|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Liberal Media
You have to admit, there really is a liberal media. It's not just a conspiracy theory. They don't say anything that's racist (just reverse racist) and they actually show minorities on TV instead of all white people like they used to. They may not support the NRA or the gun industry BUT they are somehow responsible for the corruption of our children by teaching them to hate their own country. They are so anti-American because they QUESTION our president and our policies, which just shouldn't be questioned - at least not in a democracy like this one.
They want to take religion out of schools and government because they are secretly controlled by Satan. They want the whole country to live off welfare and never get a job because they don't really know how the economy works. They are so distorted by their own hippy beliefs that they will walk around butt-naked smoking dope just to make a statement.
What the public doesn't know is that they are really being brainwashed by pretentions intellectuals who only hope to consolidate their power and make this country a totalitarian state in the name of socialism.
P.S. Im just kidding about all that.
They want to take religion out of schools and government because they are secretly controlled by Satan. They want the whole country to live off welfare and never get a job because they don't really know how the economy works. They are so distorted by their own hippy beliefs that they will walk around butt-naked smoking dope just to make a statement.
What the public doesn't know is that they are really being brainwashed by pretentions intellectuals who only hope to consolidate their power and make this country a totalitarian state in the name of socialism.
P.S. Im just kidding about all that.
Well, they're not that obvious about it, but when they could run a story about a new school being built in Iraq, they choose instead to cover their 568th story of a suicide bombing there. When they give an exerpt from a soldier's letter home, they give the part about how he suspected he was going to die soon, not the part where he said he would be glad to do so for his country. After the president gives a speech, they'll never fail to have a 'commentator' come on and dispute or discredit everything he said. There are other things, but I'll stop ranting for now.
There's no liberal media. 
I mean, they've been covering how Foley had e-sex with a 17 year old for weeks now, and missed several important stories that were somewhat pro-conservative.
They've also been hiding the turn in polls back towards the conservatives. There are dozens of points that prove an overwhelming liberal bias in most MSM, including the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Reuters, and on and on and on, yet you only see one slightly biased right MSM, being Fox. And it's funny as hell how much more ratings Fox has than the others.
I mean, they've been covering how Foley had e-sex with a 17 year old for weeks now, and missed several important stories that were somewhat pro-conservative.
They've also been hiding the turn in polls back towards the conservatives. There are dozens of points that prove an overwhelming liberal bias in most MSM, including the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Reuters, and on and on and on, yet you only see one slightly biased right MSM, being Fox. And it's funny as hell how much more ratings Fox has than the others.
How many times do you flip on the T.V. and see the progress being made in Iraq? None.
The LIBERAL media doesn't show good in Iraq, because good in Iraq means that we are accomplishing something, instead they choose to show only violence, and only things that will harm the conservative side of things.
All it is is a political tool trying to bring the approval of Bush down and getting into peoples' minds. There is NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED MEDIA. If someone seriously in all honesty believes that, I'll drop kick them.
Until later,
Soulfire
The LIBERAL media doesn't show good in Iraq, because good in Iraq means that we are accomplishing something, instead they choose to show only violence, and only things that will harm the conservative side of things.
All it is is a political tool trying to bring the approval of Bush down and getting into peoples' minds. There is NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED MEDIA. If someone seriously in all honesty believes that, I'll drop kick them.
Until later,
Soulfire
There is no such thing as an unbiased media. Everyone has a agenda. The only way to get a REAL view of the world is to obtain information from multiple sources - with different views and opinions - and ONLY THEN to form your own.
^Better yet get your info from the original source; this is usualy impractical, though.
If the so-called liberal bias in the negative reporting of the war in Iraq is the best evidence anyone has of a liberal media then it says more about not being able to deal with worldviews that are incompatible with their own narrow perceptions of life than anything else.
The fact is, most liberals - media or otherwise - were broadly in favour of the war if the aim was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was the excuses proferred by the US and British Governments when they realised that the majority of world opinion - outside the US that is - didn't buy into the rather ignorant premise that Saddam Hussein had some kind of connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11 - a incredibly stupid association to make if you have even the slightest understanding of Middle East history and/or politics.
I like the complaint though that for every letter that a US soldier writes home about not wanting to die the media don't highlight the fact that he might also be proud to be fighting for his country - I would have thought that would go without saying - anyone who puts on a uniform to serve their country would be so wouldn't they? Why on earth would the media have to remind the public of something that we already respect and appreciate in all the soldiers who are out there fighting?
I would just draw your attention to the frequent accusations meted out against the BBC in the UK of bias - the charge is always made by both sides of the political divide - whether they are right or left. Interestingly, when BBC listeners in Arab countries are polled about BBC bias they overwhelmingly believe that the BBC is the very opposite of liberal when it comes to coverage of Iraq and the Middle East - so who's right?
If nothing else, the fact that the charge of bias is made by pretty much everyone, regardless of political colour, demonstrates that the BBC on balance, is balanced in its news coverage but as any journalist will tell you - with any story they do they are always bound to cheese someone off...
And just as a final thought, there is a huge difference between propaganda and news - if we want to go diving head first into a war, justified or not, surely we should should be big enough and adult enough to cope with the harsh reality of what that means - whether a handful of soldiers get killed or thousands - the fact remains, war is a bloody, ugly and scary business and any media outlet, liberal or otherwise that brings that truth home to the rest of us, is doing a highly commendable job. So if watching propaganda makes it a little easier to live with yourself, go ahead - feel free. The rest of us would rather ingest news that challenges, educates and informs us together with a little dose of reality - so when it comes to sorting out the mess that is Iraq and the Middle East, we can hopefully do so without making the mistakes of the past.
The fact is, most liberals - media or otherwise - were broadly in favour of the war if the aim was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, which was the excuses proferred by the US and British Governments when they realised that the majority of world opinion - outside the US that is - didn't buy into the rather ignorant premise that Saddam Hussein had some kind of connection with Al Qaeda and 9/11 - a incredibly stupid association to make if you have even the slightest understanding of Middle East history and/or politics.
I like the complaint though that for every letter that a US soldier writes home about not wanting to die the media don't highlight the fact that he might also be proud to be fighting for his country - I would have thought that would go without saying - anyone who puts on a uniform to serve their country would be so wouldn't they? Why on earth would the media have to remind the public of something that we already respect and appreciate in all the soldiers who are out there fighting?
I would just draw your attention to the frequent accusations meted out against the BBC in the UK of bias - the charge is always made by both sides of the political divide - whether they are right or left. Interestingly, when BBC listeners in Arab countries are polled about BBC bias they overwhelmingly believe that the BBC is the very opposite of liberal when it comes to coverage of Iraq and the Middle East - so who's right?
If nothing else, the fact that the charge of bias is made by pretty much everyone, regardless of political colour, demonstrates that the BBC on balance, is balanced in its news coverage but as any journalist will tell you - with any story they do they are always bound to cheese someone off...
And just as a final thought, there is a huge difference between propaganda and news - if we want to go diving head first into a war, justified or not, surely we should should be big enough and adult enough to cope with the harsh reality of what that means - whether a handful of soldiers get killed or thousands - the fact remains, war is a bloody, ugly and scary business and any media outlet, liberal or otherwise that brings that truth home to the rest of us, is doing a highly commendable job. So if watching propaganda makes it a little easier to live with yourself, go ahead - feel free. The rest of us would rather ingest news that challenges, educates and informs us together with a little dose of reality - so when it comes to sorting out the mess that is Iraq and the Middle East, we can hopefully do so without making the mistakes of the past.
| atoerzan wrote: |
| If the so-called liberal bias in the negative reporting of the war in Iraq is the best evidence anyone has of a liberal media |
It's not.
I'm sure you're right - but it would be nice to see other examples then...
I'd suggest a visit to "Oh, that liberal media" which can be found at this link.
Here's some research conducted by the Media Research Center:
So, back in 1985 - many seemed to have faith in a fair media.
More recently,
And some more food for thought:
So - who's wrong? The news media who claims to be unbiased, or the public?
Also, a visit to http://www.newsbusters.org will give you some samples of recent news that was modified due to a liberal bias.
Google helped a lot, just search Liberal Media. I got a few hits about a "non-existant Liberal media", feel free to check those out too.
Here's some research conducted by the Media Research Center:
| Quote: |
| In 1985, 22 Percent Saw Liberal Bias: Back in 1985, the Times Mirror Center for The People & The Press surveyed 4,000 Americans to document their attitudes toward the news media. Generally, the results showed positive attitudes toward journalists, who were awarded high marks for “believability” and “likeability” by the public. |
More recently,
| Quote: |
| In March 1997, two-thirds of the public (67 percent) felt that “in dealing with political and social issues” news organizations “tend to favor one side.” That was up 14 points from the 53 percent who gave that answer in 1985. |
And some more food for thought:
| Quote: |
| 2000: Nine in Ten Say Views Affect News: A Pew survey conducted in the final weeks of the 2000 campaign showed further deterioration in the media’s public image |
| Quote: |
| Six in Ten See Political Bias & Inaccuracy: After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the public’s approval of the news media increased along with other institutions, but that increase proved short-lived. Another Pew survey, this one conducted in July 2002, found that “public criticism of the news media, which abated in response to coverage of the 9/11 attacks, is once again as strong as ever.” That poll showed nearly six out of ten Americans (59 percent) agreed that news organizations “are politically biased,” while almost the same percentage (56 percent) agreed that “their stories and reports are often inaccurate.” |
| Quote: |
| Three Times More See Liberal Bias than Conservative Tilt: A Gallup poll conducted in February 2003 asked whether, “In general, do you think the news media are — too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?” As the other polls had discovered, far more respondents identified liberal bias as the problem (45 percent) as worried about a conservative tilt (15 percent), while just 36 percent said coverage was about right. |
| Quote: |
| Plurality of Democrats See Liberal Bias: In a July 2003 survey, Pew found that twice as many Americans (51 percent) believed news organizations have a liberal bias than a conservative bias (26 percent). Not only did a majority of Republicans and independents hold this view, but a plurality of Democrats (41 percent) thought the media had a liberal bias, compared with 33 percent of Democrats who saw a conservative bias. |
So - who's wrong? The news media who claims to be unbiased, or the public?
Also, a visit to http://www.newsbusters.org will give you some samples of recent news that was modified due to a liberal bias.
Google helped a lot, just search Liberal Media. I got a few hits about a "non-existant Liberal media", feel free to check those out too.
...but in a sense that backs up my point. What do you mean by a 'liberal' bias in the first place? left wing? anti-conservative? or simply just not reflecting what you want to believe or hear? I suspect that your definition of liberal would differ very much from the definition of people from other parts of the world. Even the stats you are using are based solely on the US population - which could be argued (by many outside the US) as broadly conservative anyway...
Liberal, left-wing, anti-Bush, report everything that's bad in an attempt to make conservatives look bad.
That liberal
That liberal
| Quote: |
| Liberal, left-wing, anti-Bush, report everything that's bad in an attempt to make conservatives look bad.
That liberal |
...you make my point exactly - basically any point of view that you don't agree with is ie bad is 'liberal' - so right or wrong doesn't come into it. It doesn't matter to you that the media - might, just might be telling the truth because what's more important to you is whether you agree with what they're saying.
I have to say that I find that kind of outlook rather depressing - what's the point of learning, knowledge or even understanding if you are unable to deal with certain kinds of truth? As a Christian, I might not agree with Islam but that doesn't mean that I can't accept that there are certain truths within that faith. Or if I think that capitalism is a bad thing overall that there aren't elements of capitalism that I can't accept as true or even right. I don't disregard the views of others just because they don't agree with mine.
We are often quick to point the finger at the media when they expose us to the kind of truth that we are uncomfortable with - they're not perfect and most know that they can never acheive balance or objectivity to the degree that satisfies everyone - take the surveys of perceptions of the BBC I alluded to in an earlier message.
But for the sake of argument, say you are right and the media are predominantly liberal - that doesn't mean that they are not telling the truth. Here in the UK the general perception of the national media here is that they are predominatly right-wing - the two biggest selling newspapers here are explicitly so but we have what is regarded as a broadly left-wing or 'liberal' government - how does that equate with people's exposure to or understanting of truth?
Let's stop making the assumption that ordinary people are too stupid to process what they see on the news or read in the newspaper to make up their own minds about what's going on. Let's get to the real truth of the issue about the media - the fact is that we tar them with the 'liberal' or 'conservative' brush when they put out information that is unpalatable to our relatively limited worldviews.
| atoerzan wrote: |
| so right or wrong doesn't come into it. |
The 'right and wrong' is decided by the media. The liberal media. It's not decided by the viewer.
So what your saying is... you're in fact too stupid to make up your own mind about what is right and wrong on the basis of all the information you are given on a particular issue. That's what some might call a 'cop out'.
media is in no way a liberal one they show the opinion of there controllers
muslim media like algzera there piont of view so called CNN , BBc international they show what there country wants ..
a saw a program on national geographic it was about paleastine and isareal war and reutors photographers what i saw that journalist were not freely do what they want by israel but still it is in top ones with free press and what about america i saw story i dont remember the exact time but about one year
ago when a big name news paper expelled a journalist on reporting and that whole crew gave resigns ...
and did you heared about faranhaiet documentry was not released and did dealyed ....
muslim media like algzera there piont of view so called CNN , BBc international they show what there country wants ..
a saw a program on national geographic it was about paleastine and isareal war and reutors photographers what i saw that journalist were not freely do what they want by israel but still it is in top ones with free press and what about america i saw story i dont remember the exact time but about one year
ago when a big name news paper expelled a journalist on reporting and that whole crew gave resigns ...
and did you heared about faranhaiet documentry was not released and did dealyed ....
| Quote: |
| ...you make my point exactly - basically any point of view that you don't agree with is ie bad is 'liberal' - so right or wrong doesn't come into it. It doesn't matter to you that the media - might, just might be telling the truth because what's more important to you is whether you agree with what they're saying. |
Watch the news and then talk to me. It's not that I don't agree with what they're saying, but it's blantantly obvious when it comes to liberal media.
If it was truth, then there would be no dispute about it. The media is gifted at twisting words.
| Quote: |
| Watch the news and then talk to me. |
You just don't get it do you? BILLIONS of people watch the news and BILLIONS haven't reached the same conclusion as you about the media - as one of the above recent posts has pointed out - many people see the media as the exact opposite of liberal! The media give a version of the truth which most normal people accept and understand as just that - a VERSION - and their understanding of that is based on their VERSION of what they understand to be the truth. Anyone can view the same situation and interpret it in a variety of different ways - what you regard as liberal can just as easily be seen as conservative by others - it just depends on their own understanding of the truth. The media are not immune to that of course but the factors that determine how the media portray truth are infinite - from a reaction to propaganda, a genuine (although some might say misplaced) belief that they are telling the truth, to a natural cynicism about pretty much everything as well as having a more sinister agenda. But does it really matter in the end? The very fact that we can have this conversation demonstrates that we don't simply swallow everything that we are told as truth or fact which is surely a good thing. The danger is however, that we simply assume that it's wrong, or bad just because we have made certain assumptions about the agenda behind the purveyor of that information.
The more I watch the media, the more I've come to the conclusion that it is disgustingly liberal.
My uncle is in Iraq - let's take a firsthand view at the things the liberal media doesn't show you. (This is all from his online blog that he is keeping entitled "Dan's Transatlantic Adventure.")
Okay, that's what we're hearing (don't even deny it, just go to virtually any news source, all you will see is "Terrorism: Bush to Blame" with no explaination and no support.
What's worse is people believe it.
And here's the things you won't hear in our LIBERAL media:
(This is a list compiled from the text, I will give a full quote at the end of the list)
- 4,500 schools built and/or operational
- 98% of the kids in Iraq are vaccinated
- Women serving in the Iraqi parliment
- 16 of the provinces are secure (6 are under Iraqi control completely)
- Two successful elections
- Infrastructure in every province except Anbar is beginning to take shape
This excerpt as well:
Amen to that.
...but you wouldn't know that, why? Because of LIBERAL media.
Hrm, this is interesting:
There's only some 300 million people in America, so how can billions watch the media? Some of them are little babies too! *Sighs*.. Should I even read the rest of your post?
Their version of truth is simply taking an event, injecting their own personal beliefs in it, and passing it on as complete, unadulterated truth - which is totally wrong. Now, I'm not denying the existence of conservative media, because it exists (just look at Fox News), but it is overwhelmed entirely by the massive liberal media.
You go to any news source and you give me an article that has something good to say about Iraq.
My uncle is in Iraq - let's take a firsthand view at the things the liberal media doesn't show you. (This is all from his online blog that he is keeping entitled "Dan's Transatlantic Adventure.")
| Quote: |
| As I sit over here in Iraq, I get the headlines off the Yahoo! homepage, and I am just amazed at what I see. Being over here, and seeing the way things are first hand, I can't believe what I am reading. I see terrorist propaganda floated as an "exclusive" story on our very own "most trusted source in news" network- CNN. I read that George Bush is to blame for the 90 something deaths that our troops have suffered this month. I read that the Democrats are already measuring the drapes in "any suite [they] want". I read this day in and day out, and I am blown away. |
What's worse is people believe it.
And here's the things you won't hear in our LIBERAL media:
(This is a list compiled from the text, I will give a full quote at the end of the list)
- 4,500 schools built and/or operational
- 98% of the kids in Iraq are vaccinated
- Women serving in the Iraqi parliment
- 16 of the provinces are secure (6 are under Iraqi control completely)
- Two successful elections
- Infrastructure in every province except Anbar is beginning to take shape
This excerpt as well:
| Quote: |
| 50,000+ workers, on top of the troops already over here, are assisting the government carry out these duties and are succeeding in training Iraqi police, contributing to the economy of Iraq through purchases, flights in and out of Baghdad and Basrah, contributing to the businesses allowed on the military bases, implementing technology across the region, building cell phone towers for communication across Iraq; telecommunications is flourishing; the government in less than a year has already accomplished more than the USA in its first year, and yet...all you see is the vile display of the terrorists killing the many innocent people across the country. |
Amen to that.
| Quote: |
| The fact is, we are winning this thing over here. Don't ever doubt that. We are winning, and we are doing the Iraqi people right. This war is now far from over. It is being fought under the scrutiny of every turn, and yet, we are winning. The car bombs will happen for as long as we show the resolve to stay. The killing of innocent people will continue for as long as we show the resolve to stay and help. Why is this happening, you might ask? Instead of asking why, ask WHO is committing these acts. It sure isn't America and its coalition. It sure isn't the Iraqis either. Believe that. This insurgency isn't even an insurgency at all, because the vast majority of the Iraqi people want to be free. They want to be able to vote, and to have a say or take part in the growth of their country. The people who are killing the innocent, blowing up the very infrastructure that we are here to build and support, are not Iraqis. They are from other countries; Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan...and why? Because democracy scares the crap out of them. This is the land of the dictator; of the "royal family"; of the totalitarian way of rule. To give the people rule would begin a wave of revolution not seen since 1776 halfway around the world. |
| Quote: |
| Just remember that when you vote on Nov. 7, you are doing something that people over here have died to protect. When you vote a week from Tuesday, remember that 98% of the people eligible to vote in Iraq have taken part in the electoral process now in place to elect the current government here in Iraq. 98%!!! |
...but you wouldn't know that, why? Because of LIBERAL media.
Hrm, this is interesting:
| Quote: |
| You just don't get it do you? BILLIONS of people watch the news and BILLIONS haven't reached the same conclusion as you about the media |
| Quote: |
| The media give a version of the truth which most normal people accept and understand as just that - a VERSION - and their understanding of that is based on their VERSION of what they understand to be the truth. ...Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah... The danger is however, that we simply assume that it's wrong, or bad just because we have made certain assumptions about the agenda behind the purveyor of that information |
You go to any news source and you give me an article that has something good to say about Iraq.
...Do you know what depresses me most about this conversation? I was fine with pretty much everything you quoted your uncle as saying - I have no reason not to believe that all that has been achieved in Iraq since the invasion has happened just as he said and I for one applaud it - just one caveat to add though - the people of Iraq were the best educated and qualified in the Middle East prior to the war so to talk about the rebuilding of 98 per cent of schools being rebuilt is an indictment of the level of destruction meted out to that country in the first place.
I also have nothing but the greatest respect for any soldier of any country that is out there because there was and clearly is, a genuine belief that they are doing a difficult and necessary job out there.
But at the end you simply confirm why so many people outside the US find it so difficult to understand America and particularly its foreign policy. There are 6 billion people on earth - there are 300 million in the US - do you seriously think that the debate over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war is only confined to your country? Even when you talk about the liberal media - believe it or not, there are many, many people who would not consider your media as liberal by any stretch of the imagination - particularly the hundreds of millions of people who live in the Middle East - not just the area around the Saudi Penninsula and Afganistan I hasten to add - there's the whole of North Africa and most of the southern Islamic states of the former Soviet Union. Then, you also have the Indian Sub-continent, Malaysia, Southern Thailand, parts of China and the Philippines - not to mention largest Muslim country in the world - Indonesia to contend with - and that's just the Islamic nations.
I seriously suggest that you take a look beyond the confines of the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards before you start making sweeping statements about the evils of the so-called liberal media - because many people outside the US regard the mainstream US media as pretty gutless and toothless when it comes to the war in Iraq or anything else to do with US foreign policy.
And by the way - you asked for an example of conservative media highlighting the successes in Iraq - you answered it yourself - Fox News! The fact is that when it gets to a point when they are pretty muted about the successes in Iraq then you know that something is seriously wrong! We have plenty of Rupert Murdoch-owned media here in the UK - as do many countries around the world - as I said in an earlier post, our two biggest-selling newspapers are conservative - one of them owned by Murdoch and even they have been pretty ambiguous about where they stand on Iraq of late.
So, I have absolutely every respect for your uncle and what he's doing out there but that doesn't negate the fact that there are many hundreds of millions of people - not necessarily in the US but certainly the world over - who think that the invasion was a serious mistake - not because they didn't want rid of Saddam Hussein - you would do well to remember that he was hated with a passion by most of the sorts of people you would regard as 'liberal' decades before the US decided he was actually not a very nice guy and stopped supplying him with copious amounts of weaponry which he used to torture and murder his own people with to great effect.
Many of us naively believed that after 9/11 the US would have gone after the real culprits - the Saudis (whose citizens made up the majority of the hijackers) and Pakistan - who openly backed the Taleban and their oppressive regime in Afganistan - despite the fact that they were harbouring Osama bin Laden for at least 10 years before 9/11. But would you believe it - both Saudi Arabia (arguably THE single most oppresive regime in the Middle East at the moment) and Pakistan (ruled by a guy who only became president after ruling as a military dictator for several years before - so much for democracy eh?) are regarded as close allies of the US.
Can you see the hypocrisy of it all? Can you understand why so many people outside the US get so mad when your president talks about 'freedom' and 'democracy' in Iraq? Because it doesn't mean jack when it comes to dealing with anyone who's a friend of the US - no matter how utterly evil or ruthless they are - take a look at what's going on in places like Saudi Arabia where women aren't even allowed to drive cars, or allowed to go shopping on their own - where a woman who is the victim of rape can be charged with committing adultery! What's your president been saying about that? Nothing. Because when it comes to US foreign policy, it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, right or wrong - it's about US interests and nothing else.
That's why you have regimes like the one in Burma committing what many are calling genocide on it's own people, or the regime in Uzbekistan that is routinely committing atrocities against anyone who speaks out against the country's president - there's a large US military base there by the way, or Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is starving a country that was barely a decade ago, one of the most prosperous in Africa.
And why do they get away with it? Because in the eyes of the US they don't matter. Bush only cares about North Korea because they've got a nuclear bomb - not because the country's ruled by a magalomaniac who's responsible for at least two famines there in the past decade. ... And don't even get me started on China or Russia.
I also have nothing but the greatest respect for any soldier of any country that is out there because there was and clearly is, a genuine belief that they are doing a difficult and necessary job out there.
But at the end you simply confirm why so many people outside the US find it so difficult to understand America and particularly its foreign policy. There are 6 billion people on earth - there are 300 million in the US - do you seriously think that the debate over the rights and wrongs of the Iraq war is only confined to your country? Even when you talk about the liberal media - believe it or not, there are many, many people who would not consider your media as liberal by any stretch of the imagination - particularly the hundreds of millions of people who live in the Middle East - not just the area around the Saudi Penninsula and Afganistan I hasten to add - there's the whole of North Africa and most of the southern Islamic states of the former Soviet Union. Then, you also have the Indian Sub-continent, Malaysia, Southern Thailand, parts of China and the Philippines - not to mention largest Muslim country in the world - Indonesia to contend with - and that's just the Islamic nations.
I seriously suggest that you take a look beyond the confines of the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards before you start making sweeping statements about the evils of the so-called liberal media - because many people outside the US regard the mainstream US media as pretty gutless and toothless when it comes to the war in Iraq or anything else to do with US foreign policy.
And by the way - you asked for an example of conservative media highlighting the successes in Iraq - you answered it yourself - Fox News! The fact is that when it gets to a point when they are pretty muted about the successes in Iraq then you know that something is seriously wrong! We have plenty of Rupert Murdoch-owned media here in the UK - as do many countries around the world - as I said in an earlier post, our two biggest-selling newspapers are conservative - one of them owned by Murdoch and even they have been pretty ambiguous about where they stand on Iraq of late.
So, I have absolutely every respect for your uncle and what he's doing out there but that doesn't negate the fact that there are many hundreds of millions of people - not necessarily in the US but certainly the world over - who think that the invasion was a serious mistake - not because they didn't want rid of Saddam Hussein - you would do well to remember that he was hated with a passion by most of the sorts of people you would regard as 'liberal' decades before the US decided he was actually not a very nice guy and stopped supplying him with copious amounts of weaponry which he used to torture and murder his own people with to great effect.
Many of us naively believed that after 9/11 the US would have gone after the real culprits - the Saudis (whose citizens made up the majority of the hijackers) and Pakistan - who openly backed the Taleban and their oppressive regime in Afganistan - despite the fact that they were harbouring Osama bin Laden for at least 10 years before 9/11. But would you believe it - both Saudi Arabia (arguably THE single most oppresive regime in the Middle East at the moment) and Pakistan (ruled by a guy who only became president after ruling as a military dictator for several years before - so much for democracy eh?) are regarded as close allies of the US.
Can you see the hypocrisy of it all? Can you understand why so many people outside the US get so mad when your president talks about 'freedom' and 'democracy' in Iraq? Because it doesn't mean jack when it comes to dealing with anyone who's a friend of the US - no matter how utterly evil or ruthless they are - take a look at what's going on in places like Saudi Arabia where women aren't even allowed to drive cars, or allowed to go shopping on their own - where a woman who is the victim of rape can be charged with committing adultery! What's your president been saying about that? Nothing. Because when it comes to US foreign policy, it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, right or wrong - it's about US interests and nothing else.
That's why you have regimes like the one in Burma committing what many are calling genocide on it's own people, or the regime in Uzbekistan that is routinely committing atrocities against anyone who speaks out against the country's president - there's a large US military base there by the way, or Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe is starving a country that was barely a decade ago, one of the most prosperous in Africa.
And why do they get away with it? Because in the eyes of the US they don't matter. Bush only cares about North Korea because they've got a nuclear bomb - not because the country's ruled by a magalomaniac who's responsible for at least two famines there in the past decade. ... And don't even get me started on China or Russia.
Can you break your text up a bit next time - just a suggestion, it was a bit hard to read.
At any rate - let's take liberalism out of the equation for a minute. So now we just have media. Do you think it's fair of me to say that media in general (ALL media) is mostly a political tool?
At any rate - let's take liberalism out of the equation for a minute. So now we just have media. Do you think it's fair of me to say that media in general (ALL media) is mostly a political tool?
I think you could argue that up to a point - but then there is the problem of how one would define media. Take for instance the fact that even fiction such as movies or TV dramas can portray or reinforce stereotypes that compound the image of certain issues and/or people in reality, so ultimately if you talk about the media as encompassing those areas too, as well as those areas of media that are just concerned with current affairs, then the view that the media is a political tool becomes much more complex. I'm not sure whether I would disagree with that view but it would very much depend on other factors too.
There are several conservative to ultra-conservative talk shows on XM radio, with only a few with a more balanced or liberal bias. I would suggest that their might be a few reasons for fewer conservative media organizations like Rupert Murdock owns. Journalists tend to be free thinkers and free thinkers may not be as likely to think inside the box or follow a particular party line when it comes to reporting events. Ultra liberals and ultra conservatives are unable to see any other side or unable to have a balanced perspective to things like the death penalty, the way in Iraq, using torture; everything tends to be black or white, with no room for any gray or conflicting opinions. As is sometimes the case in these blogs, the ultra's come out on both sides with no room for compromise or the ability to agree to disagree.
The major US media ranges from central right to far right. One of the good things about living in Britain is that you have a much broader range of polical opinion expressed in the media here. It often leads to more in depth discussion of the issues. Another, much better source of news than US media organisations is the Internet. There's a wide range of viewpoints from media organisations all over the world. When you come back you'll discover that those expressed in the US are very narrow (if that wasn't obvious to everyone already).
In regards to Iraq: Forget the US media, and their endless repetition of the US administration. Read it straight from Iraqis.
http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com/
In regards to Iraq: Forget the US media, and their endless repetition of the US administration. Read it straight from Iraqis.
http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com/
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com/
How can the media be considered more liberal than conservative I wonder? In almost any country (especially the us and gb) the media is severely controlled by the consverative governments.
| atoerzan wrote: | ||
You just don't get it do you? BILLIONS of people watch the news and BILLIONS haven't reached the same conclusion as you about the media - as one of the above recent posts has pointed out - many people see the media as the exact opposite of liberal! The media give a version of the truth which most normal people accept and understand as just that - a VERSION - and their understanding of that is based on their VERSION of what they understand to be the truth. Anyone can view the same situation and interpret it in a variety of different ways - what you regard as liberal can just as easily be seen as conservative by others - it just depends on their own understanding of the truth. The media are not immune to that of course but the factors that determine how the media portray truth are infinite - from a reaction to propaganda, a genuine (although some might say misplaced) belief that they are telling the truth, to a natural cynicism about pretty much everything as well as having a more sinister agenda. But does it really matter in the end? The very fact that we can have this conversation demonstrates that we don't simply swallow everything that we are told as truth or fact which is surely a good thing. The danger is however, that we simply assume that it's wrong, or bad just because we have made certain assumptions about the agenda behind the purveyor of that information. |
Coffee, nose, monitor...
| Quote: |
| Coffee, nose, monitor... |
...You're spot-on - I think I should get out more..!
 |