Reply
Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:22 pm
Do you guys notice the great inequity between the two parties.
Just a week or two ago...
It becomes revealed that the Bush camp threatened to fire a guy for revealing the true costs of the drug plan to the senate.
It becomes revealed that the Bush camp prepared fake news stories with a fake reporter presenting the drug plan in a positive light and sent them to various news stations to air them as real stories.
Yet, this story barely made the news. It was mentioned once in a couple of papers and forgotten about. Most papers didn't even bother to cover it. Not one television news show that I have seen even critiqued Bush for it.
Instead the media was busy covering Kerry's claim that various leaders support him. I've seen this statement critiqued for weeks on end by all the stupid tv news shows though it's obvious to anyone why that's probably true.
Woodward comes forward Sunday with undeniable proof in the form of interviews that
a.) Bush reallocated funds from Afganistan to Iraq without congressional approval: an unconstituitional and impeachable action.
b.) Bush began planning for Iraq 72 days after 9/11 though he and all advisors vehemently denied the accusation everytime it was brought up including by Clarke.
c.) Bush kept his own Security of State in the dark.
d.) Prince Bandar promised to lower oil prices prior to the election and help get Bush reelected in exchange for Bush invading Iraq.
Yet I've been watching the big networks all week and they vehemently refuse to critique Bush's actions.
Instead, the big story of the week is that maybe the injuries for which Kerry was awarded his first purple heart weren't serious. A story that has since been discredited, Kerry had sharpnel launched into his knee. Never mind the fact that Kerry recieved two other purple hearts for serious injuries. Never mind the fact that Bush escaped Vietnam altogether buy joining the National Guard and has yet to prove that he even showed up for two years. Not one person has come forward to verify Bush's presence.
What is wrong with the newsmedia?
Why is it that even the tiniest criticism of Kerry paraded all over the news shows and the most serious criticism's of Bush get all but ignored?
I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy or anything stupid like that.
But it does seem as though the media harps up on certain things and gets obsessed with them and totally ignores other things. It's like they are sheep or something. Fox goes out and starts harping on and on about something and next thing you know, all the stations follow suit and totally ignore the other news.
I'm not saying that only democrats fall victim to this. I was getting sick of the media harping on about Bush's refusal to apolize for something he wasn't responsible for as well.
But it does seem as though the democrats fall victim to this trend more often. Maybe it's because there are more conservative news networks. And whenever any network starts covering a story obsessively, it seems that all others follow suit.
I first saw what the media can do when they took a simple pep rally to a large group of disheartened volunteers and turned it into a mental breakdown (Dean). They showed it over and over again and claimed it was a mental breakdown over and over again until people started believing it was true. They even hired psychiatrist to make the case that it was a mental breakdown and that Dean was psychologically unstable.
I would hate to think what they could do to Kerry over the next few months.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Just about everyone, just about every organization (including any news sources that provide anaylisis) have an agenda and is biased towards making it happen.
They twist the data, exclude contradictory information in order to make the case for their agenda stronger.
So far I've found the following sources of information that I don't think are too partisan....
National Public Radio
CNN's Crossfire (since they have a conservative and a liberal who are both very adept at responding to criticisms)
Comedy Central's The Daily Show (they usually do a very good job of lampooning both parties and candidates, though they have been surprisingly critical of Iraq)
Any major forum or blog with a roughly equal number of conservatives and liberals.
Are there any I'm missing?
I realized that news is no longer news some time ago. In fact, I kinda wish that the political debates here didn't rely so heavily on suspect internet articles. If anything can be changed, it has to come from within.
Well it turns out that the Woodward book didn't provide such conclusive proof after all which Bob Woodward has been patiently explaining as he makes the media circuit. And it turns out that the White House actually likes the book and was anxious for it to be out.
And some stuff that is 'dirt' on the 'opposite side' that we are eager to hit the papers or evening news doesn't make it because there are laws against slander and libel and there is a limit to how much of an uncollaborated/unverified story any reputable media source is willing to put out there.
Having said that, there is much media bias. The talk shows are heavily weighted to the right because the right wing rhetoric attracts a much larger audience than left wing rhetoric. The alphabet news sources and most major market newspapers are weighted to the left....the most recent Gallup poll of the alphabets and major market newspaper newsrooms found about 80% to be registered Democrat and/or voting Democrat.
To get it fair and balanced, it is necessary to listen to both sides with an open mind and then pick a side based on the most verifiable facts.
For every suspect news article agaisnt Bush, there is one for him. And most never reach the mainstream anyways.
The real problem is the mainstream media, the 24 hr networks etc.
These are the sources that the majority of people get there news from. The kinds of people that never bother to check up on the other perspectives as well.
These are the networks that destroyed Gore's credibility and convinced people that he was a robot.
These are the networks that made Dean mentally unstable, Bush as ruthless, Kerry a waffler etc without really bothering to present their perspectives/explanations.
These are what need to be changed first.
Unfortunatley foxfyre, a lot more people watch the 24 hr news networks than read newspapers.
And there are many many mainstream conservative news papers other than the Wallstreet Journal as well.
Or just listen and read with your bulls*t filter running at all times. The safest route to go is to listen to these people yourself live or on Cspan and turn off the commentary that explains to you what you should have just heard.
How many americans do you think actually do that though?
As with almost everything else, you can follow the money trail and find the truth. The news media makes more money if more people watch, or listen, or read. So they attract people by taking an ordinary news story and adding spin to it. They hire analysts who take two mundane facts and speculate on the meaning, coming up with some outrageous conclusion about what the result means. There are as many examples of conservative-bashing as the ones of liberal-bashing you posted:
Bush was AWOL from the National Guard
Al Gore won the election
The US acted unilaterally to invade Iraq
The "Bush unemployment rate" is at a record high
Dick Cheney makes money from the Iraq war
It's just as infuriating to me to read those things. But there's no major network that's free from bias, because bias is sensational and sensational sells dishwashing soap.
Do you ever read any blogs? There's where you'll find the news that the major networks won't broadcast or print. The blogosphere is a fascinating place where you can find all kinds of interesting stuff. It's even more biased than the mainstream media, but at least the bloggers don't lie and say they're fair. Try going to John Kerry's website - I think he has a list of blogs somewhere. They all feed on each other and link back and forth among each other. Start looking at a few and you'll notice that many of them will mention 4 or 5 blogs over and over. Those are the top guys, and probably worth reading. But I would warn you that reading blogs can be addictive because there are thousands of them out there and every one of them is interesting in one way or another.
I do it as much as I can Centroles. I don't like other people, especially media types, telling me what I'm supposed to think. The Wallstreet Journal editorial department is pretty conservative; the newsroom is as liberal as any major market newspaper. This is not entirely unusual however.
Centroles- Remember how the Bush team canned and then attempted to smear Larry Lindsey for telling the truth about Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for the wealthy?
This is how they play the game.
That's expected though.
They did that with John McCain, a member of their own party.
They even challenged the service record of that one senator who lost both legs during Vietnam.
And now they're challenging Kerry's service record.
To be fair, both parties do this.
Look what the democrats did to Howard Dean.
It doesn't bother me as much when the parties do it, now I expect them to.
What bothers me is when one party's propaganda (the republicans) is bought into so heavily by all the 24 hour news networks and the other party's propaganda is largely ignored.
Centroles wrote:What bothers me is when one party's propaganda (the republicans) is bought into so heavily by all the 24 hour news networks and the other party's propaganda is largely ignored.
From a conservative point of view it looks exactly the opposite. The President and the Republicans are always under attack by the press in one way or another.
But I think that's all in perception Centroles. If you yourself are heavily partisan, it rankles you to see an opposite (i.e. unfair, wrong, biased in your opinion) point of view. I think all of us react that way to a certain extent.
During the Clinton years, those on the right called CNN the Clinton News Network because it was perceived that they were so heavily biased in favor of the Democrats and Clinton. Those on the left saw CNN as presenting the news exactly as it was and didn't see any bias at all.
Those on the left feel equally estranged from Fox News Network that presents the current president more favorably than the left wants him to be presented. Those on the right see Fox as being extremely fair and balanced and don't see any bias at all.
The thing is, everybody gets it right some of the time and there is no human on earth that doesn't screw something up once in awhile. It's human nature to want the news to present a political figure negatively if our opinion of that person is negative and want the news to present a positive view if our opinion of that person is positive. In other words, we want to be validated in our opinion.
The trick I think is to ignore the blatantly (and dishonestly) biased news and become our own fair and balanced source.
The only reason the right hasn't been able to smear Bob Woodward (despite trying) is his credentials are impeccable. The Pulitzer and other awards, help to insulate him from the Limbaughs and Foxiods as they fling dung.
Bob Woodward is actually on our side. He has been making the media circuits disputing the spin the left has been putting on his book, and the White House loves it. Glad you like it too Deecups
Though Bob Woodward maybe on yourside Foxfyre, the information he uncovered certainly isn't.
Or did you miss the 60 minutes interview?
On top of many other scary concerns, Woodward's book now reveals that Bush wasn't convinced by the so called "evidence" for WMDs. Yet he went along with it anyways. Why?
The question most liberals pose isn't whether or not we should've have gone in if we were fairly certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but on what basis has Bush declared that Iraq has such weapons. And without such proof, why didn't Bush atleast try to argue in favor of regime change to help the people of Iraq instead, citing the atrocities commited by Saddam as proof.
I honestly think more of the world would have supported us then. By making a claim that this war was over WMDs and failing to present said weapons, the rest of the world now views us at worst as selfish liars interested only in oil and at best as incompetent.
You can certainly bring up the point that many democrats bought into the hype. But when the president of the United States comes out and publicly states that he has conclusive proof that a nation is stockpiling nuclear weapons, most people tend to believe him.
I didn't see the 60-minute interview but Woodward has disputed just about all the 'left's' interpretation of it since then. He says he never said Bush had cut a deal with Saudi Arabia for instance. And he said the president looked at all the evidence, consulted all his staff, and was in no way eager to rush to war as it has been portrayed. When he finally decided to do it, it was after long and careful deliberation.
Objective
I have not trusted mainstream Media for over 20 yrs., no matter what party was in power. Media is profit driven and even the non-profits need money to exist and continue. There is no objectivity. Even plain facts with no spin are chosen based on appeal to the public. Chosing what to report on is as relevant as spinning any facts.
I could present facts here and how they are percieved is in each reader's mind.
Foxfire
Provide a link for your statement please.
Trantraulas?
Polls are the results of people being brainwashed by one side or the other. They arnt facts. Most people who do polls probably havent gotten any more information than the 5 minute blurbs on television. A true poll would take into consideration how much people know about the subject they are being questioned about. This just might show just how undereducated most of our citizens are.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace