Slashdot Mirror

On top of it, they never mention how US military overseas from Florida specifically (that overwhelmingly vote republican) didn't get their absentee ballots

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=15597
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001128-1.html
http://www.cwv.org/milvote/milvote.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 1/20/military.ballots/index.html
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/milivote.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2901_0_2_0_C/
http://www.mcsm.org/vetsvote.html

I've provided a link in two of my other posts (just search page on my name) that goes into great detail on the issue. Here's another from Accuracy In Meda, an article from The National Review (yes, I know, but they cite many sources), and here's a site that acknowledges the Clinton administration's use of VNRs but claims that they were "legal" (as opposed to the Bush versions).

My personal feeling is that they're all at least unethical in that they present themselves in a format which we're supposed to believe is unbiased, and they're too often presented without the disclaimers that are supposedly at the beginning and end of each segment. I think they're meant from jump to make people think that there is actual journalism happening when in fact they're more like press releases presented in a news format. Disgusting no matter who's doing it...

Just a couple of articles in and I see that AIM is horribly biased and presents opinion as fact.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4081_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A4005_0_2_0_C/

They use Blair's announcement that the Kyoto treaty is "dead" -- because cutbacks in greenhouse gases will need to be made through technological advancement, not cutbacks -- as a staging point to opine on how global warming is a false theory. Which would be fine by me if they had any evidence. But they don't. They do mention their opinion on a good source of electrical energy, nuclear power. Fine, but that has little to do with the article, and not all CO2 emissions are because of power generation.

The final point is that global warming is made up, without ever presenting any evidence to support it.

The second article is about how there is no consensus in the scientific community about global warming, which is true to an extent. Their evidence, though, is a list of people interviewed, of which 2 of 20 held the opposing viewpoint. At the same time, they complain of the low number of people interviewed that held the opposing view. Not surprising if it's not well-accepted in the scientific community, no? The arguments they cite by these two people -- which were apparently cut from the interviews, ruining the opposing views' point -- were not in the least scientific and were shoddy at best.

It's sad that an organization that's ostensibly covering bias in the media is themselves biased and resorts to the oh-so-popular system of reporting opinion as fact and trying to report fact without any evidence.

Just a couple of articles in and I see that AIM is horribly biased and presents opinion as fact.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4081_0_2_0_C/
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A4005_0_2_0_C/

They use Blair's announcement that the Kyoto treaty is "dead" -- because cutbacks in greenhouse gases will need to be made through technological advancement, not cutbacks -- as a staging point to opine on how global warming is a false theory. Which would be fine by me if they had any evidence. But they don't. They do mention their opinion on a good source of electrical energy, nuclear power. Fine, but that has little to do with the article, and not all CO2 emissions are because of power generation.

The final point is that global warming is made up, without ever presenting any evidence to support it.

The second article is about how there is no consensus in the scientific community about global warming, which is true to an extent. Their evidence, though, is a list of people interviewed, of which 2 of 20 held the opposing viewpoint. At the same time, they complain of the low number of people interviewed that held the opposing view. Not surprising if it's not well-accepted in the scientific community, no? The arguments they cite by these two people -- which were apparently cut from the interviews, ruining the opposing views' point -- were not in the least scientific and were shoddy at best.

It's sad that an organization that's ostensibly covering bias in the media is themselves biased and resorts to the oh-so-popular system of reporting opinion as fact and trying to report fact without any evidence.

Although to be fair, mediamatters points out obvious flaws in conservative news, while AIM releases reports which are disturbing at best.

Consider this report claiming that Islam is really about terror and world domination: http://www.aim.org/aim_report/3996_0_4_0_C/

Even though, in his September 20, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, Bush remarked that "[t]he terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam."

It would seem that they go even against Bush. Also, since they start alot of their reports with bible quotes, I would say that AIM is more aligned with religious motives than conservative motives.

And in the interest of fairness, here is the group that covers liberal bias in the media:

http://www.aim.org/

Like I said, examine the source of the bias claims. Media Matters claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called conservative bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.

Accuracy in Media claims to cover bias in the media, but ALL they cover is so-called liberal bias. Hmm...wonder why that is.

You can't trust either organization exclusively. You have to trust yourself. It's all partisanship.

Check out Accuracy In Media:

http://aim.org/

NYT consistently misleads the public. That's actually a *serious* understatement.

If slashdot wasn't so overtly Left, it wouldn't be too bad an idea to suggest that the editors not post submissions linking to NYT. They're about as reliable a source of information as that former Iraqi information minister!

Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html

OK, that's... interesting.

For those that don't have time to RTFA, here's a time-saving summary:

"There were some Commies and spies (hey, aren't they all really the same anyway?) living in the U.S., so McCarthy was perfectly justified in destroying as many lives as he wished."

Since blasting McCarthy is so popular, how about another side to the story
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/13 .html

> Newsweek (it's mainstream, not liberal)

Uh, sorry to burst your bubble but Newsweek is liberal.

Media Matters is a liberal group. Conservatives also have their group, Accuracy in Media.

And of course, the parent post is modded up. If you have a left-wing view on Slashdot, you get modded up. If you have a right-wing view, you get modded down. Witness when that guy posted his PSP review and dared put in parenthesis at the bottom to pray for Schiavo's family. A torrent of Slashdotters responded, angrily telling him to keep politics out of the discussion! And here we are with an anti-Fox News political comment, getting modded up.

Are you seriously quoting a liberal group who hates Fox News as some sort of unbiased evidence? I love the hypocrisy around here. The fact is, you guys hate that conservative views aren't being aired with derision the way they are on other networks. You hate a balanced point of view that airs both sides. You want the liberal side propped up over the conservative side.

The new liberal mantra: When in doubt, blame Fox News. Then reference other liberals!

I'm still laughing...Media Matters? Hahaha...http://www.aim.org

On the right, FAIR's counterpart is Accuracy In Media, which is currently running as their top story, "The Big Bad FBI -- The New York Times destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill in the anthrax case." As far as I can tell, AIM is willing to apologize for the justice department, but doesn't even bother to put out any study at all claiming left-wing media bias. Don't you think they would at least try to put out a counter study?

When AIM first started out, they used to do one every month, but then FAIR started posting counterpoints and some AP writer would pick the two up and put the highlights from each on the wires. Those highlights always seemed to favor FAIR's viewpoint, and the AP stories started saying so.

So now AIM doesn't even make any general claims about a pervasive bias. Think about it.

Global Warming Is a myth

It's called Accuracy in Media. It's really just another right-wing think-tank with the chore of calling anything critical of anything remotely conservative "liberal."

And, as an added bonus, they spread toxic dust around the area where they're used, so you can kill people long after you've gone home

After the side effects of DU were revealed following their use in Yugoslavia, we were told we wouldn't be using it any more...

Yes, this site has a strong left bias. But glancing at the list (can't get to the site yet), maybe 75% of the "stories" are probably basically true. You tend not to get people saying "I don't have much of a political point of view, but here are a bunch of important stories that haven't got much mainstream attention." Another commenter pointed at Accuracy In Media, which regularly performs the same valuable function from a different political viewpoint. I rate it at the same kind of 75% accurate as the project censored list. Well worth a look.

A related site is that of Accuracy in Media, which points out the many biases in mainstream media.

This guy shouldn't have to waste his time on curing malaria. It could have been dealt with years ago. We had a prevention for it: DDT. At least, we did until environmentalists used bad science and hype to stop the use of DDT, an action which has killed millions of people.

It appears that the official website for the game is either at this clan server or at this game company. Google returns the fact that Warriors of Freedom RPG is now ... "The Guardians of Har". So maybe the Alternative Games company changed the name of their moderately popular browser-based RPG.

It's interesting that these youths would be corrupted by a simplistic browser RPG. Most previous stories of this type involve games such as Doom or Counter-Strike or sniping in Halo. I guess we might be able to assume that these youths didn't need the first person perspective to corrupt their perspective of reality.

This Columbine article quotes Jack Thompson (the attorney who brought up the video game connection) as saying "We intend to hurt Hollywood. We intend to hurt the video game industry. We intend to hurt porn sites". Mr. Thompson has tried suing the video game companies, tried pressuring Best Buy and Wal-Mart to not carry certain titles and tried to get a bill introduced to outlaw mature video games being sold to minors.

I don't believe that video games caused these youths to go beserk. So I will continue playing games and wondering what exactly is wrong with Jack Thompson.

You're not arguing the North Korea isn't a more pressing issue - but rather it is easier to deal with Iraq.

I don't disagree with you claims - you are correct...it would be very dangerous to engage North Korea without buy in from China. However your conclusion doesn't follow. Your argument doesn't show North Korea to be a less pressing issue. Just one that would have greater political and possibly military fall out than engaging Iraq. Claiming that North Korea is a more pressing international security issue than Iraq is not misinformed. You have not made the case to claim otherwise.

Just as the Bush administration has not made a case for war in Iraq.

Hey did you know the US gets %55 of its oil domestically?
Hey did you know that Iraq only accounts for %3 of that?
Hey did you know the only reason we get _any_ oil from them is because of the oil 4 food program
Hey did you know that all oil on the planet is the same price no matter what country it comes from?
Hey did you know we could buy all the oil from Iraq we wanted, but we aren't a morally impotent country
like France who is funding Iraq dispite the laws _they_ put in place against such a thing?

I wanted to mod this down but the thread was too long.
How this got modded +5 is nothing less than insanity to me. And shows how uninformed people are.
Instead of their knee jerk reaction to bash America you should attempt to inform yourselvs on your
views instead of hearing it on BBC, CNN, FOX, ETC. accepting their bias view as your own.

If America puts in a fake government (they wont)is that so much worse than the puppet government already inplace?
France built a nuclear plant in Iraq, It's documented fact and it was destroyed by the Israeli's
China is the one who set up Iraq's communications system to disable GPS guided bombs, and the missles
lauched today at american troops from guess where?
Guess who Frances biggest trade partner is?
How about the 40 BILLIONdollar Russia/Iraq deal, not to mention the 7 billion they're already owed?
Notice a trend here yet?
Okay how about Germany being Iraq's #1 weapons supplier

I am only saying all this because It's obvious to me why there is anti-american rhetoric comming from all these countries (who fundsthose anyway?) THEY WANT TO GET RICH off a tyrant who gasses his people, starves them, A man who wants to take over the middle easts oil and defend it with the weapons from countries mentioned above. He thought he could do it in '91 with the worlds #6 ranked military.
well I've ranted enough already

Freeh needs to find a whipping boy for the failures of correlating the various peices intelligence datum, which occurred on his watch. Restricting legal access to crypto will only assist in the illicit observation of constitutionally protected speech by private individuals, and destroy what little competitive advantage is enjoyed by U.S. software industries over their counterparts in Israel and India.

The algorithms and the source will not go "back in the can."

Louis Freeh is responsible, in a large part, for the biggest intelligence failure in modern recollection. None of the failure in this effort was for lack of access to encrypted communications, but from standard failures of organization and communications within the concerned agencies.

The Heritage Foundation - not normally critical of the FBI's mission - has this to say:

But what if FBI intelligence fails to collect, analyze and share this information? This could happen, the commission found, because "the guidelines under which FBI agents operate ... are badly written and confusing. These are guidelines that set out the terms under which the FBI can open a preliminary inquiry against somebody who may be suspected of being a terrorist. All of us read them (they run to about 42 pages) and we had a number of current and former FBI agents testify that they found them confusing."

The commission recommended that then Attorney General Janet Reno and former FBI Director Louis Freeh rewrite the guidelines into "more easily understood English."

Moreover, the FBI had no procedure for disseminating useful information for analysis within the agency or sharing it with other government agencies.

Information which was obtained, in Los Angeles, for example, but did not immediately apply to the case at hand, would simply not leave the regional office, even though it might provide important clues for another investigation, says Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, Ambassador at Large for Counterintelligence during the Reagan Administration and former Managing Director of Kissinger Associates.

Don't forget Accuracy in Media, the right's (fairly wacko) answer to FAIR. One man's "corporatized reporting" is another's "liberal media," I guess.

Other alternatives have popped up in recent years...in particular, Fox News Channel doesn't have the far-left tilt that infects most other media outlets.

Yeah, I'd hate my "conservative news" to have a shred of honesty and accuracy

Just go to FAUX NEWS and enjoy the lies. They delude, I deride. http://www.fair.org...

You trust that FAIR gets any of its stories right? They're nothing more than a mouthpiece for lefties...apologists for Dan Rather and his ilk. They tried to skewer Rush Limbaugh a few years back, but failed miserably due to their (typically) poor grasp of the facts. If you really want to get some idea of what the media don't want you to know, I'd suggest the Media Research Center or Accuracy In Media. I suspect that the truth may be a bit too much for you, though.

As for Fox News, I guess the fact that they don't accept as gospel every word from the Democrats and their fellow travelers must make them "members of the vast right-wing conspiracy." I would wear that label myself as a badge of honor, but Fox doesn't want to be known as leaning either way. Those of us on the right might gravitate toward them because the left-wing bias isn't there, but if they were the conservative news outlet that you say they are, what are the odds that they would've hired left-wing apologists such as Geraldo Rivera (as a war correspondent, no less)?

If you are going to offer such profound criticism about something, at least have the decency to back it up.

Here you go:

• Go to the archive of FAIR and search for "fox news" (including apostrophes).
• Try the same search at PR Watch.
• ... or try "fox" at AIM.

There's also aim.org , which belongs to Accuracy In Media. There's also the American Indian Movement, but I don't know if they have a website. However, these things aren't related to instant messaging, so I don't think even the biased panels of the ICANN process would take away domains used in these contexts.
--Dan

Exactly how many of Agre's examples were actually in quotes. There is a difference between saying:

Al Gore said that he invented the internet.

and:

Al Gore said "he invented the internet". The first is paraprasing. The second is quoting. In the first example, you can argue about the accuracy of the paraprasing; but, you can't claim it is "fabricated" since it is a paraphrase of his actual "took the inititive in the creation of the internet" quote.

In the second case, you can say that the quote was fabricated. Many examples that Agre uses are in the former rather then the later category.

Are there examples of this happening to Republicans?

I saw something similar on tonight's PBS program about the Clinton-Lazio race. During their debate, Lazio said that Buffalo's economay "turned the corner". Clinton and some newspapers in upper New York pillored him for claiming that Buffalo's economy was doing great.

Check out AIM and FAIR. Both organizations have the same goal: disclaim inaccuracies in the medias reporting. One comes from the conservative viewpoint, the other a liberal viewpoint. It is interesting reading to compare to their two sites since they never complain about the same stories.

It's not like the much of the rest of the competition -- namely, evening "in-depth" news programs -- provides more than fluff, emotional manipulation, and the occasional biased piece of news.

See the Accuracy in Media site, which includes interesting articles such as a piece on "journalism" with an agenda, and one on the Food Lion incident, which was perpetrated by another ABC "news" program -- PTL.

It's not like the much of the rest of the competition -- namely, evening "in-depth" news programs -- provides more than fluff, emotional manipulation, and the occasional biased piece of news.

See the Accuracy in Media site, which includes interesting articles such as a piece on "journalism" with an agenda, and one on the Food Lion incident, which was perpetrated by another ABC "news" program -- PTL.

It's not like the much of the rest of the competition -- namely, evening "in-depth" news programs -- provides more than fluff, emotional manipulation, and the occasional biased piece of news.

See the Accuracy in Media site, which includes interesting articles such as a piece on "journalism" with an agenda, and one on the Food Lion incident, which was perpetrated by another ABC "news" program -- PTL.