PDA

View Full Version : Mass Media:Is there bias, perceived or actual?


GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 01:06 PM
Thread split from The Ayers thread. Carry on issues about the Mass Media and bias (perceived or real) here. Thanks, Jae.

I would argue about your biased "truth", and lack of substantial sources, but you're in the wrong thread. This is the Ayers discussion.


Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

FoxNews' reporting in the regular news segments is considered factual. The opinion reporting and commentators such as O'Reilly and Hannity are indeed biased to the conservative, but the reporting of the news itself is accurate. Otherwise, using the logic that we should throw everything by Fox out, we should throw out everything said by CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes because of their significant liberal bias in their opinion programs and editorials.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's something reported in the regular news segments by either CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I'm fine with those facts and reports.

The opinion reporting by Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc, is just that--opinion. The NYTimes has been caught enough times with inaccuracies that they didn't retract, and at least 1 reporter completely making up stories, that I cannot trust them as a reliable news outlet anymore.

I will go further and say that the New York Times goes out of its way to try to cover up scandals involving Democrats and tries to smear Republicans at every opportunity.

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 01:13 PM
Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.Fox News may report the truth, but they add an incredible amount of bias to it, so much of a bias, in fact, that you'll need to filter most of it to salvage any thread of truth. All news outlets have a bias, but most are either to a minimum or casually hide it. Fox, on the other hand, seems to advertise their conservatism through their reporting.

Astor
12-23-2008, 01:15 PM
Look if the accusation of MSNBC trying to deliberately disrupt the Republican Convention is true, it doesn't give MSNBC much in the way of credibility.

But that's an incredibly big 'if', surely?

Adavardes
12-23-2008, 01:17 PM
Oh my statements about your attacks on my sources using sources that have a serious credibility problem is legit, btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.

... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 01:29 PM
... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/

jrrtoken
12-23-2008, 01:32 PM
Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.No, you're completely missing the point. You were using an opinion as cold, hard evidence. Opinions, either conservative or liberal do not qualify as the truth.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 01:40 PM
Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

Okay ordinarily I don't use Hotair.com, but this article has an audio link and it's another thing that's pretty troubling.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/06/ms-nbc-convention-driver-crowd-questions-rigged/sweet i love blogs.

also when you keep bringing up obama and ayers in nearly every post you make regardless of the thread's topic then it kind of makes sense that people would think you are a "smear merchant" and you have a "pathological hatred of obama".

and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.


but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 01:45 PM
And that's just one case. I'll go look up some more if you'd like.
Half your links are broken or are to non-journal sources--salon.com is an extremely liberal, Fox-news bashing site that is hardly unbiased. Please try with some unbiased sources to disprove Fox's reliability. I freely accept Fox has a conservative lean to it. MSNBC is a competitor to Fox and is hardly unbiased in that regard.

As for having WMD, Hussein had and used chemical agents against his own people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign). The Halabja attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) killed thousands and injured up to another 10,000. It was a horrendous act of genocide. Furthermore, chemical weapons were used by both Iran and Iraq in their war in the '80's. Finding old chemical weapons caches would hardly be surprising.

The Fox news article you linked noted that the weapons found by the military were apparently made before '91 and were in an unusable form. However, they were still WMDs. After careful reading of this Fox article, it is stating not that there were new WMDs found, but that the inspection process missed a significant number of old caches, and that Hussein was dishonest in saying all chemical weapons had been destroyed. Clearly they had not been destroyed. Fox in fact notes that these were not the weapons that the Bush administration was looking for (see bolded part).

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

I'm thinking you possibly looked at the title and assumed Fox was talking about WMDs built up for the second Gulf War when you posted this as proof that Fox was factually inaccurate. I see nothing in this article that states that. The US military did find WMDs, as the declassified document notes, but they also happened to be older WMDs, and the article states that. There are multiple independant sources showing Hussein used chemical and nerve-agent weapons on his own people and in the Iran-Iraq wars. It is patently obvious that he had and used WMDs from the '80's on.

PridedFalcon
12-23-2008, 02:06 PM
btw Jae has even pointed out that Fox News in on the up and up.


Thanks, there's no need to be a Grammar Nazi, leave the moderating to the moderators; Lucas Forums is a multi national board, and English may not always be an individuals first language, further more some people, such as me have dyslexia. -- j7

Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 06:49 PM
Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:

So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?


Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.




Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

You've been claiming that what I've posted whether it be from Fox News, or even some liberal sources from when it wasn't an election year, don't constitute proof and pretty much accusing me of being a smear merchant or having some pathological hatred of Obama. Are you now taking a shot at a moderator because the moderator happens to agree that Fox News is a valid source.

No. No I am not. (Oh, , and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. :))


Second, I must ask, why are you preaching about how horrible Obama supposedly is, in multiple threads? Do you really think that others care about your opinion, when you have not shown sufficient evidence to back it up? I could be wrong, of course, for I am human, but unless you bring something sufficient up to the plate, I will give your statements no validity.

And, finally, why are you even making a scene? He is now going to be president, no sense of arguing about it now.

Oh, BTW, hello everyone!

Hey, I like this guy already :xp:

Welcome!

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God. Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:

Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.


So while it's good/bad/indifferent that she stated that she trusts FoxNews, I may agree, or I may not, or I may only to an extent. Following so far?


To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.


Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.


Again check to see who I responded to.


Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly. Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.

Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.


No. No I am not. (, and you have a pathological hatred of Obama. That's clear from your last 1000 or so posts here. :))

Seriously I don't have a pathological hatred I was originally for anyone but Hillary Clinton, after I found out about Obama's associations and record, I'd rather have Hillary in the Presidency than Obama. I'm so vocal about this issue because the man's associations and limited record are downright scary.

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 09:24 PM
Garfield, Ender, and anyone who has or is contemplating harsh rhetoric in this thread: while the flames would greatly warm up where I live and perhaps melt some of the near 20 inches of snow that we've gotten here in the last 5 days, it's reaching 'bomb the village with napalm' level. If you all continue on any further with the flaming, I will give everyone else the Christmas (or holiday of your choice) present of barring you from Kavar's until after Christmas so we don't have to listen to the crap. I appreciate your cooperation in keeping this place civil.

Edit: I'm also working on splitting off the posts on liberal/conservative media bias, so if some of your posts disappear, that's why. Thanks.

Jae Onasi
12-23-2008, 10:17 PM
... So? What does Jae's opinion have anything to do with real evidence to support this?
Absolutely nothing, to be honest. My opinion on this is worth about as much as anyone's here. The only thing I can claim expertise on and could be quoted as a source for are eyes and vision, and possibly Martin Luther King Jr.'s political relationship with LBJ.

Are you implying that Jae is either an idiot or a far-right partisan hack? Is that what you're implying, cause last I checked, Jae tends to be left of center on many issues.

You've obviously missed my discussion on abortion, religion, and taxes. I do fall on the liberal side in regards to healthcare.


and no one took a shot at jae so stop trying to play white knight.
Point Man's the only one who gets to play white knight. :lol:

but yeah, jae's opinion on media bias isn't fact since a) it's an opinion; and b) jae can't watch fox news 24/7 and say they are, without a doubt, nonpartisan
Fox isn't non-partisan at all. The opinion shows are very conservative, and the news coverage tends a bit to the conservative as well, but I wasn't talking about bias earlier, I was noting that Fox coverage on straight news issues is factual (and when they make mistakes, they acknowledge and fix them, since I've seen them do that a couple times).

Let me make it clear, so you don't think I'm implying anything: Jae isn't God.
>.>
<.<
;P

Now, she and I have been friends long enough that I know she won't take any offense to this, and would likely agree. Jae and I are able to have a discussion/debate civilly, because we have respect for each other and the other's opinion, and we don't necessarily agree on all issues. We do on some, perhaps most, but she's altogether too optimistic for us to have the exact same viewpoints. :xp:
And here I thought I was jaded by the evil in Man.

Nothing I've said here indicates that I think Jae is an "idiot" or "a far-right partisan hack." I tend to reserve these terms for a very special type of person.Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

Oh, and don't tell me the only reason I don't trust FoxNews is because I'm a liberal. Because tbh, I wake up every morning to Fox&Friends and I watch BillO quite regularly.
Bill O'Reilly is one of those I consider an opinion commentator rather than a pure journalist, so I wouldn't rely on him for the hard news. He's useful for providing some sourcing that liberal sources don't pick up or provide that I can go back to and check later.
Not because I think Truth (with a capital T) comes out of his mouth every night, but because I like to get a conservative viewpoint that balances out my natural leftist leanings.And he's so cute when he gets all mad and red-faced and you can see the arteries standing out on his temples.

EnderWiggin
12-23-2008, 11:24 PM
Check who I quoted EnderWiggin, I wasn't talking to you in the comment.


It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.


To add to that, I've also posted stuff from places with a known left-wing bias that corroborates Fox News and newsbusters.


Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.


Again check to see who I responded to.


Try not to discount what I'm saying just because it says 'EnderWiggin' at the top.


Bill O'Reilly is a Commentator, Fox & Friends has a part in it where they give opinions. That's a big difference from Special Report with Brit Hume for instance.

I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)



Anyways, getting back to Ayers, I did find financial ties between Obama and Ayers, I think I posted it somewhere earlier in this topic if not I'll try to find it again.
Ok. We'll be here.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 11:34 PM
It doesn't make my rebuttal any less relevant. I know you weren't talking to me, but I was still able to prove you wrong.


Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.


Every once and a while, yes. But not for every issue, and the most controversial of your posts never are corroborated.

They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.



I watch Brit Hume too. He's also got a conservative bias (not an insult, just observing.)

And he keeps the Opinion segment at the end of the show, the rest of the time is the news. The opinion segment is clearly labelled as such and not reported as news.

Jae Onasi
12-24-2008, 03:09 AM
All right, to avoid the non-stop "OMG Faux News is teh badz" "No they aren't and here's a blog to prove it!" arguments sprouting up in so many threads like a bad case of foot fungus, discuss media bias (or lack thereof) and its ramifications here. This is not an Ayers thread. This is not a pro/anti-Bush thread. This is not a pro/anti-Obama thread, though I understand that coverage by the various networks of Bush and Obama are naturally going to come up. Ayers stuff must be contained to the Ayers thread.

In order to show differences, please post excerpts along with the link, rather than just a link. It's very hard to get an idea of where you're going on a point if you just post a link with no explanation. For instance, if you want to show the differences between coverage of Hurricane Katrina, post excerpts from a conservative source and a liberal source to show the differences within your post. Then include the links if someone wants to research it more for themselves. Please double check your links to make sure they aren't broken or route to non-existent pages as a courtesy to everyone.

The internet is not the be-all, end-all source. Book excerpts (please include citation and page number), radio podcasts/transcripts, studies on the media, journal articles, newspaper reports, all work as well. Please don't use the argument 'well, it was on this page but it got deleted by the owner.' If you don't have the info, don't post the claim, please. Either find the cached page or get us a different corroborating source. I do not want to see a copy of an alleged deleted web page from a blog because that could easily be altered.

It would also be helpful to define the terms as you see it the first time you use it in this thread: a conservative's view of 'mainstream media' and a liberal's view of 'mainstream media' are different, and having these defined here helps us all have some common ground to work with.

Also, if you all would like some kind of poll I'll be happy to edit it in. I'd just need to know options you'd all prefer to have. Thanks.

mur'phon
12-24-2008, 06:37 AM
Most studies I have seen shows that the media as a whole is usually slightly left of whatever is considered centre in a country. The reason being the level of education of the journalists/editors, as most places higher education makes you more likely to be leftish. However this is mostly countered by the fact that the media try to have the same bias as their customers, so while a leftish journalist might want to write a leftish article, if he is working for a newspaper targeting conservatives, he'll have to write something not to far from his newspapers views.
So yes, there is bias, usually slightly leftish, and if you find it to be very leftish, blame your fellow consumers:D

Naw, that's because I'm a 'generally middle-of-the-road slightly right-of-center independent'.

Only in America:D

EnderWiggin
12-24-2008, 08:25 AM
Ender I wasn't talking to you because you weren't the one making the comment, and you didn't prove anything wrong or right.

Actually, I did. I clearly and accurately explained to you that someone can disagree with Jae without insulting her.



They aren't corroborated because the left-wing outlets deleted the news story off the net to keep people from seeing it. I actually saw this happen a few times this election cycle. Newsbusters actually took screenshots of a few of these stories because of the fact. Further some of those 'conterversial' sources of evidence as you call it were from people that were actually in the room when the event happened.


Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?

_EW_


Also, this post and the post I'm quoting likely should be moved to the Mass Media thread. :)

Done. :) --Jae

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 10:23 PM
Seriously? Your argument is that the liberal media deletes the news? Seriously?


Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.

This carefully edited video shows Officer Stewart of the Denver Police knocking Alicia Forrest of Code Pink to the ground during a protest, and then, after an edit, Forrest getting arrested by other officers. This video has created a firestorm among left-wing blogs, and also engendered many follow-up stories in the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, Westword, and other mainstream Denver media outlets.

However, I personally witnessed the entire incident, from the beginning to the end, and can say without reservation that the Rocky Mountain News video is intentionally deceptive, and crafted to make the protester (Alicia Forrest) appear to be a victim of needless police brutality. I have photographic and video proof, shown below, that Alicia Forrest “asked for it” in the sense that she disobeyed police commands to stay back and also taunted the police; and that she was not seriously injured by Officer Stewart; and that the Rocky Mountain News in particular committed an act of media malfeasance by purposely posting on their site a deceptive video that left out all the context surrounding the incident. Furthermore, many blogs jumped on the story and trumpeted it as evidence of police misbehavior, when in fact there was no misbehavior at all.
-- Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-video-%E2%80%94-democratic-convention-2008/)

Additionally we have:

Perhaps even more extraordinary, however, is that the Times allowed Ayers to publish obvious lies about his terrorist past and rejected a rebuttal by the former FBI informant who lived through the history Ayers tried to rewrite. -- The Op Ed the New York Times Wouldn't Run (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-run/)

The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.

jrrtoken
12-24-2008, 10:30 PM
Since I actually saw it happen several times this year, that is precisely what I'm accusing them of doing.Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.
Pajamas Media.com: Anatomy of a Video: Fabricating Police Brutality (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anatomy-of-a-video-%E2%80%94-democratic-convention-2008/)I'm not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny. :carms:
The people that teach journalism in Universities are die-hard left-wing nuts, they try to drive out Conservatives. There is really only a small group of media people that are Conservative and a lot of those have bolted from the mainstream networks rather than be treated like freaks by co-workers.:rolleyes: You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 10:47 PM
Sorry, but that's just an awful excuse. If something in the news doesn't feel good enough to be true to you, then I suppose it's perfectly okay to assume that that the news source is "liberal", and therefore, it isn't true. Hence why I believe that the liberal mainstream theory is a myth, perfect for a scapegoat for "bad news" by conservative pundits and politicians.

Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.


I'm not trusting that site, all because the name sounds funny. :carms:

Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.


:rolleyes: You can dispense with the liberal name calling as well. You see, I haven't called John McCain a fascist motherscratcher yet, and I won't, mainly because it's insulting and tasteless, among many other things, k?

I'm sorry you find the truth to be tasteless.

Let's tone down the rhetoric and name-calling on both sides of the political aisle--it's not constructive to the conversation regardless of who's doing it. It's not a reportable offense in that it's not flaming a member here, but if we're looking for constructive dialog, "left-wing nuts" and "fascist motherkeepitcleansoyoudon'tgetyourmouthwashedoutwi thsoap", do not help one bit. --Jae

A former student at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work is suing the school and several of his professors for discrimination, saying he was persecuted by the school's "liberal political machine" for being a conservative.

William Felkner, 45, says the New England college and six professors wouldn't approve his final project on welfare reform because he was on the "wrong" side of political issues and countered the school's "progressive" liberal agenda.

Felkner said his problems with his professors began in his first semester, in the fall of 2004, when he objected in an e-mail to one of his professors that the school was showing and promoting Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on campus. He said he objected because no opposing point of view was presented.

He said Professor James Ryczek wrote to him on Oct. 15, 2004, saying he was proud of his bias and questioning Felkner's ability to "fit with the profession."

"I think the biases and predilections I hold toward how I see the world and how it should be are why I am a social worker. In the words of a colleague, I revel in my biases," he wrote.

Felkner's complaint, filed two years ago, alleges that Ryczek discriminated against him for his conservative viewpoint and gave him bad grades because of it in several classes. It also alleges discrimination by other professors and administrators.
--Article on Fox News website (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467626,00.html)

And more from same article:
Felkner says he was also discriminated against by Professor Roberta Pearlmutter, who he says refused to allow him to participate in a group project lobbying for a conservative issue because the assignment was to lobby for a liberal issue. He alleges that Perlmutter spent a 50-minute class "assailing" his views and allowed students to openly ridicule his conservative positions, and that she reduced his grade because he was not "progressive."


That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.

Video of a CBS News Story (http://www.truveo.com/Metro-State-College-Professor-Assigns-anti-Palin/id/2159245958)

jrrtoken
12-24-2008, 10:53 PM
Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.
Well I'm sorry that a 1st person account isn't valid in your view, but the conservative bloggers were the only ones to pick up on this, because the Media tried to cover it up.It's called a JOKE
That kind of persecution is believe it or not the same or worse in journalism schools.As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

The Doctor
12-24-2008, 10:55 PM
The only aspect of the mainstream media that's irrationally biased is Faux News, to be perfectly honest. I've yet to see any story, in either "factual" or admittedly-opinion format, that wouldn't make a Nazi blush with embarrassment. I've tried many times over the past three years to keep up with their "news", and at the end of the day all I've gained is a new appreciation for CTVNewsnet. How Faux still manages to clutch to any kind of audience is completely beyond me.

And, for the record: there's a reason why educated journalists usually have a left-leaning "bias". :rolleyes: Though Murph seems to have beaten me to that point. :xp:

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 11:53 PM
No, I'm saying that blaming the "liberal media" for editing tapes is a rather poor excuse for anything, especially when you have no credible proof to back up your statements. Besides, who doesn't edit their tapes? Also, bloggers, either conservative or liberal, are not considered credible resources, as they're all greatly opinionated.

Even when you see the actual news articles from New York Times, or media outlets literally disappear from being online? Fact is that I was actually seeing it happen when I went to post links to those articles here after I had saw the articles before a class, I get back and the media outlet had deleted those articles.

Also a few of the bloggers I've used have had a reputation of catching media outlets in the act of dishonest reporting.


It's called a JOKE


It's called not funny.


As far as I can tell, that's an isolated incident, not a complete justification that all universities are anti-conservative.

It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.

That's a separate topic. Please stay on the topic of media bias. --Jae

EnderWiggin
12-25-2008, 12:47 AM
It isn't isolated, I can go into elementry, junior high, high schools, and other colleges as well.
awww our elementary schools are liberal propaganda machines.

Hitler Youth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)

_EW_

Adavardes
12-25-2008, 01:21 PM
Are you flat out calling me a liar? I'm saying that news articles conservative bloggers found on liberal news media outlets from pre 2008 were deleted as they started picking up on them. I actually saw it happen a few times.

Nobody here is calling you a liar, but I WILL call this argument utterly absurd, because you have neither the proof nor the substance to back it up.
If it doesn't exist, then the opposition must have deleted it. Right. Prove it, or leave those arguments out of the debate, because they have no place in civilised discussion without some basis in fact.

Darth InSidious
12-25-2008, 04:01 PM
All media is biased, and so are you.

[/thread]

Jae Onasi
12-26-2008, 12:34 AM
All right, before this gets all out of hand with back and forth stingers (which I would appreciate you all toning down), I looked around for an actual university/non-partisan based source on liberal/conservative bias in the media. This is not so easy as I thought it should be. There are a lot of watchdog groups such as AIM (conservatively biased) and FAIR (liberally biased), but they are not unbiased. However, the only one I could find that was a university, study based, non-partisan organization was the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm) out of George Mason University.

In terms of the election, according to a number of CMPA studies, such as this one (http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_10_30_08.htm), the 3 major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, combined gave twice as much good press to Democrats as they did to Republicans, at 65% positive for Democrats and 31% positive for the GOP, or a 34% difference. Fox did give better press to Republicans, although it's better worded as 'they gave less negative coverage to McCain than they did to Obama'. However, the differential was not nearly as great. The GOP on Fox received 39% positive press, and the Democrat ticket received 28%, which means there was only an 11% differential.

The Summer 2008 Election Watch (http://cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf) noted Obama got 68% more coverage than McCain. That is a substantial difference. I think we can begin to understand why conservatives are screaming media bias with a number like that. I think it's far more complex than just 'media bias', but I'll leave you all to hash out the reasons for this large difference.

It also noted the following:
From December 16 to June 7,only one out of every five stories (21%) contained substantive material, while twice as many (40%) dealt with the
horse race. FOX “Special Report” led with 24 percent substantive stories,followed closely by CBS (23%), NBC (18%) and ABC (17%) trailing behind. It also went on to note that this year's presidential election had less substantive reporting than in all the previous elections they'd studied. As someone who's been following elections since the 80's, I could tell you I found this election incredibly frustrating for that reason. I didn't want to hear what polls said, I wanted to hear what the candidates had to say. Instead, we were fed a steady diet of fluff and sometimes pure stupid crap--who cares if Barack dances better or worse than Michelle, for heaven's sake? Like that's going to have any bearing on how Barack governs the country. We heard more on Palin's clothing expenses and her pregnant daughter than we did on economic policy and sex ed. I found myself repeatedly thinking "Why is this even news?????" no matter what channel I watched.

@Garfield--you have to admit that posting about 'mysteriously disappearing articles' is extremely difficult to believe, and it's likely to affect your credibility. If liberals said such a thing, you'd find it hard to believe, too. Please confine yourself to articles that actually exist so that we can access them for ourselves in order to make our own judgments about the content/bias/etc.

@The Doctor--your characterization of Fox as a Nazi-like organization is way over the top. Please a. show distinct proof of Nazi level of fascism and b. show where Fox has been repeatedly, intentionally, factually false. Every news organization is going to make mistakes now and then, and they should admit it and correct it--I do not count that as intentional disinformation. What I want to see from you is a pattern of intentionally falsifying information. I watch both CNN and Fox--while they certainly differ in their opinion programming bias, and how they cover news can differ, I've not seen a difference in the facts they've provided. I'm just not seeing this intentional falsification that you're claiming exists.

@Adavardes--I'd appreciate it if you had an answer for me on the Fox article on WMDs. If not, I understand.

Achilles
12-26-2008, 12:46 AM
However, the only one I could find that was a university, study based, non-partisan organization was the Center for Media and Public Affairs (http://www.cmpa.com/index.htm) out of George Mason University.What is the methodology for determining bias? How does an objective observer arrive at the conclusion that CMPA is, in fact, without bias?

The Summer 2008 Election Watch (http://cmpa.com/pdf/08summer.pdf) noted Obama got 68% more coverage than McCain. That is a substantial difference.Could this be because the Democratic primary lasted much longer than the Republican primary? Could it be that the media was milking every last cent out of the "Obama beats Clinton" drama? I suspect there are lots of reasons why Obama recieved more coverage than McCain. One of them could be liberal vs. conservative bias, however I don't think it wise to ignore the corporate media bias.

I think we can begin to understand why conservatives are screaming media bias with a number like that.It beats pointing out that their own candidate sat on his hands for several months.

I think it's far more complex than just 'media bias', but I'll leave you all to hash out the reasons for this large difference. I agree.

It also noted the following:
It also went on to note that this year's presidential election had less substantive reporting than in all the previous elections they'd studied. As someone who's been following elections since the 80's, I could tell you I found this election incredibly frustrating for that reason. I didn't want to hear what polls said, I wanted to hear what the candidates had to say. Instead, we were fed a steady diet of fluff and sometimes pure stupid crap--who cares if Barack dances better or worse than Michelle, for heaven's sake? Like that's going to have any bearing on how Barack governs the country. We heard more on Palin's clothing expenses and her pregnant daughter than we did on economic policy and sex ed. I found myself repeatedly thinking "Why is this even news?????" no matter what channel I watched. There are sources of information other than television.

TheRogueForums
12-26-2008, 04:19 AM
...
If I could rep you for that post, I certainly would. Very well put, and very balanced.

On to the topic at hand: biased reporting. It most certainly happened. The facts and numbers are not in dispute. The fact that MSNBC openly came out and said they were in the tank for Obama is not in dispute. What is disputed, however, is WHY the biased happened.

To me, there are two main factors:

A liberal push my biased media giants, like MSNBC and ABC to advance the candidate of their choice
The simple and undeniable fact: McCain has been around FOR A WHILE. Great guy, I love him, personally. But, there's nothing new to report about him. We've seen him for the last few decades now. Obama, on the other hand, new. Fresh. Exciting. He's the new hawtness. The latest craze. He's everything we haven't seen in a Presidential Race in a long time: young, charismatic, not white. OF COURSE he's going to get more coverage.


Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT an Obama fan. I think the guy is out there- complete whack job. However, bias aside, I can see how he got so much more coverage. If it were Romney or Huckabee, someone we're not AS familiar with, on the GOP ticket, coverage would have been a little more balanced, I think. McCain was just yesteryear's news.

GarfieldJL
12-26-2008, 06:05 PM
@Garfield--you have to admit that posting about 'mysteriously disappearing articles' is extremely difficult to believe, and it's likely to affect your credibility. If liberals said such a thing, you'd find it hard to believe, too. Please confine yourself to articles that actually exist so that we can access them for ourselves in order to make our own judgments about the content/bias/etc.


It would be difficult to believe, I'm aware of that and it shocked me to no end, but it did happen. I used to think the mainstream media wouldn't crusify someone for asking a politican whom walked into his neighborhood a question. But we had that happen this year too.

Fact is a lot of this stuff that the media was sitting on and is still sitting on could have cost Obama the election. They were actively serving as press secretaries for Obama.

Adavardes
12-26-2008, 07:16 PM
It would be difficult to believe, I'm aware of that and it shocked me to no end, but it did happen.

Proof, or no it didn't. Sorry, but nothing that farfetched would ever be considered even plausible without rock-solid proof. And I am positive that you don't have that, as you have dodged the many requests for evidence several times now. Either find a way to make us believe this line, or stop bringing it up. In the words of Ms. Onasi:

Please don't use the argument 'well, it was on this page but it got deleted by the owner.' If you don't have the info, don't post the claim, please. Either find the cached page or get us a different corroborating source. I do not want to see a copy of an alleged deleted web page from a blog because that could easily be altered.

@Jae Onasi:

It's kind of a moot point when the reports were done, as the links provided a pretty blanketed period for when we searched for WMDs in Iraq, and when we didn't. I apologise if some of the links weren't properly operational; when I used them, they were, so I'm not sure what happened there. Regardless, attempting to say that Fox News wasn't distorting the truth with a claim to 500 WMDs in Iraq is ridiculous, as I very much doubt that, whether or not moving them out of the country was a factor, there were that many nuclear warheads ever in that country.

There is no evidence of them being in the country, nor is there proof of them being moved out of the country. And to say that Fox News does not report factual events with a huge conservative slant, far more severely than any liberal outlet ever has, is really just never going to see an end of fruition.

mur'phon
12-26-2008, 07:37 PM
And to say that Fox News does not report factual events with a huge conservative slant, far more severely than any liberal outlet ever has, is really just never going to see an end of fruition.

While I agree that Fox is a very biased outlet, would you mind showing some evidence that they are far worse than the liberal ones. So far, they seem to have corrected themselves when they make factual errors.

GarfieldJL
12-26-2008, 07:40 PM
Proof, or no it didn't. Sorry, but nothing that farfetched would ever be considered even plausible without rock-solid proof. And I am positive that you don't have that, as you have dodged the many requests for evidence several times now. Either find a way to make us believe this line, or stop bringing it up. In the words of Ms. Onasi:


Sorry, but it did happen, there were some stories concerning ACORN and Obama that disappeared from the web that were from an election off year. Also I ran across a report and if the media wasn't biased, why didn't they also investigate Obama's radical ties. They had a field day with a bogus sex-scandel concerning McCain. They were trying to tear Governor Palin limb from limb.

<SNIPPED> Garfield, I'm sorry but you were warned to keep the Ayers stuff to that thread and I'm tired of having Ayers, pumped everywhere, furthermore, I fail to see the relevance with regards this thread. It had been explicitly said not to mention him in this thread, unless relevant, and I don't think it is. I'm sorry but you leave me no choice but to issue a "Kavars cool off" -- j7

I'm accusing the media of far worse than simple bias, I'm accusing the liberal press of dishonest Journalism. They didn't report the news, they did their best to get a man elected, they were actively cheering for Obama and they did their best to completely destroy anyone that voiced criticism of their "anointed one."

You want to know why I keep bringing this up? I keep bringing this up because this situation scares me to death. If this is what we have to look forward to, prepare yourselves for a lot of people being arrested for merely voicing criticism and this country becoming a dictatorship, cause if one party controls the media, you may as well kiss your freedoms goodbye.

Adavardes
12-26-2008, 09:49 PM
Sorry, but it did happen,

I'm accusing the media of far worse than simple bias, I'm accusing the liberal press of dishonest Journalism.

If this is what we have to look forward to, prepare yourselves for a lot of people being arrested for merely voicing criticism and this country becoming a dictatorship, cause if one party controls the media, you may as well kiss your freedoms goodbye.

1. Prove it.

2. Prove it.

3. Stop painting liberal media as some sort of evil totalitarian oppression squad. I'm sick of your rhetoric and your exaggerations of the truth to make this party seem as if it is a completely immoral, dishonest, and inflamatory group. I am sick of conservatives mouthing off because, after eight years of a republican president driving this country into the ground, we want something different, something that may actually work to the flow of progress, as opposed to furthering greed, corruption, and war. You are backed into a proverbial corner, with the majority of your attacks lacking evidence in defence of itself beyond a blog, yet you still have the gall to claim that Democrats are going to bring about an end to freedom?

Prove. Your. Statements.

@ Murph:

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.

EnderWiggin
12-26-2008, 10:19 PM
Prove. Your. Statements.


Or at least corroborate them with more than blogs.

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.

Well, there won't be another liberal pundit with Hannity. They're now promoting a new show - "Hannity" - slogan 'All Hannity, All the time.'

_EW_

Adavardes
12-26-2008, 10:36 PM
Well, there won't be another liberal pundit with Hannity. They're now promoting a new show - "Hannity" - slogan 'All Hannity, All the time.'

_EW_

That's just great. T_T

Jae Onasi
12-27-2008, 01:45 AM
What is the methodology for determining bias? How does an objective observer arrive at the conclusion that CMPA is, in fact, without bias? Well, let's work first with this dictionary definition of bias (Online dictionaryhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/bias) and go forward from there:
bi·as (bs)
n.
1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
4. Sports
a. A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling.
b. The tendency of such a ball to swerve.
5. The fixed voltage applied to an electrode.

And no, I'm not referring to fabric, voltage, or how a ball swerves, just to be clear for the picky ones here. :xp:


I don't think any human-led organization can be 100% without bias. Nor did I say CMPA is completely without bias, and in fact didn't make any claim on that in regards to CMPA. I wanted something at least overtly non-partisan, and preferably university based so that there were scholars handling the studies. Statistics scholars understand the methodology and analysis in creating an appropriate research project, or are at least less likely to create bad studies with misleading questions and questionable data collection, since they are also subject to peer reviews by other scholars in the field rather than scrutiny by the conservative/liberal blogosphere or even other news outlets. They don't (theoretically) have corporate/monetary influences on top of it. It looks to me from how they handle the data that they try to minimize bias and focus on what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers generated.

Could this be because the Democratic primary lasted much longer than the Republican primary? Could it be that the media was milking every last cent out of the "Obama beats Clinton" drama? I suspect there are lots of reasons why Obama recieved more coverage than McCain. One of them could be liberal vs. conservative bias, however I don't think it wise to ignore the corporate media bias.Absolutely agree all of those are factors. In WI, the news coverage (newspapers, local TV, radio, net) during the primary was focused on Obama/Clinton because the race was close in the state and WI's delegates actually had a bearing on the selection of the Democratic nominee. McCain pretty much had it in the bag by that point for the GOP. Since WI is generally a blue state I expected more Democrat coverage anyway, but the excitement of the Obama/Clinton race created far more coverage for the Dems than for the GOP. On top of that, there was the added factors of a. a female and b. a minority being very serious contenders for the Dem nomination, and the idea that no matter who won the Dem race at that point, it was going to be an historic win.

It beats pointing out that their own candidate sat on his hands for several months.He sat on his hands, or the media just didn't find him as interesting/compelling?

There are sources of information other than television.This wasn't confined to TV, though the research site confines itself to that. The newspapers out of Chicago and Milwaukee gave more coverage to Obama, and the talk radio coverage on the stations that aren't blatantly liberal or conservative tended to cover Obama more than McCain, but I think it was likely for the reasons listed in previous posts as well.

It's kind of a moot point when the reports were done, as the links provided a pretty blanketed period for when we searched for WMDs in Iraq, and when we didn't. I apologise if some of the links weren't properly operational; when I used them, they were, so I'm not sure what happened there. Regardless, attempting to say that Fox News wasn't distorting the truth with a claim to 500 WMDs in Iraq is ridiculous, as I very much doubt that, whether or not moving them out of the country was a factor, there were that many nuclear warheads ever in that country.
Ah, I see the confusion--chemical, radiological, and biological weapons also fall under the category of WMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction), not just nuclear. If I may direct your attention to the article again, it reports that the declassified gov't document states the information about the numbers of weapons found, and it states these were chemical weapons. Fox merely reported what the gov't document said. There doesn't appear to me to be any distortion in this particular article.

Fox news has a single liberal pundit, Colmes, who is soon to retire from the station. Whether they replace him with another liberal or not remains to be seen. Regardless, though, they set Colmes up for barrages of conservative nonsense regularly. I don't know of any other news station that is willing to do such things, but if you have proof to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to rectify my previous accusations.I'm hoping they replace him with another liberal commentator, but I'm thinking they won't, which would be too bad--Hannity has a tendancy to get stuck on 1 thing, and Colmes did a good job of moving things along. I watch them a lot, and Colmes gives as good as he gets--he by no means was Hannity's whipping boy. I believe he is also getting his own show, which should be interesting.

Achilles
12-27-2008, 02:28 AM
Well, let's work first with this dictionary definition of bias (Online dictionaryhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/bias) and go forward from there:

And no, I'm not referring to fabric, voltage, or how a ball swerves, just to be clear for the picky ones here. :xp::eyeraise:

Not sure where I asked you to define bias, but thank you for the information. I find these "academic" papers that attempt to show media bias laughable when they don't even bother to tell the reader how they defined it, what key terms or issues they flagged, etc. Definitely a hallmark of a poorly written paper.

I don't think any human-led organization can be 100% without bias. Nor did I say CMPA is completely without bias, and in fact didn't make any claim on that in regards to CMPA. I wanted something at least overtly non-partisan, and preferably university based so that there were scholars handling the studies. Statistics scholars understand the methodology and analysis in creating an appropriate research project, or are at least less likely to create bad studies with misleading questions and questionable data collection, since they are also subject to peer reviews by other scholars in the field rather than scrutiny by the conservative/liberal blogosphere or even other news outlets. They don't (theoretically) have corporate/monetary influences on top of it. It looks to me from how they handle the data that they try to minimize bias and focus on what conclusions can be drawn from the numbers generated.Ok, you answered my question. I wanted to know how you'd arrived at the conclusion re: CMPA that you did and now I know it was via a lot of premises which I would classify as "questionable".

I can point out which of them I find problems with and why if you would like, or we can move on if doing so would be a waste of both of our time.

Absolutely agree all of those are factors. In WI, the news coverage (newspapers, local TV, radio, net) during the primary was focused on Obama/Clinton because the race was close in the state and WI's delegates actually had a bearing on the selection of the Democratic nominee. McCain pretty much had it in the bag by that point for the GOP. Since WI is generally a blue state I expected more Democrat coverage anyway, but the excitement of the Obama/Clinton race created far more coverage for the Dems than for the GOP. On top of that, there was the added factors of a. a female and b. a minority being very serious contenders for the Dem nomination, and the idea that no matter who won the Dem race at that point, it was going to be an historic win.Glad that we are in agreement that there were other factors other than "the media loves party X and hates party Y", etc.

He sat on his hands, or the media just didn't find him as interesting/compelling?My assertion indicated a vote for the former. John McCain secured the nomination for the GOP and then...?

I find it hard to fault the media for not covering John McCain for several months when he didn't do much of anything for several months (aside from bbq for them at his Sedona ranch).

This wasn't confined to TV, though the research site confines itself to that. The newspapers out of Chicago and Milwaukee gave more coverage to Obama, and the talk radio coverage on the stations that aren't blatantly liberal or conservative tended to cover Obama more than McCain, but I think it was likely for the reasons listed in previous posts as well.Just to clarify, you had commented on how unsatisfying you found the television coverage. I merely pointed out that if you didn't like the TV there were other avenues open to you as well.

Jae Onasi
12-27-2008, 03:17 AM
I find these "academic" papers that attempt to show media bias laughable when they don't even bother to tell the reader how they defined it, what key terms or issues they flagged, etc. Definitely a hallmark of a poorly written paper.The press releases and quarterly reports that I quoted aren't the academic papers.

You wanted objective criteria for determining bias, and I thought it would be a good idea to define bias--not necessarily just for us.

Ok, you answered my question. I wanted to know how you'd arrived at the conclusion re: CMPA that you did and now I know it was via a lot of premises which I would classify as "questionable".If you can find a better non-partisan, university/research based organization without bias (or with as little as possible) that can provide hard data from which we can draw conclusions, that would be great.

I can point out which of them I find problems with and why if you would like, or we can move on if doing so would be a waste of both of our time.Waste of time for both of us. Even if I agree with your assumptions, it's not getting us to the final spot of having a reputable source with solid information that we all can agree on. I'm not 100% satisfied with this site, either, but it had enough data we could actually discuss instead of the 'there's bias/no there's not/yes there is/no there's not' crap that I can work with it. If a better site comes up, we can go for that.

Glad that we are in agreement that there were other factors other than "the media loves party X and hates party Y", etc.I'd love to see what other reasons people come up with.

My assertion indicated a vote for the former. John McCain secured the nomination for the GOP and then...?I know that. I was just bringing up a possible alternative. When he did do things, it didn't seem to generate the same level of coverage.

I find it hard to fault the media for not covering John McCain for several months when he didn't do much of anything for several months (aside from bbq for them at his Sedona ranch).BBQ goes only so far before it gets to be as exciting as the endless list of possible shrimp dishes in Forrest Gump, true.

Just to clarify, you had commented on how unsatisfying you found the television coverage. I merely pointed out that if you didn't like the TV there were other avenues open to you as well.OK, I follow you now. I usually have newsradio on (switching between a few different stations) during the day and catch internet news sites when I can. I just switch stations as needed if they start to get into discussions of Obama's and McCain's favorite childhood pets or "Cool whip or Real Whipped Cream: The Candidates share their views!!!"

Achilles
12-27-2008, 03:48 AM
The press releases and quarterly reports that I quoted aren't the academic papers.I was referring to the content provided by the links themselves.

You wanted objective criteria for determining bias, and I thought it would be a good idea to define bias--not necessarily just for us.And that's fine however it still leaves the objective of being able to determine bias untouched.

If you can find a better non-partisan, university/research based organization without bias (or with as little as possible) that can provide hard data from which we can draw conclusions, that would be great.If I feel inclined to do so at some point, I'll be more than happy to share my results. In the mean time, this is the source you introduced.

Waste of time for both of us. Even if I agree with your assumptions, it's not getting us to the final spot of having a reputable source with solid information that we all can agree on.I'm not making assumptions, so there are none that you would need to agree (or disagree) with. Being able to critically evaluate a source doesn't require them.

I'm not 100% satisfied with this site, either, but it had enough data we could actually discuss instead of the 'there's bias/no there's not/yes there is/no there's not' crap that I can work with it. If a better site comes up, we can go for that.So a site which may or may not be biased themselves should act as the objective indicator of how much bias exists? This strikes me as a shaky proposition at best.

I'd love to see what other reasons people come up with. I listed a few before. I'm sure others will be added as the thread progresses.

I know that. I was just bringing up a possible alternative. When he did do things, it didn't seem to generate the same level of coverage.No doubt that is probably true. Like when he fired his campaign manager. That didn't make very many news cycles. A clear indication of "the liberal news machine" at work. ;)

BBQ goes only so far before it gets to be as exciting as the endless list of possible shrimp dishes in Forrest Gump, true.True. However it might make one question how objectively McCain was being covered when he palling around with the people who are supposed to be doing the objective covering. I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama refer to the press as his base.

Adavardes
12-27-2008, 11:33 AM
Ah, I see the confusion--chemical, radiological, and biological weapons also fall under the category of WMDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction), not just nuclear. If I may direct your attention to the article again, it reports that the declassified gov't document states the information about the numbers of weapons found, and it states these were chemical weapons. Fox merely reported what the gov't document said. There doesn't appear to me to be any distortion in this particular article.

Actually, it is. The major issue that was used to convince us that the war in Iraq needed to happen was the "fact" that nuclear weapons were in Iraq, and that an attack on the US was imminent. The Bush administration, a conservative party, used these scare tactics when everyone felt insecure and retalitory to fly in guns blazing, allowing their emotions to get the better of them as opposed to rationally thinking it out. I'll admit that it was a gaff on my part to assume that only nuclear warheads fell under the category of WMDs, I knew that fact all too well going into the argument, and I'm man enough to admit I made a mistake.

Still, the only reason Fox reported this story was that they could further confuse the general public, which, frankly, isn't too bright and probably doesn't recognise the subtle differences between weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, to intimidate them into believing that the Bush administration was right all along. Really, all you've proven is that Faux News is very, very good at floundering around the truth to serve their twisted logic, without actually outright lying. Also, I have my doubts about the validity of that report's content, as most everyone else was quoting "No WMDs", not just "No nuclear weapons". I'm not saying that the other news sources couldn't be bending the truth just like Fox did, but it makes you wonder where Fox is getting its sources.

Achilles
12-27-2008, 02:23 PM
Actually, it is. The major issue that was used to convince us that the war in Iraq needed to happen was the "fact" that nuclear weapons were in Iraq, and that an attack on the US was imminent. Yep. I still remember exactly where I was as I listened to Colin Powell listing off all the ways that Iraq had "failed" to respond to the various UN resolutions.

Iraq presented a clear and present danger and we had to act immediately to protect the homeland. So much so that we pulled the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq while they pleaded for more time.

God bless the United States of Amnesia.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 09:24 PM
Yep. I still remember exactly where I was as I listened to Colin Powell listing off all the ways that Iraq had "failed" to respond to the various UN resolutions.

Technically Iraq was in violation as Jae pointed out with those older weapons that were found. We found WMDs, just not the ones we were looking for.


Iraq presented a clear and present danger and we had to act immediately to protect the homeland. So much so that we pulled the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq while they pleaded for more time.

We might have had less casualties if we hadn't tried to go through the United Nations, furthermore it came out that several countries on the security council were getting paid off by Saddam.


God bless the United States of Amnesia.

It's America, my brain works just fine thank you kindly.

Still, the only reason Fox reported this story was that they could further confuse the general public, which, frankly, isn't too bright and probably doesn't recognise the subtle differences between weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, to intimidate them into believing that the Bush administration was right all along. Really, all you've proven is that Faux News is very, very good at floundering around the truth to serve their twisted logic, without actually outright lying. Also, I have my doubts about the validity of that report's content, as most everyone else was quoting "No WMDs", not just "No nuclear weapons". I'm not saying that the other news sources couldn't be bending the truth just like Fox did, but it makes you wonder where Fox is getting its sources.

No, the reason Fox News reported on it is because it was WMDs and everyone else was in denial about us actually finding stuff. They were reporting the news, the other outlets were just trying to do a hitjob on President Bush.

We only need to look at the Mainstream Media's treatment of 'Joe the Plumber' to see how in the tank they were for the Democrats. The mainstream media had more media trucks out on 'Joe the Plumber's' lawn in a day than they did for most of Obama's other shady friends the entire 08 election.

jrrtoken
12-29-2008, 10:00 PM
No, the reason Fox News reported on it is because it was WMDs and everyone else was in denial about us actually finding stuff. They were reporting the news, the other outlets were just trying to do a hitjob on President Bush.IIRC, before and during the invasion the entire mainstream media was kneeling before the awesome power of Bush. They were like that until everyone realized that the whole war was pointless and that Bush was an idiot.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:11 PM
IIRC, before and during the invasion the entire mainstream media was kneeling before the awesome power of Bush.

No they were scared to death of another public backlash like what happened to the New York Times, because of an article that was sympathetic to terrorists that hit the newsstand on 9/11/2001. It took them a while to lose that fear of another public backlash and calls for boycotts, and if you payed attention to the coverage even then they were starting to go back to the US bad terrorist good propaganda routine. Reading Bernie Goldberg's book Arrogance sometime.


They were like that until everyone realized that the whole war was pointless and that Bush was an idiot.

Actually that isn't true, you had members of the press getting upset about one of Saddam's statues being pulled down by an American Tank, because the troops were concerned the statue might fall on someone so they hooked chains up had everyone stand back and had the tank pull it down for them. I'm going to look through my books and see if I can find the book that talks about this again so I can give the specifics as to what news group.

jonathan7
12-29-2008, 10:14 PM
All media is biased, and so are you.

[/thread]

In case people missed it, I thought I would have to quote this, for complete, total and utter truth.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:15 PM
In case people missed it, I thought I would have to quote this, for complete, total and utter truth.

jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party. Fox News may have some conservative leaning, but they do their best to be objective.

Compare that to MSNBC's using Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews for their coverage of the political conventions.

jonathan7
12-29-2008, 10:20 PM
jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party.

Nope;

Fox News may have some conservative leaning, but they do their best to be objective.

Compare that to MSNBC's using Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews for their coverage of the political conventions.

Nope, your own bias means you think that, while others in this threads bias means they think MSNBC has "some liberal leaning but they do their best to be objective".

Regardless if you think that is true or not, it is the truth. That is all I have to say in this thread, I'll only be here to moderate it from now on.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 10:27 PM
Or better yet, let's all behave like grown ups and admit when one of our favorite media sources has a political bias instead of trying to play the "more objective than thou" game. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Fox News has a conservative bias. Neither is very good about hiding it.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:33 PM
Nope, your own bias means you think that, while others in this threads bias means they think MSNBC has "some liberal leaning but they do their best to be objective".

So we have Fox News having Brit Hume (a News anchor) cover both conventions with both liberal analysists and conservative analysists in one corner on prime time. And on MSNBC we have two left wing commentators one of which bashing the Republicans for having taking time to remember those that died on 9/11/2001. Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.


Regardless if you think that is true or not, it is the truth. That is all I have to say in this thread, I'll only be here to moderate it from now on.

I don't recall anyone from Fox News saying that the Clintons were "Pimping out" their daughter.

Or better yet, let's all behave like grown ups and admit when one of our favorite media sources has a political bias instead of trying to play the "more objective than thou" game. MSNBC has a liberal bias. Fox News has a conservative bias. Neither is very good about hiding it.

While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 10:37 PM
While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.

Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:43 PM
I already commented on MSNBC (as far as I can, as I only occasionally watch Olberman's show). I cannot comment on the others as I avoid the corporate news networks as much as humanly possible. I am not their spokesperson.

Can I ask what in the world it would possibly accomplish if I did? All the blatant validation-seeking going on here is making me a little uncomfortable.

Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter. Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints. That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.

Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.

Adavardes
12-29-2008, 10:45 PM
jonathan7 there is a difference between simple bias and being a propaganda pulpit for a particular political party. Fox News may have some conservative leaning, but they do their best to be objective.

Compare that to MSNBC's using Keith Oberman and Chris Matthews for their coverage of the political conventions.

Specifically Keith Obermann whom MSNBC gave a pay raise I might add.

Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.

And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?

You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 10:45 PM
While Fox News is conservative will you admit that CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and several other News outlets I'm not thinking of at the moment that happen to be on television all have a heavy left-wing tilt.
You’ll need you use the same adjectives for both.


I’ll say CNN and NBC have liberal leanings if you admit Fox News has a heavy right-wing tilt (I only watch those three, two for news, one for entertainment). :D

Love your use of word play tonight.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:59 PM
Olbermann*, and for every one of him, Fox has an O'Reilly.

O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.


And the idea that Fox News is objective in anything is purely laughable. They seek to taint everything with their conservative bias as much as possible, but you'd rather eat it up than believe that your precious Bush was actually a bad president, and anything that criticises him is liberal evil that is painting him in a bad light and making him seem wrong?

I've got my own complaints concerning President Bush, but the idea that Fox News is that biased doesn't hold water because it wasn't Fox News that made those comments about Hillary's daughter.


You said earlier that the liberal bias was so oppressive that we may be subject to losing our freedoms because of it. Not only is this a ridiculous overdramatisation of the truth, but it was, in fact, a conservative president that established the Patriot Act, severely limiting rights to personal privacy, ignored the Geneva conventions on several occasions, and willfully suspended Habeus Corpus. If you want to talk about a loss of freedoms, I suggest you turn your questions to Mr. Bush. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to avoid giving an answer.

Actually, the Patriot Act did not suspend Habeus Corpus, you can't read someone miranda rights on a battlefield with people shooting at you and if someone was shooting at you, you have just cause to arrest them. Furthermore despite what the media would like people believe, the government did not wiretap domestic conversations without a warrent.

You want a violation of Freedom of Speech try the "Fairness Doctrine" which is in reality the censorship doctrine.

Anyways, last I checked studies showed (at least ones that didn't have their own agenda) that Fox News was actually fairly close to center (the news programs not the commentary programs). CNN was supposedly close to center as well. The ones that were way out there were NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and ABC.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 11:08 PM
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:

Well, it's a two part thing, one we are establishing that most media outlets are biased the same way, and Fox News is the dissenter.If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.

They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.

I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.

(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)

Those media outlets have every reason to try to shut Fox News down because of the opposing viewpoints.Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?

That tends to make Fox News the most credible of the bunch.That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.

Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.

Look at it this way if everyone is trying to look for any little mistake you make to in order to pounce on it and make you look like a fool, it's more likely that you'd take the time to double check things and not just go off on a bogus story.Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.

Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.

If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 11:16 PM
They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology. The most intelligent thing written in this entire thread.

The Doctor
12-29-2008, 11:19 PM
I do believe that Achilles has just won the internet, my friends.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 11:26 PM
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for as long as you can show me that you deserve it:

Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.


If we change the bias to "corporate" bias, you'll have my buy-in immediately. The idea that the major news networks have a nearly uniform liberal bias does not match reality.

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.


They are chasing marketing dollars, not points for anyone's ideology.


Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.


I'll be more than happy to take a look at any legitimate source you'd care to provide that shows other wise.

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.


(hint: I don't consider Goldberg's blatantly biased book or "academic" papers which don't define their methodology or use poor methodology to be legitimate)

Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.

Interesting premise. Please explain why I should accept this? What evidence do you have that supports such a conspiracy?

I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.


That's quite a leap. Two questionable premises and highly biased conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow either of the premises.

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.


Have you considered that your agenda is affecting your objectivity? Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, so please consider this question in the serious manner it was delivered.

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.


Okay, but you've repeatedly failed to do this. I can't follow the argument because it doesn't match reality.

Your line of reasoning is circular. I think if you can step outside the circular argument for just a moment, you might see that you're not actually doing what you seem to think you're doing.

If you are unwilling to do this, then none of us have any reasonable conclusion to draw other than you're trolling.

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.

A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.

Adavardes
12-29-2008, 11:38 PM
Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.

No, no you haven't, besides Fox News and Newsbusters.

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting. Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.

Source please.

Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings, and New York Times is now in financial trouble. If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

So... basically... You just proved that MSNBC isn't pandering to corporate interests for the cash, and Fox is...

How does that work to your advantage, exactly?

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.

By who? You? I have seen no sources corroborating this statement.

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox.

Fox discredits itself on a regular basis. Try watching it objectively once in a while, if that's even at all possible for you.

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.

Research? Really? Sources.

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point.

You have never posted sources beyond a conservative blog and Fox news to support the majority of your arguments, so this statement is false. PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 11:42 PM
Don't even go there, cause I've already posted sources for what I've been saying in several threads.Legitimate sources, sir. Legitimate sources.

No, they all have a uniform left-wing tilt, look at the schools that teach journalists and look at the news reporting.More false premises leading to unsupported conclusions.

Look at how they all went on a smear campaign on a private citizen.Smear campaign?

Explains why MSNBC is dead last in ratings,For which hour? You are aware that ratings are determined by hour, right?

and New York Times is now in financial trouble.1) They aren't the only ones
2) I don't suppose that the mass exodus to electronic media has anything to do with it
3) This actually supports my argument re: corporate media rather than refutes it (hint: the newsprint media outlets are in trouble because investment dollars are drying up. This has more to do with ebay and craig's list than whatever political conspiracy you're selling).

If it was just for marketing dollars they wouldn't be in the mess they're in.See above :rolleyes:

The problem is that sources I'd imagine you consider to be legit are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism.I've already given you my criteria for legitimacy. Either you can meet those criteria or you cannot.

Goldberg is a liberal who wrote about left wing bias in the media, he isn't a conservative, he got fired for releasing his first book.I'm aware of the spin. I'm also aware that it's spin.

I never said it was a conspiracy, Bernie Goldberg never suggested it was a conspiracy, just that they are arrogant to the point they believe they can't make mistakes so they end up reporting their opinions as the news.This doesn't answer either of my questions.

It actually isn't a big leap considering that until Fox News came into existance the liberal left had a monopoly in television news. Fox is a competitor so there's the financial motive, and Fox isn't more of the same liberal talking heads so there is a political motive to try to discredit Fox. You were saying something about you not saying there was a conspiracy.

That's why I had done a lot of research on this over the last few years, seriously, you can tell there is a problem when Sean Hannity has to start defending Hillary Clinton.This doesn't address my question.

I really don't want to go through several topics and find all the sources I posted all over again to make my point. You don't need to, as I've already seen a majority of what you consider "legitimate sources". They are not, so you can save yourself the trouble. Hence the part of my post that you quoted.

A very telling example is the fact we had a more comprehensive investigation into the background of 'Joe the Plumber' than we did concerning Barack Obama by the mainstream media, they even got ahold of some stuff illegally.Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 11:49 PM
I had to dig around to find it on this forum since I had already posted it but here.

But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened.
-- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=2

That was on page 2 of the article. There was more on page 3

But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press.

I was one of the first people in the traditional media to call for the firing of Dan Rather -- not because of his phony story, but because he refused to admit his mistake -- but, bless him, even Gunga Dan thinks the media is one-sided in this election. -- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3

And it continues on page 3

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.
-- http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3


This is from ABC News, and it's a liberal source.

Not the thread for this. Please don't make me report posts.

Wrong it is the thread for this because it was a perfect example of media bias and outright dishonesty.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 12:12 AM
Story 1Let's assume for a moment that everything here is accurate and true.

Now, do you think this helps your argument or hurts it? As has been discussed in another thread, the Israel lobby in the U.S. isn't exactly brimming with godless liberals. If the conservative christians are supporting Israel and the corporate news machine is reporting a story re: Israel with a pro-Israel bias, do you think that's because that station has a liberal agenda or perhaps a conservative one? Or maybe even a corporate bias?

Story 2 & 3Please help me understand how an opinion piece from a source that you labeled as liberally biased a few post ago, which slams "the liberal media", supports your argument.

Are you familiar with the term "echo chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_echo_chamber)"?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 07:28 AM
Furthermore despite what the media would like people believe, the government did not wiretap domestic conversations without a warrent.you amuse me to no end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TALON_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_program

ForeverNight
12-30-2008, 12:59 PM
jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

So, please, reliable sources.
--
As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 01:04 PM
How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html)

What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.

EnderWiggin
12-30-2008, 04:35 PM
O'Reilly is a lot more objective than Olbermann and makes an effort to present both sides.

I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.
Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html)

What's wrong with wikipedia as a starting point? If the wiki is poorly sourced, then your argument is sound. Otherwise, this just sounds like when people invoke Godwin's Law.

Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 04:55 PM
I love BillO, but this is just wrong. He's a conservative in all ways shapes and forms, and he flaunts it.

Actually I can say he's more honest and objective than Olbermann, Hillary Clinton campaigning for herself is more objective than Olbermann, I'm saying he's that bad.


Agree. I can't stand it when people try to discredit a sourced wiki entry just because it's on wikipedia.


Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.

@ Achilles

I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long. Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).

Fact is even Pew Research despite trying to hide it, is left wing though the numbers is probably much higher than what they're saying.

In the most recent survey, 40% of journalists described themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum (31% said they were “a little to the left” and 9% “pretty far to the left”). But that number was down notably, seven percentage points from 1992, when 47% said they leaned leftward. -- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)

It is easy to argue that the bias is far worse than the numbers portray, because it has been pointed out that many of them don't even realize they're biased.

If newsrooms have moved slightly rightward, the research shows, however, that journalists are still more liberal than their audiences. According to 2002 Gallup data in “The American Journalist,” only 17% of the public characterized themselves as leaning leftward, and 41% identified themselves as tilting to the right. In other words, journalists are still more than twice as likely to lean leftward than the population overall.

When it came to the subject of party affiliation, 36% of the journalists said they were Democrats in 2002 compared with 44% in 1992. (That’s the lowest percentage of self-proclaimed Democrats since 1971.) The percentage of Independents dropped slightly from 1992 to 2002 and the ranks of Republicans grew incrementally from 16% to 18%. (There was actually a notable bump in the percentage journalists who named another political affiliation or declined to answer the question in 2002) -- The American Journalist: Politics and Party Affiliation (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304)

The data here is kinda skewed because of 9/11/2001. But still Pew Research shows a rather large gap.
Furthermore, if you'll look at the information presented, it appears that they don't even closely resemble the actual populace concerning leanings, so it isn't about corporate interests, it's about ideology.

EnderWiggin
12-30-2008, 05:00 PM
Didn't you say wikipedia has no credibility? I seem to remember you saying that on another thread. The orders for the wiretaps was for phone convos on foreign soil and if they happened to call someone in the US or vice-versa that's when one of the people being listened in on was in the United States.


Source? That doesn't sound like me.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:10 PM
Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.

Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.

Adavardes
12-30-2008, 05:42 PM
I'd watch the videos, but I'm on a slow connection right now, so I'll get back to you on that. Still, I'm not arguing that Olbermann isn't biased. He is, yes, very much so. But O'Reilly is also just as biased, that's my only real point of contention here. I'm tired of the double standards.

The blogger included a video of what was said and what he was commenting on.

That's not a source that has any credibility, regardless of how he twists a video of Olbermann to his advantage.

Oh I have sources, in fact I'm having no problem backing up the stuff I'm saying concerning Olbermann.

Let me see sources for every argument you've made in this thread, then. Surely, if you've made arguments here that are corroborated, then the sources would be here, right?

It's not a conspiracy theory, and I've been providing sources, as to other things, it's hard to find things on the web that were deleted from the web though.

This isn't an argument, it's a farce that can neither be proven, and probably has no basis in fact anyway.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 05:49 PM
jmac, to echo the cries of Achilles and Mimartin, legitimate sources, please!

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

So, please, reliable sources.
--
As for bias, I have to say that most of what I've seen leveled against Obama by the major news outlets for their "Hard" questions have been... disappointing. Now, if we could get everybody who's going to be asking the questions to "play nice" and to leave their bias at home, then I figure there'd be less issues with them... Ah well, there's always going to be bias, just look at the type of people who want to go into the news.try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt, church committee findings, or court cases related to people the government ****ed over with all the illegal **** they did.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:52 PM
try reading the wiki pages, most of them cite declassified documents from the projects that weren't burnt and church committee findings.

I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 05:54 PM
I think I'll pass, again wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt when we're talking about media bias or things political in general.they cite external sources and many of them are government documents released under the freedom of information act.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:59 PM
they cite external sources and many of them are government documents released under the freedom of information act.

Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)

jrrtoken
12-30-2008, 06:06 PM
Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)You already posted this, here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2572529&postcount=67). And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 06:08 PM
Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

Anyways I found another example, all the other media outlets (with exception of Fox News) went on and on about how Israel without cause bombed a UN Outpost in Lebanon.

Anyways it took some digging but there was one key piece that they failed to report that changed the entire story.

-- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)lol ok, i'll play your game in place of you just admitting you were wrong.

http://www.michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm
http://www.asu.edu/alumni/vision/05v09n01/paperchaseends.html
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/war/mkultra/mkultra.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_cointelpro.html
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

you can file for the release of documents if you think the scans hosted on those sites are some sort of liberal conspiracy too if you like

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 06:10 PM
You already posted this, here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2572529&postcount=67). And I still fail to see how this proves that mainstream media did anything wrong. Perhaps if you would enlighten me on this particular incident, then maybe your post would have base.

I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.

Basically they were harping on Israel killing UN observers and it turns out the UN knew that Hezbollah was using the location as a rocket launching platform and they refused to pull the observers out.

jrrtoken
12-30-2008, 06:13 PM
I posted it in the other location first because it was pointing out that the United Nations has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accusing Israel of anything. Second, this situation outlines a heavy anti-Israel bias in the media.lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 06:15 PM
lolwut? This proves nothing, just that they didn't find all of he details. In no way does this show that the media has an anti-Israel bias. In fact, I'd rather that the media have a more subjective view to the conflict rather than the usual Israel is awesome view that is the norm.

PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?

jrrtoken
12-30-2008, 06:18 PM
PastramiX, does the term reutergate mean anything to you?I wasn't aware there was a hotel called Rathergate. What happened there?QFE :lol:

EnderWiggin
12-30-2008, 07:59 PM
Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.

Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. If you can't find it, then it never happened. I wouldn't say what you claim I said.

Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.

I would disagree.

_EW_

Achilles
12-30-2008, 11:10 PM
@ Achilles

I can tell you didn't read the article, because it was the same article, it was just 5 pages long. You're right, I only clicked on the link for the 2nd and 3rd quotes because I didn't need to click on the link to make my point for the 1st.

But I do think it very telling that you're trying to hinge your argument on one article.

Oh, and did you intend to address any of points? I do think they are quite pertinent and probably in your best interest to address if you hope to maintain any sort of credibility here. I did shoot an awful lot of holes in your argument, after all.

Fact is that the overwhelming majority of Journalists (at least in the United States (probably true for Europe as well) are liberals).I'm concerned that you cannot recognize the difference between opinion and fact.

Fact is even Pew Research despite trying to hide it, is left wing though the numbers is probably much higher than what they're saying.Pew is part of the conspiracy now, eh? And "probably much higher" doesn't sound very convincing.

Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.Which is why well-sourced articles are always a wonderful thing. Even if they do read "Wikipedia" at the top.

Adavardes
12-31-2008, 03:47 PM
Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, and if it's something concerning a political issue, the articles tend to be suspect.

But the Newsbusters BLOG, however lacking in source material as compared to the wikipedia given by jmac, is perfectly legit.

How many of us here seriously can call Wikipedia a reliable source? I know that if I were to do a paper in any class and I cited Wiki for it, my teachers would fail that paper right on the spot.

So, please, reliable sources.

I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.

Then quote one of the sources, don't just throw up wikipedia links. The topic is about media bias...

Again, you never felt the need to do that with your blog links, so why should anyone feel the compulsion to meet your demands? I believe it was you, when you were asked to cite sources for some claims you made, similar to what you asked of jmac, who said:

Ender, I've already had to dig through the forums to find one source that I'd already posted months ago. I really am not in the mood to go hunting through who knows how many posts to find the post where you specifically said that.

To me, the lack of proof for your arguments means that you are inventing instances where you've given sources, but when you're asked to find them, you either claim that they were deleted, or that you don't want to look for them. Yet you feel justified in asking someone else for sources, someone who cared enough about the credibility of their words to concede and give you the sources.

There's a word for that. Starts with "h" and ends with "ipocrisy".

ForeverNight
12-31-2008, 05:01 PM
I never hear you calling for reliable sources when Garfield throws up an accusation that is totally uncorroborated, or backed up only by Newsbusters. I think this is evidence enough to call your level of objectivity into question.

Of course, that necessitates being involved in the debate enough to have a chance to call Garfield on using Blogs as the end-all for evidence. Besides which, I can't say I'm in Kavar's enough to see "Oooh! Garfield posted! Let's jump on him about using Blogs!"

But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.

Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.

mimartin
12-31-2008, 06:25 PM
But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.
Something that is one person’s opinion is more reliable than a source that is edited. :rolleyes:

Sure, I will go along with that and I will cite this Blog to end all debate on who is most bias of all Media Outlets. ;)

The Ultra-Supreme All Accurate Blog (http://www.lucasforums.com/blog.php?b=459)

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2008, 07:12 PM
all that doesn't matter, man, reality's a lie (http://end-times-data.blogspot.com/)

EnderWiggin
12-31-2008, 07:54 PM
But, in any case, I'd say that a Blog is more "reliable" than Wiki. Just for the sheer fact that Wiki can be edited by anybody at any time for any reason, and that you're not required to cite your sources, or make sure that your sources match up with what's said.

Seriously? One man can write anything he wants without any consequence, and it's more reliable than a wiki page that is constantly being checked/corrected by... oh, I don't know... the whole internet?

RELIABILITY, IN ACTION. (http://enderwiggin229.blogspot.com/)

_EW_

ForeverNight
12-31-2008, 09:44 PM
Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.

Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.

And, if you'll see the bottom of that post... well, I'll just quote myself.

Basically, while Wiki can be used as a starting point -I know that I use it as that a lot- it is not a source to be used in a debate that is at all serious. This also goes for Blogs. Just don't source them in a debate or paper, period.

Vaelastraz
01-01-2009, 07:43 AM
But even if Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, what about its citations? It's all there.. just click at those citations and determine for yourself if they are reliable.

So, for example, if the wikipedia entry for G.W. Bush had a statement along the lines of "Furthermore, it has been proven that Bush is a blithering idiot" in it, and there's not source then it should not be used in a debate...

Adavardes
01-01-2009, 11:32 AM
Hence the quotes around reliable. It is reliable in the sense that the data in it never changes, and, if it is properly researched and cited, then there's not going to be a lot of back and forth on it about what it says. Whereas Wiki can be edited by anybody on the internet and not everybody has benign intentions.

So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.

People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.

Ergo, wiki > blog. Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.

Oh, and nice stab at me, I'm glad to see that this debate is filled with really mature people.

:rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:13 PM
So we're supposed to trust in the word of one person who has no temperance from others to keep him unbiased and objective, and take the 50/50 chance that he is one of those people that don't have "benign intentions"? Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself at every turn on this, my friend. A blog and wikipedia are pretty much the same, save for the fact that multiple people with multiple ranges in opinion are allowed to edit the content on a wiki page, leaving a wider, more comprehensive viewpoint on certain matters of debate, as everyone is unique and has an individual way of seeing things, as opposed to the solitary opinion of one person, who is going to be biased, and in reality, can only have one perspective on an issue.

Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.


People don't think like one another, so to reach the hearts and minds of many, the contributions of many is in the best interest for political debate. Yes, certain writers have mastered the art of rhetoric, and appealing their case, their unique vision as created only by them, but that is only applicable for philosophy, or simply ideologies created for consideration. Not factual occurances, because they happen to all of us, and are not constructed by a single human mind.

Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.


Ergo, wiki > blog.

I got news for you, Pew Research is not a blog, and it is a better source than a wiki. ABC News isn't a blog site either, and it was a liberal source saying there was a left-wing bias problem in the media.


Sometimes a well-cited wikipedia article can even be more reliable in context with many human beings than a single political pundit, regardless of his many qualifications. Something to think about that corresponds to the topic of this thread.

When a person that is trying to cover up a said bias admits there is a problem, then excuse me there is a problem.


The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs. This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.


A link to a wikipedia article: Reutergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reutergate)
I'll try to find some other sources, but the point is it was conservative bloggers that caught Reuters using doctored photos.

jrrtoken
01-01-2009, 09:29 PM
The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News, we saw all the major media outlets, most newspapers, etc. serve as the Democrat Party's Attack Dogs.And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.
This is a very dangerous precident that was set this election, and anyone whom has studied Constitutional History would find this situation extremely troubling.This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...

Adavardes
01-01-2009, 09:32 PM
Pot calling the Kettle black eh? I used two liberal sources, that admit there is a serious left-wing bias in the mainstream media. I'm well aware that I'm a conservative, but you're not exactly an unbiased person either.



Then why is it that conservatives are actively discouraged from going into journalism? There was a rather large disparity in Pew research between conservative leaning and liberal leaning journalists, and they are semi-trying to cover up the problem.

1. Wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just any human being, as it is a fact of humanity that individuals will be biased and our viewpoints will be subjective. There are varying levels of willingness to hear both sides, and tolerance for other perspectives, but nobody is going to be perfectly objective. They can get close, but never to an absolute. That goes for me as well, and you, though you have proven that you have little to no tolerance for other perspectives, and condemn any who disagree with you.

This was about wiki vs. blogs, and in my opinion, wikipedia is a better source because it tends to encompass more perspectives and can often be more corroborated by many sources than single-minded blog entries by a solitary man or woman.

2. You keep saying that, but your words are always filled with vague non-facts and lack any real meaning. Truth is, you can't prove it, so I'd prefer if you'd just stop bringing it up.

The issue hear is that the press is supposed to be independent of either party, yet this year with the sole exception of Fox News,

You're right, it wasn't a democrat attack dog, it was a republican attack dog, and a vicious and insatiable one at that.

Fox news is just as biased as every other news station on the air, IF not more, and to claim otherwise is to have such a severe lack of realisation in how biased YOU are, and to reveal a clear and blatant double standard between conservative and liberal content.

As a certain member of this forum said earlier:

"All news is biased, and so are you.

[/thread]"

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:54 PM
And as always, we saw Fox News as the Republican pulpit, which hasn't really changed much.

That explains why Sean Hannity had to defend Hillary because he thought the rest of the Media went over the line. Fact is even Pew Research's own data shows that Fox News was the most balanced news source, even though they tried to portray it as they were too the right of Rush Limbaugh.


This is nothing. The 2000 election was when Bush protrayed McCain as a rather vile person, claiming that he fathered his adopted child Bridget by a black prostitute, due to her dark skin. He was also called a homosexual, and a sort of "Manchurian Candidate", disillusioned from his POW days. Kinda funny that McCain became almost as bad as Bush during the '08 election...

Why do you think I was rather upset that the Democrats nominated a left wing ideologue by the name of John Kerry. I wouldn't have minded voting for Joe Libermann for President, but the 2004 election was one of those lesser of two evils.

And McCain didn't become as vile as Bush in 2008, that was just the press doing the Democrat's smear work. Fact is that what McCain brought up is legit as we're seeing with the Governor of Illinois, Tony Rezko, etc. So the difference is McCain used truth, whereas Bush used a bunch of lies.

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 09:58 PM
Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.

^_^

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 10:03 PM
Oh, silly us. When smear campaigns are used against a Republican, it's blatantly false, but anything raised against a Democrat, no matter how ludicrous, has merit. Good to know for the future.


What ludicrous charges were made about Obama, aside from the citizenship thing which was started by a Hillary Clinton Supporter.

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 10:10 PM
... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 10:12 PM
... for my reply, please see every other post you've made in regards to Barack Obama.

<snipped>

Or Rev. Wright? Which is true

Or Rezko -- which is also true



Seriously, the media's shear lack of investigating of Obama's ties is proof in and of itself that there is a serious bias problem to say the least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12rich.html


An Opinion article from the New York Times, we've already established when they accuse a conservative of anything they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3174101/Barack-Obama-called-terrorist-at-Republican-rallies-as-US-election-campaign-turns-nasty.html

What does this have to do with a news agency? Furthermore, Obama kept calling McCain, George Bush. And further Palin never called him a terrorist, she said he pals around with terrorists, which William Ayers is a terrorist. Instead you just showed again the bias of the media.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html


See above statement.


http://www.humsurfer.com/newsbusters-obama-threatens-to-bring-a-gun-what-if-mccain-had-done-same

What the heck site is that cause it sure isn't Newsbusters and I've never even heard of humsurfer.com.

How many ways can the staff say 'NO AYERS OUTSIDE THE AYERS THREAD' before you realize we're serious?

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 10:25 PM
Oh you mean all those things about the fact he's tied to William Ayers? Which is true by the way.
No. No, it isn't. It's been exaggerated beyond amazement by cronies of the Republican party in one of the most blatant smear campaigns of the modern political age.

Or Rev. Wright? Which is true
Another exaggerated claim, with absolutely no proof of its effects on Obama's own opinions, beliefs, or choices beyond the massive leaps in logic made by people such as yourself.

Or Rezko -- which is also true
I'll admit to not having done sufficient research to outright deny Obama's ties to Rezko - though I'll say again, there is absolutely no proof of its effects on Obama's own opinions, beliefs, or choices

Seriously, the media's shear lack of investigating of Obama's ties is proof in and of itself that there is a serious bias problem to say the least.

Until you can pose valid evidence that indicates, beyond reasonable doubt, that these so called "affiliations" have an impact on Obama's beliefs or ideals, your argument is 100% invalid. Plain and simple.

This isn't the thread for that, though. Obama discussion is for the Obama thread.

EnderWiggin
01-01-2009, 10:53 PM
Fact is that what McCain brought up is legit as we're seeing with the Governor of Illinois.
1. McCain didn't really bring up Blagojevich.
2. Blagojevich/Obama connection isn't legit - they seem to have no real dealings together.
3. Double standard.

_EW_

True_Avery
01-01-2009, 10:57 PM
Yeah, you're right. Obama is the only politician with questionable ties to people. There couldn't possibly be a single "bad" person linked to Bush or McCain.

Investigating ties and issues with national security is, quite frankly, not the media's jobs. Their supposed job is to get it out and about. They are not ****ing batman or spiderman. They are not supposed to find something, and then get a bunch of reporters together to physically kill or arrest someone.

Guess what? It is out and about. You know about it. I know about it. The American people know about it. If it was a serious, serious problem then I'd question our background check system for Presidents over some guys with cameras trying to get to their next paycheck.

Seriously. If Obama met Ayers at their house every couple of weeks and built bombs, sacrificed babies, and so on then don't you THINK that the FBI would have something to say about him trying to be president?

If having a crazy pastor made you an issue to national security, wouldn't every fundamentalist church be shut down and those in it placed in Guantanamo?

It is against no law to have a crazy pastor. It is against no law to know someone who has blown the hell out of buildings in his life. If either were an issue of national security, then he wouldn't of been allowed on the ballet.

The media is biased? Wow, great find. I'll inform anyone that has not been living under a rock.

The fact of the matter is, it ISN'T being covered up because YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. It was all over the news for months! Both on right and left wing news, they got mentioned in some way or form.

Obama got elected. Sorry if that wound has not healed yet, but the American people voted for this guy and he got in. Even though his ties ran through the news and McCain and Palin did their best to spread it, he still got voted in.

If you have an issue with that, then go live in some dictatorship that has taken the burden of democracy off your shoulders. Democracy and the media can't fail when its all controlled by the top 1%.

oh wait...

When Obama gets into office, we'll see how he does. If he goes bonkers and nukes Kansas because he loves seeing babies burn... I think we'll know in a hurry.

Seriously, the media's shear lack of investigating of Obama's ties is proof in and of itself that there is a serious bias problem to say the least.
Yeah, ties are funny things. Lets take a look at some of McCain's, shall we?

Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
A WWII bombadier, Hensley returned to the United States with an injury sustained while flying over Europe. While recovering, he met Margueritte Smith and left his wife and two-year old daughter for Smith whom he married in 1945. That same year, he and his brother Eugene began working for Kemper Marley, owner of United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, and purported mafia boss. In a 1953 New Mexico State Police report, Kemper Marley, "is reputed to be the financial backer for the bookies" and "owned a wire service formerly operated in connection with bookmaking of the Al Capone gang." And though never charged, Marley is suspected of ordering the car bomb assassination of journalist Ken Bolles in 1976. In 1948, Jim and Eugene Hensley were indicted for falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations. Both men were convicted in U.S. District Court on federal charges of conspiracy and Jim Hensley was also convicted on seven counts of filing false liquor records. In 1953 Jim Hensley and Kemper Marley were again charged with falsifying liquor records. This time Jim was defended by future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Both men were acquitted. In spite of being a convicted felon, Jim Hensley was somehow granted a state liquor license in 1955 (and later a federal liquor license) to found a beer distributorship. Hensley later switched to distributing exclusively Anheuser-Busch beer, and by 1980 Hensley & Co. Distributors and Hensley & Co. Wholesale had made Jim Hensley a multi-millionaire. Read more about McCain and Hensley in the article Haunted By Spirits by John Doughtery and Amy Silverman.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Hensley was Cindy McCain's father, John McCain worked for Hensley as Vice President of Public Relations for Hensley & Co. when he and Cindy first married, and Hensley used his money and influence to launch John McCain's political career.

G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy
iddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role as mastermind of the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention — a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents — telling listeners, "Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests" — and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton. Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07 includes an audio discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program." Liddy called for the murder of federal agents, served time in jail, plotted murder - and after that, John McCain applauded him and took his money.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: In 1998 Liddy hosted a campaign fundraiser for McCain and McCain has accepted campaign donations from Liddy over the last a decade, most recently in February 2008. McCain has appeared as a guest on Liddy's radio show multiple times, most recently in November 2007 during the presidential campign when Liddy greeted McCain as "an old friend." During the interview, Mccain stated he was "proud" of Liddy and praised Liddy for his "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mncswlqo2D0

Charles Keating, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Charles H. Keating, Jr., is the former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The "Keating Five" were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. McCain and four other senators were accused of improperly aiding Keating., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. In addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. It was also found that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. The Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse cost taxpayers $3.4 billion After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee criticized McCain for "questionable conduct," and did not mete harsher punishment because of McCain's future presidential ambitions.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: John McCain was a close personal friend of Charles Keating, McCain and his family vacationed at Keating's Bahamas mansion, Cindy McCain had investments with Keating.

Raffaello Follieri, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffaello_Follieri
In late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by Raffaello Follieri and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: McCain spent his 70th birthday aboard Follieri's yacht in August 2006.

Rep. Rick Renzi, Under Indictment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Renzi
Renzi, Arizona Congressman 2002-2008, is currently under indictment for conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, concealment of money laundering, transactions with criminally derived funds, extortion, insurance fraud and criminal forfeiture. In robocalls to assist Renzi in his re-election bid in October 2006, McCain stated, "Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach." The indictment also names business associate James Sandlin, and Maryland attorney Andrew Beardall. The indictment also refers to two companies involved in the transactions, Company A and Investment Group B. Prosecutors allege Renzi criminally concealed information about land deals to both Company A and Investment Group B, and used his seat on the House Natural Resources Committee to try to force their hand. The indictment says Renzi was trying to help his business associate, Sandlin, finish paying off an $800,000 loan Sandlin owed to Renzi. Renzi was in financial straits and needed the money and also states Renzi also never claimed the $733,000 in his 2006 House financial disclosure statements.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Until February 2008, Renzi was co-chair of McCain's Arizona 2008 presidential campaign, member of McCain's 2008 National Leadership Team, and a personal friend. In October 2006, McCain stated, "Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach."

Rick Davis, McCain Campaign Manager & Freddie Mac Lobbyist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics)
Davis is currently John McCain's campaign manager in his bid for the U.S. presidency. Davis' lobbying firm — Davis Manafort — received payments of $15,000 a month between 2006 and August 2008 from Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was recently placed under federal conservatorship. As the mortgage crisis has escalated, almost any association with Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae has become politically toxic. But the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006 — and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business. Aside from attending a few breakfasts and a political-action-committee meeting with Democratic strategist Paul Begala (another Freddie consultant), Davis did "zero" for the housing firm, one of the sources said. Freddie Mac also had no dealings with the lobbying firm beyond paying monthly invoices — but it agreed to the arrangement because of Davis's close relationship with McCain, the source said, which led top executives to conclude "you couldn't say no." Freddie Mac's roughly $500,000 in payments to Davis & Manafort began immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in late 2005 disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run. From 2000 to the end of 2005, Davis received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that were their downfall.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Davis is currently John McCain's presidential campaign director, and McCain told Newsweek in 2007 "Rick is a friend, and I trust him."

Charles Black, Jr., Senior Advisor To McCain Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Black,_Jr.
Currently a chief strategist and senior adviser for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, in June 2008, Charlie Black stated in an interview with Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack on the United States would "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him." Black is a registered as a lobbyist and is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates. His clients have included right-wing guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi of Angola and such dictators as Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, as well as Nigerian General Ibrahim Babangida, Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre, the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the countries of Kenya and Equatorial Guinea, among others. As of February 2008, Black said he is still being paid by his firm and does work for clients in his "spare time," recusing himself from lobbying McCain: "I not only do not lobby him [McCain], but if an issue comes up that I have a client on, I will tell him that and stay out of the discussion." Though McCain often portrays himself as an anti-lobbyist politician, his senior advisor has earned more than $57 million dollars since 1998 as a Washington lobbyist. Some of his other clients include: Alcoa - $100,000; Amerada Hess Corp. - $80,000; American Financial Group - $80,000; Asoex Chilean Exporters Assn. - $40,000; AT&T - $1,185,000; AT&T Inc - $720,000; Bristol-Myers Squibb - $690,000; ChevronTexaco - $140,000; Chilean Salmon Farmers Assn. - $100,000; Colombian Textile & Apparel Industry - $80,000; Comasa, de la Optica - $80,000; Contran Corp. - $505,000; Freddie Mac - $820,000; Glaxo Wellcome Inc - $40,000; GlaxoSmithKline - $590,000; Global Strategies Group - $180,000; Honeywell International - $220,000; Importers Service Corp. - $540,000; International Franchise Assn. - $290,000; JP Morgan & Co - $140,000; JP Morgan Chase & Co - $724,000; Lockheed Martin - $487,500; Mortgage Bankers Assn. of America - $140,000; National Assn. of Mortgage Brokers - $60,000; National Foreign Trade Council - $40,000; Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000; Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000; Philip Morris - $1,292,500; Tobacco Quota Warehouse Alliance - $120,000; Yukos Oil - $155,000;

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Charles Black is McCain's current chief strategist and a senior advisor to his 2008 presidential campaign. Black said he is still being paid by his firm and does work for clients in his "spare time".

Richard Quinn, White Supremist
Beginning in 1981, Richard Quinn became the Executive Editor in Chief of the racist Southern Partisan Quarterly Review and as was still listed as the owner of the magazine as recently as 2005. Like McCain did originally, Quinn opposed the Martin Luther King holiday, writing it "should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane." In 2000, People For American Way called on McCain to fire Quinn, listing his disparaging of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist," his promotion of David Duke ("What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke?") and his selling of t-shirts praising Abraham Lincoln's assassination. McCain wouldn't fire him. He rejected the guilt-by-association charge, defending the man and disavowing the publication.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: The Washington Post described Quinn as the "longtime adviser [who] directed the senator to a crucial victory in the Palmetto State." Politico reported that McCain paid Quinn's firms $184,000. An article that was posted on McCain's website in 2008 — that is no longer available — described Quinn as "a senior political consultant to the McCain campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502222.html?nav=rss_politics
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7604.html

Pastor John Hagee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
In a 2006 address, Hagee stated, "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ." Over the years, Hagee the right-wing pastor has waged "an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church" by "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'" During an interview with National Public Radio, Hagee also blamed Hurricane Katrina on gays, saying the devastating storm "was, in fact, the judgment of God against ... New Orleans." The city, he continued, "had a level of sin that was offensive to God" because "there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came."

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Despite McCain's statement in 2000 that "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right," McCain spent more than a year actively seeking Hagee's endorsement. In February 2008, McCain stated, "I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today." Only after public outcry did McCain repudiate Hagee.

Pastor Rod Parsley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Parsley
Parsley has stated that "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world." Parsley has further stated that "The fact is that America was founded — I'm gonna stagger you right now — America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." He also said that Mohammed received revelations from demon spirits.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: McCain actively sought Parsley's support to get evangelical votes. In February 2008, McCain stated, "I'm truly honored today to have one of one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide — Pastor Rod Parsley." Again, after public outrage over Parsley, McCain was forced to repudiate him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&eurl

Todd Palin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group whose primary goal is for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials. Founded in 1973 by Joe Vogler, Vogler stated, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their 2008 convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Todd Palin is the husband of McCain's vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin has attended their conventions and Sarah Palin herself sent them a videotaped address for their 2008 convention, telling them to "keep up the good work."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Wow, what a list.

Some more Sources for your book burning festival:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-03-02/news/this-bud-s-for-john/print
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/364/
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/84094.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93708729
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_219.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html?pagewanted=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/23/politics/politico/thecrypt...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331872,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_Gordon_Liddy
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/10/05/mccains-terror-connection-g-gordon-liddy/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7302_charlie_black_j.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-adviser.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/business/main4422652.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ayers7-2008oct07,0,1083099.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=2...

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 11:40 PM
I do believe the internet has a new winner.

Tommycat
01-02-2009, 12:43 AM
Some more Sources for your book burning festival:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-03-02/news/this-bud-s-for-john/print
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/364/
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/84094.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93708729
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_219.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html?pagewanted=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/23/politics/politico/thecrypt...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331872,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_Gordon_Liddy
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/10/05/mccains-terror-connection-g-gordon-liddy/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7302_charlie_black_j.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-adviser.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0404wrightapr03,0,92000.story
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/mccain_guiltbyassociation_for.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/business/main4422652.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-ayers7-2008oct07,0,1083099.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=2...

First, uncool with the bookburning reference.
Second, Sooo are you saying that more news agencies covered McCain's ties than Obama's?

True_Avery
01-02-2009, 01:28 AM
First, uncool with the bookburning reference.
Oh, ok. Here is a picture instead.
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/bookburning.jpg

Seems to fit nicely into the current trend of burning everyone's sources down in Kavars.

Second, Sooo are you saying that more news agencies covered McCain's ties than Obama's?
No. I'm simply pointing out to Garfield that his candidate was not the angelic gift from god he's been making him out to be, and that in reality nearly all politicians have a dirty set of friends in order to get where they are.

Its part of the job description.

And, I'm not one to make that sort of generalization. I have not watched all of the news stations, and I'm not a machine, so I don't know the hard numbers on bias. But, from my experience with this election, it seems that Obama's ties got more "attention" than McCain, whether it be the agency pointing it out or trying to make it look prettier with flowers.

Obama may have won simply out of the popularity he got. It was not always good popularity, but his name seemed to be everywhere in one way or another. McCain's ad hit it pretty spot on when they called him a celebrity, but the ironic thing was it was he who was helping Obama get his name into every story.

Its a popularity contest. The person that has the most air time and spends the most money tends to be the one that wins. McCain helped Obama out in 2 ways: By using smear campaigns that would guarantee Obama air time in some fashion, and by working off of a budget while Obama did the smart thing and spent as much money as he could as fast as he could to further guarantee that he was on your TV as much as freaking possible.

As Michael Moore points out when he got chewed on for Far 9/11 and Sicko: having bad publicity is still publicity. Sure, they are chewing you out, but your name gets onto the television and your movie/campaign gets free airtime.

machievelli
01-02-2009, 01:48 AM
A personal note on Media Bias:

As you all know, I am a pretty opinionated guy. I say what I think and pull no punches. About a week into Desert Shield (The Allied bombing campaign before Desert Storm) I got sick of hearing liberal crap about the US, and I wrote an article. That article was called; Buzzwords.

The Article took all of the buzzwords and phrases from both sides and explained not only what they meant, but how they were using them to get kneee jerk reactions in the press. I handed it to the LA times (Take my word for it, there is no more liberal rag unless you point to the New York Times)

They took it, with a codicil of first refusal; I.E., they can hold it until they refuse to print it.

It is now 18 years, and they still have not printed it, or refused to print it.

Oh yeah, I still have a copy of it somewhere on my computer or recorded media, if you want to see it.

True_Avery
01-02-2009, 02:18 AM
A personal note on Media Bias:

As you all know, I am a pretty opinionated guy. I say what I think and pull no punches. About a week into Desert Shield (The Allied bombing campaign before Desert Storm) I got sick of hearing liberal crap about the US, and I wrote an article. That article was called; Buzzwords.
So... "Liberals" are the only ones that use buzzwords?

I believe "liberal" and "conservative" are wonderful buzzwords used by both sides.

I know you said "both sides", but I find that hard to follow within a paragraph containing "liberal rag" in it.

Tommycat
01-02-2009, 02:54 AM
So... "Liberals" are the only ones that use buzzwords?

I believe "liberal" and "conservative" are wonderful buzzwords used by both sides.

I know you said "both sides", but I find that hard to follow within a paragraph containing "liberal rag" in it.

Liberal rag being LA Times. It's hard to argue against the LA Times being "Liberal." There are conservative rags as well(like the Colorado Springs Gazette). Then of course there are the neo-con rags. I've heard many people refer to their local paper as the local rag. So it fits to call it a liberal rag.

True_Avery
01-02-2009, 03:00 AM
Liberal rag being LA Times. It's hard to argue against the LA Times being "Liberal." There are conservative rags as well(like the Colorado Springs Gazette). Then of course there are the neo-con rags. I've heard many people refer to their local paper as the local rag. So it fits to call it a liberal rag.
Fair enough to say I guess.

machievelli
01-02-2009, 11:48 AM
So... "Liberals" are the only ones that use buzzwords?

I believe "liberal" and "conservative" are wonderful buzzwords used by both sides.

I know you said "both sides", but I find that hard to follow within a paragraph containing "liberal rag" in it.
I dislike the upper crust liberals ever since Micheal Moore when accused of lying in one of his 'documentaries' replied to the charge; 'A lie in pursuit of peace is not a lie.'

I should also mention I loathe full bore conservatives just as much. I used them all because the government has it's own buzzwords to attract favorable public response. My favorite in that regard has always been Collateral damage.

Adavardes
01-02-2009, 12:57 PM
A personal note on Media Bias:

As you all know, I am a pretty opinionated guy. I say what I think and pull no punches. About a week into Desert Shield (The Allied bombing campaign before Desert Storm) I got sick of hearing liberal crap about the US, and I wrote an article. That article was called; Buzzwords.

That's neat. Let's also remember that a Conservative president, the Senior George Bush, was in office during Desert Storm, and that typically, the current losing party, especially in the kind of people you dislike, tends to be the most vocal. Something to think about regarding several threads in Kavar's.

Let me also point out that, during this particular presidential election, I watched both sides of the argument, made sure to catch nearly every rally and every public speaking for both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. During that time, and I'm not sure whether or not this is true, because Liberals are known to delete the news (:rolleyes:), but for the most part, the majority of the attacks, smear campaigns, and buzzwords used were against Obama, a few choice words and phrases being:

Barack "Hussein" Obama
Pals around with Terrorists
White Flag of Surrender
the "real" Barack Obama

There are more, I'm sure, but those are a choice few examples. I'm not saying that Obama didn't use some buzzwords of his own, like, "McCain = the same", but none that I can remember being as popular as those other ones, while still being an offensive against his opponent. In fact, the only real buzzwords I remember from Obama later in the election, when the mudslinging was supposed to stop, were:

Change
Yes we can
Change you can believe in

But most of those are backed up by his many political policies, which do call for the beginnings of drastic change in the US, change that he is making radical steps toward achieving. And you wonder why the man won.

machievelli
01-02-2009, 06:14 PM
That's neat. Let's also remember that a Conservative president, the Senior George Bush, was in office during Desert Storm, and that typically, the current losing party, especially in the kind of people you dislike, tends to be the most vocal. Something to think about regarding several threads in Kavar's.

Let me also point out that, during this particular presidential election, I watched both sides of the argument, made sure to catch nearly every rally and every public speaking for both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. During that time, and I'm not sure whether or not this is true, because Liberals are known to delete the news (:rolleyes:), but for the most part, the majority of the attacks, smear campaigns, and buzzwords used were against Obama, a few choice words and phrases being:

Barack "Hussein" Obama
Pals around with Terrorists
White Flag of Surrender
the "real" Barack Obama

There are more, I'm sure, but those are a choice few examples. I'm not saying that Obama didn't use some buzzwords of his own, like, "McCain = the same", but none that I can remember being as popular as those other ones, while still being an offensive against his opponent. In fact, the only real buzzwords I remember from Obama later in the election, when the mudslinging was supposed to stop, were:

Change
Yes we can
Change you can believe in

But most of those are backed up by his many political policies, which do call for the beginnings of drastic change in the US, change that he is making radical steps toward achieving. And you wonder why the man won.

Considering the half billion the parties spent this election, I am never surprised by who won.

Oh, BTW, the reason I got ticked was not that a conservative president was attacked. As far as I am concerned, no one since Theodore Roosevelt was worth the effort.

The fact is, both sides used buzz words, both claim their buzzwords are the truth, and the truth has nothing to do with what they say on either side.

jonathan7
01-02-2009, 08:05 PM
This thread is closed until myself and Jae have a chance to review, currently I am considerably busy with real life, so can't give this the time it deserves until tomorrow -- j7

Thread re-opened -- j7

Jae Onasi
01-15-2009, 04:14 PM
Adavardes, below are links to different news agencies about the discovery of the chemical weapons cache by the NGIC. All the news sources I looked up acknowledged that the Senators called them 'weapons of mass destruction' except the NY Times, which used the semantic cop-out of 'unconventional weapons.' Call it what it is, please, NYT--the thousands of Kurds who were injured and slaughtered by Hussein deserve that courtesy.

In any case, Fox was not the only news source to use the term 'weapons of mass destruction' as you claimed. CNN didn't acknowledge that the source the Senators were using was a portion of the NGIC report that had been declassified and released that day--I think that was a disappointing and important omission, because quoting the source the senators got the information from was salient.

Now, if you're arguing that Fox has a conservative/pro-GOP bias, I agree with you. However, you said Fox was inaccurate. I have yet to find an inaccuracy in the article you provided, and in fact the information they provide is corroborated by other news sources.

CNN report (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/06/21/wednesday/index.html?iref=newssearch)--scroll down to "Hundreds of old chemical shells found...."

Chicago Tribune (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1065118271.html?dids=1065118271:1065118271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+23%2C+2006&author=Naftali+Bendavid%2C+Washington+Bureau&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=8&desc=Rivals+ridicule+GOP+assertion)

The Washington Post (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1065117561.html?dids=1065117561:1065117561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jun+23%2C+2006&author=Walter+Pincus+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.10&desc=Democrats+Criticize+Claim+on+Iraqi+Arms%3B+Re publicans+Cite+Chemical+Weapons%3B+Official+Says+T hey+Were+From+Pre-1991)

NYT calls it (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/world/middleeast/23bbox.html?scp=4&sq=chemical+AND+weapons+AND+Iraq&st=nyt) 'unconventional weapons'.

In terms of providing detail, Fox did a better job on the story than any of these other sources. I thought how the different sources covered it was interesting as well. Unbiased? None of them are. Fox inaccurate in their reporting? I'm not seeing it. If you have other examples of inaccuracies, please post them, because the Fox article you linked does not appear to meet the criteria of inaccurate.

I'd love to see what other reasons people come up with. I listed a few before. I'm sure others will be added as the thread progresses. If that came across as trying to shut you out, I apologize. I was trying to encourage others to join in with us--when we get going back and forth, I've noticed some people have a tendency not to join in the discussion.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 10:31 PM
I'm going to point out that if that level of scrutiny that Achilles sources used to try to dig up any piece of dirt they could find against McCain was also turned towards Obama, I sincerely doubt Obama would have been President.


The New York Times got caught reporting a bogus story about McCain in 2008.

CBS got caught using forged documents in 2004 to try to smear President Bush, at least with the Swift Boat Vets, they were who they said they were, this "source" forged another man's signature.

Additionally the documents were so poorly forged the fact CBS "fell for it" is a laugh, it was outright slander.

Furthermore there was the bogus photos in 2006 during the Israeli/Lebanon conflict, and I'm just getting started.

The Doctor
01-18-2009, 10:34 PM
I'm just getting started.
I don't doubt it. :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 10:57 PM
I don't doubt it. :rolleyes:

The approximately 900+ doctored photos in the Israeli/Lebanon war in 2006, and that is just reuters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208160,00.html

Achilles
01-18-2009, 11:09 PM
I'm going to point out that if that level of scrutiny that Achilles sources used to try to dig up any piece of dirt they could find against McCain was also turned towards Obama, I sincerely doubt Obama would have been President.???

So where was your beloved FakeNews then? Was their "level of scrutiny" horribly inept or did the thinking public see through their "Fair and Balanced" reporting? I can't wait to see just how you plan to try to have it both ways.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:13 PM
???

So where was your beloved FakeNews then? Was their "level of scrutiny" horribly inept or did the thinking public see through their "Fair and Balanced" reporting? I can't wait to see just how you plan to try to have it both ways.

Actually according to the information I posted on this forum Fox News was the most balanced source this election. I'm saying all the other "news agencies" aren't news agencies anymore, they're propaganda pulpits for the far-left.

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:25 PM
Actually according to the information I posted on this forum Fox News was the most balanced source this election.

Never proven, ever.

EVER.

Obama stories by Fox News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/obamas-spiritual-adviser-questioned-us-role-in-spread-of-hiv-sept-11-attacks/

McCain stories by Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440632,00.html
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/31/mccain-talks-palin-on-fox-news-sunday/

Yeah, not biased at all. They talk about McCain's actual policies, but bomb out Obama for his "pastor", his "spiritual adviser", and other nonsense. Yup. Totally fair.

Achilles
01-18-2009, 11:28 PM
Yup. Totally fair.You forgot "balanced".

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:29 PM
Yeah, not biased at all. They talk about McCain's actual policies, but bomb out Obama for his "pastor", his "spiritual adviser", and other nonsense. Yup. Totally fair.

So you're saying Rev. Wright's (whom was Obama's pastor and spiritual adviser" comments, "*** **** America..." aren't contraversial? Or how bout "US KKKA"?

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:34 PM
So you're saying Rev. Wright's (whom was Obama's pastor and spiritual adviser" comments, "*** **** America..." aren't contraversial? Or how bout "US KKKA"?

Let's just pretend I give a ****, and that these attacks on Obama are justified (they're not). Where's the Fox News stories on McCain's discrepancies? Hm? About his "past affiliations", that have more basis in fact than anything ever printed by Fox News on all the big bad people Obama "associates with"? Where are the stories about, hold on, let's see...

Jim Hensley, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
A WWII bombadier, Hensley returned to the United States with an injury sustained while flying over Europe. While recovering, he met Margueritte Smith and left his wife and two-year old daughter for Smith whom he married in 1945. That same year, he and his brother Eugene began working for Kemper Marley, owner of United Sales Company in Phoenix and United Distributors in Tucson, and purported mafia boss. In a 1953 New Mexico State Police report, Kemper Marley, "is reputed to be the financial backer for the bookies" and "owned a wire service formerly operated in connection with bookmaking of the Al Capone gang." And though never charged, Marley is suspected of ordering the car bomb assassination of journalist Ken Bolles in 1976. In 1948, Jim and Eugene Hensley were indicted for falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations. Both men were convicted in U.S. District Court on federal charges of conspiracy and Jim Hensley was also convicted on seven counts of filing false liquor records. In 1953 Jim Hensley and Kemper Marley were again charged with falsifying liquor records. This time Jim was defended by future Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Both men were acquitted. In spite of being a convicted felon, Jim Hensley was somehow granted a state liquor license in 1955 (and later a federal liquor license) to found a beer distributorship. Hensley later switched to distributing exclusively Anheuser-Busch beer, and by 1980 Hensley & Co. Distributors and Hensley & Co. Wholesale had made Jim Hensley a multi-millionaire. Read more about McCain and Hensley in the article Haunted By Spirits by John Doughtery and Amy Silverman.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Hensley was Cindy McCain's father, John McCain worked for Hensley as Vice President of Public Relations for Hensley & Co. when he and Cindy first married, and Hensley used his money and influence to launch John McCain's political career.

G. Gordon Liddy, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy
iddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role as mastermind of the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention — a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents — telling listeners, "Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests" — and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton. Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07 includes an audio discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program." Liddy called for the murder of federal agents, served time in jail, plotted murder - and after that, John McCain applauded him and took his money.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: In 1998 Liddy hosted a campaign fundraiser for McCain and McCain has accepted campaign donations from Liddy over the last a decade, most recently in February 2008. McCain has appeared as a guest on Liddy's radio show multiple times, most recently in November 2007 during the presidential campign when Liddy greeted McCain as "an old friend." During the interview, Mccain stated he was "proud" of Liddy and praised Liddy for his "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mncswlqo2D0

Charles Keating, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Charles H. Keating, Jr., is the former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The "Keating Five" were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. McCain and four other senators were accused of improperly aiding Keating., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. In addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. It was also found that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. The Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse cost taxpayers $3.4 billion After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee criticized McCain for "questionable conduct," and did not mete harsher punishment because of McCain's future presidential ambitions.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: John McCain was a close personal friend of Charles Keating, McCain and his family vacationed at Keating's Bahamas mansion, Cindy McCain had investments with Keating.

Raffaello Follieri, Convicted Felon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffaello_Follieri
In late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by Raffaello Follieri and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: McCain spent his 70th birthday aboard Follieri's yacht in August 2006.

Rep. Rick Renzi, Under Indictment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Renzi
Renzi, Arizona Congressman 2002-2008, is currently under indictment for conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, concealment of money laundering, transactions with criminally derived funds, extortion, insurance fraud and criminal forfeiture. In robocalls to assist Renzi in his re-election bid in October 2006, McCain stated, "Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach." The indictment also names business associate James Sandlin, and Maryland attorney Andrew Beardall. The indictment also refers to two companies involved in the transactions, Company A and Investment Group B. Prosecutors allege Renzi criminally concealed information about land deals to both Company A and Investment Group B, and used his seat on the House Natural Resources Committee to try to force their hand. The indictment says Renzi was trying to help his business associate, Sandlin, finish paying off an $800,000 loan Sandlin owed to Renzi. Renzi was in financial straits and needed the money and also states Renzi also never claimed the $733,000 in his 2006 House financial disclosure statements.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Until February 2008, Renzi was co-chair of McCain's Arizona 2008 presidential campaign, member of McCain's 2008 National Leadership Team, and a personal friend. In October 2006, McCain stated, "Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach."

Rick Davis, McCain Campaign Manager & Freddie Mac Lobbyist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Davis_(politics)
Davis is currently John McCain's campaign manager in his bid for the U.S. presidency. Davis' lobbying firm — Davis Manafort — received payments of $15,000 a month between 2006 and August 2008 from Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant that was recently placed under federal conservatorship. As the mortgage crisis has escalated, almost any association with Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae has become politically toxic. But the payments to Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, are especially problematic because he requested the consulting retainer in 2006 — and then did barely any work for the fees, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement who asked not to be identified discussing Freddie Mac business. Aside from attending a few breakfasts and a political-action-committee meeting with Democratic strategist Paul Begala (another Freddie consultant), Davis did "zero" for the housing firm, one of the sources said. Freddie Mac also had no dealings with the lobbying firm beyond paying monthly invoices — but it agreed to the arrangement because of Davis's close relationship with McCain, the source said, which led top executives to conclude "you couldn't say no." Freddie Mac's roughly $500,000 in payments to Davis & Manafort began immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in late 2005 disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run. From 2000 to the end of 2005, Davis received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that were their downfall.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Davis is currently John McCain's presidential campaign director, and McCain told Newsweek in 2007 "Rick is a friend, and I trust him."

Charles Black, Jr., Senior Advisor To McCain Campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Black,_Jr.
Currently a chief strategist and senior adviser for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, in June 2008, Charlie Black stated in an interview with Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack on the United States would "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him." Black is a registered as a lobbyist and is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates. His clients have included right-wing guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi of Angola and such dictators as Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, as well as Nigerian General Ibrahim Babangida, Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre, the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the countries of Kenya and Equatorial Guinea, among others. As of February 2008, Black said he is still being paid by his firm and does work for clients in his "spare time," recusing himself from lobbying McCain: "I not only do not lobby him [McCain], but if an issue comes up that I have a client on, I will tell him that and stay out of the discussion." Though McCain often portrays himself as an anti-lobbyist politician, his senior advisor has earned more than $57 million dollars since 1998 as a Washington lobbyist. Some of his other clients include: Alcoa - $100,000; Amerada Hess Corp. - $80,000; American Financial Group - $80,000; Asoex Chilean Exporters Assn. - $40,000; AT&T - $1,185,000; AT&T Inc - $720,000; Bristol-Myers Squibb - $690,000; ChevronTexaco - $140,000; Chilean Salmon Farmers Assn. - $100,000; Colombian Textile & Apparel Industry - $80,000; Comasa, de la Optica - $80,000; Contran Corp. - $505,000; Freddie Mac - $820,000; Glaxo Wellcome Inc - $40,000; GlaxoSmithKline - $590,000; Global Strategies Group - $180,000; Honeywell International - $220,000; Importers Service Corp. - $540,000; International Franchise Assn. - $290,000; JP Morgan & Co - $140,000; JP Morgan Chase & Co - $724,000; Lockheed Martin - $487,500; Mortgage Bankers Assn. of America - $140,000; National Assn. of Mortgage Brokers - $60,000; National Foreign Trade Council - $40,000; Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000; Occidental Petroleum - $1,650,000; Philip Morris - $1,292,500; Tobacco Quota Warehouse Alliance - $120,000; Yukos Oil - $155,000;

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Charles Black is McCain's current chief strategist and a senior advisor to his 2008 presidential campaign. Black said he is still being paid by his firm and does work for clients in his "spare time".

Richard Quinn, White Supremist
Beginning in 1981, Richard Quinn became the Executive Editor in Chief of the racist Southern Partisan Quarterly Review and as was still listed as the owner of the magazine as recently as 2005. Like McCain did originally, Quinn opposed the Martin Luther King holiday, writing it "should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane." In 2000, People For American Way called on McCain to fire Quinn, listing his disparaging of Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist," his promotion of David Duke ("What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke?") and his selling of t-shirts praising Abraham Lincoln's assassination. McCain wouldn't fire him. He rejected the guilt-by-association charge, defending the man and disavowing the publication.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: The Washington Post described Quinn as the "longtime adviser [who] directed the senator to a crucial victory in the Palmetto State." Politico reported that McCain paid Quinn's firms $184,000. An article that was posted on McCain's website in 2008 — that is no longer available — described Quinn as "a senior political consultant to the McCain campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_politics
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7604.html

Pastor John Hagee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
In a 2006 address, Hagee stated, "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ." Over the years, Hagee the right-wing pastor has waged "an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church" by "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'" During an interview with National Public Radio, Hagee also blamed Hurricane Katrina on gays, saying the devastating storm "was, in fact, the judgment of God against ... New Orleans." The city, he continued, "had a level of sin that was offensive to God" because "there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came."

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Despite McCain's statement in 2000 that "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right," McCain spent more than a year actively seeking Hagee's endorsement. In February 2008, McCain stated, "I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today." Only after public outcry did McCain repudiate Hagee.

Pastor Rod Parsley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Parsley
Parsley has stated that "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world." Parsley has further stated that "The fact is that America was founded — I'm gonna stagger you right now — America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." He also said that Mohammed received revelations from demon spirits.

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: McCain actively sought Parsley's support to get evangelical votes. In February 2008, McCain stated, "I'm truly honored today to have one of one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide — Pastor Rod Parsley." Again, after public outrage over Parsley, McCain was forced to repudiate him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&eurl

Todd Palin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group whose primary goal is for the state of Alaska to secede from the United States. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials. Founded in 1973 by Joe Vogler, Vogler stated, "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their 2008 convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

HOW CLOSELY IS McCAIN TIED TO HIM: Todd Palin is the husband of McCain's vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin has attended their conventions and Sarah Palin herself sent them a videotaped address for their 2008 convention, telling them to "keep up the good work."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Wow, what a list.

Some more Sources for your book burning festival:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-03-...for-john/print
http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/364/
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-...ed-by-spirits/
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/84094.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=93708729
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_219.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us...l?pagewanted=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...itico/thecrypt...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331872,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_Gordon_Liddy
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/10/...-gordon-liddy/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us.../w24davis.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...e_black_j.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...n-adviser.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2008/02/21/...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,0,92000.story
http://www.liberaloasis.com/2008/04/...iation_for.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26524024/
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,6399468.story
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/...n-endorsement/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4422652.shtml
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1083099.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us...yers.html?_r=2...

*waits*

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:41 PM
First you're digging up stuff from people that was from a long time ago, second McCain has a record of going after people that are corrupt Obama did not and still doesn't.

Third, did you know that John McCain testified against Keating in the civil trial to try to help people get their money back.

Then the Scooter Libby connection doesn't go anywhere at all because McCain would have had to meet the guy due to the nature of their jobs, that's a difference between McCain and Obama. Obama chose Wright as his pastor, Libby just worked for the executive branch.

As for your sources, I see at least one that off the top of my head used fraudulent documents in 2004 to try to smear President Bush.

And several others including: Newsweek, New York Times, LA Times, etc. (and that's just off the top of my head) that have been caught at dishonest journalism in 2008.

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:45 PM
First you're digging up stuff from people that was from a long time ago, second McCain has a record of going after people that are corrupt Obama did not and still doesn't.

Totally irrelevant.

Third, did you know that John McCain testified against Keating in the civil trial to try to help people get their money back.

Source.

Then the Scooter Libby connection doesn't go anywhere at all because McCain would have had to meet the guy due to the nature of their jobs, that's a difference between McCain and Obama. Obama chose Wright as his pastor, Libby just worked for the executive branch.

So you're saying that "the nature of their jobs" is basis for invalidating arguments of association? That's good. All your Ayers arguments are falsified under this argument.

As for your sources, I see at least one that off the top of my head used fraudulent documents in 2004 to try to smear President Bush.

Source, or did they delete it? :rolleyes:

And several others including: Newsweek, New York Times, LA Times, etc. (and that's just off the top of my head) that have been caught at dishonest journalism in 2008.

Okay, sure, whatever. What about the other ones? And what about the other associations, for that matter? I want to see a Fox News link to a story for each, otherwise, Fox News is totally, irrefutably, and undeniably Conservatively biased.

Thanks.

The Doctor
01-18-2009, 11:48 PM
And several others including: Newsweek, New York Times, LA Times, etc. (and that's just off the top of my head) that have been caught at dishonest journalism in 2008.
If by "caught" you mean "baselessly accused by spiteful right-wing bloggers with absolutely no credible evidence other than their own blatantly biased opinions", then I couldn't agree more.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:51 PM
Source, or did they delete it? :rolleyes:

Actually they were forced to admit it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate



Okay, sure, whatever. What about the other ones? And what about the other associations, for that matter? I want to see a Fox News link to a story for each, otherwise, Fox News is totally, irrefutably, and undeniably Conservatively biased.

First some of my responses were basic common sense (such as Libby if you look up where he worked and what Senate Committees McCain served on), second the one about Keating was based off the video concerning John McCain by CNN I believe.

If by "caught" you mean "baselessly accused by spiteful right-wing bloggers with absolutely no credible evidence other than their own blatantly biased opinions", then I couldn't agree more.

Considering CBS ended up having to admit they were using forged documents, because of the bloggers I tend to use as a source, and considering my major is Computer Graphics Technology, I can say with certainty the documents were bogus.

Jae Onasi
01-19-2009, 12:03 AM
Ayers discussion belongs in the Ayers thread.

True_Avery
01-19-2009, 06:51 AM
First you're digging up stuff from people that was from a long time ago, second McCain has a record of going after people that are corrupt Obama did not and still doesn't.

Third, did you know that John McCain testified against Keating in the civil trial to try to help people get their money back.

Then the Scooter Libby connection doesn't go anywhere at all because McCain would have had to meet the guy due to the nature of their jobs, that's a difference between McCain and Obama. Obama chose Wright as his pastor, Libby just worked for the executive branch.

As for your sources, I see at least one that off the top of my head used fraudulent documents in 2004 to try to smear President Bush.

And several others including: Newsweek, New York Times, LA Times, etc. (and that's just off the top of my head) that have been caught at dishonest journalism in 2008.
Totally irrelevant.

The fact is, those events happened and McCain knows those people. You are skirting around the issue by trying to make an issue yourself by saying "Oh, those links at the bottom of the page are link!" while completely ignoring the rest of the post.

You pick on Obama for every person he knows, but disregard every person I presented towards you that McCain has ties to. I'd like to say "Well, if I used Fox News you would have believed me", but even when I have presented Fox reports to you, all you do is brush them to the side by calling it liberal slander, or video editing, or a typo.

If any of the above had ties to Obama, you would be picking them apart like a starving dog on meat. You'd be making threads and posts about them as often as you would be mentioning his current ties.

I cannot express in words how infuriated I am right now. How infuriated that you call us ignorant for looking at a variety of news sources, while hailing one single news station as the almighty above all. Mocking everyone else for their ideals while holding your own on the highest horse I have ever seen.

This has nothing to do with the fact you are a "conservative". It has nothing to do with you being a "republican". This has to do with the blatant bias you hold for your own cause while mocking the bias of others.

I'm so tired of the so called "liberals and conservatives" eating each other alive all the time. Its been ruining this forum. No, its already ruined it thoroughly.

I spend time and energy finding information, and more often than not it is tossed aside with a simple wave of the hand. This forum has been a thorough waste of my time, and this has been the final straw.

At first it was fun to bounce ideas off of people, but this election ruined this forum. Ruined it. The flaming, sniping, reporting, etc was so bad that I recommended closing this place down and never reopening it again. In the end we opted to temporarily re-open it for a test run, and it is now obvious to me that there is no saving this place.

If you, SD, Yar-el would like to try to stage some kind of coup against the Moderators then be my guest. But if you'd like to see how that does, then look up a member named Jedi Phile or something. He tried it, and soon learned that this forum is not a democracy. There is no bill of rights or Constitution here. You have no freedom of speech, right to jury, etc here. This is an internet forum, and if you hate the members or modding style then you can log out and never log back in. Problem solved.

Seeing as the "liberal and conservative" offenders post often and can never get a topic going farther than "well, your source sucks!", I see no reason to try to debate with any of you anymore. Most of you are obviously stuck in your own little worlds and simply refuse to take your fingers out of your ears. Its like watching children fight.

And to follow my own logic of leaving a place that presents only hate and distaste...

Cya Kavar's Corner. You've made me outright abhor humanity, left me jaded and depressed many a night, and helped me hate life a little more than yesterday. I'll join back in the fun when people feel the need to talk again.

Till then, I'm off to find an admin to get restricted from accessing this forum.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 10:44 AM
Totally irrelevant.

The fact is, those events happened and McCain knows those people. You are skirting around the issue by trying to make an issue yourself by saying "Oh, those links at the bottom of the page are link!" while completely ignoring the rest of the post.

The fact is some of these people mentioned, are people that McCain was introduced to by his wife and father-in-law, another on this list was a public official also in the Federal Government that McCain would have had to interact with whether he liked the guy or not.

Your bringing up Rick Davis, makes McCain look even better considering he was one of the people demanding more regulations concerning Freddie Mac and the other bank. If they were paying Davis to get McCain off there trail, either Davis wasn't doing a very good job or it was like waving a red cape in front of an angry bull.

Another guy you brought up Pastor Hagee, McCain and he basically can't stand each other and the most of his association is that he tried to make peace with the guy (in other words bury the hatchet), that's a big difference from Rev. Wright and Senator Obama.

Fact remains, we have a long record concerning John McCain, so that it is easy to see what he does believe which is contrary to what many of these associations that are being dragged up believe. The record concerning Obama indicates that he believes as his associations do.


You pick on Obama for every ****ing person he knows, but disregard every ****ing person I presented towards you that McCain has ties to. I'd like to say "Well, if I used Fox News you would have believed me", but even when I have presented Fox reports to you, all you do is brush them to the side by calling it liberal slander, or video editing, or a typo.

While it's plausible that McCain is aquainted with some of these people, there is a lengthy record as to his pattern of behavior, and that indicates his beliefs are different from theirs. Obama's aquaintences have a value system that appears to match his value system and that's what I find so scary.


If any of the above had ties to Obama, you would be picking them apart like a starving dog on meat. You'd be making threads and posts about them as often as you would be mentioning his current ties.

Actually I deliberately avoided mentioning some of Obama's ties, because they happened to be related by blood to him, and I do not hold someone responsible for the behavior of blood relatives. That being said, as you yourself noted, McCain met a lot of these people while he was in public office, Obama met a lot of his bad associations while a private citizen. Further Obama's laundry list is a lot longer than McCain's despite the fact he is just over half McCain's age, and they interconnect.


I cannot express in words how infuriated I am right now. How infuriated that you call us ignorant for looking at a variety of news sources, while hailing one single news station as the almighty above all. Mocking everyone else for their ideals while holding your own on the highest horse I have ever seen.

I remember saying your sources have a record for misinformation, I've gone at great length to avoid calling people names.


This has nothing to do with the fact you are a "conservative". It has nothing to do with you being a "republican". This has to do with the blatant bias you hold for your own cause while mocking the bias of others.

I'm so tired of the so called "liberals and conservatives" eating each other alive all the time. Its been ruining this forum. No, its already ruined it thoroughly.

I spend time and energy finding information, and more often than not it is tossed aside with a simple wave of the hand. This forum has been a thorough waste of my time, and this has been the final straw.

Again I've gone to great lengths to avoid flaming people and keep my posts restricted to the issues.

Leave the moderating to the mods please. After reporting a post, don't reply to it.... --Jae


If you, SD, Yar-el would like to try to stage some kind of coup against the Moderators then be my guest. But if you'd like to see how that does, then look up a member named Jedi Phile or something. He tried it, and soon learned that this forum is not a democracy. There is no bill of rights or Constitution here. You have no freedom of speech, right to jury, etc here. This is an internet forum, and if you hate the members or modding style then you can log out and never log back in. Problem solved.

For the record, there is a contract that is signed when people join the board, and a contract is a two way street. If you want to drag up this topic, go right ahead but do so in a seperate topic.


Seeing as the "liberal and conservative" offenders post often and can never get a topic going farther than "well, your source sucks!", I see no reason to try to debate with any of you anymore. Most of you are obviously stuck in your own little worlds and simply refuse to take your fingers out of your ears. Its like watching children fight.

Excuse me?


And to follow my own logic of leaving a place that presents only hate and distaste...

Cya Kavar's Corner. You've made me outright abhor humanity, left me jaded and depressed many a night, and helped me hate life a little more than yesterday. I'll join back in the fun when people feel the need to talk again.

Till then, I'm off to find an admin to get restricted from accessing this forum.

Okay then... :confused: