AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > July > 27 > Entry
Do the media have a liberal bias?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The media isn’t biased. People are. There’s no real evidence of institutional bias. And yet, there is a growing perception to the contrary, the likely result of more airtime discussions the topic of media bias, reports a 1999 Communication Research study. And there are other factors involved. The same study found that this perception is the result of prominent, partisan Republicans shaping this cynical view by prompting their audiences to share their distrust. It seems as though conservatives were listening.
In a 1996 University of Connecticut survey, sixty-eight percent of Republicans felt news organizations were pro-Democratic. After the 2000 elections a Pew Research Center study and a Gallup poll yielded similar observations, with well over half of the Republicans noting a liberal bias in the media.
But with no substantial evidence of media bias, why do Republicans think differently?
Conservatives and Republicans are more likely to conform to social rules, cites a 2005 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media study. The more conservative you are, the more you prefer tradition and dislike change. If you’re liberal, you’re more likely to embrace innovation, say researchers.
Television shows including gay characters, like “Will & Grace,” contribute to the false notion that the media has a liberal bias. But let’s get real — television is hardly a liberal bacchanalia. A Media Matters study found Sunday-morning talk shows had a very strong conservative bias, from the years of the Clinton administration up to today.
As for the print media, the 2005 study notes that the watchdog-type journalism in newspaper articles — which covers “social realities” from poverty to environmental pollution — are perceived as inherently liberal, even though the content is not.
And radio? A 2004 Pew Research Center study confirms what we already know. Forty-one percent of talk radio listeners are Republican; forty-five percent describe themselves as conservative. Only twenty-eight percent of talk show listeners are Democrat, with an even lower number of self-described “liberal” listeners. The remaining audience fractures into lesser-known political affiliations.
If I wasn’t so liberal (i.e., open to change and diverse opinions), I’d think conservatives were getting a lot more air time than us liberals.
Rebuttal
Okay, so we get Sunday morning television talk shows, Fox News and about half of talk radio. They get everything else. What’s wrong with this picture?
The truth is, it’s impossible to disprove liberal bias in the media, because most independent studies show it exists. The media industry of course disagrees; but having the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media determine whether there is media bias is a bit like asking white people whether they ever show racism.
Here are the facts, primarily from Pew Research. Although most journalists (54%) view themselves as “moderate,” the vast majority of journalists actually vote and think liberal rather than conservative. In 2004, when 51% of the public voted for President Bush, just 19% of journalists did. Five times as many national journalists say they are liberal (34%) as conservative (7%). (By contrast, 33% of Americans say they’re conservative.)
For all practical purposes, the real ratio of liberal journalists is much higher. Even those “moderate” journalists overwhelmingly hold liberal beliefs. For example, a Public Interest study found that where roughly half of Americans believe women should have a right to abortion, 97% of national journalists do. Pew Research found that where 56% of Americans believe efforts to build democracy in Iraq will succeed, just 33% of journalists do.
I’m guessing that’s why we rarely hear the good news out of Iraq. It’s not some conspiracy: it’s just that all people – reporters included — see newsworthy events through their own beliefs. The problem is that it doesn’t matter so much how I view events: I don’t shape the news. It does matter if a reporter, editor, or producer sees three soldier killings as more newsworthy than three rebuilt schools. That does shape the news.
And unfortunately, no matter how objective media people try to be, their personal beliefs do find their way into their reporting. When UCLA researchers scored liberal or conservative media references over ten years, 18 of 20 major news outlets consistently trended liberal. In fact, when researchers compared each outlet’s score to that of well-known politicians, mainstays like the CBS Evening News and the New York Times scored about 75% liberal — exactly the same as Democratic senator Joe Lieberman.
Comments
By Mara
July 31, 2006 07:30 AM | Link to this
Yes, Shaunti, of course the American media should just ignore our soldiers deaths…after all, we built 3 schools! Why doesn’t that get more press than some mothers kid getting offed in Mosul? Dammed libruls! Can’t they see that the insurgents are in their last throes? Why does the media hate ‘merika?
FYI Shaunti - if, contrary to the accepted conservative code of conduct, you decide to do some research before you give an opinion, you can go onto the internet and find a PDF copy of a cable that was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from “AMEmbassy Baghdad” on June 6. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad — the name of the U.S. Ambassador, (though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it).
The subject of the memo is: “Snapshots from the Office — Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord.” This cable outlines “the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees’ constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government.”
As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the AMERICAN EMBASSY relates, “An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in t*t-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq.”
The American Embassy in Iraq says that things are bad and getting worse. Sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, murder, kidnapping, rape…but HEY! if it wasn’t for that darned “librul media” we’d be winning!! Ah yes. It is so much easier to insist that the media is biased than it is to admit that Dear Leader has FUBAR’ed his so-called War-on-Terror.
By candide
July 31, 2006 07:31 AM | Link to this
So long as Fascistic Bushites are the government only a free press can protect America.
By Hich
July 31, 2006 07:34 AM | Link to this
Hi!!! File Cabinet Com,
:-)
By Craig
July 31, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this
Mara you’re absolutely correct. I always get a kick out of conservatives who whine about failure to report the “good news” from Iraq. Why don’t they go there, and then they can report all the good news back to us themselves?
One honest conservative congressman, Republican Gil Gutnecht from Minnesota, went, and discovered that things were in fact worse than he had heard. He has now become an advocate for pulling our soldiers out of the quagmire.
By Lyrazel
July 31, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this
Considering that the media’s last biggest story was Angelia and Brad’s baby birth…like how much news is news anymore? News from Nambia…was far more important than News from Iraq and got more coverage.
Someone ought to mention to Shaunti and Diane that news shows, newspapers and THE MEDIA are not really there for informing the public but to sell products. Media journalists are given third place to selling cars, make up and sundries all under the umbrella of TV news and newspapers. Ask any newspaper or magazine in America what is MOST important: advertisers revenues, circulation subscription revenues is second and third is journalism content. In other words your Good News from Iraq stories are edited so the car ads fit the page…and stories people might read are laced up with tabloid intrusions that make the front page juicy so stray readers might pick up a copy en-route to work….
Your average news show is 30 minutes: commercial time=12 minutes, sports and weather=5 minutes thus leaving the remainder: 8 minutes to news: local & national plus those special local interest stories. I fail to see how 8 minutes of airtime could be liberal OR conservative.
News opinion commentators are a dime a dozen. If their shows are not controversial in any way they loose the audience seeking to watch blowhards engaged in backstabbing discourse, thus stations loose revenues, thus the host is changed, thus what you see or hear: Rush, Bortz, Huffinton and Coulter are just WHO BRINGS IN MONEY FOR THE STATION.
Duh.
By Randy
July 31, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Is the media “liberal”. My first reaction is, does a bear use the bathroom in the woods? Absolutely they are and they have gotten worse since 9/11. Why? A couple of reasons, first, they are by nature, doubters, they are paid to question everything. Unfortunately, they come up with the wrong answer some of the time. “The world created itself in the beginning, RIGHT”. Second, the media has decided that since 9/11 that religions are bad and will fight them and try to discredit them whenever possible.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Craig - what’s really funny is that conservatives are so convinced that “the media” can’t put aside their own views to give an honest account of the news that they refuse to give any credence to it. Remember just before the last election when majorities of conservatives still believed that Saddam was buddies with Osama and that Iraq did have WMD’s, which we had found but the “librul media” refused to report on? Even though independant investigations found those things to be absolutely FALSE? Of course they’re gonna see bias if all they ever see in the media contradicts what they know to be true…even if it ain’t.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
the MEDIA decided that religion is bad? the MEDIA is the one that came up with the scientific theory of Evolution (one supposes merely to discredit religion…)? What does religion *or evolution have to do with anything?!
While I might be able to agree with Randy about journalists being doubters and questioners, which may indeed mean that they have to lean liberal (does that mean conservatives don’t ask questions and have no curiosity?)…where he goes after that is waaaaayyyy off the beaten path.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Well, Mara, after that, I have absolutely nothing left to say. I have to agree with Lyrazel, as well. What kind of opinion can be given in 8 minutes of news time.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
The media hounded Bill and Hillary to the point that Hillary declared a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Enough said. The media goes after what gets the attention no matter who it is. And truth be told, it pisses people off when the media actually does it’s job and exposes what the government tries so desperately to hide from us if the bitten dog happens to be their “guy”. Thank God for the media. Without them we would not be free for very long.
“If given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”. Thomas Jefferson
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
The “biased,liberal” media hounded Bill and Hillary to the point that Hillary declared them a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Enough said. The media doesn’t care who it is if it generates interest. People on both sides seem to only have a “bias” problem when the bit dog is their guy. Thank God for the media. Without them we would not remain free. “If given a choice between government and a free press, choose the press”. (Thomas Jefferson)
By Mara
July 31, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Renee - the 8 minute “news” bite has indeed killed hard news coverage. Which is why I seldom watch television news anymore. CNN Headline news, Lou Dobbs, Jon Stewart and C-Span pretty much fill in anything I miss from the papers and news blogs. Every once in a while I’ll pop in on the Sunday news shows, but those tend to either follow the combative-interviewer ala O’Reilly format or the dry-as-dust Jim Lehrer script. The problem is that Fox News, with their psuedo “balanced” coverage has made parity more important than reality. “He-siaid/she-said” reporting does nothing to help inform the news consumer if they don’t tell you that what he said was contradicted by the known FACTS. Or that SHE is being paid by the government to write articles supporting their views.
It’s pretty funny that the main criticism of the press from the liberal side of the political spectrum is that they’ve been too easy on BushCo while the conservatives cry about the media being too hard on him…
By The72John
July 31, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
“The world created itself in the beginning, RIGHT”. Second, the media has decided that since 9/11 that religions are bad and will fight them and try to discredit them whenever possible
This proves conclusively that some people have a religious bias - everything is somehow about religion and their obsession with it.
However, Randy is (unbelievably)correct when he says that reporters are questioners by nature. I do think it’s ironic that he thinks they are wrong because they don’t reach conclusion that he and his non-questioning ilk want them to.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
just about any news source you go to is gonna be biased one way or the other, and to believe otherwise is somewhat dangerous in my view. the truely objective sources are few and far between. i would say that the trick is to realize the sources’ slant beforehand and try to get info from several different sources, that way it should balance out. mara, you asked Shaunti “if, contrary to the accepted conservative code of conduct, you decide to do some research before you give an opinion…?” with the issue of the iraq war aside, it seemed like Shaunti gave some pretty relavent statistics but you were unwilling to acknowledge them.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this
media = vulture scum. Below lawyers on the food chain. Both are below the dung beetle.
By Archie
July 31, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
No the media does not have a liberal bias. Most of the reporters are liberal but they are entitled to an opinion just as every American is entitled to an opinion. Being a liberal and a reporter does not necessarily equate to being biased. If 200 soldiers are killed in Iraq then that’s news and there’s no way around reporting that. There are editorial reporters and non-editorial reporters and there may be bias with editorial reporters but then you expect that.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
with the issue of the iraq war aside, it seemed like Shaunti gave some pretty relavent statistics but you were unwilling to acknowledge them.
Shaunti’s statistics are relatively meaningless in this debate. Look at this quote:
Pew Research found that where 56% of Americans believe efforts to build democracy in Iraq will succeed, just 33% of journalists do.
This supports the post-modernist myth that all opinions are valid. They aren’t. Journalists are trained to be objective observers of the facts. The average American is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh. Which “opinion” do you think is more knowledgeable?
As for the political affiliation of most reporters, ignoring the fact that a good journalist doesn’t let his opinion color his writing, did you ever stop to think that the voting habits of journalists may be informed by their experiences, rather than their voting habits informing their stories?
No, because you’d have to eschew the false “all opinions are valid” mantra mentioned earlier.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
To the right wing nuts, anybody left of right center (left of lunacy) is a liberal. Using lunatic logic, I guess if any person or media outlet leans from right center leftward, there is a liberal bias.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Kyle - can you point me to those “relavent” statistics quoted by Shaunti? Perhaps you believe that because most reporters vote liberal they would inevitably disregard thier journalistic training by framing everything they write with liberal bias? Or perhaps it’s the statistic that says that journalists (who tend to be better informed than the average voter) voted overwhelmingly against George Dubya, as opposed to those fact-savvy voters who still believed in the Iraq WMD’s, the Osama/Saddam connection, etc.
Kyle, your attitude illustrates exactly why conservatives tend to believe in the “liberal media”. You just can’t conceive someone suspending their ideology and personal opinions for the sole purpose of providing information. Why don’t I hear concervatives decrying the bias of journalists who voted conservative? Because conservatives believe that their guy is able to report the facts, but liberals choose not to. There’s nothing in Shaunti’s “statistics” to show liberal bias. Liberal reporters? Oh, yes indeed…but the “liberal media”? I don’t think so.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this
One thing I absolutely find refreshing about Vermont is that the local news is absolutely NOTHING like Atlanta. There is very rarely crime to report on, so a lot of time their top story is about the leaves turning, or maple syrup or something really wholesome. While I sometimes dreaded (but still watched) the local Atlanta news, I don’t have that feeling here. More focus is put on the nation and world news because nothing is happening here.
By Brian Curtis
July 31, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
This question is a popular right-wing argument, which carefully mingles two unrelated points: The persona political VIEWS of people in the media, and the CONTENT of their work. According to a Rushbot or similar tools, it’s impossible for a liberal reporter to write an objective article. In a similar vein, it’s impossible for a “liberal” doctor to practice anything but “liberal medicine,” a liberal programmer to write anything but liberal code, etc. etc. (Yes, it really is that ridiculous in their fevered brains.)
This overlooks several important factors, of course.
Journalists have a duty to be objective (unless they’re writing editorials), and professionalism DOES exist. It’s entirely possible for a liberal reporter to write a fair and balanced story, and most do-—when they’re not trolling and pandering for more ratings and advertising dollars, of course.
Reporters, regardless of their politics, don’t decide what is covered and how. That’s the job of editors, publishers, and CEOs-—most of whom are strongly pro-corporate, if not actively pro-Republican, in their own leanings. The only fair charge that can be made against the modern media is that they’re pro-ratings and pro-corporate, NOT “pro-liberal.”
How is “liberal” defined, exactly—and by whom? There are institutes and think tanks who regularly publish studies demonstrating what they call “liberal bias” on the Lieberman-to-Coulter scale. Anyone left of Newt Gingrich is considered “liberal” in their eyes, even reliably conservative commentators such as William Buckley and George Will.
I seriously doubt that a pervasive, but previously unknown, bias has been operating throughout all media… especially given their dead-dog submissiveness to Bush’s war drums contrasted with their relentless hounding of Clinton.
It seems far more likely that the rise of the right-wing media (whose purpose, beyond pushing Republican propaganda, is to discredit the very IDEA that objective reporting can exist, leading to perspective’s like Kyle’s “everybody’s biased”—mission accomplished, Fox News!) has led to the common fanatic’s complaint: “Anyone who’s not with us 100% is against us.” (THERE’s a smart foreign policy, huh?)
This is what Christian fundamentalists complain about, for example, when the government is not at their beck and call to promote their religion and stifle all others. Anything less than complete and total support is proof of “enemy activity” in their eyes…. and so it is with the right-wing pundits.
The current definition of “liberal” is “Anyone who disagrees with, or even questions, the policies of the Bush administration.” And more and more model conservatives are winding up dumped into the “liberal” camp as they dare to disagree with the administration’s crimes and blunders. The Bush-bots’ attempt to call these people “liberal” by a single yardstick—-obedience to Bush-—is ludicrious.
As always, the truth is not as simple as they would like… or as simple as they are themselves.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
This whole argument depends totally on what liberalism is defined as. To the lunatic right, anyone that doesn’t believe exactly as they do is a liberal. I know many many people that are true conservatives or true moderates that believe in a woman’s right to choose. But to the lunatic right anyone that holds that belief is a “liberal” or worse. So doesn’t it really depend on what one defines liberalism as? Most of Shaunti’s rebuttal comes straight from the far right manifesto. Furthermore, maybe if there was any good news coming out of Iraq, we would hear about it. Last I heard the capital city cannot even be secured. Rebuilding projects are failing because of the deteriorating security situation and other issues. Troops are being redeployed from the field to the capital and others are having their tours extended in Baghdad. I welcome Shaunti to tell us exactly what the good news is and how democracy is supposed to take root when the seat of government cannot be secured. Shaunti’s 33% statistic might just mean that the journalist see it for what it really is. When Bill O’Reilly calls Iraq a loser, oh well. Jump right in here Shaunti. Gives us the good news and show us how the media is biased.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Kyle…I don’t see where the stats that Shaunti quotes are relevant. She is using the classic conservative red herring approach that attempts to lead us to the opinion that if a reporter’s personal views are considered liberal then everything that reporter write MUST have a liberal slant. As Archie points out reporting the numbers of American soldiers killed, where, and by what method is no more a liberal slant than reporting the stats from a baseball game.
To respond to the question of why don’t we report more of the good news out of Iraq. Why don’t we hear more of the good news that happens here at home every day? Why is the majority of the local news is devoted to violent crime, burning apartment buildings, and horrific traffic? How much press has the Silver Comet Trail murder received versus success stories from Big Brothers/Big Sisters or some other volunteer group for example?
Someone else already pointed out the apparent answer. The media is in business to sell air time and generate ad revenue. Blood, guts, crime, horribleness all sell. Feel good stories do not. There are good things happening in Iraq, but most people are more concerned about what is happening to our own citizen soldiers. Would the administration really want us to focus on all the good stuff and how much it’s costing us given the pinched feeling people’s wallets are starting to feel due to rising fuel prices? Do they really want us to reflect on how our own government whacked the Mid-East hornet nest but good and is an ongoing major contributor to the unrest there that is causing oil futures to trade at inflated rates? And that in turn just might prompt us to consider the amount of money flowing from America to the Mid-East countries who vilify us and want to wipe us and the Israelis off the world map.
In turn that might make us think about the lack of post-war planning that resulted in utter chaos. We might have to reflect on how a civilian (Rummy) didn’t listen to his own military experts who warned that we needed an overwhelming force to control an invaded country. We might remember that we still haven’t caught Osama bin Laden who started this war in the first place. We might recall that ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo op.
Conservatives are much better off continuing to chant about the bias of liberal media so that citizens don’t actually think about or focus on the costly consequences of the Administration’s actions even though they are the party of ‘personal responsiblity.’ (snort)
By RF
July 31, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
Well, of course the media is biased. They look for what will get people to talk, watch, and read. And what gets people riled up better than controversy and scandal? The media will overlook good news to spin anything negative or scandalous that they can find. Watching the news every day will make you seriously depressed and angry. I don’t think the bias is always intentional. They make money off of sensationalism, and they’ll attack whoever or whatever to get it. In general, the media is always against the party in majority, so right now they’re left-wing biased. During the nineties, there was a right-wing “conspiracy” in the media. Whatever works to stir up the pot is what the media will report.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
The media industry of course disagrees; but having the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media determine whether there is media bias is a bit like asking white people whether they ever show racism.
Or the tobacco industry if it’s products are harmful. Or Big Oil about global warming.
Although most journalists (54%) view themselves as “moderate,” the vast majority of journalists actually vote and think liberal rather than conservative. In 2004, when 51% of the public voted for President Bush, just 19% of journalists did. Five times as many national journalists say they are liberal (34%) as conservative (7%). (By contrast, 33% of Americans say they’re conservative.)
Is it possible that the conservative “journalists” aren’t objective enough to acknowledge that they aren’t objective?
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Hey RF! What are you doing here? Not that you haven’t been missed, but tick-tick-tick-tick back to school approaches quickly so keep having fun! Hope you and the boys are having a great summer.
Watching the news every day will make you seriously depressed and angry No kidding. Given the amount of crime coverage one could almost conclude that it isn’t safe to venture out of one’s own home.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
“Kyle, your attitude illustrates exactly why conservatives tend to believe in the “liberal media”. You just can’t conceive someone suspending their ideology and personal opinions for the sole purpose of providing information. Why don’t I hear concervatives decrying the bias of journalists who voted conservative?”
-Mara…in my post i said that almost everyone is biased “one way or another.” perhaps i could have been more clear here, but i was attempting to convey the belief that much of the media is biased - with some being biased to the left and some to the right. sure, i bet there are some reporters out their that are able to completely put their personal beleifs aside when reporting, but i think that for the most part even the best intentioned reporter will be swayed to some extent by their beliefs. Why is it that you to seem believe that CNN is so objective, yet you laugh at the claim that fox news is fair and balanced? You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. “Because [liberals] believe that their guy is able to report the facts, but [conservatives] choose not to.” well, i choose to acknowledge the fact that we ALL have biases, and in the case of reporters/journalists, those biases will almost always (to varying degrees) have an effect on the content of the news.
“There’s nothing in Shaunti’s “statistics” to show liberal bias. Liberal reporters? Oh, yes indeed…but the “liberal media”? I don’t think so.”
-we just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue. you seem to believe that a reporter being liberal (or conservative) will have no effect on the content of thier report, whereas i believe that in the majority of cases one’s political beliefs will effect how they see certian issues. in applying this belief, shaunti’s 3rd, 4th, and last paragraph seems to provide relevant evidence.
By RF
July 31, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Net- yeah, buddy, thanks for the reminder!! The big black X on the calendar is just days away! I’m actually looking forward to it. It’s always good to get back to the daily routine. The boys and I had a fabulous summer. We didn’t do nearly as much as I had planned. They just wanted to be home and play, so we did a lot of that. Sometimes it’s just nice to be home and curled up on the sofa watching a good movie with the little monsters. But, reality is bearing down on us like an 18 wheeler on I-285, sooooo we have return to the land of rush-hour traffic and rising before 9 a.m. I did a half-day summer camp last week, and getting up at 5:30 just about did me in!
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Amelia - “tell us exactly what the good news is”
didn’t you hear? We built some schools. Of course the children can’t use them for fear of kidnapping and street violence, but we built ‘em. And we’ve gotten the electricity on to parts of Baghdad for hours at a time, almost every day. Children like our soldiers and old women are glad Saddam is gone. We could be seeing more sweet pictures of soldiers with puppies, or soldiers with babies, or soldiers helping the elderly if it it weren’t for the dang liberal media dwelling on soldiers dying, babies dying, the elderly dying…
Don’t they know we built some schools!?
By Renee
July 31, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Hey RF!!!!! How are you???
Conservatives are much better off continuing to chant about the bias of liberal media so that citizens don’t actually think about or focus on the costly consequences of the Administration’s actions even though they are the party of ‘personal responsiblity.’ (snort)
Net, you are trying to earn that tiara back, aren’t you??
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Kyle - where did I say CNN was “objective”? And I decried Fox News, not because I might perceive them as biased, but because their style of reporting stresses “balance” instead of truth or fact. Here, let me illustrate:
Fox Host: “Our headline today, it’s raining, or so says the the left-leaning American Meteorological Association. Representatives from the Precipitation and Faith Society say that it isn’t rain…it’s the tears of holy angels crying for the Massachussetts Supreme Court.
We report, you decide. Thanks for watching Fox News.”
By candide
July 31, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
The media are controlled by financial interests which, while not on the far Right, are certainly not leftist in any sense. The notion that the media is leftist or liberal is part of the vast rightwing conspiracy our country is suffering from. Just like the Nazis persuaded the ‘good germans’ that they had to fear communism, our home grown Nazis (they are called conservatives, christians, and republicans) have worked to persuade Americans that their news has a leftist bias. This is false.
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
All that dying sure is inconvenient for the administration isn’t it Mara. I bet Bush wishes he could sign one of those orders banning death reporting.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
So the media has a liberal bias? And that is a problem, HOW? LOL
Studies have been done that also indicate the media is as conservative as ever, or at least there is certainly an equal portion of conservative media. Distinction there. But as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? just a thought. LOL
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Bottom line folks. The media didn’t make the mess that they are reporting. The Bush administration did. Don’t make these big messes and they don’t have to worry about liberal bias in reporting do they? They made the bed, they should be able to lie in it.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Kyle - maybe my point wasn’t well made. I don’t disagree that everyone has bias, but good reporters whether conservative or liberal, don’t let that distract them from the story. Now, if you mean “biased” in how they tell the story…
A reporter with liberal leanings may think that telling the world that 10 more American mothers lost their children to IEDs in Iraq, and 5 Iraqi mothers and their children were killed by suicide bombers. A conservative reporter may think that reporting on the opening of a new water purification plant to be more relavent. Does it reflect bias or “values”?
And though BOTH reporters had relavent and honest stories, only one would be called “biased”…guess which one?
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
I think we ought to be able to see the flag-draped coffins at Dover, but nnnnoooooooooooooo says our administration.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Kyle…I do agree that there is going to be some small level of bias in everything. My issue with Fox News is the amount of opinion offered by their news anchors. If you listen closely there seems to be more opinion offering and ‘I think’ coming from Fox anchors than from the ‘liberal’ media.
Wasn’t there just a news story about a study done recently about the Israeli/Arab conflicts in which a news article was pretty much neutral, but Arabs viewed it as pro-Israeli and Israelis view it as anti-Israeli? I suggest that it is more our own biases and human nature to look for confirmation of our own opinions and beliefs that is in play with the charges of liberal media bias than actual bias.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
But as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? just a thought. LOL
Exactly. Just like college professors are going to tend t be liberal. Not only does exposere to all the different cultures and sources open your mind, but teaching in itself is a liberal pursuit. Especially at the university level, where, for the most part, more money is to be had in the private sector…
By candide
July 31, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
I wish the media were liberal and leftist. In that case we would have thrown Bush out of the white house and strung him and Cheney up long before this. I still recommend it.
By RF
July 31, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Hey Renee!! We’re doing great. Busy and getting ready to go back to work so I can slow down! How you been?? We’re off to a birthday party in Macon, so I’ll check back in tomorrow. Y’all have a good afternoon!
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
The only lessons that this administration learned from Vietnam is that you hide the BAD news from the populace. Fortunately in this day and age they can’t. So the only defense mechanism they have is to try to paint those that publicize the bad news with that liberal brush. But truth be told. Now that most people are starting to see this administration for what it is, it is almost a badge of honor when they and those of their ilk call someone a liberal.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Hey Net! I used that study to illustrate a comment last week. The Washington Post is doing an intermittent series on the perceptions of bias in the media. That particular story was from last Monday. Todays installment is titled “How the Brain Helps Partisans Admit No Gray”. Evidently the human animal tends to use every trick in its arsenal to rationalize their choices. Truly interesting article.
Billy - don’t you know that there’s a liberal bias on university campus’ also?! Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed. Nothing like that :^)
By The72John
July 31, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Billy - don’t you know that there’s a liberal bias on university campus’ also?! Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed.
Yeah, and you don’t hear about the conservative strangle-hold on the military, either.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
as journalists are often more traveled, exposed to more cultures, have a more progressive view of the world, can it not be expected they just might tend to be a little liberal? Is it that they are more liberal or less entho-centric or nationalistic? My impression of the conservative camp is that their supporters do tend to be people who focus on what happens within our borders somewhat to the exclusion of world events. As a nation it doesn’t need seem to be our habit to try to put ourselves in the shoes of those on the other side to understand their views of our actions. This focus on self makes it very difficult to understand or allow room for another’s opinion or that someone else may come to a completely different conclusion based on their experiences. I’m having a hard time getting across what I mean, but an example of it might be along the lines that there seems to be an assumption that by bringing democracy to the middle east the result will be democracies that are exactly like the one here in the U.S. There seems to be this kind of surprise that elections in Palestine resulted in Hamas being put in control or in Iraq we’re ending up with an Islamic Republic instead of a religion neutral government.
I do think that being more traveled and with greater exposure to more cultures one does see the sameness in humanity (i.e. our common desires for freedom, safety, etc) yet one also sees the impacts of foreign policy up close and personal. For example, it is one thing to know there is an embargo against a country. It is another thing to be in a country that has an embargo against it and feel the affects on the populace who had no real control over or understanding why the embargo was imposed in the first place. It is, hopefully, an eye-opening experience to hear the amount of time the news devotes to world events in other countries as American media is focused on the “Runaway Bride” and such. (This last example occurred to friends and my parents as they traveled in Europe last year).
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Hey Mara…thanks for letting me know where I’d heard/read about that. My mind is like a sieve these days…some stuff sticks, but a lot just passes on through.
Not like that “conservative bias” in the boardroom…oh, no indeed. Nothing like that :^) And let’s all just think for a moment of our impressions of workplaces and the equity of compensation these days. Common impression (and studies show that) the workers are seeing little to no gain in real earning power after adjustments for inflation while executive compensation is sky rocketing while corporate income and profits are also rising. The money is coming in by the bucket, but those who actually do the work that enable companies to see these types of increases are not sharing in the success. CEO to Average Employee compensation ratios have gone from approximately 40:1 around 1980 to 400:1 in early 2000. Is someone honestly going to say that a CEO’s contribution to a company has increased 100%? What exactly are they doing differently now than 20 years ago? They’re looking out for each other and screwing the populace is what’s different. Their jobs have not significantly changed nor do many have a big impact on the day to day operations that make or break a company.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
“Wasn’t there just a news story about a study done recently about the Israeli/Arab conflicts in which a news article was pretty much neutral, but Arabs viewed it as pro-Israeli and Israelis view it as anti-Israeli? I suggest that it is more our own biases and human nature to look for confirmation of our own opinions and beliefs that is in play with the charges of liberal media bias than actual bias.”
-Net…can’t argue much with this - you make a pretty good point.
“Just like the Nazis persuaded the ‘good germans’ that they had to fear communism, our home grown Nazis (they are called conservatives, christians, and republicans) have worked to persuade Americans that their news has a leftist bias. This is false.”
Candide…congrats, you just alienated a large portion of our country and now nobody who falls into your category of “nazis” will listen or give any credit to your arguments - but for some reason i don’t think this will bother you that much seeing as how it doesn’t seem likely that you cared what the other side had to say to begin with.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
NetB — That’s not 100%. That’s 1000%…
By Randy
July 31, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
I think when looking at the media being liberal, we must look at who runs and owns the media. The media is run by people more liberal than myself(strong Jewish influence). Jewish people have a right to tend to lean liberal, Nazi Germany who tried to eliminate them, tried and succeeded in controling the media against them(so they don’t want that to happen again) also, especially in Atlanta, there is a strong homosexual influence in the AJC. Their lifestyle goes against biblical teaching, etc so they are going to be strong liberal. My question is, just because your great-grandfather started a newspaper 150 years ago or you have so much money that you can buy a newspaper, or someone hired you because your “gay”, does that give you the right to tell others what your “agenda” is and call it news??
By Mara
July 31, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe nobody gave me a chuckle for the “tears of holy angels crying for the MSC”
I don’t care who ya are, that there was funny!
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
I think when looking at the media being liberal, we must look at who runs and owns the media. The media is run by people more liberal than myself(strong Jewish influence)
You are an ignorant moron, Randy. The media is owned by powerful business interests who typically are more conservative. But nice way to bring racism into it, you piece of crap.
also, especially in Atlanta, there is a strong homosexual influence in the AJC. Their lifestyle goes against biblical teaching, etc so they are going to be strong liberal.
Don’t you have some poor people to take advantage of, Randy? I’m pretty sure your brand of rapacious, usurous real estate is “against biblical teaching” too. In fact, I suspect the Jesus would have been tossing you out with the moneylenders, you hypocritical piece of slime.
My question is, just because your great-grandfather started a newspaper 150 years ago or you have so much money that you can buy a newspaper, or someone hired you because your “gay”, does that give you the right to tell others what your “agenda” is and call it news??
Now you aren’t even making sense. What the hell are you rambling about? Oh, I see, because the AJC doesn’t endorse your pitiful brand of christo-facist bigotry, they have an agenda.
Rot in hell, Randy, where trash like you belongs.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Candide…congrats, you just alienated a large portion of our country and now nobody who falls into your category of “nazis” will listen or give any credit to your arguments - but for some reason i don’t think this will bother you that much seeing as how it doesn’t seem likely that you cared what the other side had to say to begin with.
Don’t you find it just the least bit ironic, Kyle, that those people you are talking about are claiming bias from anyone and anything that doesn’t reinforce or affirm their belief system? Why do you suppose we should be interested in the opinions of someone who has expressed contempt for all opinions but their own?
Perhaps if the religio-facists of the world had been just a teensy bit less rigid and condeming, I might give a crap. Oh, but they aren’t, so I don’t care if they choke on their “opinions”.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
“American Christianity has been Westernized to the point where far too often it does not look like it once did. Every moral issue has been turned into a political one. If a person has a moral objection to abortion, then he or she is lumped with the religious right. If a person has a moral objection to the war in Iraq, well, that means he or she is liberal. ”
This quote is from today’s paper. It was a christian priest/pastor remarking on the silence of the clergy regarding the war today. I think that this and Randy’s blatherings are rather illustrative of our conversation regarding the existence of bias vs the perception of bias and the American propensity to need things black/white or very well labeled.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Embedded reporters should be made to wear a bulls-eye on their uniforms.
By Zack
July 31, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Does the media have a liberal bias? Does water taste good to a man crawling through the desert?
A liberal senator is referred to as a “senator.” A conservative senator is referred to as a “conservative senator.” Abortion gets portrayed year in and year out as a normal alternative, never mind the fact that it’s just as bad as the Holocaust. Homosexuality is portrayed as simply a normal lifestyle, and the media would have us all believe that no one chooses to remain this way and that anyone, anyone who opposes the agendas discreetly being pushed is out of his mind.
Of course there’s a bias.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
But John the “I’m-a-decent-person-who-just-wants-to-live-my-life-with-the-equality,-dignity,-and-respect-I-deserve” agenda of the Anti-american homosexual lobby is antithetical to the “love-thy-neighbor-unless-he’s-a-nonChristian,-homosexual,-or-liberal” patriotism of true American christians.
(sarcasm implicit…)
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Per a PBS broadcast you can find at http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/bigmedia.html
The following are the top 6 in the media realm:
AOL Time Warner Disney General Electric News Corporation Viacom Vivendi Universal
By lozen
July 31, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
So many good points made…. i’m giving almost everyone a standing ovation. (Not Randy of course) I used to be one of “them media scum.” A lot of people don’t know how journalists are trained to be objective and how much trouble they can cause (opening their stations to law suits) if they aren’t objective. Only to Randy and his ilk could curiosity and doubt be turned into bad things! In Randy’s world I’m sure things would be better if we all just had lobotomies and our vocal chords were fixed so all we could say would be “Yes sir!” We could say it to the preacher, the prez and God and wouldn’t everything be fine and dandy.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
Net, is there a non-religious reason to object to abortion? I can’t think of any anti-choice people that I’ve ever discussed it with who do not eventually get to the “But GOD (or The Bible) says….”
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
The only true tragedy of abortion is that your mother chose to bring a narrow-minded bigot like you into the world, Zack. Too bad she didn’t rip you out like the cancer you are.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
OIY! Sorry about the lack of formatting. That looks like one giant company that should be AOl Time Warner Disney General Electric News Corporation Viacom Vivendi Universal
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
And it strips out the carriage returns anyway. I give up…you’re smart people and can figure out the list.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Much better, Net! LOL
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
AOL/TimeWarner
Disney
General Electric
NewsCorp
Viacom
Vivendi
Universal
Check out this link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/mediachart
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Mara…given today’s environment I can’t really think of a non-religious reason to oppose a woman’s right to choose. Were the human population in decline then I could see a reason to object that is based on survival of the species rather than religion. Since that isn’t the case and we’re basically over running the planet that just isn’t the case. My guess is that human kind will be the cause of the destruction of human kind. We’ll bring about our own downfall by our blatant disregard for non-human life which is causing nature to become unbalanced. For example, the health of our oceans is at risk due to over fishing especially at the top of the food chain. We can’t even begin to truly imagine the consequences of our actions today in relation to the health of the planet and it’s ability to sustain human life. Then again a few more nukes and a dash more radicalization of religions and we’ll be lucky to manage to not wipe each other as well as most life on the planet out in a couple of big bangs. This in spite of how that course of action seems decidedly NOT WWJD.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Lozen Dear, I would never consider you scum. :)
John. Shame on you. That was bad, very bad. :(
By Amelia
July 31, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
The point is not that one is for or against some of the above hot button issues that arouse the right wingers. The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Government should stay out of the private lives of people. And that used to be a bedrock conservative principle. But if you espouse that, you have become a liberal. Go figure.
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Thanks John! Obviously formatting isn’t one of my strong suits.
Anyone else find it interesting that the same group who owns and brings us Fox News also brings us FX? It’s almost like a dual personality.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Apologies for the rants. Not in a particularly good mood today, and the two religious idiots starting in on the gay bashing with absolutely no provocation put me over the edge.
My apologies do not extend to either of them, of course - only to you good folks :-)
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Net - have you read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond? That was my first Book-on-Tape (well, Book-on-CD really…). Pretty much what you said, with footnotes :^)
By Renee
July 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
Ummmm…..I guess I should have foreseen that the opinion column on liberal media would open the door to gay bashing and I’m sure abortion is up next…..
Amazing…with a capital A….
It’s like bad advertising, whenever you can get a plug in, you do…
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Ahhhhh…but Amelia the religious right believes that the government should do exactly that so long as the leglislation adheres to their beliefs. Hence butting into the Terry Schiavo case last year which was ‘good’ and the changing of state constitutions to take away access to equal treatment for gays (also good).
By NetBanker
July 31, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
No I haven’t, but I’ll have to give it a try. Pretty much what you said, with footnotes :^) Well I suppose my Book-on-Tape would be really, really short.
By GOB
July 31, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
I can’t believe nobody gave me a chuckle for the “tears of holy angels crying for the MSC”
I don’t care who ya are, that there was funny!
Mara - I feel your pain. Last week or the week before I used “Chuck of Tarsus” and got nothing.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
I can see a non-religious argument against abortion. Not against its existence, but against having one. I do consider a fetus a life, however there’s a large gray area there. If the mother doesn’t want the child enough to get an abortion and there are already a ton of unwanted children, then what are the hopes for the child? If you’re going to get an abortion, then the earlier the better.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The point is that government has no business legislating morality. Ahhhhh…but Amelia the religious right believes that the government should do exactly that so long as the leglislation adheres to their beliefs. Hence butting into the Terry Schiavo case last year which was ‘good’ and the changing of state constitutions to take away access to equal treatment for gays (also good).
Right on. For all of their pious condemnation of the Taliban and Islamic Extremisim, the American Religious Right wants the same thing: for their religious beliefs to dominate and control the governments and peoples of the world.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
GOB - how did I miss that?! If I had seen it I would’ve given you an “LOL”…though I do have to say that ragging on chuck is kinda like picking the low-hanging fruit, isn’t it?
By Renee
July 31, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
No matter the topic, the conversation is turned to the same two subjects. I mean how do these fanatics have conversations in the real world, off the blog.
Boss says “I need to see you in my office to go over your numbers for the month”
Response “Sure, and I want to mention homosexuality is not normal.
Or Coworker says “would you like to get lunch”
Response “Abortion is murder”
By The72John
July 31, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this
Renee, I just spit water all over my monitor.
Oh, and on a totally unrelated topic, I highly recommend Metamorphosis at Georgia Shakespeare to anyone who happens to enjoy live theatre. I went Saturday night and it was excellent.
By GOB
July 31, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
GOB - how did I miss that?! If I had seen it I would’ve given you an “LOL”…though I do have to say that ragging on chuck is kinda like picking the low-hanging fruit, isn’t it?
yeah, it was easy, but still funny. It was during one of his religous cut-and-paste marathons though, so it was still relavent.
By Mara
July 31, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Billy, if I’ve said it once then I’ve said it a hundred times…
on demand for the first trimester.
only for the health (including mental health)and/or the safety of the mother in the second trimester.
only if it’s doctor recommended for the life of the mother in the third trimester.
I believe that most of us who are advocates for a womans right to make her own health-care decisions could probably live with that. Most would be willing to compromise their autonomy in the interests of our fellow citizens tender sensibilities. I could be wrong about that, but I think that these are pretty fair guidelines that accept the validity of both sides…
By Randy
July 31, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!
By Mara
July 31, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Renee!!! Warn a lady when you decide to post items like that! I coulda choked on my soda! ROTFLMAO @ “Sure, and I want to mention homosexuality is not normal”
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Liberal media bias — No coverage of Code Pink’s “Troops out now fast”; repeated coverage of Howard Dean’s scream; incessant focus on attractive, slender blondes who are missing with no mention of African-American women in the same boat; referring to murder-suicides committed by men against their ex-wives as a result of “broken marriages,” Dan Rather entrapped by Karl Rove in the Bush MIA from the National Guard fiasco. Yeah, Right!
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!
What are you rambling about, trash?
By Nancy Brown
July 31, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Think about reporters in Iraq. Almost ALL are isolated in the GREEN ZONE which is the safest place to be and the only place their papers authorize them to be. They attend news briefings and report to their papers what was told to them. The company they work for purchase footage from Arabic news agencies that typically show the weeping wailing women, someone’s home blown up by accident and whatever else to enhance the news stories so their reports do not sound isolated in the green zone. Everything you hear is tightly controlled in content and has been approved by the Commanders before spoken in the briefing. The Bush Admin. has had a long history of using the media to its advantage including using planted report stories to further their issues. This is called: media savvy and the Bush Admin knows how to use it—even if they are caught they have the scapegoat card ready: liberal media.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Right on, Mara, right on…
By lozen
July 31, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Did anyone else see the Bill Moyers interview with Margaret Atwood this weekend on “Faith and Reason”? You can go to the website and watch the show, or read the transcript. She talks about how humans, over and over throughout history, found some group that could be made into “human sacrifices” during difficult times. The Puritans with their witchhunt in Massachusetts. Hitler with the Jews in Germany. She talks about how easily and how quickly it can happen. An example is how easy it was to pass the Patriot Act because people were so afraid after 9/11. It’s an interesting 15 (?) minutes esp. if you’ve read any of her books.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this
*Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. *
You know the people who want to destroy America, Randy? Those are in that group of people who agree with you. I’m going to use some Republogic and say thet since you are of the same mind, you also want to destroy America.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
72John, you are talking to someone who says “72 John doesn’t like how me … think”
By Brian Curtis
July 31, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
John: It’s unrelated to this week’s topic, but I HAVE heard a non-religious argument against abortion. It consists of a philosophical perspective that all life, in its various forms, has value… and that therefore, the ending any such life (human, protohuman, or guinea pig) should be contemplated with great concern and a bias for saving it if at all possible.
This is a respectable, non-religious, perspective in my view. A bit impractical in many obvious ways, but respectable. So, naturally, the Religious Reich never makes such an argument.
By Renee
July 31, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Can’t you just hear Counselor Mackey from Southpark…
“Homosexuality is baaaaad” “Abortion is baaaaad”
By Ken
July 31, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
The media doesn’t have a “liberal” bias, it simply has a bias. “Liberal”, “Conservative”, some other classification??? As long as humans report the stories there will be some level of personalization. That is what makes the story real and can take us, the public, to that very place and time.
The only thing we, the public, can ask for is that the reporters attempt to provide all angles of the story. That, unfortunately, is easier said than done.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
*72John, you are talking to someone who says “72 John doesn’t like how me … think”
Technically, if he had written it correctly “people and I”, the correct verb would have been “think”, since when a compound subject is both plural and singular the verb agrees with the noun closest to it. However, since he did not correctly write “people and I”, but instead used the uneducated moron “me and people” instead, your point is well taken.
Now he’ll tell us how he “almost has” an MBA, even though he obviously lacks the basic reasoning and language skills to graduate from high school, much less those needed to complete and undergraduate degree and then be accepted into a graduate program.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t referring to the verb “to think” just the “how me think.”
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
I thought Chuck of Tarsas was hilarious and the angels at the MSC, well, while certainly sacreligiougs(in selected circles), hilarious as well.
sorry…LOL
gasp Lozen, I so meant to tape that, should have done it when you mentioned it. I was out of town all weekend. daaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. gasp
By Toad
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I just read the Margaret Atwood transcript. Very interesting — especially what she says about predestination. I’m already saved so it doesn’t really matter what I do.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I especially liked the archaeologist presentation at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
I wasn’t referring to the verb “to think” just the “how me think.”
Yeah, I know. I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to make more fun of Randy.
By Jack
July 31, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Mara should get the tiara today.
By The72John
July 31, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
gasp Lozen, I so meant to tape that, should have done it when you mentioned it. I was out of town all weekend. daaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. gasp
I would say “TiVo”, but you’ll give me one of those “I live in the country and that’s why I’m a big ole Luddite” speeches…
snicker.
By Toad
July 31, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
I’m an urban Luddite — no cable, no TIVO. I don’t even have living in the country as an excuse. But I have lots of books — yes, those old fashioned dust collectors.
By Chilao
July 31, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
does TIVO record every program on all the stations? so wouldn’t I still have to have requested TiVO to record it?
i’ll spare the luddite speech. LMAO
By The72John
July 31, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
But I have lots of books — yes, those old fashioned dust collectors.
The two are not mutually exclusive :-)
By Archie
July 31, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Homosexuality is portrayed as simply a normal lifestyle, and the media would have us all believe that no one chooses to remain this way and that anyone, anyone who opposes the agendas discreetly being pushed is out of his mind.
First of all it’s not necessary to bring homosexuality into the debate. Secondly I have seen in print numerous times where a senator is referred to as a liberal senator once again there is a difference between a report and an editorial report. It is to the monetary advantage of people like Coulter,Limbaugh,etc to allege some bias in the media because their guy is in office so there’s nothing to complain about at the Presidency level but you can always complain in general about the media.
By Ken
July 31, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Toad… It’s easier to justifiy being a Luddite if you ive in Atlanta than if you live in the country. Most urban Atlanta dwellers can’t AFFORD cool technology thanks to corrupt government, high taxes and a crumbling infrastructure. I didn’t have cable or TiVo when I lived in the city either. thank goodness for un-incorporated DeKalb County.
By Billy
July 31, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Well, Chilao, you can request it in advance. For most shows you can request a season pass, which will record that show every time it’s on. Lastly, if you leave it enabled, is TiVo’s built-in recommendation feature. You rate shows (1-3 thumbs up or down) and it records shows based on those ratings. But three thumbs up for “Sex in the City” could result in softcore porn being recorded until it learns that’s not what you want.
By Kyle
July 31, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
“Wow!! 72 John doesn’t like how me and 3.7 billion(probably more)people think. What else is new. Actually, there are 6 billion people in the world, I’ll bet 5.95 billion feel the same way, they just don’t say it. No one respects you. SORRY!!”
Randy…you sir are an idoit. what the hell do you hope to accomplish through posts like this?
By Ken
July 31, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
Toad… It’s easier to justifiy being a Luddite if you ive in Atlanta than if you live in the country. Most urban Atlanta dwellers can’t AFFORD cool technology thanks to corrupt government, high taxes and a crumbling infrastructure. I didn’t have cable or TiVo when I lived in the city either. thank goodness for un-incorporated DeKalb County.
By