Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure what an example of how the left can't meme has to do with why the Russian meddling narrative is a deliberate ploy with nothing but appeal to authority to back it up.

Or maybe when you were seeing Trump's empty podium rather than hearing a speech by Sanders, it might have occurred to you that the corporate media's real job is to tell you what to think. I didn't see Sander name 'trending' on Google news either even when he was winning primary elections, but I did see one hit piece after another by the washington post that somehow always were in the list of top stories.

After the way the google-media trust collectively shit on Sanders, why would anyone expect them to represent Trump fairly and honestly either?

Anyway, back to your point, watch out for propaganda. Keep an open mind and understand the value of critical thinking. Remember that the goal of our common enemy is to divide us.

Couldn't care less about pussygate, when articles like this sum up the situation so perfectly.

That includes National Pentagon Radio, which (gasp) is funded by the government. Or just ask Zombie Ed Shultz, as it wasn't the head of RT that called him up minutes before he was going to cover Bernie Sander's announcement that he was going to run for president in 2016 and ordered him to cover some shit irrelevant story from Tennessee instead.

Refusing to Take Sides, NPR Takes Sides With Torture Deniers

For example, they ran 16 negative Bernie stories in 24 hours during the election because they were very much in the tank for Clinton.

So is that more or less than other candidates? Is it more or less than other agencies? Was this a one off case or is it a regular pattern?

but acknowledging that there are significant biases inherent in their incentive structure, as well as the worldview of their reporters. Those biases undermine the ability for them to perform their most important role as the press, which is speaking truth to power.

All media is biased because all humans are biased. The point is how much bias. I'm not American so don't directly read it, but I do see some content via syndicates and that particular content seems well researched and objective. I'm happy to read a higher quality source if you can recommend one. But this is usually where these discussions come unstuck...

At least post-Bezos, it's little more than a corporate mouthpiece, instead of actual independent journalism. For example, they ran 16 negative Bernie stories in 24 hours during the election because they were very much in the tank for Clinton.

It's not a claim of "fake news," but acknowledging that there are significant biases inherent in their incentive structure, as well as the worldview of their reporters. Those biases undermine the ability for them to perform their most important role as the press, which is speaking truth to power.

And again, while I think that WaPo generally isn't fit for wiping one's ass, they were correct on this particular matter, which is what actually matters in this conversation.

Let methrow in a few of your Hitler references.

Seriously, you going for a Hypocrisy Award?

You left off the DNC's allies in the media as well, especially the constant barrage of negative coverage by the Washington Post.

A DNC funded by Clinton is going to use their associated sock puppets for her benefit.

Media and conservatives have gotten the IRS scandal completely backwards. On purpose.

The Obama administration's IRS never attacked citizens based on political views. It, as it is required to do by law, gave special examination to organizations claiming tax immunity that were apparently political given certain keyword and key phrases. One such key phrase was "Tea Party". Another was "Occupy". The Republicans admitted it was a fictional smear against the IRS today [bloomberg.com], as it happens.

Oh it certainly did. This denial is even more laughable than Infowars conspiracies. You're in la-la land.

The prior AC is obviously a Hillbot apologist and thus a crackpot. But the broken clock is right on the IRS, as the media and conservatives had it completely backwards. Not only did the government scrutinize liberal organizations for a longer period of time, the only ones to be denied tax-exempt status were liberal. Not conservative.

That is total bullshit. No one is saying every Republican is a Nazi.

Other than FAIR and Salon magazine. I can find more references if you like...

No, google "Bush Body Count" and make sure you separate the OLD bush from the NEW bush
While you are at it, look up "Reagan Scandals" complete with actual convictions
(Worst record ever)
And read the reality vs the lies about your hero
And once you're done wasting time, STFU with the right wing spew liars!

I challenge you to find any poll of Christians that that think the actions you listed above are never justified below 95%.

Done

And sometimes it takes a few decades for the truth to come out. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin Incident
http://fair.org/media-beat-col... ..or Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Two wars based on lies.

Immoral government and compliant media makes everything they say questionable.
"Fraud vitiates everything"

I guess I have to do all the work?

BTW, NPR

What about National Pentagon Radio?

is run by Democrats, so they're not a source.

Because Democrats are right-wing freakshows. Who refused to call torture, torture, amongst many other issues Next question?

Myth 1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

http://fair.org/extra-online-a...

There's a lot of legitimate uses for elements and isotopes, and I can see people not wanting to get all mixed up with government red tape. Do we have a very good reason to ban trade or ownership of THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF MATTER? I mean, I could see restrictions on the few isotopes that could be used to make nuclear weapons, but other than that it's just another hazardous material.

The main "legitimate" use of radioactive isotopes is in medical tests and cancer treatments. In the U.S. breast cancer patients with a good prognosis can avoid chemotherapy by using radiation instead, and prostate cancer patients can avoid surgery. It's also used to treat painful metastases.

The U.S./U.N. boycott of Iraq created a lot of problems in Iraq for Iraqi doctors who were trying to treat cancer patients. Iraqi doctors (most of whom were trained in the U.K. and hated Saddam Hussein) were complaining in the British Medical Journal and The Lancet that they couldn't get radioactive isotopes, because the people who were running the embargo didn't know the difference between medical isotopes and weapons isotopes. (The "humanitarian exceptions" to the boycott were a cynical farce. The Wall Street Journal once sent a reporter down to the Iraq border where the embargo inspectors were arbitrarily rejecting things like batteries in childrens' toys.)

So the doctors were writing that they had to give patients much longer exposures because of the short half lives of medical isotopes. With weak isotopes, a breast cancer patient would have to spend an entire day on an operating table, rather than half an hour or an hour as we do in the U.S. Eventually the medical isotopes wouldn't work at all.

A few of the medical journals calculated that the embargo cost about 500,000 Iraqi lives, mostly children. One of the biggest hits was that they weren't allowed to import chemicals for water purification, such as chlorine, at all. So they didn't have clean drinking water and the incidence of infant deaths caused by diarrhea soared to third-world levels, where it's a major cause of infant death. As you may recall. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that the deaths were worth it. http://fair.org/extra-online-a...

Iraq used to have the best health care system in the Arab/Persian middle east, free to Iraqis, and patients used to come from around the Arab world. The Iraq war destroyed it. George W. Bush appointed a right-to-life Republican as head of the Iraqi health care system, and his idea of de-Bathification was to privatize it and charge fees. I think Bush also fired all of the doctors who were members of the Bathist party. Bush's appointee did more harm to the Iraqi health care system than the bombs. After security broke down, the Shiites started killing the Sunni doctors and vice versa.

If there is a just God, Bush will go to Hell for destroying the Iraqi health care system. And his torment will be spending eternity with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

1. Fast and Furious was made up. The entire thing was based on one right wing ATF source, who was discovered to be lying. It has been debunked so often that even the actual GOP doesn't mention it, only ultra-far right idiots in the Tea Party talk about it nowadays.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html

That link is to a completely unrelated story about the IRS. I was hoping you had some proof, because that was the first time I've heard that Fast and Furious was all bullshit. So I searched the same website for more info and didn't find anything to support your claim. What I did find was an article from july 2013 talking about two more deaths in mexico linked to those guns - not something I'd expect to see from "huffpo" if the scandal had been debunked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/06/fast-and-furious-gun_n_3554854.html

Sorry, too many links. Have some more appropriate links, and thank you for catching that:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/not-so-fast-on-fast-and-furious/

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of corporations. It's true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It's dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on."

See also: http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
"The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professionalâ(TM)s lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."

And in recent history in relation to the run up to the Iraq war: http://fair.org/press-release/some-critical-media-voices-face-censorship/

How could it be different? Seriously, as a question, can people suggest alternatives? I've suggested some things elsewhere in terms of rethinking security and in my sig. How can things be different while still preserving current security?

The argument that this surveillance apparatus may fall into the hands of "bad people" is still (mostly) an argument about the future, so it has less weight if people can't see how to feel reasonably secure now. I'd like to see a lot more playing around with ideas about potential alternatives to keep the USA secure and healthy in the face of the fact that technology allows individuals and small groups to do ever more damage to the whole.... From a 2007 slashdot post by an AC:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=261555&cid=20127487
"Ben Bova, a major science fiction writer, has a proposed answer to the Fermi Paradox that startw with one of the side-effects of general technological advancement: The average person (of any intelligent species) acquires more and more power to do things. Well, on Earth it is well known that not all persons are emotionally stable, even as adults. Why should an assumption of stability be made for other worlds? Remember that if there is a technological cure for insanity, it is beyond our current technology, and it is

Oh JFC! What a ludicrous statement and you obviously have no concept of history. Let's not forget that Johnson through the trumped, made up events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was used to begin offensive operations in Vietnam in the first place? You seem to think that only one party is capable of lying and committing these acts? Please what a lame and retarded viewpoint.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the Johnson administration's push and omissions and stupidity were no different than the Bush administration officials saying "There's WMDs in Iraq!"

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

Humm, so you think only GW Bush was an idiot huh?

So, Johnson's administration escalated the war in Vietnam based on errors, omissions and Johnson's own stupidity. and lies.

In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

He also got a lot of people killed because of his micro-managing style. Battlefield commanders had to wait for permission from DC to take out targets of opportunity. Because of that we lost a lot of planes and a lot of operations were compromised because people's hands were tied up because

“They can't bomb an outhouse without my say-so.” - Lyndon Johnson

So, he produces trumped up events to commit our troops to war, then micro manages how they operate which gets more of them killed. It sounds like the one who should be brought up on Treason charges should be LBJ!

Oh and let's not forget that it was the Kennedy Administration who ramped up involvement in Vietnam to begin with. Including looking the other way when the South Vietnamese President was ousted in a coup.

So, before you start making big remarks, especially while hiding you should consult your history books a bit more or shit at least Wikipedia.

You mean like in Iraq, where the sanctions killed at least hundredths of thousands of children, and in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, the price was worth it?

No to mention the hypocrisy of bringing in the funding terror groups accusation. If that is the crime then West should start by sanctioning itself along with Israel and bunch of its allies.

You know, there is a name for this activity, where you are indiscriminately attacking civilian population and literally killing hundredths of thousands of them, with the objective of achieving political change.

Oh.. I don't know the first passed health care reform in almost 100 years.

Oh, except that's a total lie. First, we have had health care reform before: Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, ADA, FMLA. Second, and more importantly, what Obama signed was not health care reform. It was health insurance reform. When the problem is the lack of affordable care and a for-profit health insurance industry jacking up rates, that is no small distinction.

Ended Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Another lie. Congress passed a bill ending the codification of DADT, all Obama did was sign it. Three more problems with this:

1) Obama could have halted discharges until legislation was passed with the stroke of a pen, by issuing a stop loss order
2) Meaning over a thousand gay personnel had their lives and careers destroyed while Obama fiddle-farted around telling Congress not to rush repeal
3) The anti-discriminatory language that Obama opposed was removed from the bill, meaning that President Palin is free to go back to discharging gays with a stroke of her pen

Restarted the hunt for and killed Osama bin Laden

Yes, killed an unarmed old man suffering from failing kidneys while he was on the ground. So much easier to avoid the embarrassment of a trial where the defense could present evidence of CIA shenanigans or argue that the U.S. had long been making war on muslims by overthrowing their governments or killing half a million children with sanctions.

Oh, and giving third world paranoia legitimacy about the "real" purpose of vaccination programs by running a fake one to try and find Bin Laddin. Meaning thousands of children will die and another lifetime will pass before we have a chance of eradicating polio.

Smashing, yea capitalism!

He has pretty much done the majority of the items he promised to do on election day.

On what planet? Restoring rights and liberties: promise broken. Ending DADT and DOMA: promise broken (see above). Passing the EFCA: promise broken. No more dumb foreign wars: promise broken. Ending the Bush Tax Cuts: promise broken. Protecting whistleblowers: promise broken, and then some - he's prosecuted more than all previous presidents combined. Backing off state-based medical marijuana: not only has he broken that promise, he's raided 13 times as many dispensaries in thee years than Bush did in eight.

Maybe I'm just young, but most of my adult life has been under Bush, and now Obama. Bush seemed to mostly screw things up. Obama seems to mostly push things in a better direction.

Pushing for cuts to Social Security and Medicare is pushing the country in a better direction? Prosecuting fewer bankers than Bush is pushing the country in a better direction? Arranging the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the planet - from the poor to the rich - with bank bailouts is pushing the country in a better direction?

Unemployment is far higher than when Bush was in office, debt is higher than Bush was in office, wealth inequality is higher than Bush was in office, and we are in more foreign wars than when Bush was in office. Yes, much of this is due to Obama's inheritance of Bush Administration policies.

Policies Obama has chosen to continue.

Again: you're preaching to the choir. I think today's prevailing interpretation os the Second Amendment is goofy. But it is what it is, and correct or not it serves to explain the difference between bullets and buckyballs.

It's only Faux News' prevailing interpretation that is at fault. The courts (you know, the people who actually get to decide what the constitution really means) have consistently said since 1939 that people don't just have the right to go out and get and use whatever guns they want:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1364

"I would have assumed a fairly even distribution with Wikipedia so the results weren't that surprising. I'd be more interested in using it to find bias in the media."

You might be interested in hearing the show Counterspin, by the media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

Also worth looking at is Daved Brock's Media Matters

You should also read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and watch the documentary based on the book

There's a lot more to recommend, but these should get you started.

"I would have assumed a fairly even distribution with Wikipedia so the results weren't that surprising. I'd be more interested in using it to find bias in the media."

You might be interested in hearing the show Counterspin, by the media watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):

Also worth looking at is Daved Brock's Media Matters

You should also read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent and watch the documentary based on the book

There's a lot more to recommend, but these should get you started.

The head of Fox's news division (who for decades was a political operative for the Republican Party) assigned the first cousin of the Republican candidate to call the winner for each state during the 2000 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott_Ellis

A Fox News producer was caught on tape trying to whip up the crowd for Glenn Beck's "9/12" demonstration. Fox then ran full-page advertisements in the newspaper asking why the other cable news networks weren't covering such an important event (using, for some bizarre reason, a video still from CNN, which was covering the event). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzWC0GX38Mk

In 1996 Fox anchor Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for President. In 2000 Snow then went to purportedly cover the 2000 Republican convention as a journalist, then gave a speech to a Republican youth group when asked. Snow later went to the White House to become Bush's press secretary. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.

Muslims weren't always extremists, that happened after Brittian, France and US decided to chop up the Ottoman empire "so it didn't pose a threat". That backfired didn't it?

You're right. When a Taliban enforcer drags a school teacher out into the town square that used to be a soccer field before they banned playing soccer, and shoots her in the head because she has offended Allah by encouraging girls to think, that is definitely the fault of western civilization. No question.

Indeed it is the fault of the U.S. for seeking out during the cold war the harshest, most extreme Muslims in Afghanistan, prop them up and arm them in response to the Soviet invasion, thereby conducting a cowardly war by proxy. Oh, wait, it's even worse than that. The U.S. did that before the Soviets invaded, meaning the Soviets invaded in response to the U.S. propping up the Taliban.

• --There is no global DDT ban - it's perfectly legal in Africa, and if it's use was reduced there it's due to other reasons (see below).
• --Less use in DDT is largely attributed to it's diminishing effects, not Silent Spring. Not only that, it can give rise to cross-resistance and render other insecticides less efficacious.
• --DDT was increasingly being linked to health problems in humans.

The claim that Silent Spring killed untold millions is one of those falsehood that people love to slander environmentalists with. That way, we can all feel great about ignoring them!

Anti-corporate "journalists" like Daisey and Michael Moore do irreparable damage to the causes they supposedly support by playing loose with the facts.

Slight problem with that hippie punching false equivilancy: it's usually Moore's haters that play fast and loose with the facts. Like when CNN had to issue a retraction when they fudged facts in order to accuse Moore of fact fudging.

Gees numb nuts, I don't have to read those crappy News Corps rags everyday, or watch those crappy Fox not-News channels everyday, there are a whole range of web sites that do it for more and show the highlights 'er' lowlights. You know, I don't have to hit my head with a hammer to know it will feel good when I stop, I don't have to walk with my shows full of rocks to know it will feel better when I stop, I don't have to starve for days to know it will feel good when I eat, I don't have to eat chemically laden artificial junk food to know I well feel better when I eat fresh organic and of course my mind doesn't have to wade through cruft http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cruft day in day out to know I will be far more intellectually satisfied when I obtain my news from better sources.

The crazy idea that I need to read News Corp rags and watch Fox not-News everyday just to appreciate how bad they really are, seriously WTF. I have only got so may free hours in the day for news so I simply go to better sources , now that's common sense. As for the News Corp and Fox not-news lowlights, I wag my head in disbelief and thank people for doing the hard yards of wading through that cruft for me.

Here allow me to save you the pain, you obviously seem to be suffering http://www.newshounds.us/, http://www.fair.org/index.php, http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/, http://mediamatters.org/, http://www.prwatch.org/ ;D.

There is plenty of creativity in journalism. In the US, journos exhibit creativity when they try to create two sides out of a one sided issue, conjures up non existent reasons for an illegal war, or print outright works of fiction as fact.

No, but it is evidence of shoddiness.

As for conspiracy

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.

From http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

1) Who actually owns the media: (Hint: About 6 companies in the USA. Not too many more worldwide): http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership

2) Who sits on their board of both these media companies and other major corporations: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870

Bottom line: Every major media outlet is directly controlled by the people who own most of the wealth in America. Messages are strictly controlled. Real journalism has been banished to the blogosphere and that too, though still relatively free, is slowly being undermined.

You suffer from delusions of grandeur. The USA most famously is about the meanest country in the world, after only Italy. Most of what is called "foreign aid" is actually military aid particularly to Israel. That's not done out of charity, that's done in order to further your interests.

The people who end up paying to sort out the problems in the world are mostly Europeans and we look forward to the day the "American Taxpayer" starts paying their share.

why isn't this reported?

Because, contrary to popular mythology, the media lean to the right. (It's only gotten worse since 1998.)

Like educated, urban populations in general, journalists tend to be socially liberal -- socially conservative positions are almost always the product of poor education, or of parochial views resulting from a narrow experience of the world. But on economic issues, the media leans right.

They did it to themselves by turning from being a news delivery system into an entertainment media that has too much influence from it's advertisers. I rarely turn to "Professional US News Organizations" to get any real, objective information about goings on in the world. There is simply too much bias ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=121 ) and fluff with very little fact. It's simply not worth the time investment to sort through all the crap to get the kernel of news. Maybe some more flashy intro segments and graphics will help.

US professional news often ignores major incidents completely such as the U.S. backed chemical fumigation in Columbia. Which is basically tantamount to the agent orange spraying during the vietnam war. Google us columbia chemical fumigation and not the distinct lack of "Professional US News" entries. Even Wikipedia shows up but still no major news outlets from the U.S. In addition they drastically misrepresent other major issues. The clearest example of this for me is global warming / climate change. Even now it is represented in U.S. news media as an open, still debated issue which does not at all seem to be the case (at least as far as scientific journals are concerned).

Basically they lost my trust. Having lived overseas for a number of years I can say the media in other countries (pretty much all of them) was considerably better than in the U.S. but don't fret the BBC has been on a slow but steady path toward U.S. news quality so that may not be the case for long. I no longer read German news (my German is too rusty) so only can speak to the quality of BBC news (website).

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2

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

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/fox_news_channel

If the point to leaking documents is to get information to the public about wrongdoing by powerful institutions like governments and large corporations so that the public can do something about it, The New York Times is not where I'd send the information.

The Times had evidence of the Bush Administration program to illegally wiretap American Citizens but, at the urging of the White House, sat on the story for a year until after the 2004 elections before publishing. The public might have taken action to punish the perpetrators of this crime by voting them out of office. But the Times made sure that the powerful lawbreakers avoided any accountability for their crimes.

Go ahead and leak information about crimes to The New York Times. But if that information implicates powerful people or institutions in the US, don't expect them to publish until the criminals have safely gotten away with it.

Not sure if this is still the case now, but a few years ago it was well known that a given viewer is counted multiple times if they stayed on the same channel over a long period of time in Nielsen's ratings system, and that Fox's apparent lead at the time (2005) was due to this, basically meaning that fewer people were watching longer compared to other channels/networks.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

If the system hasn't changed significantly, then the current FOX surge in ratings could be misleading. That doesn't mean that FOX viewers aren't a significant force in politics, just that they probably do not represent any kind of majority in actual numbers of individuals.

Wow.

Reputable News Organizations. Are those related to Santa Clause and Jesus?

Here's a little dose of reality: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870

Newsflash. "Reputable news organizations" are little more than propaganda mills for the wealthy. In time, they will gain control of the internet too.

I hope you enjoy the new economic feudalism, but somehow I'm guessing you're going to be just another serf that goes by the name of "employee."

WRONG!

I preface my statement "In Soviet America..." The reality is that the Republican Party is the de facto Government annex of Fox News!

I am not engaging in Hyperbole. Corporations in cartel - such as Murdoch's - OWN both parties, and their candidates. Fox hires R's, outright. When it comes to agendas Mudoch calls the tune - not craven politicos.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2

The link is from FAIR. If you want a real and CUTTING critique of media failure in bias, method and funding? Go to FAIR. They slice through the NPR corporate/military stooge agenda, just as surely as they do Fox's.

The TV companies are dominated by "leaning left" liberals, and therefore their reporting is also left-leaning. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN.

Except that that's not true -- media leans right. The "liberal media" myth is a straight-up GOP propaganda ploy that's served them very well.

The bias that you will find is that big media is in big cities, and therefore often reflects a more urban worldview -- more likely to be anti-gun, for example, and more likely to be tolerant of diversity. (With the obvious exception of Fox, which has chosen to pitch their infotainment to the red state demographic.) But the media is as leftist as the corporations that own it -- i.e., not at all.

As the Security Week article suggests this sounds like the lying the military told about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Falcon

Link? no? didn't think so.
Fox's founder is Roger Ailes. You might want to look that up.
In fact read this:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

In '05 Norvell (London editor for Fox) Specifically said they where biased. That it's there busings to be biased.

IT's well known that Fox news is part of the GOP. This was clearly stated in it's beginings, and contiues to this day.

Let me restate that:
It was SPECIFICALLY CREATED to help the Conservative party and has evolved to support the Neo-Cons.

Fox is NOT balanced. Giving some on the 'other side' a voice, does not equal balance.
Fox gang bangs, mocks and uses logical fallacy to deal with what ever person they are setting up.

They lie and make stuff up all the time. for years that has been pointed out.

Fox's political leanings seem clear;

Indeed, they are very clear.

Strange name for a bill thats made for limiting and controlling the flow of information in case of, well just about anything. War on drugs, immigrants, terrorists, citizens?

...or in case of breaking news stories via places like the wikileaks channel, or other reporting of recent world events not in line with the Fed/Corporate interests...

And, obviously, my legitimate question gets modded as a troll.

Look, they clearly need to eat and pay rent, but if they're so much more ethical than the bloggers (which is the natural conclusion that follows from the assertion that they're more fact-checked and more objective) then why do blogs so often end up being the ones to fact-check the national news?

This is why I bring up Fox. It's just an example, but it's illustrative: a network that is *objectively* biased in its news coverage (same applies for MSNBC). That's not to say that everyone there is unethical personally, but how unethical does your employer have to be before your personal ethics kick in and tell you to look elsewhere? If your news network is actively misinforming people, omitting or manipulating important, relevant information, what code of ethics allows an objective journalist to contribute to that, even if they themselves are doing everything right? I wouldn't much like to work somewhere that I know my objective, unbiased work will be distorted, manipulated, and used to lie.

And even if it is true that blogs are more biased on an individual basis (and it probably is) I'd argue that blogs give a more accurate assessment, all taken together, than the mainstream media does, because they fact check not only themselves but each other, and supporting information is only a click away.

Do you really, honestly, expect the BBC to report objectively on itself?

It has in the past

That is irrelevant to my question. The question is whether you TRUST them to. If you do, you are a fool. Again: they are the government. Freedom of the press exists, to a large degree, to watch government.

How can you not see the problem here?

As for NPR/PBS, evidence shows that liberal bias is a myth.

False. And this is an example of how foolish you are being: FAIR is an explicitly leftwing organization! Why would you trust them to say there's no leftwing bias?

Only an ignorant would pit the relatively spotless reputations of NPR/PBS/BBC ...

Only "an ignorant" would expect anyone to believe those organizations have spotless records.

The BBC has had many scandals. NPR doesn't have many scandals because a. they don't do nearly much "hard news" reporting, and b. most people don't care. Seriously. And PBS doesn't do its own news, for the most part (NewsHour is an indepedent organization, though funded by PBS and CPB, which get federal funds ... in fact, NewsHour gets more of its money from corporations -- many of them controversial -- than it does from government sources).

Do you really, honestly, expect the BBC to report objectively on itself?

It has in the past, and objectively on the government as well. There are many studies that show this. As for NPR/PBS, evidence shows that liberal bias is a myth.

Only an ignorant would pit the relatively spotless reputations of NPR/PBS/BBC against the blatant editorialising in corporate media.