NationStates Jolt Archive

*until Americans liberate the corporate media and investigate the republicans who program the software to subvert our elections our democracy will continue to die before our eyes

Bill Moyers is retiring tonight from his show Now on PBS. Over the past three decades, Moyers has won over thirty Emmys and produced a string of groundbreaking documentaries. Upon his retirement from Now, Moyers told the Associated Press, "I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee." He went on to say, "We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."
democracynow.org

I smell an MKULTRA

Bill Moyers is retiring?! But...Now is the only decent peice of news that I trust anymore on TV. What will I look to now?

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.

I smell an MKULTRA

It is a rather pungent odor isn't it?

What? Bill Moyers is MKULTRA.

Well that explains a lot.

What's an MKULTRA?

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.
A very vocal and significant portion of it certainly does, and it drives a number of the stories that the rest of the corporate media winds up covering. Fox News, AM talk radio, and right-wingers on the internet (the only place that the true left has parity, I might add) drive the stories that everyone else picks up on.

Media has been contolled by the righ-wing for a long time. The only ones that aren't, are radio and newspapers. Those two are split pretty evenly. I now get all my news from google.

http://news.google.com/

The only news source that's neutral.

What's an MKULTRA?
the red arrow, lets go to the land of wayback and use his original name.


also technically those are rightwing coyotes(though its any easy mistake to make when viewing them from a distance)

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.

Actually, the statement is that there are two motives amongst media agents: 1) right-wing propandizing, and 2) reporting in a way that brings ratings and profit. You ought to read more carefully...or, perhaps, more than just the first sentence. Moyers' statements seem pretty dead-on.

It is a rather pungent odor isn't it?

Smells awfully like a very dry sheep.


PBS tends to be closer to center than the rest of the stations anyway. Lefties should dislike it.

Smells awfully like a very dry sheep.


PBS tends to be closer to center than the rest of the stations anyway. Lefties should dislike it.
It's trending more rightward as well. The last two shows that PBS has added to the lineup are a show with the editors of the Wall Street Journal and one with Tucker Carlson--neither known for their balanced view of the world. And there's no immediate discussion of who will replace Moyers.

PBS tends to be closer to center than the rest of the stations anyway. Lefties should dislike it.

that was meant to be ironic right? pbs less left than commercial tv... lol

Actually, the statement is that there are two motives amongst media agents: 1) right-wing propandizing, and 2) reporting in a way that brings ratings and profit. You ought to read more carefully...or, perhaps, more than just the first sentence. Moyers' statements seem pretty dead-on.

Wrong. Dan Rather seemed to more interested in bashing Bush than making any money for CBS. Same with the papers such as the NYT, LA Times, and the Washington Post.

It's trending more rightward as well. The last two shows that PBS has added to the lineup are a show with the editors of the Wall Street Journal and one with Tucker Carlson--neither known for their balanced view of the world. And there's no immediate discussion of who will replace Moyers.
well there is always npr. nerdy progressive radicals

Wrong. Dan Rather seemed to more interested in bashing Bush than making any money for CBS. Same with the papers such as the NYT, LA Times, and the Washington Post.
Sensational stories sell, and bashing Bush is sensational. That it's also generally accurate is just a bonus.

well there is always npr. nerdy progressive radicals

I find NPR and PBS to be quite moderate and a pleasant change from commercial or foreign services such as CNN and BBC, who tend to be quite heavily left-leaning. PBS still displays a lot of anti-coporate material, true, but they are not quite as apt to criticize capitalism or US culture itself.

Sensational stories sell, and bashing Bush is sensational. That it's also generally accurate is just a bonus.


That's true. Rather's highest ratings for years were just after he put forged memos on the air.

He probably should do something else as self destructive before he leaves. You know, to end on a high note.

Actually, the statement is that there are two motives amongst media agents: 1) right-wing propandizing, and 2) reporting in a way that brings ratings and profit. You ought to read more carefully...or, perhaps, more than just the first sentence. Moyers' statements seem pretty dead-on.

I'm not responding to the article as such, but rather to the point Skapedroe's trying to make with it. In dealing with him, it's important to remember that the article may have little or nothing to do with his actual point. As for the article, it's hard to see any evidence of "right-wing propagandizing" when I can't remember the last time I saw a conservative social cause portrayed in a favorable light by a mainstream news outlet (unless you count Fox).

Incertonia, yes, Fox News and AM talk radio definitely lean right, but as you said that's only a sector of the media. I wouldn't even call it mainstream; to me, mainstream is CNN, NBC, CBS, and major newspapers. Whether or not any kind of slant shows through in the reporting, the aforementioned news networks are primarily staffed by people identifying themselves as liberals, and off the top of my head, I can only think of one major newspaper with a clear conservative slant -- the Wall Street Journal.

MKULTRA, the second incarnation of the famous TRA. He was known for crazy leftist conspiracy theories and cut-n-paste articles, usually from democracynow.org

I miss him, or at least his current incarnation. :(

it does not take a highschool grad to understand that moyers is an idiot. left wingers need toget their head out of their asses and face reality.

it does not take a highschool grad to understand that moyers is an idiot. left wingers need toget their head out of their asses and face reality.

I think that if I were forced to read a debate between this guy and Skapedroe, my head would explode.

it does not take a highschool grad to understand that moyers is an idiot. left wingers need toget their head out of their asses and face reality.
Tell that to my best friend's mom, who happens to hold quite a few doctorates and watches "Now" every Friday.

Bill Moyers is retiring?! But...Now is the only decent peice of news that I trust anymore on TV. What will I look to now?
airamericaradio.com and democracynow.org

I smell an MKULTRA
whatsup Blarg :)

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.
the fact that Sinclair Broadcasting forced all its stations to preempt regular programming to show a republican sponsored propaganda piece against Kerrys heroic war record a week before the election

the red arrow, lets go to the land of wayback and use his original name.


also technically those are rightwing coyotes(though its any easy mistake to make when viewing them from a distance)
I remember you

Smells awfully like a very dry sheep.


PBS tends to be closer to center than the rest of the stations anyway. Lefties should dislike it.
even PBS has been infiltrated by rightwing liars for the corporate beast

That's true. Rather's highest ratings for years were just after he put forged memos on the air.

He probably should do something else as self destructive before he leaves. You know, to end on a high note.
Dan Rather was clearly set up by rightwing character assassins as a warning against other reporters tempted to tell the truth about Bush

I'm not responding to the article as such, but rather to the point Skapedroe's trying to make with it. In dealing with him, it's important to remember that the article may have little or nothing to do with his actual point. As for the article, it's hard to see any evidence of "right-wing propagandizing" when I can't remember the last time I saw a conservative social cause portrayed in a favorable light by a mainstream news outlet (unless you count Fox).

Incertonia, yes, Fox News and AM talk radio definitely lean right, but as you said that's only a sector of the media. I wouldn't even call it mainstream; to me, mainstream is CNN, NBC, CBS, and major newspapers. Whether or not any kind of slant shows through in the reporting, the aforementioned news networks are primarily staffed by people identifying themselves as liberals, and off the top of my head, I can only think of one major newspaper with a clear conservative slant -- the Wall Street Journal.
CNN is trying to outfox Fox and NBC CBS ABC etc are all center right that specialize in demonizing dems and softballing reps

MKULTRA, the second incarnation of the famous TRA. He was known for crazy leftist conspiracy theories and cut-n-paste articles, usually from democracynow.org

I miss him, or at least his current incarnation. :(
Im limiting my number of posts cause high post counts cause deletions

The media the one's who control the news anyway, the CEO's are generally more conservative, and the people doing the actual reporting don't make a whole lot, and tend to be more liberal. That's the truth. I'm a journalism major, I know these things.

Of course the media swings to the right! Remember the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal... the media wouldn't then... and even now, let us forget about it! So many damaging things have gone on under the Bush admin. and it's been horribly un-reported. Print, I tend to see it, is a little more truthful, because fewer americans actually read newspapers then watch tv. And your typical American doesn't watch alot of crossfire or more political shows... they watch the news at 5 and at 10, to see if the local football team won. Local stuff tends to be the forte there, and that's what most American's watch.

The media the one's who control the news anyway, the CEO's are generally more conservative, and the people doing the actual reporting don't make a whole lot, and tend to be more liberal. That's the truth. I'm a journalism major, I know these things.

Of course the media swings to the right! Remember the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal... the media wouldn't then... and even now, let us forget about it! So many damaging things have gone on under the Bush admin. and it's been horribly un-reported. Print, I tend to see it, is a little more truthful, because fewer americans actually read newspapers then watch tv. And your typical American doesn't watch alot of crossfire or more political shows... they watch the news at 5 and at 10, to see if the local football team won. Local stuff tends to be the forte there, and that's what most American's watch.
exactly my point--look at the way the media was all over Clinton over nothing and yet scandal after scandal in the Bush administration--serious scandals that threaten the very roots of our democracy--are totally unreproted by the media and people have to go to the internet and blogs to get it--right now the internet itself does more investigative journalism then the useless corporate media--if thats not a republican bias then what is

exactly my point--look at the way the media was all over Clinton over nothing and yet scandal after scandal in the Bush administration--serious scandals that threaten the very roots of our democracy--are totally unreproted by the media and people have to go to the internet and blogs to get it--right now the internet itself does more investigative journalism then the useless corporate media--if thats not a republican bias then what is

BRAVO!
it regretably reminds me of Nazi Germany. Scary.

the fact that Sinclair Broadcasting forced all its stations to preempt regular programming to show a republican sponsored propaganda piece against Kerrys heroic war record a week before the election

A single incident does not prove a trend. Try again.

The media has been consolidated so much, that its now controlled by half a dozen people. Independent sources are becoming less and less common as a result of the consolidation. The media has sickened me so much, that I decided that after I graduate, I'll only work the media scene for a few years for experience's sake, then teach it at university level.

CNN is trying to outfox Fox and NBC CBS ABC etc are all center right that specialize in demonizing dems and softballing reps

Until you've actually proven something, please quit acting like you already have.

Until you've actually proven something, please quit acting like you already have.

And right back at ya! I've said it before and I'll say it again... two people that obviously disagree about something at such a core level, won't agree, and you won't take anything he says to you as "true," if its not what you agree with personally, and same for me if you were to try and convince me. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I quite honestly wouldn't believe it if Rupert Murdoch said to my face, "I'm not partial."

And right back at ya!

Not once in this thread have I claimed to have proven, or acted like I've proven, anything at all.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... two people that obviously disagree about something at such a core level, won't agree, and you won't take anything he says to you as "true," if its not what you agree with personally, and same for me if you were to try and convince me.

You misunderstand me. I'm willing to agree with anyone so long as their arguments are rationally sound. My biggest problem with Skapedroe is, and has always been, his style of argumentation. He states an opinion or unsupported assertion as if it's fact, uses it as a foundation for other unsupported assertions, and responds to any questioning of his premise with meaningless rhetoric and fallacious arguments.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I quite honestly wouldn't believe it if Rupert Murdoch said to my face, "I'm not partial."

Nor would I. I'd be the last person to suggest that Fox News is as impartial as their "Fair and Balanced" tagline suggests.

And right back at ya! I've said it before and I'll say it again... two people that obviously disagree about something at such a core level, won't agree, and you won't take anything he says to you as "true," if its not what you agree with personally, and same for me if you were to try and convince me. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I quite honestly wouldn't believe it if Rupert Murdoch said to my face, "I'm not partial."

The point of debate would be somewhat ruined by that statement. No serious person will go into an argument expecting to completely change other's minds with reason. The purpose is to expound upon your own ideas, throw them off hostile audiences and see where the holes are, and how to patch them up. That, I believe, is why this "argument" is useful because if you cannot articulate a point, there really is no chance of getting it out there now is there?

Wrong. Dan Rather seemed to more interested in bashing Bush than making any money for CBS. Same with the papers such as the NYT, LA Times, and the Washington Post.

Let's address these two:
Rather: Are you Dan Rather? A close personal friend, perhaps? Certainly, you must have some connection to the man, because otherwise you're jsut talking out of your -ss. There's nothing to say (save for rabid right-wing pundits) that Rather didn't report on those forged memos (whose content was verified by the dead guy's secretary, but anyway) for the same reason that they report on any story - to get the scoop first. But surely you must have some larger argument to prove that you know better than this, so let's hear it.
Other news sources mentioned: You don't seem to have any evidence here, either. Is this the usual, "They're being mean to Bush, those lefties!" argument? That tired idea that since they aren't reporting what you'd like the way you'd like it, they must be biased? I'd assume it must be, since you don't even have an example here. Please try again.

I'm not responding to the article as such, but rather to the point Skapedroe's trying to make with it. In dealing with him, it's important to remember that the article may have little or nothing to do with his actual point. As for the article, it's hard to see any evidence of "right-wing propagandizing" when I can't remember the last time I saw a conservative social cause portrayed in a favorable light by a mainstream news outlet (unless you count Fox).

Incertonia, yes, Fox News and AM talk radio definitely lean right, but as you said that's only a sector of the media. I wouldn't even call it mainstream; to me, mainstream is CNN, NBC, CBS, and major newspapers. Whether or not any kind of slant shows through in the reporting, the aforementioned news networks are primarily staffed by people identifying themselves as liberals, and off the top of my head, I can only think of one major newspaper with a clear conservative slant -- the Wall Street Journal.

First of all, I don't know the thread author from Adam, so say what you will of him. Point taken.

Fox and Murdoch's media empire are the right-wing propagandizers, yes. That makes up a very significant slice of the American media, indeed. If you have a few instances of social causes and the way they're portrayed, I'd like to hear them, because though it's only anecdotal evidence, at least that would be specific anecdotal evidence. I don't even really know what you mean of "conservative social causes." Do you mean those people who stand outside of abortion clinics and threaten people who come near? Or, perhaps, pro-war rallies? The former understandably receives negative coverage, the former positive. And what liberal social causes would you liken them to, in terms of a favorable slant on the reporting? Anti-war rallies? Any report on them which I'd seen seemed pretty straightforward, save that there are a lot more of these (hence more reporting on them) and they are more well attended. And what about the fear-mongering claims of anarchists sweeping in during the RNC NY protests? Not exactly a liberally biased reporting style there. But these are just a couple of things. In short, what we come down to is what sells, and the commodity is, indeed, sensationalism.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite the examples you're thinking of, rather than having me take shots in the dark.

Did Moyers really use the word 'jackals'? Way to go Bill! You will be missed (by some of us).

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What else but lies and distortion is one to expect from a liberal? Honestly. ... Any idiot knows that the radical liberals have the media virtually in the palms of their hands.

Such talk is insane! I can't even watch CBS Nightly News, because I know how twisted it is - every man and woman on TV seems to want to push some creepy liberal agenda, and frankly I'm sick of it!

It would take only a very slow person to actually believe that the media is in the hands of those in power who place themselves on the "right."

I haven't stopped laughing . . .

The right-wing has controlled media for a long time. Take this for example.

Donald Rumsfeld has been stamping his signature on the letters given to families of deceased soldiers. Democrats have found this out months ago. They tried to get the media to listen to them, but in the end, nothign happened. Now, it's front page news, since the right-wing doesn't like Donald Rumsfeld anymore.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/36824.htm

BTW, George Bush rubber stamps his signature on those letters too. I doubt the media will pick it up. It's controlled by the right-wing and it's near impossible to beat them. In the end, the media will always back up Bush.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What else but lies and distortion is one to expect from a liberal? Honestly. ... Any idiot knows that the radical liberals have the media virtually in the palms of their hands.

Such talk is insane! I can't even watch CBS Nightly News, because I know how twisted it is - every man and woman on TV seems to want to push some creepy liberal agenda, and frankly I'm sick of it!

It would take only a very slow person to actually believe that the media is in the hands of those in power who place themselves on the "right."

I haven't stopped laughing . . .

Exactly....only an idiot would believe the media is controlled by leftists.

Be serious, what to you is defined as "liberal"? Rupert Murdoch owns plenty of radio, print, and news stations across the country. Do you honestly consider Fox News "fair and balanced"? What about the WMDs in Iraq bullshit? Where are the stories on that, or about Halliburton, or about the lack of body armor? What about Rumsfeld's comments...why arent they picked apart a bit more?

Granted, I would suppose most journalists would probably be liberal, but the owners and editors...the ones who actually air the stories, are most likely conservative. Ever wonder what is considered "news" to some is not news at all to others?

*until Americans liberate the corporate media and investigate the republicans who program the software to subvert our elections our democracy will continue to die before our eyes

Bill Moyers is retiring tonight from his show Now on PBS. Over the past three decades, Moyers has won over thirty Emmys and produced a string of groundbreaking documentaries. Upon his retirement from Now, Moyers told the Associated Press, "I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee." He went on to say, "We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."
democracynow.org


And CBS is not an admitted propaganda arm of the Democratic Party?

the fact that Sinclair Broadcasting forced all its stations to preempt regular programming to show a republican sponsored propaganda piece against Kerrys heroic war record a week before the election
Heroic war record? If it was so heroic why exactly does he keep all pertinent war records of that time classified. If it was truly heroic and would force people like the Swifties to shut up, why exactly did he keep it under wraps? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response.

The right-wing has controlled media for a long time. Take this for example.

Donald Rumsfeld has been stamping his signature on the letters given to families of deceased soldiers. Democrats have found this out months ago. They tried to get the media to listen to them, but in the end, nothign happened. Now, it's front page news, since the right-wing doesn't like Donald Rumsfeld anymore.
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/36824.htm

BTW, George Bush rubber stamps his signature on those letters too. I doubt the media will pick it up. It's controlled by the right-wing and it's near impossible to beat them. In the end, the media will always back up Bush.
This would get them nary a jump in their ratings, thusly it isn't a problem. The media is about ratings first and political bias second. Actual journalism seems to be somewhere around 17th in the mainstream.

even PBS has been infiltrated by rightwing liars for the corporate beast
Yup MKULTRA

Heroic war record? If it was so heroic why exactly does he keep all pertinent war records of that time classified. If it was truly heroic and would force people like the Swifties to shut up, why exactly did he keep it under wraps? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response.

I think we're talking about the time when he ordered his boat to light up a riverbank village that wasn't shooting at them, set it afire, and then personally lead a mission to wipe out the unarmed survivors who were unable to flee, including shooting a wounded, unarmed young boy in the back.

What else but lies and distortion is one to expect from a liberal? Honestly. ... Any idiot knows that the radical liberals have the media virtually in the palms of their hands.

Such talk is insane! I can't even watch CBS Nightly News, because I know how twisted it is - every man and woman on TV seems to want to push some creepy liberal agenda, and frankly I'm sick of it!

It would take only a very slow person to actually believe that the media is in the hands of those in power who place themselves on the "right."

Really? How often does any mainstream political show interview someone like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn? Anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy? You know, genuine leftists?

Really? How often does any mainstream political show interview someone like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn? Anyone to the left of Ted Kennedy? You know, genuine leftists?

There hasn't been a genuine Left in the US since the 1920s. Don't make me laugh.

On the other hand, it's quite clear, from their actions and statements and faked stories, that CBS is no friend of the Republicans.

Wouldnt a leftist bias be just as bad? You guys really need to stop beating a dead horse.

Wouldnt a leftist bias be just as bad? You guys really need to stop beating a dead horse.
Not really; because it would be a nice change of pace. When it happens then I might rail against it if it coversup stuff that I deem important, but nope the right will never give up their hold on the media.

Leftist bias would obviously lie about Republicans and demonize them as much as Mr. Ultra claims that the rightwing demonizes Democrats. But fair and balanced only applies to what you want to hear, right?

Leftist bias would obviously lie about Republicans and demonize them as much as Mr. Ultra claims that the rightwing demonizes Democrats. But fair and balanced only applies to what you want to hear, right?
Seeing as Fox uses Propaganda to be fair and balanced.

The only true way to get fair and balanced would be if rest of news of leftist.

You see when the other news try to be central (does'nt always succeed), but fox leans right. That leaves the news with a shift to right.

In order to get balance need rest of news to lean left.
1+-1=0 and so balanced.

That wouldnt be news. That would consist of Republicans suck! Democrats suck! with no news in between.

That wouldnt be news. That would consist of Republicans suck! Democrats suck! with no news in between.

Pretty close to what we have now? Isn't it?

Seeing as Fox uses Propaganda to be fair and balanced.

The only true way to get fair and balanced would be if rest of news of leftist.

You see when the other news try to be central (does'nt always succeed), but fox leans right. That leaves the news with a shift to right.

In order to get balance need rest of news to lean left.
1+-1=0 and so balanced.

Hmm. So pushing a fake Bush National Guard story, and sticking to it no matter how discredited it gets, until finally in embarassment you finally admit it was a worthless story is being "central"?

While it doesn't officially qualify as being philosophically Left, it certainly is very, very anti-Bush.

As is delaying calling the election until you're the absolute last network who can call it, clinging desperately to the hope that somehow the math will come up different.

The media is far from 'right-wing.' I've gone over this before, but meh, what the hell.

1.In the 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his cover-up of Stalin's genocide in the Ukraine
2.Also in the 1930s, the New York Times's Herbert Matthews' editorials were overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Spanish communists during the Spanish Civil War
3.In the 1940s, the media portrayed mass murderer Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," and a "true man of the people," while doing everything they could to vilify and undermine Chiang Kai-shek's government
4.In the 1950s, our 'right-wing' media launched one of its greatest smear campaigns in history, against anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy
5.Herbert Matthews (remember him?) helped bring Castro to power with his slanted pro-Castro, anti-Batista editorials. He concealed the terroristic nature of the 26th of July Movement, while exaggerating, fabricating, and slanting the conflict in Cuba and doing everything he could to bring down Cuba's anti-communist President Fulgencio Batista, who, although a corrupt, highly unpopular dictator, was a saint compared to Castro, and was far from the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews played him out to be
6.The media's Vietnam War articles in the 60's and 70's...need I say more?
7.In the late 1970s, Anastasio Somza of Nicaragua, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and the Shah of Iran suffered the same fate as Joe McCarthy had over two decades earlier
8.In the 80's, the media lauded and extolled Gorbachev, while continuing its smear campaigns against anti-communist presidents Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Pieter Willem Botha of South Africa
9.In the 90's, the media (along with our government) finished the job of burying South Africa, via their anti-Mangope, anti-Butheluzi (sp?), pro-Mandela articles

Need I say more?

7.In the late 1970s, Anastasio Somza of Nicaragua, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and the Shah of Iran suffered the same fate as Joe McCarthy had over two decades earlier
8.In the 80's, the media lauded and extolled Gorbachev, while continuing its smear campaigns against anti-communist presidents Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Pieter Willem Botha of South Africa
9.In the 90's, the media (along with our government) finished the job of burying South Africa, via their anti-Mangope, anti-Butheluzi (sp?), pro-Mandela articles

Need I say more?
I've ignored points 1 - 6 because they have little bearing on today's media.

7. Maybe they were demonised because they were totalitarian bastards?
8. Gorbachev appeared to be taking progressive actions to open the USSR to the west. Pinochet was genocidal, and everyone hates apartheid.
9. Once again, Mandela was seen as the main anti-apartheid man, so the media supported him. I agree that Mandela is usually made to look better than he deserves, but I think this is why the media acts as it does.

You also ignore the endless demonisation of the USSR throughout the Cold War, and the transformation of anti-communism into the national religion.

Uhm, I'm sorry, but Moyers is referring to recent events when he talks about "hijacking," not about the actions of individual writers 70 years ago. And citing writers is ridiculous, look at ownership. You want to talk about historical right-wing media control? Hearst makes Murdoch look like Tommy Chong.

*until Americans liberate the corporate media and investigate the republicans who program the software to subvert our elections our democracy will continue to die before our eyes

Bill Moyers is retiring tonight from his show Now on PBS. Over the past three decades, Moyers has won over thirty Emmys and produced a string of groundbreaking documentaries. Upon his retirement from Now, Moyers told the Associated Press, "I'm going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee." He went on to say, "We have an ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."
democracynow.org
Unadulterated bullshit. Moyers was a friggin' coward when he was covering combat operations in Vietnam and I wouldn't give you two friggin' cents for his sorry ass.

And right back at ya! I've said it before and I'll say it again... two people that obviously disagree about something at such a core level, won't agree, and you won't take anything he says to you as "true," if its not what you agree with personally, and same for me if you were to try and convince me. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? I quite honestly wouldn't believe it if Rupert Murdoch said to my face, "I'm not partial."
true--when people disagree on such a basic level no amount of evidence makes any difference at all. If I posted 500 studys proving my point he would just spend 500 posts trying to pick apart the evidence or calling the sources biast

Not once in this thread have I claimed to have proven, or acted like I've proven, anything at all.



You misunderstand me. I'm willing to agree with anyone so long as their arguments are rationally sound. My biggest problem with Skapedroe is, and has always been, his style of argumentation. He states an opinion or unsupported assertion as if it's fact, uses it as a foundation for other unsupported assertions, and responds to any questioning of his premise with meaningless rhetoric and fallacious arguments.



Nor would I. I'd be the last person to suggest that Fox News is as impartial as their "Fair and Balanced" tagline suggests.but you would never accept evidence that counters your own bias

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What else but lies and distortion is one to expect from a liberal? Honestly. ... Any idiot knows that the radical liberals have the media virtually in the palms of their hands.

Such talk is insane! I can't even watch CBS Nightly News, because I know how twisted it is - every man and woman on TV seems to want to push some creepy liberal agenda, and frankly I'm sick of it!

It would take only a very slow person to actually believe that the media is in the hands of those in power who place themselves on the "right."

I haven't stopped laughing . . .
I suggest you get treatment for your rampent delusions-the media is virulently republican/conservative

Exactly....only an idiot would believe the media is controlled by leftists.

Be serious, what to you is defined as "liberal"? Rupert Murdoch owns plenty of radio, print, and news stations across the country. Do you honestly consider Fox News "fair and balanced"? What about the WMDs in Iraq bullshit? Where are the stories on that, or about Halliburton, or about the lack of body armor? What about Rumsfeld's comments...why arent they picked apart a bit more?

Granted, I would suppose most journalists would probably be liberal, but the owners and editors...the ones who actually air the stories, are most likely conservative. Ever wonder what is considered "news" to some is not news at all to others?
Foxnews doesnt even report the news they CREATE the news-Murdoch gives them memos telling them what the talking point spin of the day is and who to attack and who to lay off--this isnt journalism at all--its rightwing activism

And CBS is not an admitted propaganda arm of the Democratic Party?
Nope-not at all--theres absolutlely zero diversity of opinion in the mainstream media--its all corporate/republican/conservative

Foxnews doesnt even report the news they CREATE the news-Murdoch gives them memos telling them what the talking point spin of the day is and who to attack and who to lay off--this isnt journalism at all--its rightwing activism
When you refer to those who see the liberal bias in media as "delusional," you're obviously projecting. Please seek help for this! :D

Heroic war record? If it was so heroic why exactly does he keep all pertinent war records of that time classified. If it was truly heroic and would force people like the Swifties to shut up, why exactly did he keep it under wraps? I'm genuinely interested to hear your response.
John Kerry released far more of his military record then George Bush released of his non-service. If Kerry didnt want to release every last detail (even tho Bush released none of his except that part he was forced to release as a result of a lawsuit) it was prly cause he didnt want to give rightwing smearmongers anymore info then they already had. Kerry had a right to seek to silence partisan republican switfties from slandering his record-its a shame he didnt fight them alot harder then he did.

I think we're talking about the time when he ordered his boat to light up a riverbank village that wasn't shooting at them, set it afire, and then personally lead a mission to wipe out the unarmed survivors who were unable to flee, including shooting a wounded, unarmed young boy in the back.
only the most partisan moron would believe Kerry would do all this and for what?

John Kerry released far more of his military record then George Bush released of his non-service. If Kerry didnt want to release every last detail (even tho Bush released none of his except that part he was forced to release as a result of a lawsuit) it was prly cause he didnt want to give rightwing smearmongers anymore info then they already had. Kerry had a right to seek to silence partisan republican switfties from slandering his record-its a shame he didnt fight them alot harder then he did.
I think the fact that Kerry's entire former chain of command spent their OWN money to make sure the truth about his cowardace and incompetence made it into the public consciousness says it all.

There hasn't been a genuine Left in the US since the 1920s. Don't make me laugh.

On the other hand, it's quite clear, from their actions and statements and faked stories, that CBS is no friend of the Republicans.
there is too a genuine left and the fact that you dont know about them further proves the case that the media is rightwing. CBS is no friend of the democrats or the American people

Wouldnt a leftist bias be just as bad? You guys really need to stop beating a dead horse.
no it wouldnt be just as bad-but thats not even what anyone wants--we want a BALANCED bias

That's true. Rather's highest ratings for years were just after he put forged memos on the air.

He probably should do something else as self destructive before he leaves. You know, to end on a high note.

It's not like he forged them himself :p

That honour likely falls to a friend of Bush. I believe it is a crime to falsify government documents.

That wouldnt be news. That would consist of Republicans suck! Democrats suck! with no news in between.
that would still be a vast improvement over the one sided crap we get now-The media is no watchdog under this criminal administration

only the most partisan moron would believe Kerry would do all this and for what?
The truth of the matter was that Kerry did leave his Swiftboat ( an action contrary to Navy policy, by the way ) to shoot a Viet Cong soldier who was already critically wounded, but who still had possession of his weapon. For this action, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star ( with a totally unauthorized "V" device attached ). Soldiers in Iraq have been sent to prison for doing less.

I believe it is a crime to falsify government documents.
Yes it is, which is just one more reason Kerry should be behind bars instead of roaming around free.

Hmm. So pushing a fake Bush National Guard story, and sticking to it no matter how discredited it gets, until finally in embarassment you finally admit it was a worthless story is being "central"?

While it doesn't officially qualify as being philosophically Left, it certainly is very, very anti-Bush.

As is delaying calling the election until you're the absolute last network who can call it, clinging desperately to the hope that somehow the math will come up different.
everyone knows about Bushs poor military performance and how he used his connections to go AWOL--the only one pushing fake storys is you and republican swifties who stab other vets in the back over politics

The media is far from 'right-wing.' I've gone over this before, but meh, what the hell.

1.In the 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for his cover-up of Stalin's genocide in the Ukraine
2.Also in the 1930s, the New York Times's Herbert Matthews' editorials were overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Spanish communists during the Spanish Civil War
3.In the 1940s, the media portrayed mass murderer Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," and a "true man of the people," while doing everything they could to vilify and undermine Chiang Kai-shek's government
4.In the 1950s, our 'right-wing' media launched one of its greatest smear campaigns in history, against anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy
5.Herbert Matthews (remember him?) helped bring Castro to power with his slanted pro-Castro, anti-Batista editorials. He concealed the terroristic nature of the 26th of July Movement, while exaggerating, fabricating, and slanting the conflict in Cuba and doing everything he could to bring down Cuba's anti-communist President Fulgencio Batista, who, although a corrupt, highly unpopular dictator, was a saint compared to Castro, and was far from the Hitler-reincarnation Matthews played him out to be
6.The media's Vietnam War articles in the 60's and 70's...need I say more?
7.In the late 1970s, Anastasio Somza of Nicaragua, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and the Shah of Iran suffered the same fate as Joe McCarthy had over two decades earlier
8.In the 80's, the media lauded and extolled Gorbachev, while continuing its smear campaigns against anti-communist presidents Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Pieter Willem Botha of South Africa
9.In the 90's, the media (along with our government) finished the job of burying South Africa, via their anti-Mangope, anti-Butheluzi (sp?), pro-Mandela articles

Need I say more?yes you need to say alot more--for every one example you supplied here theres a hundred more proving the media has a rightwing bias but Ill be damned if Im going to write a post that long

Unadulterated bullshit. Moyers was a friggin' coward when he was covering combat operations in Vietnam and I wouldn't give you two friggin' cents for his sorry ass.
why do you want american soldiers to die in unjust wars?

I think the fact that Kerry's entire former chain of command spent their OWN money to make sure the truth about his cowardace and incompetence made it into the public consciousness says it all.
Once again the word of partisan bigots should be taken with a grain of salt-Kerry shouldve sued all these cowardly war criminals for slander

The truth of the matter was that Kerry did leave his Swiftboat ( an action contrary to Navy policy, by the way ) to shoot a Viet Cong soldier who was already critically wounded, but who still had possession of his weapon. For this action, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star ( with a totally unauthorized "V" device attached ). Soldiers in Iraq have been sent to prison for doing less.
and what punishment does the cowardly Bush get for going AWOL?

Yes it is, which is just one more reason Kerry should be behind bars instead of roaming around free.
if your willing to jail Kerry for this then he should be sharing a cell with Bush

Tell that to my best friend's mom, who happens to hold quite a few doctorates and watches "Now" every Friday.

Aww...don't be so mean. Obviously, Bourban has a high scool education and realizes Moyer is an idiot :D

I've ignored points 1 - 6 because they have little bearing on today's media.

7. Maybe they were demonised because they were totalitarian bastards?
8. Gorbachev appeared to be taking progressive actions to open the USSR to the west. Pinochet was genocidal, and everyone hates apartheid.
9. Once again, Mandela was seen as the main anti-apartheid man, so the media supported him. I agree that Mandela is usually made to look better than he deserves, but I think this is why the media acts as it does.

You also ignore the endless demonisation of the USSR throughout the Cold War, and the transformation of anti-communism into the national religion.

7.That is complete, utter, total, and irreevocable (sp?) bullshit
8.Read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception. Yes, apartheid was awful, but so was the ANC's 'neck-lacing' of anticommunist blacks. I have yet to see one reliable source regarding Pinochet's purported genocide.

Ever read any U.S. newspapers from the time? Calling the media anti-communist is pure and utter nonsense. Read posts 1-6. The media was no more anti-communist than was the U.S. government.

Bill Moyers says American media hijacked by rightwing jackals

He should watch CNN.

Anyhow, the problem with American media isn't that it is partisan, but that it pretends to be non-partisan. In other countries, there are the liberal papers, the conservative papers, and the centrist papers. If you are a liberal, you buy the liberal paper. There isn't bitching about "OMG FOX NEWZ AINT FAIR UND BALANCED!!!111." Everyone knows what they are reading, and they read what they want to read.

but you would never accept evidence that counters your own bias

That's rich coming from the guy who defines "reputable news sources" as "sources I happen to agree with." What possible reason do I have to be biased, when I've been saying from the start that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are doing any good for this country?

neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are doing any good for this country?

Who then is doing good for this country?

why do you want american soldiers to die in unjust wars?

Define 'unjust war.'

Define 'unjust war.'

Wars that he, or the UN, doesn't agree with.

When you refer to those who see the liberal bias in media as "delusional," you're obviously projecting. Please seek help for this! :D

And when you berate others without presenting decent evidence to disprove him it makes you look foolish :D

You also ignore the endless demonisation of the USSR throughout the Cold War, and the transformation of anti-communism into the national religion.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382996&page=1&pp=15

Read post 14. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. is the most pro-communist government in the world.

Once again the word of partisan bigots should be taken with a grain of salt-Kerry shouldve sued all these cowardly war criminals for slander
And why didn't he? Can you answer that question, oh he of infinite wisdom and knowledge? It's because he knew he would friggin' LOSE, just like he LOST the election.

The truth of the matter was that Kerry did leave his Swiftboat ( an action contrary to Navy policy, by the way ) to shoot a Viet Cong soldier who was already critically wounded, but who still had possession of his weapon. For this action, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star ( with a totally unauthorized "V" device attached ). Soldiers in Iraq have been sent to prison for doing less.

Oh come on Etru. We call that 'heroism' and he was given a medal for it. They tell you not to park the boat for a reason, to avoid getting everyone killed (sitting targets and all). Besides the wounded VC could snitch on enemy activity couldn't he? Evidently the military awarded him for it, so what's the beef? Curse the military, not Kerry.

Besides, I don't think Kerry actually put the V on the medal himself, so don't blame him. You're just grasping at straws now. Makes you look sad. :(

Honestly, someone should put TRA and Etru in a boxing ring and charge admission. :D

if your willing to jail Kerry for this then he should be sharing a cell with Bush
You're obviously totally biased and prejudiced and wouldn't listen to reason or facts or logic if it slapped you across the face to get your attention first. I'm willing to see that lying, cowardly, hypocritical, cheating, conniving, worthless bastard Kerry in jail for what EVER reason I can get him there! He is one of the main reasons my brothers and I have had to suffer all these years after he accused us of "committing daily atrocities" in Vietnam when he knew damned good and well ( or SHOULD have known damned good and well ) that such was NEVER the case!

I refuse to discuss it any further. That lying bastard LOST ... get it? That lying no-good son-of-a-bitch LOST and you just need to get OVER it!

Yes it is, which is just one more reason Kerry should be behind bars instead of roaming around free.

Eh? 'splain please. Probably something I've forgotten by now, but still...

You're obviously totally biased and prejudiced and wouldn't listen to reason or facts or logic if it slapped you across the face to get your attention first. I'm willing to see that lying, cowardly, hypocritical, cheating, conniving, worthless bastard Kerry in jail for what EVER reason I can get him there! He is one of the main reasons my brothers and I have had to suffer all these years after he accused us of "committing daily atrocities" in Vietnam when he knew damned good and well ( or SHOULD have known damned good and well ) that such was NEVER the case!

I refuse to discuss it any further. That lying bastard LOST ... get it? That lying no-good son-of-a-bitch LOST and you just need to get OVER it!

Someone has anger management issues....

Its pretty damn simple. Yes, he lost. Doesnt mean Bush is a frigging saint and untouchable. Someone said unjust war and I ask "where are the WMDs?" That was the REASON we went to war, not to unseat Saddam, not to liberate the Middle East. It is called "lying" and politicians do it quite often. Kerry may be an ass, but he hasn't gotten troops killed over a lie, or lack of body armor, or any myriad of excuses that can be presented by the current administration.

"You dont go to war with the army you want...you go with the army you have." Who the fuck is Rumsfeld and the GOP to say that to the soldiers fighting in Iraq? Im not some peace activist, but do you honestly feel frigging safer and that terrorists are being neutralized? What about Osama..why is he still around when we could have had him at Tora Bora? Why did Halliburton get prime deals in Iraq? Why are we fighting in Iraq and not disarming North Korea or Iran, who HAVE THE WEAPONS!

Fine, Kerry lost..but that doesnt give Bush carte blanche authority to do whatever he wishes. Its easy to wrap yourself in a flag and toe the popular line, but its a lot harder to stand up and say something is right or wrong. Vietnam wasnt wrong, I hate the activists who maligned the returning soldiers, but this is the United fucking States. You know, the land with freedom of speech for all? Even idiots in the wrong still have a right to speak their mind, something some people here seem to forget.

There are your "facts" smacked acrossed your face, as you so adequately put it. I support the military, but I damn sure dont want to see others killed for "brave" politicians fighting back at home behind their desks. Courage isnt bought with bold words and hasty actions which could have repercussions years to come.

Short story shorter: Im not trying to attack any one person here for their beliefs, but you have to realize you are at least as prejudiced as anyone else you have been arguing with. Insult me for that statement, i dont really give a damn, but there are the facts, Jack.

First of all, I don't know the thread author from Adam, so say what you will of him. Point taken.

Fox and Murdoch's media empire are the right-wing propagandizers, yes. That makes up a very significant slice of the American media, indeed. If you have a few instances of social causes and the way they're portrayed, I'd like to hear them, because though it's only anecdotal evidence, at least that would be specific anecdotal evidence. I don't even really know what you mean of "conservative social causes." Do you mean those people who stand outside of abortion clinics and threaten people who come near? Or, perhaps, pro-war rallies? The former understandably receives negative coverage, the former positive. And what liberal social causes would you liken them to, in terms of a favorable slant on the reporting? Anti-war rallies? Any report on them which I'd seen seemed pretty straightforward, save that there are a lot more of these (hence more reporting on them) and they are more well attended. And what about the fear-mongering claims of anarchists sweeping in during the RNC NY protests? Not exactly a liberally biased reporting style there. But these are just a couple of things. In short, what we come down to is what sells, and the commodity is, indeed, sensationalism.

Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite the examples you're thinking of, rather than having me take shots in the dark.

That's the problem; I can't very well cite examples of what I haven't seen. All I've got is the impressions I've received from watching the news networks and reading stories off their websites over the years. The problem with this debate is that the way any one incident is reported on will mean different things to different people. To some people, the current hubbub about Rumsfeld rubber stamps is evidence of a liberal media trying to smear an important conservative leader. To others, it's a sign that Rumsfeld has fallen out of favor among conservatives and now the conservative media has turned on him. Some see the debate shows in which far-right Republicans take on center-left Democrats as attempts to shut out the far-left voice in America, others as attempts to make the Republican look like a lunatic in comparison to the more reasonable Democrat. Perceptions of bias are almost always completely subjective, and it's easy to treat the examples that strengthen your perception as "political bias" and examples that weaken it as "mere sensationalism."

Who then is doing good for this country?

I suppose I should have said that neither is improving this country. Both sides have done some good, but I believe they've done more harm.

I suppose I should have said that neither is improving this country. Both sides have done some good, but I believe they've done more harm.

But what I'm asking is who, other than republicans or democrats, do you support? Who do you believe could do a better job?

Someone has anger management issues....


Yeah, I think its because of his lost leg. That'd generate a bunch of anger in me too. My Dad lost both of his legs and was about to lose his arm due to diabetes but luckily he died before that happened.

Must be a tad unfair to talk like this about a person, even when he's 'in the room'. All personal-like and stuff...

...but I'm an attention whore so...YIPPEE!!! :D :sniper:

But what I'm asking is who, other than republicans or democrats, do you support? Who do you believe could do a better job?

The Libertarians would be my first choice. I don't believe they have everything right, but I think they could at least be counted on to do more good than harm.

The Libertarians would be my first choice. I don't believe they have everything right, but I think they could at least be counted on to do more good than harm.

As I expected. Unfortunately for you, I'm rather authoritarian...so we're just going to disagree on this one.

As I expected. Unfortunately for you, I'm rather authoritarian...so we're just going to disagree on this one.

Agreed.

yes you need to say alot more--for every one example you supplied here theres a hundred more proving the media has a rightwing bias but Ill be damned if Im going to write a post that long
Right. Sources can be so inconvenient when you are trying to make a valid point. You MUST be a liberal.

why do you want american soldiers to die in unjust wars?
I agree. We never should have fought in the Eurpoean theater. I mean, if Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and invate his neighbors that was Germany's problem, not ours. No German soldiers ever attacked the US mainland.

I'd go on but I am sure my sarcasm is lost on you. besides, isn't this thread about the delusions of a vast right-wing conspiracy?

It's not! Oh shit. I just let the cat out of the bag. Crap. Forget what you just read. It was a typo. Uh-oh. There are men in dark suits walking up to my door. I gotta go. goodb...

I think the fact that Kerry's entire former chain of command spent their OWN money to make sure the truth about his cowardace and incompetence made it into the public consciousness says it all.

Cowardice? At least Kerry was there... we can ALL agree on that. Bush couldn't handle national guard duty, and you think that Kerry was cowardice... hmm. :rolleyes:

The truth of the matter was that Kerry did leave his Swiftboat ( an action contrary to Navy policy, by the way ) to shoot a Viet Cong soldier who was already critically wounded, but who still had possession of his weapon. For this action, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star ( with a totally unauthorized "V" device attached ). Soldiers in Iraq have been sent to prison for doing less.

So, what you're telling me is that he shot an armed soldier... and that's NOT supposed to happen in war? Gee, I obviously know nothing.

Yes it is, which is just one more reason Kerry should be behind bars instead of roaming around free.

I'm just curious if you could point out to my feeble little brain what document it is that Kerry falsified.

Right. Sources can be so inconvenient when you are trying to make a valid point. You MUST be a liberal.

I haven't seen you post any sources, either. Just an observation.

I haven't seen you post any sources, either. Just an observation.

The difference is that Bozzy hasn't made any positive claims that would require him to cite a source, whereas Skapedroe/MKULTRA/The Red Arrow has.

The difference is that Bozzy hasn't made any positive claims that would require him to cite a source, whereas Skapedroe/MKULTRA/The Red Arrow has.

True. Sorry about earlier, I misunderstood where you were coming from.

7.That is complete, utter, total, and irreevocable (sp?) bullshit
8.Read New Lies For Old and The Perestroika Deception. Yes, apartheid was awful, but so was the ANC's 'neck-lacing' of anticommunist blacks. I have yet to see one reliable source regarding Pinochet's purported genocide.

Ever read any U.S. newspapers from the time? Calling the media anti-communist is pure and utter nonsense. Read posts 1-6. The media was no more anti-communist than was the U.S. government.
Pinochet was a latin american Hitler--why are you defending a monster?

He should watch CNN.

Anyhow, the problem with American media isn't that it is partisan, but that it pretends to be non-partisan. In other countries, there are the liberal papers, the conservative papers, and the centrist papers. If you are a liberal, you buy the liberal paper. There isn't bitching about "OMG FOX NEWZ AINT FAIR UND BALANCED!!!111." Everyone knows what they are reading, and they read what they want to read.
CNN is totally rightwing maggots -if you think thats left you dont know what left is--but I totally agree with the second part of your post that they should at least be upfront about their bias

True. Sorry about earlier, I misunderstood where you were coming from.

No worries, you're far from the first to do that.

That's rich coming from the guy who defines "reputable news sources" as "sources I happen to agree with." What possible reason do I have to be biased, when I've been saying from the start that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are doing any good for this country?
well I agree with you there

Define 'unjust war.'
veitnam and the war in Iraq

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382996&page=1&pp=15

Read post 14. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the U.S. is the most pro-communist government in the world.
the US only supports corporate communism

And why didn't he? Can you answer that question, oh he of infinite wisdom and knowledge? It's because he knew he would friggin' LOSE, just like he LOST the election.
theres no evidence he lost the election

Honestly, someone should put TRA and Etru in a boxing ring and charge admission. :D
he'd hafta kill me cause I dont give up

You're obviously totally biased and prejudiced and wouldn't listen to reason or facts or logic if it slapped you across the face to get your attention first. I'm willing to see that lying, cowardly, hypocritical, cheating, conniving, worthless bastard Kerry in jail for what EVER reason I can get him there! He is one of the main reasons my brothers and I have had to suffer all these years after he accused us of "committing daily atrocities" in Vietnam when he knew damned good and well ( or SHOULD have known damned good and well ) that such was NEVER the case!

I refuse to discuss it any further. That lying bastard LOST ... get it? That lying no-good son-of-a-bitch LOST and you just need to get OVER it!
you sound like you have the guilty conscience of a war criminal

Right. Sources can be so inconvenient when you are trying to make a valid point. You MUST be a liberal.
I never seen your sources for anything conservative liar for the ruling class

I agree. We never should have fought in the Eurpoean theater. I mean, if Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and invate his neighbors that was Germany's problem, not ours. No German soldiers ever attacked the US mainland.

I'd go on but I am sure my sarcasm is lost on you. besides, isn't this thread about the delusions of a vast right-wing conspiracy?

It's not! Oh shit. I just let the cat out of the bag. Crap. Forget what you just read. It was a typo. Uh-oh. There are men in dark suits walking up to my door. I gotta go. goodb...
Hitler was expansionistic thats not a comparable example

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.



i agree 100% fuck the liberal media!

i agree 100% fuck the liberal media!
if we had a liberal media then Bush wouldnt have gotten away with lying to us about WMDS in Iraq

I haven't seen you post any sources, either. Just an observation.
That's silly - I've made no claim in this thread which would require it.

I never seen your sources for anything conservative liar for the ruling class
ROFLMAO!

What about fascist? You forgot to call me a fascist! What kind of liberal are you if you forget to call everone who disagrees with you a fascist?

Hitler was expansionistic thats not a comparable example
Oh, I see then. That whole Kuwait thing was just an extended vacation.

you sound like you have the guilty conscience of a war criminal

Not a war criminal. That doesn't mean I haven't rained on your parade and killed more Arabs than you can count. I could dance in the street in front of the Hague and not be arrested.

Oh, I see then. That whole Kuwait thing was just an extended vacation.
Bushs father gave Saddam permission to invade then double crossed him for the House of Saud

Not a war criminal. That doesn't mean I haven't rained on your parade and killed more Arabs than you can count. I could dance in the street in front of the Hague and not be arrested.
Rumsfeld cant

Oh, I see then. That whole Kuwait thing was just an extended vacation.

Cut from the same cloth, Bush and Saddam. Both have easily drawn parallels to Hitler. If you combined them, you'd probably have the man himself.

Bushs father gave Saddam permission to invade then double crossed him for the House of Saud

Prove it.

Prove it.
Doublecross might be a bit strong, and I don't know about the House of Saud connection, but here's an article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/desertstorm_10yrslater.html) from a pretty balanced source as far as I can tell that gives some detail on what Skapedroe is talking about.
Early thunder began the previous summer, on August 2, 1990, when Iraqi tanks rolled into oil-rich Kuwait in what turned out to be an almost effortless invasion. The next day, the United Nations Security Council demanded an immediate, unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was stunned by the vehement response. He had expected a casual reaction from the West to his occupation of Kuwait, based on what U.S. ambassador April Glaspie had told him a week earlier, when she said, "We have no opinions on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
Sure sounds like the official US position was that we wouldn't get involved.

Doublecross might be a bit strong, and I don't know about the House of Saud connection, but here's an article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/desertstorm_10yrslater.html) from a pretty balanced source as far as I can tell that gives some detail on what Skapedroe is talking about.

Sure sounds like the official US position was that we wouldn't get involved.

A similar signal convinced the North Koreans that they could invade the South and the US would not intervene. That got us the Korean War.

Be careful what you say you don't care about.

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.

The media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed :

AOL Time Warner
Disney
Rupert Murdock's News Corporation
Viacom
Bertelsmann

These five companies (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States. These media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country.

from The Media Monopoly
by Ben H. Bagdikian


"Almost all of the media leaders, possibly excepting Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting, are political conservatives, a factor in the drastic shift in the entire spectrum of national politics to a brand of conservatism once thought of as 'extreme.'"

"... most conservatives consider news bias to be any news that departs from the promotion of conservatism and corporate values."

"Of the 1,500 daily newspapers in the country, 99 percent are the only daily in their cities. Of the 11,800 cable systems, all but a handful are monopolies in their cities. Of the 11,000 commercial radio stations, six or eight formats (all-talk, all-news, variations of rock music, rap, adult contemporary, etc.), with an all but uniform content within each format, dominate programming in every city. The four commercial television networks and their local affiliates carry programs of essentially the same type, with only the meagerly financed public stations offering a genuine alternative."

The media cartel that keeps us fully entertained and permanently half-informed :

AOL Time Warner
Disney
Rupert Murdock's News Corporation
Viacom
Bertelsmann

These five companies (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States. These media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country.

from The Media Monopoly
by Ben H. Bagdikian


"Almost all of the media leaders, possibly excepting Ted Turner of Turner Broadcasting, are political conservatives, a factor in the drastic shift in the entire spectrum of national politics to a brand of conservatism once thought of as 'extreme.'"

"... most conservatives consider news bias to be any news that departs from the promotion of conservatism and corporate values."

"Of the 1,500 daily newspapers in the country, 99 percent are the only daily in their cities. Of the 11,800 cable systems, all but a handful are monopolies in their cities. Of the 11,000 commercial radio stations, six or eight formats (all-talk, all-news, variations of rock music, rap, adult contemporary, etc.), with an all but uniform content within each format, dominate programming in every city. The four commercial television networks and their local affiliates carry programs of essentially the same type, with only the meagerly financed public stations offering a genuine alternative."


Hmmm. Mr. Bagdikian might not be the best sort of "unbiased" source from whom to quote:

Ben H. Bagdikian has been a reporter and editor, author of books, former assistant managing editor for National News of the Washington Post, and former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of several books, three of them published by Beacon Press: In the Midst of Plenty: The Poor in America, The Media Monopoly, and Double Vision: Reflections on my Heritage, Life, and Profession. His life deserves our celebration for its dramatic disclosure of thousands of pages of top-secret Pentagon Papers revealing the years of official lying about the Vietnam War. He is likewise the unstilled sounder of astounding facts about the dangerous concentration of the power of the media monopoly in our electronic epoch.

Hmmm. Mr. Bagdikian might not be the best sort of "unbiased" source from whom to quote:

Ben H. Bagdikian has been a reporter and editor, author of books, former assistant managing editor for National News of the Washington Post, and former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of several books, three of them published by Beacon Press: In the Midst of Plenty: The Poor in America, The Media Monopoly, and Double Vision: Reflections on my Heritage, Life, and Profession. His life deserves our celebration for its dramatic disclosure of thousands of pages of top-secret Pentagon Papers revealing the years of official lying about the Vietnam War. He is likewise the unstilled sounder of astounding facts about the dangerous concentration of the power of the media monopoly in our electronic epoch.

That is an outstanding resume for someone who is evaluating the media. What exactly in his past disqualifies him from writing about media consolidation?

Also, rather than attacking the author (a favorite conservative tactic - i.e., "... most conservatives consider news bias to be any news that departs from the promotion of conservatism and corporate values."), why not address his point, which REAL conservatives should be quaking in their boots over; the consolidation of greater amounts of power in fewer and fewer hands.

Ogiek, is Dan Rather really a Republican? Are the staffers at 60 Minutes? Really? When Walter Cronkite and Andy Rooney have both proudly admitted that CBS is in no way a friend of the Republican Party, and in fact is a "liberal" biased news agency?

You have yet to show evidence that the American media has a conservative bias. Put up, or shut up.

Ever watched Fox?

Ever watched Fox?

Fox is not "all the media" It's not NBC, CBS, or ABC, or CNN.

Ever watched Fox?
You liberals and leftists are really hung up on Fox, aren't ya. I watch it fairly often and have yet to see any anti-liberal or pro-conservative bias ... seems like fairly straight-forward news reporting to me.

Ogiek, is Dan Rather really a Republican? Are the staffers at 60 Minutes? Really? When Walter Cronkite and Andy Rooney have both proudly admitted that CBS is in no way a friend of the Republican Party, and in fact is a "liberal" biased news agency?

It doesn't really matter, does it? Because each of those reporters and anchors earns a paycheck and takes his orders from CBS, which is owned by Viacom, an international media conglomerate with revenues of $20 billion and whose "brands" include CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Infinity (one of the largest radio broadcasters in the United States with 184 radio stations), Showtime, Blockbuster and Simon & Schuster.

Do you remember how CBS anchor Dan Rather characterized TV journalism during the lead up to the war against Iraq? "Lap dogs, not watchdogs." It didn't matter what the personal politics of individual Viacom employees was or is.

Viacom is one of the largest corporations in the world. The "infotainment" reporters, editors, and anchors who work for them have a very narrow range of stories they can safely bring to the public.

You liberals and leftists are really hung up on Fox, aren't ya. I watch it fairly often and have yet to see any anti-liberal or pro-conservative bias ... seems like fairly straight-forward news reporting to me.

What a surprise! Most conservatives would agree wholeheartedly with you.

A Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) study of Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume found that 57% of Special Report’s one-on-one guests during the period studied were ideological conservatives, 12% were centrists and 11% were progressives.

Of the 42 partisan guests, 35 were Republicans and only seven were Democrats—a five-to-one imbalance. Furthermore, of the handful of Democrats that did appear, the majority were centrist or conservative, and frequently expressed views more typical of Republican guests.

Twenty percent of guests were non-ideological. Among ideological guests, conservatives accounted for 72%, while centrists made up 15% and progressives 14%. (The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.) Viewers were roughly five times more likely to see a conservative interviewed on Special Report than a progressive.

The conservative tilt isn’t found just at FOX. FAIR’s original 2001 study of Special Report included a comparison to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports—which favored Republicans 57% to 43%. And a 2002 FAIR study of the three major networks’ nightly news broadcasts found an even greater imbalance than on CNN: Of partisan sources, 75% were Republican and only 24% Democrats. The differences among the networks were negligible; CBS had the most Republicans (76%) while ABC had the fewest (73%).

Even NPR, characterized by conservative critics as “liberal” radio, favored Republican sources over Democrats by a ratio of more than three to two in a recent study of its main news shows.

That fact that the reporting seems balanced to you says more about your politics than it does about the media's bias.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

What a surprise! Most conservatives would agree wholeheartedly with you.

A Fairness and Accuracy in Media Reporting (FAIR) study of Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume found that 57% of Special Report’s one-on-one guests during the period studied were ideological conservatives, 12% were centrists and 11% were progressives.

Of the 42 partisan guests, 35 were Republicans and only seven were Democrats—a five-to-one imbalance. Furthermore, of the handful of Democrats that did appear, the majority were centrist or conservative, and frequently expressed views more typical of Republican guests.

Twenty percent of guests were non-ideological. Among ideological guests, conservatives accounted for 72%, while centrists made up 15% and progressives 14%. (The total exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.) Viewers were roughly five times more likely to see a conservative interviewed on Special Report than a progressive.

The conservative tilt isn’t found just at FOX. FAIR’s original 2001 study of Special Report included a comparison to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports—which favored Republicans 57% to 43%. And a 2002 FAIR study of the three major networks’ nightly news broadcasts found an even greater imbalance than on CNN: Of partisan sources, 75% were Republican and only 24% Democrats. The differences among the networks were negligible; CBS had the most Republicans (76%) while ABC had the fewest (73%).

Even NPR, characterized by conservative critics as “liberal” radio, favored Republican sources over Democrats by a ratio of more than three to two in a recent study of its main news shows

That fact that the reporting seems balanced to you says more about your politics than it does about the media's bias.

Fairness and Accuracy in Media Reporting

http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

Hmmm. Looks like the authors of that article need a little "fairness and balance" themselves! :D

"Julie Hollar is the communications director for FAIR. A graduate of Rice University, she has written for the Texas Observer and coordinated communications and activism at the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. Hollar is also active in the Paper Tiger Television collective."

"Steve Rendall
srendall@fair.org

Steve Rendall is FAIR's senior analyst. He is co-host of CounterSpin, FAIR's national radio show. His work has received awards from Project Censored, and has won the praise of noted journalists such as Les Payne, Molly Ivins and Garry Wills.

He is co-author of The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error (The New Press, 1995, New York City).

Extra! articles:

Meet the Stenographers: Press shirks duty to scrutinize official claims (11-12/04)
I'm Not a Leftist, But I Play One on TV: Progressives excluded as right battles center (with Anna Kosseff, 9-10/04)
Not Even the New Republic (with Anne Kosseff, 9-10/04)
Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test: Fox's Special Report leans right, white, Republican & male (with Julie Hollar, 7-8/04).
An Aggressive Conservative vs. a "Liberal to be Determined" (11-12/03)
The Hypocrisy of George Will: Pundits double standards, ethical lapses seldom noted (9-10/03)
Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent: FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage (with Tara Broughel, 5-6/03)
Dissent, Disloyalty & Double Standards: Kosovo doves denounced Iraq War protest as "anti-American" (5-6/03)
CNN's Reliably Narrow Sources: Media show's exclusive guestlist reinforces biases (3-4/03)
GE, Microsoft Bring Bigotry to Life: Hate-talk host Michael Savage hired by MSNBC (with Jim Naureckas, 3-4/03)
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage: Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny (with Jim Naureckas, 3-4/03)
Playing Catch-Up with Lott's Racism: Why hadn't the most powerful senator's support for segregation been reported? (with Peter Hart, 1-2/03)
Satan in the Senate: Limbaugh has demonized Daschle-- quite literally (with Jim Naureckas, 1-2/03)
Ann Slanders: Is Coulter's book about "lies" a self-indictment? (11-12/02)
White Noise: Voices of color scarce on urban public radio (with Will Creeley, 9-10/02)
Still Far from "Fair and Balanced": New study finds Fox News' conservative, Republican slant less overwhelming (7-8/02)
Hannity to Guests: Shut up (with Jim Naureckas, 6/02)
Take No Prisoners: U.S. reporters failed to probe Pentagon's "unlawful combatants" label (3-4/02)
"Bias" Short on Substance: Former CBS reporter claims TV has "leftward" slant (with Peter Hart, 3-4/02)
Pro-Pain Pundits: Torture advocates defy U.S., international law (1-2/01)
The Op-ed Echo Chamber: Little or no space for dissent from the military line (11-12/01)
Fox's Slanted Sources: Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others (7-8/01)
Media See the Poor as Aggressors in "Class War": Survey finds bottom-up references overwhelm top-down (1-2/01)
Election Night Meltdown: Media monopoly contributed to exit-poll errors (1-2/01)
Missing the Chile Story at the New York Times: Attacks on a 1982 film show paper's protection of power (5-6/00)
Nation's Top Columnists Lean Right: Op-ed pages at big dailies lean on establishment writers (1-2/00)
Trent Lott's Sex-free Scandal: When racism is the issue,media are slow to dig (3-4/99)
A New Kind of Neo-Con: The neo-confederate movement (3-4/99)
Meet the Myth-Makers: Right-wing media groups provide ammo for "liberal media" claims (7-8/98)
Limbaugh Out to Lunch in Budget Debate (5-6/95)
The Real David Brock: A right-wing hatchet man (3-4/95)
The Death Penalty: A human rights issue (Summer '89)

Once again, you attack the messenger and ignore the message. That way you never have to confront facts that don't fit into your preconceived notion of the world, nor address the concerns or ideas of people who disagree with you.

Perhaps that explains why you still think FOX is "fair and balanced."

Let's say your wildest fantasies are confirmed and FAIR is a radical front for tree hugging, homo loving, feminazi, New Age, We-Are-The-World singing, Evian drinking, dope smoking liberals from San Francisco.

You still have not addressed their facts nor their argument. Same goes for Bagdikian's points in The Media Monopoly.

Once again, you attack the messenger and ignore the message. That way you never have to confront facts that don't fit into your preconceived notion of the world, nor address the concerns or ideas of people who disagree with you.

Perhaps that explains why you still think FOX is "fair and balanced."

Let's say your wildest fantasies are confirmed and FAIR is a radical front for tree hugging, homo loving, feminazi, New Age, We-Are-The-World singing, Evian drinking, dope smoking liberals from San Francisco.

You still have not addressed their facts nor their argument. Same goes for Bagdikian's points in The Media Monopoly.
As anyone who has studied argumentation and debate can tell you, questioning the source of information used to support an argument is a valid technique. If the source can be shown to be biased ( which those were ), it calls into question the information said sources present, ergo the argument must stand on its own merits or other sources must be found.

Here you are using a source whose authors have numerous credits listed for articles which are almost uniformly pro-left. You are using this source in an attempt to prove that Fox News is pro-right. This makes a prima facie case for the source being biased on this issue.

Comprende?

As anyone who has studied argumentation and debate can tell you, questioning the source of information used to support an argument is a valid technique. If the source can be shown to be biased ( which those were ), it calls into question the information said sources present, ergo the argument must stand on its own merits or other sources must be found.

Here you are using a source whose authors have numerous credits listed for articles which are almost uniformly pro-left. You are using this source in an attempt to prove that Fox News is pro-right. This makes a prima facie case for the source being biased on this issue.

Comprende?

Nice justification for following ze party line in all things: "If I don't like you or your politics I don't have to acknowledge your argument."

Nice justification for following ze party line in all things: "If I don't like you or your politics I don't have to acknowledge your argument."
( Looks over at Vittos Ordination ) He don' kno' me vewwy well, do he? :D

( Looks over at Vittos Ordination ) He don' kno' me vewwy well, do he? :D

I know you ignore the substance of the message in favor attacking the messenger.

I know you ignore the substance of the message in favor attacking the messenger.
And just HOW, pray tell, did I attack you? Did I curse at you? Did I call you nasty names? Did I make evil references to your parentage or lack thereof? Did I insist that you perform an impossible act upon your own body? Was there the merest hint of derogation, denunciation, or discrimination?

Perhaps the news should just be news. No more rhetoric or pundits or even personality. That way people could legitimately form their own opinion.

Perhaps the news should just be news. No more rhetoric or pundits or even personality. That way people could legitimately form their own opinion.
In a world where people would accept that, it would be great! However, there are those who insist on being told what to think, and they would gather in small groups and begin throwing stones if denied their gurus! :)

In a world where people would accept that, it would be great! However, there are those who insist on being told what to think, and they would gather in small groups and begin throwing stones if denied their gurus! :)So are you saying a majority of people reject free-thought out of free-will?

So are you saying a majority of people reject free-thought out of free-will?
LOL! Well, since you put it that way ... perhaps. :)

Not having access to all the wonderful survey devices and organizations so rife ( and so expensive ) these days, I wouldn't know if a "majority" of people yern for freedom from freedom, but I know there is at least a sizable minority who do. Ever read Escape From Freedom by Eric Fromme?

LOL! Well, since you put it that way ... perhaps. :)

Not having access to all the wonderful survey devices and organizations so rife ( and so expensive ) these days, I wouldn't know if a "majority" of people yern for freedom from freedom, but I know there is at least a sizable minority who do. Ever read Escape From Freedom by Eric Fromme?No, but I'll be willing to pick it up if I have the time.

No, but I'll be willing to pick it up if I have the time.
It may be out of print. Try ordering it through Amazon.

BTW .... "Mef?" WTF is a "Mef?" Heh!

Hmmm. Looks like the authors of that article need a little "fairness and balance" themselves! :D

"Julie Hollar is the communications director for FAIR. A graduate of Rice University, she has written for the Texas Observer and coordinated communications and activism at the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. Hollar is also active in the Paper Tiger Television collective."

"Steve Rendall
srendall@fair.org

Steve Rendall is FAIR's senior analyst. He is co-host of CounterSpin, FAIR's national radio show. His work has received awards from Project Censored, and has won the praise of noted journalists such as Les Payne, Molly Ivins and Garry Wills.

He is co-author of The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error (The New Press, 1995, New York City).

Extra! articles:

Meet the Stenographers: Press shirks duty to scrutinize official claims (11-12/04)
I'm Not a Leftist, But I Play One on TV: Progressives excluded as right battles center (with Anna Kosseff, 9-10/04)
Not Even the New Republic (with Anne Kosseff, 9-10/04)
Still Failing the "Fair & Balanced" Test: Fox's Special Report leans right, white, Republican & male (with Julie Hollar, 7-8/04).
An Aggressive Conservative vs. a "Liberal to be Determined" (11-12/03)
The Hypocrisy of George Will: Pundits double standards, ethical lapses seldom noted (9-10/03)
Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent: FAIR study finds democracy poorly served by war coverage (with Tara Broughel, 5-6/03)
Dissent, Disloyalty & Double Standards: Kosovo doves denounced Iraq War protest as "anti-American" (5-6/03)
CNN's Reliably Narrow Sources: Media show's exclusive guestlist reinforces biases (3-4/03)
GE, Microsoft Bring Bigotry to Life: Hate-talk host Michael Savage hired by MSNBC (with Jim Naureckas, 3-4/03)
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage: Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny (with Jim Naureckas, 3-4/03)
Playing Catch-Up with Lott's Racism: Why hadn't the most powerful senator's support for segregation been reported? (with Peter Hart, 1-2/03)
Satan in the Senate: Limbaugh has demonized Daschle-- quite literally (with Jim Naureckas, 1-2/03)
Ann Slanders: Is Coulter's book about "lies" a self-indictment? (11-12/02)
White Noise: Voices of color scarce on urban public radio (with Will Creeley, 9-10/02)
Still Far from "Fair and Balanced": New study finds Fox News' conservative, Republican slant less overwhelming (7-8/02)
Hannity to Guests: Shut up (with Jim Naureckas, 6/02)
Take No Prisoners: U.S. reporters failed to probe Pentagon's "unlawful combatants" label (3-4/02)
"Bias" Short on Substance: Former CBS reporter claims TV has "leftward" slant (with Peter Hart, 3-4/02)
Pro-Pain Pundits: Torture advocates defy U.S., international law (1-2/01)
The Op-ed Echo Chamber: Little or no space for dissent from the military line (11-12/01)
Fox's Slanted Sources: Conservatives, Republicans far outnumber others (7-8/01)
Media See the Poor as Aggressors in "Class War": Survey finds bottom-up references overwhelm top-down (1-2/01)
Election Night Meltdown: Media monopoly contributed to exit-poll errors (1-2/01)
Missing the Chile Story at the New York Times: Attacks on a 1982 film show paper's protection of power (5-6/00)
Nation's Top Columnists Lean Right: Op-ed pages at big dailies lean on establishment writers (1-2/00)
Trent Lott's Sex-free Scandal: When racism is the issue,media are slow to dig (3-4/99)
A New Kind of Neo-Con: The neo-confederate movement (3-4/99)
Meet the Myth-Makers: Right-wing media groups provide ammo for "liberal media" claims (7-8/98)
Limbaugh Out to Lunch in Budget Debate (5-6/95)
The Real David Brock: A right-wing hatchet man (3-4/95)
The Death Penalty: A human rights issue (Summer '89)
None of which changes the statistics they cite, which could be verified by anyone with the time and inclination. Let me guess--the facts have a liberal bias, right?

No, but I'll be willing to pick it up if I have the time.
Here it is ...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805031499/102-2051579-7726568?v=glance

None of which changes the statistics they cite, which could be verified by anyone with the time and inclination. Let me guess--the facts have a liberal bias, right?
Incertonia, my old friend! How the f***k ARE ya! :D

Just being my usual lil obnoxious self this evening. I unfortunately have neither the time nor the inclination to verify the alleged "facts" in this din of inequity. And yes, the alleged "facts" seem to indicate that Fox News has a decidedly republican bias, something which I am not prepared to concede without a fight! :D

And just HOW, pray tell, did I attack you? Did I curse at you? Did I call you nasty names? Did I make evil references to your parentage or lack thereof? Did I insist that you perform an impossible act upon your own body? Was there the merest hint of derogation, denunciation, or discrimination?

Not me.

Rather than refute FAIR's assertions or challenge the thesis of The Media Monopoly, you dismissed them by saying, 'oh they're liberal.' In essence your labeling of the messenger is apparently evidence that their message doesn't warrant a response. That is what I meant by attacking the messenger.

I hear it done all the time. Cite the NYTimes? 'Oh, well, of course the Times....' CBS? 'Well, you know Dan Rather....' NPR? 'Everyone knows they are liberal....'

In affect no source counts unless it is a conservative leaning or Republican supporting source.

Pinochet was a latin american Hitler--why are you defending a monster?

A)Who said I was defending him?
B)Hitler killed over 20,000,000 people, Pinochet allegedly killed around 3,000; I'd say there's a hell of a huge difference between the two
C)Thanks for not flaming. I know a lot of people who'd say, "What the %&^%&^$*? Are you #%!%&^!@%&* sick, or what? You #^&!@^&*(#%@%, etc."

You liberals and leftists are really hung up on Fox, aren't ya. I watch it fairly often and have yet to see any anti-liberal or pro-conservative bias ... seems like fairly straight-forward news reporting to me.

That would be because you are conservative and agree with it. When you agree with something, and see yourself as not being "extreme," then, obviously, what you identify to be true, doesn't seem extreme to you either.

A)Who said I was defending him?
B)Hitler killed over 20,000,000 people, Pinochet allegedly killed around 3,000; I'd say there's a hell of a huge difference between the two
C)Thanks for not flaming. I know a lot of people who'd say, "What the %&^%&^$*? Are you #%!%&^!@%&* sick, or what? You #^&!@^&*(#%@%, etc."
pinochet was more like franco than hitler if you want to compare him to fascists anyway. he really wasn't populist enough to be a real fascist, just another run of the mill latin american military strongman in a long tradition of similar leaders, only really memorable to the rest of the world because he replaced an elected leftist not another strongman.