user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage, all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
It has become fashionable to lable anything even remotely critical of NeoCons as "liberal bias."
The problem is far worse in America than other Western countires. The BBC still has a minute amount of integrity and impartiality left, barely though. The American media is in real trouble at the moment. No WONDER the Government can dupe a whole country into supposrting the invasion of a helpless country eh?
The people reporting the news are leftists and it shows.
Kormos wont respond,Facts hate freedom.
thc, any examples you can think of?
...and surely the presenter doesn't have any say on what to include and what not to include in the news?
Liberal media, what exactly is that? THC, do you even believe half of what you spew out of that sore underneath your nose? Your intolerance is that of what I see demonstrated through the hate radio commentary of Rush and the rest of them and not to mention the CONservative media...I mean really, get over yourselves...
BBC
Shove it. You're the worst hypocrite on this site. I believe INDIVIDUALS should be judged on their merit. You're the one who supports racist policies like affirmative action.
wolf
I'm not decided on the abortion issue yet but I can remember a specific example. The standard unbiased PC words are pro-life and pro-choice. The other day on CNN, one of the anchors was speaking about a possible new Democratic party chairman but questioned his ability to lead them because of his "anti abortion rights" position. It was pretty obvious where she stood after that.
There was also Maria Hinojosa's fluff piece on Mexican immigration. I'm the son of an illegal immigrant so I can't really attack the Mexicans who want to come here for a better life, but her piece covered a very narrow spectrum of what problems and benefits we gain from immigration.
Wolf: GREAT BALLOT, GREAT POINTS. Thank you for making this ballot.
Oh and Viacom is also run by Sumner Redstone, a very big Republican donor.
And Time Warner is in the same boat.
BBC
Shove it. You're the worst hypocrite on this site. I believe INDIVIDUALS should be judged on their merit. You're the one who supports racist policies like affirmative action ~ THC
You don't know what I support, an assumption on your part...I am the worst hypocrite on this site you say? People like you don't enjoy hearing and in your case, reading the truth...You are so deep into self hatred you can't stand yourself...
Also, read a book or two, read up on which group is exactly the principle beneficiary of Affirmative Action and then you can speak on the subject with the raw facts...Hypocrite you say? Sure I am Mr. Self-Hatred.
THC
"but her piece covered a very narrow spectrum of what problems and benefits we gain from immigration."
How is that biased? Was she emphasising the benefits over the harmful aspects?
"speaking about a possible new Democratic party chairman but questioned his ability to lead them because of his "anti abortion rights" position.
Well that's not exactly biased, she interviewing someone who disagree's with a party policy, so it bound to bring it up. Was she listing off the pro's of having an abortion? Just because she used a certain phrase it doesn't amke her biased.
BBC
Would you like to see my library? I read plenty. You need to expand your horizons and read books that don't agree with your misconceptions.
wolf
You should know the importance of language.
Maria Hinojosa's piece emphasized the benefits of immigration and told very little about the drawbacks. She interviewed a redneck moron and an intelligent Hispanic business owner, hardly an accurate representation of the anti and pro-immigration communities.
BBC-have you even listened to any conservative talk shows-they are not hateful and negative. If you don't believe that-just take this website as proof. Look at the hate spewing from liberals on all of the political ballots.
Also, as with any issue there may be exceptions to the rule-but republicans are definitely not affirmative action supporters, they believe individuals should be judged based on their abilities. As for an example of liberal media-how about ABC posting on their website an ad looking for families who had soldiers being buried on inauguration day. I wonder why they wanted that? The media should be reporting news-not making news. Another example of the liberal media: how many positive changes have you heard reported about Iraq since the war began? Be in denial if you choose-but there are positive changes-you just haven't heard it reported in the main stream media.
ceejjj, What good things in Iraq?
Schools being built?
That's not news! - dozens of people bieng blown up each day is.
Since you asked Nipple, I did some research just for you. I know you won't take my word for it, but just research it yourself like I did before you immediately disregard what I say. Unless of course you don't want to hear anything positive... 3.5 million children were immunized, school attendence is up 80%, 1500 schools have been rennovated from deplorable pre-war condition, 65% more hospitals than pre-war are fully staffed and operating, and they were allowed to participate in elections with a choice other than Saddam yes or no. You can hardly be for human rights yet argue that the above aren't improvements can you?
ceejjj, you did't get my point. I understand that some public services and infrastructure have improved, that is to be expected with the tens of billions of U.S and British taxpayers money going over there.
My point was, the media do not see this as news because it is not, the death and destruction is. That is what make it headline news, and what currently makes it a poorly planned fiasco.
I seem to get the impression from some of you comments that if we somehow mention the bad things that are happening in Iraq, or faults in the elections, or bombing and death, that we are somehow against freedom and human rights. What utter crap!
You are missing my point. Most of what I am reading on this website is ONLY negative things. That gives a false impression. It is news that the people of Iraq are being liberated. No one ever said gaining freedom was easy, but apparently it is worth it to the people of Iraq judging from the election turn out percentages. I'm just saying it isn't all bad news coming out of Iraq. I know it isn't all good either, but realistically when has the fight for freedom ever been without some bloodshed? Aren't you glad someone in history fought for your freedom today?
Who cares! the media is mostly Liberal, depsite the fact that many Americans are conservatives. Liberal is better. The whole pint is to go forwards and not backwards.
I find it halarious when people declare Fox news 'Fair and Balanced' .
I watched it for about an hour today, three interviews - All three of which were republican, from issues ranging from social security, to the middle east and the seperation of the Church and Politics.
The questions did not even challenge their views whatsoever and only served to strenghen them.
All three presenters openly critised the U.N and Europe and were quite blatantly all Republican voters.
Every article about Iran, Syria and Iraq was almost identical to the republican party line - Talking about how George Bush was finally bringing freedom to the middle east and Europeans were finally realising that they were wrong. They even went so far as to say that the progress in Palestine was totally down to Bush's actions!!
What a joke!!!
That's true Wolf. Bill O'Reily also declared that the Globe and Mail, one of the most objective papers in Canada, as close to Communism as it gets. He claimed the same thing about the CBC, but it does it's best to show both sides of teh story. Communism? Yeah, right, maybe he should back up some of his theories. Fair and balanced?? It's as right wing as it can possibly get.
by aya on Mon Mar 14, 05 10:13am
[+]
It is Liberal. Have you ever watched some of these stations yourself? With the Exception of fox news. Nbc, cbs, and abc are pretty liberal and if you have ever watched Mtv or Comedy Central which is also owned by Viacom you would notice all the liberal ideas and propaganda messages being spread from time to time in their television shows and commercials. Maybe the owners of these major conglomerates might be right winged but the people they put in charge and the ones who sponsor them are liberal. Also take note that the majority of Hollywood actors/actresses are liberals and they run the media empire.
|
|
