FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Left-Wing Extremist Media





jmi256
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

Feel free to start a thread about the leftist agenda of whatever news agency, and I'm sure you will find supporters. I will gladly throw in my two cents as well.

Source = http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107439-2.html

Ask and you shall receive. I hope all those who sit there and complain that news agencies, like Fox News, are “puppets” of the “far-right-wing conspiracy” for only reporting about things like the Tea Party Protests against bigger government are as quick to condemn ABC “News” for becoming a spokesperson for Obama’s far-left agenda are as quick to condemn this.

Quote:

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Quote:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay

Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff



MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Developing...

Source = http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

And an update in case you’re wondering about any sense of neutrality…

Quote:

ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

Developing...

Source = http://drudgereport.com/flashaot1.htm

I'm sure this is all part of that "vast right-wing conspiracy" certain people like to complain against.

atul2242
I am sorry I could not follow your argument......
handfleisch
This is awesome! Drudge's most embarrassing attempt in a long time. Immediately and thoroughly debunked, of course (all major press agencies have a reporter stationed in the White House every day, often reporting live, and let's not forget when Fox News was just using Bush WH press releases and talking points exactly as they received them). And even if it were true, it doesn't show a "leftist agenda". But it's still hell of funny.

On edit: speaking of the decline of journalism, here is an entertaining infomercial on the presidency Fox did way back when http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5gNOete1mo
Voodoocat
Lets see: Obama's insatiable appetite for PR has led him to host ABC news in the Whitehouse for an unopposed two hour infomercial aimed at deluding Americans that his health plan will save us all, yet Fox news is supposed to be biased!

It is time to stop smelling the roses and be honest for once: ABC News is clearly in the bag for the big O and has finally sold its' soul to the devil.

Lets be clear: this topic is about ABC News only, not CBS, NPR, Fox, or any other news agency. Any attempt to shift the topic to other news agencies should be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to avoid admitting the bias held by ABC News.
liljp617
I personally don't care about the spin of Fox News...in fact I watch Fox News more than most news stations because I find it more entertaining (if a news channel is supposed to be entertaining...I don't know). They can spin all they want, as there should be some opposition to the masses of liberal bias in the media. The peeve of mine is their slogan...they're not "fair and balanced." Biggest load of crap and that's the annoying part to me personally. They're as biased as any other media station, perhaps more so because they have to be to create even a moderate balance between biases.

Mainstream media sucks overall, so I won't defend the media itself. They rarely do anything useful besides exaggerate and sensationalize everything...it's all about getting viewers and money. Terrible motives when mixed with news.
Solon_Poledourus
liljp617 wrote:
Mainstream media sucks overall
Agreed.

If media were reliable, they would be able to report on Obama's health plan without handing the broadcast over to him completely.

In case anybody has made an incorrect assumption, I don't buy into a "vast right wing conspiracy". I have yet to see how the left and right differ to any great extent. So far, I have only seen two sides of the same coin putting on a nice little show that lulls people into choosing sides which don't actually exist.

This is yet another step towards government hijacking the media. I hope everyone is ready to start carrying "papers" to show when they get stopped randomly by the полиция.
handfleisch
Voodoocat wrote:
Lets see: Obama's insatiable appetite for PR has led him to host ABC news in the Whitehouse for an unopposed two hour infomercial aimed at deluding Americans that his health plan will save us all, yet Fox news is supposed to be biased!

It is time to stop smelling the roses and be honest for once: ABC News is clearly in the bag for the big O and has finally sold its' soul to the devil.

Lets be clear: this topic is about ABC News only, not CBS, NPR, Fox, or any other news agency. Any attempt to shift the topic to other news agencies should be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to avoid admitting the bias held by ABC News.

Are you joking? This is supposed to be an "ethical firestorm", the RNC is whining that it'll be "glorified infomercial" but we're not supposed to point out that the RNC and FoxNews has done exactly the same thing? And when they did it, it wasn't in order to present an important new proposal to the public like this case, but just in everyday adulation of Bush/Cheney. Karl Rove is on Fox News telling the world that this has never happened before, when he and Fox News did it just recently and more than once! They're treating their viewers like fools with amnesia, and you say this is not part of the point?

Priceless editing job on what Fox and the RNC is saying now, versus what they did just a short time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYPb3SGrFkM

SOLON wrote:
If media were reliable, they would be able to report on Obama's health plan without handing the broadcast over to him completely.


I agree. But they are failing to inform citizens, and instead are giving airtime to tons of shills repeating corporate/RNC talking points against a universal health care system often without even being challenged. This proposal is arguably the most important domestic policy change in decades, so I think it's great that an hour, a mere hour, is going to be devoted to presenting the plan for people to think about. This is what the public airwaves are for, and there will be plenty of opposing views flooding the airwaves before and after, like there are now.

If the RNC and conservative Democrats get their way, the USA will forever be the only first-world industrialized country without a universal healthcare system.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Lets see: Obama's insatiable appetite for PR has led him to host ABC news in the Whitehouse for an unopposed two hour infomercial aimed at deluding Americans that his health plan will save us all, yet Fox news is supposed to be biased!

It is time to stop smelling the roses and be honest for once: ABC News is clearly in the bag for the big O and has finally sold its' soul to the devil.

Lets be clear: this topic is about ABC News only, not CBS, NPR, Fox, or any other news agency. Any attempt to shift the topic to other news agencies should be interpreted as a thinly veiled attempt to avoid admitting the bias held by ABC News.
Absolutely on the number and how I see it too. Specifically in the instance of the Health Plan too. This is totally naked biased "free" PR sealed with the President's stamp!
ocalhoun
I think we can agree now that both sides in this are bad, and that various media outlets are completely owned by various political parties.

Shouldn't we try to fix this no matter which one is in power right now?


(Sorry, just trying to put forth an argument that handfleisch can't refute by saying "oh yeah? Just look what your side is doing!" ... despite the fact that I endorse neither side.)
Solon_Poledourus
Quote:
I think we can agree now that both sides in this are bad, and that various media outlets are completely owned by various political parties.

Shouldn't we try to fix this no matter which one is in power right now?


(Sorry, just trying to put forth an argument that handfleisch can't refute by saying "oh yeah? Just look what your side is doing!" ... despite the fact that I endorse neither side.)
We should start a campaign of our own. Maybe a petition to get corporations to stop funding political parties. Or to prevent politicians from taking corporate money.

Since there is no way to force news agencies to be completely impartial, all we can do on that front is to call them out in a major way when they overtly show their biased loyalties.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Quote:
I think we can agree now that both sides in this are bad, and that various media outlets are completely owned by various political parties.

Shouldn't we try to fix this no matter which one is in power right now?


(Sorry, just trying to put forth an argument that handfleisch can't refute by saying "oh yeah? Just look what your side is doing!" ... despite the fact that I endorse neither side.)
We should start a campaign of our own. Maybe a petition to get corporations to stop funding political parties. Or to prevent politicians from taking corporate money.

Since there is no way to force news agencies to be completely impartial, all we can do on that front is to call them out in a major way when they overtly show their biased loyalties.
Talking about it is not enough. All people seem to be doing are talking. I'm sure if one Googled discussions like these you will find them all over the Web on discussion forums, even dedicated Websites, however that does not seem to make any difference. The system of being passive and accepting that which is not good is continuing none the less. I enjoyed another "Boston Legal" show last night, where Alan Shore was putting a court case forward on behalf of a city that wanted to secede from the United States, in protest of all the things that have been mentioned in Frihost threads. Think you would have loved his talk. He was complaining about US citizens standing passive while all the good things they stand for are going out the window.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Talking about it is not enough.
You are absolutely right.
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

Since there is no way to force news agencies to be completely impartial, all we can do on that front is to call them out in a major way when they overtly show their biased loyalties.

I might have to add another section to my 'Ideal solutions' series...

I presume you've never seen my proposal to make all major media outlets proclaim their bias at the beginning and end of every broadcast/page? (Unbiased is, of course, not an option.)
"Fox news, your source for conservative-bias news"
"ABC, your source for liberal-bias news, now at 11:00"

That would at least let people know what they're watching (even the stupid ones). And, if any of them care to get balanced news coverage, they can just make sure to watch all the different biases, and compare the differences and similarities.

I don't begrudge them their biases, what tics me off is that they want you to believe that they are objective.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

Since there is no way to force news agencies to be completely impartial, all we can do on that front is to call them out in a major way when they overtly show their biased loyalties.

I might have to add another section to my 'Ideal solutions' series...

I presume you've never seen my proposal to make all major media outlets proclaim their bias at the beginning and end of every broadcast/page? (Unbiased is, of course, not an option.)
"Fox news, your source for conservative-bias news"
"ABC, your source for liberal-bias news, now at 11:00"

That would at least let people know what they're watching (even the stupid ones). And, if any of them care to get balanced news coverage, they can just make sure to watch all the different biases, and compare the differences and similarities.

I don't begrudge them their biases, what tics me off is that they want you to believe that they are objective.
Good suggestion, but I can't see them doing that. All stations pride themselves on their impartiality of their news. In effect they are liars.
pgrmdave
You can't average bias...you can't watch one liberally biased news source, then one conservatively biased news source, and claim that you now know unbiased news. There are some news sources that are unbiased (as much as one can be). News sources without a stake - international news - or news sources whose stakeholders are its viewers, not its corporation, like public broadcasting (which doesn't get nearly enough support).

Whether we like it or not, news sources are beholden to its stakeholders - the only way to be unbiased is to have the viewers themselves be the stakeholders.
deanhills
pgrmdave wrote:
Whether we like it or not, news sources are beholden to its stakeholders - the only way to be unbiased is to have the viewers themselves be the stakeholders.
This is completely true. However perhaps we should have some watchdogs to educate the public in this, so that they are aware when they are being "duped"! How can people make informed decisions about their political leaders when they do not have full and objective disclosure in front of them?
Libby
Even PBS has to make it's viewers happy. And you don't make viewers happy by telling them things they don't want to hear. And even PBS has to appease people other than their viewers -- the corporate sponsors, and sources, and the people they interview.

PBS isn't unbiased at all. They do the stories that the viewers want to watch/listen to, so they leave out a lot and concentrate on other parts. Just like other media, they're biased.
handfleisch
pgrmdave wrote:

Whether we like it or not, news sources are beholden to its stakeholders - the only way to be unbiased is to have the viewers themselves be the stakeholders.


Here is one source of info on media ownership.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/

Now where is that pesky leftwing extremist media, can't seem to find it... unless Sony is secretly run by the Revolutionary Communist Party
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
pgrmdave wrote:

Whether we like it or not, news sources are beholden to its stakeholders - the only way to be unbiased is to have the viewers themselves be the stakeholders.


Here is one source of info on media ownership.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/

Now where is that pesky leftwing extremist media, can't seem to find it... unless Sony is secretly run by the Revolutionary Communist Party


Are you seriously trying to argue that conservatives get portrayed in a better light that liberals? I think anyone who has opened a newspaper or turned on a TV in the last 20 years would see how ridiculous that sounds. It's more about who they skew their attention, money and praise on and who they ignore. Here's an article from almost a year ago that illustrates the point. Refusing to let the other side be heard is a common MO, not just limited to the debate over the horrible plan to turn to government-run healthcare.



Quote:

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Source = http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569
deanhills
I'm completely bowled over with the contribution by Fox. I thought they were Rightists, and here they were giving a very sizable contribution to the Democrats and zero funds to the Republicans? How does that compute?
handfleisch
Really, it's too ridiculous to bother with. But what the hell.
First, the Drudge article, instantly self-discrediting, to start things off. No one even bothered defending that one.
Now donations to Democrats proves a "leftist agenda"? Is anyone out there aware that the Democratic Party is not a leftist party, or what the words "left wing extremist" might mean?
Quote:
I hope all those who sit there and complain that news agencies, like Fox News, are “puppets” of the “far-right-wing conspiracy”

When you use quotes, you should attribute them. Otherwise this is classic straw man arguing, since no one has used these terms or made the argument. But it's really ironic, since the humorous article used to support the idea implies a far left wing conspiracy:
Quote:
As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"As if to warn their colleagues"! Yes, MSNBC is sending secret messages to their fellow left wing extremists in the media. Apparently their email was down that day.
Quote:
The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

Those sneaky left wing extremists, always hiding behind doldrums.
Quote:

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

There's that "as if to warn" phrase again. Doesn't anybody proofread poor William Tate? Oh, wait, now he's insulting the journalists by calling them comrades -- for donating to the Democrats! Why he didn't just say Pinko or Better Dead than Red? Still, it's pretty cool there are still some people who feel free to live out the Cold War in their mind, no matter what century it is.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
When you use quotes, you should attribute them.
jmi put the source of the quote at the bottom of his posting, maybe the link did not work for you? Both Table and Article appear in the same "Investors Business Daily" editorial.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Really, it's too ridiculous to bother with. But what the hell.
First, the Drudge article, instantly self-discrediting, to start things off. No one even bothered defending that one.
Now donations to Democrats proves a "leftist agenda"? Is anyone out there aware that the Democratic Party is not a leftist party, or what the words "left wing extremist" might mean?

Donations to Democrats DO prove a Democratic agenda. It's time you stopped denying that.


(And no, just because you disagree with it doesn't make it 'instantly self-discrediting'. You actually have to work to discredit it. (Oh yes, and that quote there comes from handfleisch, just to make sure that it's attributed and won't be construed as a straw man argument...))
Want to really discredit it? Show me the real numbers then.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
When you use quotes, you should attribute them.
jmi put the source of the quote at the bottom of his posting, maybe the link did not work for you? Both Table and Article appear in the same "Investors Business Daily" editorial.

You should read more carefully before replying. You would see I was referring to the words he put into quote marks (" ") in the words he wrote, not to the source of the article he cited.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
When you use quotes, you should attribute them.
jmi put the source of the quote at the bottom of his posting, maybe the link did not work for you? Both Table and Article appear in the same "Investors Business Daily" editorial.

You should read more carefully before replying. You would see I was referring to the words he put into quote marks (" ") in the words he wrote, not to the source of the article he cited.
That was not very clear from what you said. Suggest you read it too from the outside in and maybe you will see it too.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
When you use quotes, you should attribute them.
jmi put the source of the quote at the bottom of his posting, maybe the link did not work for you? Both Table and Article appear in the same "Investors Business Daily" editorial.

You should read more carefully before replying. You would see I was referring to the words he put into quote marks (" ") in the words he wrote, not to the source of the article he cited.
That was not very clear from what you said. Suggest you read it too from the outside in and maybe you will see it too.


Do you ever consider scrolling up and reviewing before posting? You're just wasting time and posting nonsense, either totally without content (the above) or in mindless support of right wing ridiculousness (the subject of this thread).
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
When you use quotes, you should attribute them.
jmi put the source of the quote at the bottom of his posting, maybe the link did not work for you? Both Table and Article appear in the same "Investors Business Daily" editorial.

You should read more carefully before replying. You would see I was referring to the words he put into quote marks (" ") in the words he wrote, not to the source of the article he cited.
That was not very clear from what you said. Suggest you read it too from the outside in and maybe you will see it too.


Do you ever consider scrolling up and reviewing before posting? You're just wasting time and posting nonsense, either totally without content (the above) or in mindless support of right wing ridiculousness (the subject of this thread).
You're correct that I am wasting my time with commenting on your postings, including this one. You are also completely off target with your accusation of mindless or any other kind of support for the right wing.
handfleisch
Can anyone show anything in the US media that is consistently anywhere nearly as "leftist" as Fox News is on the right-to-far-right? Fox News goes berserk on Al Franken victory: http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010008 . Yes, it's Media Matters, but can anyone show a montage (all from within 24 hours I believe) of anything from any other network with as much bias, but in the other direction?

Can anyone show a constant bias in any of the major media that shows anything "leftwing extremist" (something like the Revolutionary Communist Party or something) as is the title of this thread? Or even very progressive? I am not talking about one or two little commentary shows on MSNBC. I am talking about a pattern, a consistency.

The fact is, of course, that the media overall is consistently supportive of the status quo. Consistently supportive of the status quo is a definition of centrist or conservative (with a small "c"). Pointing out crime or injustice or failings of the system isn't "liberal" (and it sure isn't leftist), it's just what journalism is supposed to do. Do rightwingers really think an article about how, for example, 20% of Americans don't have health insurance shows a liberal bias???? Or is it just, as Steven Colbert says, "facts have a liberal bias"?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Can anyone show anything in the US media that is consistently anywhere nearly as "leftist" as Fox News is on the right-to-far-right?


You can start with the article in the original post on this thread. You can also look at the coverage from just about every major broadcaster in the last eight years.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Or is it just, as Steven Colbert says, "facts have a liberal bias"?

Actually, the fact is that anything with a bias you agree with will appear to be fact, no matter what your bias is.

And even when using only facts, it is still very important to note which facts are reported, and which are omitted.
handfleisch
The weakness of the replies in defense of the premise of this thread pretty much says it all.

Meanwhile, here's the real deal. The conservative agenda is pushed by media voices that lose money, but are funded by rich conservatives anyway. Rupert Murdoch loses $50 million a year while pushing the conservative agenda via his NY Post. A rightwing cult leader from Korea founded the Washington Times, which has long pushed the conservative agenda, and he has spent billions (with a 'b') on it and it has never made a profit. The Weekly Standard is another rightward agitprop sheet often cited by conservatives in order to appear legitimate; about $5 million is how much it loses per year. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is another private conservative media organ, Richard Mellon Scaife loses a couple dozen million dollars per year running it. Pouring billions into the media while losing money to push an agenda for decades -- that's pretty much a definition of media propaganda.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07259/817950-85.stm
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/28/anschutz-weekly-standard-business-media-examiner.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/media/26paper.html?_r=1
Interview with author http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/098
of this book www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780979482236-0
ocalhoun
^So, to sum up your argument:
"Right-wing biased media exists, therefore, no media could possibly have a left-wing bias."
Is this correct?
deanhills
Handfleisch, I would be interested to know which TV stations in your opinion give the most balanced, unbiased and objective reporting of the news in the United States?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Handfleisch, I would be interested to know which TV stations in your opinion give the most balanced, unbiased and objective reporting of the news in the United States?


I don't know. I assume you mean networks; I think they are mostly middle of the road. I am not aware of a huge difference in the major network news (the ones that are not Fox, with its very biased and propagandistic reporting). I think it varies from show to show, and perhaps from time to time. They go with the flow, and in what are deemed conservative times they will be more conservative, and in what are seen as progressive times they will allow more coverage of progressive issues. Mostly they are supporting the status quo, not challenging the basic prevailing views of society, while at the same time the good shows try to expose injustices, corruption etc. Think of the program "60 minutes" and the good investigative journalism it has done over the years, some of which led to changes in society. Then realize that, parallel with the way media ownership became more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands starting in the 1980s, the budget for investigative journalism steadily declined over the years as the TV news depts. were forced by the corporate owners to show a profit and be more entertaining. Before that, the news depts. were considered separate from the profit-motive of the networks.

Mostly, the network news will not do much to stray outside the accepted views of society or to threaten their advertising base and the interests of their owners; it's this centrist / conservative point-of-view that is accepted as being unbiased, balanced and objective. Personally I don't think so, I think it's just in some illusory middle ground, the definition of which is vague and amorphous; it's a point of view with a lot of blind spots.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Handfleisch, I would be interested to know which TV stations in your opinion give the most balanced, unbiased and objective reporting of the news in the United States?


I am not aware of a huge difference in the major network news (the ones that are not Fox, with its very biased and propagandistic reporting).


I think that's the point. There is a lot of whining about Fox being biased, but that is just one voice in a sea of news organizations. I think we can all agree that news organizations are biased by designed. The fact that you can't tell the difference between all the others, but just know that Fox's message is different reinforces the idea that the others are much more prominent in scope and breadth of spreading their views.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Handfleisch, I would be interested to know which TV stations in your opinion give the most balanced, unbiased and objective reporting of the news in the United States?


I don't know. I assume you mean networks; I think they are mostly middle of the road. I am not aware of a huge difference in the major network news (the ones that are not Fox, with its very biased and propagandistic reporting). I think it varies from show to show, and perhaps from time to time. They go with the flow, and in what are deemed conservative times they will be more conservative, and in what are seen as progressive times they will allow more coverage of progressive issues. Mostly they are supporting the status quo, not challenging the basic prevailing views of society, while at the same time the good shows try to expose injustices, corruption etc. Think of the program "60 minutes" and the good investigative journalism it has done over the years, some of which led to changes in society. Then realize that, parallel with the way media ownership became more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands starting in the 1980s, the budget for investigative journalism steadily declined over the years as the TV news depts. were forced by the corporate owners to show a profit and be more entertaining. Before that, the news depts. were considered separate from the profit-motive of the networks.

Mostly, the network news will not do much to stray outside the accepted views of society or to threaten their advertising base and the interests of their owners; it's this centrist / conservative point-of-view that is accepted as being unbiased, balanced and objective. Personally I don't think so, I think it's just in some illusory middle ground, the definition of which is vague and amorphous; it's a point of view with a lot of blind spots.
No. What I'd like to know is which Channel you would listen to for the news? Would it be Fox News, CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC, ..... ? Which one would be the most objective for you? I'm not talking about talk shows. As those are obviously always biased, I'm talking about reporting the news and getting the facts.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Handfleisch, I would be interested to know which TV stations in your opinion give the most balanced, unbiased and objective reporting of the news in the United States?


I don't know. I assume you mean networks; I think they are mostly middle of the road. I am not aware of a huge difference in the major network news (the ones that are not Fox, with its very biased and propagandistic reporting). I think it varies from show to show, and perhaps from time to time. They go with the flow, and in what are deemed conservative times they will be more conservative, and in what are seen as progressive times they will allow more coverage of progressive issues. Mostly they are supporting the status quo, not challenging the basic prevailing views of society, while at the same time the good shows try to expose injustices, corruption etc. Think of the program "60 minutes" and the good investigative journalism it has done over the years, some of which led to changes in society. Then realize that, parallel with the way media ownership became more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands starting in the 1980s, the budget for investigative journalism steadily declined over the years as the TV news depts. were forced by the corporate owners to show a profit and be more entertaining. Before that, the news depts. were considered separate from the profit-motive of the networks.

Mostly, the network news will not do much to stray outside the accepted views of society or to threaten their advertising base and the interests of their owners; it's this centrist / conservative point-of-view that is accepted as being unbiased, balanced and objective. Personally I don't think so, I think it's just in some illusory middle ground, the definition of which is vague and amorphous; it's a point of view with a lot of blind spots.
No. What I'd like to know is which Channel you would listen to for the news? Would it be Fox News, CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC, ..... ? Which one would be the most objective for you? I'm not talking about talk shows. As those are obviously always biased, I'm talking about reporting the news and getting the facts.


Well, my answer could still be found in what I wrote. Briefly, I don't follow any network in particular, and I consider all the American networks besides Fox to be in the "middle" AKA centrist/conservative, roughly equally "objective" (but not really, just from the American status quo standpoint) as explained above. BBC might have a broader range. I take news from a multiple sources. For hard news, the print media (now online) is better anyway.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
No. What I'd like to know is which Channel you would listen to for the news? Would it be Fox News, CNN, BBC, ABC, NBC, ..... ? Which one would be the most objective for you? I'm not talking about talk shows. As those are obviously always biased, I'm talking about reporting the news and getting the facts.

A question for you: How often do you get info from far right websites? You recently posted something from one (Michelle Malkin, a borderline lunatic), which really makes one wonder. Or maybe it explains where you get some of your ideas.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Well, my answer could still be found in what I wrote. Briefly, I don't follow any network in particular, ...
Neither do I.

handfleisch wrote:
A question for you: How often do you get info from far right websites? You recently posted something from one (Michelle Malkin, a borderline lunatic), which really makes one wonder. Or maybe it explains where you get some of your ideas.

I usually start with Yahoo, as that is my Home Page and when something catches my eye, I Google/Yahoo it, and then work down the threads. Depending on how much information is available on the first search results Web page, I may progress as far as three search pages or more. This is how I landed with Michelle Malkin. I went for subject content, not for the author. I also quite frequently land with the New York Times. I find some of the Columnists news columns, such as Thomas Friedman very informative. Sometimes there are source links in their articles, and depending on how much time I have, I would go right to the sources of the information. For example with Wikipedia they have a long list of sources, references and alternative article links at the bottom of the articles, and when I'm particularly excited about something, for example as I have been about Richard Dawkins' memes, I will go on and on in wider circles of references of references. I do this with the Frihost Forums too. When there is an interesting discussion I do some research (if I have the time) of the topic, or opinion in a posting. I then work through the links in the search results Web pages.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Well, my answer could still be found in what I wrote. Briefly, I don't follow any network in particular, ...
Neither do I.

handfleisch wrote:
A question for you: How often do you get info from far right websites? You recently posted something from one (Michelle Malkin, a borderline lunatic), which really makes one wonder. Or maybe it explains where you get some of your ideas.

I usually start with Yahoo, as that is my Home Page and when something catches my eye, I Google/Yahoo it, and then work down the threads. Depending on how much information is available on the first search results Web page, I may progress as far as three search pages or more. This is how I landed with Michelle Malkin. I went for subject content, not for the author. I also quite frequently land with the New York Times. I find some of the Columnists news columns, such as Thomas Friedman very informative. Sometimes there are source links in their articles, and depending on how much time I have, I would go right to the sources of the information. For example with Wikipedia they have a long list of sources, references and alternative article links at the bottom of the articles, and when I'm particularly excited about something, for example as I have been about Richard Dawkins' memes, I will go on and on in wider circles of references of references.


That's potentially a pretty dodgy way of gathering info. Do you at least use the Google "news" option to limit your search to semi-credible news sources, and not straight to blogs? That might eliminate the Michael Savages and Malkins. Like you mentioned, I check the links to see what the sources are.
Though I following some columnists and some sites that have a POV, I always go to the links and check out that the sources are credible. And if the links end up at the Whatchamacallit Post or the Whackout Blog Report, I disregard the report (or mentally file it under "wait and see"). But I wouldn't bother clicking on Malkins for info any more than I would the Revolutionary Communist Party or the Flat Earth Society.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Do you at least use the Google "news" option to limit your search to semi-credible news sources, and not straight to blogs?
Who said that I go straight to the "blogs"?
I only landed at the blog as a result of a source that the blog quoted that was part of my search on the topic. Not the blog itself. And "no" there are other sources than Google "news", there is Yahoo "news" as I have mentioned before.

http://news.yahoo.com/

There are also magazines like "Time" Magazine and "The Economist", or newspapers like "The Financial Times" and "New York Times". Amongst many others.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Can anyone show anything in the US media that is consistently anywhere nearly as "leftist"....


Sure.

Here's one example I came across today browsing YouTube. It's a video of a CNN reporter who decides to attack a protester rather than report on what's going on. I'll post more as I come across them.

CNN Obama Zealot Reporter Attacks TeaParty Father and Child
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv2jU4HexYo
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Can anyone show anything in the US media that is consistently anywhere nearly as "leftist"....



See my other thread, proof of media bias, both conservative and liberal.
BinahZ
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Quote:
In case anybody has made an incorrect assumption, I don't buy into a "vast right wing conspiracy". I have yet to see how the left and right differ to any great extent. So far, I have only seen two sides of the same coin putting on a nice little show that lulls people into choosing sides which don't actually exist.

This is yet another step towards government hijacking the media. I hope everyone is ready to start carrying "papers" to show when they get stopped randomly by the полиция


Solon I rarely agree with many of your post. But this is an exception. You are one of the few I have seen who is looking through clear lenses on this subject. A skunk by another name is still a skunk Smile. (skunk of course referring to the politicians)
I sometimes imagine the leaders of both these great parties having a grand ole time laughing at their latest acting job and where they were able to herd the sheep to (sheep = american people).
Im not a big conspriatist, but im also not blind. The majority of people as long as they are placated with
a regular paycheck and and the status quo they will follow where led.
deanhills
BinahZ wrote:
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Quote:
In case anybody has made an incorrect assumption, I don't buy into a "vast right wing conspiracy". I have yet to see how the left and right differ to any great extent. So far, I have only seen two sides of the same coin putting on a nice little show that lulls people into choosing sides which don't actually exist.

This is yet another step towards government hijacking the media. I hope everyone is ready to start carrying "papers" to show when they get stopped randomly by the полиция


Solon I rarely agree with many of your post. But this is an exception. You are one of the few I have seen who is looking through clear lenses on this subject. A skunk by another name is still a skunk Smile. (skunk of course referring to the politicians)
I sometimes imagine the leaders of both these great parties having a grand ole time laughing at their latest acting job and where they were able to herd the sheep to (sheep = american people).
Im not a big conspriatist, but im also not blind. The majority of people as long as they are placated with
a regular paycheck and and the status quo they will follow where led.
Agreed. Solon has some very good insights in politics and philosophy and must say his postings and good sense of humour are missed. He last posted on 23 June, hopefully he is OK. I'm hoping that we will hear back from him soon. In this particular instance, i.e. his views on the media he contributed some great postings in various threads. This was one of of the threads:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-107104.html#892009
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Almost every media outlet in the world is owned by one of six major media conglomerates. Of these six major companies, the men and women who sit on the board of directors for each, is almost interchangeable. The members of these boards also happen to have very close government ties, and in many cases, are directly working for government agencies. In essence, all the major media outlets are working for the interests of government. Which means that you and I only see and hear what they approve of. This creates a world-wide society of sheep, who only get the information that a handful of people have approved of.
Bannik
I have a hard time believing that without evidence, everyone is so keen of a huge conspiracy so they can blame all their problems on a single group (government), i know the government has power but the power too actually control all media? especially in a society that tries too be as free as possible.
ocalhoun
Bannik wrote:
I have a hard time believing that without evidence, everyone is so keen of a huge conspiracy so they can blame all their problems on a single group (government), i know the government has power but the power too actually control all media? especially in a society that tries too be as free as possible.

The trick is that the media doesn't fight that control... they're basically two groups of the same people, all good buddies with each other.
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
I have a hard time believing that without evidence, everyone is so keen of a huge conspiracy so they can blame all their problems on a single group (government), i know the government has power but the power too actually control all media? especially in a society that tries too be as free as possible.
Good point Bannik. I don't think that is probably that was meant, more that there is a small group of people who decide what we get to know, and what we don't get to know, and that they serve on the Boards of all the media and have power in Government too.
gandalfthegrey
You are really grasping at straws here. Any news agency would jump at the chance to broadcast from the White House.

American media (with the exception of Fox News) tends to be well-balanced, though they miss many important stories that could be considered right or left leaning.

Mainland European media tends to be biased towards the left wing. American media - no way.
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:

Mainland European media tends to be biased towards the left wing. American media - no way.

If you're used to media that leans heavily left, it's no surprise that you miss the slight left lean of most US media outlets.

Most US media leans slightly to the left, but is balanced out by Fox leaning very far to the right.
Bannik
all news is bias......end of story the only truth is INDI
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
all news is bias......end of story the only truth is INDI
Laughing Laughing Laughing right! That sort of puts all truth in a nutshell!
Bannik
ps look at this lovely fox news clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGqPxn7njqM

this is why I dont like fox news not because its bias but because it EDITS its news too show what it wants, I dont mind liberals or republican I just dont like news MAKING news up......literally fox made this actually look like a real interview no mention its a comedy etc.....


this is the worse thing any news company can do and that is faking news for its own political end.
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
this is the worse thing any news company can do and that is faking news for its own political end.
Agreed. Worse though is when a very reputable news company would do the same and people look at it as the truth. At least people take Fox with a pinch of salt, but what about other reputable news agencies that are more or less doing the same thing, just much less blatantly, much more subtly. Smile
Alaskacameradude
I am a FORMER journalist. I went to journalism school in the US, and have worked at 9 different TV stations and three newspapers. I can tell you that without a doubt in most places, there is a liberal media bias. Some of the comments that you hear at these places behind the scenes are just
jaw dropping.

To be fair, the people who are normally attracted to the field of journalism, are trying to 'make a difference' and 'change the world' NOT 'keep the status quo intact.' Also, to be fair, many of the
biased places at least ATTEMPT to be fair and balanced and give the other side a fair shake. At least
in the past. Nowdays, I see so many people with 'agendas' getting into news and so many of
the good 'veterans' who had some ethics getting out, that I think the whole field is going into the
toilet.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I am a FORMER journalist. I went to journalism school in the US, and have worked at 9 different TV stations and three newspapers. I can tell you that without a doubt in most places, there is a liberal media bias. Some of the comments that you hear at these places behind the scenes are just
jaw dropping.

To be fair, the people who are normally attracted to the field of journalism, are trying to 'make a difference' and 'change the world' NOT 'keep the status quo intact.' Also, to be fair, many of the
biased places at least ATTEMPT to be fair and balanced and give the other side a fair shake. At least
in the past. Nowdays, I see so many people with 'agendas' getting into news and so many of
the good 'veterans' who had some ethics getting out, that I think the whole field is going into the
toilet.
Thanks for this comment. Great to have you on board for letting us know what it is like to have been a journalist. I would imagine getting that "scoop" is essential for being successful, so that may already stand in the way of objective reporting. But then there are always a number of layers of editors that get to edit the facts this way and that way, journalists themselves may have issues with that? Did you witness any of this?
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Nowdays, I see so many people with 'agendas' getting into news and so many of the good 'veterans' who had some ethics getting out, that I think the whole field is going into the toilet.


to be saved by FOX News? You must be joking. Your personal anecdotes prove nothing.
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
I am a FORMER journalist. I went to journalism school in the US, and have worked at 9 different TV stations and three newspapers. I can tell you that without a doubt in most places, there is a liberal media bias. Some of the comments that you hear at these places behind the scenes are just
jaw dropping.

To be fair, the people who are normally attracted to the field of journalism, are trying to 'make a difference' and 'change the world' NOT 'keep the status quo intact.' Also, to be fair, many of the
biased places at least ATTEMPT to be fair and balanced and give the other side a fair shake. At least
in the past. Nowdays, I see so many people with 'agendas' getting into news and so many of
the good 'veterans' who had some ethics getting out, that I think the whole field is going into the
toilet.
Thanks for this comment. Great to have you on board for letting us know what it is like to have been a journalist. I would imagine getting that "scoop" is essential for being successful, so that may already stand in the way of objective reporting. But then there are always a number of layers of editors that get to edit the facts this way and that way, journalists themselves may have issues with that? Did you witness any of this?


YUP! You are totally right. 'Getting the scoop' was another problem that tended to get
journalists to 'run' with a story in hopes of it furthering their career......without doing
a through fact check. And as for the editor part....it really depends. At some of the larger
news organizations, there were editors that would check on story facts. Unfortunately, most
news organizations are increasingly going to less people to do the same amount ofwork, so many
times reporters would be editing their own work......you can imagine how that would work.
Alaskacameradude
handfleisch wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Nowdays, I see so many people with 'agendas' getting into news and so many of the good 'veterans' who had some ethics getting out, that I think the whole field is going into the toilet.


to be saved by FOX News? You must be joking. Your personal anecdotes prove nothing.


First when did I claim ANYTHING about Fox News saving anything? Fox News is the opposite end of the
spectrum from other news organizations. It is biased to the right as opposed to being biased to the
left like CNBC and CNN and the networks. The difference is, that Fox is the only one biased to the
right, so it tends to have bigger audiences (as ALL the right wing people watch it) while the
left wing people are split up among the other networks.......that is also why Fox News has higher
ratings than any of the other news programs......

My personal anecdotes prove nothing.....as opposed to your VAST knowledge of all things
journalistic??? Umm.....OK. I thought it might be worthwhile having someone who actually
works in the field give some perspective.....apparently if it contradicts your already held views,
the answer would be don't bother.

To summerize, I DO think there is a bit of a bias on an OVERALL level of the media towards the
left. I do NOT think this is some kind of vast left wing conspiracy.....rather the field of journalism
tends to attract those who are of a more liberal bent. Most of these people, even if they
are biased, in the past attempted to be fair and balanced and dispite their biases, tended to
at least try to produce stories that showed all sides of an issue in a fair way......because that was what you learned to do in journalism school. However, recently the 'old style' of journalism is falling
by the wayside and being replaced by 'advocacy' journalism. It is becoming more common and
accepted for reporters and anchors to openly show their bias.

FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that
the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that
the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.
This is a very interesting report. How do you think this came to happen. I can imagine one can think of some conspiracy stories, but could it be as simple as that Obama was more of a novelty than McCain was, until perhaps Sarah Palin joined McCain and they could analyze how she was spending her clothing budget? Laughing

More seriously though, Obama's election campaign marketing elicited more media attention, he was good at it, he is still good at it. Do you think the media has learned anything from the above? And it being as frenetic as it is to get hold of their stories and get them published, do you think the report will make any difference either in present reporting or in future presidential elections? News is news, is it possible to make news unbiased in a presidential election?
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that
the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.
This is a very interesting report. How do you think this came to happen. I can imagine one can think of some conspiracy stories, but could it be as simple as that Obama was more of a novelty than McCain was, until perhaps Sarah Palin joined McCain and they could analyze how she was spending her clothing budget? Laughing

More seriously though, Obama's election campaign marketing elicited more media attention, he was good at it, he is still good at it. Do you think the media has learned anything from the above? And it being as frenetic as it is to get hold of their stories and get them published, do you think the report will make any difference either in present reporting or in future presidential elections? News is news, is it possible to make news unbiased in a presidential election?


As I've said....I don't really believe in the 'conpiracys'. I think that there were a variety of things going on.

Number 1
Obama was better at 'playing the media game'.
From experience, I can tell you that those who are skilled at 'playing the media game' will
get interviewed more often that those who are not as good. Being a good communicator helped
Obama.

Number 2
While I do NOT think there is any conspiracy, I do think that the huge majority of the media tends
to lean left (with the exception of Fox). I think the media tended to favor Obama....many of them
probably sincerely thought we needed change in this country.

Do I think this will change in the future? I think the media will probably be VERY careful in the
next election and maybe even the next one after that, to try and make sure that it doesn't happen right away again.......the media is not going to want to appear biased, and when reports like this
start coming out, they will tend to be more careful. However, after a couple elections go by,
it wouldn't surprise me to have it happen again, I just don't see the makeup of the people
getting into journalism as getting more conservative,.....they are getting more liberal if anything.

HOWEVER, in the short term, this may hurt the Democrats. Often, when this kind of thing happens, the media will attempt to really investigate the president and his party, 'bend over backwards' if you will to do stories that are negative to the president, just to 'prove' that they really are not biased towards the president. Some people may even say, that is why there is a storm of unfavorable media towards the president right now, and his poll numbers are dropping.

Much as the media is the 'watchdogs' on our political figures.....I think it is important to have
reports like this on the media. It reminds them that there ARE people watching them, and
analyzing their behavior. It helps 'keep them honest' if you will.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:

Number 1
Obama was better at 'playing the media game'.
From experience, I can tell you that those who are skilled at 'playing the media game' will
get interviewed more often that those who are not as good. Being a good communicator helped
Obama.
Totally agreed. This is how he won the presidency as well.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Number 2
While I do NOT think there is any conspiracy, I do think that the huge majority of the media tends
to lean left (with the exception of Fox). I think the media tended to favor Obama....many of them
probably sincerely thought we needed change in this country.
What do you mean with "conspiracy"? Has this to do with people who are powerful and who own the media as well as the candidates' campaigns by virtue of their contributions? I don't completely believe in that either, but I do think that Obama may have some friends there as well. I agree with you however, and it would make good sense that most media would lean to the left, and not only in the United States. News in most cases is what grabs the attention, and usually what grabs the attention is on the left side. You've also mentioned what I also believe in, that most reporters stand on the left of the spectrum. Would you also say that those reporters who are on the right are usually on the extreme right?

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Do I think this will change in the future? I think the media will probably be VERY careful in the
next election and maybe even the next one after that, to try and make sure that it doesn't happen right away again.......the media is not going to want to appear biased, and when reports like this
start coming out, they will tend to be more careful. However, after a couple elections go by,
it wouldn't surprise me to have it happen again, I just don't see the makeup of the people
getting into journalism as getting more conservative,.....they are getting more liberal if anything.

HOWEVER, in the short term, this may hurt the Democrats. Often, when this kind of thing happens, the media will attempt to really investigate the president and his party, 'bend over backwards' if you will to do stories that are negative to the president, just to 'prove' that they really are not biased towards the president. Some people may even say, that is why there is a storm of unfavorable media towards the president right now, and his poll numbers are dropping.

Much as the media is the 'watchdogs' on our political figures.....I think it is important to have
reports like this on the media. It reminds them that there ARE people watching them, and
analyzing their behavior. It helps 'keep them honest' if you will.
Interesting points thanks. I did not even think about it but you are right and it makes sense, the real damage is the short term one. I have a question for you in this one. How unbiased do you think has the media been in its reporting of the health care bill, after the President's summer recess? We have been bombarded with one-way reports of great support, winning polls, the whole shebang. Is it for real? Or do you think this is another successful campaign by Obama, using the tools that he is good at and the media following his direction as it is newsworthy?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that
the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.
This is a very interesting report. How do you think this came to happen. I can imagine one can think of some conspiracy stories, but could it be as simple as that Obama was more of a novelty than McCain was, until perhaps Sarah Palin joined McCain and they could analyze how she was spending her clothing budget? :lol:

More seriously though, Obama's election campaign marketing elicited more media attention, he was good at it, he is still good at it. Do you think the media has learned anything from the above? And it being as frenetic as it is to get hold of their stories and get them published, do you think the report will make any difference either in present reporting or in future presidential elections? News is news, is it possible to make news unbiased in a presidential election?


Here we go again with the "all the media is left wing except FOX" mantra, repeated by those willing to be a cog in the baloney-making machine.

Just like politics, where we don't have a left party and a right party at this point but a centrist party and an insane party, we also have centrist media (most mainstream media outlets) and a ridiculous propaganda machine: FOX News. FOX is not a legitimate news organization any more than Weekly World News and their alien abduction stories is.

CNN's Rick Sanchez Calls FOX News Liars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENdNEl4-Uw


Watch this smackdown of FOX New's latest embarrassment in the over-the-top political lies department. Anyone who claims any legitimacy for FOX at this point has no credibility whatsoever.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Here we go again with the "all the media is left wing except FOX" mantra, repeated by those willing to be a cog in the baloney-making machine.

Just like politics, where we don't have a left party and a right party at this point but a centrist party and an insane party, we also have centrist media (most mainstream media outlets) and a ridiculous propaganda machine: FOX News. FOX is not a legitimate news organization any more than Weekly World News and their alien abduction stories is.

CNN's Rick Sanchez Calls FOX News Liars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENdNEl4-Uw


Watch this smackdown of FOX New's latest embarrassment in the over-the-top political lies department. Anyone who claims any legitimacy for FOX at this point has no credibility whatsoever.


You realize the argument doesn't make any sense correct?

"All the media leans to the left except FOX news? Ridiculous! Just look how much FOX news leans to the right!"

What about the other major media outlets besides FOX news?
Alaskacameradude
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that
the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.
This is a very interesting report. How do you think this came to happen. I can imagine one can think of some conspiracy stories, but could it be as simple as that Obama was more of a novelty than McCain was, until perhaps Sarah Palin joined McCain and they could analyze how she was spending her clothing budget? Laughing

More seriously though, Obama's election campaign marketing elicited more media attention, he was good at it, he is still good at it. Do you think the media has learned anything from the above? And it being as frenetic as it is to get hold of their stories and get them published, do you think the report will make any difference either in present reporting or in future presidential elections? News is news, is it possible to make news unbiased in a presidential election?


Here we go again with the "all the media is left wing except FOX" mantra, repeated by those willing to be a cog in the baloney-making machine.

Just like politics, where we don't have a left party and a right party at this point but a centrist party and an insane party, we also have centrist media (most mainstream media outlets) and a ridiculous propaganda machine: FOX News. FOX is not a legitimate news organization any more than Weekly World News and their alien abduction stories is.

CNN's Rick Sanchez Calls FOX News Liars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENdNEl4-Uw


Watch this smackdown of FOX New's latest embarrassment in the over-the-top political lies department. Anyone who claims any legitimacy for FOX at this point has no credibility whatsoever.


And read my report I linked to showing that ALL media outlets are biased towards the Democrats.
Anyone who can read that 'smackdown' of a report and claim ANY legitimacy for ANY of
the media outlets has NO credibility whatsoever.....
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


Here we go again with the "all the media is left wing except FOX" mantra, repeated by those willing to be a cog in the baloney-making machine.

Just like politics, where we don't have a left party and a right party at this point but a centrist party and an insane party, we also have centrist media (most mainstream media outlets) and a ridiculous propaganda machine: FOX News. FOX is not a legitimate news organization any more than Weekly World News and their alien abduction stories is.

CNN's Rick Sanchez Calls FOX News Liars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENdNEl4-Uw


Watch this smackdown of FOX New's latest embarrassment in the over-the-top political lies department. Anyone who claims any legitimacy for FOX at this point has no credibility whatsoever.


You realize the argument doesn't make any sense correct?

"All the media leans to the left except FOX news? Ridiculous! Just look how much FOX news leans to the right!"

What about the other major media outlets besides FOX news?


Jeez you're cracked. This isn't an example of Fox "leaning to the right". It's the latest, most overt, most tangible evidence that they are not a new agency at all. But a hysterical minority to which you belong take their word as gospel. Do you have any problem at all with blatant propaganda full of easily debunked lies being posted by a supposed new agency? (Oh you love to quote the Moonie Times and defend the World Nut Daily, I forgot...)
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Jeez you're cracked. This isn't an example of Fox "leaning to the right". It's the latest, most overt, most tangible evidence that they are not a new agency at all. But a hysterical minority to which you belong take their word as gospel. Do you have any problem at all with blatant propaganda full of easily debunked lies being posted by a supposed new agency? (Oh you love to quote the Moonie Times and defend the World Nut Daily, I forgot...)

YES I KNOW FOX NEWS LEANS HEAVILY TO THE RIGHT!

What about the others though?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


Jeez you're cracked. This isn't an example of Fox "leaning to the right". It's the latest, most overt, most tangible evidence that they are not a new agency at all. But a hysterical minority to which you belong take their word as gospel. Do you have any problem at all with blatant propaganda full of easily debunked lies being posted by a supposed new agency? (Oh you love to quote the Moonie Times and defend the World Nut Daily, I forgot...)

YES I KNOW FOX NEWS LEANS HEAVILY TO THE RIGHT!

What about the others though?

You have utterly failed to understand a simple and clearly worded point. What's with your all-caps, the onset of advanced derangement?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

You have utterly failed to understand a simple and clearly worded point. What's with your all-caps, the onset of advanced derangement?

Are you saying that I believe most media outlets lean left because FOX news told me so?

I don't watch FOX news.
My basis for that is based on books I have read, studies posted on the internet, an inspection of the flow of money, and what I've seen while watching them.

How does the existence of FOX news mean that other news outlets don't lean to the left?

(I was typing in all caps, because it is considered shouting on the internet. I wanted to shout it so that I could be sure you heard it and did not simply answer with another example of how FOX news leans to the right.)
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
FOX is not a legitimate news organization.
I don't watch Fox News myself, but it is a legitimate news organization and it does have a very large following in the United States as a news organization. Furthermore, for an organization that is according to you not a news organization you have given them lots of attention in a large number of threads! FOX news seems to be a winner in the ratings for news organizations. Are you saying that all the Fox viewers are "insane" because they do not support your point of view?
Quote:
Fox News was founded by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch, a self-described libertarian. Murdoch hired Republican strategist Roger Ailes to be CEO of Fox News, leading to much controversy. FNC has been criticized for conservative bias, especially by media watch groups.[8] Since the network's launch, Bill O'Reilly has hosted his own show The O'Reilly Factor which is the highest rated cable news program on air and has held that title since late 2001. Fox News uses the logos Fair and Balanced and "We Report. You Decide.". Despite some controversy, Fox News has stressed their multi-politically viewed commentators (such as independent Bill O'Reilly, conservative Glenn Beck, conservative Sean Hannity, and liberal Alan Colmes) and has dominated the American cable news ratings in recent years.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cable_news

Refer also Cable News Ratings:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/top-news/cable-news
jmi256
Here’s a concrete example of the left-wing media’s slant. During President Bush’s tenure they made a big stink about being able to photograph caskets of dead soldiers coming home, but now that their Anointed One is in the office, it doesn’t seem to be all that big of a deal. While President Bush was in office, just about every ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc. newscast started with a review of the body count in Afghanistan in an effort to cast a negative light on the President. But while the number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan reaches record numbers, you don’t hear a peep out of them about Obama’s failure to even meet with his generals or address their pleas for more help in order to maintain the fragile successes they have won. Meanwhile Obama has plenty of time to jet around the world in an attempt to secure the Olympics for his union thug cohorts in Chicago and also plaster his mug on all the left-wing “news” shows to sell his government-run healthcare deform scheme.

Kudos to the AP, however, for continuing to cover this. They are right that this is news to the families of the soldiers who have been killed.

Quote:

Without Bush, media lose interest in war caskets

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"These young men and women are heroes," Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. "The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong."

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. "It's really fallen off," says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. "The flurry of interest has subsided."

That's an understatement. When the casket bearing Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Va., arrived at Dover the night of April 5 -- the first arrival in which press coverage was allowed -- there were representatives of 35 media outlets on hand to cover the story. Two days later, when the body of Army Spc. Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico, arrived, 17 media outlets were there. (All the figures here were provided by the Mortuary Affairs Operations Center.) On subsequent days in April, there were nearly a dozen press organizations on hand to cover arrivals.

Fast forward to today. On Sept. 2, when the casket bearing the body of Marine Lance Cpl. David Hall, of Elyria, Ohio, arrived at Dover, there was just one news outlet -- the Associated Press -- there to record it. The situation was pretty much the same when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.
The media can cover arrivals only when the family gives its permission. In all the examples above, the families approved, which is more often than not the case; since the policy was changed, according to the Mortuary Affairs Office, 60 percent of families have said yes to full media coverage.

But these days, the press hordes that once descended on Dover are gone, and there's usually just one organization on hand. The Associated Press, which supplies photos to 1,500 U.S. newspapers and 4,000 Web sites, has had a photographer at every arrival for which permission was granted. "It's our belief that this is important, that surely somewhere there is a paper, an audience, a readership, a family and a community for whom this homecoming is indeed news," says Paul Colford, director of media relations for AP. "It's been agreed internally that this is a responsibility for the AP to be there each and every time it is welcome."

Colford says the AP has a photographer who lives within driving distance of Dover and is able to make it to the arrivals, no matter what time of day or night. As for the network news, it's not so simple; a night arrival means overtime pay for a union camera crew. And then there's the question of convenience. "It seems that if the weather is nice, and it's during the day, we get a higher level of media to come down," says Lt. Winter. "But a majority of our transfers occur in the early evening and overnight."

So far this month, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

With casualties mounting, the debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan is sharp and heated. The number of arrivals at Dover is increasing. But the journalists who once clamored to show the true human cost of war are nowhere to be found.

Source = http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Without-Bush-media-lose-interest-in-war-caskets-8310113-62427012.html
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
Here’s a concrete example of the left-wing media’s slant.
Yep. News is slanted in both directions, depending on which corporate/government lackey one decides to watch. Anyone care to offer up a solution to this problem? Or are we going to just spend eternity citing examples of how the news is slanted in one direction or the other in order to pound our chests and tell people "I'm right!", "NO, I'm right!"... ad nauseam.

Neither "side" of this debate is going to concede and say "wow, you made a great case, I have been wrong all this time, I guess the news is slanted to the [INSERT DIRECTION HERE], and not the the [INSERT OPPOSITE DIRECTION HERE], as I previously thought."

I don't have a solution for the news media bias, other than not watching it.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Here’s a concrete example of the left-wing media’s slant.
Yep. News is slanted in both directions, depending on which corporate/government lackey one decides to watch. Anyone care to offer up a solution to this problem? Or are we going to just spend eternity citing examples of how the news is slanted in one direction or the other in order to pound our chests and tell people "I'm right!", "NO, I'm right!"... ad nauseam.

Neither "side" of this debate is going to concede and say "wow, you made a great case, I have been wrong all this time, I guess the news is slanted to the [INSERT DIRECTION HERE], and not the the [INSERT OPPOSITE DIRECTION HERE], as I previously thought."

I don't have a solution for the news media bias, other than not watching it.
I see a positive in it that the Washington Examiner went a few extra miles to point out how slanted things are. That is a good step for me. Wish the media would do more articles like that.
Ophois
I was just thinking...
I don't know that this shows a left-leaning slant in the media. The Obama admin. lifted the ban, and the first few dead soldiers to come back got covered in the news, but then the media got bored and moved on to other stories. So... the current lack of media coverage for the dead soldiers is a "left-wing media slant"?

They Dems won their battle and got the ban lifted. It wasn't so much that they wanted to take a bunch of tasteless pictures of dead US soldiers, it's that they wanted to be able to, and that having a ban on it was, in their eyes, covering up the true cost of war. After a while, the novelty wore off for the media. That's pretty much 'par for course', as far as modern journalism goes. Sorry, but I'm not sold on a vast, left-wing media conspiracy. At least, not based on this article.
handfleisch
Ophois wrote:
I was just thinking...
I don't know that this shows a left-leaning slant in the media. The Obama admin. lifted the ban, and the first few dead soldiers to come back got covered in the news, but then the media got bored and moved on to other stories. So... the current lack of media coverage for the dead soldiers is a "left-wing media slant"?

They Dems won their battle and got the ban lifted. It wasn't so much that they wanted to take a bunch of tasteless pictures of dead US soldiers, it's that they wanted to be able to, and that having a ban on it was, in their eyes, covering up the true cost of war. After a while, the novelty wore off for the media. That's pretty much 'par for course', as far as modern journalism goes. Sorry, but I'm not sold on a vast, left-wing media conspiracy. At least, not based on this article.

I was thinking the same thing. Also, the coffins were more of a news issue at the height of a war while the president responsible was still in office. Now, with the slow pullout going on and a president in office who is not at fault for starting or escalating the war, the coffins are simply less newsworthy -- they don't represent controversy like they used to.

As usual, it's a real stretch to shriek "left wing media" over this. One could spin it the other way -- the conservative media doesn't want to show the coffins and remind people that the Bush/GOP war in Iraq is still killing American soldiers. Which would also be a stretch, of course, but it goes to show how weak the whole argument is.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Sorry, but I'm not sold on a vast, left-wing media conspiracy. At least, not based on this article.
Neither am I, depending of course on the particular editorial policy of the media. This is a news article in the New York Times
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/poll-support-for-government-health-insurance-declines-a-bit/?scp=1&sq=healthcare%20polls&st=cse
Quote:
Public support for universal health insurance is declining, according the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. About half, 51 percent, say the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, down slightly from 55 percent in July and 64 percent in June.

Support for universal health insurance drops to 38 percent if it is suggested that the cost of health insurance would increase, and to 36 percent if taxes went up. And only 33 percent said the United States should guarantee health insurance for all its citizens, if the federal budget deficit would increase as a result.


This is a news article about the same report by CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/24/opinion/polls/main5337843.shtml
Quote:
(CBS) President Barack Obama's recent speeches and public appearances explaining his proposals for health care reform have made some impact, according to a new CBS News/ New York Times poll -- but he still has work to do, and a majority of Americans remain confused.

The president's approval rating for handling health care is up seven points from one month ago, and more Americans overall support his plans than oppose them - but four in 10 say they still don't know enough about the proposals to say.

The public has yet to accept some of the points the president has been making about his reform ideas. For instance, many aren’t sure if illegal immigrants will receive coverage. But three in four Americans think the Republicans have not explained their ideas for reform and are not trying to work with the president.

Notice the difference in style and content?
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
I was just thinking...
Sorry, but I'm not sold on a vast, left-wing media conspiracy. At least, not based on this article.

I didn’t say it was a “vast left-wing conspiracy.” I leave those types of theories to the tinfoil hat wearers who also believe the moon landing was faked, 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is now working to stop Obama, etc. I was just citing it as just one example of the media’s leftward slant. The policy of respecting the remains of the soldiers was one that President Bush continued, as did Bill Clinton, but in an effort to smear the President the media suddenly raised a stink about the “need” to publish these photos. Now that their target is no longer in office, it is suddenly no longer imperative that these photos be broadcast. As a matter of policy, I think the photos should be broadcast, but to use them during one administration in an effort to smear and embarrass, while ignoring them in another’s shows the inherent bias in the media.


handfleisch wrote:

I was thinking the same thing. Also, the coffins were more of a news issue at the height of a war while the president responsible was still in office.

The war in Afghanistan is at its height and our soldiers are suffering the highest casualties to date. All this while Obama refuses to address the situation. But of course the war is no longer an issue now that Obama is in the office, right? BTW, contrary to what you believe, the US government didn’t execute the attacks on September 11, so I’m not sure what you mean by “the president responsible.” Obama himself has made several speeches stating how important the war is has taken ownership of it.

handfleisch wrote:

Now, with the slow pullout going on and a president in office who is not at fault for starting or escalating the war, the coffins are simply less newsworthy -- they don't represent controversy like they used to.

What “slow pullout”? The generals are asking for more troops. Since Obama has taken office the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated drastically, and the wins established under GWB have all but been lost.

handfleisch wrote:

As usual, it's a real stretch to shriek "left wing media" over this.

As usual, the real stretch is the lengths some are willing to gloss over the media’s bias.
handfleisch
The media is a left wing conspiracy, there was no moon landing, the earth is flat, the Second Coming will happen in our lifetimes... these are in the realm of religious or religious-type beliefs, where all contrary evidence is disregarded, ignored or attacked, and all supporting evidence embraced with uncritical passion. There really is no arguing with kool-aid gulpers. That's all there is to it.
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
The policy of respecting the remains of the soldiers was one that President Bush continued, as did Bill Clinton,
The gag put on the media regarding coverage of soldiers' caskets has nothing to do with "respect", as is commonly stated. Ever since the Vietnam war, there has been increasing media coverage of military conflicts. Showing the American casualties of war adds fuel to anti-war protests. That's why they decided to disallow coverage of American soldiers' caskets. They didn't want people getting pissed off about their fellow Americans dying in a pointless war, and protesting any more than they already do. It was simply to minimize public outrage.
Quote:
The war in Afghanistan is at its height and our soldiers are suffering the highest casualties to date. All this while Obama refuses to address the situation.
Or has he... ?
Quote:
Obama himself has made several speeches stating how important the war is has taken ownership of it.
Seems he has addressed it, in "several speeches", in fact. Now, what goes on behind closed doors, none of us can say. But since he has given "several speeches" about the importance of the Afghanistan war, I am willing to bet there are plans in the works that none of us know about.
Quote:
As usual, the real stretch is the lengths some are willing to gloss over the media’s bias.
Or their own, for that matter.
Bikerman
As with all such accusations, it depends where you stand personally and what you 'perceive' as bias.
There have been a lot of accusations levelled at the BBC over the years. Some accuse it of having a left-wing liberal bias*, others of having an institutional/pro-establishment bias**. It is a no win situation -someone will always make the accusation, regardless of the actual content.
* http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do;jsessionid=98906395852FA10738F59050D79D8E9F
** http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/mediagroup/indexnav.html
jmi256
Here’s another example. Are you able to notice the not-so-subtle difference in tone and slant from the New York Times? From this headline and the first paragraph of the article, you would be led to believe the latest G20 protest was all peaceful, filled with refrains of Kumbaya. Somehow showing up with signs and protesting in this context is ok.

Quote:

Thousands Hold Peaceful March at G-20 Summit
PITTSBURGH — Several thousand demonstrators espousing and denouncing a host of causes converged on downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, chanting, pumping up signs and playing instruments in a peaceful and permitted march calling for solutions to a range of problems that they attributed to the economic policies of the world leaders at the Group of 20 meeting.


It’s not until well into the article that you learn:

Quote:

The People’s March, as it was called, was sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh peace organization. It came a day after raucous confrontations between the police and protesters resulted in 66 arrests. At least five people needed medical attention, and about 19 businesses sustained damage.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/26pittsburgh.htm?_r=1


Pretty “peaceful,” huh?


Compare that to the New York Times coverage of the Town Hall protests, that were actually peaceful in comparison, except for the attacks on citizens by Obama’s union thugs and “supporters” recruited by the liberal astroturfers.

Quote:
Beyond Beltway, Health Debate Turns Hostile
The bitter divisions over an overhaul of the health care system have exploded at town-hall-style meetings over the last few days as members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted by crowds. In several cities, noisy demonstrations have led to fistfights, arrests and hospitalizations.

Source = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/us/politics/08townhall.html

No difference, right?
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
As with all such accusations, it depends where you stand personally and what you 'perceive' as bias.
There have been a lot of accusations levelled at the BBC over the years. Some accuse it of having a left-wing liberal bias*, others of having an institutional/pro-establishment bias**. It is a no win situation -someone will always make the accusation, regardless of the actual content.
* http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do;jsessionid=98906395852FA10738F59050D79D8E9F
** http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/mediagroup/indexnav.html


That is true to an extent, but there is basic rationality to contend with. To the accusation that the moon landings were fake, we wouldn't say "it all depends where you stand personally". We put the charge to the test of evidence; we also can see the way the proponents of the argument proceed, which is to conjure up and then embrace any evidence they think supports their views, while showing hyper-skepticism or plain automatic rejection to any evidence that doesn't. And like the fake-moon-landing people, the media-is-leftist crowd create their own so-called experts to refer to (Jonah Goldberg comes to mind), their own publications that reinforce their views, which seem quite mad when subjected to even casual inspection.

The title of the thread is "left wing extremist media". Notice the word, extremist. This mindset tends to conflate all terms they don't like. But words do have meaning to us here in what a Bush aide dismissed as the reality-based community (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html). Of course there are left wing extremist groups in the USA, like the Revolutionary Communist Party, and I suppose they have a newspaper, which would classify as left wing extremist media. But this thread is premised on the argument that the New York Times is in the same category, and uses the silliness little instances of supposed evidence to propose that it all adds up to the equivalent of a fake moon landing. The truth of this argument does not just depend on where you stand. It's why I used the term "koolaid drinker" for this kind of thing -- you simply cannot argue with the deeply deluded.
Alaskacameradude
[quote="handfleisch"]
Bikerman wrote:


The title of the thread is "left wing extremist media". But this thread is premised on the argument that the New York Times is in the same category, and uses the silliness little instances of supposed evidence to propose that it all adds up to the equivalent of a fake moon landing. The truth of this argument does not just depend on where you stand. It's why I used the term "koolaid drinker" for this kind of thing -- you simply cannot argue with the deeply deluded.


Sorry, we are NOT talking about 'fake moon landings' here. We are talking about a claim of
bias in the news media. It is not as 'black and white' as you seem to want to paint it......ie 'we DID land on the moon and there is no basis in fact for the opponents to claim we didn't'. Your contention
is that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the 'no left wing bias' in the media. However,
as linked to earlier in this thread, journalists THEMSELVES did an investigation into the last
presidential election and concluded there WAS a bias in their coverage. Sorry, that destroys
your argument about 'fake moon landings' right there.
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
Pretty “peaceful,” huh?
66 arrests, 19 businesses damaged, and medical treatment... I'd say it's far from peaceful. But it did get reported. And no, I didn't feel like they downplayed it or that it was "filled with refrains of Kumbaya". And it's only 4 short paragraphs in when they give those stats about arrests and such. Not exactly hidden beneath a bunch of pro-Obama 'flavor text'.

Quote:
No difference, right?
To me, the biggest difference is that they didn't give stats about any arrests or injuries or damaged property at the Town Hall style meetings. Surely, there had to be some arrests, what with Dear Leader Obama hiring "union thugs" to beat people up and all. Or did they leave out those stats on purpose in order to 'hide' the facts? I'm sure if people got beat up, there had to be arrests and/or medical treatment. If anything, it makes the so-called "peaceful" protesters in Pittsburgh look like a bunch of hooligans causing a riot.

So let me get this straight. The New York Times' reporting of arrests, injuries, and property damage at a left-leaning 'peace protest', in contrast with their lack of reports of the same things at the anti-Obama Town Hall style meetings shows a left-leaning bias? The NY Times has, in effect, made the left leaning protesters look bad in comparison to the Town Hall meetings, due to the reporting of criminal behavior on behalf of the pro-Obama crowd.

You are right, there was a difference in the way the two stories were reported. But it doesn't look like they were trying to make the pro-Obama crowd look good. If so, they would have excluded the amount of arrests and other things. Or at least come up with some stats of equal value to portray the anti-Obama crowd as being just as unruly. Comparing these stories actually makes the left look pretty bad.

I'm still not sold on a leftward slant here.
Bikerman
handfleisch wrote:
.....The title of the thread is "left wing extremist media". Notice the word, extremist. This mindset tends to conflate all terms they don't like. But words do have meaning to us here in what a Bush aide dismissed as the reality-based community (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html). Of course there are left wing extremist groups in the USA, like the Revolutionary Communist Party, and I suppose they have a newspaper, which would classify as left wing extremist media. But this thread is premised on the argument that the New York Times is in the same category, and uses the silliness little instances of supposed evidence to propose that it all adds up to the equivalent of a fake moon landing.

Well, being as impartial as I can possibly be, I would have to say that anyone who thinks the NYT is extreme left wing is clearly either ignorant, a troll, or in possession of some evidence that nobody else has ever seen (a conspiracy theorist, in short). I am pretty 'left' in my views, but I'm not (any more) an extremist. Like many students I flirted with various philosophies, including revolutionary Marxism, but like most middle-aged people my views have mellowed a great deal. Even now I find the notion that the NYT is 'extreme left' to be laughable, but as a 21 yr old I suspect I would have regarded the notion as part of a right wing plot to redefine/reset the 'middle ground' in politics... Smile

Now, of course I come from a different country. Here in the UK we have had a 'mixed'* state for quite some time.

* By 'mixed' I mean a national politics and infrastructure that is partly capitalist and partly socialist. The difference between Tory and Labour is actually very small here at the moment, but even the Tory party (our 'right wing') would not support some of the positions that Obama takes (your 'left wing'). Talk of extremism is silly.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:

Well, being as impartial as I can possibly be, I would have to say that anyone who thinks the NYT is extreme left wing is clearly either ignorant, a troll, or in possession of some evidence that nobody else has ever seen (a conspiracy theorist, in short).
I am pretty 'left' in my views, but I'm not (any more) an extremist. Like many students I flirted with various philosophies, including revolutionary Marxism, but like most middle-aged people my views have mellowed a great deal. Even now I find the notion that the NYT is 'extreme left' to be laughable, but as a 21 yr old I suspect I would have regarded the notion as part of a right wing plot to redefine/reset the 'middle ground' in politics... Smile

Now, of course I come from a different country. Here in the UK we have had a 'mixed'* state for quite some time.

* By 'mixed' I mean a national politics and infrastructure that is partly capitalist and partly socialist. The difference between Tory and Labour is actually very small here at the moment, but even the Tory party (our 'right wing') would not support some of the positions that Obama takes (your 'left wing'). Talk of extremism is silly.


Ok, lets tackle this theory. Given what you say above, what stances would a publication need to take to be considered leftist/liberal? And are these stances evident in their coverage?

Here’s a list to start you off:
Anti conservative/right? Check.
Pro government-run healthcare? Check.
Pro government-run banking? Check.
Pro government-run auto? Check.
Pro abortion/eugenics? Check.*
Pro fascism? Check.
Anti religion? Check.
Pro welfare state? Check.
Pro nationalization? Check.
Pro central planning? Check.
Pro union/anti business? Check.
Pro Marxist theory? Check.
Pro revolutionary socialism? Check.
Pro social progressivism? Check.
Anti death penalty? Check.
Pro same-sex marriage? Check.
Pro distribution of contraceptives, even to children? Check.
Pro public funding of embryonic stem-cell research? Check.
Anti law enforcement? Check.

* Edit: I originally typed "Pro abortion/euthanasia", but meant "Pro abortion/eugenics". Apologies.
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
Pro fascism? Check.
I don't even know what to say here. You seem like a pretty intelligent person. But I have yet to see evidence that the NYT is "Pro-fascism". This is just silly.
Quote:
Anti religion? Check.
Are you sure they don't have any religious people on their payroll? Or are you confusing "anti religion" with being against mingling religion with Government affairs?
Quote:
Pro same-sex marriage? Check.
This is a matter of civil rights. Wanting people to be given equal rights, regardless of things like race, sexuality, and income does not make a person or a publication "leftist".
Quote:
Anti law enforcement? Check.
I must have missed the article in the NYT where they called for law enforcement agencies to be dissolved. Perhaps you can point me to it.
Quote:
Pro distribution of contraceptives, even to children? Check.
Yeah. That pesky contraception gets in the way of such cool things like AIDS and teen pregnancy.

You seem to have some ideologically based hatred for the NYT. I won't try to dissuade you from that, but seriously, some of these claims are just ridiculous.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Ok, lets tackle this theory. Given what you say above, what stances would a publication need to take to be considered leftist/liberal? And are these stances evident in their coverage?
Here’s a list to start you off:
Anti conservative/right? Check.
Err...depends how you define 'conservative/right'...
Quote:
Pro government-run healthcare? Check.
That is mainstream politics, not extreme left (unless you think that most of the developed countries in the world are extreme left).
Quote:
Pro government-run banking? Check.
Really? Can you point me to an editorial which suggests nationalising all banks in the US? I admit that I don't get to read every edition, but I've never noticed such a policy in the editions I have read.
Quote:
Pro government-run auto? Check.
I don't know what that means. I presume you mean the auto industry? Are you really suggesting that propping up the economy is an extreme left-wing policy? Was Bush a left wing extremist? Can you point to an editorial which suggests nationalising the car industry on anything other than an 'emergency bailout' basis?
Quote:
Pro abortion/euthanasia? Check.
Most mainstream papers are pro-abortion. You say they are pro-euthanasia...back it up!
Quote:
Pro fascism? Check.
Anti religion? Check.
Now we are getting into loony territory. Evidence ? I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your list because it strikes me that you are chucking out accusations with little or no support. Back up your assertions.

PS - Fascism is RIGHT wing, in case you didn't realise. Fascists hate communism, they despise liberals.
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
You seem to have some ideologically based hatred for the NYT. I won't try to dissuade you from that, but seriously, some of these claims are just ridiculous.


Actually I don’t. Why are you equating pointing out the left-leaning reporting of the NYT as “hatred”? If what I say is truly “ridiculous” you shouldn’t have that hard of a time proving me wrong, right? To be honest, I read the printed New York Times almost every Sunday, as well as during the week online. I’m happy with having them around and enjoy parts of the newspaper but I’m just refuting the claim above that the coverage isn’t slanted left. If you look at the coverage, you’ll quickly see how far off the mark that claim is. To address each of your points:


Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Pro fascism? Check.
I don't even know what to say here. You seem like a pretty intelligent person. But I have yet to see evidence that the NYT is "Pro-fascism". This is just silly.

They definitely are pro-fascist in their coverage. They advocate some clearly fascist ideals, such as radical and authoritarian nationalism, the belief that nations/races are in perpetual conflict, support of the “Third Way” (i.e. Progressivism), the opposition of class conflict (in favor of racial conflict), control of business by the government, obsession with victimhood, etc. There’s no clear and agreed upon definition of fascism (at least that I can find), but there are clear attributes of fascism

Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Anti religion? Check.
Are you sure they don't have any religious people on their payroll? Or are you confusing "anti religion" with being against mingling religion with Government affairs?

No, I’m talking about a negative portrayal of religious people as backward, uneducated, etc., especially those of the Christian faith. I don’t know how many people who consider themselves as religious are on their payroll, but again I’m talking about editorial slant here.

Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Pro same-sex marriage? Check.
This is a matter of civil rights. Wanting people to be given equal rights, regardless of things like race, sexuality, and income does not make a person or a publication "leftist".

Personally, I could care less if you want to marry another guy, and we get into the merits why or why not elsewhere. But advocating for same-sex marriage definitely falls under the left’s umbrella and is definitely advocated by the NYT.

Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Anti law enforcement? Check.
I must have missed the article in the NYT where they called for law enforcement agencies to be dissolved. Perhaps you can point me to it.

I missed the one you’re talking about too, but I am talking about the negative coverage of law enforcement. Any time a police officer is involved in any type of possibly negative situation, the NYT automatically attacks the officer. A good case in point is that idiot who was breaking into his own house in Boston. When an officer showed up to investigate a call from a concerned neighbor, he was quickly derided as a racist and in the wrong.

Ophois wrote:
jimi256 wrote:
Pro distribution of contraceptives, even to children? Check.

Yeah. That pesky contraception gets in the way of such cool things like AIDS and teen pregnancy.

Again, regardless of the merits of the issue, pro distribution of contraceptives to children squarely falls into the left’s umbrella. If you want to start a separate discussion of this topic, I’d be more than happy to contribute.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:

PS - Fascism is RIGHT wing, in case you didn't realise. Fascists hate communism, they despise liberals.


That's a common misconception. Fascism has its roots in the left. At the heart of it, fascism is the government control of EVERYTHING: economy, religion, procreation, immigration, etc. That ideal is much closer to the left than the right. If you look at the history of fascism in Italy and pre-WWII Germany, you will see that the fascists and communists were in competion for the same ground (ideologically speaking). As Hitler and Mussolini rose to power, they then re-positioned communism as opposed to fascism to solidify their power and squelch descent. That’s why there was animosity between the two. And liberals of the 20s/30s were quite different from what they are today. These “classic liberals” were closer to what we call libertarians today. In fact the word “liberal” comes from the word liberty and was used originally to describe the liberty of individuals over the government, whatever the form.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
Pro abortion/euthanasia? Check.
Most mainstream papers are pro-abortion. You say they are pro-euthanasia...back it up!


Sorry I meant eugenics, but was typing too fast. I'll fix my post and mark the edit.
deanhills
Below is a link to a list of recent columns and editorials in the NYT, together with short descriptions. The NYT to me is supporting Obama and is on the left, but not significantly so. I can't say they are radically left:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/index.html
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
That's a common misconception. Fascism has its roots in the left. At the heart of it, fascism is the government control of EVERYTHING: economy, religion, procreation, immigration, etc. That ideal is much closer to the left than the right. If you look at the history of fascism in Italy and pre-WWII Germany, you will see that the fascists and communists were in competion for the same ground (ideologically speaking). As Hitler and Mussolini rose to power, they then re-positioned communism as opposed to fascism to solidify their power and squelch descent. That’s why there was animosity between the two. And liberals of the 20s/30s were quite different from what they are today. These “classic liberals” were closer to what we call libertarians today. In fact the word “liberal” comes from the word liberty and was used originally to describe the liberty of individuals over the government, whatever the form.
So you are saying that the NYT is in favour of pre-war Fascism?
The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin 'liberalis' (generous, noble, pertaining to a free man).
If you want to re-invent the history of Fascism then I'll be interested in your sources. As far as I was aware the 'movement' grew in Italy. It is based on 'ultra-nationalism' - something which Marxists (who I presume you would agree are 'lefties') find ideologically repugnant. It grew out of the sort of right-wing nonsense we see at the extremes of the right in current politics - racism/ultra-nationalism - it has nothing in common with revolutionary marxism (the 'extreme left').
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
So you are saying that the NYT is in favour of pre-war Fascism?

I didn't say that. But if that's your opinion, so be it.


Bikerman wrote:

The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin 'liberalis' (generous, noble, pertaining to a free man).
If you want to re-invent the history of Fascism then I'll be interested in your sources. As far as I was aware the 'movement' grew in Italy. It is based on 'ultra-nationalism' - something which Marxists (who I presume you would agree are 'lefties') find ideologically repugnant. It grew out of the sort of right-wing nonsense we see at the extremes of the right in current politics - racism/ultra-nationalism - it has nothing in common with revolutionary marxism (the 'extreme left').


I'm not reinventing history, but rather trying to educate you as you're ignorant of the history and the facts. From what you have regurgitated above, I see you have a ways to go. But don't blame me that you "drank the Kool-Aid," as one of your cohorts has been fond of saying over and over again lately, and have not done your homework. You can use the definition of liberalism below if you want. Seems diametrically opposed to what today's liberals/progressives have twisted it to represent today.
Quote:

Liberalism
n.

1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

Source = http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism
deanhills
I always agree with you as I can directly relate to what you are saying. But I tried to match up your points of view with sifting through matching articles in the NYT Online Editorials and Opinion Section in the hope to support you, but after checking them deliberately with your hat one, could not help but come to a different conclusion. In summary I would say that the NYT has a very "careful" and "responsible" position to the left. Its opinions and editorials are always backed up with factual reports, in fact any sensitive issues such as religion, gay marriages, etc. would feature as part of a recent report, rather than NYT's own opinion on it:

jmi256 wrote:
They definitely are pro-fascist in their coverage. They advocate some clearly fascist ideals, such as radical and authoritarian nationalism, the belief that nations/races are in perpetual conflict, support of the “Third Way” (i.e. Progressivism), the opposition of class conflict (in favor of racial conflict), control of business by the government, obsession with victimhood, etc. There’s no clear and agreed upon definition of fascism (at least that I can find), but there are clear attributes of fascism

I could have missed articles, but I did not find any pro-fascist type editorials or opinions. Not even close.

jimi256 wrote:
No, I’m talking about a negative portrayal of religious people as backward, uneducated, etc., especially those of the Christian faith. I don’t know how many people who consider themselves as religious are on their payroll, but again I’m talking about editorial slant here.

I had to search very hard for the one below. I found most of the editorials that did discuss religion or belief systems were based on factual research studies. It is not exactly negative portrayal, looks as though the NYT is OK with religion as well as all other religious and non-religious beliefs and would like to be seen as objective and unbiased. The following one was the closest I could find to back up your point of view, but as you see the NYT even in its editorials and opinions has been very careful to use specific reports instead of making NYT deductions:
Quote:
Religion’s Link to Teen Pregnancy
By Lisa Belkin
A report this week in the journal Reproductive Health describes what researchers call “a strong association” between the teenage birth rate of a particular state and its “level of religiosity.”

The correlation is not what you might expect. The more religious the state, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy.

Source: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/religions-link-to-teen-pregnancy/?scp=3&sq=religion&st=cse

jimi256 wrote:
Personally, I could care less if you want to marry another guy, and we get into the merits why or why not elsewhere. But advocating for same-sex marriage definitely falls under the left’s umbrella and is definitely advocated by the NYT.

I did not see any "advocating" anything about same-sex marriage in the editorials and columns. It is possibly cleverly done. One of the articles referred to Obama not touching this issue as it has been damaging for Presidents before, so maybe NYT are also careful how they touch on it:
Quote:
But the most prevalent theory is that Obama, surrounded by Clinton White House alumni with painful memories, doesn’t want to risk gay issues upending his presidency, as they did his predecessor’s in 1993. After having promised to lift the ban on gays in the military, Clinton beat a hasty retreat into Don’t Ask once Congress and the Pentagon rebelled. This early pratfall became a lasting symbol of his chaotic management style — and a precursor to another fiasco, Hillarycare, that Obama is also working hard not to emulate.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28rich.html

jimi256 wrote:
I missed the one you’re talking about too, but I am talking about the negative coverage of law enforcement. Any time a police officer is involved in any type of possibly negative situation, the NYT automatically attacks the officer. A good case in point is that idiot who was breaking into his own house in Boston. When an officer showed up to investigate a call from a concerned neighbor, he was quickly derided as a racist and in the wrong.
Could be true, but just look how carefully it is done:
Quote:
The Police Department has begun an internal investigation into the initial police response to a fatal accident involving an off-duty police officer, and whether there was any attempt to help that officer conceal whether he was drunk, people with knowledge of the inquiry said on Wednesday.

The possibility of such help brought a sharp condemnation from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who said at a news conference that “if true, the allegations of a D.W.I. hit and cover-up are reprehensible.”

The off-duty officer, Andrew Kelly, 30, was charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving while intoxicated after the police said the sport utility vehicle he was driving struck a woman, Vionique Valnord, 32, about 1 a.m. on Sunday in Flatlands, Brooklyn. A second off-duty officer, Michael Downs, who was a passenger in Officer Kelly’s vehicle, was suspended.

However, most newspapers are really critical of the police force, probably trying to assume the mantle of care takers.

jimi256 wrote:
Again, regardless of the merits of the issue, pro distribution of contraceptives to children squarely falls into the left’s umbrella. If you want to start a separate discussion of this topic, I’d be more than happy to contribute.
Are you sure about this? I thought contraceptives were important to prevent teenage pregnancies? All newspapers are advocating this. Also I agree with Alaska, most of the media is to the left, even Fox News is to the left of "Right", i.e. extreme Right. NYT definitely supports Obama, and is toeing his line, however I find it quite careful and responsible in its reporting. NYT is one of my favourite places for checking up on articles, and I always keep in mind that they are pro Democrat. Once I have checked up on articles, most of the time I would use it as a basis for checking up more.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
I'm not reinventing history, but rather trying to educate you as you're ignorant of the history and the facts. From what you have regurgitated above, I see you have a ways to go. But don't blame me that you "drank the Kool-Aid," as one of your cohorts has been fond of saying over and over again lately, and have not done your homework.
LOL...the day I'll take lectures in semantics from someone who thinks that Liberal derives from the root word Liberty will be a long day coming...
The day I'll take lectures in history from someone who thinks Fascism has its roots in Marxism (or any type of socialism) is also a long way off. Fascism completely rejects the socialist analysis - in fact the rejection of class struggle is a central tenet of Fascism - as you yourself posted earlier when you summarised the wiki article that you had obviously just read. If you had read it all, instead of just the first paragraph, then you might have a slightly better understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Bikerman
PS - It might also be useful for you to read up a bit on what the 'extreme left' actually is. Broadly there are two 'groupings' - revolutionary socialists (who believe that the current system is untenable, from a socialist perspective, and must be overthrown in revolution, rather than through the democratic process), and anarchists.
The New York Times isn't even close to mainstream socialism (the 'left'), let alone the revolutionary kind.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
LOL...the day I'll take lectures in semantics from someone ignorant enough to think that Liberal derives from the root word Liberty will be a long day coming...


You're right. I didn't mean to say they "liberalism" was derived from "liberty" but that the two come from the same word. It was sloppy wording on my part, and I apologize.

Bikerman wrote:

The day I'll take lectures in history from someone who thinks Fascism has its roots in Marxism (or any type of socialism) is also a long way off. Fascism completely rejects the socialist analysis - in fact the rejection of class struggle is a central tenet of Fascism - as you yourself posted earlier when you summarised the wiki article that you had obviously just read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


I'm not trying to lecture you Bikerman. If you aren't open to anything that counters your closely held ideals, so be it. This discussion has gotten way off track from the topic, but I’ll say a few last things (sorry it’s so long). Since this discussion has sparked some good points, however, maybe someone wants to start a new thread?

I'm not saying that Fascism has its roots in Marxism, but that the two have been intertwined. Fascists have a knack of exploiting whatever ideology is most convenient to gain power, and currently the left is the easiest prey. The left’s desire for big government, intrusive regulation (in industrial, as well as social area) and their belief in centralized power and planning is fertile ground for fascism. Those on the right, who advocated less government, more personal freedom (both in industry and in their personal lives) and decentralized power present a less receptive audience. Think of it this way: Which utopian state (in terms of left/right ideology) is “easier” for fascism to exploit? The right’s, where government plays a minimal role in people’s lives, people rely on their own industry rather than a centralized government for their livelihood, etc.? Or the left’s where government plays a dominant role, providing everything from “cradle to grave” (as the leftist saying goes)? That’s where the ultra-nationalism comes in. The left’s desire for big government is progress toward ultra-nationalism. If you look at the histories of Italy and Germany, you’ll see that Mussolini and Hitler were able to exploit theses trends.

There are very few (none that I can recall off the top of my head actually) right now who stand up and say "hey, I'm a fascist", but there are quite a few who use fascist methods to gain and hold on to power.


deanhills wrote:
I always agree with you as I can directly relate to what you are saying. But I tried to match up your points of view with sifting through matching articles in the NYT Online Editorials and Opinion Section in the hope to support you, but after checking them deliberately with your hat one, could not help but come to a different conclusion. In summary I would say that the NYT has a very "careful" and "responsible" position to the left. Its opinions and editorials are always backed up with factual reports, in fact any sensitive issues such as religion, gay marriages, etc. would feature as part of a recent report, rather than NYT's own opinion on it

You obviously did quite a lot of research, which I commend you on. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me 100% of the time, or even a majority of the time. In fact I have more fun on here when people don’t agree with me. But to address your concerns and your findings: I wasn’t saying that article A shows clear advocacy for X and article B shows clear advocacy for Y. Rather it is in what they decide to cover and the tone of how they report. They do report on a whole range of issues, including those central to both the left and right. My argument is that the NYT’s coverage is slanted more [i]in favor[/] and casts a positive glow on the left’s positions, while they are more likely to cast the right’s positions in a negative light. That’s what I was trying to point out when I used the two NYT articles covering protests from the left vs. protest from the right. The left’s protests are characterized as “peaceful” and thoughtful, despite the fact that they are quite violent, while the right’s protests are characterized as “hostile” and violent, despite the fact that they were mostly peaceful, except for the instances where the union thugs and the left’s counter-protestors attacked them. The fact that they cover/mention the issues isn’t the point. Fox News mentions Obama at least five times and hour, but I don’t think anyone here would argue that they are pro-Obama, right?

Overall, I don’t think the NYT is necessarily super-far left. As I’ve said I read them every week, and find some sections pretty enjoyable. But I definitely find a leftward slant in their reporting. The fact that some can’t discern this bias and say “well, all ‘mainstream’ reporting is in favor of _______” shows how pervasive this bias is in mainstream media.
Bikerman
So perhaps the thread title should be 'slightly left leaning media'...
It would have been far more accurate, but far less provocative.
You make a testable hypothesis in your posting - that Fascism is more likely to take root in socialist countries than capitalist countries. That is certainly worth a thread of its own.

PS - I changed the wording of my previous posting before you replied, so I didn't say that I had done so. I deliberately removed the reference to 'ignorance' since it was unhelpful and provocative.

PPS
Quote:
Those on the right, who advocated less government, more personal freedom (both in industry and in their personal lives) and decentralized power
Err...help me out here...point out how that agenda is different to the anarchist agenda...?
In fact that is a completely inaccurate portrayal of 'right wing' just as your previous portrayal of fascism is inaccurate and misleading. The 'right wing' is associated with conservatism, and maintaining private control of the means of production (capitalism).

PPPS - Your understanding of the word 'liberal' is, of course, culturally conditioned. You seem convinced that this somehow makes it either universal or 'correct'. It doesn't and it isn't.
Liberalism, as a political viewpoint, has existed here since the 1820s. I know what it means as a political philosophy. Your understanding of the word is different, so I guess it comes down to a playground level - your dad's bigger than mine, but mine is older and wiser.
Quote:
.....but also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Err...depends how you define 'conservative/right'...


Well, yeah,.......I think the 'conservative right' at least in this country are all over the spectrum,
just like the 'liberal right'. There are those closer to the center, and those further to the 'extreme'
edges of their party. I would say the NWT is a 'left leaning' publication rather than a 'extreme
left wing' publication, as you said.

Quote:

That is mainstream politics, not extreme left (unless you think that most of the developed countries in the world are extreme left).


Not in the US it's not. Many conservatives have a problem with the government running our
healthcare system based on the fact that they don't do to well with most things they run here
(and due to the fact that they tend to be inefficient which adds to our general waste of money
and growing of the national debt).
Personally, I'm not sure what to think about the whole healthcare thing (I am an uninsured
American and have to pay 'out of pocket' for any medical expenses). I do NOT think that
a government run program is the answer......our government has not shown me that it can
do anything of the sort, other than waste money and drive up our deficit. HOWEVER, I also
think the current state of affairs is really bad. Companies should NOT be making HUGE
profits off people's LIFE THREATENING HEALTH PROBLEMS!!! Because it is a short reach from
that, to 'We don't have the money to pay for the procedure you need to save your life.
Because......well you know, our shareholders need their big dividends'.
I would like to see some non profit companies set up to run health insurance, and maybe
use the 'public option' as a 'stick' to say that if you don't make it affordable, then the government would take over.

But the point here, is that in THIS country at least, the 'public healthcare' option IS seen as a
'liberal' position with near universal opposition from conservatives, and even a pretty good sized
bunch of centrist Democrats. That's why Obama is having such a problem over here with it....
the more liberal wing of the Democratic party wants a 'public option' and the more moderate
wing of the Democratic party does NOT. If it was just the Republicans who opposed the 'public
option' it would get pushed through easily as the Democrats control both houses of Congress....even
a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Quote:
Really? Can you point me to an editorial which suggests nationalising all banks in the US? I admit that I don't get to read every edition, but I've never noticed such a policy in the editions I have read.


Well, I think he is referring to their support for the 'bank bailout'. The government over here
took over partial control of banks that took large amounts of 'bailout' money.....after all, if
you are giving them a TON of money, you want to make sure they don't give out a bunch of
risky loans and waste it all right? I would say calling it 'pro government banking' may be a
little bit of a stretch, but there IS an element of truth there.

Quote:
Pro government-run auto? Check.


Again, I am guessing that he is referring to the 'auto industry bailout'. Bush did NOT give the
auto industry a huge lump sum of money to 'bail them out'. He certainly did OTHER things
to support the auto industry, many which are probably worthy of criticism. Again, I would
say it is a stretch to call it 'pro government run auto', but there is again an element of truth
to it. And for the record, I think Bush's fiscal policy showed that he was definitely NOT a
fiscal conservative.....he grew our deficit too....just not as fast as Obama.

Quote:
Most mainstream papers are pro-abortion. You say they are pro-euthanasia...back it up!


First, just because 'most mainstream' papers are pro-abortion does NOT preclude them from
also being liberal!!!!!! I would contend that 'most mainstream' papers are also liberal, in which
case it would stand to reason that they are pro abortion. And I am not saying you are wrong,
just curious if you have any info that backs up the statement that most mainstream papers are
pro abortion? You seem to have a lot of research and information, and if you have info on that,
I'd be curious to see it (I suspect you are right, but have not seen the statistics to back that up.)
As for euthanasia, I don't know that I've ever seen anything in the NYT that would make me
say they are pro-euthanasia. I'm not saying it's NOT there, but until I see it, I have to
go with the 'no evidence' thing.

Quote:
Now we are getting into loony territory. Evidence ? I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your list because it strikes me that you are chucking out accusations with little or no support. Back up your assertions.

PS - Fascism is RIGHT wing, in case you didn't realise. Fascists hate communism, they despise liberals.


This part has me thinking it may be 'getting a bit deep' in here......
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I'm not saying that Fascism has its roots in Marxism, but that the two have been intertwined.
I know you are more of an expert than I am on these topics, but am following your and Bikerman's discussion with great interest. If one symbolically takes World War II, which would be a good test "perhaps", if it were true that fascism has its roots in marxism and the two are intertwined, why was there not any intertwining between Russia and Germany and Italy? I know Russia was not marxist, as the pure form of marxism has never been practised by any of the communist countries, but somewhere there should have been a link between Russia and the Fascist countries if the two were really interlinked? Fascists in fact persecuted communists, and communists persecuted fascists, so per definition they don't seem to be bedfellows at all.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
But the point here, is that in THIS country at least, the 'public healthcare' option IS seen as a
'liberal' position with near universal opposition from conservatives, and even a pretty good sized
bunch of centrist Democrats. That's why Obama is having such a problem over here with it....
the more liberal wing of the Democratic party wants a 'public option' and the more moderate
wing of the Democratic party does NOT. If it was just the Republicans who opposed the 'public
option' it would get pushed through easily as the Democrats control both houses of Congress....even
a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Wow! This has been put so well. A really "nuts and bolts" overview of the dynamics of the Democratic party that I never really appreciated before. Now I'm wondering. During his pre-election speeches Obama gave me the impression of being a liberal, but after becoming President, Obama, the President made mostly moderate decisions. So could it be that he may doubt a "public option"? Or is Obama the politician liberal, and Obama "the President" moderate? This has to be really tough on Obama! And for the Presidency!
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
PS - It might also be useful for you to read up a bit on what the 'extreme left' actually is. Broadly there are two 'groupings' - revolutionary socialists (who believe that the current system is untenable, from a socialist perspective, and must be overthrown in revolution, rather than through the democratic process), and anarchists.

I'd be more tempted to classify anarchists as extreme fringe Libertarians... Reducing government until there finally is none at all.
Quote:

The New York Times isn't even close to mainstream socialism (the 'left'), let alone the revolutionary kind.

Again, we have the problem of local standards vs. international standards.

Let's make a crude graph:
D= US democrats/Obama
R= US republicans
L= 'developed country' liberals
C= 'developed country' conservatives
S= hard-core socialists
N= neo-nazis and/or right-wing separatists
M= mainstream US media NOT including FOX news
bold= usual political spectrum of 'developed countries'
blue= usual political spectrum of the USA

Far left |---S---------------L------------------------D------M--C------------R----------------N----|Far right

Now, using that graph, it is easy to see how the media would look slightly leftist from an American perspective, while seeming quite different from an international perspective.

It is also easy to see how Obama is a centrist on an international scale, but is well to the left side of the American scale.

We can also see how, on an international scale, nothing short of full-blown socialism could be thought of as leftist. Conversely, you can see how in the US, the right-most Republicans are just a few steps away from the 'lunatic fringe'.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Wow! This has been put so well. A really "nuts and bolts" overview of the dynamics of the Democratic party that I never really appreciated before. Now I'm wondering. During his pre-election speeches Obama gave me the impression of being a liberal, but after becoming President, Obama, the President made mostly moderate decisions. So could it be that he may doubt a "public option"? Or is Obama the politician liberal, and Obama "the President" moderate? This has to be really tough on Obama! And for the Presidency!


I really am not sure what Obama's position on the public option is to be totally honest.
In speeches he made as a congressman (which have been being replayed all over
conservative talk radio here in the US), he seemed to STRONGLY support a 'public option'.
Now as president, he originally supported a public option, but recently said it would NOT
be necessary. My suspicion, is that he really wants some form of health care reform,
and does NOT want the 'public option' to be a 'deal killer' if he can't get the votes for it.
In other words, he'd rather get partway to his goal, instead of spinning the wheels.....but
that's just my opinion.
Alaskacameradude
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - It might also be useful for you to read up a bit on what the 'extreme left' actually is. Broadly there are two 'groupings' - revolutionary socialists (who believe that the current system is untenable, from a socialist perspective, and must be overthrown in revolution, rather than through the democratic process), and anarchists.

I'd be more tempted to classify anarchists as extreme fringe Libertarians... Reducing government until there finally is none at all.
Quote:

The New York Times isn't even close to mainstream socialism (the 'left'), let alone the revolutionary kind.

Again, we have the problem of local standards vs. international standards.

Let's make a crude graph:
D= US democrats/Obama
R= US republicans
L= 'developed country' liberals
C= 'developed country' conservatives
S= hard-core socialists
N= neo-nazis and/or right-wing separatists
M= mainstream US media NOT including FOX news
bold= usual political spectrum of 'developed countries'
blue= usual political spectrum of the USA

Far left |---S---------------L------------------------D------M--C------------R----------------N----|Far right

Now, using that graph, it is easy to see how the media would look slightly leftist from an American perspective, while seeming quite different from an international perspective.

It is also easy to see how Obama is a centrist on an international scale, but is well to the left side of the American scale.

We can also see how, on an international scale, nothing short of full-blown socialism could be thought of as leftist. Conversely, you can see how in the US, the right-most Republicans are just a few steps away from the 'lunatic fringe'.


Great post! I agree, we need to remember, that we may not even be talking about the
same things when we say 'liberal' or 'conservative' as these terms mean different things
in different countries. And when you don't even have an agreement on what the terms mean....
well, it makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion......
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - It might also be useful for you to read up a bit on what the 'extreme left' actually is. Broadly there are two 'groupings' - revolutionary socialists (who believe that the current system is untenable, from a socialist perspective, and must be overthrown in revolution, rather than through the democratic process), and anarchists.

I'd be more tempted to classify anarchists as extreme fringe Libertarians... Reducing government until there finally is none at all.
Quote:

The New York Times isn't even close to mainstream socialism (the 'left'), let alone the revolutionary kind.

Again, we have the problem of local standards vs. international standards.

Let's make a crude graph:
D= US democrats/Obama
R= US republicans
L= 'developed country' liberals
C= 'developed country' conservatives
S= hard-core socialists
N= neo-nazis and/or right-wing separatists
M= mainstream US media NOT including FOX news
bold= usual political spectrum of 'developed countries'
blue= usual political spectrum of the USA

Far left |---S---------------L------------------------D------M--C------------R----------------N----|Far right

Now, using that graph, it is easy to see how the media would look slightly leftist from an American perspective, while seeming quite different from an international perspective.

It is also easy to see how Obama is a centrist on an international scale, but is well to the left side of the American scale.

We can also see how, on an international scale, nothing short of full-blown socialism could be thought of as leftist. Conversely, you can see how in the US, the right-most Republicans are just a few steps away from the 'lunatic fringe'.


Great post! I agree, we need to remember, that we may not even be talking about the
same things when we say 'liberal' or 'conservative' as these terms mean different things
in different countries. And when you don't even have an agreement on what the terms mean....
well, it makes it hard to have a meaningful discussion......
Agreed. Ocalhoun's was an excellent posting. I liked the graph. @Ocalhoun/Alaska where would FOX fit in, as yes, they are media, but can imagine they are not in the "M" position, but neither on the Far Right. Also where would the anarchists fit in, to the left or right of hard-core socialists?
handfleisch
For an admittedly crude attempt, it's not a bad graph, and it admits that the Democrats are centrist, the media is also.

But what would be wrong is this interpretation: that the Democrats and the media are still "liberal" in terms of US conditions (the lack of a leftist party). It's a flawed argument, unless you want to say that, in Nazi Germany, Republicans would have been like hard-core socialists and Nazis who didn't agree with the Holocaust were like liberals. Obviously that's ridiculous (especially since the whole scale did exist within Germany of the early 1930s, with communists, anarchists, conservatives etc etc). The scale is the scale; relative differences within a region do not change the generally accepted definitions.

Another example: In place A it is cold, with torrential rain and flooding, and in place B is it chilly and clouded over. Would we try to argue that because of the conditions of place A, place B is sunny and warm? Obviously not. But it's the same as saying the centrist Democrats and the centrist media is leftist, just because the debate in the USA is skewed toward the right.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
For an admittedly crude attempt, it's not a bad graph, and it admits that the Democrats are centrist, the media is also.

But what would be wrong is this interpretation: that the Democrats and the media are still "liberal" in terms of US conditions (the lack of a leftist party).
If you look at the graph the Democratic Party is not completely left, slightly left off centre, and to me that would be completely right. Ocalhoun did not post the President's position, but that of the Democratic party, and everyone knows that quite a number of Democrats around the President are to the left of centre. Obama would be able to tell you that as well.

Alaska has made quite a large number of postings about the position of the Media being to the left. By nature of journalists tending to be liberal in their pursuit of the truth, as well as the nature of news to be controversial.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Agreed. Ocalhoun's was an excellent posting. I liked the graph. @Ocalhoun/Alaska where would FOX fit in, as yes, they are media, but can imagine they are not in the "M" position, but neither on the Far Right. Also where would the anarchists fit in, to the left or right of hard-core socialists?

I would place FOX news a few dashes to the right of the R.

Anarchists open up a different dimension of the graph.
To include them (and some other categories) we need a 2 dimension graph that encompasses not only left-right liberal-conservative, but also Libertarian-Populist(Statist).
That's because you could have both left-leaning anarchists and right-leaning anarchists, though at that extreme point of the graph, the difference between left and right dwindles.

Anarchists would be at the extreme top corner of this graph:


(Personally, my place on that graph is in the middle-right of the top 'Libertarian' section.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:


(Personally, my place on that graph is in the middle-right of the top 'Libertarian' section.)
Great graph. Think my position is also somewhere in Libertarian, but probably closer to the top boundary of the centrist side and slightly to the left towards the boundary with the left.
lrj945
Now I'm wondering. During his pre-election speeches Obama gave me the impression of being a liberal, but after becoming President, Obama, the President made mostly moderate decisions. I am an uninsured American and have to pay 'out of pocket' for any medical expenses.Because it is a short reach from
that, to 'We don't have the money to pay for the procedure you need to save your life.

But I tried to match up your points of view with sifting through matching articles in the NYT Online Editorials and Opinion Section in the hope to support you, but after checking them deliberately with your hat one, could not help but come to a different conclusion.
Related topics
The Left Wing Blues
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Approval of CIA Leak?
Congratulations President Obama
political propaganda
Warning on Tea Parties: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Dem's Global Warming Debacle
Another Government Fail
Unhappiness with Obama?
Left-wing Nut Shoots up Discovery Channel Offices
Left-wing “Occupiers” Unleash Their Bigotry
Left-wing Occupiers Attack SoCal Street Vendors
Absolutely ridiculous
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.