Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 PoliticalWiseGuy
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 13
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political ScientistPage 2 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Nice try on that argument, but not even remotely true.....can you recall a reporter ever ask a Presidential candidate when he/she first had sex with their spouse, as Mike Wallace recently asked Mitt Romney? Can you tell me the names of the reporters who questioned Clinton for attacking Haiti, Serbia and Somalia? I don't recall the media asking me if I favored slaughtering 3000 Christians when it was convenient for the Arkansas Hillbilly to attack 3 nations that "did not attack us." 89% of the Washington Press Corps voted for the Democratic candidate in the last 4 elections. The mainstream media is so blatantly biased against Conservatives, it is not even funny.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/1/2007 6:41:43 AM
Yes, illberal garbage is all, but the media when it comes to poltical reportings tends to learn to the left. Fox news sometimes tells it like it is at times, and I dont agree with ethier fox or CNN 100% of the time.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/1/2007 10:50:20 AM
Not about golbal warming ? Early 20th century cities air quality was a lot worse with smokestack factories, sooty trains running all hours of the night. Still, jouralism is baised to one side or another by the way the story is presented. Still, who cares if it baised to the left or right politcally its about freedom of speech and expression. Freedom is better anyday than tranny or fascism and openly disagreeing is what a modern society does.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/1/2007 1:40:58 PM
If they were truly "left" , then three stories would have garnered far more attention then they did :

1) The USS Liberty incident - discussed in a current thread

2) The Franklin Credit Union/pedophile ring

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts5434120.aspx

3) The East Asia Security Act, and the vote change.

(It was essentially "passed" by Congress, and the votes were then changed to defeat it - after lobby pressure from US corporations. This happened on live TV, on C-Span.

No major American media picked up on the story, and it's even hard to find any reference online today that it even occurred.


The fact that all three of these very newsworthy stories never made it to any level of public attention (while other far less important ones did) shows you that the media cannot be said to have a left wing bias.

Were that to be the case, stories like these would be on every network.
 PoliticalWiseGuy
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 25
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/1/2007 6:15:54 PM
Once again, here is your lesson...................as I already pointed out with just a handful of names previously posted, Fox news employs far far far far more Liberals as regularly paid contributors on their payrolls than their combined competition employ Conservatives. Prior to FNC, you heard one side....America is evil, we are the villians, we are bullies etc...and finally when Americans hear another side to the story, it seems FNC beats the living &*^%*$ out of their competition....remember, they more than double their closest competitor in viewership....and yet are in 20% fewer homes than CNN.........care to explain that? Furthermore, they have owned the cable news wars since shortly after their beginning. Combine that with the fact the nightly newsanchors are so so so biased to the left......as they continue to denounce America.....is it any wonder the left keeps getting hammered in Presidential elections?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 27
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/1/2007 10:33:53 PM
I wouldn't say that the media has a leftist bias so much as I'd say it has a sensationalist bias. How is bombarding us with "news" about Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton politically motivated? I'd also say that the media has a pro-corporate America bias. That's commonly thought of as conservative territory. The media is staunchly pro-Israel, staunchly anti-Palestine, and anti-Islam. One could fill volumes, as MG pointed out, with liberal-friendly stories that do not get covered.

Part of the problem is that I think people are equating "Democrat" with "liberal." That's not always the case. Many true progressives are very, very disappointed and frustrated with the Democratic Party in the US. The two main parties in the US do not fully describe the political leanings of its citizens, and that's an understatement. Many reporters may have a bias towards the Dems, but some automatically take that to mean they are Communist or terrorist sympathizers. How simple-minded...

Bottom line: the media has a bottom line bias (profit). What makes the money gets the coverage. Everything has a bias of some sort. It is up to the educated viewer to determine how deep the bias is and how truthful the presentation is. If you get all your info from one source (or highly similar sources), then realize that your perspective may not be fully "balanced," shall we say?
 PoliticalWiseGuy
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 28
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/2/2007 12:26:04 AM
I am part Palestinian.....do not try and tell me how the media is anti-Palestinian. Anti-Islamic? Are you kidding me? The Abu-Ghraib so-called scandal shows just how much the mainstream media PANDERS to moslems. Equating a handful of pictures that slightly humiliated people who regularly behead one for merely NOT being a Moslem is quite comical. When my ancestral brethren teach strapping bombs on even young children and target others going to school, I will indeed object to it. Please tell me the last time you heard an Israeli or Christian blow themselves up on a schoolbus full of Moslem Children or in a Moslem school or nightclub.
 Ottawa_Chicklet
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/2/2007 9:18:32 AM
Why should news have a lean?

When a story is presented in a factual way, there should be no lean. Does any news agency do this?
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 31
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/2/2007 9:56:24 AM
America is by definition, a liberal country. It is because the people in it believe in the rights of the individual over the rights of the group. The Founding Fathers fought against a single ruler named King George (ironic, eh?) and wrote up a second government (after the Articles of Confederation did not work) establishing these rights, and weakening the government. Heck, the free market economy we think of, was considered to be very liberal in asking for "hands off" treatment.

So, sure, journalists living in America may naturally have what could be considered a liberal bent. But, does liberalism cover every base? That is, can people be socially conservative but economically liberal? Sure they can--there are people who don't want same-sex marriage but want social programs, for example.

The media is owned by corporations. General Electric, for example, owns NBC, MSNBC, etc. Are you going to hear these mediums rail against nuclear power, or report how poorly the Patriot missile did in 1991? No. I don't imagine the Pentagon Papers of this generation getting printed while news media know this administration is its best chance of getting FCC rules overturned. Plus, in order to cut costs like any good corporation, if you are faced with a decision of hunting down news on Iraq or showing up at the Pentagon to have it spoon-fed to you, well...which is the financially responsible choice?

When former generals are faced with war protesters on national TV, then I'll admit, there is a massive liberal bias in the media :) But reporters like Woodward find that the more successful they are, the more money they make, and the more access to "celebrity" politicians they get. Its pretty hard to stay "liberal" among that company...
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/3/2007 6:30:08 AM

The reason these stories are not on the so called "news" is because the public does not demand it. The public demands Paris Hilton, OJ type news.


I respectfully disagree (although a certain element of that exists) with you.

One can take any story, and make it or break it by how ( and by who) it's presented to the public. If it's passed over or minimized, it won't build momentum.

If it DOES get past that point, it will take on a life of it's own.

Especially in the case of the Franklin Credit/Pedophile ring scandal, it has every element of those "hot buttons" that Americans will react to.

Sex, celebrity, wealth, high ranked politicians involved.
 Ottawa_Chicklet
Joined: 8/5/2006
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/3/2007 7:01:07 AM

Disagree,
The reason these stories are not on the so called "news" is because the public does not demand it. The public demands Paris Hilton, OJ type news. The media just spoon feeds us what we demand, because as stated before....man they like profit and veiwers.
That is not right nor left leaning. It is just a fact that what is considered "news worthy".

We are a serve us quick and make us happy nation. We do not wish to think or digest. We want glamor and gossip. Tune into any regular news say ABC, CBS, NBC. A couple headlines for 5 minutes then 25 minutes of Health or Entertainment or Lifestyles.

Instead of arguing over right or left leaning basis we all should be pissed we are feed this fluff! Hard reporting is DONE...OVER...NADDA.
These threads about left or right leaning are getting as bad as...well I am going to say it...NICE GUY THREADS...


Well said, Wolves... I couldn't agree more.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/3/2007 1:31:44 PM
Many years ago, I attended a speech by Nixon shortly before he resigned. There was nothing remarkable about the speech or the event. That evening, I was listening to the radio when the regular hourly news report came on. The leading story was about boos and heckling at the speech I had just attended. It simply did not happen. The audio byte was edited to add the protests that supposedly interrupted the rather dull speech!

I have since been close to a number of events covered by the press and have yet to see a single accurate depiction of the event. In one case, it was car wreck caused by teenagers not paying attention, crossing the middle of the road and crashing headon into a large truck. I was the only real witness and was driving a car behind the teenagers. I told the reporter exactly what happened. All the others survived but were not inany shape to talk to anyone. I could see the driver turning around looking for something in the back seat and swerving into the oncomming lane. The official accident report by the police did their measurements etc. and it confirmed exactly what I saw. The story the next day read that the truck crossed the road and hit the car with innocent teenagers in it. The worst injury was the truck driver and lost full pay and overtime he would have gotten working. The teenage driver did not carry insurance so the truck owners had to pay for repairs to their truck which far exceeded the value of the kid's car. The damage to the reputation of the company and the truck driver was never considered.

In neither of these cases was there any editorial comment but the so called facts were completely false and took a decidely liberal bias.

During the bicentenial celebrations, Peter Jennings reported on Operation Sail in which sailing ships from the past sailed in reveiw past the Statue of Liberty. One of these boats was a restored racing J class yacht built during the hey day of America's cup yacht racing in the 1920's. It had been owned by Sir Thomas Lipton and lost to an American yacht owned by Vanderbilt that was later scrapped for it metal for WWII. In the introduction for the boat, Petter Jennings said the boat was used in the tea trade. Sorry, wrong century, wrong type of boat, no correction.

I could go on about the prize winning NY times series about a kid growing up to be a drug dealer that was fabricated or the CBS story about papers proving Bush lied that were themselves manufactured but I don't have personal experience with those stories. Editorial comments can be as biased as they want since they are relatively easy to dismiss. Creating lies to sell stories appears to be the norm and they often reveal a liberal or populist bias. One could examine the campain of Ross "Payroll" that probably cost Bush senior re-election. He campained against NAFTA saying it would take jobs from Americans by sending them to Mexico and Canada. He got lots of sympathetic press for a third party although he was on less ballots than the Libertarian party. Since his business interests and that of his son largly involve selling programming services from India, I can see how worry over competition from Canada could be a problem for his income under NAFTA.

I note that a previous post said that most Americans were social liberals and fiscal conservatives yet has anyone heard the press mention the Libertarian party that represents that point of view?
 agoramatic
Joined: 6/22/2007
Msg: 37
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/5/2007 3:11:41 AM
Wait, we needed a study to establish this?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/5/2007 7:06:19 AM
How can any media that is overwhelmingly owned by only a few corporations be "left biased" ?

Take a look who owns most of the media, especially in the USA.
 TRAVELING4US_2013
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/5/2007 10:26:37 AM
$ $$ $$$$$$$$$,, In this Capitalistic Society, anything can be bought, or sold to the highest bidder. Newspapers, radio,tv, reporters, columnists,politicians,etc, etc,-----Caveat Emptor,,there's plenty of Media -Benedict Arnolds- out there! (public,"mind,conditioning "relations,!!
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 42
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/8/2007 2:57:02 PM
I guess this all depends on where you live , what you're interested in , and whether or not you can admit the obvious.

For example , where I live we have two major dailies. The Free Press is rather balanced really but if it leans to either side it has to be the left. The Sun on the other hand definitely leans to the right.

We see a very different picture in the media here than the US. The same company will own both balanced and right leaning papers here. As example, the National Post (very conservative editorially and newswise) is owned by the same company that owns the Ottawa Citizen (usually very balanced newswise and has an even mix of both left and right editorially). The Sun is also very right-leaning editorially and, compared to the regular broadsheets, is pretty much a "yellow rag" (focussing on sensasionlism in the news). You will be unlikely to see that same level of journalistic freedom in a US chain.

The really funny thing is that the vast majority of media that is classed as "leftist" in the US is center-right anywhere else (they seem to have their own unique vision of left-right there) and the media classed as right-leaning would be, well, close to fascist-nationalist.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/9/2007 7:18:00 AM

I guess this all depends on where you live , what you're interested in , and whether or not you can admit the obvious.


You can take something, and "re-brand" it to either side of the political aisle.

Want me to prove it to you ?

Ready ? :

I can't think of anything more "liberal" than gun control. People that are against that, and ALL left wingers.

Right ?

Ummm..... time to get into that semantical Deloreon, and go "Back to the Future" ....."Set the dial for 1967, Doc. "


It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293284.shtml



Then the Panther's showed up , and burst into the Sacramento legislature with loaded weapons...protesting their "right to bear arms".


This message was amplified when a small group of Black Panther Party members, led by Bobby Seale, designated chairman of the Party, marched into the California legislature in May 1967 fully armed. Defined as a protest against a pending gun-control bill, which became the Mulford Act, supporting the position that Blacks had a Constitutional right to bear arms, the Party’s message that day became a clarion call to young Blacks .

http://tinyurl.com/2zyjc6


So the Che inspired, Afro tottin' leftists were the ones with the loaded guns...and the Right was FOR gun control.

Just one incident , right ?


“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

- Ibid


O.K, that's just ONE guy...and some very particular circumstances.....right ?


n 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

- Ibid


Nixon, that damn Democrat leftist commie **stard !!!!

O.K. Two guys....


One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation's strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

- Ibid


Just look back a few years...


The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.”

Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm


So you can very clearly see that a "left wing" concept is supported by movers and shakers on the Right - and has been for a long time. Any Democrat who mentions one word about any type of gun control will have it brought back to haunt him/her for the rest of their career.

Meanwhile, right wingers get a free hall pass on the issue. It doesn't tarnish them in the same way, which is strange - because it's the same action.

If you control the language, you control the debate. Perception then becomes reality. Propaganda is the art form of the 20th century.


Emotions + Symbols + Association = Branding.


This is exactly what's been done with the "Left wing" concept of gun-control, and that's why most people won't "see" mentally a right winger when it's mentioned.

It's the same game that was pulled with "cut and runners". When the US was in Somalia and a small number of soldiers got killed.......the Republicans were screaming that the military had to be pulled out.

Reagan pulled troops out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing.

No one called any of them "cut and runners"....
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/9/2007 3:26:32 PM

Uh...isn't that exactly what I was getting at MG ?


We are on the same page, my friend. It was just a case of giving some examples to people to illustrate what you were saying in a concrete way. In no way was it meant to appear otherwise.

If an extreme "hot button" topic like gun control can be strongly publicly supported by many right wing leaders over the last forty years, but yet still appear to most Americans today to be a "left wing" cause, one has to wonder about the entire issue of "bias" .

If this can happen, and if stories can be made to "vanish off the radar" in the media, we can start to ask ourselves important questions about propaganda and media control today.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/9/2007 4:36:29 PM

Then they throw in their bias so they can feel good "fighting the man" because being a reporter is really nothing more than acting like a parrot that describes the acts and accomplishments of others. The left-leaning media are talkers, not doers.


Your profile states that you are 32, which means you are a little too young to remember the "good ol' days" of the Sixties. I'm old enough to remember that "left-leaning" media supporting the civil rights movement, and bringing it's validity to the hearts and minds of the population of the world.

When Cronkite came out against Vietnam, it was all over.

Those were much simpler times, in many ways. Media was more independent than it is today. People were hired for their talent, and not just for their looks. Walter Cronkite was never going to be offered a Playgirl spread.

It's a long hard plunge from Edward R. Murrow to Katie Couric.

"Right wing conservative" Fox News features some women in remarkably small minis and tight sweaters.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/9/2007 6:31:49 PM
When I heard CNN use the word "kidnapped" in regards to those American soldiers that were captured in Iraq (and then killed) it set of alarm bells for me about how American media is portraying the world.

These were fully armed troops, on a combat mission in a country that America has declared war on. "Kidnapped" isn't a valid term to use in this situation. . It sounds like they snatched some kid on his way to school.


To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.


These were prisoners of war taken during the course of an insurgency, and unlawfully killed afterwards.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/10/2007 6:16:15 AM
Actually, I'd say that with all the money pumped into that same media by people like the CIA, John Birch Society, corporate think tanks, and other various right wing capitalist groups - for every Yin there is a Yang.


Operation Mockingbird was a Central Intelligence Agency operation to influence domestic and foreign media, whose activities were made public during the Church Committee investigation in 1975 (published 1976).

The word Mockingbird was first used by Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great (1979). There is no evidence that the CIA called it this. Cord Meyer said that when he joined the operation in 1951 it was so secret that it did not have a name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird


That's pretty secret, when you don't even NAME your operations.


n 1948, Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects (OSP). Soon afterwards OSP was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central IntelligenceAgency. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic and foreign media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. According to Deborah Davis ("Katharine the Great"): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative".

In 1977, Rolling Stone alleged that one of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists alleged by Rolling Stone Magazine to have been willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (The Miami News), Herb Gold (The Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times).[5] According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman), these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. By this time Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. These organizations were run by people with well-known right-wing views such as William Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time Magazine and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor).

- Ibid


Hmmm....all these major "left wing" media operations (in the mid-50's even) and all owned by well known right wing supporters....on the CIA's top secret (and self-described)
propaganda campaign.

Started almost sixty years ago.


In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." However, he added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.

- Ibid


Well, if you want to work for free.....operators are waiting in Langley . Va. for your calls right now. Call 1-800-Christians-in Action , or apply at our website NoSuchAgency.com.

IS this anyway to run a capitalist intelligence agency ?

How bad is it when the evil Godless Commie **stards are outpaying us to corrupt our own journalists , on our own home turf ?

We have a bribery gap .


Hush little baby, dont say a word
Pappas gonna buy you a mockingbird


 Seavoyage
Joined: 1/18/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 7/10/2007 5:59:42 PM
First of all, this study does not seem scientific but rather ideological. What is the Left? The Democratic party is quite far to the right of many Democrats of the past. The reporters are probably to the Left on social issues. Are they on economic issues? We need a break down of what these views are coming from these reporters. If there is a bias to the Left it is such a small one in my view. Of course, for many Republicans it is a major bias. However, we all know that people who for example would advocate for universal health care get very little coverage in the media whether in print or on television. CNN talks about that stuff more than the others, but it was Michael Moore's movie that kind of got them talking about it recently.
Such an important issue in a supposedly liberal media shouldn't be discussed only because Michael Moore produced a video. I don't buy this media really being biased toward the Left unless that just means someone even a tiny bit to the Left of the Republican party which is essentially what it is these days. What really separates the two parties is social views and also views of the world. More people on the Left are aware of other countries, relations with them, the complexities of dealing with them etc... You could argue that George Bush senior was quite to the Left of his son.
Actually, he was. He was closer to your average Democrat than to his own son.
 Internetdatingpariah
Joined: 10/17/2004
Msg: 55
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 6/2/2008 11:18:41 AM
yup...much better to only believe what we see or read on youtube!!!
 get_mad_baby
Joined: 4/9/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 6/2/2008 10:31:40 PM

I can't add anything else to it.


You can't think for yourself or do your homework. Passing along trash like this without even bothering to check to see if it's real, which it is not. Jay Leno never said this! It's a hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/hitnail.asp

Do some thinking, you've just proved that you're gullible and easily fooled; you've been duped.

Thank you for showing us with your example of passing along fabricated bullshit as to why the country is misinformed.

Think critically, and question authority figures.
 get_mad_baby
Joined: 4/9/2005
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
Posted: 6/3/2008 1:32:26 PM

And on a side note "get mad baby" I'm quite sure you have never been fooled in your life or fallen for something like that so I will aspire to be just like you..

You're right, I was once religious, but I developed an allergy to bull.

As for learning what sites are providing good info... here's a question to chew on. How will you know?

Just because it's repeated over and over does not make something true. What helps is expert reviewed, not pundits!, experts in their field, and the peer reviewed.

Learn to take a broad general view of things. Look at the long history, and if you remember anything, remember that Rome fell in 476A.D.

Also, the truth is hardly ever pretty. If it scares you, it's probably the truth. Or if you hear it out of a politician, they mean the opposite.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >