The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80

Thread: What media bias???

  1. #51
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

    Last edited by subroc; 01-23-2009 at 03:42 PM.

  2. #52
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    The New York Times or Pravda, it seems Stalin like to me. Does anyone really believe, after this, that The New York Times will be an advocate for honest reporting or will be an advocate for Obama policy?

    How is that evidence of bias? The inauguration of a new administration (the first, not the reelection) is a big deal and receives lots of coverage. Obama's adds the historic element of the first Afro-American President. Bush's first inauguration was clearly marred by honest questions about the election itself -- both the fact that the majority of voters voted for Gore and the fact that the SCOTUS declared him President by halting the vote count in Florida. That clearly and appropriately affected his coverage. Despite that, his inauguration was also celebrated, as were those of Clinton, George Sr., Reagan, and so forth.

    The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

    Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

    Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.

  3. #53
    Senior Member backpasture's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Green Mountain State
    Posts
    417

    Default

    FYI

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ly_cost_4.html


    Cue the 'liberal bias!' posts. (Reality does have a liberal bias after all.)
    The United States Imports 70% of Our Oil.
    What's the Plan?

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dixidawg View Post
    You don't get to pick. You either believe in the constitution or not. If not, there is an amendment process to change it.

    I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

    Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Gun_Dog2002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mohawk Valley
    Posts
    8,615

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M Remington View Post
    I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

    Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.
    Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


    /Paul
    Paul Cantrell
    Black Ice Retrievers
    Marcola OR

    Too many dogs to list (By some Bitch)

    https://www.facebook.com/BlackIceRetrievers
    http://gundog2002.blogspot.com/
    "Helping Hunters Train Their Dogs"

  6. #56
    Senior Member IowaBayDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Salem, Oregon
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M Remington View Post
    I would certainly agree. But isn't that what you conservatives wanted done during the Bush administration. You remember, we approve of tapping phones, arresting and holding people without habeas corpus, BUT we want our assault weapons!

    Also, bear in mind. We won the last election. The majority fo the American public doesn't agree with the conservative point of view.

    Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

    Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.
    ________________________________
    Dan Cram
    No longer live in Iowa but I have a new Bay Dog!!

    Skywatcher Salem Orchard Hard "Cider"

  7. #57
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun_Dog2002 View Post
    Uh actually that ain't true. The electoral vote is not the same as the actual vote. You need to go back and rethink you statement.


    /Paul
    Uh, actually it is true. Obama won with 52.9% of the popular vote vs. McCain's 45.7%. Bush also won a majority of the popular vote in 2004 with 50.2%. In 2000, Bush received 47.9% of the popular vote to Gore''s 48.4% making this one of only two elections in our history where the candidate winning the plurality of votes actually lost the election in the Electoral College.

  8. #58
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBayDog View Post
    Free speech protects the individuals right to speak in public without being censored, not to speak in secret to plot against the U.S.. The constitution does not grant right to enemy combatants either, since they have no uniforms or country they are fighting for the Geneva convention doesn't protect them either.

    Please tell who in the last election even had a Conservative viewpoint? I must have missed them on the ballot.
    The Constitution protects free speech to speak in public and to plot in private. Conspiracy laws passed under Nixon do not outlaw any form of speech. Rather, they outlaw actions that further an attempt to overthrow the government or to commit any other crime.

    The Constitution protects all persons in the jurisdiction of our country, whether citizens or not. By tradition, spies (or so called enemy combatants) are not treated as prisoners of war but are handled in accordance with the laws of the country that arrests them. The administration did not want to do this since that would provide the detainees with rights of due process.

    The Geneva Convention explicitly addresses both prisoners that are captured while in "uniform" or otherwise clearly identifiable as combatants, and those captured who are not identifiable as combatants. The latter group is covered by some, but not all, provisions of the treaty. That was the basis for the court orders directing the administration to comply with the applicable portions of the treaty. The Bush administration's efforts to define a distinct class of so called "illegal combatants" that would be under U.S. government control but not subject to any legal process whatsoever has been rejected completely by every court.

    Presumably the new administration is ending this sad and shameful story by ordering an end to such detentions and a return to forms of interrogation generally accepted under international law.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Julie R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Orlean VA
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The NYTimes is about as liberal as the WSJ is conservative. Neither begins to approach the bias of MSNBC and Fox or such bastions as the Manchester Guardian, The NY Post, etc. The reality is that the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and almost every other major newspaper in the country, along with all the television networks, rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to manage the news almost without constraint until after the joint disasters of Katrina and Iraq following the "cessation of major hostilties."

    Newspapers throughout the country routinely published fake press conferences that were staged by the administration as if they were real. Press releases from the White House were published without modification. Whenever a paper or news channel questioned the White House definition of news, they were punished by being excluded from events. Most capitulated. This is described in some detail in Scott McClellan's book (he was Bush's Press Secretary) and represented one of the more audacious propaganda efforts in hiistory, far surpassing anything from his predecessors.

    Hopefully the press will never again roll over for a President the way they did for Bush. It is their job the question Presidential statements and efforts to manage the news. It is their job to publicize what the government would most like to keep secret. The Bush administration went to unheard of lengths to preserve secrecy concerning all of its activities. In its first few days, the Obama administration has reversed some of those practices but could push the limits of managed news even further if allowed. Unfortunately, with the consolidation of news outlets and the shrinking of the press corps, the odds are stacked heavily against independent reporting.
    Jeff my friend, you are so wrong here that it makes me wonder if this shrill and inaccurate reply didn't come straight from the MoveOn.org website instead of your usual measured responses.
    The press most certainly did not 'roll over' for Bush, although the same cannot be said for the fawning, 'lite' coverage they gave your boy Oboma.
    Fact: a reporter that prints a press release verbatim as news is not going to last long at any major daily. Fact: ALL administrations send out press releases that present their policies in favorable lights. I know, I worked in the Reagan White House press office and also the U.S. Dept. of State press office. I've also worked on the other side of the desk, at newspapers and at a weekly news magazine both as a reporter and as an editor.
    If any reporter was banned from the credentialed White House press corps, it was probably for a good reason. No doubt your boy Obomo will do the same thing when he doesn't like the negative coverage he's bound to receive eventually.
    I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed your Bush bashing seems to be growing exponentially as this thread wears on. I'm disgusted to hear you blaming Bush for the Katrina disaster when your own party is squarely at fault for that. Next you'll be saying Bush engineered that hurricane to put the black man down. ENOUGH ALREADY!! Your guy won, so stop bashing Bush for things he didn't do, it makes you look petty and ignorant.

    Kind of how Obomo looked when he admonished Republicans to 'quit listening to Rush Limbaugh'. And my favorite narcissistic comment, in response to a (GOP) Virginia representative's objection to more welfare for the non-taxpaying segments of society: "I won. I will trump you on that." What a loser! He could at least try to explain how giving more money to welfare leaches will stimulate the economy?

  10. #60
    Senior Member Steve Amrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    St. Peters, MO
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    While I am not sad the PETA ad will not run during the super bowl the mainstrem media is making sure you know about it still and see it.

    The other commercial that is also banned is a anti abortion ad. I am really surprised it was not allowed because it mentions the chosen one. I have yet to hear see any mention on any of the news outlets. Hmmmmmm.

    Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

    To be fair the peta ad links have been posted on this site elsewhere
    "Communism only works in Heaven, where they don't need it, and in Hell, where they already have it" Ronald Reagan

Similar Threads

  1. Media Bias
    By mjh345 in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 06:14 PM
  2. example of media bias at the NY Times
    By subroc in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-10-2009, 11:48 PM
  3. Missed this in the Media,
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 10:48 AM
  4. Media Bias??
    By road kill in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •