OT: The media bias

[Dutch]

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040602/ts_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

[EagleFan]

It seems that the media would rather us have this guy...
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738

[EagleFan]

Or...
http://365news.tripod.com/247/060204d113.html

[EagleFan]

double dola: Sorry, not wanting to thread-jack, just having a little fun with some of the stories that I found. ;)

[Glengoyne]

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040602/ts_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

I get irked when I hear reporters/anchors say things like "the Administration's war in Iraq". I mean they should at least try to hide their bias a little. I also got a kick out of an AP story that was on Fox News a few days ago. The article was explaining Trent Lott's stance on the Prisoner Abuse Scandal...in a nutshell...what went on was over the line and far too widespread, but really some level of psychological manipulation is simply part of the interrogation process. That little bit isnt' why I am posting about it in this thread. The last line, it's own paragraph actually, read something like. paraphrase-->"Lott was formerly the Majority Leader of the Senate, and was forced to resign for making statements applauding the segregationalist run for president by Stromm Thurmond." Now that is certainly taking what Lott said in the least favorable light.

[Dutch]

Bush Skips Eisenhower 'Crusade' Reference
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040602/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_crusade_1

2 hours, 10 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. - President Bush (news - web sites) deleted word "crusade" — considered an inflammatory reference by Muslims — on Wednesday as he recalled Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's message to allied troops before the D-Day invasion at Normandy, France, 60 years ago.

Here's another one. Perhaps Bush skipped the line mentioning the 'Great Crusade' because it is inflammatory. So, just to help "Bush's War on Terror", the media fills in the blanks so to be sure nobody misses what he was trying to avoid. Thanks a lot.

[BishopMVP]

Hey look, it's 4 gun battles, 2 mortar rounds and a car bombing across a country the size of California, or as CBS calls it - Violence Across Iraq. hxxp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml :rolleyes:

[Mac Howard]

The media's priorities are, in no particular order, sensation, bad news and political agenda. I make that accusation of both left and right. Balanced reporting (I just love Fox News' claim of "fair and balanced reporting" :rolleyes: ) is way down the list.

[digamma]

The media's priorities are, in no particular order, sensation, bad news and political agenda. I make that accusation of both left and right. Balanced reporting (I just love Fox News' claim of "fair and balanced reporting" :rolleyes: ) is way down the list.
You left out their number one priority, which is making money. Sensationalism and giving the bad news first ("if it bleeds, it leads") are a symptom of that first priority

[Dutch]

Funny how everybody mentions Fox News. Maybe we should do our own study. First we name as many media outlets that widely disseminate news.

I can think of AP, Reuters, AFP, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times.

Those are the big ones that I can think of. We love to bash Fox News for leaning right. Some argue that the Washington Post leans right. Where do the rest fall? I personally have complained about AP, Reuters, AFP, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, LA Times and New York Times. I don't listen or read enough about MSNBC and the Chicago Tribune.

[BishopMVP]

Some results from a recent survey of national journalists (hxxp://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey_prc2.asp) that are interesting - 8.5% think the news media has been too critical of Bush, 35% say it's been fair and 55% say it hasn't been critical enough. The Press "being too cynical as a valid criticism" has gone from 53-45% saying it was valid in 1999 to 37-63 in 2004. When asked whether they could think of a national news media organization that was especially conservative 82% said yes, with 69% naming FoxNews. When asked about any national news media being especially liberal, only 38% answered yes, with 20% answering the NYT and, surprisingly, the WaPo the only other one higher than 2%, with 4%.

And of course, while the public self-describes itself as 33% Conservative and 20% Liberal, National journalists self-describe themselves as 34% Liberal, 7% Conservative. What liberal media?

[MJ4H]

Some results from a recent survey of national journalists

...

What liberal media?

Good strategy asking the journalists if they are biased.

[MrBug708]

People take the LA Times seriously?

[sabotai]

People take the LA Times seriously?

People take the media seriously?

[ice4277]

Funny how everybody mentions Fox News.
I think this is because they try to make such a point of letting eveybody know how 'balanced' they are when this is clearly not the case. I think you would probably get the same kind of reaction if CNN were to do the same.

[wade moore]

I think that it is funny that to many the "biased media" merely means "liberally biased media". While I will grant that in my opinion there are more mainstream media outlets that bias towards liberal, but they are all terribly biased. As someone stated, the "fair and balanced" Fox News is just as biased, it is just biased right instead of left.

It's all biased, not just the leftists...

[Mac Howard]

The left wing media doesn't escape criticism. In fact the Director General of the BBC, the Chairman of the BBC (I think it was the chairman) and the editor of Britain's best selling left wing newspaper have all lost their jobs over misrepresentations of Iraqi stories from a "left wing" point of view :)

[Dutch]

I think this is because they try to make such a point of letting eveybody know how 'balanced' they are when this is clearly not the case. I think you would probably get the same kind of reaction if CNN were to do the same.

I did not suggest that right-leaning press be censored in this thread. I encourage us all to throw examples out there from both sides.

This one might be considered "Right leaning" because it's got a positive headline that doesn't use the word "lackey" or "puppet" in it's headline describing the interim Iraqi government. However, the ENTIRE article has nothing to do with this top Iraqi cleric. The entire content of the article is about death and violence. So why did they name it like this? The overall mission remains the same, make the War on Terror look bad, hurt President Bush.

Cleric Endorses New Iraqi Government

40 minutes ago

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer

NAJAF, Iraq - Fighting broke out Thursday in nearby Kufa between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen — the eighth straight day of clashes since a deal last week to end the violence. The country's most influential Shiite cleric, meanwhile, tacitly endorsed Iraq (news - web sites)'s new interim government.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&e=3&ncid=

[Glengoyne]

...The overall mission remains the same, make the War on Terror look bad, hurt President Bush.


I agree with the first portion of your statement, in that the media prefers to publish the bad news on the war in Iraq. I also think 95% of the content would be the same even if say President Clinton were in office. Bad news is more sensational than good news, so it gets the coverage. It is the little jibes and sometimes not so hidden editorial comentary in the news that reveals a bias.

Regarding Fox News. I honestly think a good deal of their coverage is 'fair and balanced'. To me they present the same stories as CNN and MSNBC, and quite often they take the 'spin' out of the stories on the other sites. Then again there are times when I see their 'spin' applied to a story or headline, and wonder to myself "How in the Hell do they consider that balanced." If it means anything I think a some of CNN's coverage is balanced as well. It is just that little bit that taints so much of it. In short I think CNN's bias is more pervasive, but that Fox's tends to be more aggregious.

[Dutch]

I consider FoxNews the only one that puts a positive spin on things George Bush does. It's obviously a bias for the President. But what doesn't fly is that if sensationalizing bad news, ignoring good news, and fabricating "black helicopter" theories on everything is so successful, how is FoxNews grabbing all the increases in market shares by airing so much "good news"?

I think the myth is being tested by FoxNews as we speak. That's why I like watching them.

[bryce]

I consider FoxNews the only one that puts a positive spin on things George Bush does. It's obviously a bias for the President. But what doesn't fly is that if sensationalizing bad news, ignoring good news, and fabricating "black helicopter" theories on everything is so successful, how is FoxNews grabbing all the increases in market shares by airing so much "good news"?

I think the myth is being tested by FoxNews as we speak. That's why I like watching them.

also consider that, generally speaking, people will choose their news stations based on their ideologies. liberals have a plethora from which to choose, including CNN, the national networks, their local news, etc etc; conservatives, on the other hand, have but one source, FNC.

so it could be argued the liberal viewership is split amongst several channels, resulting in no one channel getting splendid ratings, and the conservative viewership pretty much all flock to FNC, resulting in the 'success' you see at Fox.

[sabotai]

Market share increases? That's a good way to show how people put spin on things, Dutch. :)

The big 3 news stations, FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC are all down in viewership (there was a spike for the war, so obviously it would go down). Both CNN and MSNBC have seen their audience cut in half, while FoxNews has dropped a third. It doesn't take a genius to see how FoxNews has lost viewership but still gained market share. The O'Reilly Factor is the top program of all three stations, and I'd hardly call his show objective or positive.

Source: hxxp://www.washtimes.com/national/20040331-105342-8640r.htm

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Also remember, those "great" ratings for the cable news networks at their best only add up to a 6.0 or so...still less than half of network television and even lower than wrestling was doing at its peak. :-)

So, the 24 hour news channels are a niche for news junkies or for channel surfers who flip on to get the news quick if they missed Dan Rather earlier in the night.
- Jesse

[Dutch]

Iraqis Paying 5 Cents a Gallon for Gas

Sat Jun 5,10:46 PM ET Add Business - AP to My Yahoo!


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline — a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers.
...
Analysts say there never was a good case — either before the war or afterward — that a U.S. invasion would pay dividends in cheap oil.

"Some of the neo-conservatives might've been saying that, but no energy analysts were walking around saying that," Cordesman said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040606/ap_on_bi_ge/iraq_cheap_gas_4

FWIW: It was the opponents of President Bush that were saying the Iraq War was all about the stealing of middle eastern oil, It was the allied base that was saying the war was going to be long, hard work, and expensive.

[WussGawd]

Example: anti-Bush bias.

War on Terror Like WWII Mission, Bush Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040602/ts_nm/bush_dc_8

48 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By David Morgan

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday compared his war on terror to America's mission in World War II while calling for a new era of reform to avoid the emergence of "terrorist-controlled states" in the oil-rich Middle East.

Example: pro-Bush bias.
TBD

Dutch, I'm not interested enough in this topic to bother, but frankly, it is the height of hilarity for Bush to even think there are similarities between our Splendid Little Preemptive War in Iraq and our participation in World War II. Unless, of course, Bush is assuming that we'll take the role of Nazi Germany in the Iraq war (premeditated attack based on a pretext).

[JPhillips]

Dutch: A number of admin officials said that reconstruction could be paid for through oil revenues.

[Glengoyne]

Dutch: A number of admin officials said that reconstruction could be paid for through oil revenues.
Yes the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for by selling Iraqi oil on the open market. That is exactly what was said. That is NOT what the article claimed.


Wussgawd,

I do agree with you that it would be presumptuous for the President to compare the War in Iraq to World War Two. I don't think he did. I think he compared the soldiers fighting in the war on terror to the soldiers that served in WWII. In that regard, I agree wholeheartedly with his position. Those men and women are putting it all on the line, and I think it is in poor taste to denigrate what they are fighting for.

[Dutch]

Dutch, I'm not interested enough in this topic to bother, but frankly, it is the height of hilarity for Bush to even think there are similarities between our Splendid Little Preemptive War in Iraq and our participation in World War II. Unless, of course, Bush is assuming that we'll take the role of Nazi Germany in the Iraq war (premeditated attack based on a pretext).

I would suggest that the big difference is that Bush/Bush Jr. intervened before Hussein had the ability to place himself in history with Hitler.

Thank God for that, at least.

The squabbling over pre-emptive vs. reaction is certainly eerily similar.

Still waiting for that pro-Bush article from a major media source that reaks of bias.

[WussGawd]

I would suggest that the big difference is that Bush/Bush Jr. intervened before Hussein had the ability to place himself in history with Hitler.

Thank God for that, at least.

The squabbling over pre-emptive vs. reaction is certainly eerily similar.

Still waiting for that pro-Bush article from a major media source that reaks of bias.

Dial up Fox News or Rush. I'm sure you'll find one within 5 minutes...and don't deny that Fox News is a major media source at this point.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Hussein had NO ability to be Hitler. We tend to forget that Hitler had one of the most industrialized countries and one of the largest and most advanced armies in the world. If Hitler had Hussein's country and army their would have been no World War II.

[Dutch]

In the Nuclear Age, you don't need 50,000 Panzer Tanks to ravage an enemy's civilian population. You simply need Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear Weapons.

The UN stated that Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Program would have had a nuclear capable bomb by the year 1993 had the US and the coalition not gone in and fought Iraq in 1991.

Don't worry, it's easy to forget when the media forgets.

Here's another question.

We see Abu Graib prison plastered in every headline. But the only headlines involving the Army or the Marines involves their death. So.....

Should the media be telling us stories of military victories or positive things happening in Iraq. We call them brave. But why? Shouldn't the stories behind this bravery be getting any air time? Is nobody interested in the good things our soldiers are doing?

[ice4277]

Like people have mentioned earlier, part of the problem with this is the media mentality in general: "If it bleeds, it leads". The same reason murder gets so much coverage on the nightly news is a big part of the reason the bad stuff gets so much attention. Not to say that there is no bias, because there definitely is, but I think it is less of a conspiracy than you are making it out to be. Moreso, it is just the current journalistic mentality.

[Driftwood]

The media gives us what we want. Period.

Most of the people who listen to the radio to get their news are conservative.

Most of the people who watch Dateline are liberal.

Supply and demand. Period.

[Dutch]

We have also mentioned that of all the major news media outlets, FoxNews has been doing the best in the last 5 years or so.....by precicely NOT focusing on what has traditionally been the "money winner" in news. Usually, trends are followed, and mimicked, yet, we haven't seen anybody mimick Fox News yet. Not one channel. And the main reason that is most plausible to date is the media bias.

I'm still waiting for that news media slant that is in favor of the right from a major media source. I know there has got to be a least one story that has crossed our internet reading lately that is slanted right but attempted to be written as unbiased, centered news.

[sabotai]

FoxNews has been doing the best in the last 5 years or so.....

2 years, actually...

by precicely NOT focusing on what has traditionally been the "money winner" in news.

And yes they have.

[Dutch]

Sabotai,

Are you suggesting that FoxNews is not only positive but also negative? Next you are going to tell me they are Fair and Balanced? :D

[sabotai]

Sabotai,

Are you suggesting that FoxNews is not only positive but also negative?

They put a "positive" spin on the things they agree with, and a "negative" spin on the things they don't agree with. Just like CNN. They are the bizarro CNN.

I wouldn't say the reason CNN is #2 and FoxNes is #1 is because FoxNews puts a positive light on things and CNN is all negative as you suggest, but I will say I think the reason is because CNN is, simply put, BORING! Holy shit, I can not sit through 1 minute of their programming without wanting to jump on the floor and squirm like little kids do when they can't wait for their situation to change anymore.

And when the people on FoxNews start mudslinging at each other, at least they ATTEMPT to hide their total ad hom arguments and their retarded insults. I attempt to watch that show Crossfire, and all I hear is "You're pathetic. That's pathetic." "That's just stupid." OMG! Can you people have a debate without just throwing insults? What is this, the .400 forum! Come on!

I saw something other day where the one guy went on for a minute, and instead of the other guy even attempting to discuss and counter the things the first guy said, he just went into his "That's just whining. It's pathetic" rant. Ugh. HORRIBLE! (And Larry King's show is incredibly boring)

The reason FoxNews is on top is even though it's as negative as CNN, as bias as CNN and everything they say is just as pointless as CNN...they do it in an entertaining way. CNN does not.

Jon Stewert puts a huge liberal spin on the stuff he covers on the Daily Show, and his ratings beat the snot out of anyone on FoxNews. :D

[Dutch]

They put a "positive" spin on the things they agree with, and a "negative" spin on the things they don't agree with. Just like CNN. They are the bizarro CNN.

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

[Sharpieman]

The media gives us what we want. Period.

Most of the people who listen to the radio to get their news are conservative.

Most of the people who watch Dateline are liberal.

Supply and demand. Period.
So true.

[Dutch]

Not really.

[Dutch]

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

Okay, times up! Now your researching...not fair. (and yes, 6 minutes was plenty of time) :)

Anyway, where was the grossly pro-Bush article or pro-War article to show that the media bias was simply a farse?

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Let's give Hussein the benefit of being able to deliver a nuke. That's terrible, but the damage from one Hiroshima sized nuke pales in comparison to the damage reaped by Hitler's war machine. And Hussein would only get one chance. Our military could have easily deposed Saddam at any point over the past twenty years. Now I'm not arguing that Saddam was a nice guy or even that we shouldn't have gone to war, but spare me the WWII comparisons they have no basis in fact.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I've seen any number of positive stories on CNN. They run them every day. Maybe its a new environmental program or a new school for women in Afghanistan or what have you. Your argument on that point is baseless.

[sabotai]

Think Fast! Name ONE thing CNN is positive about.

...

Okay, times up! Now your researching...not fair. (and yes, 6 minutes was plenty of time)

Sorry Dutch, but I don't revolve my life around your thread and I just read both of these right now. Besides, I thought I just basically said I don't watch or read CNN, so how would I be able to just psychically answer this without going to CNN and looking for things?

You seem to have this idea that FoxNews is nothing but positive. Asking me to name one positive thing from FoxNews (which I said both CNN and FoxNews does) would offer me the same challenge. I don't read or watch either regularly enough to simply pull some recent thing out and say "This is positively spun". How oftan do you watch CNN?

Are you saying, then, that CNN does not spin things to put a positive light on liberals? All they do is put a negative spin on conservatives? No making liberals out to be good?

[Dutch]

The re-militarization of the Alsace-Lorraine wasn't the cause of 60 million dead. The illegal annexing of Austria did not in itself cause 60 million people to die, either. The invasion Poland did not lead to 60 million dead. I'd be willing to bet that one thing led to another and then 60 million people had to die because of it.

One nuclear bomb detonated in New York, then perhaps a week later in Los Angeles, then another in Chicago....what would you expect our government to do exactly with this happening?

What about a well placed nuke in Tel Aviv, then Jerusalem? What would you expect the Isreali's reaction would be?

I think the world gets off easy knowing Hussein is a two-bit punk rather than a two-bit punk that started world war III. Crazier, (and lesser) people have started world wars.

[Dutch]

Sorry Dutch, but I don't revolve my life around your thread

Okay, but you had your chance.... :)

[sabotai]

Okay, but you had your chance.... :)

My chance to what? SHow you a positive story from CNN. Okay, let's see what the CNN website has to offer.

Well, here's the first story under "World": http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/09/congo.ap/index.html

Hey, renegades flee, the city is saved. That one looks like a positive one.

What's the first one under U.S.... http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/06/09/nerve.gas.ap/index.html

Hey look, our army is getting rid of dangerous, chemical weapons. The residents and groups are happy. Pretty positive there.

But I guess you'll find some way to just explain these as negative too...

[JPhillips]

Their reaction would be just what I said, they would invade and take out Saddam instantly. We toppled him quickly with a small force structure and limited invasion points. If Saddam nuked us we could count on help from NATO and no restrictions.

And actually, no lesser people have not started a World War. That demands an industrial and military base that Saddam didn't have. Our most extreme intelligence estimates didn't see Saddam as a threat even remotely comparable to Hitler. Saddam possibly could have killed a coule of hundred thousand people, maybe, but doubtfully, a million. That's it.

[Dutch]

The Iran-Iraq War in itself caused more than 1,000,000 casualties.

Also, the Archduke of Austria (Ferdinand) was assissinated by a Serbian which touched of the first world war.

[Dutch]

But I guess you'll find some way to just explain these as negative too...

I don't find any bias in either of those stories. So why not some about the troops on the frontlines of the war on terror?

[Driftwood]

Are we still talking about this? Maybe you all need to re-read my earlier post.

:P

[JPhillips]

Dutch: You are confusing the issue by bringing up WW1. The assasination triggered the war because of entangling alliances and predetermined mobilization schedules. Also, every country involved in 1914 was preparing for a war that they felt was inevitable. The assasination of the Archduke was merely the political pretense for a war that would have happened sooner or later.

Now in Iraq he had no allies, certainly not any with sizable military forces. Even if he had nuked NYC he could count on no support. We, and our allies and probably the Arab world would have crushed him.

Face it, neither WW1 or WW2 compares to Hussein.

[Dutch]

Driftwood,

The "major" news media, the American free press if you will, should not be the voice of the Democratic Party. The US Constitution protects the press so they can tell us, the American public, the whole story, not just the story that gets Bush defeated and their "guy" into office. The AFP is far left, then comes Rueters, then the AP. There are no major press sources that are considered right.

Television Newstainment is also sided with John Kerry. You have ABC and NBC and CNN refusing, or at best, hesitant to mention anything that might be helpful to President Bush.

The lone exception is FoxNews, and we don't have to really get into the specifics of how much they are beaten down for not being the liberal left.

Talk Radio is my news outlet? Give me a break, they are talk show hosts! They are the equivalent of Michael Moore! However, having said that, they are never mentioned in the news media, unless they are being slammed. The news media/press is also too busy scrambling up stories and spotlight pieces on Michael Moore (the anti-Limbaugh) and making sure his message is getting out.

[Dutch]

Dutch: You are confusing the issue by bringing up WW1.

We were talking about the fact that somebody smaller than Hussein could stir up a bigger hornets nest, I brought up an example.

The assasination triggered the war because of entangling alliances and predetermined mobilization schedules. Also, every country involved in 1914 was preparing for a war that they felt was inevitable. The assasination of the Archduke was merely the political pretense for a war that would have happened sooner or later.

Exactly. If Saddam Hussein detonates a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, and Israel retaliates by detonating a nuclear bomb on a "Islamic" city, such as Baghdad, by nature of the severity, the radicals and fundamentalists claim it is a Jewish attack on the Arab World, they are pressured into triggering their alliance with their Arab brothers (who come first before the Jews) and they declare war on Israel. More nukes are detonated to destroy Israel and we are forced to enter in and fight the entire Muslim world.

It's how these things get started.

Now in Iraq he had no allies, certainly not any with sizable military forces. Even if he had nuked NYC he could count on no support. We, and our allies and probably the Arab world would have crushed him.

Now you are trying to force an exact comparison to the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe and their stormtroopers and blitzkriegs to show World War is impossible without those exact parameters. That's the wrong way of thinking and it's what's causing this debate.

Face it, neither WW1 or WW2 compares to Hussein.

Exactly, because we stopped him.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: This argument is pointless. You're convinced that Hussein represented one of the greatest dangers the Western world has ever faced and I'm not. I'm not arguing against deposing him, but Saddam could not have started a world war. The situations are completely different. Your argument relies on a series of unlikely actions that will eventually result in global conflagration. I can't accept such an unlikely scenario as being worthy of argument.

[Driftwood]

My personal opinion is that we should invade Russia. I mean, Putin is crushing Democracy...tightening his grip on power...and he has all those nukes. What would happen if he decided to attack us first? Now THAT would cause World War III! Wouldnt we look back after taking him out and be glad that we took him out now before he had the chance to start WWIII?

Lets all be honest. We all know we should eliminate Putin and put in a more Democratic government. Lets show the same guts we showed in Iraq! Come on, guys! Whos with me?

CHARGE!!!!!

[Dutch]

Dutch: This argument is pointless. You're convinced that Hussein represented one of the greatest dangers the Western world has ever faced and I'm not. I'm not arguing against deposing him, but Saddam could not have started a world war. The situations are completely different. Your argument relies on a series of unlikely actions that will eventually result in global conflagration. I can't accept such an unlikely scenario as being worthy of argument.

Basically, you need proof. I admit, Germany taking over all of Europe and Japan taking over all of Asia is a pretty good reason to get involved. But there were things that could have been done sooner had we known. The chance of Iraq starting a world war? Sure it's not probable, but it was certainly possible. And our pre-emptive nature put the notion to rest for good. Our intelligence was shit. We are learning more and more how little we did know. The bottom line, in 2003, we had to find out what was going on in Iraq. While I understand people will disagree with the scenario, I understand and support the decision to finally put the issue to rest.

[Dutch]

My personal opinion is that we should invade Russia. I mean, Putin is crushing Democracy...tightening his grip on power...and he has all those nukes. What would happen if he decided to attack us first? Now THAT would cause World War III! Wouldnt we look back after taking him out and be glad that we took him out now before he had the chance to start WWIII?

Lets all be honest. We all know we should eliminate Putin and put in a more Democratic government. Lets show the same guts we showed in Iraq! Come on, guys! Whos with me?

CHARGE!!!!!

We couldn't have won a war with Russia. The diplomatic climate changes a little once nukes are bargaining chips, don't you agree?

[Dutch]

Here's a pleasant story from the AP... and I'm not making this stuff up. I'm still waiting for a positive AP story about George Bush.

Reagan Death No Boost for Conservatives

1 hour, 20 minutes ago

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040611/ap_on_el_pr/trail_mix&cid=694&ncid=2043

NEW YORK - Republicans may have been counting on Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s death to boost President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign. In the publishing world, at least, the former president's passing has not provided any bounce to conservative books.

BY THE NUMBERS:

13 — Links to Web sites containing material on Ronald Reagan featured on the Bush-Cheney re-election Web site.

1 — Reagan-related links on Kerry's official Web site.


THIS WEEK FOUR YEARS AGO:

{EDIT: The hero of this segment?} Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) launched a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign, released the first in a series of economic initiatives and announced a lengthy "progress and prosperity tour," saying the week might be a turning point in his campaign against George W. Bush. Gore also announced his support of a "lock box" to protect Medicare surpluses from budgetary raids.

{EDIT: And the antagonist?}The Texas governor kept a steady pace in battleground states, promising in government reform speeches to usher in an era of political civility. In a break with recent tradition, Republicans said there would be fewer partisan attacks on Gore during the party's national convention.

___

Associated Press Writers Hillel Italie, Liz Sidoti and Sam Hananel contributed to this report.

[Chubby]

Nice to see the republicans trying to use a former president's death for political reasons. I mean, hell, they've already used 9/11 politically.

I've never been one to defend Reagan but at least let him rest in peace instead of trying to use his as a political pawn after this death.

[Dutch]

Nobody is doing that, Chubby.

This is the ugly side of the argument that I have. When is the media reporting news, and when are they making up their own news to push their agenda?

[MrBug708]

Nice to see the republicans trying to use a former president's death for political reasons. I mean, hell, they've already used 9/11 politically.

I've never been one to defend Reagan but at least let him rest in peace instead of trying to use his as a political pawn after this death.

It's easy to say that as the opposition....

[JPhillips]

Dutch: What the hell? Gore titled the tour "progress and prosperity". Can the media not even report the title of Democratic events? And "battleground" is a common refernece used by both sides. To say Bush is visiting battleground states is not bias. The "lockbox" idea was to do exactly what was reported. Now you can argue whether this was a good idea or whether Gore would have actually done it, but they merely reported what in fact was planned.

You're looking for bias everywhere and hence always finding it. If I wanted I could find conservative bias in that same article, but I don't because I'm not constantly searching for anything to bite ahold of. You need to let this go a little. It really hurts your credible cases of media bias when you use examples like this.

[Chubby]

Nobody is doing that, Chubby.

This is the ugly side of the argument that I have. When is the media reporting news, and when are they making up their own news to push their agenda?
So I didn't see Bill O'Reilly (on FoxNews) blabbering on and on to some republican political analyst last night about how Reagan's death should help Bush? (I was bored watching the Laker game and flipping channels)

MrBug - And? I don't think anyone's death should be used for political purposes, be it Reagan, 9/11, or anyone else.

[JPhillips]

Chubby: Take a look at the Bush04 web page and tell me they aren't using Reagan as a campaign weapon. Also, why other than politics was Bush the eulogy speaker? Surely someone closer to Reagan would have been the choice in a non-election year.

[Arles]

We'll see how much coverage this gets as well:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared."

[Chubby]

Chubby: Take a look at the Bush04 web page and tell me they aren't using Reagan as a campaign weapon. Also, why other than politics was Bush the eulogy speaker? Surely someone closer to Reagan would have been the choice in a non-election year.
Psst, I said they are using him as a campaign weapon. :D

[JPhillips]

Chubby: Yeah, I tried to back you up, but I guess it did look like I was attacking. Sorry.

[Dutch]

If I wanted I could find conservative bias in that same article.

It only helps your part of the argument to post it.

[Chubby]

Chubby: Yeah, I tried to back you up, but I guess it did look like I was attacking. Sorry.

heh, it's ok :)

[Dutch]

Here's one for you, it wasn't posted on CNN, but FoxNews picked it up.

Polish Iraq Hostage Praises U.S. Rescuers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122359,00.html
Thursday, June 10, 2004

WARSAW, Poland — A rescued Polish hostage said Thursday that U.S. soldiers burst through a steel door to the house where he and others were held captive in Iraq, then assured them: "Don't worry, we are Americans."



Businessman Jerzy Kos (search) arrived home after being freed from Iraqi insurgents Tuesday in Baghdad with another Pole and three Italians.

"I am very moved to be back in Poland and to be alive," Kos said at Warsaw airport after stepping off his plane, his face pale and voice trembling. "I am so moved, I can hardly speak."

The 64-year-old construction company director described his rescue as a lighting-quick operation.

They were imprisoned in a house in Ramadi (search), west of Baghdad, until Tuesday, when they heard helicopters approaching. The door was then blown in, kicking up a dust cloud and knocking the hostages to the ground.

"When I opened my eyes, I saw American soldiers," he said. "They said, 'Don't worry, we are Americans.' They held our hands and we ran to the helicopter — I will remember that for the rest of my life."

[Dutch]

Here's another one buried in a CNN article titled, "Rival Shiite groups fight in Najaf". Yes, they are there, sometimes they are hard to find.

South Korea to send troops
South Korea plans to deploy 3,650 troops to the Kurdish region in northern Iraq, according to a report on a government Web site for the Asian nation.

"South Korean troops destined for the northern Iraqi province of Erbil will be stationed in two locations in the Kurdish-controlled region," the government site said.

"In a report to parliament, the Defense Ministry said 3,650 troops will be split up into two groups and stationed in Rashikin in the south and Shwarash in the northwest."

Around 500 South Korean troops have been stationed in Iraq. According to The Associated Press, South Korea originally had planned to send additional troops to Kirkuk in April. The plan was canceled amid concerns it would involve combat operations, in violation of a parliamentary mandate for peacekeeping duties only, the AP said.

Also Friday, the Netherlands decided to extend the deployment of about 1,300 Dutch soldiers in Iraq for eight months, starting in mid-July. "This period has been chosen so that Dutch troops can continue to contribute to stability in Iraq up to and after the elections to be held in January 2005," the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

[Castlerock]

Is politics involved? Of course it is. It's Washington. EVERYTHING is political. I'm not going to sit here and argue that it's not political.

But... it is a state funeral. I would expect the President of the United States to eulogize a former president. And Bush was not the eulogy speaker. He was one of several.

[sabotai]

If youlook for something hard enough, eventually you'll find, even if it's not there.

A few days ago I say this on a top news site (paraphrasing it, I don't remember the exact words)

Laura Bush: President's Stance on Stem-Cell Research Firm
Bush stands by limited funding for possible cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's

Someone could easily look at that and highlight the bottom sentance (the little blurb under the headline on the home page) and say this is a clear example of liberal bias. Even using Reagan for their biasness! What a horrible thing to do. To come out and use Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease to critisize Bush for not funding stem cell research. They could use stem-cell research to help cure Alzheimer's, and this web site uses Reagan to bash President Bush. For shame.

Except when I looked up, I saw I was at FoxNews.com

All Dutch has shown is that you can take pretty much anything, pick out a few choice words and make it look like it's saying something else. I bet I could use Dutch's technique to prove that FoxNews is a far-left and that CNN is a far-right.

[JPhillips]

Fine Dutch.

How about how they mention Bush has 13 Reagan links to Kerry's 1. Are they implying Kerry is less sensitive towards Reagan's death? And why is the Bush site "re-election" and Kerry's "official"? Are they subtlely slanting us towards Bush?

Why did they mention Gore's ad campaign and not Bush's? Certainly Bush was buying ads this week as well. It's as if they want to show that Gore could only get votes by buying them.

What's up with saying Bush kept a steady pace in battleground states while not mentioning Gore? As I remember Gore was ahead at this point. Why don't they mention it? And when they say Bush is going to usher in a new era of civility, why don't they mention Bush's attack ads?

See Dutch, we could play this ame all day and it proves nothing. You want everything to be biased so you convince yourself you're right.

[Dutch]

Jphillips, I'm talking about "slant" not "spin".

[JPhillips]

Dutch: No, you're talking about your perception of slant.

[Dutch]

So you perceive the articles I've mentioned as slanted in favor of the Republicans and President Bush?

[Chubby]

So you perceive the articles I've mentioned as slanted in favor of the Republicans and President Bush?
I believe that multiple people are saying that for every article you throw out there showing "liberal bias", they can throw one out showing "conservative bias".

[MJ4H]

And yet, none have.

[Chubby]

And yet, none have.

evidentally you failed to read sabotai's or JPhillips' posts above

[MJ4H]

sabotai did not point out any conservative bias. JPhillips post identified one poor example. This is not one for one. Not even close.

[Chubby]

sabotai did not point out any conservative bias. JPhillips post identified one poor example. This is not one for one. Not even close.

of course when one only wants to see liberal bias and no conservative bias I guess that's what they'll see.

[sabotai]

sabotai did not point out any conservative bias. JPhillips post identified one poor example. This is not one for one. Not even close.

Apparently you don't see what I was saying. Basically, what I am saying is that no one has posted a clear axample of liberal bias yet. "Not even close". So it's been none for none to this point.

[MJ4H]

I stand by my statement. I usually don't get into these things because of this kind of sniping. If you don't agree with my point, fine. But I believe what I said is correct. I will now stand aside.

Edit: and chubby i am not conservative nor liberal so that theory is not correct.

[JPhillips]

No Dutch, I actually don't see them as slanted towards anyone. I'm not looking for every microscopic possibility of bias. If I did I could point out things like what I did above. I know I'll never convince you, but I don't believe liberal bias is a big problem.

[Glengoyne]

Something from msnbc caught my eye, and made me think of this thread.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

It is interesting how while the President and Cheney are both cited as proclaiming Al Zarquari(sp?) as the best credible evidence of the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission's finding are held up as if they contradict those statements. The commission was investigating the 9/11 attacks. They said there was no credible evidence that Saddam had any connection with the attacks on 9/11. That is NOT what the President and Cheney were proclaiming. This is sloppy, slanted journalism.

[Dutch]

Glen,

Bill O'Reilly was all over this tonight on his broadcast, so I thought I'd share that you scooped Bill by a day and a half! :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is sloppy, slanted journalism. I'm just shocked that just a thing would occur http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

{edited to clarify -- that eye roll is aimed squarely at the sloppy, slanted journalists, not at you}

[Dutch]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_6

Iraq Attacks Kill Over 100, Wound 320

37 minutes ago

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

Here's the latest Yahoo! News Headliner. They apparently were pressed for space because they couldn't put all of Colin Powell's quote in their article.

We underestimated the nature of the insurgency that we might face during this period, and so the insurgency that we are looking at now ... has become a serious problem for us," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the British Broadcast Corp.

But when you check the actual BBC story it says...

US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the BBC: "I think we underestimated the nature of the insurgency that we might face during this period.

"The insurgency that we're looking at now has become a serious problem for us, but it's a problem that we will deal with."

Leaving that out of his statement is pretty important. And I think it stresses the important decision making factors of journalists today.

Journalists are not lying when they tell a story, but they are going out of the way to tell only the things they want told, and are leaving out important pieces of information to further their agenda.

Irresponsible. Free press should work for us, not a political party.

[digamma]

Could we get a dead horse smiley?

[Buddy Grant]

"I'm still waiting for a positive AP story about George Bush."
They may have to make one up :)

[Dutch]

Could we get a dead horse smiley?

Then we could just post it in the Yahoo News Headline section instead of all of their "headlines"? :)