| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Comments:
<0> the fact that cnn left out the detail in the bulletin that there are no such credible threats pertaining to this issue is irresponsible and makes you think Bush "screw up again" on HS
<1> besides, in truth, media is owned mostly by conservative wealthy media moguls... if they can't reign in their own employees, tough
<1> i never thought that even for a second
<2> Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president who was on trial at The Hague for alleged war crimes, was found dead in his cell today, the U.N. war crimes tribunal said. Authorities have launched an investigation into his death.
<2> good riddance
<0> you are intelligent and not most people
<2> now, if only saddam would croak
<3> I think academia is liberal leaning so when you have educated reporters they are going to seem to have a liberal bias
<1> who cares about saddam, his trial is not invoking any reactions
<4> Ted Truner is a key plaey
<2> linus: right, which is why he should simply die
<1> why is it liberal to hold an admin accountable?
<4> *player
<1> turner is no longer
<2> linus: strawman, no one is saying that in the least.
<1> that's incorreect
<0> The UN comes to a startling conclusion 4 hours after launching the report. They discovered the meaning of Justice
<2> publius: lol, that WOULD be news worthy!
<1> that's what Publius seems to be implying by the way cnn presented the story
<0> thats me making a fun joke
<4> if the same media held Clinton more aaoucntable, yes
<0> nothing like the media making an official press release
<1> it did!
<4> damn, sun on my screen
<4> brb
<2> linus: asking for accountability is not gained by intentionally lying by omission by the part of the media
<1> they obssessed over the monica thing
<3> don't confuse media laziness with liberal bias
<0> I thought newsweek tried to hide the Lewinsky scandal from Drudge
<1> ommission of what?
<0> I have no idea, I am asking
<2> wiretapp: ah, but when the "laziness" is almost always directed in one way..
<1> you guys really read in between the lines way too much
<5> ok
<0> we aren't teh ones calling Bush a terrorist and the worse president ever
<0> by reading into lines
<1> who was?
<2> its "laziness" when the NY time only runs one article questioning who leaked the CIA prison info.. but not lazi when it runs over 150 articles on valerie plame
<1> wtf???????????
<0> some media outlets
<0> liberals
<0> ect
<0> our stupid labels apparently
<5> now, Monica, was the latest in a long line of "scandals" on Clinton -- all the earlier ones were largely ignored by TV and print media
<0> I'm not labelling you at all Lupine
<0> ok
<1> wait a second... are we talking about this Homeland Security memo still or not?
<0> LINUS
<2> US: right and they only latched on that to ignore worse issues
<0> Lupine: sorry
<5> even the "Monica" story had to be broken by an Internet source
<5> Drudge
<1> because I'm not getting into some wild generalizations about media's lies of omission
<5> radio and Internet were theonly sources that covered most of Clinton's "scandals"
<5> and yeah a lot of those scandals were probably BS, but still
<2> US: right, the mainstream media had to be dragged kicking adn screaming into it
<0> no, the people in the media and "liberals" are getting into some wild generalizations about the president
<1> US-Male, not that i care anymore, but it led the news nightly for like a year
<5> Linus-: you mean Monica ? Only after Drudge broke the story
<2> hell, they are ignoring the 10 year independant counsel investigation into Hillary.. which indepth report on IRS abuses was all but quashed/censored
<1> Publius, you still have yet to explain how cnn's alleged omission reflects badly on bush
<5> Linus-: for which media sources trashed had Drudge for years prior
<0> Linus: I thought it did but I have failed evidently
<0> heh
<5> I don't even like Drudge's website, and I think his radio show ****s. But people were ignoring the story until he said it
<5> and that time he turned out to be right
<1> i think homeland security blowing smoke and then qualifying it with "theres no credible threat" is the strange part
<2> US: sometimes, its good for links ot other sources, but that's about it
<5> yeah
<2> linus: they almost always do that, have been for years
<1> US_Male, someone has to break it, and if it brings ratings, they keep at it
<5> Linus- yeah but why didn't others do it first I wonder
<5> Drudge was really "so good" he found out first ?
<2> let's look at the airliner attempt on sanfransisco.. warnings put out, but pubically said "no credible threat".. turns out there was a very damn good credible threat.. but thye wont want to let the terrorists know that.
<1> because maybe starr didn't have a dam full of leaks at first?
<1> i dunno
<5> what were Drudge's miraculous sources
<2> US: more often than not, the 'scoop' is only becuase the mainstream media refuses to air it
<1> if i told you id have to...
<5> Lupine: exactly
<2> the only reason why the NY times reported on the NSA was.. they were sitting on it for over a year, but learned they were about to be "out scooped"
<1> i don't see how you can conclude anything, really
<1> you can surmise why
<5> stories like that, it comes down to "whoever has the balls to run it first"
<5> Drudge had nothing to lose
<5> he was smalltime
<2> US: naw, it has to do with "report nothing bad on democrats.."
<5> if he had ben wrong, so what ?
<5> *been
<5> Lupine: well that may be
<2> US: nothing, newsweek was wrong on quoran story, dozens dead.. so what? nothing. new weeks didn't lose a dime or serve jail time
<1> Lupine, yes this great liberal media conspiracy, its really helped those dems at the polling places!
<2> NBC fakes explosions in pickups.. "so what?" nothing
<2> linus: that's the ***inine thing is, liberals still can't figure out how to win
<1> you sure are paranoid for being in charge
<2> (bill) clinton figured it out.. don't be a flaming, engorged postule of liberal ***
<1> are you related to nixon?
<2> I sure as hell aint in charge
<5> well yeah ... the fact that Repubs still got elected does not in any way indicate who had bias
<5> bias is a human state
<5> all humans have bias
<2> I still wish that the mainstream media didn't ignore m***ive racial bigotry, simply because it is from blackmen..
<1> US-Male, so free airtime doesnt benefit a candidate?
<5> it just so happens that television bias tends toward Democrats, while radio bias tilts to Republicans
<1> and you don't think fox running with the swift boat story ad nauseam had any impact?
<5> Linus-: of course it does
<5> damn right it did
<1> sure it did
<5> but Fox is WAYYY outnumbered
<5> Fox is one network
<2> lol.. at least Fox was airing real people, real stories.. unlike faked memo's, ala Dan rather :-)
<2> Foxnews is nto even broadcast
<5> people like Hannity had more impact on the election
<1> so much so that cnn, in its desperate attempts to stop its rating share to fox, picked it up for longer than it was news worthy
<5> like I was saying, radio is tilted more to the right
<5> TV is tilted more to the left
<1> share loss
<5> Internet is now about 50/50 I'd guess
<1> fox news rating is twice cnn's now
<5> news print, close to 50/50
<0> well, here is one of those studies on media bias...http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc
<1> cnn and msnbc combined don't match fox's share
<5> Linus-: yeah because viewers saw bias they didn't like
<5> so they ran from CNN.
<0> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=study+on+media+bias&btnG=Google+Search
<2> but those are cable, not broadcast
<1> oh cmon, fox is not even thinly veiled
<5> CNN is more balnaced now than they were then
<5> *balanced
<2> linus: you are intentionally ignoring the difference between news reporting and opinion pundints..
<1> fox is the first news network in which news anchors began editorializing on a reguar basis
<2> Brit Hume is very non biased, and in fact, one of the most effective critics of this administration
<6> lmao @ http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/11/claude.allen.arrest/index.html
<5> Linus-: ****s to lose, huh? CNN did that for years.
<1> brit is good
<6> Ex-White House aide arrested in alleged refund scam
<1> but theres a drop-off after that
<2> wow, Walter Chronkite and Dan Rather are on fox news?
<6> Culture of corruption takes a funny turn
<5> CNN used to blatantly ignore stories they didn't wish to cover
<5> back when Ted TUrner was running things
<1> cronkite and rather didn't begin adding their own insight until well into their established careers, and i agree its not right
<2> yea, even if indidivual stories are biased.. should report on all major stories.. and not intentionally ignore stories
<1> fox anchors do it routinely, people who really have no weight behind them
<5> you know Brit is a hardcore Republican
<5> he just has a sense of humor
<0> so if CNN was more balanced than before, were they liberlly biased? and what would they change? I think the only indicatior in the fact that people like FOx more and CNN wanted to be respected again
<0> is*
<2> US: yes, one who effectively criticises the bush administration a long time
<7> I want more bias. TV news is too boring these days.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
fedora core nv_raid
male bestiatility
#computers
#windows
#openbsd
6b6f656a Maxtor
herselfpics terry
#gamedev
#heroin
#linuxhelp
|
|