Re: Is there anything that the U.S. doesn't get blamed for?
kickycan wrote:PoetSeductress wrote:PoetSeductress wrote:kickycan wrote:PoetSeductress wrote:I only seek the truth, and refuse to let someone whose premise is hatred (which the majority of the press and their followers) to tell me what and how to think.
Really? The press' premise is hatred? And their followers? You really believe that?
"Most" are, kickycan, but it didn't used to be like that. It's sad, but true. That's why I don't read them, anymore. Two things I have little use for: today's newspapers and television, with few exceptions.
Kickycan, I meant to mention that many followers of the press don't realize the situation with the press. Most of them are good people, but are being led very covertly, to think and believe certain things.
Generally speaking, the press only reports what they want to report, and they leave out what would go against their political agenda.
So how do you decide which ones come from hatred, which are biased, and which you can trust? What's your process of weeding out the "bad" media?
My eyes flash at the sound of lies. <Just kidding!!!>
No, really, kickycan, that is a great question. I've never had to answer it, before. It's hard to put into words, which is why I waited so long to reply. At this moment, I still don't know what to say, so I'll just begin by writing, anyway, and maybe the answer will come in the natural flow of it.
In my early twenties, I was introduced to politics in the women's movement, and joined the ranks as a radical liberal Democrat. I willingly absorbed everything handed to me without question. This was the coolest thing going, the hip way to be. But this didn't mean that all of the propaganda was accurate or constructive. Finally I came to a crossroad in life where I made two important decisions, which caused a major shift in my political views. This moved me to the moderately right of the political spectrum, but I no longer cared much for the subject of politics.
About twenty years later was my second merge with politics. A neighbor introduced me to Rush Limbaugh's radio program (which was still in my pre-Internet days). Rush was the only kid on the block, so to speak, and the only high-profile source which could provide an alternative viewpoint. His personality didn't appeal to me, and some of the comments he would sometimes make were irritating and even offensive. Often I would flip off the radio in disgust, but later would turn it back on. Figuring I could gain
something from his program, I would listen, anyway. Most of what he said fit in with the beliefs I held at the time, so I managed to somehow tolerate the remainder. As I listened, and began comparing the content of mainstream news to what I learned from him, I noticed a stark contrast. This is when I realized that the media as we knew it, was not always neutral and forthright. Even though I didn't agree with everything Rush said, I liked this new way of thinking. It was like visiting a foreign country with a culture different from your own, and learning their perspective on things.
Over time, I grew to understand what Rush was talking about, and he didn't bother me so much, anymore. In my personal life, new decisions made caused yet another shift in my political views, and I chose to become a staunch Conservative Republican.
Then in 2001 (or thereabouts), a friend told me about Fox News, so I became thoroughly engrossed with Bill O'Reilly, and later, Hannity & Colmes. Sean Hannity fit the Republican profile for me, but after listening to Bill who is an Independent, I decided to stay with him. Even though there was more that I disagreed about with him, I still learned things that no Republican or Democrat viewpoint had ever taught me. Over the years with Bill O'Reilly, I learned about a more objective, independent way of seeing things - to think more for myself, than I had been. Yet another way to think! I liked the idea of having moved and exercised myself in multiple directions.
With Bill, sometimes I'd still get irritated and move the dial to another station and listen to a Republican talk show host, but soon would become bored and switch it back, even though I knew he would probably tick me off, sooner or later. His show was never boring, and I was always learning something new. Now it doesn't upset me when I hear him say something I disagree with. I just shake my head and say out loud, "No Bill, you're wrong on this one."
Bill O'Reilly is very good about keeping up with the major newspapers around the country. He analyzes their journalistic approach, points out the good and the bad, then relays it to his listening audience. Now that I've written this out, I can now see the direction of things, and how they've led to this point in time. This is the meat of my answer, I think. Since he used to be a teacher, he's good about explaining things in a way that anyone can understand, if they have any common sense about themselves.
But there is one more thing that shouldn't be overlooked, and that's a person's inner hunches. I use my feelings to test what I'm reading. I'm not saying that it's foolproof, because everyone can make mistakes. It's been reliable for me up to now, though.
If you notice that a newspaper never prints anything positive about a president, and everything is always bash, bash, bash, attempting at every turn to undermine his efforts, or you notice underlying messages about how capitalism is supposedly bad, then red flags should be popping up in your mind on the hatred and anti-Americanism. It is so far removed from reality to believe that a president whom over half the country voted for would be 100% useless. Our elected officials are representatives of the people. The people vote for someone they feel can match up, at least in some part, to what they believe as an American. So if the president were a complete loser, then that means that over half of this country is filled with complete losers. Well, that is very wrong. As for myself, I believe that most people, regardless of whether they're Democrat, Republican, or Independent, are basically good people... not perfect, mind you, but basically good. Since this is the case, it also stands to reason that an elected president would reflect those similar traits, as well.
A study was done, and it was found that about 90% of the press is Democrat, and a large number of them are radically left. If everyone were ethical in their reporting, and remained objective (except when editorializing), this would not be a problem. But they let their personal partisanship bleed over into their news articles. In fact, most newspapers refuse to print anything good about someone they don't like. In those companies, if one lone, naive reporter tries, he either gets ignored, reprimanded, or fired.
Journalism schools are run by the mostly far left, and are churning out clones of themselves with a mission to go out and change America's views according to how they think they ought to be. It's done by what they report in the news, and even more so by what they don't report, opting to leave out. Not only are the Independents and Republicans cheated and deceived in this way, the good Democrats (who the radical left does not represent) are cheated and deceived, too.
As time passes, I've now found myself no longer a Republican, but an Independent. Both the left and the right have negatives and positives. But the left has been unknowingly to most, hijacked by a communist-socialist grassroots effort to undermine America, to cause chaos and destruction, so that one of them can later "rise to the occasion" in the worst hour, and "save" the country from itself, by introducing a "new" way of running the country. This is their plan. The thing is, this is not being done just in the USA. They are reaching stealthily across the globe into other countries, trying to gradually destroy and overtake them from the inside - like a political Trojan Horse.
I didn't mean to get off on that topic, but the reason I brought it up, is to show you why the press is the way it is. I should mention, that not only have these groups of people taken hold of the colleges, they've also targeted positions in the courts and the public school system. This way they can get them while their young, and change the laws of the country not by legal legislation, but by unethical and constitutionally illegal judicial activism.
The Democrat Party is no longer what it was, and more and more are leaving it because of its expanding radical views and outlandish tactics.
In my opinion, the sensible Democrats need to leave their party and start up a new one, and let the others who have infiltrated it, have it.
On Bill O'Reilly's radio website is a list of the major newspapers who have proven themselves as blatantly unethical. Some who read it might feel offended, but I hope not.
I should point out that I don't go to blogs or fear-mongering websites for my information. What I've stated here, with regard to the left and right, and the direction of the Democrat Party is my personal view. I don't have proof, but I've learned that there are a few others who have also spotted it, researched it, and written about it. All I can do is tell you what I see, as I step back and look at the wider view of it. You may have a different view, which is entirely understandable.
Well, I hope this gives you an idea of how I go about picking my sources. Now I know myself, as well.
(By the way, I have not joined in Bill O'Reilly's boycotting of France. I love the culture too much, the language, and the people in it.)
