ZaraDurden
Comfortably Numb
- Aug 5, 2003
- 2,838
- 140
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I wouldn't say it was conservative either...I would say that its pretty close to being State Media.arnegrim said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Media Bias
- Thread starter Spawn
- Start date
TheBear
NON-WOKED
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I watched Katie Couric interviewing Kofi Annan this morning on the Today Show. Before the interview, I predicted that Katie would have nothing but 'fluff' questions for Annan. Well, not only did Couric prove me right, she out-did herself by prodding Annan to criticize Bush. And when Annan refused to do so, Couric made a remark something like, "You're being very diplomatic.", in a smug manner.
John Bolton was then 'discussed'. (Personally, I couldn't care less who represents at the UN. I think the whole thing should be gutted and revamped, or eliminated altogether. But, that's off-topic here.)
Back to the NBC interview of Kofi Annan, discussing John Bolton.....
Katie was basically 'advising' Annan, with lead-in questions and more prodding, that Mr Bolton was a bad choice.
I'll see if I can find the transcript and post it here.
This was a blatantly biased interview. Anyone who is not blinded by ideology, could see right through it.
There is just as much bias on the right. I just used this example because I just saw it today.
John Bolton was then 'discussed'. (Personally, I couldn't care less who represents at the UN. I think the whole thing should be gutted and revamped, or eliminated altogether. But, that's off-topic here.)
Back to the NBC interview of Kofi Annan, discussing John Bolton.....
Katie was basically 'advising' Annan, with lead-in questions and more prodding, that Mr Bolton was a bad choice.
I'll see if I can find the transcript and post it here.
This was a blatantly biased interview. Anyone who is not blinded by ideology, could see right through it.
There is just as much bias on the right. I just used this example because I just saw it today.
Upvote
0
I love when people say that Foxnew is biased and cannot name ONE news anchor on the network. They harp on Hannity or O'Reilley and forget that NEITHER is offering NEWS. lol
Upvote
0
The media is at the end of the day, a business. A very large corporation at that. What matters to them is profit, not whether America is full of well-informed citizens. Look at the content folks. Rarely, if ever, will you hear something vindictive of the United States, or praising of a foreign country, and it's virtually impossible to hear a criticism of corporate America.
While celebrity trials and kidnapped white kids are plastered on screen for hours on end, where's the Downing Street Memo? Even coverage of the Amnesty reports is mostly limited to the Administration responses and showing how "absurd" the gulag comparison was. Whatever happened to the muckrackers?
It's not that it's so much of a "right-wing" bias, but more of an establishment bias. If you go online and look at independent media, foreign papers, and even backpage mainstream articles, you'd be amazed at what doesn't make the daily rounds and talking points.
While celebrity trials and kidnapped white kids are plastered on screen for hours on end, where's the Downing Street Memo? Even coverage of the Amnesty reports is mostly limited to the Administration responses and showing how "absurd" the gulag comparison was. Whatever happened to the muckrackers?
It's not that it's so much of a "right-wing" bias, but more of an establishment bias. If you go online and look at independent media, foreign papers, and even backpage mainstream articles, you'd be amazed at what doesn't make the daily rounds and talking points.
Upvote
0
as for mainstream media not covering the story - you should be aware that the 3 broadcasters don't cover it unless the NYTimes or the WPost cover it.
Upvote
0
Spawn said:
I'd bet you money that 75% of America doesn't even know what Halliburton is, and why it matters.
And if the Times and Washington Post are the most "liberal" things you can conjure up, then sir, you have not been exposed to the more radical elements of society.
My main point is that it's your typical infotainment mixed in with a little daily roundup, usually with a flagrant "rah, rah America" attitude.
Upvote
0
BaLoNeY! Everyone knows how evil Haliburton is even if they do not know what the company actually does. It was a democratic talking point and campaign issue for Petes sakes.southernmissfan said:
Most radical? No. Most insidious of the liberal establishment in that their bias is often covert rather than overt - yes.
I guess Rather was doing his best RAH RAH when he broke the bogus memo story. and Newsweek was singing the praises of America when it posted the bogus Koran story?
Upvote
0
Spawn said:
It's no secret that Rupert Murdoch is a staunch supporter of the Repub party and that his newspapers, and we can assume Fox News, have strongly supported Bush in both elections and his war on Iraq. It seems to me that it would be hard to provide balanced news when you're so blatantly helping a candidate to win.
Also, how is the memo story bogus? The parties from where it originated have not denied it's authenticity or accuracy, if I'm not mistaken. Just because it's negative against the President doesn't make it bogus.
Upvote
0
so when what 90% of reporters say they voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton or when a reporter says they don't know ANYONE who voted for Nixon - they all voted of McGovern - they are NOT biased?Fa'Head said:
AGAIN - if you cannot even name the news anchors on Fox you can hardly speak about bias at the network.
Actually - the person who is supposed to have written the memos is dead and thus cannot deny writing them - funny that - but his family ALL deny the possibility of their existence and they are been completely proven to have been forged - made with MSWORD for petes sakes!! SO of course the story MUST be true right??? A dead general traveled in time to write memos in MSWord about orders he would not possibly have given. Sheesh. Now thats fair and balanced media
Upvote
0
Spawn said:
Everyone has heard of Halliburton, but very, very few actually know what is, what it's done, who's involved with it, and why it matters. Just because the Democrat talking heads (what very, very, very few of them are even allowed on tv for interviews), doesn't make it apart of any sort of journalism.
Both the Times and the Post are very cautious, and since they are apart of the establishment, will always stop short of nailing the ruling elites.
Wow, two cases. The first, a sensational story during an election full of "Swift Boat Veterans". It had little to no relevancy to his policies or anything significant, for that matter. The second was among growing allegations of abuse, and because of one detail, the White House suddenly blamed them for their failures in Afghanistan. Now the abuses, admitted by the Pentagon, are barely given the light of day. Notice, that the only reason the Newsweek story got coverage was not the allegations of abuse, but rather the White House denial and later retraction of the story.
Look at content folks, content. Very, very few stories ever make it on the networks, and even then, any opposing view that might be given is nothing but party bickering.
Upvote
0
Heads of which states? It's not like Bush was running as an expert in internation politics or like he had been vice president for the last 8 years when that happened. Heck I'll bet that 98% of the members of CF could not name who the current president of Iran is without looking it up!Fa'Head said:
Upvote
0
Spawn said:
Be that as it may, I'm not running for the highest office in the land, of which foreign affairs is a very important part. It's just a funny notion that I can't recognize bias on Fox because I don't know newsanchor names yet it's no big deal that Bush couldn't tell us the names of important foreign leaders he'd have to meet with if elected. I'm gonna laugh myself to sleep over that one.
Upvote
0
UM - Bush was not making claims about those foregin leaders like YOU are making about Fox news. Now if Bush had said that "the French prime minister is biased" but could not NAME that Prime Minister - you would have a point. since he didn't - you don't.Fa'Head said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
