Slashdot Mirror

The problem with all hate crime laws is that they punish somebody more severely based on what they were thinking at the time they committed the crime. True, it doesn't come into effect until a crime is actually committed, but the logical endstate that we're on will eventually outlaw agree with, oh for instance, certain parts of Leviticus and Romans, simply because they contain language offensive to certain people, as has already happened in Canada.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, so NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... they're all bastions of unbiased news reporting? They were all in the bag for BHO and given what I've seen on them in recent days, they desperately want his Constitutionally questionable domestic social agenda to succeed.

Or, make a strong effort to be biased.

Turn on TV to watch public television (here in Nebraska it is NET) and you'll see a series of video clips used as fillers between shows. In the middle of the series is one of Bush taken at a low angle. Bush is waving his hand but in slow motion it looks like he is trying to cover the lens. To enforce that impression the very next photo is of a Chinese policeman who IS trying to cover the lens with his hand. Those two clips were NOT put in juxtaposition by accident. They were edited to deliver that impression. THAT is subliminal bias.

Then, there is the news the George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton political advisor and now an ABC news Washington correspondent, is/was meeting daily with Pres. Obama to give advice on handling the press, until news of the meeting leaked and exposed him for what he is: a Democrat political operative.

Saturday Night Live gave a skit about the subprime load fiasco. It was one of the few skits on that show which presented a humorous representation of the facts but it was immediately pulled by NBC because it did not jive with the official line of the Democrat party. They didn't get all of the videos. Here is one: http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv

The Dems blame "greedy" wallstreet, and greedy they were, but ACORN and the Dems were the blame. When the Fannie May and Freddie Mac problems were pointed out by some in 2004 and 2006, Congressional hearings on the matter were shut down by the Dems with complaints that those worrying about the subprimes were against "Social Justice", the war cry of ACORN.
http://zardozz.com/zz/2008/09/cspan-tapes-exposes-democrat-support-of-sub-prime-mess.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgSubmiGt8

There is a website to track media bias:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2009/cyb20090326.asp

It give dozens of examples of media bias.

First, in my experience only MSNBC has a liberal bias. Second, so? Obama was hitting themes that struck a chord with Americans.

No, that's just wrong. Journalists are there to report, not support. (catchy, huh ;-)

"Journalists love the new..."

No, journalists love the Democrat! Around 81% of journalists vote Democrat. Sarah Palin was also new and all most journalists wanted to do was trash her, even to the point of annoying some democrat women who clearly saw the sexism of those covering the campaign.

While one cannot rule out all bias, today's media hardly tries! They are supposed to REPORT news, not put their spin or commentary in a news story. Basically a lot of jouranists are producing propaganda, not news. But today's journalist (and my degree is in journalism) sees their role as changing the world rather than observing it.

Now some in the media are starting to backpedal. Tom Brokaw apparently said on Charlie Rose Show that "We don't know anything about Barack Obama." Well you had a good year and a half to find out and dozens of reporters who could have been assigned! I don't think they WANTED to know. They didn't want to dig too deep and possibly find something that might bring Obama down. Now they want to cover their ass in case something does come out.

This is exactly what I mean.

Whoosh. Name a single contrary example that's on the same planet, much less the same page, as the media's obsession/dismissal of Condit's/Scarborough's intern.

Meanwhile the other side is using opposite examples to make their case.

That's the point: they don't have any. Cruise on over to Media Research Council where their top entry is a complaint over how popular Obama is internationally. Yawn.

So do, please, give the false equivalency a rest already.

According to Pew 35% of National journalists self desribe themselves as liberal, 7% as conservative.

And thats just their admitted bias but in studies of voting patterns, of which there have also been many, journalist has consistently voted Democrat even when the vast majority of the populace has voted Republican, upwards of 80%. I'm running to a movie so here is a link referencing the other studies.

The 80% number is also pretty consistent with donation patterns among journalists as well as journalism professors.

And just to get back to the point, of all media sources the New York Times was the one rated as the most liberal by the journalists themselves, even those who refuse to admit their liberal ideology while only voting for the most liberal candidates.

So basically this just fits in nicely with all the studies that find that liberals have a harder time identifying liberal bias either externally or their own; some of which are linked above.

If it walks like a duck...

The Democrats were the ones leading the charge against her. DailyKos was the first to allege that Sarah Palin is NOT the Mother (although they have since removed this story, since it's both libelous and embarrassing to the DailyKos). The media followed suit, and lest you forget what the partisan breakdown of the media is, here's a reminder: bias. Obama rightly condemned it, but elections are lost not by your enemies but by your friends, and Obama's friends did a bang up job in the last couple of weeks.

I agree with you, however, that experience was the wrong thing to focus on, because it put Obama on defensive ground, since he is similarly inexperienced in raw numbers. You're right that the issues, policy vision, and judgment should have been the center of the attacks. They weren't, to the measurable detriment of the Democrats, as reflected in the polls.

The fact is that liberals have control of the networks - I saw poll that showed essentially all journalists at CNN, ABC, CBS etc vote for the Democrats.

Uh, no it was that around 90% of journalists that make campaign contributions contribute to the Democrats. But the number of journalists making campaign contributions was around 10%.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
It's absurd to suggest that journalists don't overwhelmingly vote for left wing parties.

Sigh. This is really a rather unfortunate way to expose people to MMFA, because they're not at all the PC police.

The thing is, there is this vast network of conservative media outlets (like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.) that most people will never listen to. So what happens is these guys end up preaching to the choir practically exclusively. When the listeners are all toting the same line, they get away with perpetuating a lot of myths that go completely unchallenged, leading a certain segment of the population to believe they're true. Like the 33% of Fox news viewers who believe we actually did find WMDs in Iraq.

MMFA exists to open up these conservative media channels to wider public scrutiny, to say that they are a part of the public sphere and they do have to play by all the same rules as everyone else. There's a tit-for-tat going on here too: The Media Research Center supposedly has a similar mission for liberal media, but their only reliable sources of material seem to be Keith Olbermann and MMFA itself.

National Briefing | West: California: Support For Condit Challenger

Sens Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will support Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, one of several Democrats, in California primary for candidate to run against incumbent Republican Repr Gary Condit for House seat
January 26, 2002 News web site:

National Briefing | West: California: Support For Condit Challenger

Sens Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein will support Assemblyman Dennis Cardoza, one of several Democrats, in California primary for candidate to run against incumbent Republican Repr Gary Condit for House seat
January 26, 2002 News web site:

The press can say whatever they want, they're just not allowed to do any research or deviate from the party line!

More true than you know, considering that 80% to 90% of reporters are Democrat.

I'm talking about the eye humping that occurs, manifesting itself into biased moderation for Apple and Nintendo.

And I'm saying that, like other alledged forms of bias, your Apple and Nintendo bias simply doesn't exist. Go find me one actual +5 Apple fanboy post and I'll show you five that are complaining about Apple's products, Apple's policies, or calling Jobs a supreme asshole. Methinks you are nostalgic for the days when any Dvorak style crazed ranting about how "belegaurd Apple is going to die" would get an automatic +5 Informative, so now any resonable post looks like "bias" to you.

As for Nintendo, the buzz surrounding them comes from the high price of the PS3, the motion sensing controller, the high price of the 360, the high price of the PS3, the expected low pricing of the Wii and it's games, the high price of the PS3, the huge catalog of old Nintendo games that will be rereleased for the Wii, and lastly, the high price of the PS3.

If the Wii and the PS3 were being released at $350 and $400 respectivley, people would be wowing over Sony's console and would still be bitching about Nintendo going from a great name like the Revolution to the retarded Wii.

The Apple batteries didn't just "bulge," they're defective,

Duh, no one is disputing that. Unless Apple is refusing to replace the bulging batteries, this is a red herring.

and there's lots of them

Please, this is the Internet. "Lots of them" could mean a dozen out of a hundred thousand.

They fail in a short period of time after "bulging" and don't have the maxiumum battery usage during "bulging." How is this not news?

For the same reason that every single hardware defect is not "news": they happen all the time. A couple years ago, Dell had some crappy DVD drives in their Optiplexes that wouldn't close after being opened. There was no front page story on Slashdot about it a week after the first photo was posted. Same thing when they had some defective video cards, or problems with the 40 gigabyte Maxtor hard drives. You ship a sizable number of units of any product and you're going to have some defects. If this were some other company than Apple, we wouldn't even hear about this until it reached lawsuit/recall stage, and maybe not even then.

And as for "annoying anti-fanboys" - you mean "regular people?"

"Regular people" do not snobbishly complain about bais where no bias actually exists, unless you happen to be a Republican.

I was considering purchasing a macbook and now am going to reconsider until they get the kinks out.

If you wait until everything is defect free, you'll never buy anything, because a percentage of any product will be defective.

>>You can't ignore something if you don't exist in the first place.

Every person is biased, and stories always reflect the political orientation of the writer, whether consciously or not.

So instead of looking at stories and arguing if they're biased toward a liberal or conservative POV, it's more instructive to just look at how reporters vote. I recalled it being reported back in the day that something like 90% of reporters voted for Clinton (vs Bush Sr.), so I dug around to find some references.

Start here, and scroll down:
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasi cs.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE

The funny thing about hard numbers is that you can't just wave your hands in the air or stick your head in the ground when confronted by them.

I personally think it would be very beneficial for every editorial in a newspaper to have a small Nolan Chart next to the name of every writer, and that TV news (especially) try to have reportage from people of opposite ends of the Nolan Chart.

Oh, another great Gore moment:

He's talking to Courtney love. Says he's a big fan of hers. So she asks him to name a song. Can't.

Here's video proof of a bunch of Gore's gaffes, including that one.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that the media has a conservative bias. I have a name for you; Dan Rather. He was praised by executives of all media corps. as being 'fair and balanced' in his reporting, and you think they are conservative?

granted there is corruption everywhere and conservative bias does exist, but I have yet to see any mainstream news corporation that suffers so.

I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe that the media has a conservative bias. I have a name for you; Dan Rather. He was praised by executives of all media corps. as being 'fair and balanced' in his reporting, and you think they are conservative?

granted there is corruption everywhere and conservative bias does exist, but I have yet to see any mainstream news corporation that suffers so.

It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally, so they just went ahead and did it anyway.

There are strong arguments that what the administration did was legal. You seldom see those arguments strongly presented in the media, if they are presented at all. I would be "shocked" if this had anything to do with certain historical voting patterns and the the irrational hatred of President Bush by some in Amerik^Hca.

Rush also knows a lot about abusing prescription pain-killers and how the media is obviously sucking up to Donovan McNabb because he's black.

How many Wives, Mothers, Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters have gotten letters from the President about their loved ones dieing in the many wars America has fought? The offense is theirs, that Seal adorns those letters, have respect, which is lacking towards the Office of the Commander in Chief.

...and of course, the (lack of) respect shown to the Purple Heart when Republicans were making fun of Kerry really helps all the guys who have lost limbs serving our country feel good about that symbol of respect to our veterans.

Get real - the Onion is not that big of a deal that it merits such a response from the government.

Might as well link to http://www.mediaresearch.org/ so people can check a right wing site too.

Look at what the Conservitives and Liberals say about bias and make your own judgements.

Like a proper little Darwin

Like a proper little Darwin

OK, how's this for a nice link:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binlade n061704/segment1.ram%5D

That'll take you to the ABC report linking them.

Btw, if anyone's an idiot, it's you. :-)

But study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological "common sense moderates," nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic, their views on issues such as abortion and gay rights are well to the left of most Americans and they are less likely to attend church or synagogue. When it comes to the free market, journalists have become increasingly pro-regulation over the past 20 years, with majorities endorsing activist government efforts to guarantee everyone a job and to reduce the income gap between rich and poor Americans.

> conservative activists don't seem to have the
> amount of time on their hands to start websites
> specifically to discredit their ideological opponents
> as the liberal/progressive ones do.

Surely, you're joking.

That's without counting the sea of online polemics & punditry which are, primarily, dedicated to watching and critiquing liberals and liberalism (and occasionally promoting conservatism). Look at Michelle Malkin's blogroll. It's a strange and magical journey of links that, literally, does not end. Truly liberal print polemicism is essentially missing from the online market when compared with Horowitz, Hitchens, TNR, etc... the most stridently anti-conservative polemics come from friggin' libertarians these days. As for the blogosphere and citizen pundits, check out Kos et al. and you'll hit a dead end in terms of organization and persistence. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you're simply off the mark if you believe that American liberals are not completely outgunned in terms of strength of internet presence.

Media Research Center. Look, now the bias horserace is neck-and-neck!

Fox's "bias" is usually shown to exist because they don't automatically assume that Republicans are inherently evil. Also, it's worth noting that at least part of your examples come from editorial opinion-type shows. Holding Fox as a whole responsible for bias in an opinion show is silly. I'd say "stupid", but that would make me biased.

I know what you mean... I guess my comment assumes that you can determine who does research and who doesn't. Usually you can tell by comparing your own research to the other person's. If it's way off, then either you've missed something or the person is just making stuff up.

Some sites do just this, such as mediamatters (clearly targets conservatives, but importantly only those that deserve it because they didn't do their research :-) )

Sort of offtopic but found this...
Can anyone explain to me the point of this media research center article: 'Targeted' Reporter Works for Communist Paper. It complains that the media is hiding the fact that that italian reporter who just got freed in Iraq but then got shot at by US troops actually works for a communist newspaper. Does that make it okay to shoot at her convoy or something? I just don't know the point of the article... Why didn't they mention if she was from north or south italy, hmmm? Or if she prefers fetuccini or capellini? What is the relevance of her political philosophy?

It seems the MRC expects people to think "well, I'm mad that the US shot at a convoy, but because I know she's a red commie bastard, I instead support what the troops did".

If you don't see the CNN is left leaning you it's only because you yourself are left leaning and therefore see it as centrist. This topic has been studied several times in several different ways and been proven that the news media is liberal baised

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/bw /bw04_0614.pdf

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageI D=829

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/r eport063004_p1.asp

a few searches on google will bring up more.

There was never much evidence for a backlash against Microsoft even at the height of the antitrust suits:

Despite court loss, Microsoft moving ahead in public opinion, ABC Poll Fails to Capture Public Opinion on Microsoft Case

The plain truth is that Americans are more likely to side with the entrepreneur who drives the market forward by playing a ruthless game of hardball than the competitor who whines from the sidelines that he has been driven off the field.

This is what passes for "arguments" on the lunatic right fringe, which unfortunately is pretty much what passes for news for most people today.

Really? The facts support the opposite conclusion, since more than 80% of journalists are democrats.

At about time stamp 0:50 of the video from CNN's Wolf Blitzer March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime interview with Al Gore you will watch Al Gore claim that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet"



"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- George Orwell (?)

At about time stamp 0:50 of the video from CNN's Wolf Blitzer March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime interview with Al Gore you will watch Al Gore claim that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet"



"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
- George Orwell (?)

I can agree with a lot of what you said. You did pretty well until you succumbed to the worn out rut of singling out Fox news.

I bring you The Top Ten Media Distortions of Campaign 2004.

You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing.

Here is ABC reporting on connections between bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and WMDs. That was 5 years ago. The difference is back then Clinton needed support for throwing cruise missiles into Iraq/Sudan/Afgahnistan whenever someone significant was in front of Ken Star's grand jury.

Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.

Dan is an "old pro" because he doesn't get caught very often. When he does get caught he errors on the Left 100% of the time, just like his contemporaries.

Elite media goes wherever the Left needs it to go.

You would think after the fiasco about media credulity of Iraq WMDs, the media would be more suspicious of this sort of thing.

Here is ABC reporting on connections between bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and WMDs. That was 5 years ago. The difference is back then Clinton needed support for throwing cruise missiles into Iraq/Sudan/Afgahnistan whenever someone significant was in front of Ken Star's grand jury.

Even old pros like Rather need to learn: just because evidence seems to fit does not make it true.

Dan is an "old pro" because he doesn't get caught very often. When he does get caught he errors on the Left 100% of the time, just like his contemporaries.

Elite media goes wherever the Left needs it to go.

Actually, according to this source, Bush's statement was taken out of context in that he wasn't talking about al-Qaeda terrorists at all:

Tuesday night on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

The Fifty-nine Deceits site also fairly (in my opinion) points out that "Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course".

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

It is FUNNY that Al Gore claimed that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" ... the video is there if you watch & listen to the entire interview at time stamp ~ 0:50

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

It is FUNNY that Al Gore claimed that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" ... the video is there if you watch & listen to the entire interview at time stamp ~ 0:50

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

It is FUNNY that Al Gore claimed that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" ... the video is there if you watch & listen to the entire interview at time stamp ~ 0:50

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

It is FUNNY that Al Gore claimed that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet" ... the video is there if you watch & listen to the entire interview at time stamp ~ 0:50

" I took the initiative in creating the Internet," Al Gore preposterously claimed (time stamp ~ 0:50) on the March 9, 1999 Late Edition/PrimeTime, but that didn't faze CNN's Wolf Blitzer who just kept tossing softball questions.

If it was such a waste why don't you invite Saddam over for dinner. When he cuts off hand for grabbing the rolls when he was & then feeds it to your dog..... I will in alaughable mood myself. You want laughable here it is . Maybe the 3 of you can a have a good dinner...You deserve it!

If you are one of those who take what the liberal media says at face value, then you're probably one of them, and no more capable of dealing with the truth than any of your socialist pals. However, you should know that Moore's portrayal of Saddam's Iraq is grossly false, and that's just the first of his lies. It's all detailed in this review, but to sum-up... He leaves out any mention of the death camps, the Iraqi's walking around without hands, feet, tongues, etc. which were removed by law in prison. He fails to mention the mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of Saddam's citizens, the chemical weapons he used to kill 5000 Kurds, his ties with al Qaeda , his attempted murder of one of our former presidents, and his complete disregard for UN resolutions for 12 years. Michael Moore is scary because his hatred for America has caused him to befriend one of the most murderous and ruthless dictators in history. I think many people are falling into his trap as well due to his very misleading, if not completely false portrayal of events.

Right.........

Because a conservative think tank would never, ever try and spin something now would it?

And yes, the MRC is a conservative organization.

Look for yourself if you don't believe me

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb2 0040617.asp#1
(please remember to remove the blank space if you C&P)

Perhaps you should Click.

Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Brent Bozell is Founder and President of the Media Research Center, whose poll "Do any of the Pew Research Center findings (that 'Liberals Dominate Journalism, Think Media Too Easy on Bush') surprise you?", had only three responses:

Yes. I was surprised so many journalists would admit they're liberal.

No. But it's nice to have more proof of what we already knew.

Don't know.

Talk about loaded questions? Everyone's entitled to their opinons, Mr. Bozell included, but before judging his article on nudity in videogames, be forewarned that Bozell's site makes the Simpsons' Fox News spoof ("Do Democrats cause cancer?") look like the friggin' New York Times...

Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Brent Bozell is Founder and President of the Media Research Center, whose poll "Do any of the Pew Research Center findings (that 'Liberals Dominate Journalism, Think Media Too Easy on Bush') surprise you?", had only three responses:

Yes. I was surprised so many journalists would admit they're liberal.

No. But it's nice to have more proof of what we already knew.

Don't know.

Talk about loaded questions? Everyone's entitled to their opinons, Mr. Bozell included, but before judging his article on nudity in videogames, be forewarned that Bozell's site makes the Simpsons' Fox News spoof ("Do Democrats cause cancer?") look like the friggin' New York Times...

Weapons of Mass Distortion : The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media

Brent Bozell is Founder and President of the Media Research Center, whose poll "Do any of the Pew Research Center findings (that 'Liberals Dominate Journalism, Think Media Too Easy on Bush') surprise you?", had only three responses:

Yes. I was surprised so many journalists would admit they're liberal.

No. But it's nice to have more proof of what we already knew.

Don't know.

Talk about loaded questions? Everyone's entitled to their opinons, Mr. Bozell included, but before judging his article on nudity in videogames, be forewarned that Bozell's site makes the Simpsons' Fox News spoof ("Do Democrats cause cancer?") look like the friggin' New York Times...