Public Perception of Media Bias

[skahorse]

Published today by the Gallup Poll:

Forty-five percent of Americans believe the news media in this country are too liberal, while only 14% say the news media are too conservative.

Just thought I would throw it out there to see people's opinions on the recent survey.

--Skahorse

[2LEYS]

Count me in as part of the 45%

[TheRogue]

Yeah, and over 60% of Americans still think that Sadaam was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks, regardless of what the President says.

So, how much weight are you going to put on your poll now??

TR

[skahorse]

Woah, woah, woah. This isn't my poll, and who said I put any "weight" in it? Wow, jumping to conclusions are we?

I am too one of the 45%, however, I don't trust the average Joe on the street to know who the current 2 senators of the State of Oregon are. Why would I trust them to understand complicated words like "bias" and "liberal"?

I simply put this out there for opinions, I'm not trying to prove anything.

--Skahorse

P.S. Just curious, where do you get the 60% from? And, how do you know that they weren't linked?

[TheRogue]

Sorry, just knee-jerk reaction.

Not going to search right now, but every poll in the last year has been between 45-70+ percent in believing the Iraq/Al Qaeda link.

As for "liberal" media? Guess I just don't see it. Note one of the lines from the article....

At the same time, a majority says that the news media are either too conservative, or just about right.

So, I can infer that the majority of Americans feel that the media is NOT too liberal! :grin: :grin:

TR

[BrionLutz]

Sakhorse,

Dovetails with the poll that most folks who get their info from conservative news service get the facts wrong <grin>.

I think the key is probably this line:

while only about a third of self-described liberals perceive conservative leanings.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The "conservatives" are bit more mililtant while liberals, being liberal, cut folks more slack.

lib•er•al

Pronunciation: (lib'ur-ul, lib'rul), [key]
—adj.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

And of course, the "conservative" media is always pushing the idea of the media being too liberal as part of their marketing pitch.

All things considered, that 53% think the press is OK or too "conservative" is probably fine. The press should be liberal and open minded.

Brion

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by pdxkevin:
Really too bad that they don't follow their dictionary definition any more!

The "liberals" are bit more mililtant while conservatives, cut folks more slack.

One of the most recent examples being the protests and support rallies this past summer. Which broke more laws? Caused more traffic problems? etc...

For those not following along at home, I am over in the 43% camp.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I guess if you're going to lump in 99.9% of "liberals" with the .1 percent of extreme anarchists who were involved in the disgusting acts of vandalism, well, then, I can lump together the wackos responsible for the OK City bombing with the "conservatives"? At least the "liberals" haven't blown up a building full of people.

Sorry, pretty mean-spirited post, but that's the line you're talking with your statements, by generalizing. No wonder the gulf is widening further and further daily.

TR

[Cool Texan]

TR, here is what you are looking for...its up to 70% though.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

[ 10-08-2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

[BrionLutz]

PDXKevin,

Really too bad that they don't follow their dictionary definition any more!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Or too bad you don't &lt;grin&gt;. The definitions never changed, it's the pigeonholing by the right wing media that just doesn't use a dictionary.

Brion

[pdxkevin]

Really too bad that they don't follow their dictionary definition any more!

The "liberals" are bit more mililtant while conservatives, cut folks more slack.

One of the most recent examples being the protests and support rallies this past summer. Which broke more laws? Caused more traffic problems? etc...

For those not following along at home, I am over in the 43% camp.

[ 10-08-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

[Gus Orviston]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

As a somtime conservative, the only station that even has a conservative leaning is fox news, the rest all pretty much have a liberal leaning.

[El Shaddai]

Brion.......had I known how misguided you were, I would have taken you on a long range tuna trip for therapy instead of a day trip.......(-:

Honest question......LA Times and Arnold....did they overstep their bounds? CNN and Saddam...did they overstep their bounds two years ago by agreeing not to report atrocities in return for journalistic favors from Saddam?

Left or right personal opinions are fine.........news should be unbiased, factual and to the point.........editorials belong in the back.....both sides.....

[STGRule]

These are all good reasons to make sure you get your news from a number of different places and always take what you hear and read with a grain of salt. Remember that is all only partly true. It's up to you to decide/figure out which part.

[BrionLutz]

Willametteriveroutlaw,

As a somtime conservative, the only station that even has a conservative leaning is fox news, the rest all pretty much have a liberal leaning.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Looking at a specific fact, the networks are all owned and operated by large corporations which are in turn owned and operated by Republican fund raisers and supporters. Fox with Rupert Murdoch who is fringe right wing. NBC with GE and the Jack Welch group. ABC with Disney, the Disney family is well on the right. CNN was Ted Turner who was on the left but is now AOL/Warner which is Republican and on the right. If you go down the list on radio and TV stations and newspapers, you see the same thing, ownership and editorial is very concentrated in a few large coroporations with overwhelmingly conservative Republican background.

Given that the ownership and editiorial of American news media is so relentlessly on the right and Republican, the idea the news reporting is "liberal" or "left" just doesn't stand up in any quantatitive or factual way.

It may be that the facts are "liberal" and folks view reporting of the facts as such. Certainly the Republican right has made a marketing campaign out of claiming that "the media" is "liberal" and we know advertising works.

A good example, Lou Dobbs is on CNN and a Republican contributor. He was grilling Judy Woodruff and William Schneider on the LA Times trying very hard to push the line that the LA Times had an "hit squad" on Arnold. Woodruff and Schneider had to repeatedly contradict Dobbs and point out the facts on the reporting and the LA Times background. Dobbs were relentless in trying to paint the LA Times as "liberal" but his facts were wrong.

A perfect example of the press being mistakenly and purposely portrayed as "liberal" by an editorial type like Dobbs against the more factual presentation of reporters like Woodruff and Schneider who make an effort to be factual.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

El Shaddai,

.......had I known how misguided you were, I would have taken you on a long range tuna trip for therapy instead of a day trip

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Uh oh...and a one way trip at that. Great thing about fishing is how it cuts across the unimportant stuff in life &lt;grin&gt;.

Honest question......LA Times and Arnold....did they overstep their bounds?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope and a great defense of the LA Times, a conservative owned and operated newspaper, by Woodruff and Scheneider on CNN against a similar claim by the more editorial attack by Lou Dobbs.

Bottomline, Dobbs was pushing the line that the LA Times had organzized an unfair report on Arnold's harrassment problems. As Schneider and Woodruff pointed out, the LA Times had not and Dobbs claims in particular were hokey.

But...you heard it and believed it.

A great example.

CNN and Saddam...did they overstep their bounds two years ago by agreeing not to report atrocities in return for journalistic favors from Saddam?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Probably but that was a business decision to gain coverage to sell commercial time, not an editorial decision. How the push for bottom line dollars compromises reporting...see ownership issues below...the profit push is there.

Left or right personal opinions are fine.........news should be unbiased, factual and to the point.........editorials belong in the back.....both sides.....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very true.

But, as I pointed out to WillametteRiverOutlaw, the ownership and editorial boards of 90% of US news media being run by "right" leaning corporations and individuals, big supporters of Republican politicians.

The only rational arguement one could make would be that the facts of ownership and editorial push of US media is to the right and we should be aware of the ownership and editorial bias of the media and take that into account.

The claim by the media that the media is "liberal" is by a media that actually on the right.

Brion

[ 10-09-2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[lingslayer]

Brion, like I said before, the ownership knows how to make a buck in this capitalist society of ours. Ie. they know how and when to pander to their liberal audiences and readers.

Not to mention the majority of journalists graduate from liberal arts colleges.

Try another slant, or put a few more RPM on that spin Brion,...
It ain't flyin'
Jamie

[BrionLutz]

lingslayer,

Brion, like I said before, the ownership knows how to make a buck in this capitalist society of ours. Ie. they know how and when to pander to their liberal audiences and readers.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm...so American public is "liberal". That's a fascinating one that you might want to think about some more.

I would think pandering would define the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh etc. who pander to a right wing audience that pays to hear the wacky stuff. This drifts over into commericialization of the news which is best exemplified by Fox which is unapologetically right wing.

Fascinating that the study of news facts and perceptions showed that those who listened to Fox and Limbaugh etc. were very poor on factual knowledge of the issues.

Not to mention the majority of journalists graduate from liberal arts colleges.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is the all time ******. The "liberal" in Liberal Arts College is not a political statement or definition but I can see how in the black helicopter world it would be &lt;grin&gt;.

I'm not sure arguing that the more educated you are the more liberal you are is a good advertisement for the "conservative" point of view. Personally, if the more educated someone was the more they tended to agree with my views, I'd consider that a good thing.

On the other hand, saying that the less educated somone was the more likely to agree with the right wingers, that's not a plus for the Limbaughistas. Rush can only fool the uneducated sounds like a line from Al Franken's book.

Interestingly, the founders considered an educated electorate the key to democracy in America. I don't think that has changed.

Brion

[lingslayer]

[quote]Originally posted by BrionLutz:
lingslayer,

Brion, like I said before, the ownership knows how to make a buck in this capitalist society of ours. Ie. they know how and when to pander to their liberal audiences and readers.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm...so American public is "liberal". That's a fascinating one that you might want to think about some more.


Some markets are certainly more liberal than others brion. Think about it. I know Eugene's Register Guard wouldn't sell very well in Klamath Falls. Its easier to see on a national scale. I don't imagine the SF Chronicle would sell very well in Montana or Texas either!
The syndicate boards know this. You are in denial Brion.


I would think pandering would define the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh etc. who pander to a right wing audience that pays to hear the wacky stuff. This drifts over into commericialization of the news which is best exemplified by Fox which is unapologetically right wing.


Ohhh, so the right panders to their audience but the the left doesn't?? No matter what their leanings, pandering is pandering. Ie. making a buck.

Maybe you really don't understand capitalism.

Then there is the aspect of the media in general affecting the outcome of elections. Please don't try to tell me that has never happened!

Oh, and "whacky stuff?" Be careful where you tread with the "whacky stuff" comments. I have read some of what you quote from. :smile:

Not to mention the majority of journalists graduate from liberal arts colleges.


This is the all time ******. The "liberal" in Liberal Arts College is not a political statement or definition but I can see how in the black helicopter world it would be &lt;grin&gt;.


Ahh, but it is a definition that (more often than not) spills over into the student's/faculty's views. Please don't try to tell me the majority of UO students aren't to the left of center. And you are the one that made the post about said definitions.

You can use the broader based ones when they suit your argument, but I can't?
Very elitist brion, very elitist.

And the only black helicopters in my world belong to the Nat'l Guard, and I drive by them almost daily. They are Blackhawks and they're parked at the Salem airport. :smile:
I've never seen Ashcroft flying one though,...

Have you?


I'm not sure arguing that the more educated you are the more liberal you are is a good advertisement for the "conservative" point of view. Personally, if the more educated someone was the more they tended to agree with my views, I'd consider that a good thing.

On the other hand, saying that the less educated somone was the more likely to agree with the right wingers, that's not a plus for the Limbaughistas. Rush can only fool the uneducated sounds like a line from Al Franken's book.

Brion

I think you are referring to someone as educated only when it's a formal education Brion. The problem with that is there are far too many people that have plenty of education but aren't intelligent enough, or motivated enough to use it in their daily lives/jobs. Does their college degree always make them better able to make a decision politically?

No.

There are also many intelligent people that never went to college, but are very aware politically.

Sounds to me like you are the one that is pigeonholing people here brion.

Al Franken?? Now we're hearing from a panderer of/to the left.
And he knows how to make a buck also!

Jamie

[BrionLutz]

Lingslayer,

Ohhh, so the right panders to their audience but the the left doesn't?? No matter what their leanings, pandering is pandering. Ie. making a buck.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It just doesn't sell to the liberals. They are too fair minded and balanced. They always want to hear the other point of view.

I think you make that point perfectly in noting that the right wing owned media cannot find an audience for "left wing" ranting but finds a big market for "right wing" ranting.

Probably goes to your other point that "liberals" are more educated so the O'Reilly and Limbaugh stuff just doesn't sell to a audience that is looking for facts and information.

Brion

[DanS]

This is the all time ******. The "liberal" in Liberal Arts College is not a political statement or definition but I can see how in the black helicopter world it would be &lt;grin&gt;.


Ahh, but it is a definition that (more often than not) spills over into the student's/faculty's views. Please don't try to tell me the majority of UO students aren't to the left of center. And you are the one that made the post about said definitions.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Uhh, Jamie,

If you graduate with a degree in Economics, English, History, Philosophy etc. etc.......you get a Bachelor of Arts degree from the College of Liberal Arts.

Being liberal politically has NOTHING to do with it.

[Straydog]

I just got this via email and found it pretty interesting. Thought others interested in this topic may as well.

----------------------------------


October 10, 2003
CommonDreams.org

Bill Moyers on Big Media


Big Media companies keep getting bigger -- with more and more power over our
lives. This week's deal between General Electric (GE) and Vivendi means that
GE'S NBC, which helped elect Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor of California,
has
just picked up not only Universal Studios, but the USA, Trio and Sci-fi
cable
channels to go with CNBC and MSNBC, all part now of a $43 billion dollar
empire.

Then, there's radio. The non-partisan Center for Public Integrity is out
with
a new study showing that in each of 43 different cities a third of the radio
stations are owned by a single company. No company's supposed to own more
than
eight in any market, but the media giants thumb their nose at the rules all
the time. In 34 of those 43 markets, one company owns more than eight
stations.

The big daddy of all is Clear Channel Communications -- 1200 stations
altogether. In Mansfield, Ohio, Clear Channel owns eleven of the seventeen
radio stations in your town. In Corvallis, Oregon, over half of what people
hear is decided by Clear Channel -- seven of thirteen radio stations.

Cumulus Media is the second biggest radio empire. Cumulus, remember, banned
the Dixie Chicks. Cumulus owns eight of the fifteen radio stations in
Albany,
Georgia.

It's a similar story in television. No single company is supposed to control
more than one television station per city, except in some big markets. But
look at what's happened in Wilmington, North Carolina, where there are three
network affiliate stations -- Fox, NBC and ABC. This year, the Fox station
changed hands. On paper, the new owner was Southeastern Media Holdings. But
then Southeastern Media announced that Raycom Media would help manage the
company. Raycom already owns the NBC station, so it combined the two news
departments and laid off much of the staff.

But hold on to your hat -- Raycom and Southeastern Media Holdings turn out
to
be part of the same company. Now there's not only one less independent news
operation in Wilmington, there's also one less media company.

The flimflam-ery goes on. In 33 other cities, stations that are supposed to
be
competitors have found clever ways to undermine the existing rules, mergers
and takeovers, for example. Remember when Viacom married CBS and Rupert
Murdoch's News Corp ponied up for the television stations owned by
Chris-Craft? Those deals put both conglomerates in violation of the rule
that
no one company can control stations that reach more than thirty five percent
of the total audience. But so what? The FCC just rolled over, winked, and
gave
both conglomerates temporary waivers of the rule. A little time passed and
this summer the FCC raised the limit to give the big guys what they wanted,
anyway. But that giveaway brought protests from over two million citizens;
they turned the FCC into a beseiged Bastille on the Potomac. Such
indignation
from the grass roots caused even the Senate to say, "Whoa, something's going
on. People really care about this issue." And the Senate stopped the FCC in
its tracks. There are enough votes to do the same in the House. But then,
General Electric, owner of NBC; News Corp, owner of Fox; Viacom, owner of
CBS;
and Walt Disney, owner of ABC, brought on the hired guns ... the lobbyists
...
to wage a Trojan War on Congress. A passel of former insiders moved through
the revolving door, rolodex in tow, trading their influence for cash -- top
aides of the Senate Majority Leader, the House Majority Whip and of John
Ashcroft himself.

Now the most powerful Republican in Congress, Tom Delay, the House Majority
Leader, won't let a vote happen. The effort to reverse the FCC is dead in
the
water, sinking the democratic process with it.

Bill Moyers is host of NOW with Bill Moyers, airing Fridays at 9pm ET on PBS
(check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html)

[roadsend]

Straydog
Interesting post and unfortunate that the radio/TV media is becoming more centralized.
Is the same thing true about newspapers and magazines?

[El Shaddai]

Brion, Brion, Brion..........good book out called "Journalistic Fraud" by Kohn....as liberals are more open to a broad range of views (note the sarcasm), then perhaps you should read it....very thought provoking....

Now following your line of thinking that 90% of the major media organizations are RNC supporters, therefore they must be "right" leaning, I am curious how you would explain the the major political endorsements of those same media organizations. Who did the NY Times and LA Times endorse for President? Why would these companies support the RNC and then have a subsidiary company endorse the Democratic candidates consistently?

Speaking of the NY Times....owned by the same company as the Boston Globe....following your logic, they should basically operate the same way.........look at the Times coverage of Iraq vs the Globe.....the Times is clearly far more critical and biased in its front page reporting (not the editorial section)......in fact, the front page of the NY Times is often nothing more than an editorial for the left....

[BrionLutz]

El Shaddai,

.....good book out called "Journalistic Fraud" by Kohn....very thought provoking

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Was there a particular point in the Kohn book that you felt was relevant?

Now following your line of thinking that 90% of the major media organizations are RNC supporters, therefore they must be "right" leaning.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not a line of thinking it's facts and figures from SEC financial statements. There is a huge concentration of ownership of the media in large, corporations with corporate policy and owners being Republican supporters.

Who did the NY Times and LA Times endorse for President?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's two newspapers. That would seem to argue that the majority are indeed Republican if they are the only two.

The ownership issue is so clear that even the Republican Congress was forced to cancel the Bush Jr admin attempt to concentrate the media ownership even further.

Remember, you are making a case that the media is "too liberal" but the facts and figures of ownership are that the media is overwhelmingly Republican.

Brion

[fisheromen]

Who is the "media"?

I know I have heard figures, but am not going to try and take the time to find them right now, that the vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats. Is anyone so naive as to think that, however pure their motives, this doesn't effect their reporting?

[BrionLutz]

fisheromen,

I know I have heard figures, but am not going to try and take the time to find them right now, that the vast majority of journalists are registered Democrats.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Acutally there are no such numbers...this dovetails the problem that folks who listen to Fox news don't get the facts right &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[Thumper]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Who did the NY Times and LA Times endorse for President?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's two newspapers. That would seem to argue that the majority are indeed Republican if they are the only two.
Brion </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Ah, the marvelous logic! Funniest post of the day.

[ 10-13-2003, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[The Steelheader]

Corrected view of the term:

Liberal. One who takes no stance for anything, and falls for everything.

[BrionLutz]

The Steelheader,

Corrected view of the term:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The problem with "corrected views" is that are basically self serving, name calling used by folks who can't argue the issues. See "Rush Limbaugh on Drugs" thread for an example &lt;grin&gt;.

Best to stick to the real world definitions and specific issues.

In this case, we have the facts and figures showing overwhelming conservative Republican ownership of "the media".

You may remember, the "Dixie Chicks" were banned from some 2,000 radio stations for apologizing for Bush Jr lying to the world on Iraq. This was a decision by two corporations.

Brion

[El Shaddai]

Nice side step Brion........there are many more newspapers...I just picked the two with the largest distributions (or close to) on each coast....now back to the original question(s).......

Why would a company give $$ to the RNC and then endorse a Democrat?

How could two major media sources (Boston Globe and NY Times) owned by the same parent company have such vastly different coverage regarding many issues; especially the war in Iraq?

I am being really open minded and really want to learn, so please help me to understand......grin!

[BrionLutz]

El Shaddai,

There are many more newspapers...I just picked the two with the largest distributions (or close to) on each coast.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually, you would have picked Newsday or Wall Street Journal for the East &lt;grin&gt;. I think to make the point you wanted to, you would have to add up the circulation of the newspapers by the media ownership.

LA Times owner is huge conservative Republican conglomerate. It's not that there are not media players like Washington Post/Newsweek or NYTimes, it's that the major networks are all conservatively owned. This means that even the local TV stations owned by Post and Times Corps broadcast network news run by large conservative, Republican corporations.

Bottomline, the media is overwhelmingly owned by the right so claims of a "left wing media bias" simply have no basis in fact.

It's a "perception" vs. facts and figures.

Brion

Lingslayer,

Think about it. I know Eugene's Register Guard wouldn't sell very well in Klamath Falls

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Although conservative thinkers vastly outnumber us liberals in Klamath Falls, some of us aren't above using the Eugene paper in our bathrooms :grin:

Dog,
Bill Moyers is a socialist and Hillary Clinton is a "Conservative" in his mind.

[Straydog]

Bill Moyers is a socialist and Hillary Clinton is a "Conservative" in his mind.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So what? Even if it were true.

Can't people do any better than call others names? Can people dispute the opinions of others with facts (or heck, even opinons) that counter what is said or only point fingers and call names?!?!?

[El Shaddai]

Brion...you are the master of sidestep...are you in sales? (-:

I think you have conceded my point on print media (barely), but you never directly answered my question.....so I would really like your take on that seemimngly inconsistent approach.....

Now as for networks being largely conservative.....I have the opportunity to spend a large amount of time digesting news from regular sources.....let me assure you, it is my personal opinion based on hundreds of hours of viewing that CNN (Communist News Network) and Fox are not covering most stories the same....

Fox has made their mark by being fair and balanced (so they claim) yet the "left" which does not exist in your world alleges that they are the "conservative" network.....

I wonder how Alan Colmes feels working for such a conservative network? I wonder why Neil Cavuto spent so much time with the Rush Limbaugh story today and had several anti Rush guests? Juan Williams is a hallmark democrat that is a key Fox News contributor....bottom line with Fox is they tee up issues and bring in both sides.....that is the balanced approach that is endearing them to millions of Americans....and that is why CNN is losing viewers daily.....

BTW...Susan Estredge, a good liberal in her own right and a well respected law professor at USC (and frequent Fox news contributor) even alleged the LA Times was indirectly working for Gray Davis.....oh ya, that reminds me...who did the LA Times endorse for governor and who owns them?

Brion....your takes are inconsistent...but they do sound good at first glance! grin! grin!

Let me help you a bit.....basically print media and television media is dominated by liberal views....talk radio is basically dominated by conservatives....bummer for us...I would rather own the tv/print market.....

Dog,
Aren't we a bit sensitive tonight?
Look at Moyer's politics and you'll see that I made an understatement. No "name calling", just calling it as it is. And I watch PBS and listen to NPR too. I don't fear them nor do I call them names like some have done here with Flush. You have been one of the worse offenders when it comes to bashing "Talk Radio". Isn’t your last post hypocritical?

El,
Don't forget Mara Liason (SP) another left wing Fox voice.

[ 10-13-2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

No Keta.

The point is, so what? What does your labling of the writer have to do with anything?

Are you saying the ownership he is pointing out is wrong? If so, how so? What is wrong about what he is saying in his piece.

Frankly, I don't care if you think he is a socialist, a communist or a libertarian.......... what does that have to do with the points he makes in his piece?

I am not endorsing it or saying it is wrong but you calling him a socialist offers nothing but your opinoin of what politcal box to put him in...........

Again, so what???????????????

So, its ok for you to do something but no one with other viewpoints can? That is hypocritical.

From Streydog

Does nothing more than confirm my belief that he is a fat mouthed phoney based in part, on his rants concerning anyone (else) that uses drugs......

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 10-13-2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Keta,

I don't think I simply call people names. Yes, I bash talk radio for the divisive nonproductive scurge that it is, but I generally give some reason why I think so. I may on occassion, but don't make a habit of simply saying Rush is a redneck,

On the other hand, some seem to think it is going to change others opinion by simply calling others names, or putting them in boxes and wanting us to believe that those in certain boxes are never capable of being correct.

That is not real life in my mind.

Calling Moyer a moderate is like calling someone else we know a Republican. Moyer is FAR LEFT. This is a fact. Your statement was an opinion.

[Straydog]

[quote]Originally posted by Keta:

From Streydog

Does nothing more than confirm my belief that he is a fat mouthed phoney based in part, on his rants concerning anyone (else) that uses drugs......

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's right Keta..... notice the "based in part......" part. I am offering some reasoning for my beliefs number one. Number two, I am not throwing this out to be taken as some sort of arguement against a statement that was quoted from Rush.

Some are pretty quick to opine "apples and oranges" and then put an apples and orange arguement...........

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Calling Moyer a moderate is like calling someone else we know a Republican. Moyer is FAR LEFT. This is a fact. Your statement was an opinion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So, who called Moyer a moderate?
:whazzup:
Remember, I'm the one not much into putting people in boxes......

Further "far left" can be quite different than a "socialist". [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

And no, Rush has very well proven himself a phoney in terms of his statements that he is stronger than addictions, stronger than addicts, his own man, superior to any "maggot infested dope smoking, drug addicted hippie".. yadda, yadda, yadda......... Not just opinion, well proven phoney as illustrated by the man himself.

[ 10-13-2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

More “Understanding” quotes from the dog.

“The king of Fatmouths showed his true colors. I think God took back the brains he had loaned the entrpreneur of divisiness, prejudice and socitetal ill will”


“I agree!
I do though wonder why so many conservatives rally around the the most vocal and ugly ones such as Michael Savage, Rush, Lars, etc. etc...?”

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
More “Understanding” quotes from the dog.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">1. Where does "understanding" come from and what does it have to do with this exchange other than I sure don't understand where you are coming from?

2.What do those quotes have to do with me putting up an opinion piece by someone and you coming back with calling that person a socialist as I guess, some sort of arguement opposed to what he said?

Once again, and this is the last time I ask...... so what, and who called Moyer a moderate, as if that mattered either?

[ 10-13-2003, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

So what?
It's wrong for someone to call Moyer a socialist (true) but then someone can call someone else far worse names (opinion)? Come on dog, even the worse hipocrit can't believe this is to be true

A socialist is political, what you are doing is "Name Calling".

[Straydog]

So what does he being a socialist (your opinion only) have to do with what he wrote???????

To pacify you, ok, for sake of argument, let's say he is a socialist. What bearing does that have on the media ownership he has layed out.
His opinion is still the same, the article didn't change or disappear just because we hypotheticly agreed he is a socialist....the question remains....... so what?

quote from the dog:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Moyers is a socialist and Hillary Clinton is a "Conservative" in his mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what? Even if it were true.

Can't people do any better than call others names? Can people dispute the opinions of others with facts (or heck, even opinons) that counter what is said or only point fingers and call names?!?!?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hummmm. Where did I see the following quote?
"Can't people do any better than call others names?"

My second posts had nothing to do with Moyers rantings, it was about "Name Calling"

Now go to your happy place and think happy thoughts. Love ya.

[ 10-13-2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

You just don't get it Keta.

Of what value, in terms of agreeing or not agreeing with what was written by Moyers, does calling him a socialist have?

By can't you do better, I was refering to can't you at least give an argument as to why what he wrote might be wrong, or right, instead of just calling names?

He made a statement about the media. Your only response in that regard was he is a socialist. I say, so what? That is a darned weak argument for or against what he said, ie. "can't you do better than that?"

Callng one a socialist is a non argument in terms of what he said. I would think you could make a better argument. I am evidently wrong. So be it. :smile:

[ 10-14-2003, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

The king of Fatmouths

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is name calling.

Giving someone a political label (socialist, communist, Democrat or whatever) is not name calling. I've watched Moyers for years and have seen his political leanings. He would do well in a socialist country like Sweden.

[El Shaddai]

Thanks Keta...I forgot about Mara....unfortunately I have taxes to pay.....er, I mean a job to go to....be out of town for a few days...enjoyed the chat guys!

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:


Giving someone a political label (socialist, communist, Democrat or whatever) is not name calling. I've watched Moyers for years and have seen his political leanings. He would do well in a socialist country like Sweden.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You still don't get it..........

None of this has any bearing in terms of arguing for or against what he said because you made no argument for or against what he said. What bearing does the lable or name calling have? What is it about what he said that you agree or disagree with? I pretty much understood you feel he is a socialist right off the bat. So what?

I am going to go beat my head against my office wall now......... [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[ 10-14-2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

So what? Even if it were true.

Can't people do any better than call others names? Can people dispute the opinions of others with facts (or heck, even opinons) that counter what is said or only point fingers and call names?!?!?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is what YOU posted and I was responding to. It is addressing name calling, not the continent of the Moyers article. You chose to divert things, just like another unnamed poster here, to dodge the fact that YOU are a “Name Caller”.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Giving someone a political label (socialist, communist, Democrat or whatever) is not name calling. I've watched Moyers for years and have seen his political leanings. He would do well in a socialist country like Sweden.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HIS OPINION CONCERNING MEDIA OWNERSHIP? (see topic title)

Are you saying because you view him as a socialist he is atuomaticaly right? Are you saying because you view him as a socialist he is automaticaly wrong? Does you viewing him as a socialist make him liar in your view? Does you viewing him as a socialist make him superior in his thinking? Does you viewing him as a socialist make him inferior in his thinking?
Or are you just intent on maintaining a silly argument about who called whom what???????

[Straydog]

NO! You are misunderstanding....... through this whole charade you have failed to offer anything other than your opinion that he is a socialist.

Can you not give a better argument ("do better than that") in terms of the topic other than to say "Bill Moyer is a Socialist." Big whoop..... How does that play out in what he has said concerning media ownership?????? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[ 10-14-2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Still won't admit it and continue to dodge
I WAS NOT ADDRESSING WHAT MOYERS ARTICAL HAD TO SAY! I AM ACCUSING YOU OF BEING A "NAME CALLER" (with much posted proof).
Now don't knock any sense into your head when you hit the wall.

[Straydog]

Ok, I am a name caller. Feel better?

Now, maybe you can explain why you jumped into this thread calling Moyer a Socialist when the topic is about Public Perception of Media Bias and the post you responded to is a long explanation of his opinion in regards to the ownership of the media. One more time, what does he being a socialist (in your view) have to do with the topic at hand? Can you dispute what he said? Is there any point in your labling?

Concerning knocking sense into ones head.........just gotta take it to a derogatory personal level don't ya?

[ 10-14-2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

I beginning to understand why steady employment alludes some folks.........

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh! Now we resort to insults as well as name calling. Bad Dog!

Now you know it's not "PC" to discriminate against someone with a physical disability.

Socialists and communists (I should probably add Democrat and Republican politicians here to be truthful) have an agenda and anything that they say or do should be looked at closely.

Now remember "Go to your Happy Place and think happy thoughts".

PS: Aren't we quick on the edits today. Good thing I had your discrimanatory statement cut and pasted before you changed it.

[ 10-14-2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Straydog]

Might be why I deleted on my own accord........ not representative of who I am so I quickly deleted it.


Have you never made a mistake but had the guts to correct it as rapidly as possible?

Ok, so look at what he said very closely and try something better in terms of arguing for or against than simply labling.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Keta:
Aren't we quick on the edits today. Good thing I had your discrimanatory statement cut and pasted before you changed it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Why? There was an obvious reason I edited... second thoughts. What is the value you posting something I edited??? Why is this a
"good thing"???