Oh yeah, there's no (subversive, leftist guerrilla) liberal media bias....... :evil4:

Funny how Dan, Peter and Tom have not touched the Kerry story....

Kinda like Monica.... that is until the DNA soaked dress materialized.

Can you explain this.I enjoy the AMERICAN threads but don't know enough about who did what to who,when and why.Keep us informed of the election please.May not contribute myself but it is interesting to here your views on what is going on.You lot seem pretty clued up eg.MM AGENTWOOD,TABOO and their ilk.So come on down and tell us BRITS what is happening in the LAND OF MILK AND HONEY!

several weeks back, the lead story on both my MSNBC homepage and CNN.com was something about the investigation into the lack of WMDs in iraq and the failure of american intelligence (this is when the story first broke). i visited the FOX site. not a single mention of it anywhere!

and regarding a 'left-wing media bias:' look at talk radio! the biggest names in talk radio are extremely conservative. not to mention that the 'big three' are losing viewers every year to cable--and nearly all of america's media is controlled by six companies...including the extremely conservative newscorp! i think there's a variety of left- and right-wing commentary out there, my problem is that american news isn't international enough. 'world news tonight' my ass!

If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

The Kerry story? Who cares if he's got another woman or not? His own businness. YOUR businnes is what he talks about. After decades of presidents destroying the Welfare, for the first time comes one talking seriously about the true issues of the half of your people. Health care, education, work. Maybe he won't do anything of what he's saying, but he's saying it, and he's the first one after too much time, during which your rights were stolen and life became a nightmare for half the population. It's the time the rich who became rich stealing the money from the poor gives something back. I'm not talking about communism or anything utopistic, I'm talking about social justice. Even Ford got it: I build cars and treat well my workers so my workers can buy them. But now the low waged can't even pay the fookin rent. Time to stop the madness. Kerry may not be the cure, but Bush is certainly the disease.

I don't see much 'liberal' bias in the US media. Rather theres one half of the media which has an apolitical bias to anything easy and cheap to report and to a kind of cautious follow-the-pack journalism (which occasionally leads to a 'liberal' bias more or less by accident), and another half which is rabidly right-wing and spectacularly dishonest.

The mainstream media does seem to tend towards the liberal on some social issues, probably because up-market journalists tend to be more likely to personally know openly gay people and feminist inclined women. On economic issues the entire US media seems pretty right wing, not suprising given its owned by rich people and staffed by well paid middle class people.

Mostly the mainstream media is just dumb and infuriatingly uncritical.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

You make good points, Trev. However, after I read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias (and realizing he has a rather large ax to grind) I found my self sensing the subtle but permeating liberal bias found in network news and certain Cable Network News organiztions.

There's bias on both sides; Foxnews has its great share of republican bias, yet CNN and any Viacom related news broadcast have their liberal biases. But I must admit that a conservative bias is much more prevalent today in the general American media.

this is how i deal with the american media: watch the BBC world news!!!

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! this is why I get all my news from MTV!!!

MTV news is awful, liberally skewed shite spewed from a Viacom owned station.

Originally posted by AgentWood this is how i deal with the american media: watch the BBC world news!!!

The BBC is ok, but the French news is far superior; less blabbing and discussion and more reporting on the scene.

Originally posted by AgentWood **several weeks back, the lead story on both my MSNBC homepage and CNN.com was something about the investigation into the lack of WMDs in iraq and the failure of american intelligence (this is when the story first broke). i visited the FOX site. not a single mention of it anywhere!and regarding a 'left-wing media bias:' look at talk radio! the biggest names in talk radio are extremely conservative. not to mention that the 'big three' are losing viewers every year to cable--and nearly all of america's media is controlled by six companies...including the extremely conservative newscorp! i think there's a variety of left- and right-wing commentary out there, my problem is that american news isn't international enough. 'world news tonight' my ass!

In your opinion, what has been the driving force behind the popularity of "right-wing" talk radio?

IMHO, it is because there had (has) been a distinct lack of alternate points of view provided by Dan, Peter and Tom. Also, as you pointed out, examine the success of Fox News. Whatever your opinion of it as a news gathering organiztion, it cannot be denied that it is an unqualified, smashing success. Especially in light of the ratio of number of households reached to total number of viewers.

The question again is, why is that?

If CNN, MSNBC et al were providing news and opinion in such a way as to seem "fair and balanced", what happened?

Why are they consistently getting their clocks cleaned in the ratings when they reach more homes? It's not as if FNC is drawing from a different viewer pool. They are drawing from the same pool (at a disadvantage) and kicking tail.

i think many talk-radio hosts get ratings because of their shock value, be they right- or left-wing--howard stern or rush limbaugh. either way, if the 'media' were so blatantly left-wing, i don't think there would be an outlet provided for either one of these men, as both can be pretty offensive at times!

as for the popularity of fox, the only times i've ever watched it (or looked at foxnews.com) it wasn't the conservative slant that stuck out in my mind, but the 'dumbing-down' of the news. the website refers to michael jackson as 'jacko,' a term i hadn't seen since browsing the british tabloid stands. on fox news, i've never watched any of the commentary or analysis shows, so perhaps they're different, but the news itself was more tabloid journalism (not in the american 'national enquirer' sense, but in the british 'sun' sense) than serious news. not that CNN is much better, mind you, and don't get me started on MSNBC (also known as '57 tickers and nothing on'), but i'm not at all impressed with the presentation of fox. it was only after i got past the 'dumbing down' factor that i noticed the right-wing bias. i don't particularly care about that, however, as there's no such thing as an impartial media--it simply doesn't exist--and there's room for fox alongside CNN and the others. i just think it's a bit ridiculous that conservatives are taking pride in a company which gives off the appearance of electronic and television tabloid journalism.

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! actually...this is where I go for all the news I need!!!http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePageand if I can't get it from them...I go here!!!http://www.weeklyworldnews.com

the published grocery store version of WWN is much better because of the page 5 girl!

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF!> actually...this is where I go for all the news I need!!!> http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage> > and if I can't get it from them...I go here!!!> > http://www.weeklyworldnews.com

the published grocery store version of WWN is much better because of the page 5 girl!

nope. weekly world news is too highbrow. i stick with the old standard: inquiring minds want to know!

Originally posted by FREE JEFF THE CHEF! this is why I get all my news from MTV!!!

so what did J Lo do today?

US Presidents and their weiners. The thing is, the rest of the world looks at this and says WTF?? If our economy was as good as the US extracurricular nookie would not be news.

I wouldn't mind getting a job with Weekly World News, I could have some great ideas for the further adventures of "Bat Boy"

Oh, my all-time favorite WWN story concerened a haunted house in which actual "photographs" of the spirits were featured. The "ghosts" in question bore a striking resemblence to the cast of "Little House on the Prarie"

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> If you ever read The Powers That Be by Dave Halberstam, it talks about how conservative the media used to be prior to Vietnam. Now it seems we're going back to that (at least since the "Monica-gate" scandel, when certain cable news outlets made their name calling for Clinton's removal), and so if anything there is a conservative media agenda out there that is much more cognizant than liberal. Hell, the morning show on "the fair and balanced" station tried to get Douglas Brinkley (a decent historian, though I've never read anything by him) to say that John Kerry was somehow best buds with Jane Fonda, but thankfully Mr. Brinkley pointed out that Kerry and Fonda barely knew each other.

There's a more rabid, vicious quality to the right-wing media because that's what sells these days. Since Clinton, the media has sought to take down politicians on both sides, but the right-wingers have had a better time of it. Individual reporters might be lefties, but I assure you the big corporations in charge of those outlets are conservative to the bone.

Maybe it's just because I come from the other side of the issue, but I really don't see any trace of overarching liberal "agendas" in the nightly news or CNN. Fox wears their Republicanism on their sleeves then cries foul when someone questions the integrity. Personally, I guess I could applaud them for their "honesty" in that regard, but anyone who thinks they're a serious news entity should go back to Yale :p

You make good points, Trev. However, after I read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias (and realizing he has a rather large ax to grind) I found my self sensing the subtle but permeating liberal bias found in network news and certain Cable Network News organiztions.

I'll give you that, but it's not as if there's any organization to the liberals who are in the news business. CNN (believe it or not) has a fair amount of conservatives on staff (Bob "Bulldog" Novak is the most obvious) and I think they try not to wear their beliefs on their sleeves. I think it has something to do with the global view of the networks in question: CNN tries to be more international, while Fox News certainly comes off as America-centric. That's just my view, I could be dumbing down the actual stances of said companies but I believe the general idea is on the right track.

Goldberg has a HUGE ax to grind, and I could kinda tell from the first couple of paragraphs (in which he describes being snubbed by either Rather or Jennings, I can't remember which) where he was going with the book, thus I stopped right there. I'm all for differences in opinion, but the way that Fox disguises it as "fact" makes me queasy. I just don't think there could be an organized "liberal media" anymore in comparison to the Fox folks.

In time, perhaps, Fox may fade away like a lot of the other "alternative to CNN" stations, or it may even replace CNN ( ), but for right now, it's pretty obvious where they stand on a lot of issues. Be careful of throwing the "liberal media" tag around too much; like the dinosaurs, it may already be extinct

Too many Conservatives whining "Liberal media conspiracy." Ever notice that there is not a single nation wide liberal radio talk show??? NPR is about as close as it gets.

Let's not forget that the so-called "liberal" journalists have to fight the conservative owners of the media conglomerates.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Funny how Dan, Peter and Tom have not touched the Kerry story....Kinda like Monica.... that is until the DNA soaked dress materialized.

Another silly premise from the far right. The "liberal" media is subversive-- i.e., is plotting to overthrow the government of the United States-- because they haven't reported allegations of-- what-- that Kerry chases skirts? Come on, Michael, this is so last century already.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott

In your opinion, what has been the driving force behind the popularity of "right-wing" talk radio?

*I don't know. People can be funny. After all here we have a rich clown called Berlusconi and his ghost party (no internal debate at all, every decision comes from him) has one third of the votes.

Also, as you pointed out, examine the success of Fox News.

*I find that channel frightening and offensive to any intelligent mind. If they were the channel of a party, alright. You read neo-Nazi magazines, and you see worse. But they are neo-Nazi magazines, they don't pretend to be a "news" channel. News my arse. It's pure propaganda in classic regime style. The North-Korean TV is not very different.

Whatever your opinion of it as a news gathering organiztion, it cannot be denied that it is an unqualified, smashing success.

*A success, yes, Hitler was a success in the 30s. Michael Bolton was a success in the 80s. So what.

Thanks Almanso for the support :) Hope that things in Argentina are getting better. One of the many examples of the failure of extreme capitalism, which failed just like communism. The right way is in the middle, folks. You just have to balance economy and welfare, otherwise it's a mess. All the good periods in recent history have seen people with strong social rights making turn the wheel of the economic machine. You give me money, I spend money, you get money. That's how it works the circle. If I have no money I don't spend and you don't gain and the circle is broken. Easy.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN FEB 15, 2004 23:00:32 ET XXXXX

FLASHBACK: MEDIA GRILLED BUSH OVER 'ADULTERY' CLAIMS

As main press players blast the DRUDGE REPORT and foreign outlets for revealing details of a behind-the-scenes campaign drama surrounding candidate Kerry and the nature of his relationship with a mystery woman -- just 12 years ago the same players peppered former President George Bush with questions surrounding an infidelity rumor!

In 1992 top reporters swiftly reacted to a footnote in a book quoting a long dead ambassador.

CNN rushed to get the rumor into the media stream as White House correspondent Mary Tillotson confronted President Bush as he hosted Israel Prime Minister Rabin in the Oval Office.

"There is an extensive series of reports in today's New York Post alleging that a former U.S. ambassador, a man now deceased, had told several persons that he arranged for a sexual tryst involving you and one of your female staffers in Geneva in 1984."

Asked NBC's Stone Phillips to the president's face at the height of the "rumor mongering":

"Have you ever had an affair?"

CBS' Harry Smith then confronted Bush spokesperson Mary Matalin over on-air morning coffee:

"Let me ask you about something else. There's a book out, or a book that's just about out that in a footnote names that then-Vice President Bush had an affair with an assistant when he was on a mission in Geneva. Well, that footnote has turned into frontpage news (holding up N.Y.POST), at least in New York, in the N.Y. POST. Albeit a tabloid, it is usually a conservative newspaper. Are you ready to say that accusation is a flat out lie?"

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter defended the aggressive adultery rumor line-of-questioning of the first President Bush on ABC's NIGHTLINE on August 12, 1992, on a broadcast titled: "The Media Charges George Bush With Adultery."

"In this situation, the Oval Office isn't a temple," Alter explained. "The President is a candidate and he has to be asked tough, often distasteful, but nonetheless important kinds of questions."

UPI's Helen Thomas also defended the Bush affair reportage:

"Some people might have felt that it wasn't appropriate. But when you have the President there, I think it's very legitimate to ask him any question."

CUT TO 2004:

NEWSWEEK'S Alter blasted any and all coverage of the Kerry infidelity probe last week on a New York City talkradio outlet -- calling the investigation "sleazy."

The media outrage over an erupting story of possible infidelity of a presidential candidate -- 2004 -- peaked with Joe Conason's cover story in SALON late last week ["There he goes again! Matt Drudge and the GOP smear machine are back in the Democrats' pants"]

Conason lamented:

"But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."

But is this really the same Joe Conason who in the Summer of 1992 wrote a magazine cover story entitled "1,000 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR GEORGE BUSH?"

Consaon's reason #1:

"He cheats on his wife."

The rumor of President Bush having an affair was never proved by the media.

The developing Kerry drama may or may not join it on the shelf.

Yes, I'm sure liberals are the ones behind claims of adultery. That makes obvious sense.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Yes, I'm sure liberals are the ones behind claims of adultery. That makes obvious sense.

I don't think anyone has made an assertion as to who is behind the claims. I'm just pointing out who chooses to investigate certain claims and with what type of intensity.