|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| enns wrote: |
| I actually examined this study in great depth when it first came out and have already read much of the criticism you pointed out. |
enns, I'm not sure that citing a study that you already know to be severely flawed simply because you like the results is particularly, well, honest. If bias in the media is as self-evident as you claim there should be no need to rely on invalid research.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Fox News' bias as such, just like I don't have a problem with the Weekly Standard, the National Review or the Washington Times; I just think they should 'come out' as a Republican network, rather than pretending to objectivity and creating misinformed viewers who tend to associate 'facts' with 'liberals'. CNN et. al. may exhibit some detectable bias, but they are not subject to partisan editorial directives in the same way as Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher raises a point which must be factored in; there are all kinds of opinions and multiple sources out there.
Fox News is a horrible news source with a degree of overt bias that isn't really paralleled in 'liberal' media. Media matters, Crooks and Liars, Countdown among many others provide almost daily examples of how blatantly biased it is. The theme of this thread in that case, is very legitimate and an important question to ask. The way the network is run differs from every other major news network. Moreover, none of the other networks was established with the aim of providing a conservative point of view, which is the case with fox. The degree of access they get, couple with their reporting also makes this a legit question to ask. On top of all of this you should look at their main show hosts. ALL of the fox news hosts are conservative, and Colmes doesn't even begin to balance it. Moreover, they started the Half Hour News hour. You don't see CNN going and starting their own mock news show to spew whatevr bias you believe CNN has.
Or we can look at the competition. MSNBC has 4 main stays on their network. Two are definitely conservative, scarborough and Carlson. Matthews is called a liberal, but is essentially dead centre of the political spectrum of America. Then there's Olbermann, a liberal. So you can say it's 2-2, at MSNBC, but more properly, 2-1-1. And MSNBC is constantly attacked by O'reilly and his counterparts as being 'liberal'. They show FAR more balance than Fox.
Betweem commentators, editorials, points of views, major show hosts etc, there is no comparing Fox to the other networks. And there is no refuting this. It doesn't mean they should go off the air. It doesn't mean that they can't continue what they're doing. But to call them on their bias and question their journalistic ethics, is perfectly acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This forum is an online news discussion, a category near the bottom, with a score of 37.
According to your definition, this forum consists of
"ignorant idiots who have difficulty grasping even the basics of the world"
[quote="Saxiif
Indeed there are all kinds of different news programs. Some of them result in viewers learning more about the world and some of them result in their vieweres becoming ignorant idiots who have difficulty grasping even the basics of the world.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| there are more left-wing outlets than right |
But look at how your study defined left and right wing. It defined being perfectly centrist as the average congressman. But the political position of the average congressman changed a good bit after the 2006 elections. That means that if you used the exact same (bogus) methadology now you'd get significantly different results than in 2007. That's a serious problem.
But aside from that the pathetically subservient role that the media played wrt to the Bush administration until his polls tanked should be enough to make any claim of liberal bias laughable.
I'm not saying that the media are conversative. Most of them have as much of an ideological position as whores and the same sort of morals. They're lazy, superficial, easily-manipulated, fixated on unimportant garbage and have a dozen other problems but I don't think that the sort of bias you're talking about is much of a problem. The media usually just quotes both sides and announces that both sides disagree and leave it like that without attempting to do any analysis. More stenographers than reporters these days.
For example. despite a definite right editorial slant, I'd take The Economist over most anything in the American MSM since it focuses on things that actually matter, do more than copy and paste press releases and leaks and do some interesting news analysis.
| Quote: |
According to your definition, this forum consists of
"ignorant idiots who have difficulty grasping even the basics of the world"
|
That sounds about right 
However it definatley isn't my main news source. I get my news from The Economist, The Daily Show/Colbert Report clips and a couple of blogs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
BLT, there are many people and many perspectives in the United States and indeed in the world. Not all of them share your worldview. Not all of them discuss the news as you might.
Grow up and deal with it. |
This is beneath even your scum-crawling level. It matters not what media outlets say. I could give a shit. However, Fox "News" is not, in any way, news. Everything is spin and propaganda. That they present information at times that is simply observable, it is only because there is no way to spin it. Directives from ownership on talking points? You call this news?
Goopher, you're going to have to get over your obsession with me. Really. I'm fairly certain that if I took the time to use the search function with your name and "Fox News" I'd find you saying something critical about them.
Or are you truly that stupid?
If Fox News billed itself as a news magazine, I wouldn't pay them any attention. However, they lie. They say they are news when they know they are not. They say they are fair and balanced when they know they are not. They say "you decide", but they use propaganda tactics on a daily, if not hourly, basis. It is not news. As long as they claim to be, they are open to criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| enns, I'm not sure that citing a study that you already know to be severely flawed simply because you like the results is particularly, well, honest. |
gang, maybe you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear enough. I believe the UCLA study is valid and useful despite it's shortcomings. It indicates a general and undeniable trend in the media.
| Quote: |
| I don't have a problem with Fox News' bias as such, just like I don't have a problem with the Weekly Standard, the National Review or the Washington Times; I just think they should 'come out' as a Republican network, rather than pretending to objectivity and creating misinformed viewers who tend to associate 'facts' with 'liberals'. |
Take a look at the studies I posted, there are a plethora of news outlets espousing bias information in the name of impartiality. These organizations should come out as networks of the Democratic party rather than pretend to be objective or misinform viewers. Until these aforementioned facts are wholly disproven I find it baseless to claim that right-wing outlets are somehow more devious than those of the left.
Simply because you don't agree with a news network doesn't mean it is pushing propaganda.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is interesting, BLT. How do people with marked ideologies respond to "the news." They in fact denounce all that does not sound like the-world-according-to-them as "lies."
This is the essence of intolerance.
Did you know that when an Ottoman agent reported home on the press and the newspapers emerging in Western Europe in the late-seventeenth century this was what he said: "the writing mills publish reports, purporting to contain the news, but full of sensational lies."
There will never be any objective news reporting my pathetic, sandwich-making friend. But here is my own newsflash for you: turn the channel. Works for me. In fact, I rarely watch any cable news network. Most of it is rather worthless, and not unlike how our Ottoman described it several hundred years ago...
When you are ready to calm down, I suggest you go a combination of the following professional and reliable English-language news sources: NPR (radio and internet), PBS (television and internet), CNN (internet), BBC (internet), New York Times (in print and internet), Washington Post (in print and internet) The Christian-Science Monitor (in print), The Economist (in print), and, unfortunately, The Guardian (in print and internet). That is where I go -- for news and indeed research.
But, alas, BLT, I do not believe that you are seeking professional and reliable news information as much as looking to manipulate and control that which others may watch. And here we must disagree, painful as it might be. 
Because I believe that if people want to watch Bill O'Riley, buy People Magazine, or whatever it is that floats their boat, then that is entirely their business... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| gang, maybe you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear enough. I believe the UCLA study is valid and useful despite it's shortcomings. It indicates a general and undeniable trend in the media. |
Sorry enns, but I'm having difficulty understanding how you could find the study valid when you're familiar with criticisms of it. Their literature review completely ignored the body of existing research into media bias except for three insignificant and dubious studies, their operationalised construct for political orientation was so flawed that it lists the RAND Corporation as considerably more liberal than the ACLU, and their methodology was just plain broken. The study is almost a textbook case of how not to do social science research. It's meaningless, and the only reason anyone would cite it is because they agree with its conclusions a priori.
If you can, check out this meta-analysis of 59 previous studies on media bias:
D'Alessio, D & M Allen (2000) Media bias in presidential elections: a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50/4
| D'Alessio & Allen wrote: |
| A meta-analysis considered 59 quantitative studies containing data concerned with partisan media bias in presidential election campaigns since 1948. Types of bias considered were gatekeeping bias, which is the preference for selecting stories from one party or the other; coverage bias, which considers the relative amounts of coverage each party receives; and statement bias, which focuses on the favorability of coverage toward one party or the other. On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases. |
From here
If you're interested in reading the whole thing let me know and I'll get the pdf version hosted somewhere public for you.
| enns wrote: |
| Take a look at the studies I posted, there are a plethora of news outlets espousing bias information in the name of impartiality. These organizations should come out as networks of the Democratic party rather than pretend to be objective or misinform viewers. Until these aforementioned facts are wholly disproven I find it baseless to claim that right-wing outlets are somehow more devious than those of the left. |
I looked at those studies, but I don't think that they're a representative sample. Sites like newsbusters only tend to reference studies that confirm their position. The problem is compounded by a worldview that views unfavourable coverage of a Republican administration as being necessarily 'liberal'. I don't know if you recall the Clinton administration, but the networks you seem to think are organs of the Democratic party certainly were not falling all over themselves to suck up to the government at the time. There are times when unfavourable coverage comes simply because people happen to be doing things wrong.
| enns wrote: |
| Simply because you don't agree with a news network doesn't mean it is pushing propaganda. |
That's true. There are other ways we can tell if a news network is pushing propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFLTrainer:
The very fact that you believe FoxNews is lying means you're not being brainwashed. But you've managed to do it to yourself because of your blind leftist zeal.
These surveys are bunk. If they were scientific, there would be agreement among them, what statisticians call correlation. They're about as objective as US News & World Report, which repeatedly favors private over public universities.
But examining the survey on its own "merits," gee isn't it a shock to liberals that O'Reilly rates so highly?
If one views the Drudge Report regularly, one will find that he posts more links to liberal leaning news stories than conservative leaning, for whatever reason.
And CNN is definitely liberal in its outlook. I could cite chapter and verse if I had time, since I view it every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McGarrett: by the way, CNN's Anderson Cooper is certainly following his own liberal agenda in his reporting, as are others. But I refer to general newscontent and CNN's sideshow "Headline News," and not the sensational shows -- and especially not Larry King Live, which is, frankly, a terrible interview show that never asks any "hard" questions of anyone.
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| There are other ways we can tell if a news network is pushing propaganda... |
This presupposes that at least some news networks actually serve the govt and disseminate its propaganda.
To me this is pure hyperbole. There seems to be something more to this for you, however.
Got any examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| These surveys are bunk. If they were scientific, there would be agreement among them, what statisticians call correlation. They're about as objective as US News & World Report, which repeatedly favors private over public universities. |
Steve, I've posted this before, but it's probably worth posting again since the results correlate with the Pew study:
* 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
* 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
* 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS)
Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War. Program on International Policy Attitudes October 2003, in Political Science Quarterly, Winter 2003-2004. You can read the full report here (pdf). This supports the more recent study.
You're right that I am surprised about O'Reilly's viewers though. Could it be all the liberal viewers that watch the show just because they love to hate him?
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| And CNN is definitely liberal in its outlook. I could cite chapter and verse if I had time, since I view it every day. |
What do you mean by 'liberal'? It seems to me that a lot of people confuse the broad political terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' with support for the Republican and Democratic parties. Thus, someone might see stories critical of the current US administration and conclude that these constituted evidence of liberal bias, because, following the logic, only liberals attack Republicans. You see all kinds of positions labeled as 'liberal' these days simply because they're at odds with the current administration - acceptance of the scientific consensus on global warming, or opposition to the Iraq occupation, for example. That's not a mistake you'd make though, is it steve? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gang ah jee wrote: |
| There are other ways we can tell if a news network is pushing propaganda... |
This presupposes that at least some news networks actually serve the govt and disseminate its propaganda.
To me this is pure hyperbole. There seems to be something more to this for you, however.
Got any examples? |
Well, the extent to which this is hyperbole really depends on one's definition of propaganda, doesn't it?
But ok, I'll quickly run down what I've got here. First of all, all mainstream news outlets deal in propaganda to a certain extent because they rely heavily on official sources for the basis of most of their political stories. This allows the government to frame the terms of any given debate down to the words used to describe any given issue. This is a component of the 'propaganda model' demonstrated and discussed at length in Manufacturing Consent, but since I think you react to Chomsky's writing like a vampire reacts to sunlight (no moral judgements intended by the simile) a very similar model is proposed in W. Lance Bennett's influential article "Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States" (1990, Journal of Communications 40/2). In Bennett's work, the government provides what he calls the 'indexing norm', which helps to determine the limits of acceptable discussion. If you're interested in looking at either of the above models, they have very good explanatory power, and applying them to the MSM's treatment of the build-up to the Iraq invasion is very interesting. But this is a systemic issue more than anything else.
Moving on to Fox then, firstly, I've posted studies in this thread and others that show that a) Fox viewers follow the administration's line much more closely than consumers of other media outlets (see above) and that b) in the 2004 presidential elections Fox viewers voted for Bush over Kerry at a rate of about 13:1, compared to about 1:1 nationwide (here). Also, there's some evidence to suggest that Fox directly influences voting (study here (pdf). Of course, these facts show little by themselves, and correlation isn't causation. But they're certainly consistent with the propaganda interpretation.
Now here's some stuff from wikipedia:
| Quote: |
As with many news sources, Fox News executives exert a degree of editorial control over the content of their daily reporting. In the case of Fox News, some of this control comes in the form of daily memos issued by Fox News' Vice President of News, John Moody. In the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, former Fox News employees are interviewed to better understand the inner workings of Fox News. In memos from the documentary, Moody instructs employees on the approach to be taken on particular stories. Critics of Fox News claim that the instructions on many of the memos indicate a conservative bias. The Washington Post quoted Larry Johnson, a former part-time Fox News commentator, describing the Moody memos as "talking points instructing us what the themes are supposed to be, and God help you if you stray."
Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the Bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it."
Photocopied memos from Fox News executive John Moody instructed the network's on-air anchors and reporters to use positive language when discussing pro-life viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts, as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area. Such memos were reproduced for the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which included Moody quotes such as, "[T]he soldiers [seen on FOX in Iraq] in the foreground should be identified as 'sharpshooters,' not 'snipers,' which carries a negative connotation."
Two days after the 2006 election, web blog The Huffington Post claimed to acquire a copy of a leaked internal memo from Mr. Moody that recommended: "... let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." Within hours of the memo's publication, Fox News anchor, Martha McCallum, went on-air with reports of Iraqi insurgents cheering the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the results of the 2006 Congressional election.
...
Media Matters for America claims to have noticed a trend in which Fox News reporters, anchors and writers for its website alter their language to immediately parrot the rhetoric of the Bush administration. For example, in 2002 the White House began referring to suicide bombings as "homicide bombings"; Fox immediately complied and changed its own language to match, while most other media outlets continued using the traditional phrase.[68] The same can be said for "terrorist surveillance", referred to as NSA wiretapping by most Fox News commentators until the White House redesignated it.[69] Stories of the War in Iraq are usually accompanied by an on-screen banner reading "War on Terror", a controversial assertion in light of Iraq's minimal role as a terrorist training ground prior to the U.S. invasion.
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures," "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy." Fox News retracted the story and apologized [93], citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice."
Critics of the network contend that Fox specializes in "political sabotage" by putting up moderate to conservative "Democrats" as token liberals against more staunchly conservative Republicans. Examples of the so-called Fox News liberal include:
* Alan Colmes - Co-host of Hannity & Colmes who is supposed to represent the political left opposite conservative Sean Hannity, but who admitted to USA Today that he is "quite moderate."
* Pat Caddell [80]- Who has called the Democratic party a "confederacy of gangsters" and defended Ann Coulter when she called John Edwards a "faggot."
* Susan Estrich [81]- Known for her opposition to liberal Democrats and support for the Democratic Leadership Council, and who once told Sean Hannity that she was his "biggest liberal friend."
* Zell Miller [82]
* Mort Kondracke [83]
* The network has also drawn criticism for falsely identifying guests on political programs. A recent example is an interview on Hannity & Colmes in which two guests were brought on, one a Republican and the other supposedly a Democrat, to debate an issue. However, the Democrat, former congressman Jimmy Hayes, was actually a Republican. Neither Hayes nor the hosts acknowledged the misidentification.[84] Also, during a recent edition of The O'Reilly Factor, congressman Mark Foley, a Republican gripped in scandal for writing sexually suggestive e-mails to underage congressional pages, was misidentified as a Democrat in the onscreen text.
In August 2006, two Fox News producers resigned from the network, citing its coverage of the Israel's conflict that month with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Their resignation letter read in part: "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that...Not only are you [Fox News] an instrument of the Bush White House, and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism." During an interview with Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now! radio program, Serene Sabbagh, one of the producers who resigned, said, "I was devastated at the way that Fox was handling the coverage from Lebanon in the U.S., and I felt there was bias, the slant, the racist remarks, the use of the word "we" meaning Israel, and it was just unbearable up until basically the massacre at Qana... I switched to Fox News to hear some of their anchors claiming that these little kids that were killed... were human shields used by Hezbollah. And one of the anchors went as far as saying they were planted there by Hezbollah to win support in this war... this is when I decided, me and my colleague Jomana, to hand in our resignation." [14] Defenders of Fox argue the coverage could not be 'fair and balanced' without citing such facts of the situation. The two women, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh, are both Jordanian Arabs.
On January 26, 2007, News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch admitted to using the Fox News parent company as a propaganda tool for the Iraq War. "Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: 'No, I don't think so. We tried. [...] We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution.'" [94] |
That a selection. There's more (plus references) at the actual wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias
And then there's all the damn American flags everywhere!
So note that I'm not saying that I think Fox is controlled by the government, rather that Fox's management and ownership see it as their mission to support conservative politics and the current administration as at every given opportunity.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:32 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="gang ah jee"]
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| These surveys are bunk. If they were scientific, there would be agreement among them, what statisticians call correlation. They're about as objective as US News & World Report, which repeatedly favors private over public universities. |
Steve, I've posted this before, but it's probably worth posting again since the results correlate with the Pew study:
| Quote: |
* 67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for NPR/PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers, 23% for ABC, 22% for NBC, 21% for CNN and 10% for NPR/PBS
* 33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR/PBS)
* 35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for NPR/PBS) |
Conservatives are more likely to believe things that would validate their beliefs.
Just as liberals are more likely to believe things that would validate their beliefs.
I bet if they asked readers of the Nation if Iraq was found to be in compliance with UN resolutions calling for its disamarnament the majority would say yes. Which would be false .
Likewise I bet most of the readers of the nation believe that Saddam Hussein never took any hostile action against the US- which is also false.
And I bet most of them would not be aware that Iraq was quite close to a nuclear device before the first gulf war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| It is interesting, BLT. How do people with marked ideologies respond to "the news." They in fact denounce all that does not sound like the-world-according-to-them as "lies." |
Your straw men are nothing more, fool.
Now, respond to the ISSUE, you genetically flawed misanthrope of a "scholar." We are not talking about Editorial Page articles. We are not talking about the struggle of the writer to remove themselves from the reporting. We are talking about a planned,organized, intentional use of propaganda to aid and abet one party. It is propaganda, nothing more.
Further (Dear God, give this twit a brain so I can stop repeating myself...), I have no quibble with any other source. Drudge? Go for it! Salon? Have at it! NPR? Go, go, go! CNN? Go for it! The Washington Post? Write away! The Washington whatever-it-is of Moonie fame? No problem!!
Why? They don't lie about what they are. I know this is hard for you to understand, being a liar yourself (I'm a Democrat... until the election comes, now I'm a registered Republican.... until it passes and my party gets their asses handed to them.... now I'm a moderate again...), but do try.
You are irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
EFLTrainer:
The very fact that you believe FoxNews is lying means you're not being brainwashed. |
This is so off, it is not worthy of explanation. It didn't work with one person, so it means they didn't try and have had no success?
Laughable. Put your degree back in the Cracker Jack box!
| Quote: |
| But you've managed to do it to yourself because of your blind leftist zeal. |
Please do expound for us. I seem to have hit a nerve stating the truth about your beloved Fox.
| Quote: |
| These surveys are bunk. |
Ummm... what surveys? I didn't mention no surveys...
| Quote: |
| If they were scientific, there would be agreement among them, |
Huh? Since when does "science" equal total agreement?
Bizarro!
| Quote: |
| But examining the survey on its own "merits," gee isn't it a shock to liberals that O'Reilly rates so highly? |
No. One of the problems with the survey is that it doesn't say anything about right or wrong as to their beliefs about issues. It only discusses information.
| Quote: |
If one views the Drudge Report regularly, one will find that he posts more links to liberal leaning news stories than conservative leaning, for whatever reason.
|
And that has what to do with what?
| Quote: |
| And CNN is definitely liberal in its outlook. I could cite chapter and verse if I had time, since I view it every day. |
Uh-huh. Stevie said it, it must be so!!!
Brain fart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
