The press distorts, the media decides...

Again with the pie!

As I said a dozen posts ago:

"JohnnyMojo" wrote:

Well, I used examples of gun control, the lack of context regarding the deficit, abortion and homelessness as cases. Please show me conservative distortions on these issues from the mainstream press.

Liberal != Far Left

So liberals are more like centrists? What does that make conservatives, far right? I would hate to see me label myself in that way

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Well, I used examples of gun control,

Specifics.

the lack of context regarding the deficit,

Specifics.

abortion

Specifics.

and homelessness

I''m not even sure what you are talking about here. Are you saying the press blames conservatives for homelessness?

as cases. Please show me conservative distortions on these issues from the mainstream press.

Well, here''s two for now:

* Abortion - The press had two choices on what to call a particular form of abortion, either late-term or partial-birth abortion. The press chooses the latter. Like Bill Maher put it, you get more negative reactions out of people by calling it the death tax.

* Homelessness - Look up a recurring story in San Francisco about ""Care, Not Cash."" It''s a popular idea, if only the courts didn''t decide that a voter referendum on the matter wasn''t legal.

"Koesj" wrote:
Liberal != Far Left

So liberals are more like centrists? What does that make conservatives, far right? I would hate to see me label myself in that way :?

Liberals are not all leftist. Rat Boy is a leftist and Elsyium is a Liberal. There is a difference.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Rat Boy is a leftist

Really? Leftists support Colin Powell, the 2nd Amendmant, tax cuts for small businesses, bans on human cloning, bans on late-term abortions, and applied and proper use of the death penalty? Way to leap to a conclusion about a person, Ulairi.

I was rather asking in what place on the current political spectrum conservatives should be regarded at. Centrist, Moderately ''right'', far ''right... ?

Well Rat, since you obviously don''t read previous posts before opening your mouth, here is my entire post from the first page of this thread.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Well, to begin with, 90% of journalists in the US have voted Democrat in the last 4 or 5 presidential elections, which proves nothing, but sure adds context to the discussion. Also, 4 of the top 5 newspapers are decidedly liberal in their editorials.

And, no, I don''t think that the media lies to the public, as much as they filter all news through their ideology before giving it to the American people. The media provides the information that supports their world view, even if it means not providing context or ignoring things that contradict their ideology.

A perfect example of this is the debate going on about ''Bush lying''. There is no reason to go into this, as I think it has been beaten to death in other threads. Or you can look at the way that the current deficit is portrayed in the media - largest in history, without context of what actually causes the deficit to be that large (social programs) or that it is not as large a percent of the total budget or GDP as deficits were under Jimmy Carter in the 1970''s.

Look at how the media portrays the tax cuts as benefitting only the ''rich''. They never point out that high income is very different than high wealth. Wealth is how you measure ''rich'', not income. They also never mention that after every major tax cut, total tax receipts increased because of the benefits to the economy. They talk about how much less the ''rich'' pay as a percentage of their income, but not the fact that the ''rich'' pay an ever increasing percentage of the total tax receipts, even with a tax cut.

Look at gun control. The media continually repeats that the United States has a much higher murder rate than some countries with more restrictive gun control laws. But the media remains silent about the fact that there are other countries, such as Russia, which have more restrictive gun control laws than ours but have far higher murder rates than the United States. Or that there are countries that have higher rates of gun ownership, such as Switzerland, and have a fraction of our murder rate.

The members of the media have obviously made a decision that restrictive gun control laws are desirable, which they have every right to do. It is when they try to make up other people''s minds by filtering out information to the public that their opinion become a bias in doing their job.

Or, look at abortion. the pro-choice media prefers the term ""fetus"" to the more disturbing ""unborn."" Stories in the media are never told from a pro-life standpoint. The rights of a father in making an abortion decision are never discussed.

In the early 90''s, the liberal Los Angeles Times admitted abortion media bias:

""Most major newspapers support abortion rights on their editorial pages, and two major media studies have shown that 80 percent to 90 percent of U.S. journalists personally favor abortion rights. Moreover, some reporters participated in a big abortion rights march in Washington ... and the American Newspaper Guild, the union that represents news and editorial employees at many major papers, has officially endorsed ''freedom of choice in abortion decisions.''... Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play.""

What about homelessness? The Wall Street Journal''s OpinionJournal.com, after George W. Bush''s election, began publishing the ""Homelessness Rediscovery Watch."" Why? When Republicans assume power, the media seems to suddenly rediscover homelessness.

The Media Research Center tracked interest in homelessness during the latter part of the Clinton administration. From an MRC report:

""Homelessness -- one of the media''s favorite tools to portray the alleged downside of Ronald Reagan''s ''80s prosperity -- was a more serious national problem during Bill Clinton''s 1990s. ... Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless admitted ... ''Definitely, we saw more homelessness in the 1990s than we did in the 1980s.'' But we saw far less homelessness on TV sets during the Clinton years.

""During the first Bush administration,"" according to the Media Research Center, ""morning and evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN ran an average of 53 stories on homelessness annually, compared to less than 17 per year during the Clinton administration. ... The expanding homeless population was out of sight during the Clinton years but just three short weeks after George W. Bush assumed office, ABC won the race to be the first network to rediscover the homeless. On Sunday, Feb. 11, 2001, ""World News Tonight Sunday"" anchor Carole Simpson intoned: ''Homelessness, which is estimated to affect from two and a half to three and a half million people, is again on the rise.''""

I could go on, but I think I have made the point.

Is that specific enough?

Interpretive, purely interpretive. Just because the press prints something you don''t like doesn''t make them biased. Maybe you''re biased.

Edit: And please demonstrate how the press deliberatly distorts the facts. In other words, show me a fact and then show me if the press has lied about it.

How''s the kool-aid Rat? Is it grape this week?

Edit:

And please demonstrate how the press deliberatly distorts the facts. In other words, show me a fact and then show me if the press has lied about it.

You don''t read anything I write, do you? One of the first things I said was that it isn''t that the media outright lies as much as they filter stories and facts through their own ideology.

Translation: ""I have no proof, Rat Boy. Only my interpretation of their interpretation.""

Interpretations are not facts.

As Ral said,

""Ahh, irony.""

I think the problem is that Rat Boy is so far to the left that anything to the right of him must not be liberal. I thight Rat Boy is shooting for the left of Marx.

Well, first I get accused of being unpatriotic, now I''m getting accused of being a Communist. What will you think of next, Ulairi?

Abortion - The press had two choices on what to call a particular form of abortion, either late-term or partial-birth abortion. The press chooses the latter.

Nope. ""Late-term"" would imply late in the term of pregnancy. This could be halfway through the 2nd trimester. ""Partial birth"" refers to the procedure itself, where a living fetus is partially vaginally delivered and then killed. And this issue actually supports liberal media bias, as the press can''t even use a factual descriptor about this procedure without putting it in quotes...

Why is putting a term in quotes liberal? And isn''t calling it ""so-called"" factually accurate?

Edit: Again, look at the issues being brought up as examples of bias; highly contentious, deeply divisive, and anytime someone tries to bring in both sides, one side or the other flips out and accuses that person of bias.

Again, look at the issues being brought up as examples of bias; highly contentious, deeply divisive, and anytime someone tries to bring in both sides, one side or the other flips out and accuses that person of bias.

Sure Rat, and so I again challenge you to show me an example of conservative bias outside the op/ed section from the mainstream media (CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC/NY Times, LA Times, USA today, etc) towards either gun control, abortion, the deficit, or homelessness.

Why is putting a term in quotes liberal

I guess you''ve stopped reading your own posts. ""Partial birth"" correctly represents the procedure in an unpalatable manner to the public. And yet, it is both a factually accurate description of the procedure and the name for it used in pending legislation. So the press, which is liberal and pro-choice, grudgingly uses the correct phrase, but still puts it in quotes, as if the phrase is somehow in question.

To use an example:
If I referred to: Rat Boy, so-called ""patriot"", would you have any ideas what I really thought..?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Well, first I get accused of being unpatriotic, now I''m getting accused of being a Communist. What will you think of next, Ulairi?

I never said you were unpatriotic. Anytime someone disagrees with your leftist language, you accuse them of saying you''re unpatriotic. You''re a leftist who has real problems with the country. If you don''t want America to be what it is (and meant to be), that is fine. Accept that.

"ralcydan" wrote:

To use an example:
If I referred to: Rat Boy, so-called ""patriot"", would you have any ideas what I really thought..?

Do you have any ideas what I''m thinking about doing to you right now?

But, seriously, if you''re (JMJ) looking for examples of a ""conservative"" (more like corporate) bias, try here. Including, but not limited to, Iraq (note how no one is following up on the other dubious claims [the unmanned aircraft]), Jason Blair (you should note the other two plagerists mentioned), the further bigotry of Michael Savage, and a whole host of other issues.

But, since this is regarded as a liberal rag, you''ll just look at the front page, click the X, and disregard it out of hand as anti-American propaganda designed to steal your money, kill your unborn children, and convert you to Islam.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Anytime someone disagrees with your leftist language, you accuse them of saying you''re unpatriotic. You''re a leftist who has real problems with the country.

Again, you are taking my statements way the hell out of context. Just because I do not like the man in the White House does not make me a leftist. If anyone disagrees with your positions on foreign policy, taxes, or healthcare, YOU accuse them of being leftist juntas.

If you don''t want America to be what it is (and meant to be), that is fine. Accept that.

So, America was meant to rule the world? Any dissent will be put down by the will of the Right? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Corruption can go all the way up to the top and there isn''t a damn thing you can do about it?

That is what America has become in the last 20 years and I''m sure as hell that it isn''t what it was meant to be. I won''t accept it and neither should you.

Okay, so I went to the FAIR website Rat. Now please point out the conservative bias regarding any of the issues that I asked about from any mainstream media.

So, America was meant to rule the world? Any dissent will be put down by the will of the Right? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Corruption can go all the way up to the top and there isn''t a damn thing you can do about it?

That is what America has become in the last 20 years

Wow.

No wonder you''re mad. Shame that there are so many logical fallacies in those statements, and none of them are true in the manner you probably espouse.

Wow.