posted on June 2, 2005 05:56:41 PM new
Some here don't want to believe that most of our MSM media is biased towards the left. Including, as I have previously mentioned - NPR too.
Well here's an interesting little article...
After donating millions to kerry's campaign...millions to moveon.org...millions to change the results of our National election....old Soro's is at it again.
Think of this next time you're watching CNN and believe they're NOT biased.
New AIM Report Reveals Soros Funding of CNN Program May 23, 2005 A new
AIM Report from Accuracy In the Media
posted on June 2, 2005 07:24:25 PM new
Interesting.
How come we don't see anyone from the "left" posting in this thread. Are they starting to believe there is media bias - to the "left" and have no comment.
_________________
posted on June 2, 2005 07:36:07 PM new
LOL....they can't admit anything, Libra. Truth or not.
But I like how the article said, "CNN, news you can trust." Yea...just like the NYT and newsweek. SURE....
[testing sig line to 'play with fenix']
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 2, 2005 10:37:37 PM new
You know the "media bias" thing comes up all the time. When it is brought up the Left acts like a wounded dear and hurtfully asks how you can say that. The start giving statistics. George Bush was mention 45 times last week, John Kerry 41 times, etc, etc, etc.
I was watching a discussion panel about this topic and one guy said: "But of course, you're asking the wrong questions." He had done an investigation and he said to collect EVERY network news anchor, EVERY network news head, all of the producers, directors, etc. and ask 1 question: "Who amongst you has EVER voted for a Republican candidate?"
You know the answer.
The typical TV panel discussion is "balanced". They have representatives of left andd right. The only thing is, with the exception of Dennis Miller and maybe Hannity & Combs, who control their panels to insure everyone gets a chance to speak, the typical discussion consists of 4 pinkos (including the host) and Ann Coulter, or Laura Ingrahm. The said 4 pinkos then procede to yap like deranged Yorkis and the opposition barely makes a complete sentence the entire night.
posted on June 3, 2005 06:48:04 AM new
If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. For CBS, the admission that it cannot verify the authenticity of documents used in a story about President Bush's National Guard service is a serious matter to be sure. People should probably be fired.
But the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology, particularly in relation to another recent case of grievous media error.
Just four months ago, lest we forget, the New York Times issued its own mea culpa, acknowledging the repeated use of dubious information in its coverage of the run-up to the Iraq War and the Bush administration's repeated assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In the case of one story, the Times flat-out said it was duped, although it used the more decorous phrase "taken in."
The two media apologies have a lot in common. In both cases, the issues involved have major implications for the presidential campaign. In both cases, a well-known national news organization admitted sloppy reporting and acknowledged that critical information could not be verified. In both cases, reporters were overly credulous in dealing with sources who had a political interest at stake -- in the CBS case the former Guardsman who is a vehement Bush opponent, in the New York Times case the Bush administration officials defending the president's decision to attack Iraq.
The critical difference between the two stories is that the Times' mistake was actually the far more serious of the two. The suspect stories touched on a more substantive topic -- the reasons for sending American soldiers to fight and die rather than the service record of a single lieutenant three decades ago -- and the journalistic failures were more prolonged and repeated, involving multiple stories over a period of months rather than a single story on a single day.
Yet against all logic, the CBS mea culpa is getting much more ink and air time than the New York Times case. The Times itself is one example. The paper ran its own apology on Page 10, but, perhaps drunk on schadenfreude, played the CBS confession above the fold on the front page. Other papers showed similar judgment. The Los Angeles Times put the New York paper's goof on Page 10, the CBS one on the front page. Sad to say, The Chronicle did much the same thing: The Times story was reported on Page 2 in an unsigned note "to the readers;" the CBS gaffe merited two stories on Page 1.
Why? The answer lies in the political impact of each issue, and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The Times' apology, by acknowledging the flaws of the administration's claims, hurt President Bush. The CBS apology obviously helped him, casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to each of the two apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.
I do not suggest that conservative apparatchiks crashed news meetings around the country and demanded front-page play for the CBS story. But I do suggest that as the country's political spectrum has become ever more conservative -- dragged "to the right, to the right, farther to the right," as Tom Frank puts it in his brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' -- media organizations have shifted, too.
For one thing, mainstream media organizations are always in search of viewers and readers, and it's a solidly conservative country. Republicans have won six of the last nine presidential elections. They hold majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. They dominate the business establishment. Newspapers and television stations across the country are competing for the same viewers and readers that have pushed Fox News' audience past CNN's and made the Wall Street Journal one of the largest newspapers in the country.
Second, the conservative movement's hallelujah chorus among overtly partisan media outlets -- Fox News and talk radio are the prime examples -- has amplified the traditional right-wing charge that journalists are all participants in a grand liberal conspiracy. The ironic result is that journalism has become hyper-sensitized to conservative criticism, and, in the guise of trying to be fair, leans farther and farther to the right.
So when a major news organization admits it may have been duped by one source on one story that was critical of President Bush, it's front-page news across the country. But when another news organization admits it repeatedly botched a crucial story of national security, the apology that damages the president's credibility is little-noted and soon forgotten.
If that's liberal media bias, conservatives should want more of it.
Ethan Rarick, a visiting scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, is the author of "California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown," which will be published in January by the University of California Press.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 3, 2005 09:22:53 AM new
Yes, desquirrel, that is a MUCH better way to get to the point.
I'm sure if those at the
NYT
See-BS
Weeknews
CNN
WashingtonPost
etc
were asked that question....there'd be only a handful that would be able to honestly answer 'yes' to that question.
Heck even old Walter Cronkite admitted, after his own retirement of course, that most all journalists were indeed liberals.
------------------
Also wanted to mention how absolutely funny I find it that a socialist like Soros wants to / is interested in buying into a Capitalist venture....baseball.
--
from today's WashTimes
Foul ball
How do Republicans and conservatives -- sometimes one and the same -- feel about left-wing billionaire George Soros' attempt to buy the Washington Nationals?
"Soros is a political thug, and if he becomes an owner of the Nationals, I would recommend they be moved back to Montreal," conservative publicist Craig Shirley told Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times.
Mr. Shirley added: "If Soros gets the Nationals, I think the president of France should throw out the first ball, not President Bush."
Washington-based investor Dale Mitchell Jr., son of the late Cleveland Indians and Brooklyn Dodgers outfielder, would "have pause about supporting the Nationals with Soros as owner. Of course, I have pause anyway -- I'm just trying to get my head around the fact that we have a National League team here in this town. I'm an American League guy."
Mr. Mitchell, a conservative who twice voted for Mr. Bush and whose father was most famous for taking a called third strike for the final out in New York Yankee pitcher Don Larsen's perfect game in Game Five of the 1956 World Series, compared Mr. Soros with the owner of the Baltimore Orioles -- and found them about on a par.
"They must have been staying up nights trying to find someone more obnoxious than Peter Angelos," he said. "Seriously, if Peter Angelos and George Soros were the owners of our two teams in this area -- oh, my goodness."
Ed Brookover, former National Republican Congressional Committee political director, finds it "mind-boggling to think about the biggest socialist around becoming an owner of a capitalist enterprise, a Major League Baseball team, in the nation's capital. ... In fact, I would not think Major League Baseball would want that controversial an owner in this town."
Tracey Schmitt, Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said of the Bush-bashing leftist's attempt to buy Washington's team, "[b]Since he has failed at both grass-roots politics and legalizing grass[b], we're not surprised he is spreading some more of his own green in a new endeavor."
But Beltway conservatives wouldn't boycott a Soros team, said R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., editor in chief of the American Spectator.
"The difference with liberals is that they have the political libidos of a nymphomaniac while conservatives have practically no political libido. Conservatives don't see everything as political. We'll go to the baseball game and not pay attention to who owns the team, though I suppose it would make a difference if the Nazis or the communists owned it. George Soros isn't that extreme -- just short of it," he said.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
