Conservatives vs liberals

[Loburt]

Here's another "non thinking" part:

didn't blame everything on the media but it is a huge tool now owned and used like never before. Of course it was used before but not always as one way as today in the mass media. Its how the non thinkers see the world and learn about conservative liberal BS .

Notice the bold part. Basically you're lumping Fox News and the NY Times and Reuters all together as representing one viewpoint and interest.

That just isn't so.

[eagle]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

[zeusbheld]

I have to disagree with the definitions in the first box of what you posted CB.

In my opinion, they are stereotypes.

all the positions in the link are simplistic and are further damaging in that they give the impression that the only possible approaches to solving a problem are the so-called liberal and the so-called conservative position.

choose any card as long as it's either the deuce of diamonds or the deuce of hearts. democracy ain't dead, it's still-born.

[zeusbheld]

my own personal verdict is that blaming the media for everything is the last refuge of the least objective, the non-thinkers.

i blame TF for everything !!! :roll: :roll:

but see, there are like more than fifty THOUSAND members... tf IS the mass media. :shock:

[zeusbheld]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

[eagle]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

Of course media has always been used and laws in the US were created to keep that power from being used by one person. The ability to own large portions of the media was controled by monopoly laws,put in place after Hearst gained control of the newspapers from what I remember.. These laws were changed so now we have 3 or 4 people owning much of the US media including newspapers, radio ,TV. Also the Fairness doctrine we inplace to insure the media gave both sides to the story after which rush limbaugh's became popular. There were some laws and controls in place and they were removed. War what war, its all but dissapeared in the News. Protest what protest, what rallying cry to united the people. Sure its been done before in the golden age and since it was possible to manipulate. It has gotten worse in this cycle and my volumes of research are my years of watching TV and seeing it happening. I watched the Vietnam war on TV and the protests also were big news. There are lots of people protesting the Irag war also .

[zeusbheld]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

Of course media has always been used and laws in the US were created to keep that power from being used by one person. The ability to own large portions of the media was controled by monopoly laws,put in place after Hearst gained control of the newspapers from what I remember.. These laws were changed so now we have 3 or 4 people owning much of the US media including newspapers, radio ,TV. Also the Fairness doctrine we inplace to insure the media gave both sides to the story after which rush limbaugh's became popular. There were some laws and controls in place and they were removed. War what war, its all but dissapeared in the News. Protest what protest, what rallying cry to united the people. Sure its been done before in the golden age and since it was possible to manipulate. It has gotten worse in this cycle and my volumes of research are my years of watching TV and seeing it happening. I watched the Vietnam war on TV and the protests also were big news. There are lots of people protesting the Irag war also .

IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians.

since the challenge of showing all those primary sources was apparently too much, how about you just post, or link to, the antitrust laws that were in place when "the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George."

as to the fairness doctrine and mr. Limbaugh... Limbaugh has always been full of ****, but at no time did anyone, including Mr. LImbaugh himself, accuse him of being a journalist.

but hey if you watch a lot of tv, mash everything together, drop the right keywords in there, i'm bound to accept your version of what's going on because you say so. after all, i accept mr. Limbaugh's and he pretty much does the same thing.

[eagle]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

Of course media has always been used and laws in the US were created to keep that power from being used by one person. The ability to own large portions of the media was controled by monopoly laws,put in place after Hearst gained control of the newspapers from what I remember.. These laws were changed so now we have 3 or 4 people owning much of the US media including newspapers, radio ,TV. Also the Fairness doctrine we inplace to insure the media gave both sides to the story after which rush limbaugh's became popular. There were some laws and controls in place and they were removed. War what war, its all but dissapeared in the News. Protest what protest, what rallying cry to united the people. Sure its been done before in the golden age and since it was possible to manipulate. It has gotten worse in this cycle and my volumes of research are my years of watching TV and seeing it happening. I watched the Vietnam war on TV and the protests also were big news. There are lots of people protesting the Irag war also .

IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians.

since the challenge of showing all those primary sources was apparently too much, how about you just post, or link to, the antitrust laws that were in place when "the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George."

as to the fairness doctrine and mr. Limbaugh... Limbaugh has always been full of sh*t, but at no time did anyone, including Mr. LImbaugh himself, accuse him of being a journalist.

but hey if you watch a lot of tv, mash everything together, drop the right keywords in there, i'm bound to accept your version of what's going on because you say so. after all, i accept mr. Limbaugh's and he pretty much does the same thing.

and what do you do ,research? naw just add sarcasm

[zeusbheld]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

Of course media has always been used and laws in the US were created to keep that power from being used by one person. The ability to own large portions of the media was controled by monopoly laws,put in place after Hearst gained control of the newspapers from what I remember.. These laws were changed so now we have 3 or 4 people owning much of the US media including newspapers, radio ,TV. Also the Fairness doctrine we inplace to insure the media gave both sides to the story after which rush limbaugh's became popular. There were some laws and controls in place and they were removed. War what war, its all but dissapeared in the News. Protest what protest, what rallying cry to united the people. Sure its been done before in the golden age and since it was possible to manipulate. It has gotten worse in this cycle and my volumes of research are my years of watching TV and seeing it happening. I watched the Vietnam war on TV and the protests also were big news. There are lots of people protesting the Irag war also .

IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians.

since the challenge of showing all those primary sources was apparently too much, how about you just post, or link to, the antitrust laws that were in place when "the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George."

as to the fairness doctrine and mr. Limbaugh... Limbaugh has always been full of sh*t, but at no time did anyone, including Mr. LImbaugh himself, accuse him of being a journalist.

but hey if you watch a lot of tv, mash everything together, drop the right keywords in there, i'm bound to accept your version of what's going on because you say so. after all, i accept mr. Limbaugh's and he pretty much does the same thing.

and what do you do ,research? naw just add sarcasm

i didn't make any sweeping claims so i don't need to do a runner and hide behind a like you just did.

[eagle]

I never disputed your statement that the media can be a powerful tool.

This is one of the "non thinking" parts to which I refer:

The media once made an effort to be unbiased. IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians. RIP George Carlin ! but then we do have, george w ,he is a laugh......

ok it was strong worded I sorry . I don't see much good though .......... I'll be back gotta gooooo

an interesting challenge: show us some 'unbiased' reports from the golden age, before the mass media became so corrupt. surely you've compared the primary sources? give us a taste of the volumes of research that led to such unequivocal conclusions.

Of course media has always been used and laws in the US were created to keep that power from being used by one person. The ability to own large portions of the media was controled by monopoly laws,put in place after Hearst gained control of the newspapers from what I remember.. These laws were changed so now we have 3 or 4 people owning much of the US media including newspapers, radio ,TV. Also the Fairness doctrine we inplace to insure the media gave both sides to the story after which rush limbaugh's became popular. There were some laws and controls in place and they were removed. War what war, its all but dissapeared in the News. Protest what protest, what rallying cry to united the people. Sure its been done before in the golden age and since it was possible to manipulate. It has gotten worse in this cycle and my volumes of research are my years of watching TV and seeing it happening. I watched the Vietnam war on TV and the protests also were big news. There are lots of people protesting the Irag war also .

IN the US we are taught the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George.

That type of journalism has all but vanished and the media is now owed by politcal agendas and corporate sponsors ( I think they are one and the same now adays ) Sadly the only truth in the Media seems to be the comedians.

since the challenge of showing all those primary sources was apparently too much, how about you just post, or link to, the antitrust laws that were in place when "the newspapers spread the word to liberate the colonies from King George."

as to the fairness doctrine and mr. Limbaugh... Limbaugh has always been full of sh*t, but at no time did anyone, including Mr. LImbaugh himself, accuse him of being a journalist.

but hey if you watch a lot of tv, mash everything together, drop the right keywords in there, i'm bound to accept your version of what's going on because you say so. after all, i accept mr. Limbaugh's and he pretty much does the same thing.

and what do you do ,research? naw just add sarcasm

i didn't make any sweeping claims so i don't need to do a runner and hide behind a like you just did.

stil poking at my sweeping claim ? you don't have to believe me its all accessable information. You put your own spin on it as you don't like mine.

[zeusbheld]

stil poking at my sweeping claim ? you don't have to believe me its all accessable information. You put your own spin on it as you don't like mine.

i can't put my own "spin" on it since i don't know what "accessable information" you're referring to. all i asked for was that, since *you* are making a claim, you offer up some of the "accessable information" that supports it. too much to ask, apparently.

incidentally if i've ever made any claim about anything, on TF or elsewhere, it's that most claims (especially the most adamant ones) are knee-jerk and based on what people already believe rather than facts or evidence. thanks for helping support that claim.

[zeusbheld]

stil poking at my sweeping claim ? you don't have to believe me its all accessable information. You put your own spin on it as you don't like mine.

i can't put my own "spin" on it since i don't know what "accessable information" you're referring to. all i asked for was that, since *you* are making a claim, you offer up some of the "accessable information" that supports it. too much to ask, apparently.

incidentally if i've ever made any claim about anything, on TF or elsewhere, it's that most claims (especially the most adamant ones) are knee-jerk and based on what people already believe rather than facts or evidence. thanks for helping support that claim.

[An example for you Z, in a most simple form.

Lets say a news paper has a political orientation to there ownership, is it not possible to print stories that support there orientation and omit some that don't?

If a new wire supplies a story, is it possible for that paper to omit some of the content?

A story that is in line with there orientation will be on the front page, others that are not in there best interest go in the back pages...

Are you going to tell me and the rest of the world "that this does not happen"?

never made that claim. nor any claim, beyond the claim that a) whatever biases are inherent in the media, there is no media-wide, monolithic conspiracy, every outlet reflects the biases of its owners and/OR the people running it, including occasionally a bias toward principled journalism. no really, if you actually READ the thread, that's what you'll find.

Go ahead, I am listening.....

And no, i dont need to supply any stats to you or anyone. If you went to collage and took any type of journalism classes, news or media publishing, Bias in the Media, you would have found this is taught , discussed and reviewed in many universities....including the ones I went to

would help if, before you lecture me about what they teach in 'collage,' professor, if the lecturer had some vague idea of what i said. otherwise, what's the point of addressing me specifically?

on the other hand if you feel the need to beat a straw man knock yourself out but i'd prefer you don't put my name on it, if you don't mind, thanks.

[AussieGuy]

a. In Aust, from my uni days, I will pass on one insight. The more left wing the group the better the food at their events, while the opposite was true. The young liberals had the worst food imaginable, barely edible.

b. australian labor v 'liberals'

The Howard gov was the most deceitful gov I have seen in oz, not to mention corrupt. Will the new labor gov be better, probably not.

the smaller the gov the better.

[zeusbheld]

a. In Aust, from my uni days, I will pass on one insight. The more left wing the group the better the food at their events, while the opposite was true. The young liberals had the worst food imaginable, barely edible.

not sure what your'e saying here. do you mean the conservatives had better food, or that anything right of the communists was inedible? 'left wing' and 'liberals' are on the same side of the aisle.

[Dave40]

. In Aust, from my uni days, I will pass on one insight. The more left wing the group the better the food at their events, while the opposite was true. The young liberals had the worst food imaginable, barely edible.

Bugger the food what was the p*ss up like?!!!!!

[zeusbheld]

my roommate in college was head of the college republicans. there was a thick marijuana fog around the room at all times, we spend those two semesters baked on his dime. BEST ROOMMATE EVER!