ABC got rid of him not too long after he dogged Clinton in a press conference.When was he fired and by whom?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ABC got rid of him not too long after he dogged Clinton in a press conference.When was he fired and by whom?
Lazy? That is quite an assertion from someone who knows nothing of my daily activities and limitations.I think "lazy" is the operative word here - I'm sure you could find examples if you wanted to.
Well, yes (linkie).Originally posted by Scott J:
Surely you aren't suggesting that Saffire EVER spoke for the NYT are you?
Of course that is not what I meant; they can be neutral and independent like FactCheck.org (cited by Cheney as fair). There are more positions than Left and Right.Originally posted by Scott J:
Oh. So unless someone is associated with liberals or Democrats they can't possibly make accurate observations, right?
No offense meant. I asked you for specific examples which you had failed to provide, giving instead more bald assertions. Since I never thought you incapable ("too stupid or ignorant"), well, I guess I came up with my own usual reason for not having done something.Originally posted by Scott J:
Lazy? That is quite an assertion from someone who knows nothing of my daily activities and limitations.
Thanks for the link.Originally posted by Scott J:
Daisy, FYI
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
The group I think leans conservative but the research looks legitimately objective.
I think they've tipped over.The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias — and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.
<snip>
Hear the Bias!
Listen to MP3 audio clips of the most obnoxious liberal media bias in action.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.htmlAnd then ABC's "The Note" Weblog on February 10th of this year basically gave the game away in detail:
"Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.
"They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."
"They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories."
One of the most respected is the Wall Street Journal (a lot of fine journalism, profiles and plain interesting non-political, non-financial articles - it was from them that I learned of bluebirders twisting the necks of nesting sparrows and the shortage of doorknobs in Poland). Around here, the New York Post is conservative but, apart from their sports coverage, not respectable. There are the perennial BB favorites, World News Daily, NewsMax and Chronsomething. Many here like to reference TownHall.com columnists. There are the American Spectator, the National Review, U.S. News & World Report, Policy Review, World Magazine and the Weekly Standard.Originally posted by Scott J:
Can you name a news reporting organization or newswire that is conservative?
I don't know you well enough to say.I would be really interested in anything you can show that reflects that any major investigative news body (except possibly FoxNews to the extent that they actually investigate with their own people) is made up primarily of people who approach the news from say.... my perspective?
Only if you define leftist as "not conservative".Originally posted by OldRegular:
Reuters and AP are very biased to the leftist side.
Or if you define leftist as "neutral and accurate".Reuter's Explanation (<=linkie)
We write in response to the confusion surrounding the use of the word "terrorist" in Reuters news stories.
We lost six members of the Reuters family and offices that housed 550 others who thankfully survived. From the first moments after the attacks, Reuters staff around the world worked tirelessly to account for their colleagues, restore our information services to customers, and report the news.
However, these efforts have been overshadowed by the controversy over the policy of our Editorial group to avoid using emotional terms such as "terrorist" in their news stories. This policy has served Reuters and, more importantly, our readers well by ensuring access to news as it occurs, wherever it occurs. As a global news organization reporting from 160 countries, Reuters mission is to provide accurate and impartial accounts of events so that individuals, organizations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.
Nonetheless, in an internal memo reminding our journalists of our policy in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, a statement was made that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This wording caused deep offense among members of our staff, our readers and the public at large, many of whom felt this meant Reuters was somehow making a value judgment concerning the attacks. This was never our intention, nor is it our policy. Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly. We apologize for the insensitive manner in which we characterized this policy and we extend our sympathy to all those who have been affected by these tragic events.
Tom Glocer
Chief Executive Officer
Reuters Group PLC Geert Linnebank
Editor-in-Chief
Reuters Group PLC
2 October 2001
I may be mistaken, but in politics the slime bucket seems to be bottomless. Question: who will dive the deepest?How slimy will the opponents of Roberts get?
democrats and leftists win hands down!I may be mistaken, but in politics the slime bucket seems to be bottomless. Question: who will dive the deepest?
I have a problem with pretty much every "news" organization that reports casualty counts and enemy successes without reporting things like this:Originally posted by Daisy:
Scott,
Yes, the Wall Street Journal does original reporting just like the NYTimes does. So does the Washington Times. I'm not sure what you mean by a "reporting organization" - you seem to be disqualifying the weeklies and monthlies even though some of them do reporting as well as analysis.
Reuters is one of the best - do you have a problem with them?
I would take issue with part of that. I have been dealing with the AP for almost 30 years and consider it pretty much down the middle. In fact, when I'm presented with a story from a source I know is biased, I like to check with the AP for confirmation.Originally posted by OldRegular:
Reuters and AP are very biased to the leftist side.
And is that any worse than how the rightists are using her? Not to my nose. One side is supportive of her but mainly as symbol for their cause while the other sides smears, discredits and demonizes her. Which is worse?Originally posted by OldRegular:
democrats and leftists win hands down!![]()
![]()
![]()
Look how they are using Mrs. Sheehan!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Originally posted by Scott J:
Ok, but there is a difference between reporting facts and celebrating heros. Reuters does the first, but not the second because the second really isn't uninterpreted news. It is just the opposite.Originally posted by Daisy:
[qb]I have a problem with pretty much every "news" organization that reports casualty counts and enemy successes without reporting things like this:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML
In a way, you might be right in that a soldier who acts bravely and supports his commander-in-chief is the norm, not news. However, most stories from Iraq that I've read are not of soldiers voicing contempt for Bush, the war and current policy except for the guys being prosecuted for refusing to go back - and they are not presented favorably.Not remarkably, the news only seems to consider it "news" if a soldier voices contempt for Bush, the war, and current policy.
What failures? Not finding the WMDs? Not finding something not there is not exactly a failure. Abu Graib? How did the coverage of that compare with that of the capture of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi elections?I have a problem with not balancing stories about our failures with stories about our successes.
The papers print pretty faithfully what is given to them by the military. Does the military track this?How many times is that process or some other prevention performed each day?
The Americans and Brittish military officially do not keep count or release "bodycounts" as a sign of success since they were caught releasing bogus numbers from Vietnam.How many of the enemy are dying each day in such engagements?
Bad news does get precedence over good in the news - always has and always will. Well, except in the old Commie propaganda papers - no one took them seriously.The one thing that people with family over there say repeatedly is that the soldiers don't think the press is presenting an accurate picture. They feel that the good they are doing is being ignored specifically for political reasons.
Are the right-wing papers full of glory & good news? I think it's a matter of human nature.I tend to agree and yes I think it is a matter of political bias.
That is pure rightwing nonsense. It was lost because we couldn't make the South Vietnamese win and we didn't want to take over Vietnam ourselves.Look, if you miss everything else, just latch on to this... both the terrorists and the media KNOW how Vietnam was lost. It was lost by the media accentuating casualties and failures... It was lost by the media telling the American people that the war was unwinnable.
What do you consider the successes and the failures against what the original goals were? A lot of the problem is what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld told us before this all started and then fed us along the way - which just doesn't jibe with objective reality.IF the media is not biased then their reporting of the war should be more "objective" by presenting an accurate picture... which is many, many more successes than failures.
Obviously, not everyone has learned the same lesson.The lesson of Vietnam cannot possibly be lost on them.
Or their political beliefs are shaped by what they see and experience.The only other alternative is that they are doing what they are doing to advance their own political beliefs.
I would take issue with part of that. I have been dealing with the AP for almost 30 years and consider it pretty much down the middle. In fact, when I'm presented with a story from a source I know is biased, I like to check with the AP for confirmation.Originally posted by rsr:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Reuters and AP are very biased to the leftist side.