ABC Documentary Special

[Guest Guest]

Read Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.  You will just ignore it and dismiss him, but the book is well documented and if you keep an open mind it makes sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't comment on this book since I haven't read it but we all know you can find a book(s) that support virtually any point of view and many appear documented, who has the time or inclination to research all the documentation?

You've implied that network news is biased. I'm still waiting for you to reveal your standard of comparison. How would you know something was biased without an absolutely unbiased standard or are you hust stating an opinion because they report things you don't care for?

[Guest Radagast]

Read Bernard Goldberg's book, BIAS.  You will just ignore it and dismiss him, but the book is well documented and if you keep an open mind it makes sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Goldberg's book is somewhat 'biased' to begin with. I do believe the premise that 'NEWS' changed when media corporations decide it had to be entertaining to make money. Slow news days produce stories that are not really important but are 'made' to be important by reporters and comentators. However, this has produced what looks like 'bias' on both sides. Goldberg only points out the bias on the left through a selective cherry picking of incidents that he saw. For instance, he is quick to point out that news people use the term 'Conservative' to label someone but almost never 'Liberal'. That was because most of the time the person in question called THEMSELVES Conservative. I've seldom heard anyone refer to themselves as 'Liberal'. In the John Locke sense of the word, liberal, is an admirable term. In the morphed, over the edge definition it is given by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, no one wants to be attached to it. So who has more popular influence today, John Locke or Rush Limbaugh? So much for media distortion.

The right wing bias of FOX News is obvious. The swing over to a more 'conservative' news alignment by the major media news organizations is a little more subtle. I've found that if I want to know what's going on in, let's say in Iraq, I'm better off reading the UK press than listening to ABC News. It's not what they say about Iraq as much as what is not reported. The Right-Wing insists that there is so much "good' about the war that is not being reported that ABC trys to down play all the bad news to satisfy them. There are good things but, as I've mentioned before, the construction of a school house or a Town Hall is overshadowed by a car bomb killing 60 people. Trying to ignore the overall bad news is not a service to the truth.

[Guest Loki]

Just another EVASION and lack of answers for the question that was asked.  I guess that type of thinking goes a long way to explaining why you would support a man who promises yo get those behind 9/11 and then invades a country with NO TIES to 9/11.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did I not say you would just dismiss it??? You asked for proof of media bias, I give you the title of a book to read, and you claim I EVADED the question!!

The next time you have a thought, just LET IT GO!!!

Sorry folks, you can't fix stupid.

[Guest a proud american]

Did I not say you would just dismiss it???  You asked for proof of media bias, I give you the title of a book to read, and you claim I EVADED the question!!

The next time you have a thought, just LET IT GO!!!

Sorry folks, you can't fix stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Loki do you know when the book was written? I'm not trying to be insulting but I will get it from the library. I need to know if it has been out for a while or its a new book. And thanks for the info.

[Guest Loki]

Goldberg's book is somewhat 'biased' to begin with. I do believe the premise that 'NEWS' changed when media corporations decide it had to be entertaining to make money. Slow news days produce stories that are not really important but are 'made' to be important by reporters and comentators. However, this has produced what looks like 'bias' on both sides. Goldberg only points out the bias on the left through a selective cherry picking of incidents that he saw. For instance, he is quick to point out that news people use the term 'Conservative' to label someone but almost never 'Liberal'. That was because most of the time the person in question called THEMSELVES Conservative. I've seldom heard anyone refer to themselves as 'Liberal'. In the John Locke sense of the word, liberal, is an admirable term. In the morphed, over the edge definition it is given by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, no one wants to be attached to it. So who has more popular influence today, John Locke or Rush Limbaugh? So much for media distortion.

The right wing bias of FOX News is obvious. The swing over to a more 'conservative' news alignment by the major media news organizations is a little more subtle. I've found that if I want to know what's going on in, let's say in Iraq, I'm better off reading the UK press than listening to ABC News. It's not what they say about Iraq as much as what is not reported. The Right-Wing insists that there is so much "good' about the war that is not being reported that ABC trys to down play all the bad news to satisfy them. There are good things but, as I've mentioned before, the construction of a school house or a Town Hall is overshadowed by a car bomb killing 60 people. Trying to ignore the overall bad news is not a service to the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The funny part is, in his second book, he goes on to explain how the media is in denial about bias. And it really makes sense. The basic premise is that the media is not intentionally biased, but rather their own personal views are the middle ground that they use as the standard. I mean, this is just my opinion, that's basic human nature. Regardless of your political bent, those on the radical fringe, don't consider THEMSELVES to BE the radical fringe.

[Guest Guest]

Did I not say you would just dismiss it???  You asked for proof of media bias, I give you the title of a book to read, and you claim I EVADED the question!!

The next time you have a thought, just LET IT GO!!!

Sorry folks, you can't fix stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a crock! Nowhere did you even imply that this book was your souce of allegedly un-biased news and your description doesn't sound like it IS a news source. A book can hardly be a daily source ofnews.

It was a SIMPLE questtion. WHAT is your source for unbiased news?

The source you would use for a standard ?

So YES! YOU EVADED THE QUESTION!

You're right about one thing at least , you can't fix stupid, Bush is an obvious example of that theory.

Apparently you can't fix poor reading comprehension either.

[Guest Guest]

Did I not say you would just dismiss it???  You asked for proof of media bias, I give you the title of a book to read, and you claim I EVADED the question!!

The next time you have a thought, just LET IT GO!!!

Sorry folks, you can't fix stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it that you don't read or don't understand?

Nobody dismissed anything.

You brought hatred of us into an answer where hatred was never made an issue.

You were asked several times for your source of what you consider unbiased news and you never answered. Saying some will dismiss your suggested book is just evading the question you were actually asked.

The point was made that a book can be found that supports virtually any point of view, no specific book was mentioned. You're very naive if you think otherwise.

The next time you think you have an answer make sure you understand the question.

[Guest Guest]

The funny part is, in his second book, he goes on to explain how the media is in denial about bias.  And it really makes sense.  The basic premise is that the media is not intentionally biased, but rather their own personal views are the middle ground that they use as the standard.  I mean, this is just my opinion, that's basic human nature.  Regardless of your political bent, those on the radical fringe, don't consider THEMSELVES to BE the radical fringe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say " The basic premise is that the media is not intentionally biased, but rather their own personal views are the middle ground that they use as the standard ".

Isn't the middle ground by defintion un-biased? It would seem 'middle' puts it between biased views. If so, how can you then make the case the media is biased?

[Guest BushBacker]

Is it that you don't read or don't understand?

Nobody dismissed anything.

You brought hatred of us into an answer where hatred was never made an issue.

You were asked several times for your source of what you consider unbiased news and you never answered.  Saying some will dismiss your suggested book is just evading the question you were actually asked.

The point was made that a book can be found that supports virtually any point of view, no specific book was mentioned.  You're very naive if you think otherwise.

The next time you think you have an answer make sure you understand the question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets get back to Clinton. Remember 1993 - Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down ??

Defeatocrat Clinton just abandoned our troops there. That was the worst case of cut and run since Custer's Last Stand. Bin Laden was later quoted as saying " we were greatly encouraged when the Americans refused to fight, we knew then they were paper tigers". Funny how you never hear the Kool-aiders mention this.

[Guest Guest]

Lets get back to Clinton.  Remember 1993 - Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down ??

Defeatocrat Clinton just abandoned our troops there. That was the worst case of cut and run since Custer's Last Stand.  Bin Laden was later quoted as saying " we were greatly encouraged when the Americans refused to fight, we knew then they were paper tigers".  Funny how you never hear the Kool-aiders mention this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cut and Run? Isn't that the Repulsivecan strategy developed by Nixon as a way of running from his guilt?

And WHAT the hell are you talking about with Custer?

You truly are delusional.

[Guest Guest]

Lets get back to Clinton.  Remember 1993 - Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down ??

Defeatocrat Clinton just abandoned our troops there. That was the worst case of cut and run since Custer's Last Stand.  Bin Laden was later quoted as saying " we were greatly encouraged when the Americans refused to fight, we knew then they were paper tigers".  Funny how you never hear the Kool-aiders mention this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't we get back to the FACT that your idiotic post has ZERO relevance to the post you're supposedly replying to?

Or are you trying to be Bush like? You know, like invading a country with NO TIES to an attack you are allegedly avenging?

[Guest Guest]

Lets get back to Clinton.  Remember 1993 - Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down ??

Defeatocrat Clinton just abandoned our troops there. That was the worst case of cut and run since Custer's Last Stand.  Bin Laden was later quoted as saying " we were greatly encouraged when the Americans refused to fight, we knew then they were paper tigers".  Funny how you never hear the Kool-aiders mention this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whatver mistakes Clinton did/didn't make HAVE NO BEARING on the continuing circus of lies, deceit. Constitution trampling. and generally poor judgement being exhibited by this administration.

IF you'd pull your head out of your butt you'd realize the year is 2006. Bush is president, and HE MUST BEAR RESPONSIBILITY for the poor performance of his administration.

[Guest Guest]

Lets get back to Clinton.  Remember 1993 - Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down ??

Defeatocrat Clinton just abandoned our troops there. That was the worst case of cut and run since Custer's Last Stand.  Bin Laden was later quoted as saying " we were greatly encouraged when the Americans refused to fight, we knew then they were paper tigers".  Funny how you never hear the Kool-aiders mention this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Custer 'cut and run'?

Just MORE of your asinine, inane, factless. delusional blather!

Are there no limits to your stupidity and attempts to rewrite history?

And NOW you quote bin Laden as if we give a rat's ass what he says?

WHY didn't your cowboy believe his threats to attak within the US and act?

Your hero SUPPOSEDLY gave up the Jim Beam, maybe it's time you did the same.

Or did Disney give you a lifetime pass to FantasyLand?

[Guest Guest]

now that is not cool

[Guest Patriot]

Custer 'cut and run'?

Just MORE of your asinine, inane, factless. delusional blather!

Are there no limits to your stupidity and attempts to rewrite history?

And NOW you quote bin Laden as if we give a rat's ass what he says?

WHY didn't your cowboy believe his threats to attak within the US and act?

Your hero SUPPOSEDLY gave up the Jim Beam, maybe it's time you did the same.

Or did Disney give you a lifetime pass to FantasyLand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lets talk about Mogadishu. A classic Defeatocratic cut-and-run farce. Our Blackhawk was shot down, our troops killed and what did Clinton do ?? Cut-and-run, of course. Could it be the Kool-aid that causes defeatocrats to develop that yellow stripe down their back ??

[Guest Bushbacker]

Lets talk about Mogadishu. A classic Defeatocratic cut-and-run farce. Our Blackhawk was shot down, our troops killed and what did Clinton do ?? Cut-and-run, of course.  Could it be the Kool-aid that causes defeatocrats to develop that yellow stripe down their back ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I think they're born cowards. They drink the Kool-aid to forget the reality of their pathetic lives.

[Guest Guest]

No, I think they're born cowards. They drink the Kool-aid to forget the reality of their pathetic lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU? THINK?

STOP WITH YOUR LIES ALREADY! YOU DO NOT THINK, YOU BLATHER AND LIE!

AND BORE US WITH ASININE KOOL-AID REMARKS!

[Guest Patriot]

YOU?  THINK?

STOP WITH YOUR LIES ALREADY!  YOU DO NOT THINK, YOU BLATHER AND LIE!

AND BORE US WITH ASININE KOOL-AID REMARKS!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any comments on Mogadishu ?? (One of Clinton's better performances).

[Guest Guest]

Any comments on Mogadishu ??  (One of Clinton's better performances).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, poor show! Any comments about a man who promises to get those responsible for 9/11 and then invades a country with NO TIES to 9/11? Or who is wrned of IMMINENT DANGER and FAILS TO ACT?

[Guest Patriot]

Yeah, poor show!  Any comments about a man who promises to get those responsible for 9/11 and then invades a country with NO TIES to 9/11?  Or who is wrned of IMMINENT DANGER and FAILS TO ACT?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. My president promised to get those responsible and that's what he's doing. He did the correct thing by invading Iraq. We're safer today because of George Bush. God Bless George Bush.

[Guest Guest]

Yes. My president promised to get those responsible and that's what he's doing. He did the correct thing by invading Iraq. We're safer today because of George Bush. God Bless George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NEWSFLASH! SIXTEEN US Intelligence agencies have determined we ARE NOT SAFER today and PatRat, Mr. Asinine remark himself, has determined we are safer!

Ge. what should we believe? What a tough decision!

[Guest Guest]

Yes. My president promised to get those responsible and that's what he's doing. He did the correct thing by invading Iraq. We're safer today because of George Bush. God Bless George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's getting those responsible by invading a country with NO TIES to the attacks? YOU REALLY ARE DELUSIONAL!

[Guest Concerned Citizen]

He's getting those responsible by invading a country with NO TIES to the attacks?  YOU REALLY ARE DELUSIONAL!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An unproven alligation. There's much evidence to support his involvement, such as giving $10,000 to families of suicide bombers and supplying safe havens to terrorists. But of course the Kool-aiders will never acknowledge this.

[Guest wyatt]

Yes. My president promised to get those responsible and that's what he's doing. He did the correct thing by invading Iraq. We're safer today because of George Bush. God Bless George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're an idiot!!!!, our President is a moron, who killed more American troops than any other tyrant in the world.

He is still trying to fight his father's war (Sr. would not allow Scharwtkoff to march right through the middle east, sound familiar moron, were still paying that price)

This man is pot smoking, fall down drunk, who is being led by a war monger(fill this one in yourself) who is killing our young soliders day in and day out.

Although I'am not a Bill Clinton supporter, he did not contributr towards 911, god rest their souls....

PS: I hope I'm in front of him at the "Holy Gate" don't want the big guy pissed off when I arrive, I already have my crosses to bare.....

GOD BLESS THE USA

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW AND DEFEND OUR BORDERS, LET HE REST OF THE WORLD FEND FOR THEMSELVES!!!

[Guest BushBacker]

An unproven alligation. There's much evidence to support his involvement, such as giving $10,000 to families of suicide bombers and supplying safe havens to terrorists. But of course the Kool-aiders will never acknowledge this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank You, Concerned Citizen. It's good to see not everyone swigs Kool-aid.