Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

'bias liberal media' is just a blanket statement used by right wingers in an attempt to discredit all media (accept for fox of coarse).

rather than do research, and explore the validity of what is reported,
its much easier to pigeonhole and play strawman tactics:
"the media is just a bunch of tree hugging terrorist loving blah blah blah blah derpity derp derpshitshitshit"

I love you, Dan Rather!

on a side issue...what i find highly ironic and bizzare is that the left attempt to smear the right with claims of being unaccepting of certain things be they religious or social beliefs...yet the people who portray the most vitriolic hatred is the left because they are utterly unaccepting of anyone elses opinions but their own

The funny thing is when I substitute the word left for right in the above statement:

on a side issue...what i find highly ironic and bizzare is that the right attempt to smear the left with claims of being unaccepting of certain things be they religious or social beliefs...yet the people who portray the most vitriolic hatred is the right because they are utterly unaccepting of anyone elses opinions but their own

It makes more sense.

funny that...i dont see anyone from the right calling people

from the other thread...i believe the term was...moronic...

thats the kind of acceptance the world needs isnt it?

and it is more of a bigger deal when the left preach acceptance as the bastion of social values...then demonise anyone who dares not agree with their opinion

i constantly hear the terms used by left wing political commentators such as "xenophobic" "racist"

what i fail to see is the justification for this in so called "Right wing" media

regardless...a healthy balance of opinions are needed to get to the truth of the stories and we can only accept the fact that media portrays things to suit their political agenda...who wouldn't

the initial post is also obviously applicable to the american media...its a different issue here in the UK

for those who dont have access to cable or satallite television are subjected to news from 5 main channels

the bbc...a sterling reputation for being unbiased but changed under the guidance of greg dyke...the former director general...

they pushed a slightly anti war stance despite being funded by public money through the tv liscence...after a knuckle wrapping they changed back to their unbiased stance more or less

itv news....more anti war...good reporting however
channel 4 news...heavily anti war and very liberalist channel in general...not just in news broadcasting
channel 5 news...posts the extremes of both sides of the political centre in an attempt to be controvertial...usually fails miseralby

once again i cant speak for american media so i have to take what yo u say to have some truth...obviously someone else will have another opinion and probably statistics to back up theirs as well

some people argue that you can turn to the net for more of a balanced view...i think not...what the net is good for is getting to the visceral edge of news that mainstream broadcasters cant or dont publish or broadcast

You idiot, there is no such thing as liberal bias, it makes the entire point of liberals useless.

see...there's yet more of that liberal acceptance...thus yet further proving my points

there is no liberal media bias?

lets examine the realities of the situation in the world today

the media makes its money by intruding on peoples lives whether they are wanted or not

the fact is that conservative governments would prefer to restrict the freedom of the media and are constantly taking steps to do so

where as a left agenda tends to allow more personal freedoms as well as media freedom

now you can argue til your blue in the face about the issue that most people who own and control media are conservative....but if there is one thing that talks more than political belief...its cold hard cash

the media moguls are masters at balancing the bungs to the right wing governments to get tax breaks...or pandering to the liberal governments to get more freedoms to print more trash about celebrities that the general population hoover up and thus making them a big pile of dosh

Exactly, there is no such thing as liberal bias. Magazines like that promote democracy, but vote republican for the money, everyone knows. Liberals don't even come into it, all they want is the best from both sides, which is what everyone should be like.

Originally posted by jaden101
on a side issue...what i find highly ironic and bizzare is that the left attempt to smear the right with claims of being unaccepting of certain things be they religious or social beliefs...yet the people who portray the most vitriolic hatred is the left because they are utterly unaccepting of anyone elses opinions but their own


ahhhh so it is actually the LIBERALS who are intolerant!!!!
brilliant switch around!!!! kinda reminds me of this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/story1.jpg

reminds me, im surprised nobody has made a discussion thread about jeff gannon.

laugh all you want...its true...the left stop at nothing to rip into people who dare to disagree with them...

Originally posted by jaden101
laugh all you want

great! thanks

Originally posted by jaden101
laugh all you want...its true...the left stop at nothing to rip into people who dare to disagree with them...


The right does that just as much, if not more then the left.

Rush Limbaugh anyone?

Originally posted by BackFire
The right does that just as much, if not more then the left.

Rush Limbaugh anyone?
He's fat! Michael Savage pwns all.

Originally posted by BackFire
The right does that just as much, if not more then the left.

Rush Limbaugh anyone?

i disagree...but then your media is different to ours

I guess, in most places around the world both sides bash eachother equally.

Originally posted by BackFire
I guess, in most places around the world both sides bash eachother equally.
That's probably true.

Originally posted by FeceMan
He's fat! Michael Savage pwns all.

He's not fat anymore, his drug addiction has caused him to lose weight.

I really don't understand how/why people continue to listen to him and take his opinion seriously, he's a major hypocrite.

Yeah i guess im one of those people who hasnt taken the time to remove my conservative head from me arse-

But i still think its true- the Dan Rather things is proof of it- and also, I was watching the news a couple days ago and they were listing death counts for things in iraq.

They listed the number of US troops killed and wounded and ally death counts too- they also listed how many iraqi civilians that have been killed- but they didnt list the amount of insurgents killed- i wonder why?
It can't be because they don't know exactly how many are dead because they said that the civilian death count was a rough estimation.
I think they just don't want to admit any good going on in Iraq.

its a shame that the media and the politicians treat the public in the way that they do with regards to the fact that they think people dont respond to intelligent debate on real issues

what ever more sad is that the public lap up all the "dont vote for them...they'll kill your babies" type propaganda that both sides put out

personally i would prefer if each party concentrated on letting me know their own ideas rather than wasting every political broadcast on tv trying to put down their opposition

it ends up getting to the stage whereby you dont have a clue what the parties are actually proposing to do with the country

that's why I don't like voting.

i always vote...i dont always know what im voting for...but i always vote....i wont start the usual lecture about "people gave their lives for the right to vote" because apathy for the political process is utterly understandable in todays world...because politicians have been playing their petty games for far to long

Who's Mike Savage? Radio show? TV Show?

just another media bully who gains popularity by stirring up hatred between fellow americans.

Yes, but is his show on TV, radio, ect?

i believe he started on radio, then got his own tv show (lord knows how) and got fired once he gave the "go eat a sausage' comment.

So, he has no show now?

Wow he said that stuff seriously on political shows? I would've liked to see that...

Originally posted by BackFire
So, he has no show now?

i THINK he's still on radio...not sure though.

Ah.

Well, he sounds like a tard to me.

he's the lowest of tards backfire.
i cant see why his name was even brought up, but just
goes to show you who's argueing for the right on this forum.

maybe i woldnt be so frustrated if people on the right presented a decent arguement, but its the same old crap over and over.

we dont give credence to idiots like him in the UK...the people with opinions like that are usually shunted to the side lines and left with their opinions

in one way its good that the press can give a wide range of opinion...on the other its shit that extremism in any form be given a stage to broadcast

that guy makes me look like a lefty

read my previous post on here

o and by the way i also think that guy is an idiot

Mike Savage is on the radio ("The Savage Nation" and he is hilarious, especially when he goes on a rant.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Mike Savage is on the radio ("The Savage Nation" and he is hilarious, especially when he goes on a rant.

yeah right, so was hitler

Originally posted by PVS
yeah right, so was hitler



yeah the only difference is that savage didn't get everyone to do the "siege heil!!!"

No one reports on the truth; it's all a matter of what the reporter agrees with. Like I have said before, it isn't what you hear; it's how loudly you hear it.

Originally posted by PVS
yeah right, so was hitler

bangin

Originally posted by Echuu


yeah the only difference is that savage didn't get everyone to do the "siege heil!!!"

Yet.....

And right now there is NO way there can be a liberal bias with this admisistration detaining anyone who doesnt agree with them

left wing media can show much less bias then right wing media. Compare CNN to Fox. However some people on CNN are right wing like that jack guy on American morning and Lou doubs. The left wing media can show some right wing ideas but The right only show their own idea nothing else.

Originally posted by jaden101
on a side issue...what i find highly ironic and bizzare is that the left attempt to smear the right with claims of being unaccepting of certain things be they religious or social beliefs...yet the people who portray the most vitriolic hatred is the left because they are utterly unaccepting of anyone elses opinions but their own
Originally posted by PVS
ahhhh so it is actually the LIBERALS who are intolerant!!!!
brilliant switch around!!!! kinda reminds me of this:

They both do. Get over it, the both of ya.

Originally posted by botankus
They both do. Get over it, the both of ya.

true...but its the liberals that preach tolerance of everything...so not only are they guilty of being prejudiced and intollerant...they are guilty of contradicting themselves on the issue of tollerance at every opportunity

Liberals suck.Constives rock!JM

Originally posted by jaden101
they are guilty of contradicting themselves on the issue of tollerance at every opportunity

I am neither one way or the other, but probably one the most obvious things that one in my shoes sees (and many, many others, I'm sure) is that both groups are intolerant of the other group because they are intolerant. It's a neverending cycle. The fact that they are intolerant to different things is irrelevant. When you think about it, it seems that they are really intolerant of each other, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Liberals suck.Constives rock!JM

Hey not liberals suck...progressives do

Conservative Liberals ROCK

basically, everyone from the far left and far right sucks ass.
the problem is that the far right is in power and calling the shots,
so i have no concern for the agenda of the far left, since we have not and probably never will see a true leftist in office.

Originally posted by Echuu
Yeah i guess im one of those people who hasnt taken the time to remove my conservative head from me arse-

But i still think its true- the Dan Rather things is proof of it- and also, I was watching the news a couple days ago and they were listing death counts for things in iraq.

They listed the number of US troops killed and wounded and ally death counts too- they also listed how many iraqi civilians that have been killed- but they didnt list the amount of insurgents killed- i wonder why?
It can't be because they don't know exactly how many are dead because they said that the civilian death count was a rough estimation.
I think they just don't want to admit any good going on in Iraq.


O.k. you point out Dan Rather as an example. How about the examples of the whitehouse allowing unqualified rightwing supporters in the whitehouse? Or the fact that most media outlets are owned by corporations ans conservative businessmen?

Just the comment ,"they were listing death counts for things in iraq." is diturbing, those "things" were people.

And they can't figure how many insurgents were killed because they have nothing to base it on. Reports from hospitals will tally the dead as civillian and that is where they get a rough estimation. Perhaps the military won't release the numbers regarding deaths of insurgents because it might upset the american people to know that so few people are giving the military such a rough go at it?

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Liberals suck.Constives rock!JM

I would assume that by "Constives" you mean Conservatives and not your own invented political party or ideology.

Before you carry a banner declaring your political allegiance Jackie perhaps you should inform yourself as to what each party (there are more than just liberals and conservatives) stand for.

Yes Indeed I miusspelled, and I don't....actually thats what I wanted to imply...there are more than two parties...more than two ideologies ....and even more important Liberal and Conservative are in no way opposites.

Originally posted by PVS
so i have no concern for the agenda of the far left, since we have not and probably never will see a true leftist in office.

But would you - if the last part of your statement came true?

absolutely

i support no radical agenda

you know that the republicans nowadays are not really radical

no not 'the' republicans. just the ones in the white house...the ones that matter at this point

even them are not radical, they are more right wing than the usual republican s but not radical

Politics is boring....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I find them rather interesting

radical: Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.

if you see no radical agenda you are blind. i really dont feel like listing all the ways in which bush has robbed americans of their civil liberties put in place by our forfathers, as its pointless since it will fall on deaf ears. nor will i bring up his attempt at altering our constitution from a list of our civil liberties to a list of rules we must obey. i wont go on about how he blatently ignores freedom of the press and freedom to protest by having those who would DARE protest him and members of the press illegally arrested as was the case during the RNC. i could inform you of the 'patriot act' which serves to strip 'the people' of all libery in that it makes all police searches justifiaible, regardless of whether there is any probable cause.... guess i could go on forever, but what's the point?

Originally posted by PVS
if you see no radical agenda you are blind. i really dont feel like listing all the ways in which bush has robbed americans of their civil liberties put in place by our forfathers, as its pointless since it will fall on deaf ears.

How? 100% of everything I do each and every day has the same amount of ease as it did seven years ago. "Well, you must not do anything, then" is not an acceptable response because I am a very active person. If I'm wrong about my statement about civil liberties, please correct me and I'll listen.

Well, I have to pay more for gasoline, but that has always fluctuated and is not a civil liberty.

because of laws passed, there is no longer such thing as illegal search and seizure. a cop can pull you over for nothing, and search your car and person and even bring in a drug sniffing dog. sure, cops always did illegal shit like this right? but with a good knowledge of the law you could challenge them.


now you cant


just because it hasnt happened to you YET doesnt mean its not happening.

and let us not forget that now the federal government has the right to make you disappear. they can send your ass to guantonimo bay...lets call it what it is...a CONCENTRATION CAMP, and you no loger have the right to a trial or to be represented by an attorney.

Well, the next time I have a hundred kilos in my trunk I'll try to watch out for cops.

Seriously though, I see your point, PVS.

The Patriot Act is terrible alright but you act as if the cops have never done (and sometimes gotten away with) stuff like that. Remember Rodney King? Mumia Abu-Jamal? Leonard Peltier?

Originally posted by PVS
sure, cops always did illegal shit like this right? but with a good knowledge of the law you could challenge them.

Actually some of the information I presented was from a paper I did back in 1998 for a college business class along with info gathered from the net. I don't feel as though I have been "exposed" of that is the effect that you are trying to illicet.

As for the names of conservatives, I will plead guilty to grabbing some names of some of the pundits from the web, but I did not use facts that have been bent to make a point. I simply listed names of people already recognized to be high profile names in hte media.

I gather info to make an arguement from books, news papers and even blogs if the info is relevant and holds up under scrutiny. Because it is on a blog does not make it untrue.

You once used info from a blog and I called you on it , I did that because I research the statement that you lifeted from that blog and it was untrue.

I listed the names of people who are political pundits, which they are and the results of a well known study. I guess that makes me a bad person.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
The Patriot Act is terrible alright but you act as if the cops have never done (and sometimes gotten away with) stuff like that. Remember Rodney King? Mumia Abu-Jamal? Leonard Peltier?

I wouldn't put Leonard Peltier in the same category as Rodney King. Everyone forgets that the media forgot to show the first few minutes of that tape where King physically resisted arrest and laid a beating on a few officers before all those cops jumped on top of him and beat him. Granted the cops went apeshit after King was down (which is unforgiveable) but King broke the law, was hyped up on drugs and assaulted police officers, he really didn't put himself in a great situation. Not to mention his continued behaviour has shown him to be less than a model or respectable citizen.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually some of the information I presented was from a paper I did back in 1998 for a college business class along with info gathered from the net. I don't feel as though I have been "exposed" of that is the effect that you are trying to illicet.

As for the names of conservatives, I will plead guilty to grabbing some names of some of the pundits from the web, but I did not use facts that have been bent to make a point. I simply listed names of people already recognized to be high profile names in hte media.

I gather info to make an arguement from books, news papers and even blogs if the info is relevant and holds up under scrutiny. Because it is on a blog does not make it untrue.

You once used info from a blog and I called you on it , I did that because I research the statement that you lifeted from that blog and it was untrue.

I listed the names of people who are political pundits, which they are and the results of a well known study. I guess that makes me a bad person.

No, not exposed. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't being a hypocrite because of what you said to me the last time.

I really don't see any side gaining much of anything from these discussions. It would seem that both sides right and left hold staunchly biased view points as seen with Dan Rather or Rush Limbaugh.

Also, thank you Kharmadog for clearing that up; and sorry if I seemed to be trying to "expose" you or point the finger. I should have gone about my post in a different manner.

No problem, people get caught up in the moment.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No problem, people get caught up in the moment.



this is true

you should they philosophy then...........

rsa

And that thing about Rodney King...

Law enforcement makes me quite mad nowadays. It seems that there are more and more crooked cops that ruin the good name of the other officers.
Over here in Wisconsin there's this fiasco with the police department in Milwaukee. They have like two cases of beating and other stuff. And now they also have caught members of the fire department stealing things out of a warehouse that was on fire.
It's sickening.

I agree, it seems like the world is pretty messe roght now. But there are far more good cops and fireman out there than bad.

and like I say, I would never put forth the Rodney king example because it's such a convoluted messed up story.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I agree, it seems like the world is pretty messe roght now. But there are far more good cops and fireman out there than bad.

and like I say, I would never put forth the Rodney king example because it's such a convoluted messed up story.

oh yeah it definitly is messed up and there are more good than bad.
In the Milwaukee case the cop was caught on tape ruffing up a guy they were interrogating. I think it's stupid

O.K. was he "really" just roughing him up? Was he beating him? How bad was it? And what was the character of the person being interrogated?

The guy being interrogated wasn't doing anything bad.
The officer started pushing him into the corner and then hit him a few times.
then the officer walked over to another cop and flexed his arm muscle

That sounds more like a jerk than a cop trying to extract information

cops like this are a danger to all their peers.
i have cops in my family who are fair and honest, and
treat the people they apprehend with respect. rather than
be known for this, they are labeled as a$$holes because of the
actions of a minority of 'robocops' as i like to call them. people
who are drunk with power and view everyone else as beneath them.

OK. Let's look at it this way--say there is NO liberal/conservative bias whatsoever on behalf of the media 'station'.

However, the reporters are left/right wing, although they don't want to show favoritism. Incidentally, they unconsciously project bias onto their reports, newscasting, articles, etc.

This leads people to believe there's a large bias on both sides, and, even though it was unintentional, everyone believes it.

Ta-da. Or some crap like that.

yeah ok, then how do you explain synclair broadcasting attempting to blackout pro-kerry ads and running company sponsored mudslinging ads before the elections? if you dont know, synclair is a cable company which basically controls what half the population of america watch.

Originally posted by PVS
cops like this are a danger to all their peers.
i have cops in my family who are fair and honest, and
treat the people they apprehend with respect. rather than
be known for this, they are labeled as a$$holes because of the
actions of a minority of 'robocops' as i like to call them. people
who are drunk with power and view everyone else as beneath them.

cops...like everyone else...get a bad press through sensationalism by the media...too often the good goes left unrewarded and unapllauded by the media while the actions of the few are spread across every front page and every headline broadcast throughout the country and even the world

i cant imagine what hassle this causes for the people in your family especially in the US (i am right in thinking your from the US?) because of the gun culture that gives an added risk to their jobs

they have my utmost respect for their work

a typical example of the lack of respect for these professions happened in Glasgow last week...some retard decided it would be fun to shoot at firemen called out to a blaze across the road from his house....granted he was only using an air powered .22 rifle...but what were the consequences...he shot and killed a 2 year old boy

I'll go look for how many stations Rush/Savage are syndicated or otherwise boradcasted on, and then I'll compare how many stations syndicate material like what would be found on Air America/Pacifica.

Maybe I'll also look at the coverage, say, Robert Novak, William Safire, Tucker Carlson get against that of, say, James Carville, Paul Krugman, and maybe Keith Olbermann.

Additionally, I'll throw in a polemic here:

Republicans (or religious conservatives, neocons, you get the idea of the groups I'm pointing at) shriek about being persecuted, yet they have such wonderful personalities like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and numerous government figures there to push people around in their spheres of influence. I fail to see the ground from which they can fling these charges of persecution or intolerance when people like O'Reilly frequently tell their guests (rather noisily, might I add) to shut up, or how Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh lambast callers who aren't of their favored demographics (need I describe that?) on their shows. Oh, I almost forgot Sean Hannity, also guilty of the above actions. Not to mention the fact that I haven't even began on the actions of government figures (equating the Dem party with terrorists and alleged supporters of terrorism, "stacking the deck" at press conferences, and trying to remove tried-and-true tools that allow a political minority to retain a degree of "leash" on the majority (i.e. the fillibuster)

Persecution is a separate idea from being held accountable. If someone calls you on your BS, and shows how you say all drug users should be locked up, while abusing drugs yourself, or writing books about morals while in the depths of a gambling addiction, that's not persecution, that's, well, being called on your BS.

Expect a follow-up with the figures I planned to research at the top of this post.

^ I agree that Mike Savage can be a dick at time, but, I am sorry, but he's hilarious to listen to when he gets wound up.

^ Oh, I agree. I find it funny when people lose their cool and lash out like that. It's the most vivid of reminders as to why I took biofeedback training to curb my stress/frustration/anxiety.

Wow. Usually I'd be the first person to jump into a discussion like this with some fiery opinion. But, reading the repeated prejudices, generalizations and arguing fallacies has just really made me not want to say anything. So, to put it simply, I'm wimping out because I just don't feel like arguing. I just want to say that I think that there is no such thing as the "Liberal Media." That's it. I'm done.

Quite frankly the american media is LIBERAL. Look at the stories they three main stations run, ABC, NBC, CBS. They have run stories which were purely rumors, they heavily promoted fahrenheit 9/11, but not fahrenhype 9/11. The media LOVES to report on negative things, and at this point, its all been negative bush. Actually listen to the stories, and watch the news.

Read some of these stories.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Here's a quote-

"Liberal bias at CBS didn't miss a beat as the interim Evening News anchor, Bob Schieffer, and reporter John Roberts took southpaw-hits at President Bush's plan to reform Social Security. However, CBS's Trish Regan reported a largely positive story on Chile's success with Social Security choice and private accounts. MSNBC's Chris Matthews rejected the fact that liberalism dominates the outlook of the network anchors ... and then Matthews described Walter Cronkite as a liberal anchorman. CNN's Aaron Brown sniffled that Dan Rather resigned in a "tragic," not "heroic" fashion"

yeah but the liberals, since they agree with it, see no bias whatsoever.

Originally posted by BullitNutz
I'll go look for how many stations Rush/Savage are syndicated or otherwise boradcasted on, and then I'll compare how many stations syndicate material like what would be found on Air America/Pacifica.

Maybe I'll also look at the coverage, say, Robert Novak, William Safire, Tucker Carlson get against that of, say, James Carville, Paul Krugman, and maybe Keith Olbermann.

Additionally, I'll throw in a polemic here:

Republicans (or religious conservatives, neocons, you get the idea of the groups I'm pointing at) shriek about being persecuted, yet they have such wonderful personalities like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and numerous government figures there to push people around in their spheres of influence. I fail to see the ground from which they can fling these charges of persecution or intolerance when people like O'Reilly frequently tell their guests (rather noisily, might I add) to shut up, or how Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh lambast callers who aren't of their favored demographics (need I describe that?) on their shows. Oh, I almost forgot Sean Hannity, also guilty of the above actions. Not to mention the fact that I haven't even began on the actions of government figures (equating the Dem party with terrorists and alleged supporters of terrorism, "stacking the deck" at press conferences, and trying to remove tried-and-true tools that allow a political minority to retain a degree of "leash" on the majority (i.e. the fillibuster)

Persecution is a separate idea from being held accountable. If someone calls you on your BS, and shows how you say all drug users should be locked up, while abusing drugs yourself, or writing books about morals while in the depths of a gambling addiction, that's not persecution, that's, well, being called on your BS.

Expect a follow-up with the figures I planned to research at the top of this post.

Yeah thats all fine and dandy but thats RADIO, many people do not get their news from radio like Rush.

Originally posted by phinney6
Quite frankly the american media is LIBERAL. Look at the stories they three main stations run, ABC, NBC, CBS. They have run stories which were purely rumors, they heavily promoted fahrenheit 9/11, but not fahrenhype 9/11. The media LOVES to report on negative things, and at this point, its all been negative bush. Actually listen to the stories, and watch the news.

Read some of these stories.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Here's a quote-

"Liberal bias at CBS didn't miss a beat as the interim Evening News anchor, Bob Schieffer, and reporter John Roberts took southpaw-hits at President Bush's plan to reform Social Security. However, CBS's Trish Regan reported a largely positive story on Chile's success with Social Security choice and private accounts. MSNBC's Chris Matthews rejected the fact that liberalism dominates the outlook of the network anchors ... and then Matthews described Walter Cronkite as a liberal anchorman. CNN's Aaron Brown sniffled that Dan Rather resigned in a "tragic," not "heroic" fashion"

yeah but the liberals, since they agree with it, see no bias whatsoever.

Also from MediaResearch.com, "Media Research Center is the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias."

That almost sounds like a neutral and reputable source.

Perhaps you should try sourcing information from a non-partisan and unbiased organization such as Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting.

Look. Bias exists everywhere. Get over it. There's liberal and conservative bias. On the news.

End of story.

Just bumping this because people are talking about "liberal biased media again.

oh damn. i posted in the wrong thread.
ok, here it is again:


Originally posted by PVS
ok, its quiz time.
look at these two screencaps from the "bias liberal" nbc.
both from the same story regarding the same protest.
keep in mind, this is an anti-bush protest.
see if you can smell the shit:

mother to a fallen soldier who is anti-bush
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/bias1.jpg

pro-bush demonstrator
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/bias2.jpg

smell it? shit

oh come ON people!!

use your power of literacy and deduction (the only hint i will give)

Umm.......neither of them can write or draw conclusions?

Originally posted by PVS
oh come ON people!!

use your power of literacy and deduction (the only hint i will give) I got it... but I won't spoil the fun of the game...

Bias is everywhere on Bush but to report Bush as a great leader is bias beyond all levels. Its good they put him in a negative or bad light because he is bad leader.