Rightist media taking advantage of dopey Protestors.

[Tmy]

There is always the tag of the "libral media" but I find that many media outlets leaning to the right *coughfoxnewscough*.

I cringe when I see the stories of the human shields going over to Iraq, and anti war protestors carrying silly signs. Then when they interview these people on the street they sound like pie in the sky morons. I cant help but think about what they are smoking.

I think the rightest media out there is exploiting alot of these antiwar, human shield kooks. The implication is that ALL anti-war people are hippe commie screwballs who hate GW Bush, America, and oil companies.

Imagine the opposite. Some redneck saying we shoudl kill all arabs and take their oil. Does that person represent the pro-war side? Of course not.

I guess it all comes down to the best soundbite.

[kittynh]

If you have ever had the misery to be in a town with the WTO meeting you see that there are many pretty sane protest groups..and then on the news you see the really zany ones that dress up in Shamu costumes, or in one case protested in the nude (to bring attention to sweat shops that make our clothing, or maybe they just wanted to make sure they made the news).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
There is always the tag of the "libral media" but I find that many media outlets leaning to the right *coughfoxnewscough*.


Saying FOXNEWS is to the right of CNN and MSNBC is not the same as claiming FOXNEWS is "conservative media".

Hell, JFK would be to the right of today's average liberal...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy

I think the rightest media out there is exploiting alot of these antiwar, human shield kooks. The implication is that ALL anti-war people are hippe commie screwballs who hate GW Bush, America, and oil companies.


So, if they didnt itnerview the kooks then they would imply that all peace protestors were genuine pacifists?

See what I mean?

The truth is, peace protests have been hijacked by a large number of subgroups. neo-Communists, anti-Israel groups, professional Bush Haters, Bush conspiracy nutballs, and others. The professional Bush haters are the easiest to spot since they did not pick up signs and protest in 1998. These are the people in whose world Bush can do no right. They think he is vulnerable on the Iraq issue so they attack.

Now, there are genuine pacifists amoung the many groups who have hijacked these protests but by far anti-Bush sentiment outweighs true anti-war conviction.

Everytime I see a "no war for oil sign" I chalk up another "bush hater who wants to link the war effort to dubyas energy connections". That is the only explanation I can find for this belief.

[corplinx]

Martin Sheen who is doing an anti-war ad this week falls into the professional Bush hater group.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think the rightest media out there is exploiting alot of these antiwar, human shield kooks. The implication is that ALL anti-war people are hippe commie screwballs who hate GW Bush, America, and oil companies.

No, those people are not individuals. They have given their allegiance to groups and thus are associated with groups. The anti-war protests were organized by radical leftist groups, many with communist ties directly like the communist A.N.S.W.E.R.

If a person shows up to assist a communist group with a communist agenda, how could they not be helping communists?

I do agree with you that the media is majority leftist though.

JK

[Tmy]

How does showing up to an Anti War rally = assisting communists? Its not a Pro Commie rally.

I bought gas today, am I assisting the Iraqi regime.

[corplinx]

Yes, there have been protests promoted by ANSWER. However, most people who protested did not know what ANSWER was all about.

As Stalin called them, "useful idiots".

However, I think labeling these people communists for showing up is a bit extreme Jedi.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Tmy
There is always the tag of the "libral media" but I find that many media outlets leaning to the right *coughfoxnewscough*.



All the major media are owned by large, wealthy corporations. Who do you think the boards of Fox, CBS, NBC etc. vote for? I'm guessing its not Ralph Nader.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Saying FOXNEWS is to the right of CNN and MSNBC is not the same as claiming FOXNEWS is "conservative media".

Hell, JFK would be to the right of today's average liberal...

Kodiak, pardon me, but I don't trust your assesment of "today's average liberal". Please, enlighten me on current liberal policies which JFK would have snubbed.

The current commercial news media is hardly liberal. Fox News just drops the pretense of being unbiased.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy
How does showing up to an Anti War rally = assisting communists? Its not a Pro Commie rally.

I bought gas today, am I assisting the Iraqi regime.

Absolutely you are if the fuel came from Iraq.

If you go to a KKK rally, are you assisting white supremists?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
As Stalin called them, "useful idiots".

I completely agree. It is the duty of the citizen to inform other citizens when they are being "useful idiots" for communists.

Check out this article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6228) about the peace movments, their origins and what the new ones mean.

JK

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Absolutely you are if the fuel came from Iraq.

If you go to a KKK rally, are you assisting white supremists?

JK

Depends......If its a Pro-KKK rally then yes. Now if its a pro-war rally, then Im not there for the KKK. Im there for my stance on the war.

Im sure most of these protestors dont know who's even putting the thing together, they just show up because they want to make their anti-war stance known. Who cares who's footing the bill for the flyers. Are these protestes money making ventures???

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Kodiak, pardon me, but I don't trust your assesment of "today's average liberal". Please, enlighten me on current liberal policies which JFK would have snubbed.

JFK was the original "trickle-downer" (http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=1999/7/22/072324)

From the website:

Kennedy governed as a fiscal conservative, and was nobody's leftist, at least as we currently define that term. For example, during the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon race, pundits complained of the lack of real ideological differences between the two candidates. And, as President, Kennedy helped jump-start the economy by passing a tax cut! In calling for a reduction in tax rates, Kennedy said, " ... it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

When Ronald Reagan said it, detractors derisively called it "trickle down." And even John F. Kennedy, Jr., in a 1995 interview with Barbara Walters, said that, were he President, the first thing he would do is push for a "huge tax cut."

And, what about civil rights? Civil rights groups like the NAACP, near the end of President John Kennedy's life, felt betrayed. They thought Kennedy talked the talk, but failed to walk the walk, refusing to push for broad civil rights legislation. It fell to Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, whom Kennedy hated, to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Open Housing Act of 1968.

President Kennedy also seemed dismissive of what we now call affirmative action. In a 1962 interview, Kennedy said, "I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now ... But not hard and fast quotas ... We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."

[specious_reasons]

Found on http://www.nationalcenter.org/JFKTaxes1961.html
"President Kennedy Appeals to the Congress for a Tax Cut"


This emphasis on income taxation has been a sound development. But so many taxpayers have become so preoccupied with so many tax-saving devices that business decisions are interfered with, and the efficient functioning of the price system is distorted.

Moreover, special provisions have developed into an increasing source of preferential treatment to various groups. Whenever one taxpayer is permitted to pay less, someone else must be asked to pay more. The uniform distribution of the tax burden is thereby disturbed and higher rates are made necessary by the narrowing of the tax base. Of course, some departures from uniformity are needed to promote desirable social or economic objectives of overriding importance which can be achieved most effectively through the tax mechanism. But many of the preferences which have developed do not meet such a test and need to be reevaluated in our tax reform program.

It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth.

The tax rate prior to 1962 was 90% at the highest level, which meant that many business decisions were made based on reducing taxable income, not reducing costs, or increasing growth and productivity.

Maybe it's trickle-down, maybe not, but this was not how I remember the Reagan tax cut was "sold" to the public. I grant you that the reasoning seems fairly similar.

But by golly, though, it's hard to justify a 90% tax rate as fair. I'd be hard-pressed to find any modern liberal who thinks that the current tax system is so unfair as to see the need to raise taxes to that level.

The large middle paragraph in the quote points to something I think was missing from the Reagan tax cut. If you cut taxes for someone, someone else pays the bills.

Re Civil Rights: I recently listened to the Tavis Smiley show (on NPR, this Monday, I think), where a historian claimed the Kennedy White House was afraid to pursue civil rights too aggressively because Kennedy won by such a narrow margin. Johnston, in a brilliant political move, pushed civil rights reform through Congress in honor of JFK.

Take that for what you will. This historian also claimed that to JFK, civil rights was an intellectual concept, but LBJ lived through poverty, prejudice and injustice. LBJ was the more motivated reformer.

Your claim may have some merit, but it still strikes me as hyperbole.

On the other hand, JFK is way to the right of some of the protestors on TV. I even agree with corplinx, get rid of those "no war for oil" signs. It made some sense in 1990, but now... It just makes people look fanatically anti-Bush.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
But by golly, though, it's hard to justify a 90% tax rate as fair. I'd be hard-pressed to find any modern liberal who thinks that the current tax system is so unfair as to see the need to raise taxes to that level.

Every time I hear that I remember Mondale saying "We'll tax their ass off."

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Every time I hear that I remember Mondale saying "We'll tax their ass off."

Ok, so you found one. :)

Seriously, though, is it beyond your comprehension that not all liberals are extreme "tax and spend" left-leaning freaks?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Ok, so you found one. :)

Seriously, though, is it beyond your comprehension that not all liberals are extreme "tax and spend" left-leaning freaks?

I don't like, or often use, the word "extreme" in politics, because there are equal numbers of those individuals on both ends of the political spectrum.

I do contend though, that, IMO, the average liberal believes: the rich don't pay enough; that the poor pay too much; that taxing something they believe to be hurtful and evil (like cigarettes) is better than making it illegal; that taxes should be increased and not lowered; that the bulk of that newly won government revenue should be spent on welfare programs; that the creation and continued growth of social welfare government programs is more important than whether or not the programs actually work; that all conservatives are rich, white, pro-life christian zealots.

[Supercharts]

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that
we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship,
support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and
the success of liberty."

http://www.jfk-info.com/jfkinaug.htm

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


The current commercial news media is hardly liberal. Fox News just drops the pretense of being unbiased.

Excuse me - read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.

The major nets are reflexively liberal - and half the time they don't even realize it.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

Excuse me - read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.

The major nets are reflexively liberal - and half the time they don't even realize it.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

You're excused. ;)

I will. Eventually. I had this debate with RandFan, so I won't rehash it here, only point you to the thread.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12839

I personally don't buy what I've seen of Goldberg's arguments.

Television media may have liberal reporters, but my primary assertion is that media has a bias towards profit, not strictly "liberal" or "conservative". (Although my personal feeling is that news, in general leans conservative.)

Sorry, have I hijacked this thread?

Originally posted by Tmy


Depends......If its a Pro-KKK rally then yes. Now if its a pro-war rally, then Im not there for the KKK. Im there for my stance on the war.

Im sure most of these protestors dont know who's even putting the thing together, they just show up because they want to make their anti-war stance known. Who cares who's footing the bill for the flyers. Are these protestes money making ventures???

So if Iraq was behind the anti-war rallies, it wouldn't matter to you.

Whoever said "useful idiots" was dead-on.

It ain't the Right that is taking advantage of dopey protesters.....

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I personally don't buy what I've seen of Goldberg's arguments.

Which ones?? Seriously - much of his book is anecdotal but he does quote some studies that demonstrate that network media describe themselves as overwhelmingly liberal (no surprise there) But - they view themselves as mainstream and anyone to the right as an extremist.

You see this demonstrated all the time via how guests are captioned - or introduced. You will almost always see a "conservative" tag under guys like Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott - but you will not see a "liberal" tag under guys like Bill Moyers or Jesse Jackson.

The liberal slant is reflexive and pervasive. And - most annoyingly - stridently denied by the networks.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

Which ones?? Seriously - much of his book is anecdotal but he does quote some studies that demonstrate that network media describe themselves as overwhelmingly liberal (no surprise there) But - they view themselves as mainstream and anyone to the right as an extremist.

You see this demonstrated all the time via how guests are captioned - or introduced. You will almost always see a "conservative" tag under guys like Rush Limbaugh or Trent Lott - but you will not see a "liberal" tag under guys like Bill Moyers or Jesse Jackson.

The liberal slant is reflexive and pervasive. And - most annoyingly - stridently denied by the networks.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

#1. Did you read the thread I pointed to?
#2. I have not read the book, so I don't know any claims beyond the ones I've read in critiques.
#3. The critiques (which may not include information on the "captioning" of guests) show that liberals are identified as much as conservatives.
#4. Who the hell cares how you're labelled?
#5. My claim is that bias is towards profit, in the other thread, I point out other influences that may cause bias.

Care to retort? In a different thread, maybe? I'm game.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

#1. Did you read the thread I pointed to?

I missed the second page - just went back and found it.

#2. I have not read the book, so I don't know any claims beyond the ones I've read in critiques.


I believe the critiques miss the larger point - and that is that guys like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings swear up and down that there is no bias - and then their actions demonstrate that there is.

Here is a site that does go off the right end from time to time but still comes up w/ what one must admit are some glaring issues in coverage;

http://www.mediaresearch.org/


#3. The critiques (which may not include information on the "captioning" of guests) show that liberals are identified as much as conservatives.

Perhaps in print - but not on the networks - the focus of the book BTW. My experience - now that I'm watching for these things - is in line w/ the author's.

#4. Who the hell cares how you're labelled?

Ahh but labels are loaded - especially the conservative one - which can mean anyone from a moderate Bob Dole or Gerald Ford to a raving right wing David Duke. Either the nets should drop the labels or label both "sides".

#5. My claim is that bias is towards profit, in the other thread, I point out other influences that may cause bias.
You should be right - as logically this would make sense - but I don't think you are.

From the book - page 129;

The Freedom Forum and the Roper Center surveyed 139 Washington Bureau chiefs (the "gatekeepers" of information);
- 89% voted for Bill Clinton in 1992
- 43% of the voters did

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[specious_reasons]

Disclaimer: I don't watch network TV news, since I don't feel it's a quality news source.


I missed the second page - just went back and found it.


Sorry, failed to make that clear.


I believe the critiques miss the larger point - and that is that guys like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings swear up and down that there is no bias - and then their actions demonstrate that there is.


I don't think that shows anything. Network news "sells" itself as an unbiased news source. That's because people think they want to hear "unbiased" news. I don't necessarily have a problem with biased news sources, as long as they are identified as such.

I think that we agree that unidentfied bias is a Bad Thing, of course, we disagree as to what that bias is. ;)


Here is a site that does go off the right end from time to time but still comes up w/ what one must admit are some glaring issues in coverage;
http://www.mediaresearch.org/


I've seen that site. I am not convinced of it's integrity, for instance, from the other thread, in regards to the poll of editors, publishers and executives:
Me:
Note that they didn't ask, "Do you identify yourself as liberal or conservative?" It's not the same question posed of the journalists.

The facts presented on the site are adjusted to their belief system. If the editors, publishers and executives overwhelmingly identified themselves as liberal, why isn't that statistic proudly dispayed?

I could counter with www.fair.org, but you probably think as much of that site as I do the Media Research site.

... I'm also not very swayed by anecdotes of liberal bias, because I believe I could, if I was slightly more obsessed with this issue, dredge up anecdotes "proving" conservative bias. I am of the belief (i.e. I haven't proven otherwise) that these anecdotes are "counting the hits".


Perhaps in print - but not on the networks - the focus of the book BTW. My experience - now that I'm watching for these things - is in line w/ the author's.


The Daily Howler critique is based on the transcripts of TV shows, as saved in Lexis-Nexis (sp?) I do not know if that includes the captions that appear below people's talking heads. Therefore, based on what is said, liberals are identified at least as often as conservatives.

As often as he could, the Daily Howler uses the same source for reference as Goldberg.

Full disclosure: the Daily Howler (aka Bob Sommerby- sp?) is clearly liberal, and he is a friend of Al Gore.


Ahh but labels are loaded - especially the conservative one - which can mean anyone from a moderate Bob Dole or Gerald Ford to a raving right wing David Duke. Either the nets should drop the labels or label both "sides".


I agree, there should be a consistent policy for every news source. Either label people or don't. However, I don't place Bob Dole in the moderate class, but that's my opinion.

....but liberal is a bad label, too. The Republican Party has done a terrific job of PR. I see it all the time, "liberal" implies some woo-woo lack of common sense. Only people like Teddy Kennedy still proudly wear that label. And, remember, based on what was said, liberals are identified at least as often as conservatives.


You should be right - as logically this would make sense - but I don't think you are.

From the book - page 129;

The Freedom Forum and the Roper Center surveyed 139 Washington Bureau chiefs (the "gatekeepers" of information);
- 89% voted for Bill Clinton in 1992
- 43% of the voters did


Because everyone knows that Bill Clinton was the sum of all that was evil in the world.

There is a difference between being liberal by relflex and voting for Clinton. I mean, he did appeal to 43% of the voting population.

----

So, RandFan, at one point, noted that any bias is an advantage for that side. I personally don't think that the bias is significant enough (in either direction) to cause any advantage for the Democrats or Republicans.

I worry more about the profit bias. In order to make news faster and cheaper, newsmakers rely on the PR industry to help produce the news. The PR industry's job is to promote the interest if its clients, the news the PR industry generates is inherently biased. It's an unhealthy practice.

I've seen evidence of the "third party" technique and PR news releases on everything from Fox News to NPR. It's shameful.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Disclaimer: I don't watch network TV news, since I don't feel it's a quality news source.



I don't disagree.

Because everyone knows that Bill Clinton was the sum of all that was evil in the world.


Well no - he was just a total ass who always absolutely believed the last thing out of his own mouth - even if it was the total opposite of what he said the day before - or an hour ago.


I worry more about the profit bias. In order to make news faster and cheaper, newsmakers rely on the PR industry to help produce the news. The PR industry's job is to promote the interest if its clients, the news the PR industry generates is inherently biased. It's an unhealthy practice.

I've seen evidence of the "third party" technique and PR news releases on everything from Fox News to NPR. It's shameful.

Agree w/ you 100% here.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[specious_reasons]

Your Bill Clinton comment speaks for itself.

Regardless, I'll take this opportunity to plug PR! by Stuart Ewen. It's the history of the public relations industry. Fascinating stuff.

One of these days, I'm going to pick up some of Edward Bernays' books.