Bias: Who cares?

[Squawker]

The media did a good job of brainwashing people into thinking McVeigh was a right wing icon. Every time the left talked about McVeigh, they said "Right Wing ExtremIst". I see it worked. Is there any new information that made him a member of some right wing militia group? This just says he registered as a Republican. Do we now have to categorize nut cases as left or right wing? Waco was a Federal F*ck up. Anyone who watched it should have been outraged. Only a sick man would have blown up innocent people over it, to make a useless point.

McVeigh traveled to Waco, Texas during the March-April 1993 standoff between the Branch Davidians and federal agents, and was said to have been angry about what he saw. He sold firearms at a gun show in Arizona and was heard to remark on one weapon's ability to shoot down an ATF helicopter.
Although both Arizona and Michigan are host to militant anti-tax, anti-government, survivalist and racist groups, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to any extremist groups. He advertised to sell a weapon in what is described as a virulently anti-Semitic publication. After renting a Ryder truck that has been linked to the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh telephoned a religious community that preaches white supremacy, but no one there can remember knowing him or talking to him. His only known affiliations are as a registered Republican in his New York days, and as a member of the National Rifle Association while he was in the Army.

Source

 

[sdsmith]

But if its a "liberal" in the Federal F**$ Up its OK....at least on Fox News tonight with our guest....Squawker. Screw up or not, the Feds did have a reason to believe that the innocents were in danger, also there wasn't sufficient intel on exactly who was innocent and who was not until after the bodies were being sorted.

Of course, the whole "its the Feds fault" spin is a right wing bias. Right wing bias has been spinning McVeigh and Waco for years because they don't want to accept that their philosophy attracts such aspiring talent.

I'm in agreement with Aguapub. Right wing nuts are the real threat, second threat the religious fanatic Christians then based on actual attacks...overseas terrorists.

True Al Quada get the headlines and scored a big hit on 9/11 but they haven't surpassed our homegrown idiots yet. Hell we still have a bunch of Hitler junkies who post here now and again.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

You guys don't get it. It isn't what the media publishes that is important. What they write about is generally quite true. What they don't write about is considerably more important. No one can possibly object or even think about something they don't know about, and there are things that some people don't want known. :shock:

 

[stsburns]

:spin:

Screw up or not, the Feds did have a reason to believe that the innocents were in danger, also there wasn't sufficient intel on exactly who was innocent and who was not until after the bodies were being sorted.

:spin:

When you talk about War trying using people other than yourself, with more credibility. Like Eisenhower :mrgreen:

"Nothing is easy in war. Mistakes are always paid for in casualties and troops are quick to sense any blunder made by their commanders."
-General of the Armies, Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[gordontravels]

I have just come to relize something. What does it matter, if a news place is bias. We all know which news stations are bias, and towards whom. So, we can all make our own choices of what to watch. We have already formed opinions about issues, and nothing that people like Chirs Mattews says will change anything about it. People suggest that if people watch a bias network, it will promote extremism. So, if you are a liberal I suggest that you watch liberal channels 70% of the time and Fox News 30% of the time. This way you will get to see the news the way you like it, but you will also get to hear the other side of the story. Every story has two sides to it, the right and left.

One might ask, what about kids that watch a bias station and are impressionable? First off, kids don't watch the news. Second off, if kids watch the news it will most likely be what there parents watch. And kids most off the time are impressed by their parents and have the same view as them anyways. So it doesn't matter.

I think news channels should just straight up admit that they are biased because people already know. But this way people can be proud to support their stations. Think about it:
CBS News: Proud supporters of Howard Dean
Fox News: TV for the Conservative American
CNN: F*** You Right Wingers
It would be great!

Let me see if I can give you one or two recent reasons why we should care about the bias in the media. What if the news decides to rewrite history? What if they decide to rewrite history while completely ignoring the facts? What if they only report on one side of the story?

Yes, children listen to the news if they are in the presence of their parents. Let's say that some nights ago their parents were listening to network news. The following are examples from the Media Research Center and even though this is a conservative organization they report what was said:

DON'T YOU THINK THE MEDIA REMEMBERS WHAT RUSSIA DID?
From the Media Research Center:

ABC's Terry Moran treated Latvia President Vaira Vike-Freiberga as the "instigator" of controversy, during President Bush's trip to mark VE Day, for maintaining that the Soviet Union was not a "liberator" of the Baltic states, but an "occupier" for 45 years after World War II. After noting on Friday night how the "Russians are furious," Moran asked Vike-Freiberga: "So is the Russian government today, then, lying about that history?" When she replied "yes," Moran painted her as the one out of line: "That's an extraordinary thing for the head of state to say about another government." The next night, Saturday anchor Bob Woodruff portrayed the truth of the history as up for debate: "The war was followed by decades of Soviet military presence. There are many ways to view that history." Moran soon asserted: "The main instigator of this controversy is Latvia's outspoken President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga." Woodruff brought aboard left-wing professor Stephen Cohen who wondered: "Who can say whose truth is truer?"

OR HOW ABOUT JUST REPORTING PART OF THE STORY:
From the Media Research Center:

On the very day the Washington Post reported that "lobbyist Jack Abramoff paid at least a portion of the expenses for two Democratic members of Congress...during a pair of trips in the mid-1990s to the Northern Marianas Islands," CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer set up a Wednesday "Inside Story" look at Abramoff by explaining that "many of the allegations against [House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay revolve around foreign trips he took that were paid for by" Abramoff, as indeed they do, but he and Gloria Borger ignored the fresh information about how Abramoff also paid for the Democratic members. Following Borger's review of Abramoff's dealings with Indian tribes, Schieffer prompted her: "Gloria, this is going beyond Tom DeLay now, isn't it?" But instead of raising the names of the two Democrats and tying them back to Abramoff, Borger just noted that Democrats are "beginning to discover that these rules that say that lobbyists cannot pay for travel are something that perhaps they didn't understand."

So the Russians sit in the countries on the inside of the Iron Curtain as "liberators"? And ABC will agree that they aren't "occupiers"? And CBS will tell you all about Tom Delay but not the Democrats that did the same thing; one of them right down to the golf game?

We should care that news outlets will allow either their own revisionist history masquerade as news or that they will report that which hurts Republicans but when the exact same is true of Democrats they don't. For those that see no problem in this you are not worth reading. :duel

 

[sdsmith]

We're getting a little "out there" on this thread with the whole Orwellian thing when the thread was about Liberal/Conservative Bias.

That's a reality that we can deal with and, to some degree, get comfortable with.

Taking it to an extreme and talking about how we'll all be fed only what the "System" wants us to know isn't really relevant. It's possible in some long odd sort of way but not really here....at least as we know

I was in charge of logical security at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and that was a constant irritant to us. The military types going..."like someone can shoot me in the head, take my ID card, get access, hose the athletes with fire"....well yeah. It isn't something I can anyway remotely control with my computer either, I have to rely upon the Feds and others who are pro's at that sort of thing. Possible,not likely and not something I have a direct control over.

All ended well by the way.

 

[gordontravels]

You're telling me that the "screaming nut cases" are predominantly on the left? You're kidding, right? Have you heard right wing talk radio? Maybe you forgot that the worst case of domestic terrorism was committed by a bunch of right-wing, government demonizing, ex-military, Christian "nut cases" Timothy McVeigh and Terri Nichols, and the web of right-wing "nut case" organizations of which they were just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm sorry but I have liberal leaning thinking as part of my makeup just as I take a conservative view of certain issues or decisions I must make for myself. I don't belong to the KKK when I think about my religion nor do I have to hate another race. Timothy McVeigh is not my brother any more than he is yours and neither you nor I would approve of what he did. Would you or I ever contemplate doing something so heinous in the name of politics or a liberal or conservative thought? To use Timothy McVeigh as the icon for any of the entities you cite in association with his name is to take an ex-military, christian, right/left wing, government watching person that is against any organization that foments any form of violence - in short, me - and tell me that because I believe something and express my beliefs that I am in league with the likes of Timothy McVeigh?

Let me say that left and right wing people have died for this country while they were registered as Democrats and Republicans. Some were Baptists, Catholics, atheists or ones of 30 other religions or non religious belief. Your words put you in the "left wing nut" category but I would prefer to meet you in the open as we celebrate the fact that Timothy McVeigh is gone. Are all the Timothy McVeighs gone? Probably not but don't think someone that is of a conservative mind and maybe ex-military can be lumped into your bag of ilk. There are too many of us that have brains. And may I say, "I don't think I killed any children when I was in Vietnam."

 

[sdsmith]

Well said Gordontravels.

Polarization is the greatest problem we face in American politics today.

Way past time to think past labels and embrace solutions for problems that work without the baggage of a label.

The reality is that there are a lot of conservative democrats (fondly call "Reagan/Bush Democrats) and neither President would have been elected if there weren't. Clinton couldn't have been elected either without the moderate to liberal republican vote which reflects a lot of the Schwartznegger/McCain camp who are fiscally conservative but get sick on the abortion stance, stem cells and religion in government aspects.

Frankly, it well past time for a third party to rise and claim the middle ground leaving the kooks in the old line parties to scream at each other while we govern.

 

[gordontravels]

Well said Gordontravels.

Polarization is the greatest problem we face in American politics today.

Way past time to think past labels and embrace solutions for problems that work without the baggage of a label.

The reality is that there are a lot of conservative democrats (fondly call "Reagan/Bush Democrats) and neither President would have been elected if there weren't. Clinton couldn't have been elected either without the moderate to liberal republican vote which reflects a lot of the Schwartznegger/McCain camp who are fiscally conservative but get sick on the abortion stance, stem cells and religion in government aspects.

Frankly, it well past time for a third party to rise and claim the middle ground leaving the kooks in the old line parties to scream at each other while we govern.

And I will say "well said" sdsmith!

Media Bias: Who Cares? I believe that the last two elections are a result of a slow reaction to but, none the less, a revolt against the one sided reporting we get from our media. Reporting. Not Air America or Rush. I am talking about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and The Fox News Channel. All of these outlets either produce their own bias or have enough individuals on as guests to spew their own. I think the thinking American is slowly gaining in numbers over those who simply assign the label Democrat or Republican to themselves and figure that if a Democrat or Republican says it it must be true. Worse yet: If someone giving you the news is actually giving you the whole story.

I care. :duel

 

[sdsmith]

I think it is broader than just about media bias but the blatant bias and constant polarization of political views is starting to wear us all down.

First, we're all American citizens....can we at least come up with a short list of goals that we agree upon? Yes, we'll probably disagree on priority but the same 5 will likely appear in some order. You know...national security, economic prosperity, healthcare, pensions that actually are there when we retire, ability to own a business/home, education...etc.

Once we acknowledge that we do have similar goals and the same concern for the nation as a whole then it is somewhat easier to actually respect the person with a different perspective and listen rather than retreat to dogmatic liberal/conservative rhetoric.

Example: Healthcare.

Clinton's plan had flaws but he (*maybe Hillary as well) laid out something to address the issue. Rather than throwing it out, we could have taken that plan and started a conversation on healthcare. To this day, I don't believe that Clinton ever expected it to pass as proposed but we should have congradulated him for proposing something to an obvious problem rather than sticking his head in the sand and pretending it wasn't there.
The healthcare delivery and compensation mechanisms are simply broken. Capitalism does not exist in that market (*I'm an ex-hospital executive). Middle class people with insurance, great insurance mind you, lose their homes due to medical bills all the time in this country. Why is that not a rallying point?

Example: Social Security/Pensions

Bush has proposed reforms to Social Security to stop the system from a complete collapse. Again, we prefer to act as though the problem does not exist. It does. The system has been a ponzi scheme from the day it was enacted. Then it just gave the government a huge windfall as like 1% of the population ever lived to collect it. Then some idiots in the 60's decided to give the store away and why should they care? None of them would be in office when the whole thing collapsed?

Time to deal with it. Is Bush's plan the right one? I doubt it but it should get us moving to work together to seriously find the right answer.

More than just a bias, common sense needs to break out somewhere or we're all screwed.