Left wing bias - Page 26

LennyD · 09-04-08, 10:38 AM

I know I am going to get hammered for this, but here we go

Quote:

The first question it begs is this; what was the benefit of murdering 3,000 American citizens and nearly bringing down the economy?

Boy is that a loaded question

But lets take a look at what benefits may exist.

There is an obvious increased western presence in the ME region, and many foreign interests have more security.

A serious potential threat to the non Islam countries of the region was eliminated.

The US dollar was not replaced by the Euro for oil trading.

The Saudi's have one less thorn in their side, and a much stronger presence in the region as well.

The list continues trust me on that, but even if you believe this all to be an attempt to save the US economy (yes some believe this) or even to show our friends in the ME that we support so well thru oil imports that we will not be messed with it makes zero sense in relation to 9/11.

Like I said earlier I do not know the answer, but still there was something to be gained for some.

Scucca · 09-04-08, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

One immediate difference that comes to mind is how I have noticed since paying more attention lately is that FOX seems to not just accept what comes down the wire or what others just report on, but rather askes the questions that many would like to know the answers on.

So we'd either have more effective media bias because of the lack of variation in the nature of the Fox audience (i.e. answering questions is more straight-forward as the audience demands are less diverse) or that Fox is more aggressive in its bias (giving this difference between reporting and formation of "answers")?

LennyD · 09-04-08, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

So we'd either have more effective media bias because of the lack of variation in the nature of the Fox audience (i.e. answering questions is more straight-forward as the audience demands are less diverse) or that Fox is more aggressive in its bias (giving this difference between reporting and formation of "answers")?

I am not sure if I am completely understanding your point, but it seems like you have it 180 out.

I do not believe any outlet is producing their product based on the variation or lack of it of their audience nature.

If anything the products available are tinted prior to our viewing and maybe some are drawn towards the tints they prefer. I also think this may not be a 100% known happening to the actual viewer.

Maybe you need to be more clear, or maybe you are suggesting that you did not notice that some present Mccain as an old geezer with a lean towards insanity while presenting Obama as a God or experienced leader, or maybe how another attempts to present Mccain as a symbol of youthfull health and past heros while presenting Obama as some kind of tall skinny awkward guy with little experience and ties to known terrorists.

We can pick our poison, but would have to be idiots or insane to believe its coolaide.

Scucca · 09-05-08, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

I do not believe any outlet is producing their product based on the variation or lack of it of their audience nature.

There has to be an explanation for why the evidence suggests Fox, relative to other outlets, is more effective at impacting on voting patterns. Given your comment "FOX seems to not just accept what comes down the wire or what others just report on, but rather asks the questions that many would like to know the answers on", I've offered two explanations. I can't think of any others that would explain the empirical findings. So pick one or construct a third...

Hypothesis 1: The homogeneity of the Fox audience makes "answering the questions" more straight-forward, ensuring that bias is more effective

Hypothesis 2: Fox is simply more aggressive in its bias, with a distinction between the subtle outlets (who just manipulate tone and vocab) and the less subtle outlets who offer more complete propaganda packages

FireFly · 09-05-08, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Okay, first off, there have been innumerable studies and reports that verify what ACTUALLY happened on 9-11. But let's set aside the FACTS, as you are attempting to do, and let’s assume that there was some vast Government/Big Business/Israeli conspiracy to commit this act.

It took NIST 7 yrs to explain the collapse of wtc 7 , coming up with "thermal expansion" as the cause . Will this change the accepted method of demolition used by demolition companies ? Because wtc7 was a major centre of intelligence agencies , it was primed for demolition , in case of real attack , but on this day , it was "pulled" because it housed incriminating evidence of the inside operation. See head of security barry jennings report explosions in wtc7 whilst in was in there ! ( see film "fabled enemies to hear his testimony)

Quote:

The first question it begs is this; what was the benefit of murdering 3,000 American citizens and nearly bringing down the economy?

1) Military industrial complex, Haliburton. Of which Cheney ,Bush's et al are major shareholders !

2) All those that oppose muslims/arabs , especially their control of natural resources ie . oil .Israel being an obvious beneficiary , as indicated by the "5 dancing Israelis"!

Quote:

The second question is; are there really people within Government capable of murdering 3,000 people and never say anything about their involvement?

Oh, you mean the same govt (ie. U.S) that planned to kill american civilians in operation northwoods ?
Ever heard of the principle of "sacrifice for the greater good " ?
Ever wondered what mossad's motto means ? "By deception thou shalt wage war"
and who was it that said "All war is based on deception" ?
Cephus your naivety is breath taking . A study of the history of false flag attacks , would help you greatly to shift you from your false paradigm thinking.

Quote:

And the most pertinent question is this; such an operation and "conspiracy" would require the collusion of hundreds, maybe thousands within and outside Government, yet there is no evidence or connections of individuals who would commit such an atrocity? The notion that such a vast conspiracy could be conducted and none of the conspirators caught or exposed requires the willing, if not lemming like, suspension of disbelief.

How was the manhatten project kept secret for 50 yrs ?
It only takes a handful of ppl at the top of the pyramid to know the full scope of the operation, and all operatives under them are used in a need to know basis.Each layer of the operation is compartmentalised , so never knowing more than their specific isolated duties.
Consider this as an anology : Bank teller works for the bank , but he does not know what the bank manager is doing , and likewise the bank manager is not privy to knowing what the CEO or heads of the bank are doing . It is all based on a need to know , compartmentalised basis.

Quote:

It would also require us to forget Osama's own proud admission that he indeed planned and executed the attacks on 9-11. Not to mention evidence found on terrorist computers indicating the same.

Osama denied any involvement , straight after 9/11 , but hey presto weeks later, well known to be FAKED VIDEOS were released .

Quote:

I am sorry, but the notion that this benefited anyone in our Government, the Israelis or big business, or that a bunch of despicable Government employees along with their Israeli allies have conspired so well as to not have any CREDIBLE evidence to the contrary, were responsible for the actions of known terrorists working for Osama stretches the realm of logic and good reason. I cannot wallow so deeply in denial or whacked out conspiracy theories to believe that this is not what it actually is; a terrorist attack on a symbol of American Capitalism.

In other words : Breath taking naivety !

But to cut you some slack , what chance have most people to get nearer the truth, when they derive their information from the blatantly lying corporate media?

FireFly · 09-06-08, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Also I really believe that something of this magnitude would have the potential to be much more complicated than you make it to be.

What do you mean?

Quote:

When you consider all the various gains or purpose those involved could have had in the outcome of the attacks this becomes so complicated it boggles the mind.

Why does the amateurish yet vile plan to crash planes into buildings boggle your mind?

Quote:

On the other hand much is circumtancial, and the majority of the hard evidence points far to the east and deeply within religious groups.

That is debate-able.

Sir Loin · 09-06-08, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

What do you mean?

Why does the amateurish yet vile plan to crash planes into buildings boggle your mind?

That is debate-able.

Lenny, you do know about NASA astronauts and those firefly looking things that were spotted on the old Apollo missions? Turns out that pursuit of them was for a short while admirable, as they appeared to be something unexplained. In the end those Tinkerbell like darting lights turned out to be .............floating frozen urine.

LennyD · 09-06-08, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

There has to be an explanation for why the evidence suggests Fox, relative to other outlets, is more effective at impacting on voting patterns. Given your comment "FOX seems to not just accept what comes down the wire or what others just report on, but rather asks the questions that many would like to know the answers on", I've offered two explanations. I can't think of any others that would explain the empirical findings. So pick one or construct a third...

Hypothesis 1: The homogeneity of the Fox audience makes "answering the questions" more straight-forward, ensuring that bias is more effective

Hypothesis 2: Fox is simply more aggressive in its bias, with a distinction between the subtle outlets (who just manipulate tone and vocab) and the less subtle outlets who offer more complete propaganda packages

Succa I think you are over complicating this, but I can not understand the reason.

Non factual and unproven(empirical) findings aside it would seem clear that there is a large audience base (large enough to create the confusing numbers in voting etc) for their product. Maybe the polls have misunderstood the sheer amount of Americans who do not agree with the other outlets, their style of propaganda, or even the direction they mislead their viewers to etc and FOX does little more than allow this large majority a less painful experience for them etc.

I honestly do not have the answer, and am not even sure of its importance, but I do know FOX appears as a David battling a countless number of Goliath's and the only real way I can they would be able to have the effect you are talking about would not be from bias but rather from more of a lack of it combined with better reaching their audience.

I wish I had better answers for you, but from viewing all that I have lately it seems this "phenomenon" you find that FOX has created has the potential to be from the lack of or having less bias than the others and that a large amount of people who are tired of the bias they have been seeing for so long.

Think about it!!!

Scucca · 09-07-08, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyD

Non factual and unproven(empirical) findings aside

You're over-simplifying things. I've referred to properly conducted studies that, with the use of valid empirical methodology, test for statistical significance. It isn't an exercise reduced to "I think" or "I wonder".

Understanding why the Fox effect stands out is therefore going to be a integral part of assessing the nature of media bias.

Quote:

...but rather from more of a lack of it combined with better reaching their audience.

The ability to manipulate behaviour is the very reason for bias. That Fox has been successful, whilst the other media outlets have not, at the very least suggests that the "left wing bias" angle is drivel.

LennyD · 09-08-08, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

You're over-simplifying things. I've referred to properly conducted studies that, with the use of valid empirical methodology, test for statistical significance. It isn't an exercise reduced to "I think" or "I wonder".

Understanding why the Fox effect stands out is therefore going to be a integral part of assessing the nature of media bias.

The ability to manipulate behaviour is the very reason for bias. That Fox has been successful, whilst the other media outlets have not, at the very least suggests that the "left wing bias" angle is drivel.

Putting all the other BS aside, how could nearly every other major news outlet in the US (print, TV, and Net) besides FOX showing an obvious leaning towards making the Democratic party appear in a positive light (you had to see the chop job my local cable news channel did on editing out what it did not like from a speach by Joe B today, it was too obvious and juvenile in its quality) be considered "drivel"?

What I continue to find confusing is why so many can see the difference at FOX, but not at all the others.

Could this be no different than when a fan argues with officials at some baseball or football game defending their team no matter how obvious the decision?

We or you can include any historical or other information, but until someone can simply post something inline with "I refuse to see the spin at my favorite news outlet" or something else that would show why some just can not see both sides of the coin and remain fixated on either the heads or tails.

Maybe we should pose the real question as being "why some can not see the propaganda that so directly effects them thru continued media bias"