RE: reputable sources and "bias"...

[blackfox]

Now this may be a horrible decision on my part, but considering that much talk has been centered on "bias" with news sources, I thought I'd put a thread out to attempt to somewhat clarify this issue, although resolution seems impobable.

Leo, I do not mean to single you out, but it is your vocal expressions of "unfairness" that have played a large part in the creation of this thread. So I ask you, Leo (and other conservatives who may feel that they are being treated unfairly) to explain in clear, concise and verifiable terms what sources they consider "Liberal" and why, as well as to the relation (if any) to whether it is "reputable". Please explain standards for judgement. To those on the left, I ask the same in reverse.

I know this will further tax the patience of some who have tried to explain the difference between "bias" and "reputable" as pertaining to the standards of journalism, and regardless, I would ask everyone to take the above sentence into account while they formulate (any) responses...

I feel somewhat cheapened to even have to open a thread to address this issue, but I just want it to be over...I am going out for the evening and will contribute my thoughts sometime later.

PLEASE try to make this a substantive, respectable debate. Thankyou.

[zimv20]

maybe we can use a respected award like the Pulitzer to shed some light on journalist values in the print media, which is my favorite kind of source. let's survey some recent Pulitzer finalists and winners (list not complete)...

Breaking News Reporting
finalists: Miami Herald, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Times, New York Times, LA Times
winners: Staff of Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald Staff, Staff of Wall Street Journal

Explanatory Reporting
finalists: Erika Niedowski of Baltimore Sun, David Finkel of Washington Post, New York Times Staff, Louise Kiernan of Chicago Tribune, Michael Winerip of New York Times, Tom Brune of Seattle Times
winners: Chicago Tribune Staff, New York Times Staff, Staff of Wall Street Journal

Commentary
finalists: Nicholas Kristof of New York Times, Nat Hentoff of Village Voice, Derrick Z. Jackson of Boston Globe, Colbert I. King of Washington Post, Tony Kornheiser of Washington Post
winners: Leonard Pitts Jr. of Miami Herald, Colbert I. King of Washington Post, Thomas Friedman of New York Times, Paul A. Gigot of Wall Street Journal

Investigative Reporting
finalists: David Barstow and Lowell Bergman of New York Times, David Ottaway and Joe Stephens of Washington Post, Alan Miller and Kevin Sack of Los Angeles Times, Staff of Seattle Times
winners: Clifford J. Levy of New York Times, Sari Horwitz, Scott Higham and Sarah Cohen of Washington Post, David Willman of Los Angeles Times, Staff of Miami Herald

there's a short survey. i've not included all, but all these nominations and winners are from '97-'04 (w/ more weight given to more recent years).

lots of NY Times and Wash Post, followed by LA Times, WSJ and the Miami Herald. A good showing by Seattle Times, as well. appearing more than once (though maybe not in my condensed list) are Baltimore Sun, San Jose Mercury News and Toledo Blade.

didn't see any Newsmax or Frontpagemag (do they even have print editions?).

all of this, of course, can be found at the Pulitzer site (http://www.pulitzer.org/). now, who wants to have a go at TV news?

edit:
i'd like to clarify a difference between a Finalist and a Winner. if someone or an organization is listed as a Finalist, it means they didn't win for that particular year. so if the staff of the New York Times shows up as both a Finalist and a Winner in the same category, you can assume those are from two different years.

[pseudobrit]

I'll have ago at TV...

Peabody awards:
KMGH-TV,

CBSNews,

NBC News MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, presented on PBS,

Christian Frei Filmproductions, HBO/Cinemax Deocumentary Films, Swiss National Television, Suisseimage, presented on HBO,

NOVA/WGBH and Channel 4, presented on PBS

P.O.V./ American Documentary Inc., in ass. w/ Indepndent Television Services, Zula Pearl Films and National Black Programming Consortioum, presented on PBS (2 awards)

ZDF German TV in ass. w/ Irish Film Board

WEKU-FM, Down to Earth Productions

Weijun Chen, HBO/Cinemax Documentary Films, TV2 Denmark, BBC, presented on Cinemax

Viacom/MTV and the Kaiser Family Foundation

KRON-TV

WCNC-TV

WGBH/Frontline, The New York Times and Canadian Broadcasting Corp., presented on PBS

Thirteen/WNET, presented on PBS

KSJN-FM/Minnesota Public Radio

TV Asahi Crop.

Showtime

Atlantic Public Media

BBC2

MTV Networks/Nickelodeon

HBO

BBC America

WESH-TV

KHOU-TV

American Experience/WGBH, presented on PBS

University of Memphis, Tenn., presented on the Arkansas Educational Telecommunications Network
--

Bill Moyers won the independent award.

Hmm... no awards for any groundbreaking pieces from Fox... let me go back a few years... ah, yes, FOX has won four Peabody Awards. All of them network sitcom or drama shows.

Now onto Murrow awards:

Continuing Coverage: NBC Nightly News, David Bloom Reports on the War in Iraq (NBC and MSNBC)
Feature Reporting: ESPN, ESPN Sportscenter: Picking Up Butch
Investigative Reporting: Dateline NBC, Do No Harm - Sulzer Hip Implants
News Documentary: ABC News, Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy
News Series: Univision, Mis Padres, Mis Verdugos (My Parents, My Tormentors)
Newscast: ABC News, World News Tonight
Overall Excellence: CBS News
Sports Reporting: ESPN, ESPN Sportscenter: Picking Up Butch
Spot News Coverage: CBS Evening News, First Day of War
Videography: Univision, En Busca de Un Milagro (In Search of a Miracle)
Website: MSNBC, www.msnbc.msn.com
Writing: CBS News, Everybody Has A Story

and in 2002:

Overall Excellence: NBC News
Newscast: NBC News, NBC Nightly News With Tom Brokaw
Spot News Coverage: Dateline NBC, New York Under Siege
Continuing Coverage: CNN, Sept. 11, 2001 - Terrorist Attacks
Investigative Reporting: CBS News, 60 Minutes II, Merchants of Mass Destruction
Feature Reporting: CBS News, Sunday Morning, 32 Across…
Sports Reporting: NBC News, Today, Legless Wrestler/Determined Wrestler
News Series: Dateline NBC, The Roots of Rage
News Documentary: CNN, Beneath the Veil
Videography: Dateline NBC, Silver Lining
Writing: CBS Evening News With Dan Rather, Everybody Has a Story
Web Site: MSNBC, www.msnbc.com

Here is the Emmy award nomination breakdown: (this year/last year)

PBS: 24/31
ABC: 20/18
CBS: 19/19
Cinemax: 12/3
History Channel: 11/4
NBC: 11/18
MSNBC: 9/13
Discovery Channel: 4/5
CNN: 3/6
CNBC: 2/1
TLC: 2/3
A&E: 1/1
CMT: 1/0
Univision: 1/0
National Geographic Channel: 0/2
Sundance Channel: 0/2
Animal Planet: 0/1
Discovery Health: 0/1
FOX: 0/2

Fox's entries last year were for local stations (Fox 5 News and Fox 25 News at 10), not FOX News. For comparison, most other networks were nominated for their regular news shows. Fox broadcast stations do not carry national news programmes. Neither Fox entry won an award.

[Leo Hubbard]

didn't see any Newsmax or Frontpagemag (do they even have print editions?).

all of this, of course, can be found at the Pulitzer site (http://www.pulitzer.org/). now, who wants to have a go at TV news?
I don't have time to delve into this now, however I'd like to point out one little thing. Print media is the past, it won't be long until it goes the way of the dinosaur. Internet only media is the wave of the future, even TV media as we know it will blow away in the wind. Eventually the technologies will merge to the point where tv/news/phone/internet/whatever will be all in one package. This won't happen without pioneers like Newsmax or Frontpagemag leading the way. Oh wait, I just remembered, they both have hardcopy monthly magazines, but that is beside the point even those will be gone.

Generally I believe the left wing has had a monopoly on both print and news media. They also have a monopoly on those agencies who passes out awards to those same entities. Now with cable, and the internet, their monopoly is going to come crashing down. pennyless nobodies could potential actually compete for market share versus the behemoths that have monopolized it for so long, with the help of the internet. Democrats aren't members of the progressive party for progress is going to even the playing field and leave them in the dust. Until they remake themselves, their original philosophies and tenants are still very viable if they would just simply stick to it and leave the rest of their unethical crap behind.

[zimv20]

i see (http://www.npr.org/about/awards/) that NPR has won 39 Peabody Awards, among others.

[pseudobrit]

I don't have time to delve into this now, however I'd like to point out one little thing. Print media is the past, it won't be long until it goes the way of the dinosaur. Internet only media is the wave of the future, even TV media as we know it will blow away in the wind. Eventually the technologies will merge to the point where tv/news/phone/internet/whatever will be all in one package.

Really? Newspapers are still as profitable as ever. Why aren't they going out of business?

This won't happen without pioneers like Newsmax or Frontpagemag leading the way.

Pioneers? They're johnny-come-lately's at best, at worst, just hack propaganda machines. They're about as reputable as the Weekly World News. Anyone with an open, objective, logical and empathetic mind can see the extreme bias presented by these sites.

You don't see me or anyone else citing CommonDreams, People's Weekly World, truthout, Mother Jones, Air America Radio, DemocraticUnderground or MichaelMoore.com, do you? Know why?

Because we know they're not always as reputable as a source needs to be to build an argument on.

Generally I believe the left wing has had a monopoly on both print and news media. They also have a monopoly on those agencies who passes out awards to those same entities.

Great cyclical argument. We can't judge the "liberal media" by the awards of the journalism community because they're given out by "fellow liberals."

There's obviously to be no reasoning with you.

Your argument is only as good as your facts.
Your facts are only as good as your source.
Your source is only as good as its record and reputation.

You don't build a house of 100 rooms on a questionable foundation.

[Leo Hubbard]

Your argument is only as good as your facts.
Your facts are only as good as your source.
Your source is only as good as its record and reputation.

You don't build a house of 100 rooms on a questionable foundation.
yup, and its about time someone started giving us the other side of the story instead of the monopoly that has been going on way too long now.

Example, all these news sources get on reporting sprees on how people are dieing by handguns. They are anti-gun biased ie liberal. They ignore perfectly good stories where someone protected themselves with a gun because that doesn't fit in with their agenda.

[SuperChuck]

I don't think there is a question that some media outlets tend to be more liberal, while others tend to be more conservative. What people fail to see is that the majority of the media generally works very hard at presenting the news in an unbiased manner - so much so that the news they report is distorted by their burning desire to look nonpartisan.

Take, for example, the war on terrorism:

Whenever George W. Bush says "they want to destroy us because they hate our freedom," none of the anchors have the guts to come out and say it's a bunch of hogwash.

If they were not so afraid of looking partisan, they might suggest that the real reason the terrorists hate us is because:

1. We support the House of Saud, which is a corrupt, totalitarian regime that reaps massive wealth while their people go hungry.
2. We show unabashed favoritism towards Israel in their struggle with Palestinians.
3. We have military bases on lands considered holy by the people of the Muslim faith.
4. We funded Osama bin Laden's guerilla war against the USSR when they occupied Afghanistan, then refused to assist them in returning order to the country after they were successful.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Of course, "they hate us because of our freedom" has a better ring to it, but at some point, you would think the media would get around to letting us know about the truth.

I don't have a problem with a little media bias. What I have a problem with is a media that has become so afraid of appearing biased that they ignore the truth.

[SuperChuck]

all these news sources get on reporting sprees on how people are dieing by handguns. They are anti-gun biased ie liberal. They ignore perfectly good stories where someone protected themselves with a gun because that doesn't fit in with their agenda.

"A gun kept in the home is 4

times more likely to be involved in an unintentional

shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a crimi-

nal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely

to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to

be used in self-defense."

1998 Journal of Trauma
(An annual report of trauma published by and for the medical community)

That might be one reason why, Leo. Not because they are biased, but because they are reporting the facts. Also, somebody scaring away a burglar with a gun is less of a news item than scores of kids getting killed by bullets purchased by 16 year olds at K-Mart.

I SHOULD ADMIT MY BIAS:

My father was killed by a gun when I was 10.

[zimv20]

My father was killed by a gun when I was 10.
i'm sorry to hear that

[Neserk]

... everything is biased. Bias isn't necessarily left or right politically speaking, although it can be. (Obviously).

As humans we are always biased, it is part of being human.

The best way to deal with bias is to acknowledge it and at least allow both sides (or all 99 sides) present their point of view. Fox can be biased, so long as people are also watching station X which shows the opposite side. The problem is when someone just watches Fox or just watches station X. The other problem is when the person doesn't critically examine the news and recognize the bias.

[pseudobrit]

The best way to deal with bias is to acknowledge it and at least allow both sides (or all 99 sides) present their point of view.

I disagree. As long as the all the pertinent facts are accurately laid out, it won't matter what light they are cast in as long as the audience is responsible and intelligent.
If they don't think, then the spin becomes the truth, because they are unwilling or unable to separate the two.
This is why I hate "news shows" where two pundits of opposing views are set up in a satellite slap-fight.
These shows are spin rich and fact poor, and rarely moderated professionally, which makes them all but worthless for news. They don't belong on any responsible news source's lineup.

The other problem is when the person doesn't critically examine the news and recognize the bias.

right-o

[takao]

i think at the moment that every us news is a little bit flawed because of the oncoming election

here the newspapers don't have a problem with agreeing on issues
best example at the moment is the US election or fahrenheit 911 :
every news conservative and liberal criticize the election being "too much show" "the electorial vote system", "kerry for not having a clear opinion about iraq" ,"bush for the obvious reasons" ,"fear of terror being used as political tool"
yesterday all the reports about fahrenheit hit the news-papers: through all papers: "superficially","no better than US-governmental propaganda","too few (new) facts","sometimes badly researched", "too much editing" but also "amusing and entertaining" "interesting because of the way how films can edited for political messages", "worth watching", "shows more political insight into US politics and problems with politics"

through all papers the same

oh and of course the newspapers find it very amusing how many attack moore for calling it a "documentary", because every documentary holds opinion

and yeah FOX is getting 'bad words' from all sides as well, for their completly on sided news coverage

edit: yeah and that "left wing conspiracy" theory is getting old ..i guess around 80 years ... but haven heard about it in a while

[mouchoir]

I don't have time to delve into this now, however I'd like to point out one little thing. Print media is the past, it won't be long until it goes the way of the dinosaur. Internet only media is the wave of the future, even TV media as we know it will blow away in the wind. Eventually the technologies will merge to the point where tv/news/phone/internet/whatever will be all in one package. This won't happen without pioneers like Newsmax or Frontpagemag leading the way. Oh wait, I just remembered, they both have hardcopy monthly magazines, but that is beside the point even those will be gone.

Generally I believe the left wing has had a monopoly on both print and news media. They also have a monopoly on those agencies who passes out awards to those same entities. Now with cable, and the internet, their monopoly is going to come crashing down. pennyless nobodies could potential actually compete for market share versus the behemoths that have monopolized it for so long, with the help of the internet. Democrats aren't members of the progressive party for progress is going to even the playing field and leave them in the dust. Until they remake themselves, their original philosophies and tenants are still very viable if they would just simply stick to it and leave the rest of their unethical crap behind.

Talking of monopolies, I can't remember hearing that Rupert M is liberal?

[Desertrat]

I tend to judge bias by how certain phrases slant articles. I see much writing that indicates the writer is rather statist in his views. For example, when some lowering of taxes is reported, there will be some comment along the lines of, "It will COST the government..." Now, a cost is what is paid out. Foregone income is not a cost. The writing is a view that for whatever reason government has some right to taxes. I've seen the same sort of writing when the State of Florida was considering raising (and imposing new) licensing fees for occupations.

To me, this sort of thing is indicative of one's inherent worldview, and is in no way deliberately pro-government.

Another area has to do with guns. For instance, where is it ever reported as to how many times a non-LEO has stopped a violent situation with his own firearm? That's occurred twice in school-violence cases but wasn't reported. From the reports of the FedGov folks, and from such studies as Kleck's, we know that more people use firearms to end some violence than to institute it. But, that's not reported. As a generality, an anti-gun view is a liberal view.

I don't doubt the veracity of reports of events happening. I rarely accept the judgements of the reporters as to "the deep meaning" of events until a while later, however.

We have no way of knowing what stories are spiked due to inherent bias concerning the relative importance of that news. what might be important to a liberal might be unimportant to a conservative and vice versa, but we'll never know how bias affects any specific selection of stories...

'Rat

[mischief]

News is a product. Facts are the raw materials and Spin the packaging.

Market forces determine what products survive and thrive.

It is then reasonable to assume that in the long term, the media sources that survive the longest, with the greatest readership and quotation by other publications are those which are most trusted and respected. Generally in such a situation it can be logically assumed also that these same agencies present the most solid facts with minimal spin.

It can further be assumed that those who actually consume News have (via the laws of economics) created a field of News sources that reflect the spin and view they prefer to get their facts about the world from.

IE: If the most successful and widely published News sources are, indeed Liberal Biased it only stands to reason that the vast majority of News-consuming Americans are similarly Liberal-Biased.

QED

Care to actually respond to this line of logic this time Leo?

[Leo Hubbard]

News is a product. Facts are the raw materials and Spin the packaging.

Market forces determine what products survive and thrive.

It is then reasonable to assume that in the long term, the media sources that survive the longest, with the greatest readership and quotation by other publications are those which are most trusted and respected. Generally in such a situation it can be logically assumed also that these same agencies present the most solid facts with minimal spin.

It can further be assumed that those who actually consume News have (via the laws of economics) created a field of News sources that reflect the spin and view they prefer to get their facts about the world from.

IE: If the most successful and widely published News sources are, indeed Liberal Biased it only stands to reason that the vast majority of News-consuming Americans are similarly Liberal-Biased.

QED

Care to actually respond to this line of logic this time Leo?
If everybody jumped off of a cliff ... :p

[mischief]

If everybody jumped off of a cliff ... :p

You'd be just as deluded, lonely and unlikely to breed as you are right now.

To the mods: I'll take what's coming to me.... I just had to... :o :( :p

[Chane]

... everything is biased. Bias isn't necessarily left or right politically speaking, although it can be. (Obviously).

As humans we are always biased, it is part of being human.

The best way to deal with bias is to acknowledge it and at least allow both sides (or all 99 sides) present their point of view. Fox can be biased, so long as people are also watching station X which shows the opposite side. The problem is when someone just watches Fox or just watches station X. The other problem is when the person doesn't critically examine the news and recognize the bias.

-Neserk

I completely argree with this statement.

In response to Pseudobrit's response: I agree that one station would be enough if it were to present all the facts available, even if there were spin. However, I hesitate to believe that the station that I happen to be watching will do that. It may be safer to take the time to watch/read different sources.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that most of the news that I read tends to shed light on topics in similar ways. I don't know if this should be considered a "liberal" point of view, but I admit that when I do hear a stereotypically conservative POV (e.g. FOX NEWS) the angle that I get is sometimes quite different. It's that difference that's important as a news consumer. Perhaps that's why I still bother to watch FOX NEWS.

Perhaps I'll find some examples.

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps I'll find some examples.

Please do. I'd like to better understand the value some place on deliberately biased reporting.

[amnesiac1984]

You'd be just as deluded, lonely and unlikely to breed as you are right now.

To the mods: I'll take what's coming to me.... I just had to... :o :( :p

hehe

but also good point. leo that really isn't a suitable counter argument. Are you suggesting that the american public are falling off a proverbial left wing cliff? I think the opposite is true, especially from an international perspective in relation to the rest of the world.

[Leo Hubbard]

hehe

but also good point. leo that really isn't a suitable counter argument. Are you suggesting that the american public are falling off a proverbial left wing cliff? I think the opposite is true, especially from an international perspective in relation to the rest of the world.
That is why we are the only super power left in it?
Maybe we are doing something right and instead of dragging us down to their level through the democrats, they should try to duplicate our accomplishments and join us as a superpower in their own right?

[mischief]

That is why we are the only super power left in it?
Maybe we are doing something right and instead of dragging us down to their level through the democrats, they should try to duplicate our accomplishments and join us as a superpower in their own right?

What a bizarre arguement.

The USSR failed because they were never a viable economic power. Communism was a system concieved with a fully industrialized and economically agressive country in mind. The only countries that actually became pseudo-Marxist were poor, agrarian countries with little or no economic power relative to their size.

The current movement towards responsible social programs has nothing to do with the economic model of Marxism and everything to do with compassionate governance.

Read Marx, Read the history of China, the Bosheviks, Cuba and the lifecycle of Republican Communism before you go comparing it to western free market Capitalism.

The Communist model failed due to it's economic isolation, not due to American superiority. Without trade with much of the world and two dozen or socontributing Capitalist (and Socialist-Democratic) allies the US would have failed too.

[mischief]

hehe

but also good point. leo that really isn't a suitable counter argument. Are you suggesting that the american public are falling off a proverbial left wing cliff? I think the opposite is true, especially from an international perspective in relation to the rest of the world.

And to think.... I actually did the responsible thing and reported myself over that one. :rolleyes:

Thanx BTW. ;) :)

[3rdpath]

I don't have time to delve into this now.
snip...blah, blah, blah...
Generally I believe the left wing has had a monopoly on both print and news media. They also have a monopoly on those agencies who passes out awards to those same entities. snip...blah, blah, blah...

for someone who doesn't have time to rspond... you've responded with multiple posts that fail to actually answer the original questions of this thread.

you have time for generalizations and "facts" such as the demise of the printed media(which is FAR from true)...yet you can't articulate what constitutes your vast "left wing conspiracy" of the media. heck, even the awards given to the media are biased in your view.

without substatiation of your charges you come across as someone who has crossed the border into the land of paranoia.

[blackfox]

Thanks all, for the thoughtful replies...

I was hoping more people would explain how a source's basis for credibility and respect is not based on "bias", but on the tenets of responsible information gathering, fact-checking and other journalistic measures of competence and ethics. Here is a (semi) useful agreement in this areas...
Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by the 18th IFJ World Congress in Helsingör on 2-6 June 1986.

This international Declaration is proclaimed as a standard of professional conduct for journalists engaged in gathering, transmitting, disseminating and commenting on news and information and in describing events.

1. Respect for truth and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.

2. In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall at all times defend the principles of freedom in the honest collection and publication of news, and of the right of fair comment and criticism.

3. The journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which he/ she knows the origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify documents.

4. The journalist shall use only fair methods to obtain news, photographs and documents.

5. The journalist shall do the utmost to rectify any published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate.

6. The journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.

7. The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost to avoid facilitating such discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.

8. The journalist shall regard as grave professional offences the following:

- plagiarism
- malicious misrepresentation
- calumny, slander, libel, unfounded accusations
- the acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.

9. Journalists worthy of that name shall deem in their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. Within the general law of each country the journalist shall recognize in professional matters the jurisdiction of colleagues only, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by governments or others.

To Leo:
It seems that all you see is bias, with a convenient disregard for the integrity and credibility of that source, as judged by agreed-upon standards of professionalism in the industry.

As I mentioned in another thread, if you feel that media outlets are biased to the left because they write stories critical of the Administration or of the GOP in Congress, I would remind you of the coverage of Clinton by these same sources back during his Presidency. They were often critical of Him, his choices and his policies, as they were of the Democratic-led Congress up to 1994...This is done not because of their party-affiliation, but because these are people with power, who are elected-officials, and their choices affect the general populace and the world. They are, in short, interesting topics, that garner people's interest, whether it be on a matter of policy that may affect millions, or on the personal conduct of an individual Politician.

Has it not occured to you that it would be irresponsible of the media not to draw attention to the issues by those in power (now GOP), and to be analyze these events and the possible ramifications of them. Like it or not, Bush has made some mistakes during his administration and they deserve attention as they are important issues to the American populace. Responsible News does not give you an opinion, however, it allows you to make one. News stories are also about substance, and if you lament the relative lack of attack on Kerry, it is because many of the subjects ultimately lack importance, especially relative to the decisions of the current Government. Editorials/Punditry are NOT news, although they do have a supporting role...with modern 24-hr news networks and the Internet, I can see how it might be easy to confuse the two...

So I ask you, please answer the questions I posed at the beginning of the thread, and Mischief's (as he has asked twice)...and answer them well. I thankyou...

[Leo Hubbard]

for someone who doesn't have time to rspond... you've responded with multiple posts that fail to actually answer the original questions of this thread.

you have time for generalizations and "facts" such as the demise of the printed media(which is FAR from true)...yet you can't articulate what constitutes your vast "left wing conspiracy" of the media. heck, even the awards given to the media are biased in your view.

without substatiation of your charges you come across as someone who has crossed the border into the land of paranoia.
You ignored the fact that I stated as an example that most of these so called main stream media report crimes caused by guns in their attempts to get guns outlawed while ignoring stories of those who protected themselves from criminals with guns. This by itself shows their slant.

outlawing guns
accepting gays
taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't
expecting that everyone deserves top level medical care
expecting the system to continously pay wellfare mothers without actually trying to get them off the system
Wanting to wait for the terrorists to attack us before doing something and then limiting it only to that tiny group and not doing anything about the source.
Wanting to fix terroristic problems by throwing money at them under the excuss of stopping the poverty etc that makes people become terrorists. Sorry but they need to fix their own problems without resorting to terrorism.
ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,NBC, etc. All the big time news groups.

are more examples of left wing agendas that get much more support from the general media than a more balance realistic approach.

I am not going to go out and spend hours dredging up exact details about exact examples only to have you shoot them down with a "well but ..." crapola. Got better things to do with my time.

[SuperChuck]

outlawing guns
accepting gays
taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't
expecting that everyone deserves top level medical care
expecting the system to continously pay wellfare mothers without actually trying to get them off the system
Wanting to wait for the terrorists to attack us before doing something and then limiting it only to that tiny group and not doing anything about the source.
Wanting to fix terroristic problems by throwing money at them under the excuss of stopping the poverty etc that makes people become terrorists. Sorry but they need to fix their own problems without resorting to terrorism.
ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,NBC, etc. All the big time news groups.

are more examples of left wing agendas that get much more support from the general media than a more balance realistic approach.

I am not going to go out and spend hours dredging up exact details about exact examples only to have you shoot them down with a "well but ..." crapola. Got better things to do with my time.

Accepting gays? As opposed to what?

Locking them up?

Tying them to a fence and beating them to death?

Accepting homosexuals is neither liberal or conservative. To suggest that either political philosophy is against the acceptance of homosexuals as fellow human beings is ignorant and disrespectful.

[Leo Hubbard]

Accepting gays? As opposed to what?

Locking them up?

Tying them to a fence and beating them to death?

Accepting homosexuals is neither liberal or conservative. To suggest that either political philosophy is against the acceptance of homosexuals as fellow human beings is ignorant and disrespectful.
Oh I don't know either they decided to be gay and can decide to be straight which most gay people I know don't think, or they were born that way which means it is genetics and thus fixable someday.

However, what I meant is pro-gay legislation like gay marriage is left wing agenda. Right wing agenda, ok is just as wrong, I said it. I never said the right didn't have an agenda too, just that the left has the "mass media" on their side, ie "biased media" on their side.

Not the actual topic of this post, but personally I think the National government should get out of regulation of marriages completly.

[SuperChuck]

Oh I don't know either they decided to be gay and can decide to be straight which most gay people I know don't think, or they were born that way which means it is genetics and thus fixable someday.

However, what I meant is pro-gay legislation like gay marriage is left wing agenda. Right wing agenda, ok is just as wrong, I said it. I never said the right didn't have an agenda too, just that the left has the "mass media" on their side, ie "biased media" on their side.

Not the actual topic of this post, but personally I think the National government should get out of regulation of marriages completly.

I will agree that major media outlets tend to show a bit of a bias in terms of gay rights legislation.

It is not political bias, though. It is urban bias. People who know gay people and have gay friends discover that they are good, decent people who deserve the same rights as every other American.

I'm not going to lose my cool over it, but you really shouldn't suggest that homosexuality is "fixable." It's a little offensive.

[Leo Hubbard]

I'm not going to lose my cool over it, but you really shouldn't suggest that homosexuality is "fixable." It's a little offensive.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean any offense by it. But think about it, in the near future, or maybe even today already. Doctors examine your newborn baby and deduce that while it is a male it will be genetically predisposed to like men. Now, with parental permission, they can convert him into a female so that the baby will be hetrosexual in nature. Further into the future perhaps they could flip that switch.

However, I do see a much bigger picture further down than that. Men hunted, women bore children. That was natural, increasing our species ability to survive by protecting the baby producers. In the future the gay genetic predisposition may be natures way to keep us from overproducing without removing our ability to produce. It might be nature preparing the way to help insure our species survival whether we like it or not.

I'm more open minded then some people think. I almost put this in a new thread with a link to it from here. I don't think it really needs its own thread so I didn't.

[Neserk]

They are anti-gun biased ie liberal.

I guess by liberal you mean intelligent and based on facts, then.

[takao]

You ignored the fact that I stated as an example that most of these so called main stream media report crimes caused by guns in their attempts to get guns outlawed while ignoring stories of those who protected themselves from criminals with guns. This by itself shows their slant.

outlawing guns
accepting gays
taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't
expecting that everyone deserves top level medical care
expecting the system to continously pay wellfare mothers without actually trying to get them off the system
Wanting to wait for the terrorists to attack us before doing something and then limiting it only to that tiny group and not doing anything about the source.
Wanting to fix terroristic problems by throwing money at them under the excuss of stopping the poverty etc that makes people become terrorists. Sorry but they need to fix their own problems without resorting to terrorism.
ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,NBC, etc. All the big time news groups.

are more examples of left wing agendas that get much more support from the general media than a more balance realistic approach.

I am not going to go out and spend hours dredging up exact details about exact examples only to have you shoot them down with a "well but ..." crapola. Got better things to do with my time.


Dawn. The young men in the trenches put their helmets back on their heads, take up their rifles and start to get ready.
Then the thunder of artillery breaks the silence. The men stand in the mud waiting for the order. Machineguns start to spit out a wall of moving metal towards the enemy. With the blow of a whistle the men jump out of the trenches,scream "for god and fatherland" and charge forward.....

after reading a lot of your comments in multiple threads i came to the conclusion to ignore you ...
no offense but your blind faith into your system/leader will lead you to a wall

finally after more than half a year my ignore list lost it's virginity

[takao]

Dawn. The young men in the trenches put their helmets back on their heads, take up their rifles and start to get ready.
Then the thunder of artillery breaks the silence. The men stand in the mud waiting for the order. Machineguns start to spit out a wall of moving metal towards the enemy. With the blow of a whistle the men jump out of the trenches,scream "for god and fatherland" and charge forward.....

after reading a lot of your comments in multiple threads i came to the conclusion to ignore you ...
no offense but your blind faith into your system/leader will lead you to a wall

finally after more than half a year my ignore list lost it's virginity

after a shower, eating an apple ,taking the garbage out and a wave of sudden mercy i took you out of my ignore list again

last chance

and leave the "homosexuality is a disease" talk out ... it's disgusting for me because of the history of this discussion

[Leo Hubbard]

after a shower, eating an apple ,taking the garbage out and a wave of sudden mercy i took you out of my ignore list again

last chance

and leave the "homosexuality is a disease" talk out ... it's disgusting for me because of the history of this discussion
I never called it a disease.

[vniow]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean any offense by it. But think about it, in the near future, or maybe even today already. Doctors examine your newborn baby and deduce that while it is a male it will be genetically predisposed to like men. Now, with parental permission, they can convert him into a female so that the baby will be hetrosexual in nature. Further into the future perhaps they could flip that switch.


Speaking as someone who was born male and is now female, that has to be the single worst reason I have heard for changing the sex of a child without its permission. Apparently you don't know the plight of physically intersexed people to which that actually has happened.

http://alamak.com.sg/i/slap.gif

[pseudobrit]

Speaking as someone who was born male and is now female, that has to be the single worst reason I have heard for changing the sex of a child without its permission. Apparently you don't know the plight of physically intersexed people to which that actually has happened.

http://alamak.com.sg/i/slap.gif

You'll have to excuse Sly/Votron/Leo. He's in over his head and has no idea what he's talking about.

On second thought, there's no excusing his ignorance.

[skunk]

I never called it a disease.
If you call it "fixable", that implies that there is something to be "fixed".

PS: How did we get from Media Bias to Transgender Issues?? :confused:

[Leo Hubbard]

You'll have to excuse Sly/Votron/Leo. He's in over his head and has no idea what he's talking about.

On second thought, there's no excusing his ignorance.
The names Leo. Sly is another guy, and I guess Votron must've been one of his alter egos, because I aint heard that name before.

[Leo Hubbard]

If you call it "fixable", that implies that there is something to be "fixed".

PS: How did we get from Media Bias to Transgender Issues?? :confused:
Post #27 and 28.

[skunk]

How about replying to the first point?

[amnesiac1984]

outlawing guns

may or may not be a liberal agenda, but what do you need a gun for? Self defense? well then why don't we try and make the world better so we don't need t keep defending ourselves. It could be done, just nobody has REALLY tried.

accepting gays

I've never understood the right wings problems with gays, it just makes me feel like people with right wing leanings just tend to be a bit scared. You don't have to like gays to accept them and live in a world where everybodies free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. Has the right forgotten what FREEDOM is?

taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't
expecting that everyone deserves top level medical care

are you seriously suggesting that somebody in need is not worthy of help because of their economic worth? THat is jsut sickening, I'm sorry but the USA is one of the last civilized countries without a health service and its pathetic.

expecting the system to continously pay wellfare mothers without actually trying to get them off the system

I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to help get mothers off the welfare system, but to take away that system would be counter-productive, its there as a safety net.

Wanting to wait for the terrorists to attack us before doing something and then limiting it only to that tiny group and not doing anything about the source.

what a load of bollocks, you obviously don't really pay attention when you watch the news do you?


Wanting to fix terroristic problems by throwing money at them under the excuss of stopping the poverty etc that makes people become terrorists. Sorry but they need to fix their own problems without resorting to terrorism.

wrong again, these are not their own ****ing porblems, they were created by us the west and rich ****ting on them, and I have to say its mostly the fault of the US's foreign policiy over the last 60 years, but all western countries share some of the blame. It comes down to our governments greed.


I am not going to go out and spend hours dredging up exact details about exact examples only to have you shoot them down with a "well but ..." crapola. Got better things to do with my time.
i think you should because then maybe you'd actually learn something for the first time in your life.

[Leo Hubbard]

i think you should because then maybe you'd actually learn something for the first time in your life.
going over the same old arguments time and time again doesn't make you right. And believe it or not I know a bit more than you think I do and personal insults get you no where with me.

[zimv20]

i see "leo" has come out w/ sly's old "wellfare (sic) mothers" argument. too much of a coincidence, imo.

sly -- lame, lame, lame. go find a job and buy yerself that couch.

[Leo Hubbard]

i see "leo" has come out w/ sly's old "wellfare (sic) mothers" argument. too much of a coincidence, imo.

sly -- lame, lame, lame. go find a job and buy yerself that couch.
So your saying only one person in this world doesn't think it is right to take money from those who earn it and gives it to those who don't? Wrong.

[Neserk]

i see "leo" has come out w/ sly's old "wellfare (sic) mothers" argument. too much of a coincidence, imo.

sly -- lame, lame, lame. go find a job and buy yerself that couch.

As I explained earlier, this is not Voltron. When he comes on with a new name he PMs me. He also interacts with me very differerently.

[zimv20]

As I explained earlier, this is not Voltron. When he comes on with a new name he PMs me. He also interacts with me very differerently.
but if no one can tell the difference...

i think Turing would have something to say about banning someone who is indistinguishable from another banned member. :-)

[skunk]

but if no one can tell the difference...
I can. Sources are the same, but the spelling and grammar are way too good, and the emphases are different.

[Neserk]

I can. Sources are the same, but the spelling and grammar are way too good, and the emphases are different.

If I recall, sly directed Leo here from another forum in which they both participated in. So that explains a lot of similarities in belief. But as you point out the spelling and grammar are different along with his interactions with me.

Once I befriended Sly he would PM me about different things. After he was banned he PMd with his new name which I kept to myself. He has no reason not to trust me so I don't see why he would suddenly not tell me who he is. If he was sly I would just not have said anything.

[3rdpath]

And believe it or not I know a bit more than you think I do ....
all i can go by are your posts...which leaves me to believe you're both ignorant AND offensive.

and you have yet to post ANY data or information to support your belief in media bias. sure, you can say the media reports more about gun deaths than " gun saves " but where are the figures to back it up? it would also lend some credibility to your arguement if you posted the same information about the media you don't think is biased. exactly how many gun stories did they run? were they pro or con gun ownership?

surely( and i say that rhetorically...), you are aware of how to make a case and use actual information to support it...right? otherwise, your posts are just your opinions....which sadly, seem to get more and more absurd.

[skunk]

Now, now. Play nice, people... :rolleyes:

[3rdpath]

Now, now. Play nice, people... :rolleyes:

ok, ok...i edited my post...

me be nicey now...
;)

[amnesiac1984]

going over the same old arguments time and time again doesn't make you right. And believe it or not I know a bit more than you think I do and personal insults get you no where with me.

I'm not insulting you, I am merely suggesting that maybe you have not read the hard facts to back up your arguments. That you need to do this research in order for your own conscience to know that you are right. Knowing that you are right is lot better than believing what feels good. Also , i think you need to do this so that we can see on what you are basing your opinions, and where you are coming from.

[Leo Hubbard]

all i can go by are your posts...which leaves me to believe you're both ignorant AND offensive.

and you have yet to post ANY data or information to support your belief in media bias. sure, you can say the media reports more about gun deaths than " gun saves " but where are the figures to back it up? it would also lend some credibility to your arguement if you posted the same information about the media you don't think is biased. exactly how many gun stories did they run? were they pro or con gun ownership?

surely( and i say that rhetorically...), you are aware of how to make a case and use actual information to support it...right? otherwise, your posts are just your opinions....which sadly, seem to get more and more absurd.
I don't have statistics, I only know that I got sick and tired of watching the same old news stories time and time again. When I started watching FOX and getting my news over the internet it was then I realized how narrow the major news networks were in what news they reported and what news they ignored. Besides, the only places that would show such statistics wouldn't be left wing biased news agencies and you wouldn't consider them credible unless they were.

I used to watch abc,cbs, and nbc quite frequently and I would see them broadcast news all at the same time like they organized it that way and blitz the air waves about deaths by guns. What is even wierder is after weeks of such broadcasting all of the again at the same time would switch to another topic. Why have three different news stations if they are all going to get their material from the same place and only do stories that the other stations are also doing. Fox was a breath of fresh air.

As for specifically gun stuff thenhttp://www.packing.org/ is a good place to start. Their primary purpose is to get people the knowledge on how to legally wield arms, but they do provide links to alternate news that you just don't see on the major news networks. Sorry I may take the time to post to a forum like this, I will even keep my eyes open for new related stories, but I will not take the time to go out gathering resources "to make a case" unless someone pays me to.

Here is a nice opinion piece about news bias http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040722.shtml .

If you really care about the truth you can gather your own research. If you simply want to discredit me you can do what the news media and only post those things that agrees with your agenda while ignoring any sources that don't agree with it.

[Steradian]

You ignored the fact that I stated as an example that most of these so called main stream media report crimes caused by guns in their attempts to get guns outlawed while ignoring stories of those who protected themselves from criminals with guns. This by itself shows their slant.

outlawing guns
accepting gays
taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't
expecting that everyone deserves top level medical care
expecting the system to continously pay wellfare mothers without actually trying to get them off the system
Wanting to wait for the terrorists to attack us before doing something and then limiting it only to that tiny group and not doing anything about the source.
Wanting to fix terroristic problems by throwing money at them under the excuss of stopping the poverty etc that makes people become terrorists. Sorry but they need to fix their own problems without resorting to terrorism.
ABC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,NBC, etc. All the big time news groups.

are more examples of left wing agendas that get much more support from the general media than a more balance realistic approach.

I am not going to go out and spend hours dredging up exact details about exact examples only to have you shoot them down with a "well but ..." crapola. Got better things to do with my time.


wow,
now I know why people dissagree with you so much. I hope I won't miss any interesting posts once I block your hatefilled speach. Have a Wonderful life Leo, even if I dissagree with you

[mischief]

wow,
now I know why people dissagree with you so much. I hope I won't miss any interesting posts once I block your hatefilled speach. Have a Wonderful life Leo, even if I dissagree with you

Hmmm.... this thread has gone SOOOOO off topic without a single answer to ANY of the direct on-topic questions posed to Leo that I've seen a record number of Ignores... Including mine.

I've only ever used the thing twice. This is the first time I've had to leave it on for more than a couple of hours.

I'll see if I can lure a more telling response:

Leo, does this sum up your beliefs?

Conservative Christians are defending the one true straight-and-narrow path to Salvation. Time is short. War and natural disasters are increasingly common. Evil has risen in the East and Despots are gaining Apocalyptic millitary power. The Faithful are polluted by increasing numbers of lazy, morally corrupt false-christians after the manner of Babylon, Soddom and others of the past. Israel is close to building a "new temple" in Jerusalem. We are approaching the final contest between those who Question and those who have Faith. It is the duty of all who are still truly Faithful to help as many other as possible see the light before battle, disease, famine and hatred consume all but those who will prevail... be they good or evil.

And what about those who are not Faithful?

Those who believe that homosexuals should not ask God for forgiveness and become heterosexuals with the help of the Church, that firearms should be in limited supply, those who support aiding those who do not have the Faith and perserverence to thrive on their own, those who choose to end the lives of their children rather than accept the way God has made them or the way God has chosen to punnish/try the Faith of the Mother, Those who choose not to see the obvious truth that God's chosen are no longer any other people but those who are most devout in following The Good Book TO THE LETTER..... Those are the true enemy of mankind and will weaken us all against the coming tide of Evil....



Is that about it son?

Is that pretty close to your perspective? Please don't think I'm mocking you... I really want to understand your motivations in all of this rhetoric.

[Leo Hubbard]

Hmmm.... this thread has gone SOOOOO off topic without a single answer to ANY of the direct on-topic questions posed to Leo that I've seen a record number of Ignores... Including mine.

I've only ever used the thing twice. This is the first time I've had to leave it on for more than a couple of hours.

I'll see if I can lure a more telling response:

Leo, does this sum up your beliefs?

Conservative Christians are defending the one true straight-and-narrow path to Salvation. Time is short. War and natural disasters are increasingly common. Evil has risen in the East and Despots are gaining Apocalyptic millitary power. The Faithful are polluted by increasing numbers of lazy, morally corrupt false-christians after the manner of Babylon, Soddom and others of the past. Israel is close to building a "new temple" in Jerusalem. We are approaching the final contest between those who Question and those who have Faith. It is the duty of all who are still truly Faithful to help as many other as possible see the light before battle, disease, famine and hatred consume all but those who will prevail... be they good or evil.

And what about those who are not Faithful?

Those who believe that homosexuals should not ask God for forgiveness and become heterosexuals with the help of the Church, that firearms should be in limited supply, those who support aiding those who do not have the Faith and perserverence to thrive on their own, those who choose to end the lives of their children rather than accept the way God has made them or the way God has chosen to punnish/try the Faith of the Mother, Those who choose not to see the obvious truth that God's chosen are no longer any other people but those who are most devout in following The Good Book TO THE LETTER..... Those are the true enemy of mankind and will weaken us all against the coming tide of Evil....



Is that about it son?

Is that pretty close to your perspective? Please don't think I'm mocking you... I really want to understand your motivations in all of this rhetoric.
Nope, not it.

the Main stream press tends to have an agenda they wish to push and they tend to only broadcast news items that matches that agenda while ignoring other slants. Their not nuetral. True Fox is biased on the right but it stands alone and it is the only balance to the rest of the news stations out there.

[skunk]

Nope, not it.

the Main stream press tends to have an agenda they wish to push and they tend to only broadcast news items that matches that agenda while ignoring other slants. Their not nuetral. True Fox is biased on the right but it stands alone and it is the only balance to the rest of the news stations out there.
As with all news, from whichever source, you have to read between the lines. There are doubtless many more "liberal" media outlets than conservative, since most "media types" regard themselves as vaguely connected to the "Arts", and most artists tend to be liberal. Most of this bias is fairly transparent, and anyone listening should be able to identify it pretty easily. Just like when listening to a WH spokesperson talking about "terrorists" and "foreign fighters", "the coalition of the willing", and "civilian contractors", we are able to identify the bias in these descriptions. This still does not make the rabidly xenophobic, fascist ramblings from Hannity and his ilk any more acceptable.

[IJ Reilly]

Fox viewers seem to making themselves into willing victims of the network's marketing. They are prepared to accept both the proposition that Fox is "fair and balanced" in their reporting, and, at the same time, deliberately biased for the purpose of counterbalancing the "liberal media." I have to wonder how they can hold these two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time.

[Leo Hubbard]

As with all news, from whichever source, you have to read between the lines. There are doubtless many more "liberal" media outlets than conservative, since most "media types" regard themselves as vaguely connected to the "Arts", and most artists tend to be liberal. Most of this bias is fairly transparent, and anyone listening should be able to identify it pretty easily. Just like when listening to a WH spokesperson talking about "terrorists" and "foreign fighters", "the coalition of the willing", and "civilian contractors", we are able to identify the bias in these descriptions. This still does not make the rabidly xenophobic, fascist ramblings from Hannity and his ilk any more acceptable.
Most of what you said there I agree with.
I wouldn't call Hannity speeches rabidly xenophobic or fascist. In fact mama's boy comes to mind whenever he speaks. He spends too much time on crap that should be dropped like Kerry's stance on the death sentence when it comes to terrorists captured by other countries, and not enough time on stuff that actually matters.

I know Fox is "as" biased as all of those left wing channels I talk about. That doesn't mean they blatantly lie on their news reporting and thus are very credible sources, just like News Max, Drudge (as long as you keep in mind sometimes he jumps on a news story too fast), and others.

[mischief]

Fox viewers seem to making themselves into willing victims of the network's marketing. They are prepared to accept both the proposition that Fox is "fair and balanced" in their reporting, and, at the same time, deliberately biased for the purpose of counterbalancing the "liberal media." I have to wonder how they can hold these two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time.

There are many such contradictions in the history of dogmatic laziness:

- God is everything, loves everything but will punnish you with a variety of plagues, pestilence, pains, etc. if you do something that doesn't agree with one recent cult's interpretation of a highly edited and rewritten book of religious laws.

- I want decent manufacturing jobs here in the USA but don't want to pay 10 times the price for the products.

- I want Freedom and Liberty but I want someone else to tell me what that means and how I can go about utilizing it.

- All humans are equal.... unless they cross one of the most inhospitable stretches of third world desert in the Americas under threat of death, exploitation and disease to do the work nobody else wants.


All of these are current hypocrisies that some (if not MANY) Americans hold even if they won't cop to it.

The lesser hypocrisy of blindly accepting Fox News (or anything on TV) as factual and unspun is just a symptom of a larger problem.

We fought two world wars, restabilized the western world, fought back truely heinous regimes to come to the aid of the two countries we owe the most to: Britain and France. Recently America seems to have forgotten that without the cultural advancements in Britain that set it appart (Magna Carta, C of E, etc.) the USA would be just another Monarchy. Likewise it seems to have been forgotten that without the aid of France we would never have successfully repelled the British from the Colonies.

America has forgotten who we are, where we come from and the fact that it is the responsibility of each and every citizen to assure that NO LIBERTIES ARE EVER LESSENED OR REMOVED FOR ANY REASON BE THEY FOR SECURITY OR FOR ECONOMICS.

This country was founded on the premise that All Peoples are created equal, that in the eyes of whatever deity you follow ALL OF US are endowed with the UNALEABLE rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

That premise was rammed home in our founding document with the additional caveats:

WE THE PEOPLE (Yup, it's in Caps on the document too) of the United States of America, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

During the Vietnam War a Hawk slogan was "Love it or Leave it."

I'll argue that a better slogan for any Patriot is: "Love it by doing all you can to FIX IT."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[Leo Hubbard]

Fox viewers seem to making themselves into willing victims of the network's marketing. They are prepared to accept both the proposition that Fox is "fair and balanced" in their reporting, and, at the same time, deliberately biased for the purpose of counterbalancing the "liberal media." I have to wonder how they can hold these two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time.
It depends on the program.
Some programs on FOX are fair and balanced. Most programs on FOX are right wing counter balance to the rest of the mass media networks.

[Leo Hubbard]

There are many such contradictions in the history of dogmatic laziness:

- God is everything, loves everything but will punnish you with a variety of plagues, pestilence, pains, etc. if you do something that doesn't agree with one recent cult's interpretation of a highly edited and rewritten book of religious laws.

- I want decent manufacturing jobs here in the USA but don't want to pay 10 times the price for the products.

- I want Freedom and Liberty but I want someone else to tell me what that means and how I can go about utilizing it.

- All humans are equal.... unless they cross one of the most inhospitable stretches of third world desert in the Americas under threat of death, exploitation and disease to do the work nobody else wants.


All of these are current hypocrisies that some (if not MANY) Americans hold even if they won't cop to it.

had me agreeing with everything you said till we reached this point.

We fought two world wars, restabilized the western world, fought back truely heinous regimes to come to the aid of the two countries we owe the most to: Britain and France. Recently America seems to have forgotten that without the cultural advancements in Britain that set it appart (Magna Carta, C of E, etc.) the USA would be just another Monarchy. Likewise it seems to have been forgotten that without the aid of France we would never have successfully repelled the British from the Colonies.

Someone has forgotten that it was the MONARCH of France who financially backed our revolution with the English as a means to distracting the English from the French interist. He did not do this because he cared about our freedom. If he had known that such help would've spurred the much larger and longer French revolution he would've never helped us. The people of France was paid back in full simply by being able to see what was accomplished by us and realizing they could do the same for themselves against their monarch the very same individual who paid for our freedom.

ie. The King of France was paid back for his help by having his people revolt against him.

[mischief]

had me agreeing with everything you said till we reached this point.

Someone has forgotten that it was the MONARCH of France who financially backed our revolution with the English as a means to distracting the English from the French interist. He did not do this because he cared about our freedom. If he had known that such help would've spurred the much larger and longer French revolution he would've never helped us. The people of France was paid back in full simply by being able to see what was accomplished by us and realizing they could do the same for themselves against their monarch the very same individual who paid for our freedom.

ie. The King of France was paid back for his help by having his people revolt against him.

Didn't forget. I'm just not callous enough to think that such a significant debt can be owed to only one person when a Naval deployment has to be enacted by Citizens and supported by a population to occur at all. This was no small thing like calling a cab... this was deploying a large portion of France's Millitary power to an uncertain fate halfway round the world.

That is a debt to a Nation, not simply to the French King.

[blackfox]

Again I must ask (to Leo, mostly) about the criteria of credibility of a source (as defined by Journalistic ethics/protocol) divorced from the bias issue.

Leaving FOX News out for a moment, do you (or anyone) believe that Hannity, NewsMax, Boortz etc. fufill these credibility requirements?

I would say not. I mostly say this because they are pundits more than anything else, which is not News, but OP-Ed commentary, and their polemic nature of discourse, while a decent marketing tool, not conducive to many (or any) of the tenets of responsible journalism. In any case, you must attempt to check the veracity of their sources to see if they, in turn, live up to a jounalistic standard...

There are of course, Liberal Pundits also...but they are rarely quoted on this forum and taken with the grain of salt appropriate to their standing...

So again, you may call the NYT and Wash Post "left-leaning", but they also adhere to strict jounalistic standards, which is what makes them credible and worth a read...There are also some "right-leaning" publications which are well-regarded (WSJ, Chicago Tribune)...if they do not carry the stories you find at some other "sources" you might look at the "credibility" angle rather than the "bias" one...

[trebblekicked]

...There are also some "right-leaning" publications which are well-regarded (WSJ, Chicago Tribune)...if they do not carry the stories you find at some other "sources" you might look at the "credibility" angle rather than the "bias" one...

you think the chicago trib is right leaning? i find it more centerist. pretty balanced op/ed. i think of the sun-times as right-leaning.

[blackfox]

you think the chicago trib is right leaning? i find it more centerist. pretty balanced op/ed. i think of the sun-times as right-leaning.Other than the WSJ, I was pretty much making an educated guess...I may have confused the two Chicago Papers...

I hope my point still stands, even if my examples do not...

[trebblekicked]

Other than the WSJ, I was pretty much making an educated guess...I may have confused the two Chicago Papers...

I hope my point still stands, even if my examples do not...

your point is fine; it's difficult for me to define right-leaning newspapers, as i find most newspapers to be centerist (yes, including the NY and LA times, Washington Post, etc.). The papers i identify as right leaning are either Rev. Moon owned gutterspunk (Washington Times) or Richard Mellon-Scaife owned soapboxes (Pgh Tribune Review) that really do wear their politics on their sleeve.

coincidentally, I actually like the editorial page of the WSJ. Some of the contributors are pretty merciless (the guy who ragged on Theresa Heniz Kerry for bragging about speaking five languages comes to mind), but others are pretty decent.

hmph.

long story short, i think the "liberal press" is a BS controversy invented by people who don't like what they read in the nytimes. newspapers are highly center in nature, and reflect not the political bias of its staff, but the social climate of its city.

[IJ Reilly]

long story short, i think the "liberal press" is a BS controversy invented by people who don't like what they read in the nytimes. newspapers are highly center in nature, and reflect not the political bias of it's staff, but the social climate of it's city.

More than a controversy, it's become a blanket rationale for excluding, denying, or at least questioning the credibility of all information that doesn't come from an ideologically-aligned source. The Right uses this gambit to great effect now, and sadly, a lot of people are swallowing it hook line and stinker.

MMFA recently posted an eye-popping video clip of Paul Krugman "debating" Bill O'Reilly on CNBC last Sunday. The question was about whether O'Reilly had ever quoted Michael Moore as saying that the US is an "evil country." When Krugman admitted that he'd heard the clip of O'Reilly's accusation on the MMFA web site, O'Reilly immediately started flapping his arms and shouting grotesque and utterly irrelevant nonsense about about Fidel, the KKK and Hezbollah. And of course he never addressed the factual issue. The clear implication, put out there for those who choose to believe it, was that this source could not possibly be believed.

[Leo Hubbard]

More than a controversy, it's become a blanket rationale for excluding, denying, or at least questioning the credibility of all information that doesn't come from an ideologically-aligned source. The Right uses this gambit to great effect now, and sadly, a lot of people are swallowing it hook line and stinker.


The left uses it more often. The people here use it as a rationale for excluding, denying, or at least questioning the credibility of all information that doesn't come from the left.

[blackfox]

The left uses it more often. The people here use it as a rationale for excluding, denying, or at least questioning the credibility of all information that doesn't come from the left.
Leo, please note my last post (or any of them)...the credibility of a source is oftentimes divorced from it's bias...

As to whether sources many of us use are indeed "left" is subjective...left of what exactly? Left of the right? Of course. Left of center? Generally no. It should also be noted that by definition the center is left of the right...

[trebblekicked]

The left uses it more often. The people here use it as a rationale for excluding, denying, or at least questioning the credibility of all information that doesn't come from the left.

no they don't. the respected left leaning people here don't post stories from common dreams or moveon.org or air america. the respected right-leaning members (they exist;). stelliform, lethalwolfe, and backtothemac come to mind) do not post stories from boortz or drudge or rush limbaugh. those of us who read these forums have always exercised the unspoken right to criticize fringe and infotainment "news" sources. that is the gauntlet of credibility. it was thrown down long, long before you came here.

It's fine if you believe what boortz says. i happen to believe 95% of what al franken says. but do you see me posting quotes from his radio show? no. because his radio show is not news. it's entertainment. and it's biased as hell. you need to learn the difference.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm sorry, but you guys still aren't getting it. :)

For people like Leo, all sources except for the like of Boortz, Limbaugh, Fox or Drudge are biased and inherently not credible. The entire process of sorting out truth from falsehood is reversed.

I refer you again to the O'Reilly example. If you can shout loudly enough, you don't have to answer any questions, present any facts, or make any sense whatsoever. And some people will gladly park their critical faculties elsewhere, and believe every word of it.

[Leo Hubbard]

no they don't. the respected left leaning people here don't post stories from common dreams or moveon.org or air america. the respected right-leaning members (they exist;). stelliform, lethalwolfe, and backtothemac come to mind) do not post stories from boortz or drudge or rush limbaugh. those of us who read these forums have always exercised the unspoken right to criticize fringe and infotainment "news" sources. that is the gauntlet of credibility. it was thrown down long, long before you came here.

It's fine if you believe what boortz says. i happen to believe 95% of what al franken says. but do you see me posting quotes from his radio show? no. because his radio show is not news. it's entertainment. and it's biased as hell. you need to learn the difference.
one example
http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0803-Bushrallyw-147362.html linked used on thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82992 and post #5 argues with me about how it is a viable source versus another thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82996 saying

I noticed your thread leo...and if you can't tell the obvious difference in both meaning and substance between the two, then no amount of me (or anyone) trying to explain it to you will do any good...


Another example is this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=68656 which used a NYT biased news article as a source. Within it, the story talks about 2 mines blowing up and leaving shrapnel wounds in Kerrys rear. No where in that story does it mention the shrapnel wounds Kerry received by being too close to his own grenades detonation of a food larder, or the rice that had to be plucked out of his rear end, as testified by the doctor that did it.

For link read the new book unfit for command with documented evidence from those who were actually on the scene http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html

another example is this biased source http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-22.htm used on this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82556

[Leo Hubbard]

I'm sorry, but you guys still aren't getting it. :)

For people like Leo, all sources except for the like of Boortz, Limbaugh, Fox or Drudge are biased and inherently not credible. The entire process of sorting out truth from falsehood is reversed.

I refer you again to the O'Reilly example. If you can shout loudly enough, you don't have to answer any questions, present any facts, or make any sense whatsoever. And some people will gladly park their critical faculties elsewhere, and believe every word of it.
I believe I stated this like 4 times in this very thread. Boortz and Limbaugh are deffinitly biased but they are credible. They do not use lies to prove their point, at least not in the links I used. I am not saying other sources are not credible. Other people are saying my sources aren't credible and I should use their sources. I use the sources that contain the information I am looking for. Do not blame me if, for example, only right wing sources includes the quote "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it." Simply because that quote cannot be found, to my knowledge, on a left wing or non right wing source doesn't mean it isn't a factual quote. That is all I am saying.

Of course there are credible news stories from the left, I've never said there wasn't.

This isn't about me disputing the credibility of sources from the left, even though there are some I would dispute. It is about other disputing the credibility of sources from the right. It appears that if it was said by someone who is a known "right winger" that automatically makes it not credible and not believable. And that is just plain wrong.

[blackfox]

one example
http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0803-Bushrallyw-147362.html linked used on thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82992 and post #5 argues with me about how it is a viable source versus another thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82996 saying


Another example is this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=68656 which used a NYT biased news article as a source. Within it, the story talks about 2 mines blowing up and leaving shrapnel wounds in Kerrys rear. No where in that story does it mention the shrapnel wounds Kerry received by being too close to his own grenades detonation of a food larder, or the rice that had to be plucked out of his rear end, as testified by the doctor that did it.

For link read the new book unfit for command with documented evidence from those who were actually on the scene http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html

another example is this biased source http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-22.htm used on this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82556

Fine Leo, since you used my quote and one of my links, I will respond...

First, I cannot claim beyond a doubt the credibility of the Springfield paper in general terms, although I am sure it does attempt to be a news-provider in it's local-market per journalistic standards...I do not know the bias of the periodical...it was relevant because the instances decribed took place in springfield...also the article did not have a specific agenda unlike the "Kerry aide tore-up pro-life sign article"

As for my link in the thread about electronic voting, it was probably a biased site, but I was not so interested in the politics of the article as the errors found inherent in the electronic voting machines...at any rate, no one responded to my link directly, so perhaps they thought it was crap...that is how it goes...my apologies.

[Leo Hubbard]

Fine Leo, since you used my quote and one of my links, I will respond...

First, I cannot claim beyond a doubt the credibility of the Springfield paper in general terms, although I am sure it does attempt to be a news-provider in it's local-market per journalistic standards...I do not know the bias of the periodical...it was relevant because the instances decribed took place in springfield...also the article did not have a specific agenda unlike the "Kerry aide tore-up pro-life sign article"

As for my link in the thread about electronic voting, it was probably a biased site, but I was not so interested in the politics of the article as the errors found inherent in the electronic voting machines...at any rate, no one responded to my link directly, so perhaps they thought it was crap...that is how it goes...my apologies.
I don't mind, and I don't see anything wrong with you using those links. I also see nothing wrong with me finding sources on the right which report things that those on the left doesn't report. I do mind people jumping down my throat for doing it. I'm just asking for a little fairness.

[blackfox]

...SNIP... I use the sources that contain the information I am looking for. ...SNIP...

Well, far be it for me to argue with that...jesus christ.

[trebblekicked]

one example
http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/0803-Bushrallyw-147362.html linked used on thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82992 and post #5 argues with me about how it is a viable source versus another thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82996 saying


Another example is this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=68656 which used a NYT biased news article as a source. Within it, the story talks about 2 mines blowing up and leaving shrapnel wounds in Kerrys rear. No where in that story does it mention the shrapnel wounds Kerry received by being too close to his own grenades detonation of a food larder, or the rice that had to be plucked out of his rear end, as testified by the doctor that did it.

For link read the new book unfit for command with documented evidence from those who were actually on the scene http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_video_wmv.html

another example is this biased source http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-22.htm used on this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82556

example #1:
article was clearly identified as op/ed in both the thread title and subsequent posts. the thread was reaction to the opinions presented. dissenting opinion (desertrat) and supporting opinion (psuedobrit) got along just fine. no issues. aside of course, from your non-sensical and completely unrelated bitching about bias.

WHEREAS

your article referenced an event that could only be substantiated by issue rags (the equivalent of a union newsletter). not one major news outlet picked up even a reference to the story as an op/ed piece; ergo it is subject to the aforementioned gauntlet of credibility.

example #2:
are you trying to contradict the facts stated in the article, or are you trying to add other facts and commentary to paint the picture you would prefer? just because the new york times doesn't make john kerry out to be a sissy doesn't make it biased, especially if your references are under question as to their honesty and motive (as they are).

we could keep throwing things at each other all day, but i think we both know that's fruitless. you think all media is biased so all media is equal. i think there are degrees of bias, and different kinds of journalism that should be held to different standards. never the two shall meet.

here's a chart the kind of illustrates my point:
you:
usa today=boortz=limbaugh=air america=po dunk blog #6=new york times

me:
usa today=new york post
washington post=chicago tribune
boortz=franken
limbaugh=moore
san francisco chronicle=philadelphia inquirer=pittsburgh post gazette=cleveland plain dealer etc
op/ed=op/ed

[zimv20]

you think the chicago trib is right leaning? i find it more centerist. pretty balanced op/ed. i think of the sun-times as right-leaning.
it's been a while since i've read their editorials, but for a long time the suntimes leaned left and the trib leaned right.

though according to this (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html), they both endorsed bush in 2000.

btw, that's a nice page to see how "left leaning" the major newspapers actually are (hint: they're not).

check out the "highly democratic" states of IL and CA.
IL: bush 11, gore 1
CA: bush 19, gore 9

[blackfox]

I hereby request Treblekicked as my proxy arguer in this thread...his posts address the same points and are vastly superior in clarity, logic and relevance to my own...at least until I return from the bars later this evening sufficiently enebriated... at which point the above points will cease to have any meaningful relevance to my contributions anyhow...

Bravo...

-Blackfox

[IJ Reilly]

it's been a while since i've read their editorials, but for a long time the suntimes leaned left and the trib leaned right.

though according to this (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html), they both endorsed bush in 2000.

btw, that's a nice page to see how "left leaning" the major newspapers actually are (hint: they're not).

check out the "highly democratic" states of IL and CA.
IL: bush 11, gore 1
CA: bush 19, gore 9

Very interesting. I wonder if this statistic counts as evidence of media bias as much the one so often cited about the proportion of reporters voting for Clinton in '96.

One thing I discovered to my surprise at my own newspaper is that these endorsements are dictated by the paper's corporate offices, which in this case, are in another state 2,000 miles away.

[mischief]

I hereby request Treblekicked as my proxy arguer in this thread...his posts address the same points and are vastly superior in clarity, logic and relevance to my own...at least until I return from the bars later this evening sufficiently enebriated... at which point the above points will cease to have any meaningful relevance to my contributions anyhow...

Bravo...

-Blackfox

You can battle it out with the Little Tramp. He's in top form today it seems.Though my Booze is in the fridge as I'll be needed to help Milady with the kiddo....

Trebble: Let me know when you get tired and I'll tag off.... ;)

[trebblekicked]

it's been a while since i've read their editorials, but for a long time the suntimes leaned left and the trib leaned right.

actually i'm not too exposed to the sun-times. the few times i picked one up, it seemed highly sensationalized. i may have caught them at a strange time; i moved to chicago just before the WMD s*** really hit the fan, and it seemed the sun-times was extra lenient, while the trib had some pretty pickly op/eds about bush and the neocons in general...then again, the trib certainly doesn't think very highly of daley... like i said, i think of most newspapers as centerists, with op/ed writers leaning one way or the other. no biggie.



I hereby request Treblekicked as my proxy arguer in this thread...his posts address the same points and are vastly superior in clarity, logic and relevance to my own...at least until I return from the bars later this evening sufficiently enebriated... at which point the above points will cease to have any meaningful relevance to my contributions anyhow...

i disagree, my friend. brevity is the soul of wit, and i'm just rambling along. you don't need my help.

Trebble: Let me know when you get tired and I'll tag off....

i'm exhausted. i haven't posted this much in about a year. *slap* you're in. :)

[mischief]

i disagree, my friend. brevity is the soul of wit, and i'm just rambling along. you don't need my help.



i'm exhausted. i haven't posted this much in about a year. *slap* you're in. :)

Indeed.

Okay, I'm no longer winded....

(Unlimbers new rev2 anti-zealot gunslinging pie guns and shifts the Anti Troll Rifle slung over his back. Fresh greasepaint glistens... " Bring it on.") :D

[Leo Hubbard]

Boston globe has admitted to left wing liberal bias.

With the exception of the Fox News Channel, the liberal tilt of the mainstream media - the major newspapers, the networks, National Public Radio, the news magazines - has long been a fact of American life. No one observing the coverage of this year's presidential campaign with both eyes open can have much doubt that the media establishment is pulling heavily for the Democratic ticket.

That explains why, for example, the intense media interest in George W. Bush's National Guard records last February wasn't matched by an equally intense interest in John Kerry's Navy history in May, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first went public with their criticisms. Far from leaping on the charges that Kerry's Vietnam heroism had been greatly exaggerated, the mainstream media's initial reaction was to largely ignore them. And while the press saw no reason to question the credibility of Bush's accusers or to demand that Kerry repudiate them, their attitude toward the Swift Boat vets has been much more hostile.

None of this should come as a surprise. The nation's newsrooms are Democratic strongholds, and that cannot help but affect their coverage of the news. Evan Thomas, the assistant managing editor of Newsweek, put it plainly last month.

``Let's talk a little media bias here,'' he said on the PBS program ``Inside Washington'' on July 11. ``The media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards . . . as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.'' Just how lopsided is the pro-Kerry bias? When New York Times reporter John Tierney surveyed reporters covering the Democratic National Convention last month, the results were striking.

Check the story even PBS has admitted to be left wing biased.
As reported by a left wing biased rag.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/24/some_of_kerrys_biggest_fans_are_in_the_press?pg=full

[Leo Hubbard]

For those who think Boortz isn't a reputable news source.

Here are the words of The Poodle at a gathering in Richmond, Virginia on January 20th, 2003:

"I remember well April 1968 -- I was serving in Vietnam, a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home, and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of [Dr. King.]"

Oops. Small problem here. If you look at John Kerry's website you will see that he didn't report for duty in Vietnam until November 16, 1968 .. more than seven months after Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered.

Oh well.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200408/08262004.html#lie

OK easy facts to check. Is that an accurate quote of kerrys? What day did Kerry report for duty in vietnam?
And more important, do you think the left wing mass media pundits would report this fact? Further proof they are left wing biased.

[mischief]

For those who think Boortz isn't a reputable news source.

OK easy facts to check. Is that an accurate quote of kerrys? What day did Kerry report for duty in vietnam?
And more important, do you think the left wing mass media pundits would report this fact? Further proof they are left wing biased.

What, precisely does a talking out of fashion purebred canine have to do with anything?

[Leo Hubbard]

What, precisely does a talking out of fashion purebred canine have to do with anything?
This is important information to take into consideration when thinking about Kerry as a presidential candidate.

"I remember well April 1968 -- I was serving in Vietnam, a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home, and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of [Dr. King.]"

Oops. Small problem here. If you look at John Kerry's website you will see that he didn't report for duty in Vietnam until November 16, 1968 .. more than seven months after Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered.

First paragraph is Kerry's quote.
More proof Kerry just can't get his story straight.
He throws out so many lies he has trouble remembering his material.

[pseudobrit]

Kerry first departed for Vietnam February, 1968. His ship set sail for the US at the end of May.

He would have been "over there" on April 4, when King was murdered.

Someone's here's a liar, and it ain't Kerry. Leo, why don't you get your facts straight and stop with the goddamned lies?

[toaster_oven]

Boston globe has admitted to left wing liberal bias.

Check the story even PBS has admitted to be left wing biased.
As reported by a left wing biased rag.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/24/some_of_kerrys_biggest_fans_are_in_the_press?pg=full

do you often read the news section in the Globe? I read it every day on my way to work, and i've found the news section to be fairly innocuous... even the editorial section ranges from conservative to moderate to liberal, depending on what issues are in the news... I often pick up the Herald too- their news is sensationalized (and the editorial often tilts to the right), but the gist of the news stories matches pretty much equally.

this one always gets me- the term "liberal bias" is an oxymoron. "liberal" literally means to be open and accepting of different viewpoints... can one be biased towards accepting multiple views?

"left wing liberal bias" sounds like those leaflets the "workers of the world" people hand out on college campuses, except they say "right wing capitalist fascists."

[toontra]

Kerry first departed for Vietnam February, 1968. His ship set sail for the US at the end of May.

He would have been "over there" on April 4, when King was murdered.

Someone's here's a liar, and it ain't Kerry. Leo, why don't you get your facts straight and stop with the goddamned lies?

If this is indeed the truth then I suggest the mods ban Leo, for a while at least.

If people come on this forum and start spewing straight forward lies to try and support their narrow-minded political views then the whole thing will rapidly degenerate into a worthless mire.

Opinions vary, facts are (usually) facts.

[skunk]

It IS very boring dealing with this torrent of crap he spews out.

[mouchoir]

If this is indeed the truth then I suggest the mods ban Leo, for a while at least.

If people come on this forum and start spewing straight forward lies to try and support their narrow-minded political views then the whole thing will rapidly degenerate into a worthless mire.

Opinions vary, facts are (usually) facts.

Give him a break. He probably didn't realise this was the wrong information, having read it on boortz.com.

Now he's been corrected.

[stubeeef]

LIES,

here is kerry's staff "not" working in conjunction with their 527's

http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002262.html

[stubeeef]

one of hundreds of lies, maybe thousands-I could be lying
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37514


an oldy but goodie on comrade katie
The Today Show


Posted on 03/11/2004 4:29:56 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest


As of this morning's Today Show, the world is now officially upside down.

In the wake of John Kerry's impromptu slur captured on tape accusing the Bush administration of being "the most crooked, lying group I've ever seen" guess who should be on the defensive?

Why the Republicans, of course. Just ask Katie Couric. "The Affable Eva Braun of Morning TV" (copyright 2002 Ann Coulter) just completed an interview with NBC political heavyweight Tim Russert.

After playing the tape of Kerry's comments, the obvious question would have been along the lines: "how much does this hurt Kerry?" But no, this is what Katie had to say about the incident:

"Aren't the Republicans going to have to be careful about this in light of Bush and Cheney's less-than-flattering remarks about NY Times reporter Adam Clymer that were caught on tape?"

That's right, Couric dredged up an incident from four years ago in which the candidates thought they were speaking only to each other about a hostile reporter, not the opposing candidate. Compare and contrast with the current situation, in which Kerry slurred his opposition in a remark addressed not to a campaign aide but to a group of supporters.

To his credit, Russert didn't hew to Katie's party line. He admitted that the Kerry campaign was unhappy to have its candidate portrayed in this light.

Conclusion: for the dedicated liberal media there is virtually no event that cannot, with sufficient ingenuity, be spun as a negative for those evil, mean-spirited Republicans. It's going to be a long eight months!


From here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1095309/posts
:p

[toontra]

Give him a break. He probably didn't realise this was the wrong information, having read it on boortz.com.


Would that be related to slingsandarrows by any chance? stubeef's contribution to this forum seems to be posting links to their site, whatever the thread and irrespective of the relevance.

As you suggest, one's opinion is only as good as one's sources of information. With such a poor diet it's no wonder some here are so intellectually malnourished.

[stubeeef]

Sorry, you are right, abit too prolific.

As we are all tired of the finger pointing, I just wanted it to be known that there is very little higher ground in politics.

I hope you saw and read what many news organizations will not, maybe I suggest to a liberal bias that will not get the entire story out.

[zimv20]

Sorry, you are right, abit too prolific.

As we are all tired of the finger pointing, I just wanted it to be known that there is very little higher ground in politics.

I hope you saw and read what many news organizations will not, maybe I suggest to a liberal bias that will not get the entire story out.
you are becoming very boring very fast. stick to well-respected media outlets, stay on topic, be respectful of the rest of us, please. i haven't even finished catching up on the night's posts and my pointer is hovering near the Ignore button for you.

[Leo Hubbard]

Kerry first departed for Vietnam February, 1968. His ship set sail for the US at the end of May.

He would have been "over there" on April 4, when King was murdered.

Someone's here's a liar, and it ain't Kerry. Leo, why don't you get your facts straight and stop with the goddamned lies?
Fact.

Nov 1968
Reports for duty in Vietnam

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
From his own web site.

[Leo Hubbard]

LIES,

here is kerry's staff "not" working in conjunction with their 527's

http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002262.html
Stubeeef some people don't click on links.

Kerry's 527 Ties: Stephanie Cutter and Debra Deshong

Stephanie Cutter is Communications Director and Debra DeShong is a senior advisor and campaign spokesman for Kerry. Both are pictured here talking with Emily's list staffers. Again, Emily's list is headed up by the Media Fund's Ellen Malcom.
As if that isn't enough, both the Cutter/Deshong photo, and this one of Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill were taken at Kerry's campaign headquarters.
I believe this is smoking gun material. Here we see disciples of Media Fund mavin Ellen Malcom at the Kerry headquarters receiving direction from Kerry campaign staff. If this isn't coordination with the Kerry campaign, nothing is.

but they should.

Some of them are the same people who have a hard time because a Bush volunteer (ie workign for free) also worked for Swift boat against kerry, and that lawyer did work for both. Lawyers do work for multiple clients some at direct odds with each other, ethical lawyers know how to keep things in perspective.

FYI a much larger list of those in Kerry's campaign that are linked with 527's or pac's is here http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002257.html

Your first link has a quote that very accuratly describes the hypocracy of the left.

Yep. And if these were of Bush staffers photographed with Swift Boat vets or the Club for Growth instead of the now obvious, all Dem members of the House would be pushing for Bush's impeachment. But since its not, well, just move on...nothing to see here.

I wish I could speak that eloquently.

[mischief]

you are becoming very boring very fast. stick to well-respected media outlets, stay on topic, be respectful of the rest of us, please. i haven't even finished catching up on the night's posts and my pointer is hovering near the Ignore button for you.

That makes two of us.

Is it time to reinstate the AZC? :eek:

[zimv20]

Fact.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html
From his own web site.

and 1/2" above that:

Feb 1968
Deployed to Western Pacific aboard the USS Gridley and requests duty in Vietnam
are you intentionally obfuscating this? or are you really that unable to sift through facts?

either way, cut the ****. "Fact", my ass.

[Leo Hubbard]

I also found this.

Robert Bauer Refuses to Quit Kerry or Pro-Kerry 527

Joe Sandler, Zach Exley and Jim Jordan aren't the only 527 Kerryites getting a pass from the establishment.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/26/90506.shtml
Now there are those around here who will discount this because it is reported by newsmax.com and not from one of the so called reputable left wing mass media sources. If it had been one of Bush's lawyers it would have. And that is the problem.

Most of the media gushing over the resignation of lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg from President Bush's campaign are downplaying or refusing to report that Robert Bauer, national counsel to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, also works for the Bush-hating, pro-Kerry 527 group that calls itself America Coming Together.
Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" this morning noted the extreme hypocrisy of most media on this double standard. But it's just one more example of how Big Media ignores Kerry's ties to leftist 527s that have spent tens of millions of dollars on ads attacking Bush, and even overlooks the links Kerry boasts about.


It is because the so called mass media isn't fairly reporting both sides of the stories that we have to revert to biased right wing magazines or news sources to compensate. If they really were fair and balanced they would report it all.

[Leo Hubbard]

and 1/2" above that:

are you intentionally obfuscating this? or are you really that unable to sift through facts?

either way, cut the ****. "Fact", my ass.
He wasn't in Vietnam in Feb he was on a ship next to vietnam.

[zimv20]

jesus, sly, the whole ****ing dispute is whether or not kerry was in the US during king's assassination. in your black and white world, i guess the only two possible places for someone to be is the US or vietnam. give me a break.

what's w/ the petty retardation? what's w/ the continuous effort to twist facts, or just make up ****, in order to make "a point," which i put in quotes because oftentimes i don't think you're trying to do anything but cause trouble. you increase the noise in the signal to noise ratio. you are the entropy in a system where others try to inject order.

i took you off my ignore list and you lasted 3 posts. welcome back.

[Leo Hubbard]

jesus, sly, the whole ****ing dispute is whether or not kerry was in the US during king's assassination. in your black and white world, i guess the only two possible places for someone to be is the US or vietnam. give me a break.

what's w/ the petty retardation? what's w/ the continuous effort to twist facts, or just make up ****, in order to make "a point," which i put in quotes because oftentimes i don't think you're trying to do anything but cause trouble. you increase the noise in the signal to noise ratio. you are the entropy in a system where others try to inject order.

i took you off my ignore list and you lasted 3 posts. welcome back.
Actually my point changed when pseudobrit called me a liar, simply for posting what someone else said, who wasn't lieing. Kerry wasn't in vietnam in february. That was the context of the message and it was not a lie. It did not include where else Kerry might of been, nor did it stipulate the the only other place he could have been was the US. Kerry saying he was in vietnam when he wasn't was the lie. That doesn't mean the only other place he could have been was in the US. I never said that, you put those words up as my only other choice, and that was a ??????

Ok the word I'm looking for isn't red herring but similar. I forgot the proper Logic terminology of such a strategy where the arguer tries to win an argument by including only two choices as if there were only two choices where the real truth is there are more choices that he is purposely or inadvertantly ignoring.

[toontra]

It is because the so called mass media isn't fairly reporting both sides of the stories that we have to revert to biased right wing magazines or news sources to compensate. If they really were fair and balanced they would report it all.

You are in the realms of dillusional paranoia. In my opinion you have nothing to contribute to this forum if all you are intent on doing is repeating, parrot-fashion, information which you dredge up from self-admitted far-right news sources. I suggest you remove yourself from this place and stop wasting everyone's time. You're obviously not here for an exchange of information - you're here to inject bile.

There are good, well-intentioned people from the whole political spectrum here, and they deserve better than to have to shovel through the reams of garbage which you have been responsible for foisting upon us in your short time of membership (in this incarnation, at least).

[stubeeef]

Well I guess I will sign off (loud hurraysssss)

It seems that most of the name calling and trolling I see is from the left.

I wont post a troll group of threads, just please realize that many of you are trolling, I admit I may have unintentionally, but none the less....

I love my Mac's, every republican should have one, democrats, newt G, communists, the pope, and the dali lama too.

I am neither an expert in IT or a pundit, and don't want to be. We will all see what we want to see.

Irregardless of this election, we will all be fine in January.

Good luck to all....May your candidate live long and prosper...

back to the technical pages