2004 Election

talk
141

haaaaaaa. press talks. gotta love ‘em.
So.
Anyone knows how many mainstream media press groups exist in the US?
Now.
Anyone knows, on those mainstream media press groups, if ANY of them is not under the close surveillance (I’m being light on that one, if you want to replace “under the close surveillance” by “under the orders”, please do so) of a multimillion dollar business company?
I mean, press in the US is as free as the CEOs want them to be. And CEOs leaning mainly on the right side of the political fence (understand: conservative and republican), the press hardly delivers real controversies to the actual government. The press in the US is biased, but its definitely NOT liberal. It used to be in the 70s (cf. Watergate) when press groups weren’t on the businesses’ menu yet. Now, the press is ready to close their eyes on a fairly large number of subjects because it suits the needs of hypercapitalism. (that subject REALLY deserves a new thread…there’s much to say…)

About the dead Iraqis, no ones knows how many there have been. According to the Geneva Convention… and I know many here fart on this convention more often than I brush my teeth… its up to the occupying power to keep counts of the deads… Amnesty International underlines the fact in their latest report, that the US has not deployed ANY measures to count Iraqi deads. But estimates range from 8 000 (White House numbers) to 14 000 (Red Cross - CICR numbers). Yes, it’s a sad number indeed.

142

haaaaaaa. press talks. gotta love ‘em.
So.
Anyone knows how many mainstream media press groups exist in the US?
Now.
Anyone knows, on those mainstream media press groups, if ANY of them is not under the close surveillance (I’m being light on that one, if you want to replace “under the close surveillance” by “under the orders”, please do so) of a multimillion dollar business company?
I mean, press in the US is as free as the CEOs want them to be. And CEOs leaning mainly on the right side of the political fence (understand: conservative and republican), the press hardly delivers real controversies to the actual government. The press in the US is biased, but its definitely NOT liberal. It used to be in the 70s (cf. Watergate) when press groups weren’t on the businesses’ menu yet. Now, the press is ready to close their eyes on a fairly large number of subjects because it suits the needs of hypercapitalism. (that subject REALLY deserves a new thread…there’s much to say…)

About the dead Iraqis, no ones knows how many there have been. According to the Geneva Convention… and I know many here fart on this convention more often than I brush my teeth… its up to the occupying power to keep counts of the deads… Amnesty International underlines the fact in their latest report, that the US has not deployed ANY measures to count Iraqi deads. But estimates range from 8 000 (White House numbers) to 14 000 (Red Cross - CICR numbers). Yes, it’s a sad number indeed.

Hmmm, no liberal bias???

Peter Jennings, ABC News, 1993: “President Clinton kept a promise (emphasis added) today on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors.”

Peter Jennings, ABC News, 2001: "One of the president’s first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives (emphasis added). The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era policy . . . "

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 1993: “Today, President Clinton kept a campaign promise (emphasis added), and it came on the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion.”

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 2001: “We’ll begin with the new president’s very active day, which started on a controversial note (emphasis added).”

Dan Rather, CBS News, 1993: “Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise (emphasis added) to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years.”

Dan Rather, CBS News, 2001: "This was President Bush’s first day at the office, and he did something to quickly please the right flank (emphasis added) in his party: He reinstituted an anti-abortion policy . . . "

Why is abortion supported by the news? Shouldn’t they be indifferent? When Clinton supports abortion, he’s delivering on campaign promises, and doing something commendable. When Bush revokes abortion rights, he’s “throwing a bone to the right wingers”. WTF.

143

Go read “Bias” By Bernard Goldberg. He worked at CBS for 20 years, and was a liberal himself. He talks about what went on in the news room, and how they would throw out stories, or slightly change wordings 5 mins before airtime because Dan Rather wouldn’t read it, unless of course it was altered. Open your eyes. You guys think we (conservatives) are brainwashed… Try meeting a successful liberal economist. I tend to side with the left on party line issues, like gay marriage, abortion (I’m indifferent), and such. I just can’t understand why the left wants to turn our country into a socialist nightmare. Have any of you lived in Canada, and then the states?? I sure have. Screw socialism.

144

I think all liberals and conservatives are brainwashed.

You are free to leave the partisan politics cell-block any time you like. But first, you have to open your eyes and realize that Rep-Dem is just a way to divide the population into two seemingly opposing sides, while in reality, the leaders of both parties continuously push for globalist agenda’s…

Mainstream News is and always will be biased. Dan Rather wrongly narrorated the Zapruder footage, and claimed that Kennedy’s head went forward , and not back and to the left, as the video clearly showed once revealed to the public years later. Soon after, Dan Rather replaced Walter Cronkite as the head CBS Newsanchor… Since Kennedy was a Democrat, does that mean that CBS at the time was part of a vast-right wing conspiracy?? Or does it just mean that Dan Rather is a scum-sucking liar who betrayed the American public with an outright lie??

Disco-Stu: Name me one Liberal station that mentioned Margie Schroedinger… i’m willing to be that nobody even knows who she is, without having to search the internet (unfiltered information) for the answer… Once you look her up, you might be wondering why not one media outlet, even those believed to have a liberal bias, could pass up the chance to publicize this womans lawsuit.

145

Bias was a good book! Also, most of the major newspapers such as the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, and the LATimes are rabidly left-wing. Also, many of the major news analysts on TV were staff in previous Democratic presidential adminstrations. The only major moderately non left-wing paper is the Wall Street Journal.

146

Americans have wierd conceptions of left and right… Your left is well… my right. Your right is my extreme-right. And your extreme right goes out the roof.
Socialism, communism, haaaaaa. Screwing the man in power, not thinking money should run the planet. The good ol’ days… Where did all the hippies go? Did they settle down for a life of bourgeoisie and money? bleah.

Lenine, Trotsky, Marx. My heroes (well, more than Greenspan, Keynes and Gates anyhow…)

[edit]It’s really biased when NO ONE talks about it when it really deserves headlines…(TWA800, remember that one?) Read my lips. The press is not liberal anymore. It’s run by CEOs (and you don’t have to be a genius to figure THAT one out). You can say it is liberally biased, but on matters that REALLY do matter (unintended pun), there’s no left and right anymore. Just plain silence; and everybody seems happy about it?[/edit]

147

Washington Times is right-leaning. NewYork Post too. And yeah, Wall Street Journal indeed (but who would expect less from a newspaper with more numbers than letters in its columns?)

148

pomme - hate to say this - but being American :wink: i watch the US news every night, and the local news almost every night - and it is extremely liberal - our town’s newspaper is called “The Tallahassee Democrat.” if that gives you any indication…

yes media is biased, but it is up to us to stop complaining about it - and find out the truth on our own the best we can.

149

Colin Powell stated firmly that the US would not tolerate any more delays, for Saddam had about 10 or 11 years to disarm.
I wonder if Colin Powell read the report… Because it didn’t suggest otherwise.

Quoting is indeed fun, I just finished reading the UNMOVIC report and well, and if you read the whole article, you will see there was no evidence of WMD’s. The closest they came was a couple of empty shells, (pre-1990) and a few missles who could shoot several hunderd miles, which where promptly destroyed. There was nothing else. While its true they cannot guarantee it 100% and its impossible to be 100% sure. Their report shows that there was absolutley no evidence so far, there is speculation, but thats all it is. And despite that, the inspectors where quite effective, they had immdiate, unnoticeced inspections of sites in random order, combined with high-technology tools, even with the help of other armed forces including the US, they found 0 evidence, from the report they where more effective then I thought. And any leads they did have, were interupted by the war, because… who really needs evidence. You can see almost all of the report was trying to desperatly showing that WMD’s is a basless aligation…

So far, the UNMOVIC Report is correct, as it showed that there was no evidence, and no Wmd are found. The uncertainty of the UNMOVIC report is only due the fact that they where interupted in their research, by war.

Colin Powell stated firmly that the US would not tolerate any more delays, for Saddam had about 10 or 11 years to disarm.
I wonder how he feels now…

150

I love this! Conservatives claim the media is Liberal, the Liberals claim that the media is controled by big Companies, and the journalists think that the the media is spineless…
… And they are all right!

151

Majeye: Margie Schroedinger was a crock. The reason no one jumped on it is because everyone knew it was an Enquirer story. She claimed that the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Military, and the Police were all after her to shut her up. Riiiiight. I’m sure there wouldn’t be one little leak if this was true.

It seems to me that all of you guys have taken Michael Moore’s “Conspiracy Theory” crap to heart. I’m sorry. Bad things go on in government, but some people way over-think things. Stop playing Metal Gear Solid. There would be a hell of a lot more broken rumors or squealing high-ups telling the presses this stuff if it was true. Too many people are required to operate these conspiracys. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it’s just a load of crap.

152

Russian> you better have put me in the “journalist” category then…! :wink:

Mhh, no, it gives me no indication whatsoever. The fact that we have a different value of what “liberal” is just makes it impossible to judge on YOUR account only. I read the NYTimes almost every day, I find it extremely conservative in some respects when Kirupa thinks it’s way liberal…

yes media is biased, but it is up to us to stop complaining about it - and find out the truth on our own the best we can.

?? THAT you have to be kidding me. It is the journalist’s job to find out the truth and inform the masses. It’s not up to the masses to find out the truth by themselves (they don’t have either the capacities nor the infrastructures many journalists have). But you say it yourself. “The best we can”. We can’t.
So please, let’s continue complaining because if the media are biased, no one wins.

[edit] Disco> I’ll read “biased” if you read “black list” by Kristina Borjesson… [/edit]

153

It seems to me that all of you guys have taken Michael Moore’s “Conspiracy Theory” crap to heart. I’m sorry. Bad things go on in government, but some people way over-think things. Stop playing Metal Gear Solid. There would be a hell of a lot more broken rumors or squealing high-ups telling the presses this stuff if it was true. Too many people are required to operate these conspiracys. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but it’s just a load of crap.

And thank you Disco-Stu for that gross over-generalization.
Its a bit hypocritical dont you think? You accuse “us” of being paranoid of conspiracy, while you are here rambaling about the “Liberal Media Conspiracy”.

Someone else should stop playing metal gear solid.

154

to be honest bush needs to get out of the us before he tells anymore lies!!! i mean people are dieing in iraq over a lie bush said theres NO nuclear stuff bush just likes to see people die!!!

im kerry all the way

155

Read the link im my footer (>>link)… And then tell me you’re still 100% sure the government is clean, efficient and above any suspicion.

Please, before counter posting something; read the d*mn article and the sources.

156

Disco Stu: Margie Schroedinger may have been a crock, but dont you think its atleast newsworthy? ‘Woman makes baseless accusation against president’ or something like that… Im sorry, but complete media silence is a bit suspicious (especially considering the extreme nature of the accusations), no matter what video game you think i’m playing too much of…

Good link MLK…

157

But why cover something baseless that involves a national figure? People complain the news is filled with baseless comments, celebrity court cases, etc. Therefore, why should the news waste valuable space on something that isn’t credible?

You read any credible paper througoughly, you’ll come out knowing pretty much the same information. The bias is usually in the wording (minor things for example like “accused” instead of “claimed”), the order in which the stories appear (is something negative about the Prez. front page while something positive is buried in the back), and other things that the average reader may not notice.

158

yes, good link indeed.

ok. Let’s say that Marge is indeed telling the truth. Wouldn’t the CIA, FBI, Police, Secret Services (I call them SS), NSA and my mom have better keep the lid on the thing?
now. Let’s say that Marge is NOT telling the truth. WHY wouldn’t anyone circulate those false allegations? Because it’s not newsworthy? COME ON! It’s juicy as hell and involves the Prez of the USA. Fox News would have made a whole deal out of it and blame the dems for it… we all know that.

It makes no sense, but people are so afraid to find out that govt agencies are rotten to the core, they don’t even want to think about it and prefer saying to themselves that they protect America and Americans, when they really are protecting their own interests

159

So in this one time, they decided to keep it on the down-low, only because it had absolutely no truth to it, right?? They usually are quick to print any BS that comes down the pipe, but it just so happened that this event recieved absolutely no coverage nationwide. This African American Woman successfully filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct against her and her husband at the hands of President Bush, and nobody touched it with a ten foot pole (with the exemption of the her hometown paper that printed a small blurb after her ‘apparent suicide’).

Therefore, why should the news waste valuable space on something that isn’t credible?

It shouldn’t, but that never stopped it before… It really is kinda odd to me, but oh well, stranger things have happened…

I agree that the media shouldn’t print baseless accusations, but who’s to say it was baseless? The case never went to trial due to the untimely death of the accuser…

But really, i think we should drop the Margie Schroedinger thing, as i think i’ve illustrated my point that there are some things that even the supposed ‘liberal media’ won’t dare to print…

Also, i think more attention should be given to the link that MLK shared… Im interested to know how the ‘Coincidence Theorists’ are going to explain that away…

>>LINK

You accuse “us” of being paranoid of conspiracy, while you are here rambaling about the “Liberal Media Conspiracy”.

RB: haha lol pwned!

160

the way some of you talk - and I realize not everyone lives in the US that is talking here (which baffles me why they seem to care so much) it would appear that some of you would be better off in a more “socialist” country.

I get tired of reading a lot of this stuff because it just repeats and repeats and repeats - people always think they can do better, deserve better, and they expect better…and quite frankly when a human is involved there will never be perfection.

The media is biased, the government does stuff we don’t know about, one person can’t change a country’s political system…and guess what I don’t care lol - I’ll defend and serve this country for as long as I can, because here, I am free.

and quite frankly the 9/11 article is fluff to me…sure do some research and place some events on a timeline - nothing I haven’t seen. But I tell you what each of those incidents had more details to them than the transcript and paragraph they supplied each of them.

Everyone wants the “whole” truth, and well quite frankly you will never get it - so you can either get over it, fester on it until you go crazy, or move to another country.

I for one choose to get over it and make the best choices I can.

and yes Pomme the journalists should deliver the news unbiased, but LOL in all reality that could never happen…it won’t be unbiased until I witness the events with my own eyes…which again will never happen so its a mute point.

and I don’t know what people will think of this - but I have yet to see a well thought believable and plausible reason why GW Bush should not be President again. It just isn’t there…everyone keeps trying to take these pebbles and make a mountain…it’s not happening.

For a country that is free to pretty much do as we please…I find it sad that so many complain.

P.S.

Quote:
You accuse “us” of being paranoid of conspiracy, while you are here rambaling about the “Liberal Media Conspiracy”.

RB: haha lol pwned!

actually he was saying Michael Moore was being paranoid of conspiracy… and most liberals then taking Moore’s ideas as fact. Moore makes the conspiracy, others read it as bonafide truth instead of a “theory.”

Point. Counterpoint. Match.