The news media and Nick Berg

Either Mr. Blatham does not get the news in far off Vancouver or he feels that anything that is not to the left of the Village Voice or The Nation mazazine is conservative.

I will repeat. Mr. Blatham has the curious liberal habit of either overlooking or not reading what he feels will destroy his prejudices.

First of all, I do not think that even the erudite Mr. Blatham will dare to label the New York Times as a "liberal" publication.

If he reads any US papers at all, he knows that most major papers and many minor ones( circulation wise, that is) run many stories with a NewYork Times byline.

This is one instance that shows Mr. Blatham to bne egregiously wrong- again.

2. Most of the media in the USA( perhaps not Canada?) will agree that the Washington Post is either second or third in terms of influence among major papers in the USA. I do not believe that even the well read Mr. Blatham can say that the Washington Post is liberal. I do hope that Mr. Blatham is familiar with the Washington Post's history. If he is, he will agree that the Washington Post is definitely not a conservative newspaper.

It has already been mentioned on this thread by Sofia's excellent post that Jennings, Brokaw and Rather are the main news filters for the general public in the USA.

I doubt that even the scholarly Mr. Blatham can say that they are conservative news reporters.

And CNN- I don't know if Mr. Blatham knows that that outlet was referred to, in some circles, as the Clinton News Network. And I do not know whether Mr. Blatham, who has a storehouse of information about Time Magazine, knows that the past head of CNN, was a guest in the Lincoln bedroom during Clinton's term.

I do think that Clinton made some mistakes. One mistake he definitely would never make would be to give his blessing( in the form of a sleep over in the Lincoln bedroom) to a conservative.

So, Mr. Blatham as usual, proves his thesis by making generalizations--no evidence--no referral to past events--no view of what actually happens in newspapers- Just his generalizations- Well, Mr. Blatham, that's not enough.

Perhaps you could come up with some evidence or documentation?

I can and will do so if challenged.

0 Replies

Re: The news media and Nick Berg
I HAWITNESSED THE FULL VIDEO OF THE BE HEADING OF NICHOLAS BERG. IT SICKENS ME AND I KNOW THAT I DONT PLAN ON WATCHING IT AGAIN. NOW TO ME IT DOES SEEM FAKE BECAUSE THE KILLING doesn't MATCH THE SCREAMING OF NICHOLAS AT ALL. FOR A WHILE I WAS THINKING THAT THE PERSON SCREAMING WAS THE PEOPLE THAT WERE killing NICHOLAS. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THE VIDEO MADE ME VERY MAD BECAUSE TO WATCH THAT happen TO ANY ONE IF JUST SICK AND CRUEL! Mad

0 Replies

A blitzkrieg:

mporter wrote:

Either Mr. Blatham does not get the news in far off Vancouver or he feels that anything that is not to the left of the Village Voice or The Nation mazazine is conservative.

I will repeat. Mr. Blatham has the curious liberal habit of either overlooking or not reading what he feels will destroy his prejudices.

First of all, I do not think that even the erudite Mr. Blatham will dare to label the New York Times as a "liberal" publication.

If he reads any US papers at all, he knows that most major papers and many minor ones( circulation wise, that is) run many stories with a NewYork Times byline.

This is one instance that shows Mr. Blatham to bne egregiously wrong- again.

This is filler. Poorly constructed filler, at that.

Quote:

2. Most of the media in the USA( perhaps not Canada?) will agree that the Washington Post is either second or third in terms of influence among major papers in the USA. I do not believe that even the well read Mr. Blatham can say that the Washington Post is liberal. I do hope that Mr. Blatham is familiar with the Washington Post's history. If he is, he will agree that the Washington Post is definitely not a conservative newspaper.

Wait - many people consider the Washington Post liberal?

This, like, changes everything!

Also: You might want to edit the boldened text, because it is self-contradictory.

Quote:

It has already been mentioned on this thread by Sofia's excellent post that Jennings, Brokaw and Rather are the main news filters for the general public in the USA.

I doubt that even the scholarly Mr. Blatham can say that they are conservative news reporters.

More filler.

Quote:

And CNN- I don't know if Mr. Blatham knows that that outlet was referred to, in some circles, as the Clinton News Network.

Dear God!!! The Clinton News Network!!!

Again - I think we all agree - this acronym changes everything

Quote:

And I do not know whether Mr. Blatham, who has a storehouse of information about Time Magazine, knows that the past head of CNN, was a guest in the Lincoln bedroom during Clinton's term.

...and this pales in comparison to the poltical leanings of Fox News, whose very owner was a full fledged member of the last Bush administration.

To compound this, Ailes is still active in politics to some degree. In Bob Woodwards latest book, he recounts how Ailes sent a confidential memo to Karl Rove immediately after Sept 11th, suggesting that the President give the impression that he was "taking the harshest possible actions" or the public would lose faith in him as a leader.

Quote:

So, Mr. Blatham as usual, proves his thesis by making generalizations--no evidence--no referral to past events--no view of what actually happens in newspapers- Just his generalizations- Well, Mr. Blatham, that's not enough.

Oh, the irony.

Quote:

Perhaps you could come up with some evidence or documentation?

I can and will do so if challenged.

STOP NOW BEFORE YOU IRONY YOURSELF TO DEATH!!!

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Sofia wrote:
Fox has mellowed people like me, who were really fed up with having our news thrown at us at a left angle. I don't watch Fox alone--but I am thankful they exist, and provide a bit of balance. CNN has had to adjust in the wake of Fox's popularity--things are evening up. I don't think there is an unfair advantage currently.

What a bizarre thing to say.

The problem for me is when people misconstue a balanced reporting of the news as being somehow liberally slanted just because the facts and the reality happen to support a liberal viewpoint.

Example: When it became clear that George Bush had launched us into war on false pretenses, the media was seen as being leftist because they reported on the Iraq debacle heavily while largely ignoring Bush's speechs, which by then had become mere propaganda and wishfull thinking, peppered with allusions to imaginary weapons of mass destruction and overjoyed liberated Iraqis.

Many conservatives viewed this as being leftist, simply because reality happened to support an anti-war stance, and that stance was associated with liberals. The reality is that the GOP's predictions and justifications for the war on Iraq have been pretty roundly shot down on every level imaginable. To not report heavily on them would have been remiss.

Fox News, meanwhile, is run by Roger Ailes, a former member of the Bush Administration. They still reported ad nauseum on massive WMD caches and mobile weapons labs for months after it became apparent that none existed. This is the station where the anchor - the feakin' anchor - looked down at the camera barrel and said "...and to all you war protestors, you were pathetic then and you are pathetic now" during the initial invasion.

I'm not even considering War Coverage. I'm talking about the years of having Republican politicians treated in a much more negative way--more negative stories--giving negative stories about Republicans more play time and higher 'billing' than Democrat counterparts. Many people have easily noticed the unfairness, and could tell you the party affiliation of most journalists years ago. When it came out that the Usual Vocal Liberal Journalists were speaking at Dem fundraisers and donating massive amounts to Dem candidates, and to their party (Democrats, to be sure)--it was just proof of what had been suspected, and asserted, due to the slant of the reporting.

I know Fox is of a rightist stance. We certainly needed a righty voice to balance the Dem mouthpieces on CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC. Its just funny that ONE from the right is cowing all the rest from the left... (And, they're not all that good...)

The only thing that is bizarre is that you try to deny it.

0 Replies

ILZ writes:

Quote:

The problem for me is when people misconstue a balanced reporting of the news as being somehow liberally slanted just because the facts and the reality happen to support a liberal viewpoint.

From my point of view, I think if the facts and the reality happen to support a liberal viewpoint, that should be sufficient without resorting to negative adjectives attached to the conservative subject or an inflammatory headline.

Compare: WORLD STUNNED AND OUTRAGED AT BEHEADING
OF CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR with

BRUTALITY AT ABU GHRAID AVENGED BY INSURGENTS.

I saw both in the aftermath.

CNN was infamous for news leads suggesting that the news for a conservative is much worse than the actual facts of the matter while including extenuating facts in a similar story about a liberal. Sometimes the slant is subtle: when the news is uncomplimentary about a Democrat, the report would be about Congressman 'Smith', Kentucky (or whatever.) The same report about a Republican would be about Congressman Smith, conservative Republican from Kentucky (or whatever).

We who tilt right of center have been dealing with that kind of not-so-subtle bias for years before Fox News came on the scene. I'm not sure I agree with Sofia that Fox tilts rightist in news reporting so much as Fox doesn't attach unwarranted negatives to news about conservatives or liberals and good news about conservatives is actually reported. That is interpreted by liberals as being pro-Republican or pro-conservative or whatever. The one place Fox does tend to tilt right in most of their scheduled commentary programs as these simply pull more market share than liberal slanted programs pull. Conversely, CNN has tilted decidedly left in that department.

Sofia is right that Fox has so trounced CNN and other news networks in the ratings that the others have had to clean up their acts somewhat.

The alphabet news services will continue to tilt left, however, in the foreseeable future. The liberals need not fear they won't be able to see conservatives bashed anywhere. Smile

0 Replies

So, all this time ILZ just thought the liberals were always right...LMAO!!!

0 Replies

Well ILZ is pretty sharp and he usually does his homework when sufficiently motivated. But I think most of us do not see bias so much when our ox isn't being gored.

0 Replies

...he thought the news was pro-Dem because they were always right... inconceivable. And, shocking for someone with his volcabulary!

I realize most people only recognize bias when they are the victim. Like you not recognizing Fox's slant, mayhap?

0 Replies

Perhaps. But as a dedicated media watcher, I honestly have not found much of a slant either way in Fox's straight news reporting. And because of the accusations from the left, I have intentionally looked for it. CNN is doing a much better job than they used to in giving a 'fair and balanced' straight news report as well. I won't say they are as good at objectivity as Fox is.

When it comes to the 'commentary' programs, however, these are always slanted except for the 'yelling matches' that feature people from both the left and the right.

0 Replies

Well-- let me break it down, because I have some agreement with you.

Fox tells the stories no one else will. The problem is: half of these are better left untold, because they are incomplete, or premature. But, there are certain stories that the more liberal media avoids because they would reflect positive on Bush or a Republican, or negative on a Democrat... Here is where Fox is worthwhile.

I also cringe at some of the partisan declarations from Shep or Asman. They seem a little gung ho, and speak out too casually for my taste--for a newscast.

I used to like their morning show, but even those three have moved a little right (or activist) for my taste, as well. I just wish they would read the news.

But, of course, I can stomach them much easier than I can the Democrat lackeys on the major networks.

I like Cap Gang on CNN. (A yelling match show) Used to like McLaughlin Group, but alas, they are no more. Its where I learned to hate Eleanor Clift. (I have since perfected that hate...) (Old bitch.) Smile

Kidding.

0 Replies

Quote:

I used to like their morning show, but even those three have moved a little right (or activist) for my taste, as well. I just wish they would read the news.

They have been more partisan lately but then the country is at war and they are all patriots to the core. And this kind of program doesn't really need to be balanced as it is alternate programming to "Good Morning America" or "The Today Show". But I agree, they aren't as good as they used to be I think more because they are trying to be 'entertaining' rather than just do what they do best which is comment on the news.

When the camera cuts to Lauren Green or whomever the talking head reading the news of the hour is, however, these people do a credible job of objective reporting with little or no slant detectable.

I generally tune out any from either the left or the right when they are brought on just to give their spin on a particular issue. They are all boring.

I wonder if Eleanor Clift embarasses any from the left?

0 Replies

You have a point about Fox and Friends. They do have much more lee-way, but I wish they could tone it down a notch or two. And, yeah, Lauren's pretty straight.

Eleanor is like the left's Ann Coulter--but try to get them to admit it....

(Old bitch)
Smile

0 Replies

Let's do it without filler:

The New York Times and the Washington Post, the two most imporatant and quoted newspapers in the USA are liberal--not conservative.

Jennings, Brokaw and Rather are liberal, not conservative.

CNN is liberal,not conservative.

Now, if Iron Lion Zion would like to bring forth some evidence that these sources are indeed conservative, I would gladly peruse them.

Now, here are some examples from Bernard Goldber's book "Bias" that shows liberal bias.

Perhaps Iron Lion Zion has some evidence to give rather than the meaninless rant above.

quote

"Some thoughts on those angry voters, Ask parents of any two year old and they can tell you all about those temper tantrums. The voters had a tember tantrum last week.."
ABC anchorman Peter Jennings after the GOP won the House Nov. 14th 1994.

It is clear that Jennings is not a conservative but rather a liberal

and

"The man is on the Court". You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that's how I feel. He's an absolutely reprehensible person."

USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio Talk Show Host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994,

The USA columnist is not a conservative. She is a liberal and, apparently, a racist liberal.

and

"I think that he( Jesse Helms) ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind, because if there is retributive justice, he'll get aids from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

NPR and ABC News Reporter Nina Totenberg reacting to Senator Jesse Helms' claim that the government spends too much money on AIDS research.

One of the lead ABC reporters is definitely not a conservative but a rabid insulting Liberal.

All of these quotes can be found in Bernard Goldberg's book- Bias.

Now, again,I wonder if Iron Lion Zion can come up with the proof that the media is mainly conservative.

The qoutes above seem to say NO!!

0 Replies

LIFE DURING WARTIME Now and Then
http://Forbes.com | November 10, 2001 | CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY

LIFE DURING WARTIME

Now and Then What if today's media covered World War II?

BY CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY Saturday, November 10, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

Dec. 12, 1941: The City Council of Berkeley, Calif. approves, by 5-4, a resolution condemning as "warmongering" the recent U.S. declaration of war on Japan. In a statement, the council deplores "violence as a means of settling international disputes" and urges President Roosevelt to "sit down with the Japanese ambassador in Washington" and "enter into a meaningful, non-gender or race-based dialogue."

Dec. 13, 1941: In an article for the New Yorker, Mavis Montag suggests that the U.S. "has only itself to blame" for the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, she expresses satisfaction that America is now formally at war with Germany and will thus "be forced to aid the heroic struggle of the Soviet Union."

Jan. 30, 1942: In an interview on "Good Morning Nippon," a Japanese bomber pilot wounded over Pearl Harbor denounces the American Navy's attempt to defend itself from the attack.

"They should have accepted our bombs as divine will," says Murama Takaji, 22, who appears on the popular morning show with both arms in a sling. He says that once he recovers he hopes to join the elite Divine Wind ("kamikaze") squadron. "It would be a great honor to crash into an American ship," he says. "I hear there are many pretty geishas in the next life."

Feb. 7, 1942: The head of ABC News retracts revelation of Doolittle mission. "I misspoke," he says. "There actually is no secret plan to launch B-25 bombers off aircraft carriers to bomb Tokyo on April 18. Really."

April 20, 1942: Officials from the Japanese Imperial Ministry of Propaganda and Dissimulation give American reporters a tour of areas of Tokyo damaged in the Doolittle raid. According to the officials, all bombs missed military targets, landing instead on nursery schools, hospitals, temples, infant formula factories and schools for handicapped children.

April 21, 1942: The head of the United Notions expresses "grave concern" over civilian casualties in yesterday's Doolittle raid over Tokyo.

"If there are to be any more of these so-called 'daring' raids over Japanese population centers," he says, "American pilots must be more sensitive to collateral damage."

Mr. Buckley is editor of Forbes FYI. His new novel, "Trial of the Millennium," will be published next year by Random House.

0 Replies

I would imagine we could add Maureen O'Dowd sympathizing with the Japanese and decrying how they despised us during the five-year occupation while we helped them put their country back together and in which they set themselves on the path to become one of the most prosperous, productive democratic nations on earth.

0 Replies

A wonderful piece, Tarantulas. I suggest you keep parts of it handy when the US Left wing apoligists for the "innocent Iraqis" appear on the scene.

But, are you sure that Mr. Blatham wasn't channeling Murama Takaji.?

How soon they forget. We rebuilt Europe after World War II and, in the meantime, helped rebuild the world economy and kept the Communists out of parts of Europe.

It was, of course, and as all countries must do, an act which was in our best interests.

The attitude of the French and the Germans today remind us that "no good deed goes unpunished."

Foxfyre's comment, despite the caterwauling of nay sayers like Mr. Blatham, reminds us that in almost every case in the last century, the US has helped nations become self-sufficient and has aided some on thier road to Democracy.

0 Replies

The quote on my previous post by Julianna Malveaux concerning her hope that Mrs, Thomas feed her husband too much butter and eggs so that he might die from a heart attack is something that only liberals would overlook as long as it came from a liberal.

On another post, I labeled the vicious killers of Berg and Pearl as "towelheads" I was immediately called a "racist'>

I said that I could not be a racist since most Arabs were Caucasians.

Of course, Malveaux would not be tagged with the "racist" brush for his vile and horrible comment about Justice Thomas. She is, of course, black, and since she is the same race as her target cannot be called a "racist".

0 Replies

Well, your towelhead comment was disgusting, no matter how disgusting others may be, Mporter. Or do you defend it because others are also disgusting?

0 Replies

And I suggest you may not hear such howls of protest about the quotes you give because they were not posted here by the people who made them. When the offender is right there in cyberspace with you, reaction is more immediate and impassioned.

0 Replies

Lets not forget the media's darling... Ms. Hilliary Rodham-Clinton getting a free pass on the comment she made about the Mahatma Ghandi.

When asked about Ghandi ... the 'smartest woman in the world' was herd to comment "Yes? Didn't he work at a gas station"

Could you imagine the uproar from the press if one of those 'dirty', 'nasty', 'racist' Republicans had made such a comment?

You would have seen such an uproar as to make the roof cave in and you would have seen the comment repeated endlessly until said Republican was forced to either resign or throw himself on a funeral pyre in penance.

The reaction from the news media? .... None.

0 Replies

The news media and Nick Berg

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know