I would suggest anyone that posts a Washington Post

[Jack Dawson]

link should be taken with a grain of sand. Same with NY and LA Times. These are all propoganda arms of the Democratic National Committee. Not at all unlike Dan Rather himself. By the way I believe he had a choice to leave on his terms or get fired. There is NO WAY he would not have stayed the FULL 25 years and bragged about being the anchor for a Quarter of a Century. They were going to bag him if he didn't hang it up. :violin

 

[WKL815]

:agree :yt

My favorite is to then get snide remarks about Fox News. You know where I get the best Pro-Republican information a person can get? CSPAN and the History Channel =) Oh yeah, and my own experience and brain.

 

[heyjoeo]

Yes propoganda arms. I'd like to see you back that up. All of those papers have NATIONAL recognition.

FOX blows. Is that snide? I think its pretty direct . And to be honest with you, I think the history channel will be pretty detrimental in the future to the Republican Party...

 

[Jack Dawson]

Their liberal BIAS speaks for itself, they are what they are, liberal media arms of the Democratic Party.

 

[heyjoeo]

Yet again, instead of making blanket accusations, I suggest you show me some evidence of this liberal bias.

 

[Schweddy]

About Rather, I wrote CBS and told them I would not watch thier news until he is gone. Same with the producer - one down - one to go.

 

[heyjoeo]

Still not seeing any evidence from Jack Dawson. Oh wait, he doesn't have any.

 

[jcueckert13]

heyjoeo you have the same problems with backing up your oppinions so i dont think you have a place to talk

 

[heyjoeo]

FOX blows is an opinion. However, "propoganda arms" is not. Plus Jack Dawson being an idiot, is also an opinion. Opinions are mine and mine only. You can share my opinion if you wish.

 

[KBeta]

All news reporting is bias. Duh.

The concept of unbiased, 'spin free,' 'fair and balanced,' or 'unfiltered' news is absurd. Typically, the news sources that trumpet their objectiveness the most are in fact the most biased. If they feel to the need to tell you that they are unbiased, it’s pretty safe to guess that they are biased.

At least in Europe news sources have essentially dispensed with the façade. If you go to the news stand you’ll see the socialist paper, the communist paper, the government party line paper, the fascist paper, etc. Nobody is trying to BS you about were they stand because the populace understands that nobody is truly objective. That particular morsel of insight seems to have been largely ignored in the US.

Also, if you are trying to talk about it intelligently, you have to separate the reporting from the editorial writings. For example, I won’t deny the NYTimes, WAPost, and LATimes lean to the left on the editorial pages, but I often find their reporting quite reserved and conservative. FOX on the other hand, is rabidly conservative in its editorial point of view and just plain lousy at reporting.

It’s all relative. Are the NYTimes, WAPost, and LATimes more liberal than FOX News? Duh! The important thing is that diversity of opinion exists. The conservatives are in power so conservative voice will inevitably be louder. IMHO, truly liberal points of view only very rarely make it into mainstream media at all. You have to go to Democracy Now! to find a liberal voice as strident as FOX.

Where you rank various news sources is more a measure of where YOU stand in the political spectrum.

 

[Christiaan]

KBeta,

I concur, in part, with your assessment of the various biases of various news media. However, it is undeniable that mainstream American news media are sympathetic to modern liberal causes, i.e. the welfare state, abortion, the U.N. Though, I am curious, how do you define the terms Conservative and Liberal?

 

[Contrarian]

K Beta as usual is "fair and balanced", unlike any media outlet in this country. Unfortunately the situation is merely a function of the free market, capitalistic system. If it is "fair and balanced" it just doesn't sell. It's all about marketshare and money. People (like all of us) will gravitate to those outlets that best fit their personal belief systems. Be it O'Reilly or Rush.... Dan Rather or the NY Times, we take in what we believe to be the truth.

I never fail to be amazed at the vast disparity in one story, or view as reported by diametrically opposed news organizations. It makes me wonder if they were even there.

 

[Christiaan]

The term "fair and balanced" is an interesting one. What criteria would be used to judge whether a news medium is "fair and balanced"? Certainly, when FOX (or any other news media) describes, say, an AMTRAK railcar accident, it is describing the news worthy event in a "fair and balanced" manner, because it is describing events that happened in reality; those being free from interpretation. The biased opinion will come into play when the various reasons for the accident occuring are discussed. In short, news media are biased in their assessment of the philosophical underpinnings of news worthy events, and this bias is an important ingredient in a free country, enabling many different points of view to be heard, discussed and, consequently, decided upon. As Contrarian correctly pointed out, the phenomena of biased news agencies are a product of the free-market, and thank God for that!

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

News media in this country have historically been biased. So what? All that means is that they present the news in a way that is favorable to whichever side they're on. It should not mean that they falsify the news or that the news or opinions they present are automatically not worthy of discussion.

I have been reading the WP since 1938, and frankly, I don't know which side they are really on. I have always had the feeling that they talk liberal and act Republican. Therefore, I, a raging liberal, take what I read there with a grain of salt.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

You could say it is not the fault of a news organisation to be biased but the fault of a normal person reading the news who lets their own bias blind them into taking whatever they see, read, hear, and believing it as the absolute truth.

 

[Christiaan]

"To be young and not a liberal means you have no heart but, to be old and not a conservative means you have no brain," said Winston Churchill. Mr. Cornelius, rather, Mr. Raging Liberal, how do you use the term "liberal"(let alone the adjective "raging")? The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are frequently used, though rarely defined.

 

[KBeta]

KBeta,I concur, in part, with your assessment of the various biases of various news media. However, it is undeniable that mainstream American news media are sympathetic to modern liberal causes, i.e. the welfare state, abortion, the U.N. Though, I am curious, how do you define the terms Conservative and Liberal?

I, for one, will deny that mainstream American news media is completely sympathetic to modern liberal causes. They are dedicated to profits and whichever ideology helps them to increase them. Currently, I find them extremely conservative. However, as Noam Chomsky points out in his landmark work, Manufacturing Consent, it is the benefit of a conservative media to on occasion accept criticism for being too liberal. Using such criticism, usually administered by itself, the media can continuously become more and more conservative.

John Stewart of the Daily Show had a perfect description of the mass media in the US. He compared them to a Pee Wee soccer game. There’s this scrum of kids (i.e., media outlets), and you’re pretty sure there’s a ball (i.e., a story) hidden in there somewhere. Every once in a while the ball shoots out and rolls down the field, and the whole pack chases after it again.

I find mainstream media defined by laziness. Investigative reporting today is a joke. In fact the mass media is primarily a joke. ANY news currently on TV is a waste of bandwidth.

Oh yeah, my definitions of liberal and conservative. There are two of them that I rather like:

1)A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.

2)A conservative is a person who benefits from the evils of the day. A liberal is person who wishes to install a new set of evils.

 

[KBeta]

K Beta as usual is "fair and balanced"

I'm blushing.

...unlike any media outlet in this country. Unfortunately the situation is merely a function of the free market, capitalistic system. If it is "fair and balanced" it just doesn't sell. It's all about marketshare and money. People (like all of us) will gravitate to those outlets that best fit their personal belief systems. Be it O'Reilly or Rush.... Dan Rather or the NY Times, we take in what we believe to be the truth.

I never fail to be amazed at the vast disparity in one story, or view as reported by diametrically opposed news organizations. It makes me wonder if they were even there.

I don't object to a point of view. I object to a everyone claiming to be objective. As I said previously, the more a news soruce claims to be objective, the less I trust it. Tas and Pravda claimed objectivity too.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Ref. msg 16.

"To be young and not a liberal means you have no heart but, to be old and not a conservative means you have no brain," said Winston Churchill. Mr. Cornelius, rather, Mr. Raging Liberal, how do you use the term "liberal"(let alone the adjective "raging")? The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are frequently used, though rarely defined.

In a very loose and tongue in cheek sense I use raging to indicate that I am totally and irrevocably beyond redemption. It could also mean that I am baffled and irritated by the direction this country is going. A better and more complete way for me to describe myself would have been to say that I am a social liberal and an economic conservative. Here is an essay attributed only to the Sun News that I pulled off Google:

"Liberal" refers to people who believe that society can be changed for the better, and that government can be used as an instrument of such change. Because of their idealism, liberals often come off as unrealistic and sometimes downright flaky.

"Conservative" refers to people who have a much more "realistic" viewpoint: money rules; greed, not altruism, is what really drives human behavior; and human nature is so powerful that society can never be changed (except to strengthen the institutionalization of greed). There is a lot to be said for the accuracy of this viewpoint.

However, if we had not had millions of idealistic people working their buns off for the past several hundred years, each doing their tiny bit to make the world a better place, satisfied to make their incremental, almost-invisible changes which accumulated decade after decade, century after century, then we would still have slavery, public hangings, and open sewers running down the middle of our streets.

The forces of greed and corruption have become very powerful in recent years. I can only encourage idealistic people to keep struggling, to fight the inertia, to continue working to make the world a better place.

I pretty much agree with the definition of Liberal given above. Government should indeed be used to apply our common resources for the good of all. While I don't disagree with anything said about Conservatism today, I seem to recall that it used to include fiscal responsibility. That would include things like saving your money; paying for the things you want; and not going deeply into debt, and quaint stuff like that. That, at least, is what I meant when I said that I am also an economic conservative.

I've seen Churchill's quote many times, but I can't help but feel he wasn't thinking about what passes for Conservatism today.

 

[Christiaan]

Cornelius,

Firstly, I thank you for refraining from using cliches (KBeta!) to define the terms "liberal" and "conservative," and primarily i agree with your definition (as they are used in our age). Secondly, I agree, Churchill was not using the terms conservative and liberal as we use them in this day and age; however, when the correct definitions of the terms are used, i believe there is an entertaining truth to his quote. Modern liberals have pirated the name "Liberal". Liberalism, in western civilization since the late 17th century, has meant: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." -- American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition. Similarly, the classical liberal has promulgated the abolition of the Church-State infusion, the advancement of the free market (on moral and practical grounds), and the primacy of private property (among other things). I am a classical liberal, an individualist, a libertarian. With that said, I, personally, view "conservatives" and modern liberals as philosophical brothers fighting over who should be the next bully.

P.S. "Government should indeed be used to apply our common resources for the good of all." What, exactly, is the "good of [the] all"? If the all are nothing more than a bunch of individuals, is it not inevitable that some will be favored over others? How are resources "common"? If you are a proponent of private property, how can you consider resources commonly owned by the "whole"? Your statement screams statism and, at the very least, crude utilitarianism! Avowed communists would agree with your ends, though, only disagree on the means in which it is to be obtained. That one statement, seemingly, contradicts your purported "economic conservatism".

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Ref. #20

Modern liberals have pirated the name "Liberal". Liberalism, in western civilization since the late 17th century, has meant: "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

Or maybe, like Conservative, the meaning has evolved a bit. I'm willing to incorporate that in my definition, too. However, it must be recognized that the maximums and minimums need adjustment...considerable adjustment. There is the matter of the much more extensive infrastructure needed to keep civilization perking along now, as compared to three hundred years ago. Seeing that this is built, maintained and operated is the responsibility of government, and this means that the role of the State must be greater. The vastly increased population and diversity also necessitates some decrease in individual freedom. There may still be places where one might live the life of a seventeenth century liberal, but you wouldn't want to live there. :drink

 

[Christiaan]

Ref. #20


Or maybe, like Conservative, the meaning has evolved a bit. I'm willing to incorporate that in my definition, too. However, it must be recognized that the maximums and minimums need adjustment...considerable adjustment. There is the matter of the much more extensive infrastructure needed to keep civilization perking along now, as compared to three hundred years ago. Seeing that this is built, maintained and operated is the responsibility of government, and this means that the role of the State must be greater. The vastly increased population and diversity also necessitates some decrease in individual freedom. There may still be places where one might live the life of a seventeenth century liberal, but you wouldn't want to live there. :drink

Cornelius,
There is no "maximum" amount of Liberty. Liberty is what it is, there can be no more, but there can be semblances of Liberty. What you propose for your modern society is a mere semblance of liberty. In all actuality you are redefining "liberty" to mean: "what certain individuals are permitted to do, be, think and say under the guidance and direction of other individuals." Government's only responsibility is to protect individuals from coercive physical violence, and its corollary, fraud. Furthermore, as population and diversity increase individual freedoms (mind you, these freedoms are not given to people by the Government, they are theirs by Nature and Government was formed to protect these rights) must be recognized with the utmost of fidelity. You are attempting to "have your cake and eat it to." You can not have that, either you are for freedom or you are not. Mixing in "some" statism with liberty will inevitably dilute and poison a free society.

 

[Gabo]

There is no "maximum" amount of Liberty. Liberty is what it is, there can be no more, but there can be semblances of Liberty. What you propose for your modern society is a mere semblance of liberty. In all actuality you are redefining "liberty" to mean: "what certain individuals are permitted to do, be, think and say under the guidance and direction of other individuals." Government's only responsibility is to protect individuals from coercive physical violence, and its corollary, fraud. Furthermore, as population and diversity increase individual freedoms (mind you, these freedoms are not given to people by the Government, they are theirs by Nature and Government was formed to protect these rights) must be recognized with the utmost of fidelity. You are attempting to "have your cake and eat it to." You can not have that, either you are for freedom or you are not. Mixing in "some" statism with liberty will inevitably dilute and poison a free society.

/agreed

Government needs to shrink down to its original purpose, defending our freedom.

 

[Christiaan]

Gabo,

You're a voice of reason in an age of irrationality. i applaud you. And as for your definition of Libertarianism, I find it amusing. Many times that very (false) definition has been used in academic environments to define Libertarianism, clearly showing a tremendous ignorance of Libertarianism and its philosophical foundation.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

There is no "maximum" amount of Liberty. Liberty is what it is, there can be no more, but there can be semblances of Liberty. What you propose for your modern society is a mere semblance of liberty. In all actuality you are redefining "liberty" to mean: "what certain individuals are permitted to do, be, think and say under the guidance and direction of other individuals." Government's only responsibility is to protect individuals from coercive physical violence, and its corollary, fraud. Furthermore, as population and diversity increase individual freedoms (mind you, these freedoms are not given to people by the Government, they are theirs by Nature and Government was formed to protect these rights) must be recognized with the utmost of fidelity. You are attempting to "have your cake and eat it to." You can not have that, either you are for freedom or you are not. Mixing in "some" statism with liberty will inevitably dilute and poison a free society.

You feel, then, that "Liberty", like "Unique" is single valued? Just as there cannot be a more unique or a less
unique, there can only be complete liberty. Of course you do right now have liberty to do any darn thing you want. You can jump out of an airplane with no parachute; you can take money from a bank; you can drive your car through a red light; or you can tell your wife that her new dress makes her look fat. You are perfectly free to do anything that takes your fancy. Anytime. That there may be consequences for any of this is not really something that should be allowed to interfere with your liberty. You may even know of a society where there are no consequences, though I hate to tell you it isn't this one.