PDA

View Full Version : Is the media biased?



Wally_in_Cincy
05-12-2004, 07:29 AM
I received my US News and World Report yesterday. On the cover is a pic of an Iraqi with panties on his head. The cover screams "Shocking and Awful".

On the other hand we have a video of 5 smelly ragheads cutting off the head of an innocent American. Will that picture be on next week's cover?

Qtec said I had no right to call these guys animals and maggots. Would cockroaches be a more appropriate term?

So who is worse, The US Army or the Muslim fundamentalists?

And why does the media constantly trash the military?

I'm confused. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

pooltchr
05-12-2004, 08:25 AM
Wally,
It's very simple. Yes, the media does favor the Democratic party. Everything they can do to put the Republican administration in a bad light supports their party.

I have seen the same pictures of the Iraqui prisoners being "humiliated" more times than I can count. The Dems are calling for a congressional inquiry (or is that inquisition?) Do you think we will get the same amount of coverage (weeks!) of the murder of our guy?

What's wrong with this country??? We get all bent out of shape because of poor treatment of prisoners by our military...primarily because the media encourages that outrage. But when our president wants to go over and kick the a$$es of the extreme whack-o's who would cut off the head of one of us on video, do you think the media will support him? Not likely!

It's not about what's right...it's about who is going to be in power. I admire GW for doing what he thinks is right, and not bowing to the media or public opinion polls. That is what leadership is all about.

Steve

cheesemouse
05-12-2004, 08:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. <hr /></blockquote>

Watch out Wally, being confused is a liberal thought, it is the being of questioning your leaders and you wouldn't want to be quilty of that would you???

cheesemouse
05-12-2004, 08:47 AM
poolchr,

I suppose the evil media that is so one sided is why the democrats control the HOUSE, the SENATE, the PRESIDENCY, the SUPREME COURT, a majority of GOVERNORSHIPS and STATE HOUSES......Oh, wait a minute...that would be the Republicans.....gee that liberal media sure is powerful......

...get your head out of the sand... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
05-12-2004, 08:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> poolchr,

I suppose the evil media that is so one sided is why the democrats control the HOUSE, the SENATE, the PRESIDENCY, the SUPREME COURT, a majority of GOVERNORSHIPS and STATE HOUSES......Oh, wait a minute...that would be the Republicans.....gee that liberal media sure is powerful......

...get your head out of the sand... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

No the reason for that is because mainstream America identifies more with the platform of the Republican party than the platform of the Democrat party.

You know, gay marriage, queers in the Boy Scouts, confiscatory tax rates, big gummint, and what-not.

cheesemouse
05-12-2004, 08:58 AM
Wally,

Nobody has ever read the Republican platform or the Democratic platform......not even Ed.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

striker_3
05-12-2004, 09:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> poolchr,


...get your head out of the sand... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The outspoken liberals are the first ones to accuse somebody of being brainwashed, to the point that they seem brainwashed themselves. I watch Fox News because while it is a little tilted to the right, they still ask both sides to come on to debate. Yes, you read that right. I admitted that Fox is a little biased. Would you ever admit that about your heavily biased CNN or any other the left wing channels? I'm guessing no, you'll only tell me that my head is in the sand.

Nightstalker
05-12-2004, 10:17 AM
Nice post striker, you summed it up right thurr right thurr. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cheesemouse
05-12-2004, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote striker_3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> poolchr,


...get your head out of the sand... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

The outspoken liberals are the first ones to accuse somebody of being brainwashed, to the point that they seem brainwashed themselves. I watch Fox News because while it is a little tilted to the right, they still ask both sides to come on to debate. Yes, you read that right. I admitted that Fox is a little biased. Would you ever admit that about your heavily biased CNN or any other the left wing channels? I'm guessing no, you'll only tell me that my head is in the sand. <hr /></blockquote>


Are you then saying by extention of your argument that if you would only have more and more and more right wing claptrap media that you, the Republicans, would start to lose power????

moblsv
05-12-2004, 12:37 PM
It seems to me that as I've been reading headlines the past few days almost every where I look the abuse story has been a secondary story to the beheading headline. The confusion comes from the facts not fitting the assumption. i.e. liberal media myth

Wally_in_Cincy
05-12-2004, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> It seems to me that as I've been reading headlines the past few days almost every where I look the abuse story has been a secondary story to the beheading headline. The confusion comes from the facts not fitting the assumption. i.e. liberal media myth <hr /></blockquote>

You obviously have not been paying close attention. The beheading story broke yesterday. Of course it's the lead story. The media has been beating the abuse story into the ground for 2 weeks now. Which story do you think will fade away first?

The abuse should not have happened but some of it was no worse than fraternity hazing. I mean come on, US News looks foolish. They are shocked by a guy with panties on his head while the Palestinians murder women and children and dance in the streets and terrorists cut innocent people's heads off and broadcast it. There's no comparison.

Wally_in_Cincy
05-12-2004, 01:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> Are you then saying by extention of your argument that if you would only have more and more and more right wing claptrap media that you, the Republicans, would start to lose power???? <hr /></blockquote>

That's some pretty twisted logic there dude. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you are wondering about the recent dominance of the GOP let me paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan "The people didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left them" /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

striker_3
05-12-2004, 04:04 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I'm almost speechless. I'm not sure if its because I just got off work, or because that sounded just like something Kerry would say.

Ross
05-12-2004, 06:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I received my US News and World Report yesterday. On the cover is a pic of an Iraqi with panties on his head. The cover screams "Shocking and Awful".

On the other hand we have a video of 5 smelly ragheads cutting off the head of an innocent American. Will that picture be on next week's cover?

... <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, I don't think choosing this cover is any evidence of bias on the part of USNWR. I imagine the traditionally conservative mag ran with that cover because the prisoner abuse has a very wide-ranging set of implications (Senate hearings in the US, possible political ramifications for Rumsfeld and/or the presidential political race, impact of images on on the perception of the US in the rest of the world and on the environment our soldiers will deal with in Iraq, etc.). I also imagine they had more information, background sources, and time to prepare a multipage story on it than the extremist atrocity which occurred probably no more than a day before press time, if that. But of course the gruesome murder of the innocent American was also major news. It accordingly was on every news channel on TV, on the front page of every newspaper and at the top of every news outlet webpage. No media outlet I've seen has done anything but register their disgust about it. Today media are reporting the disgust of rank and file Iraqis over the horrifying murder.

The problem with political correctness was that you couldn't (and sometimes still can't) say certain things about race or gender etc. without automatically getting attacked as a racist or sexist, even if you what you were saying was the truth? Well, IMO, there is a similar feel to the "conservative PC" police started by Limbaugh and others and perpetuated by people like O'Reilly. I find now that if, like this cover story, anyone or any group reports stories or says anything that doesn't fit well with the traditional conservative viewpoint, or that might reflect badly on this administration, they are automatically dismissed as being biased, or soft-headed, or anti-American, or mis-informed, or anti-Bush or whatever. And to see USNWR as "liberally biased" simply because it is headlining with the prisoner abuse story without any other reasons seems to me like a similar reaction.

But, as they say - JMHO.

Ross ~ never felt attacked by Wally (so far!)

bluewolf
05-12-2004, 07:42 PM
I think that everyone is biased to one degree or another. The real question is, can a person, even through their bias, still listen to conflicting views, consider them honestly, and change viewpoints if the new info has credibility?

I read today that that Gen Smith, near the top had told the prison to 'prepare the prisoners for interrogation', when he visited last september. It looks like the cia might be involved, but they are not sure I do not think. If it stays in the military, I think that Bush and Rumsfield may not be implicated. If the cia comes out guilty, since that agency is directly in line to the pres, that could get messy.

The beheading of that man upset me so bad, I could not listen to it after first seeing it on cnn. I check in ocasionally like for 5 minutes a day to see if there is anything new and look at the paper. From what I have seen, cnn gives both sides and I do not see that they are biased, just staying on it. It was that way during 9-11 and other tragic events.

Laura

Ross
05-13-2004, 12:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> I think that everyone is biased to one degree or another. The real question is, can a person, even through their bias, still listen to conflicting views, consider them honestly, and change viewpoints if the new info has credibility? ...
Laura <hr /></blockquote>

Laura, I think this post is very perceptive -- I'm impressed. Your observation is neither liberal or conservative, but you are right on both counts. Everyone IS biased to some degree, and people who don't realize that are puppets of their own biases. If they are in power and blinded to this fact then they are dangerous. It gets really dangerous when they surround themselves only with like-minded people and take in info only from people who agree with them. And, as you say so succinctly, the real test of your intellectual honesty is "can you listen to conflicting views, consider them honestly, and change viewpoints if the info has credibility."

Ideologues of all stripes fail this test, some with more consequences than others (Zionists, Hamas'ites, fundamentalists of any flavor -- Muslim or Christian, Ditto-heads and knee-jerk liberals, John Birchers and NRA'ers) and all are blinded by an unquestioning belief in the tenets of their "faith." They are incapable of taking in info that conflicts with their preconceived tenets. Lord help us when ideologues come in conflict.

That is my biggest criticism of the current administration. My views tend to be liberal but I often disagree with the liberal party line (for example I have long supported welfare reform because it is ultimately empowering and I supported an international intervention in Iraq because of the massive human rights abuses under Saddam). But if Bush had proved to be who he was advertised to be ("a compassionate conservative" "he brings both sides of the aisle together") I would be a lot less bothered by this admin. But I've found Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld to very incapable or unwilling to -- as you put it -- "listen to conflicting views, consider them honestly, and change viewpoints if the info has credibility." They seem to simply have no respect or interest in opposing views.

Lincoln, Kennedy, Churchill, and other great leaders -- leaders who made hard decisions but also brought healing in times of great strife -- were diligent about getting opposing viewpoints into the decision mix. And they were willing to make decisions against the prevailing wisdom and advice of their own party when the opposition simply made more sense. They were highly principled people (politically speaking) but they were the opposite of ideologues. In fact, they tended to be paranoid of surrounding themselves with a bubble of 'like-thinking' people. Kennedy talked frankly about his rookie mistake in doing just this when making his decisions about the Bay of Pigs and was careful not to do it again. They also were always aware of the strategically important role of allowing their enemies to save face -- even in defeat. Ideologues don't seem to be willing to understand this and their blindly imposed "successes" through sheer force inevitably come back and bite them or their constituents in the ass. I don't see how anyone can fail to see this "we are right, don't question us" characteristic in the current administration, whether you generally agree with their points of view or not. Decision making in an atmosphere that discourages dissent is inevitably flawed and the negative consequences inevitably follow.

Wally_in_Cincy
05-13-2004, 06:28 AM
Dammit Ross, you state your case so logically you're hard to argue with /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Wally, I don't think choosing this cover is any evidence of bias on the part of USNWR....

...I also imagine they had more information, background sources, and time to prepare a multipage story on it than the extremist atrocity which occurred probably no more than a day before press time....

<font color="blue">The Berg murder happened after I received the mag so obviously you are correct. It just hit me the wrong way. I understand the prisoner abuse story had wide-ranging implications.

The evil, sickening things that the terrorist pigs do and have done are just light years beyond comparison to a guy with panties on his head that the cover "Shocking and Awful" almost made me laugh....or cry. </font color>

The problem with political correctness was that you couldn't (and sometimes still can't) say certain things about race or gender etc. without automatically getting attacked as a racist or sexist, even if you what you were saying was the truth? Well, IMO, there is a similar feel to the "conservative PC" police started by Limbaugh and others and perpetuated by people like O'Reilly.

<font color="blue">Ross, you are right, but we are just so sick of the years and years and years of liberal bias in the media that we have developed a hair-trigger in pointing it out. We are just fighting back. Honest to God I could see it when I was 12 years old. And that was before talk radio /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BTW I think O'Reily is a blowhard who interrupts his guests too much. And Limbaugh, who I listened to on and off for years, is too "Republican good/Democrat bad".

I stopped listeneng to him during the last primary season when he was making fun of McCain. I don't always agree with McCain's views but he has earned the right not to be mocked. </font color>


Ross ~ never felt attacked by Wally (so far!)

<font color="blue">Don't worry Ross, I won't call you a liberal poopypants /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

moblsv
05-13-2004, 08:44 AM
Ross and bluewolf - Bingo, excellent posts. Thanks for taking the time to clearly articulate those thoughts.

cheesemouse
05-13-2004, 12:29 PM
DITTO.....

Ross
05-13-2004, 02:16 PM
Damn, Wally, you can be swayed by reason and logic? You will never get your own TV show that way! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And I understand the idea of "over-correction." I think women's lib, black power, Limbaughism, etc., are all examples of an initial overcorrection to real existing problems. The revolutionaries are extreme in their views, and they often throw out the baby with the bath water in the initial stages. When money gets involved though, whether it be through TV or radio ratings or contributions you get another layer of distortion. Then there is little interest in getting to the truth because it doesn't make for dramatic entertainment or motivate the donors.

BTW, I found these principles of critical thinking on the web:

<ul type="square"> Because you are not God, it is inevitable some of the beliefs and viewpoints you firmly hold are completely wrong. Therefore, beware of intellectual arrogance.
Until you understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, you do not understand your own viewpoint very well.
Until you can summarize another viewpoint so well those who hold it agree with your summary, you do not understand that viewpoint.
If you wish to be considered a critical thinker, you must be willing to seriously consider alternatives and to change your mind.
Always assume those with whom you disagree are as intelligent as you are and have motives as noble as you do.
[/list]

Unfortunately these traits are not valued particularly in most web political "debates." /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ross
05-13-2004, 02:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Ross and bluewolf - Bingo, excellent posts. Thanks for taking the time to clearly articulate those thoughts. <hr /></blockquote>

Moblsv (???) and Cheesemouse - mon plaisir. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SPetty
05-13-2004, 05:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Always assume those with whom you disagree are as intelligent as you are and have motives as noble as you do.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Ross,

I really like your discussion and how you phrase your arguments. I loved this post, and wanted to comment that I think that this point I've quoted is the most difficult for everyone on all sides. You can easily find "clinical evidence" of that difficulty in many of these NPR posts.

Thanks, keep up the good work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
05-14-2004, 05:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>Always assume those with whom you disagree are as intelligent as you are and have motives as noble as you do. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> You can easily find "clinical evidence" of that difficulty in many of these NPR posts.
<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote> In a web-based disagreement, it is easy to jump to conclusions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ross
05-14-2004, 05:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Always assume those with whom you disagree are as intelligent as you are and have motives as noble as you do.<hr /></blockquote>Hi Ross,

I really like your discussion and how you phrase your arguments. I loved this post, and wanted to comment that I think that this point I've quoted is the most difficult for everyone on all sides. You can easily find "clinical evidence" of that difficulty in many of these NPR posts.

Thanks, keep up the good work. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks, Susan, I apreciate the compliment, especially from a fellow Texan! (I grew up in a small town along the Gulf Coast.) /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I agree with you that really listening to people that disagree is difficult, especially if that disagreement is in an area where there is no clear-cut correct answer. IMO, it is really, really easy for all of us to fall into intellectual snobbery and have no clue it is happening. I guess it starts in the teenage years, when all adults are seen to be idiots, and nothing they say could possibly be worth considering, much less possibly right! Then in young adulthood most of us tend to fall into our little groups of like-minded people, whether it is liberals or conservatives or Mormons or New Yorkers or Southerners or whatever. We all pat ourselves on the back about how smart/right we are and how misguided the other side is.

And there are social and emotional rewards for putting our blinders on to the possible validity of other viewpoints. One is the acceptance and mutual back-patting we get from our head-nodding, like-minded peers. And by selectively listening we establish a false sense of certainty about our understanding of what is -in reality- a world where uncertainy is all too prevalent. Orthodoxy allows us to avoid dealing with shades of gray, is mentally less work, and eases doubts and the headaches these cause. And we get yet another reward - an easy target for our anger, whatever the real source of the anger is. "It's those damn ______'s that are screwing everything up! Dammit, if they would just see the light..." And being mad at the "stupidity" of others is a hell of a lot easier than dealing with more personal things closer to home. So I think there are a lot of unconscious emotional reasons blocking us from really listening to those who disagree with us.

A very, very smart person once cautioned me not to confuse feeling self-righteous with being right. That insight has been very helpful to me. In fact, I've learned that this feeling is a warning sign rather than a guidepost to be trusted...

bluewolf
05-14-2004, 08:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> BTW, I found these principles of critical thinking on the web:

<ul type="square"> Because you are not God, it is inevitable some of the beliefs and viewpoints you firmly hold are completely wrong. Therefore, beware of intellectual arrogance.
Until you understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, you do not understand your own viewpoint very well.
Until you can summarize another viewpoint so well those who hold it agree with your summary, you do not understand that viewpoint.
If you wish to be considered a critical thinker, you must be willing to seriously consider alternatives and to change your mind.
Always assume those with whom you disagree are as intelligent as you are and have motives as noble as you do.
[/list]

Unfortunately these traits are not valued particularly in most web political "debates." /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

You hit it just right, Ross. This list is definately a 'keeper'

Laura

Vagabond
05-15-2004, 08:50 PM
LOL
vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Nightstalker
05-15-2004, 11:01 PM
Is the media biased?

Can a biker sit on a stool and drink? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

mred477
05-15-2004, 11:02 PM
Wally,

I'm not sure if it's so much media bias as it is media stupidity. As a chemical engineer, I find the use of statistics by the media absolutely abhorrent, as is the reporting of stories dealing with science and/or poling. A couple of examples that come to mind is the reporting of the study that antibacterial soap does not effectively kill viruses having a headline to the effect of "Antibacterial soap ineffective" or a report on a study that dealt with aspirin causing breast cancer that only studied 12 (or some small number) of women who had breast cancer in their family history.

I guess my point is that the viewpoint that will bring out the most ire is probably presented. Right now, attacking the president fires up both sides, as does enhancing the two above studies I mentioned. Maybe there's a bias, but it doesn't really matter anyway now that everyone has so much access to so many different media outlets. JMHO.

Will

~Libertarian who wished there was a fiscal conservative somewhere on the presidential ticket

pooltchr
05-17-2004, 05:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mred477:</font><hr>Will

~Libertarian who wished there was a fiscal conservative somewhere on the presidential ticket <hr /></blockquote>

TAP! TAP! TAP!

eg8r
05-17-2004, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarian who wished there was a fiscal conservative somewhere on the presidential ticket <hr /></blockquote> What a great idea. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif W has some great qualities, but cutting government spending is not one of them.

eg8r

Vagabond
05-18-2004, 05:32 AM
That is the principle I follow and it makes my life easier.
Cheers
vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif