of resources or racism(note both start with an "r" how curious), they're just gonna get added to the list of people who need to die. And that's what they'll do, they'll die, and everybody knows we don't want that. And there's nothing to gain other than improving our image in the worlds eyes. And the world can sit and spin if they think we ought to kill our soldiers for no other reason than to make them happy.
I may not like wars, but lets at least fight a war where we stand to gain something valuable. The favor of elitists and snobs who wont go do it themselves is a commodity we can do well without.
If we were truly humanitarian, we'd all run down to Darfur and help, but we're not, lets be honest with ourselves, we want something in return for our deaths other than favorable opinions. Playing a martyr is great publicity, but you can only do it once.