Inuyasha wrote:
@ visagrunt
I actually don't make the statement of such a bias lightly, fact is that the overwhelming majority of the media has a far-left bias (I'm including the BBC, AP, and Reuters in this).
I would never accuse you of making the statement lightly--you repeat it often enough, after all. But I do think that you are making it uncritically, and I think that you are failing to address the log in your own eye. You are perfectly right to defend your point of view against those who uncritically claim, for example, that Fox News is biased--but that does not mean that you are free to ignore Fox News' bias when you are speaking of the bias in media, in general.
One of the things that I notice is the degree to which you use modifiers to distort your message. The "
overwhelming majority," has a, "
far-left bias?" By doing this to your statements you look alarmist and ridiculous.
I will certainly go along with you that bias exists in the media--it is, after all, a human thing with human flaws. But I will not accept an uncritical statement that the overwhelming majority is biased toward the "far-left."
Quote:
What is really sad is Rush Limbaugh was able to give some pretty good examples today of how the media is corrupt.
I'll see if I can dig up the examples and post them up.
Update: Found it.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.htmlThe president made that acceptance clear in a speech in May 2009. To some degree, he was forced into it by the Bush administration’s legacy of torture and abuse, which made some important cases impossible to prosecute. But the White House could have pushed harder to try some of these cases in the United States.
Last year, the administration essentially backed off its original fervor to try the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in New York City after encountering nearly unanimous opposition from the area’s Congressional delegation and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (Most of those officials were Democrats, proving that groundless timidity is bipartisan.) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/opini ... &src=twrhpClassic blame Bush.
RUSH: The New York Times -- (laughing) -- I mean the whole paper today. "Rising Gas Cost Finds the Nation Better Prepared." (laughing) Yes. "The increase in energy prices is beginning to resemble the rise in 2008. But this time, the American economy may be better prepared for higher fuel costs. ... While the latest surge in energy prices is likely to cause some pain and slow the recovery from the recession, economists say the spike is unlikely to derail the rebound unless prices rise a lot further. One big reason is that consumers and businesses have learned lessons from the last oil shock. ... Industries like airlines and trucking, which are most severely affected by fuel prices, have passed on their higher costs almost immediately instead of waiting for the price increases to hammer profits. And much of the rest of the United States economy is far less dependent on oil than it used to be." (laughing) It's not possible, but that's what they're saying.http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.htmlReferring to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/busin ... ss&emc=rsshttp://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.htmlreferring to:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508/and
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... g-states/1I don't see that these demonstrate corruption. I'm not even persuaded that these demonstrate bias, though you are nearer the mark, perhaps.
It is possible for us to have a factual disagreement and for both of us to have sound, well reasoned positions. Just because we disagree, it does not mean that one, the other or both of us are wrong.
_________________
--James
10 Mar 2011, 2:55 am
