Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Visit these great anti-Madonna sites:

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Blog / Site (NEW!)

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Site (site closed as of May 2017)

madonnasuxx's Anti Madonna Site (Internet Archive)

Help us keep ads off our board!



Add us to your bookmarks!
(works in FireFox and Internet Explorer)
Please read the Discussion Board Rules before joining the board!
New Madonna haters: Come introduce yourself!
Board Help & Updates

Stop Forum Spam

  Full List of Emoticons
Avatars
Thread Indexes:

One Stop Index Thread | Persons | Subjects A - L | Subjects M - Z | Aisha's Lawsuit

Life Universe Everything Forum Index

Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -


Flea on Twitter: @fleadip / Link to Flea's Twitter Page | Follow admin Melissa on Twitter @melissatreglia


BREAKING & IMPORTANT MADONNA-RELATED NEWS:

See the "Shout Box" Section at the bottom of the discussion board's main page for the latest anti- Madonna news and links

Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Mainstream Media in USA; - It's Liberal (Debate Thread)
Topic Started: Jul 31 2005, 10:27 PM (1,224 Views)
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

I am a conservative, I am "right wing," and my beliefs and concerns are regularly ridiculed, mocked, and trashed on most media outlets (when they're not being ignored). My conservative views are not treated with respect by the media, nor are conservative people themselves presented positively by the American media.

~~ Point 1. The Rise of Rush Limbaugh. ~~

Someone who is older than I am and who is a conservative Republican could do a better job at explaining point 1, but here goes.

I am a conservative Republican who believes in God and in moral absolutes.

As a conservative Republican, I have noticed that the mainstream media (which is comprised of, but not limited to, CNN; ABC; NBC; CBS; The Los Angeles Times; and the New York Times) tends to portray the conservative Republican positions (as well as conservative Republicans themselves) in an unsympathetic light.

Before Rush Limbaugh's radio show became a success, if my understanding is correct, the only news sources that were conservative in tone and philosophy were print publications, such as National Review or The Weekly Standard. William F. Buckley made the occasional appearance on some television programs. And that was about it for conservatives.

I was certainly not alone in noticing that the mainstream media was not conservative-friendly. When conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh began his conservative talk radio show (which I believe was sometime around the late 1980s, possibly early 1990s), average, everyday conservatives sat up and took notice.

At last, conservatives found a media personality whose views were the same as theirs. Their views were treated with respect, as were Republican political figures who were discussed on the show.

No longer did conservatives have to tune in to mainstream media outlets such as the evening CBS television news broadcast and hear stories filtered through a liberal filter. Conservatives finally had their own media outlet: this is why many conservatives flocked to Rush Limbaugh's show.

Limbaugh's show became a phenomenon. By the early to mid 1990s, some restaurants had set up "Rush Rooms," where their conservative customers, while on lunch breaks, could dine on meals as they listened to Rush's show being piped in to the dining room.

Many liberals and liberal news outlets were, I think, a little shocked by Limbaugh's success. Some of them such as liberal television talk show host Phil Donahue, began inviting Limbaugh on to their television shows

It should be noted that media liberals such as Donahue invited Limbaugh on their shows to insult Limbaugh and his views; they did not invite him on out of a sense of fairness. I watched some of these shows and recall seeing Limbaugh get ripped apart by audience members and raked over the coals at times by the hosts.

If the mainstream media were indeed conservative (or fair to conservatives), then Rush Limbaugh would not have become a success.

Limbaugh filed a huge, gaping hole. His was one of the few conservative news outlets in a journalistic sea awash with liberals.
  • Many liberal critics decry the lack of a balance between liberal and conservative viewpoints on talk radio. Limbaugh's response to this accusation is to assert that most news reporting is liberally biased (in particular, television and newspaper news); as he says, "I am equal time."

    He also does not claim to be a neutral reporter, and contrasts his stance with the major news media's claims of objectivity (in the United States). He also has explained himself on occasion as being an entertainer, not a reporter. [Source]
Read more about Rush Limbaugh (has a basic biography, dates on when his radio show began, etc) here

As I pointed out elsewhere, many American journalists identify themselves in surveys as being liberals / Democrats (see links at bottom of this post). Not as Republicans (and hence by inference conservatives), but as Democrats or progressives - not George W. Bush friendly.

~~ Point 2. Fox news channel ~~

As I have mentioned in posts elsewhere on this board, one will notice that most liberals and most Democrats reserve their venom for cable news channel "FOX" (when they're not trashing talk radio, especially conservative talk radio).

Take this liberal site, for instance: their arch nemesis is Fox cable news; their tag line reads, "We watch FOX so you don't have to."

"Why 'Fox?,'" you should be asking yourself. Why doesn't their tag line read "We watch CBS so you don't have to?" Answer: because CBS is already liberal. (As are ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN and the rest.)

Why would liberals have a problem with talk radio and resent it so much? Because talk radio is largely inhabited by conservative personalities, such as Rush Limbaugh; Laura Ingraham; Sean Hannity; and Michael Savage.

Limbaugh started the conservative radio talk show craze either beginning in the late 1980s or early 1990s. (In comparison, liberal Al Franken's "Air America" radio programming came in to the radio talk show game rather late, with having been launched sometime around 2003 or 2004.)

Glancing over a Democrat store on the web, where one can find t-shirts imprinted with jingles insulting Republican George W. Bush, one will notice that FOX news channel is the only, or one of the few, news outlets demonized.

Examples: Liberal Site: Anti Fox bumper sticker.

Liberal Site: 'Topple Bush's' Anti Fox Material, "Help us find a new slogan for Fox news"

Anti-Fox blocker (advertised at a pro liberal, anti-Bush site, Liberal Site: Depresident):
  • FOXBlocker FOXBlocker is an innovative new product that filters out the FOX News network. Simply screw the filter into the back of your TV and never be exposed to right wing [conservative / Republican] propaganda again (at least through FOX News).
Related (news story from conservative site News Max): Anti Fox News Channel Film Funded by Liberal Move On.org.

One will be hard pressed to find a Democratic political paraphernalia store selling bumper stickers emblazoned with anti-CBS, anti-ABC, anti-New York Times slogans.

The reason many Democrats do not expend effort and time running down ABC, CBS, CNN, and so forth, is because these media outlets are not considered to be conservative, and therefore, they are not 'the enemy.'

In the same way that some conservatives do not believe that FOX news is conservative enough (even though FOX news is "conservative friendly"), one can find liberals who think that the main stream media (which is liberal) is not being "liberal enough." (Here is a page by a conservative who thinks that conservative-friendly FOX could "do better" - Fox News: Too Fair, Too Balanced.)

About the only time one will find a far-left Democrat or liberal (or someone who shares some of their views, regardless of how they choose to identify and label themselves) "bad mouthing" the main stream media is when they do not believe the main stream media have gone far enough in "exposing" or demonizing Republicans such as George W. Bush.

Consider this related tid bit:

Some Democrats initially cheered Democrat d*ck Durbin's 2005 comparisons of the American FBI and American detention centers to Stalin and Soviet Gulags and to Adolph Hitler. When Durbin later apologized for those remarks (admittedly only half-assed), some on the far left (on liberal blogs) ripped Durbin apart because he did not go far enough in his criticisms and because he dared to apologize for the ones he did make.

~~ Point 3. Media no longer cover for politicians ~~

The days of the media 'covering for' presidents seems to have ended with the office of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy's extra-marital affairs with actresses such as Angie Dickinson and Marilyn Monroe, among others, while known to journalists of the day, were not publicized at the time.

Such matters came to light only years later (but they did come to light and were not kept "hush hush" indefinitely).

Why the initial hush? It could be, perhaps, due to the fact that Kennedy was a Democrat, and journalists tend to be Democrats themselves. (In recent surveys, journalists identify themselves as Democrats; see links to survey at bottom of this post.)

However, I believe the silence on the media's part was also due to the culture of the time period. Even though the 1960s would later see the emergence of hippies and all that it entailed (casual drug use, casual sex, etc.), the whole of American society seems to have been 'straight laced.'

I'm sure the media of the time period would have felt it would have been "undignified" to publicize Kennedy's affairs, and they may have also felt that the general public would have found such coverage distasteful.

Skipping forward to the 1990s, we see a media willing to report on Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, complete with sordid details - e.g., of "DNA" left behind on a certain blue dress, mention of cigars, and so forth.

The 1970s gave us Woodward, Bernstein, "Deep Throat," Nixon and Watergate.

It would appear that as time marched on, then, that the mainstream media was no longer willing to 'protect' an American president's (or simply the office of presidency's) reputation, mistakes, or missteps, whether they be personal or political (and hence public).

The media went so far as to publicize the personal problems of George W. Bush's daughters - who I believe were caught drinking under-age, or some such scandal was reported a couple of years ago. If the press will not spare his then teen-aged daughters, I can guarantee you they would not hesitate to publicize any of their father's mistakes or failings.

The idea, then, that journalists of today - many of whom are unsymptathetic towards conservative Republicans in particular to begin with - would willingly "cover for" conservative Republican George W. Bush if he did something immoral is highly unlikely.

The recent Kerry/Bush campaign saw the liberal media in a frenzy to dig up any and all dirt on George W. Bush.

The mainstream media continue to attempt to try and tarnish the Bush administration: they continue to portray the situation in Iraq as going terribly. We hear constantly of the American military personnel who get blown up, for example, but rarely do we see or read about the successes that have happened.

Any situation, no matter how trivial, is blown up - even situations that are not trivial in nature are driven into the ground almost without let-up, all to trash the Bush administration: alleged cases of Korans being flushed down toilets at American detention facilities holding Islamic combatants; numerous stories of the Abu Gharib scandal (the New York Times, a liberal rag, featured Abu Gharib stories on their front page almost daily); Gitmo is rumored to be a torture camp.

The mainstream media offers negative spin after negative spin on anything that could smear George W. Bush or the Republican Party in general.

~~ Point 4. Religion. ~~

To further bolster my case that the American main stream media is slanted in favor of liberalism concerning politics, let's consider how the main stream media treats religion.

Perhaps the most glaring evidence to me of liberal control of the media, or the politically correct outlook held by journalists, in America, Canada, and Western European nations: story after story about alleged "torture" at Gitmo by American military personnel upon Muslim terrorists is broadcast nightly on the t.v. news and daily in news papers.

The American media, however, will not air video-taped beheadings of Europeans or Americans carried out by the radical Muslims (nor do I believe such footage was aired in Canada and Britain).

The BBC (news agency based in Great Britain) will not allow their journalists to use the term "terrorist" to describe Islamic terrorists, but instead has them substitute the term "bombers," because, they believe,' one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' Islamic terrorism is, therefore, white-washed for the sake of multi-culturalism and political correctness.

With the exception of Islam, the main stream media is hostile towards main stream, established, religion(s), especially Christianity (i.e. traditional, historic Christianity, e.g., mainstream Protestant denominations, and the media loves to run with anti-Roman Catholicism stories as well).

When main stream media outlets choose to air or print a story about Christianity (ABC did one a year or so ago, as has PBS), they will usually feature the newest liberal trend in New Testament or Jesus studies (e.g. Jesus Seminar findings).

We are told in such printed or televised specials that these scholars (who are liberals, and their views are in the minority, but these facts are seldom, if ever, mentioned) have discovered a 'new' Jesus, one at odds with traditional Christianity.

Notice that such programs (or the studies upon which they are referring) are usually entitled "the historic Jesus," as though to imply that the Jesus traditional Christians has been worshipping is based upon falsehoods.

Break out references to materials or ideas such as The Gospel of Thomas, the Nag Hammadi, Jesus was probably married, the Da Vinci Code book, interview with Bishop Spong, Bork, Funk, etc. Seldom do such shows (or printed stories) give equal time to a conservative Christian scholar to refute the liberal side of things.

Liberals tend to champion who and what they consider the 'underdog,' and most of them are anti-Christian (not simply Non-Christian, but Anti-Christian).

I believe that surveys are showing that Christianity is still the largest 'religion' in America, and not Islam. This immediately would draw the attention of a liberal, since they would assume that big, bad, nasty Christians would try to discriminate against Muslims (or Islam itself) in some fashion, especially since Muslims are currently in the minority in our nation.

Because Bush's political victory can be attributed in large measure to evangelical Christians the last election, and because Bush himself has admitted to being a Christian who sometime prays to his God, some far-left Democrats began making derogatory comments about such Christians, more so than usual.

(Of course, those on the far left have always hated conservative Christians, because such Christians do not support or agree with issues that the left holds dear, such as homosexual marriage and abortion on demand.)

Example:

A graphic by progressives (also known as "liberals") began circulating after the last American presidential election, showing the American states which went to Bush as being "Jesus Land" (the phrase "Jesus Land" meant to be derogatory, not respectful) while the states that went for Kerry were termed something else (something positive and complimentary, exactly what, I don't recall.)

There is a very real perception among many on the left that all, or most, Christians are "red necks," rubes, and morons.

It is not surprising to see that many journalists - who are on the left - run unflattering or skewed news stories about Christians or Christianity, in addition to the usual anti-Bush political coverage.

Liberals believe in multi-culturalism, which essentially comes down to the belief that no one culture (and religion is one aspect of a culture) is better than another, and further, it is arrogant to make such judgments - or to think we even can.

This preoccupation with being being Anti-Christian (but also being pro- militant- neo- fundamentalist- Islam) also emerges in the media's coverage of Iraq and the war on Islamo-terrorism, and their hatred of George W. Bush.

Liberals despise George W. Bush and his administration, so in a knee-jerk fashion, after Bush declares war on Islamic terrorism post- Septemeber 11, 2001, liberals then become hyper- sensitive to any American "backlash" against Muslims.

Any perceived slight against the Koran or anything having to do with Islam is broadcast repeatedly in the main stream media - because they are liberal.

Liberal-friendly "News Week" runs a story alleging that a Koran may have been flushed down a toilet at an American detention facility, and the rest of the main stream media picks up on it, and so we begin seeing "Koran in the toilet" stories ad nauseum for weeks afterwards.

The media wish to tie-in discrimination against Islam to the Bush administration, to continue to trash the Bush administration. If not for that (and for the fact that liberals champion what they perceive to be cultural underdogs), I do not believe our main stream media - which is tilted heavily toward the left - would be feigning respect for Islam or the Koran, as they have been doing.

(I suppose one can argue that sympathy by the left for Islam can be found going back before the Islamo-attacks on America on September 9, 2001, since those on the left tend to be anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. None- the- less, my perception is that the majority of liberal concern for Islam became stronger or more pronounced - or maybe more visible? -after 9/11.)

The double standard held by the main stream media is amazing. That is, according to the tone and attitude of main stream media reports, we should all be 'hyper' fair, respectful toward, and concerned about Islam and the Koran, but at the same time, these same folks broadcast plenty of anti-Christian stories.

I have never seen the main stream media show as much concern and outrage over the disrespect shown Christian symbols over the years- such as a crucifix in a jar of urine (entitled "Piss Christ"), or elephant dung glued over a painting of the virgin Mary - as I have with anything having to do with Islam.

Crucifix in a jar of piss? Gets defended by main stream media. It's "artistic expression," and Christians need to lighten up.

Koran allegedly flushed down a toilet? Oh no, the horror!

Must remove Ten Commandments from court house walls! Can't have a nativity scene in a park - or to eqaul things out, a plastic secular Santa character must appear along side the plastic baby Jesus in the manager!

I fully believe that if a Muslim wants passages from the Koran - or a crescent moon symbol - in an American public park or on an American court room wall, not only will it happen with nary a hitch, but the main stream media will rush to give such ideas and practices good publicity and admonish the rest of us not to be judgmental. And the ACLU will remain silent. I can see this happening.

We're already seen liberals speak out against racial profiling at air ports and subway terminals; we can't single out and stop 'swarthy'-looking fellows who are in their 20s and 30s and search their knap sacks, they say, but we better stop the 85 year old grandma on her way to her Lutheran church and search her.

~~ Point 5. Evidence of media's bent toward the left? Their support of pop singer Madonna !!

For the most part, liberalism is fond of moral relativism / situational ethics. No such thing as "black and white" morality for progressives. It's wrong to be judgmental, they believe.

Those on the left typically embrace and defend life styles and practices such as homosexuality, transgenderism, abortion on demand, casual sex, pornography. Teach certain classes of the American public that they are victims of white males and of White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian oppression.

Pornography is actually "liberating" and is a form of feminism, many of them think. Let's be sure to include Darwinism in the public schools (don't show any respect for or give equal time to Creationism), and, in health class, teach the public school kids how to use condomns (don't even mention they can wait until they get married to have sex.) Hand out books in public schools which promote or defend homosexuality, such as "Heather Has Two Mommies."

It should not come as a shock, therefore, that much of the American media loves pop singer Madonna. Madonna represents many things that the main stream media adore.

The main stream media by and large do not, nor have they, objected to Madonna's lewd public and private actions, including her disrespectful comments about Christianity or disrespectful use of or comments about Christian symbols (e.g., crucifixes) in her products and interviews.

Nor do the main stream media (unlike citizens of middle America, i.e., your average Church- going Joe) seem concerned that Madonna was, at times, highly aggressive in promoting homosexuality (but which I believe was actually just an attention-seeking device on her part).

If the main stream media in the United States were conservative, one would expect to find many more articles speaking out against Madonna, but alas, one rarely finds them.

Notice that when Madonna plays her game of "Look at me, I have changed, I'm no longer a bimbo," the only publications which encourage this mindset and speak favorably of it are conservative in nature, such as "Life site news.com."

The main stream media, on the other hand, tend to hold an attitude of "just the facts, ma'am," with the exception of the main stream reporters who bemoan the fact that Madonna has "calmed down" and is no longer the tarty little slut she once was. They miss the "old" Madonna who used to piss off and offend those who hold conservative and traditional values.

If the U.S.A. had a conservative media in place, Madonna never would have become as successful as she did. Instead, she was aided and abetted by accomodating journalists who applaud her trashy, sleazy videos and concerts, and who continue to hold her up as a "role model." Madonna's success never would have happened if the majority of our media were conservative.
~~~~~
Additional information:

USATODAY.com - Journalists, public on different pages

Excerpt from USA Today:
  • The study also highlights a social divide: On same-sex marriages, 59% of journalists favor them, compared with 28% for the public; 17%% of journalists said they attend religious services weekly, compared with 40% for the public. And 9% of journalists consider themselves conservative, compared with 38% of the public.
Conservatives (people with traditional ethics) are usually against homosexual marriage and abortion. It figures that journalists, most of whom are Dem/liberal, support those things, that there is a gap there.

Survey in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press

Excerpt from information about survey:
  • Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people ­ especially national journalists ­ are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.

    .... The 1995 survey of journalists found particularly sharp differences between journalists and the public when it came to attitudes toward morality and homosexuality. A solid majority of Americans consistently have expressed the opinion that it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person.

    Nearly six-in-ten (58%) expressed that view in a 2002 Pew Research Center survey, while 40% said that belief in God is not a prerequisite for morality. Journalists, regardless of their organization and position, take a decidedly different view. Fully 91% of those who work at national news organizations say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral; 78% of local journalists agree.

    As was the case in 1995, journalists are much more accepting of homosexuality than is the general public.
Side note:

According to liberal laypersons on the web, Republicans "hate their children."

-----------------------------
Edited a billion times to fix spelling errors and the like. I'll continue to edit as I find new mistakes, or to maybe add new ideas
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
In the same way that some conservatives do not believe that FOX news is conservative enough (even though FOX news is "conservative friendly"), one can find liberals who think that the main stream media (which is liberal) is not being "liberal enough."

Well, this one sentence sums up why I fail to see the msm as this eeeeevil liberal/Democrat monster. No matter what someone calls themself, people should still get their news from a variety of sources if they want to have the most accurate information. Do you disagree with that part?
As for the bit about the msm no longer covering for politicians and
Quote:
 
Skipping forward to the 1990s, we see a media willing to report on Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, complete with sordid details - e.g., of "DNA" left behind on a certain blue dress, mention of cigars, and so forth.

if the media was so "liberal" and "anti-Republican", then why was there so much coverage of Slick Willie's sex life? I admit I didn't watch any of the court proceedings (everyone knows he's a sleaze already), but it has been pointed out that some of this stuff had been over-dramatized. (In other words, it brought more negative attention to Clinton. Why, then, wasn't more of this stuff blocked or ignored?) The bottom line is, I still think one is missing out on the bigger picture if they only see the msm in terms of being ONLY "liberal" or ONLY "conservative". While I do feel it is controlled, at the same time it can be kind of organic, too.
Quote:
 
The media went so far as to publicize the personal problems of George W. Bush's daughters - who I believe were caught drinking under-age, or some such scandal was reported a couple of years ago.

As much as the Bush twins fail to impress me, I'll be the first to admit that they probably have not done anything your average teenybopper has not already done (regarding underage drinking and smoking pot). I've seen plenty of "good, studious" types booze it up at frat parties when I was in college, so I know that having a high GPA or coming from a "respectable" family doesn't mean squat when it comes to partying. (I wasn't like that, but then again I'm weird.)
Quote:
 
Because Bush's political victory can be attributed in large measure to evangelical Christians the last election, and because Bush himself has admitted to being a Christian who sometime prays to his God, some far-left Democrats began making derogatory comments about such Christians, more so than usual.

Yes, I'm well aware of the backlash against Christianity, but it can't be solely attributed to "irrational Bush-hate" because there are plenty of Christians who don't feel Bush speaks for them. Plain and simple.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

I'd like to clarify something, or make sure we're on the same page:

The msm consists of news channels such as ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Those sorts of outlets give more favorable coverage to the left.

Posted Image A liberal agrees with me:
Turn Left: Liberalism on the web - List of Pro- Liberal media, by a Liberal

Notice that the liberal site owner does NOT deny that some sources are more left leaning than others.

As I told you before, The Washington Post, for example, is liberal. Lo and behold this liberal guy lists The Washington Post as a recommened liberal source for his liberal audience. :laugh:

The guy at "Turn Left" lists magazines, web sites, and newspapers on his page, though; I do not see any television news stations listed.

I can tell you if he did list such t.v. stations, he would tell you to stay away from FOX. He would probably have little to no objection to CBS, MSNBC, or CNN. (Ah, okay, that's because this is his "periodicals" section, which is why we don't see televised news mentioned.)

Notice that this same liberal dude has an anti-Rush Limbaugh bumper sticker on his site.

Posted Image I would be interested in seeing your replies to these points :)
  • -How did Rush Limbaugh get to be so hugely successful as he did if the msm was already conservative (or fair to conservatives)?

    -How did Madonna get so much ass-kissing and support from the media if the media is/was conservative?
One Not Fooled said,
Quote:
 
if the media was so "liberal" and "anti-Republican", then why was there so much coverage of Slick Willie's sex life?
Notice that the Clinton-Lewinsky story was leaked and did get publicity. If the media were into these fanciful conspiracy plot cover ups as you seem to think they are, one would not expect to see such stories seeing the light of day.

I don't always understand why the media do what they do.

For example, I think two months plus coverage (or whatever it's been now) of that missing blonde girl (Natalle Holloway) in Aruba has been excessive. I don't know why the media continually report on the Holloway girl, when there's really nothing to report about.

If they're not talking about Natalee, they're dragging Karl Rove through the mud.

As for some guesses concerning the attention paid the Clinton-Lewinksy scandal...

Perhaps the Democratic spin doctors thought that focusing the public's attention on the sex aspect would draw attention away from the Perjury aspect. See the section entitled "It's the Perjury, Stupid" on this page.

Maybe a sex scandal was viewed by Clinton's lawyers and p.r. consultants as being less damaging than perjury.

The Republicans were in control of the Congress during Clinton's stint, so if they got a whiff of Clinton wrong-doing, they weren't going to let it go quietly; I'd suspect that may be part of it.

Also - for the same reason they went nuts over O J Simpson, Scott Peterson, etc. It's sensational and draws ratings.

However, the social commentators (in the msm) and Democratic talking heads on the news shows essentially made it look as though Clinton's sex life was irrelevant to his office - many times I heard from Everyday Joe's and media guys that "Character doesn't matter. As long as Clinton is a good president, I don't care if he has sex with Monica Lewinsky."

The media went after Ken Starr, who was investigating Clinton, so I do see some bias going on. Women who stepped forward and claimed that Clinton harassed them were portrayed as being untruthful, unscrupulous.

Re: Ken Starr:
  • For years, major media had painted Starr as a ruthless Republican partisan, a Christian fanatic consumed with moral outrage against the Clintons. Why, then, would Starr tell an influential Democrat operative that he wanted to socialize with the Clintons?

    ....During the Clinton impeachment, major media portrayed Kenneth Starr as an aggressive prosecutor and a determined Clinton foe. He was neither.
    Source: The Real Ken Starr
Here's another page on the matter:

Ken Starr, Perjury and Sex - Some Thoughts on the Current Clinton Investigation

The media was far kinder and not as harsh with Clinton and/or Clinton's administration as they have been with George W. Bush - see the thread I began in this forum called "Media Roasts Rove but Will Not Fry Bacon" for one example.

This brings me to another point.

While the media was quite unkind to Ronald Reagan (former Republican president) while he was president and while they were harsh with Republican George H. Bush Senior (also a former president - and while he was in office), it is my impression (board members older than I can correct this if need be) that that the media and the Democratic Party have been far, far more unfair and more determined to topple George W. Bush (Junior) than they were Reagan, Bush Senior, [and maybe even Nixon(?)].

Posted ImageI do not recall sensing or seeing the same level of hate that I'm seeing directed at Bush Jr., having been tossed at Bush Sr. or Reagan, and it's damn freaky and damn weird.

Also, I alreadly covered your concern in my first post where I said,
Quote:
 
The days of the media 'covering for' presidents seems to have ended with the office of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy's extra-marital affairs with actresses such as Angie Dickinson and Marilyn Monroe, among others, while known to journalists of the day, were not publicized at the time.

Such matters came to light only years later (but they did come to light and were not kept "hush hush" indefinitely).

Why the initial hush? It could be, perhaps, due to the fact that Kennedy was a Democrat, and journalists tend to be Democrats themselves. (In recent surveys, journalists identify themselves as Democrats; see links to survey at bottom of this post.)

However, I believe the silence on the media's part was also due to the culture of the time period. Even though the 1960s would later see the emergence of hippies and all that it entailed (casual drug use, casual sex, etc.), the whole of American society seems to have been 'straight laced.'

I'm sure the media of the time period would have felt it would have been "undignified" to publicize Kennedy's affairs, and they may have also felt that the general public would have found such coverage distasteful.

Skipping forward to the 1990s, we see a media willing to report on Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, complete with sordid details - e.g., of "DNA" left behind on a certain blue dress, mention of cigars, and so forth.

The 1970s gave us Woodward, Bernstein, "Deep Throat," Nixon and Watergate.

It would appear that as time marched on, then, that the mainstream media was no longer willing to 'protect' an American president's (or simply the office of presidency's) reputation, mistakes, or missteps, whether they be personal or political (and hence public).

One Not Fooled said,
Quote:
 
As much as the Bush twins fail to impress me,
How many negative, anti-Chelsea Clinton stories do you recall while Clinton was in office? I recall about zero.

The media is so rabidly and irrationally anti-Bush (and anti-Republican/conservative), they will even go after his family, and his family (Laura et al) are not politicians.
Quote:
 
Yes, I'm well aware of the backlash against Christianity, but it can't be solely attributed to "irrational Bush-hate" because there are plenty of Christians who don't feel Bush speaks for them. Plain and simple.
Posted Image I didn't say that anti-Christian attitudes are caused by irrational Bush hate. What I was saying is that the two go hand in glove.

Posted Image The main stream media hated conservatives, Republicans, and Christianity long before George W. Bush ever took office.


Re: "Plain and simple" -I wanted to address one other point before I get back to that first one: Bush won in part because "plenty of Christians" voted him in - they got out the vote and went to the polls for him.

I've heard Democrats/liberals theorize and strategize as to how they can win over Christians to get their votes,

(but then five seconds later, one will hear the same group say condescending things about Christians. If the Democrats are serious about wanting to land more Christian votes, they might try the novel approach of ceasing to mock the faith of those they are trying to win over :laugh: )

Many in my family are life long, registered Democrats. One of these family members, an Uncle, told me on a visit last year that as a Christian he could no longer stay in the Democratic party because they are so often against, or at odds with, Christian beliefs. This Uncle became a registered Republican as a result.

The Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left, who espouse and fight for many views and practices that run counter to Christian, biblical teaching and views (e.g. homosexuality and abortion). ~And the main stream media is on their side, giving their views positive spin.

While one may find the occasional conservative (social/moral) Democrat, and ones who identify themselves as being Christian, one will usually find more anti-Christianity coming from the left/Democrats; many of them are secular humanists, atheistic, and agnostic, or are just apatehtic when it comes to religion and spirituality.

Posted Image Skim over almost any liberal/ Democratic online store, and you will usually see, mixed in with the usual anti-Bush / anti - Republican bumper stickers and t-shirts, a bunch of anti-Jesus products, anti-Bible stickers, anti- "religious right," and anti-Christian t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers.

Many on the left will make fun of and insult Bush's Christianity (and just Christianity in general). This had the effect of pissing off conservative Democrats in the last election, many of whom are from the southern USA and who are Christians or are social conservatives.

Posted Image My point is that just as one sees anti-Christian bias in the main stream media, one can expect to, and does in fact, find the anti-Republican / anti- right wing / anti-conservative bias in the media.

Most Christians tend to be conservative and right wing and therefore many of them support the Republican Party and vote for guys like George W. Bush because the Republican Party adheres to values they agree with (e.g., seeking to ban homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, teaching of darwinism in the public class room) more so than the Democratic Party.

I am NOT saying that "Bush hate" causes anti-Christian bias, or vice versa. What I am saying is that where you find one, you will find the other. They often go together, hand in hand. The media hates both conservative spirituality (i.e. traditional Christianity) and conservative politics / conservative politicians.

-------------------------------------
Most media = hate Christians, Christianity.
Most media = hate conservatives, Republicans, conservative morals

Most Christians are or support = right wing causes / conservative morals
George W. Bush = Christian AND right wing / conservative / Republican
-------------------------------------
Posted ImageMajor points summed up:

If the media is going to be hostile or unbalanced regarding the spiritual views held by conservatives (which they are), do you honestly think they are all the sudden going to draw a line and say, "But we won't slander their political views too, we will only pick on their religious views!"

Posted Image It's across the board - the general media hates and is biased against all conservative values, when it comes to morals, economics, religion and politics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
-How did Rush Limbaugh get to be so hugely successful as he did if the msm was already conservative (or fair to conservatives)?

I haven't really followed him that much. My impression of him at the time was that people liked him because they thought he "spoke his mind". I seem to recall his peak of popularity was probably around the early nineties, because there was one girl in my dorm who watched his show religiously.

Quote:
 
-How did Madonna get so much ass-kissing and support from the media if the media is/was conservative?

We all know she bullied and slept her way to the top. But since her star rose in the early eighties, I don't see how this is relevant to Dubya.
Quote:
 
QUOTE 
if the media was so "liberal" and "anti-Republican", then why was there so much coverage of Slick Willie's sex life?

Notice that the Clinton-Lewinsky story was leaked and did get publicity. If the media were into these fanciful conspiracy plot cover ups as you seem to think they are, one would not expect to see such stories seeing the light of day.

I only brought this up because you mentioned Clinton, and if the msm is so irrationally "anti-Republican", then they still should have been able to use their influence to either block or downplay the dirt on Clinton. I'm not saying they could have completely kept it out of print (i.e., no one would ever have even heard of Monica Lewinsky, and anybody who so much as attempted to report anything about it would have been found dead of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, with the death conspicuously ruled a "suicide", LOL) It was a rhetorical question.
Quote:
 
I do not recall sensing or seeing the same level of hate that I'm seeing directed at Bush Jr., having been tossed at Bush Sr. or Reagan, and it's damn freaky and damn weird.

The msm are definitely more open about criticizing politicians these days. Again, that can't all be chalked up to "irrational Bush-hate". Do you remember the rumor that made the rounds a number of years back about all the people Clinton had "killed" since he came into power? Some people found that just as offensive as you do any dirt on Dubya. Okay, so Clinton was a smooth speaker, so people couldn't rag on his stuttering. Someone might very well argue that he got made fun of for his philandering. I don't doubt he slutted around, but a strongly pro-Clinton person might make the argument that some of the allegations were trumped up, or that Clinton was more attacked for infidelities that are committed by both Republican and Democrat politicians alike.
Quote:
 
they were harsh with Republican George H. Bush Senior

All I remember were the usual Presidential caricatures and impersonators (even JFK had Vaughn Meader short piece on Meader and the Kennedys). Dan Quayle seemed to be the butt of most jokes.
Quote:
 
How many negative, anti-Chelsea Clinton stories do you recall while Clinton was in office? I recall about zero.

Admittedly, I think Chelsea was younger than the twins when her father took office, so she couldn't get into as much trouble. But I read the tabloids regularly, and I saw plenty of stories about Chelsea supposedly cracking under pressure. There have been "scoops" on her whenever she was photographed looking like she'd had too much to drink.
Quote:
 
I didn't say that anti-Christian attitudes are caused by irrational Bush hate. What I was saying is that the two go hand in glove.

The main stream media hated conservatives, Republicans, and Christianity long before George W. Bush ever took office.

They may coincide at times, but it's still true that there are plenty of Christians who do not agree/approve of Dubya.
Quote:
 
The Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left, who espouse and fight for many views and practices that run counter to Christian, biblical teaching and views (e.g. homosexuality and abortion). ~And the main stream media is on their side, giving their views positive spin.

"Taken over"? Careful now, you're starting to sound "conspiratorial" like me. :laugh:
Quote:
 
I am NOT saying that "Bush hate" causes anti-Christian bias, or vice versa. What I am saying is that where you find one, you will find the other.

Just a few examples I skimmed over (there are more) to back up what I said about Bush not speaking for all Christians.
Christians For Kerry
Why Evangelical Christians Must Vote Against George W. Bush
Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

P.S. I found a link to a site that contains a number of articles referring to the mainstream media as "conservative":
Media Matters For America

And I noticed this page refers to the msm as conservative (they're listed as the "#2 conservative idiot):
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
And then there's this page:
LIBERAL MEDIA ?
My point? Just as there are people who claim the media is liberal, there are people who say it's conservative. My gut tells me it can be either, or both at any given time.
Edited to add - bumper sticker found at a progressive site:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

I forgot to add these points yesterday:
I just thought of something – yeah, there may not have been much Chelsea-bashing behavior-wise, but remember Clinton’s black-sheep half-brother Roger (was that his name?). He regularly popped up in the tabloids. Funny how I actually remember this stuff when I was even less politically aware back then than I am now, LOL. And you can still find many instances on the web of Hillary being referred to as a “carpet-munching lesbian” or something equivalent.
Also, I’m sure that if Gore had been elected President (actually, he was, but…), I think his girls are about the same age. You can’t expect me to believe they wouldn’t have been under any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

I don't have time to address all your points; maybe later (I've already spent far longer on this than I had intended). For now.
The 1 Not Fooled
Aug 3 2005, 05:51 PM
And that source is from the crack pots at Democratic Underground (DU). I had even mentioned DU to you before in a prior post I did, LOL.

I just glanced at their list and kind of proves my point, not yours!

First off they include something called "Homeland Defense Vehicles" - Homeland Defense Vehicles? You're maintaining that is main stream media? -Are they? What is it even referring to?

Their list ("The Top 10 Conservative Idiots") is simply a rant of the top 10 conservatives - (whether politicans, commentators, or personalities) - who have made them angry this week. Their page is not really arguing that the whole of the main stream media is conservative.

When I say 'Dan Rather and the CBS network,' everyone has heard of both - that is main stream. That is one criteria of "main stream media." Another is that a news body tries to pass itself off as an objective, serious, mature, fair, honest reporting organization.

Do you see them name CBS, The New York Times, the AP, or CNN as part of their "Top 10 Conservative Idiots?" No you don't - because these are liberal news sources, like I've been saying all along, therefore, the crackpots at DU have no reason to complain about those groups.

That list you linked to at DU includes a few people I've never heard of, and I'm sure that most others here have not really heard of, either (therefore they are not "main stream").

This DU list - proving my point again- lists Rush Limbaugh.

They further list some nebulous entity called "corporate media," but they do not define what they mean by "corporate media."

If by "coporate media" they mean the same thing I do by "main stream media," sorry, no, CBS and CNN et. al. have mostly a liberal slant, which is why most conservatives will not watch those channels.

That list at DU also mentions Free Republic, which is a conservative blog - it is NOT an example of main stream media! :roll:
While you may be able to find some Democrats and liberals claiming that the main stream media is conservative, don't forget, there are plenty of honest, old school traditional liberals who admit what I'm saying.

That is, that other than Rush Limbaugh and FOX news, just about everything else has a liberal slant. I gave you a link to at least one such liberal site which admitted to it.

The crack pots on the left (like the ones at DU, the guys you linked to) find it handy to whine that the msm is conservative because they, like you, believe that the media is playing some kind of role in "covering up" some kind of massive conspiracy plots supposedly carried out by George W. Bush.

If I were like the guys at DU and other far left crack pots, 1NF, I'd be sitting here claiming that there was a shady collusion between the main stream media with the politicians to "cover up" for Clinton (who is a Democrat).

If I were like the crack pots at DU, I'd be spouting off conspiracy theories that say the only reason Clinton won the elections against his Republican opposition is due to "rigged voting machines," etc.

You'll notice that I do not stoop to such nuttiness, intellectual laziness, and dishonesty.

Most journalists are liberals, and I believe that their liberal perspective colors their reporting; it's a natural out come of it, or a by-product.

However, I do not believe that liberal journalists sit around in one big group conciously, intentionally, plotting grand conspiracies trying to take down Republicans.

Do you even understand why I mentioned bumper stickers at Democratic online stores in one of my last posts? - I ask because I don't think you understand.

The mainstream media does not like Jesus, Christians, Republicans, the military(*), or George Bush. And it's pretty obvious that's the way it is. Hence, you will find Anti Bush stickers AND Anti- Jesus stickers at liberal Democrat sites - and you do, I gave you links to a few.

The msm, like their political counterparts, are rabidly pro-big government, big taxes, welfare, medicare, feminism, abortion, homosexuality. They don't like or respect the American military(*) and despise tax dollars going to national defense. More truisms, glaring obvious truisms. :laugh:

The MSM, like the far left in the Democratic Party, do not like or respect Christianity. As for public schooling, they both (main stream media and far left Democratic Party) support tings such as teching kids how to slap on condoms in health courses and the teaching of evolution in science courses.

Rush Limbaugh got famous because he was the ONLY conservative media outlet, until conservative blogs came into being the last couple of years. You can't argue against that, either.

If the msm was a conservative mecca, Rush Limbaugh would not have been a success.

If the MSM was conservative, 1NF, Limbaugh's show would NOT have become as popular as it did. He was the only conservative media outlet around.

Rush was it, he's all conservatives had for a long time, another fact you cannot escape.

A conservative media would NOT have propelled a piece of liberal trash such as Madonna to fame - on the contrary, you would have seen some media condeming her, but such media coverage was few and far between.

Conservatives have old fashioned morals, not trashy or non-existant morals such as liberal Madonna and her liberal media co-horts.

I don't recall bombarding you with tons of links for one side or the other, and now that's pretty much all you are doing, i.e., linking to sites which claim that the media are conservative. :laugh:

Unless your rationale for doing so was to claim that some liberals think that the msm is conservative - if so -

I'm sure even the crackpot weenies at DU probably rip on FOX news and Rush Limbaugh and probably do not run down CBS or CNN much if at all. Which only re-enforces my point: FOX and Rush (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) are the only conservatives in the media, everyone else is liberal.

However, some of those conservative names I just gave (such as Michelle Malkin) are not "main stream," but only get guest appearances on other people's shows every once in a while, and some of them have their own blogs.

Had I been using that approach, I immediately would have given you links to the AIM home page and the Media Research Center home page.

-Both are excellent sites which you need to read anyway, and you need to lurk on a regular basis at Little Green Footballs.com

What I did was point out that liberals run the media, so it's not surprising to see them trashing not only conservative politics, but also conservative religious beliefs - another truism, it simply is. To further support that, I gave you links to Democrat stores which sell Anti-Jesus AND Anti-George Bush t-shirts.

I also cited one study which shows that most journalists these days identify themselves as being liberal/Democrat, and I gave you the link to that study so you could see that I was not making it up or lying about it.

I'm sure you can find tons of sites claiming that the msm is conservative, especially since the Democrats keep losing elections, and they don't understand why, and they go all-out to blame their failures on anyone or anything.

One major reason for the Democratic Party's failure at the polls is that their liberal views are alien, or against, the morals of main stream Americans, most of whom do believe in God, attend church, and are against abortion and homosexuality.

Your Dems either don't understand any of that, or they are in denial that most Americans reject their views, so they are attributing their election failures to the media (among other factors) - which is laughable, because the media is already on their side.

The Democrats have the msm in their back pockets. CBS in particular went all out to trash George W. Bush the last election because they were trying their hardest to get Kerry in office.

Some on the far left also cook up grand conspiracy themes to explain why the Democratic Party keeps losing at the polls, e.g., "The voting machines were rigged!" - Uh yeah, shuuuuure, that must be it!

The far left of the Dem Party simply cannot handle that their views do not mesh with how and what most Americans believe.
Quote:
 
P.S. I found a link to a site that contains a number of articles referring to the mainstream media as "conservative":Media Matters For America
Media Matters is a liberal group, so of course they're going to claim that the msm favors conservatives.

See this page for more on that: MSNBC's Poor Treatment Of Conservatives Quote from that page:
  • The format was dictated by Media Matters, a left-wing media "watchdog" group, whose sole purpose in life seems to be to stifle conservative media voices.

You might find some liberals who whine and gripe that some sources that I have deemed liberal are not liberal enough for their tastes, but that doesn't suddenly make a liberal source conservative; it just means that a leftist source is not far left enough for their preference.

You'll notice that even liberal watch groups such as that usually only attack ONE media outlet, and that is FOX news -

- what have I been saying all along but that FOX and Rush Limbaugh are really the only "conservative" voices out there, everyone else is liberal, liberal, liberal, hence you will not find Media Matters ripping too much, if at all, on CBS, CNN, etc.

As for your Bumper Sticker - which reads "Our media is as liberal or conservative as their corporate parents"

That's not entirely true.

The owner of FOX news is a Democrat (Murdoch) who has poured lots of money into Democrat political races, but FOX news is regarded as being friendly to conservatives.

However, the fact that Murdoch is a Democrat might explain why a book critical of Democrat Hillary Clinton has not received much attention on FOX news channel. (See the thread I did about the Hillary Clinton book for more on that; the article at AIM is entitled "Fox News and the Hillary Book.")

It's simply a "gimme" - like the sky is blue and the grass is green - that the main stream media is liberal.
Quote:
 
He [R. Clinton] regularly popped up in the tabloids.
"Tabloids" are not really the same thing as main stream media, e.g. Newsweek magazine, TIME magazine, New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, etc.

Even so, the trashy/glitzy msm (Hollywood, tabloids) is far more friendly to far left Democrats and far left beliefs than they are to conservatives and Republicans. Hollywood ain't friendly to the Christian world view.

Remember what I said: leftists hate not only conservative politics, but they also hate conservative religious beliefs, and will mock both and treat both unfairly, and I see both all the time. If I didn't, you wouldn't find me b*tching in this forum about the msm being liberal, would you?

If the msm were respectful and fair towards MY political / economic / moral views (which are all conservative), I would not be complaining.

I see prejudice against my conservative views all the frikkin' time in the main stream media, and not just American media, but Britain and Canada also have a problem with it as well.
Quote:
 
I’m sure that if Gore had been elected President (actually, he was, but…), I think his girls are about the same age. You can’t expect me to believe they wouldn’t have been under any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
Dude, all I can deduce is that you are incredibly naive, or you're unwilling to admit what is as plain as the nose on your face, since it throws a wrench into some of your conspiracy theories.

Like I said before, I don't recall seeing any negative stories about Chelsea Clinton in the media while Clinton was in office.

Be sure to see my references to Mary Cheney (Dick Cheney's daughter) and Supreme Court nominee John Roberts far below (I high-lighted their names and a few other pertinent ones in purple).

Does anyone here remember if Newt Gingrich's lesbian sister "came out" in the media herself to discredit her conservative brother, or was that all the doing of the main stream media? (That took place sometime in the 1990s, if I remember right.)

Of course Gore (and possibly his family) would have received some scrutiny if he had won the election, as Democrat Bill Clinton did over the Monica sex scandal. However, Gore and his family would've been treated far kinder than the Cheneys and the Bushes.

Ah, the crack-pot, unsubstantiated "Bush stole the election via rigged voting machines" theory cropping up. Sure. Uh huh. :rolleyes2: :laugh:

You know, I voted for Bush Jr.

Are you going to insist that there was some conspiracy plot, that George W. Bush got one of his 'Secret Goon Squad' (where can I sign up for that, btw? I'd like to join) to sneak into my room at night and implant a computer chip in my head which made me vote for him? - Didn't happen.

You do realize, of course, that coffee mugs which read "Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" are jokes, right (jokes in response to Hillary Clinton's paranoid outbursts about the political opposition to her husband Bill)? :laugh:

The left would love to think that right wingers are forever illegally, sneakily plotting to topple Democrats.

On the contrary, we Republicans are pretty open about trying to topple the Democrats, only we don't rely on deception and trickery to do so (with the excepton of Nixon, but he was wrong to do what he did).

Had Gore won, yes, the media would've treaded a little more lightly on his family.

More examples of Democrats / liberals dragging a man's family into the fray (though I don't necessarily blame the msm for this one; they were simply reporting on what was said):

Supreme Court Justice nominee John Roberts' family (Jane Roberts and two children), who are not famous, have been dragged into things. Roberts is, of course, a conservative.

First, some columnist at the Los Angeles Times ran some kind of rude commentary making fun of Roberts' wife's manner of dress.

The media keep dragging Mrs. Roberts' views on abortion into things - she's not the nominee, her husband is. (Senator Says Pro-Life Work of John Roberts' Wife Not Relevant | It's My Turn, by Deborah T. Bucknam)

Lately, the media was looking into getting the adoption records of Roberts' kids unsealed. This was first mentioned on the Drudge Report, according to many of the other online sources I'm seeing.

-NYT Looking into Adoption Records of Judge Roberts’ Chilren

-GET ROBERTS' KIDS -- NY Times sticks with priorities


Excerpt below from
The American Daily: "THE TIMES SHOULD ADOPT A HIGHER STANDARD "-
Quote:
 
I've never forgiven the liberal bias - sometimes intentional and sometimes not - that is a consistent part of The [New York] Times' allegedly objective reporting. I've never forgiven them for supporting and participating in the witch hunt against George Bush. They hinted at drug abuse, which was never proven.

They hinted at drunken driving, which was never proven. They piled on with gusto during the attempted CBS National Guard frame-up, which was not only never proven but discredited entirely and led to the firing (I'm sorry...coincidental resignation) of Dan Rather.

On the even of the 2004 presidential election The Times reported "breaking" news of deadly weapons being stolen from under the noses of American troops in Iraq, failing to mention in any meaningful way that the story had first been reported at the beginning of the war, and in fact occurred before our troops were in control of the site in question.

The Times forever waxes nostalgic over tolerance, and yet their news articles often imply that residents of America's heartland are akin to backwards religious fanatics who live in trailers and scratch their privates in public.

I could go on, but such would be a study in redundancy. The point, as stated earlier, was that I didn't truly the think the New York Times could get any lower.

I was wrong.

According to a recent report, The New York Times is investigating the adoption records of Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Roberts and his wife adopted their two children - Jack and Josie, age four and five respectively - from Latin America. While there could be nothing more kind, compassionate or loving than adopting a child and raising it as your own, The Times apparently sees such a move as an opportunity to uncover possible skullduggery.

Odd, isn't it, how during the Clinton years all it took was a single sentence from Bill and Hillary to forge a permanent press blockade (both in print and TV) regarding their daughter Chelsea?

Odd, isn't it, how the press can happily inform the world that Angelina Jolie is a saint for adopting an underprivileged kid from a Third World country?

This is in contrast to how, early on in the Bush administration, the impartial media enjoyed speaking of how George and Laura's two daughters were out partying at nightclubs in Austin, Texas. This in contrast to how the dispassionate media couldn't wait to tell us Dick Cheney had a gay daughter.

This is in contrast to how the New York Times itself - immediately after the President introduced John Roberts as nominee in a televised announcement - criticized the clothes that the two tiny children were wearing.

Can you imagine what the fall-out would have been had a member of the press, let alone the New York Times, made unflattering comments about Chelsea Clinton, either before or after the cosmetic enhancements? The reporter or columnist who dared to make such a statement would be fired on the spot!

The Times will no doubt back off on this story, now that their dirty little investigation has been made public.
During the last elections, the liberals made an issue out of the fact that Republican VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter (Mary). They did that because by and large, Republicans are AGAINST lesbianism.

The Democrats were trying to paint Cheney as being a hypocritical homophobe. I think it was Kerry who mentioned Cheney's lesbian daughter during one of his political speeches - or was it running mate Edwards?

Ah, it was Kerry; found this: Kerry Clarifies 'Lesbian' Remark (via FOXNews.com)

I think what all this comes down to is you are unwilling to admit what I'm saying about the media is true, because it makes it that much harder to hold on to some of those conspiracy theories of yours.

The idea that our media would discover - but not report on - a president of ours who was involved in a big scandal is ridiculous, and it flies in the face of reality, as we've already seen cases where our media have exposed politicians for this or that scandal.

If the media had such a story, they would run with it in a heart beat, because it would amount to a ratings landslide for them. And since they are liberal and hate Bush, they would love it all the more if it was Bush who was involved in a scandal.

The media that drooled over Nixon's Water Gate and reported on Clinton's sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky in the White House staying mum over Bush doing something naughty? ~ This is possible only in fantasy land.

----------
(*) Democrats hate the military, they loathe tax dollars going for our military (even the moderates feel this way. They believe our tax dollars should go for helping crack babies, poor people, sick people, and so on).

The military was demonized in the 1970s by liberals and by the main stream media, due to the Vietnam Conflict.

In this day and age, though, the msm has to be more careful, because there would be a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE backlash against them, and heads would roll, if they blantantly trashed our military service personnel as they used to do.

(It's not "politcally correct" to criticize or 'rag on' American military personnel these days. This is perhaps the only p.c. aspect to work in conservative's favor. You will sometimes find far, far left wackos ripping on our military on their blogs, but the msm tries to hide their dislike of our military.)

Hence, we see the occasional "feel good" piece about our service people in msm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tonygirl
Member Avatar


Well I'll chime in with my opinion.
Rush Limbaugh. He also had a TV show for about 7 years, and after every channel in the country moved it to 2 and 3am, it was canceled and liberals crowed that it was unsuccessful Of course no one watched it at that hour.Conservatives couldn't possibly be such a minority because he has the largest audience in the world for a radio show.
I don't understand the libs bashing of Fox News. It's pathological how many liberals yell about FNC. There is such filth on TV, commercials with slogans like "You Bet Your Ass," shows that are nothing but porn, reality shows where long forgotten idiots are coerced into sex, shows and movies that actively make fun of conservatives and Christians, newscasters and journalists using the term "neocon" as if every Republican is a member of the KKK and carries a bible around 24/7. If we are forced to sit through trash, say a commercial on the SCI FI Channel advertising a new cartoon where there's a joke about a very phallic looking vibrator, if anyone complains, it's US who are told to get over it or flip the channel. But Fox News comes along, and instead of putting their money where their leftside of their mouths are, they want it pulled. These are the same people who say conservatives want censorship, they want a whole station yanked. Fox News' shows get higher ratings than those of CNN and MSNBC, by the way.
There is most certainly a liberal bias. One news show was gloating over some elections here in Ohio the other say. A Republican in some district won but not by much. What did the media jump on? "OOOOH, This is SOOOO bad for conservatives!!"
When was the last time a conservative celebrity made talk show rounds? Instead we get Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise freaking out, and Roseanne talking Kabbalah. There are quite a few Bush Bash books out there, and not legitimate books. Look in the humor section and you have the Bush Survival Manual, Bushisms, etc. Try to get a humorous book abou Hillary published and see what happens.
The latest in the Richards Saga, is what the liberal media is jumping on. Did he REALLY give some support to a gay group? So what. This is a blatant attempt by the leftist media to turn conservatives off Roberts, thinking all conservatives are gay-haters. (I'm conservative and I don't give a damm what people do at home. It's only when they start brainwashing kids that we start getting riled. We'll keep out of yourbedroom when you kepp off our kids).
Today there was news that NARAL (abortion rights nazis) had a"racy" party in protest of abstinence. They were PROTESTING the idea that maybe teens should wait to have sex!!! What's wrong with that? The best defense against AIDS is, uh, not having sex! Throw condoms at kids and give them false security that a piece of latex will protect them. The media ran with this today.
More examples of bias. Bush rated by docs Healthiest President In History. Media criticizes THAT! They cry he has cut some phys ed programs. He hasn't done any such thing. Schools make those decisions. Besides, why is it the government's responsibility to see that kids get exercise? The parents should toss the kids off the Playstation and internet. In movies, TV, and music, it is perfectly acceptable to slam and ridicule whites, Christians, and anyone who has some moral dignity. We are slammed by the same people who tell us not to discriminate, and to understand others' differences. The same media that that made stars out of Hilton, Anderson, and anyone else who's claim to fame is a stolen home porno film. You say, "I Support The Troops" or "I Voted For Bush" and you've had it. You must explain yourself. Happens to me all the time. I must explain that I do not drag blacks to their deaths, horsewhip gay men, or burn crosses on lawns. Why should I have to explain this silliness? Because the portrayal of Republicans on TV or in movies is that of an Archie Bunker type. Redneck, stupid, illiterate, hateful. The media always calls elections way to early and they call them for Democrats. They love to find anti-gay crimes, but are ordered, yes I know this is true, ordered NOT to EVER report news of a crime against a child commited by a gay person.
Why would liberals be so hateful of Fox News? Because they have had a monopoly for decades over the news. Look at CBS's scandals, lying about Bush, cooking up phony documents, and no one was fired over it. Liberal bias? Oh yeah. I do believe it.
Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, they are popular because people don't get any real news or analysis anywhere on TV.
The leftist Air America (Dead Air America) has flopped because people don't want to hear doom and gloom all day, plus they can get enough Bush Bashing on regular TV. Now Franken and his radio floparoni are being investigated. One of the big cheeses apparently stole millions from some kid's charity!
Have you seen it reported on any news channel??? There you go.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
And that source is from the crack pots at Democratic Underground (DU). I had even mentioned DU to you before in a prior post I did, LOL.

To be honest, I thought you were referring to Depleted Uranium, so I didn't pick up on the fact that you meant that site.
Quote:
 
I just glanced at their list and kind of proves my point, not yours!

Nope. I said the mainstream media can be either "liberal" or "conservative", or both at any given time. And I said I could just as easily find "liberals" complaining that the msm is too "conservative". That is exactly what I did with the links.
Quote:
 
there are plenty of honest, old school traditional liberals who admit what I'm saying.
and
Quote:
 
I gave you a link to at least one such liberal site which admitted to it.

But according to you, that wouldn't count, because it's coming from a "crackpot", a "liberal". Are you saying they only count when they support your views? That doesn't make sense. :ask:
Quote:
 
If I were like the guys at DU and other far left crack pots, 1NF, I'd be sitting here claiming that there was a shady collusion between the main stream media with the politicians to "cover up" for Clinton (who is a Democrat).

That doesn't make sense either. Are you now saying "leftists" don't favor the "Democrats"? I'm trying to follow your logic here, but I'm having a hard time.
Quote:
 
However, I do not believe that liberal journalists sit around in one big group conciously, intentionally, plotting grand conspiracies trying to take down Republicans.

You've actually argued this point many, many times.
Quote:
 
I don't recall bombarding you with tons of links for one side or the other, and now that's pretty much all you are doing, i.e., linking to sites which claim that the media are conservative.

You post multiple links that you feel prove your points, so how is that different?
Quote:
 
As for your Bumper Sticker - which reads "Our media is as liberal or conservative as their corporate parents"

Actually, it said "Our media are as liberal as their conservative corporate parents". Why did you change it?
Quote:
 
Like I said before, I don't recall seeing any negative stories about Chelsea Clinton in the media while Clinton was in office.

Quote:
 
However, Gore and his family would've been treated far kinder than the Cheneys and the Bushes.

Speculation. Can't prove it.
But you were trying to say that the msm only ragged on everyone in Bush's family and - by clear implication - never anyone in Clinton's family. Just not true.
Quote:
 
During the last elections, the liberals made an issue out of the fact that Republican VP Cheney has a lesbian daughter (Mary). They did that because by and large, Republicans are AGAINST lesbianism.

The Democrats were trying to paint Cheney as being a hypocritical homophobe. I think it was Kerry who mentioned Cheney's lesbian daughter during one of his political speeches - or was it running mate Edwards?

Regardless of who brought it up, you don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-gay marriage when your own daughter is gay? Not that I care about that either way...
Quote:
 
I think what all this comes down to is you are unwilling to admit what I'm saying about the media is true, because it makes it that much harder to hold on to some of those conspiracy theories of yours.
and
Quote:
 
The idea that our media would discover - but not report on - a president of ours who was involved in a big scandal is ridiculous, and it flies in the face of reality, as we've already seen cases where our media have exposed politicians for this or that scandal.
and
Quote:
 
The media that drooled over Nixon's Water Gate and reported on Clinton's sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky in the White House staying mum over Bush doing something naughty? ~ This is possible only in fantasy land.

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz But the msm didn't have too much to say about the truth behind WACO or the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Quote:
 
(It's not "politcally correct" to criticize or 'rag on' American military personnel these days. This is perhaps the only p.c. aspect to work in conservative's favor. You will sometimes find far, far left wackos ripping on our military on their blogs, but the msm tries to hide their dislike of our military.)

This certainly seems to contradict all you say about the eeeeevil liberal msm. If this isn't being done in the msm, why the need for all the "Support Our Troops" magnets on cars and SUV's? You waffle quite a bit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Lady C., I didn’t get a chance to respond to your post yesterday. Sorry.
Quote:
 
journalists using the term “neocon” as if every Republican is a member of the KKK and carries a bible around 24/7

Where did the KKK part come from? I honestly, truly don’t recall seeing any Ku Klux Klan remarks made about Republicans and “neocons”, especially with Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell being on board. Was this on the internet? I think the only instance I’ve seen that comes close is Harry Belafonte referring to Mr. Powell as a “house n*gger”…?
Quote:
 
Because the portrayal of Republicans on TV or in movies is that of an Archie Bunker type.  Redneck, stupid, illiterate, hateful.

Actually, I think some of this stereotype comes from such folks as these who posted at www.yourewelcome.com: (Edited to add: For some reason, these links are not working. I didn't want to clutter up this post by showing the pictures, and it wouldn't let me do so anyway.)
He Loves His Guns
Scary-looking Dude
In The Crosshairs
"Screw Europe"
To me, that’s just as bad as anti-Bush chicks using the irrelevant (and stupid) protest tactic of going topless. I certainly agree with you that there’s a lot of crap on TV! But Bush & co. just don’t speak for all conservatives, because I know and have met such people. (One guy, in fact, is always talking about “glorified violence and sex” in the movies.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Actually, for the moment, I may lay off this topic. I know this will be seen as me conceding defeat, but actually I'm just going to try to give it a rest for a little bit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Posted ImageOne problem with 1NF's view ...

It's clear that the mainstream media hates
-----
1. [Traditional] Christians (conservatives, by and large)
2. Rush Limbaugh (conservative)

-but I'm expected to suspend reality and believe that the same media loves a Christian conservative (George W. Bush).
-----
One Not Fooled said, in regards to how I said I thought the media would have treated Gore if Gore had won:

Speculation. Can't prove it. [Re: media coverage of Al Gore]

I take it that had Gore won, you would've been happy about it (?), but I thought you said you are impartial and don't like "either" side, that you're not fond of either main stream American political party.

- However - You spend an awful lot of time Bush (who is a Republican) -bashing (and defending the Democrats/liberals vis a vis this media topic), so it makes me suspicious.

Anyway, regarding my reply to your question about the media and Al Gore:

I didn't state it as a fact. You asked for my opinion, and I gave you my opinion. You asked me, "Do you really expect me to believe that the media would not have gone after Gore and /or Gore's family?"

My response is based upon precedent. The main stream media is generally tougher on Republicans (whether they be presidents or senators) than they are on Democrats. I've seen it many times over.

BTW - Hillary Clinton is a public figure. She made herself one while she was married to Bill Clinton. She is now a Senator. So citing any negative press of her would not count. The Clintons asked the media to lay off Chelsea, so they did.

The media didn't have a problem going after, reporting negative things on the Bush family (i.e., the ones who weren't in the public eye).

The media however, will pick on Non-public figures in conservative people's families, such as the family of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and Dick Cheney's family. And Ronald Reagan's kids.

Speculation (and very unfounded at that) is insisting that George W. Bush is behind 9/11 but not having any proof, but only having 'gut feelings' and suspicions about it, or "Ooooh, isn't it odd that the terrorists in the planes did "x," "y," or "z" the night before?...' (etc.)

Contrast that with the simple fact that I've watched enough msm over the years and I have seen the liberal bias with my own two eyes, and I can predict how they will cover a story. (Just like I'm usually right in my predictions in how the media will cover some new Madonna record or tour or whatever.)

Nope. I said the mainstream media can be either "liberal" or "conservative", or both at any given time.

They're largely liberal (e.g. ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, NBC, MSNBC). Basically, the only news outlet that liberals whine about is FOX news. They also whine a lot about Rush Limbaugh, but he's not a "news" person, he's a commentator.

But according to you, that wouldn't count, because it's coming from a "crackpot", a "liberal". Are you saying they only count when they support your views? That doesn't make sense.

"Are you saying they only count when they support your views?"

In other words, I'm being told: "You're a hypocrite, Flea."

Obviously, no, that's not what I'm saying.

There are far right kooks and crackpots just as there are far left crack pots out there, and I would not expect you to take any of their material seriously - I wouldn't take crackpot, far right sources seriously, so why do you think I would take far left, crack pot sources seriously?

Some liberals/Democrats are sane. Some are crack pots. ("Old school" Democrats would not recogzine, and do not recognize, what their party is today, because their party has been taken over by the far, far left crack pots.)

I ask this without sarcasm:
I think you said you went to college? Did you ever take any American government /political science courses? Did you pass them?

Do you ever listen to conservative talk radio, such as Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, etc., or do you only frequent far left places, such as "Democrat Underground" and "Daily Kos," especially ones which are keen to insist that Bush is behind 9/11?

The stuff I mention in my posts is Poly Sci 101, about our two party system and the continuum we have on the philosophical scale, going from left to right (liberal to conservative). It's very basic stuff, but I get the feeling that you've never read about it before or something.

Even folks who disagree with me politically will admit to you that I'm honest and fair in how I've described the differing views/groups, the ones who are being honest themselves, and who are not ultra- far right or ultra- far left.

Posted ImageHere's what I really wanted to post:

Goldberg worked as a journalist for over 30 years. He gave an interview to Rather Biased.com; here's an excerpt:

Posted ImageRATHERBIASED.COM: One of the points you talk about in Arrogance is that there's been a deluge of recent books from liberal authors alleging a conservative bias in the news. What's your response to that argument? Do you think they, I mean are they just totally off base?

GOLDBERG: Totally. Totally. It's incredible. I knew it was going to be a matter of time before they stopped playing defense and simply saying, 'Oh there's no liberal bias, there's no liberal bias,' and would take the offense and go on offense. By saying, 'Not only is there no liberal bias, but there's a conservative bias.'

RATHERBIASED.COM: So you're saying it's something like a straw man, maybe?

GOLDBERG: I'm not saying they don't believe it. I'm saying they're delusional if they really do believe it. This is crazy. And this is what they point to to make their case: they say, 'Well, there's a Fox News, there's the Washington Times, there's talk radio, there are all these conservative commentators.'

And I say, you know what, you're absolutely right. In the world of opinion, conservatives do have clout. But, in the world of opinion, liberals have clout, too. What they fail to mention is that the editorial page of almost every big-city newspaper and the op-ed page of almost every big-city paper is controlled by liberals. That's OK.

RATHERBIASED.COM: So you're saying--and you think they're failing to make a distinction between news and opinion?

GOLDBERG: That's--well, point one is that they fail to mention that they also have clout in the world of opinion.

They just think that somehow if there's Fox News, that's a bad thing, but if the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the L.A. Times, the Chicago Tribune all have liberal editorial pages, that's OK. Well, I think they're both OK. And the second point is the point you just made, quite rightly.

They don't make the distinction between news and commentary. What I'm saying is, I don't care if the big-city papers are all liberal, and I don't care if the Washington Times is conservative, or talk radio is conservative.

These are opinion forums; that's fine with me. What bothers me is when news people have this liberal slant, this liberal outlook on life and they don't even get it.

They think that they are the only species on planet Earth that can put their biases aside and simply do their job. They don't think cops can put their biases aside, they don't think judges can, they don't even think juries can. Executives can't.

....RATHERBIASED.COM: Let's talk about bias. It's the title of your first book and the underlying theme of your second one.

GOLDBERG: Let me do it this way. Let me tell you what it's not. It is not a conspiracy. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw do not go into their offices in the morning, summon their top lieutenant, lock the doors, pull the shades, give the secret handshake, and say, 'How are we going to stick it to conservatives?' it does not happen that way.

I was with one news organization for 28 years, and I'm telling you, I've never, ever seen anything like that. What happens is arguably worse, because what I just described is so unacceptable that they'd have to stop.

I mean if somebody said, 'You guys are going into a room here and making up an agenda,' they'd have to stop. But what they do is worse because it's far more subtle. They live in this bubble. They live in Manhattan and Washington, the media elites, overwhelmingly.

RATHERBIASED.COM: So you're saying it's subconscious mostly?

GOLDBERG: Yeah, because it's not a conspiracy. It's that they're unaware of it. Here's what happens: They don't think that their positions on the most controversial issues of our time are liberal positions.

They think they're mainstream positions, because all their friends in the bubble think the same way as they do. They think everything to the right of center is conservative. Correct. And everything to the left of center is moderate and mainstream. That's how crazy it is.

And that's why you can go up to these people and say, 'Well, there's a liberal bias.' And they'll say, 'No there isn't. And anybody who says there is, is a conservative ideologue and that's the only reason they're saying it.'

They don't look at themselves because it's as if you asked a fish what it's like to be wet all day. And the fish says, 'What do you mean wet? What's wet?' The fish has no concept of wet because he has no other frame of reference.

Well, these people live in the same type of environment. And that's why--that's why fixing the problem themselves is so incredibly difficult.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Quote:
 
I take it that had Gore won, you would've been happy about it (?), but I thought you said you are impartial and don't like "either" side, that you're not fond of either main stream American political party.

It's true I don't identify with one party or the other. I had considered voting for Gore, but it had nothing to do with his politics but rather because at the time I liked Tipper Gore for going public about her battle with bipolar depression.
Quote:
 
However, Gore and his family would've been treated far kinder than the Cheneys and the Bushes.

This doesn't come across as mere "opinion".
Quote:
 
BTW - Hillary Clinton is a public figure. She made herself one while she was married to Bill Clinton. She is now a Senator. So citing any negative press of her would not count.

That "does not count"? That's a really lame argument. I expect better from you. :) (Besides, "carpet-munching lesbian" has nothing to do with politics; it's a personal slur. And I don't care about her either way; I'm just pointing that out.)
Quote:
 
("Old school" Democrats would not recogzine, and do not recognize, what their party is today, because their party has been taken over by the far, far left crack pots.)

Again, that sounds almost "conspiratorial" to me. If these guys are so "kooky" and "insane", then just how did they "take over" the commonsense Democrats?
Quote:
 
Did you ever take any American government /political science courses? Did you pass them?
and
Quote:
 
It's very basic stuff, but I get the feeling that you've never read about it before or something.

I studied poly sci in high school and I took one college course in American History. (Oh, and I passed it, too.) We learned about franking privileges and Political Action Committees (PACs), all that fun stuff. I've also learned nice fancy French words like "laissez-faire", "detente", and "coup d'etat", too.
Quote:
 
Even folks who disagree with me politically will admit to you that I'm honest and fair in how I've described the differing views/groups, the ones who are being honest themselves, and who are not ultra- far right or ultra- far left.

Actually, so far - outside of trolls - I'm the only one here who disagrees with you politically that posts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Quote:
 
(Besides, "carpet-munching lesbian" has nothing to do with politics; it's a personal slur. And I don't care about her either way; I'm just pointing that out.)
What? As far as I know, Kerry did not refer to Cheney's daughter as a "carpet munching lesbian," he simply mentioned that she was a lesbian, and it appears as though he did it on purpose to get conservatives to turn against Cheney/Bush. I'd bet on it.

Kerry made a reference to Mary Cheney's sexuality during one of the presidential debates - he was debating George W. Bush on television when he discussed Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. It was brought up in the context of politics, and in a very public venue.

And yes, it matters - and it serves my point. Democrats and the media tend to drag in the family members of their political opponents far more than Republicans do, and it's tacky, whether their "slurs" are from a political or private angle.

In this case, Kerry seems to have been trying to turn conservatives away from Cheney, so it looks as though he was using a comment of "personal nature" for political reasons.

I don't see what difference it makes to my point if the comment is personal or political. Here's the issue: the media (and members of the Democratic Party) pick on family members of conservatives, which is a small indication that the media is mainly hostile towards, or biased against, Republican politicians.
Quote:
 
However, Gore and his family would've been treated far kinder than the Cheneys and the Bushes.

This doesn't come across as mere "opinion".
Do I have to explicitly mark each of my opinions as "opinion?"

You asked me to speculate, so I speculated: 'What would it have been liked had Gore won, please picture the imaginary world where Gore was president, how would the media have reacted?,' you asked me.

- And I answered in the context given, which clearly makes any response I give fall under the umbrellas "speculation" and "opinion."

I've seen how the media usually bestows favored treatment on Democratic political personages, and I have no reason to believe that Gore would have been the exception if he had been President.

The media were already softer on Gore when he was a vice president to Bill Clinton than they were with Republican vice president Dan Quayle (v.p. to Bush senior), for instance.

The media were very harsh of Quayle, even so far as to picking on how he spelled the word "potato," for crying out loud. They gave him hell over the "Murphy Brown" speech and so on.

Gore (when he was vice president) was treated with kid gloves by comparison, so yeah, based upon stuff like that, I think he would've been treated more gingerly if he had been President.

Sure, Gore would have received some criticism from the media at times, but I'm telling you, the media loves a Democrat more than they love a Republican.
Quote:
 
That "does not count"? That's a really lame argument. I expect better from you
I guess I need to stop being so incredibly honest in my posts, because you try to turn around such even-handedness on my part and try to use it against me.

There's nothing lame about it.

I can't believe you're not getting this:

Hillary Clinton placed herself in the public eye regarding political matters while Bill Clinton was in office. Hillary went around the country and on t.v. talk shows advocating her plan for American health care refrom.

Therefore it was not unreasonable for the media, or for conservative commentators, to criticize her ideas.

During Bill's stint in office, if Hillary had just stuck to the 'usual' First Lady public appearances (appearing at charity functions, handing out cookies to poor kids, and the like), the media, in my view, would have been out of bounds to 'pick on her.'

However, Hillary Clinton made it a point to stick herself out there in t.v. appearances arguing for her political views, political policies, and she went on political - type tours.

(The main stream media likes Hillary, so they're not going to be too critical of her anyway. It's probably going to be worse if she runs for President in 2008.)

The Bush daughters (and Supreme Court nominee John Robert's wife) are not politicians, nor do they go about giving political speeches pushing for the nation to adopt some political program or another, as Hillary did with health care in the 1990s.

Hillary Clinton is now fully in the public eye, since she is a Senator.

Are the Bush daughters Senators? No, they're not. Is Jane Roberts giving public and politically tinged speeches, going on the "Today Show" or "20/20" to push her or her husband's political agenda? No, she's not.

Nor would it be appropriate for the media to go after Chelsea Clinton, since she is a "private citizen," in the sense that she is simply a college girl (or has she already graduated, I don't know).

If Chelsea ever runs for public office, though, it wouldn't bother me if the media were to criticize her.

To me, this is a tangent anyway. The fact that the msm goes after family members of Republicans/conservatives more so and more viciously than those of Democrats was a small, supporting argument of mine, it was not meant to be a main argument. It was just another small piece of evidence.
Quote:
 
Actually, so far - outside of trolls - I'm the only one here who disagrees with you politically that posts.
I was speaking in general terms. If someone else who did not ordinarily visit this board were to drop in and look at how I've characterized each political party (how they stand on what issues), they wouldn't disagree with it.

You act kind of like what I've been saying is 'out of this world,' or as though you've never heard of it before, which is why I asked if you took any poly sci courses. I feel as though I have had to re-invent the wheel when posting to you about some of these subjects.
Quote:
 
This certainly seems to contradict all you say about the eeeeevil liberal msm. If this isn't being done in the msm, why the need for all the "Support Our Troops" magnets on cars and SUV's? You waffle quite a bit.
I don't quite get what you're saying about the 'support the troops' bumper stickers, or how it is that I'm waffling on this.

If anything, I'm being very fair and even handed, and you're once again trying to use it against me, in some fashion.

I think the general population supports our military, many of them have family who serve, after all, so no, it's not going to be too unusual to see "I support the troops" stickers on their bumpers.

As for the rest of it...

Contradicting myself? Not at all.

Democrats by and large do not support our military (most Democrats do not like our tax dollars going to defense), neither does the media - look at the Vietnam Conflict.

Those on the left (and even many moderate Democrats) do not want tax money going to our military, and many of them (the far left, at least) view the United States as being a hopelessly corrupt, imperialistic nation.

They tend to be very paranoid of the government's use of the military, especially if it's under a Republican administration (and in this case, a Republican controlled congress).

It seems to be always assumed by the far left, (and to an extent, our main stream media), that any time our military goes out to some hot spot in the world, it's for shady or unjustified reasons.

Getting back to the vitriol unleashed against our military during the era of the Vietnam conflict...

There's been a backlash by the public to such anti-military sentiments in the media, so now- a- days, the media has to tread oh- so- lightly.

The media will hammer Bush and say they don't like the Iraq war, but I think they've figured out the moment they start spewing anti-military propaganda or blatantly calling our military service men and women "baby killers," that their t.v. stations will probably be burned down or pelted with rotten eggs for it.

So the media have had to tone down their "we hate the miltary" rhetoric. :laugh:

The media is not pro-military, I think they're against it, but they can't be quite as "up front" about it in their coverage in 2005 as they used to be, so no, I'm not "waffling." I'm explaining that the media is still anti-military, only they have to try and hide it these days, not be so obvious about it.
Quote:
 
Regardless of who brought it up, you don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-gay marriage when your own daughter is gay?
No, I do not (this may be a topic better suited to its own thread, but here goes anyway).

I myself am anti- homosexuality, and I am against homosexual marriage (that is, in principle, I don't know about legislation / laws, I'm undecided), but that doesn't mean I have to hate homosexuals themselves.

If I had a kid who later confessed to being homosexual, I would still be opposed to homosexuality / homosexual marriage, but I would not hate my kid or disown him or her because of it.

I dislike Madonna, but I still listen to some of her old pop songs; I can separate her disco songs from her and her views. Same thing.
Quote:
 
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz But the msm didn't have too much to say about the truth behind WACO or the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Why the Zzzzzz's? I don't think what I'm saying is that boring. :laugh:

All we had was wall- to- wall Waco/Branch Davidian coverage when that happened. It was almost as bad as the O. J. Simpson coverage.

I guess you're just theorizing that there were big conspiracies behind Waco and Timothy Mc Veigh/OK City that the media did not report on. (Which is absurd; the media loves high ratings, and they'd be the first to run with any so-called underhanded goings-on, because it would be sure to grab viewers. Lord knows conspiracy theories have captivated your imagination.)

Posted Image Even if there were conspiracies behind, say, the Oklahoma City bombing, how would it follow that all (or many) events have some kind of big conspiracy behind them?

When Buddy, President Clinton's dog, was hit and killed by a car, would you attribute that incident to a conspiracy? Was there something "more" about that poor puppy's death that we don't know about, but you do, you know some hidden truth (cue X-Files theme song) that the rest of us just don't see?

I guess Gulf War 1, WW1, WW2, the American Civil War, American Revolution, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, etc. all had conspiracies behind them. So too the moon landing, JFK's death, Area 51 and aliens, etc.

The attack in Oklahoma City and the ATF raid in Waco happened under Clinton's administration, so please, let's not ascribe those incidents to a 'Bush-created Conspiracy' :laugh:

The way I see it, it throws a wrench into your view, that is, that the MSM (main stream media) doesn't cover up for Republican politicians (as my Nixon / Water Gate example showed), since it interferes with your beloved Bush conspiracy theories. :)
Quote:
 
Again, that sounds almost "conspiratorial" to me. If these guys are so "kooky" and "insane", then just how did they "take over" the commonsense Democrats?
It doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me.

Also, I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories, so why would I be using one?

Unlike you, I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories or use them to understand phenomenon. Why would you assume that a shift in the Democratic Party was the result of a conspiracy theory? I certainly do not believe that it's due to any conspiracies.

If you'd like to find out how or why the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the far left nut- cases, please get a copy of Rush Limbaugh's book See, I Told You So, published in 1993 by Pocket Books. I'm sure you could get a copy from a public library.

Limbaugh explains in a very short, straight-forward manner how the shift took place, and absolutely no conspiracies are used in the explanation. See the chapter entitled "New Democrats: Yeah, Yeah;" in my particular copy of this book, the explanation of the paradigm shift in the Democratic Party starts towards the bottom of page 37.

Actually, things have shifted yet again, IMO. I think today's far left Democrats are even more nutty and more kooky than their late 1960s/early 1970s counter parts. I saw the change happen before my eyes, and it had nothing to do with any conspiracy theories. Guys such as Michael Moore and Move On.org came to the fore-front of the left.

I think political parties are a lot like clothing styles - they naturally change over time. In the 1950s, it was poodle skirts, peddle pushers, and women still wore white gloves; in the 1970s, we had polyester pant suits, bell bottom jeans, the afro hair style; in the 1980s, we had leggings, pastel colors, jelly bracelets. Doesn't have anything to do with conspiracies.

Though I suppose an argument can be made that organizations such as the leftist "Move On.org" is trying very hard to take over the Democratic Party, but to me, that's pretty out in the open and is not a conspiracy per se.
--------------------
The American main stream media do not like conservative morals, conservative religion, or conservative economics, and it shows in their coverage of those issues, and they're not going to suddenly declare conservative politics 'off limits.'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

Part One of my response -
Quote:
 
As far as I know, Kerry did not refer to Cheney's daughter as a "carpet munching lesbian,"

OK, well that's been said about Hillary. If Kerry had added the crude description to his comments, I might be able to see your point. And it does make a difference if it's "personal", because you say all criticisms of Bush are purely personal and not politically related. I don't give a crap about Clinton either way; I'm just pointing this out.
Quote:
 
The media were already softer on Gore when he was a vice president to Bill Clinton than they were with Republican vice president Dan Quayle (v.p. to Bush senior), for instance.

There was enough titillating stuff about Slick Willie I don't think anybody really cared about dish on Gore, LOL. :laugh: Actually, based on flack he probably got when his wife started the PMRC, I think Gore knew better than to do something risky like criticize a popular TV show.
As for the whole Hillary Clinton thing, you ignored my point about his half-brother, who as far as I remember, wasn't a Senator or anything. He was sure seen as a joke.
Quote:
 
You act kind of like what I've been saying is 'out of this world,' or as though you've never heard of it before, which is why I asked if you took any poly sci courses. I feel as though I have had to re-invent the wheel when posting to you about some of these subjects.

This is getting awfully close to ad hominem, but I'll let this slide, too.
Quote:
 
Democrats by and large do not support our military (most Democrats do not like our tax dollars going to defense), neither does the media - look at the Vietnam Conflict.

Uh, yeah, and things really got going in Vietnam (which was a war, not a "conflict" or a "police action") under Lyndon Johnson. How would this be a "pro-Republican" point? :ask:
Quote:
 
QUOTE 
Regardless of who brought it up, you don't think it's hypocritical to be anti-gay marriage when your own daughter is gay?

You're talking about yourself, which is all fine and dandy, but what if you were a politician pushing legislation that could be considered "anti-homosexual"? Just another rhetorical question.
Quote:
 
I guess you're just theorizing that there were big conspiracies behind Waco and Timothy Mc Veigh/OK City that the media did not report on.

And I guess you're just theorizing that it's one big coincidence that early reports regarding OK City bombing mentioning there being more than one bomb (albeit some unexploded), but that you never see this on the msm. I suppose you think Ben Partin is just some kind of "liberal crackpot", too?
Quote:
 
When Buddy, President Clinton's dog, was hit and killed by a car, would you attribute that incident to a conspiracy?

<sarcasm tag>Why, of course. It was Rush Limbaugh, ordered by George Bush Sr.<sarcasm>
Quote:
 
The attack in Oklahoma City and the ATF raid in Waco happened under Clinton's administration, so please, let's not ascribe those incidents to a 'Bush-created Conspiracy'

The way I see it, it throws a wrench into your view, that is, that the MSM (main stream media) doesn't cover up for Republican politicians (as my Nixon / Water Gate example showed), since it interferes with your beloved Bush conspiracy theories.

Well, Duh. I blamed Clinton's administration. Please, by all means show me where I said "Dubya orchestrated Waco". You are the one who constantly and consistently thinks I find Dubya the magical mastermind behind everything. In fact, you are constantly (severely) weakening your credibility by doing so. You speak of being “fair” and "honest". You’re honest, and believe what you say; of that I have no doubts whatsoever. But how can you claim to be fair when you constantly make assumptions about what I believe? You keep acting as if I see Dubya and his “goon squad” (as you call it) responsible for everything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
if the "liberal media" was so liberal.... they wouldn't be scared to ask President Bush the hard questions on camera, which never seems to happen. Forget the fact that every press conference and TV appearance he has are "scripted", and if the answer isn't on his note cards, he ditches the question. I have yet to see ONE liberal media reporter stand up to any president lately and demand answers to the questions we all want to know.

MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

maddyhater
Dec 22 2005, 07:30 PM
if the "liberal media" was so liberal.... they wouldn't be scared to ask President Bush the hard questions on camera, which never seems to happen.  Forget the fact that every press conference and TV appearance he has are "scripted", and if the answer isn't on his note cards, he ditches the question.
The liberals hammer Scott McClellan whenever he gives a press statement on behalf of the President. I recall seeing one press conference in particular where one guy was being a total $@##@! to McClellan.

The media would not let up or shut up over that lunatic Cindy Sheehan, so Bush came out and issued statements about that sometime in Aug. 2005.

Recently, Bush has been responding to his critics regarding Iraq.

So please, don't make it out as though the man (or his administration or other Republicans) never, ever justifies his policies, defends them, responds to critics, etc.

I can tell you right now even if W. did give a wide open, free range interview pass to a liberal reporter, you still wouldn't be happy with his views, reasons, and answers, so what's the point?

- Look up the phrase BDS ("Bush Derangement Syndrome") for more on that.
Quote:
 
they wouldn't be scared to ask President Bush the hard questions on camera, which never seems to happen
You mean you won't be satisfied until they ask Dubya (President Bush) loaded questions such as, "How often do you beat your wife?," or "Why did you go to Iraq for oil and profit?"

- very "Michael Moore-ish" type interview questions, right?
Quote:
 
if the "liberal media" was so liberal.... they wouldn't be scared to ask President Bush the hard questions on camera, which never seems to happen.
Okay, liberals complain that Bush is "in a bubble" and never gives interviews or grants access to the media (wasn't it "Newsweek" magazine which recently placed this as their cover story, or some such well-known magazine - it came complete with a goofy, cartoony-like image of Bush actually trapped within a bubble?). . .

Edit: Yes, it's "Newsweek." I found an article about it:
Newsweek's Bush-in-the-Bubble cover

Now you want to argue he's not in a bubble, he grants access, but doesn't answer all their questions (or doesn't answer them to your satisfaction)?

The mainstream media despises George W. Bush. Just remember Dan Rather / CBS / TANG fiasco.

The most damaging argument I have against people such as yourself and 1NF who deny that there is a strong, consistent liberal bias in the main stream media is the rise and immense popularity with American conservatives of alternative media (e.g., blogs and talk radio, such as Limbaugh's radio show).

If the conservative view point was already fairly and evenly represented on mainstream t.v. news outlets, Rush Limbaugh would not have become the huge success he did with conservatives.
Quote:
 
I have yet to see ONE liberal media reporter stand up to any president lately and demand answers to the questions we all want to know.
We have only "one president lately," and that's W. Bush.

With Bill Clinton, granted, it was a little more confusing, because we had another President in the Oval Office while he was in office - Hillary :laugh:

Anyway, I have split your post off from the thread ("USA's Mainstream Media = Liberal - examples, articles, etc") because it was not a thread meant for arguing. I was using that thread mainly to cite news studies and reports about media bias.

One Not Fooled and I already had a media bias thread going where we were arguing back and forth. If I can find that thread, I'll place your post as well as this one in that thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

flea dip
Aug 4 2005, 05:28 PM
That list at DU also mentions Free Republic, which is a conservative blog - it is NOT an example of main stream media! :roll:

Also...

That would be like me stating that liberal blogs, forums, or sites such as DU or Daily Koss or HUFF PO are "main stream media," but I don't include them.

To differentiate between the old guard main stream media (that is, well known, old, dinosaur television news stations such as CBS, CNN, NBC, etc, and liberal news papers such as The New York Times), some people (including professional journalists) have taken to referring to blogs and other web outlets as "the new media."

People on both sides, liberals and conservatives, agree that liberals have a stronger web presence with "new media" than conservatives do.

Liberals have more, and bigger, blogs/forums than conservatives do.

The only area where conservatives have beaten liberals (or have a stronger presence than liberals) in media:

-talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, etc)

-FOX cable channel
(which has a lot of conservative news commentators [Beck, Hannity], but they frequently have liberals on as guests to spout of the latest ridiculous liberal positions or to defend Obama)

The liberals control the majority of print newspapers and TV channels/TV news.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

maddyhater
Dec 22 2005, 07:30 PM
if the "liberal media" was so liberal.... they wouldn't be scared to ask President Bush the hard questions on camera, which never seems to happen.
MH

Oh my goodness, this is comedy gold, especially in light of Obama, thanks maddy hater!

The liberal media, up until the recent Gulf Oil Spill, did nothing but toss Obama easy, soft ball questions during his campaign and into the first year of his term in office.

maddyhater
 
Forget the fact that every press conference and TV appearance he [Bush] has are "scripted", and if the answer isn't on his note cards, he ditches the question.  I have yet to see ONE liberal media reporter stand up to any president lately and demand answers to the questions we all want to know.
You've never heard of Helen Thomas, who needled Bush (or his media spokesmen) during press conferences?

You so need to come back to the board to defend that nonsense in light of Obama, who ALWAYS uses a tele-prompter!

Obama's constant use of a tele-prompter is so well-known, someone even made up a joke blog about it "The TOTUS blog" (the Tele-Prompter of the United States).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Global Outlook · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Disclaimer: The contents of the posts contained herein are the sole property of their respective users and do not necessarily reflect the forum's views as a whole.
All content Copyright © 2005-2018 The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.