Media Bias is CONSERVATIVE!

[Canuck]

double post

 

[mixedmedia]

Murder cases and trials are a story that progresses and changes. After new content is added there is more content to report. Personally I hate when media hounds one story like a trial for months, but you can't compare this to a protest in any way. What the protesters signs said will not change tomorrow. The content of the speakers speeches will stay the same as well. Seriously what more do you want? A two hour special at prime time where they show the speeches and interview some of those loons?

The fact is this stuff is shown as much as it warrents. If there was more interest in it it would be shown far more. News agencies run those trials and other crap I hate, but its because it gets ratings... as in people actually care about it. There is a really liberal news station you can get on direct TV called Linx or Links or something. It has shown all the speeches and interviews - a two hour segment - almost daily for the past week. If enough people wanted to see this crap it would be getting ratings similar to main stream cable news stations.

So you agree that people care more about the murder of Laci Peterson than they do about the war? You're not making a very good case for your premise below. It used to be that media reported on what is news. Including when 100,000 or so Americans take time out of their lives to protest what they feel is wrong.

This is not to say Americans don't care they are at war, do you have some random idea generator or something? The war was one of the most important issues during the last election. People voted mainly on who they thought could handle this war more effectively. Everyone cant be as intelligent and informed as you. However you shouldn't assume just because people disagree they are uninterested or uniformed.

Everybody knows that most of America doesn't vote and didn't vote in this last crucial election. You don't have to be particularly intelligent or informed to realize that. I shouldn't assume that because people are uninterested that they don't care about the war? Why is that?

 

[MSgt]

The Media is a harlot onto satan
it sleeps where the money is
rep in power now controls the Media
Anyone still thinking ,they are free in America, and that they did not have a dictator in power between 2000- 2004 . Have no idea of what free and democratic elections means
it certainly doesn't mean elected by the courts
if the balloting got mixed up somehow ( due to electronic voting stations that can be rigged and leaves no papper trail) or any other means.then there should have been another vote
Democrats stood by and did nothing
In America today you have 2 parties both servants to the ELITE
with a war machine run by expansionism as policy
there is NO hope not even a glimmer
both parties are one and the same with very limited powers
the ELITE run the GOVt.
each politician is sworn to protect america and it's borders
what do they do now is pure feed the elite the nations wealth
is it any wonder that more and more people dont vote
pretty soon mexicans will out vote all the anglo fat cats and war mongers
and send them to iraq
there is a day of reconing coming it will split america in 2 or it will destroy it
the choices are hard the struggle will be great
is thye American people ready for the mexican onslaught
Americans don't no how to live in a third world nation the mexicans will show you the ropes
All is lost when the enemy is any party you vote into power
Do you think the DEM will stop mexican influxes stop iraq war
they are in as deep as the rep in the harlots bed room the both parties
are now the elite's harlot the media is the elite the oil is the elite
your enemy I submit is the elite not the rep or dem
they are just the pawns
the elite pull the levers of power
the founding fathers of america would declare across the Delaware and show no mercy
out of rebellion America was born it will die from within with a wimper
revolution is now replaced with terrorism in the American language
and al terrorist must die unless the are the harlots of the ELITE

What - the - hell - was - this? :shock:

 

[SixStringHero]

Looks like an attempted diatribe from what I'm assuming is another America bashing Canadian.

I'm shocked, really.

 

[purplehaze]

So you agree that people care more about the murder of Laci Peterson than they do about the war? You're not making a very good case for your premise below. It used to be that media reported on what is news. Including when 100,000 or so Americans take time out of their lives to protest what they feel is wrong.

Stop confusing the lack of interest in the radical anti war rally, with that of the interest in the War itself. More Americans voted this election than any past election, what do you think this motivation was if not the war?

I shouldn't assume that because people are uninterested that they don't care about the war? Why is that?

Show me when I said people don't care about this war. In case it wasn't clear enough for you. I don't think the majority of Americans care enough about the crap coming out of the speakers at this protest to tune into any extended coverage of it. However it seems very clear to me people care about war coverage in general. A testament to this is the fact that something about the war is in the news every night. There have also been numerous specials following troops around, and dissecting every aspect of this war for the past two years.

Including when 100,000 or so Americans take time out of their lives to protest what they feel is wrong.

I think if you were to ask any American that is the least bit informed today, they would be able to tell you there was a massive anti-war protest in D.C. What is it you want I don't understand. If you agree with this movement than you are lucky they didn't show more quotes and exerpts from the actual protest. The extreme things being said would not connect to the majority of people in the US, including most democrats. The facts were gotten accross as they should have been, thats called reporting. I am sorry if you don't think they went over all the rhetoric enough each night.

I agree with the fact that most of the crap on the news today is unimportant. Like trials or the lives of celebrities. Sadly news agencies show what gets the best ratings, its business competition. Americans have always cared about this war, and war coverage is still shown in large quantities. However, the protest was not something most Americans could connect with, and the news agencies were intelligent enough to know it wouldn't get the ratings if they did long specials on it. I maintain that coverage was what the content warrented. People could log onto most far left web sites and read the same rhetoric that was said at this protest - if they wanted to.

 

[mixedmedia]

Stop confusing the lack of interest in the radical anti war rally, with that of the interest in the War itself. More Americans voted this election than any past election, what do you think this motivation was if not the war?



Show me when I said people don't care about this war. In case it wasn't clear enough for you. I don't think the majority of Americans care enough about the crap coming out of the speakers at this protest to tune into any extended coverage of it. However it seems very clear to me people care about war coverage in general. A testament to this is the fact that something about the war is in the news every night. There have also been numerous specials following troops around, and dissecting every aspect of this war for the past two years.



I think if you were to ask any American that is the least bit informed today, they would be able to tell you there was a massive anti-war protest in D.C. What is it you want I don't understand. If you agree with this movement than you are lucky they didn't show more quotes and exerpts from the actual protest. The extreme things being said would not connect to the majority of people in the US, including most democrats. The facts were gotten accross as they should have been, thats called reporting. I am sorry if you don't think they went over all the rhetoric enough each night.

I agree with the fact that most of the crap on the news today is unimportant. Like trials or the lives of celebrities. Sadly news agencies show what gets the best ratings, its business competition. Americans have always cared about this war, and war coverage is still shown in large quantities. However, the protest was not something most Americans could connect with, and the news agencies were intelligent enough to know it wouldn't get the ratings if they did long specials on it. I maintain that coverage was what the content warrented. People could log onto most far left web sites and read the same rhetoric that was said at this protest - if they wanted to.

It is all simply your opinion against mine, buddy. You might want to maintain a little cognizance of that fact. You assert that the only reason the media didn't provide more coverage of the rally is because people can't connect with it. That is unrealistic. Obviously at least 100,000 people connect with it and most likely each one of those 100,000 knows at least a few people who also connect with it and those people know a few people and so on and so on. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are a lot of people in America who don't agree with this war. And we're not all lunatics. Just like all the folks on the right aren't goons or ghouls - as much as it seems that way on this forum. To be fair & honest, I didn't watch any coverage of the rally. I do not watch television news. I gave it up shortly after the election. But if you're going to tell me from the "quotes and excerpts" you witnessed that EVERY person who spoke at the rally was out of their mind, then I'm going to say you are simply biased. Perhaps you confuse passion with insanity. But of course, the right wouldn't know anything about that, would they? You witnessed the quotes and excerpts that riled you precisely for that reason - to rile you.

War coverage - you mean the daily dose of violence? Or the embedded forays into Iraqi neighborhoods with our troops? I'm surprised you don't take the common conservative perspective of the media not showing enough positive news coming from Iraq. All they show is the bad stuff, right? And why is that? It is because it is what people want to see. It does not signify an interest in why we are fighting this war any more than Jerry Springer signifies an interest in family therapy. Frontline has done some excellent and comprehensive non-biased coverage of the war, but how many average Americans watch Frontline? Not that many.

I can't speak for anyone else on this forum, but if I were able to find enough people in my everyday life who had a real interest in American politics and the war to talk to about this stuff with, I would not be sitting here typing to someone, somewhere that I don't even know about it.

 

[UtahBill]

Most media types are liberal, they mostly come from liberal states, they have liberal parents, they vote mostly liberal. That info is right out of their own mouths. Good news, tho, the younger generation of journalists have more conservative moral values than the current generation. Surveys were done that included even those still in college, those would be the newest generation of media types.
IMHO, the media overall is not so much liberally or conservatively motivated, as much as financially motivated.
As long as their sponsors think we are listening, they will keep spouting the crapola that we get to listen to, or have to listen to, if we listen at all.:shock:

 

[purplehaze]

It is all simply your opinion against mine, buddy. You might want to maintain a little cognizance of that fact. You assert that the only reason the media didn't provide more coverage of the rally is because people can't connect with it. That is unrealistic. Obviously at least 100,000 people connect with it and most likely each one of those 100,000 knows at least a few people who also connect with it and those people know a few people and so on and so on. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are a lot of people in America who don't agree with this war. And we're not all lunatics.

I agree with you, sir, this is a forum to express opinion. I am not trying to change your mind as I know that is futile on most political issues. I never said to be against this movement is extreme or a lunatic, just as I never said Americans don't care about this war. You seem to be reading half of my words then assuming what the rest says based on how you think my political view is slanted. What I said is that the people at the head of this protest were fringe, and most people, even if they agree with the peace movement, would disagree with a lot of the things said. I think the peace movement is a noble thing and something no one should be ashamed to be a part of. However I have yet to hear a viable alternative other than "leave now and watch the Iraqi people die in civil war" from the far left. I am more than open to a sensible alternative to war... no one likes to see Americans die.

I didn't watch any coverage of the rally. I do not watch television news. I gave it up shortly after the election. But if you're going to tell me from the "quotes and excerpts" you witnessed that EVERY person who spoke at the rally was out of their mind, then I'm going to say you are simply biased.

No offense, but if you don't watch media coverage why are you posting in a thread devoted to how the media portrays current affairs? I did watch the majority of the speeches, I am not talking of "excerpts of quotes" I sat in front of the television watching speaker after speaker, for two hours. However biased you may think I am, I gave them a chance and listened. The majority talked about the current government and why the disagreed with their policy. As I said before, this seemed a lot more like an anti Bush & friends protest, not the war. When most speakers addressed the war it was filled with accusations and assumptions, nothing positive was offered as a solution other than "Leave right now". There were a few with much more mainstream views, however it was not enough to outweigh the majority, in my opinion of course.

War coverage - you mean the daily dose of violence? Or the embedded forays into Iraqi neighborhoods with our troops?

When the war is coverd in the news it is because the viewers want to know. If the content of the news had nothing to do with what viewers wanted to see, then they would be showing footage of the mateing rituals of polar bears.

I'm surprised you don't take the common conservative perspective of the media not showing enough positive news coming from Iraq.

My thinking of this most recent protest as being lead by fringe left wing members makes me a conservative now? You know, it is possible to disagree with your party on some issues and still be a part of that party... You don't have to take everything your parties leaders said as the gospel and go along with it in order to remain "loyal". I think the media covers the situation in Iraq enough. They cover the forming of the constitution and the capture of leading terrorist cell members. They also cover the American deaths and the many failures within Iraq. What I was trying to say from the beginning(and the subject of this thread), is that I don't think the medias coverage has anything to do with their political affiliation. They cover the news. The majority of reporters handle Iraq fairly, without adding input. However there are plenty of journalists out there that will always add their opinions when they aren't warrented.

To clarify, before you start misinterpreting me again. I know many Americans agree that we should leave Iraq in the near future, and the peace movement is viable. What I am saying is I don't believe this movement is lead by the right people to have a large effect on most Americans. If they put different people in the spotlight this could possibly change.

 

[cnredd]

When the war is coverd in the news it is because the viewers want to know. If the content of the news had nothing to do with what viewers wanted to see, then they would be showing footage of the mateing rituals of polar bears.

Source:2wave:

 

[purplehaze]

That is a little out dated. I heard they are re-releasing the entire polar bears gone wild set on DVD next spring.

 

[mixedmedia]

I agree with you, sir, this is a forum to express opinion. I am not trying to change your mind as I know that is futile on most political issues. I never said to be against this movement is extreme or a lunatic, just as I never said Americans don't care about this war. You seem to be reading half of my words then assuming what the rest says based on how you think my political view is slanted. What I said is that the people at the head of this protest were fringe, and most people, even if they agree with the peace movement, would disagree with a lot of the things said. I think the peace movement is a noble thing and something no one should be ashamed to be a part of. However I have yet to hear a viable alternative other than "leave now and watch the Iraqi people die in civil war" from the far left. I am more than open to a sensible alternative to war... no one likes to see Americans die.



No offense, but if you don't watch media coverage why are you posting in a thread devoted to how the media portrays current affairs? I did watch the majority of the speeches, I am not talking of "excerpts of quotes" I sat in front of the television watching speaker after speaker, for two hours. However biased you may think I am, I gave them a chance and listened. The majority talked about the current government and why the disagreed with their policy. As I said before, this seemed a lot more like an anti Bush & friends protest, not the war. When most speakers addressed the war it was filled with accusations and assumptions, nothing positive was offered as a solution other than "Leave right now". There were a few with much more mainstream views, however it was not enough to outweigh the majority, in my opinion of course.



When the war is coverd in the news it is because the viewers want to know. If the content of the news had nothing to do with what viewers wanted to see, then they would be showing footage of the mateing rituals of polar bears.



My thinking of this most recent protest as being lead by fringe left wing members makes me a conservative now? You know, it is possible to disagree with your party on some issues and still be a part of that party... You don't have to take everything your parties leaders said as the gospel and go along with it in order to remain "loyal". I think the media covers the situation in Iraq enough. They cover the forming of the constitution and the capture of leading terrorist cell members. They also cover the American deaths and the many failures within Iraq. What I was trying to say from the beginning(and the subject of this thread), is that I don't think the medias coverage has anything to do with their political affiliation. They cover the news. The majority of reporters handle Iraq fairly, without adding input. However there are plenty of journalists out there that will always add their opinions when they aren't warrented.

To clarify, before you start misinterpreting me again. I know many Americans agree that we should leave Iraq in the near future, and the peace movement is viable. What I am saying is I don't believe this movement is lead by the right people to have a large effect on most Americans. If they put different people in the spotlight this could possibly change.

I am sorry. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I guess I feel like I'm getting mixed messages from you and it appears you are getting them from me too.
What I mean to say is that the coverage of events that appear on our cable and network news programs has very little, if anything, to do with the American people's deeper feelings or philosphical tendencies and shouldn't be used as a meter of those feelings and tendencies.
And from what I read here, I don't think you really disagree on that point. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

I agree with you, sir, this is a forum to express opinion. I am not trying to change your mind as I know that is futile on most political issues. I never said to be against this movement is extreme or a lunatic, just as I never said Americans don't care about this war. You seem to be reading half of my words then assuming what the rest says based on how you think my political view is slanted. What I said is that the people at the head of this protest were fringe...

To clarify, before you start misinterpreting me again. I know many Americans agree that we should leave Iraq in the near future, and the peace movement is viable. What I am saying is I don't believe this movement is lead by the right people to have a large effect on most Americans. If they put different people in the spotlight this could possibly change.

A majority of American's are against the war in Iraq. This protest is not led by the "fringe". And the only mainstream media that covered the event was C-Span. They actually aired the speeches. That was about it. The media also downplayed the 200,000 - 300,000 people in attendance down to 100,000. The mainstream media is conservative and status-quo. I watched NBC, CBS all day, and read The Washington Post, New York Times, who both regurgitated scant reports from Reuters. Some news papers even downplayed the number to tens of thousands. There was also no mention of the 350 protests held around the nation's major city's and towns, plus a large protest in London and many other major international cities. Conservative's and republicans spread the false claim that this is a "fringe" movement. If you consider yourself liberal, you are seriously misinformed.

 

[MSgt]

A majority of American's are against the war in Iraq. This protest is not led by the "fringe". And the only mainstream media that covered the event was C-Span. They actually aired the speeches. That was about it. The media also downplayed the 200,000 - 300,000 people in attendance down to 100,000. The mainstream media is conservative and status-quo. I watched NBC, CBS all day, and read The Washington Post, New York Times, who both regurgitated scant reports from Reuters. Some news papers even downplayed the number to tens of thousands. There was also no mention of the 350 protests held around the nation's major city's and towns, plus a large protest in London and many other major international cities. Conservative's and republicans spread the false claim that this is a "fringe" movement. If you consider yourself liberal, you are seriously misinformed.

It doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Because of the way the units are being shuffled around the board and the stages that certain things are, we will be seeing massive pull outs by next year. Possibly by the end of the summer. This is what I have been telling people for a couple weeks....

Last night, a 4 star General (Army) announced on a news show that if the Constitution is passed and the elections go as schedualed in December, then we can begin pulling out in the Spring.

What good will any of this protesting and dissention have done?

 

[George_Washington]

A majority of American's are against the war in Iraq. This protest is not led by the "fringe". And the only mainstream media that covered the event was C-Span. They actually aired the speeches. That was about it. The media also downplayed the 200,000 - 300,000 people in attendance down to 100,000. The mainstream media is conservative and status-quo. I watched NBC, CBS all day, and read The Washington Post, New York Times, who both regurgitated scant reports from Reuters. Some news papers even downplayed the number to tens of thousands. There was also no mention of the 350 protests held around the nation's major city's and towns, plus a large protest in London and many other major international cities. Conservative's and republicans spread the false claim that this is a "fringe" movement. If you consider yourself liberal, you are seriously misinformed.

How do you know that most people are against the war in Iraq? Are you going by a poll you saw on television?

 

[mixedmedia]

It doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Because of the way the units are being shuffled around the board and the stages that certain things are, we will be seeing massive pull outs by next year. Possibly by the end of the summer. This is what I have been telling people for a couple weeks....

Last night, a 4 star General (Army) announced on a news show that if the Constitution is passed and the elections go as schedualed in December, then we can begin pulling out in the Spring.

What good will any of this protesting and dissention have done?

So Iraq is secure enough to start pulling out in the Spring? How massive a pull out are you talking about?

Protest gives a group of like-minded people a voice that speaks louder than the voice of one. And appreciate it - you just might need it one day.

 

[aquapub]

60 Minutes Regurgitates DNC Rhetoric

On Sunday's 60 Minutes, Andy Rooney complained about the spending going into the Iraq war "that we never should have gotten into. We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today. Almost 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?"

Rooney complained about imaginary spending cuts, claiming "the government is planning to pay for the war and the hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like Medicare prescriptions, highway construction, farm payments, Amtrak, National Public Radio and loans to graduate students. Do these sound like the things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?" Conservatives would say yes.

Rooney followed that blatantly biased rant with, "I'll tell you where we ought to start saving: on our bloated military establishment."


Yeah, the media is conservative....my ass! :roll:

 

[cnredd]

[Moderator mode]

Merged the thread...60 Minutes Regurgitates DNC Rhetoric...into this one...

The Moderating Team aks that threads that are created just to show examples of bias be posted in threads that have already been created and discussed.

Thank you.

[/Moderator mode]

 

[MSgt]

So Iraq is secure enough to start pulling out in the Spring? How massive a pull out are you talking about?

Protest gives a group of like-minded people a voice that speaks louder than the voice of one. And appreciate it - you just might need it one day.

Yeah, but the protests still isn't going to make a difference with Iraq.

Iraq is more secure than what people think. They're still crossing from Syria here and there, but all we have to do is keep hammering at there strong holds until Iraqi BNs can fall into our positions. (I could do this much better in person.) Look at a map and follow the insurgent strongholds. Fallujah to Najaaf to Haditha to Al-Qaim. Their strong holds started in the center and they have moved up to the Syrian border.

I don't know how massive. Everything going on (that I can tell) has been pointing towards the end for about a couple months. I was predicting end of summer / end of year, but that General came out and said Spring. He would know better than me. This is why this constitution is important. There are three big hurdles to leap...

1) Constitution (This month - The Sunni are a problem and the Shi'ites have some friction starting up with the Kurds.)
2) Elections (December)
3) Standing up the Iraqi Army and the continual building of the police force. (1 BN has been activated and the others are right behind them.)

 

[mixedmedia]

It doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Because of the way the units are being shuffled around the board and the stages that certain things are, we will be seeing massive pull outs by next year. Possibly by the end of the summer. This is what I have been telling people for a couple weeks....

Last night, a 4 star General (Army) announced on a news show that if the Constitution is passed and the elections go as schedualed in December, then we can begin pulling out in the Spring.

What good will any of this protesting and dissention have done?

Are you talking about General Casey? I found two stories.

This one is from July 28th. Somehow I missed this story, I don't recall reading about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072700431.html

This one is from Saturday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines

If this is truly to happen, I have mixed feelings about it. I don't like this war, but it is our responsibility now that we are in it to make sure Iraq is reasonably secure before we leave.

And if we pull out....then what? That's the biggest looming question in my mind.

Perhaps the protests didn't make a difference one way or another, but a Beirut-ized Iraq certainly will cast doubt on whether this war made a difference.

 

[mixedmedia]

ermmm.....sorry I'm taking it off topic. You can scootch me off to another thread if you like.

 

[MSgt]

Are you talking about General Casey? I found two stories.

This one is from July 28th. Somehow I missed this story, I don't recall reading about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072700431.html

This one is from Saturday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines

If this is truly to happen, I have mixed feelings about it. I don't like this war, but it is our responsibility now that we are in it to make sure Iraq is reasonably secure before we leave.

And if we pull out....then what? That's the biggest looming question in my mind.

Perhaps the protests didn't make a difference one way or another, but a Beirut-ized Iraq certainly will cast doubt on whether this war made a difference.

We won't leave before it can sustain itself. If they fail after we leave, then they were never going to succeed.

I wouldn't know about the specifics. I was just guessing off of what I have been seeing with the units on the ground, equipment movements, and the deploy schedules.

 

[scottyz]

[Moderator mode]

Merged the thread...60 Minutes Regurgitates DNC Rhetoric...into this one...

The Moderating Team aks that threads that are created just to show examples of bias be posted in threads that have already been created and discussed.

Thank you.

[/Moderator mode]

thank you!

 

[scottyz]

Yeah, but the protests still isn't going to make a difference with Iraq.

That's why we already have a Republican vietnam vet running on a anti-Iraq war platform for the '08 election....

 

[George_Washington]

I actually think the media bias is pretty liberal for the most part. I've worked for a television station in the past and most of the people there were Democrats. From what I've seen, most news stations tend to air things that are anti-capitalistic. Not all the time but our station in my home town has a program that is supposed to kind of, "Save" consumers from the big bad corporation. I can see the good that it's done. But then again, I think people in the media naturally just have a slight distrust for government and corporations.

 

[MSgt]

That's why we already have a Republican vietnam vet running on a anti-Iraq war platform for the '08 election....

....and what does this have to do with our pulling out of Iraq, which was the whole point?