GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Can idiots still claim that the US media is "liberal"? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=432769)

bringer 02-17-2005 06:47 AM

blah blah blah

Rich 02-17-2005 07:55 PM

Wow, a lot of idiots showed up in this thread, what a waste. Go back to watching TV and stop bothering people, you may think you're making points... but every well educated, rational person realizes you suckers are nothing but a big joke. No amount of ranting will change that, so please just shut up and stop annoying your betters. (IE people with an education)

Anyway, the NY Observer picked up on my brilliant thread and wrote a pretty good article on the subject today:

http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

It's about time the media started taking notes on what I'm saying. :winkwink:

Rich 02-17-2005 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis
Its obvious to me Rich is one of the most intelligent people on this board. Why are you such a hateful fuck?

Thank you sir. Don't pay much attention to theking, he's good for a laugh once and a while, but his ranting gets old fast. He's a delusional alcoholic, to be honest I really feel sorry for him and have offered to pay for his therapy.

Sexy-Girl 02-18-2005 09:33 AM

hhheeee hummmm!

missnat 02-18-2005 11:32 AM

Idiots usually claim idiotic things
so
yes they can :)

Workshop_Willy 02-18-2005 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaceXXX
i don't think there are many true liberal media outlets out there anymore....part of the definition of liberal is compassion and caring, and there aren't many caring media outlets....well, they care if they get their story, that is for sure

I won't go into Rich's bias in this reply, because I want to address the arrogance behind the statement above. Would you care to cite the dictionary that defines "liberal" in part as "compassion and caring"? I'd love to see it.

bringer 02-18-2005 12:46 PM

congrats rich
120+ replies

Workshop_Willy 02-18-2005 01:07 PM

Your original argument has a fundamental flaw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
No I'm not saying he's a representative of the mainstream media at all. I'm saying the fact that they are covering this up proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the media is not "liberal" or "anti-Bush", in fact it's quite the opposite, it's a mouthpiece for the White House. This guy was not part of the mainstream media.

And yet you originally said....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
Now I ask, anyone heard much about this Jeff "Gannon" story on TV news? No, you haven't, it's been brushed aside like nearly everything else negative about this White House, yet you've heard many times about "Rathergate" and the producers that were forced to quite over it.

You have to decide whether a story about a blogger is as important as a story about Dan Rather. If you decide that it is, then you are correct to draw a comparison here, but you are jumping the tracks a bit. The difference here is that Dan Rather himself, the epitome of mainstream media, played fast and loose with the facts, producing forged documents as "proof" of malfeasance. It was not a sin of omission, it was a sin of commission. Therefore, as a mainstream media icon, he did in fact exhibit bias and instability in the face of a potentially explosive scoop about a conservative politician. There are many stories that the mainstream media ignores simply because there's no perceived value in reporting them.

By the way, Dan does indeed have a history of rancorous intercourse with the Bush family (do you remember when he tried to blindside Bush 41 only to get his head handed to him on a platter during the 1988 campaign?). He also has a history of emotional instability and rashness on the air. I can provide examples, but I'm sure you already know what they are.

The bottom line is, you are drawing an unequal comparison between two things which really are not the same.

woodman 02-18-2005 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich
Wow, a lot of idiots showed up in this thread, what a waste. Go back to watching TV and stop bothering people, you may think you're making points... but every well educated, rational person realizes you suckers are nothing but a big joke. No amount of ranting will change that, so please just shut up and stop annoying your betters. (IE people with an education)

Anyway, the NY Observer picked up on my brilliant thread and wrote a pretty good article on the subject today:

http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp

It's about time the media started taking notes on what I'm saying. :winkwink:

You suffer from a serious case of americanpenis envy. Do you ever have anything of substance to post unless it is slamming America is some way?

klinton 02-18-2005 01:36 PM

Natural Born Killers.

Rich 02-18-2005 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy
You have to decide whether a story about a blogger is as important as a story about Dan Rather. If you decide that it is, then you are correct to draw a comparison here, but you are jumping the tracks a bit. The difference here is that Dan Rather himself, the epitome of mainstream media, played fast and loose with the facts, producing forged documents as "proof" of malfeasance. It was not a sin of omission, it was a sin of commission. Therefore, as a mainstream media icon, he did in fact exhibit bias and instability in the face of a potentially explosive scoop about a conservative politician. There are many stories that the mainstream media ignores simply because there's no perceived value in reporting them.

By the way, Dan does indeed have a history of rancorous intercourse with the Bush family (do you remember when he tried to blindside Bush 41 only to get his head handed to him on a platter during the 1988 campaign?). He also has a history of emotional instability and rashness on the air. I can provide examples, but I'm sure you already know what they are.

The bottom line is, you are drawing an unequal comparison between two things which really are not the same.

I'm not arguing that Dan Rather doesn't have a liberal bias. I'm not arguing the this blogger is a more important journalist than Rather. I'm also not using either of these two incidents alone as proof of bias. What I'm saying is, the way each of these stories has been covered in the rest of the media, proves the bias.

Certainly this story is WAY more important than "Rathergate", for many reasons. First of all it involves the White House giving unprecedented access to a non journalist, who's paid by the GOP to ask scripted questions at televised press conferences. That in itself would be a story if the entire mainstream media wasn't protecting this White House. Secondly, this non journalist gets access to classified documents revealing the name of an active, undercover CIA agent. On top of that, for a media that reported about a blow job 24/7, the guy turns out to be a gay military hooker.

Did anyone see Leslie Blitzer's interview with this "Jeff Gannon". Jesus, it was such a softball interview, you would have thought Leslie was interviewing the President himself.

To reiterate, the fact that the mainstream media is providing relatively little attention to this story should prove in everyone's mind that the mainstream US media is, at best not liberal, at worst a mouthpiece for the current administration.

If this exact same thing had happened with a reporter coving Kerry's campaign who had written hatchet jobs about the President, it would have been the biggest story of the year. You know it, I know it, even old Pathfinder knows it.

FunForOne 02-18-2005 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

If this exact same thing had happened with a reporter coving Kerry's campaign who had written hatchet jobs about the President, it would have been the biggest story of the year. You know it, I know it, even old Pathfinder knows it.


There were a lot of question that Kerry never had to answer.

He was never asked about his treasonous statmetents, his admitted war crimes, his book documenting those admitted war crimes, his voting record for the past 20 years where he voted among other things on the side of the soviet union.

Nobody in America knew who John Kerry really was, and that was by design and assistance from the media.

Instead we were given story after story trying to link prisoner abuse to the president. How many times did you hear the word "quagmire" in the months preceeding the election?

Sure, Abu Graib was a big story, but I think one paper in new york made it the front page story 29 out of 30 days. Every single one of them was trying to let people believe that Presdient Bush was over there torturing people.

The Dan Rather thing - Its not only that they manufactured the story, its also that they waited to air the story at a time they believed would hurt the current president of the united states and affect the outcome of the US presidential election.

Workshop_Willy 02-18-2005 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne
There were a lot of question that Kerry never had to answer.

He was never asked about his treasonous statmetents, his admitted war crimes, his book documenting those admitted war crimes, his voting record for the past 20 years where he voted among other things on the side of the soviet union.

Nobody in America knew who John Kerry really was, and that was by design and assistance from the media.

Instead we were given story after story trying to link prisoner abuse to the president. How many times did you hear the word "quagmire" in the months preceeding the election?

Sure, Abu Graib was a big story, but I think one paper in new york made it the front page story 29 out of 30 days. Every single one of them was trying to let people believe that Presdient Bush was over there torturing people.

The Dan Rather thing - Its not only that they manufactured the story, its also that they waited to air the story at a time they believed would hurt the current president of the united states and affect the outcome of the US presidential election.


Amen brother. Who here among us would like to have been in the Hanoi Hilton when Kerry's congressional testimony was given? He and Jane Fonda both got complete passes on their Vietnam activities by the mainstream press (except of course on Fox News ) :winkwink:

FunForOne 02-18-2005 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workshop_Willy
Amen brother. Who here among us would like to have been in the Hanoi Hilton when Kerry's congressional testimony was given? He and Jane Fonda both got complete passes on their Vietnam activities by the mainstream press (except of course on Fox News ) :winkwink:


Lots of brave americans were getting bamboo shoved up their fingernails because they wouldn't admit to the stuff John Kerry was saying. The enemy of our great country loved John Kerry so much, they played his speach over the loud speaker of the prison to watch the tortured American soldiers cry.

Snake Doctor 02-18-2005 02:43 PM

Exit polling showed that 70% of Bush voters think that we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That tells me that the media, liberal or otherwise, didn't do a very good job of driving that point home to thier viewers/readers.

For fear of looking "unpatriotic" very few in the media were harshly critical of this administration during the war.

FunForOne 02-18-2005 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

For fear of looking "unpatriotic" very few in the media were harshly critical of this administration during the war.


Where were you? It was unbelievalbly critical.


I remember the morning Katie Curic(sp) reffered the democrat party as "We".

Workshop_Willy 02-18-2005 02:55 PM

From cnn.com:
"Jane Fonda -- actress, political activist and partner of anti-war protester Tom Hayden -- entered enemy territory for two weeks in November and emerged, in the eyes of many, as a traitor after posing for photographs at the seat of an anti-aircraft cannon and making radio broadcasts urging U.S. airmen to stop bombing North Vietnam. Fonda told servicemen stationed on aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin that the bombs they were loading into planes were illegal and that using the bombs 'makes one a war criminal.' "

Note CNN's use of the qualifier "in the eyes of many". I wonder just what the hell Jane Fonda would actually have to have done for CNN to have omitted that qualifier? <--LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

From snopes.com:
"During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured: TRUE"



http://www.trickedmedia.com/fondaBW.gif
Why was this woman not put in Leavenworth? The liberal media granted her access to the airwaves in the guise of a legitimate protester, that's why.

FunForOne 02-18-2005 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Sorry about the rant but I just heard some fool talking about the "liberal media" and I couldn't help but laugh in his face. I'd like to see if any GFYers are still blind enough to buy into this silly bit of misinformation.



'In a June survey done by the Pew Research Center only 7% of journalists described themselves as conservative compared to 34% who identified themselves as liberal. That's an astounding ideological filter through which our news has to pass, especially when you consider many liberals won't admit to being liberal. Just ask Senator's Kerry and Edwards.'



You have been programed to unknowingly do their bidding. They count on people like you and minorities to spread their message without understanding the actual world events. How else can you explain every single democrat changing their core values to acccomidate the election season?


See all those trees out there? Thats IS the forest!

jayeff 02-18-2005 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2
Exit polling showed that 70% of Bush voters think that we DID find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That tells me that the media, liberal or otherwise, didn't do a very good job of driving that point home to thier viewers/readers.

For fear of looking "unpatriotic" very few in the media were harshly critical of this administration during the war.


A reasonable person might think that the media would have been very proud that the Washington Post exposed Watergate and that it might have been an inspiration. Instead that was probably the last time anyone in the mainstream media did any serious investigative journalism. Which is not to say that nothing "inconvenient" is ever printed or given air time, but such items often appear only after there is enough dynamic behind them. The events of 911 are a good example in that many of the issues finally brought out by commissions and enquiries eventually got (lowkey) mainstream coverage. Yet most of that information was freely available via the internet, "underground" press and foreign media within 48-72 hours of the events taking place.

Given the political tendencies of most media empire owners, it is tempting to see the media as right-leaning. Perhaps this is part of the problem, but mainly the blame goes to the role of the news being switched from information to entertainment. Dumbing down the news inevitably involves a shift to the right, because right-wing politics are the only ones where everything is black and white, where slogans and emotions can replace argument and reason. The massive problem the Democrats face is that where once only leftists had to hold an audience long enough to explain complex concepts, centrist ideas are now complex to many voters. Sound bites don't work if you have to explain to someone why higher taxes might be a good thing, or why national education standards do not mean a surrender to "big government".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123