Reply With Quote
I read that yesterday and found it very interesting. However, what is more interesting is that I didn't hear any reference to it at all yesterday!!
This is a very good read. Seems fair.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
I read that yesterday and found it very interesting. However, what is more interesting is that I didn't hear any reference to it at all yesterday!!
^^why does it surprise you. Many on this board don't want to put the
left leaning, libs put down. Don't you know there is no bias! No lies, only
the Bush administration tells lies.
I suspected the latter (especially TV) but not the former.The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media.
I tend to agree with you. Drudge tends to use many left wing reports, but
he is only putting what has been printed. While, PBS tv and the three networks tend, it seems to me, slant everything to the left. And in the case
of the big three networks tell out and out lies.
yeah, I heard and read that.
The Wall-Street Journal is left-wing?....oh the Horrah!!!
That damn liberal media!!!
PBS seems to go out of their way to have less bias in News Hour and conservatives are all over their commentary shows, so that makes sense to me.
The comment about watching/reading/listening to several sources from both sides seems to be the best advice and is coincidentally what I usually do.
I do catch alot of the news from different sources. But seems like a lot of the
media has the same old faces, mostly Democrat's or their stooges on their shows.
Also the "used to be" major networks seem to put the U.S. down or cast the
citizens as dummies or charltans trying to cheat folks. It almost like local news,
if their is blood involved, so are they or bleeding heart stories. Also I love it,
when the major networks and cable put a teaser on for a show coming up later
and call it news. FOX seems to get hung up on a story, like yeterday about the
plane crash. Nothing really to report except they do as always, put the tape they
have on a loop and talk, talk, talk about nothing. Oh, well guess I didn't have
to watch, but I did.Shame on me....
That is what I do. I don't watch network news much because I'm at work but I do watch the weekend news shows and always try to catch Meet the Press, The Beltway boys, Roundtable on Fox, MSNBC, Tucker Carlson so that I can hear all sides of the story.
I watch Bill O'Reilley, Hannity & Colmes, Hardball.
I guess I'm a news junkie of sorts.
Is there a liberal media? Well I guess so if that is what you are looking for.
Just like most tell me that I only see racism in King Kong because it is what I'm looking for..if you are looking for biased opinions you will find them but some of it is clearly there.
I mean when I watch FoxNews they don't even try to hide their biased reporting. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.
All you hear is democrat bashing and how it is "democrats" who are against the Patriot Act although some republicans are with the democrats.
I'll admit that there is some liberal bias on the networks if Fox would just say they are a right-wing network.
But there are many right-wing new outlets out there as well and they almost dominate the radio air-waves.
That is my two cents.
You get a penny change Joe!
You get a penny change Joe!
you add nothing to this forum.
Thats kinda like the pot calling the kettle black!
Thats kinda like the pot calling the kettle black!
fresh take
That is fair and balanced.You get a penny change Joe!
I'd be curious to see how each print newspaper correlates to the market which it serves. It would seem to make sense that the NY Times or Washington Post would be far left of, say, the Des Moines Register.
How interesting to see that FOX News is pretty much centrist on the American political spectrum.
I anticipate that the elitist liberal response would be that most conservatives are too stupid to be served by an intellectually honest media.
I would anticipate that the elitist conservative response would be that most liberals are too stupid to be served by an intellectually honest media.
Works both ways.
Interesting editorial on this subject!
+++++++++++
Subordinating the truth
Dec 20, 2005
by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact )
As I was watching President Bush's latest news conference, I was again struck by the thought of how different the news climate and public mood would be if the mainstream media (MSM) were truly as unbiased as they pretend to be.
If the MSM were indeed objective and animated by an investigative impulse and a nonpartisan, government-watchdog instinct, they might thoroughly cover and inquire into the following:
-- Why Joe Wilson appears to have lied when he denied that his wife, Valerie Plame, recommended him to the CIA to investigate the claim that Saddam Hussein sought uranium yellowcake from Niger, manifestly unqualified though he was. They might also examine Wilson's bragging about debunking certain forged do ents on his trip that were not even discovered until eight months later.
-- Senator Durbin's unconscionable likening of America's treatment of terrorist detainees to the treatment of prisoners by Pol Pot, the Nazi regime and the Soviet Gulags.
-- Why one of its own standard bearers, the vaunted New York Times, sat on the surveillance "scandal" story until the week Congress was debating reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
-- Where Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid gets off demanding an independent investigation about this NSA surveillance -- a practice that essentially began under President Clinton and about which Reid and his colleagues were privy to a dozen briefings.
-- How Democratic leaders have continually accused President Bush of lying to get us into war when they had access to the same WMD intelligence as President Bush and voted to authorize him to attack Iraq.
-- Why only a handful of Democrat senators availed themselves of their access to certain detailed reports on Iraqi WMD.
-- Why Democratic leaders claim their plainly unconditional authorization to attack Iraq was based on further conditions.
-- Upon what evidence the Democrats base their slanderous allegation that the Bush administration, as a matter of policy, engages in the systematic torture of terrorist detainees.
-- How Democratic leaders could justify their irresponsible call for a specific withdrawal timetable for Iraq without playing into the terrorists' hands.
-- Why most of those Democrats, when Republicans called their bluff, were afraid to back up their destructive rhetoric with their vote.
-- The Democrats' con uous inability or unwillingness to offer a single alternative plan for Iraq, though they ceaselessly condemn President Bush's policies on it.
-- Why senators who voted for the Patriot Act are now refusing to reauthorize it despite the lack of a credible case that the administration has abused its authority or compromised civil liberties.
-- How Democrat Senators can complain about the government's failure to connect the dots concerning the terrorists' 9/11 plot and at the same time take action that will virtually guaranty our inability to connect future dots.
-- On what basis Sen. Harry Reid charges that the present Congress is "the most corrupt in history."
-- The remarkable progress in Iraq of the training of Iraqi security forces and the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure.
-- The positive morale of the American troops in Iraq despite the endless distortions of the MSM and Democratic politicians.
-- The robustness and resilience of the American economy under President Bush.
The MSM has been largely silent or slanted on these stories, along with many others that don't support their preferred template.
Yet, in the face of this evidence, the MSM mostly deny their bias. What's scary is that many of them actually believe they aren't biased, which is as much a result of self-deception as deception of others.
This is because they operate in the type of stifling bubble they believe envelops President Bush. They surround themselves only with people who share their decidedly leftist, secular worldview. They harbor a myopic arrogance that regards contrary opinion as aberrant, perverse and evil. They oppose at all costs anything that advances that worldview, including the dissemination of the truth.
Thus, their professed allegiance to the truth must yield to their jaded perception of the higher good. Their pretense toward objectivity must be subordinated to their desired political ends.
This explains their concerted suppression of the undeniable historic significance of the Iraqi elections in favor of their timed release of the story on the surveillance scandal. It explains CBS's John Roberts' obliviousness to how he embarrassed himself in asking President Bush -- on the heels of this remarkable news about the burgeoning Iraqi government -- to confess his worst mistake in office.
While I am mindful and appreciative of the profound counterbalancing impact of the New Media in the interest of truth, we must remember that the MSM are still alive and kicking and bent on shaping the news and public opinion in conformity with their worldview.
David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com.
Copyright © 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
interesting to whom?
repugs
Well sure, but lets at least look at the conservative media as well.
Like how they don't mention that it is NOT just democrats that blocked the Patriot Act.
That it is NOT just democrats that are asking for hearings regarding the NSA surviellance.
And almost all news stories have some type of "edge" to them and that "ratings" have a tendency to make some stories "juicier" during sweeps weeks.
^^you know what I find interesting. You cannot have a conversation on this
forum. boutons always comes in with some smart remark, oh gee, has to have
his and contribute little or nothing to the conversation. Joe C. chimes in that
he is: "I guess I'm a news junkie of sorts. ". I think most on here are. Otherwise
we wouldn't be posting on here so much. I think most people who post here
on a regular basis know what the others political leanings are. But it would be nice
to have a decent conversation without all the "cussing", name calling and such
stuff. Yeah, I know everyone is going to get a little "upset" with the other side,
but face to face the stuff that goes on here gets a little on the silly, stupid side.
I think, at least hope, everyone on here wants only the best for this country, I
know we have a few outside of the USA, but to them I hope we show we do have
a diverse and free society. Anyhow, that is my two cents.
dimm-o-craps?
Joe, I can't believe you posted such a pack of bull , lies and half-truths.
Why don't you just admit you watch Fox for the hot newsbabes wearing short skirts?
Oh, Gee....isn't that what a lot of them are?
xrayzebra among others has made it clear there is a distinction:
Democrats: Liberal, populist, believe in using the state more to help out the less fortunate, prefer a strong private sector, but with a lot of government oversight, prefer foreign policy that leans heavily on diplomacy and less on force as a deterrent, prefer state neutrality on matters of religion even if it steps on some toes, heavily disagree with the President, stuff like that.
Dimm-o-craps: Loony, hard-left, believe private businesses are evil and that the state should run or regulate almost everything, prefer a foreign policy in which America accepts blame for all the world's problems, regard Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro as heroes, felt schadenfreude on 9/11, want to use the state to discourage religion, hate the President and equate him with Adolf Hitler, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
