Right-Wing Conservative Propaganda of the Day:

[KurskKnyaz]

Propaganda: Today Sean Hannity criticized Hillary Clinton for criticizing Barak Obama on plagiarizing his speech. Pointed out how Hillary plagiarized Bill Clinton's speech by playing sound bytes of what Hillary said and what Bill said.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: By listening closely to the acoustics of the Bill Clinton sound bytes it becomes obvious that these are sound bytes from several different speeches. Its like accusing someone of plagiarizing the school library because some of the 4-word combinations used in your History paper can be found among the ten-of-thousands of books there.



Propaganda: According to Mark Levine we don't have enough troops to handle Iraq because liberals in the early 90's cut military spending.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: ...I guess Bush sending in less troops than high ranking military personnel advised had nothing to do with that.



Propaganda: Rush Limbaugh referred to a photo of Barak Obama wearing "some turban like Osama Bin Laden."

Propaganda Technique Used: transfer and assertion

Reality in Context: Actually he is wearing a turban like an Arab and Osama Bin Laden is too, but Bin Laden didn't start the trend. You can relax, Obama will not come to the oval office strapped with explosives.



Lets keep this rolling so that bull$hit artists can get credit for their hard work...

 

[SirStev0]

you are playing right into their hands... if only people would stop listening...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Propaganda: Today Sean Hannity criticized Hillary Clinton for criticizing Barak Obama on plagiarizing his speech. Pointed out how Hillary plagiarized Bill Clinton's speech by playing sound bytes of what Hillary said and what Bill said.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: By listening closely to the acoustics of the Bill Clinton sound bytes it becomes obvious that these are sound bytes from several different speeches. Its like accusing someone of plagiarizing the school library because some of the 4-word combinations used in your History paper can be found among the ten-of-thousands of books there.

Bull, this is just propaganda. It's like Bill told The Three Little Pigs story and Hillary changed it to Three Little Red Hens.

Propaganda: According to Mark Levine we don't have enough troops to handle Iraq because liberals in the early 90's cut military spending.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: ...I guess Bush sending in less troops than high ranking military personnel advised had nothing to do with that.[/g]

It's just propaganda to say it had nothing to do with that. You have to prove that. Maybe they sent few troops because they only had a few and the generals wanted a draft. Anyway when you blame the President for shit you're a traitor. You can't send troops the democrats got rid of, now can you. Don't start yelling propaganda when you can't even be logical.

Propaganda: Rush Limbaugh referred to a photo of Barak Obama wearing "some turban like Osama Bin Laden."[/g]

Propaganda Technique Used: transfer and assertion

Reality in Context: Actually he is wearing a turban like an Arab and Osama Bin Laden is too, but Bin Laden didn't start the trend. You can relax, Obama will not come to the oval office strapped with explosives.

Bull. All you gotta do is go to an Obama rally to see the Muezzin calling the faithful to prayer.



Lets keep this rolling so that bull$hit artists can get credit for their hard work...

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Bull, this is just propaganda. It's like Bill told The Three Little Pigs story and Hillary changed it to Three Little Red Hens.

Propaganda Technique Used: Assertion

Reality in Context: So you must have heard the show then? No, lines like "we need change" have been used by every politician in existence.

Anyway when you blame the President for shit you're a traitor.

Propaganda Technique Used: Name Calling and Glittering Generalities

Reality in Context: Democrats obviously didn't get rid of them, how could have Bush pulled off a surge if we were out of troops because of the Democrats? What makes a traitor? Is someone who doesn't agree with public policy a traitor? Would bush be a traitor if he didn't agree with Clinton's policy while Clinton was president? Is everyone in politics a traitor?

Bull. All you gotta do is go to an Obama rally to see the Muezzin calling the faithful to prayer

Propaganda Technique Used: Assertion

Reality in Context: You did exactly what Rush did. You furthered Rush's assertion by asserting that someone who is a Muslim and prays for a candidate is a terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If all Muslims in the US wanted to kill Americans and get their share of virgins they can easily do it. All they need to do is go to a gun show in Virginia, buy a gun while going through the same background check obstacles that I would go through at a grocery buying milk, take it to NY, and shoot up a mall.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

 

[StageLeft]

I still believe that in Nov when Obama wins, these people will vanish in ash and flame like the vampires in the Blade movies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are playing right into their hands... if only people would stop listening...

Two things not to take too seriously- "the internets" and talk radio. If you can step back emotionally these guys are funny. They mean to anger you into self-righteousness or righteous indignation. Don't let them.

It's also informative and I'll use Rush as an example. Some think of Rush as a parasite and that's not quite right. It's a symbiotic relationship between himself and his supporters. He keeps stirring the pot, and they like to be stirred. Many people like feeling moral indignation, not because of an issue but because it's their "fix". Hey, what's better than being superior and fighting evil? Especially when one gets to define evil voiced by someone who gets paid to define it on their terms? It's rather a fascinating look into talk radio and all that goes with it.

Also remember that a goodly portion of Rush supporters are Bush supporters. That's a given. Listening in gives an opportunity to examine their arguments and thinking. That in itself can be useful, but again never take it too seriously.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Truly, the extreme awfulness of the Bush Administration with its attendant wars, economic debacles, lies and scandals has thrown politics as usual off track.

That's why an African-American with an Islamic-sounding name and no experience and a woman could even be considered as presidential material. So it's just barely possible that all the slander of the right-wing machine will come to naught. People may just be sick of it this year.

They're sick of everything else.

Certainly, their dismal industry has deep pockets, and they'll eagerly hop into bed with McCain versus the threat of a non-Republican being in the White House again. They are masters of propaganda, but like all propagandists, there are limits to their power.

They have a problem in that they've dominated the discourse for so long, they're old hat - they qualify as "establishment" press, sickeningly enough. We know what's coming, and what they're about, and what they will try to do.

The only difference will be the particulars, and how low they go - but who will they be reaching with this, except the already-converted? At heart, what they're offering is reactionary propaganda of assimilation, which is intended only to keep everybody on the current course - and clearly the majority of Americans feel America isn't on the right course - they feel that we're off-track as a country.

The more shrill, the more hostile they get, the worse they look, and the better Obama looks, the more of a change from the old slash-and-burn politics he will appear to represent. By being so rabidly far-right, they end up making Obama appear more progressive without him having to do much more than not be rattled by it - and that will win him votes and make McCain look like a clown, or at best, a sock puppet for the outgoing administration.

The right-wing media machine plays best when they play the "us v. them" strategy, but sadly for the machine, the majority of Americans are the new "us" and the reactionary media is the old "them." It's not to say that Obama shouldn't be ready for the onslaught, but I think it's going to be far less effective against him than it would be against more traditional candidates.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are playing right into their hands... if only people would stop listening...

Good luck on that. Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?


And to anyone that thinks this is any worse than the NYT artical on McCain Not a shred of evidence just many opions and feelings that there could be more but NO ONE ever saw Anything. Or CBS and Rather trying to topple a Sitting U.S. President by typing something up in WORD and passing it off as 30+ years old IS FOOLING THEMSELVES.

 

[piasabird]

Plagerism is really quite irrelevent in a speech. You might say there is nothing new under the sun. Many concepts are repeated because they are well known and the train of thought is a good one. For instance, Ronald Reagan gave speeches and sometimes he referred to a famous line from a speech about a "City on a Hill". This was a reference to a famous speech once given onboard a ship by John Winthrop in 1630? John Winthrop compared the Massachessettes Bay Colony to the "City on a Hill". This was an actual city from the bible; Jezreel,

=Plain of Esdraelon (Josh. 17: 16; Judg. 6: 33; 2 Sam. 2: 9; 2 Sam. 4: 4; Hosea 1: 5, 11; Hosea 2: 22). (2) A city on a hill rising out of the plain, belonging to tribe of Issachar (Josh. 19: 18).


John Winthrop's City upon a Hill, 1630 (Puritan)

http://atheism.about.com/b/200...rop-on-america-god.htm

Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life, and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it;

Therefore lett us choose life,

that wee, and our Seede,

may live; by obeyeing his

voyce, and cleaveing to him,

for hee is our life, and

our prosperity.


See the Bible Book of Mathew 5:14

14 Ye are the alight of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

City on a Hill is a biblical reference. It refers to people being an example for good to other people. Often it is used with the other concept of the Candle and letting your light shine from the parable of the Candle.

This is actually the next 2 verses in Matthew. It is also based upon a Parable that Jesus taught.
15 Neither do men light a acandle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are playing right into their hands... if only people would stop listening...

Good luck on that. Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?


And to anyone that thinks this is any worse than the NYT artical on McCain Not a shred of evidence just many opions and feelings that there could be more but NO ONE ever saw Anything. Or CBS and Rather trying to topple a Sitting U.S. President by typing something up in WORD and passing it off as 30+ years old IS FOOLING THEMSELVES.

Like someone else said the other day on these boards. The right wingnuts aren't the only mud slingers in politics...but they are the best at it.

thanks for the propoganda link OP.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: OrByte
The right wingnuts aren't the only mud slingers in politics...but they are the best at it.

yep, Hillary and Co. are far, far right :laugh:

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

well actually you will find some liberal media on some obscure am station but they are so tiny and so far left that they don't even register on the counties political sentiment. BTW: how would you define a liberal?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Wow ..... did you really mean that?? LOL

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Bull, this is just propaganda. It's like Bill told The Three Little Pigs story and Hillary changed it to Three Little Red Hens.

Propaganda Technique Used: Assertion

Reality in Context: So you must have heard the show then? No, lines like "we need change" have been used by every politician in existence.

Anyway when you blame the President for shit you're a traitor.

Propaganda Technique Used: Name Calling and Glittering Generalities

Reality in Context: Democrats obviously didn't get rid of them, how could have Bush pulled off a surge if we were out of troops because of the Democrats? What makes a traitor? Is someone who doesn't agree with public policy a traitor? Would bush be a traitor if he didn't agree with Clinton's policy while Clinton was president? Is everyone in politics a traitor?

Bull. All you gotta do is go to an Obama rally to see the Muezzin calling the faithful to prayer

Propaganda Technique Used: Assertion

Reality in Context: You did exactly what Rush did. You furthered Rush's assertion by asserting that someone who is a Muslim and prays for a candidate is a terrorists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. If all Muslims in the US wanted to kill Americans and get their share of virgins they can easily do it. All they need to do is go to a gun show in Virginia, buy a gun while going through the same background check obstacles that I would go through at a grocery buying milk, take it to NY, and shoot up a mall.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

Propaganda technique uses: Yelling Propaganda definitions.

You had better watch out. I may have to tell you you hate yourself and watch you spew your load of propaganda denying it.

==================
If you are studying propaganda and see how it is used everywhere you have made a beginning. If your study shows you only the false thinking in others you will lose. I suggest you add the question as to why Socrates was the wisest man in the world into your examination, and that mote and beam thingi.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Wow ..... did you really mean that?? LOL

? what do you mean?

You have to understand the way conservatives work. You see, there exists this thing called "reality". When reality doesn't coincide with conservative notions they simply dismiss reality as "liberal". For example, when certain things written in Wikipedia don't coincide with the fantasy of Ronald Regan being a "saint" (as opposed to a regular person who has his flaws like all people), conservatives dismiss Wikipedia as liberal and create Conservopedia. NY Times says war in Iraq is going bad - its not really going bad its just that the liberals are making it out that way. Scientists use facts to discredit the notion that we came from Adam and Eve - they're liberal scientists with liberal facts. You get the idea?

Liberal simply means "not bound by tradition". So you're either a liberal/progressive or your stubborn.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Propaganda: Today Sean Hannity criticized Hillary Clinton for criticizing Barak Obama on plagiarizing his speech. Pointed out how Hillary plagiarized Bill Clinton's speech by playing sound bytes of what Hillary said and what Bill said.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: By listening closely to the acoustics of the Bill Clinton sound bytes it becomes obvious that these are sound bytes from several different speeches. Its like accusing someone of plagiarizing the school library because some of the 4-word combinations used in your History paper can be found among the ten-of-thousands of books there.

I saw this, it looked "real" to me. shrug

Propaganda: According to Mark Levine we don't have enough troops to handle Iraq because liberals in the early 90's cut military spending.

Propaganda Technique Used: card stacking

Reality in Context: ...I guess Bush sending in less troops than high ranking military personnel advised had nothing to do with that.



Propaganda: Rush Limbaugh referred to a photo of Barak Obama wearing "some turban like Osama Bin Laden."

Propaganda Technique Used: transfer and assertion

Reality in Context: Actually he is wearing a turban like an Arab and Osama Bin Laden is too, but Bin Laden didn't start the trend. You can relax, Obama will not come to the oval office strapped with explosives.



Lets keep this rolling so that bull$hit artists can get credit for their hard work...

Uhh. You make it sound like some Repub v Dem thing.

Hannity is refuting Hillary's attacks on a Dem (Obama), not a Repub.

I didn't hear Levin's thing, can't coment other to say that it sounds like he's expressing an opinion. AFAIK, no one disagrees with the fact that we are short on troops, what with having to extend combat time and all. We did take our "Piece Dividend" in the 90's reducing military spending following the Cold War's demise. I don't see how this is factually incorrect, much less "propaganda".

Yeah, in hindsight many wish Rumsfeld ha followed the Powell Doctrine. Unless you're saying that had we done so we wouldn't need so many troops now I don't see the relevance between the two: a military downsizing and a potentially flawed "war" policy. Remember that Rumsfeld was concerned about flooding Iraq with US troops and creating a potential backlash resulting from an oppressive looking occupation. Looks like he was wrong, but that's another matter; seperate from the dwonsizing.

I suspect Rush's comment was again aimed at Hillary and her attacks on Pbama. etc.

Fern

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Wow ..... did you really mean that?? LOL

? what do you mean?

You have to understand the way conservatives work. You see, there exists this thing called "reality". When reality doesn't coincide with conservative notions they simply dismiss reality as "liberal". For example, when certain things written in Wikipedia don't coincide with the fantasy of Ronald Regan being a "saint" (as opposed to a regular person who has his flaws like all people), conservatives dismiss Wikipedia as liberal and create Conservopedia. NY Times says war in Iraq is going bad - its not really going bad its just that the liberals are making it out that way. Scientists use facts to discredit the notion that we came from Adam and Eve - they're liberal scientists with liberal facts. You get the idea?

Liberal simply means "not bound by tradition". So you're either a liberal/progressive or your stubborn.

WELL said.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Wow ..... did you really mean that?? LOL

? what do you mean?

You have to understand the way conservatives work. You see, there exists this thing called "reality". When reality doesn't coincide with conservative notions they simply dismiss reality as "liberal". For example, when certain things written in Wikipedia don't coincide with the fantasy of Ronald Regan being a "saint" (as opposed to a regular person who has his flaws like all people), conservatives dismiss Wikipedia as liberal and create Conservopedia. NY Times says war in Iraq is going bad - its not really going bad its just that the liberals are making it out that way. Scientists use facts to discredit the notion that we came from Adam and Eve - they're liberal scientists with liberal facts. You get the idea?

Liberal simply means "not bound by tradition". So you're either a liberal/progressive or your stubborn.

WELL said.

:roll:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats. Do you honestly believe that it is possible for someone to keep their bias 100 percent to themselves? Now I don't think the media is AS liberal as conservative talk radio would have you believe, but I do believe that the media is slightly slanted toward the left.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Propaganda technique uses: Yelling Propaganda definitions.

how exactly does that mislead or deceive?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats. Do you honestly believe that it is possible for someone to keep their bias 100 percent to themselves? Now I don't think the media is AS liberal as conservative talk radio would have you believe, but I do believe that the media is slightly slanted toward the left.

What I BELIEVE is irrelevant, either journalists are biased or they aren't, whether I believe they can get past their political views to do their job in an unbiased manner really has no effect on whether or not they actually behave that way. I will agree that surveys suggest most journalists are liberal Democrats (although not on all issues), but that doesn't prove bias...whether or not you or I think it should result in bias.

But since you asked, I do believe it's possible to separate political views from a job. I'm not entirely sure everyone is up to the challenge, but I guess I give people more credit than maybe you do.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

Well there's also this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

and this:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

I could go on and on citing various studies and findings. Why some people want to deny that the media leans left is a mystery to me.