Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whenver i discuss politics with Republicans, they claim i am brainwashed by "mainstream media" and that i don't know the real truth. If all the network news outlets, print media, cable news are colluding to keep the real truth from us, then Where from do Republicans get their news? When i ask i never get a straight answer. Do they all have a secret news outlet? Is it published outside of US somewhere?
I agree one needs to read carefully the actual news reporting and seperate facts from opinion to understand the real issues. too much MSNBC or FOX can muddle your brain. But i don't know what other source one can turn to other than main stream media if you want to understand what is going on. Is WSJ main stream media or not? While i abhor their editorials i find the actual news reporting is excellent.
I get my news from reading many different sources including overseas publications like The Economist, Financial Times, Das Handelsblatt and Die Zeit.
But once I've read about a story, then I go seek out original sources. So if I read in the NY Times that Congressman Blahblah proposed something crazy or said something crazy I go find the actual transcript or bill in question.
More people need to be skeptical of any sources reporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
How can the Media be biased against the GOP when the Republican billionaires own the media?
I think you are confused, it is mostly Democrat billionaires who own the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Some of us believed that Iraq had WMD was absolute truth, even when there was evidence for it, and supported the invasion of a country for no reason. That is what belief in absolute truth does. We are still paying for that.
Iraq did have WMDs. We know they did because they used them on Iran and the Kurds.
At the conclusions of the Gulf War, one of the conditions of us ceasing hostilities was that Saddam agreed to give up/destroy the WMDs and allow inspection to the sites. You can read UNSCR 1441 that outlined Iraq's failure to comply and point #13 that said Iraq faced serious consequences for continued non-compliance.
Had Saddam paid attention and fully complied he would probably be alive and in charge of Iraq today. The invasion was not inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
the most popular mainstream news outlet is Fox News, which is unequivocably conservative.
Fox News is not the most popular mainstream news outlet, not even close.
According the the latest ratings:
ABC Nightly News 7,957,000
NBC Nighty News 8,518,000
CBS Nightly News 6,930,000
Fox News, Night 2,160,000
CNN Night 786,000
MSNBC 513,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Sotomayor for the Supreme Court - the first hispanic on the bench
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Well let's be careful: Sotomayor represented an expansion of the SCOTUS' perspective, for the first time giving Latinos a voice there for issues that mattered to them. Cruz, by comparison, would represent a degradation of the Presidency's perspectives with regard to the issues that matter to Latinos, as evidence by how many Latino groups condemn Cruz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Let's be careful... she is NOT there to give a voice for anyone. She is a judge, not an advocate.
Sotomayor is only the first Hispanic on the SCOTUS because the Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada's elevation to the DC Court of Appeals, which is considered the stepping stone to the SCOTUS.
The Estrada nomination was a classic example of media bias in what they chose not to cover. Estrada was incredibly well qualified for the position and would have been approved by the full Senate, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination. There wasn't a peep from the MSM other than the editorial pages of the WSJ and Fox about racial discrimination or Democrat obstructionism or Democrats the Party of No or the usual charges we see leveled at Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I think it's simply because he is not Hispanic. Does he call himself Hispanic? No. Having a Cuban father does not make a person Hispanic. Marco Rubio, in the other hand is Hispanic having both parents from Cuba so the Hispanic culture was a part if his upbringing.
Wah what? Ted Cruz isn't Hispanic because only his father was Cuban?
I guess that means Barack Obama isn't black, because only his father was black and you can't call him African American because African American culture was not a part if his upbringing.
I get my news from reading many different sources including overseas publications like The Economist, Financial Times, Das Handelsblatt and Die Zeit.
But once I've read about a story, then I go seek out original sources. So if I read in the NY Times that Congressman Blahblah proposed something crazy or said something crazy I go find the actual transcript or bill in question.
More people need to be skeptical of any sources reporting.
I think you are confused, it is mostly Democrat billionaires who own the media.
Iraq did have WMDs. We know they did because they used them on Iran and the Kurds.
At the conclusions of the Gulf War, one of the conditions of us ceasing hostilities was that Saddam agreed to give up/destroy the WMDs and allow inspection to the sites. You can read UNSCR 1441 that outlined Iraq's failure to comply and point #13 that said Iraq faced serious consequences for continued non-compliance.
Had Saddam paid attention and fully complied he would probably be alive and in charge of Iraq today. The invasion was not inevitable.
Fox News is not the most popular mainstream news outlet, not even close.
According the the latest ratings:
ABC Nightly News 7,957,000
NBC Nighty News 8,518,000
CBS Nightly News 6,930,000
Fox News, Night 2,160,000
CNN Night 786,000
MSNBC 513,000
Sotomayor is only the first Hispanic on the SCOTUS because the Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada's elevation to the DC Court of Appeals, which is considered the stepping stone to the SCOTUS.
The Estrada nomination was a classic example of media bias in what they chose not to cover. Estrada was incredibly well qualified for the position and would have been approved by the full Senate, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination. There wasn't a peep from the MSM other than the editorial pages of the WSJ and Fox about racial discrimination or Democrat obstructionism or Democrats the Party of No or the usual charges we see leveled at Republicans.
Wah what? Ted Cruz isn't Hispanic because only his father was Cuban?
I guess that means Barack Obama isn't black, because only his father was black and you can't call him African American because African American culture was not a part if his upbringing.
I've seen a bias creep into my local reporting (more than usual).
I'm on Time Warner and I like to put the news on in the morning just to get the weather. I have to wait 9 minutes if I miss it. Weather on the Ones, and all.
A few months ago, I noticed a change in the reporting. It wasn't major. Just a subtle shift. Then I caught the "we're aligned with CNN" something-or-other. There was a change there. Most people might miss it, but I caught it, somehow.
Our media should be on our side. Media should be looking out for us, be our eyes and ears. It should be the only reason to choose betwen Fox and CNN is because you like a particular anchor better.
Have our media forgot who they are? Who they should be in favor of? Have they forgot their job?
Perhaps we should all remind the media why they are there. The media is should be the eyes and ears of the people. It shouldn't be the O'Reillys and Maddows trying to keep us all pissed off at each other. The media should be OUR eyes and ears, letting us know when our representatives aren't doing their jobs.
We should all be outraged, but not at the other side of the aisle, or the other party. We should all be outraged at our government, as a whole. Maybe 'of the People, By the People, and for the people' means nothing to most of us anymore. If that's the case it is very sad.
Whenver i discuss politics with Republicans, they claim i am brainwashed by "mainstream media" and that i don't know the real truth. If all the network news outlets, print media, cable news are colluding to keep the real truth from us, then Where from do Republicans get their news? When i ask i never get a straight answer. Do they all have a secret news outlet? Is it published outside of US somewhere?
I agree one needs to read carefully the actual news reporting and seperate facts from opinion to understand the real issues. too much MSNBC or FOX can muddle your brain. But i don't know what other source one can turn to other than main stream media if you want to understand what is going on. Is WSJ main stream media or not? While i abhor their editorials i find the actual news reporting is excellent.
The republicans are brainwashed by the corporate backed Fox news and Rush radio (Certain Fox news and Rush radio programs are where they learn their so-called "real truth.")
Experts call all of our major news outlets "corporate propaganda." The following documentary has high level TV executives, high level government officials, and propaganda experts explaining our main stream media networks.
All of our news outlets are owned by a group of large corporations, and if any reporter on our major networks tries to do a negative story about large corporations they are told to stop, and if they continue they are fired or moved to a news department writing classified ads.
If you want to know whats "actually" going on you have to watch documentaries, PBS, and a mix of other news sources. And then research on the internet when you catch something interesting.
The Best Government Money Can Buy
The Billionaires Tea Party
or books like "Crimes Against Nature" by R.F. Kennedy show how our government (especially republicans) and news outlets have been taken over by large corporations.
And FreespeechTV and LinkTV have programing, documentaries, and several radio/TV hosts that say things never told in the mainstream media.
Only documentaries and books tell whats actually going on. Example, news outlets told you all about the Iraq war, but only documentaries explained how a weapons/oil corporate think tanked called "Project for the New American Century" started the Iraq war.
Personally I would recommend just going to Netflix, Youtube, or PBS when a news story interests you, and then watch a documentary about it (and if its the right documentary you will learn things the mainstream media will never tell you.)
The left is moral and shares none of these flaws? Hilarious.
Laughter is often used as a defense mechanism against uncomfortable realization. The fact that you posted nothing to justify your implied claim is quite telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxrckr
In all seriousness, if you truly hold such blatant double standards I cannot take a thing you say seriously, nor should anyone else. Keep on hating...
No side is perfect, but there is nothing that he posted that isn't true.
That's an important point. I've mentioned several times recently that the right wing has stopped criticizing liberals for what they used to criticize us for (compassion and consideration for others) and instead engage in this ridiculously nonsensical criticism of liberals for the terrible things that right wingers commit. It's seems like some strange form of collective psychological projection.
The claim that media has a liberal bias may have something to do with the fact that one simply does not want actions and statements by conservatives broadcast all over the world. It is embarrassing and makes the followers look stupid.
The world is slowly but surely moving toward a liberal space. Equality, human rights, freedom are all concepts that all societies are reaching for. With more education and knowleadge these concepts are spreading and penetrating even into the most conservative and oppressive societies. positions that mainly favor corporations at the expense of ordinary people go against modernity and these trends.
Republicans and their platform stand squarely on favoring corporations and those who benefit from the profits, with 0 regulations to bridle greed and exploitation in favor of business activities, and a govt and the supreme court subordinate to these aims and goals. The rest of the social issues they talk all the time about are those that help these goals and a cover up for their real purpose. So they would like to keep people ignorant by filling them with paranoia and misinformation, conquer by dividing voters by race and class, and preach that the govt. is evil on one side while reaping huge subsidies and tax breaks on the other.
No body should be surprised that ordinary middleclass and poor republicans are angry with the media because they are displaying the hypocracy that is inherent in this platform to the whole wide world and it is making them uncomfortable. Instead it should make them think.
The claim that media has a liberal bias may have something to do with the fact that one simply does not want actions and statements by conservatives broadcast all over the world. It is embarrassing and makes the followers look stupid.
The world is slowly but surely moving toward a liberal space. Equality, human rights, freedom are all concepts that all societies are reaching for.
Great points. Most of the posturing and brinksmanship that right-wingers are engaging in now that has regained them substantial power, is perhaps the last gasp of perspectives that started dying out 350 years ago.
However, it could just as easily be the turning point in society back towards barbarism. It's happened before. Human civilization was on a progressive track for the first several centuries of the common era. After that were five to eight centuries regarded as a time of reactionaryism, regression, or at least lack of progress in civilization.
Are we at such a turning point? I don't think so, at least not attributable to the reactionaries in the United States. They're on fragile ground as things are now and will eventually be dying out. I suspect we're seeing a momentary retrenchment that will be seen in the long-range as a small dip in the ongoing liberal advancement of society.
For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.
For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.