Slashdot Mirror

Ok, let me get this straight. You want to compare taking a bath doing CHARITY WORK for an entire country and asking for a little help to do MORE CHARITY work to something like say....

Stuff Dick Cheney Has Done

Stuff Bush Has Done

The criminal records of his appointees

I'm just having a hard time seeing your point. No matter how much of a mountain you make out of that mole-hill, it just doesn't come close to a bunch of Enron buddies making a fortune off the peons. Now does it?

Taking some points out of order, just to get the data in then the speculation.

The IBC itself does not publish citations for the sources of its study, and uses a method that has been proven to overestimate figures. I'm too lazy to make a link and even though the source is conservative, it explains the faults of the system: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/002/554awdqo.asp

The IBC does publish citations. Check out this. The column on the far right lists a source -- a three-letter code for the publication. Click on the header for definitions. However, I have doubts about the methodology at well.

The BBC also posted other data; unfortunately, they did it in a sidebar. The sources and estimates are:

Iraq Body Count: 13-15,000
Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
UK foreign secretary: >10,000
People's Kifah >37,000

How many of these "civilian" deaths are actually either terrorist or Saddam holdover fighters?

To be completely fair, I don't think it's possible for even the troops actually engaged in the fighting to know that for sure. However, the US and Iraqi governments keep assuring us that the insurgency is small. As compared to what, I want to know. As compared to population (about 25M), 10% would still be huge about 2.5M compared to our ~200K -- even 1% means that they have more people on their side in Iraq.

So let's make an assumption -- that they are telling us the truth. That the insurgency is small compared to the US force -- that seems fair to me. If it's not then we are, to use the most generous phrasing possible, being misled. So let's say that the insurgency is at 5% the strength of the US military presence in Iraq. That would be about 10K. I think this is a pretty darn large estimate, wouldn't you agree? See, I'm trying to allow "small" to be fairly large to be generous to the Administration. It also makes these back-of-the-napkin calculations turn out that we killed less innocents.

Just to put some limits on it, on the high end, if we killed more than about 75% of the insurgency, I think the casualty rate (currently about 2.8 soldier killed/day) among coalition forces would not be rising. So lets assume, again, that the Administration is telling us the truth and we're winning -- that we're right at the breaking point. Let's assume we've killed 75% of the insurgency. That means 7500 people. Again, I'm trying to be generous.

The Brookings Institute is considered "centrist" (they supported President Bush's Headstart changes among others). So, if we killed 7500 insurgents that means we killed between 2500 and 19500 innocent civilians. The middle of the range is 11,000. That's if *every* dead insurgent is being counted as a "civilian casualty". Just to be even more generous we'll say that the Brookings institute has error margins that are just too large, so we'll just lop off the top half of the range to be generous to the Administration.

The point of this little exercise isn't to get good numbers -- nobody thinks they have good numbers. The point is to look at what's being fed to us. It appears to me, that right now we feel like we have to kill between 2.5 and 11 innocent civilians for every US soldier that dies. Is that the mark of a well-run military campaign or is that the mark of tired, mismanaged soldiers who have had their tours extended too far?

No matter which way you think this analysis is wrong, it puts the Administration in an even more unfavorable light. If the insurgency is bigger, they lied. If we've killed less than 75% of the insurgents, we're probably not winning.

It's inescapable. Even if we're being told the truth, that the insurgency is small, that we are winning, and most of the "civilian casualties" are terrorists, then we're killing at least 2 and maybe as many as 11 innocent civilians to every soldier that dies. Seems pretty un-humanitarian to me.

What liberal media? Seriously, Alterman is right on the money here. I watch a lot of international media and, well, you guys don't know how much disinformation and conservative bias you consume per day. The added insult of believing in a "liberal media" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that media owners can so easily manipulate mass opinion.

FAIR has done an excellent job at pointing out bias and its no surprise that ownership and advertising bias tend to help the conservative "pro-big business" and "pro-deregulation" party.

which factcheck.org has been doing, too. FAIR is worth looking at, too.

The other important function of blogs is to show the pulse of public opinion in areas that are not necessarily driven by large media outlets.

Go to any of the three letter network TV news sites and you'll see a lot of similarity. Consensus? Of what kind?

One of the most important sources of bias in news reporting is deciding what even qualifies as a news story.

Bloggers get to decide for themselves.

Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.

Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.

Medialens is great, but has a distinct UK emphasis. Also try Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, a.k.a. FAIR. Both great sites.

"the people at WTVT trying to work with the correspondents regarded them, especially Wilson, as combative, contentious, insulting, and unprofessional. The Fox lawyer participating in the editorial review complained to them that they were stating "in almost every way possible that you are fed up with our process of legal and editorial review."

Fact -- Kerry was in Veitnam, fighting like a REAL patriot and true soldier.

Fact -- Bush was a wussy silver-spoon whose family connections got him 'States side duty in the National Guard along with a lot of other sons of wealth and power.
Whether or not Kerry did or did not do something (or nothing) with (or for) his medals is AFTER THE FACT.

Whether or not the same TV network that was the MOST PRO-WAR network by far in the run-up to Iraq acquired some (possibly?) dubious documents that indicate Bush couldn't even be troubled to PERFORM the cushy 'States side job he was given is also AFTER THE FACT.

<rant>

</rant>

Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).

And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.

Perot isn't involved because he didn't want to be involved. A few things here.

1. Winning 19 percent of the vote in a three way election is a significant portion. You only need 34% to win. (in a election decided by popular vote). If 15% more of the voters were convinced to vote for Perot a third party would have taken the majority of the votes. That is pretty damn close for a third party in my book.

2. By winning over 5%? of the popular vote the reform party recieved federal funding for the 2000 election and automatically appeared on the ballet on all of the states.

3. What killed the reform party was in-fighting and picking the wrong candidate in 2000. Yes, Pat Buchanan does believe in reforming the government and probably knows more about foriegn policy that anyone in the white house now (or anyone who's been there since Bush 1). However he was a poor choice PR wise, since he is often accused of rascism and anti-semitism. While those accusations may not be true, when you run for president, perception is everything. Had the reform party picked a popular outsider such as Donald Trump, Jessie Ventura, or even wooed Shwartzanneger away from teh Republicans they would have had a good shot in at least winning 5-10% of the vote in 2000.

4. Third partys have been shut out of the presidential debates. After Perot scared the shit out of both the democrats and republicans they conspired to keep third parties out of the debates.

The debate held in a town hall format where normal people were able to ask Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, and George Bush questions was the highest rated debate of all time

69.9 million people watched the debates, if you are wondering how that compares to other TV events, the only thing I know of that draws more viewers is the super bowl which usually draws about 80 million people. The highest rated debate in 2000 drew 46 million.

There is room for a third party in America, and people do want one. They just aren't standing up and fighting for one, and are missing the fact that those in power are doing everything they can to maintain power.

There are so many problems they are difficult to enumerate. You got some of the big ones.

There's also the fact that because the CPD is bipartisan, it is violating federal law, because contributions are campaign donations.

And the fact that Clinton used his power over Dole in 1996 (dangling the carrot named "no Perot") to actually intentionally hold a debate on the same night as a baseball playoff game, to reduce viewership. Stephanopolous even admitted this was the case later on.

The two candidates actively attempt to swindle you. Call them. Tell them you don't want what they're selling. Tell them you want the CDC to take control this year. It's not too late. The only reason they don't change is because we don't ask them to. If you don't call them, they will -- apparently, rightly -- assume that you don't mind that they are staging the entire affair. The affair should be out of their hands.

Yes, CNN is so liberal they're trying to please the GOP by meeting with them. I find it trusting that a boss of a news channel meet with politicians discussing how they should change their covering to please them better.

After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!

To all of the Bill O'Reillys of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs, the Ed Gillespies and the Zell Millers, I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!

(I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)

Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.

Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.

But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.

If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . . .

Just a thought.

...at one point [Goldberg] strays into territory that can actually be put to a test. That's when he claims that the media "pointedly identify conservative politicians as conservatives," but rarely use the word "liberal" to describe liberals.

In fact, I did find a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives, but not in the direction that Goldberg claims. On the contrary: the average liberal legislator has a thirty percent greater likelyhood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does. The press describes Barney Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes Dick Armey as a conservative. It gives Barbara Boxer a partisan label almost twice as often as it gives one to Trent Lott. And while it isn't surprising that the press applies the label conservative to Jesse Helms more often than to any other Republican in the group, it describes Paul Wellstone as a liberal twenty percent more frequently than that.

There's more in Nunberg's article, if you care to read it.

Sorry, but there's still a leftist slant in the general media.

The media is pro-corporate rather than liberal or conservative. Their pro-corporate viewpoints are often in line with conservative viewpoints, and so the media is often seen as conservatively biased, when in fact their bias is pro-corporate.

A good start: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

This from FAIR: http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

And of course this, although I have not read it: http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

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.

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.

Institute for Public Accuracy

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

I knew I was forgetting those from my bookmarks -- I get their regular emails and recommend anyone with an interest in this topic sign up on their lists.

the UN Oil-for-food scandel) never get adequately reported in the French press.

I know what you mean.

However, NPR is contesting some of those accusations of bias.

I know what you mean.

However, NPR is contesting some of those accusations of bias.

When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998...

Um...they actually were spies.

But all this stuff misses the main point about Iraq. Saddam was contained by the sanctions. He wasn't particularly punished by them (he didn't miss any meals) but look at hii options post-9/11, pre-war:

• Attack one or more of his Islamic neighbors.

  Result: Gulf War II with full international support.

• Attack Israel, either conventionally or with WMD.

  Result: War. Quite possibly a glowing crater where Bagdhad once was.

• Attack the United States, either conventionally or with WMD.

  Result: it is to laugh. Iraq is stomped even worse than it actually was. Perhaps even a glowing crater. (If he actually posed any real military threat to us, the war might conceivably have been justified... but nobody thought that.)

• Give, say, Al-Quaeda WMDs.

  The only real terrorism Saddam has been tied to, the stipends for families of suicide bombers in Israel, was very public... because he was doing it for publicity. He doesn't gain a lot from attacking the U.S. by proxy, and if it's ever traced back to him (a significant probability, though far from a sure thing), we're back to a full-on military onslaught with widespread international support.

• Maintain the status quo.

  Result: pretty good for Saddam. He's still in charge of the county, livin' large, and he can tweak around oil prices and hurt the U.S. a bit by saber-rattling from time to time.

If we really wanted to supress "Panislamic radicalism", screw Saudi Arabia or China or whatever, we could have done it better in Afghanistan. We had international support and clear moral grounding, a populace that actually didn't like the ruling regime and really did mostly welcome us, etc. If we'd spent the kind of dough and deployed the kind of troops there that we're currently throwing at Iraq, we might actually have been able to do some real nation-building.

Just think, a democratic Islamic state. Nothing better to scare the thugocracies of the Middle East, and perhaps even inspire their people. Yes, it would have attracted the same foreign insurgents there that Iraq has, but the native populace didn't get introduced to us by infrastructure bombing. The Soviets did that, and we helped the Afghanis against them.

How much money did Bush allocate for Afghanistan in the 2004 budget? Nothing. Not a damn thing. They forgot about it.

Give it up with this "liberal media" bullshit. Good lord. The "liberal media" acted so liberal in the run-up to war that the liberal editors of the two most liberal of the liberal papers, the NYTimes and the Washington Post, felt the need to publically apologize in recent months for not doing their jobs, and instead acting like pseudo-patriotic parrots of administration propoganda - and doing so very willfully. There was a great study showing that during the war anti-war pundits on all networks together (including PBS) got one-twenty-fifth the air time of pro-war pundits. That would be 1:25, not 8:1. Real "liberal" there.

If you could see past that log in your eye, you'd realize there's nothing liberal about the media anymore. Virtual all media in this country is owned by a handful of large corporations. They look out for #1. CNN viewers may have been slightly less misinformed than FNC viewers, but CNN still beat the war drum just as hard, and have been just as soft in criticizing the administration since.

Why is there a political slant in the moderation here? Isn't that against the rules?

Despite the fact that there is study after study proving the bias at FOX News, there is no provable bias in the news that CNN presents.

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but if you really want to read how FOX is setup and some of the ways they spin things, read through this site:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

And for the record, CNN is as useless as FOX in my book, so if you're going to bash/attack me, don't do so through attacks on CNN because you'll likely end up with me agreeing with you, depending on what you say.

Funny... they call Fox News Special Report "most centrist of all media outlets in our sample" (p.3).

Maybe you'd like to have a look at the other side as well:
'Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim' at fair.org.

Funny... they call Fox News Special Report "most centrist of all media outlets in our sample" (p.3).

Maybe you'd like to have a look at the other side as well:
'Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim' at fair.org.

Um, hello, where were you in 1998? The US pulled the inspectors out in advance of Desert Fox. Iraq refused to allow them in afterwards - not surprising, since many inspectors had already gone public with the fact that the US had spies in the teams. Here, turning to FAIR! (thank you for the concice collection!), we can watch how different news agencies became suddenly forgetful (like you!):

What A Difference Four Years Makes

you might want to research FAIR institute a bit more... they are a nonprofit.. So they are not necessarily in it for the "money" as compared to some for-profit think-tank institution. They are self-described as "progressive" so who said anything about un-biased... does that word even make sense?
I don't know if your recommendation is good idea: >
"If you really want to make up your mind on the bias of the media, then you don't need to be trying to use a source that has a very evident bias in themselves and who seek to profit by this bias."
There is no "un-biased" source for information. So chouse your bias!... an institutional analysis of corporate mainstream media will consistently show their "bias" lies in the support of capital, power and the people that run it. This has to do with their institutional construction at a very basic level and has little to do with ideology or personal bias of media players. That is to say the support of capital will show up as left or right bias depending on the situation; ideally it will show up as a liberal/left bias to further marginalize any organization that must be operating off the planet by being to the "left" of the "liberal" corporate mainstream news.
So I think a prerequisite for my preference of news bias is looking at where their fanatical support comes from. So if an organizations bias is from non corporate contributions it is at least starting on the right track.
Institutions such as FAIR and zmag at least satisfy this prerequisite by not having advertisements in their publications and being solely supported by their readers direct contributions.
This is not saying that all people operating in the corporate mainstream are lying or dishonest, they are likely really good honest people only they are operating within a specific system or institution which particular characteristics and behaviors.
Sure you can label what I read as "propaganda, lies" or whatever. But to me their analysis of what's going on is much more logical and morally consistent. For example they won't say we had to form an alliance of convince with Saddam or it was a good idea to train and support the Osama in his early days. They consistently oppose tyranny. When Cuba did it crack down and killed some of its violent dissidents, they condemned it, when we support Colombia with weapons they consistently say it's a bad idea, rather then our government leaders whose morality is extremely convenient. Why not oppose Saddam when we where selling him all those WMD in the first place? That is the kind of consistency the mainstream corporate media lacks.
But I realize that not everyone feels that way. Some want to destroy evil with no concern for the means in which we do it or the history behind it. I hope to change their minds but recognize it's not always possible.

Extra!, the paper magazine of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

FAIR analyzes how the media reports, what they report, what they don't report, and calls out their biases.

They've done a lot of work around telecommunications policy , looking at what the governement is saying, what business is saying, and how it will affect you and me.

They don't speculate--I love them because they are so analytical. They are data heads who use the LexisNexis database to stastistically evaluate how the media does. Is there a conservative bias in media? They'll give you the numbers and let you decide.

Subscription is $21/year.

Extra!, the paper magazine of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

FAIR analyzes how the media reports, what they report, what they don't report, and calls out their biases.

They've done a lot of work around telecommunications policy , looking at what the governement is saying, what business is saying, and how it will affect you and me.

They don't speculate--I love them because they are so analytical. They are data heads who use the LexisNexis database to stastistically evaluate how the media does. Is there a conservative bias in media? They'll give you the numbers and let you decide.

Subscription is $21/year.

Citations of think tanks as a metric for determining liberalism or conservatism? Comparing these values against members of Congress instead of the general public? How... senseless. I suppose the second was necessary, given the first, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a totally artificial method.

Now, if you want to know where journalists and the public stand relative to one another on policy questions, why not ask them? The results are surprising, though admittedly, these biases may not carry over into their reporting. I do have to commend the Groseclose & Milyo study for focusing on that rather than yet again analyzing the journalists themselves. (You do realize that this is the work of two individual professors, not of their institutions, right? Bringing up the politics of UCLA is a red herring. Find out what sort of politics Groseclose & Milyo have and we can talk.)

Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."

In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.

Congratulations, North Korea. You've finally worked out that America is a warmongering nation with an extensive corporate propaganda system operating through movies, news media and even video games.

This is not news. Many of us noticed this years ago. And picking a French-made video game as an example just makes the whole thing seem ludicrous to the US citizens who could stop the whole process if they really wanted to.

Typical US-centric, head-in-the-sand bullshit.

There couldn't possibly be another reason to prevent the UN weapons inspectors from having carte blanche access to secure facilities in Iraq, right? I mean, those guys are all about the inspections and are completely trustworthy right? They would NEVER abuse that level of access to go "beyond scope" of their charter would they?

OF COURSE THEY WOULD:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq02 23.htm
http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351 165,00.html

As for punishing "violations of UN resolutions" shouldn't the UN be responsible for that? Just exactly whose resolutions are these anyway? As if the Bush league has any interest in enforcing UN resolutions against other countries that are routinely broken on a daily basis anyhow.

Yep...that's what we have.. and will continue to have until people exercise their responsibility and vote all the scoundrels out!

I'm not big on kookiness, or conspiracy theories, but the two major parties are conspiring even if it's informally to keep third parties out of majority elections. In 1992 Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote and participated in the highest rated presidential debate of all time. After Perot's preformance in 1992, the Republicans and Democrats conspired to not include Perot in 1996. Clinton's aid, George Stephanopolous said:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

In 2000 it was announced that candidates wouldn't be allowed in the elections unless they were polling at 15% of the vote ahead of time. Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).

While this has strayed off topic a bit, how can you expect not to have laws against the will of the people when the people are no longer in control of who they can vote for? Politicians do their best to make the Republicans and Democrats look different, and they are on social issues, but surely not on economic issues despite what some democrats and republicans might think. They both spend carelessly, and support big business. As long as these people are in power, you will have crap like the RIAA getting free lawsuits going on.

Funny that Fox News has the best ratings in America. Apparently not everyone agrees with you.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Fox News is heavily watched. For 2003, Fox's Nielsen average daily ratings were 1.02 million vieweres while CNN only had 665,000 viewers. That's the number you hear cited so much when news outlets report "Fox crushing CNN."

What may be more telling though is their respective "cumes" or the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. CNN's cume is regularly at least 20% greater than Fox News. The cumes for April 2003 show that CNN had 105 million viewers while Fox only had 86 million.

Even more interesting is when looks at viewers who describe themselves as "very conservative." An ad agency (Carat USA) did such a study and found that 37% of viewers who are "very conservative" watch CNN during a week, while only 32% watch Fox News.

Also, you have to remember that neither network is a ratings success. For instance, on a good night, The O Reilly Factor (Fox News' highest rated program will get about 2 million viewers. Contrast this to CBS News, the lowest rated network news program which regularly gets 8 - 10 million viewers.

All of the above has been drawn from this article from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). Is FAIR a left-wing or liberal media watch group? Yeah, I would hesitate to use those terms, but I'll concede that they are left in-so-far as they report on the innacuracies of the mainstream news media, which generally ranges mildly right-of-center to hard right. However, they use facts to back up their assertions that are solidly based in reality and not derived from Karl Rove's morning talking points memo.

Funny that Fox News has the best ratings in America. Apparently not everyone agrees with you.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Fox News is heavily watched. For 2003, Fox's Nielsen average daily ratings were 1.02 million vieweres while CNN only had 665,000 viewers. That's the number you hear cited so much when news outlets report "Fox crushing CNN."

What may be more telling though is their respective "cumes" or the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. CNN's cume is regularly at least 20% greater than Fox News. The cumes for April 2003 show that CNN had 105 million viewers while Fox only had 86 million.

Even more interesting is when looks at viewers who describe themselves as "very conservative." An ad agency (Carat USA) did such a study and found that 37% of viewers who are "very conservative" watch CNN during a week, while only 32% watch Fox News.

Also, you have to remember that neither network is a ratings success. For instance, on a good night, The O Reilly Factor (Fox News' highest rated program will get about 2 million viewers. Contrast this to CBS News, the lowest rated network news program which regularly gets 8 - 10 million viewers.

All of the above has been drawn from this article from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting). Is FAIR a left-wing or liberal media watch group? Yeah, I would hesitate to use those terms, but I'll concede that they are left in-so-far as they report on the innacuracies of the mainstream news media, which generally ranges mildly right-of-center to hard right. However, they use facts to back up their assertions that are solidly based in reality and not derived from Karl Rove's morning talking points memo.

google: fox news bias

Turns up numerous pages with examples of Fox bias.

The classsic:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

More current:

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm

I guess you missed this, then.

That is completely untrue.

Kerry maybe liberal, but he is in no way the most liberal person in the senate. That number one ranking was based on Kerry's vote in 25 of the 62 votes ranked by the National Journal. Kerry missed the other 37 because he was out promoting himself on the campaign.

Please, please read those articles and don't just believe what you were spoonfed.

That's because what the US administration says is news. CNN doesn't claim it's the truth. They are only reporting what is said.

Well that's fine, as long as they acknowledge that. Oftentimes they serve as little more than government propoganda. And they could certainly question the veracity of the government's claims a little more strongly and often - the various US news organizations pretty much gave the White House a free pass on the whole "Iraq has WMDs, really!" thing before we invaded.

Fucking A. killing very very bad people. People who are out to destroy me and my family. People who kill at random, using the most terrifying methods as possible.

But while hawks -- especially in the Pentagon -- believe Krekar is a "smoking gun" linking Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the CIA is skeptical about his alleged ties to Baghdad.

-- "Analysis: Iraq al Qaida link hard to prove"

Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

-- "General says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence"

While a Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden connection was one of the administration's early justifications for going to war, it has produced no evidence to demonstrate this link exists.

-- "Bush Uranium Lie is Tip of the Iceberg"

British intelligence sources also dismiss claims by Washington hawks that Mohamed Atta, believed to be the ringleader of the September 11 terrorists, met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on several occasions.

-- "UK Spies Reject Al-Qaida Link"

But while hawks -- especially in the Pentagon -- believe Krekar is a "smoking gun" linking Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, the CIA is skeptical about his alleged ties to Baghdad.

-- "Analysis: Iraq al Qaida link hard to prove"

Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

-- "General says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence"

While a Saddam Hussein/Osama bin Laden connection was one of the administration's early justifications for going to war, it has produced no evidence to demonstrate this link exists.

-- "Bush Uranium Lie is Tip of the Iceberg"

British intelligence sources also dismiss claims by Washington hawks that Mohamed Atta, believed to be the ringleader of the September 11 terrorists, met an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague on several occasions.

-- "UK Spies Reject Al-Qaida Link"

I think you might change your mind if the tables were turned around. In 1988, USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655, an civilian Airbus carrying 290 innocent people.

I refuse to accept that one can "mistake" an Airbus for a F-14, especially for the best equipped navy on earth. I strongly believe that if Admiral Crowe gave "a fuck about innocent people's lives", this sorry saga (and perhaps Lockerbie) would not have happened.

No US officers have been sentenced, let alone executed for this horrific crime. To this day, the US government still refuses to issue an official apology.

Please don't tell me that the poor innocent people on board Air Iran 655 were "collateral damage". When the US government values one American life to be worth thirty-three times of an Arab, it is perfectly understandable why some people might resent the US government and their actions.

Republicans can't seem to stop lying about Kerry's voting record

A none-too-complimentary view of "Bias" can be found at http://www.fair.org/articles/bias-op-ed.html.

Jayson Blair? The reporter who got sacked for making up news? The one that gave the NYT a credibility problem that it still hasn't fully overcome? If anything, he would be a data point in favor of the idea that the media has some interest in reporting the news in a factual manner.

Who released this study? How substantiative was it? Did it get any peer review? Maybe, just maybe, the study didn't get much play because there are more important things than acting as a megaphone for some right-wing think tank with bad science. I can't pass judgment on a study I haven't seen, but you haven't provided compelling evidence that it deserved to get attention.

It may also be that the major news outlets are giving us the news we're interested: The war in Iraq, not global warming. Global warming hasn't been in the headlines much since the furor over the Kyoto Treaty died down. Finally, whether you side with the pro-war or the anti-war side, it's pointless to call all the Iraqi guerillas attacking an invading army on their home soil "terrorists." They have their own political agenda, and they are using force to move it forward, just like we are.

Let's reserve the term "terrorists" for those who target non-combatants.

Finally, you can't think of the number of terrorists as a zero sum game. We can't say, "Okay, there are 100,000 terrorists inside Iraq, so if we kill 60,000 terrorists, we've reduced the threat by sixty percent." More terrorists are created and eliminated by political maneuvers than the U.S. could ever hope to take out with bullets and missile strikes.

Just look at the recent killing of Shiek Ahmed Yassin--a Hamas leader--by Israel. Did he coordinate suicide bombings? Probably. Did he deserve to die? Probably. Can Israel scratch one terrorist off the scorecard? Nope. The public reaction to the killing will probably increase the number and willpower of the Palestinian militants.

Meanwhile, a post I wrote this morning defending FoxNews--often accused of being biased toward the right for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded down as "Off-topic."

Probably because there is no "-1, Idiot" mod. Because there is no "liberal bias" in the media, and never has been. None. Nadda. Zip. This fallacy is based around two things: ignoring conservative media (Rush, Drudge), and only looking at "liberal" columnists in newspapers while ignoring the conservative ones who are on the same page. So because the NY Times prints Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert, it must be a liberal paper, despite the fact that the print the scribes of the hawk William Safire and the conservative David Brooks.

That doesn't even make sense. If a private station must worry about not offending sides, that would give it even more incentive to be non-biased.

Of course it makes sense, to anyone with any intelligence. If you're a non-profit, you don't have to worry about offending a company that pays you to air their commercials. See your favorite news station for a perfect example. But if you are a commercial news entity, that means you compete for ratings. Which, in todays media, means you hype stories and look for scandals to report on. i.e. Gore and the myths of his fibbing, Bush's supposed lack of intelligence, Quayle and the potatoe thing, etc etc.

NPR gets major contributions from left-leaning entrepeneurs.

So? I'm sure they get plenty of donations from conservatives who are also tired of American media's love of presenting the news rather than covering it.

which makes one wonder why we still have to pay for them to be on the air when they don't need us to keep them afloat.

1) thats not true, and 2) donating money gives you a say in what kind of programming they have. They'll probably lose a lot of donations from people having exactly your attitude, and non-profit broadcasting is an expensive busiiness to be in. PBS especially is having to go through a very expensive conversion to HDTV equipment. As for getting a say, do you like jazz? Ask them to have more jazz programs when you send them your pledge. Want more shows like Car Talk? Ask them to do a show with some guys from Tech TV.

NPR and PBS are Good Things, and I wish more people would support them.

That leaves little more than "inoperable keyboards"-- i.e., missing W's-- and handmade signs poking fun at Bush-- what Fleischer calls "graffiti." Those stories were long ago confirmed by Democrats and were never described as "vandalism" or "looting" in the media-- including on Fox. To portray them as some kind of retroactive corroboration for the fevered stories about "the trashing of the White House" stretches credulity.

"My sense is there probably was some phones pulled, or whatever; I don't have a way to determine that," Mr. Ungar said, referring to accounts that office lines had been cut. "But there wasn't indication of real, significant, widespread damage."

....Not to mention forcing their customers to listen to Fox News Lies in their stores and censoring music (but not movies or violent video games.