That Liberal Media, Doing It Again

i cant believe every balloon had to be a certain diameter and fall at a constant rate per time! but thats beside the point.

i dont know how many times we have to discuss this, but "liberal or conservative media" is far too broad a brush to stroke b/c there is more than one influential medium. tv, radio, print, and the internet. but say...if you said, "those crazy liberal nyt editors" you wouldnt get too much argument (well, maybe you would from those outside nyc and/or the east coast). just like we all know where the murdoch empire falls so we know foxnews is conservative. ok. so?

and overall, i think the jury is out like said earlier - for another month.

Maybe I've been here too long and I'm getting impatient with the level of idiocy shown on the CE boards way too often, but can people like this be put in the stocks and publily humiliated in the town square? Or something?

I mean, seriously ...

For the FuckOffKid, and Scotty_bane, your both right.

Once more, with feeling The Real Difference.

Check out the detailed version of the issue comparison chart. Even that is a bit dated. What happened to the environment in this race?

i think the biggest problem is that you have people who are conservative railing on about "that goddamn liberal media" yet they find Fox News, The Wall Street Journal or Washington Post to be entirely enlightened and balanced, completely trust worthy. then they start bitching about Michael Moore again(and rightly so). and its the exact same on the left wing, bitching about fox news, moveon.org just started petition the Federal Trade Commision to force fox to remove their "fair and balanced" slogan. we're not debating fucking issues anymore in our media, we're not talking about truth, we're talking about the media. there is a bias and its everywhere. at least hunter s thompson would admit his bias and explain it, as opposed to leaving his audience to labor under the delusion that there was no such bias when such was clearly evident.

i think one of the problems in this country now a'days is that we don't seriously debate the issues anymore, no one's really talking. there is no dialogue. the truth is no longer in any of us. now its catch phrases, sound bites and talking points. on MSNBC's "After Hours" convention coverage I watched Joe Scarbourgh, Ron Regean and a panel of hosts and pundits debate how its going to affect the eleection that apparently Mrs. Kerry told a reporter to "shove it". which of course made all the liberals bring up Cheney's infamous "fuck yourself" on the Senate floor. we can debate which is more important, but damned if we're not debating where they stand or what the issues are, and more and more news coverage is going to events like this.

and we are at fault. we are the ones who read the NYT because we agree with it, not because we belive it, or watch fox news, or whatever your media outlet of choice is. my father never watches CNN, but always Fox News. because its easier to sit there with a highball in your hand and say "that's right, O'Reilly, give 'em hell." then it is to have to think for yourself. there's no move to make the media accountable for the truth when you can just flip the channel, or buy a different paper, and have your preconcived notions reinforced.

so yeah, i think there's a bias everywhere, as Pumpkinhead pointed out, and in many different forms of media. but i think we only change that by not having more forums where angry liberals or conservatives rant about how there is no bias.

One big reason the Dems are not further differentiated from the Repubs on a number of issues is not down to being beholden to corporate interests. It's down to the fact that the population are too scared of too much change and radicalism too allow their preferred candidates to depart too much from a generally centriust position.

Everyone who whines about "the system" and how we need an "honest third alternative" or whatever, forgets the basic rule of democracy -- in the long run we get the candidates we deserve. Because we get the candidates the parties think we're most likely to vote for.

It's really worth keeping that in mind. I regard scotty bane as an idiot because he seems to think "someone else" is to blame and he offers not even the slightest response to what is clearly a problem. He'll just take his bat and ball and go home.

I disagree. I think a candidate is chosen and then packaged and sold. Perhaps the willingness of the public to buy makes us 'deserving', but just perhaps we are the victims of excellent advertising.

Before clicking, I was thinking, "The thread title is either sarcastic, or this is a Stockula thread"

anyone who believes that there is an actual 'liberal media', hasn't read even an ounce of political science, which is not based on conspiracy theorists, but on actual fact... Read Manufacturing Consent, or if thats too big a book, read Media Control....

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE 'LIBERAL MEDIA'....

It's a joke to even say that there is, & it's mainly used by right-wing extremist ideolouges to bolster such things as unnessisary war, a ban on gay marriage, strict welfare reform... anything that crushes the poor to bennefit the rich.

The democrats are just an ineffectual faction of a republic...

The words "liberal media" have about as much merrit at "zionist plot"....

edit:

f'n LOL!

[Edited on Aug 02, 2004 by Jiatsu_Kamikaze]

The thread title was sarcastic. Can't believe I had to spell that out.

Read a Stockula thread, and you'll begin to 'want to believe'.

I've read hundreds of stockula threads over the years, which is why I titled it the way I did.