Thread split from The Ayers thread. Carry on issues about the Mass Media and bias (perceived or real) here. Thanks, Jae.

I would argue about your biased "truth", and lack of substantial sources, but you're in the wrong thread. This is the Ayers discussion.


Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate. Otherwise, using the logic that we should throw everything by Fox out, we should throw out everything said by CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes because of their significant liberal bias in their opinion programs and editorials.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's something reported in the regular news segments by either CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I'm fine with those facts and reports.

The opinion reporting by Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc, is just that--opinion. The NYTimes has been caught enough times with inaccuracies that they didn't retract, and at least 1 reporter completely making up stories, that I cannot trust them as a reliable news outlet anymore.

I will go further and say that the New York Times goes out of its way to try to cover up scandals involving Democrats and tries to smear Republicans at every opportunity.

Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.Fox News may report the truth, but they add an incredible amount of bias to it, so much of a bias, in fact, that you'll need to filter most of it to salvage any thread of truth. All news outlets have a bias, but most are either to a minimum or casually hide it. Fox, on the other hand, seems to advertise their conservatism through their reporting.

Look if the accusation of MSNBC trying to deliberately disrupt the Republican Convention is true, it doesn't give MSNBC much in the way of credibility.

But that's an incredibly big 'if', surely?

Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/)

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.No, you're completely missing the point. You were using an opinion as cold, hard evidence. Opinions, either conservative or liberal do not qualify as the truth.

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/sweet) i love blogs.

also when you keep bringing up obama and ayers in nearly every post you make regardless of the thread's topic then it kind of makes sense that people would think you are a "smear merchant" and you have a "pathological hatred of obama".

and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.


but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan

And that's just one case. I'll go look up some more if you'd like.
Half your links are broken or are to non-journal sources--salon.com is an extremely liberal, Fox-news bashing site that is hardly unbiased. Please try with some unbiased sources to disprove Fox's reliability. I freely accept Fox has a conservative lean to it. MSNBC is a competitor to Fox and is hardly unbiased in that regard.

As for having WMD, Hussein had and used chemical agents against his own people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign). The Halabja attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) killed thousands and injured up to another 10,000. It was a horrendous act of genocide. Furthermore, chemical weapons were used by both Iran and Iraq in their war in the '80's. Finding old chemical weapons caches would hardly be surprising.

The Fox news article you linked noted that the weapons found by the military were apparently made before '91 and were in an unusable form. However, they were still WMDs. After careful reading of this Fox article, it is stating not that there were new WMDs found, but that the inspection process missed a significant number of old caches, and that Hussein was dishonest in saying all chemical weapons had been destroyed. Clearly they had not been destroyed. Fox in fact notes that these were not the weapons that the Bush administration was looking for (see bolded part).

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

I'm thinking you possibly looked at the title and assumed Fox was talking about WMDs built up for the second Gulf War when you posted this as proof that Fox was factually inaccurate. I see nothing in this article that states that. The US military did find WMDs, as the declassified document notes, but they also happened to be older WMDs, and the article states that. There are multiple independant sources showing Hussein used chemical and nerve-agent weapons on his own people and in the Iran-Iraq wars. It is patently obvious that he had and used WMDs from the '80's on.

btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.


Thanks, there's no need to be a Grammar Nazi, leave the moderating to the moderators; Lucas Forums is a multi national board, and English may not always be an individuals first language, further more some people, such as me have dyslexia. -- j7

Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:

So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?


Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.




Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

No. No I am not. (Oh, , and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. :))


Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

Hey, I like this guy already :xp:

Welcome!

_EW_

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:

Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.


So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?


To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.


Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.


Again check to see who I responded to.


Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.


No. No I am not. (, and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. :))

Seriously I don't have a pathological hatred I was originally for anyone but Hillary Clinton, after I found out about Obama's associations and record, I'd rather have Hillary in the Presidency than Obama. I'm so vocal about this issue because the man's associations and limited record are downright scary.

Garfield, Ender, and anyone who has or is contemplating harsh rhetoric in this thread: while the flames would greatly warm up where I live and perhaps melt some of the near 20 inches of snow that we've gotten here in the last 5 days, it's reaching 'bomb the village with napalm' level. If you all continue on any further with the flaming, I will give everyone else the Christmas (or holiday of your choice) present of barring you from Kavar's until after Christmas so we don't have to listen to the crap. I appreciate your cooperation in keeping this place civil.

Edit: I'm also working on splitting off the posts on liberal/conservative media bias, so if some of your posts disappear, that's why. Thanks.

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?
Absolutely nothing, to be honest. My opinion on this is worth about as much as anyone's here. The only thing I can claim expertise on and could be quoted as a source for are eyes and vision, and possibly Martin Luther King Jr.'s political relationship with LBJ.

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've obviously missed my discussion on abortion, religion, and taxes. I do fall on the liberal side in regards to healthcare.


and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.
Point Man's the only one who gets to play white knight. :lol:

but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan
Fox isn't non-partisan at all. The opinion shows are very conservative, and the news coverage tends a bit to the conservative as well, but I wasn't talking about bias earlier, I was noting that Fox coverage on straight news issues is factual (and when they make mistakes, they acknowledge and fix them, since I've seen them do that a couple times).

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God.
>.>
<.<
;P

Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:
And here I thought I was jaded by the evil in Man.

Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly.
Bill O'Reilly is one of those I consider an opinion commentator rather than a pure journalist, so I wouldn't rely on him for the hard news. He's useful for providing some sourcing that liberal sources don't pick up or provide that I can go back to and check later.
Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.And he's so cute when he gets all mad and red-faced and you can see the arteries standing out on his temples.

Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.


It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.


To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.


Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.


Again check to see who I responded to.


Try not to discount what I'm saying just because it says 'EnderWiggin' at the top.


Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.

I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)



Anyways, getting back to Ayers, I did find financial ties between Obama and Ayers, I think I posted it somewhere earlier in this topic if not I'll try to find it again.
Ok. We'll be here.

_EW_

It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.


Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.


Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.

They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.



I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)

And he keeps the Opinion segment at the end of the show, the rest of the time is the news. The opinion segment is clearly labelled as such and not reported as news.

All right, to avoid the non-stop "OMG Faux News is teh badz" "No they aren't and here's a blog to prove it!" arguments sprouting up in so many threads like a bad case of foot fungus, discuss media bias (or lack thereof) and its ramifications here. This is not an Ayers thread. This is not a pro/anti-Bush thread. This is not a pro/anti-Obama thread, though I understand that coverage by the various networks of Bush and Obama are naturally going to come up. Ayers stuff must be contained to the Ayers thread.

In order to show differences, please post excerpts along with the link, rather than just a link. It's very hard to get an idea of where you're going on a point if you just post a link with no explanation. For instance, if you want to show the differences between coverage of Hurricane Katrina, post excerpts from a conservative source and a liberal source to show the differences within your post. Then include the links if someone wants to research it more for themselves. Please double check your links to make sure they aren't broken or route to non-existent pages as a courtesy to everyone.

The internet is not the be-all, end-all source. Book excerpts (please include citation and page number), radio podcasts/transcripts, studies on the media, journal articles, newspaper reports, all work as well. Please don't use the argument 'well, it was on this page but it got deleted by the owner.' If you don't have the info, don't post the claim, please. Either find the cached page or get us a different corroborating source. I do not want to see a copy of an alleged deleted web page from a blog because that could easily be altered.

It would also be helpful to define the terms as you see it the first time you use it in this thread: a conservative's view of 'mainstream media' and a liberal's view of 'mainstream media' are different, and having these defined here helps us all have some common ground to work with.

Also, if you all would like some kind of poll I'll be happy to edit it in. I'd just need to know options you'd all prefer to have. Thanks.

Most studies I have seen shows that the media as a whole is usually slightly left of whatever is considered centre in a country. The reason being the level of education of the journalists/editors, as most places higher education makes you more likely to be leftish. However this is mostly countered by the fact that the media try to have the same bias as their customers, so while a leftish journalist might want to write a leftish article, if he is working for a newspaper targeting conservatives, he'll have to write something not to far from his newspapers views.
So yes, there is bias, usually slightly leftish, and if you find it to be very leftish, blame your fellow consumers:D

Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

Only in America:D

Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.

Actually, I did. I clearly and accurately explained to you that someone can disagree with Jae without insulting her.



They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.


Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?

_EW_


Also, this post and the post I'm quoting likely should be moved to the Mass Media thread. :)

Done. :) --Jae

Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?


Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.

This carefully edited video shows Officer Stewart of the Denver Police knocking Alicia Forrest of Code Pink to the ground during a protest, and then, after an edit, Forrest getting arrested by other officers. This video has created a firestorm among left-wing blogs, and also engendered many follow-up stories in the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, Westword, and other mainstream Denver media outlets.

However, I personally witnessed the entire incident, from the beginning to the end, and can say without reservation that the Rocky Mountain News video is intentionally deceptive, and crafted to make the protester (Alicia Forrest) appear to be a victim of needless police brutality. I have photographic and video proof, shown below, that Alicia Forrest “asked for it” in the sense that she disobeyed police commands to stay back and also taunted the police; and that she was not seriously injured by Officer Stewart; and that the Rocky Mountain News in particular committed an act of media malfeasance by purposely posting on their site a deceptive video that left out all the context surrounding the incident. Furthermore, many blogs jumped on the story and trumpeted it as evidence of police misbehavior, when in fact there was no misbehavior at all.
-- Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-video-%E2%80%94-democratic-convention-2008/)

Additionally we have:

Perhaps even more extraordinary, however, is that the Times allowed Ayers to publish obvious lies about his terrorist past and rejected a rebuttal by the former FBI informant who lived through the history Ayers tried to rewrite. -- The Op Ed the New York Times Wouldn't Run (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-run/)

The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.

Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.
Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-video-%E2%80%94-democratic-convention-2008/)I'm) not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny. :carms:
The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.:rolleyes: You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.


I'm not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny. :carms:

Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.


:rolleyes: You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

I'm sorry you find the truth to be tasteless.

Let's tone down the rhetoric and name-calling on both sides of the political aisle--it's not constructive to the conversation regardless of who's doing it. It's not a reportable offense in that it's not flaming a member here, but if we're looking for constructive dialog, "left-wing nuts" and "fascist motherkeepitcleansoyoudon'tgetyourmouthwashedoutwi thsoap", do not help one bit. --Jae

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school's "liberal political machine" for being a conservative.

William Felkner, 45, says the New England college and six professors wouldn't approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the "wrong" side of political issues and countered the school's "progressive" liberal agenda.

Felkner said his problems with his professors began in his first semester, in the fall of 2004, when he objected in an e-mail to one of his professors that the school was showing and promoting Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on campus. He said he objected because no opposing point of view was presented.

He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner's ability to "fit with the profession."

"I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases," he wrote.

Felkner's complaint, filed two years ago, alleges that Ryczek discriminated against him for his conservative viewpoint and gave him bad grades because of it in several classes. It also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.
--Article on Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467626,00.html)

And more from same article:
Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class "assailing" his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not "progressive."


That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.

Video of a CBS News Story (http://www.truveo.com/Metro-State-College-Professor-Assigns-anti-Palin/id/2159245958)

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.
Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.It's called a JOKE
That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

The only aspect of the mainstream media that's irrationally biased is Faux News, to be perfectly honest. I've yet to see any story, in either "factual" or admittedly-opinion format, that wouldn't make a Nazi blush with embarrassment. I've tried many times over the past three years to keep up with their "news", and at the end of the day all I've gained is a new appreciation for CTVNewsnet. How Faux still manages to clutch to any kind of audience is completely beyond me.

And, for the record: there's a reason why educated journalists usually have a left-leaning "bias". :rolleyes: Though Murph seems to have beaten me to that point. :xp:

No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.

Even when you see the actual news articles from New York Times, or media outlets literally disappear from being online? Fact is that I was actually seeing it happen when I went to post links to those articles here after I had saw the articles before a class, I get back and the media outlet had deleted those articles.

Also a few of the bloggers I've used have had a reputation of catching media outlets in the act of dishonest reporting.


It's called a JOKE


It's called not funny.


As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.

That's a separate topic. Please stay on the topic of media bias. --Jae

It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.
awww our elementary schools are liberal propaganda machines.

Hitler Youth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)

_EW_

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.

Nobody here is calling you a liar, but I WILL call this argument utterly absurd, because you have neither the proof nor the substance to back it up.
If it doesn't exist, then the opposition must have deleted it. Right. Prove it, or leave those arguments out of the debate, because they have no place in civilised discussion without some basis in fact.

All media is biased, and so are you.

[/thread]

All right, before this gets all out of hand with back and forth stingers (which I would appreciate you all toning down), I looked around for an actual university/non-partisan based source on liberal/conservative bias in the media. This is not so easy as I thought it should be. There are a lot of watchdog groups such as AIM (conservatively biased) and FAIR (liberally biased), but they are not unbiased. However, the only one I could find that was a university, study based, non-partisan organization was the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm) out of George Mason University.

In terms of the election, according to a number of CMPA studies, such as this one (http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm), the 3 major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, combined gave twice as much good press to Democrats as they did to Republicans, at 65% positive for Democrats and 31% positive for the GOP, or a 34% difference. Fox did give better press to Republicans, although it's better worded as 'they gave less negative coverage to McCain than they did to Obama'. However, the differential was not nearly as great. The GOP on Fox received 39% positive press, and the Democrat ticket received 28%, which means there was only an 11% differential.

The Summer 2008 Election Watch (http://cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf) noted Obama got 68% more coverage than McCain. That is a substantial difference. I think we can begin to understand why conservatives are screaming media bias with a number like that. I think it's far more complex than just 'media bias', but I'll leave you all to hash out the reasons for this large difference.

It also noted the following:
From December 16 to June 7,only one out of every five stories (21%) contained substantive material, while twice as many (40%) dealt with the
horse race. FOX “Special Report” led with 24 percent substantive stories,followed closely by CBS (23%), NBC (18%) and ABC (17%) trailing behind. It also went on to note that this year's presidential election had less substantive reporting than in all the previous elections they'd studied. As someone who's been following elections since the 80's, I could tell you I found this election incredibly frustrating for that reason. I didn't want to hear what polls said, I wanted to hear what the candidates had to say. Instead, we were fed a steady diet of fluff and sometimes pure stupid crap--who cares if Barack dances better or worse than Michelle, for heaven's sake? Like that's going to have any bearing on how Barack governs the country. We heard more on Palin's clothing expenses and her pregnant daughter than we did on economic policy and sex ed. I found myself repeatedly thinking "Why is this even news?????" no matter what channel I watched.

@Garfield--you have to admit that posting about 'mysteriously disappearing articles' is extremely difficult to believe, and it's likely to affect your credibility. If liberals said such a thing, you'd find it hard to believe, too. Please confine yourself to articles that actually exist so that we can access them for ourselves in order to make our own judgments about the content/bias/etc.

@The Doctor--your characterization of Fox as a Nazi-like organization is way over the top. Please a. show distinct proof of Nazi level of fascism and b. show where Fox has been repeatedly, intentionally, factually false. Every news organization is going to make mistakes now and then, and they should admit it and correct it--I do not count that as intentional disinformation. What I want to see from you is a pattern of intentionally falsifying information. I watch both CNN and Fox--while they certainly differ in their opinion programming bias, and how they cover news can differ, I've not seen a difference in the facts they've provided. I'm just not seeing this intentional falsification that you're claiming exists.

@Adavardes--I'd appreciate it if you had an answer for me on the Fox article on WMDs. If not, I understand.

However, the only one I could find that was a university, study based, non-partisan organization was the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm) out of George Mason University.What is the methodology for determining bias? How does an objective observer arrive at the conclusion that CMPA is, in fact, without bias?

The Summer 2008 Election Watch (http://cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf) noted Obama got 68% more coverage than McCain. That is a substantial difference.Could this be because the Democratic primary lasted much longer than the Republican primary? Could it be that the media was milking every last cent out of the "Obama beats Clinton" drama? I suspect there are lots of reasons why Obama recieved more coverage than McCain. One of them could be liberal vs. conservative bias, however I don't think it wise to ignore the corporate media bias.

I think we can begin to understand why conservatives are screaming media bias with a number like that.It beats pointing out that their own candidate sat on his hands for several months.

I think it's far more complex than just 'media bias', but I'll leave you all to hash out the reasons for this large difference. I agree.

It also noted the following:
It also went on to note that this year's presidential election had less substantive reporting than in all the previous elections they'd studied. As someone who's been following elections since the 80's, I could tell you I found this election incredibly frustrating for that reason. I didn't want to hear what polls said, I wanted to hear what the candidates had to say. Instead, we were fed a steady diet of fluff and sometimes pure stupid crap--who cares if Barack dances better or worse than Michelle, for heaven's sake? Like that's going to have any bearing on how Barack governs the country. We heard more on Palin's clothing expenses and her pregnant daughter than we did on economic policy and sex ed. I found myself repeatedly thinking "Why is this even news?????" no matter what channel I watched. There are sources of information other than television.

...
If I could rep you for that post, I certainly would. Very well put, and very balanced.

On to the topic at hand: biased reporting. It most certainly happened. The facts and numbers are not in dispute. The fact that MSNBC openly came out and said they were in the tank for Obama is not in dispute. What is disputed, however, is WHY the biased happened.

To me, there are two main factors:

A liberal push my biased media giants, like MSNBC and ABC to advance the candidate of their choice
The simple and undeniable fact: McCain has been around FOR A WHILE. Great guy, I love him, personally. But, there's nothing new to report about him. We've seen him for the last few decades now. Obama, on the other hand, new. Fresh. Exciting. He's the new hawtness. The latest craze. He's everything we haven't seen in a Presidential Race in a long time: young, charismatic, not white. OF COURSE he's going to get more coverage.


Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT an Obama fan. I think the guy is out there- complete whack job. However, bias aside, I can see how he got so much more coverage. If it were Romney or Huckabee, someone we're not AS familiar with, on the GOP ticket, coverage would have been a little more balanced, I think. McCain was just yesteryear's news.

@Garfield--you have to admit that posting about 'mysteriously disappearing articles' is extremely difficult to believe, and it's likely to affect your credibility. If liberals said such a thing, you'd find it hard to believe, too. Please confine yourself to articles that actually exist so that we can access them for ourselves in order to make our own judgments about the content/bias/etc.


It would be difficult to believe, I'm aware of that and it shocked me to no end, but it did happen. I used to think the mainstream media wouldn't crusify someone for asking a politican whom walked into his neighborhood a question. But we had that happen this year too.

Fact is a lot of this stuff that the media was sitting on and is still sitting on could have cost Obama the election. They were actively serving as press secretaries for Obama.

It would be difficult to believe, I'm aware of that and it shocked me to no end, but it did happen.

Proof, or no it didn't. Sorry, but nothing that farfetched would ever be considered even plausible without rock-solid proof. And I am positive that you don't have that, as you have dodged the many requests for evidence several times now. Either find a way to make us believe this line, or stop bringing it up. In the words of Ms. Onasi:

Please don't use the argument 'well, it was on this page but it got deleted by the owner.' If you don't have the info, don't post the claim, please. Either find the cached page or get us a different corroborating source. I do not want to see a copy of an alleged deleted web page from a blog because that could easily be altered.

@Jae Onasi:

It's kind of a moot point when the reports were done, as the links provided a pretty blanketed period for when we searched for WMDs in Iraq, and when we didn't. I apologise if some of the links weren't properly operational; when I used them, they were, so I'm not sure what happened there. Regardless, attempting to say that Fox News wasn't distorting the truth with a claim to 500 WMDs in Iraq is ridiculous, as I very much doubt that, whether or not moving them out of the country was a factor, there were that many nuclear warheads ever in that country.

There is no evidence of them being in the country, nor is there proof of them being moved out of the country. And to say that Fox News does not report factual events with a huge conservative slant, far more severely than any liberal outlet ever has, is really just never going to see an end of fruition.

And to say that Fox News does not report factual events with a huge conservative slant, far more severely than any liberal outlet ever has, is really just never going to see an end of fruition.

While I agree that Fox is a very biased outlet, would you mind showing some evidence that they are far worse than the liberal ones. So far, they seem to have corrected themselves when they make factual errors.

Proof, or no it didn't. Sorry, but nothing that farfetched would ever be considered even plausible without rock-solid proof. And I am positive that you don't have that, as you have dodged the many requests for evidence several times now. Either find a way to make us believe this line, or stop bringing it up. In the words of Ms. Onasi:


Sorry, but it did happen, there were some stories concerning ACORN and Obama that disappeared from the web that were from an election off year. Also I ran across a report and if the media wasn't biased, why didn't they also investigate Obama's radical ties. They had a field day with a bogus sex-scandel concerning McCain. They were trying to tear Governor Palin limb from limb.

<SNIPPED> Garfield, I'm sorry but you were warned to keep the Ayers stuff to that thread and I'm tired of having Ayers, pumped everywhere, furthermore, I fail to see the relevance with regards this thread. It had been explicitly said not to mention him in this thread, unless relevant, and I don't think it is. I'm sorry but you leave me no choice but to issue a "Kavars cool off" -- j7

I'm accusing the media of far worse than simple bias, I'm accusing the liberal press of dishonest Journalism. They didn't report the news, they did their best to get a man elected, they were actively cheering for Obama and they did their best to completely destroy anyone that voiced criticism of their "anointed one."

You want to know why I keep bringing this up? I keep bringing this up because this situation scares me to death. If this is what we have to look forward to, prepare yourselves for a lot of people being arrested for merely voicing criticism and this country becoming a dictatorship, cause if one party controls the media, you may as well kiss your freedoms goodbye.

Sorry, but it did happen,

I'm accusing the media of far worse than simple bias, I'm accusing the liberal press of dishonest Journalism.

If this is what we have to look forward to, prepare yourselves for a lot of people being arrested for merely voicing criticism and this country becoming a dictatorship, cause if one party controls the media, you may as well kiss your freedoms goodbye.

1. Prove it.

2. Prove it.

3. Stop painting liberal media as some sort of evil totalitarian oppression squad. I'm sick of your rhetoric and your exaggerations of the truth to make this party seem as if it is a completely immoral, dishonest, and inflamatory group. I am sick of conservatives mouthing off because, after eight years of a republican president driving this country into the ground, we want something different, something that may actually work to the flow of progress, as opposed to furthering greed, corruption, and war. You are backed into a proverbial corner, with the majority of your attacks lacking evidence in defence of itself beyond a blog, yet you still have the gall to claim that Democrats are going to bring about an end to freedom?

Prove. Your. Statements.

@ Murph:

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.

Prove. Your. Statements.


Or at least corroborate them with more than blogs.

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.

Well, there won't be another liberal pundit with Hannity. They're now promoting a new show - "Hannity" - slogan 'All Hannity, All the time.'

_EW_

Well, there won't be another liberal pundit with Hannity. They're now promoting a new show - "Hannity" - slogan 'All Hannity, All the time.'

_EW_

That's just great. T_T

What is the methodology for determining bias? How does an objective observer arrive at the conclusion that CMPA is, in fact, without bias? Well, let's work first with this dictionary definition of bias (Online dictionaryhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/bias) and go forward from there:
bi·as (bs)
n.
1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
4. Sports
a. A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling.
b. The tendency of such a ball to swerve.
5. The fixed voltage applied to an electrode.

And no, I'm not referring to fabric, voltage, or how a ball swerves, just to be clear for the picky ones here. :xp:


I don't think any human-led organization can be 100% without bias. Nor did I say CMPA is completely without bias, and in fact didn't make any claim on that in regards to CMPA. I wanted something at least overtly non-partisan, and preferably university based so that there were scholars handling the studies. Statistics scholars understand the methodology and analysis in creating an appropriate research project, or are at least less likely to create bad studies with misleading questions and questionable data collection, since they are also subject to peer reviews by other scholars in the field rather than scrutiny by the conservative/liberal blogosphere or even other news outlets. They don't (theoretically) have corporate/monetary influences on top of it. It looks to me from how they handle the data that they try to minimize bias and focus on what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers generated.

Could this be because the Democratic primary lasted much longer than the Republican primary? Could it be that the media was milking every last cent out of the "Obama beats Clinton" drama? I suspect there are lots of reasons why Obama recieved more coverage than McCain. One of them could be liberal vs. conservative bias, however I don't think it wise to ignore the corporate media bias.Absolutely agree all of those are factors. In WI, the news coverage (newspapers, local TV, radio, net) during the primary was focused on Obama/Clinton because the race was close in the state and WI's delegates actually had a bearing on the selection of the Democratic nominee. McCain pretty much had it in the bag by that point for the GOP. Since WI is generally a blue state I expected more Democrat coverage anyway, but the excitement of the Obama/Clinton race created far more coverage for the Dems than for the GOP. On top of that, there was the added factors of a. a female and b. a minority being very serious contenders for the Dem nomination, and the idea that no matter who won the Dem race at that point, it was going to be an historic win.

It beats pointing out that their own candidate sat on his hands for several months.He sat on his hands, or the media just didn't find him as interesting/compelling?

There are sources of information other than television.This wasn't confined to TV, though the research site confines itself to that. The newspapers out of Chicago and Milwaukee gave more coverage to Obama, and the talk radio coverage on the stations that aren't blatantly liberal or conservative tended to cover Obama more than McCain, but I think it was likely for the reasons listed in previous posts as well.

It's kind of a moot point when the reports were done, as the links provided a pretty blanketed period for when we searched for WMDs in Iraq, and when we didn't. I apologise if some of the links weren't properly operational; when I used them, they were, so I'm not sure what happened there. Regardless, attempting to say that Fox News wasn't distorting the truth with a claim to 500 WMDs in Iraq is ridiculous, as I very much doubt that, whether or not moving them out of the country was a factor, there were that many nuclear warheads ever in that country.
Ah, I see the confusion--chemical, radiological, and biological weapons also fall under the category of WMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction), not just nuclear. If I may direct your attention to the article again, it reports that the declassified gov't document states the information about the numbers of weapons found, and it states these were chemical weapons. Fox merely reported what the gov't document said. There doesn't appear to me to be any distortion in this particular article.

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.I'm hoping they replace him with another liberal commentator, but I'm thinking they won't, which would be too bad--Hannity has a tendancy to get stuck on 1 thing, and Colmes did a good job of moving things along. I watch them a lot, and Colmes gives as good as he gets--he by no means was Hannity's whipping boy. I believe he is also getting his own show, which should be interesting.

Well, let's work first with this dictionary definition of bias (Online dictionaryhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/bias) and go forward from there:

And no, I'm not referring to fabric, voltage, or how a ball swerves, just to be clear for the picky ones here. :xp::eyeraise:

Not sure where I asked you to define bias, but thank you for the information. I find these "academic" papers that attempt to show media bias laughable when they don't even bother to tell the reader how they defined it, what key terms or issues they flagged, etc. Definitely a hallmark of a poorly written paper.

I don't think any human-led organization can be 100% without bias. Nor did I say CMPA is completely without bias, and in fact didn't make any claim on that in regards to CMPA. I wanted something at least overtly non-partisan, and preferably university based so that there were scholars handling the studies. Statistics scholars understand the methodology and analysis in creating an appropriate research project, or are at least less likely to create bad studies with misleading questions and questionable data collection, since they are also subject to peer reviews by other scholars in the field rather than scrutiny by the conservative/liberal blogosphere or even other news outlets. They don't (theoretically) have corporate/monetary influences on top of it. It looks to me from how they handle the data that they try to minimize bias and focus on what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers generated.Ok, you answered my question. I wanted to know how you'd arrived at the conclusion re: CMPA that you did and now I know it was via a lot of premises which I would classify as "questionable".

I can point out which of them I find problems with and why if you would like, or we can move on if doing so would be a waste of both of our time.

Absolutely agree all of those are factors. In WI, the news coverage (newspapers, local TV, radio, net) during the primary was focused on Obama/Clinton because the race was close in the state and WI's delegates actually had a bearing on the selection of the Democratic nominee. McCain pretty much had it in the bag by that point for the GOP. Since WI is generally a blue state I expected more Democrat coverage anyway, but the excitement of the Obama/Clinton race created far more coverage for the Dems than for the GOP. On top of that, there was the added factors of a. a female and b. a minority being very serious contenders for the Dem nomination, and the idea that no matter who won the Dem race at that point, it was going to be an historic win.Glad that we are in agreement that there were other factors other than "the media loves party X and hates party Y", etc.

He sat on his hands, or the media just didn't find him as interesting/compelling?My assertion indicated a vote for the former. John McCain secured the nomination for the GOP and then...?

I find it hard to fault the media for not covering John McCain for several months when he didn't do much of anything for several months (aside from bbq for them at his Sedona ranch).

This wasn't confined to TV, though the research site confines itself to that. The newspapers out of Chicago and Milwaukee gave more coverage to Obama, and the talk radio coverage on the stations that aren't blatantly liberal or conservative tended to cover Obama more than McCain, but I think it was likely for the reasons listed in previous posts as well.Just to clarify, you had commented on how unsatisfying you found the television coverage. I merely pointed out that if you didn't like the TV there were other avenues open to you as well.

I find these "academic" papers that attempt to show media bias laughable when they don't even bother to tell the reader how they defined it, what key terms or issues they flagged, etc. Definitely a hallmark of a poorly written paper.The press releases and quarterly reports that I quoted aren't the academic papers.

You wanted objective criteria for determining bias, and I thought it would be a good idea to define bias--not necessarily just for us.

Ok, you answered my question. I wanted to know how you'd arrived at the conclusion re: CMPA that you did and now I know it was via a lot of premises which I would classify as "questionable".If you can find a better non-partisan, university/research based organization without bias (or with as little as possible) that can provide hard data from which we can draw conclusions, that would be great.

I can point out which of them I find problems with and why if you would like, or we can move on if doing so would be a waste of both of our time.Waste of time for both of us. Even if I agree with your assumptions, it's not getting us to the final spot of having a reputable source with solid information that we all can agree on. I'm not 100% satisfied with this site, either, but it had enough data we could actually discuss instead of the 'there's bias/no there's not/yes there is/no there's not' crap that I can work with it. If a better site comes up, we can go for that.

Glad that we are in agreement that there were other factors other than "the media loves party X and hates party Y", etc.I'd love to see what other reasons people come up with.

My assertion indicated a vote for the former. John McCain secured the nomination for the GOP and then...?I know that. I was just bringing up a possible alternative. When he did do things, it didn't seem to generate the same level of coverage.

I find it hard to fault the media for not covering John McCain for several months when he didn't do much of anything for several months (aside from bbq for them at his Sedona ranch).BBQ goes only so far before it gets to be as exciting as the endless list of possible shrimp dishes in Forrest Gump, true.

Just to clarify, you had commented on how unsatisfying you found the television coverage. I merely pointed out that if you didn't like the TV there were other avenues open to you as well.OK, I follow you now. I usually have newsradio on (switching between a few different stations) during the day and catch internet news sites when I can. I just switch stations as needed if they start to get into discussions of Obama's and McCain's favorite childhood pets or "Cool whip or Real Whipped Cream: The Candidates share their views!!!"

The press releases and quarterly reports that I quoted aren't the academic papers.I was referring to the content provided by the links themselves.

You wanted objective criteria for determining bias, and I thought it would be a good idea to define bias--not necessarily just for us.And that's fine however it still leaves the objective of being able to determine bias untouched.

If you can find a better non-partisan, university/research based organization without bias (or with as little as possible) that can provide hard data from which we can draw conclusions, that would be great.If I feel inclined to do so at some point, I'll be more than happy to share my results. In the mean time, this is the source you introduced.

Waste of time for both of us. Even if I agree with your assumptions, it's not getting us to the final spot of having a reputable source with solid information that we all can agree on.I'm not making assumptions, so there are none that you would need to agree (or disagree) with. Being able to critically evaluate a source doesn't require them.

I'm not 100% satisfied with this site, either, but it had enough data we could actually discuss instead of the 'there's bias/no there's not/yes there is/no there's not' crap that I can work with it. If a better site comes up, we can go for that.So a site which may or may not be biased themselves should act as the objective indicator of how much bias exists? This strikes me as a shaky proposition at best.

I'd love to see what other reasons people come up with. I listed a few before. I'm sure others will be added as the thread progresses.

I know that. I was just bringing up a possible alternative. When he did do things, it didn't seem to generate the same level of coverage.No doubt that is probably true. Like when he fired his campaign manager. That didn't make very many news cycles. A clear indication of "the liberal news machine" at work. ;)

BBQ goes only so far before it gets to be as exciting as the endless list of possible shrimp dishes in Forrest Gump, true.True. However it might make one question how objectively McCain was being covered when he palling around with the people who are supposed to be doing the objective covering. I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama refer to the press as his base.

Ah, I see the confusion--chemical, radiological, and biological weapons also fall under the category of WMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction), not just nuclear. If I may direct your attention to the article again, it reports that the declassified gov't document states the information about the numbers of weapons found, and it states these were chemical weapons. Fox merely reported what the gov't document said. There doesn't appear to me to be any distortion in this particular article.

Actually, it is. The major issue that was used to convince us that the war in Iraq needed to happen was the "fact" that nuclear weapons were in Iraq, and that an attack on the US was imminent. The Bush administration, a conservative party, used these scare tactics when everyone felt insecure and retalitory to fly in guns blazing, allowing their emotions to get the better of them as opposed to rationally thinking it out. I'll admit that it was a gaff on my part to assume that only nuclear warheads fell under the category of WMDs, I knew that fact all too well going into the argument, and I'm man enough to admit I made a mistake.

Still, the only reason Fox reported this story was that they could further confuse the general public, which, frankly, isn't too bright and probably doesn't recognise the subtle differences between weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, to intimidate them into believing that the Bush administration was right all along. Really, all you've proven is that Faux News is very, very good at floundering around the truth to serve their twisted logic, without actually outright lying. Also, I have my doubts about the validity of that report's content, as most everyone else was quoting "No WMDs", not just "No nuclear weapons". I'm not saying that the other news sources couldn't be bending the truth just like Fox did, but it makes you wonder where Fox is getting its sources.

Actually, it is. The major issue that was used to convince us that the war in Iraq needed to happen was the "fact" that nuclear weapons were in Iraq, and that an attack on the US was imminent. Yep. I still remember exactly where I was as I listened to Colin Powell listing off all the ways that Iraq had "failed" to respond to the various UN resolutions.

Iraq presented a clear and present danger and we had to act immediately to protect the homeland. So much so that we pulled the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq while they pleaded for more time.

God bless the United States of Amnesia.

Yep. I still remember exactly where I was as I listened to Colin Powell listing off all the ways that Iraq had "failed" to respond to the various UN resolutions.

Technically Iraq was in violation as Jae pointed out with those older weapons that were found. We found WMDs, just not the ones we were looking for.


Iraq presented a clear and present danger and we had to act immediately to protect the homeland. So much so that we pulled the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq while they pleaded for more time.

We might have had less casualties if we hadn't tried to go through the United Nations, furthermore it came out that several countries on the security council were getting paid off by Saddam.


God bless the United States of Amnesia.

It's America, my brain works just fine thank you kindly.

Still, the only reason Fox reported this story was that they could further confuse the general public, which, frankly, isn't too bright and probably doesn't recognise the subtle differences between weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, to intimidate them into believing that the Bush administration was right all along. Really, all you've proven is that Faux News is very, very good at floundering around the truth to serve their twisted logic, without actually outright lying. Also, I have my doubts about the validity of that report's content, as most everyone else was quoting "No WMDs", not just "No nuclear weapons". I'm not saying that the other news sources couldn't be bending the truth just like Fox did, but it makes you wonder where Fox is getting its sources.

No, the reason Fox News reported on it is because it was WMDs and everyone else was in denial about us actually finding stuff. They were reporting the news, the other outlets were just trying to do a hitjob on President Bush.

We only need to look at the Mainstream Media's treatment of 'Joe the Plumber' to see how in the tank they were for the Democrats. The mainstream media had more media trucks out on 'Joe the Plumber's' lawn in a day than they did for most of Obama's other shady friends the entire 08 election.

No, the reason Fox News reported on it is because it was WMDs and everyone else was in denial about us actually finding stuff. They were reporting the news, the other outlets were just trying to do a hitjob on President Bush.IIRC, before and during the invasion the entire mainstream media was kneeling before the awesome power of Bush. They were like that until everyone realized that the whole war was pointless and that Bush was an idiot.

IIRC, before and during the invasion the entire mainstream media was kneeling before the awesome power of Bush.

No they were scared to death of another public backlash like what happened to the New York Times, because of an article that was sympathetic to terrorists that hit the newsstand on 9/11/2001. It took them a while to lose that fear of another public backlash and calls for boycotts, and if you payed attention to the coverage even then they were starting to go back to the US bad terrorist good propaganda routine. Reading Bernie Goldberg's book Arrogance sometime.


They were like that until everyone realized that the whole war was pointless and that Bush was an idiot.

Actually that isn't true, you had members of the press getting upset about one of Saddam's statues being pulled down by an American Tank, because the troops were concerned the statue might fall on someone so they hooked chains up had everyone stand back and had the tank pull it down for them. I'm going to look through my books and see if I can find the book that talks about this again so I can give the specifics as to what news group.

All media is biased, and so are you.

[/thread]

In case people missed it, I thought I would have to quote this, for complete, total and utter truth.

In case people missed it, I thought I would have to quote this, for complete, total and utter truth.

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.

jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party.

Nope;

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.

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".

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.

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.