• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Western Media's Manipulation of Tibet Riots Exposed

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Just take a look at the current media frenzy. It's all about Clinton versus Obama and shock stories to hurt the two of them. I guess that makes them leftie liberal nonsense too right? You basically have no proof, you go off on these mindless rants about how people can't discern liberal based media and to top it off, you place yourself on a faulty pedestal of enlightened senses for the MSM. Hop off your soapbox, no one is buying it.
Actually it makes my point, if you take the time to look closely enough.

Which members of the MSM like to focus on Clinton and which like to focus on Obama? Unsurprisingly, the ones that support Clinton like to focus on Obama while giving Clinton a pass whenever possible, and vice versa. It's selective reporting based on political preference and bias. In this case it's primarily liberals whacking other liberals over the head with their own bias. They're so much about divisiveness it's nearly tearing their own party apart in the process.

Apparently Bush IS a uniter. He gave/gives liberals a common cause to rally against. But let there be divisiveness within their own ranks and they don't hestitate to eat their own. Just go to D-KOS or DU for firm evidence of that. It all seems to arise from the fact that liberals, for some unknown reason, are so damn self-righteous, pig-headed, and wrapped up in their own opinions that they won't even bother to see contemplate the opinion of the other guy. Go figger.
Yet another of your "I just know it's biased. I JUST KNOW." arguments.
Yeah, it's all BS. The MSM outlets that support Obama don't focus on Clinton, and vice versa. The liberal divide between Clinton and Obama supporters hasn't affected D-KOS or DU at all. No doubt I'm the only person in the universe that has observed it.

I'm plainly just making all that shit up because if there hasn't been an academic study that's been throughly peer reviewed and universally blessed then, in your pedantic eyes, it simply can't be true.

Or maybe you can understand the following response better? To quote your own very recent intellectual contribution in here:

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,514
21,504
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Yet another of your "I just know it's biased. I JUST KNOW." arguments.
Yeah, it's all BS. The MSM outlets that support Obama don't focus on Clinton, and vice versa. The liberal divide between Clinton and Obama supporters hasn't affected D-KOS or DU at all. No doubt I'm the only person in the universe that has observed it.

I'm plainly just making all that shit up because if there hasn't been an academic study that's been throughly peer reviewed and universally blessed then, in your pedantic eyes, it simply can't be true.

Or maybe you can understand the following response better? To quote your own very recent intellectual contribution in here:

What do Dailykos or DU have to do with reputable media outlets? What's funny is that I went and googled around for any sort of evidence of this. I found plenty of accusations of news network bias for one candidate or the other. There was only one problem, the same networks were being accused of being biased in favor of both candidates at the same time by different people. Oops!

Maybe... just maybe... people view neutral stories as being biased against their own side all the time. Maybe this occurs so often that it has even been the repeated subject of research. Maybe it even has a name, lets call it "the hostile media phenomenon". I'll allow Robert Vallone and friends to educate you about this. This is why when you use the argument "but.. but.. but... people SAY things are biased, and I see it too!" you are not making a good argument.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed. I say "FART" to you when you've made some point that is so unbelievably stupid that it doesn't merit a real response.

EDIT: It's also a good sign I've been drinking. I have a lot less patience for you then.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY