Media Bias (Split from Ron Paul thread)

[Grendel_Kahn]

Just to say it.




Thought so.

[furie]

I never quite understood the outright hatred right wingers have for Liberals. Why they throw that word around like it is SUCH an insult. Now I know the red staters of you read that and said to yourselfs, " It is an insult!" Just remember that every single move forward this country has made, came from Liberals guiding it.

As far as lefties not getting along with the right........... Republicans are like Yankee fans. They can NEVER see past the pin stripes. They will ignore the last decade, and still claim it s all Bill Clintons fault. Meanwhile the seeds of the current mess we are stuck in were firmly planted in the Reagan era. There is no question of this. I have to stop now because I feel a long winded rant coming on and I just don't have it in me.

That's ok, i never understood left wingers outright hatred for conservatives.

[Grendel_Kahn]

That's ok, i never understood left wingers outright hatred for conservatives.

I've really never seen that sort of hatred. Righties are constantly spouting things like the nimrod who started this discussion " That's why I love talking to Liberals." Or Ann Coulter writing a book about "How to talk to a Liberal if you really have to". Point of fact the only person on the left side I have heard being like that is Al Franken, and I think he was being over the top to make a point. I think Conservatives have good ideas as well, but it seems to me like they are more intolerant of opposing views. The problems with Liberals is that they are TOO tolerant and therefore never get anything done.

[badmonkey]

I've really never seen that sort of hatred. Righties are constantly spouting things like the nimrod who started this discussion " That's why I love talking to Liberals." Or Ann Coulter writing a book about "How to talk to a Liberal if you really have to". Point of fact the only person on the left side I have heard being like that is Al Franken, and I think he was being over the top to make a point. I think Conservatives have good ideas as well, but it seems to me like they are more intolerant of opposing views. The problems with Liberals is that they are TOO tolerant and therefore never get anything done.

http://laser-eye-surgery.desertislandbeauty.info/images/imageb2.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

you do know how old kucinich is, right?

Yes...and? I had no plan on voting for him anyway. He's the Left's Ron Paul in terms of how unrealistic his overall rhetoric is.

And for people trying to say the Left and Right are "equal" in terms ofstuff bordering on hate speech, call me when the Left has tons of books and shows and pundits continually calling out ALL Liberals as being treasonous and traitors and terrorist supporters, etc., etc., etc..

[Grendel_Kahn]

Thank you for making my point. Sometimes the correct language escapes me, but you hit the nail right on the head.

[scottinnj]

And for people trying to say the Left and Right are "equal" in terms ofstuff bordering on hate speech, call me when the Left has tons of books and shows and pundits continually calling out ALL Liberals as being treasonous and traitors and terrorist supporters, etc., etc., etc..


Here's just a smidgen (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/green_fever_global_warming_and.html)


It's just a matter of what you are paying attention to. Believe me, it's equal.

[TheMojoPin]

Here's just a smidgen (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/green_fever_global_warming_and.html)


It's just a matter of what you are paying attention to. Believe me, it's equal.

Seriously? Going to the Nazi well for any argument is weak, I'm not gonna deny that, but you weren't kidding when you said "smidgen." It doesn't even come close to what I was talking about when I said:

call me when the Left has tons of books and shows and pundits continually calling out ALL Liberals as being treasonous and traitors and terrorist supporters, etc., etc., etc.

Does your article really come close to the numerous books that are literally lists of people (politicians, actors, activists, professors) who are "traitors" or are "destroying America" or are "dangerous?" Sure, you'll get someone every so often like a Al Franken and his books or Olberman and his show, but by and large they're drops in the bucket compared to what's unleashed from the other side. Broad and stupid statements about "global warming deniers" doesn't even come close to the specific vitriol fired at the Left from pundits on the Right.

Contrary to some, I'm not going to pretend like the Left doesn't have it's share of namecallers that jump to histronics and hyperbole at the drop of a hat, but as a whole the Left simply does not even begin comapre to the comprehensive and calculated and sensationalistic smear tactics of the Right. It's why the neo-con movement took on the power that did...it's why the Republicans took back the Legislative branch in the 90's...and i's how they took back the White House in 2000. The Right is simply much, much, MUCH "better" at attacking their enemies.

[furie]

I've really never seen that sort of hatred. Righties are constantly spouting things like the nimrod who started this discussion " That's why I love talking to Liberals." Or Ann Coulter writing a book about "How to talk to a Liberal if you really have to". Point of fact the only person on the left side I have heard being like that is Al Franken, and I think he was being over the top to make a point. I think Conservatives have good ideas as well, but it seems to me like they are more intolerant of opposing views. The problems with Liberals is that they are TOO tolerant and therefore never get anything done.

have you ever listened to air America?

[HBox]

have you ever listened to air America?

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

[TheMojoPin]

have you ever listened to air America?

Sadly, yes.

But again, sustained and repeated attacks declaring conservatives as treasonous traitors attempting to destroy the country and aiding "America's enemies?" It's simply a different and less savage (wimpier?) vitriol from the Left. That's been the beauty of the neo-con attack machine over the last 20 years...prop up "the Liberals" as these masterful enemies from within that can be easily demonized, yet the Left actually can only muster a comparatively pathetic response on any level.

[Grendel_Kahn]

As I said in an earlier post.
I think Conservatives have good ideas, but it seems to me like they are more intolerant of opposing views. The problems with Liberals is that they are TOO tolerant and therefore never get anything done.

As the old political saying goes Republicans have no heart and Democrats have no common sense.

That's why Ron Paul really may BE the way to go. Just to move the train to another set of rails.

[scottinnj]

The Right is simply much, much, MUCH "better" at attacking their enemies.

The Right may be better organized in print media and talk radio. But on college campuses, where the indoctrination of the youth is dominated by the Left, and when no challenge by mainstream media is given to the likes of VP Gore and Senator Kennedy, I'd think that the argument you make that the Right is "better" at smearing the Left just doesn't hold water.

[scottinnj]

And what I meant by smidgen was that this guy wrote one article about the demonization the Left throws on those who even question the human impact of global warming. He didn't talk about the smear campaigns on pro-lifers, gun rights advocates, school voucher advocates, states rights/smaller government conservatives, and so on and so forth.

And that isn't even including the casual slams against conservatives in our entertainment. We could spend hours just going over the digs "The Simpsons" "American Dad" and shows on Comedy Central take at conservatives on a greater scale then liberals. Funny? Absolutely. Biased? Undoubtedly.

Like I said, it's a matter of perception and bias. Both sides have equal power, just in different areas of our media and culture.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

The Right may be better organized in print media and talk radio. But on college campuses, where the indoctrination of the youth is dominated by the Left, and when no challenge by mainstream media is given to the likes of VP Gore and Senator Kennedy, I'd think that the argument you make that the Right is "better" at smearing the Left just doesn't hold water.

Complete and utter bullshit. On every level that matters (the college level doesn't in comparison to national radio and television) the Right has been far more unified and organized at smearing the Left (and certain other conservatives- look at what alot of them do to Rudy and many have recently been doing to Bush). The Left, including those kids in colleges of which I was a part, were in comparison shoddy at arguing, inconclusive, nebulous, indecisive, and there was always a ton of infighting going on because the "Left" is actually a tableau of ideologies that can differ from one another radically- something that generally weakens the Left and leaves them crippled by the whole PC fears that you see handicapping many Left-leaning speakers. Those who generally try to focus solely on the conservatives generally can't say much more than 'um, anything's better than bush, republicans are um, nazis and evil, and war is like anti support for the troops maaan'. Keep in mind I say *generally* there are exceptions to this rule, but I've seen far more intelligent arguments from conservatives than I've seen from liberals on a general basis. And those who do argue well, they don't sell as well as conservative counterparts. I'd say Anne Coulter is kicking the ass off of Maureen Dowd both in sheer volume of books written in short periods of time and in the number of readers she has.

Bill O'Reilly broadcasts to millions of people on a daily basis. A college professor broadcasts to at most 300 students a couple days in a week. How many people knows of Professor Shithead's rantings versus Bill O'Reilly's? That's goddamn right.

[CofyCrakCocaine]

Oh having read your second post and then re-reading your post I was reacting to, I see what you're saying. Well, yes, college campuses are generally more Left leaning than they are right. But there's tons of conservatives there still. At my school it was oddly enough all the economy majors and frat boys and sorority sisters who were big fans of Bush back in 2004 while all the nerds and dorks were all for Kerry.

So yeah, sorry for mis-reading your post there Scott. :P

And what I mean by "every level that matters" I guess I'm referring to the actual politicians themselves. Left-leaning politicians go "oh darn gee, I'll take the high ground and not say anything saucy" while right-leaning ones have often had no problem with resorting to biting their opponent's balls.

[TheMojoPin]

But on college campuses, where the indoctrination of the youth is dominated by the Left, and when no challenge by mainstream media is given to the likes of VP Gore and Senator Kennedy, I'd think that the argument you make that the Right is "better" at smearing the Left just doesn't hold water.

Wait, this makes no sense. You toss out Gore and Kennedy as if they have some kind of national direct line into all college campuses. They don't.

And just the much more visible presence of younger conservaties over the last decades throws off the idea that college campsus have maintained or increased their level of typically Leftist rhetoric. The expansion of media access and the organization of the Right's attacks and rhetoric have provided a very effective and clear contrast the usually Leftist environments on campus.

[HBox]

It was my experience at college that for all the left-leaning of professors and students (and at my school I didn't really see it all that much) it's made up for by the obnoxiousness of College Republicans. They'll never miss an opportunity to make sure you know that you are being brainwashed. Not unlike little bearded 9/11 conspiracy boy from O&A last week.

[scottinnj]

Bill O'Reilly broadcasts to millions of people on a daily basis. A college professor broadcasts to at most 300 students a couple days in a week. How many people knows of Professor Dumbledore's rantings versus Bill O'Reilly's? That's goddamn right.


If it weren't for Bill and others, we wouldn't even know about "Professor Dumbledore" because the rest of the media would ignore them.

Bill may be able to influence people, but he doesn't give you a grade based on his bias towards your research. Bill may be able to analyze the news, and take a stand based on what he believes in, but he doesn't have the power to call every news organization and have a press conference calling those he disagrees with names. I remember VP Gore in the ninties calling out people in Congress and saying they "wanted to poison the air you breathe, and poison the water you drink" implying those who disagreed with his policy weren't looking for a different way to keep the air and water clean, noooo, they wanted to KILL US ALL! And the news outlets didn't challenge him one bit while he made that statement. That's power, that's hatred and that is not just some loon on Air America going off on a tear at 10:00 at night when nobody was listening.

Keep it coming guys. I can do this all day. Every conservative smear tactic you bring up, I can bring up a liberal one. And no matter how fast you sweep it under the rug, it still shows that liberals can be just as hateful as conservatives. And just as powerful when they do it.

I'll never deny the hatred of Ann Coulter, or her effectiveness. But get your heads out of the sand when it comes to liberals and the power they have to destroy the reputations of good conservatives.

[TheMojoPin]

And what I meant by smidgen was that this guy wrote one article about the demonization the Left throws on those who even question the human impact of global warming. He didn't talk about the smear campaigns on pro-lifers, gun rights advocates, school voucher advocates, states rights/smaller government conservatives, and so on and so forth.

Again, like I said before, I'm not saying the Left is without attacks, but the level and the scope of the SPECIFIC sensationalism and vitriol simply does not compare. The Left often makes sensational generalizations, but they do not have the SPECIFIC attacks on people that the Right has focused on the Left that tries to tear people down as traitors.

And that isn't even including the casual slams against conservatives in our entertainment. We could spend hours just going over the digs "The Simpsons" "American Dad" and shows on Comedy Central take at conservatives on a greater scale then liberals. Funny? Absolutely. Biased? Undoubtedly.

So what? My point hasn't been about the casual shots...if that's all it was from either side, it wouldn't be a big deal at all. The Right's pundits are countering jokes and satire with declarations of "treason" or that Liberals are "evil" and a "threat" to America that "give aid and comfort to our enemies." How does that even come close to matching up in terms of savagery and viciousness?

Like I said, it's a matter of perception and bias. Both sides have equal power, just in different areas of our media and culture.

People have just rolled over on the "liberal bias" myth and allowed the extreme Right to shanghai newspapers/magazines, radio and TV with hideously ugly vitriol that's falsely "justified" by the repeated clam that the Left "controls" the media as some kind of united front aainst the Riht, and that simply isn't true. Tha's why the extreme Right attack machine has succeeded so much...they prop up a scary enemy that doesn't exist and can now outscream them at any level since they're established. And the Left panics at these accusations and goes out of their way to not appear "biased," and as such provide little to no response. It's absurd to say a shows like The Daily Show and The Simpsons, that end up attacking and mocking the Left all the time, to figures like Coulter and Hannity and Savage and Limbaugh, who have massive audiences and attack the Left as if they're criminals and offers next to no criticim of ANYONE on the Right.

[epo]

And what I meant by smidgen was that this guy wrote one article about the demonization the Left throws on those who even question the human impact of global warming. He didn't talk about the smear campaigns on pro-lifers, gun rights advocates, school voucher advocates, states rights/smaller government conservatives, and so on and so forth.

And that isn't even including the casual slams against conservatives in our entertainment. We could spend hours just going over the digs "The Simpsons" "American Dad" and shows on Comedy Central take at conservatives on a greater scale then liberals. Funny? Absolutely. Biased? Undoubtedly.

Like I said, it's a matter of perception and bias. Both sides have equal power, just in different areas of our media and culture.

Seriously? This is such a tired argument of the right. Read: influence, media corporations.

Link to thread here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=64138) That's where the real influence lies.

[epo]

If it weren't for Bill and others, we wouldn't even know about "Professor Dumbledore" because the rest of the media would ignore them.

Bill may be able to influence people, but he doesn't give you a grade based on his bias towards your research. Bill may be able to analyze the news, and take a stand based on what he believes in, but he doesn't have the power to call every news organization and have a press conference calling those he disagrees with names. I remember VP Gore in the ninties calling out people in Congress and saying they "wanted to poison the air you breathe, and poison the water you drink" implying those who disagreed with his policy weren't looking for a different way to keep the air and water clean, noooo, they wanted to KILL US ALL! And the news outlets didn't challenge him one bit while he made that statement. That's power, that's hatred and that is not just some loon on Air America going off on a tear at 10:00 at night when nobody was listening.

Keep it coming guys. I can do this all day. Every conservative smear tactic you bring up, I can bring up a liberal one. And no matter how fast you sweep it under the rug, it still shows that liberals can be just as hateful as conservatives. And just as powerful when they do it.

I'll never deny the hatred of Ann Coulter, or her effectiveness. But get your heads out of the sand when it comes to liberals and the power they have to destroy the reputations of good conservatives.

So Bill O'Reilly = Good.
Al Gore = Bad.

Bill O'Reilly is a low-brow muckracker. Nothing more, nothing less. I've heard the comparisons to Father Coughlin...which historically might be pretty damned accurate.

Al Gore claiming that people voting against clean air is a bad thing. Damn he's a horrible person.

And Scott there is a major different between a liberal & conservative attack. Conservatives go personal, liberals generally go after policy decisions. That's why we lose so many elections, yet hold the moral high ground.

[scottinnj]

Oh having read your second post and then re-reading your post I was reacting to, I see what you're saying. Well, yes, college campuses are generally more Left leaning than they are right. But there's tons of conservatives there still. At my school it was oddly enough all the economy majors and frat boys and sorority sisters who were big fans of Bush back in 2004 while all the nerds and dorks were all for Kerry.

So yeah, sorry for mis-reading your post there Scott. :P

And what I mean by "every level that matters" I guess I'm referring to the actual politicians themselves. Left-leaning politicians go "oh darn gee, I'll take the high ground and not say anything saucy" while right-leaning ones have often had no problem with resorting to biting their opponent's balls.


Yeah, I'm not saying the Left is all-encompassing in their attacks, and again, I won't deny the effectiveness of the Rights campaign once the grassroots. It has come down to an equal amount of it.
There is no more "mainstream media" imbalance anymore due to the rise of talk radio and the internet.

All I am saying is that sometimes you just don't see it due to the side you are on. It's happened to me. Hell I've sat there and watched (or listened) to some dude tell me Hillary and Bill were going to sell America to the Chinese-a bit extreme? Yep. But as I got older, I just got tired of hearing the nonsense. Because the attack hid the fact that whoever it was that was telling this crap was saying it to hide the non-solutions they were brewing up.

[scottinnj]

So Bill O'Reilly = Good.
Al Gore = Bad.




Didn't say that. Reread it.

Bill O'Reilly = attacked by the Left for saying stupid things.

Al Gore = given a pass by the Left for saying hateful things.

[epo]

People have just rolled over on the "liberal bias" myth and allowed the extreme Right to shanghai newspapers/magazines, radio and TV with hideously ugly vitriol that's falsely "justified" by the repeated clam that the Left "controls" the media as some kind of united front aainst the Riht, and that simply isn't true. Tha's why the extreme Right attack machine has succeeded so much...they prop up a scary enemy that doesn't exist and can now outscream them at any level since they're established. And the Left panics at these accusations and goes out of their way to not appear "biased," and as such provide little to no response. It's absurd to say a shows like The Daily Show and The Simpsons, that end up attacking and mocking the Left all the time, to figures like Coulter and Hannity and Savage and Limbaugh, who have massive audiences and attack the Left as if they're criminals and offers next to no criticim of ANYONE on the Right.

Damned Straight Mojo.

The difference between the two is pretty simple. The left presents their views as smart-guy barbs/entertainment......the right presents their's under the guise of "serious journalism".

[TheMojoPin]

If it weren't for Bill and others, we wouldn't even know about "Professor Dumbledore" because the rest of the media would ignore them.

So what?!? It's sad and terrifying that we view pundits going out of their way to attack TEACHERS as a good thing!

Teachers are human...like any job not all of them are going to be right for that position. But this tone that "dangerous" teachers are lurking everywhere simply due to their political preference is horrifying. Books like THIS:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41yl9a26JOL._SS500_.jpg

...are not a good thing! This is all like a lowgrade version of the Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong. "Hey kids! Disaree with your teachers politically? DENOUNCE THEM! Hey, do outlets of expression and creativity offend your politics? DENOUNCE THEM!" It's scary and very ugly.

Bill may be able to influence people, but he doesn't give you a grade based on his bias towards your research.

It's completely subjective and usually false when teachers are accused of grading due to political bias. Besides, it's a ridiculous slippery slope that excuses students who are usually graded lower for poor work to cry foul becuase of "political differences."

I remember VP Gore in the ninties calling out people in Congress and saying they "wanted to poison the air you breathe, and poison the water you drink" implying those who disagreed with his policy weren't looking for a different way to keep the air and water clean, noooo, they wanted to KILL US ALL! And the news outlets didn't challenge him one bit while he made that statement.

Challenge him how? He was calling out people who had not voted for or voted aainst environmental reforms. Unless they actually did vote for those reforms, how is he actually wrong? Yes, he's drenching it hyperbole, but what are they supposed to "call him out on?"

That's power, that's hatred and that is not just some loon on Air America going off on a tear at 10:00 at night when nobody was listening.

But you can very easily argue that not backing those regulations and reform WILL poison, damage or destroy the environment around us. That's not hatred...that's a melodramatic argument. Meanwhile, on the Right, you have powerful people explicily stating in clear terms that Liberals are traitors who will get you and your family killed.

I'll never deny the hatred of Ann Coulter, or her effectiveness. But get your heads out of the sand when it comes to liberals and the power they have to destroy the reputations of good conservatives.

You're arguing something nobody is saying. Nobody is saying that the Left CAN'T or DOESN'T attack people...just that the focus, scope and vitriol of their attacks is not even close to rivaling what the Right has and can muster.

[epo]

Didn't say that. Reread it.

Bill O'Reilly = attacked by the Left for saying stupid things.

Al Gore = given a pass by the Left for saying hateful things.

There's a serious difference though, O'Reilly attacks people by saying stupid things. In your example Gore attacked a policy choice.

I mean how many times has O'Reilly gone person and unnecessarily so? How many times has Gore?

This is just a stupid argument.

[scottinnj]

Seriously? This is such a tired argument of the right. Read: influence, media corporations.

Link to thread here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=64138) That's where the real influence lies.

And a meaningless argument from the Left. Like somehow because a "corporation" owns a newspaper or News Channel, that affects the editorial page or bias of the reporter.

NOT!

[epo]

And a meaningless argument from the Left. Like somehow because a "corporation" owns a newspaper or News Channel, that affects the editorial page or bias of the reporter.

NOT!

Don't argue with me on this point Scott. Trust me you are wrong.

[TheMojoPin]

There's a serious difference though, O'Reilly attacks people by saying stupid things. In your example Gore attacked a policy choice.

I mean how many times has O'Reilly gone person and unnecessarily so? How many times has Gore?

This is just a stupid argument.

Gore is attacking people's poliical decisions in that example specifically in regards to environmental policy. The Right attack machine constantly attacks Liberals JUST because they're Liberals, as if that's enough to condemn them. Sure, you have people on the Left who make similar generalizations, but not public figures of the number and power that the extreme Right has.

[scottinnj]

There's a serious difference though, O'Reilly attacks people by saying stupid things. In your example Gore attacked a policy choice.




What is the difference? A smear campaign is a smear campaign.


If Gore had said, "Republicans are trying to block the President's Clean Air and Water initiative becuase of A, B, and C, I'd be fine with that"

But he said that they wanted to poison the air! That is not attacking a policy choice. That is smearing a political opponent.

[scottinnj]

Don't argue with me on this point Scott. Trust me you are wrong.

Please give me an example then, just don't link to another RonFez.net thread. Seriously.
B

But I think we are all getting worked up over this, and rereading the thread, how the HELL did we go from Ron Paul to Left/Right Media bias?

If you are talking about owning multiple newspapers and radio stations in one town, that I grant you. I'm not a fan of monopolies either.

[TheMojoPin]

What is the difference? A smear campaign is a smear campaign.

That's unrealistially simplifying things. A smear campaign against a specific policy is vastly different from one against a person in general as if they're an awful human being or a criminal. Gore was saying that not supporting environmental reforms was poisoning the environment. Now if he said that "conservatives are poisoning the environment and they love pollution and WANT to poison YOU and your loved ones" and then dozens of national pundits, shows and books all backed him up and made it even worse and uglier, you're starting to get close to what we're talking about.

[TheMojoPin]

OK, let's veer this over here.

[HBox]

Please give me an example then, just don't link to another RonFez.net thread. Seriously.
B

But I think we are all getting worked up over this, and rereading the thread, how the HELL did we go from Ron Paul to Left/Right Media bias?

If you are talking about owning multiple newspapers and radio stations in one town, that I grant you. I'm not a fan of monopolies either.

This has nothing to with politics, but everything to do with a huge corporation meddling with journalists. (http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespot-editor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php)

That's just the most recent example.

[scottinnj]

Here is the main problem with modern media perception...people expect everything to be "balanced" or "non-biased"...here's the problem: the mediais staffed and manned by humans, not robots. Nobody is going to agree on everything, so any kind of true "balance" or lack of bias is impossible. It's nothing but diversion to get people to focus on imaginary "bias" as some kind of giant boogeyman as opposed to focusing on what's being reported. It's brilliant spin...and the even more brilliant part is that the people who made it up now champion themselves as the valiant warriors AGAINST media spin!

Yes, we will encounter from time to time media figures who are clearly going out of their way with an agenda or using their power inappropriately, but they are nowhere near any kind of majority. The American media system has existed for centuries before this recent concern with "bias" and the national political scope constantly shifted around the spectrum without "spin warriors."

I'm not saying that "bias"-either way-is bad. Just be honest about it. Also, my point about corporate ownership of media is just that the evidence of influence over individuals shaping of a story isn't there. Do you think Ted Turner tells Lou Dobbs to tone it down?
Or Rupert Murdock was telling Shep Smith or Geraldo Rivera to quit showing how bad it was in New Orleans post-Katrina? Or the CFO of the NY Times censors Maureen Dowd?

[epo]

Please give me an example then, just don't link to another RonFez.net thread. Seriously.
B

But I think we are all getting worked up over this, and rereading the thread, how the HELL did we go from Ron Paul to Left/Right Media bias?

If you are talking about owning multiple newspapers and radio stations in one town, that I grant you. I'm not a fan of monopolies either.

The point I'm making is that ownership of media absolutely affects the content of the output. This is not a new theory, rather a truism that has been in effect since the Church owned the only means of publication in Europe before Johann Gutenberg created the printing press. Before that all publications were controlled by the church and nobody could publish a defying point.

The press in this country now has the same issues....ownership dictates news/editorial content. News Corp is an obvious black eye on the modern media, but they all have influences. The corporation is not going to do anything to hurt itself or it's interests.

If you want specific examples from throughout time, I'll give them to you...but trust I'm gonna be an asshole and it will be the longest post I've ever created.

[scottinnj]

That's unrealistially simplifying things. A smear campaign against a specific policy is vastly different from one against a person in general as if they're an awful human being or a criminal. Gore was saying that not supporting environmental reforms was poisoning the environment. Now if he said that "conservatives are poisoning the environment and they love pollution and WANT to poison YOU and your loved ones" and then dozens of national pundits, shows and books all backed him up and made it even worse and uglier, you're starting to get close to what we're talking about.

That's exactly what happened.

Like I said, pick a political subject, and I can go and find as much crap the Left has thrown out as the Right about it. And from important sources in the media and from powerful politicians and policy makers.

[TheMojoPin]

That's exactly what happened.

That's simply impossible.

[scottinnj]

That's simply impossible.

Dude, I'm telling you. I wish I could find the quote on the internet, but it happened. During Clinton's second term. Help?

[Yerdaddy]

That's exactly what happened.

Like I said, pick a political subject, and I can go and find as much crap the Left has thrown out as the Right about it. And from important sources in the media and from powerful politicians and policy makers.

I've been offering up that challenge to board conservatives for years now. Now you do it and I'm busy writing about Cambodian kickboxing. And I'm grateful because I'm finally caring less about American politics than ever before.

Anyway, this is totally do-able: you each post stories, quotes etc from media sources and aruge about which are more pernicious or less factual. Nobody will ever concede defeat of course, but the point will be made to the spectators who's side produced the best evidence. You could use poll threads to let people vote on who's right, but that will be argued too. No matter. Point is it's do-able. Someone take up the challenge for the liberals. You can't lose. There is no liberal equivalent for the majority of conservative pundits who make up the majority of conservative "news" for ad hominem attacks and stories pushing conclusions based on blatant logical falacies and outright deception.

So who will be our champion?

[topless_mike]

im not getting involved in this, but just for the record, if im correct, bill o'reilly is actually a democrat, and i think he's admitted this on the air...

just my .02

[epo]

im not getting involved in this, but just for the record, if im correct, bill o'reilly is actually a democrat, and i think he's admitted this on the air...

just my .02

This is the most inaccurate statement I've ever read on this site.

Bill O'Reilly has claimed to be an independent and is actually a registered republican. Al Franken found this and documented it in his "Lying Liars" book.

[topless_mike]

This is the most inaccurate statement I've ever read on this site.

Bill O'Reilly has claimed to be an independent and is actually a registered republican. Al Franken found this and documented it in his "Lying Liars" book.

you right... i thought he said he was a democrat, but it turned out to be independant.
my bad.

from wiki (fwiw)


[edit] Political affiliation
On his January 10, 2000 show, Bill O'Reilly claimed he is an Independent. In his book The O'Reilly Factor, he described his political affiliation.

"You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what... See, I don't want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That's my political position."[1]

O'Reilly was registered as a Republican in Nassau County, New York, from 1994 to 2000, but he claimed it was not by choice, but a clerical misunderstanding when he registered.[2]

O'Reilly has stated that the politician he most admires is Robert F. Kennedy. Furthermore, he stated in a Factor episode that he thinks Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the best presidents in American history.[3]

kinda odd that the 2 politicians he admires most were democrats.
then again, kennedy and fdr were real democrats- not these hacks that run for office today.

[TheMojoPin]

Dude, I'm telling you. I wish I could find the quote on the internet, but it happened. During Clinton's second term. Help?

I'm not saying that Gore's statement was impossible...just that my scenario:

Now if he said that "conservatives are poisoning the environment and they love pollution and WANT to poison YOU and your loved ones" and then dozens of national pundits, shows and books all backed him up and made it even worse and uglier, you're starting to get close to what we're talking about.

...is impossible. The Left doesn't have the capabilities, means or organization to do that...not now, and ESPECIALLY not then.

[scottinnj]

So who will be our champion?

You guys. I don't like fighting with you. I've thought about it today, and it's a stupid argument.

[scottinnj]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41yl9a26JOL._SS500_.jpg







I'm not a big fan of Horowitz's rhetoric either. I wish we all could be like us on this board. Horowitz may be right, but his confrotational approach weakens him.

[Yerdaddy]

You guys. I don't like fighting with you. I've thought about it today, and it's a stupid argument.

It's not a fight at all. It's a civilized debate and an experiment to test the long-standing disagreement over the nature of left/right tactics in the media. What's wrong with that. I'd rather have the challenge with a civilized chap like yourself than anyone else. But then, no Lancelot has come forward to defend our honor, so I guess you win by default anyway.