That is actually an excellent point. I would like to see the criteria for this study to see if stories like that got filtered out. One thing to consider though is not the fact that they do or do not report on something, but how much in general they focus on something. A perfect example is the Nick Peterson case. It gets the top story on CNN all day every day. Maybe they considered that possibility as well. I don’t know though, but you do bring up a valid point.
I would say that GW enjoyed a love affair with the press for several years, but - other than Fox - it seems to be shifting.
BTW, although I don’t consider this to be a good move, right wing pundits Tucker Carlson on CNN and fellow conservative Gigot will have their own shows on NPR, and Bill Moyers is on his way out. The cancer started in Fox, but now it is spreading. Maybe now some of the guys in here will have a reason to switch the radio over from the AM dial where they get their opinions fed to them every day, and actually tune into NPR! Will wonders never cease!
‘The cancer started in Fox, but now it is spreading. Maybe now some of the guys in here will have a reason to switch the radio over from the AM dial where they get their opinions fed to them every day, and actually tune into NPR! Will wonders never cease!’
Cancer? A different point of view is a cancer? NPR would do well to add a Tucker Carlson to its programming, especially since it recieves public funding. Real diversity is diversity of thought.
The classic hippie credo of the 60s - if everyone thinks the same, no one is thinking - has been abandoned by the Left. Ironic.
Your answer, btw, implies a liberal media bias - a healthy media institution is liberal until it is infected with a conservative point of view.
All things aside, I get my media info from a variety of sources, including NPR, which I like quite a bit.
–>So, are all Dems hypocrites? Or are all hypocrites Dems? Or, are some Dems hypocrites? I think this is what you meant. In which case, it is evidently necessary for me to point out to you, JeffR, that any group of people will contain many possible sub-traits. Newsflash: some Republicans are hypocrites too. Do you know of a gentleman named Rush? How about Newt? Bob Barr comes to mind…
Thunderbolt - fair enough assessment. I haven’t the time to find the links, but the studying org. was mentioned in my original post. I’m sorry, I mean not to skirt the issue…perhaps you’re right, but perhaps negative coverage is of the sort where the media depicts, say, Dean as a nut case for getting excited while rallying supporters, then depicts him as nothing but a nutcase, over and over and over until people think, well, he must be a nutcase!..who knows, though. Great questions.
You make a good point about the Dean coverage, and I think the sorry state of affairs in journalism doesn’t have a lot to do with politics, imo - it has to do with trying to create stories out if material that aren’t that profound and packaging it as world-shaking information: hype. That’s just bad journalism no matter what the political stripe.
The ‘Screaming Dean’ incident was nothing. Although I find it quite ironic that Democrats shied away from Dean because of his volatility and yet are disappointed by Kerry’s dullness.
Thunderbolt said
“At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.”
“I don’t buy any kind of conspiracy thing, but having been a journalism major in college I am not surprised that the majority of national journalists are liberal.”
Dude, you should have tried to take a math class. According to your numbers, the majority of the media are NOT liberal, they are moderate.
But in today’s Bizarro World where we are brow-beaten by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, true moderates are called “Liberals” and real Liberals are called socialists and communists.
Actually, considering that I believe that NPR and PBS are the only stations that are truly objective and have not comprimised journalistic integrity, injecting a truly partisan pundit doesn’t make them more any more so. In fact, it taints what was once great news source.
[quote]The ‘Screaming Dean’ incident was nothing. Although I find it quite ironic that Democrats shied away from Dean because of his volatility and yet are disappointed by Kerry’s dullness.
[/quote]
I admit that Kerry doesn’t excite me. I would have much prefered Clark. Even better would have been to have McCain, who had the election stolen from him by Rove’s sleazy pushpolls in the last election. No matter… I would vote for Bugs Bunny over Bush if that was my only other option.
I watched Michael Moore’s TV series in the 90’s and I think I would characterize him as being CONCERNED about America, not “anti-American”.
These were the kinds of issues that Michael Moore addressed in his shows and movies:
(1) America has a high homicide rate. This makes him sad and he wonders why it is the case and what can be done about it.
(2) The plight of the American worker. GM relocated its factories from Michigan to Mexico while posting a nice profit, etc. Is that a nice thing to do?
(3) Racism. Did you know that SLAVERY was abolished in Mississippi in 1995 – NINETEEN NINETY FIVE?
(4) Women’s rights. He’s for those.
(5) The environment. He wants to preserve this.
(6) Massive Corporate Corruption. Like Enron. It’s bad.
(7) Weird exploitation. Bronco salesmen were cashing in on the OJ Simpson trial. What does that say.
Are Michael Moore’s beliefs in conflict with the United States constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the various Amendments that define America?
I watched an iterview with moore on charlie rose a few weeks ago. Moore left me with the impression that he is way more commited to his ideology than any sense of reality. Moore was adamant that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. I would like to see him try and convince some of my Iraqi freinds that removing sadam was a bad thing. I personally feel that it is unfair to make definitive conclusions on the success or failure of the ivasion of Iraq less than a year after the fall of Bagdad. We are going to have to be patient and see how this thing unfolds over time. I think we are going to have to wait ten to twenty years or more to make definitive conclusions not a few months. Last year construction workers in China acidentally dug into a cache of mustard gas the Japanese imperial army buried over 60 years ago. I think the same thing is liable to happen in Iraq. Moore was adamant that a few months is plenty of time to find something that is hidden in a country that is as big as Texas. I disagree with that. I think that moore is motivated by predjudice and a hatred of Bush more than anything else. I think that any family member of obl that was in the us when 9-11 went down was someone he did’nt care about and he possibly even wanted to see bad things happen to them.
When I watch a movie that is done as a documentary I would like to think that everything isnt just twisted to portray things how the director sees them. Opinions are like assholes and this is one asshole’s opinion I would rather not waste my time on. If you share his opinions of things go watch the movie and enjoy and smile and say to yourself. “Yea thats right!” Though don’t do it because its true or not true because you cant at all count on that because of the precedent already set by this slug. Do it because he shares your opinion and that makes you feel good.
That fat tub of goo has already been proven to be a liar; that’s a fact. If anybody wants to see his propaganda movie -go in knowing that’s all it is. He edits, cuts, etc. He does it very well to slant his bias lying hate spew to people that don’t know any better.
Just one example:
I’ve seen many others to already know this piece of fat crap movie is full of it!
Kevin,
Directors don’t need to be good to show you “caught on tape” moments of our fearless leaders, like the one showing how seriously Bush takes this war by mocking it (the very last scene in the preview, if you haven’t watched it yet). I don’t care HOW you slice it, that shows his attitude about sending our soldiers to die.
Bush, with a serious look on his face, says, “I call upon all nations, to do what they can to stop these terrorist killers! Thank you. Now watch this drive.” He steps back and tees off.
What does that make you think? I guess this could just be a matter of my interpretation, but I find it insulting.
Curious about other points of view from our resident neocon sympathizers who have watched this preview.
RIGHT!! Its all a lie. Prescott Bush didn’t either directly or indirectly provide Nazi Germany with 50% of its wartime resources. They didn’t get shut down by the government for assisting the enemy. Bush Sr. has no relationship with the Saudi government and Saddam wasn’t a business partner.
I Could care less about this topic…every one is going to have diffirent politcal views…and i have seen all of his movies and a lot of stuff he says i agree with some stuff i do not…but from reading this thread what upsets me is all the fat ass remarks…“fat slob” comments ect…if you dont agree with the guys politics approach it from that angle…dont throw insults around about his weight…thats childish…my humbel opinion…talk about what the man belives dont go after his weight…bm
Roy Batty - Seeing what you mentioned would not set well with me either. I am not saying Bush is doing a stellar job.
The point I am trying to make is Moore is like the boy who cried wolf. He has already proven himself. So lets say that I am not someone who supports his views but I try to keep an open mind and watch it. What would be the point when I can not trust that a sentence or paragraph I am hearing has parts spliced in from another speech etc. The same goes for someone who supports him. You do want the truth even if you support him I would think. Someone could always speculate that a video has been heavily edited but with him you know that it’s a common practice.
He is doing a disservice to anyone who watches his films be it non supporters or supporters.
