I've watched every network slant the news for the almost 40 years of my life and never advocated censorship. One station finally caters to the other side and the left wets it's collective panties to shut it down. What are they so afraid of?
Funny, all I've seen is right and righter stations. There is nothing nationally that's on the left. You have to understand that the left is a threat to capital and monopolistic concentration of power. People who own broadcast stations aren't going to have programming that slits their own throat. Get real. You will never hear a real discussion of real issues on a national channel. Cut to a commercial, please.
but then shouldnt the point rather be to stop leftist bias in news broadcasting instead of bringing forth a biased right news broadcasting that does nothing to stop the media bias but rather increase it
Who decides what is bias? You? Corn? Moonbeam? No, contrary to what some might think, a free press is a good idea even when we disagree with what it might or might not say. Any attempt to muzzle it should not and will not be tolerated.
Who decides what is bias? You? Corn? Moonbeam? No, contrary to what some might think, a free press is a good idea even when we disagree with what it might or might not say. Any attempt to muzzle it should not and will not be tolerated.
--------------------------------
The press is not free. As long as it isn't money talks. There is no national voice on the left because the left is a threat to the monopolistic accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands just as the press is held by fewer and fewer owners and the laws that attempted to prevent that are weakened year by year. People are dangerous if they are not told what to think. It's better if there is no competing voices.
--------------------------------
The press is not free. As long as it isn't money talks. There is no national voice on the left because the left is a threat to the monopolistic accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands just as the press is held by fewer and fewer owners and the laws that attempted to prevent that are weakened year by year. People are dangerous if they are not told what to think. It's better if there is no competing voices.
We have no laws restricting the right of the press. If you slander someone, you can be subject to judicial penalties but slander isn't protected speech.
Liberal talk shows have a history of poor ratings.
It seems no one wants to listen to the left whine any more than they already have to listen to them.
U.S.: MSNBC Axes Liberal Phil Donahue Talk Show
Having Rosie O'Donnell as a guest to give her views on Iraq probably contributed to the lack of interest in the show.
It seems no one wants to listen to the left whine any more than they already have to listen to them.
U.S.: MSNBC Axes Liberal Phil Donahue Talk Show
Having Rosie O'Donnell as a guest to give her views on Iraq probably contributed to the lack of interest in the show.
The left would prefer complete monopoly on power, acheived through socialism then fascism then communism, with citizens having no recourse but to revolt and rewrite. Utopia through government is a pure fantasy. Government has a role to play and certainly makes our lives better in some instances but it can and must go only so far. Yet it seeks to grow and expand its influence with few checks and balance that work anymore.
At least with capitalism, the concetration of power is somewhat limited. A corporation may fail and affect many lives but when a government fails it zaps everyone.
I thought as a compassionate conservative you knew all this Beamer?
On the issue of FOX, I really don't tune in anymore because it's too polarizing and repetitive, though it can be fun to watch at times.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Liberal viewers no longer waste thier time watching boring shows like the OLD Phil,
when the NEW DR. Phil can get people to laugh just by insulting their little intelegance.
Rosie O'Donnel NEVER had the Air of radiance that Rosie O'Barr carrier with her.
So why do any liberal, centristic, or even moderate conservitive free thinkers feel
compelled to join the flock of like minded minimalthinkerists on a Limbaugh level.
Now If the Neo-Cons felt paranoid or insecure about themselves, and needed an AA
of sorts as a support group so they could share thier selfrighteounes, there are
just tons of Talk Radio, and Fox News productions to please them.
We can all fantasize on Ann Coulter giving an honest answer - might happen.
when the NEW DR. Phil can get people to laugh just by insulting their little intelegance.
Rosie O'Donnel NEVER had the Air of radiance that Rosie O'Barr carrier with her.
So why do any liberal, centristic, or even moderate conservitive free thinkers feel
compelled to join the flock of like minded minimalthinkerists on a Limbaugh level.
Now If the Neo-Cons felt paranoid or insecure about themselves, and needed an AA
of sorts as a support group so they could share thier selfrighteounes, there are
just tons of Talk Radio, and Fox News productions to please them.
We can all fantasize on Ann Coulter giving an honest answer - might happen.
No, not really. The BBC as I remember it from the mid-90s while over in Europe had a bit of a leftest slant back then. Yet certainly not on the same magnitude as Fox. They are very objective, to tell you the truth. From reading their website during the war, the BBC seems to have evolved slightly more left since the mid-90s, although they maintain their objectivity.
I listen to the BBC over here in the states via the local NPR station during lunch sometimes. They still seem just as informative and in-depth on humanitarian issues now as 8 years ago. They announce just as many pro-US policy reports as negative ones, IMO. For example on a newscast last month, a Washington correspondent of the BBC was explaining in-depth why a certain, US policy issue was important to the Americans while simultaneously depised by the Europeans. He didn't just state something to the effect of "because the Americans want it". This correspondent deeply investigated the subject, accented it with interviews from various U.S. officials, and explained to the audience why the Americans wanted the policy and what the Americans expect from it. Come to think of it, the issue was about administration of Iraq and couldn't be interpreted as "anti-American", in my opinion.
Interpretations, even though we both more or less share the same language, are important when analyzing the truth from regional news. Many issues reported here are interpreted differently by the European press and vice-versa. A known fact is that a particular issue analyzed by CNN will be illustrated differently by the BBC or Germany's ZDF for the sake of their respective audience.
I consider myself conservative. However, I also consider Fox as much too right-wing and sensational even for my tastes.
I agree with you that - if anything - the BBC demonstrates a leftist stance, slight if that. I cannot having read many articles myself agree with the "anti-american" accusations levied at the BBC, but maybe some would say because of my nationality I am biased.
Cheers,
Andy
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
"airways"?
My Fox News channel arrives via cable, much like Fencer's does.........
....lost on a nanny state fascist like Carbonyl is that there's quite a bit of difference between slander and porn than editorial content.
Hey, I watched Fox News a total of 2 nights of war coverage and was embarrassed by Sheppard Smith's patriotic pandering. I clicked the channel without any help from speech hating liberal fascists.
From what I've heard (emphasis on heard) I do not like Fox news one little bit. Given the examples I've heard of bias/favoritism on Fox news I feel annoyed in which the way it's compared to the BCC - which in my opinion has only a slight left bias, if any.
However, I support those who suggest that "freedom of the press" is necessary if more than often results in trash being printed/broadcast. Ultimately we have to hope that citizens see through this. This does not go so far as to "tolerate the intolerable" IMHO (ie no porn at 9am) - but it certainly should allow all viewpoints - even those I would consider too extreme to be aired.
I guess that more often than not I wish I could educate and share my experiences. This would be the best way of dwindling extremist and extremley biased reporting.
Am I a realist? I'm not sure on this point.
Cheers,
Andy
However, I support those who suggest that "freedom of the press" is necessary if more than often results in trash being printed/broadcast. Ultimately we have to hope that citizens see through this. This does not go so far as to "tolerate the intolerable" IMHO (ie no porn at 9am) - but it certainly should allow all viewpoints - even those I would consider too extreme to be aired.
I guess that more often than not I wish I could educate and share my experiences. This would be the best way of dwindling extremist and extremley biased reporting.
Am I a realist? I'm not sure on this point.
Cheers,
Andy
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
"airways"?
The FCC does'nt share your view and grants licences of the public airwaves under the condition you do not slant the news. And fox is. http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/the_fox_news2.html
From The Sunday Times,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...-676245,00.html
-
Saddam?s spies ?infiltrated? leading TV network
THE Arab news channel that won global influence after broadcasting a video of the terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden was infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence agents in a campaign to subvert its coverage, according to documents obtained in Baghdad.
Senior officers of Iraq?s intelligence agency controlled three agents who worked at the Al-Jazeera network, say the files. Their detailed reports also refer to the Qatar-based news network as an ?instrument? of the regime.
Since Al-Jazeera was founded in 1996 it has won a worldwide audience of 35m- 50m and become ?the CNN of the Arab world? ? watched in cafes and presidential palaces alike. When Bin Laden chose Al-Jazeera as a means of communicating to the world, the network?s reputation soared.
The television station denies that its Iraqi coverage was biased or that it was operating on behalf of Saddam Hussein?s regime.
The documents ? covering a period from August 1999 to November 2002 ? were allegedly recovered from a local office of the intelligence service in Baghdad. It is understood the files were transferred from the city?s intelligence headquarters during the war.
They claim the channel was used to ?foil? American aggression and outline the secret contacts between Al-Jazeera?s staff and Saddam?s intelligence network. A document headed ?Presidency of the Republic, Mukhabarat Service?, indicates apparent contact between the intelligence agency and Mohammed Jasim Al-Ali, the station?s managing director.
One of the files contains a registration document for ?Iraqi or foreign secret co-operatives?. It also names an Iraqi employee at Al-Jazeera?s headquarters in Doha, the Qatari capital, who was codenamed Jazeera 2. An Iraqi embassy document listing his activities claims he provided the Iraqi regime with two letters written by Bin Laden.
The report, written by an official in the Iraqi embassy in Qatar, states: ?(Jazeera 2) has a distinguished stand in the co- operation with us, continuously providing us with the information we request. I made him aware of the appreciation of his efforts. He has been presented with a set of gold jewellery for his wife.?
Last night Al-Jazeera said the employment of the individual concerned ?was terminated some time ago?, although a colleague said he was on holiday.
The files claim the service had two other agents who worked as cameramen. One was said to have provided information on his colleagues? views at the station. Intelligence officials also targeted the managing director and reported contacts with him, but there is no suggestion that he was recruited by them or influenced in any way.
Intelligence officers were anxious that their links with Al-Jazeera might emerge and warned that it would ?lose them (Al-Jazeera) as an instrument employed by us?.
In October 1999 one of the documents boasted that Iraqi intelligence had prevented the broadcast of footage of the Iraqi gas attack on Halabja.
During the recent Gulf war, US officials were angered at Al-Jazeera?s coverage, which broadcast footage of American dead and prisoners of war. Iraqi exiles also claimed the network?s reporting was biased in favour of the Iraqi regime.
Al-Jazeera has, however, defended its coverage and denies it was a tool of the Iraqi or any other government. The network?s supporters point out that the Iraqi government was at times irate at Al-Jazeera?s coverage and banned two of its reporters during the war.
In a statement last night Al-Jazeera said that it ?was always guided by the professional dictates of our professional integrity, especially by providing all sides with a platform?.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...-676245,00.html
-
Saddam?s spies ?infiltrated? leading TV network
THE Arab news channel that won global influence after broadcasting a video of the terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden was infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence agents in a campaign to subvert its coverage, according to documents obtained in Baghdad.
Senior officers of Iraq?s intelligence agency controlled three agents who worked at the Al-Jazeera network, say the files. Their detailed reports also refer to the Qatar-based news network as an ?instrument? of the regime.
Since Al-Jazeera was founded in 1996 it has won a worldwide audience of 35m- 50m and become ?the CNN of the Arab world? ? watched in cafes and presidential palaces alike. When Bin Laden chose Al-Jazeera as a means of communicating to the world, the network?s reputation soared.
The television station denies that its Iraqi coverage was biased or that it was operating on behalf of Saddam Hussein?s regime.
The documents ? covering a period from August 1999 to November 2002 ? were allegedly recovered from a local office of the intelligence service in Baghdad. It is understood the files were transferred from the city?s intelligence headquarters during the war.
They claim the channel was used to ?foil? American aggression and outline the secret contacts between Al-Jazeera?s staff and Saddam?s intelligence network. A document headed ?Presidency of the Republic, Mukhabarat Service?, indicates apparent contact between the intelligence agency and Mohammed Jasim Al-Ali, the station?s managing director.
One of the files contains a registration document for ?Iraqi or foreign secret co-operatives?. It also names an Iraqi employee at Al-Jazeera?s headquarters in Doha, the Qatari capital, who was codenamed Jazeera 2. An Iraqi embassy document listing his activities claims he provided the Iraqi regime with two letters written by Bin Laden.
The report, written by an official in the Iraqi embassy in Qatar, states: ?(Jazeera 2) has a distinguished stand in the co- operation with us, continuously providing us with the information we request. I made him aware of the appreciation of his efforts. He has been presented with a set of gold jewellery for his wife.?
Last night Al-Jazeera said the employment of the individual concerned ?was terminated some time ago?, although a colleague said he was on holiday.
The files claim the service had two other agents who worked as cameramen. One was said to have provided information on his colleagues? views at the station. Intelligence officials also targeted the managing director and reported contacts with him, but there is no suggestion that he was recruited by them or influenced in any way.
Intelligence officers were anxious that their links with Al-Jazeera might emerge and warned that it would ?lose them (Al-Jazeera) as an instrument employed by us?.
In October 1999 one of the documents boasted that Iraqi intelligence had prevented the broadcast of footage of the Iraqi gas attack on Halabja.
During the recent Gulf war, US officials were angered at Al-Jazeera?s coverage, which broadcast footage of American dead and prisoners of war. Iraqi exiles also claimed the network?s reporting was biased in favour of the Iraqi regime.
Al-Jazeera has, however, defended its coverage and denies it was a tool of the Iraqi or any other government. The network?s supporters point out that the Iraqi government was at times irate at Al-Jazeera?s coverage and banned two of its reporters during the war.
In a statement last night Al-Jazeera said that it ?was always guided by the professional dictates of our professional integrity, especially by providing all sides with a platform?.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Really?
Previously the FCC imposed what was called "the fairness doctrine" that allowed no editorial content in news broadcasts. That "rule" was scrapped because it is unconstitutional not to allow editorial content. There are biases in all forms of "news" and the site I linked above is but a prime example, even if it renders moot your previous linked article. Even though they reported the "news" regarding the $425,000 lawsuit that was thrown out by the Florida Appeals Court (and the plaintiffs having to pay the legal costs incurred by FOX), they reported strictly on their bias and editorialized this "news" to fit their biased viewpoint regarding organic foods. Just the headline alone reeks of bias.
Somehow, though, I doubt I'll see you complaining about the complete one sided nature of that "news" article I linked to above even though it proves my point and refutes yours.
That's what I love about America. Freedom to change the channel.
-------------------------
Change it to what. It's the same on all of them.
-------------------------
Change it to what. It's the same on all of them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter