Did anyone just see the Colbert/O'Reilly segment?
Comments
-
PolkWannabie wrote:News is not biased ... it's news i.e. reporting of facts ... so if you think you've found a news program that's biased then it's something else pretending to be news ... Unlike the news programs of decades gone by, that's most of them ...
You are correct. What is biased is the news that is reported. Like a network might just keep reporting every negative piece of news pertaining to the war in Iraq to make the administration look bad, but they will not report how in the settled parts of Iraq the people are happy and safe and there is no insurgency as well as how the Brits get to maintain those settled cities therefore don't have as high a casualty rate that we have.
That's the bias of picking and choosing just the right news to play an agenda. -
jdhdiggs wrote:At least I'm not to the point that I think CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, etc are unbiased.
a mild left-of-center slant.
Hearing, the Bush Administration doesn't need the media to make themselves look bad. They need to look in the mirror and come out of denial-land. -
aaharvel wrote:a mild left-of-center slant.
Hearing, the Bush Administration doesn't need the media to make themselves look bad. They need to look in the mirror and come out of denial-land.
I was using that as an example of how the news media can slant the news. . . good old W has made him and themselves look bad in many ways especially not having a plan before, "Mission Accomplished" was achieved. -
well i'm not going to deny that the news media doesn't slant the news; either for a particular political agenda or to feed the crack babies of who they "think" or who they "hope" their audience to be (cough MSNBC cough FOX News cough).
I watch CNN. It's trustworthy, more so than MSNBC, much more so than FOX. And they do a much MUCH better job of reflecting public opinion on important issues than they do spewing what some dickhead's daily briefing memos "suggest" a news anchor should focus on for the day. -
I personally like the #'s for story types on the last election, IIRC: on Fox republicans got 105 postive news stories for every 100 democrats got. Republicans received 97 negative stories for every 100 for dems.
CBS had 4 positve dem stories for every positive rep story and something like 6 neg rep stories for every 1 dem story.
That's one example of bias. The second is wording:
The US suffered 3 dead and 14 wounded in suicide bombs today
vs.
In another horrific attack, three troops perished and another 14 were gravely wounded in a brutal suicide bombing.
Fox would be the top example, the other networks the bottom.
Still think there is no bias in "just" reporting the news?There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
Heads I win. Tails I win.
Speaking of wording bias, (chants of "Moody, Moody, Moody" begin to fill the auditorium)
I'm curious (seriously) was that IIRC report during or after the Republicans controlled every federal branch of government, including the state delegates? -
aaharvel wrote:Heads I win. Tails I win.
Speaking of wording bias, (chants of "Moody, Moody, Moody" begin to fill the auditorium)
I'm curious (seriously) was that IIRC report during or after the Republicans controlled every federal branch of government, including the state delegates?
:rolleyes: And exactly what does the IIRC dept do.... :rolleyes:
BTW, claiming you "win" in an internet debate is paramount to saying "I lost". Addtionally, doing so while inventing a government agency instead of recognizing an extremely common internet acronym, well, lets just say.....There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
hearingimpared wrote:You are correct. What is biased is the news that is reported. Like a network might just keep reporting every negative piece of news pertaining to the war in Iraq to make the administration look bad, but they will not report how in the settled parts of Iraq the people are happy and safe and there is no insurgency as well as how the Brits get to maintain those settled cities therefore don't have as high a casualty rate that we have.
That's the bias of picking and choosing just the right news to play an agenda.
There is one other thing the media will do to make things seem worse than they are; there have reports (and they are accurate) that there's only been about 100 Brits killed in Iraq . . . 50 were killed the first few days of the invasion. The rest of their boys have been killed in the past 3 + years . . . the reason
the Brits maintain the settled cities, while our troops are on the front lines of the problem areas. The slanted media will make that out to be poor strategies rather than the fact that the Brits, since Sodamn Insane's regime was toppled, have not been consistantly on the front lines. -
jdhdiggs wrote::rolleyes: And exactly what does the IIRC dept do.... :rolleyes:
BTW, claiming you "win" in an internet debate is paramount to saying "I lost". Addtionally, doing so while inventing a government agency instead of recognizing an extremely common internet acronym, well, lets just say.....
I wasn't claiming "I" win. It's satire for your own argument. You're the one presenting a totally one-sided coin. Insult libs, but conveniently ignore my take on Moody's memos. If that's beyond your scope, I do apologize. And I wasn't inventing a government agency. You claim stats of Fox doing this, while other news corporations do that. Yet you give no source, only an "IIRC." What the hell is that?
If it upsets you that I simply ask you to elaborate on your argument, and more specifically something such as 4 random letters stuck together in all caps, then that says more about you and your personality towards others in a social environment than it ever could about my intelligence. Sorry that I'm not as schooled in the ways of internet language and lingo like you JD.
Are you this rude to people at Polkfest, IN PERSON, or just when you're behind a keyboard flaunting internet "acronyms" that most normal people would have the perfect right to not know the meaning of anyway?
Jesus Fn' Christ..:rolleyes: -
I think all media is biased to a point.Wether it be from time constrictions or their own adjenda,they never give you the whole story.Which is why it is up to you to get it.They know most will not though and that is why they are so powerfull at swaying public opinion.HT SYSTEM-
Sony 850c 4k
Pioneer elite vhx 21
Sony 4k BRP
SVS SB-2000
Polk Sig. 20's
Polk FX500 surrounds
Cables-
Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable
Kitchen
Sonos zp90
Grant Fidelity tube dac
B&k 1420
lsi 9's -
aaharvel wrote:I watch CNN. It's trustworthy, more so than MSNBC, much more so than FOX. And they do a much MUCH better job of reflecting public opinion on important issues than they do spewing what some dickhead's daily briefing memos "suggest" a news anchor should focus on for the day.
:rolleyes:"Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
The Clinton News Network ??? ... Your kidding right ?aaharvel wrote:I watch CNN. It's trustworthy.
You guys discover how right O'Reilly is yet by finding out who his favorite politician of all times is and what he thought of his policies ? -
aaharvel wrote:...John Moody's memos...
ok, so i took you up on your offer and i've read about half of them, unedited, and perused a few of the memos and out of context snippets that the radical left has put up as the most damning of the bunch.
i'm not at all impressed and i'm sort of wondering what all of the arm waving and jumping up and down is about? from what i've seen, to me, it doesn't read any different from what you'll find in the holy grail of modern journalism, 'all the president's men'.
if this is the best you have, you still have a ways to go to even approach the body of evidence that exists of an overwhelming left wing media bias. this stuff pales in comparison to what groups like aim, mediaresearch and frontpagemag have been doing day in, day out for years and years.
)
"More recently, then-CNN president Eason Jordan wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, admitting that CNN had refrained from telling stories of Saddam's brutality, in order to maintain access to the regime and a Baghdad bureau. Jordan was later forced to resign when he charged, without evidence, that U.S. troops in Iraq were targeting American journalists."
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5041_0_4_0_C/ -
scottnbnj wrote:if this is the best you have, you still have a ways to go to even approach the body of evidence that exists of an overwhelming left wing media bias. this stuff pales in comparison to what groups like aim, mediaresearch and frontpagemag have been doing day in, day out for years and years.
Do "mediaresearch and frontpagemag" have even 1/8th of the audience or exposure that the "left wing media bias" have? -
it's gotta be way,way less than that. but, just the same, except for the horowitz crew, they have been on the leading edge of the battle and at the top the radical right wing conspiracy foodchain for years, and have been feeding it well.
)
