Left wing bias - Page 19

FireFly · 08-27-08, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

Okay, we constantly hear on these boards that US media has a left wing bias.

Now my question is.. can anyone show me where some of the main networks show left wing bias?

And no criticizing Bush or a Republican is not showing left wing bias. And no that lame biased UCLA study on media bias does not cut it either. And no even mentioning left wing polices or the word socialist is not left wing bias.

What I am looking for is clear cut left wing bias along the lines of the way Fox News does bias.. Comments like the Terrorist fist jab, or promoting out right lies or twisting facts for political bias.

So do people have any examples of left wing media bias.

the left-right paradigm traps us all.

far more accurate to look at media bias of the ruling elite/establishment ie. the globalist bankers,major corporations which in effect own our political leaders and the mass media.
go to www infowars.com to get a much more real picture of the world.
but you will have to break through all the 'biased' conditioning that has formed your world view through out your entire life !

LennyD · 08-27-08, 11:18 PM

Quote:

you will have to break through all the 'biased' conditioning that has formed your world view through out your entire life !

WOW!!

Those are some strong words, and mostly because it describes a problem many people have (Should I say most) because we are all a product of our past and our surroundings.

I had made a comment previously (not sure if it was in this thread) that it is difficult to see clearly when you have chosen a side and are blinded by the thinking or beliefs of it.

If you really think about it we are all seeing things based on what we have heard, seen, been taught, or just experienced in the past. This would apply to things like what actions and beliefs are associated with which political party, but also goes as deep as some basic things like just believing what you see on the tube is real and not just some computer generated hoax (seems it worked for parts of the opening of the Olympics so do not immediately move to denial).

Could it be that unless we agree to completely remove everything we have learned and what makes up our beliefs and what we believe to be true we can not truly see any of the this issue on bias for what it really is?

It seems way too many people replying here on this subject (both views) have either already made up their minds, are only repeating what they have been told previous, are protecting what they believe or a combination of them all.

Since getting involved with this thread I have made a point of viewing or listening to all the news outlets mentioned as well as some not to be able to better understand where all the confusion is coming from.

What I have learned is that though there was not too much available to prove or disprove anything, but also that there are very specific differences in the way the various outlets present the news, and even what they include or completely leave out.

When viewing all the ones that are tagged to be biased to the left I see much the same in the topic, manner of reporting, questioning, professional opinion or experts, and even the video footage.

On the other hand while many not listed show the same basics they also tend to show additional information and repeat themselves less on certain claims etc.

Then when it comes to FOX they appear to do pretty much the same except for the fact that they offer slightly different presentation, and question the things that the first group accepts as or reports as fact much more often.

These things above could include cutting out of a video before the speaker stumbles, replaying a clip that includes an attack over and over, showing smiling faces or even showing smirks and rolling eyes, producing expert discussion that appears to follow a trend, and a host of similar little omissions or other simple things.

What I found interesting is that though I have only paid this close attention for a short time it was obvious that certain outlets were attempting to show different things in a positive way, and others just the same but in the opposite direction.

I guess you have to make your own decision if this is bias or just how these places work, but I can only estimate that so many accuse FOX of being the biased network because they are certainly showing more perspectives, discussing and proofing the information more than the others, and without a doubt are not selling the same product as all the others are.

Honestly except for the different faces many of the more popular network and cable outlets seemed to be more the same than different, and the only real standout for the major networks was FOX. I still found very useful and interesting reporting from outside the norm or majors (PBS, BBC, and the net as well) but for the most part all the others were pretty much the same.

Could it be that we have become so used to one thing that we find something different threatening?

Sometimes the cause of something is just too simple to find.

LennyD · 08-27-08, 11:31 PM

Before anyone accuses me of not having anything to back those statements up just consider the following examples.

Just the coverage of the DNC convention alone gave enough evidence to show there is more purpose in how and what is reported as well as how many times things are repeated.

I lost count of how many times CNN, NBC, MSNBC and some others showed video of various speakers driving the idea of and accusing McCain of being GWB or just another GWB etc. While on FOX (and a few others) they showed this in much more limited amounts, and did not repeat the same people making the same statements over and over.

I am going to spend more time on FOX over the next day or two (wow I did not see all that much of this station before lol) and what what I can find that is obvious in their reporting, but so far it was more about what they did not do rather than what they did.

There are other examples, but even with a decent WPM on typing I do not desire to list them all. Still the point remains that why would some stations be shoving the same point down the viewers throats countless times in repetition if there was not some purpose to it.

If you can not see that there was an attempt to create a message that would remain in the viewers heads then you must have already decided that this could not happen before it even did. It was just to obvious.

What is really interesting is that I did not see the potential for so much bias before you all got me really checking it out, and now I can not watch any station for more than a couple minutes without noticing something that seems different or may have an intent to create an opinion for the viewers.

WOW!!

Truth Detector · 08-28-08, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

WOW!!

Those are some strong words, and mostly because it describes a problem many people have (Should I say most) because we are all a product of our past and our surroundings.

I had made a comment previously (not sure if it was in this thread) that it is difficult to see clearly when you have chosen a side and are blinded by the thinking or beliefs of it.

If you really think about it we are all seeing things based on what we have heard, seen, been taught, or just experienced in the past. This would apply to things like what actions and beliefs are associated with which political party, but also goes as deep as some basic things like just believing what you see on the tube is real and not just some computer generated hoax (seems it worked for parts of the opening of the Olympics so do not immediately move to denial).

Could it be that unless we agree to completely remove everything we have learned and what makes up our beliefs and what we believe to be true we can not truly see any of the this issue on bias for what it really is?

It seems way too many people replying here on this subject (both views) have either already made up their minds, are only repeating what they have been told previous, are protecting what they believe or a combination of them all.

Since getting involved with this thread I have made a point of viewing or listening to all the news outlets mentioned as well as some not to be able to better understand where all the confusion is coming from.

What I have learned is that though there was not too much available to prove or disprove anything, but also that there are very specific differences in the way the various outlets present the news, and even what they include or completely leave out.

When viewing all the ones that are tagged to be biased to the left I see much the same in the topic, manner of reporting, questioning, professional opinion or experts, and even the video footage.

On the other hand while many not listed show the same basics they also tend to show additional information and repeat themselves less on certain claims etc.

Then when it comes to FOX they appear to do pretty much the same except for the fact that they offer slightly different presentation, and question the things that the first group accepts as or reports as fact much more often.

These things above could include cutting out of a video before the speaker stumbles, replaying a clip that includes an attack over and over, showing smiling faces or even showing smirks and rolling eyes, producing expert discussion that appears to follow a trend, and a host of similar little omissions or other simple things.

What I found interesting is that though I have only paid this close attention for a short time it was obvious that certain outlets were attempting to show different things in a positive way, and others just the same but in the opposite direction.

I guess you have to make your own decision if this is bias or just how these places work, but I can only estimate that so many accuse FOX of being the biased network because they are certainly showing more perspectives, discussing and proofing the information more than the others, and without a doubt are not selling the same product as all the others are.

Honestly except for the different faces many of the more popular network and cable outlets seemed to be more the same than different, and the only real standout for the major networks was FOX. I still found very useful and interesting reporting from outside the norm or majors (PBS, BBC, and the net as well) but for the most part all the others were pretty much the same.

Could it be that we have become so used to one thing that we find something different threatening?

Sometimes the cause of something is just too simple to find.

Although many believe that my politics are one sided, this would be incorrect. I am intractable in my belief that Government cannot be the answer to all our social ills and that only WE as citizens can make things better for ourselves free from outside interference and repressive Government regulations.

I do not believe the panacea to the problems associated with living is solved by a nanny socialist state. I do not believe that creating a dependent citizenry will lead to freedom; rather it will lead to the opposite and enslavement.

I believe in the Liberalism of the founders of this nation and the contents of the Constitution and that Government is only intended to defend the nation from outside interests and conduct and enforce the laws of the land. It was NEVER meant to make our lives easier or manage the economy (which it cannot do by the way).

What is that Liberal Democracy we have all forgotten about? It is best described in the dictionary as the following:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist/-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic/"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective

Truth Detector · 08-28-08, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Before anyone accuses me of not having anything to back those statements up just consider the following examples.

Just the coverage of the DNC convention alone gave enough evidence to show there is more purpose in how and what is reported as well as how many times things are repeated.

I lost count of how many times CNN, NBC, MSNBC and some others showed video of various speakers driving the idea of and accusing McCain of being GWB or just another GWB etc. While on FOX (and a few others) they showed this in much more limited amounts, and did not repeat the same people making the same statements over and over.

I am going to spend more time on FOX over the next day or two (wow I did not see all that much of this station before lol) and what what I can find that is obvious in their reporting, but so far it was more about what they did not do rather than what they did.

There are other examples, but even with a decent WPM on typing I do not desire to list them all. Still the point remains that why would some stations be shoving the same point down the viewers throats countless times in repetition if there was not some purpose to it.

If you can not see that there was an attempt to create a message that would remain in the viewers heads then you must have already decided that this could not happen before it even did. It was just to obvious.

What is really interesting is that I did not see the potential for so much bias before you all got me really checking it out, and now I can not watch any station for more than a couple minutes without noticing something that seems different or may have an intent to create an opinion for the viewers.

WOW!!

You may want to consider how I decide who I will watch the coverage of these events.

For the DNC I pick Fox because you do not get all the effusive gushing about the candidate you will on CNN or MSNBC. Then for the Republican Convention I will watch it on CNN to get the opposite perspective because Fox will be more biased and effusive and possibly gushing for the Republican candidate, although I think to a far lesser degree than MSNBC with Obama.

This way you get a more balanced viewpoint.

Bottom line is this; watching any of these events is painfully hard and usually illustrate that rather than bringing America together, they tend to continue the same divisive partisan rhetoric lacking substance they always do.

nikitas3.com · 08-30-08, 04:51 PM

If I were sitting with you through a Nightly News show, I could point it out clip by clip. You can read many studies that show bias, for instance, that Time magazine has put Obama on its cover 7 times this year. Or the avalanche of magazines with Michelle Obama on the cover while McCain has had few.

The important thing is the "background noise" of the media. It is not direct advocacy, but rather a drumbeat of stories about, say, global warming. Then when Al Gore says in Denver before 80,000 people that "sea levels are rising", there is no questioning among the media because that is their story line. And the sea levels are not rising in any way. This guy is nuts.

The media are socialists because they do what socialists always do. They sit in their offices imagining a perfect world. They sit on their college campuses, deathly afraid of the real world, and imagine everything perfect. Yet everything they propose is nonsense. Ethanol is nonsense. Wind energy does not work. Solar panels are phony. If they worked, everyone would have them.

You cannot trust the Ancient Media in any way. These people are angry idealists. That sounds counter-intuitive, but idealists are always angry. Because the ideal is not possible even though they suggest it every day.

Please visit my website at welcome to nikitas for more.

DeeJayH · 08-30-08, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikitas3.com

If I were sitting with you through a Nightly News show, I could point it out clip by clip. You can read many studies that show bias, for instance, that Time magazine has put Obama on its cover 7 times this year. Or the avalanche of magazines with Michelle Obama on the cover while McCain has had few.

The important thing is the "background noise" of the media. It is not direct advocacy, but rather a drumbeat of stories about, say, global warming. Then when Al Gore says in Denver before 80,000 people that "sea levels are rising", there is no questioning among the media because that is their story line. And the sea levels are not rising in any way. This guy is nuts.

The media are socialists because they do what socialists always do. They sit in their offices imagining a perfect world. They sit on their college campuses, deathly afraid of the real world, and imagine everything perfect. Yet everything they propose is nonsense. Ethanol is nonsense. Wind energy does not work. Solar panels are phony. If they worked, everyone would have them.

You cannot trust the Ancient Media in any way. These people are angry idealists. That sounds counter-intuitive, but idealists are always angry. Because the ideal is not possible even though they suggest it every day.

but there is no media bias when MSNBC asks how many homes Palin adds to the McCain ticket

Quote:

Please visit my website at welcome to nikitas for more.

not in a million years

LennyD · 08-31-08, 01:45 AM

This all just gets more interesting all the time

It seems just like in real life most people here can see the spin put on things from some places (those reflecting bias to the left etc, and the lack of it from others, or even the limited times in the other direction), and only a small few actually attempt to debate this (as seen by futile attempts to disguise this very real issue here).

What I need to ask is why so few debate (effectively) the whole left wing bias in the media issue from the left.

Sure we see all kinds of accusations towards FOX here, but little to no real answers or any other simple explanations to back the idea that this does not really exist (though it seems obvious that it does).

My question now is that can this be because just like with many issues where someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar it is better to remain silent?

Better yet can it just be that there is no way to debate something as obvious as the sky being blue.

Then maybe this is totally offbase and all the so called drive thru media outlets are practicing totally fair and balanced unbiased reporting and it really is FOX that is biased (as seen by their not repeating the many things all the others do constantly, like another four years, or Obama is the only choice for change etc) and we all should avoid them.

In the end it would apear obvious that it is up to each and everyone of us to review the evidence and make the decision, and hopefully without our own bias clouding the truth.

LennyD · 08-31-08, 01:56 AM

Quote:

The important thing is the "background noise" of the media. It is not direct advocacy, but rather a drumbeat of stories about, say, global warming. Then when Al Gore says in Denver before 80,000 people that "sea levels are rising", there is no questioning among the media because that is their story line. And the sea levels are not rising in any way. This guy is nuts.

This stuff is nuts.

No not the man himself, but how anything he makes a cliam of then becomes some kind of unquestionable truth.

I know this thread is not about one person, but if you or I made countless unbelievable and unproven claims no one would be making a movie about it, and inconvenient would not be part of the title.

This really supports "question everything" as much if not more than anything else happening now.

FireFly · 09-01-08, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

... Government is only intended to defend the nation from outside interests and conduct and enforce the laws of the land. It was NEVER meant to make our lives easier or manage the economy (which it cannot do by the way).

That is 100% wrong. If people vote for government to run the economy and a welfare safety net, then that is exactly what their government is for.