Media Bias and Mis-information

[Squawker]

What examples of CNN's lying can you give?

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2686_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/special_report/2656_0_8_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2642_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/2596_0_4_0_C/

There is a hundred more where those came from. The worse one for me was when they didn’t report the torture and mass graves in Iraq, so they could stay there. CNN put out deliberate pro Saddam propaganda for money, and news stories. That was pretty disgusting.

 

[Pacridge]

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2686_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/special_report/2656_0_8_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2642_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/2596_0_4_0_C/

There is a hundred more where those came from. The worse one for me was when they didn’t report the torture and mass graves in Iraq, so they could stay there. CNN put out deliberate pro Saddam propaganda for money, and news stories. That was pretty disgusting.

CNN didn't report the Iraqi torture and mass graves? Interesting I thought they did, I certainly thought I saw reports on their network regarding this subject.

Interesting stuff. This "AIM" outfit look's like the Right's answer to Left's "Media Matter's."

 

[Squawker]

I think I got to the bottom of the Brit Hume case. I can't believe there was so much crap about this but here goes:

This is the Quote taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica that Brit Hume repeated.
Source
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
This is from Media Matters:
Source
First, the background. It began on television with Brit Hume of FOX News, taking quotes from the three principles of security for our old people that FDR expressed to Congress on January 17, 1935. Not all the quotes, mind you, just some of them, and out of context. I'm reading from the transcript on the FOX website of Mr. Hume's newscast of February 3rd. "It turns out," Hume said, "that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Almost word for word.
Roosevelts Grandson interview:
OLBERMANN: The argument is that Mr. Hume more or less twisted this entirely around. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues.
Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security.
And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit.
And then my grandfather said that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the government-paid portion. That's because we would have a fully functioning Social Security system as we do today.
What Brit Hume and others have done is take portions of that paragraph and rearrange it so that it says something entirely different from what he intended.
OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull:
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions.
"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
I think this is where it gets off track and presented as a “lie” on the part of Brit Hume. The argument was over the word replace?
So, where he raised the prospect of self-supporting annuity plans – that was not to replace Social Security, it was to replace the money the government was contributing to Social Security for the people born in, say, 1870 and earlier. Is that about it?
ROOSEVELT: That is exactly it. And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation.
So then we go to my reference which states “Franken” lied about what Hume said and we find this. Source
As anyone with even an elementary knowledge of English knows, there is a monumental difference between "replace" and "include." Hume never said "replace," as Franken claims. From what I can tell, it was Media Matters, who used the word “replace” instead of “include”. Franken probably made mention of it at some point in time because he seems to have some vendetta against Fox. I don't see that Brit Hume lied or distorted anything. The Grandson put his own interpretation on what Roosevelt meant also.

 

[Pacridge]

I think I got to the bottom of the Brit Hume case. I can't believe there was so much crap about this but here goes:

This is the Quote taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica that Brit Hume repeated.
Source

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Almost word for word.

I don't see that Brit Hume lied or distorted anything. The Grandson put his own interpretation on what Roosevelt meant also.

Really you can't understand why people would take offense to Hume making it sound like FDR would support the Bush plan? Hume left out part of what FDR said in an attempt to make it sound as if the father of Social Security all along planned to have the system shift to private accounts. FDR most certainly did not say or envision any thing of the sort.

I can use the same BS tactics to make it sound like Reagan was completely in favor of reducing the military's budget. In his Second Inaugural Address -January 21, 1985 he stated:

“To reduce the cost of national security“... “We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number.”

​

And here's the whole quote:

"There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

​

I can do the same thing with Reagan's speeches to show how he wanted to decrease military spending, increase taxes and or add people to the welfare rolls. Somehow I think if Dan Rather did this to a Reagan speech you'd clearly see why people would be upset.

And there no reason to misinterpret what FDR was or wasn't saying about Social Security or it's future. Here's a link to his official library go look up his speeches and letters for yourself and you'll clearly see he would not have approved of shifting the system to private accounts. Which is exactly how Hume was trying to make it sound.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/

 

[Squawker]

Hume left out part of what FDR said in an attempt to make it sound as if the father of Social Security all along planned to have the system shift to private accounts. FDR most certainly did not say or envision any thing of the sort.

Hume said, FDR planned to “include” (see bold text below) not shift or replace anything. I thought we established that. I didn’t find what I needed with your link, but I did find the full text at PBS. What did he leave out? What did he misquote? How did he lie?
Source
With respect to unemployment compensation, I have concluded that the most practical proposal is the levy of a uniform Federal payroll tax, 90 percent of which should be allowed as an offset to employers contributing under a compulsory State unemployment compensation act. The purpose of this is to afford a requirement of a reasonably uniform character for all States cooperating with the Federal Government and to promote and encourage the passage of unemployment compensation laws in the States. The 10 percent not thus offset should be used to cover the costs of Federal and State administration of this broad system. Thus, States will largely administer unemployment compensation, assisted and guided by the Federal Government. An unemployment compensation system should be constructed in such a way as to afford every practicable aid and incentive toward the larger purpose of employment stabilization. This can be helped by the intelligent planning of both public and private employment. It also can be helped by correlating the system with public employment so that a person who has exhausted his benefits may be eligible for some form of public work as is recommended in this report. Moreover, in order to encourage the stabilization of private employment, Federal legislation should not foreclose the States from establishing means for inducing industries to afford an even greater stabilization of employment.
In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

 

[ShamMol]

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2686_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/special_report/2656_0_8_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/2642_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/2596_0_4_0_C/

There is a hundred more where those came from. The worse one for me was when they didn’t report the torture and mass graves in Iraq, so they could stay there. CNN put out deliberate pro Saddam propaganda for money, and news stories. That was pretty disgusting.

yeah, you must be kidding, I saw at least 5 reports on that following the end of the battle for iraq.what you have there is a nice website much like fact check that instead of giving the facts, skews them

 

[Squawker]

I saw at least 5 reports on that following the end of the battle for iraq.what you have there is a nice website much like fact check that instead of giving the facts, skews them

That is just a left wing excuse to ignore what they say. If you have proof of a false fact present it. I have presented facts against Media Matters/Franken refuting accusations against Brit Hume that I think has merit.

 

[Pacridge]

Hume said, FDR planned to “include” not shift or replace anything. I thought we established that. I didn’t find what I needed with your link, but I did find the full text at PBS. What did he leave out? What did he misquote? How did he lie?

Here's what Hume said:

"that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

​

Here's what FDR said:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

​

If you can't see there's a fairly large difference between the two then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Squawker]

"that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

What do you think an annuity plan is? It comes from private investments which are secure . The same thing President Bush is proposing by the way. This is what Franken thought Hume should be fired over? Brit Hume should lose his career over this? He is one crazy fellow, if you ask me.

What is an annuity?

By definition, the word annuity means an amount payable annually. More
specifically, an annuity refers to a contract offered by insurance companies
which allows you to save funds for retirement on a tax-favored basis and then,
if you choose, receive a guaranteed income payable for life or for a certain
period such as five or ten years.

Benefits of an Annuity:

An annuity can be a solid part of your financial plan, irregardless of the type of investor you
are. Annuities can help you build a comfortable, secure retirement, or provide you with an
immediate, guaranteed source of income for as long as you wish. They can protect you from
unexpected drops in the stock market and guarantee that your interest rate never falls below
a certain minimum.

An annuity is a contract between you, an annuity owner and an insurance company. They can
be purchased with a single lump sum or receive regular contributions over time. Your lump
sum payment can be made from existing savings, IRA funds, an inheritance or a 401(k).
Annuities allow you to withdraw some percentage of your annuity fund every year without
paying a surrender penalty. This is called a penalty-free withdrawal and guidelines vary
depending upon the plan you choose.

Source

 

[anomaly]

What do you think an annuity plan is? It comes from private investments which are secure . The same thing President Bush is proposing by the way. This is what Franken thought Hume should be fired over? Brit Hume should lose his career over this? He is one crazy fellow, if you ask me.

Source

Private accounts are hardly secure. If the market should drop when you retire, you won't have much to retire on, as your return on your investment certainly won't be good, and it may drop a bit. The market is no sure thing as Republicans think. It is quite unpredictable, and though lately it has been rising, it has the potential to drop just as quickly, should things go bad.

 

[Squawker]

Private accounts are hardly secure. If the market should drop when you retire, you won't have much to retire on,

These accounts are backed up by insurance, and would only be a part of the total social security package. You couldn't put all your money into Microsoft for instance. The key to any investment is to diversify. That can be discussed in the SS thread -- this one is about accusations of Brit Hume lying. A bogus, petty claim in my opinion.

 

[Pacridge]

What do you think an annuity plan is? It comes from private investments which are secure . The same thing President Bush is proposing by the way. This is what Franken thought Hume should be fired over? Brit Hume should lose his career over this? He is one crazy fellow, if you ask me.

Source

What the heck does the definition of annuities have to do with any of this?

You honestly don't see where Hume twisted FDR's words in an attempt to make it sound as if he would have been in favor of the Bush plan? FDR was clearly talking about three separate things, Hume zeroed in on the annuity portion and left out the other parts. Which is exactly why he left out this part: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which" I can't figure out if you're just being silly or if you're truly blinded by partisan rhetoric.

 

[Squawker]

FDR was clearly talking about three separate things, Hume zeroed in on the annuity portion and left out the other parts. Which is exactly why he left out this part: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan,

HUH? I'm getting dizzy, where in hell is the goal post? Hume didn't include it because he never said the Federal Government portion of the obligation would be replaced by investments to begin with. He had to say those exact words for the left to get it? FDR said the government would pick up half the tab for retirement --Hume never disagreed with that and also said the other portion would involve annuities which is what FDR said. Why can't you understand it? I am lost, because it is very clear to me.

 

[Pacridge]

HUH? I'm getting dizzy, where in hell is the goal post? Hume didn't include it because he never said the Federal Government portion of the obligation would be replaced by investments to begin with. He had to say those exact words for the left to get it? FDR said the government would pick up half the tab for retirement --Hume never disagreed with that and also said the other portion would involve annuities which is what FDR said. Why can't you understand it? I am lost, because it is very clear to me.

Oh I see Hume left out a sentence in the middle of FDR's statement- not to twist or alter FDR's intent. He did so because people on the left would be too stupid to understand what he was saying if he accurately quoted FDR. And he left it out because he was agreeing with FDR. Sure that makes sense.

What's clear to me is Hume used part of an FDR quote to make it sound like FDR would have been in favor of the Bush plan.

 

[freedom69714]

Hi Squarwker You said Howie Carr gives a republicans a bad name . My first question to you is were do you live that you hear Howie Carr ?.

2nd Please let me know whice right wing talk show host give the rebublicans a GOOD name ? and WHY ..............

We keep on going around and around on this matter PLEASE let air it out .

This much I'll give to the right they love to demonize the left allyou hear people like Rush & O'Reilly & SEAN all they say all day long is the

liberial left , the liberial left, the liberial left, Sounds like brain washing to ME

 

[Squawker]

Oh I see Hume left out a sentence in the middle of FDR's statement- not to twist or alter FDR's intent. He did so because people on the left would too stupid to understand what he was saying if he accurately quoted FDR. And he left it out because he was agreeing with FDR. Sure that makes sense.
What's clear to me is Hume used part of an FDR quote to make it sound like FDR would have been in favor of the Bush plan. The Bush plan is to allow private investments that will provide an annual annuity, to supplement their Social Security.

The last time I had this much fun, was when I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. What words do you think would tell the world that FDR did not intend to allow private investments to supplement Social Security? Annual Annuities only mean one thing. For the sake of argument let’s say he meant Annuities from Government Bonds. That is still a private investment. If you have ever watched Brit Hume’s show, he is not alone. There is a panel of 3 or 4 others (Dem’s and Rep’s) discussing the topic. It is run a bit like this forum. Hume throws a topic out and it gets debated. I watched the show, but have not read the transcript from everyone on the panel. Did any of the Dem’s argue against it and what was their position? Al Franken crawls out from under his rock and wants a man fired for some alleged lie. He is a pathetic little worm.

 

[Pacridge]

The last time I had this much fun, was when I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. What words do you think would tell the world that FDR did not intend to allow private investments to supplement Social Security? Annual Annuities only mean one thing. For the sake of argument let’s say he meant Annuities from Government Bonds. That is still a private investment. If you have ever watched Brit Hume’s show, he is not alone. There is a panel of 3 or 4 others (Dem’s and Rep’s) discussing the topic. It is run a bit like this forum. Hume throws a topic out and it gets debated. I watched the show, but have not read the transcript from everyone on the panel. Did any of the Dem’s argue against it and what was their position? Al Franken crawls out from under his rock and wants a man fired for some alleged lie. He is a pathetic little worm.

"The Bush plan is to allow private investments that will provide an annual annuity, to supplement their Social Security."

But that's not what the Bush plan is, now is it? The Bush plan is to allow people to basically opt out, at least in part. Take 4% of their 6% and put it in private accounts. That's not supplementing- that partial replacement. Isn't it?

And yes I've seen a lot of Hume's shows, though it been a couple years since I've been a regular viewer. I'm not aware of any Dems being on his show during the comments in questions. The transcripts I read were some of him then another show that seemed to be him and William Bennett. I'm fairly certain Bennett's not a Democrat. I didn't see either show. I did watch the Net clip of the Hume statement.

 

[argexpat]

Is the media biased? Absolutely, toward power, ratings, celebrity, shock, advertisers, youth. But according to Republicans the only media bias that exists is liberal. And the evidence for this supposed liberal bias is almost always anecdotal, which any sophomore debater will tell you is weak and easily countered by another anecdote. (How many peace activists did you see on the "liberal media" sitting opposite the ex-military brass doing color commentary during the run up to the war? Where's the labor section of the New York Times?) Never mind that when bias in the media is actually studied, it's not liberal bias that's found, but a bias toward the establishment (http://www.fair.org//page=1180). But it's an article of faith among Republicans, and, thanks to their incessant decrying of it, even many non-Republicans, that "the media" is liberal.

But when Republicans refer to the "liberal media" what are they actually talking about? Let's take Sqwaker's very handy list of "left" media: all but one, PBS, is a rich, powerful for-profit corporation, which in turn are owned by even richer and more powerful media conglomerates. So I'm supposed to believe that the plutocrats on the boards of these corporations advocate taxing the rich and limiting corporate power and strengthening unions and increasing governmental regulation and increasing the minimum wage so on and so on. This is patently absurd. "The media" is pure capitalism. Ditto for "liberal" Hollywood.

This "liberal bias" canard is simply a Republican red herring meant to perpetuate the divisive left/right divide and distract us from the real divide: up/down. The media is owned by the economic elite and thus favors their interests. But of course this doesn't fit the easy "liberal media" dogma and contradicts the fake "regular guy" populism of the Republican Party, so instead Republicans spin a neo-McCarthyite conspiracy theory of a cabal of liberal journalists and actors and professors who've infiltrated our institutions in order to spread their liberal ideology. Meanwhile the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the working class foots the bill.

The media is many things, but liberal ain't one of 'em.

 

[26 X World Champs]

"The Bush plan is to allow private investments that will provide an annual annuity, to supplement their Social Security."

But that's not what the Bush plan is, now is it? The Bush plan is to allow people to basically opt out, at least in part. Take 4% of their 6% and put it in private accounts. That's not supplementing- that partial replacement. Isn't it?

And yes I've seen a lot of Hume's shows, though it been a couple years since I've been a regular viewer. I'm not aware of any Dems being on his show during the comments in questions.

1. Bush does not have a "PLAN." So far it's been only rhetoric, speeches and suggestions. He has not proposed any plan of any kind, period. The most you can say he has done is 'float test balloons' regarding SS privitazion. It's also quite evident that no legislation will be actually proposed this year. This is all posturing. With mid-term elections next year I'm betting that the issue will fade away or alter drastically since 2/3 of Americans are unwilling to change SS if it means lower benefits.

2. I'm surprised that no one has talked about the documentary "Outfoxed" which was made by Moveon.Org the very liberal political group that spent zillions campaigning against Bush in 2004. It's a really good expose of the FNC. For example, over a 6 month period 83% of guests on Brit Hume's show were Republican! Very fair and balanced! It also exposes how, thru the use of catch phrases, i.e. "Some would say" FNC plants lies constantly throughout the day to suggest that accussations they are making (unsubstantiated) are indeed true. In their morning meetings they plan these out, and all of the anchors use this phrase. As Bush did with WMDs in Iraq, if you say the untruth over and over again X amount of people (especially the average FNC viewer) will take is fact.

3. I hope that you will watch Outfoxed before commenting on it's validity? It was made to tear down FNC, it is biased. However, that does not mean that it's revelations are untrue.

4. FNC will also slant their guests, have a very well known Republican debate an obscure Democrat, and/or will have two Republicans and one Democrat. The host of the show will also cut off the Democrat when they speak, but will not do that to Republicans. It's all planned, it's not random. It's their modus operandi.

5. Roger Ailes is the top exec @ FNC. Prior to FNC he was a media advisor for Bush 41, Reagan & Nixon.

Here's an interesting piece from the LA Times in May 2004:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-050604ruhllecture_lat.story

The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America

Ruhl Lecture on Ethics delivered at The University of Oregon

The recall campaign lasted only two months, so we had to hurry in determining whether, as rumored, Schwarzenegger had a habit of mistreating women. It turned out that he did. By the time we nailed the story down, the campaign was almost over, and we had a very tough decision to make: whether to publish the findings a mere five days before the election....

We braced for an avalanche of criticism, and we got it.

What we didn't expect was criticism for things that had never occurred.

Long before we published the story, rumors circulated that we were working on it, and the effort to discredit the newspaper began. On Fox News, the Bill O'Reilly program embarked on a campaign to convince its audience that the Los Angeles Times was an unethical outfit that attacked only Republicans and gave Democrats a free ride. As evidence, O'Reilly said that the paper had overlooked Bill Clinton's misbehavior in Arkansas. Where, he asked, was the L.A. Times on the so-called Troopergate story? Why hadn't it sent reporters to Arkansas? How could it justify an investigation of Schwarzenegger's misbehavior with women and not Clinton's?

I wasn't employed in Los Angeles at the time of Troopergate, but I do have a computer, so, unlike Fox News, I was able to learn that the Los Angeles Times actually was in Arkansas. It sent its best reporters there, and it sent them in force. At one point, it had nine reporters in Little Rock. And when two of them wrote the first Troopergate story to appear in any newspaper, they made the L.A. Times the leader on that subject. Not a leader, but the leader. Their story would be cited frequently by as other newspapers tried to catch up.

The bogus Troopergate accusation on Fox was only the beginning.

This is not a unique instance. It is normal for FNC, and normal for O'Reilly.

More?

Fox's Liz Trotta wrong: More watched networks' election night coverage than Fox's

Fox News contributor and former CBS News correspondent Liz Trotta claimed "everybody" was watching Fox News on election night in November 2004 to support her assertion that liberal bias has caused the public to abandon network news.

Responding to former CBS News correspondent Bill Lynch's claim that CBS' bias was "more blue hair than blue state," Trotta replied, "I can't just let that go by," and described what she identified as "the feminization of news," calling it "part of the leftist ideology." Asked for a final thought, she replied, "Where was everybody election night? They were watching Fox."

In fact, election night ratings show that the three network news outlets each had more viewers than Fox News Channel:

Network Viewers(millions):

Broadcast 42.6

NBC 15.2
ABC 13.2
CBS 9.5
Fox 4.7

Cable 17.1

Fox News 8.1
CNN 6.2
MSNBC 2.8

Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200503100001

If anyone's intersted, you can go to this website to see documented proof of how Bill O'Reilly lies all the time:

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/archive.html

How about Sean Hannity?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=91585

There you'll find stuff like this from 2004:

WMD

HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)

There are 14 other examples on this one website. There are, of course, hundreds more.

My point is that anyone who is defending FNC as "fair and balanced" is only doing so because they like what they're hearing.

I love Air America, but in no way would I claim they are fair and balanced. They don't claim to be either, but FNC does, and it's a lie, and that's what sucks. :spin:

 

[Pacridge]

5. Roger Ailes is the top exec @ FNC. Prior to FNC he was a media advisor for Bush 41, Reagan & Nixon.

Roger Ailes told a reporter back in the mid nineties that, basically, the media is like referees and if you constantly push your case you’ll get a few more calls to go your way. So by putting forth a constant claim that the “main stream media has a liberal bias” on an ongoing basis we’ll be able to get a few more call to go our way. This is now the head man at the “Fair and Balanced” network.

 

[Squawker]

My point is that anyone who is defending FNC as "fair and balanced" is only doing so because they like what they're hearing.

I love Air America, but in no way would I claim they are fair and balanced. They don't claim to be either, but FNC does, and it's a lie, and that's what sucks.

You lefties have the party talking points down pat. You take what Media Matters says about it and call it truth, instead of actually watching it for yourself. When the left spends so much time trying to discredit another news source, another point of view, it tells me they are afraid of what people will learn. It is too bad the left has become so closed minded. Even when the truth is exposed, you would refuse to believe it.

 

[argexpat]

You lefties have the party talking points down pat. You take what Media Matters says about it and call it truth, instead of actually watching it for yourself. When the left spends so much time trying to discredit another news source, another point of view, it tells me they are afraid of what people will learn. It is too bad the left has become so closed minded. Even when the truth is exposed, you would refuse to believe it.

Is this your rebuttal, Squawker? You've just been presented with evidence (quite overwhelming I would say), and you do what all you "righties" do, which is to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of properly refuting the argument. Here you're basically saying, "You believe the facts presented from this source as fact, ergo you're ignorant." In a proper debate, you refute the argument either by presenting a preponderance of counter evidence, or, lacking that, you use logic and reason. But this is just a fancy way of avoiding the argument and calling your opponent stupid. Either you have a valid argument to make or you concede the point.

P.S. If only the left had party talking points they might actually win some elections.

 

[argexpat]

Here is some recent media bias. There isn’t any point in arguing about past events and who said what. The thing we have to learn is how to spot media bias, so that we can make informed decisions.

I could easily counter this with examples of right-wing bias, and we could continue like that all day. The problem is your essential premise, that the only media bias that exists is a liberal one. The sourse you provide calls itself the "Media Research Center" which is the "leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." So here you have a website, part of the media, didicated to exposing bias in the media, which openly and without any apparent irony states that it is biased. This is rendered doubly ironic by your specious injunction that "we...learn how to spot media bias, so that we can make informed decisions." Apparently your bias detector missed this one.

As this thread proves, bias is in the eye of the beholder and thus ultimately unprovable. I attempted to debunk the very idea of liberal bias in this post, yet no one has refuted it. I'd be interested to get your take on it.

 

[freedom69714]

Fox and right wing talk radio brian washing is working great ......all they say all day long is The Liberal Media, The Liberal Media , The Liberal Media ,
And know I see people who you / I would think as pretty intelligent are being Brian washed ......Lets take Squawker for instance now he wants you to believe that the liberal news host i.e Tom Brokewr...... Kittie , Koriet( spelling ) Dan Rather .....,Peter Jennings etc......All these people use body language and eye signals....To give you A liberal message .....Next he will be telling you that their making you read their minds ......(Mental - telepathy )

Sounds to me like he watching to much of the twilight zone .WOOOOOOOO!

Yep the bazaar mind of
Freedom69

 

[Squawker]

Well since you seem to only like and or value information and or mis-information supplied by groups such as AIM et el.

I am disputing what Media Matters is saying, why would I use them as a source?

I think it's really just a waste of my time. I've shown you several examples and you always have some lame excuse why it's not factual. Well Hume only mis-quoted FDR like that because it's the only way those on the left would understand it. Sure, people on the left are always getting their news from Hume and he's always "dumbing it down" for them.

That isn’t what I said, this is my actual quote.

I'm getting dizzy, where in hell is the goal post? Hume didn't include it because he never said the Federal Government portion of the obligation would be replaced by investments to begin with. He had to say those exact words for the left to get it? FDR said the government would pick up half the tab for retirement --Hume never disagreed with that and also said the other portion would involve annuities which is what FDR said. Why can't you understand it? I am lost, because it is very clear to me.

And Williams is a good guy- taking the nearly quarter million dollars had nothing what or ever to do with changing his opinions. Sure, lots of guy change their minds about something after getting paid huge gobs of cash

I asked to you supply a source and you didn’t.

The Fact is Hume edited FDR's speech.

You didn’t prove that it wasn’t brought up in the discussion at some point, or prove that it might have changed the meaning of what FDR said about annuities.

The Fact is Williams accepted nearly a quarter million dollars to promote something he had been making negative statements about.

You didn’t prove that either.

Those aren't a talking point's- those are a facts.

There were no facts that you presented.

Something tells me !
there's no way in he*l you'd swallow this any of this BS if the name's Hume and Williams were replaced with Rather and Franken.

It is obvious that Franken has some grudge against Fox. I never gave either one of them much thought until the lefties here said if Franken said it, it must be true. I almost choked on my beer.

So you just keep watching and listening to those that tell you what you want to hear. Everything else is all lies and spin.

I want the truth. and you haven’t given me anything that proves your case. I proved my point a couple of times, yet you continued to move the debate to another level. It seems it is you, who will not concede to the facts. Lets move on to something else, there isn’t any point in proceeding with this one.