1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How Slimy Can They Get?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by OldRegular, Aug 8, 2005.

  1. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying that about most if not all news editors in the country or only most if not all news editors at the Times? Either way, do you have anything to back it up?

    I notice you don't include publishers in your diabtribe.

    And how, in your opinion, do they do that? They trashed Clinton, they trashed Gore, they reported the Swift Boat Vets as though they were legit....What precisely have you seen that was liberally biased? If anything, they tend to be insipid behind-kissers if the behinds belong to the rich, famous and, most of all, powerful.

    Which newspapers do you consider to be mainstream? And how do they differ in they're coverage of national news?

    Who (name, date) has told you that you were stupid for being conservative? What examples of one-sided reporting/editing have you actual seen? Or is this something your radio talkshow guys feed you?

    Or maybe some people like loudmouth blowhard sensationalists with little objective coverage.

    Actually, the news part of FoxNews isn't that bad, but the commentators! Ewf!

    Ah mindreading! Fun sport and useful in acing debates - simply declare that you know what they think! Who can say you're wrong but the thinkers in question.

    A little actual supporting evidence would be a nice addition to your mere assertions.
     
  2. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Actually Daisy,

    I didn't see any mention of the easily documentable fact that most news outlets both left and right, liberal and conservative are owned by one close nit group. Zionists. Not to mention Hollywood.

    Can you say controlled opposition...Scott J?
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you saying that about most if not all news editors in the country or only most if not all news editors at the Times? Either way, do you have anything to back it up? </font>[/QUOTE] Does that mean that you are disputing what I said or just trying to change the subject? Are you really going to suggest that 50% or even 25% of the editors and reporters at the NYT are conservative? Vote GOP?

    For a glimpse, we can look at the political makeup of NY itself. It is a Democrat dominated, liberal city.

    Also, there has been polling that shows that consistently 80% of the Washington press corps which includes Times reporters vote Democrat and are in fact liberal.

    Publishers publish. Printers print. They don't often make up the stuff that goes on paper.

    And how, in your opinion, do they do that? They trashed Clinton,</font>[/QUOTE] They let Clinton slide. Do you really think a Republican could have had 500 FBI files on opposing Democrats for no legitimate reason in the WH and have remained in office? Do you really think after the comparatively mild DeLay transgressions that Clinton was "trashed" concerning all of the irregularities and Chinese connections in their fundraising? The media didn't even report Monica and Clinton's perjury as news but rather at "he said she said".
    Really? Gore's "Earth in the Balance" contained some things that were absolutely inane as well as politically suicidal... I don't remember the Times exposing his radical views.
    That isn't a liberal/conservative issue. If it is then it is more evidence that they are liberal, not less. There are just as many very wealthy liberals and Democrats as there are Republicans. Top executives in large corporations actually favor the Dems somewhat in the last poll I remember. I suspect it is because they view big government as a good customer and also an inhibitor to small company competition. Large corporations find alot to love in gov't regulation... they can afford it while small companies (that are much more likely to be owned and operated by conservative Republicans) cannot. That's why you see small business owners supporting the GOP overwhelmingly. They like low taxes and regulation.

    Chicago Sun-Times seemed to be more balanced than most but by no means conservative. The Tribune had flashes of independence as has USA Today.

    Unfortunately, almost all newspapers follow the editorial lead of the NYT, Wash Post, and LA Times.

    Try the mocking that is being cast at Kansas right now for considering how to handle evolution in school as an example of innuendo. Wasn't it Alec Baldwin or some other like-minded liberal who made the "fly over" country comment? Didn't they pretty much say that our opinions didn't count because we are ignorant?

    I didn't mean that the word "stupid" is often used though sometimes it is.

    The divide is real Daisy.
    They're everywhere. I complained numerous times to the AP over the way their stories were written during the election. I pointed out the disparities between the way they handled negative news about Bush vs Kerry. My observations were LATER borne out by a media watchdog's evaluation of negative reporting.
    You just provided your own proof of east coast liberal elitism. You insenuate that I am too stupid or ignorant to read a story for myself and recognize the editorializing and bias of the writer. You don't think I can take in confirmed news from multiple sources and recognize that liberals report news that is bad for conservatives in ways that are bad for conservative causes?

    I don't consider CNSNews or some of the other internet sites unbiased in their commentary or editing. They don't claim to be. They obviously post news that promotes conservatism... and often mocks liberalism. I have no idea what the religious affiliation of the owners is but they aren't anti-Christian... nor do they pretend that we don't exist.

    Or maybe some people like loudmouth blowhard sensationalists with little objective coverage.</font>[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be objective... it needs to be factual, honest about its bias, and relevant. In the early years of our nation, the press didn't make any pretenses about being unbiased. They promoted points of view. It was only in the last century or so that the illusion of an unbiased media was attempted.

    Despite style, CBS didn't show objectivity on either the Swift Boat or NG issue. They were not at all insistent on finding the truth on Kerry and were so determined to see Bush guilty that they didn't even vete their sources.

    If the Swift Vets were lying about everything they said then they should have been factually exposed using Kerry's own records (woops the media didn't force him to release them the way they did Bush)... but any way, these guys should have been humiliated... but if even one of their more serious accusations was true then Kerry should have been exposed as a fraud... say something like whether he recommended himself for medals or bypassed his commander to write a commendation for himself... only to claim hero status in his political career.

    They average slightly to the right of center.

    Brit Hume was actually a pretty good reporter... until he was fired for not letting Clinton off the hook.

    The news reporting isn't bad but still a little tainted by the group think media agenda.

    Ah mindreading! Fun sport and useful in acing debates - simply declare that you know what they think! Who can say you're wrong but the thinkers in question. </font>[/QUOTE] Not doing that. Goldberg, an insider, said it... and specifically mentioned the fact that these people run in the same social circles and consider each other "mainstream".

    [ August 09, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Drop the racist, anti-semitic stuff... and I will agree completely that the "mainsteam media" is big business and big business along with big government and big labor are largely controlled by a relatively small group of elitists.

    Not perfectly united or in complete agreement... but they do recognize their mutual interests and mutual threats.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Drop the racist, anti-semitic stuff... and I will agree completely that the "mainsteam media" is big business and big business along with big government and big labor are largely controlled by a relatively small group of elitists.

    Not perfectly united or in complete agreement... but they do recognize their mutual interests and mutual threats.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Please explain in 100 words or less how stating a proven fact is racist or anti-semitic, if you can.

    So you believe a small group of elite control the media, industry, and government? Then how can there honestly be a liberal media? Going by what you wrote I assume you would agree that the "liberal media" is nothing more than one device to control opinion and protect their interests, same as a conservative media owned and controlled by the same few elite would be used to control opinion and protect their interests.

    Like I said, controlled opposition. To keep the country divided and dependent on them to protect and defend their interests.

    So the question is...when we go to war or adopt agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT, who's interests are we really protecting? Our's as in America or theirs as in the elite?
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Eclectic. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you contradict your earlier statement that
    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
    </font>[/QUOTE]Where does the contradiction lay? I see a lot of big smiles, but little logic.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps you need to check the meaning of eclectic. I did!
     
  7. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,122
    Likes Received:
    19
    Oh, really? Are you sure about that?
    The New York Times will make corrections whenever there is something that was wrong or misstated.

    Now, let's take a look at the "fair and balanced" FoxNews Channel:

    Here is a transcript from Hannity and Colmes.
    This is for a show which included a conversation with the esteemed ( [​IMG] ) Dr. Bill Hammesfahr. Notice this exchange:

    Read further:

    Further....

    A little further.....

    Now, read what David Brock wrote about this.

    Apparently, Sean Hannity was not the only one who did this at Fox News.

    Did anyone ever see or hear Hannity or anyone else at Fox News retract this claim that was made ad nauseum? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I certainly never did. Even if they did, I found the link to that show without any difficulty.

    The New York Times has a section specifically for that purpose. I would venture to guess that our definitions of "scum" differ dramatically.......

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  8. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    This whole thread leaves me with 3 questions.

    1. The Nobel prizes are evil, at the very least they are in the perception of American Conservatives. In the past couple of years I've never read, or heard anything even remotely positive about them on either this board, or any other Conservative website. Suddenly a (dodgy) nomination for one is something positive?

    2. What kind of dirt could possibly be dug up on a potential supreme court judge, by reading the adoption records of children he and his mrs. adopted?
    Sounds like the most inane fishing expedition I've ever heard of.

    3. Your telling me that with over 260 million Americans the US can't even manage to have 2 at least somewhat respectable Conservative national newspapers ? That's beyond pathetic. My country has 4 of those.

    OldRegular
    To answer the question before you might get the urge to ask it, I'll report something about my own reading habits.
    I mostly read books and magazines you can't read. [​IMG]
     
  9. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Drop the racist, anti-semitic stuff... and I will agree completely that the "mainsteam media" is big business and big business along with big government and big labor are largely controlled by a relatively small group of elitists.

    Not perfectly united or in complete agreement... but they do recognize their mutual interests and mutual threats.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Please explain in 100 words or less how stating a proven fact is racist or anti-semitic, if you can.</font>[/QUOTE]
    Please prove your inferred "zionist" conspiracy.

    Did you mean something other than Jewish when you said "zionist"?

    These interests don't necessarily agree on things they want to do. But they do agree that it is in their mutual interests to preserve the "two party"/"two side" power structure.

    I believe the differences and competition are real. They are just smart enough not to want other players at the table.

    I believe that the liberals would really like to see a socialist state lead by government elites while the country club conservatives would like to see a classed society. Neither is happy about the influence of populist conservatism (tending toward our founding libertarian ideals) that is characterized by property rights groups, small businessmen, and the hated "religious right".

    Theirs always. Ours sometimes.
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, really? Are you sure about that?
    The New York Times will make corrections whenever there is something that was wrong or misstated.

    Now, let's take a look at the "fair and balanced" FoxNews Channel:...
    </font>[/QUOTE]Without even considering the rest, H&C is an opinion show based on the news. They don't claim to be objective. The liberal news organizations make the claim that they are just reporting the news and not operating on an agenda.
     
  11. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither. I'm asking you to clarify bacause I'm unsure what you meant.
    Ok, you mean just at NYT and not all. I don't know what per cent of the editors and reporters are conservative or vote GOP. Do you?

    How do you figure that? This mayor, Bloomberg, and the last, Giuliani, are both Republican. City council is made up of mostly Democrats, but there are also Republicans (and one Working Families). The governor is Republican, the State Assembly & Senate are Republican controlled. Both US Senators are currently Democrats (usually we have one each.)

    Ok, now we're off NYT and more general. Who did the polling, how was it conducted and where are the results posted? This is just your assertion unless you provide a source.

    Um, publishers own. They may not make up the stuff but they do control and direct it.

    Apparently, NYT editorial writer William Saffire trashed Clinton for this on the same day the Times reported that Ken Starr cleared him:
    The Speaker of the House ethics thing has been going on for some time, back and forth. Compare DeLay with Jim Wright, if you want a fair comparison (big if, though). Yes, Clinton was trashed.

    Link

    You've got to be kidding.

    Then you apparently missed Michiko Kakutani's November 22, 1999 review of his book wherein she thoroughly trashed him.

    But they didn't look into the legitimacy of the charges like good reporters ought, did they?

    So much for specific charges.

    Well, then that would define them as mainstream....

    There are left-wing media such as the American Prospect, the Boston Review, the ConsortoriumNews, Intervention Magazine, Mother Jones, the Nation, the New Republic, the Progressive, the Progressive Populist, Tom Paine, Washington Monthly, the Village Voice and others.

    Kansas=Missouri? That aside, NYT does recognise the difference between science and religion. Do you have an example of the NYT (name, date) actually mocking the KBOE or is this something you simply assume they would do?
    Mr. Baldwin doesn't work for the NYT last I heard (I'm not familiar with the "fly over" comment).

    Perhaps it sometimes applies ~~ to both sides (I won't deny that the liberal community has more than it's fair share of dim bulbs, but that shouldn't taint the entire lot of us).

    You seem to like it that way, unless I'm misinterpreting you.

    Yeah, but what examples of one-sided reporting/editing have you actually seen by the NYT? By examples, I mean a "for instance" not a vague clain that they are "everywhere".

    Ok, we're no longer talking about the NYT, now.

    Again, examples? Like, actual quotes or citations....

    Uh-huh, and this media watchdog wouldn't happen to be affliated with the conservatives or the Republicans? You neglected to say which one, when and where - too many bald assertions and no actual examples.
    (continued...)
     
  12. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Surely you aren't suggesting that Saffire EVER spoke for the NYT are you?
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh-huh, and this media watchdog wouldn't happen to be affliated with the conservatives or the Republicans? You neglected to say which one, when and where - too many bald assertions and no actual examples.
    (continued...)
    </font>[/QUOTE]Oh. So unless someone is associated with liberals or Democrats they can't possibly make accurate observations, right?
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    BTW, the July 31st issue of the KC Star (a liberal paper) had a report on the GOP governor's fundraising. Fair enough... except it reported that health care providers had given him money after legislation that made it harder for people to sue their doctors was passed. What it didn't say was that the legislation was intended to prevent frivolous lawsuits that run up our health care and insurance costs.

    So by innuendo, the KC Star painted Blunt as the puppet of the people who are overcharging the average person... rather than someone who is trying to do something about abuses in the system.

    Tell you what. It is very difficult to go back and dig up references that are months or even years old. I can tell you that the statistics on the Wash Press Corps voting is a few years old was not disputed at the time by liberals. So, I will make a mental not to link you to examples of what I see as bias since you seemed to have now shifted from insenuating that I am too stupid to see it to suggesting that I am dishonest or somehow not conscientious about my sources.
     
  15. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know what eclectic means, but how does what I read contradict the NYT being mainstream?

    Please explain in simple terms without smilies or crypticisms.
     
  16. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, really? Are you sure about that?
    The New York Times will make corrections whenever there is something that was wrong or misstated.

    Now, let's take a look at the "fair and balanced" FoxNews Channel:

    Here is a transcript from Hannity and Colmes.
    This is for a show which included a conversation with the esteemed ( [​IMG] ) Dr. Bill Hammesfahr. Notice this exchange:

    Read further:

    Further....

    A little further.....

    Now, read what David Brock wrote about this.

    Apparently, Sean Hannity was not the only one who did this at Fox News.

    Did anyone ever see or hear Hannity or anyone else at Fox News retract this claim that was made ad nauseum? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I certainly never did. Even if they did, I found the link to that show without any difficulty.

    The New York Times has a section specifically for that purpose. I would venture to guess that our definitions of "scum" differ dramatically.......

    Regards,
    BiR
    </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, and we all no how objective David Brock is. :D :D If the NY Times is so fair and balanced, why haven't they apologized for their fishing expedition on Judge Roberts. Why do you suppose that the overwhelming majority of their so called news items are negative toward anything conservative? :confused: :confused:

    As to the Hannity & Colmes show, another red herring. I was not comparing the Times to anyone but papers of the same ilk. By the way, the last time I checked, Colmes is an admitted Liberal. That makes one Liberal and one Conservative. That seems to be fair and balanced to me. What are the political persuasions of the editorial board and reporters on the NY Times :confused: :D
     
  17. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    (continuing....)
    Partly, but I never claimed not to be an east coast liberal (define "elitist" - not sure I qualify) any more than you've claimed not to be a mid west conservative. So what? We're talking about the NYT, not about me.

    No, I don't think of you as stupid or even particularly ignorant (we all have our areas of expertise and ignorance. I consider myself to be far more ignorant than expert in most matters). However, I have heard these same views parroted quite a bit and you have so far failed to give anything to back up your assertions except more assertions. I think "lazy" is the operative word here - I'm sure you could find examples if you wanted to.

    I think you could if you tried, but I haven't seen you try for real yet.

    Good for you [​IMG] But how does that affect NYT being mainstream or not? Isn't that the question here?


    From the 1970s. It should not only be honest about its bias, but even more importantly, honest about the facts.

    Objective is good in journalism. I still think it is to be desired.

    I agree with you on both counts. They were horribly sloppy.

    The Swift Vets didn't lie about everything, but they lied about a lot and twisted the rest. What is the evidence that Kerry recommended himself for medals or bypassed his commander to write a commendation for himself?

    They average slightly to the right of center.

    Brit Hume was actually a pretty good reporter... until he was fired for not letting Clinton off the hook.
    [/quote][/qb]When was he fired and by whom?
    Link to Hume trashing Gore
    James Roosevelt Discusses Hume's Distortions
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
  19. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is kind of where I disagree concerning Roberts. I think the media ought to be the ultimate check on politicians of all stripe. That requires a biased media because we all tend to be more forgiving and less suspicious of those who agree with our point of view.

    The problem today isn't that the liberal media criticizes and scrutinizes conservatives. It is that there is no equitable criticism and scrutiny of liberals.
     
  20. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    "Please prove your inferred "zionist" conspiracy."

    Play on a trick question? By the use of the word conspiracy I reckon you've already made up your mind about any evidence myself or anyone else could put forth. But here's a couple links.
    Take Back The Media

    THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America's mass media of news and entertainment.

    Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

    The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know—or think we know—about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television.

    It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV "docudramas" that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

    For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter's choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations—all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear.

    On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the "in" crowd, the "beautiful people," the "smart money." They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

    SOURCE

    Now I fully expect that libophobia will set in and all this will be discounted as leftist craziness or racist hate and I can appreciate that as I was once a victim of the relentless propaganda put out by the media myself. Can't blame them really for trying to protect their capital interests and monopoly over our thoughts and opinions. Now a days though I see through alot of it but, I'm no expert at it by any means.

    I do try to look past the propaganda and find the facts in every story. It isn't easy I know, but for the sake of my country I'm willing to read the left slanted views as well as the right slanted views then do a little googling on my own before I form any opinions one way or the other. Doesn't always work, but I try.

    "Did you mean something other than Jewish when you said "zionist"?"

    One doesn't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. I always assumed that by being a Jew one was part of a religion and that being part of a religion doesn't make one of a different or seperate race. As far as I'm concerned their is only one race. The human race and we're all lost until we accept Christ as saviour.

    This next text is from link above.

    The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for whom he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views.

    And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.
     
Loading...