NationStates Jolt Archive

How much effect is there? Because there is no doubt that there is a SPIN, depending on who you read...

More violence feared despite peaceful Iraq poll
By Luke Baker - REUTERS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051216/wl_nm/iraq_election_truce_dc

After vote, Iraqis hope bloodshed will end
By Mussab al-Khairalla and Ahmed Rasheed - REUTERS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051216/ts_nm/iraq_dc


The titles are most revealing.

Two reports of different angles of the same story, in regards to the aftermath and the expectations after the vote. Only REAL difference here is who’s reporting it and what they want to concentrate on. The guy with the Western name seems to want to put a negative spin his title, anything positive gets a negative spin before you even open up the article…

Those reporting living in brighter days and hoping for ever more better days ahead even though they too report that there is a long way to go with a lot more fighting if the insurgent rhetoric of the past is any indication of the future, but even so, a positive spin of hope is presented before we even start to read it.

Now tell me again that there is no liberal media bias in the west.

If there was any real liberal media spin, the war never would have happened in the first place, because all the lies the administration told to work us into the war were debunkable well before the first bomb was dropped. Spare me your pathetic attempts to make a case that doesn't exist.

*hands Nazz a shovel so he can start to dig his ostrich head out of the sand*

*hands Nazz a shovel so he can start to dig his ostrich head out of the sand*
*tells Greenlander that that was the lamest thing I've ever heard*

Go cry to someone who cares, like O'Reilly (you know, the guy who doesn't spin, apparently) or the Big Fat Nazi with the Face of a Horse's Ass, aka Limbaugh.

Greenlander, you ought to read your initial post as if from an outside perspective. It starts as if you're about to present two sides, a balanced case... then you don't do it. It is exactly 0% useful. It is almost as if you're describing and criticising your own position. I expect that this is not the intention, eh?

*hands Nazz a shovel so he can start to dig his ostrich head out of the sand*
*smacks some sense into Greenlander's head with said shovel*

Now tell me again that there is no liberal media bias in the west.
Conservatives are a little bit like Christians...the very mention of alternatives constitutes persecution.

Do some research into where this "liberal" media myth comes from, and you might understand.

Greenlander, not to insult you, but who from the US has told you that the media does not give bias?

I expect that this is not the intention, eh?
Don't worry, he probably doesn't realise he's rambling...again.

Greenlander, not to insult you, but who from the US has told you that the media does not give bias?

Every post (outside of mine) above yours. They are saying that the bias is myth.

Don't worry, he probably doesn't realise he's rambling...again.

I should be worried except for the fact that this comes from someone that openly admits via his chosen name that he favors a soviet form of communism for America? :rolleyes:

Every post (outside of mine) above yours. They are saying that the bias is myth.
I've said this perhaps hundreds of times on this board, but I guess once more won't hurt.

The liberal bias is a myth, but the mainstream media has a bias--a corporate one. The corporate media is concerned first and foremost with profits and return to stockholders. Everything else is secondary. The numbers matter--ratings for the tv news, circulation for newspapers and magazines, hits for online news sources. The one exception to this is Fox News, which practically admits to their conservative bias these days, led from the top by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Every post (outside of mine) above yours. They are saying that the bias is myth.
There is two main reasons for why the Right thinks the media is biased:

1) Vietnam.
All American heroes fight patriotic war. Then media walks in and reports about it. There is no discernible bias in the way in which it is reported - but it does vary significantly from the known official US Propaganda Broadcasts from WWII and Korea.
People die, people commit crimes, and the war isn't being won - and the media reports it. So the patriotic (of course anti-communist/right-wing) American looks at this and thinks "Why are they telling us this? They must hate the war...ergo they must love Communism!".

2) Civil Rights Movement.
Same time, same sort of phenomenon. Media reports about the actions of civil rights activists, about retaliation by KKK etc and so on. The patriotic (particularly Southern) White American looks at this and thinks "I don't want to know about this! Why are you telling people about this? You must have it in for me!".

And eversince people like you have been clutching to straws in order to prove that reporting about things you don't like constitutes bias.

2) Civil Rights Movement.
Same time, same sort of phenomenon. Media reports about the actions of civil rights activists, about retaliation by KKK etc and so on. The patriotic (particularly Southern) White American looks at this and thinks "I don't want to know about this! Why are you telling people about this? You must have it in for me!".


That's not really a fair comparison. The civil rights movement was split more by geography than politics per se. It wasn't until Nixon's southern strategy you could even start to make that argument, and even then Nixon's whitehouse - for all its sins - doesn't really bear it out.

That's not really a fair comparison. The civil rights movement was split more by geography than politics per se. It wasn't until Nixon's southern strategy you could even start to make that argument, and even then Nixon's whitehouse - for all its sins - doesn't really bear it out.
Well, it's also got to do with the New York thing...New York being the home of the media, and arguably being less racist (read: against the typical 50s, 60s Southern States White Guy) so that a bit of a "The South vs New York" fued started as well.
Nonetheless, the media's portrayal of the Civil Rights Movement did a lot to influence the Southern Republican "Redneck's" perception of the media, and although most people today aren't racist rednecks, the perception prevailed.

More examples?

Bush, on TV, Says Iraq Vote Won't End Violence
By THE NEW YORK TIMES (liberal)
President Bush acknowledged that the elections in Iraq were "not going to stop violence" there, and that "we're behind" on the training of capable Iraqi police forces.

Even so, in a lengthy interview with Jim Lehrer on the PBS program "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," he called the elections "a very important step, because part of our strategy is to encourage a political process that will marginalize those who want to use violence to achieve ends."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17prexy.html

The story begins with the negative.

Bush Includes Congress in New Iraq Tack
By The Washington Post (balanced)
Responding to criticism that he has failed to consult with Congress on Iraq, President Bush has undertaken a series of meetings with lawmakers aimed at shoring up support for his policies with an increasingly restive constituency.
…
In an interview with PBS's Jim Lehrer yesterday, Bush said the number of suicide bombings in November fell by half, from 60 to 29, but he cautioned against expecting immediate cessation of hostilities after the election. "People got to understand this is not going to stop violence," he said. Although he has forecast "complete victory" in his recent speeches, in the interview Bush offered a somber picture of an insurgency that plays out over many years, eventually losing steam rather than ending entirely. "If we have a policy of zero violence, it won't be met," he said, "but the policy of getting the Iraqis in the fight and marginalizing those who are trying to stir up trouble will be effective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601766.html

The second story here reports the same story, but the story also points out that negative public opinion brewing and the president is responding to this contingency. Can we guess what kind of reporting causes stress and ill opinion simply by structuring their reports to present negative aspects first and in story titles…

And if there really was no bias, and you all get so mad about other people bringing up liberal bias in the media I would like to know how long it takes for you to change your tunes when the FoxNews network is being discussed... :rolleyes:

And here I was, thinking both of them were teh evil liberal bias...

But it's good to know that the Washington Post gets the "Greenlander 'Balanced' seal of approval" now.

And if there really was no bias, and you all get so mad about other people bringing up liberal bias in the media I would like to know how long it takes for you to change your tunes when the FoxNews network is being discussed... :rolleyes:
Remember...you are talking about "the media" as one single entity. Fox News is a specific case, one station founded with the clear intention of presenting a news source to the right of the establishment ("Restoring the Balance").

If I was to claim that CNN, NYT, Washington Post etc aren't actually biased, then it would make sense that Fox is actually on the pretty far Right.

*snip*

Perhaps you could borrow Nazz's shovel, you seem to making a mess heaving your BS around without it.

Perhaps you could borrow Nazz's shovel, you seem to making a mess heaving your BS around without it.
Easily offended, are we?

Easily offended, are we?
I'll lend you the shovel if you promise to smack him with it. :D

There's both liberal bias (PBS, the New York Times) and Conservative bias (Fox, Wall Street Journal). But for the most part, there's only individual bias (whoever is writing the story or giving it to the viewers).
Problem is, a lot of our so-called news outlets produce crap that sounds more and more like op-ed pieces.
But most of what we receive is just news, with little or no discernible bias at all.

It's there, but when you're viewing it, it's pretty in your face. If you want to avoid it, don't get your news from the NYT or O'Reilly.

Easily offended, are we?

:p :D Who's 'we'? You have a euthanased PeTA animal in your pocket?

There's both liberal bias (PBS, the New York Times) and Conservative bias (Fox, Wall Street Journal). But for the most part, there's only individual bias (whoever is writing the story or giving it to the viewers).
Problem is, a lot of our so-called news outlets produce crap that sounds more and more like op-ed pieces.
But most of what we receive is just news, with little or no discernible bias at all.

It's there, but when you're viewing it, it's pretty in your face. If you want to avoid it, don't get your news from the NYT or O'Reilly.

I can't argue with that... Nicely said.

A question about the alleged liberality of the NY Times.

If they're so damn liberal, why were they the lead cheerleaders for the WMD stories in the lead up to the Iraq War? Why were they the lead cheerleaders for the Whitewater non-story? For the Wen Ho Lee non-story? Why did they sit on this most recent story about domestic spying by the NSA for a year, solely at the request of the Bush administration? Why, if they're so damn liberal, have they taken the Bush administration at its word time and again, repeating Republican party talking points ad nauseam?

When you can answer that series of questions while simultanously keeping the myth of the liberal NY Times intact, then we can talk. Until then, anyone who believes the NY Times has a liberal agenda is a fool or an idiot--you make the call.

...

When you can answer that series of questions while simultanously keeping the myth of the liberal NY Times intact, then we can talk. Until then, anyone who believes the NY Times has a liberal agenda is a fool or an idiot--you make the call.

When you can find a cohesive democratic front, one that agrees with itself, then you will have your answers.

Should we look for Mrs. Clinton's opinions and call them Liberal, or Lieberman? Perhaps Howard Deans or T. Kennedy. Since they don't agree with each other, your objections to the NYT's articles in question is more a matter of liberal family bickering.

When you can find a cohesive democratic front, one that agrees with itself, then you will have your answers.

Should we look for Mrs. Clinton's opinions and call them Liberal, or Lieberman? Perhaps Howard Deans or T. Kennedy. Since they don't agree with each other, your objections to the NYT's articles in question is more a matter of liberal family bickering.None of the examples I provided show a liberal point of view, not by any stretch of the imagination. Try again.

Oh, and by the way--you're the one who's arguing that the NY Times has an overall liberal bias. I believe I've blown your contention out of the water.

None of the examples I provided show a liberal point of view, not by any stretch of the imagination. Try again.

Oh, and by the way--you're the one who's arguing that the NY Times has an overall liberal bias. I believe I've blown your contention out of the water.

Wasn't Al Gore's vice president nominee a Democrat? Aren't democrats liberals? Hmmm, why yes, yes they are. Perhaps you should re-read some of your own party's positions before claiming they don't have them...

Wasn't Al Gore's vice president nominee a Democrat? Aren't democrats liberals? Hmmm, why yes, yes they are. Perhaps you should re-read some of your own party's positions before claiming they don't have them...
Some Democrats are liberals, but not all of them by any stretch. Of course, by your estimation, anyone to the left of Dubya is probably liberal, but then again, you've provided us with even more proof of your intellectual depth tonight, so I wouldn't be surprised by anything you have to say.

None of the examples I provided show a liberal point of view, not by any stretch of the imagination. Try again.

Oh, and by the way--you're the one who's arguing that the NY Times has an overall liberal bias. I believe I've blown your contention out of the water.
Liberal may be a strong word for any news outlet that's corporately owned.
Conservative may be a strong word for any news outlet with less religious content than the Christian Science Monitor.

Let's say urban and hometown bias. Those may be more apt.

Liberal may be a strong word for any news outlet that's corporately owned.
Conservative may be a strong word for any news outlet with less religious content than the Christian Science Monitor.

Let's say urban and hometown bias. Those may be more apt.
I use the term corporate bias, personally. There's a difference between religious conservatism and political conservatism, which is why I stay away from calling the media conservative (other than Fox, which wears its political conservatism openly). It's profit driven, and it's cheaper to rehash talking points than it is to actually do any investigative journalism. It's also easier to give into an activist group that complains that your paper has a liberal bias by presenting "both sides" to a story, even when it's clear that one of the sides has absolutely no merit. That's what has happened all across the mainstream media for the last twenty years at least.

There may have been a time, thirty years ago perhaps, where there was a legitimate claim about a politically liberal media. Those days are so far gone now that those claims today are ludicrous, which accounts for my mocking tone toward Greenlander--he deserves nothing more in my book.

I use the term corporate bias, personally. There's a difference between religious conservatism and political conservatism, which is why I stay away from calling the media conservative (other than Fox, which wears its political conservatism openly). It's profit driven, and it's cheaper to rehash talking points than it is to actually do any investigative journalism. It's also easier to give into an activist group that complains that your paper has a liberal bias by presenting "both sides" to a story, even when it's clear that one of the sides has absolutely no merit. That's what has happened all across the mainstream media for the last twenty years at least.

There may have been a time, thirty years ago perhaps, where there was a legitimate claim about a politically liberal media. Those days are so far gone now that those claims today are ludicrous, which accounts for my mocking tone toward Greenlander--he deserves nothing more in my book.
I can agee with you on almost everything you've said. The only real "liberal" media source on television I can think of is PBS. Other than that, it's a game of splitting hairs. Even listening/reading dialogue from supposedly "liberal" media outlets (and so-called "liberal" party members, for that matter), people of my persuasion were made to feel like we were aiding the fucking terrorists for merely whispering the words civil liberties.

Now tell me again that there is no liberal media bias in the west.


Ewww I never thought I would quote Melkor but to answer your question on the myth....

There are plenty of digs to be had against 'liberals,' and none of them require grasping for straws that are quite as enormous as this.

Also, the myth of a liberal bias in the media is something of a misnomer. Do any of you happen to know who owns these media outlets? Here's the skinny:

ABC is owned by Disney
NBC is owned by General Electric --who, by the way is the largest defense contracter in the world
CBS is owned by Viacom and Reuters [This is probably the most likely netowrk to actually have a perceivable liberal bias, since Viacom's owner is one of those bleeding heart, self-hating capitalist types]
CNN is owned by Time freaking Warner
And we all know who owns Fox.

Ewww I never thought I would quote Melkor but to answer your question on the myth....

ABC is owned by Disney
NBC is owned by General Electric --who, by the way is the largest defense contracter in the world
CBS is owned by Viacom and Reuters [This is probably the most likely netowrk to actually have a perceivable liberal bias, since Viacom's owner is one of those bleeding heart, self-hating capitalist types]
CNN is owned by Time freaking Warner
And we all know who owns Fox.

Call the newsroom editors and ask them if their media source owners dictate their stories and edit their product... Then take a poll of the individual journalist that work for them, if their writing methodologies are dictated by the owner of the media source they ultimately work for, or if they write how they like and believe in what they are doing...

Once you get your answers, that newsroom editors are the dictators of their product and that the journalist are at liberty to write stuff they believe in, you will see that your list of who owns stock in what is a moot point, it has little, if any, bearing on the end product. I've already shown two different types of stories for the same source (Reuters) so the point of ownership is irrelevant, I addressed western media, not world wide media.

..

There may have been a time, thirty years ago perhaps, where there was a legitimate claim about a politically liberal media. Those days are so far gone now that those claims today are ludicrous, which accounts for my mocking tone toward Greenlander--he deserves nothing more in my book.


LMAO Mwahhahaha


What a cockamamie excuse for not having an actual rebuttal. I’ve given examples, you’ve given squat diddly shit.

LMAO Mwahhahaha


What a cockamamie excuse for not having an actual rebuttal. I’ve given examples, you’ve given squat diddly shit.
No, what you've given is your personal interpretation on the spin you perceive those specific stories to have. In short, you've given us dick.

I've debated this intelligently and interestingly for far longer with people who were intellectually honest enough to be willing to challenge their long held notions--and they gave me reason to challenge my own. You however, wouldn't change your mind if the editors of every major newspaper, magazine and television news company walked up to you personally and told you they were in it with the republicans, so why should I give you anything more than the cursory mocking you give me?

What War?
There is no war!

What War?
There is no war!

What newspaper are you reading? :p :D