Now answer this article.. Why is he still alive?

[2B]

Read history. A free press has always meant biased reporting from the left and the right, since the founding of the republic. Answer my point ... do you really believe government-supported press is the solution?

Everyone has their bias, Laurence ... including this forum. It's always notable that any attempt here to see the other perspective is often met with insults and derision. Sophomoric, but humorous.

I was tempted to quote several posting but this seemed the most appropriate. It wasn't until various forms of "fairness" doctrines were written into the broadcast licenses for radio and TV stations that we were told to expect impartial news. The slant I see in the news is more from how stories are slanted or introduced. Even what is covered and how much it's covered shows a bias.

This isn't new. Walter Chroncite (major, out-of-the-closet liberal) is famous for his comment during a broadcast during the Tet Offensive (which the US crushed) where he said something along the lines of "I don't know if we can win this anymore."

I personally think Fox news does a better job about being balanced -- this is just on the news and not the commentators. CNN should just come out of the closet and post the dem donkey on their background. Brian Williams seems to be the better newscast and is usually fairly good. I watch his broadcast the most but chuckle at what I hear as a biased lead to an otherwise balanced presentation. I watched Katie on her first week and it was just short of 30 minutes every night on why we should all hate Bush. (I don't hate Bush -- he's just not doing what I think needs done.)

I am totally tired of hearing about Britney, Anna, Brad, Mel... Fill in all the rest of the stories with no meaning beaten to death.

Our attention spans have been driven to shorter and shorter levels. The "sound bite" is what politicos strive for. Our candidate debates are no longer a discussion of ideas but a platform to aim a zinger sound bite to the heart of the other side.

 

[JohnEyles]

In my opinion the press, who risk their lives every day to try to tell the world what
is going on in places like Iraq and Lebanon, are true heroes.

Weelll, let's agree the "true" heroes are the volunteer troops fighting this war.

No, I will not agree that the working reporters on the ground in Iraq are any less of heroes
than the troops. Sorry - not to take anything away from the bravery and sacrifice of the troops.

You think it might be a little bit pretty scary going to see Bin Laden in person ?
(Yeah, I'm mixing Iraq and Afghanistan, but same idea). Surrounded by a bunch of
gun-toting baddasses, but these ones ain't your comrades in arms.

 

[samclem]

a) FREE PUBLICITY - unlikely. Thier distrust, dislike, and distain of America/Americans would overrule any value to a 1/2 page ad/article in an American News Paper. Also thier limited understanding of freedom would put limited value to such an article.

I disagree. I think radicals give intervies to the press precisely to get their story out. They know our press wil cover them and will allow them to speak directly to millions of Americans and others around the world. They hope to influence this audience, and to buck up their own forces. Articles like these have an impact, and they know it. What is a shame is when the press reports an article just as it is served p by these thugs, without providing the context. Famously, CNN did this in Baghdad before the war, failing to report al manner of attrocities there in order to curry favor with Saddam and be allowed to stay. Their reporting painted an innacurate picture of the regime, and they later admitted it. And, of course, it is wrong if the press pays for the story (since they thereby support the operations of these groups)

The whole "who is braver", "who is a true hero" thang is a little silly. Both are performing a valuable function, and our society couldn't exist without either set of great folks. Aren't we all better off for having seen that article about extemists in Lebanon?

BTW, one interesting tidbit: IIRC, it is illegal for a US intelligence operative to gather information in the guise of a journalist.

 

[dumpster56]

BTW, one interesting tidbit: IIRC, it is illegal for a US intelligence operative to gather information in the guise of a journalist.


Sam with what we are now fighting animals who don't care about blowing themselves up or killing an innocent human, that rule should be dumped.

Find and kill the guys who have said they want to kill you me and the butler!

 

[samclem]

BTW, one interesting tidbit: IIRC, it is illegal for a US intelligence operative to gather information in the guise of a journalist.


Sam with what we are now fighting animals who don't care about blowing themselves up or killing an innocent human, that rule should be dumped.

Find and kill the guys who have said they want to kill you me and the butler!

That would "feel good," but I don't think we'd gain much. While it's unlikely this law provides much protection to reporters from the terrorists, if we got in the habit of doing this every reporter would be suspect, to a greater degree, of being in the employ of the government.

We need powerful tools, but shouldn't become like our enemy in the process of fighting them. At the risk of slipping into jingoism: The things that make us good are the things that make us great.

 

[laurence]

Laurence, you've also made it clear you're in the top quartile of the lemmings.


Read history. A free press has always meant biased reporting from the left and the right, since the founding of the republic. Answer my point ... do you really believe government-supported press is the solution?

I certainly do agree with the point above that while I'd love for our military to learn where these scumbags live and train, the press can't do their job if they become an arm of our intelligence community. That's part of a free press too, even if it is uncomfortable.

Everyone has their bias, Laurence ... including this forum. It's notable that attempts here to see the other perspective are often met with insults and derision. Sophomoric, but humorous.

So considering you called me a lemming and then said "the other perspective are often met with insults and derision" I guess that means I represent "the other" perspective!

I believe that a government funded news source can be the best approximation of objective journalism. Look at the BBC. As far as reading history, well, I think I've read my share. I know Vice President Jefferson used press "hit men" to discredit President John Adams and undercut his authority. You see, back then the person receiving the second highest vote total for Presidency became Vice President. Yellow journalism got us into the Spanish American war. But sure, I'm a lemming, not a free thinker, know nothing about history, sure, you got it. Here's a twist for you. The only campaign I've ever donated to is McCain in 2000.

Working for a defense contractor, I spend all day debating 3, 4, 5 on 1 with those far right of me, I often ask them if I'm the liberal, what do they think of Ted Kennedy and George Soros? The answer: "Traitors!".

 

[ladelfina]

http://mediamatters.org/sundayshowreport/

 

[Craig]

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)(b) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

And, more bias ... I always love the pompous "progressive" references ...

Here's a twist for you. The only campaign I've ever donated to is McCain in 2000.

Not a twist at all Laurence ... perfectly logical. When I lived in AZ, I supported his recall ... Mr. McCain is commonly referred to as a RINO. We'll agree to disagree. Take care.

 

[2B]

I believe that a government funded news source can be the best approximation of objective journalism. Look at the BBC.

The BBC objective? They are currently "trying" to reverse a horrific anti-semite bias in their mid-east coverage and a far left coverage of their domestic issues.

Again, my tax dollars don't need to support something we get plenty of anyway. PBS/NPR/et al are all past their intended purpose and usefullness. Pull the plug. Help balance the budget in a little way.

 

[ERD50]

IMO, all this talk about biased or non-biased sources is fairy-tale talk.

Assume *every* source is biased. Read *everything* with a critical slant, no matter the source.

I don't find it that hard to identify the bias in a report. Are they presenting facts to back up their story? Do the facts pass a common sense test? What do they have to gain by bias? Does the story support that bias by hiding facts? Do they use anecdotal rather than statistically significant fact based evidence? Does their report stand up to peer review? Do they answer critics with what appears to be an honest, open response? Is it evident that they are cherry-picking the data?

I don't believe something just because it is reported by someone that is generally in the same camp as I am. And I don't automatically discount something just because it is reported by someone in the 'other camp' that I feel has an ax to grind. They may still be right in any specific case.

But, many people prefer to 'trust' someone they respect, and poo-poo anything their 'enemies' say - it is sooo much easier than analyzing the report.

Many people think that one should automatically dismiss any report that was funded by an industry. I say, look at the data, decide for yourself. In many cases, the industry is the only one willing to put up the money for an expensive study - that, in and of itself, does not mean the study is biased.

-ERD50

 

[janeeyre]

No doubt -- PBS, NBC,CBS, ABC, NYT lean left and Fox, talk radio lean right. What about the center? --- which I think is the "voice of reason". It is hard to find their representation? But, I do agree that the news media should be stating facts and the editiorial page should be stating opinion.

 

[dumpster56]

Remember the USSR and Pravda?

FOXNEWSCNNMSNBCCBSNBCABC Not much different these days.

 

[Craig]

While I can understand the frustration, I do see a great difference between Pravda / former U.S.S.R. and the press in the U.S.

 

[ladelfina]

A great difference, but perhaps more similarities than you think; look at Cheney's trip to Afghanistan.

He brought the press along and, when he finally gave an interview, right-wing sis was going on about how the press had "BETRAYED CHENEY" by naming him as the source of his remarks to them. Supposedly there was a 'deal' by which everything said on the trip was supposed to be sourced to a "Senior Administrative Official."

Most reporters went along with the through-the-looking-glass farce, a couple didn't and used Cheney's name (traitors!!).

The official White House transcript of that day STILL reads like this:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The reason the President wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border ...

Let me just make one editorial comment here. I've seen some press reporting says, "Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them." That's not the way I work. I don't know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn't know what I'm doing, or isn't involved in it. But the idea that I'd go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.

I would describe my sessions both in Pakistan and Afghanistan as very productive.
.....

Q You've spoken also, though, about some of the things that Speaker Pelosi and Representative Murtha have said how that does play to the hands of --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was asked by one of your colleagues.
...

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, what I said was that that the al Qaeda strategy is based on the notion that they can break the will of the American people. ... my point was that if we follow what I believe Speaker Pelosi really wants to do in terms of withdraw, that that would validate the al Qaeda strategy. I was very careful in those words I selected. I didn't say "give aid and comfort to terrorists." I didn't say "unpatriotic." I said it would validate the al Qaeda strategy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070227-8.html

So who looks like a complete idiot here? Cheney? The White House? The newspapers that print this transcript in a stenographic fashion? Or are we all idiots for putting up with this kind of juvenile game-playing and contempt for the public? Or all of the above?

Unfortunately the admin. puts a lot more energy and stock into these kind of paranoid/schizoid machinations than they apparently do into actually making things function for our general welfare.

Now I hear they're saying the fired attorneys were all Harriet Miers' idea (except of course it was quickly shown NOT to be). Just another day in Wonderland.

 

[JohnEyles]

Unfortunately the admin. puts a lot more energy and stock into these kind of paranoid/schizoid machinations than they apparently do into actually making things function for our general welfare.

Hey, I thought they returned "honor and dignity" to the White House

 

[2B]

Now I hear they're saying the fired attorneys were all Harriet Miers' idea (except of course it was quickly shown NOT to be). Just another day in Wonderland.

I worked at JSC-NASA for several years. With no malice towards anyone, that place was about as screwed up as one can achieve with "government work." Don't expect "civil servants" to know what's going on. If government employees are operating for "political gain," anything could happen.

Just remember all of this when you want the Feds to take over your health care. There's a lot of Canuks down here getting the treatments they can't get for years (or the rest of their lives) up there.

 

[Craig]

Uh oh ... now you did it.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I worked at JSC-NASA for several years. With no malice towards anyone, that place was about as screwed up as one can achieve with "government work." Don't expect "civil servants" to know what's going on. If government employees are operating for "political gain," anything could happen.

Just remember all of this when you want the Feds to take over your health care. There's a lot of Canuks down here getting the treatments they can't get for years (or the rest of their lives) up there.

Most of the U.S. is going to Thailand!

 

[ladelfina]

Here. Here's some more "liberal media":

[CNN poll] Should President Bush Pardon Libby?

Yes: 18 percent
No: 69 percent
Don’t Know: 13 percent

..
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell said tonight on MSNBC:

They’re going to try to really tamp this down and appeal to the polling which indicates that most people think, in fact, that he should be pardoned. Scooter Libby should be pardoned.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/12/poll-bush-libby-pardon/

NBC.. not FOX, NBC.
Hope you find that Kool-Aid refreshing...


-------
Charles, the mere fact that Media Matters owns up to being a site with a 'progressive' agenda is irrelevant in the light of the FACTS that they are presenting. If they say:

On the Sunday after the midterm elections, in which Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, viewers tuned in to NBC's Meet the Press to hear what the Democratic win meant for the country -- only to discover that host Tim Russert did not have any Democrats on at all. Instead, Russert's guests were Republican Sen. John McCain (AZ) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), who ran in the general election as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. And after an election in which the public's opposition to the Iraq war was a central issue, Meet the Press hosted two guests who support the war.

..this is verifiable.. not an opinion.

In a 50/50 Republican/Democrat country (or 49/51 or 51/49 or however you want to view it) to have Republican media voices significantly outnumber Democratic ones is dis-heartening. If you were to show me proof that it's somehow the other way around, I would endeavor to be sympathetic in that instance, as well, but it just ain't so.

Just the mere fact that Tom DeLay has his sleazy, corrupt mug all over the airwaves, even after being run out on a rail with help from his own party, is testament enough. In a self-respecting society he'd be in stocks in the public square. If I were a Republican I would be embarassed and ashamed to see him 'represent' me. But who said we're a self-respecting society anymore..?

 

[Craig]

In a 50/50 Republican/Democrat country (or 49/51 or 51/49 or however you want to view it) to have Republican media voices significantly outnumber Democratic ones is dis-heartening.

That is an interesting perspective, with which I'll respectfully disagree ... I see the reverse as true, and has been for many, many years.

I'll bet Bush doesn't view the media as so Republican ...

Frankly, research supports the fact that journalists as a group lean left as they vote:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Consider additional examples of left bias, regarding various issues:
http://www.aim.org/special_report/5198_0_8_0_C/
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/sum/sum090806.asp
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/IraqWarCableTV/report121906_exec.asp
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5287_0_4_0_C/

Select a few sources for additional research ... all biased, of course:
http://www.causecommunications.com/forgetus/watchdog.html ... a biased watchdog of the watchdogs ... :


I think it is natural that folks see the media biased against their own views ... when we see a news story / slant we agree with, we pass on by, but when one seems to have an opposite slant, it may get our hackles up. And, the stronger our bias, the greater our reaction.

Personally, I think the liberal angst over the media isn't because the media has now leaned to the right ... it is because the media has added some voices from the middle and the right, and that small movement is troubling to the left. [And, the media management has probably done so because the media was so out of sync with the country ... it was a business decision because some networks lost share by being so out of whack.]

Many folks still see the media as left-leaning.

But, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tryan]

The problem with journalism today is that journalist want to CREATE the news rather than REPORT the news.

For example, look at Bob Woodward ... he makes 2m/year playing a journalist on TV. Gets hurt in Iraq ... then gets a 1 hour "special report" re-creating the day he was injured .

Now if the 1 hour "special" covered the volunteer troops who were protecting him - or better yet protecting the Iraq people ... journalism today might have SOME shread of credability. But not today, journalists want to be IN the news (not covering the news)

DISCLAIMER - I am not making "light" of Woodward's injuries. What happened to him was regretable.

 

[laurence]

I think it is natural that folks see the media biased against their own views ... when we see a news story / slant we agree with, we pass on by, but when one seems to have an opposite slant, it may get our hackles up. And, the stronger our bias, the greater our reaction.

Well this is certainly something I can agree with. My problem is the biased reporting on both sides is more and more an accepted occurance. People are quick to write it off and just say, "don't hate the player, hate the game". Journalists are given exclusive privileges in this country (as I think they should), they should also be held accountable for the responsibility that comes with that.

 

[ladelfina]

The problem with journalism today

Today!?

;-)

 

[tryan]

yup, another one "grabbing" the spot light. Was going to use Rivera as the example ... but I couldn't remember the specifics of all the a$$anine stunts he's pulled (all totally forgetable).

 

[bosco]

I thought it was interesting that a couple of years ago, a poll was run (can't remember by who, probably could Google it up) that a majority of those who watched Fox news believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Those who relied on other, more truthful, neworks for their news did not share this belief.