Slashdot Mirror

> 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.

That Liberal Media!

"But I worked on a school paper when I was a kid and I owned a CB radio when I lived in Texas. And what I saw in the blogosphere on Nov. 2 was more reminiscent of that school paper or a "Breaker, breaker 19" gabfest on CB than anything approaching journalism. "

That, I believe is as good a description of blog culture as we're likely to find.

The reason why publications like the New York Times or National Public Radio are considered authoritative is because they have a long established track record and are trusted to provide a factual and balanced report.*

Bloggers simply do not have that level of trust, They still represent one guy with a website, and are only as reliable as the person typing the blog entry. That does not mean that bloggers do not sometimes add to the coverage of stories, just that they tend to be reactive, and sometimes prone to gossip and rumour more than journalism.

* Except of course by the right wing twits who go on and on about liberal media bias.

I can see some value in their goals. Keep in mind what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and the fact that the PLO is a Palestinian organisation, and you begin to realise the forces at work here. I'm not saying I'd line them up and exterminate them, but I wouldn't judge the Palestinians too harshly for wanting to. The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.

But you see, their goals are to "line them up and exterminate them" as you mentioned. Read the charter, and note the comments regarding the translation on the page that I posted. And FYI, it is the United Nations that declared Israel to be a sovereign nation, not the Jews.

Says who? The Pentagon and the World Trade Centre buildings were very good targets, and were hit with precision accuracy.

9/11 could be considered somewhat of an exception, from their point of view, though they are not even remotely consistent in this way. It is believed that the Pentagon was actually a secondary target (the first being the White House), but I'm sure you're aware of that. You should be proud.

Compare these attacks to the 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq that killed tens of thousands .

That is a ludicrous figure, even amongst your left-winged comrades, who generally don't push a figure much greater than 10,000, which is still a very inaccurate figure. In fact, the U.S. Military went to almost ridiculous lengths to ensure that no one died who didn't want to. They even dropped pamphlets near prospective targets, warning the people around them that they were going to be attacked. By comparison, in WWII, we (and the rest of the allies) absolutely desimated entire cities with no warning. Though I don't have the figures before me, I would wager that the civilian body count in Iraq and Afghanistan put together pales in comparison to what worldwide terrorism has racked up in the last 50 years.

The Islamic terrorists choose their targets well and minimise casualties.

Yeah, they slam airliners full of people in to buildings in downtown Manhattan, killing thousands in a SINGLE ATTACK, while we're so clumsy as to warn people that we are going to blow up the SAM next door with LGBs. Just who's side are you on?

As I hinted in my previous post, if I were them, I'd target the PNAC offices when their next meeting in on, and leave the so-called 'innocents' alone.

But you're not them (despite the fact that you sound more and more like you'd like to be), and they aren't going to take your advice.

The US employs terrorism far more than any other country or organisation

Go spend some time in the Philippines, or Rowanda, and let me know if you still feel the same way. I think you need a change of perspective.

What Liberal Media?

Oh, That Liberal Media!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;-)

LOS ANGELES (APUPI) June 20, 2004

Standing in front of the Los Angeles Times building on Spring Street and surrounded by aides, President Bush put forth a new and long-overdue proposal today, to the cheers of thousands of long-suffering readers of that paper, to start to repair the tragic situation with the American journalism system. He called it "No Reporter Left Behind."

"For too many years have we seen the sad evidence accumulating that our nation's media outlets and journalism schools simply aren't achieving what they must for our nation to maintain its first-place ranking in freedom of speech and a properly informed public," he declared. "Compared to journalists of a few decades ago, today's reporters show an increasing inability to comprehend simple English or basic statistics, to exercise logic, or to even recognize that they're Americans."

"Now, many accuse the media of bias against my administration, but I don't believe that. I'm here to change the tone in Washington and the nation, and I refuse to engage in such accusations. I'm sure that journalists are well meaning. As a compassionate conservative, it's clear to me that they simply haven't been given the education and training that they so desperately need, and we need to help them and their hardworking editors."

The president went on to illustrate the growing problem. [Read more

Altercation (what liberal media?)

Here are some blogs I like that are often political, but not stupidly partisan, such as:

• The Volokh Conspiracy -- mostly libertarian law professors
• Marginal Revolution -- a couple of economists, one of whom also posts at The Volokh Conspiracy
• Daniel Drezner-- a political scientist
• Foreign Dispatches--a Nigerian-American programmer with many interesting perspectives.
• ParaPundit--some random bloke named Randall Parker, a computer programmer, I think.

In case you haven't heard, BlogLines is a great way to read blogs online.

...But some of us dislike it because it's an unabashed propaganda outlet aimed directly at a potion of the populace that doesn't think too carefully about what it's looking at.

You're right, I mean, why isn't it obvious to all that simple-minded conservatives aren't capable of thinking for themselves? Especially, when placed beside an enlightened liberal such as yourself--who can!?

There couldn't possibly be any other impetus for disagreement with the liberal elite in our country but ignorance, and as such, we should dictate policy and information distribution, because, obviously we know what's best for the people, even if they don't know it themselves.

[/sarcasm] Fox News is generally conservative. I'll admit that, but why are you so quick to blame its success on ignorance?

I have a theory as to why Fox has become so popular; one that doesn't rely on calling millions of successful and intelligent people stupid. It's a backlash. Mom and pop, along with the rest of the silent, non-protesting majority in this country, are tired. They're tired of being subtly manipulated by the liberal media in our country. So, one day they turn the channel to find a network that finally tells them that America isn't all that bad after all. A network that doesn't blow out of proportion incidents like the Abu Graive affair and that actually reports things like the Nick Berg beheading. So, they watch it, and the keep watching it. They know it's conservative, but hey--it's refreshing to see something different and especially fun to see the old guys like CNN, The New York Times, and CBS squirm when their ratings go down.

-Grym

If the media were slanted to the left...

I hate to be a cynic, but I think the whole point of news reporting is to attract your attention to those crucial 8 minutes every half hour... the commerical sponsors.

What happens inbetween commercials only exists to get you to turn to their channel... after all thats why (1) products like TIVO scare the crap out of them for its ability to hide commercials, and (2) product placement in the shows themselves allows commercial time to blend with content time. Hell, CBS was running programs about books that the parent company published, and calling it news... And after all, why are the news readers so pretty... so you'll tune in.

This is also why I believe news reporters tend to become politically biased over time towards their local markets... it is their job to retain viewers/customers, and so you preach to your local markets. The political landscape is strongly correllated with urban concentrations, as are the "big" markets. The "old" big 3 broadcast media meets the needs of the cities, with its liberal leanings. Those living away from urban areas have to rely on cable and satelite, which "new" big media promptly cornered the market, and tilted their content towards their libertarian/conservative consumers. The people like like Jennings's leanings will tend to flip on ABC, and ABC gets viewers to watch its commercials, and those of the other leanings will flip on Fox, and Fox gets viewers for its commercials. Companies win, educating citizens loses.

I'm sure I'll get unbiased commentary from "o-reilly-sucks.com." How dare I trust UCLA/Stanford.

I've been to this website before. The thing that immediately struck me was that when I went to the guestbook, the admin was posting endless Democratic party articles. I remember one of them because it's headline was (I kid you not) "Democrats Want To Help Mankind," and it was about how great Democrat polices are and how the evil Republicans are all about keeping them down.

Basically your only evidence is to link to a decidedly biased Democratic party website. Wow. I'm convinced. I love that a lot of those links go to the same liberal websites repeatedly like fair.org and some known left-leaning newspapers. Ha, even towards the end, it just starts linking to oreilly-sucks.com again! Classic. I love how CNN is magically supposed to have "20% more viewers." I guess Nielsen ratings are wrong. I even saw one link that went to some guy's personal Angelfire page! Wow. This is really convincing me.

Again, I have yet to hear you cite a single example of what EXACTLY makes FoxNews biased. No falsely reported story, no viewpoint held above another. Hell, according to this, FoxNews.com is biased toward liberals! I guess you just don't like that they--gasp--run an American flag graphic in their logo. Seeing as how they're an American news channel and all.

I definitely need more than this, but I won't hold my breath--it's clear where your partyline lies. Political parties are like organized religions, each with their messengers, proof, holy books, and evil enemies. Apparently, because FoxNews dares to air conservative viewpoints along with its liberal viewpoints, it's on the Democratic hitlist. Too bad--this isn't CNN where the only time someone's political views are named is if they're "conservative."

Why are more and more people getting their news from amateur websites called blogs? Because they're fast, funny and totally biased

As opposed to Time et al., who are as unbiased as a newborn, right? (Vide Oh, That Liberal Media or Biased BBC.)

If you state your biases up front, I can take them into account. If not, with time, effort, and luck I can eventually infer them...but don't be surprised if I can't keep a straight face any more when I hear or see the phrase "journalistic objectivity."

Hmm... Well frankly, I don't think it's possible to be unbiased in one's reporting. Adjectives, adverbs, even sentence structure-- all can slant the written word to the author's personal views and foibles. From my point of view at least, I would prefer to read something by someone who lets their bias show openly (ex, "The politician, who is a total arsehole and probably kicks puppies for fun, replied..."). At least that way I don't have to sit there and dig for it to make sure that the way in which an event or quote is portrayed isn't somehow coloring how I think of it, encouraging me in a certain direction.

I find it humorous that someone would think that effectively telegraphing one's personal views would somehow be more insidious than burying it, but still selectively reporting facts, using elipses to butcher and twist quotes, et cetera, et cetera. Or, how about that lovely way that, say, Reuters dances around using the word "terrorist" to refer to people who run around with this summer's fashionable new line of Semtex-lined coats. "Terrorist" or "Freedom-fighter/militant/partisan/patriot..." Which one has the negative slant to it?

Although I prefer not to be insulted at all, I would much prefer to be called a f***tard to my face than to have someone going around calling me a mouthbreather behind my back.

Oh, and before I forget... Oh, that Liberal Media!