Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Liberal Media My Ass

Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

02 Aug 2011, 11:20 am

Here are two questions for those who think the media has a liberal bias.

1. Why are so many people unaware of U.S. imperialism?
2. Why did 43% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks in 2006?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hiRC5ZDTXk&ob=av3e

There is a bias in the media but it is not liberal. It is pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-authoritarianism and pro-you-shutting-the-hell-up.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Aug 2011, 11:26 am

I think it is a liberal mindset overall that helps "conspire", so to speak, to usher globalism -- global governance -- into place.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

02 Aug 2011, 11:29 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Here are two questions for those who think the media has a liberal bias.

1. Why are so many people unaware of U.S. imperialism?
2. Why did 43% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks in 2006?


At least 43% of americans are just plain stupid.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

02 Aug 2011, 2:52 pm

43% thought it was Saddam Hussein? Holy crap no wonder it took so long to get bin Laden. The media's done a great job of distracting the issue. As for imperialism, I haven't ruled that out yet but I'm still wondering why people think it's oil when the way they went about it has not only made it inconvenient but costly. They could've just set up barricades, big tent cities, and counter battery radars to defend the oil fields and left the rest of the nation to rot.

I've never seen Cenk flip out like that. Not even when he flipped on some former Republican Congressman. He needs to cool it though because people might not be able to distinguish between him and Bill O'Reilly even though one's a douche and one isn't.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 02 Aug 2011, 2:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

02 Aug 2011, 2:55 pm

"Your Liberal Media: No Liberals Allowed" - Source I can't remember

The US Establishment's political centre is comically rightwing of the political centre in most developed nations.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 Aug 2011, 2:55 pm

leejosepho wrote:
I think it is a liberal mindset overall that helps "conspire", so to speak, to usher globalism -- global governance -- into place.


Well, as usual, realpolitik defies convenient labels.

Just what do you mean by "globalism?" I see no effort being undertaken by government institutions to replicate institutions like the European Commission and the European Parliament on a global scale. While I do see some specialized tribunals like the ICC, these are exceptional, and rely upon the accession of states.

If there is any globalism going on, it is not the globalism of supra-national institutions, but the globalisation of trade and commerce--and this is most assuredly the darling of the right, not the left.


_________________
--James


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

02 Aug 2011, 3:05 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
43% thought it was Saddam Hussein? Holy crap no wonder it took so long to get bin Laden. The media's done a great job of distracting the issue. As for imperialism, I haven't ruled that out yet but I'm still wondering why people think it's oil when the way they went about it has not only made it inconvenient but costly. They could've just set up barricades, big tent cities, and counter battery radars to defend the oil fields and left the rest of the nation to rot



You're forgetting that George W. Bush and his ilk - especially guys like Rumsfeld - are incapable of connecting cause and effect.

They were under the delusion that Iraq would be a cakewalk, that they would greet our invading forces as liberators, and apparently dreamed that a jeffersonian democracy would just spontaneously emerge.

And in their minds, that all really happened, and then for unknown reasons everything went to hell anyway. Probably because of AlQaeda.

They deal with reality as they see it and as it happens. When the inevitable happened, they were surprised and dismayed and tried to deal with it in the most half-assed way they could.

In their broken minds they avoid cognitive dissonance by failing to make mental connections that could lead to dissonance. They both believe that we succeeded AND know that things are terribly wrong.

This type of psychopath appears very decisive in tough situations because they are incapable of understanding either the possible consequences of their future actions or the actual consequences of their past actions.

Consider if you will Robert McNamara's comment to Kofi Annan that he wished there had been war crimes laws when he was secretary of defense. There were war crimes laws, and McNamara was a war criminal - but his mind could not connect two pieces of reality that result in him understanding that he did wrong.

Guess who McNamara's protege was.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Aug 2011, 3:13 pm

visagrunt wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
I think it is a liberal mindset overall that helps "conspire", so to speak, to usher globalism -- global governance -- into place.


Well, as usual, realpolitik defies convenient labels.

Just what do you mean by "globalism?" I see no effort being undertaken by government institutions to replicate institutions like the European Commission and the European Parliament on a global scale. While I do see some specialized tribunals like the ICC, these are exceptional, and rely upon the accession of states.

If there is any globalism going on, it is not the globalism of supra-national institutions, but the globalisation of trade and commerce--and this is most assuredly the darling of the right, not the left.

He's referring to the various conspiracy theories, NWO etc, listen to Alex Jones if you want more details on that kind of nonsense. It's best to just ignore people who start talking about crazy stuff like this.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

02 Aug 2011, 3:52 pm

Thought Jonah Goldberg had a nice article about media bias. It is a good read.

"To Hell with You People"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... h-goldberg

a couple excerpts:

Quote:
Look, I am past exhausted talking about liberal media bias. It’s real, we all know it, and people who deny it aren’t even fooling themselves. But some things just have to be pointed out. This morning I watched the first 15 minutes of the Today Show. I don’t particularly love or even like the program, but I find it useful to see what the producers think is the big news of the day. And sometimes Chuck Todd is on, and I like him. If I sound defensive about watching the show it’s only because I am.

&

Quote:
So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in Rock and Roll High School? Something inside me hidden away shouts, “Hell yes they would!”

The Today Show even had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning for five minutes talking about Giffords. No one thought to ask her what she thought of Biden’s comments? It’s not like she’s the Democratic party’s national spokesperson or anything. Oh, wait. She is!



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Aug 2011, 4:13 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Just what do you mean by "globalism?"

The term means different things to different people, but maybe this will help here ...

Quote:
... to have a collective influence on the world's destiny by establishing a system for regulating the many interactions that lie beyond the province of state action. The political homogenization of the planet that has followed the advent of what is known as liberal democracy in its many forms should make it easier to establish a world governance system that goes beyond market laissez-faire and the democratic peace originally formulated by Immanuel Kant, which constitutes a sort of geopolitical laissez-faire.

... as Arnold Toynbee has said, "Our age is the first generation since the dawn of history in which mankind dares to believe it practical to make the benefits of civilization available to the whole human race."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_governance


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Dessie
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 177

02 Aug 2011, 4:22 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
There is a bias in the media but it is not liberal. It is pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-authoritarianism and pro-you-shutting-the-hell-up.


What channel are you watching? 8O

It's Fox News right?

Okay, I'll stop.... :twisted:

I still like the old "if it bleeds it leads" thing. It just makes sense. As far as TV news goes, some days I see very little actual news that I would consider important. The news media loves drama, and when there isn't any, they create it. Me, I'm so sick of hearing about Casey Anthony, Michelle Bachmann, and the now averted "debt crisis" that I haven't even touched my television today.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

02 Aug 2011, 6:40 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
There is a bias in the media but it is not liberal. It is pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-authoritarianism and pro-you-shutting-the-hell-up.


"pro-authoritarianism and pro-you-shutting-the-hell-up"

Two out of four is not as good as two out of three, but we can give you partial points for pro-war - sensation-mongering is the major heading.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

02 Aug 2011, 11:14 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Here are two questions for those who think the media has a liberal bias.

1. Why are so many people unaware of U.S. imperialism?
2. Why did 43% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks in 2006?

1) Because most people either don't believe the US is engaging in imperialist expansionism or don't care.
2) I'm having problems with Youtube acting up. Do you have another source of information for the 43% of people you say believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and how that percentage has changed over the years? There was a lot of confusion when 9/11 happened, but to say that people still believe Saddam masterminded it or provided any substantial funding it is a bold statement.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

05 Aug 2011, 3:05 pm

Consider the following: The media is run by megacorporations. What must the megacorporations do to get what is in their best intrest? They must keep us in line. It is not in their best intrest to tell the truth.

Also, the person who gets elected in U.S. elections is the one who got the most corporate sponsership. Therefore megacorporations control the elections.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,911
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

05 Aug 2011, 5:53 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Here are two questions for those who think the media has a liberal bias.

1. Why are so many people unaware of U.S. imperialism?
2. Why did 43% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks in 2006?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hiRC5ZDTXk&ob=av3e

There is a bias in the media but it is not liberal. It is pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-authoritarianism and pro-you-shutting-the-hell-up.


Yeah pretty much.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Aug 2011, 2:06 am

Jojoba wrote:
Thought Jonah Goldberg had a nice article about media bias. It is a good read.

"To Hell with You People"
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... h-goldberg

a couple excerpts:

Quote:
Look, I am past exhausted talking about liberal media bias. It’s real, we all know it, and people who deny it aren’t even fooling themselves. But some things just have to be pointed out. This morning I watched the first 15 minutes of the Today Show. I don’t particularly love or even like the program, but I find it useful to see what the producers think is the big news of the day. And sometimes Chuck Todd is on, and I like him. If I sound defensive about watching the show it’s only because I am.

&

Quote:
So flashforward to this week. Tom Friedman — who knows a bit about Hezbollah — calls the tea partiers the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP bent on taking the country on a “suicide mission.” All over the place, conservative Republicans are “hostage takers” and “terrorists,” “terrorists” and “traitors.” They want to “end life as we know it on this planet,” says Nancy Pelosi. They are betraying the Founders, too. Chris Matthews all but signs up for the “Make an Ass of Yourself” contest at the State Fair. Joe Nocera writes today that “the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests.” Lord knows what Krugman and Olbermann have said.

Then last night, on the very day Gabby Giffords heroically returns to cast her first vote since that tragic attack seven months ago, the vice president of the United States calls the Republican party a bunch of terrorists.

No one cares. I hate the “if this were Bush” game so we’re in luck. Instead imagine if this was Dick Cheney calling the Progressive Caucus (or whatever they’re called) a “bunch of terrorists” on the day Giffords returned to the Congress. Would the mainstream media notice or care? Would Meet the Press debate whether this raises “troubling questions” about the White House’s sensitivity? Would Andrea Mitchell find some way to blame Sarah Palin for Dick Cheney’s viciousness? Would Keith Olbermann explode like a mouse subjected to the Ramone’s music in Rock and Roll High School? Something inside me hidden away shouts, “Hell yes they would!”

The Today Show even had Debbie Wasserman Schultz on this morning for five minutes talking about Giffords. No one thought to ask her what she thought of Biden’s comments? It’s not like she’s the Democratic party’s national spokesperson or anything. Oh, wait. She is!


I'm quoting this, because I don't think people read it the first time.