NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I was reading the New York Times in an attempt to figure out what goes through the twisted minds of liberals. I stumbled upon an article with such obvious bias that it was terrible to behold:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/us/politics/17ads.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

It was titled "In Campaign Ads for Democrats, Bush Is the Star." I thought "well, I'm sure that the impartial New York Times will also have an article about Republican Campaign ads with Kerry as the star." I was wrong. I looked around the site in vain, but there was nothing at all similar. Obviously, this is a thinly-veiled attempt at propaganda. They have an article simply discussing Democrat campaign ads! The article only focuses on campaign ads smearing Bush.

Not surprisingly, given that Mr. Bush’s job approval rating continues to hover around 40 percent, it is hard to spot the president in any of the Republican advertisements that were reviewed.

It's hard to spot the president? What's this, a Where's Waldo? ad, only with President Bush instead of Waldo? You know, the president has much more important things to do that appear in campaign ads. These propagandizing liberals seem to suggest that there is a correlation between the fact that Bush has a slightly-lower-than-average approval rating and that he isn't in any ads. That is complete and typical liberal bogus. All it shows is that Bush really has America's best interests at heart; that he doesn't care about elections more than he cares about Americans. That he won't take even a couple of hours off from his job to help a fellow Republican in need. It shows dedication to his job and to his country that goes beyond partisan politics. He should be applauded for such an excellent work ethic -- it certainly inspired me. He's got a country to run, people, he's not going to waste any time doing anything that isn't necessary for the well-being of our country. However, the New York Times won't hesisate to take a pot shot at Bush even if it is completely tangential to the article. The article goes on to say:

The decision by Democrats to invest in advertising directly attacking the war in Iraq, the administration’s war on terrorism and the once overwhelmingly popular president is a marked turn from how they handled these issues in 2002 and 2004.

The first part of that sentence doesn't surprise me -- after all, Democrats are always attacking the war in Iraq, saying they don't care if Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorists and thousands of Americans die because of it, etc. But the second part does. They said that Bush was a once popular president. That's severely warping the facts. Bush is as popular as he ever was! I bet more people know who the president is than who Tom Cruise is, and that's saying a lot. Hell, he's almost as popular as Tom Hanks. I don't know where liberals come off saying that Bush isn't "popular" anymore. I doubt they can name 10 people who haven't heard of Bush. Sadly, the New York Times only devotes one sentence to the Republican viewpoint:

The strategy has risks. In part, the goal of the Democrats’ advertisements is to rile up their base. But Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, said that the constant attacks on Mr. Bush appeared to be accomplishing something Republicans had been unable to do: riling up Republican base voters.

Of course the strategy has risks! Have the Democrats completely lost their mind?! They are running against the Republicans. Mr. Bush is a Republican. What reason could they possibly have to feature their opponent on their own ads? Of course ads featuring Bush are going to rile up the Republican base. A tip to the Democrats: putting the most successful president we have had this century on your ads isn't going to help your cause. It's just going to get more people to vote Republican because they'll associate Bush with the Republican party in general. Are the Republicans the only ones who are smart enough to realize that only Republicans are going to benefit from Bush's popularity and that it isn't smart to put such a popular president on Democratic TV ads? What were those damn liberals thinking? The article then goes on to give the viewpoints of several Democratic candidates:

“Five years after 9/11, President Bush still doesn’t get it: homeland security starts here,” Mr. Menendez says.

What part of homeland security does Mr. Menendez not understand? It doesn't start here -- it starts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not that difficult of a concept. Then the article concludes a traditional liberal flip-flop:

But for sheer star power, nothing matches a president...

Really? Because one page back they said that Bush isn't popular anymore. Which one is it, liberals? Is he a star, or is he not popular anymore? Lousy hypocrites. This is a clear-cut case of liberal bias in the NY Times. I don't understand how liberals can defend the impartiality of it.

Have a look! (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)

Begoner21;11692669']twisted minds of liberals

propagandizing liberals

typical liberal bogus.

where liberals come off saying

damn liberals

traditional liberal flip-flop

Which one is it, liberals?

liberal bias

how liberals can defend

I don't know if you actually believe this (in which case you're just an idiotic partisan hack) or if you are doing 'satire' (in which case you're a troll), but either way it's lame and stupid.

I don't know if you actually believe this (in which case you're just an idiotic partisan hack) or if you are doing 'satire' (in which case you're a troll), but either way it's lame and stupid.

he is a satire troll, he used to be a good one too, but hes lost his touch....

I don't know if you actually believe this (in which case you're just an idiotic partisan hack) or if you are doing 'satire' (in which case you're a troll), but either way it's lame and stupid.

perhaps he's bushanomics? wait, no. if he was then it would be
"twisted minds of laberals

propagandizing laberals

typical laberal bogus.

where laberals come off saying

damn laberals

traditional laberal flip-flop

Which one is it, laberals?

laberal bias

how laberals can defend"

he is a satire troll, he used to be a good one too, but hes lost his touch....

Why the hell do people insist I'm a satire troll? I'm not. Maybe living in your elite little liberal village you never heard opposing viewpoints, but they exist. It's just sad that respected magazines like the NY Times have such blatant vias.

Begoner21;11692844']Why the hell do people insist I'm a satire troll? I'm not. Maybe living in your elite little liberal village you never heard opposing viewpoints, but they exist. It's just sad that respected magazines like the NY Times have such blatant vias.

Because frankly, the points you make and the way you make them are so insidiously stupid that it's hard to believe a sentient being could honestly believe them.

Like blathering about "liberals" every five seconds and then saying *other* people have a "blatant bias." Comedy gold. Well, silver. Actually, it's just stupid and not funny anymore.

Have a look! (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)

Funny, but also sort of real.

You know, not every article ever printed has to have an exact counterpart in order to avoid bias...

I agree. New York Times bias has gone much too far this time. The media is so biased in favour of liberals that it's not even funny anymore. The political center has shifted miles to the left, and a non-biased news source like Fox is being called "the president's mouthpiece" among other things. It makes me sick.

The terrorists have won! Thanks New York Times. :(

Begoner21;11692844']Why the hell do people insist I'm a satire troll? I'm not. Maybe living in your elite little liberal village you never heard opposing viewpoints, but they exist. It's just sad that respected magazines like the NY Times have such blatant vias.UN abassadorship? Is that you?

I agree. New York Times bias has gone much too far this time. The media is so biased in favour of liberals that it's not even funny anymore. The political center has shifted miles to the left, and a non-biased news source like Fox is being called "the president's mouthpiece" among other things. It makes me sick.Are you also a troll or do you really believe that Faux is unbiased?

I agree. New York Times bias has gone much too far this time. The media is so biased in favour of liberals that it's not even funny anymore. The political center has shifted miles to the left, and a non-biased news source like Fox is being called "the president's mouthpiece" among other things. It makes me sick.

I think the political center has shifted miles to the right, and anyone who is actually in the center is accused of liberal bias

I think the political center has shifted miles to the right, and anyone who is actually in the center is accused of liberal bias

I think describing modern political issues in terms of grand sweeping generalizations about "left" or "right" or "liberal" or "conservative" is pointless.

Are you also a troll or do you really believe that Faux is unbiased?

By the liberal standard, of course it's biased. In the Soviet Union, I'm sure that the New York Times would be considered Nazist propaganda. However, Fox is quite centrist in the grand scheme of things. It just seems biased because the leftist MSM is so far to the left of it.

I agree. New York Times bias has gone much too far this time. The media is so biased in favour of liberals that it's not even funny anymore. The political center has shifted miles to the left, and a non-biased news source like Fox is being called "the president's mouthpiece" among other things. It makes me sick.
I guess somebody has to compensate. After all, reality does have a well-known liberal bias...

I think describing modern political issues in terms of grand sweeping generalizations about "left" or "right" or "liberal" or "conservative" is pointless.

true, I was stating my theory on why the republicans constantly whine about "liberal bias" in the media.

By the liberal standard, of course it's biased. In the Soviet Union, I'm sure that the New York Times would be considered Nazist propaganda. However, Fox is quite centrist in the grand scheme of things. It just seems biased because the leftist MSM is so far to the left of it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Those NYT bastards are evil. Regular Workers' World Party they are. So faarrrrrrrrr left you can't even see them. You hit the nail on the head.

I guess somebody has to compensate. After all, reality does have a well-known liberal bias...

Yes, yes, Colbert is funny. That's because he's a comedian. He's not an actual reporter and only spouts out quasi-conservative liberal propaganda. Reality does not have a iiberal bias.

By the liberal standard, of course it's biased. In the Soviet Union, I'm sure that the New York Times would be considered Nazist propaganda. However, Fox is quite centrist in the grand scheme of things. It just seems biased because the leftist MSM is so far to the left of it.Er, nope. Fox is not centrist in the grand scheme of things. CNN and so are actually a tad off the right corner from center in the grand scheme of things.

EDIT: I'm still not sure whether you're a troll or trying to make conservatives look bad.

Er, nope. Fox is not centrist in the grand scheme of things. CNN and so are actually a tad off the right corner from center in the grand scheme of things.

But America is the grand scheme of things.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Those NYT bastards are evil. Regular Workers' World Party they are. So faarrrrrrrrr left you can't even see them. You hit the nail on the head.

I never said they were evil -- I hope that they are simply deluded and misguided. And I never said that they were a communist publication -- they are somewhat to the right of that. That's why I said that in the Soviet Union, the NY Times would seem like a fascist publication (ie, to the right of communism). Unfortunately, I can see the NY Times, and so can millions of people. Some of those actually believe it.

Have a look! (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)

That's funny.

As far as the US media goes, there is a right-wing bias. Fox News especially so. CNN etc. are more centre-right. Any other paper or news channel that is centrist is immediately declared liberal.

ANd their comic strips suck too! :mad:

Oh, wait, this is a satire thread? Well, you fail at comedy, but you do bring up some valid points.

ANd their comic strips suck too! :mad:

Why do they hate freedom, LG, why?!

Why do they hate freedom, LG, why?!

They don't hate freedom, they just don't know what they're talking about. They're misusing their freedom.

ANd their comic strips suck too! :mad:

Most comic strips suck now.

Why do they hate freedom, LG, why?!

Botched circumcisions. Everybody knows that commies have misshapen wee-wees. *nod*

Most comic strips suck now.
The ones in my university newspaper are pretty poorly drawn, but they are funny every now and then. Bill O'Reilly has gotten pissed about them and got featured in almost all of them in one edition for slandering them on his show...

Begoner21;11692844']Why the hell do people insist I'm a satire troll? I'm not. Maybe living in your elite little liberal village you never heard opposing viewpoints, but they exist. It's just sad that respected magazines like the NY Times have such blatant vias.

Well, it's hard to tell one way or another. Some of the things you say sound like you're exaggerating conservative stupidity to absurd proportions, but it's frequently no more absurd that the stuff that the conservative politicians say. And there are plenty of conservatives that really believe what conservative politicians, and their Media hacks, have to say.

So while the stuff you say is so unbelievably stupid that it's hard to imagine that you really mean it, there are lots of conservatives who really would mean it, and there isn't much reason to believe that you're not one of them.

The ones in my university newspaper are pretty poorly drawn, but they are funny every now and then. Bill O'Reilly has gotten pissed about them and got featured in almost all of them in one edition for slandering them on his show...

Hooray! :)

Meh....all newspapers are biased one way or another, just depends upon how much.

Hooray! :)If you're interested, they can be found here (http://www.cavalierdaily.com/comics.asp?pid=1474).

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Yeah the New York Times is somewhat biased towards the Democratic party and Fox is somewhat biased towards the Republican party. So what? Each have their own best sources of information in government and neither is always right or always wrong. In any case neither one is even a tenth as biased as those who tediously howl bias any time someone on NSG has the audacity to quote either The NY Times or Fox as a source of information. I trust both the NYT and Fox to be less misleading and more enlightening and to provide a less biased view of everything from politics to weather forecasts than I trust the people here who constantly bitch about them to provide anything other than moronic propaganda for their chosen side.

Yes, yes, Colbert is funny. That's because he's a comedian. He's not an actual reporter and only spouts out quasi-conservative liberal propaganda. Reality does not have a iiberal bias.

Yet he is miles ahead of that blatent troll that is Bill O'riley

Yeah the New York Times is somewhat biased towards the Democratic party and Fox is somewhat biased towards the Republican party. So what? Each have their own best sources of information in government and neither is always right or always wrong. In any case neither one is even a tenth as biased as those who tediously howl bias any time someone on NSG has the audacity to quote either The NY Times or Fox as a source of information. I trust both the NYT and Fox to be less misleading and more enlightening and to provide a less biased view of everything from politics to weather forecasts than I trust the people here who constantly bitch about them to provide anything other than moronic propaganda for their chosen side.

NYT is not biased towards the DNC. FOX is not simply biased towards the GOP.

The war in Iraq and the Bush administration have had no bigger cheerleader than the New York Times, except for FOX news. Take a look at Judith Miller and her work on Iraq. But she wasn't the only one.

A bias means that data is interpreted in such a way that one side or the other is given the benifit of the doubt. FOX news doesn't do that. Where there is no doubt, they manufacutre it. Where there is a shred of doubt they claim absolute proof of conservative right-ness. They will smear, spin, and outright lie to do so. That's not a bias. That's propaganda.

The only left-wing bias that exists on the public airwaves is Air America. Everything else is slanted towards the right, with the far right calling the center-right far-left.

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/Who says liberal is left?

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Whats funnier is their claiming that an editorial in the Philadlephia Inquirer, an editorial mind you, makes it obvious the entire paper is liberal.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Is this really the best steaming bag of shite you can come up with?

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

So I looked up that webpage, and found the most recent thing to make them upset was that some local paper in Seattle had failed to identify, in a human-interest piece about a Sudanese man (written in July), a group of attackers as being Muslim. Gosh that liberal bias is just palpable, isn't it?


Oh, sorry - that's the incipient Christo-fascist paranoia that's palpable, my bad.

Well, it's hard to tell one way or another. Some of the things you say sound like you're exaggerating conservative stupidity to absurd proportions, but it's frequently no more absurd that the stuff that the conservative politicians say. And there are plenty of conservatives that really believe what conservative politicians, and their Media hacks, have to say.

So while the stuff you say is so unbelievably stupid that it's hard to imagine that you really mean it, there are lots of conservatives who really would mean it, and there isn't much reason to believe that you're not one of them.

ah, the problems of trying to parody right wing lunacy. no matter how nutty your parody may seem, there are already going to be numerically signifcant sections of the right and important movement leaders that will loudly proclaim that your parody's problem is that it doesn't go far enough.

Have a look! (http://rightwingnytimes.cf.huffingtonpost.com/)

I consider myself a conservative and I find that hilarious.

As for media outlets having bias of some sort - what a shocker! I defy anyone to name a well-known news organization that doesn't have a either a right or left wing slant to it.

As Bernie Laplante said in the movie "Accidental Hero," everything everyone tells you is bullshit and it's up to you to pick the bullshit you want.

I consider myself a conservative and I find that hilarious.

As for media outlets having bias of some sort - what a shocker! I defy anyone to name a well-known news organization that doesn't have a either a right or left wing slant to it.

As Bernie Laplante said in the movie "Accidental Hero," everything everyone tells you is bullshit and it's up to you to pick the bullshit you want.This may come as a big surprise, but there are non-American news sources that don't rely on ratings and are a lot less sensationalist.

This may come as a big surprise, but there are non-American news sources that don't rely on ratings and are a lot less sensationalist.

How true, they just rely on what the government tells them they can say.

How true, they just rely on what the government tells them they can say.

Because obviously there's no such thing as freedom of the press outside the U.S.A.

How true, they just rely on what the government tells them they can say.

Don't know about you, but I find the BBC a hell of a lot more reliable than Murdoch's Sky News. Which one is private again?

I hate his so much. Instead of people debating with him, they just flame him because they refuse to believe a newspaper can be bias because it is liberal. How lame.

Anyone who always belives what they read in the paper needs to get their head examined.

This may come as a big surprise, but there are non-American news sources that don't rely on ratings and are a lot less sensationalist.

Most of the foreign news sources I've been exposed to are just as sensationalist, just differently so. But then again, I wasn't complaining about sensationalism - I was lamenting the fact that it's highly improbable that a large-scale news organization will be unbiased, based on the fact I've never seen it. If you can point me to an unbiased news organization, I'd be forever in your debt.

I hate his so much. Instead of people debating with him, they just flame him because they refuse to believe a newspaper can be bias because it is liberal. How lame.

Anyone who always belives what they read in the paper needs to get their head examined.

I haven't addressed his opening post because quite frankly, he has no idea what he's talking about in terms of bias and journalism. That article isn't biased--it's discussing the facts on the ground as far as Bush's approval ratings and the affect they're going to have on the midterms are concerned--and especially how the different parties are using Bush's poor ratings to their best effect. If the OP thinks that acknowledging that Bush's ratings suck and that his party is abandoning him is proof of bias, then he's got bigger problems than the NY Times. He may start finding it difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I hate his so much. Instead of people debating with him, they just flame him because they refuse to believe a newspaper can be bias because it is liberal. How lame.

Or maybe, "liberal liberal liberal! LIIIIIBERAL! LOL, liberal! liberal liberal!" is not something worth debating.

Or maybe, "liberal liberal liberal! LIIIIIBERAL! LOL, liberal! liberal liberal!" is not something worth debating.

Everytime anyone accuses liberals of something, you always shout "LIBERAL LIBERAL LOL!!!"

How can you not expect conservatives to debate liberal ideals and media, I don't see you shouting "conservative COnservative lolololol" every time people slander conservatives (on almost every thread).

How true, they just rely on what the government tells them they can say.Three pigs walked into a bar. How's that for relevance? ;)

Most of the foreign news sources I've been exposed to are just as sensationalist, just differently so. But then again, I wasn't complaining about sensationalism - I was lamenting the fact that it's highly improbable that a large-scale news organization will be unbiased, based on the fact I've never seen it. If you can point me to an unbiased news organization, I'd be forever in your debt.Indeed they are. A small number of them aren't though, which isn't something I can say for the American media landscape. Whenever I turn on the TV here it's just "You could be killed like this" this and "That father is doing this to his kid" that. Its horrendous.

Begoner21;11692844']Why the hell do people insist I'm a satire troll? I'm not. Maybe living in your elite little liberal village you never heard opposing viewpoints, but they exist. It's just sad that respected magazines like the NY Times have such blatant vias.

You know it saddens me to say this, but you might actualy hhave a point. I can honestly say as a liberal living in one of the four states where Bush still has a positive aproval rateing I've never once thought that you were just a satire, because I saddly actualy know people who think like you.:(

Everytime anyone accuses liberals of something, you always shout "LIBERAL LIBERAL LOL!!!"

Because "liberals" is a meaningless fucking term. The original poster has already admitted he is every bit as 'liberal' as I am, but here he is ranting about the "typical behaviour" of all liberals and spitting the word out like an insult. I wish people would quit pretending they're a radio pundit and say what they really mean. But nooo. If you just said "Democrats," you'd feel like a partisan hack; use of the word "liberal" makes it appear as if you're working for the UN in political science or something.

I agree. New York Times bias has gone much too far this time. The media is so biased in favour of liberals that it's not even funny anymore. The political center has shifted miles to the left, and a non-biased news source like Fox is being called "the president's mouthpiece" among other things. It makes me sick.
Ha, this piece of sarcasm is tuned much more finely than the OP.

They don't hate freedom, they just don't know what they're talking about. They're misusing their freedom.
You're not sarcstic, are you? looks like I misread.

The NY times may appear liberal to you but that's because you're so far right of anyone else in the civilised world that you may as well live in Iran.

NY Times is actually centre right.

How true, they just rely on what the government tells them they can say.
You'd think it would work like that, but it doesn't. See the BBC. They've plenty criticised the Blair government.

For people who doubt that the media is liberal, look here:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/
That Liberal Error Message, more like.

Instead of people debating with him, they just flame him because they refuse to believe a newspaper can be bias because it is liberal.
Circular logic, much?

That Liberal Error Message, more like.

Here's another one, if you wish:

http://newsbusters.org/

Or, if you prefer:

http://www.google.com/search?hs=nXk&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=liberal+media&btnG=Search

man, the nyt can't even hold itself back from allowing john yoo space to present his authoritarian crap without criticism. with liberals like them, who needs the fascists?

Here's another one, if you wish:

http://newsbusters.org/

Or, if you prefer:

http://www.google.com/search?hs=nXk&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=liberal+media&btnG=Search

Lol nice … I specially like the idiots in the first website that somehow try to claim hypocrisy because the Atlantic city democrat convention did not find a potentially bad male Cher impersonator funny

Frigging ridiculous it is like its own parody lol

Begoner21;11692669']It's hard to spot the president? What's this, a Where's Waldo?.

This is the only time you've ever made me laugh. Except at how you have no idea how anything works. Good try at making a point though.

Begoner21;11692669']The first part of that sentence doesn't surprise me -- after all, Democrats are always attacking the war in Iraq, saying they don't care if Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorists and thousands of Americans die because of it, etc.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists, thanks to said war.