RE: Media Bias?
"Scott Ritter, former head of weapons inspections in Iraq, said from the beginning that there were no WMD's. But he was dismissed by the administration as a 'unreliable'."
Could that have been maybe because he was the only one saying it and had proven himself unreliable by involving himself in opposition politics? There's not much percentage, even for liberal journalists, in ignoring the entire world and believing one guy, especially when that guy offers nothing more for proff than his opinion and his dislike of the sitting Chief Executive.
"But I knew that there were no weapons."
Maybe you should take up a career in international intelligence. Or maybe you were just predisposed (a.k.a biased) to disbelieve anything George Bush says. If a journalist follows that line of reasoning, then he or she is, by definition, biased.
"The terrorists are not...
[Snipping all through]
"...we're all getting taken for a ride."
Not the point. Our motives for being in Iraq are of no consequence to this discussion. You asserted because no one questioned the Bush Administration on going into Iraq, there is no journalistic bias to the left. I say that is simply not true. Plenty of journalists questioned both the motives and methods of the Bush Administration at the time and whether or not we should or should not be there has nothing to do with their bias. And besides, you listen to way too much of what Michael Moore says.
"Please, let us leave Slick Willy where he belongs--in the past."
Ah, so the media used to be biased and now they're not? Or they never were and now they are? Or they weren't and never will be? Sorry, the political history of journalism didn't just begin in 1999. Left-wing media bias has been a fact of life since your parents were in Junior High School. Of course the media went after the sensational aspects of the whole sordid Monica Lewinski business. I have granted you that most supposed journalism is really entertainment. Move on. However, the media gave Bill Clinton a big pass on things it never gave to Bush 41 or Reagan before him, and it gave Carter a pass on things before them.
"Just because someone doesn't agree with a news story, that doesn't make it biased."
Just as the fact that someone agrees with a story doesn't mean it isn't biased. So what?
"Anyone who makes broad, sweeping claims of political bias in the media (conservative or liberal) is biased themselves."
Another straw man. We never claimed to be unbiased. The news media at least nominally makes that claim. Lately it seems to be accompanied by much winking and nodding, but the claim is made all the same.
"You can always find something if you are looking for it."
This is an interesting new tactic. Platitudes as argument? Fortunately, I don't have to look very hard in the media to find the bias. Of course it can be very subtle. For instance:
Why is a faith-oriented conservative always labeled by the media as a "religious right activist" whereas you never hear a socialist labeled as an "atheist left activist?" And why did Nina Totenberg refer to John Roberts as a conservative, arch-conservative, active conservative, or ultra-conservative two dozen times in her story on him, yet that self-same reporter never once used the word liberal, nor did she apply any ideological label in her report on the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? And why did all the major networks spend hours and hours of investigation and air time on George Bush's National Guard service records yet never was a peep heard about John Kerry's Purple Heart foolishness until the right-wing blogosphere practically embarrassed them into it? And why has the old media to this day never reported on the fact that John Kerry still refuses to release his military records to the press? And why were the Swift-Boat Veterans subjected to heaped abuse, unabashed name-calling, and general scorn for their attempts to affect the outcome of the election, yet no such treatment was ever applied to Michael Moore or MoveOn.org?
Oh no, there's no bias in the media. And keep in mind that I don't like George Bush or John Kerry so I have no dogs in that fight. Those observations are completely objective.
"Try viewing the news with an open mind…"
The news isn't philosophy, or at least it isn't supposed to be. The news is supposed to be reported objectively, therefore an open mind shouldn't be necessary. An open mind is needed to evaluate the facts once they are reported, but the only reason an open mind would be needed in the reporting is when there is an agenda to be realized. Of course the media wants us to listen to the news with an open mind, that way we'll be concentrated on being entertained and not on evaluating the facts, or in the case of our media, the lack thereof.
Could that have been maybe because he was the only one saying it and had proven himself unreliable by involving himself in opposition politics? There's not much percentage, even for liberal journalists, in ignoring the entire world and believing one guy, especially when that guy offers nothing more for proff than his opinion and his dislike of the sitting Chief Executive.
"But I knew that there were no weapons."
Maybe you should take up a career in international intelligence. Or maybe you were just predisposed (a.k.a biased) to disbelieve anything George Bush says. If a journalist follows that line of reasoning, then he or she is, by definition, biased.
"The terrorists are not...
[Snipping all through]
"...we're all getting taken for a ride."
Not the point. Our motives for being in Iraq are of no consequence to this discussion. You asserted because no one questioned the Bush Administration on going into Iraq, there is no journalistic bias to the left. I say that is simply not true. Plenty of journalists questioned both the motives and methods of the Bush Administration at the time and whether or not we should or should not be there has nothing to do with their bias. And besides, you listen to way too much of what Michael Moore says.
"Please, let us leave Slick Willy where he belongs--in the past."
Ah, so the media used to be biased and now they're not? Or they never were and now they are? Or they weren't and never will be? Sorry, the political history of journalism didn't just begin in 1999. Left-wing media bias has been a fact of life since your parents were in Junior High School. Of course the media went after the sensational aspects of the whole sordid Monica Lewinski business. I have granted you that most supposed journalism is really entertainment. Move on. However, the media gave Bill Clinton a big pass on things it never gave to Bush 41 or Reagan before him, and it gave Carter a pass on things before them.
"Just because someone doesn't agree with a news story, that doesn't make it biased."
Just as the fact that someone agrees with a story doesn't mean it isn't biased. So what?
"Anyone who makes broad, sweeping claims of political bias in the media (conservative or liberal) is biased themselves."
Another straw man. We never claimed to be unbiased. The news media at least nominally makes that claim. Lately it seems to be accompanied by much winking and nodding, but the claim is made all the same.
"You can always find something if you are looking for it."
This is an interesting new tactic. Platitudes as argument? Fortunately, I don't have to look very hard in the media to find the bias. Of course it can be very subtle. For instance:
Why is a faith-oriented conservative always labeled by the media as a "religious right activist" whereas you never hear a socialist labeled as an "atheist left activist?" And why did Nina Totenberg refer to John Roberts as a conservative, arch-conservative, active conservative, or ultra-conservative two dozen times in her story on him, yet that self-same reporter never once used the word liberal, nor did she apply any ideological label in her report on the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? And why did all the major networks spend hours and hours of investigation and air time on George Bush's National Guard service records yet never was a peep heard about John Kerry's Purple Heart foolishness until the right-wing blogosphere practically embarrassed them into it? And why has the old media to this day never reported on the fact that John Kerry still refuses to release his military records to the press? And why were the Swift-Boat Veterans subjected to heaped abuse, unabashed name-calling, and general scorn for their attempts to affect the outcome of the election, yet no such treatment was ever applied to Michael Moore or MoveOn.org?
Oh no, there's no bias in the media. And keep in mind that I don't like George Bush or John Kerry so I have no dogs in that fight. Those observations are completely objective.
"Try viewing the news with an open mind…"
The news isn't philosophy, or at least it isn't supposed to be. The news is supposed to be reported objectively, therefore an open mind shouldn't be necessary. An open mind is needed to evaluate the facts once they are reported, but the only reason an open mind would be needed in the reporting is when there is an agenda to be realized. Of course the media wants us to listen to the news with an open mind, that way we'll be concentrated on being entertained and not on evaluating the facts, or in the case of our media, the lack thereof.
posted by Anonymous | 3:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home