NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah right! For 2 years this scam went on and not one of the news reporting agencies who followed it did one iota of research into the validity of this story. Why? uh....because it was supposedly a motherless little girl whose only remaining parent was stationed in Iraq, who the evil President Bush wouldn't allow to come home, and who was eventually orphaned by the brutal death of her father in Iraq?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0508260251aug26,1,6798335.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Does it seem reasonable that this story wasn't verified for 2 years or is it more likely that the liberal press didn't want the public to know the truth if it furthered their attack on the Bush presidency?

If this has been discussed before, I'm sorry, but my search and forum tools don't work since the frickin "upgrade"

It's hardly concrete proof, or even an example, of "liberal bias in the media". It's some crackpot.

When trying to point out a liberal bias in the media, one would do well not to mentiont he Chicago Tribune. It's very republican.

What story originating in a university newspaper is followed and reported on that is not thoroughly investigated and verified? And, why are the major news agencies back pedaling on this if they weren't aware?

When trying to point out a liberal bias in the media, one would do well not to mentiont he Chicago Tribune. It's very republican.

The Trib is a moderate paper that represents the people of the midwest. It is also just about the only major news paper that gave this story full coverage. NY Times where are you?

Edit: The NY Times did report that it was a hoax in less than 650 words. They have also pulled all of their reports of this poor child's plight from their archives.

Bah. The American entertainment media is a bit left of the American center, but its hardly noticeable unless you pay attention, and most people could care less. The news media is fairly balanced, though.
Political bias has nothing to do with why I don’t watch much TV or see very many movies. It has to do with the disgusting emotional garbage that they try to pass off as drama.

The Media attacking the President? Oh noes! Liberal scum!

*whispers*

What do you mean "Fourth Estate"?

*more whispers*

What do you mean "The media isn't supposed to support anyone, regardless of who they are?"

*angry whispers*

Ok ok ok ... geeze ... fine ... go be the media then ... go be free and independent ... but, I promise you, from here on out, if you disagree with anything anyone says, it will be because of <insert party line here> bias.

First and obvious clue this was a hoax are the numerous stories of military personnel being released from service overseas due to single parent homes and both parents enlisted. The US doesn't leave a child parentless.

The Media attacking the President? Oh noes! Liberal scum!

*whispers*

What do you mean "Fourth Estate"?

*more whispers*

What do you mean "The media isn't supposed to support anyone, regardless of who they are?"

*angry whispers*

Ok ok ok ... geeze ... fine ... go be the media then ... go be free and independent ... but, I promise you, from here on out, if you disagree with anything anyone says, it will be because of <insert party line here> bias.

there is a difference between the management of a news agency disagreeing with policies or the ones who effect the policies, and pushing stories detrimental to those policy makers (true or not) and suppressing stories favorable to the policy makers.

there is a difference between the management of a news agency disagreeing with policies or the ones who effect the policies, and pushing stories detrimental to those policy makers (true or not) and suppressing stories favorable to the policy makers.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Do you want them to hear you?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Do you want them to hear you?

Quick one man opinion poll. Do you watch and give equal credence to FOX news as you do say CNN or the BBC? Do not include opinion pieces such as O'Reilly.

Quick one man opinion poll. Do you watch and give equal credence to FOX news as you do say CNN or the BBC? Do not include opinion pieces such as O'Reilly.

In all seriousness, I check a variety of sources. If I see something on FOX, I check for backup on CNN, BBC, NPR, al-Jazeera, the Guardian, etc etc.

I cannot, and will not, abide by a single source.

I may be a leftist, liberal, hippie, fuck people save trees, pot smoking, bleeding heart, pinko, mid-30s school teacher with kids I'm corrupting, kinda guy ... but even I'm smart enough to "consider the source".

Quick one man opinion poll. Do you watch and give equal credence to FOX news as you do say CNN or the BBC? Do not include opinion pieces such as O'Reilly.

When it comes to the whereabouts of that Halloway chick, or Jacko's most recent dangling of something likely involving a child, then yeah. When Hannity or O'Reilly straight make up crap, then no. When they do straight reporting, I do what I always do no matter where I saw the story: If something seems important, I go online and see how several different sources relate the story. I try to divine the most easily spinnable parts to the story (either way,) and give those as much skepticism as they call for. I check for follow-up and clarifications. If speeches are quoted, I look up transcripts so that I'm not getting an edited version (whenever you see "..." be worried.)

If the argument is of a scientific nature, I look up references. If I see a random person quoted as an expert, I google for them. Then I follow the money.


I cannot, and will not, abide by a single source.

Amen, no matter who the source is.

In all seriousness, I check a variety of sources. If I see something on FOX, I check for backup on CNN, BBC, NPR, al-Jazeera, the Guardian, etc etc.

I cannot, and will not, abide by a single source.

I may be a leftist, liberal, hippie, fuck people save trees, pot smoking, bleeding heart, pinko, mid-30s school teacher with kids I'm corrupting, kinda guy ... but even I'm smart enough to "consider the source".


OK, good enough. You research the stories on multiple sources and draw your own conclusions like I do. I'm more conservative and pragmatic than you, but I don't take anything produced by a media source as truth unless proven. In my news junkie pursuits, I have run across this story a few times on what I would consider the more liberal reporting agencies. Each of them emphasized Bush's disregard for the child's "orphan" status. Where are they now that this has blown up to be a huge hoax?

OK, good enough. You research the stories on multiple sources and draw your own conclusions like I do. I'm more conservative and pragmatic than you, but I don't take anything produced by a media source as truth unless proven. In my news junkie pursuits, I have run across this story a few times on what I would consider the more liberal reporting agencies. Each of them emphasized Bush's disregard for the child's "orphan" status. Where are they now that this has blown up to be a huge hoax?

Covering their ass, like every single news agency does.

I have a kinda off topic question. Why do more conservative types agree that market forces and letting businesses regulate themselves works like a charm...except when it comes to the media?

When Hannity or O'Reilly straight make up crap, then no.


There's a tell. When "Hannity or O'Reilly straight make up crap" but no mention of the dribble that Colmes comes up with.

There's a tell. When "Hannity or O'Reilly straight make up crap" but no mention of the dribble that Colmes comes up with.

Colmes is a designated whipping boy, and you know it. He's paid to be incompetent.

Because businesses are in a competitive market and as such are usually self-regulating. (Note I said "usually"). A news agency should be marketing nothing more than personality and likeability of their reporters. Their job is to report facts, nothing but facts, and ALL of the facts. Instead they are setting themselves up as pursuasive influences on the people based on their management's politics and ideologies.

I have a kinda off topic question. Why do more conservative types agree that market forces and letting businesses regulate themselves works like a charm...except when it comes to the media?
Actually, the media is currently self regulating, simply because of the rise of the internet as a medium where common views can be expressed and the media is checked and discrepancies published. The whole Martin scandal and Memogate come to mind.


Rather, the media is regulated, although not from within, but neither by a government source.

Because businesses are in a competitive market and as such are usually self-regulating. (Note I said "usually"). A news agency should be marketing nothing more than personality and likeability of their reporters. Their job is to report facts, nothing but facts, and ALL of the facts. Instead they are setting themselves up as pursuasive influences on the people based on their management's politics and ideologies.

So why is media unable to be self-regulating, but most everything else is? Companies shouldn't use marketing in a misleading way, but a large number of them do.

OK, good enough. You research the stories on multiple sources and draw your own conclusions like I do. I'm more conservative and pragmatic than you, but I don't take anything produced by a media source as truth unless proven.

Good ... then you've obtained your more conservative and pragmatic beliefs based on your own research and merit, rather than by blind nationalism and sensationalism.

For that, I applaud you. You're one of the good guys ... even though I bet you and I would have some epic fights politically. :D

Colmes is a designated whipping boy, and you know it. He's paid to be incompetent.

Couldn't possibly be that his party's arguments are ungrounded and factless rather than that he is incompetent? What about the multitude of other liberal spokespersons who regularly are exposed as pushing false impressions to fortify their party's agenda? I remember the big whoop on NS when someone or another made a fool of one of FOX's reporters. Didn't seem to matter it was supposed to be a fluff celebrity piece and that the reporter's political background consisted of knowing where her polling location was.

Good ... then you've obtained your more conservative and pragmatic beliefs based on your own research and merit, rather than by blind nationalism and sensationalism.

For that, I applaud you. You're one of the good guys ... even though I bet you and I would have some epic fights politically. :D

I've learned through long years of experience and life that the conservative common sense approach does more to promote a strong economy and society than the liberal ideological approach. I started out as a Democrat. But the Democratic party took a hard left turn and left me hanging in the breeze. Suddenly my morals and family based ethics were passe and a more "charitable" rationale was called for. When the Democrats started trying to tell me that hard work, honesty, and moral character were "bad" I had to switch camps.

When the Democrats started trying to tell me that hard work, honesty, and moral character were "bad" I had to switch camps.

Hey ... I never said I was a Democrat. :p Democrat != Left ... just look at Hillary Clinton ... she's so Centrist it should almost be illegal for her to say she's a Democrat.

Zell Miller, Joe Leiberman, etc also come to mind.

Screw Party affiliation ...

I don't think I could side with the Republicans at this point as they're too overwhelmed by Evangelical Christians. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone's religious ideaology, I just don't like the idea of voting for people who have a religious affiliation that says I (a Muslim) am a "terrorist in waiting" or "following the words of a pedophile warmonger". Doesn't exactly win my heart and mind, ya know?

Yes, I voted Democrat in the most recent Presidential election, but that's because I can no longer abide a Bush dynasty in the United States. In 2000, I voted Nader.

I don't know what I will do in 2008. I do know that in 2006 I will vote for Kinky Freidman as Governor of Texas (check my sig) and I tend to prefer more Independant candidates on state and local levels, but who knows ... maybe the Republicans will run someone who believes people should have free will and that it's ok to help out the poor and downtrodden .... I won't hold my breath, though. ;)

Couldn't possibly be that his party's arguments are ungrounded and factless rather than that he is incompetent? What about the multitude of other liberal spokespersons who regularly are exposed as pushing false impressions to fortify their party's agenda? I remember the big whoop on NS when someone or another made a fool of one of FOX's reporters. Didn't seem to matter it was supposed to be a fluff celebrity piece and that the reporter's political background consisted of knowing where her polling location was.

Oh please, you can't tell me that there weren't whoops when the Today show made an ass of themselves coming from the conservative side? Even though we all know the Today show is fluff and that the topic they were reporting on wasn't partisan.

Colmes is a pussy. I know he's a pussy. The world knows he's a pussy. FOX was not about to hire a guy who was really good to sit in that chair, nor should they, based on their business plan.

I know the Dems arguments, and they don't consist solely of "Bush sucks." They do have ideas of their own, but I see the contention "they don't have any ideas!" thrown around quite a bit, but that point of view can only come from reading articles from a single political persepctive. The information is out there, easy to find, and yet the denial that it's even there continues. In addition, I see the Dems as being partially corrupt halfwits...which still puts them well ahead of the Republicans, IMO.

I know the Dems arguments, and they don't consist solely of "Bush sucks."

Well, I peruse Democratic Underground nightly, and if it's any indication of Democratic ideas, I'm going to make a killing selling tinfoil hats.

Liberal media bias exists, but in blogs and smaller news sources, not the "old media". I think that they are not inherently liberal, but instead, they try to find the gloomiest things possible, and report on them. Optimism and warm and fuzzy feelings just don't sell like they use to.

Well, I peruse Democratic Underground nightly, and if it's any indication of Democratic ideas, I'm going to make a killing selling tinfoil hats.

Try a Dem Congressman's website. Pick one at random, maybe someone you've never heard of. Betcha they tell you their ideas directly without a media mouthpiece telling you what they think their ideas are. No need for a partisan filter of either flavor. Compare and contrast with a Republican legislator's site.

Try a Dem Congressman's website. Pick one at random, maybe someone you've never heard of. Betcha they tell you their ideas directly without a media mouthpiece telling you what they think their ideas are. No need for a partisan filter of either flavor. Compare and contrast with a Republican legislator's site.

I found Nancy Pelosi's site to be what I expected. It was the usual hype and tripe. And Senator Feinstein, too. No surprises.

And no, I don't get all my opinions about politicians from the media. I tend to read people's speeches (largely because NPR likes to quote selectively).

Hey ... I never said I was a Democrat. :p Democrat != Left ... just look at Hillary Clinton ... she's so Centrist it should almost be illegal for her to say she's a Democrat.

Zell Miller, Joe Leiberman, etc also come to mind.

Screw Party affiliation ...

I don't think I could side with the Republicans at this point as they're too overwhelmed by Evangelical Christians. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with anyone's religious ideaology, I just don't like the idea of voting for people who have a religious affiliation that says I (a Muslim) am a "terrorist in waiting" or "following the words of a pedophile warmonger". Doesn't exactly win my heart and mind, ya know?

Yes, I voted Democrat in the most recent Presidential election, but that's because I can no longer abide a Bush dynasty in the United States. In 2000, I voted Nader.

I don't know what I will do in 2008. I do know that in 2006 I will vote for Kinky Freidman as Governor of Texas (check my sig) and I tend to prefer more Independant candidates on state and local levels, but who knows ... maybe the Republicans will run someone who believes people should have free will and that it's ok to help out the poor and downtrodden .... I won't hold my breath, though. ;)

Hillary, centrist?!!! Only because that is what she wants the moderate majority to believe in the 2008 elections. Hillary is about as left and as they get. If you haven't learned anything else from Bill, you should have at least learned the Clinton spin tactics.

To equate the Republican party and conservatives with Evangelical Christians is a steroptype you need to overcome with research. They may be the ones most reported on, but they are not an example of the typical conservative. I admit there is a suspicious air concerning Muslims. For years we have worked, played, and lived with Muslims. 9/11 made us aware that there is a radical element who wish us great harm and they lived among us as friends. Not knowing who to trust anymore, some people condemn all.

Kinky would be my choice. We could use a lot more who don't play politics but state their opinions and stick to them.

I found Nancy Pelosi's site to be what I expected. It was the usual hype and tripe. And Senator Feinstein, too. No surprises.

And no, I don't get all my opinions about politicians from the media. I tend to read people's speeches (largely because NPR likes to quote selectively).

Picked those at random, did ya?

Picked those at random, did ya?

After the major slew of insults and ridicule that seemed to be central to the Democratic Presidential campaign - rhetoric that seemed to characterize Christians as idiots - along with fake interest in religion at the same time (Dean's comments about the Book of Job being in the New Testament was quite telling), I haven't had the stomach to read too many of their sites.

I am willing to elect people who don't believe what I believe. But I'm not willing to tolerate:

1. Fake belief in an attempt to get my vote.
2. Ridicule of my beliefs.

Number 2 is the primary reason that although I listen to a lot of liberal leaning stations, read liberal blogs, and regularly read Democratic political Internet forums, I will not listen to Air America - it's far, far more vitriolic and flaming than the Rush Limbaugh show ever was. It borders on the utterly juvenile.

Pelosi had plenty of bad things to say, and nothing positive. I think she's quite representative. Kind of like picking De Lay for a representative Republican (as many seem to have here on this forum).

Hillary, centrist?!!! Only because that is what she wants the moderate majority to believe in the 2008 elections. Hillary is about as left and as they get. If you haven't learned anything else from Bill, you should have at least learned the Clinton spin tactics.

Spin or not ... Hillary was more Right than Bill when she married him and she's more Right than Bill now. It's why I would never strive to elect Hillary as President. I don't like Centrists. To me, Centrists are like Bisexuals ... they just can't make up their damn minds and Hillary is a Centrist.

To equate the Republican party and conservatives with Evangelical Christians is a steroptype you need to overcome with research.

No no no .... I do not believe the Republican party to be a party of neocons and evangelicals in its essence, but I do believe that said people have taken over the Party. I see people like McCain and others that I can agree with and abide all the time, but the Party itself has been overrun.

I admit there is a suspicious air concerning Muslims. For years we have worked, played, and lived with Muslims. 9/11 made us aware that there is a radical element who wish us great harm and they lived among us as friends. Not knowing who to trust anymore, some people condemn all.

Your last sentence said it best. As a Muslim, I am aware that there are some freaks in the world who go and blow things up, kill the innocent, and seek to destroy all we Americans hold near and dear in the name of "Islam", but unfoerunately there is a lesson that all Americans need to learn and that is to realize that those jack-asses are not "Muslim". Calling them "Muslim" is the equivalent of calling the "Davidians" Christian. Unfortunately, many in the Republican camp can't see the difference. They still want to believe that because Osama bin Laden "calls" himself Muslim, he must therefore *be* Muslim.

Kinky would be my choice. We could use a lot more who don't play politics but state their opinions and stick to them.

Damn straight, bubba .... Damn straight.

Number 2 is the primary reason that although I listen to a lot of liberal leaning stations, read liberal blogs, and regularly read Democratic political Internet forums, I will not listen to Air America - it's far, far more vitriolic and flaming than the Rush Limbaugh show ever was. It borders on the utterly juvenile.

Yeah, we know, Air America sucks and is a black spot on the suit of leftness. The left don't like to talk about it the same way Castlevania fans don't like to talk about Simon's Quest.

Do you watch and give equal credence to FOX news as you do say CNNYes..more or less...
Do you...give equal credence to FOX news as you do say ..the BBC? NO Fucking way.

After the major slew of insults and ridicule that seemed to be central to the Democratic Presidential campaign - rhetoric that seemed to characterize Christians as idiots - along with fake interest in religion at the same time (Dean's comments about the Book of Job being in the New Testament was quite telling), I haven't had the stomach to read too many of their sites.

I am willing to elect people who don't believe what I believe. But I'm not willing to tolerate:

1. Fake belief in an attempt to get my vote.
2. Ridicule of my beliefs.

Number 2 is the primary reason that although I listen to a lot of liberal leaning stations, read liberal blogs, and regularly read Democratic political Internet forums, I will not listen to Air America - it's far, far more vitriolic and flaming than the Rush Limbaugh show ever was. It borders on the utterly juvenile.

Pelosi had plenty of bad things to say, and nothing positive. I think she's quite representative. Kind of like picking De Lay for a representative Republican (as many seem to have here on this forum).


Excellent job not responding to my line of questioning in any way.

Every news source has bias. Some media outlets have some liberal bias, and some conservative bias. Some sources it's more noticible than others. PBS is definately more liberal than many, and FOX News is definately more conservative than many, and others are scattered about the center. To say all media is liberally or conservatively biased is retarded.

Of course there is liberal bias. There is also conservaitve bias. No matter how you slice it, all news is biased, my friend.

The media is way too liberal for all the wrong reasons. The media couldn't give a damn about liberal ideals. They're just liberal bacause Bush isn't.

To those bashing centrists, remember: We non-partisan folk don't want others telling us what to think. Even though I supported Gore and Kerry in the elections, I still support Bush now. We need to support him now. If a president isn't supported and is thrown out in a revolt, all hell breaks loose. REmember the French Revolution from history class? Well, that's an example of what not to do. The French are a great source of what-not-to-do lists. They got the US into Vietnam all because they didn't want to lose a colony. They used WWI tactics during the beginning of WWII. Apparently, the nazis were more up to date. Plus, there track record in regards to military victories is laughable.

I love the O'Riely show. There's always something about some former Jerry Springer quest on every show. One of my least favorite JS rejects is Sheehan. She doesn't realize that her loud mouth makes her look like an ass.

Number 2 is the primary reason that although I listen to a lot of liberal leaning stations, read liberal blogs, and regularly read Democratic political Internet forums, I will not listen to Air America - it's far, far more vitriolic and flaming than the Rush Limbaugh show ever was. It borders on the utterly juvenile.

Let me tell you something--Air America could do nothing but screech "Bush is Hitler" 24/7 for the next year and they'd still be behind Limbaugh in the amount of bile he's spouted at the left for the last ten years. Spare me the sanctimonious crap, please.

I live by The Economist.

Actually, that's not true at all, but it has proven an amazing source of reliable information over the years with a reserved perspective that I find particularly appealing. Left-wingers call it right-wing. Right-wingers call it left-wing. It reminds me of myself that way. Oh why won't a party take me?

This is hardly proof of any media bias. The media has a tendency to be sloppy. It cuts both ways. During the 2000 presidential race, it was the so called liberal media that pushed the story that Al Gore claimed responsability for inventing the internet. In fact, it was Wired news columnist Declan McCullagh and Republican congressman Dick Armey who fabricated that story. Al Gore claimed responsability for no such thing. It was easy to find out this story was false, but nobody did, they just ran with it.

Another example is New York Times reporter Judith Miller's sloppy and irresponsible reporting on Iraq's WMD program which helped make the case for Bush's war.

Then there is Bill Clinton's Lewinski affair. The so called liberal media whipped up a storm around what was essentially a private matter that eventually helped lead to Clinton's impeachment.

The media isnt biased one way or the other for the most part. They are balanced only towards whatever will get them ratings. They can be sloppy at times, but it cuts both ways. Yes, it will seem like they are against Republicans right now, because Republicans are in power so they are the ones that need to be criticized. When Democratcs come to power they will go after Democrats again. News about George Bush will sell better right now than news about Hillary Clinton, so of course they will choose the Bush story most of the time.

Lets not forget that during the last two elections it has been the Democrats who have recieved the most powerful media attacks. Al Gore was attacked on the fabricated "invented the internet" story. Kerry was attacked on the fabricated "he didnt really earn his medals story". If you go back further than that, it was Clinton's "I didnt inhale" story that caused the ruckus. The only Republican candidate I can remember being attacked in any of the recent presidential elections was Allan Keyes for jumping into a Rage Against the Machine / Michael Moore mosh pit.

This isn't entirely relevant, but it was pretty funny.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/tvgraphic.jpg

This appeared on TV3 news in New Zealand on the 29th of July 2003.

This isn't entirely relevant, but it was pretty funny.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/tvgraphic.jpg

This appeared on TV3 news in New Zealand on the 29th of July 2003.

That doesn't amuse me as much as it scares me...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/tvgraphic.jpg


I'm glad to see he finally got a job.

Meh, this is hardly the first time journalists have made stories up out of nothing. Back in the early 80s one journalist ran a series of stories chronicling the life and times of a homeless twelve year old kid with a heroin addiction. It wasn't until the stories won a Pulitzer Prize that other journalists (who'd been hunting in vain for leads on the kid's identity and whereabouts) found out that the entire thing was fabricated by the writer.

And even though those articles were written to garner support for tougher drug laws and outrage the public, for some reason I can't see the person who started this thread using the twelve year old junkie hoax as an example that the media sometimes has a conservative bias :D

Another example is New York Times reporter Judith Miller's sloppy and irresponsible reporting on Iraq's WMD program which helped make the case for Bush's war.
I'm so glad you mentioned Judy Miller and the fact that she worked for the NY Times, because if ever there were a counter example to the myth of the liberal media, that's it--a reporter who's practically a neocon manufacturing WMD stories out of whole cloth for what is considered (wrongly) the most liberal news outlet in the nation.

I'm so glad you mentioned Judy Miller and the fact that she worked for the NY Times, because if ever there were a counter example to the myth of the liberal media, that's it--a reporter who's practically a neocon manufacturing WMD stories out of whole cloth for what is considered (wrongly) the most liberal news outlet in the nation.

Looks like the NY Times has self-destructed over her.

They let her jump the shark over and over and over and over again.

Looks like the NY Times has self-destructed over her.

They let her jump the shark over and over and over and over again.
Just like they did over the Whitewater story, the Wen Ho Lee story, and most of the rest of their pre-Iraq War coverage.

As Lazy Hippies said, and as I've have said on multiple occasions, the media is generally not liberal or conservative--it's corporate, and as such, is concerned first with profit margin and second with, well, everything else including accuracy. And we as a nation are the worse for it.

Personally, I'd like it if the media outlets chose up sides and went at it. It would be more honest. It works in Britain, apparently. And most importantly, it would stop Fox News from putting that damn "Fair and Balanced" crap line on every ten seconds.