There is NO Liberal Media - Page 24

Rebellion · #**231** (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Post #208

Here it is again

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...dia/index.html

Assuming the unreliable and left wing source salon.com is accurate (it provides no link to verify their stats), you assumed McCain was not in the news. However, there is no data to verify that. Why did you make another assumption?

Tuatara · #**232** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

It was already proven. The numbers are more like 8 liberals and 2 conservatives. And no it doesn't automatically go to the conservative, but statistics say if you have 8 and 2 then the odds are high that the group of 8 will reflect the majority. Just like white journalists are the majority and you have more white editors as well. Simple stats.

I don't remember seeing that number in all those studies.

Quote:

Obviously you don't know what a liberal is if you say FDR wasn't liberal. He began a host of social welfare programs and was very pro union. Truman expanded a number of welfare programs. Historians all refer to both as liberals as does his own historian. http://www.fdrheritage.org/fdrbio.htm

Not once did this historian refer to him as a Liberal except for this passage. "Roosevelt's Legacy the redefinition of American liberalism." But he did refer to Truman in this way

Quote:

the more moderate senator Harry S. Truman

So a historian that you put faith in called Truman a moderate.
The point is we are talking about leaders of today or recent history.

Quote:

Ummm...hello. Did you even read the reason Media Matters came into existance? Yes, obviously they used the term in 1987. They started it 20 years ago with the sole purpose of proving a liberal media bias.

No they didn't. They used that term today to decsribe what they did in 1987. Find me a letter/article from 1987.

Quote:

Guess you missed the headline and the dates from the early 90's:

Top 10 Most Outrageous Liberal Media Quotes From the Last 20 Years

Yes I got the headline but if you go into ALL these quotes not one mention of the phrase "liberal media"

Quote:

Actually that's 5 out of 5 correct. And you said the term was first used under W. That theory has been trashed. Anything else?

No, 1 out of 5. Like I said show me (except for the one where the term "liberal media" was used in any of those links before 1999.

Quote:

What I said is what he said.
http://www.mrc.org/Profiles/cronkite...l%20Persuasion

So you were wrong because he didn't even come close to what you said.

Quote:

Very dishonest of you to say they are different. Since all of them comprise the definition of media.

You know very well we are talking about the News media. The music industry does not fit in that definition also.

Quote:

Unlike your examples, which can be debated with fact, a liberal media is based upon the position of Americans. And if most Americans are conservative and feel that media is liberal then by definition it is liberal (in comparison to their viewpoints).

So this is where your theory falls apart. If we were to ask the general public if the ACLU were a liberal organization we know the public opinion would definitely put them as liberal. Since the study labeled them as conservative that makes either your theory completely wrong or the study completely wrong.

Tuatara · #**233** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

His evidence is anecdotal, there will be situations in his example like that, but they will be the exception and not the rule.

They are the rule.

Quote:

Not really because maybe it means the ACLU has a better perception among conservatives than thought. More importantly, as you look across the list nearly all except a small handful appear on the correct list as one would think.

Sorry but a good study wouldn't make such glaring mistakes. A good study would have no mistakes.

Quote:

Except Don Rumsfeld is not a think tank and quoting a think tank is far more unusual than Rumsfeld or any other cabinet member.

That's just another problem with the study. How they looped many quotes and groups and research as "think tanks".

Quote:

That is incorrect, the point is to show how they align ideologically. Positive references provide that, a negative reference would only skew the score artificially to the right if R's constantly attack them.

But they didn't do that which explains the ACLU coming out as Conservative and the Rand Corporation coming out as Liberal. Also remember the NRA came very close to being liberal.

Quote:

Seriously, I could find just as many that support it.

I used the words debunk. I have yet to find any articles arguing those papers that have debunked the study.

Quote:

I showed who they support financially, and it is the Democrat party. And in terms of what companies, here they are. And they all support dems with the exception of two. And the "conservative" Clear Channel was barely over 50%. The other 18 were all dems. And of course all the big ones support D's like Comcast, Time Warner, Disney (ABC), News Corp, and GE (NBC/MSNBC). http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...B02&cycle=2008

Now this is what I find misgiving about these numbers. I'll take the example of Disney. Now I know former CEO Michael Eisner was a republican and Disney was very Republican friendly through it's programming.

Quote:

On the television network that his company owns, Disney CEO Michael Eisner dismissed the idea that forbidding Disney subsidiary Miramax to distribute a controversial new documentary by Michael Moore was a form of censorship. "We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically-oriented film during an election year," he told ABC World News Tonight (5/5/04), referring to Moore's Fahrenheit 911, which examines the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud that rules Saudi Arabia.

On its face, Eisner's statement will have a chilling effect. A major movie studio with an announced policy of only releasing apolitical films, in an election year or any other year, will discourage filmmakers from tackling important themes and impoverish the American political debate. (That Moore and Miramax were given advance warning of this policy hardly mitigates its censorious impact.)

But Eisner's statement cannot be taken at face value, because Disney, through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually all of it right-wing. Consider:

* Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York, WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts, both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt Drudge.

* Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September 11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will be more controversial than that.

* Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs.

Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles, although it generally provides access to only one side of the war

http://www.fair.org/activism/disney-moore-update.html
So either the numbers are wrong or they have no correlation as to them being slanted liberal.

Quote:

Stalin/Lenin, Pol Pot, a number of others.

These are totalitarian leaders. Show me any liberals that have supported them.

Tuatara · #**234** (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Assuming the unreliable and left wing source salon.com is accurate (it provides no link to verify their stats), you assumed McCain was not in the news. However, there is no data to verify that. Why did you make another assumption?

Salon is not unreliable. Salon gets their sources from NEXIS. I have seen both Salon and NEXIS used by conservatives as sources. Also Salon wasn't the souce that I was looking for. I will let you know when I find it. I have over 2000 links to different political sites, documents, articles etc...

Publius Infinitum · #**235** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Often you here from the right that the media is slanted to the left. Yet they cannot prove this assertion.

ROFLMNAO....

Oh GOD that's precious...

It's no less an established fact than the sun being centered in the solar system. The assertion to the contrary is absurd on its face...

Every year polls prove that roughly 90% of the mainstram media is registered Democrat, financially support the ideological left and their reporting favors theperspective of the ideological left.

It's not becoming clear friends that delusion is the only true friend a leftist has.

Publius Infinitum · #**236** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Salon is not unreliable. Salon gets their sources from NEXIS. I have seen both Salon and NEXIS used by conservatives as sources. Also Salon wasn't the souce that I was looking for. I will let you know when I find it. I have over 2000 links to different political sites, documents, articles etc...

ROFL...

What a joke... Salon is often used by conservatives source; I use it myself when I want to prove how left the media is slanted.

What kills me is how the left uses Salon to prove otherwise, for instance, where Salon reports on a Clinton cover-up or what have you. As if the left itself does not have ts own fish to fry and will not expose one candidate to embarass the one it favors...

Funny stuff...

Tuatara · #**237** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

ROFLMNAO....

Oh GOD that's precious...

It's no less an established fact than the sun being centered in the solar system. The assertion to the contrary is absurd on its face...

Every year polls prove that roughly 90% of the mainstram media is registered Democrat, financially support the ideological left and their reporting favors theperspective of the ideological left.

It's not becoming clear friends that delusion is the only true friend a leftist has.

Yet you can't refute one thing I posted in here. Come back when you actually know how to debate.

Tuatara · #**238** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

ROFL...

What a joke... Salon is often used by conservatives source; I use it myself when I want to prove how left the media is slanted.

What kills me is how the left uses Salon to prove otherwise, for instance, where Salon reports on a Clinton cover-up or what have you. As if the left itself does not have ts own fish to fry and will not expose one candidate to embarass the one it favors...

Funny stuff...

The last sentence doesn't make sense at all. I think you need to reword it.

Publius Infinitum · #**239** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Yet you can't refute one thing I posted in here. Come back when you actually know how to debate.

So you just want to ignore the polls that show that 90% of 'journalist' support the leftist ideology by being registered in leftist parties and providing direct funding to leftist candidates and causes?

Well that IS handy...

Ain't delusion grand, friends?

FYI: That's what we call refutation my little commie friend... and FTR: You're not required to accept it, for your position to be refuted.

I do hope that helps...

Publius Infinitum · #**240** (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PI

Funny stuff...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

The last sentence doesn't make sense at all. I think you need to reword it.

And you feel this is my problem? It's two words Karl... look them up and combine the concepts...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
the liberal media on iraq	mistersecondbase	Warfare / Military	3	03-12-2008 07:55 PM
more liberal media	Ankf00	Media & Commentators	12	05-28-2007 09:53 AM
trying to understand liberal? media	Usama-Bin-Bush	Current Events	1	04-14-2006 04:08 PM
Exposure of the Liberal media	Hansmoleman	Political Opinions & Beliefs	9	09-27-2004 03:18 PM
Liberal Media, EH?	dmann	Elections & Campaigns	0	05-23-2004 01:57 PM