Let's face it, the right wing owns and dominates television news. Most people do not read newspapers. THEY get their primary news from television, FOX news, CNN, MSNBC and local stations. This accounts for the mis-informed general public and the resulting travesty that is overtaking our country. PLUS THE UNTRUTHS ON RIGHT WING TALK RADIO. WHY, DO PEOPLE FALL FOR THIS? WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE THESE NEWS SOURCES? THE ONLY THING I CAN FIGURE IS THAT THEY ARE SAYING WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

It would seem that the FCC is only concerned with a breast being flashed at the Super Bowl, who cares about the truth. <_< <_< <_< Lie all you wish but dont flash a breast

Who owns who? do the politicians own the media?... OR do the conglomerate mega media corps own the politicians?

I'm trying to think of a new name for FOX - help - I'm stuck on X

F ascist
O rganization
X ????

The media has been infiltrated by the intelligence community. Who really runs the intelligence community? It is certainly not the elected officials of the American government - even if these same officials think otherwise!

Xenophobes
Meaning: One unduly fearful or contemptuous of strangers or foreigners.

Xtreme nutcases!

The media is owned by the big corporations like Time Warner, (The Good Ole Boys Club), and they are all Republicans with lots of money to invest.

And which media sources should we be paying attention to? Which ones do you believe are unbiased and provide the unvarnished truth?
Inquiring minds wish to know.

Try LinkTV's DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman. On DishNet, it's channel 9410. They are also on Pacifica radio.

I agree, That's why I no longer watch network news, I get my news online. I really think that people who already know that the media seems to lean towards Bush, should stop supporting it.

By watching, you're giving them more sponsors. I wish everyone on this forum would boycott all of the networks. The media is responsible for Bush getting back into office, and they're responsible for the success of the SB lairs for Bush ad's against Kerry.

As long as the networks know people are watching they're not going to change. Once we hit them in their pocket books and let them know we want fairer coverage there's a chance they'll change. It's like the old saying garbage in and garbage out, that's why the America people are so uninformed.

BBC News is a good source for information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

Fascist
Organization
Xplative deleted

Rummy is on a "damage control" tour. He had interviews at a right wing radio station and with Sean Hannity

See the coverate at target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...topic=11542&hl=

This is a refreshing site. Thanks prettyflower1976!
I liked this.



Cardinal to query Iraq war cost



Why has peace not arrived? - the cardinal will ask

Billions of pounds spent on conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East should have been used to reduce poverty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is to say.

The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales will use his Christmas Midnight Mass address to question the war.

Peace is "worth, always, striving for", the cardinal will tell the congregation of 2,000 at Westminster Cathedral.

He and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both spoken out about the war.

"How is it that peace has not arrived?," the cardinal will ask.


How can one wish a happy Christmas for our fellow Christians in Iraq or in the Holy Land... unless you and I say and do what makes for peace?



Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

"How is it that there is war in Iraq, violence in the Holy Land, and the horror of pain and death amongst the poor and deprived who suffer from injustice and thus do not find peace?"

"What a terrible thing it is that billions - and I mean billions of pounds - are being spent in war in the Middle East which could have been spent bringing people out of dire poverty and malnourishment and disease.

"How can one wish a happy Christmas for our fellow Christians in Iraq or in the Holy Land or those who suffer in Africa unless you and I, in whatever way is open to us, say and do what makes for peace?"

Both the Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams appealed for the weapons inspectors to be given more time in Iraq before the war started.

Dr Williams has since criticised the government over its case for war, saying the failure to find weapons of mass destruction had damaged faith in the political system.

On Friday, the Cardinal will ask the congregation to search for peace.

"It is possible, it is real, it is worth, always, striving for, because of the promise of Our Saviour," he will say.

"I also wish you peace in your homes because peace in your home is the beginning of peace in the homes of the community. "


A spokesman said Downing Street had no comment to make. But Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he will put Africa at the top of the agenda when Britain chairs the G8 summit next year.

Interesting, in that if one trolls through the conservative sites, especially the oft mentioned Freeper, their posters are adamantly convinced of exactly the opposite, with the exception of talk radio. No two ways about it, Rush and company own that one, at least for the moment.

I want to throw out a novel idea, let's forget about "unbiased", "fair and balanced" and all that unacheivable window dressing. Just insist that a media outlet fess up to what it is. Take magazines: National Review makes no bones about who they are, neither does New Republic; then you have Nation and Mother Jones which seem to think New Republic is a traitor to the cause; Reason pitches in a knuckleball leaving the "two sides" (as if there were only two) confused where it sits.

This pretense of total objectivity is fairly recent in American history. A prime example is "The Lincoln Douglas Debates", by Harold Holzer, considered a definitive work on the topic. Holzer dug up the transcripts from the two major newspapers covering the series, as there were no official transcriptions. Each was unabashedly favoring one candidate or the other. The surprise is that each, knowing the other was there to keep them honest, had very few significant differences in actual language. A well read voter in Illinois would have read both.

"Unbiased" is a virtually impossible criterion. No one who has invested the time to become a lead reporter for a major media source is going to have spent that energy without forming personal opinions on topics, and those opinions are going to shape the reporter's approach, the very premise of the questions they ask, the coloration of the news draft, etc. Most of the time, the tilt of a given outlet is not hard to discern. Fact check them against each other, in medicine this is called getting a second opinion and is regarded as a good idea.

Beefing and moaning about the "bias" is no more likely to eliminate it and yield a perfectly balanced media than complaining that gravity has an unfair impact on the parapalegic will make them weightless.

The BBC is pretty straight although they may be a bit intimidated since the run in with the Blair admin this year.

Well, I think *all* news media have been somewhat intimidated by the loud-mouthed right. But that said, I think that, on TV, the three major networks and CNN (excluding its talk shows) still at least try to be objective.

Newspapers are better sources. Most of the major dailies in the country place more value on news delivery than on opinion. The best are probably still the biggies -- The New York Times and Washington Post. Also, the LA Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer and, for good writing at least, the Chicago Tribune.

First...I think we have to separate news from commentary or editorial comment. This is where we get in trouble. Fox news is basically no different than anyone else. It's when you get into panel commentary with opinionated pundits, that the stripes show. In this regard...Fox runs Right. In the same vein...BBC runs Left.
Fair & balanced is pure perception as to where your ideology leans.

While media consolidation is one of my hot button issues, I think the best way we can counter bias from either direction is to pursue many media outlets. Print, of course, is to me the best because you can choose information yourself. TV agendas are set for us. Even radio programming is time-driven. However, if we immerse ourselves in all sorts of information sources, we are bound to come to our own conclusions. I have found alternative sources, like TomPaine.com and Internet sources such as this, invaluable.

We cannot rely on others to do our intellectual work for us. It does take time and effort to do this, I grant you. But we must. Or else we are bombarded by nonsense.

My reaction to the "problem" of media consolidation dates me. Fourty years ago a person interested in news of the day and political activity was limited to three networks TV max, less than that if one lived outside a major metro market. Cable was something one made transatlantic phone calls on, and that after waiting for a clear operator. Radio was nearly all music and if one had two newspapers, that was the exception rather than the rule even then.

I could physically go to the library or order Gov't Printing Office documents or be a real pain to the local Congressman's office. The spectrum of fact and opinion available today from my bedroom PC was an unimaginable dream back then. I have the luxury of being able to sit in my bathrobe and skim through sources reserved to academics on sabbatical back then.

Downside, yes one gets bombarded by nonsense, but it doesn't take long to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Go past the surface. Read sources you know are opposed to your view, sometimes they will surprise you. The access to news we take for granted today is too precious to waste.

I agree with you that we shouldn't consider commentary when judging value as a news network. I think CNN has been unfairly criticized in this regard. However, in the case of Fox ....... Fox is basically *just* talk TV masquerading as a news network. Note that Fox does very little news gathering, has few true reporters and rarely actually covers anything other than a set piece like the political conventions, where it just sends its "talk TV'' personalities. Fox is a fraud as a news network. It is just commentary with news highlights thrown in.

I agree it does depend a lot on your personal frame of reference. I took one of those online ideology scales (somewhere else on the forum) and I was surprised how liberal/progressive I ended up. I really don't think we have a handle on understanding ideology.

To me the BBC is middle of the road --- and doesn't lean in either direction. I wish they would have the guts to lean a little left.

The Guardian and LeMonde are closer to where I sit.





In this regard...Fox runs Right. In the same vein...BBC runs Left.
Fair & balanced is pure perception as to where your ideology leans.

[/quote]

[quote=Brookie,Dec 30 2004, 08:24 AM]
I agree it does depend a lot on your personal frame of reference. I took one of those online ideology scales (somewhere else on the forum) and I was surprised how liberal/progressive I ended up. I really don't think we have a handle on understanding ideology.

To me the BBC is middle of the road --- and doesn't lean in either direction. I wish they would have the guts to lean a little left.

The Guardian and LeMonde are closer to where I sit.
In this regard...Fox runs Right. In the same vein...BBC runs Left.
Fair & balanced is pure perception as to where your ideology leans.

[/quote]

[/quote]
Trust me Brookie, if you think BBC it too middle of the road, you are definitely on the liberal end of the spectrum. That is the beauty of the range of information available today, thee and me both have access to sources that simply didn't exist a generation ago. I still encourage everyone to explore venues you know you will disagree with, keeps the mind fresh, and once in a while, God forbid, one actually gains a bit of education.

Thanks barkeeper. I do explore venues that I disagree with--they are hard to avoid. My sentiment is that I wish the BBC were more left. My more genuine assessment is that it is middle of the road.

Is your assessment that it leans left? A lot right-leaning folks think it does.

A lot of lefties think it leans too far corporate/right or is too timid in reporting on Blair's government.

I really don't think that there is any valid way to keep score. These things are pretty relative.


[quote=barkeeper,Dec 30 2004, 03:08 PM]

[/quote]
Trust me Brookie, if you think BBC it too middle of the road, you are definitely on the liberal end of the spectrum. That is the beauty of the range of information available today, thee and me both have access to sources that simply didn't exist a generation ago. I still encourage everyone to explore venues you know you will disagree with, keeps the mind fresh, and once in a while, God forbid, one actually gains a bit of education.

[/quote]

I think everyone on Both sides only believe what they want to hear.

If something supports your opionion its the truth if it doesnt its a lie. Its a human thing.