Seems to me that Fox encourages it’s news people to offer opinions. That’s why there’s usually 2 or more…and one is left, one right.
So yes, there will be more overt bias.
But it’s a lot more balanced than the places that just crank out the hard left talking points.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Nothing I’ve written can be reasonably read to mean that. Look up your logical fallacies and see if you can identify which one, recently popularized by Shugs, it would be for you to characterize my position in that manner:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
funny because A. The study finds no media bias except fox.(that’s my logic) and B. you continue to make this mistake:
post hoc ergo propter hoc!
because a reporter is liberal doesn’t mean there is a liberal bias…as this study shows!
The liberal bias is A FRAME conservatives use…it’s like “working the refs” and it works relatively well judging by the neutrality of the coverage. Remember that coverage DOES NOT have to be 1:1 positive:negative to be unbiased, in fact that would most likely lead one to assume somekind of bias, perhaps a bias to nauseating neutrality.
[/quote]
That’s not even what post hoc ergo propter hoc means.
I think this conversation has outlasted it’s usefulness for the time being.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Is that the same FRAME that the left uses to excuse away losing two presidential elections in the last 4 1/2 years? And the same FRAME that hides the fact that they’ve lost senate seats in at least 3 consecutive elections?
Just wondering.
[/quote]
No. That’s not a frame that’s just what happened.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s not even what post hoc ergo propter hoc means.
I think this conversation has outlasted it’s usefulness for the time being.[/quote]
Definition:
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.
Examples:
(i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon
after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased
immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.
(ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold
disappeared.
(iii) Most journalists are liberal, the media has a liberal bias, therefore a liberal press corps creates a liberal media bias.
see also this:
argumentum ad populum
Not really to B.B. , but others who argue this stupid frame.
And again I don’t know why I’m bothering but some might find this interesting, the media survey from last election by the same group, that finds once again NO
LIBERAL BIAS!
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/pdf/lastlap.pdf
what is incredible to note is the lack of neutrality just 4 years ago. Huge amounts of negatives to both canidates!
Does this study actually show there is conservative bias?
No. I would argue that there appears to be a bias to power
“As we found in two of the earlier studies, Bush continues to benefit more than Gore from press coverage. As outlined above, 24% of Bush stories were positive, nearly double the 13% for Gore.”
“nearly double”…unfreaking believable!
This goes to backing my previous logic, that the person with a track record has a good chance of getting a more negative tone in the media.
Nuff said.(?)
[quote]100meters wrote:
No. That’s not a frame that’s just what happened.[/quote]
So are you admitting to the left making up excuses for losing, knowing full well that the excuses are baseless, and that they just flat got beat?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
No. That’s not a frame that’s just what happened.
So are you admitting to the left making up excuses for losing, knowing full well that the excuses are baseless, and that they just flat got beat?
[/quote]
How can it even be disputed that Kerry lost?
I don’t see how these are baseless, but I’ll admit there’s probably a whole lot of reasons why Kerry lost.
Liberals think they got beat because
a.Voters thought Bush could fight terror better and…
b.Voters thought the war on terror was the most important issue
c.Republicans got the vote out better than liberals thought they could
d.and mine: John Kerry is a liberal from MA who also unfortunately looks kind of like frankenstein.
[quote]100meters wrote:
How can it even be disputed that Kerry lost?
I don’t see how these are baseless, but I’ll admit there’s probably a whole lot of reasons why Kerry lost.
Liberals think they got beat because
a.Voters thought Bush could fight terror better and…
b.Voters thought the war on terror was the most important issue
c.Republicans got the vote out better than liberals thought they could
d.and mine: John Kerry is a liberal from MA who also unfortunately looks kind of like frankenstein.
[/quote]
I think I remember you saying something about those 120,000, or how ever many, votes in Ohio.
You’ve also mentioned in past posts about the stupidity of the right.
And you left out the previous election in which the libs still insist to this day, was stolen from them - that Bush was ‘selected not elected’.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
How can it even be disputed that Kerry lost?
I don’t see how these are baseless, but I’ll admit there’s probably a whole lot of reasons why Kerry lost.
Liberals think they got beat because
a.Voters thought Bush could fight terror better and…
b.Voters thought the war on terror was the most important issue
c.Republicans got the vote out better than liberals thought they could
d.and mine: John Kerry is a liberal from MA who also unfortunately looks kind of like frankenstein.
I think I remember you saying something about those 120,000, or how ever many, votes in Ohio.
You’ve also mentioned in past posts about the stupidity of the right.
And you left out the previous election in which the libs still insist to this day, was stolen from them - that Bush was ‘selected not elected’. [/quote]
The 120,000 was my defense to how hugely out of touch liberals were. I think a person won, not policies, and I stress that’s just my opinion (hell I think this is true most of the time)
I don’t know how many times I have to say this, Republicans aren’t stupid! My wife’s mother is not stupid, you aren’t stupid, and Bush is not stupid. I’m never reflecting on the IQ of american voters in my posts!
Bush v. Gore
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
That’s not even what post hoc ergo propter hoc means.
I think this conversation has outlasted it’s usefulness for the time being.
Definition:
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.
Examples:
(i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon
after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased
immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.
(ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold
disappeared.
(iii) Most journalists are liberal, the media has a liberal bias, therefore a liberal press corps creates a liberal media bias.
see also this:
argumentum ad populum
Not really to B.B. , but others who argue this stupid frame.
And again I don’t know why I’m bothering but some might find this interesting, the media survey from last election by the same group, that finds once again NO
LIBERAL BIAS!
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/pdf/lastlap.pdf
what is incredible to note is the lack of neutrality just 4 years ago. Huge amounts of negatives to both canidates!
Does this study actually show there is conservative bias?
No. I would argue that there appears to be a bias to power
“As we found in two of the earlier studies, Bush continues to benefit more than Gore from press coverage. As outlined above, 24% of Bush stories were positive, nearly double the 13% for Gore.”
“nearly double”…unfreaking believable!
This goes to backing my previous logic, that the person with a track record has a good chance of getting a more negative tone in the media.
Nuff said.(?)
[/quote]
Yes, you found the definition, but you’re not using it properly.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy of causation – in other words, you’re attributing an incorrect cause to an event you know has happened.
If you’re trying to use it backwards, you’re engaging in another fallacy in your attempt to apply a fallacy.
As I said, I think this has ceased being useful.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy of causation – in other words, you’re attributing an incorrect cause to an event you know has happened.
[/quote]
First you’re saying causation, I’m disputing that because one thing happened(A) and another thing followed it(B) means that A caused B, mostly because B doesn’t exist! The liberal bias theory depends on a series of sequences(which I vastly paraphrased), but to prove a possibility of causality one would need to do a study perhaps to rule out error from self-deception.
a study like:
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/pdf/lastlap.pdf
which again will be refuted by most in here because it doesn’t conform with their expectations.
[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy of causation – in other words, you’re attributing an incorrect cause to an event you know has happened.
First you’re saying causation, I’m disputing that because one thing happened(A) and another thing followed it(B) means that A caused B, mostly because B doesn’t exist! The liberal bias theory depends on a series of sequences(which I vastly paraphrased), but to prove a possibility of causality one would need to do a study perhaps to rule out error from self-deception.
a study like:
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/pdf/lastlap.pdf
which again will be refuted by most in here because it doesn’t conform with their expectations.[/quote]
I’m trying to explain to you what the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy is.
With this fallacy, you observe two events, one occuring before the other. The fallacy is attributing causation to the first event soley because it happened first.
Think of superstitious behavior – someone doesn’t wash his socks, and his team wins, so he thinks the team won because he didn’t wash his socks. The relation between the two events is the fallacy. You have two facts, and the fallacy is the “because.”
You could not apply it to this situation. You’re effectively saying that the fact that reporters are liberal and the fact there is a liberal bias are not causally related, i.e. that the liberal bias of the reporters didn’t cause the liberal bias in the news.
Here is an after action report re; the Salman Pak incident.
Wonder how the media has portrayed this event?
This is from James Dunnigan a well known military observer.
After Action Report Salman Pak
March 26, 2005
First draft of After Action Report of the recent battle between American Military Police, escorting a convoy in Iraq, and running into an ambush.
AFTER ACTION REPORT: Raven 42 action in Salman Pak
Over the next few days you will see on the television news shows, and in the print news media the story of a Military Police Squad who are heroes. Through those outlets, I doubt that their story will get out in a truly descriptive manner.
On Sunday afternoon, in a very bad section of scrub-land called Salman Pak, on the southeastern outskirts of Baghdad, 40 to 50 heavily-armed Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy of 30 civilian tractor trailer trucks that were moving supplies for the coalition forces, along an Alternate Supply Route. These tractor trailers, driven by third country nationals (primarily Turkish), were escorted by 3 armored Hummers from the COSCOM (Corps Support Command, which takes care of supply). When the insurgents attacked, one of the Hummers was in their kill zone and the three soldiers aboard were immediately wounded, and the platform taken under heavy machinegun and RPG fire.
Along with them, three of the truck drivers were killed, 6 were wounded in the tractor trailer trucks. The enemy attacked from a farmer’s barren field next to the road, with a tree line perpendicular to the ASR (Alternate Supply Route, one of the main roads used for supply convoys), two dry irrigation ditches forming a rough L-shaped trenchline, and a house standing off the dirt road. After three minutes of sustained fire, a squad of enemy moved forward toward the disabled and suppressed trucks. Each of the enemy had hand-cuffs and were looking to take hostages for ransom or worse, to take those three wounded US soldiers for more internet beheadings.
About this time, three armored Hummers that formed the MP Squad under call sign Raven 42, 617th MP Co, Kentucky National Guard, assigned to the 503rd MP Bn (Fort Bragg), 18th MP Bde, arrived on the scene like the cavalry. The squad had been shadowing the convoy from a distance behind the last vehicle, and when the convoy trucks stopped and became backed up from the initial attack, the squad sped up, paralleled the convoy up the shoulder of the road, and moved to the sound of gunfire.
They arrived on the scene just as a squad of about ten enemy had moved forward across the farmer’s field and were about 20 meters from the road. The MP squad opened fire with .50 cal machineguns and Mk19 grenade launchers and drove across the front of the enemy’s kill zone, between the enemy and the trucks, drawing fire off of the tractor trailers.
The MP’s crossed the kill zone and then turned up an access road at a right angle to the ASR and next to the field full of enemy fighters. The three vehicles, carrying nine MPs and one medic, stopped in a line on the dirt access road and flanked the enemy positions with plunging fire from the .50 cal and the SAW machinegun (Squad Automatic Weapon). In front of them, was a line of seven sedans, with all their doors and trunk lids open, the getaway cars and the lone two story house off on their left.
Immediately the middle vehicle was hit by an RPG knocking the gunner unconscious from his turret and down into the vehicle. The Vehicle Commander, the squad’s leader, thought the gunner was dead, but tried to treat him from inside the vehicle. Simultaneously, the rear vehicle’s driver and TC, section leader two, open their doors and dismount to fight, while their gunner continued firing from his position in the gun platform on top of the Hummer. Immediately, all three fall under heavy return machinegun fire, wounded. The driver of the middle vehicle saw them fall out the rearview mirror, dismounts and sprints to get into the third vehicle and take up the SAW on top the vehicle. The Squad’s medic dismounts from that third vehicle, and joined by the first vehicle’s driver (CLS-advanced emergency medical care- trained) who sprinted back to join him, begins combat life-saving techniques to treat the three wounded MPs. The gunner on the floor of the second
vehicle is revived by his TC, the squad leader, and he climbs back into the .50 cal and opens fire. The Squad leader dismounted with his M4 carbine, and 2 hand grenades, grabbed the section leader out of the first vehicle who had rendered radio reports of their first contact. The two of them, squad leader Staff Sergeant and team leader Sergeant with her M4 and M203 grenade launcher, rush the nearest ditch about 20 meters away to start clearing the natural trenchline. The enemy has gone into the ditches and is hiding behind several small trees in the back of the lot. The .50 cal and SAW flanking fire tears apart the ten enemy in the lead trenchline.
Meanwhile, the two treating the three wounded on the ground at the rear vehicle come under sniper fire from the farmer’s house. Each of them, remember one is a medic, pull out AT-4 rocket launchers from the HMMWV and nearly-simultaneously fire the rockets into the house to neutralize the shooter. The two sergeants work their way up the trenchline, throwing grenades, firing grenades from the launcher, and firing their M4s.
The sergeant runs low on ammo and runs back to a vehicle to reload. She moves to her squad leader’s vehicle, and because this squad is led so well, she knows exactly where to reach her arm blindly into a different vehicle to find ammo-because each vehicle is packed exactly the same, with discipline.
As she turns to move back to the trenchline, Gunner in two sees an AIF (enemy- Anti-Iraq Forces) jump from behind one of the cars and start firing on the Sergeant. He pulls his 9mm, because the .50 cal is pointed in the other direction, and shoots five rounds wounding him. The sergeant moves back to the trenchline under fire from the back of the field, with fresh mags, two more grenades, and three more M203 rounds. The Mk 19 gunner suppresses the rear of the field.
Now, rejoined with the squad leader, the two sergeants continue clearing the enemy from the trenchline, until they see no more movement. A lone man with an RPG launcher on his shoulder steps from behind a tree and prepares to fire on the three Hummers and is killed with a single aimed SAW shot thru the head by the previously knocked out gunner on platform two, who now has a SAW out to supplement the .50 cal in the mount.
The team leader sergeant–she claims four killed by aimed M4 shots.
The Squad Leader–he threw four grenades taking out at least two AIF, and attributes one other to her aimed M203 fire.
The gunner on platform two, previously knocked out from a hit by the RPG, has now swung his .50 cal around and, realizing that the line of vehicles represents a hazard and possible getaway for the bad guys, starts shooting the .50cal into the engine blocks until his field of fire is limited. He realizes that his vehicle is still running despite the RPG hit, and drops down from his weapon, into the drivers seat and moves the vehicle forward on two flat tires about 100 meters into a better firing position. Just then, the vehicle dies, oil spraying everywhere. He remounts his .50 cal and continues shooting the remaining of the seven cars lined up and ready for a get-away that wasn’t to happen. The fire dies down about then, and a second squad arrives on the scene, dismounts and helps the two giving first aid to the wounded at platform three. Two minutes later three other squads from the 617th arrive, along with the CO, and the field is secured, consolidation begins.
Those seven Americans (with the three wounded) killed in total 24 heavily armed enemy, wounded 6 (two later died), and captured one unwounded, who feigned injury to escape the fight. They seized 22 AK-47s, 6x RPG launchers w/ 16 rockets, 13x RPK machineguns, 3x PKM machineguns, 40 hand grenades, 123 fully loaded 30-rd AK magazines, 52 empty mags, and 10 belts of 2500 rds of PK ammo.
The three wounded MPs have been evacuated to Landstuhl. One lost a kidney and will be paralyzed. The other two will most likely recover, though one will forever have a bullet lodged between second and third ribs below his heart. No word on the three COSCOM soldiers wounded in the initial volleys. Of the 7 members of Raven 42 who walked away, two are Caucasian Women, the rest men-one is Mexican-American, the medic is African-American, and the other two are Caucasian-the great American melting pot.
They believed even before this fight that their NCOs were the best in the Army, and that they have the best squad in the Army. The Medic who fired the AT-4, said he remembered how from the week before when his squad leader forced him to train on it, though he didn’t think as a medic he would ever use one. He said he chose to use it in that moment to protect the three wounded on the ground in front of him, once they came under fire from the building. The day before this mission, they took the new RFI bandoliers that were recently issued, and experimented with mounting them in their vehicles. Once they figured out how, they pre-loaded a second basic load of ammo into magazines, put them into the bandoliers, and mounted them in their vehicles—the same exact way in every vehicle-load plans enforced and checked by leaders!
Leadership under fire-once those three leaders (NCOs) stepped out of their vehicles, the squad was committed to the fight.
Their only complaints in the AAR were: the lack of stopping power in the 9mm; the .50 cal incendiary rounds they are issued in lieu of ball ammo (shortage of ball in the inventory) didn’t have the penetrating power needed to pierce the walls of the building; and that everyone in the squad was not CLS trained.
Yesterday, Monday, was spent with the chaplain and the chain of command conducting AARs. Today, every news media in theater wanted them. Good Morning America, NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC, Stars and Stripes, and many radio stations from Kentucky all were lined up today. The female E5 Sergeant who fought thru the trenchline will become the anti-Jessica Lynch media poster child. She and her squad leader deserve every bit of recognition they will get, and more. They all do.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Here is an after action report re; the Salman Pak incident.
Wonder how the media has portrayed this event?
[/quote]
is there a bias about this?
on march 21, the day after the NYT had this report
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Here is an after action report re; the Salman Pak incident.
Wonder how the media has portrayed this event?
is there a bias about this?
on march 21, the day after the NYT had this report
[/quote]
I don’t think so. That’s why I posted it as an example of something factual to read.
A couple interesting examples from Oxblog, a weblog run by some recent recipients of Oxford fellowships – obviously not a “study”, and actually they focus on a paper (the Washington Post) that I think has done a better job recently, but still good “case studies,” as it were:
HE SAID/SHE SAID JOURNALISM, THE SAGA CONTINUES: The linchpin of the liberal defense against conservative accusations of media bias is the theory of “he said/she said” journalism ( OxBlog ). Briefly, the theory states that even if most journalists are liberal, it doesn’t matter because they always report every issue as if it had two equal and opposite sides.
By extension, most liberals argue that it is conservatives who benefit from this situation, since their unjustifiable attitudes toward social security reform, bankruptcy reform, etc. are given the same status as rational, evidence-based liberal arguments.
It is with all this in mind that I read an article in this morning’s WaPo entitled “Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html ). Mind you, this wasn’t an analysis column or anything like that. It was straight news. And in case you think it’s just the headline writers who like to wax interpretive, here are the opening grafs:
[i]Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."
Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.[/i]
Thankfully, the article does point out that 30 years ago, Iran was an American ally. (You might say the WaPo did the White House a favor by not mentioning that, back then, Iran was a reactionary dictatorship. Or to be more precise, a reactionary dictatorship very different from the one now in Teheran.)
The WaPo is also fair enough to point out that 30 years ago, there were serious questions about whether Iran had enough oil to satisfy its long term needs. The Post suggests, however, that the situation is not much different today.
So all in all, what this story boils down to is that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are a lot more concerned about what might happen if one of our enemies, rather than one of our allies, had the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Now, it certainly doesn’t look good that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz are now arguing against the exact same position they were arguing for 30 years ago. In fact, it’s probably an important enough story to be in the WaPo.
But should the thrust of the story be that there is an apparent inconsistency in the arguments made by American policymakers? Or should there be a greater focus on the empirical issue of whether Iran needs nuclear power to supplement its oil reserves? Because it just might be the case the situation now is very different than it was 30 years ago, so it may be perfectly sensible for Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz to have switched sides in this debate.
So what I’m trying to say is not that this is a bad article, but that it is an article with a definite perspective, rather than one that treats both sides of the issue as having equal merit. In fact, one can make a pretty strong case that journalists should identify which side in a given debate has greater merit.
But journalists can’t have their cake and eat it, too. They can’t insist on their own neutrality and detachment while taking an interpretive approach to their subject. Nor can the defenders of mainstream journalism on the center-left continue to defend the he said/she said theory of American journalism if it doesn’t describe the actual behavior of journalists.
Posted 2:27 PM by David Adesnik
APROPO OF THE PREVIOUS POST, check out the front pager in today’s WaPo entitled “Business Sees Gain In GOP Takeover; Political Allies Push Corporate Agenda” ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3796-2005Mar26.html ). Once again, this is anything but he said/she said journalism ( OxBlog ). Here’s the opening graf:
[i]Fortune 500 companies that invested millions of dollars in electing Republicans are emerging as the earliest beneficiaries of a government controlled by President Bush and the largest GOP House and Senate majority in a half century.[/i]
Like so many articles in the campaign finance genre, this one suggests that the GOP has been sold to the highest bidder, without ever asking whether large corporations give more to the GOP because it already shares their interests. By the same token, this article doesn’t think to ask whether the Democrats were somehow bought by union or minority lobbies.
Now, I’m not saying that the information in this article isn’t important or shouldn’t be in the paper. But the article is reported from a very definite perspective, rather than pretending that both sides of the issue have equal merit.
I know it was a while ago, but I liked this little turdlet…
The process of “getting the news” is often one of digging, investigating and revealing information that those in power would prefer not to let out. Those in power (either party, don’t get me in the middle of that turnip), aren’t exactly spreading unbiased information themselves.
Simply repeating the talking points of the people in charge is not reporting the news and letting the people decide. The news is supposed to be some thought, some analysis, some writing skill, presented to the people for thought. This involves some critical work.
Bitching about the role of the media due to the words “holding power accountable” is baloney. Power indeed is held accountable by the truth, whether or not the media has explicitly been given that role. The information in the public hands, such as torture in Iraq, shapes policy.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like th phrase or if you don’t agree the media has that mandate, it is in fact what it does. It digs out the truth and puts it out there for us. This is often adversarial and often critical. I’d expect the same situation no matter who is in power – whoever is holding onto the reins in working to “twist the truth” to hang onto power and guide policy.
So, in my estimation, there may or may not be bias, but there is certainly no good analysis of the situation available to make a reasoned opinion at this point. The studies are rudimentary and the concept of tough situations generating a lot of negative publicity (as raised repeated by the good ProfX) has been ignored.
These studies are probably no better than propaganda themselves in most cases.
I think it’s really funny that the “right” will point to this study as proof of a “liberal media bias” when the study itself has a GLARING “conservative bias” (but no one seems to notice).
While we’re arguing about the content of the study – the fact that the study, in it of itself, has a CONSERVATIVE bias is kind of a knee slapper, huh?
Study: Press Went Easy on Kerry
If you want a REAL conspiracy I think the “Pew Research Center” and “Pew Charitable Trusts” are playing both sides of the political fence and are purposely fucking with everyone’s heads.
Here we have the “Pew Charitable Trusts” that funded the media study in question – and guess where all their money comes from? OIL - imagine that!
[i]The Pew Charitable Trusts serves the public interest by providing information, policy solutions and support for civic life. Based in Philadelphia, with an office in Washington, D.C., the Trusts makes investments to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions for challenging issues. In 2003, with approximately $4.1 billion in dedicated assets, the Trusts committed more than $143 million to 151 nonprofit organizations.
History
The Trusts, an independent nonprofit, is the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.[/i]
http://www.pewtrusts.com/about/index.cfm
Yet supposedly they are considered a “liberal” group by conservatives.
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts support nonprofit activities in the areas of culture, education, the environment, health and human services, public policy and religion. Pew is based in Philadelphia. It’s religion program “seeks to advance a deeper understanding of religion’s contribution to the ideas, beliefs, morals and institutions that shape culture and society, and to help people of faith improve their efforts to make a positive contribution to contemporary public life.” In 2003, the Trusts committed more than $143 million to 151 nonprofit organizations.
http://www.religionsource.org/Contents/AboutUsPew.aspx
Doesn’t sound too liberal to me.
Here’s something else that’s pretty funny – this was the Pew funded study from 2004:
Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists
Press Going Too Easy on Bush
Released: May 23, 2004
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=825
That’s their liberal side I guess.
I just find it odd that “Pew” would be considered so liberal by pushing issues like global warming, etc – yet have MAJOR ties to the oil industry.
Considering last years study of “Press Going Too Easy on Bush” – it almost appears like some kind of agenda to create a rift.
Well…at least we can all agree on one thing, the main stream press has had a liberal slant for a long long time. 
It’s too bad that JTF can’t use the same degree of skepticism when citing sources that support his ‘conspiracy theory’ points of view.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s too bad that JTF can’t use the same degree of skepticism when citing sources that support his ‘conspiracy theory’ points of view.
[/quote]
You mean sources like this?
C-SPAN
House Hearing with Defense Sec. Rumsfled on FY '06 Budget
On Thursday, March 11, Rep. Cynthia McKinney posed several questions to General Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the DoD Comptroller Tina Jones for which none had fully forthcoming answers.
These questions were raised during an Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY 2006 Budget for the Department of Defense.
Question 1: Why does Dyncorp continue to receive contracts from the DoD while it engages in the sex trade?
Question 2: Who has the contracts for the accounting at the Pentagon where trillions of dollars are missing?
Questions 3, 4, 5: Did the four war games occuring on September 11th impair our ability to respond to the attacks? Who was responsible for managing those war games? and was a National Special Security Event declared for 9/11/01?
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=15
Rumsfeld’s answer:
Ummm bbb-ba…I’ll need…really? $3 trillion…I don’t…our computers no worky… durrr…Dyncorp’s still engaging in the sex trade huh?..mommy…four war games being run on 9/11 you say?..he-he, gulp…would you believe coincidence?
Of course the “liberal media” can’t get enough of this stuff ; )