|
The Liberal Media/ Bush Documents Refute
|
View this Thread in Original format
| speedracer_mec |
Face it....if you survey most journalists. They will show that they are for the most part: Liberal. The liberal media then complains about Fox News drawing in all the ratings. Why? They hold a counter for the one-sided liberal media. Its pretty ridiculous when we have all these hate sites for FoxNews when basically they are balancing it all.
Sure one conservative channel won't hurt when you have Clinton News Network and MSNBC...not to mention the local media (CBS,ABC and........
YES NBC news has now shown their biases
Well in true unobjective fashion here we go again..
The Today show is going to devote not one day.. not two.. but THREE days worth of segments/interviews of Kitty Kelley and here new book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty"
Kitty Kelley is well know for National Enquier type hit books.. she accused Reagan of getting a girl pregnant and then an abortion.. she did a hit book on the royal family..
Most of it has almost NO evidence and its just a bunch of vitriolic accusations..
Her new book is more of the same.. GWB snorting coke at camp david.. that sort of gossipy scandal..
Well even with the problems of the key witness recanting
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../9/110445.shtml
And for those of you that hate Newsmax:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6-2004Sep8.html
They are still going along with the series of interviews.. Funny, they never had the authors of "unfit for command" on the show and its been #1 for how long?
In fairness Newsweek did turn her down...
Media Bias? Thoughts???
We have the Boston Globe harping on Bush's past records and The New York Times acting like lunatics with their radical editorials.....pretty ridiculous |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Face it....if you survey most journalists. They will show that they are for the most part: Liberal. Thoughts???
|
Meaning of LIBERAL
Pronunciation: 'liburul
WordNet Dictionary
Definition:
[n] a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
[n] a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
[adj] tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
[adj] showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
[adj] not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"
[adj] given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
[adj] having political or social views favoring reform and progress
;)
Meaning of CONSERVATIVE
Pronunciation: kun'survutiv
WordNet Dictionary
Definition:
[n] a person who has conservative ideas or opinions
[adj] resistant to change
[adj] conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
[adj] unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-gray world of business"- Newsweek
[adj] avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
[adj] opposed to liberal reforms |
|
|
| Renegade |
The "Liberal Media" myth is just a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by people unwilling to confront the truth about what's happening in the world around them. The accusation of bias is generally wielded as a defence mechanism to protect one's own belief system ("that reporter has said something that contradicts what I believe, but since my belief system is completely accurate, the facts he's presented must be 'biased' ") and is generally devoid of any substance whatsoever. The presentation of facts that challenge your assumptions is not "bias" if the facts are accurate and no significant competing set of facts have failed to have been reported. Whenever I hear anyone cry "bias", I usually just take it as an admission that they have no other way to argue against the facts presented to them.
Having said that, if there is indeed any institutional bias in the media (a conclusion that you would need fairly solid evidence to argue for) it would actually slanting be in the other direction. In the two or since years after September 11, the US media's docile complicity in the actions committed by the Bush administration constitutes something bordering on criminal negligence. The Bush line was never criticised or challenged, the wafer-thin case for war never disected, the horrors of war never properly explored. If you were relying on the US media for your information during that period, you would end up with a very skewed sense of what was going on indeed. While the balance has been largely restored since then (now that it's "okay" to be critical of Republican politicians again) the complete inability of the US media to perform its function during that time needs to be addressed. The concept of democracy, afterall, rests on the premise of an informed population and where the media exists solely to propogate the government's line, democracy cannot work.
Oh and one more thing. Please read this page (and as many of the links provided as possible) and then try to tell my the the US media has a "liberal bias":
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/...iberalMedia.htm
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The "Liberal Media" myth is just a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by people unwilling to confront the truth about what's happening in the world around them. The accusation of bias is generally wielded as a defence mechanism to protect one's own belief system ("that reporter has said something that contradicts what I believe, but since my belief system is completely accurate, the facts he's presented must be 'biased' ") and is generally devoid of any substance whatsoever. The presentation of facts that challenge your assumptions is not "bias" if the facts are accurate and no significant competing set of facts have failed to have been reported. Whenever I hear anyone cry "bias", I usually just take it as an admission that they have no other way to argue against the facts presented to them.
Having said that, if there is indeed any institutional bias in the media (a conclusion that you would need fairly solid evidence to argue for) it would actually slanting be in the other direction. In the two or since years after September 11, the US media's docile complicity in the actions committed by the Bush administration constitutes something bordering on criminal negligence. The Bush line was never criticised or challenged, the wafer-thin case for war never disected, the horrors of war never properly explored. If you were relying on the US media for your information during that period, you would end up with a very skewed sense of what was going on indeed. While the balance has been largely restored since then (now that it's "okay" to be critical of Republican politicians again) the complete inability of the US media to perform its function during that time needs to be addressed. The concept of democracy, afterall, rests on the premise of an informed population and where the media exists solely to propogate the government's line, democracy cannot work.
Oh and one more thing. Please read this page (and as many of the links provided as possible) and then try to tell my the the US media has a "liberal bias":
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/...iberalMedia.htm
:rolleyes: |
Very well put! :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
"I admit it," Kristol told The New Yorker. "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
:stongue:
“A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”
:happy2: |
|
|
| JM |
some of you liberals should publish books with all these posts you've added to the debate forum...
can't believe some of you spends so much time and energy on something as insignificant as this. if you want change, why don't you do something grassroots - non TA forums related :D
>JM< |
|
|
| policerobots |
go hug a tree
LOL |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
some of you liberals should publish books with all these posts you've added to the debate forum...
can't believe some of you spends so much time and energy on something as insignificant as this. if you want change, why don't you do something grassroots - non TA forums related :D
>JM< |
It's very easy to post here while I execute various computer related tasks. If you could see all of the windows I have open right now you would probably get a good chuckle.
I push for change in many ways, but of course all you are privy to is my posts on TA.
PS - How do you know for certain that we haven't already written books, anyway? :D |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by policerobots
go hug a tree
LOL |
Original! How long did it take you to think that one up? I can almost smell your smoking synapses from here! :p |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The "Liberal Media" myth is just a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by people unwilling to confront the truth about what's happening in the world around them. The accusation of bias is generally wielded as a defence mechanism to protect one's own belief system ("that reporter has said something that contradicts what I believe, but since my belief system is completely accurate, the facts he's presented must be 'biased' ") and is generally devoid of any substance whatsoever. The presentation of facts that challenge your assumptions is not "bias" if the facts are accurate and no significant competing set of facts have failed to have been reported. Whenever I hear anyone cry "bias", I usually just take it as an admission that they have no other way to argue against the facts presented to them.
Having said that, if there is indeed any institutional bias in the media (a conclusion that you would need fairly solid evidence to argue for) it would actually slanting be in the other direction. In the two or since years after September 11, the US media's docile complicity in the actions committed by the Bush administration constitutes something bordering on criminal negligence. The Bush line was never criticised or challenged, the wafer-thin case for war never disected, the horrors of war never properly explored. If you were relying on the US media for your information during that period, you would end up with a very skewed sense of what was going on indeed. While the balance has been largely restored since then (now that it's "okay" to be critical of Republican politicians again) the complete inability of the US media to perform its function during that time needs to be addressed. The concept of democracy, afterall, rests on the premise of an informed population and where the media exists solely to propogate the government's line, democracy cannot work.
Oh and one more thing. Please read this page (and as many of the links provided as possible) and then try to tell my the the US media has a "liberal bias":
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/...iberalMedia.htm
:rolleyes: |
Ok so you post a bias site
Let me use the same argument you used:
Please read this page (and as many of the links provided as possible) and then try to tell my the the US media has a "liberal bias":
Link1
LINK2
Fact of the matter is, most journalists in the industry have been surveyed and overwhelmingly support Kerry/Democrats. Its obvious by the coverage the swiftboat for vets got on most channels.
Explain to me why NBC is dedicating 3 days to this woman with no evidence whatsoever....yet they didnt interview not one swiftboat vet. You do realize that the lady in question is an EX-Bush and went through a contentious divorce from Jeff Bush...she hardly has any love for the Bushes.
Even her attorney said she NEVER gave permission to be quoted in any book....much less said anything of the sort.
This book is pure unadulterated lies...by another known liar. But yet the media wants to dedicate 3 days to this woman who is obviously going to have a very loppsided story.
AS FAR AS THE NEW DOCUMENTS SAYING BUSH WENT AWOL:
the Bush story has recieved mass coverage on these liberal media..more than swiftboats every got---these past few days...However,there has been a dim light of hope for the truth.
Apparantly 60minutes/CBS has provided documents that might be forged.
The quotes are now in question.
The story appeared tonight ON ABCNEWS...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Poli...s_040909-1.html
(Ben Barnes was quoted to show Bush as a total disgrace---)
His own widowed-wife and many people are now questioning whether the democrats ran to go have the memo's forged. If ABCNEWS has began to cover this...this story will definitely be the hachet in Kerry's campaign if this is true.
"Questions Arise About Authenticity of Newly Found Memos on Bush's Guard Service"=====title of the article.
As Dan Rather took the pencil to sign his Retirement letter...he thought of the disgrace and shame...if this is true....
EXPECT THE REPUBLICANS to totally blow this up tomorrow or in the incoming days.
Now on to Mr.Barnes:
Friend of John Kerry?
MAJOR contributor to Kerrys Campaign? ($400,000 donated)
Democrat politician?
compare Barnes comments in 1999 to his comments today..
From 1999:'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...arnes092899.htm
Inconsistencies?
And actually it looks like he has given a LOT more in contributions..
http://www.capitaleye.org/KerryFRchart.11.13.03.asp
Did DAN RATHER ASK him about these contributions??
So Rather has interviewed Ben Barnes, who claims that the only reason he is coming out and talking about this is because he wants the truth to be known. That is a lie. The truth is he is a partisan Democrat who has shown up with 54 days to go before the election to try and damage President Bush's election chances. You would have to be a moron to think otherwise.
Wow.. he is even a vice-chair on Kerrys election..
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/topfundraisers.pdf
The thing that bothers me more than anything else about this, is that CBS is willing to carry Kerry's water. Totally irresponsible for 60 minutes to run a story like this without being absolutely certain of their authanticity. If 60 minutes doesn't address these facts presented by these document experts it's going to lose a lot of credibility, or a lot of whatever it has left. 60minutes is a program that presents facts and this looks primarily like liberal propaganda. YUP the world is ed up basically and so is this election. So in essence it really doesnt make sense for you to say its all in the conservatives mind that the media is biased....FOX NEWS covers both sides and leans conservative and you'd be a moron to say all the other media does the same...when it is doing all of this. Misquoting, extensive coverage on this, calling Cheney a savage on local newspaper(nytimes)...
OH WELL GNITE
Damn...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
It's very easy to post here while I execute various computer related tasks. If you could see all of the windows I have open right now you would probably get a good chuckle.
I push for change in many ways, but of course all you are privy to is my posts on TA.
PS - How do you know for certain that we haven't already written books, anyway? :D |
for one...all you do is copy and paste..so I'd say you probably created a coloring book if anything |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
for one...all you do is copy and paste..so I'd say you probably created a coloring book if anything |
Continuously fighting with the cognitively challenged trolls isn't really my cup of tea.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
