who knows more about Iraq? Gen Abizaid or the VP?

[NeoV]

lets see if I have this right...

Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in its "last throes", as recently as yesterday.

Gen. John Abizaid, who commands all US forces in the region, says the insurgency is at least as strong as it was 6 months ago.

Either that means the 'last throes' have lasted at least 6 months, or, more likely in my opinion, the VP has very little touch with reality and is not at all interested in being honest with the American public.

Which is it?

 

[kogase]

It was interesting to hear Abizaid awkwardly trying to avoid directly contradicting Cheney while he clearly knew Cheney was wrong... a pragmatic man of integrity is often a paradoxical being.

 

[Genx87]

Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

I'm proud of you for not always following the party line . I love seeings this

:beer:

 

[minus1972]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

Cheney is just bad with these things. I realize it's not "real" news but did anyone ever catch the Daily Show where they showed the one clip of him scholding a reporter saying "I never said Iraq has WMDs" followed immediately by an earlier clip saying, verbatium, "Iraq has WMDs"?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: NeoV
lets see if I have this right...

Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in its "last throes", as recently as yesterday.

Gen. John Abizaid, who commands all US forces in the region, says the insurgency is at least as strong as it was 6 months ago.

Either that means the 'last throes' have lasted at least 6 months, or, more likely in my opinion, the VP has very little touch with reality and is not at all interested in being honest with the American public.

Which is it?

Cheney gets his information from FOX. 'nuff said.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Cheney gets his information from FOX. 'nuff said

Cheney gets his information from the voices inside his head -
FOX just repeats what Cheney tells them that they say to him.

 

[raildogg]

Blah blah blah, Fox News blah blah blah.

Howard Dean, a man I respect, made a total ass out of himself when he took shots at the Washington Times and Fox News on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Seriously, so all the other news channels and newspapers are objective other than the two mentioned?

Oh yeah, they are objective because they are not conservative (and what is your definition of conservative by the way?). Bunch of BS from the left, like always. Always whining, always crying.

By the way, right wingers have a legitimate concern about the Daily Show since Jon Stewart is liberal, probably a Democrat and voted for Kerry. Oh and very anti-war. And his audience is usually full of giddy, often times moronic people who cheer at anything anti-Bush. But lets just let that slide and pretend it doesn't exist.

If Dean had said CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, he would have more credibility. But no, blame all your problems on Fox News and Washington Times and feel better about yourself.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Blah blah blah, Fox News blah blah blah.

Howard Dean, a man I respect, made a total ass out of himself when he took shots at the Washington Times and Fox News. Seriously, so all the other news channels and newspapers are objective other than the two mentioned?

Oh yeah, they are objective because they are not conservative (and what is your definition of conservative by the way?). Bunch of BS from the left, like always. Always whining, always crying.

If he had said CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, he would have more credibility. But no, blame all your problems on Fox News and Washington Times and feel better about yourself.

How bout some convincing demonstrations of liberal bias in all of those? I haven't seen much bias one way or the other in most of those, besides Fox... and of course, the Washington Times is almost a satyrical paper, but what do you expect? It's owned by Reverend Moon.

 

[NeoV]

settle down raildogg....If you can't at least admit that Fox is clearly biased in their reporting, then you may as well not say anything....

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

I'm proud of you for not always following the party line . I love seeings this

:beer:

I never did like Cheney, either.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Cheney gets his information from FOX. 'nuff said

Cheney gets his information from the voices inside his head -
FOX just repeats what Cheney tells them that they say to him.

That's right, but I just couldn't resist taking a poke at FOX.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: raildogg
Blah blah blah, Fox News blah blah blah.

Howard Dean, a man I respect, made a total ass out of himself when he took shots at the Washington Times and Fox News. Seriously, so all the other news channels and newspapers are objective other than the two mentioned?

Oh yeah, they are objective because they are not conservative (and what is your definition of conservative by the way?). Bunch of BS from the left, like always. Always whining, always crying.

If he had said CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, he would have more credibility. But no, blame all your problems on Fox News and Washington Times and feel better about yourself.

How bout some convincing demonstrations of liberal bias in all of those? I haven't seen much bias one way or the other in most of those, besides Fox... and of course, the Washington Times is almost a satyrical paper, but what do you expect? It's owned by Reverend Moon.

http://pewresearch.org/trends/trends2005-media.pdf

?Liberal? Charge Endures
Public cynicism about press values and performance also stem from growing
perceptions of media bias and lack of fairness. In Pew?s 2003 survey, two thirds (66%)
said the press tends to favor one side when presenting the news, and seven in ten said
news outlets are often influenced by powerful people and organizations. In 1985, barely
half (53% each) expressed such negative opinions about media independence.
Most Americans (53%) also believe that news organizations are politically biased,
while just 29% say they are careful to remove bias from their reports. There has been
some movement in these attitudes in recent years ? notably during the temporary
upswing in the media?s image following September 11 ? but bias concerns are higher
now than two decades ago.

When it comes to describing the press,
twice as many say news organizations
are ?liberal? (51%) as say they are
?conservative? (26%), while 14% say
neither phrase applies. This was also
the case in surveys conducted in the
mid-to-late 1980s and, not surprisingly,
there is a significant partisan cast to
these perceptions.
Republicans see the press as more liberal
than conservative by nearly three to one
(65% to 22%). Among independents,
the margin is two to one (50% to 25%).
And while a third of Democrats say there
is a conservative tilt to the American
press, a slight plurality (41%) says the
press is more liberal than anything else.
Last year?s survey of journalists seemed to
confirm many of the suspicions of those
who see a liberal bias in the news. Most
journalists characterized themselves as
moderates, but as a group they are far
more liberal ? and far less conservative ?
than the general public. Just 7% of the
national journalists surveyed called
themselves conservatives, compared with
33% of the public. And while 34% of
national journalists characterized
themselves as liberals, just 20% of
Americans describe themselves as liberals.
Journalists generally say they take it as
their professional obligation not to let
their own political and ideological
leanings ? liberal, moderate or
conservative ? shape their coverage. But
the relatively small number of
conservatives in journalism raises
concerns over the potential for liberal
group-think in the nation?s newsrooms.

No surprisignly, the liberals neglect to notice the liberal bias in the media that is so obvious to many. They actually think the misrepresentation is fair and balanced, which makes one question what their idea of fair and balanced really is.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Eh? That provides no examples, that is simply tracking the trends in public opinion.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

I'm proud of you for not always following the party line . I love seeings this

:beer:

I never did like Cheney, either.

Cheney is ok, I just dont understand him needing to say we are on the verge of defeating them.

I think the liberal media has successfully morphed Cheney into this evil grandpa character.

Watching the debate he had with John TapDancer Edwards last fall it was obvious who was more versed in foreign policy and situations and who wasnt.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No surprisignly, the liberals neglect to notice the liberal bias in the media that is so obvious to many. They actually think the misrepresentation is fair and balanced, which makes one question what their idea of fair and balanced really is.

that doesn't really prove anything, though.

I can turn on Fox News and, within 15 minutes, could produce a clear example of conservative, republican bias. can you do the same with CNN?

all reporters are biased and the idea of a liberal media is a fairly popular urban myth, but the key factor is how and whether or not those biases affect what they say on the air

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: Genx87
Obviously I would believe the general on the ground.
Not really sure why Cheney is out there parading this msg.

I'm proud of you for not always following the party line . I love seeings this

:beer:

I never did like Cheney, either.

Cheney is ok, I just dont understand him needing to say we are on the verge of defeating them.

I think the liberal media has successfully morphed Cheney into this evil grandpa character.

Watching the debate he had with John TapDancer Edwards last fall it was obvious who was more versed in foreign policy and situations and who wasnt.

No doubt about that, he kicked Edwards' ass.

 

[nageov3t]

10 minutes: got one. they just aired a snippet from a speach by the Iraqi president and Bush saying that things are going well in Iraq, with no mention of any recent escalations in violence. also made a brief slam on Kerry.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No surprisignly, the liberals neglect to notice the liberal bias in the media that is so obvious to many. They actually think the misrepresentation is fair and balanced, which makes one question what their idea of fair and balanced really is.

Once again TLC, you ignore context to make your point and do so hypocriticly. How many times have you said that polls mean nothing? Now, you use poll data to cement your position?

It doesn't matter if 100% of all journalists say that they are liberal. The background of the reporters has but an incredibly small bearing on whether or not they do their job and do it in a non-partisan way. Period, end of discussion. It is the context of the story or report that dictates whether something is liberal, conservative or "fair". And remember, negative and TRUE is not the same as negative and false.

Compare the sources that are generally thrown around and you will see that there is a HUGE difference between them.

Fox News - bastian of right wing slant
Washington Times - ditto
99% of talk radio - ditto

CBS News - more liberal than conservative probably 60/40
NYT - fair with the exception of the editorial pages (but that is the definition of editorial so it doesn't really count)
NBC - don't know enough to really comment
MSNBC - pretty equal maybe a slight nod towards conservative

The "Liberal" mainstream media is a phantom created by the right to serve a simple purpose, escape goat. If something good is presented by it about them, they are finally doing their job and starting to do it well. If something negative is reported, it is because they are liberals and out to get all conservatives. It's a win/win situation for them.

Oh, it seems that you didn't read the disclaimer about the Pew survey:

Kurtz claimed, "The survey confirmed that national journalists are to the left of the public on social issues." But Kurtz did not note that the Pew report included commentary by Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell (of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and the Project for Excellence in Journalism) that specifically warned against drawing such conclusions:

Journalists' own politics are also harder to analyze than people might think. The fact that journalists -- especially national journalists -- are more likely than in the past to describe themselves as liberal reinforces the findings of the major academic study on this question... But what does liberal mean to journalists? We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes just four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism. More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need.

And what about those that are actually the ones in power that decide if a story even gets on the air:

We also know that Jack Welch, former chief of NBC (and GE) is an ardent Republican. So was Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case of CNN (and Time Warner AOL). Michael Eisner (Disney ABC) gave to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, but he gave more to Bush and McCain -- and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate against Hillary Clinton. Rupert Murdoch and John Malone are big Republican supporters of the Cato Institute. So why isn't anybody complaining about the "conservative bias" of media executives?

I think that this commentary sums it up:

It is not measuring ACCURACY of news content, only TONE. The terms "positive", "negative" and "neutral" say nothing about whether the coverage was accurate or not. The coverage could be negative but accurate, and positive but fiction (as it was with Bush in most cases). It could also have been positive but accurate, and negative but fiction (as it was with Kerry in most cases). Although they don't actually say this, PEJ seems to implicitly fall for the fake spin (usually from the Right) that somehow "fair and balanced" coverage requires balance in tone, rather than accuracy in reporting!

Editted to cut down on length.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

No surprisignly, the liberals neglect to notice the liberal bias in the media that is so obvious to many. They actually think the misrepresentation is fair and balanced, which makes one question what their idea of fair and balanced really is.

So go be a reporter.

 

[sandorski]

Cheney is Bush's Bahgdad Bob.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Eh? That provides no examples, that is simply tracking the trends in public opinion.

From the survey:

Last year?s survey of journalists seemed to
confirm many of the suspicions of those
who see a liberal bias in the news. Most
journalists characterized themselves as
moderates, but as a group they are far
more liberal ? and far less conservative ?
than the general public. Just 7% of the
national journalists surveyed called
themselves conservatives, compared with
33% of the public. And while 34% of
national journalists characterized
themselves as liberals, just 20% of
Americans describe themselves as liberals.
Journalists generally say they take it as
their professional obligation not to let
their own political and ideological
leanings ? liberal, moderate or
conservative ? shape their coverage. But
the relatively small number of
conservatives in journalism raises
concerns over the potential for liberal
group-think in the nation?s newsrooms.

More on that:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp..._display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets
Aya Kawano

By E&P Staff

Published: May 23, 2004 4:00 PM EST

NEW YORK Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E&P summary will appear Monday).

While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%.

The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way.

When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News "especially conservative." Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled "especially liberal."

Not surprisingly, views of how the press has treated President Bush break down along partisan lines. More than two out of three liberals feel the press has not been tough enough on Bush, while half the conservatives feel the media has been too tough.

Still, a little over half of national journalists (53%) give national media coverage of the administration an A or B rating.

While the sample of 547 interviewees is not large, Pew says that this selection represents "a cross-section of news organizations and of the people working at all levels of those organizations." Newspapers were identified and circulation ranked using the 2003 Editor & Publisher International Year Book.

In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong "libertarian" leanings among journalists, including doubts about the role of "big government."

This site is also a good site for a fairly balanced overview of journalism in the US in general:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/index.asp

 

[RightIsWrong]

Uhh....TLC,

Here is an interesting little background on the PEJ (the driving force behind your second link) that you are using to try to justify the phantom liberal media:

As of March 14, The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) released its annual State of the Media coverage for 2004. An overview of the results is here. First a comment on their methodology. The coverage was not for the entire year 2004 but for a randomly picked sample. For example, as they point out: "cable news study included two parts, a 20 day sample and a five day sample, in which some stories overlapped". So, let's first keep in mind that this is not an exhaustive day-by-day study in 2004.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Uhh....TLC,

Here is an interesting little background on the PEJ (the driving force behind your second link) that you are using to try to justify the phantom liberal media:

As of March 14, The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) released its annual State of the Media coverage for 2004. An overview of the results is here. First a comment on their methodology. The coverage was not for the entire year 2004 but for a randomly picked sample. For example, as they point out: "cable news study included two parts, a 20 day sample and a five day sample, in which some stories overlapped". So, let's first keep in mind that this is not an exhaustive day-by-day study in 2004.

So are you claiming random sampling is not a valid survey or statistical analytical methodology?

I guess we'll have to toss out every poll finding ever linked in here as completely invalid.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Why don't you read my response on the previous page regarding you and polling.

As far as polling goes, it can be a viable form of statistical analysis if it is measuring something as long as it takes into consideration the ebb and flow. That is why most polls are taken weekly/monthly. You cannot claim accuracy for something measured so sparingly and state it as fact, especially something as ever-changing as opinion. The very brief time that they conducted their sampling could have been an incredibly rough time in Iraq or it could have come right after the RNC. Either of those would sway the results incredibly one way or the other. That is why it has to be done more frequently.

I am not saying polls are flawed, merely the one that you picked used a flawed methodology.