• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal Slant Confronted By Fed Up Conservative

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
Laura Ingraham took on NBC, David Gregory, and bitter, Golem-looking fanatic, James Carville about the media's extremely negative slant against the war, their unwillingness to report from anywhere but their balconies, and how rarely they interview Iraqis on the streets-because THAT would tell a much more positive story.

To demonstrate how reporters having a little backbone and some balance would give the public a more accurate depiction of things, she went there for a while and reported the way professional journalists are supposed to-actually showing multiple sides of the issues.

The first link is partial transcript. The second is a report on their grossly inadequate, "clearly stung" response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1601065/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600861/posts
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
Laura Ingraham took on NBC, David Gregory, and bitter, Golem-looking fanatic, James Carville about the media's extremely negative slant against the war, their unwillingness to report from anywhere but their balconies, and how rarely they interview Iraqis on the streets-because THAT would tell a much more positive story.

To demonstrate how reporters having a little backbone and some balance would give the public a more accurate depiction of things, she went there for a while and reported the way professional journalists are supposed to-actually showing multiple sides of the issues.

The first link is partial transcript. The second is a report on their grossly inadequate, "clearly stung" response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1601065/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600861/posts
Laura Ingraham is a joke. She is claiming that they should get out more. Does she really think there is some sort of conspiracy to report only bad news? Engel has been in Iraq since 2003--3 years. Laura went to Iraq for how long? This was her first trip there. So who am I going to give more credence to--(1) an angry woman who went to Iraq for a very short period of time? or (2) a reporter who has lived in Iraq for 3 years? It's a no-brainer.

Reporters risk their lives all the time over there. They're showing footage of Engel getting shot at and Laura continues with her rant? Is she going to ignore the number of reporters who have died in Iraq? Is she going to ignore the number of injuries reporters have sustained being in Iraq? Is she going to ignore the number of kidnappings over there?

What Laura is doing is just a ploy. She has her talking points, and she will say them over and over again so that uninformed people will say, "Hey, maybe she has a point. The news media is NOT reporting all the good stuff." Good luck, Laura. Unfortunately for you, I don't think you'll be able to change the overall opinion. Don't forget that this war was supposed to pay for itself. Yeah, right.

Hey, if she doesn't like the way things are getting reproted, let her get stationed there and she can go out in the field and talk to soldiers day in and day out if she is sooooooo offended by the current coverage.
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Does she really think there is some sort of conspiracy to report only bad news?"

Not a conspiracy, a slant. I haven't been over there, so I can't say whether or not they're doing that, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because the media routinely reports political news with a slant.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
mpg said:
"Does she really think there is some sort of conspiracy to report only bad news?"

Not a conspiracy, a slant. I haven't been over there, so I can't say whether or not they're doing that, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because the media routinely reports political news with a slant.
mpg, watch the news. Tell me what you see. I watch my local news and I hear about a police chase that ended up with someone getting killed, kids being approached by someone perceived as a pedophile, a home invasion where a family was tied up and held up at gunpoint, etc. The news is full of negativity. It has nothing to do with "political slant." When I lived in Boston and Houston, it was the same kind of thing.
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
12,696
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is there even a positive slant to war? :confused:
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
aps said:
mpg, watch the news. Tell me what you see. I watch my local news and I hear about a police chase that ended up with someone getting killed, kids being approached by someone perceived as a pedophile, a home invasion where a family was tied up and held up at gunpoint, etc. The news is full of negativity. It has nothing to do with "political slant." When I lived in Boston and Houston, it was the same kind of thing.
You make an excellent point. Reporting the negativity is the nature of news, but that doesn't mean that there isn't also a slant.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mpg said:
You make an excellent point. Reporting the negativity is the nature of news, but that doesn't mean that there isn't also a slant.
Look at what the news covers here in the States. "House on Main Street doesn't catch fire" is rarely a lead story.

A friend of mine told me a few months back FNC was going to send a group of reporters over to Iraq to gather "good news." Did they ever do that? Or was that just a rumor?
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Pacridge said:
Look at what the news covers here in the States. "House on Main Street doesn't catch fire" is rarely a lead story.

A friend of mine told me a few months back FNC was going to send a group of reporters over to Iraq to gather "good news." Did they ever do that? Or was that just a rumor?
You're being redundant.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
Hey, if she doesn't like the way things are getting reproted, let her get stationed there and she can go out in the field and talk to soldiers day in and day out if she is sooooooo offended by the current coverage.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. Why doesn't she get her own 1/2 - 1 hour nightly 'good news' show? What? No backers, no advertisers, no producers? Imagine that. ;)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
BWG said:
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. Why doesn't she get her own 1/2 - 1 hour nightly 'good news' show? What? No backers, no advertisers, no producers? Imagine that. ;)
I was thinking something along these lines this Sunday as I watched the usual news chatter shows. I noticed one after another right leaning press type report that "part" of the problem is no one is reporting the good news. How come these reporters reporting that's part of the problem aren't packing their bags and headed to Iraq to get a scoop on all the good news?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
BWG said:
This is exactly what I was thinking when I was reading this. Why doesn't she get her own 1/2 - 1 hour nightly 'good news' show? What? No backers, no advertisers, no producers? Imagine that. ;)
Pacridge said:
I was thinking something along these lines this Sunday as I watched the usual news chatter shows. I noticed one after another right leaning press type report that "part" of the problem is no one is reporting the good news. How come these reporters reporting that's part of the problem aren't packing their bags and headed to Iraq to get a scoop on all the good news?
Because the only reason she is complaining is to try to change some people's minds about the war in Iraq. She doesn't give a rat's butt about going to Iraq herself and providing good news. She's criticizing the Today show because of the money it has spent on reporting Matt Lauer's "Where in the world is Matt Lauer" and the Olympics. Um, does she forget that there is a huge difference between being in a country where we won't get shot at and being in a country where we will? More importantly, isn't it good news , or rather great news, that the Olympics was held during a time of war? That Matt Lauer was able to travel the world during a time of war. That the Today show doesn't spend its 3 hours every weekday on how bad things are in Iraq? Hello, Laura?
What is particularly offensive is her acknowledging all that's happened with reporters (death, kidnapping, dangerous situations) and yet she is still complaining that there isn't enough good news being reported. This is why I know she's is just complaining to complain and to change the subject about all the bad things going on in Iraq.

BWG and Pacridge, hopefully people are as insightful as we are, although I doubt it. ;)
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
mpg said:
"Does she really think there is some sort of conspiracy to report only bad news?"

Not a conspiracy, a slant. I haven't been over there, so I can't say whether or not they're doing that, but it shouldn't surprise anyone because the media routinely reports political news with a slant.
I have been over there, I am going again soon, and I CAN tell you that the media coverage back here in the states is EXTREMELY slanted!
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
12,696
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
easyt65 said:
I have been over there, I am going again soon, and I CAN tell you that the media coverage back here in the states is EXTREMELY slanted!
Good luck EZ. Keep your head down.

Send us some good news. We could use it.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
aps said:
She's criticizing the Today show because of the money it has spent on reporting Matt Lauer's "Where in the world is Matt Lauer" and the Olympics. Um, does she forget that there is a huge difference between being in a country where we won't get shot at and being in a country where we will? More importantly, isn't it good news , or rather great news, that the Olympics was held during a time of war? That Matt Lauer was able to travel the world during a time of war. That the Today show doesn't spend its 3 hours every weekday on how bad things are in Iraq? Hello, Laura?
What is particularly offensive is her acknowledging all that's happened with reporters (death, kidnapping, dangerous situations) and yet she is still complaining that there isn't enough good news being reported.
Uh, the fact that the Today show broadcasts 'Where the F* is Matt Lauer', simply ignoring all the stories in Iraq, is their answer to/idea of providing 'Good News' on Iraq? :shock:

You are right, the Today Show doesn't spend 3 hours a day on how bad things are in Iraq...but the time they do spend broadcasting stories on Iraq is almost entirely negative!

Nothing is offensive about acknowledging what happened to reporters (Is that why reporters now seem to never leave the Green Zone yet broadcast negative stories from their balconies?) or acknowldeging that Iraq is a dangerous place compared to the U.S., where Lauer can go to the Olympics for free. WHAT is particularly offensive about acknowledging, though, that there are a lot of GOOD things going on, a lot of good things being done, in Iraq...and reporting them?

The bottom line is that she challenged the big liberal media and their agenda, something you don't do in this country unless you want to be personally attacked, discredited as a loon or....(dramatic effect music: Bom Bom Bommmmmmmm) <gasp>....a CONSERVATIVE! :eek:

Hey, 'the Emperor has no clothes' on this one, she pointed out what is already obvious to many (almost all, whether they want to openly admit it or not), and 'the emperor' is ticked. I am not saying to what extent, but the MAJORITY of what the media in this country reports is negative!
 
Last edited:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Captain America said:
Good luck EZ. Keep your head down.

Send us some good news. We could use it.
Thanks, Cap. I will be headed back in about 2-3 weeks for a 'short' stint. I have to do some work in the 'Military Advisor' and 'Diplomacy' capacity on this trip. :gunsmilie
 

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
aps said:
Laura Ingraham is a joke. She is claiming that they should get out more.

1) Does she really think there is some sort of conspiracy to report only bad news? Engel has been in Iraq since 2003--3 years. Laura went to Iraq for how long? This was her first trip there.

2) So who am I going to give more credence to--(1) an angry woman who went to Iraq for a very short period of time? or (2) a reporter who has lived in Iraq for 3 years? It's a no-brainer.

3) Reporters risk their lives all the time over there. They're showing footage of Engel getting shot at and Laura continues with her rant? Is she going to ignore the number of reporters who have died in Iraq? Is she going to ignore the number of injuries reporters have sustained being in Iraq? Is she going to ignore the number of kidnappings over there?

I've hardly ever seen anyone hand liberals their a$$es so well in debates as Laura Ingraham. She is almost always devastating and backs up her arguments with hard facts and common knowledge events.

It doesn't surprise me at all that you are this threatened by her.

1) It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. The fact that most of the people we get our news from are former DNC activists (go ahead, demand proof) should raise red flags about objectivity to begin with.

2) Sean Penn has been there more often than either of them. By your logic, his credibility trumps them all. That is just stupid.

3) Most of the broadcasts are from balconies. Many of them focus only on things that undermine the war effort-no coverage of schools being built, critical infrastructure being completed, very little coverage of landmark democracy moments (and when they do cover those kind of moments, they usually put a ridiculously liberal spin on it), very little coverage of mass graves. And man on the street interviews are scarce because they show the other side of the story. The polls showed overwhelming U.S. support for years after the initial liberation, and the media almost never talked about that.


And by the way...most people DO think the media coverage is unfair and unreasonable, according to all the polls I've seen. She is merely stating the obvious.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aquapub said:
Laura Ingraham took on NBC, David Gregory, and bitter, Golem-looking fanatic, James Carville about the media's extremely negative slant against the war, their unwillingness to report from anywhere but their balconies, and how rarely they interview Iraqis on the streets-because THAT would tell a much more positive story.

To demonstrate how reporters having a little backbone and some balance would give the public a more accurate depiction of things, she went there for a while and reported the way professional journalists are supposed to-actually showing multiple sides of the issues.

The first link is partial transcript. The second is a report on their grossly inadequate, "clearly stung" response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1601065/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600861/posts

Why is it always assumed the media is liberal because they offer negative, and/or debatable stories?

If liberals were in power, which they never have been and never will be the closest you'll get is a moderate democrat government; the media would be producing the same negative and debatable stories.

Let's say I am head of a media team. I need the highest number of viewers possible to pay my extraordinary salaries and corporate fees and turn a profit. Should I run a news story about how bright and sunny it is in the world and how it's "business as usual" or should I run a story that stirs controversy and gets people talking therefore producing many new stories, live interviews, and media articles that get people's attention?

MEDIA IS NOT LIBERAL IT IS CORPORATE. Whatever gets the most viewers and produces the most money short term and long term is what will be put in place.

Find a new stance besides blaming liberals for companies trying to turn a profit.
 
Last edited:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gibberish said:
Why is it always assumed the media is liberal because they offer negative, and/or debatable stories?
Because many of the main news agencies are owned by self-professed liberals/Democrats. The articles and editorials that are run in their media is almost always slanted in the direction of their party, and most of those follow their agenda. It isn't like what I have just said is any secret. Some of the old big-time Newspaper owners have come out and declared they are liberal or Dem. If someone tells you they are Liberal/Dem then run piece after piece condemning the GOP, are we supposed to be so blind as to believe they are actually 'neutral'/un-biased? When a producer of one of the most popular TV news programs comes out after routiney running negative programs/reports on the opposing party's President/administration and says he hates Bush, when CNN runs a giant X over Cheney's face during his entire interview/speech (then tries to describe it as an accident, which every other news agency in the world calls you on bysaying BS) - what else are we to presume?

You can walk around day after day claiming that you a rhino, but if you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, sound like a duck, have feathers and a bill like a duck, and even quack like a duck...and in some cases even come out and SAY you are a duck....Dude, YOU ARE A DUCK!
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,438
Reaction score
12,696
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The polls showed overwhelming U.S. support for years after the initial liberation, and the media almost never talked about that.


And by the way...most people DO think the media coverage is unfair and unreasonable, according to all the polls I've seen. She is merely stating the obvious.
Though you guys didn't believe in polls since most of them go against your beliefs. Now you use one to validate? :confused:
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The press really has no business being there. I mean, it's a WARZONE!!! Hell, here's some of the stupidity from the press:

David Weston, ABC NEWS President, realized war is dangerous after 2 of his employees, Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, were injured in Iraq. As he told "Good Morning America" on Jan. 30, 2006: "My initial reaction is we've all talked about this as a very real possibility, but this makes it real."

Also on Jan. 30, 2006, CNN's Christine Amanpour declaimed on "Larry King Live": "The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster, and journalists have paid for it... So when something happens to people that we identify, like Bob and Doug, we make up again and realize that, no, this is not acceptable what's going on there, and it's a terrible situation." Journalists have paid for it? No one else?

On Nov. 19, 200 The [UK] Guardian quoted CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan at a "News Xchange" conference in Portugal: "The reality is that at 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces." You may remember Jordan was forced to resign from CNN on Feb. 11, 2005 after reportedly making similar statements at a World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. You may also remember an April 11, 2003 New York Times op-ed in which Jordan revealed that CNN knew of Saddam's human rights abuses (and even assassination plans), but refrained from reporting them. After all, they had to keep their Baghdad bureau open.

[The 3 quotes were taken from the March 2006 Limbaugh Letter. From page 12, section titled: It's all about us.]

That's just an example of the loony crap that the press releases about the war. They wouldn't be losing people over there if they weren't over there. Is the media that distrustful of the gov't, even of their own leaders like Kennedy, that they have to report LIVE from Baghdad instead of just getting press briefings from the Pentagon??? That would save lives, and spare our troops the chore of RESCUING these simpletons when they get caught by the enemy, oops! I mean the "Freedom Fighters".
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,123
Reaction score
12,040
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Lets get real for a second.

Iraq is a war, civil or not, its a war of some kind. Troops are used to maintain order and to go after an insurgent force. You cant see anything positive in that can you now? Other than they can vote now.. but thats been beaten to death.

The country is not safe for Iraqies, yet alone non Iraqies unless those non Iraqies are backed up by massive firepower and protection. Those that DONT get protected are either kidnapped or killed at some point in time. We have seen this time and time again.

Media news has always been about the negative. Positive stories mean jack **** unless its about a cute dog or a world record or sport. Sure cover a waste treatment plant being put into operation, but aint that boring especially when the overall waste treatment is DOWN since the invasion?

Put these two together and you have Iraq and reporting about it. The US media and media in general report alot of negative things. But look at the negative things they are reporting... its the spectacular and easily accessable with US troop protection. That means big bombings, offical patrols or raids or in the Green zone.

They do not report of the thousands of kiddnappings, murders and high crime in many areas. They do not go out among the people and ask them the hard questions because for one they are worried about thier own lives. And dont think for a second you will get anywhere near the truth with a reporter asking the "hard questions" when he is flanked by a dozen US marines in battle gear. Thats like the white reporter asking a black man about how good his life is in the south during the 50s, when the local policeman is standing behind the reporter.

And lets look at the Iraqi people side. If they are seen talking to anyone even remotely connected with the offical Coalition occupation, then thier lives are at threat. But that does not really matter often as the reporters dont venture outside the Green zone without an armed US military escort.

As the whole coverage in general. Its not like media have not commented on positive stories, just that there are so few. They cant comment on how well the infrastructure rebuilding is coming, because its not even up to the same standard pre invasion.. in fact its worse in some areas. They cant comment on the forming of a goverment because there is non. They cant comment about the great Iraqi economy because there is no economy with so many unemployed. Sure they all have cars now, but no gas to fill in them. Sure they have tons of newspapers and tv stations but when it suddenly comes out that the US has planted positive stories in these news papers.. then how can an Iraqi trust them? The list goes on.. with every positive story, there is a negative part that can easily destory the positive aspect. Sure Iraqi kids are back in school but dont forget the number of children being held home because of security fears and the fact that most schools have armed guards outside.

I would love to see some postive stories out of Iraq but when not even Fox News can spin anything credible positive out of it, then how on earth can you expect the rest to do so ? I mean I love how Fox News reports on the average income of Iraqies going up since the invasion.. no ****, it was near nothing during Saddam' last decade, so going from near nothing to something is a huge step. Show massive building protects on a large scale, huge cranes, new roads, no gas lines, power all day.. now thats positive news, but they CANT show that because it aint happening at the pace that is positive for Iraq. And try spinning a possible civil war as a good thing.. now Fox tried that.

And as for the poll someone mentioned about the publics view on media slant on the Iraq war... got a link?
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Insurgent" and "Freedom Fighter" shouldn't be used in conjunction with "Iraq War". Why? Because the majority of these so-called "insurgents" are actually from other countries and aren't fighting for the freedom of Iraqis. They are fighting for control over the Middle East with their radical Islamic agenda. If they were fighting for Iraqi freedom, then why do they blow up the Iraqis? Why don't they just go after the coalition troops? Because they want total dictatorial control of the Middle East, where there are no freedoms, except for the leaders. Al Qaeda wanting to take over the Middle East is the equivalent of the KKK wanting to control the US and her neighbors. With control like that, there are no freedoms, except for the of said groups.

So to all you liberals out there who call for our troops to come home by claiming to "care" and "support" them, and then have the balls to go and stab them in the backs and whisper in their ears "you muderers, thieves, rapists!", I have this to say unto you: P*** OFF!
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Donkey1499 said:
So to all you liberals out there who call for our troops to come home by claiming to "care" and "support" them, and then have the balls to go and stab them in the backs and whisper in their ears "you muderers, thieves, rapists!", I have this to say unto you: P*** OFF!
LMAO I will never understand why people like you interpret that our wanting the troops to come home as stabbing them in the back and calling them ridiculous names. Thieves, rapists? That doesn't even make sense, Donkey. In fact, I find it rather comical because it is so outrageous that I cannot even understand how you could draw that conclusion. But maybe it's because I actually think and analyze facts.
 
Top Bottom