aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
aquapub said:1) As the Media Research Center points out, it took the networks a week to even mention the 2nd most powerful Democrat-Durbin-equating Guantanamo Bay to Hitler's death camps and Pol Pot's genocidal reign of terror and they didn't even mention it until they had to because Durbin was publicly apologizing. (and CBS STILL didn't run the story!)
Then, when Carl Rove recently made a factually accurate characterization of the left's priorities after 9/11 (They DID place their priorities on the "rights" of the terrorists, They DID vehemently oppose the Patriot Act, they DID protest the toppling of Muslim terror-sponsors, and they DID often argue that America deserved it-OK, as liberal pundits even admitted, RIGHT after 9/11, liberals feigned patriotism just long enough to avoid being disowned by the mainstream, but they still reverted to their usual anti-American rhetoric), all three networks ran it as a front line story within HOURS of the speech!
"Nothing more needs to be said about the motives of the [media]!"
2) Here is a nauseating outrage from MSNBC's liberal propagandist (though advertised as an "objective journalist," not as an "opinion journalist" by MSNBC, like their conservative commentator, Joe Scarborough). This was taken straight from the MRC website:
MSNBC's Countdown, which didn't touch Senator **** Durbin's allegation until a night after his apology, but on Thursday immediately jumped on Karl Rove's criticism of how liberals reacted to the 9/11 attacks, delivered another round of invective on Friday night. Alison Stewart had filled in on Thursday for Keith Olbermann, but he was back Friday and brought aboard a psychiatrist to discuss actor Tom Cruise's attack on the profession. He snidely asked: "Any idea if Tom Cruise or Karl Rove might be hoping that they say something so outrageous about therapy that somebody who cares about them might try an intervention to force them into therapy?" Olbermann also worried: "Lastly, could Mr. Rove's references have been more damaging even than the Cruise interview because he essentially associated therapy with weakness?" Olbermann later brought aboard a 9/11 widow to denounce Rove as Olbermann castigated him for his "smugness" and ruminated: "I was living in the United States of America on 9/11 and the months of bipartisanship that followed it. Where in the heck do you suppose Karl Rove was at that time?"
Please, someone tell me how this is not flagrant media bias?
3) Newsweek is, by every measuring scale and by every method attempted, consistently rated as the very most biased left-wing publication in the "mainstream" American press. Here is what Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in relation to our tax dollars being used to perpetuate liberal propaganda on NPR:
Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas wondered, on Inside Washington over the weekend, whether the effort in the U.S. House to reduce funding for NPR through the CPB would "make NPR a little less liberal?" An indignant Nina Totenberg of NPR retorted: "I don't think we're liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that." Thomas countered that "I do listen to you and you're not that liberal, but you're a little bit liberal." Totenberg insisted, "I don't think that's a fair criticism...any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal." To which Thomas conceded: "I think Newsweek is a little liberal."
SourceIn his three decades as a reporter and producer at CBS, Goldberg repeatedly voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature of the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they did listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no choice but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence that pervades the news business. Bias is the result.
As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world -- and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.
Squawker said:Book review for Bernard Goldbergs book, “Liberal Bias.” He is a Liberal reporter telling it like it is.
Source
That's interesting, I haven't heard that before -- do you have a link please?Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited.
SouthernDemocrat said:Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited.
Like I say, if there truely is bias, why do the right wingers not have one independent study to show the bias?
I think there's a problem with your argument. I think that John F. Kennedy was more mainstream in 1963 because all in all there was a good solid portion of the political climate was more tollerant of leftism at the time. If John F. Kennedy were alive, in today's right-wing reactionary political climate he would be on an extreme fringe. Or God forbid his brother Bobby. Fox news would specifically hire anchors to call him a communist 6 hours a day. And you would be talking about how you were an FDR liberal, not a Kennedy. But you'd have a problem there too, because FDR was far more socially radical than most of his modern day counterparts. I've heard this argument before it was...who was it...Bill O'reilly, talking about how he likes liberals, just the mainstream reasonable ones, like Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was his favorite liberal. Bobby Kennedy would despise everything that a biggot like Bill O'reilly says. He would destroy him.akyron said:I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal. I'm a liberal the way liberals used to be when they were like John F. Kennedy and when they were like Hubert Humphrey. When they were upbeat and enthusiastic and mainstream. I am not a liberal the way liberals are today at least as exemplified by Al Franken and Michael Moore, where they're angry, nasty, closed minded, & not mainstream, but fringe.
faminedynasty said:I think there's a problem with your argument.
akyron said:Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
"Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited."
"I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal." ---Bernard Goldberg
Actually Mr. Goldberg is a self proclaimed avowed liberal and I have yet to find anything discrediting his book.
The only news that is fair and balanced is news that has NO commercials.
That was my argument. Perhaps you took Mr. Goldbergs statements as my own.
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.aspSouthernDemocrat said:Like I say, if there truely is bias, why do the right wingers not have one independent study to show the bias?
No, the facts are objective. the slant the media uses to prioritize, report, and give perspective on stories.... is liberal.galenrox said:the facts are now liberal in your opinion.
vauge said:We rarely hear the good stuff like a new hospitol that marines helped assemble or electrity systems upgraded.
You know, the other stuff that we are really doing over there now.
Since normally liberals do not like the war, why would a liberal station actually put that type of news on the air?
galenrox said:Because they're listening to the NEWS, liberals don't dislike the war just for the hell of it, liberals dislike the war because up until now it's been a failure. And I listen to the news, and I hear good news and bad news about the war (and it's usually about the same amount of good news and bad news).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?