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
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political ScientistPage 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

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  >