Bush banishes Press

Remove all ads!

Al Franken devoted an entire chapter of his book Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, to debunkinig the idea of a liberal media bias. The book came out two years ago, and the topic that was covered in the most depth was the 2004 presidential election. In a six-month survey of news stories on ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and CNN, he showed that there were more pro-Bush news items than pro-Kerry news items, and more anti-Kerry news items than anti-Bush news items. Of course, Al Franken is himself a liberal, so you'll probably discount his research, despite the fact that he reveals his sources in extreme detail.

I personally believe there is no such thing as a liberal media bias. I can't think of any popular liberal radio talk shows (yes, Franken has one, but it's only available via satellite radio or if you live in/near NYC). Conversely, Rush Limbaugh can be heard daily from Coast to Coast. Liberal writers don't get nearly the publicity when they release a new book as opposed to conservatives like Pat O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. Of course, some of the reasons that Coulter, O'Reilly and Limbaugh are so popular is because they have never lost a debate in their lives. The tried and true strategy of shouting over the voice of your opponent in the debate works every time, as no one hears the points your opponent makes.

 

You are correct. For every thing Al Franken has proven somebody else has the opinion that he is full of crap.

I think you may also be confusing the news with (for lack of a better word) columnists. Rush Limbaugh, Ann coulter, et al are not reporters. They make no pretense to be unbiased as they are giving their opinions not facts.

 

Well, first of all, I never claimed Limbaugh or the others were reporters - I specifically said they were talk show hosts and writers. And since we were talking about a supposed liberal media, and not just the news specifically, I felt bringing other media into the discussion was fair game.

As for your site on Al Franken, the author of that site is nitpicking. For example Al Franken said Bush didn't fund his No Child Left Behind Act. Technically, that's false. The reality is that he underfunded it. However, the results of that underfunding were exactly what Franken describes in his book. I found it rather perplexing that the author of the site picked that particular piece of Franken's book to publicize, as even fellow Republicans have been critical of underfunding No Child Left Behind. The lack of money promised to this program that isn't getting there isn't an opinion, it's documented fact. Certainly, fellow Republicans can't be part of the liberal media bias.

 

Actually, conservative executives are the ones who promote the editors, Snook. I'll tell you what. Post some factual, legitimate evidence of liberal bias, and we'll talk. I won't be holding my breath for it, though. If you think the reporting on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC is liberal......

 

I may have to rethink my position on this. I did some searching as Drew requested and while I found many things that I considered liberal bias, I also found many things that I would consider conservative bias.

The best quote I found was from wikipedia

It is very possible that I can't get past my personal distate for Dan Rather and Katie Couric who to me seem to savage conservatives and loft softballs at liberals. Then again considering I tend to disagree with liberals is that the reason I am thinking that?

 

I don't read any US papers or listen to the news there, so i can't comment on any biased, but i read 3 newspapers here, "the Scotsman", "The Times" and "the Daily Mail" and i dont really detect any biased in these papers. Although people will argue that they all appeal to Upper Middle Class people, i disagree, Daily Mail and Scotsman are technically dissfrent in the people they apply to, but still report the facts without putting a propoganda spin on things. I occasionally read the editorials etc... and they often contain biased, but in general the news reporting is unbiased.

 

It would be nice if we had journalist in this country. As it stands all we have are propagandist pushing thier own ideas and agendas on the American people and they assume that we are too stupid to handle reality and need to be told what to think. But it isn't surprising becase most media are socialist. It isn't about which president the media is toughest on or a liberal/conservative bias, these things are meaningless in the dream of the social elitist to turn this country into a socialistic utopia.

In a world that is not regimented by clear cut standards of what is right and what is wrong you will find that by the time you have given all these matters nuanced thought the impending danger is already upon you. the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality may be considered the cowboy way but it is a lot better than the "live and die by shades of gray" mentality.

If only that media that has that odd foreign concept of actual truth were capable of telling the unbiased truth. The media elitist have a socialist agenda to push. This is true of the media in most of the western world. That should be obvious to anyone save those who have or tolerate a socialist mentality, which is usually your more sophisticated, enlightened residents of metropolitan areas who are educated beyond thier intelligence. The truth, as with most things is in the eye of the beholder. What I consider important in life may not be the same as what is important to you. And in cetain ways we both my be right about certain things, but in the end there is but one right and one truth and it usually take great tribulation for us to come together in understanding. Liberal/Conservative, Demicrat/ Republican, these are just lables to devide us in to factions. A house devided can not stand and when it falls, "America", the light of hope and freedom will be extinguished. Only then will the socialist elitist be satisfied. But in time the will see folly in thier dream of a socialist utopia. And while they will never admit thier horrible mistake in destoying "America", in private they will weep bitter tears of sorrow and regret. Socialism will alway lead to ruin, such is the fate of those who live and die by shades of gray.

 

Wow, just wow, socialist media huh? We once had lots of socialist medias here in Sweden but they all went bankrupt due to lack of funds. They couldnt get any money cause all companies and corpations prefered to advertise in media outlets more friendly to their causes.

All media is either liberal/libertarian or conservative there is no such thing as socialist media. Especially not in the US. What is considered liberal media (in th financial sense and original meaning of the word) in the US would generally be considered quite conservative in the rest of the world.

Good example of this is CNN which in most parts of the world is seen as the media outlet of the American government and leaning quite a bit to the right but which apparently in the US is seen as the modern day Pravda by many people.

 

Of media companies this may be true, but the common goal of mass media is socialism or hippiecommunism if that helps you understand it any better. The main goals of these people are the dissolving of the traditional family unit, destruction of sexual morality laws, complete disbanding of the military complex, the resending of personal freedom in maters of child rearing, medical decisions and treatment, religious freedom, and personal economic freedom.
The hippiecommunist state governed by the self proclaimed social and academic elite will decide what is best for you in matters of what religion if any at all you will practice, in what manner you should raise your children if indeed you should be allowed to raise them at all. You will not have to worry about having money to see a doctor or how he will treat you because, the state will assign you a doctor who wil prescribe treatment ordered by the state. You will not have to be concerned about finances because your needs will be met by the state, such as housing and transportation. You will work for the common good as determined by the state. The state will determine how sexual morality is defined for you, pedophilia, beatiality, bigamy, homosexuality, and any other sexual behavior will be not only tolerated but indulged. After all, who are you to judge how old your children should be before they become sexually active, thats the states job. You can not object to bigamy or homosexuality on moral grounds, after all, the state will decide what your morals should be. And that way of life is indeed socialism. This is the dream of these people. And if you don't see it that way, hey fine. But you don't have to make asinine remarks like "Wow, just wow, socialist media huh?" I have walked down that road with guys like you before on these boards and it never ends pretty.

As for "no such thing as socialist media." I take it that you can not make the distinction between socialist, liberal, and conservative. Being in a liberal/libertarian environment can impair ones ability to judge these concepts in a clear manner.

See what I mean about being asinine?

"We once had lots of socialist medias here in Sweden but they all went bankrupt due to lack of funds. They couldnt get any money cause all companies and corpations prefered to advertise in media outlets more friendly to their causes."
We had this same scenarioin in the USA with CNN And the network news channels. Time/Warrner baught a majority in CNN and put some what of a stop to it. Ted Turner, the founder of CNN didn't mind loosing money promoting the cause, Time/Warrner did. The networks may never learn. even though it has hurt them to stay the course they are still in big money. And besdes , there is no comparison between a country like Sweden and the USA. Thats like comparing a Moped to a Cadillac car. But , lest we indulge in more contention, read and ponder my first post more closely and then if you do not see it as it is written then go in peace for as it is written perception is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Svy? Svy, is that you?

Seriously, though:

Why?
Who exactly are these people?
How do you know this?

I could make a really nice asinine comment here, but I'll refrain.

 

@Bassil - Don't you think you may be over-generalizing a wee bit here? I consider myself to be very liberal/leftist, and yet I don't agree with a lot of the things you prescribe to the "liberals/leftists". It's not like it's a one-size-fits-all conglomerate.

 

@Aldeth, The type of people I am referring to would consider most Americans who describe themselves as liberal/leftist to be moderate/coservitive. That maybe hard for you to conceive of but I assure you it is true. You probably associate the word "hippiecommunist" I use as being liberal/leftist. That isn't what it means. I have a lot of friends, (I know thats hard to believe because I probably come off as an ass on the boards), who call themselves liberal and they think they know what the so-called liberal agenda is about they are blind, asleep. The hippiecommunist is on a level that the normal person would never want to reach. AS I said earlier liberal/conservative lables are meaninless to them. Susipaisti asked,"Who exactly are these people?". I say, you will know them by what they say. Some of the things they say seem reasonable on the surface, its when you get in to the details that you realize the word "is" means a different thing to them than it does to you.


@Susipaisti, Maybe if you just sleep...
Seriously, though:

Why? To control you and to have your obedience and faith.
Who exactly are these people? you will know them by what they say.
How do you know this? I listen, I read, I learn.
You would be astounded at what you can discover in Wasington D.C. if you pay attention. In my time working there I learned very well that most of America is too ignorant and unenlightened to understand what is best for them. Politicians are just tools to be used in the cause. They want it so they can say there now, see how much better your life is? Because they are enlightened and we are all ignorant children. When we see how wonderful life is with them in control they will have our faith and obedience. That may seem trivial to you until you find out what it means.

How enlightened of you.

 

@ Bassil: OK, maybe I need to be more clear. I understand now that you have explained yourself in more detail that when you label someone a "hippiecommunist" you're not talking about a run of the mill liberal. That's a good start. However, the only description you seem to be able to provide about these people is "you will know them by what they say". May I ask who you have heard speak in such terms? Because I have never heard anyone spouting such rubbish. (I'm not saying you're spouting rubbish - but rather the rubbish that you ascribe to these other people as saying.)

You say that the main goals of these people are:

Who is saying that families should no longer exist? My wife and I are trying to have a baby. Who should I be wary of? Who is trying to stop us?

Later down on the page you bring up beastiality and bigamy. I have never heard ANYONE advocating beastiality, and only a small group of fringe radicals (who in other ways are about as conservative as they come) promoting bigamy.

Again, who? I've never heard anyone with enough credibility to get on any type of news media and say something like this.

I'm assuming you mean recinding (not resending), but the only one of those four I can see some merit in is the last one you mention. I also find it odd that you leave out the very real recinding of civil liberties that effect us daily.

 

Bassil, I guess my biggest hangup is this poorly-defined group of hippiecommunists you are asserting exists. It seems like you can't even define them, but take an approach of "You know them when you see/hear one." Unfortunately, I think most of us don't understand what we're supposed to be looking for/listening for. You are going to have a difficult time convincing anyone of your stance unless you can better define what it is you're talking about.

 

Aldeth, think about your childhood. The smurfs were defintely hippycommunists. Evil smurfs.

 

The smurfs had a highly organised economy with each smurf having a very specific role. Although not sure what Cricketer Smurf without anyone else to play on his team (or against for that matter).

Hmm, but back on topic, do we have a better description than "smurf" for a hippiecommunist?

 

I think it's pretty clear that "hippie-communists" - much like the smurfs - are the product of a very active imagination, nothing more.

 

Please, hippies and Smurfs just don't have anything in common. Now I have no idea what a hippie-communist is but my imagination comes up with a smelly, oddly dressed person who believes in free-love, dope and doing as little work as possible. They were against the Vietnam War but so were a lot of other people.

And before someone jumps at me saying that hippies weren't like that just remember I was around at the same time they were. I saw them, I smelled them.

The Smurfs were quite different.