We have a new pope!

[TheBigHurt35]

Actually you said I made no mention of it which I proved wrong -- even a person who doesn't read posts and just cherry picks for his debate without actually hitting major points can agree with that.

 

So, are you still going to argue that the media output in this country is as conservative as its corporate ownership, or are you going to deflect my question again? Talk about cherry-picking. :rolly

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So, are you still going to argue that the media output in this country is as conservative as its corporate ownership, or are you going to deflect my question again?  Talk about cherry-picking. :rolly

 

Read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian or any of the books by Robert McChesney. These two experts in the field of media studies lay out the arguments much more eloquently than I.

[TheBigHurt35]

Read "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian or any of the books by Robert McChesney.  These two experts in the field of media studies lay out the arguments much more eloquently than I.

 

I'll take that as a "no."

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'll take that as a "no."

 

Take it as its a wonderfully warm evening and approximately 15 minutes before a Sox game but since you insist -- ther word media appears within seven words of 'liberal bias' 469 times and withing seven words of 'conservative bias' just 17 times. The media gives much more play to "liberal bias" even though there is nothing backing up their claims.

 

Back in 1995, Bill Kristol even stated to the New Yorker: "The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." Rich Bond, former chair of the RNC explained that the claims of liberal bias was just maneuvers in a cynical game: "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs."

 

If liberals run the media why do they spend so much time and effort publicizing their ruthless suppression of their adversaries?

 

Then there is the huge monetary advantage of the conservative cause over the liberal cause to be covered in the media. Whether is was Richard Mellon Scaife's million dollar "Arkansas Project" to find anything about Bill Clinton (read David Brock's firsthand experience with him -- no time to post it here) L. Brent Bozell III's Media Research Center, the money is amazing to get the claims of bias across.

 

And saying that journalists and anchors are liberal just because they voted a certain way in an election -- what would that prove about the political bias of a TV show/newspaper. After all those who decide what airs are the editors, not the reporters.

 

These editors serve the publisher and most publishers are conservative and Republican. I definitely have more for you, unfortunately its "Have a couple beers and relax during the Sox game with a friend" time for me right now. I'll have the rest of my argument for you in a little bit, Hurt. Don't go responding yet until I finish!

[KipWellsFan]

Liberal media, nothing more than a keyword successfully used by conservatives everywhere.

[jackie hayes]

Could you start a new thread then? I think this is actually a pretty interesting thread on its own merits, while this f'n media bias discussion is just tired. Make a thread, have at it, don't ruin a discussion on something THIS important.

[KipWellsFan]

liberal programming like The Simple Life and The OC

 

I'm not on par with your intelligence, I'll admit that right now. So please teach me why these 2 ridiculous shows are considered liberal!?!

[Rex Kickass]

Girls you're both pretty.

[TheBigHurt35]

Take it as its a wonderfully warm evening and approximately 15 minutes before a Sox game but since you insist -- ther word media appears within seven words of 'liberal bias' 469 times and withing seven words of 'conservative bias' just 17 times.  The media gives much more play to "liberal bias" even though there is nothing backing up their claims.

 

Back in 1995, Bill Kristol even stated to the New Yorker: "The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."  Rich Bond, former chair of the RNC explained that the claims of liberal bias was just maneuvers in a cynical game: "There is some strategy to it. I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is work the refs."

 

If liberals run the media why do they spend so much time and effort publicizing their ruthless suppression of their adversaries?

 

Then there is the huge monetary advantage of the conservative cause over the liberal cause to be covered in the media.  Whether is was Richard Mellon Scaife's million dollar "Arkansas Project" to find anything about Bill Clinton (read David Brock's firsthand experience with him -- no time to post it here) L. Brent Bozell III's Media Research Center, the money is amazing to get the claims of bias across.

 

And saying that journalists and anchors are liberal just because they voted a certain way in an election -- what would that prove about the political bias of a TV show/newspaper.  After all those who decide what airs are the editors, not the reporters.

 

These editors serve the publisher and most publishers are conservative and Republican.  I definitely have more for you, unfortunately its "Have a couple beers and relax during the Sox game with a friend" time for me right now.  I'll have the rest of my argument for you in a little bit, Hurt.  Don't go responding yet until I finish!

 

Sorry, but I'm forced to respond now, as I'm moving in about 36 hours. It's "pack up the computer time" for me...

 

The publishers/editors at the New York Times certainly have the final say as to what goes in their paper. And, interestingly, the Times was caught reporting faudulent polling data a couple years ago. Not surprisingly, the falsified numbers consistently favored Democrats over Republicans. (See Chapter 1 of Dick Morris' "Off with their Heads!" for details of this and their other anti-Republican propaganda.) Regardless of who controls the content at the Times and regardless of their political affiliation, what's ultimately published certainly does have a liberal bias. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or lying.

 

And saying that journalists and anchors are liberal just because they voted a certain way in an election -- what would that prove about the political bias of a TV show/newspaper.  After all those who decide what airs are the editors, not the reporters.

 

Dan Rather let Mapes' story go on the air without investigating it (knowing full well that she's very anti-Republican). No Republican producer (or ANY producer) intervened, despite the gravity of the accusations. CBS flat-out fabricated a story to bring down Bush right before the election. And there's NO liberal bias at CBS? Baloney! What happened to Rather and Mapes? The Republicans who run Viacom fired Mapes and "reassigned" Rather (only his reputation and tenure prevented him from being fired as well). Again, it doesn't matter who's at the top. The liberal anchors/journalists are allowed to put out whatever they want... until they're caught lying.

 

Hell, this bias has been going on at CBS since at least the late '60s. Walter Cronkite flat-out lied to Americans on national TV about their country's "loss" during the Tet Offensive. This was obviously a pathetic attempt to energize the anti-war movement.

 

Why would Republicans, who supposedly own the majority of media outlets, allow this to happen? To make money, of course! Do you think that conservative reporting/commentary is going to sell in, say, Harlem, Brooklyn, D.C., South Boston, or East LA? Of course not! These major newspapers slant their print to increase circulation in these areas... period.

 

Bias in the media isn't relagated to the left. Despite their "Fair And Balanced" claim, Fox News is most definitely a conservative media outlet. Again, the owners/producers are exploiting a niche to make money: Conservative Christians who feel disenfrancised by the abundance of liberal bias on TV and the glaring lack of a conservative voice. Bias is everywhere in the media.

 

That's it for a while. I'll check back in a week or so...

Edited April 20, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[KipWellsFan]

Hell, this bias has been going on at CBS since at least the late '60s. Walter Cronkite flat-out lied to Americans on national TV about their country's "loss" during the Tet Offensive. This was obviously a pathetic attempt to energize the anti-war movement.

 

Walter Cronkite on the Tet Offensive

 

"Report from Vietnam," Walter Cronkite Broadcast, February 27, 1968.

 

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

 

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that-negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

 

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

 

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

 

Lied about the Tet offensive? No. Inserted some personal opinion into an issue, Yes. God forbid!

 

While I have no idea if this is the speech you are talking about, it does seem like a good argument.

 

EDIT: source: http://www.alvernia.edu/cgi-bin/mt/text/archives/000194.html

Edited April 20, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Heads22]

Ratzinger, shortly after the election, could be heard chanting, "I love it when you call me Il Papa..."

[Soxy]

No he wasn't and he didn't want to be. Luther is the reason why there are so many other religions nowadays. After he put his 95 thesis on the door and broke off from the Catholics to form the Lutherans, many other religions came about. Luther was the founder of the Lutheran's.

Dude, I went to St. Olaf College. You have to take a Lutheran History/Theology exam just to get in.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Dude, I went to St. Olaf College. You have to take a Lutheran History/Theology exam just to get in. 

 

Luther... Luther... Luther... Oh, wait. He's that bald guy who is Superman's arch nemesis, right?

 

So do I get in to your school now??

[Soxy]

Luther... Luther... Luther... Oh, wait. He's that bald guy who is Superman's arch nemesis, right? 

 

So do I get in to your school now?? 

Sure, they always need a couple save to save and be fed to the lions (Selah kids)....

[WilliamTell]

Dude, I went to St. Olaf College. You have to take a Lutheran History/Theology exam just to get in. 

 

 

Good, I'm proud of you. I had to take 5 years of confirmation and he took up like 2 years.

[WilliamTell]

That's cool you went to St. Olaf college though. I hear good things about it.

[Soxy]

That's cool you went to St. Olaf college though. I hear good things about it.

Seriously, you should go.

 

Great school. Plenty of extracurriculars, lots of amazing music, super nice people, gorgeous campus, good cafeteria food. I would highly recommend it--if you have any questions about it e-mail me.

[juddling]

I'm not Catholic so i could care less about the new pope but i hapened to be walking past the TV when they were making the announcment. Right after the announcement, the news commentators were talking about the guy and it stuck out in my head that they just elected a pope that's 78 YEARS OLD!!!!!

 

Geez....we are going to have to go through with this all again in a couple of years when he drops dead. Hey...here's a clue.....ELECT A YOUNGER GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah...that and stop diddling the little boys.

 

 

juddling

 

 

[mreye]

I'm not Catholic so i could care less about the new pope but i hapened to be walking past the TV when they were making the announcment. Right after the announcement, the news commentators were talking about the guy and it stuck out in my head that they just elected a pope that's 78 YEARS OLD!!!!!

 

Geez....we are going to have to go through with this all again in a couple of years when he drops dead.  Hey...here's a clue.....ELECT A YOUNGER GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah...that and stop diddling the little boys.

juddling

 

Wow. Great post. Very insiteful. Glad you posted that. :rolly

[WilliamTell]

Seriously, you should go.

 

Great school. Plenty of extracurriculars, lots of amazing music, super nice people, gorgeous campus, good cafeteria food. I would highly recommend it--if you have any questions about it e-mail me.

 

 

haha alright, if I do have questions I will.