News Blackout

[JakeHero]

:Saw this on O'Reilly a couple of nights ago, but didn't post the topic because everyone hates when someone makes a topic five minutes after they heard the story.

We've all heard the complaints about the liberal media from rightwing pundits, and anyone with half a brain can obviously perceive a bias, but now the bias of the media has gotten so bad that major outlets will refuse to report stories if it hinders their ideological standpoint.

The instance of no one(other than FOX) reporting on the case of a former head of the ACLU possessing child porn. Despite the fact every news outlet jump on the story of a prominant Bush supporter in the 2000 campaign of having childporn.

You can bet you're entire fortune every news channel would be reporting is a former president of the NRA was caught with totler pornography.

Another instance is the media's selective reporting on the economy during the Clinton Era. They'd report day and night on the huge surplus, but would fail to mention the debt increased to over five trillion dollars.

The other example is Rosie O'Donnel firing off her shit-cannon(her mouth) about 9/11 being a government conspiracy, despite the fact they had plenty of time to report Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "Fag."

Also, there's the instance of the news gang-raping Pat Robertson for an off-hand comment about how the government should assassinate Hugo Chavez, but failed to report Randi Rhodes repeatedly saying George Bush should be assassinated.

Or the time every news media covered Bill O'Reilly's phonesex scandal more than the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq at the hands of crazy-ass muhammedans.

These are all instances I can think at the top of my head, and I don't want to make this topic too big of a read, so I'll leave it at that. If you're in the least bit skeptical just google "news blackout" and you'll most likely get thousands of results.

So I suppose this leads to only one question: if the media is so ubiquitous with leftwing ideology that results in it filtering information that it dubs detrimental to its standpoint, how will we fix this problem?

[Korriken]

At 4/8/07 09:56 PM, JakeHero wrote:

So I suppose this leads to only one question: if the media is so ubiquitous with leftwing ideology that results in it filtering information that it dubs detrimental to its standpoint, how will we fix this problem?

pool vast amounts of money together and create a truly unbiased news company!

let's see i got.... $5, a bag of marbles, a slingshot, and a bag of rice.

of course if we could get 100,000 people to give $500 each, that would net us about $50,000,000. How far would that get us?

[SuperDeagle]

And people wounder why there are so many idiots in the world.
I believe you answered your own question,
To end this nit pick choosing of news, just create a true unbiased news company.
But that in it self is all most impossible unless you have like 30 people working on one event at a time so every detail is picked up from every angle...
Yay for incompetence!

[ForkRobotik]

This is ridiculous, and you people are retarded. Fox is the most biased piece of poo on tv. All american networks are right wing, ask anyone that's not american. You people have no idea how much your being fooled, and that you actually don't have a choice between right and left, it's right and right. Lastly, no news is unbiased, the fact that someone makes a decision on what to run as a newspiece makes this obvious.

[Korriken]

I wouldn't say incompetence, all you really need to do is report everything, and not have a political agenda in either direction.

also, removing the political spin helps a lot too. rather than, "the conservative tyrant bush declared an unjust war on the innocent country of Iraq" you say, "President bush declared war on iraq" it's not that hard to remain unbiased. no downplaying, no upplaying.

also, no polls whatsoever, because polls are the way of the devil, many will keep putting up polls to see if the approval rating is still dropping, then announce the results, often, if it matches their ideology, and if it doesn't, just put announce it once in some fashionless way and try another poll on another topic to see if they can get a response that is more to their liking.

[SuperDeagle]

At 4/8/07 11:28 PM, Korriken wrote: I wouldn't say incompetence, all you really need to do is report everything, and not have a political agenda in either direction.

I'll be honest, I put the incompetence thing there for fun no real reason. :D
Anyway yes that would be the way to do it, but who would you find to do it that way without mixing in their own feelings on the subject?

also, removing the political spin helps a lot too. rather than, "the conservative tyrant bush declared an unjust war on the innocent country of Iraq" you say, "President bush declared war on iraq" it's not that hard to remain unbiased. no downplaying, no upplaying.

Once again if only we could find someone to do this. :'( almost no hope...

also, no polls whatsoever, because polls are the way of the devil, many will keep putting up polls to see if the approval rating is still dropping, then announce the results, often, if it matches their ideology, and if it doesn't, just put announce it once in some fashionless way and try another poll on another topic to see if they can get a response that is more to their liking.

polls generally are slanted with ridiculous questions and info swapping.
example would be using a % then on the same question having another result that is a flat #

[SyntheticTacos]

http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2 007/03/fox-news-at-its-finest.html

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories? Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world. They think of Fox News as basically the American equivalent of Hezbollah's al-Manar it's so biased. It could be worse. But why don't you take a look at the ratio of conservative to liberal commentators on Fox News? Hannity and Colmes is a joke, Hannity is a hard-line right-winger, Colmes is barely center-left.

"The other example is Rosie O'Donnel firing off her shit-cannon(her mouth) about 9/11 being a government conspiracy, despite the fact they had plenty of time to report Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "Fag.""

Let's see, Rosie O'Donnell- celebrity, actor. Ann Coulter, prominent journalist on one of the most widely watched channels in the United States. John Edwards, former vice presidential candidate and prominent politician. Seems like they're a bit more important in the scale of things.. if only the mainstream media covered more important things like that instead of covering poor Anna Nicole Smith and the latest diet 24/7.

"Also, there's the instance of the news gang-raping Pat Robertson for an off-hand comment about how the government should assassinate Hugo Chavez, but failed to report Randi Rhodes repeatedly saying George Bush should be assassinated."

I think Pat Robertson, who has his own little screwed-up TV show gets wider circulation than Randi Rhodes, who is only on radio... I don't even think we get Air America here... could be wrong though. Funny how Pat Robertson, the devout Christian is talking about KILLING people is okay while <sarcasm>RADICAL LEFT-WING DIRTY LIBERAL SECULAR ATHEIST JEW MAN</sarcasm> is supposed to be a shock.

"Or the time every news media covered Bill O'Reilly's phonesex scandal more than the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq at the hands of crazy-ass muhammedans"

What are you talking about? Everybody heard about Nick Berg.

So I suppose this leads to only one question: if the media is so ubiquitous with leftwing ideology that results in it filtering information that it dubs detrimental to its standpoint, how will we fix this problem?

Maybe they're not just as spinning it to make them look good, or reporting it (but lying about certain points) as Faux News is.

[Korriken]

At 4/8/07 11:28 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This is ridiculous, and you people are retarded. Fox is the most biased piece of poo on tv. All american networks are right wing, ask anyone that's not american. You people have no idea how much your being fooled, and that you actually don't have a choice between right and left, it's right and right. Lastly, no news is unbiased, the fact that someone makes a decision on what to run as a newspiece makes this obvious.

funny, hilarious even, the news in america is genrally left leaning, just look at the war coverage, among other things, Fox may lean right, but everyone else leans left, for the most part. if bush does something wrong, they make damn sure the world knows about it. if someone dies in iraq, they make damn sure the world knows about it. if Al Gore says "the world is getting hotter" they make damn sure the world knows about it.

of course people constantly blame fox for being "the conservative mouthpiece" while ignoring the fact that most news corporations lean left. every time i go into town it seems like the newspaper stands' front pages all contain "the bush administration's newest screw up" or "the insurgents' newest victory"

right leaning news? only on fox, and even they have some liberal commentators, like Alan Colmes, and Geraldo Rivera.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 12:04 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/8/07 11:28 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This is ridiculous, and you people are retarded. Fox is the most biased piece of poo on tv. All american networks are right wing, ask anyone that's not american. You people have no idea how much your being fooled, and that you actually don't have a choice between right and left, it's right and right. Lastly, no news is unbiased, the fact that someone makes a decision on what to run as a newspiece makes this obvious.

funny, hilarious even, the news in america is genrally left leaning, just look at the war coverage, among other things, Fox may lean right, but everyone else leans left, for the most part. if bush does something wrong, they make damn sure the world knows about it. if someone dies in iraq, they make damn sure the world knows about it. if Al Gore says "the world is getting hotter" they make damn sure the world knows about it.

of course people constantly blame fox for being "the conservative mouthpiece" while ignoring the fact that most news corporations lean left. every time i go into town it seems like the newspaper stands' front pages all contain "the bush administration's newest screw up" or "the insurgents' newest victory"

right leaning news? only on fox, and even they have some liberal commentators, like Alan Colmes, and Geraldo Rivera.

Like I said, Alan Colmes is barely center-left. He even said to USA Today "I'm quite moderate/"

And the thing is, Bush HAS screwed up. People ARE dying in Iraq. We know people die in war but the war has been handled so poorly that it's very likely that many lives could have been saved if there had been some semblance of you know.. an exit strategy. The examples are countless. -_- Go figure why they would report that. The rest of the Western world mocks our media, and not just Fox News. I don't think you've really seen some REAL liberal idiocy, the kind that happens when you have actual leftist extremism. But in the U.S. the main force is "conservative" (small govt., yeah right. like banning gay marriage is small govt. :P) idiocy, because there are definitely more hard-liners on that side of the aisle.

[ForkRobotik]

At 4/9/07 12:04 AM, Korriken wrote: funny, hilarious even, the news in america is genrally left leaning, just look at the war coverage, among other things, Fox may lean right, but everyone else leans left, for the most part. if bush does something wrong, they make damn sure the world knows about it.

If "bush does something wrong" shouldn't the world(or atleast americans) know about it?

if someone dies in iraq, they make damn sure the world knows about it.

Dude, that is reported in news the world over, it has nothing to do with politics.

if Al Gore says "the world is getting hotter" they make damn sure the world knows about it.

Dude, the world flocked to see that movie before americans did, he got coverage after it was already a success.

of course people constantly blame fox for being "the conservative mouthpiece" while ignoring the fact that most news corporations lean left. every time i go into town it seems like the newspaper stands' front pages all contain "the bush administration's newest screw up" or "the insurgents' newest victory"

Dude, a news corp saying that Bush may have done something illegal, or insurgents bombed another market has nothing to do with political affilliation. If you find a headline that says "Impeach the President" or something, that does. You won't find one news piece that supports the insurgency either. A story like that will not get run.

Case: The abu graib scandal. How many news outlets in america told americans the truth about what went on, and how they have pictures of the american soldiers sodomizing iraqis with broomsticks? The pictures shown on the news were nothing compared to what was actually going on. The News in america didn't even tell americans that part. The videos weren't even played, because they were so evil.

[SuperDeagle]

You people are drifting from the point of the thread.
How to make an unbiased form of media.
I don't care about how biased the current media is.

[ForkRobotik]

At 4/9/07 12:26 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: You people are drifting from the point of the thread.
How to make an unbiased form of media.
I don't care about how biased the current media is.

It's not practical and it wont happen. The whole point of media is to get people onside with certain views, not give them neutral information. And as i said before, just choosing what news stories to run is biased by default.

[SuperDeagle]

At 4/9/07 12:33 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:26 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: You people are drifting from the point of the thread.
How to make an unbiased form of media.
I don't care about how biased the current media is.

It's not practical and it wont happen. The whole point of media is to get people onside with certain views, not give them neutral information. And as i said before, just choosing what news stories to run is biased by default.

But thats the point though!
We all ready know it's not practical and so far has not happened, but we can all hope and dream.
The media should be here to give us information on events in our time. (Which it does now)
But it being neutral might be both good/bad. In all hopefulness it would be more so factual, but it's possible by doing so the news would be boring. I don't know but I personally wouldn't mind a neutral news corp.

[ForkRobotik]

At 4/9/07 12:40 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: But thats the point though!
We all ready know it's not practical and so far has not happened, but we can all hope and dream.
The media should be here to give us information on events in our time. (Which it does now)
But it being neutral might be both good/bad. In all hopefulness it would be more so factual, but it's possible by doing so the news would be boring. I don't know but I personally wouldn't mind a neutral news corp.

Well, i think the closest thing you'll get is wiki, for the fact that you have people on both sides of the spectrum arguing the most neutral way to put information on that site. Especially when it comes to "hot" topics.

[SuperDeagle]

At 4/9/07 12:46 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Well, i think the closest thing you'll get is wiki, for the fact that you have people on both sides of the spectrum arguing the most neutral way to put information on that site. Especially when it comes to "hot" topics.

i doubt it, the problem with wiki is the illegitimate postings by random people and not some concrete source.
Or weren't they trying to fix that?

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories? Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

Liberal? Maybe. But that isn't the point. The point is how they're anti-Bush. And if you can figure that out, then you are one huge moron.

I also like how you completely skipped over the ACLU/child porn incident. What? Couldn't get around that?

The mere fact that the View has even hired Rosie to claim that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is more than enough proof of that.

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 01:11 AM, Memorize wrote:

And if you can figure that out, then you are one huge moron.

*cant

I hate this keyboard.

[ForkRobotik]

At 4/9/07 01:11 AM, Memorize wrote: The mere fact that the View has even hired Rosie to claim that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is more than enough proof of that.

No offense but wasn't that fat lesbian hired to replace a fat negroid? And don't they have some small blonde rightwing christian cheerleader on that show to counter her?
Infact, i do think you're suggesting that there's a conspiracy to get the 9/11 conspiracy onto tv's that women watch during the day!! And yet, you claim people that buy into the 911 conspiracy are nutjobs...(it takes all kinds, doesn't it? lol)

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 01:26 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

No offense but wasn't that fat lesbian hired to replace a fat negroid? And don't they have some small blonde rightwing christian cheerleader on that show to counter her?

Which she... doesn't. So... no.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 01:11 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Hmmm.... maybe you should take a look at some of those. And if the media is so liberal, what's up with all the anti-drug ads and cover stories? Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

Liberal? Maybe. But that isn't the point. The point is how they're anti-Bush. And if you can figure that out, then you are one huge moron.

"So I suppose this leads to only one question: if the media is so ubiquitous with leftwing ideology that results in it filtering information that it dubs detrimental to its standpoint, how will we fix this problem?"

I think he WAS referring to left-wing bias, not just anti-Bush bias. Read his post again buddy. :)

I also like how you completely skipped over the ACLU/child porn incident. What? Couldn't get around that?

Nope, I was conceding that one, but now that I think about it, keep in mind that the ACLU doesn't just fight for free speech for liberals, it fights for it for even those who are practically insane, like Westboro Baptist Church- and if you think THEY'RE liberal, then I think you need to do some fact-checking buddy. :)

The mere fact that the View has even hired Rosie to claim that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is more than enough proof of that.

I dunno whether they hired her to spout insanity like that or not, but if you consider the View to be a show that claims to be objective journalism, I don't think you should be calling US morons. The View is a daytime ladies' talk show. That's like accusing Montel of liberal bias. Who cares? I doubt many people use The View as their primary source for news. It's a gossip show, it doesn't TELL you what is factual and what is not- it admits to being an opinion show, unlike Fox News, which claims to be "Fair and Balanced". :)

[SkunkyFluffy]

At 4/9/07 12:23 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Dude

Could you possibly try to say "dude" a few more times in your next post?

kthxbai.

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 01:50 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I think he WAS referring to left-wing bias, not just anti-Bush bias. Read his post again buddy. :)

I'm saying that it is very obvious they are left biased (on the US political scale). What they are is Anti-Bush. No report on the Economy. Most negative stories on Iraq with their own political slant on how "bad" it is. Polls with negative outcomes because of the wording. No report on the ACLU/child porn incident. Rosie being hired...

Nope, I was conceding that one, but now that I think about it, keep in mind that the ACLU doesn't just fight for free speech for liberals,

They fight for idiots who are... dun dun duuuuun, mostly liberals!

Hell, they defended NAMBLA.

I dunno whether they hired her to spout insanity like that or not, but if you consider the View to be a show that claims to be objective journalism, I don't think you should be calling US morons.

The US is full of gullible morons. Hence the last mid-term elections!

It's a gossip show, it doesn't TELL you what is factual and what is not- it admits to being an opinion show, unlike Fox News, which claims to be "Fair and Balanced". :)

I could claim that in just about any News show then.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 02:00 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 01:50 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I think he WAS referring to left-wing bias, not just anti-Bush bias. Read his post again buddy. :)

I'm saying that it is very obvious they are left biased (on the US political scale). What they are is Anti-Bush. No report on the Economy. Most negative stories on Iraq with their own political slant on how "bad" it is. Polls with negative outcomes because of the wording. No report on the ACLU/child porn incident. Rosie being hired...

They say it's bad because it IS bad. There is a bad situation in Iraq. There are religious sects warring with each other. The insurgents are gaining local support. It sucks. You wouldn't complain if they said Hiroshima was "bad". They're not saying whether it was justified or not, they're just bringing to light a bad situation. You just said it wasn't about left-wing bias, you said it was about Bush. You're being incoherent. And they DO report about the economy; they report about the stock market, the recent trends.... And you know that if the other media slants polls Faux News does. Rosie was hired to tell her view on a daytime talk show, not to make up stories for the real news.

Nope, I was conceding that one, but now that I think about it, keep in mind that the ACLU doesn't just fight for free speech for liberals,

They fight for idiots who are... dun dun duuuuun, mostly liberals!

Hell, they defended NAMBLA.

You complained about me skipping over this same subject. I LIEK HOW U SKIPPED OVER WESTBOORO BAPTIST CHURCH LOL. They fight for free speech for people who want them dead, groups like the KKK and such.

I dunno whether they hired her to spout insanity like that or not, but if you consider the View to be a show that claims to be objective journalism, I don't think you should be calling US morons.

The US is full of gullible morons. Hence the last mid-term elections!

Or rather, hence people getting fed up with bullshit from the right side of the aisle.

It's a gossip show, it doesn't TELL you what is factual and what is not- it admits to being an opinion show, unlike Fox News, which claims to be "Fair and Balanced". :)

I could claim that in just about any News show then.

No, not really... Fox has plenty of programs that aren't talk shows that are biased.

Allow me to quote Maddox. Don't bother giving me a counter-quote from him to disprove anything, I know there's probably some stuff we disagree with; but he brought up a good point here:
Liberal media: Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

:)

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 02:22 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

They say it's bad because it IS bad. There is a bad situation in Iraq. There are religious sects warring with each other. The insurgents are gaining local support. It sucks.

No, only a weak minded idiot would say it is bad. Because it is weak minded idiots who never have any historical knowledge or are even remotely informed on the the situation.

And you are one of them.

You wouldn't complain if they said Hiroshima was "bad". They're not saying whether it was justified or not, they're just bringing to light a bad situation.

I would love to see a news organization survive by claiming WWII was bad and only brought about negatives. Though back then they couldn't. Thanks to FDR, he cencored the media from reporting any negative stories about the war or they would be jailed.

You just said it wasn't about left-wing bias, you said it was about Bush. You're being incoherent.

I didn't hear the media go on a frenzy on Bill Clinton for bombing Iraq since 1993 based on the intelligence he received that Iraq had WMDs...

Rosie was hired to tell her view on a daytime talk show, not to make up stories for the real news.

And yet... morons watch it as if it is the real news. Think of it as a... loophole.

They fight for free speech for people who want them dead, groups like the KKK and such.

I bet you love watching child porn. Get a hard on watching a middle aged man stick it a underage girl?

Or rather, hence people getting fed up with bullshit from the right side of the aisle.

And you, are one of those idiots.

No, not really... Fox has plenty of programs that aren't talk shows that are biased.

They all do dipshit.

Now quit being a fucking little idiot and do some learning. Altho I do love seeing how much bullshit your pathetic waste of life can throw around.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 02:33 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/9/07 02:22 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

They say it's bad because it IS bad. There is a bad situation in Iraq. There are religious sects warring with each other. The insurgents are gaining local support. It sucks.

No, only a weak minded idiot would say it is bad. Because it is weak minded idiots who never have any historical knowledge or are even remotely informed on the the situation.

And you are one of them.

You wouldn't complain if they said Hiroshima was "bad". They're not saying whether it was justified or not, they're just bringing to light a bad situation.

I would love to see a news organization survive by claiming WWII was bad and only brought about negatives. Though back then they couldn't. Thanks to FDR, he cencored the media from reporting any negative stories about the war or they would be jailed.

You just said it wasn't about left-wing bias, you said it was about Bush. You're being incoherent.

I didn't hear the media go on a frenzy on Bill Clinton for bombing Iraq since 1993 based on the intelligence he received that Iraq had WMDs...

Rosie was hired to tell her view on a daytime talk show, not to make up stories for the real news.

And yet... morons watch it as if it is the real news. Think of it as a... loophole.

They fight for free speech for people who want them dead, groups like the KKK and such.

I bet you love watching child porn. Get a hard on watching a middle aged man stick it a underage girl?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I never defended child porn, I never defended NAMBLA (didn't want to touch on that one). Child porn is bad. Child abuse is disgusting. Your insinuation is disgusting. You were trying to count ACLU as an organization that only defended liberals. I was saying that it defended whoever they thought was having a civil rights problem, left or right, and sometimes they make bad decisions. I was not defending them, I was simply stating that you should not count them as part of the liberal media.

Or rather, hence people getting fed up with bullshit from the right side of the aisle.

And you, are one of those idiots.

No, not really... Fox has plenty of programs that aren't talk shows that are biased.

They all do dipshit.

Now quit being a fucking little idiot and do some learning. Altho I do love seeing how much bullshit your pathetic waste of life can throw around.

Who are you calling pathetic? You're trying to win your debate by calling me an idiot, a dipshit, pitiful, and a waste of life. I've seen you do this in other threads. Other people remain civil around you and you get angry when someone proves you're wrong and you try to undermine us by calling us names and having a tantrum. Why can't you have a political discussion without pissing other people off? Begoner and cellardoor6 with their wildly different views still manage to debate somewhat civilly even with their differences. So far most people here have been pretty nice to me, but when I try to bring up a political view that is different from yours you say terrible things about me in an attempt to dismiss everything I say. Instead of criticizing my points you criticize me, and it removes any sort of semblance of a constructive debate. Why don't you go cool off for a while and instead of insulting me you try to help the people around you get a better world view instead of leaving thinking "wow, what a douchebag my opponent was, I bet everyone who thinks like him is an a-hole, I'll become more extreme in my position and make it even harder for anybody to change my mind." Being cruel to the people you debate with doesn't prove your point. It doesn't make you any more of a man. And it doesn't help anybody think like you. It just raises hatred on the other side and makes it harder for them to actually believe anything you or anybody thinks like you. Sure, you've succeded in ticking me off a little. But you haven't made me think about you, or change my views. You've made me discredit your own. All you're doing is metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot. Go chill out and when you're ready to debate civilly come back and talk to me and maybe we can become a bit more educated about the world instead of just immaturely taking petty potshots at each other.

I don't hate you though.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 02:48 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Who are you calling pathetic? You're trying to win your debate by calling me an idiot, a dipshit, pitiful, and a waste of life.

Forgot pedophile. You insinuated that too. That's probably the most immature. :\

Sure, you've succeded in ticking me off a little. But you haven't made me think about you, or change my views.

*succeeded in ticking me off
*think about my own views, or change them.

Getting verbally raped can screw up your spelling a bit. @.@ sorry.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

Why the hell would Americans care what Europeans think first of all?

And second of all, Europe is so damn statist, why should we tilt our scales of left and right to conform to their reality? That is stupid. Why not they tilt for us?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/9/07 04:00 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/9/07 12:01 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Go look at some TV outside the U.S. (i.e. European) to see some actual liberal bias, because the United States media is considered quite conservative by the standards of most of the western world.

Why the hell would Americans care what Europeans think first of all?

And second of all, Europe is so damn statist, why should we tilt our scales of left and right to conform to their reality? That is stupid. Why not they tilt for us?

Not saying they should. They have their own distortions as well, I was just saying that compared to other venues of news our mainstream media is not really THAT liberal.

[Memorize]

At 4/9/07 02:48 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

I was not defending them, I was simply stating that you should not count them as part of the liberal media.

And yet you conceded to his point that no one, other than FOX, reported on it.

They "defend" anyone who is an idiot (in which most of those cases are... liberals!). "We're going to sue the school because this parent complained about God, but we're going to push for the historical teaching of the Islamic religion so as to teach tolerance", Yippie!

Who are you calling pathetic? You're trying to win your debate by calling me an idiot, a dipshit, pitiful, and a waste of life. I've seen you do this in other threads. Other people remain civil around you and you get angry when someone proves you're wrong and you try to undermine us by calling us names and having a tantrum.

Prove me wrong? I've yet to see that. So far it's all been speculation.

So far most people here have been pretty nice to me, but when I try to bring up a political view that is different from yours you say terrible things about me in an attempt to dismiss everything I say.

Because you tried to counter the topic starter's points when every one of them is actually true. There should be no excuse for hiring Rosie in which people would actually watch as "news" when she's going on about the evils of the US and how 9/11 was planned by the government.

No one reports on the "Bush should die" claims. They might give a view of the economy, but even if the economy improves they always like to word it as "rises not as greatly as expected".

Libby was put on trial and convicted for "not remembering" when there is a man running around who used to work for Clinton who stole and shredded documents. Why is this man still running around and why was there less coverage on him than Libby?

Instead of criticizing my points you criticize me, and it removes any sort of semblance of a constructive debate.

bla bla bla...

Why don't you go cool off for a while

I'am cool. It's fun to have people go off on a rant.

Sure, you've succeded in ticking me off a little. But you haven't made me think about you, or change my views. You've made me discredit your own. All you're doing is metaphorically shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you saying I should take the internet seriously?

Go chill out and when you're ready to debate civilly come back and talk to me and maybe we can become a bit more educated about the world instead of just immaturely taking petty potshots at each other.

I'll sum up this thread. If you can't see the media putting their bias against the president or taking a left-wing stance, then apparently you haven't been paying any attention to Vietnam, or you would see a trend.

[TheMason]

At 4/8/07 11:28 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This is ridiculous, and you people are retarded. Fox is the most biased piece of poo on tv. All american networks are right wing, ask anyone that's not american. You people have no idea how much your being fooled, and that you actually don't have a choice between right and left, it's right and right. Lastly, no news is unbiased, the fact that someone makes a decision on what to run as a newspiece makes this obvious.

You make one bad point and one good point.

1) I watch CNN International, the BBC and KBS (Korean); however, my primary source of news and information originates in the US. From this perspective I do think that we have a choice between right and left. Look at Global Warming, only the Conservative news organizations are NOT swallowing this without question. Everyone else is running with it.

In terms of Pelosi's visit to Syria, the media is making her into a darling for "standing-up" to Bush.

Finally, we do have people in our country who wants to turn our country into a mirror of Europe in terms of our social policies such as in healthcare, education etc.

What differentiates us from Europe is I think the US is slightly more conservative than liberal and we are naturally suspicious of a paternalistic government.

2) You are absolutely correct that there will NEVER be an unbiased news source. No news organization can convey every news story that is out there. There must always be editing and every news story will be filtered through someone's worldview before being consumed by the population...