The top ten reasons to vote for BUSH. (mudslinging)

[C-Fan]

[what you see on tv is not fair, it is almost all left sided.

To add to this, black is white, up is down, good is bad, and my urine tastes like lemonade.

All of talk radio is radically conservative. Fox News, one of the major networks on the air, is radically conservative. Name me one major news network which has a liberal bias. There is none.

There have been several good, non-partisan studies of the US media, which have decisively shown there to be no liberal bias in the media, and a slight conservative bias (not counting Fox News, which skews it even farther to the right).

Seriously, saying that the media is dominated by the left is the same thing as wearing a giant sandwich billboard sign proclaiming `I am an ignorant moron, please exploit me.`

[Matt]

Did you just compare the Democrats with Hitler and the Nazis?

no he said that it is bad to just walk by when people are being hurt.



60 minutes?
Air America (ha)

Fox news is right, NBC is slightly right, ABC is middle, all the rest are left.

ever watch a talk show? Id say 9 out of 10 people are liberal. Anything else is left too

[C-Fan]

Air America (ha)

Today is April 2nd. Air America has been on the air for one day. Chill the fuck out homie. That`s like me laughing at a newbie if he cant hit a mirage on his first day kicking a footbag.

Fox news is right, NBC is slightly right, ABC is middle, all the rest are left.

You are trying to tell me that CBS is left wing? That`s crap and you know it. `all the rest are left.` What `all the rest`? Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC ARE the major news networks!

So what you are telling me is that of the 5 major networks, 25% are right, 25% are slightly right, 25% are neutral, and 25% are left. You dont have to be a math major to figure out that that produces a bias towards the right, and not the left. AND that is assuming that CBS is liberal leaning, which it completely isnt.

I`ll post some good figures and studies on this topic on Monday, because you dont have a leg to stand on in this argument. Seriously, you should just give up, because your position is laughable.

[Matt]

why do you have to be so mean?


ok what about anything besides news? The general public watches a lot of different TV shows, and they are the ones who vote.

[MegaFighter_X]

CBS is more left than NBC, for sure though. You can't deny that.

[Matt]

Chill the fuck out homie.



That`s crap and you know it. Fox, ABC, CBS, and NBC ARE the major news networks!

you dont have a leg to stand on in this argument. Seriously, you should just give up, because your position is laughable.

you are the one yelling

[HighDemonslayer]

CBS NBC and ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune are all EXACTLY the same.

If you miss one of their stories, or segments, you can get the exact same story on/in any of the others.


I read yesterday that CNN has lost HALF their viewers since last year.

They only had viewers in the first place because they were the ONLY cable news network when they began.

-n

[sampotter]

From what I heard from my mom (hard on democrat) who watched CNN back when it was younger, it used to be TERRIFIC. Then again, Ted Turner doesn't own it anymore.

[canadian girl]

No.....I don't think that anyone should have necessarily gone into Iraq and killed innocent people, but on the contrary, I don't necessarily think that anyone should have sat by and let Saddam Hussein kill his people. I agree with Jeremy, that there were other alternitives!!! It was not black and white.
I think some people need to learn how to talk their way through their problems, and I think that it was pretty evident that Bush was looking for a way to use his fancy army from the beginning.
But I just have a problem with that because he jumped in there before Iraq had any chance to do anything about his accusations. what Bush did in Iraq was UNFAIR! No doubt about it:
He said that they had nuclear weapons, and that they should surrender them. When Iraq didn't, they sent an investigator in there. The investigator found none, in a search on a few months, and then Bush attacked Iraq on a different level. He made up a new reason. I just think that it is pretty clear that his invasion of Iraq had motives that he didn't tell the public, and because of those motives he killed innocent people. and because of that I don't think he should be in control of one of the most powerful nations in the world.

I am not firmly one way or another on the political spectrum, and thruth be told, I don't really know much about politics. and sure, I probably lean more towards NDP, because of the way I have been raised. But I am open to thinking critically about different points of view. I am a firm believer that you cannot make an educated personal decision without examining all different perspectives. But after examining the different perspectives, in terms of Nazi Germany, Bush invading Iraq etc etc... I think that it is pretty clear to me what is bullshit and what is not. and I think that instead of anyone getting inflamed about their opinions, we should all try to look calmly at opinions that are different from our own, to expand our knowledge. then, maybe your opinion will change, maybe not, but at least you will be educated, calm, respected and will be able to back up your own point of view. I personally think that the Iraq issue is pointless to argue about, because Bush was basically caught red-handed no telling the American people everything. But anyways... that's all.

oh, and P.S. Jezreel, I really admire your calm and open-mindedness. just what I am aiming for, but have not been yet able to attain.

[MegaFighter_X]

I mentinoed this in the other mudslinging post, but He changed the reason we went into iraq 3 times (I think).

1. WMD
2. Oust Saddam
3. Free the people

He can't get his shit straight, so he's gotta bullshit it way though it. There is too much lying in his administration for any decent American to support him. Not to mention he's trying to pass himself off as a "wartime president."

I don't want a warlord, I want someone who can run the god damned country I live in!

[C-Fan]

why do you have to be so mean?

This coming from the guy who says in every thread: `if it doesnt affect me, I don`t care.`

Why do I have to be so mean? I`m sorry if my responses seem harsh, but I wouldnt call them mean. But your comments are so unbelievable that they could only come from a troll, or an ignoramus. Shall I sum up our last exchange of ideas?

MATT: what you see on tv is not fair, it is almost all left sided.
KEN: Oh really? Give an example to back up this hypothesis of yours.
MATT:Fox news is right, NBC is slightly right, ABC is middle, all the rest are left.
KEN: Even assuming that your analysis is accurate (which it isn`t), that means that 50% of network news has a right bias, 25% is neutral, and 25% is left. (for the record, this analysis is flawed, since there is no network with a left bias, though there are clearly networks with a right bias).
MATT: Air America... (ha)
KEN: Air America has been on the air for one day (at the time of my post).

Look, sorry if reality is harsh, but if you`re going to post absolutely retarded shit which is inaccurate and illogical (even using your own numbers and logic, your argument is STILL wrong!), expect to be refuted.

OK, back to what I promised: my argument that the media has anything BUT a liberal bias.
I think the clearest evidence of this is in the way the media treated Bill Clinton, vs how it treats Bush. Essentially, people got away with calling Clinton everything from `murderer` to `serial rapist,` Whitewater (which, after millions of dollars of investigation turned up NOTHING) was covered extensively, the whole Lewinsky deal was all you heard for a year and led to Clinton`s impeachment, ....even up until he left office the media was against him. Do you remember when Bush took office, the Bush Administration claimed the outgoing Clintonites had caused `$200,000` in vandalism? Well, the media did a great job of covering that. But the so-called `liberal` media didnt do a good job a few months later when the GAO accounting report found `no evidence` that there ever was any damage.

Contrast this to the `liberal` media`s coverage of Bush. Do you know what insider trading is? Look up Bush and Harken. The Securities and Exchange commission found that Bush selling his stock in Harken Energy right before it went belly up (and then not filing a tax report on it until 8 months later) amounted to insider trading. So why didnt he go to prison? Oh yeah, his dad was VP at the time. How do you think the `liberal` media would have treated Clinton if he had done the same thing?

Or what about Bush`s drunk driving conviction? Or the fact that he lied about his criminal record while running for President? Why didnt anybody in the mainstream media criticise Bush in the months leading up to the iraqi war in the same way they attacked Clinton for Bosnia?

Would a liberal media do this?

So far my arguments have just been based on what I have observed myself. But in classic internet fashion, Im going to reference a study to back up my side. Unlike most internet arguments however, I am going to tell you the name of the group that ran this study. Yeah, that means you can research this group, and learn that it is actually non-partisan. The group is: the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for Excellence in Journalism. This is run out of the Columbia School of Journalism. Look into them: non partisan, very legit, as accurate an analysis of journalism as you can find out there. So in the study I am quoting, these people analyzed 1,149 stories from 17 major news sources during the 2000 Presidential election, and determined whether they portrayed either candidate in a positive, negative, or neutral manner. Here`s the findings.

Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31% 27%
Negative 56% 49%

Does that look like a liberal bias in the media to you?

Honestly now, it takes very little time and thought to post something like: `everybody knows the media has a liberal bias.` You tend to make posts like this quite often. It takes a good deal more effort to articulate an argument based on facts, which uses logic to make a point. I personally think the latter style shows more respect for the other people involved in a discussion.

Rather than waste my time with idiotic posts, and then crying to me when you can`t formulate a coherent rebuttal, go to the library and get educated, or better yet, go engage in educated discourse with people with different views, and see if that helps broaded your worldview.
Respectfully,
Ken Somolinos

[sPinko-Mania]

I don't think it matters where you live, the same 3 business controll the content for the entire country anyway

Actually it's 6 Sad but true.

I'm with Ken on this one, and agree that the Columbia School of Journalism is pretty top notch and non-partisan. I'd just like add two points which people have brought up to help explain why the mass media has a 'natural' tendency to be right leaning.

1) Mass media has increasingly become big business, 6 firms dominate the American mass media, and each is only a subsidiary of a parent firm. These parent firms are GE, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann, Time Warner and News Corp. These 6 have more annual revenue than the next 20 combined (cite: The Media Monopoly The media companies face pressures from control groups to make more profit, and because of so much conglomeration these groups are increasingly mainstream corporate giants, with boards of directors that are dominated by corporate and banking executives, if you would like a cite check Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media because I got these ideas from reading that. Banks and other institutional investors are also large owners of media stock. All this results in a situation where the media is controlled by either directly, or by people who share common interests with: major corporations and banks, and therefore people who are more likely to support right leaning government stances. When was the last time you heard of big business speaking out against say, cutting the business tax?

2) Advertisers buy and pay for programs and stories we consume. They are the patrons who provide the media subsidy. Advertisers will choose a channel or newspaper on the basis of their own principles and by and large these principles will be conservative. Businesses will obviously not want to sponsor programmes that seriously criticise corporate activities such as mergers and acquisitions resulting in near-monopolies. If a media firm is leftist and attacks business power, it wouldn't expect to get a lot of business adverts, this decreases its chances of surviving because it has to pass more of the cost of production onto customers who may switch to a cheaper paper. It's blatantly in their rational self interest to sponsor someone who will be leaning towards support of right wing policies that tend to be corporation-friendly. Likewise it is in the media's rational self interest because if they do this, they will receive funding and wont go under.

[Matt]

i dont want to fight

i just think it is good to stir up some arguments incase i have to give a speech on something like this later (i probably will)

[comastalker]

please don't.....
it's like the guy in the racism thread, who wanted to tell
the majority that the public mass is anti-white

and regarding the media :
when is ratm going to found a pirate-tv-station ?

[HighDemonslayer]

My assertions about media bias are partially from the surveys that show newspaper editors and T.V. anchors vote Democrat over Republican by a percentage somewhere around 85% Dem, to 15% Rep..

I could be mistakenly posting the percentages of college professors votes, but then again, they teach the journalists.

I won't get into until I have the studies in front of me.

The "Clinton trashed the white house" story interests me because of Bush's "new tone":
Which states you lay down like a fucking wimp and don't defend yourself or attack others.

He probably told the GAO to bury the facts, because he (incorrectly) thought everyone would love him if he wasn't partisan.

-n

[C-Fan]

My assertions about media bias are partially from the surveys (1) that show newspaper editors and T.V. anchors vote Democrat over Republican by a percentage somewhere around 85% Dem, to 15% Rep..

(2)I could be mistakenly posting the percentages of college professors votes, but then again, they teach the journalists.

(3)I won't get into until I have the studies in front of me.

Let`s parse this statement, shall we? Let`s break down Nathan`s comments into easy-to-understand, summarized form.

1. `surveys` (from an unnamed, un-cited group) show newspaper editors and TV anchors vore more for Democrats than Republicans by....what`s a good number to pull out of my ass? Oh, right. 85 %

Seriously Nathan, this is pathetic. Cite the study name, as well as who conducted it. Anybody can make up numbers. This is lazy and insults my intelligence.

2. maybe I am making this up... maybe it was another survey, by another unnamed yet biased polling group which claims that university professors vote democrat over republican by 99, i mean, 85 %. But hey, even if statement 1 is a lie, which I admit it may be, college professors teach journalists! So if professors are liberal, it MUST follow that journalists are liberal. I mean, doesnt your own political belief perfectly match the voting record of your teachers?

Come on Nathan. This is a shoddy disclaimer. And even if your assertion is true, a liberal voting record doesnt automatically mean that the news being presented has a liberal slant. I can vote for Gore, but if I work at Foxnews, the shit I read off the teleprompter is conservative. You are also completely ignoring professionalism. AND your statistic very conveniently avoids discussing the content of what is said.

3. I am making this up, but hopefully nobody will challenge me to produce these `surveys` later, so people will just accept these assertions uncritically.


I think this post is a beautiful contrast to the one I posted before. Compare the two.

What is the job of the media? To give us information. So if the media is liberal, it makes sense that it would portray liberals in a positive way, and conservatives in a negative way. In my argument, I look at the content of the stories the news media releases. You look at the voting record of people who are little more than models who can read. Seriously, look at news anchors. They are people who look good on camera and can read off a teleprompter. The way they vote matters less than the content of what they say.

Basing your `the media is liberal!` argument on their voting record is really weak.

You will also note that in my previous post I do my readers the favor of citing the name of the study, as well as the group that conducted it. And as a bonus, it happens to be a reputable, non-partisan group too.

He probably told the GAO to bury the facts, because he (incorrectly) thought everyone would love him if he wasn't partisan.
-n

This also makes a good comparison.

Ken`s argument:

1. During Bush`s first week in office, Ari Fleischer held a press conference announcing that the Clintons and the Clinton administration did over $200,000 in vandalism before leaving. This is a fact. This is on video. This is indisputable.
2. The GAO did an in-depth investigation, which showed that the outgoing administration did not do anything even close to what was described. This is also a fact. In fact, you can get the GAO report. Its public domain. This is an indisputable fact.
3. The media extensively covered (1.), but gave almost no air time to (2.)
This is an indisputable fact. Lexis-nexis it. Or get tapes from major networks for the year. Indisputable fact.

Based on this, I come to two conclusions. The first is, the Bush administration (unlike Nathans claim) is very much about committing partisan attacks, and is willing to lie to do so . The second conclusion I come to, is that a liberal media would give more airtime to (2.) than to (1.), but just the opposite happened.

Now, Nathan`s rebuttal:

He probably told the GAO to bury the facts, because he (incorrectly) thought everyone would love him if he wasn't partisan.
-n

Uh huh. Great theory there buddy. Your academic and logical rigor are truly astounding.

Seriously Nathan, why do you bother making posts like these? You just throw out `guesses` and your own personal theories, and never back them up with anything that even resembles facts.

[HighDemonslayer]

Thanks for "summarizing" my 5 sentence post into a 2 page analysis.


You should know by now that me saying:

"He probably told the GAO......."

is just a demonstration of my contempt for his weakness, and his repeated going out of his way to protect the last administration.


Do you think I want to take the time to find the friggin study again? i'd rather insult your intelligence, if that's all it takes.


I don't get paid to write posts in the forum, do you? We might think so if it wasn't for the emotion and obvious mad hatred of me.

Maybe I write these short posts just so you get mad and write 10-page rebuttals.


Keep up the beautifully composed AND researched posts,and I might read the whole thing.


p.s.

The media will deny to their dying day that they are not biased. We know better. I don't care how the NYT says otherwise.

-n

[Jeremy]

Nathan probably thinks I too am full of MAD HATRED for him. Do you think that Nathan?

I hope you don't get offended by the following comment - but basically when you write posts about politics which have nothing to back them up and appear to be a load of crock - it makes you look stupid. I'm not saying you are stupid - I think probably you are not stupid. But when talking about politics - there are lots of people who are really into politics - especially on this board - if you don't think through what you write - you will be taken apart.

[FlexThis]

I can attest to that.

Vote Bush - He has the ability to creatively dodge loaded questions without a clue as to what question was asked.

[MegaFighter_X]

Ah, refering to the "press conference," eh? Wern't the circumstances something like questions had to be submitted 72 hours in advance and no follow up questions? Quote (as best as I can remember):"I wish you would have submitted the question before asking it." I can't quite remember that specific part word for word.. oh well...