Anyone watching C-SPAN?

[Dutch]

I've heard Democrats say a lot of things as well. I've spent a lot of time in Mississippi where I would see perpetually poor towns continually voting Democrats in as their Mayors and Representatives because....well, "What's a Republican ever done for us?"

The short answer is -- 'Bout the same as the Democrats. The reality is that the strength of the two-party system is when they play off of one another. The truth is that Democrats ignore just as important sector of our country as do the Republicans. This country isn't just great because of workers. It's also great because of business. It doesn't take a Harvard grad to understand why America is stronger economically than Bangladesh despite the same ammount of hard workers.

As for tax-cuts during war time. That's a soundbite and a half. It was tax-cuts during a recession to be more accurate.

There were great fears that we would be sucked into a recession because people stopped buying things at the mall, investments slowed on low-confidence, that the recession would last for a decade, or even worse, total collapse and a new depression.

The tax relief was an excess of money our government had in it's coffers. It was given back, with the hopes to stimulate a flattened economy following the Dot Com Bust before things got even worse. It may have only been a bandage to help stop the bleeding, but most of that money was re-spent on the economy.

Wars come and go and our economy doesn't need it's coffers stuffed full of peoples hard earned money to be prepared for such events. We are a nation currently that can afford to handle conflict when it arises. I think we've done pretty well considering.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Blen I'm still awaiting your explanation on why the media having a corporate bias is crazy talk.

I'm pretty sure that the only folks who will agree with you are your other conspiracy theorists. Pretty much all you have to do is read a good portion of the output of the AP to determine that if anything there is a "left" leaning bias to the media. I believe it is subtle and not the result of some conspriacy. I believe that since most of the folks in the media lean to the left, that some of their own viewpoint actually seeps into their writing. Some moreso than others, and some more knowingly than others, I'm sure.

You are suggesting that the folks writing the articles are being forced by management policy (management implementing such policy under pressure from Corporate ownership) to steer the news to the "right". This is a conspiracy theory. For it to be true, there would be those in the system that are bucking the system. In other words some of these journalists would be shouting about such a policy from the mountain tops. There would be specific stories quashed by the corporate machine that whistle- blowing investigative reporters would be revealing to the public along with the fact that the corporate media machine tried to quash the story. Such tales do not exist, at least not with sufficient number or gravity to lend any credence to your proposal.

Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. Around here a lot of folks like to throw around the adage that "If there is smoke there is fire." Often the real disagreement is about whether one side or the other is manufacturing the smoke to incriminate others. In your case...there is no smoke, just a lame conspiracy leaning up against the base of corporate America.


As for your complaints about SFL Cat and George Soros. Do you see anywhere that SFL is suggesting that Your assumption was wrong? I thought he was saying that someone should tell George Soros that he is helping advance the wrong agenda. It was, at most, a tongue in cheek argument that stereotypes shouldn't be held as absolute.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

our economy doesn't need it's coffers stuffed full of peoples hard earned money to be prepared for such events

Coffers stuffed full? If you hadn't realized we have this MASSIVE debt which at some point has to be paid off (at least a portion of it). So, no, the government's coffers aren't going to be stuffed with anything.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm pretty sure that the only folks who will agree with you are your other conspiracy theorists. Pretty much all you have to do is read a good portion of the output of the AP to determine that if anything there is a "left" leaning bias to the media. I believe it is subtle and not the result of some conspriacy. I believe that since most of the folks in the media lean to the left, that some of their own viewpoint actually seeps into their writing. Some moreso than others, and some more knowingly than others, I'm sure.

You are suggesting that the folks writing the articles are being forced by management policy (management implementing such policy under pressure from Corporate ownership) to steer the news to the "right". This is a conspiracy theory. For it to be true, there would be those in the system that are bucking the system. In other words some of these journalists would be shouting about such a policy from the mountain tops. There would be specific stories quashed by the corporate machine that whistle- blowing investigative reporters would be revealing to the public along with the fact that the corporate media machine tried to quash the story. Such tales do not exist, at least not with sufficient number or gravity to lend any credence to your proposal.

Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. Around here a lot of folks like to throw around the adage that "If there is smoke there is fire." Often the real disagreement is about whether one side or the other is manufacturing the smoke to incriminate others. In your case...there is no smoke, just a lame conspiracy leaning up against the base of corporate America..

Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say that the media is to the right. I said it has a 'corporate bias'. As in, they do what is in their best interests to make money. If there is a scandal that will sell papers, they will print it. If it is damaging to them, they will not. Just look at the so-called liberal NY Times. They have tried to hide nearly everything to do with the Judy debacle, even though it was her false stories that helped a Republican President falsely lead a country into war. But they printed the WMD stories, lies that they all were, to sell papers. And it has been like that since newspapers started. Marijuana is illegal because newspaper baron Hearst owned paper mills, and hemp was a cheap alternative, so they started an anti-pot campaign.

Saying the media has a left leaning bias is a laughable conspiracy theory with no leg to stand on.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The short answer is -- 'Bout the same as the Democrats.

What a complete bunch of BS. Social security has greatly reduced elderly poverty. Walfare has greatly reduced poverty. Medicare and medicaid has helped the poor and the elderly to live healthier lives. Minimum wage laws have allowed the poor to earn a decent living. The GOP ideal IS the economy of Bangledesh, where rich barons pay the lowest wage possible and provide the worst conditions possible to make the most money. I'm not into the Dem ideal of high minimum wages and protected trade either. But don't tell me that the GOP is as good for poor people as the Dems. That's as laughable as saying that the Dems are as good for rich people as the GOP.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.

So if the GOP agenda is working for the poor, why don't they vote for them? Is it because they disagree with the values of the GOP? Is it because poor people are stupid? Or is it because the agenda really doesn't look out for them?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say that the media is to the right. I said it has a 'corporate bias'. As in, they do what is in their best interests to make money. If there is a scandal that will sell papers, they will print it. If it is damaging to them, they will not. Just look at the so-called liberal NY Times. They have tried to hide nearly everything to do with the Judy debacle, even though it was her false stories that helped a Republican President falsely lead a country into war. But they printed the WMD stories, lies that they all were, to sell papers. And it has been like that since newspapers started. Marijuana is illegal because newspaper baron Hearst owned paper mills, and hemp was a cheap alternative, so they started an anti-pot campaign.

Saying the media has a left leaning bias is a laughable conspiracy theory with no leg to stand on.

Strawman..? Hell state a complete argument if you don't want people to assume you are a moron.
You spent the last two pages of this thread saying that people who have money are Republican...Corporations have money. Therefore a corporate bias was a Bias towards Republicans.

I think it is sort of silly to think everyone doesn't know that media outlets are there to make a buck. To call it a corporate bias may not be building a strawman, but it is a bit like crying out that the sky is falling. You are taking it to the next level suggesting the media uses untoward means to reach the objective of making money. I just don't think most folks are willing to take it to the next level.

Also. I understood that marijuana was outlawed initially because the poor blacks and hispanics were getting high all of the time instead of working meanial jobs for the man, and the Man needs to extract his measure. The bit about Hearst might actually have some truth to it though, he was a Media Mogul with plenty of untoward means to achieve his ultimate motive. You know, his actions were so overt, they actually passed laws to prevent that kind of abuse.

[Flasch186]

I assumed Corporate bias for the media meant ratings bias. Whoops.

Tax cuts during war time was a fact. We are the first civilization to cut taxes during a war. Sound bite or not. Throw out there recession, full moon, etc. we still are the first to accomplish this feat.

I second the coffers full statement. Not only are they not full, we actually see the bottom of the coffer, and have started to sell things from around the house. The republican argument is that the increased business will make up for the lost taxes and deficit in increased business and increased taxes from a wider range....The numbers dont bear out since most of the extra money is being blown out of every orifice we have.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I assumed Corporate bias for the media meant ratings bias. Whoops.

Its possible I could have overreacted last night. I was tired and surly, just too full of Prime Rib.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Tax cuts during war time was a fact. We are the first civilization to cut taxes during a war. Sound bite or not. Throw out there recession, full moon, etc. we still are the first to accomplish this feat.

I second the coffers full statement. Not only are they not full, we actually see the bottom of the coffer, and have started to sell things from around the house. The republican argument is that the increased business will make up for the lost taxes and deficit in increased business and increased taxes from a wider range....The numbers dont bear out since most of the extra money is being blown out of every orifice we have.

I'm not a fan of the rampant deficit spending, but I'm not as scared of deficits as a lot of people are. I've seen a good number of economists say that the trouble that a massive deficit would bring is well into the future. So there is no immediate danger. We have time to right the ship. Right now, I don't see much alternative to outrageous spending on Iraq and internal security. I do want to see an end to giveaways in Farm, Energy, and Transportation bills. My problem is that it really doesn't seem that either party is really interested in cutting spending. Also there is a possitive that the deficit might/should eventually yield. The inevitable pressure that the deficit eventually causes will hopefully force the government to reduce spending.

[flere-imsaho]

On this topic, a very interesting editorial from the NYT:

Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy

By ROBERT H. FRANK

WHEN market forces cause income inequality to grow, public policy in most countries tends to push in the opposite direction. In the United States, however, we enact tax cuts for the wealthy and cut public services for the needy. Cynics explain this curious inversion by saying that the wealthy have captured the political process in Washington and are exploiting it to their own advantage.

This explanation makes sense, however, only if those in power have an extremely naïve understanding of their own interests. A careful reading of the evidence suggests that even the wealthy have been made worse off, on balance, by recent tax cuts. The private benefits of these cuts have been much smaller, and their indirect costs much larger, than many recipients appear to have anticipated.

On the benefit side, tax cuts have led the wealthy to buy larger houses, in the seemingly plausible expectation that doing so would make them happier. As economists increasingly recognize, however, well-being depends less on how much people consume in absolute terms than on the social context in which consumption occurs. Compelling evidence suggests that for the wealthy in particular, when everyone's house grows larger, the primary effect is merely to redefine what qualifies as an acceptable dwelling.

So, although the recent tax cuts have enabled the wealthy to buy more and bigger things, these purchases appear to have had little impact. As the economist Richard Layard has written, "In a poor country, a man proves to his wife that he loves her by giving her a rose, but in a rich country, he must give a dozen roses."

On the cost side of the ledger, the federal budget deficits created by the recent tax cuts have had serious consequences, even for the wealthy. These deficits will exceed $300 billion for each of the next six years, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The most widely reported consequences of the deficits have been cuts in government programs that serve the nation's poorest families. And since the wealthy are well represented in our political system, their favored programs may seem safe from the budget ax. Wealthy families have further insulated themselves by living in gated communities and sending their children to private schools. Yet such steps go only so far.

For example, deficits have led to cuts in federal financing for basic scientific research, even as the United States' share of global patents granted continues to decline. Such cuts threaten the very basis of our long-term economic prosperity. As Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said: "We thought we'd keep the high-end jobs, and others would take the low-end jobs. We're now on track to a second-rate economy and a second-rate country."

Large deficits also threaten our public health. Thus, despite the increasing threat from micro-organisms like E. coli 0157, the government inspects beef processing plants at only a quarter the rate it did in the early 1980's. Poor people have died from eating contaminated beef but so have rich people.

Citing revenue shortfalls, the nation postpones maintenance of its streets and highways, even though doing so means having to spend two to five times as much on repairs in the long run. In the short run, bad roads cause thousands of accidents each year, many of them fatal. Poor people die in these accidents but so do rich people. When a pothole destroys a tire and wheel, replacements cost only $63 for a Ford Escort but $1,569 for a Porsche 911.

Deficits have also compromised the nation's security. In 2004, for example, the Bush administration reduced financing for the Energy Department's program to secure loosely guarded nuclear stockpiles in the former Soviet Union by 8 percent. Sam Nunn, the former United States senator, now heads a private foundation whose mission is to raise private donations to expedite this effort. And despite the rational fear that terrorists may try to detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city, most cargo containers continue to enter the nation's ports without inspection.

Large federal budget deficits and low household savings rates have also forced our government to borrow more than $650 billion each year, primarily from China, Japan and South Korea. These loans must be repaid in full, with interest. The resulting financial burden, plus the risks associated with increased international monetary instability, fall disproportionately on the rich.

At the president's behest, Congress has already enacted tax cuts that will result in some $2 trillion in revenue losses by 2010. According to one recent estimate, 52.5 percent of these cuts will have gone to the top 5 percent of earners by the time the enabling legislation is fully phased in. Republicans in Congress are now calling for an additional $69 billion in tax cuts aimed largely at high-income families.

With the economy already at full employment, no one pretends these cuts are needed to stimulate spending. Nor is there any evidence that further cuts would summon outpourings of additional effort and risk taking. Nor, finally, does anyone deny that further cuts would increase the already high costs associated with larger federal budget deficits.

Moralists often urge the wealthy to imagine how easily their lives could have turned out differently, to adopt a more forgiving posture toward those less prosperous. But top earners might also wish to consider evidence that their own families would have been better off, in purely practical terms, had it not been for the tax cuts of recent years.

Robert H. Frank has taught introductory economics at Cornell University since 1972. He is co-author, with Ben S. Bernanke, of "Principles of Microeconomics.

I found the bolded part of the author's mini-bio particularly interesting though I'm not suggesting these are the views of Bernanke.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Strawman..? Hell state a complete argument if you don't want people to assume you are a moron.
You spent the last two pages of this thread saying that people who have money are Republican...Corporations have money. Therefore a corporate bias was a Bias towards Republicans.

I thought that what I wrote in post 171 cleared up all ambiguity:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Does GM want to make money? Does Microsoft? Does GE (owner of NBC)?

But Time-Warner doesn't? Thinking that they do is a crazy conspiracy theory? C'mon Blen, you can't really believe that.

Or did you assume that I thought that only Republicans wanted to make money? And you are correct, a lot of times the corporate bias does tend to lend itself to a bias towards Republicans on economic issues.

But I am curious as to why you think that the media being biased in favor of the right is a 'crazy conspiracy theory without a leg to stand on', all while thining the media is left-leaning. After all, talk radio is dominated by the right. More conservative pundits appear on talk shows. More conservative pundits are employed at major newspapers. The only unabashedly biased news network tilts to the right. A large portion (maybe a majority, not sure) of the local radio and TV stations are owned by overtly conservative companies (ClearChannel, Sinclair Broadcasting).

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

On this topic, a very interesting editorial from the NYT:



I found the bolded part of the author's mini-bio particularly interesting though I'm not suggesting these are the views of Bernanke.

I'm sure the guy is bright, but it's not a very good editorial (and I'm on the same side of these issues that he is). He says that the tax cuts are of no value based on a psychological evaluation of rich people. I don't know that the happiness of rich people was ever an important measurement criteria for the cuts. They were done either to appease wealthy Republican constituents or for their secondary economic impacts (buying bigger houses may not have made the wealthy people happy, but it did employ builders), or (most likely) a combination of the two.

Likewise, the lack of basic science funding due to the budget deficit is a bad thing, but Frank puts too much emphasis on it, and seemingly from that point alone concludes that we're on our way to a second-rate economy. Whether or not I agree with his conclusion, the supporting argument is awfully weak. We never spent that much money on basic research..

He blew through monetary stability in less than a sentence, and never mentioned impending liabilities in social security and medicare/medicaid. I think those are the strongest points to present...

All in all, it could have been better...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Dola.

The media bias argument is about as tedious as they come, with ample anecdotal evidence for everyone to support their claims and no definitive answers. If there is any takeaway on that topic, I think it's the fact that news outlets generally have cut back on reporting staff over the past 10+ years and refocused on talking heads and fluff pieces (celebrities, human interest stories, car chases, and homicides). The point is, it doesn't matter who the press favors because they are largely incompetent and increasingly irrelevant.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Dola.

The media bias argument is about as tedious as they come, with ample anecdotal evidence for everyone to support their claims and no definitive answers. If there is any takeaway on that topic, I think it's the fact that news outlets generally have cut back on reporting staff over the past 10+ years and refocused on talking heads and fluff pieces (celebrities, human interest stories, car chases, and homicides). The point is, it doesn't matter who the press favors because they are largely incompetent and increasingly irrelevant.

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/..._mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

"You, who have used nuclear weapons against innocent people, who have used uranium ordnance in Iraq, should be tried as war criminals in courts," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an apparent reference to the United States.

Ahmadinejad did not elaborate, but he apparently was referring to the U.S. military's reported use of artillery shells packed with depleted uranium, which is far less radioactive than natural uranium and is left over from the process of enriching uranium for use as nuclear fuel.

The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.

[Flasch186]

ill agree, reported should not have been used synonymously with Alleged, if thats what he intended.

I will also agree that generally Journalism has gotten very remedial in the past 10-15 years, but again...simply for ratings or circulation count(s). Catering to the lowest common denominator in print, and sensationalism for ratings sake on TV.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/..._mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)



The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.

It's a quote, last time I checked you weren't supposed to clarify a direct quote from someone.

Do you honestly think that the people in Iran are going to get their news from Yahoo news and not see that quote elsewhere?

[Dutch]

Do you honestly think that the people in Iran are going to get their news from Yahoo news and not see that quote elsewhere?

You're right, if I saw how they got their news, I probably wouldn't have anything bad to ever say about our journalists again. However, I hold our journalists to higher standard than those in Iran. Not that they are reaching that standard, but it does exist and should be strived for.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/..._mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)



The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.

Dutch, I know there are stupid people in this world, but does it really need to be said every time nuclear weapons are mentioned that we haven't used one since WWII? Isn't that something that should be considered common knowledge? During the lead-up to the war, I don't remember every WMD article stating that Saddam had never used nuclear weapons. Because everyone that was paying attention knew that already.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Dutch, I know there are stupid people in this world, but does it really need to be said every time nuclear weapons are mentioned that we haven't used one since WWII? Isn't that something that should be considered common knowledge? During the lead-up to the war, I don't remember every WMD article stating that Saddam had never used nuclear weapons. Because everyone that was paying attention knew that already.

I'm not really worried about me and you. I'm worried about the people who don't know, that's where misleading/crappy journalism pays off.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not really worried about me and you. I'm worried about the people who don't know, that's where misleading/crappy journalism pays off.

But what I am saying is, you seem to want them to put every possible relevant fact into a news article that needs to fit into a finite space. There are probably hundreds of quotes and/or facts that needed to be left out or were edited out more important than informing people of a fact that even middle-aged people learned in elementary school. We don't need to remind people that gravity makes things fall in every story about airlines.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...
But I am curious as to why you think that the media being biased in favor of the right is a 'crazy conspiracy theory without a leg to stand on', all while thining the media is left-leaning. After all, talk radio is dominated by the right. More conservative pundits appear on talk shows. More conservative pundits are employed at major newspapers. The only unabashedly biased news network tilts to the right. A large portion (maybe a majority, not sure) of the local radio and TV stations are owned by overtly conservative companies (ClearChannel, Sinclair Broadcasting).

I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature.

As for the talk radio folks and conservative pundits.....In my opinion they aren't any more a part of the media that Al Franken and his ilk. They are, for the most part, entertainers and not journalists. There is a difference.

[Flasch186]

Glen:

For whatever wight in your head you throw on the journalists side of the scale as being liberal, you certainly would admit to an equivalent counterbalance on the right when it comes to radio journalism?

I dont necessarily agree with either, at this point, but if you refuse to accept ratings as being the tantamount bible when it comes to television media then you must admit that radio journailsm or punditry is heavilt laden and bullied by the conservative side of the spectrum. no?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

But what I am saying is, you seem to want them to put every possible relevant fact into a news article that needs to fit into a finite space. There are probably hundreds of quotes and/or facts that needed to be left out or were edited out more important than informing people of a fact that even middle-aged people learned in elementary school. We don't need to remind people that gravity makes things fall in every story about airlines.

Here's Bush speaking in his radio address and the newswriter's additional comment. We all know Cindy Sheehan's stance on Bush. But it was re-iterated here to defuse any message Bush may have been trying to provide.

"This week we also extend our gratitude to our military families, who are making great sacrifices to advance freedom's cause," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "They can know that we will honor that sacrifice by completing the noble mission for which their loved ones gave their lives."

His words gave little comfort to protester Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq last year and who has become a major figure in the peace movement after a 26-day vigil outside Bush's ranch in the summer.

Bush honors fallen troops, activists rally

[sterlingice]

Should I go back and start parsing every single thing said about Clinton? You feel the need to post every single article that is inflamatory towards the President. He's not getting adversarial press because he's Republican, he's getting it because he's the President. Again, if a Democrat were in office, I could do the exact same thing. However, there are no Democrats nearly as high profile as Bush so there are a lot more examples of Bush right now.

This doesn't prove a liberal media but a ratings-driven media who brings home their checks because someone is watching their program as they try to stir up controversy.

SI

[Dutch]

That would actually be kind of cool, just to see how things looked then. Do you know where to find AP/Reuters articles from the 90's? Obviously a lot of the coverage would deal with sex scandals, but there's Bosnia, North Koreak, Iraq, and Global Warming issues that would be interseting to look through as well.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, unfortunately, not nearly as much went online then. You can find certain newspapers with stuff from back then and there's some AP stuff to glean from that which is presumably what we're talking about since they're supposed to be neutral. But there just isn't nearly as much stuff to sift through since it was before the internet really became mainstream in the late 90s and many industries didn't get copious amounts of material online until after 2000. I know the Lawrence Journal World has stuff online going as far back as the early 90s, but they aren't that great of a paper, particularly for this, being a small local thing.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, unfortunately, not nearly as much went online then. You can find certain newspapers with stuff from back then and there's some AP stuff to glean from that which is presumably what we're talking about since they're supposed to be neutral. But there just isn't nearly as much stuff to sift through since it was before the internet really became mainstream in the late 90s and many industries didn't get copious amounts of material online until after 2000. I know the Lawrence Journal World has stuff online going as far back as the early 90s, but they aren't that great of a paper, particularly for this, being a small local thing.

SI

I just found an AP Archive, but you have to pay $1.50 to read any particular article. I guess my interest level dipped a bit when it said it would cost me.

Ugh.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Glen:

For whatever wight in your head you throw on the journalists side of the scale as being liberal, you certainly would admit to an equivalent counterbalance on the right when it comes to radio journalism?

I dont necessarily agree with either, at this point, but if you refuse to accept ratings as being the tantamount bible when it comes to television media then you must admit that radio journailsm or punditry is heavilt laden and bullied by the conservative side of the spectrum. no?

I don't consider radio talk shows to be journalim. I don't think they are part of the media. They are partisan voices preaching, for the most part, to their own choirs.

Also I don't know what I said that would indicate that I don't believe that the media corporations aren't out to make money. They certainly are. Earlier, I attempted to make the point that only a moron would think otherwise. Perhaps I made that point so poorly as to confuse the issue. Or perhaps I clouded the issue by saying that while I'll agree wholeheartedly that the media companies are out to make money, I don't think that has any real effect on the content of their coverage. They go for lowest common denominator, for sure, salascious sells. I just don't think media companies are quashing stories because they make the parent entity look bad. In otherwords...I believe that media corporations are out to make money, I just don't think the fact that bad news and sex sell constitutes a "bias."

[Flasch186]

oh, so were in agreement, Glen, you dont think that there is a liberal Bias. You threwme when you said....

"I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature."


So youre saying that if it were a Dem. in the office, they would get the exact same sensational treatment. Its just now there is a Rep in the WH so the journalists Liberal views come out, instead of their conservative views because it makes better ratings? So as soon as the Left comes to power we can expect the same sensationalism with a right slant (If you think there is aleft slant now).

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

oh, so were in agreement, Glen, you dont think that there is a liberal Bias. You threwme when you said....

"I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature."


So youre saying that if it were a Dem. in the office, they would get the exact same sensational treatment. Its just now there is a Rep in the WH so the journalists Liberal views come out, instead of their conservative views because it makes better ratings? So as soon as the Left comes to power we can expect the same sensationalism with a right slant (If you think there is aleft slant now).

Not exactly. If a Dem were in office there would certainly be oppositional press. I believe that is the nature of the business. I still believe that there is a bit of a liberal bias in the press as well. Just because the majority of journalists have a liberal bent, their politics seeps into their writing. As I have said there are a number of examples that don't rise to the level of Memogate/Rathergate. See my post regarding Brian Williams earlier. It is there, it just isn't some insidious plot or some overt "liberal" agenda

[Flasch186]

BTW

You may not view Rush, Sean, etc. as NEWS but a MAJORITY, I would bet, of their listeners do. Maybe not the only source but they would put it in the same category as news. Remember, most voters or even listeners are not well learned on most issues so listening to pundits like Rush, would be considered enlightening and journalistic. Just saying you dont, doesnt make the fact that most do, unimportant.

[Glengoyne]

To me the question of whether Rush, Hannity, or Franken are journalists, isn't even up for debate. Jouranlists have standards of impartiality among others, and those folks don't even get past the 20 yard smell test for impartiality.

They aren't journalists, they are entertainers, and if those that listen to them believe they are journalists, then they are probably susceptible to actually believing most of the partisan crap they spew. Just because someone considers them to be journalists, doesn't mean that I feel any pressure to do so. If a good number of people felt the sky was green, it wouldn't sway my opinion on the subject either.

[Crapshoot]

I'm curious if you've read what Rove said on the issue Glen. When asked if he thought there was a liberal bias in the press - he said no, he thought there was a oppositional (I can't recall the word he used) press. Now, I'm paraphrasing this from memory, but it does call things into question. I do think the press corps is more liberal, but the howling about the "liberal bias" is bigger than the "bias" itself.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I'm curious if you've read what Rove said on the issue Glen. When asked if he thought there was a liberal bias in the press - he said no, he thought there was a oppositional (I can't recall the word he used) press. Now, I'm paraphrasing this from memory, but it does call things into question. I do think the press corps is more liberal, but the howling about the "liberal bias" is bigger than the "bias" itself.

That actually fits pretty well with what I'm saying. I agree that there is a natural oppositional(I think that was Rove's word) bias, but that there is also a healty liberal bias. However the liberal bias is not the all consuming movement it is painted to be. Some of it is political correctness(not using the word terrorist or terrorism), and sometimes it is a journalist's political feelings turning what could have been a news story into an editorial.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Just because the majority of journalists have a liberal bent, their politics seeps into their writing.

But the majority of editors and owners having a conservative bent has no effect?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

But the majority of editors and owners having a conservative bent has no effect?

So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?

To answer your question without the above point being addressed. No. If the owners or editors were quashing stories or even directing the "spin" of stories, we would be hearing about it. I do believe that journalists actually have relatively high standards that govern their conduct. Those standards would force them to speak out against the forces acting upon them.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?

To answer your question without the above point being addressed. No. If the owners or editors were quashing stories or even directing the "spin" of stories, we would be hearing about it. I do believe that journalists actually have relatively high standards that govern their conduct. Those standards would force them to speak out against the forces acting upon them.

So they only have high standards when going against their editors, they don't have high standards when being impartial? oooooooooook

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So they only have high standards when going against their editors, they don't have high standards when being impartial? oooooooooook

How is that hard to believe? In one instance I'm saying they allow their own feelings, agendas, and prejudices to flavor their stories. That is human nature, I'm saying that they are acting essentially subconsciously. On the other hand you have management dictating the stories they are actually reporting on, and in fact directing their presentation.

Seems like a slam dunk to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?

No, I'm talking in the constructs that you have established. You say that the journalists are liberal, which automatically makes them biased. But the editors are conservative, but that doesn't automatically make them biased according to you, for reasons left unexplained. The editors that pick the stories and edit what the journalists write have no bias, but the journalists that write it do. That sounds like confirmation bias to me. You can prove virtually anything that way.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, I'm talking in the constructs that you have established. You say that the journalists are liberal, which automatically makes them biased. But the editors are conservative, but that doesn't automatically make them biased according to you, for reasons left unexplained. The editors that pick the stories and edit what the journalists write have no bias, but the journalists that write it do. That sounds like confirmation bias to me. You can prove virtually anything that way.

Exactly. Negative against the other side? It's correct. Negative against his side? Obviously bias

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Exactly. Negative against the other side? It's correct. Negative against his side? Obviously bias

What the hell? That isn't what I've said at all. I've either got to work on my communication skills or you and Giggles need to do some serious work on your reading comprehension. I believe I've expressed my views somewhat clearly. Make an effort to actually read what I've typed, and I'll help clear up any miscommunications.

[MrBigglesworth]

Blen, you mentioned earlier that you considered corporations to be biased towards Republicans. But based on your journalism theory, since unions are overwhelmingly liberal wouldn't that make corporations liberally biased?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Blen, you mentioned earlier that you considered corporations to be biased towards Republicans. But based on your journalism theory, since unions are overwhelmingly liberal wouldn't that make corporations liberally biased?

There you go with reading comprehension problems again. The only times I made any reference to a corporate bias being a "Republican" bias was in the midst of unraveling one of your convoluted assertions like the one above.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

What the hell? That isn't what I've said at all. I've either got to work on my communication skills or you and Giggles need to do some serious work on your reading comprehension. I believe I've expressed my views somewhat clearly. Make an effort to actually read what I've typed, and I'll help clear up any miscommunications.

You stated one group lets their "prejudices flavor" their job while another somehow doesn't. Oddly strange how only the liberal reporters are prejudiced yet the conservative editors aren't

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There you go with reading comprehension problems again. The only times I made any reference to a corporate bias being a "Republican" bias was in the midst of unraveling one of your convoluted assertions like the one above.

Would you say that large corporations with unions have a liberal bias?

[Flasch186]

why do you keep calling him Blen? at first I thought it was a slip but now its all the time.