Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The story, as a story, was essentially out at least 2 weeks ago. Since then, it's been running very steadily.

the berg story was out nearly as long ago and was essentially over when it happened. we're talking about 5 guys in an outlaw organization vs. soldiers in what is supposed to be the legitimate occupying force of a country.

TK

This is precisely the disconnect that Captain Eagan was commenting on in another part of the forum! They aren't just 'five guys in an outlaw organization'. What happened to Berg was precisely in line with the basic goals and policies of al Queda and their fellow groups. It wasn't a freakish example, and yet our media tries to act as if it was no big deal. The American media routinely skip over or ignore entirely basic elements of what's happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on the domestic side of the WOT.

The Abu Ghraib affair was a freakish oddity, yet they want to portray it as a watershed event, something basically illustrative.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The word 'conspiracy' implies deliberate planning, and I don't think that's the case. Instead, it's more of a matter of a single liberal culture that permeates most quarters of the traditional media, so they tend to have similar reactions to a given event or action.

The US media and the Australia media (outside public broadcasting) reflect the political views of the upper middle class (which journalists are a part of) in general. Basically socially liberal views and support in general of a liberalized free market economy.

Not just the upper middle class, but a subgroup of it, the 'northeastern/Metro-California Boomer' subset. They are oddly unaware as a group of just how many other groups and viewpoints there are that they barely comprehend, they like to imagine themselves as being mainstream.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

The Boston Globe is hardly liberal, while the Philadelphia Inquirer is extremely conservative.

I am not familair with the Philadelphia Inquirer, but the Boston Globe is very liberal. It's part of the same general publishing empire as the NYT, IANM.

You've got the house, the senate, the executive branch, much of the supreme court, half of the mainstream media - and yet you are unhappy that some of the big media outlets are being a little too hard on the president and his policies :?: :cry:

We have the White House, the House and Senate by razor thin margins, and that's about it at the Federal level. The SCOTUS is in balance, leaning liberal over time, much of the Federal Appeals and District courts lean liberal (esp. the Ninth Circuit), almost all the mainstream media is liberal, along with most of Hollywood, most of the academic establishment, and a big chunk, maybe a majority, of the 'invisble networks' of social power in Washington, D.C.

Give me a break.

Why? We're the ones fightng uphill in the political/judicial arena.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The story is told. The photos were all taken last year, the only question is how many exist, and how bad the abuses were.

No its isn't. How many photos exist or how bad the absue was is largely irrelevant. It that's what the story was about it would be long gone.

It's already been essentially established that they weren't to the level of true torture in most cases, certainly nothing like the level of what Hussein did routinely, yet our press simply buries that inconvenient fact to the degree they can

Why does one need to establish what the level of intensity the abuse was? This too is irrelevant. Are you saying that the US is in any way comparable to the regime of Saddam? If not, then why are you making this comparison?

Even now, they still keep striving to imply that it's a vast, systemic problem,

Yes that is the issue. Some of these actions are fairly specific interrogation tools used by special forces under special conditions. It strains credulity that a handful of reservists dreamed them up on their own. Somebody must have suggested these specific actions.

Oh come off it. Human beings in general are almost endlessly imaginative when it comes to finding inventive ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other. It doesn't strain credulity at all.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by eric cumis

A new Pew survey has confirmed its previous findings that American news outlets are dominated by "liberals". The situation is even more unbalanced than before, according to the new findings (in the sense that the balance at the newsrooms is quite different than the balance of American society in general.)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000517184

wait a second.... this just shows that journalists self-identify as liberal. so what? it doesn't demonstrate anything about a slant to the journalism itself.

It really isn't possible to keep one's personal views and convictions from getting into one's coverage of events. Only the simplest and most purely 'factual' reportage has even a modest chance of doing so, things like numbers and simple data, and even then it gets into the 'selection process' for which data are important and which are not.

If the majority of reporters are self-identified liberals, that is nearly sufficient in itself to demonstrate bias, just as the converse would be. If the majority of reporters were self-identified right-wingers, the coverage would be biased toward right-wing views, no matter how pure and good their intentions of objectivity.

A further factor is that since most of them are liberal, they associate with each other and feed each other's assumptions, all unconsciously. This is what I meant when I said there was no reason to believe in any sort of media conspiracy. I have no doubt they really mean what they're saying when they claim they try to be objective. It's no different really than any other such grouping. Conservatives who associate mostly with other conservatives equally tend to assume that everyone is like them.

But since they and almost everyone they associate with share various liberal assumptions that they take for granted, they rarely encounter anything to challenge those assumptions. A lot of their liberal bias honestly doesn't strike them as liberal, to them it's just 'the way things are'. They honestly see themselves, I believe, as being mainstream.

(Which is why Fox's claims of 'fair and balanced' are just as bogus as the claims of CNN and ABC News and the NYT of being 'objective'. They aren't objective because they can't be.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Originally Posted by TrollKing

wait a second.... this just shows that journalists self-identify as liberal. so what? it doesn't demonstrate anything about a slant to the journalism itself.

I didn't say that it did. It's possible that liberals in the news rooms are able to put aside their beliefs when deciding what spin to put on events.

It's also possible that I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

Since when did being liberal become something that enveloped ones whole identity as a human being?
I've seen so many nasty dialogues like this that go back and forth - liberal-conservative-liberal-conservative.
How does a liberal write a news story about a girl getting kidnapped, or a vicious murder? How does a liberal write a story about obesity or breast cancer? How does a liberal eat spaghetti or tie her shoes?
If all it takes is asking difficult questions from authorities to be liberal, then I've got news for you, that's not being liberal - it's being a good journalist.

That's just it, they aren't asking 'hard' questions, they're asking 'leading' questions, designed to produce a hoped-for answer, or to preclude an answer they don't want to get.

I didn't see GWB's speech today (5-24-04). But in his last press conference, there were all kinds of hard questions, perfectly legitimate ones, that the reporters could have, and should have, asked. For ex:

"Mr. President, the projected cost of the Iraqi operation has risen steadily since the inception. Why is that, and is there any hope that the cost will level off?"

"Mr. President, many of your own party and political allies have complained of inadequate border security and border control, especially on the southern border. What are your plans to address this, or do you consider their worries unfounded?"

"Mr. President, many in Congress have complained that your administration has kept them ill-informed of events, to the point that they are unable to properly execute their Constitutional duties with regard to war policy. Do you have a response?"

"Mr. President, do you have a general guideline when it comes to the balancing the needs of democratic openess with the needs of security?"

I could easily come up with many more, more specific and more relevant than anything they asked in that conference. All they ended up asking about was variations on "Why won't you apologize and admit we shouldn't be in Iraq?!" They weren't asking questions as a reporter seeking information, they were attempting (clumsily) a hostile cross-examination in hopes of 'leading the witness'.

Bill Clinton finessed the press.

The press worked just as hard to defend Clinton as they did to attack Bush.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by eric cumis

But, let's be honest, the bias in the media is transparent to practically everyone at this point.

well, at least to everyone who believes what they are told..... over and over and over and over.


TK

Sorry, TK, that's liberal wishful thinking. I can remember noticing the liberal bias, on my own, in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and that they had seen and heard the same thing. This is not something that was created out of PR, no matter how badly the Democrats and traditional media wish it was, this is a grass-roots perception, and it's widespread and goes back many years.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

which may be why Abu Ghraib is so important for them, because they are demonstrating - since they broke the story

Technically, the Pentagon broke the Abu Ghraib story, since they held press conferences outlining the situation back in January.

Of course, we all understand that images are powerful, but does that, in retrospect, excuse the media for ignoring this important story for three months?

What other important stories are the media ignoring, and why?

For example, no Americans have died in Fallujah for three weeks. The city is quiet now. Why isn't this news? Could the reason be the same that Abu Ghraib wasn't covered when the story broke in January - no compelling images?

That's probably part of it, but I think we both know the other reason, EC. They don't want to cover positive stories about Iraq, because they themselves don't regard the Iraqi effort positively (plus, of course, they don't want to do anything or say anything that might help Bush).

As for the question of whether there were or are Americans in Fallujah at any given time, it would matter if this hadn't been the consistent pattern for over a year now. Whenever the situation in Iraq starts to improve, or whenever the good news gets ahead of the bad, the traditional media suddenly falls silent, or goes back to review the bad news from a month before.

To some degree, that's just 'if it bleeds, it leads'. But when a project is going on that the approve of, like Kosovo, the pattern reverses, bad news gets played down and every scrap of good news is broadcast at high decibels.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

They aren't just 'five guys in an outlaw organization'. What happened to Berg was precisely in line with the basic goals and policies of al Queda and their fellow groups.

you're missing the essential point-- the "outlaw organization", not the "5 guys". we all know it goes beyond 5 guys. sheesh.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It wasn't a freakish example, and yet our media tries to act as if it was no big deal.

the reason the media acts as if it's no big deal is because it wasn't a freakish example. we know what terrorists are willing do, and we know that given the opportunity, they'll do it.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

The Abu Ghraib affair was a freakish oddity....

exactly.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It really isn't possible to keep one's personal views and convictions from getting into one's coverage of events.

i don't believe that. i've even many times argued opposite of how i believe in writing (though i doubt i've done it here).


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Sorry, TK, that's liberal wishful thinking.

no need to apologize.... it's perfectly OK for you to be wrong. ;-)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

I can remember noticing the liberal bias, on my own, in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and that they had seen and heard the same thing.

out of curiosity, any examples?

anyway, this whole discussion is getting silly. there are just as many moonbats on the left who think the media is way too conservative and i tire of the back-and-forth with them as well.

you're going to believe what you want to believe, as will they. life's too short to give a crap, really.

i still say tristan hit the nail on the head.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

They aren't just 'five guys in an outlaw organization'. What happened to Berg was precisely in line with the basic goals and policies of al Queda and their fellow groups.

you're missing the essential point-- the "outlaw organization", not the "5 guys". we all know it goes beyond 5 guys. sheesh.

Oh, and by the way, the "outlaw organization" in question happens to be Al Qaeda, and the man who personally hacked off Berg's head appears to be Al Qaeda's new leader.

If Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, which is questionable, it's a moot point now.

like a lemon to a lime, a lime to a lemon...

Ok, now I am starting to see your point.
The mainstream media to you is all of the media outlets that don't confirm your general assumptions and inner wishes, while whenever you are counting hands Fox News puts on its magic ring and becomes invisible.
But Fox News is one of the most mainstream news outlets out there.
If they are penchant about claiming they aren't, and are somehow some sexy new juggernaut - they're not. They've been around, and popular, for years. They are as mainstream as it gets. Perhaps they like to tout themselves as different and not mainstream so they can get more viewers.
That's just posturing, fellows, they are just as out to make a buck as the last guy.
Yesterday evening I watched Brit Hume on Fox News lead off his newscast with two very important stories - 1) the story on the Pew Research Center findings that something like 34 percent of journalists in the United States consider themselves liberals, while only 7 percent consider themselves conservatives, and 54 percent gave the right answer - moderates.
Well, I guess all of the conservative papers and networks must be understaffed and underfunded. Unless, there is some kind of liberal filtration going on at The Washington Times and Fox News.
Other important news items included the fact that most journalists thought it was OK to not believe in God, and accepted homosexuality.
This somehow reinforced Mr. Hume's news/op-ed piece (it's so hard to tell on that network) that they are liberal.
Just so you know, most of the journalists whom I have met in my life haven't been liberals.
They have been cynics. I wouldn't suspect that they believed in God or much of anything. Their life is spent covering bad news and spinning it into gold. Many of them suffer from alcoholism, and the few rich ones definitely suffer from egomania. They all suffer from being poorly paid.
A college grad that goes into investment banking may be banking $75 grand a year at entry level, while a journalist is happy if they can scrape together $30,000 in thier first jobs.
It is a tough, life sucking job, that doesn't pay well, and therefore aspires a crop of idealists to actually stay up late nights typing about inane bullshit while the rest of you are at home in your La-Z-Boys tossing off to old Sophia Loren movies.
Still, put a journalist in a crowd of abortion rights proponents or feminists, or environmentalists and they'll be equally as bemused by the raving lunacy of the "liberals."
If they have an open enough mind to tolerate every day life - like homosexuality - then that is good for their profession, because it allows them to open up to new viewpoints.
If you get one side that says "these people are going to Hell" - well they're not going to be reported very well, because journalists need some kind of fact - and since nobody has ever been to hell and returned to confirm its existence - they can't really back up that observer's viewpoint. Ditto on God.
As for Mr. Hume's second fair and balanced story - some prestigious fellow by the name of Doctorow gave a commencement speech that lambasted Bush on Long Island. According to Hume he was booed quite loudly. Parents were livid. But the president of the school defneded Doctorow and allowed him to finish his speech.
This story's underlying message is that 1) it is wrong to criticize the president and 2) academia is chock full of liberals - however you define them
And this was the lead news at 6 PM on one of the most mainstream news networks out there...
Fair and balanced indeed.

Now to the meaty stuff:

Originally Posted by An individual identifying themselves as Hopeful Cynic68

The Abu Ghraib affair was a freakish oddity, yet they want to portray it as a watershed event, something basically illustrative.

It is quite illustrative. Most Americans are comfortable with the whole prison-sexual abuse paradigm, It's fairly common on US soil - just go ask Abner Louima. Here you have professional prison guards doing what they do best. And they're rednecks to boot, not to mention one of them is pregnant with the other's child. This is classic Jerry Springer, as American as apple pie.

Originally Posted by same guy

The press worked just as hard to defend Clinton as they did to attack Bush.

Maybe, but he made their job easier. These are both politicians. They can choose to either combat the press or massage the press. Bill Clinton gave many more press conferences than W. has. In fact W. has given the fewest press conferences in many presidencies. He is clearly press shy, and during that aforementioned press conference appeared so.
If he is reported as evasive, distant, or just soundbitten by his own laughable remarks ("Rumsfeld is...(long pause)... a really good secretary of state) that's his fault. Like I said before. He has a spokesperson.
It's not the press' job to clean him up.

I can remember noticing the liberal bias, on my own, in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and that they had seen and heard the same thing. This is not something that was created out of PR, no matter how badly the Democrats and traditional media wish it was, this is a grass-roots perception, and it's widespread and goes back many years.I remember beginning to masturbate alone in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and how they had seen and done the same thing...

Perhaps. In 1985 Fox was showing old films of Sinbad the sailor. The Washington Times was three years old. Times have changed.
If it's a grassroots perception, it's one that's being catered to now by the mainstream media, who remind you of it every chance they get to keep you tuned in. And you still keep putting quarters in the pinball machine.

To some degree, that's just 'if it bleeds, it leads'. But when a project is going on that the approve of, like Kosovo, the pattern reverses, bad news gets played down and every scrap of good news is broadcast at high decibels.

Um. Chinese Embassy Bombing????
I was shocked by the amount of support the NATO intervention got in 1999.
But it no way prepared me for the gigantic propaganda machine that went into effect somewhere around February 2003. Were lurid stories about the Saddam boys' sexual escapades with young girls legitimate news? Any more legitimate than Neil Bush's sexual escapades with Thai prostitutes?
Or were they part of an effort to paint one small group of individuals into non-humanity as to justify ripping their country apart with tanks, bombs, and bullets?
The administration banked on WMD - they played their hand and came up empty. What are you going to do about it?

Oh, and by the way, the "outlaw organization" in question happens to be Al Qaeda, and the man who personally hacked off Berg's head appears to be Al Qaeda's new leader.

Oh they're an organization are they? Why don't we get an arrest warrant and send one over to their office. :lol:
We've dealt with shadowy syndicates before. Except the mafia could actually be subpoenad and brought before a federal commision.
Due to subconscious racism - the Arab terrorist has become the new Charlie. Who cares if you capture Ho Ping Phauh or Ching Wah Mai? Who cares if you get Mohammad Al-Sudr instead of Akmed Al-Rutba?
See - they pushed Osama bin Ladin to the mountains and now they've got some new guy. Big deal.
Also, if he cuts someone head off and we cover it over and over again - isn't that essentially doing hsi job for him by spreading fear?
If you want to watch the Berg killing, I'm sure you can find it on the Internet.
Most of America isn't into beheadings though. We're in to prison gang bangs and army love children.

All right Amanda! I like the passion. Give 'em hell.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

Ok, now I am starting to see your point.
The mainstream media to you is all of the media outlets that don't confirm your general assumptions and inner wishes, while whenever you are counting hands Fox News puts on its magic ring and becomes invisible.

Score: Amanda 1, Straw Man 0

Nobody anywhere said that Fox New wasn't mainstream, and Fox News was included in the Pew analysis.

Even WITH Fox News, Pew's numbers indicate that liberals dominate the newsrooms.

In order to fix that, we would need about four or five Fox News-like organziations.

While I am a firm believer in the "media is liberal" claim, I am at the same time a "So what?" kinda guy. The media is a powerful institution in the public opinion wars, there is no doubt about that. But the American people, most notably that moderate center, is more than capable of filtering bs propaganda from that which offends their sensibilities.

Furthermore, show me a politican who complains about the media and I'll show you either a weak-spined whiner, or one that is merely seeking to manipulate a free market enterprise. Conservatives have managed to do well with the "new media" because, I believe, they have a message worth listening to. When conservatives lose that message they will lose more than just the "new media," they will begin to resemble that kook standing on the corner with his "THE END IS NEAR" sign. Currently, Michael Moore, bless his heart, has a corner on the market holding that whiney sign. More power to 'em! :wink:

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

Ok, now I am starting to see your point.
The mainstream media to you is all of the media outlets that don't confirm your general assumptions and inner wishes, while whenever you are counting hands Fox News puts on its magic ring and becomes invisible.

Score: Amanda 1, Straw Man 0

Nobody anywhere said that Fox New wasn't mainstream, and Fox News was included in the Pew analysis.

Even WITH Fox News, Pew's numbers indicate that liberals dominate the newsrooms.

In order to fix that, we would need about four or five Fox News-like organziations.

Bologna.
Here's the top ten newspapers in the United States and their circulation numbers.


USA Today -
Circulation: 2,616,824
Today's editorial
Pitfalls in Iraq :Bush has a vision of where he wants to go, but no clear plan.

Wall Street Journal -
Circulation: 2,091,062
Today's editorial is inaccessible to those of us who are unwilling to pay for the service.

New York Times -
Circulation: 1,676,885
Today's editorial-
The President's Speech
President Bush needs to come up with a more specific plan in Iraq, to stop listing the things we already knew needed to be done and to explain how he intends to do them.

Los Angeles Times -
Circulation: 1,379,258
Today's Editorial-
Speeches Aren't Enough . It was a subdued President Bush who on Monday tried to describe a path out of the increasingly beleaguered Iraq occupation. He acknowledged that violence would probably worsen even after the hand-over of what he called "full sovereignty" to Iraq on June 30. Hope was more evident than confidence, with much of the burden for that hope laid on the United Nations' ability to form a credible new government. But as he spoke to the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., the president could not spell out the U.N.'s role.

Washington Post -
Circulation: 1,029,966
Today's Editorial
Mr. Bush's Challenge

Chicago Tribune -
Circulation: 1,002,166
Today's Editorial
Completing the job in Iraq
Obstacles remain. Doubters abound. But President Bush made it forcefully clear Monday night that neither he, his nation nor its most loyal allies will cut and run. Instead, Bush is committed, come June 30, to the rise of a sovereign Iraq--and to the extinction of the Coalition Provisional Authority that now governs there. Global leaders who have long called for a more internationalized effort to build a free postwar Iraq should now put their troops, their foreign aid and their hearts into crafting a nation that enhances the security of the world.

New York Daily News
Circulation: 805,350
Today's editorial:
Bush's countdown to a new Iraq

Dallas Morning News
Circulation: 785,876
Charging Forward: Bush brings no changes to Iraqi policy

Philadelphia Inquirer
Circulation: 749,793
Today's Editorial dealt with City reform. However one could not dig deeper as service had to paid for.

Houston Chronicle
Circulation: 747,404
Today's Editorial:
Unconventional: Kerry's nomination gambit reeks of indecisiveness



That's six out of ten, boys. Of the editorials only two were deeply analytical - the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News.
Several of the blue papers offered advice for the president (NY Times, LA Times) and only one was openly political - Houston Chronicle.
Notice how the red papers also adopt the political slang of the team they bat for like "cut and run" and "waffle"?

There's your fair and balanced media. Read up! :lol:

Amanda, there's hardly any point listing the flaws in your polling techniques above. Clearly, you meant this as a joke. You couldn't be dumb enough to think that this in any way rebuts the Pew Center study.

So, I will laugh at your funny joke.

HA! Very funny! You're such a card.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Amanda, there's hardly any point listing the flaws in your polling techniques above. Clearly, you meant this as a joke. You couldn't be dumb enough to think that this in any way rebuts the Pew Center study.

So, I will laugh at your funny joke.

HA! Very funny! You're such a card.

You're pretty funny too. I am actually rebutting your comment that the media needs "five or so" more outlets "like Fox" when conservative voices are clearly available to the American public.
It's not my fault New York Times outsells the Daily News and is wider read.
You have plenty redeemable, trustworthy media sources to turn to for fair and balanced news coverage.
If you wish to remain in denial, and continue your fetish with the "L" word - the meaning of which is quite debatable - God speed. That's your right as an American, just as it is the New York Times and Washington Post's right to sell more papers than The New York Daily News and Washington Times.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

... continue your fetish with the "L" word - the meaning of which is quite debatable...

Funny, John Kerry had an interview with an New York Times reporter recently and claimed he didn't like "those labels," etc... The Times reporter tried to remind Kerry that he was in New York and this was a local story she was writing. He would have none of it, and continued to stress that labels are meaningless.

The word "liberal" carries with it a lot of baggage your dictionary doesn't mention. Namely, that liberals are such and such. But liberals call conservatives racist, homophobic wife-beaters, too.

So, welcome to the real world of politics.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

Ok, now I am starting to see your point.
The mainstream media to you is all of the media outlets that don't confirm your general assumptions and inner wishes, while whenever you are counting hands Fox News puts on its magic ring and becomes invisible.
But Fox News is one of the most mainstream news outlets out there.
If they are penchant about claiming they aren't, and are somehow some sexy new juggernaut - they're not. They've been around, and popular, for years. They are as mainstream as it gets. Perhaps they like to tout themselves as different and not mainstream so they can get more viewers.
That's just posturing, fellows, they are just as out to make a buck as the last guy.

Of course they are, and they are mainstream, though the other mainstream outlets, with their liberal bent, don't like to admit that.

The word 'mainstream' in this context is probably inappropriate, I had a similar discussio with Justin/Flicka a few weeks ago. Generally, the words 'mainstream' and 'traditional' are applied to the relativley monolithic media outlets that predate the rise of the right-wing media, which only goes back in a series way a few years, though some individual sources are older.

Well, I guess all of the conservative papers and networks must be understaffed and underfunded. Unless, there is some kind of liberal filtration going on at The Washington Times and Fox News.
Other important news items included the fact that most journalists thought
it was OK to not believe in God, and accepted homosexuality.

You earlier claimed that the Boston Globe wasn't liberal. Sorry, it is. The large majority of newspapers and other media sources are still liberal. Fox and the other right-wing sources aren't understaffed, but they are still a minority in the business, by a very large margin.

This somehow reinforced Mr. Hume's news/op-ed piece (it's so hard to tell on that network) that they are liberal.

It's hard to tell with ANY current network. That's part of the problem.

Still, put a journalist in a crowd of abortion rights proponents or feminists, or environmentalists and they'll be equally as bemused by the raving lunacy of the "liberals."

They won't be as intense, but the majority of American journalists would agree with their basic goals. That makes them liberals. Their being liberals is not a crime or an offense, but it does color their coverage, whether they want it to or not.

If they have an open enough mind to tolerate every day life - like homosexuality - then that is good for their profession, because it allows them to open up to new viewpoints.

Tolerance is not relevant to the discussion. Their beliefs mark them as being basically liberals, and it does indeed show that they are not reflective of the mainstream of general public view, much as they like to claim otherwise. Whether they are right or wrong in their views, they are unquestionably more liberal than the average of the country.

If you get one side that says "these people are going to Hell" - well they're not going to be reported very well, because journalists need some kind of fact - and since nobody has ever been to hell and returned to confirm its existence - they can't really back up that observer's viewpoint. Ditto on God.

Not relevant. What is relevant is that their personal beliefs WILL color their coverage. They can't help it. It bleeds over into their other coverage.

Now to the meaty stuff:

Originally Posted by same guy

The press worked just as hard to defend Clinton as they did to attack Bush.

Maybe, but he made their job easier. These are both politicians. They can choose to either combat the press or massage the press. Bill Clinton gave many more press conferences than W. has. In fact W. has given the fewest press conferences in many presidencies. He is clearly press shy, and during that aforementioned press conference appeared so.
If he is reported as evasive, distant, or just soundbitten by his own laughable remarks ("Rumsfeld is...(long pause)... a really good secretary of state)

It's not the job of a reporter to judge whether Rumsfeld has been a good secretary of state or not. Likewise, Bush comes across better to the public than he does to reporters, who like to imagine that everyone agrees with their views. But no, Clinton didn't go that far out of his way to massage the press, they went out of their way to shield him.

It is irrelevant to the discussion how good or bad a politician is with the press.

I can remember noticing the liberal bias, on my own, in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and that they had seen and heard the same thing. This is not something that was created out of PR, no matter how badly the Democrats and traditional media wish it was, this is a grass-roots perception, and it's widespread and goes back many years.I remember beginning to masturbate alone in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and how they had seen and done the same thing...

Thank you for admitting defeat. You can't refute our arguments, so you post irrelevant and silly comments in response.

To some degree, that's just 'if it bleeds, it leads'. But when a project is going on that the approve of, like Kosovo, the pattern reverses, bad news gets played down and every scrap of good news is broadcast at high decibels.

Or were they part of an effort to paint one small group of individuals into non-humanity as to justify ripping their country apart with tanks, bombs, and bullets?
The administration banked on WMD - they played their hand and came up empty. What are you going to do about it?

]

Hussein almost certainly had WMDs. If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to prove it. The evidence says he did, and the real question is what happened to them, and where are they now?

Due to subconscious racism - the Arab terrorist has become the new Charlie. Who cares if you capture Ho Ping Phauh or Ching Wah Mai? Who cares if you get Mohammad Al-Sudr instead of Akmed Al-Rutba?

Thank you for your demonstration that you don't understand either what's happening in the WOT or America's reactions to Arabs.

See - they pushed Osama bin Ladin to the mountains and now they've got some new guy. Big deal.

Yes, it's a very big deal. Which you apparently don't even remotely comprehend.

Also, if he cuts someone head off and we cover it over and over again - isn't that essentially doing hsi job for him by spreading fear?

No, we're not. It's good that every American understand just how unbridgable the gap between their worldview and ours is. America isn't going to react to that by fear, but by a highly appropriate anger, as was demonstrated by the reactions of those who did see it.

Originally Posted by Amanda W.

Originally Posted by eric cumis

Amanda, there's hardly any point listing the flaws in your polling techniques above. Clearly, you meant this as a joke. You couldn't be dumb enough to think that this in any way rebuts the Pew Center study.

So, I will laugh at your funny joke.

HA! Very funny! You're such a card.

You're pretty funny too. I am actually rebutting your comment that the media needs "five or so" more outlets "like Fox" when conservative voices are clearly available to the American public.
It's not my fault New York Times outsells the Daily News and is wider read.
You have plenty redeemable, trustworthy media sources to turn to for fair and balanced news coverage.

Actually, the public has a wide variety of liberal-leaning sources, a smaller (but growing) variety of right-leaning sources, and a vast array of Internet sites and other small sources leaning every which way.

But they all have a bias and an agenda. Every single one, since human nature precludes genuine, true objectivity.

We seem to be moving toward a 19th-century media structure in some ways, with lots of specialized sources rather than a few monolithic news organizations. It'll be interesting to see if the Millennials reverse that trend, or crystalize around it.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

This is precisely the disconnect that Captain Eagan was commenting on in another part of the forum! They aren't just 'five guys in an outlaw organization'. What happened to Berg was precisely in line with the basic goals and policies of al Queda and their fellow groups. It wasn't a freakish example, and yet our media tries to act as if it was no big deal. The American media routinely skip over or ignore entirely basic elements of what's happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on the domestic side of the WOT.

The Abu Ghraib affair was a freakish oddity, yet they want to portray it as a watershed event, something basically illustrative.

HC, we were supposed to be the good guys. That's why Abu Ghraib is freakish. It destroyed that illusion.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Sorry, TK, that's liberal wishful thinking. I can remember noticing the liberal bias, on my own, in my early teens, and I remember talking to other people about it and that they had seen and heard the same thing. This is not something that was created out of PR, no matter how badly the Democrats and traditional media wish it was, this is a grass-roots perception, and it's widespread and goes back many years.

And it probably won't ever change. Journalism as a career tends to attract people who question authority. It doesn't seem to be a natural place for conservatives to hang out, unless you're an editorial writer, or a publisher.