More proof of Leftist media bias...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Taft, May 4, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    ...NOT!

    This is an interesting case, though. Dan Rather was personally contacted and withheld the story on that basis. Does this have ties with Bush? Is this a common occurrance in reporting on the war?

    It makes you question the objectivity of the major media in this country. Could they be pandering to the right? <incredulous>But that goes contrary to every piece of conservaitve propoganda I've ever heard!!!</incredulous> :rolleyes:

    Anyway, here's the story...

    Taft
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Ah that liberal media. They'll even go so far as to hold off on a story that might be damaging to the president. :eek:

    With a liberal media like that, why even have a conservative media? :p
     
  3. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #3
    That shining example of liberal media, Bill O'Reilly, is at it again. For some reason he continues to target Canada for his venom:

    O'Reilly also complained about several points in a Canadian Press story on Thursday.

    "Hey you pinheads up there, I may be pompous, but at least I'm honest," O'Reilly was quoted as saying in a New York Times story. But the commentator says he was referring to Globe & Mail staff, not Canadians in general, who he says are good people.

    "I got nothing against the Canadian people but in the last few years you've swung dramatically to the left," he says. "And we in America have some questions about that."​

    How do you like the "we" in America bit? It's nice of O'Reilly to designate himself America's spokesman.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    I love how he also forgets (or deliberately omits) that while it may appear to him that Canada has swung 'dramatically' to the left, he forgets that seeing something move doesn't necessarily mean it is moving, or that it is the only thing moving. Just ask Einstein.
     
  5. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    here is a site dedicated to documenting left wing media bias
    http://www.fightthebias.com/

    comparisson democrats to Republicans interesting
    http://www.fightthebias.com/Archives/Issues/31/31.htm


    A CBS reporter provides proof of medi bias
    http://www.fightthebias.com/fight_liberal_media_bias.htm

    Another site dedicated to the research of medi bias and this one has better examples of it.
    http://www.mediaresearch.org/
     
  6. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    Mocking Bush’s Freedom Push

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/2004/nq20040426.asp

    Keep in mind when I am talking about media bias I am only including those media outlets who swear they are not biased. I am not including biased news shows like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Air America, those shows that admit to their biases up front.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    why do i have the feeling that sly is trying to demonstrate a left-wing bias by posting long articles from right-wing sites?

    oh, the irony!
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    You mean like FOX?
     
  9. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #9
    you mean the FOX with the german dauther company FOX Germany which produced the "FOX tönende Wochenschau"..which was one of the backbones of the 33-45 propaganda ?........(the other 2 "wochenschau" producers didn't have sound/pictures combined.....so FOX was preferred ...)

    i just wanted to add that....i doubt everybody knows that...
     
  10. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #10
    To be fair, I lump people like Keith Olberman and Andy Rooney in with people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. I don't think any of them can seriously claim to be "journalists"; they're commentators with pretty obvious biases.

    I think the thing that bothered me most about Mike Wallace's interview with Bob Woodward was the condescending attitude they displayed when they were taking about Bush's "duty" to free people around the world. What you don't pick up from the transcript, but which was clear when you watched it on "60 Minutes", is a gesture that Wallace made while he was speaking the line "... [Bush] believes he was sent by somebody to free the people...". At the word "somebody", Wallace paused, glanced upward and gave a little grin, clearly indicating that the "somebody" in question was God.

    Regardless of what he (Mike Wallace) meant to convey with that little display, what a lot of people took away from that was, "Mike Wallace is an elitist who thinks that people who believe in God are idiots".
     
  11. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #11
    Not only didn't I know that, I still don't know what I didn't know. ;)

    For those of us who have no idea what you're talking about, could you elaborate on what the "FOX tönende Wochenschau" and the "33-45 Propaganda" refer to?
     
  12. Taft thread starter macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #12
    AAAARRRRRRGGG!

    Sly, I die a little bit inside every time you post this tripe.

    Neither of these sites could possible qualify as proof of a liberal media bias. Why? Because both sites were created on the assumption that the media is biased towards a liberal agenda. Their whole purpose and reason for existance is to prove that there is a media bias.

    Now, you might be asking, how does this differ from "proper" proof? Well, via the scientific process, that's how.

    To determine bias, you must take many, many criteria into account. For example, citing a single quote from a single anchor's mouth is most certainly NOT proof of a liberal media bias. Rather, you would want to look at trends in a reporter's collection of "questionable" quotes. Another tactic you might use is to look at the stories an editor passed over vs. chose to run. This might give an indication of a larger trend in how they select news. This, in the long term, could indicate a bias.

    Similar exercises could be constructed to look at how much "negative" press was given to candidates and politicians of each political party. Same with the positive.

    But this is such a complex process (and expensive!!!) that no-one has ever done a comprehensive study. Which publications would you choose? What is considered "mainstream" media? What qualifies as a "negative" story? "Positive?"

    The interesting thing about the story I posted is that it plays into a larger trend which has been covered on these boards many times: that the press has frequently treated the war on terror and in Iraq with kid gloves. You may or may not agree with that statement, and admittedly proof is a little hard to come by. But many here feel that the press should have covered the war on terror and the war and Iraq less positively, as so much has gone wrong in both efforts.

    Taft
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    i am LOVING the ignore feature in this case

    i've seen such a study, and posted it here. now where was it....?

    i'll have a look later
     
  14. Taft thread starter macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    You ever hear that line about those who ass.u.me?

    Anyway, there is a BIG difference between a person who believes in God and a person who believes that God has sent them to "free the people of Iraq." One is religious, the other has delusions of grandeur.

    Do you believe that God has sent you to perform *specific* duties here on Earth? If so, did God talk to you? How does one know if they are "destined" to perform a specific task by the order of God?

    This reminds me a little of the woman who recently killed all of her kids and used God as her excuse. Check it out.

    So how do we tell those who are "destined" from those who are insane? Seems like a fine line to me.

    Taft
     
  15. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #15
    does a bell ring for you when i say 1933-1945 ?

    sorry for being unprecise..i thought "propaganda" + "germany" + "33-45" was enough

    but fox aren't the only one with a grey history because of that era.. (bayer,agfa,and a big list of other companies which made money with the war...including ibm....)
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    link

     
  17. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #17
    So, to sum up, you believe that Christians who believe that they communicate with God (e.g. through prayer) and that God has a purpose for their lives are borderline insane. Whether you intended to or not, you've pretty much made my point about the condescending, elitist attitude towards Christianity.
     
  18. Taft thread starter macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    Get over it. I AM Christian.

    But I have a real problem with people who use God's name for their own purposes. I asked a very real question in my post: how do you determine those who have REAL purpose directly from the will of God from those who are lying or just plain insane? Its absolutely impossible, at least from my perspective.

    What would you say (as a conservative, I'm assuming) if I came out and said, "I believe that God wants me to campaign against all conservatives in the upcoming election"? Yes, I think that God's plan is for me to work against the evil conservatives and help the good liberals to rebuild this country in a compassionate and giving manner. How's that for offensive? Here I am, taking something that you believe strongly in (conservatism) and saying that God's plan is for me to destroy it.

    So which is it? Am I delusional, or did God give me a purpose?

    I don't agree with the war in Iraq. I think it was perpetrated with ill intent, a lack of foresight, a lack of support and without proper evidence. On top of that, the person who perpetrated the war says that God gave this to him as his mission. MY God supposedly told Bush to persue this war I believe to be morally wrong. Can you see my problem with that? Can you see how moral relativism plays a big part in our difference of opinion?

    And this is EXACTLY why I have a problem with people who use God as the "man with the plan." People use God's name all the time to justify their selfish desires, actions and words. How do we know Bush is any different than the delusional women who killed her sons?

    Taft
     
  19. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    supposedly it is here, but the post is having archive troubles now so i can't be sure
     
  20. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #20
    The difference: as Head of State, Bush has immunity.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    No problem with people thinking god has a purpose for their lives. It's when they get 10,000 people killed for that purpose that I start to wonder if it's an adequate mandate for action. Difficult to check, difficult to tap that line.
     
  22. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #22
    The irony would be a left wing site that admitted the truth of left wing media bias. Where else would you have expected me to get the facts from?
     
  23. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #23
    Another prime example is how the media treated Trent Lott Versus how they treated Bob Dobbs over stupid unforthought out comments. Apparently they both left their speach writers at home.

    and

    Just because someone goes out of there way to prove media bias (like I do for example) doesn't mean they use fictitous data.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Here's a thought: We take all of the people who believe that God is on their side, and put them in one place, where they can fight it out among themselves. Then we can determine definitively who's side God is really on. I would be willing to give them Antarctica for this noble experiment.
     
  25. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #25
    I just scanned every cable channel I have and guess how many is right now broadcasting live pictures of us attacking Karbala right this second. That clerics thugs was setting up road blocks and check points while the Iraqi police kept themselves locked in their offices. So the US said no more and are now taking them out.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page