The myth of the Liberal media bias

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.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
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?

I don't really believing that stuff yer saying about the media outlets from your liberal blog. They are a "misrepresentation" of facts.

Yes I could have worded that better, but I meant the "things" as the groupings not as the people.
I also think that they do have something to base it on. As I said, the civilian counts were a rough estimate and so would the insurgent counts.
I don't think that there are so few people giving America a rough go at it.
In Fallujah it was something like for every American that died there were 25-30 terrorists dead also. That is a rough estimate.

KharmaDog I respect your opinions but as I was broswing a few sites on the web I found a liberal blog that had some same comments that you were posting including this;

“The 141 journalists and bureau chiefs were questioned:

Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
Left 30%
Center 57%
Right 9%
Other 5%

Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
Left 11%
Center 64%
Right 19%
Other 5% "

This chart can be found on the blog.

I just hope that you weren't using this "misrepresentation" of facts because you told me once that information on a conservative blog I used wasn't credible.

But in fact, I think a lot of your post was spliced from the site- I'll compare your quote with one from the site and you'll see what I mean.

"But more so than the journalists and bureau chiefs, it is the owners of the corporations that own the media that dictate the “flavour” or direction that their organization will take. We see far more conservative pundits like Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick and Rush Limbaugh than liberal pundits."

And the quote from the website, with practically the same list...

“Unfortunately, there are far more conservative pundits than progressive ones:

Conservative pundits: Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick, Rush Limbaugh, and hundreds of other conservative radio talk-show hosts."

As Kharma dog said I'm also sorry for the long post, but this evidence suggests that most of his stuff is posted from a liberal blog, and if you still would like further info I'll give you the site name so you can compare it with Kharmadogs' first post yourself.

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

Politics is boring....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

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.