Similar to what aevans176 is saying, the (mainstream print and broadcast) media tend to "pile on" when a story fits their worldview, but are often ignore a story which conflicts with their world view.

I showed my prior example HERE with the Washington Post and their politically correct racism. The paper would not state the race of 4 armed and dangerous criminals on the loose, for fear of some silly PC bias. That same paper printed that judge John Roberts and his colleagues were "mostly white men" in an article that had nothing to do with race. Clear bias (like the blue sky )

Two more illustrations:

The New York Times ran Abu Ghraib on the front page for a month. Every single day for 31 consecutive days. Was this a front-page story? Of course. But to literally put this story on the front page of the leading newspaper in the country every day for a month? That is ridiculous. The rest of the media played it up accordingly.

By contrast - Today, we know that Air America radio received something like $900,000 dollars from a non-profit group, which subsequently went out of business. (details here)
It is quite possible (but not proven) that they literally robbed old folks and children to pay Al Franken. The New York Times has run in excess of 50 stories on Air America since its launch, nearly all of them with a positive spin. Yet, they have completely ignored a story with a New York corporation (Air America) embezzling funds from a New York charity ( Bronx-based Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club), even funding a "Camp Air America" via on-air donations. Why is this?

Does anyone here think for a minute if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity had a radio network that "stole food from hungry children and robbed Alzheimers patients of donations" that we wouldn't see it in the New York Times? Like maybe every day for a month? Would the television news salivate over such a story? Of course they would. But to date - nothing but media silence about Air America.

Yes it does matter what is reported and how it's presented. I'm not blaming Clinton or Bush or anyone, I'm merely observing what apppears obvious to many of us. The fact that liberals choose, edit and write the majority of the mainstream news affects the content and presentation of that news. The vast majority of the news media take their cues from icons such as the New York Times, so if that elite entity ignores a story, it is not seen by a great number of Americans. I have offered example after example, and it always follows the same pattern.

Does this book go into the ownership in detail, if not I believe this writer is too blind to be objective, ant reasonable person in the know of the media that does not address my points of ownership and how they effect you when working is intellectual dishonest. In our daily working lives we know the boss is king and to believe this is not true in the media is so immature it is beyond belief.

BTW I generally only read books written by rightys because I am a liberal. I have never read a political book by a person who was not a republican.

Could you please provide evidence that the people you listed here are 'overt rightys"

Not one writer, but many.

Your first paragraph, I believe, could very well be describing you. If you won't read the book, you cannot claim to be intellectually honest, or mature.

Your last paragraph is, again, in need of a rewrite. You only read Republican writers? Or did you mean you only read non-Republican writers?
Either way, you blind yourself to the truth by only listening to one side of the story.

I have a friend who loves Rush Limbaugh, so I gave him a copy of Al Franken's book "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat Idiot". He refused to read it.
I guess he doesn't want to be informed, but brainwashed.
He doesn't want to think on his own, but let Rush do his thinking for him.

It is easier that way, no individual thinking is required, no personal effort, just let our chosen hero, journalist, talk show host, preacher, politician, etc. tell us their version of the truth and then we can feel smugly superior just because we think we now know it all. I guess some of just love being treated like gullible children.

As for me, I tend to think that they are all lying to some degree, and go from there.

Interesting that you did not ask this of the first list I made with the 40 or so republican rightys on the air. the one that had Rush and so on. But I have a related story to this I as I said listened to Rush for the first couple years and remember callers calling in saying he was a liberal... That is evidence right there that the rightys can not even honestly tell which ones are. Is this because they are that stupid or because they are intellectually dis-honest.

First I use to listen to CNN before AAR came on. And still every once in a while. So probably listened to CNN for 2-3 years. Just could not stand their bias. So lets count two years and assume I can tell bias when I see it. Have you ever listened to them? and you are saying they are not...

Paula Zahn lived in dupage county, IL a republican stronghold, she dated a friend of mine whom is a righty before she got her big start, later she worked at FOX. need I say anymore... FOX.. I will say now that she left Fox and is on CNN she has toned down her overly overly biased persona.http://www.answers.com/topic/paula-zahn

Larry king, come on.... are you saying he is not? does he runs in the cirles of people like trump.http://www.weddingphotousa.com/wedding_articles/donald_trump_wedding.htm 23,000 hits with their names combined. Isn't he on about his 6th oops 7th wife? like Rush, Newt, donald? et al. you know, love um and leave um. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/03/...ain597685.shtml King asks softball questions like Gannon to rightys and he asks the tough ones to liberals.

Nancy Grace have you ever heard her....... when she was on court TV and would come over to CNN as a prosecutor expert, I have never heard her take a defendants side, no matter what......... she was always put on and if they did let a liberal to offset they went to battle. her and Mark Garigross went at it constantly and never agreed.

Have you ever listened to Jack Cafferty? you know it almost immediately. My guess is in one day. He is an Archie bunker of the 2000, but would have been great back then also.
http://www.cabletvtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-653.html
http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=2386
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504300001
http://toughenough.org/2004/09/that-libera...k-cafferty.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/21/ltm.01.html

I'll agree with the Archie Bunker description of Jack Cafferty, but every word of the above statement is true. It was morning, the documents were phony, CBS was misled, and Dan Rather said he was sorry.

How is a commentator making a factual statement an example of bias?

Let me explain, I as a rule try only read political books written by the opposing party, the rightys. I generally only liked shows like crossfire where it was sometimes two good liberals against two rightys. Begala and Carville were the only ones I liked from the left. But needless to say there was Novak and carlson from the right. Loved the libertarian Bill Mahr show, politically correct, shame he was ripped off by the rightys.

I now listen as I said to FOX for several hours a day. And listen to AAR for many hours a day. Have listened to every rightys TV or radio show except the religious ones for many hours if not a normal of several hundred hours. I do not listen to NPR because they were just trying to ride the fence not be biased to much. With Tucker there I will listen to it now just too see if he moves from being so overtly partisan.

Seems to me to be a P infatuation. Why are the rightys so infatuated with ONE station that they say is a failure and not even a national presence. What is this infatuation. Just realizing that the right is so obsessed with it shows how they hate any point of view that they do not control. Even your cited source obsesses with it and ironically calls himself "the radio equalizer" when the rightys can not even name one political partisan radio show by a liberal that has been on nationally of over two years and I named about 40.

Now the poster contends because one newspaper out of several hundred in the US ran several stories on the front page that even though this is not even the largest or second largest paper there, this is some how proof of a liberal bias to the print media. (the largest and second largest in the USA are righty papers)

He also seems to think that American military torturing prisoners and some dying is not as important than some little po dunk radio station with some un-proved statements written by a guy who quotes a paper owned by a partisan Rupert Murdoch the righty who owns more media in the USA than any other human...... and this person can tell us with a straight face there is no right wing media bias.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like the classic argument that corporate owned media outlets are guaranteed to spin the news conservatively. Yet like the others who have made this suggestion, you lack any evidence. You need to show two things to prove this claim, first that the corporate owned media outlets donate more money to conservative political parties than liberal parties, and second that reporters and journalists are pressured by their corporate managers to spin the news to benefit one political ideology over another.

I will take a shot at the evidence, and remember this is human nature. Also read my entire post 65 and 66 for more examples.

2, You don’t bite the hand that feeds ya (who makes the final decisions) if the media was so liberal they would discuss this issue. http://adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/...sId=45132&auth=
http://www.sdimc.org/en/2002/05/1411.shtml Fear & Favor in the Newsroom (1996)


there is a prevalent saying in many industries, you do not bite the hand that feeds ya. That has two meanings. First you do not insult your advertisers. I.E. you run negative shows on your advertisers and they take their business elsewhere. And you do as the owner wants you to or you get fired. My estimate is 90% plus corporations in the top 1000 who would be primary advertisers are run by people to the right. I am only aware of 5 or 10 that overwelmingly contribute to democrats only. Just as big business are on the side of republicans, unions are on the side of democrats, I think we can agree to that. So;


http://adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/...sId=45132&auth=



11, propaganda, does it work? Did the USA military broadcast radio free America all over the world, do they do this to waist tax payers money? No they know control of the delivery system is vital to national interests. Why do you think the CIA just set up a Arab TV network next to Washington DC for an estimated 62 million dollars. Is this because they realize that he who controls the delivery system controls the message. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1442126,00.html
12, we have a very biased source who said :

http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/IS2001/newsmedia.htm

Next, here is an example of what rightys do with their money in the media, vs. stopping hunger around the world. He aimed at media control so actually shows several principles here. This righty funded with over 380 million dollars media control for the republican party. Do you think he hired any liberals in his companies? EVER…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/p....html?th&emc=th

Goals Reached, Donor on Right Closes Up Shop

By JASON DePARLE
Published: May 29, 2005



Other overtly partisan republicans are Murdoch, owns more media in the USA than any other human on the planet, Scaife, Rev Moon, and there are more...

Media ownership by conservative entities does not necessarily equate to conservative media. Owners, businesses, etc. will have their financial interests first and foremost in their minds. Do you think they care about abortion issues, quality of education, available health care and housing for the poor? To some extent they do, if they can find a way to make money out of those issues.

The media spits out so many conflicting opinions that we are inundated by information that may or may not be true.
I think they keep us baffled with bull to the extent that we can't see the forest for the trees.

And owners are still not the ones doing the work. The FACT remains, those doing the gathering, writing, reporting of the news are Liberals. They admit it, and they DO bite the hand that feeds them, but they do it in subltle ways.
If owners took the time to monitor every news item published by their media, they wouldn't have time to tend to any other business.
Currently, a lot of the national news is managed by a conservative presidency. GWB has his supporters who will publish his story, and he has his detractors that will pick his story apart.

Some would call it orchestrated distraction, but there are so many conflicting ideologies and opinions being presented, with all sides telling us lies, that it seems that the orchestra is being led by more people than there are playing instruments.
You can imagine, I am sure, how bad the music would be.

Sanity is more likely attainable by turning off the TV, ignoring the bloggers, and just reading the sports pages and the comics of the local papers.

I am having a very hard time following your logic, but would like to try this one more time.
1 - I don't have a P infatuation. Nor do I know what that is. I am not in any way infatuated with Air America Radio.
2 - It's not one publication NOT covering this story, although anyone in journalism knows that the NY Times is "the paper of record" and is much more influential than you admit. It is a total media blackout. Have you personally heard this story anywhere - ABC / NBC / CBS / your local paper? Air America? Didn't think so.
3 - I'm not saying that the AA story is MORE important than Abu Ghraib. I am saying that, if this were conservative radio show embezzling funds from a freaking charity, the press would be all over it. Do you deny this?

Your examples do not prove any bias about "rightys" or political influence. It would be helpful to take a look at political donations by various media organizations. source

Over the past 16 years, TV / movies / music businesses have given 69% of their donations to Democrats, and 31% to Republicans. For TV and radio stations, it's pretty evenly split or just a bit Republican-leaning, while for producers of TV and music it's overwhelmingly Democrat. Among publishers and owners of books, magazines and newspapers, the donations from 1990 - 2006 are 67% Democrat and 31% Republican.

Even your example of Rupert Murdoch (owner of News Corp, Fox News) as a "righty" is not fact-based. Here are the donations from NewsCorp for 2004
Total Dems Repubs
$215,500 $111,000 $104,500

I would appreciate a reply that addresses the substance of these issues.

edited to add regarding "unproven statements" regarding the Air America scandal.

link

I hate to tell you, but you just spent an untold amount of time proving financial ownership of a limited number of mainstream media outlets, but really didn't prove much else...

Frankly, looking back upon numerous posts that enumerate blatently leftist ideology by "national media sources" such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or the NY Times... you can quickly find examples like "Rathergate" or the NY Times not firing Jayson Blair even though they knew he was fabricating stories opposing the war, the president, etc.

How do you plea to that??Actions speak louder than words... and our media surely doesn't act conservatively...

Can you cite your source to definitively show the documents were false, to back up your opinion. To my knowledge the document signature was accurate and was verified before the airing. To date no one has been able to show the signature was wrong. From what I remember CBS rather have not said the document was false. They have only said they wished they did not put it on air. Big difference. Thus the bias is Jack jumping on, making not proven statements.

Next from what I know the only organizations involved and expert at forgeries are the at least the following. CIA, Secret Service, DIA, FBI, NSA, Now the next question is where would a liberal have such expertise and next where would a liberal have access to an original document by this person Killian in the first place. The person would have had to have been involved in the military, and as I have mentioned the military has very few liberals in it. Then it would have had to been turned over to the experts at CIA or mentioned above. All those agencies are very right wing.

Now the point being someone asked me to prove he is a overt righty, I would as a liberal never have claimed the documents were phoney. I believe they are accurate, as we know his secretary said the information in the document was accurate and so did the officer in the next cubical, he also remembers this as an issue with Killian and Bush at that time. So I will take their words in the fact to date Bush has never denied the specifics, he just says I got an honorable discharge. I believe a special prosecutor that is a overt liberal; should be appointed and open the military files of Killian before they also get destroyed/manipulated.

NBC’s cable arm, MSNBC, added another Fox girl, Rita Cosby, to its nightly programming. She starts Monday. Like Monica Crowley, who made the jump first, Cosby is an attractive blonde, who talks with an affected voice that seems to come from somewhere other than her vocal chords. Cosby joins Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson (in my opinion the most amusing and likable of the conservatives) and Crowley. That leaves Ron Reagan opposite Crowley, legal analyst Dan Abrams, ex sports announcer Keith Olbermann (easily my favorite) and Motor Mouth Chris Matthews, a Tim Russert wannabe, who is sometimes liberal, sometimes not. Matthews, try as he does to emulate Russert, often bullies his guests. Michelle Malkin comes to mind. Despite my doubts about Matthews, I will admit enjoying this episode and the one with Zell Miller.

MSNBC is making an obvious move to the right.

Should MSNBC need another right hand pitcher, they might consider picking Robert Novak off the CNN’s waiver wire. I don’t know how MSNBC would use Novak. Given his age and current circumstances, he probably wouldn’t be a starter. Since Pat Buchanan seems to have dropped off the radar, perhaps Novak could relieve Scarborough. I don't know if another of our national jokes, Bud Seelig would have to approve the deal, but it's an idea. Anybody would be a relief from Scarborough--Buchanan or Novak--you name it. I used to get my daily capsule "conservative" news from Scarborough. For the last few weeks, however, he's covered little but Natalee Holloway and the apparent murder aboard a cruise ship. He's become a crusader, but I can't for the life of me figure out what the crusade's all about, unless it's improing Aruban justice. His show has become utterly useless.

To bring things back to the middle a bit, I think MSNBC should fire Scarborough and give Campbell Brown her own show. I've emailed this suggestion to MSNBC, but they haven't got back to me. Surprise, surprise! Campbell occasionally substitutes for Matthews. She plays Hardball quite well and is like a breath of fresh air.

Much of this post is made in jest, but it does seem MSNBC is attempting a metamorphosis to a FNC clone.

Surely you can see that you are engaging in the same vein of debate that your opposition is. You decry those that say the media is liberal, and ask for proof for making such blanket statements. And I may add, still haven't proven that the MSM is conservative.
Then in the same post you make the same blanket statements yourself about how the military and various three letter agencies have very few liberals in them.
Not only patently false, but unproven by you. You almost seem to imply that the idea of liberals in the aforementioned entities is laughable. You also actually call for an overtly liberal special prosecutor to look into the Killian files, while not coming close to proving that they were doctored by conservatives!

As I've said before, and I'll say again.....though the majority of reporters in the mainstream media lean liberal, and the choice of wording and word accenting they use is decidedly liberal, I don't claim any vast left wing media cabal is at play. I just think that liberal reporters think they are the mainstream, and that their views and values are the norm. Anyone else is quite obviously a hayseed from flyover country. Most reporters can be accused of elitism but not conspiracy.
The media conglomerates are driven by the dollar not by the pagan idol of political ideology. Networks that are becoming clones of FNC are doing so because they are trying to clone the ratings and the sensationalism.
Ultimately, I hope that the wall to wall coverage of such non-news as the latest Chandra-Natalee-Jon-Benet-Samantha(insert name of pretty white female here) will bring either the downfall of such outlets or massive reform of what constitutes news and what is entertainment.

Do you realize there are people to the right that will murder a person over political idealism, just ask Eric Rudolf and Timmy McVeigh-militia, the KKK-supremacist types. So not making or even losing money for ones political cause is above financial return. To make this more personal I one of my best friends brothers that I grew up with was murdered in a hate crime about 10 years ago by a person from the right. My friends brother could never hurt anyone, he was a fantastic person-human.

Sure they do not care about losing money for their idealism control. Do you think the CIA director manages the new Arab TV station he stated outside of DC? We are spending 60+ million dollars on this TV station as a loss. And the CIA director does not micro manage it. No, he hires and has people that see to it that his direction ideals are put forward. And same with the owners of the media. That is why we should know more than the effort put into finding out about the reporters we should know the owners and their affiliations, and the editors and their affiliation and it should be published yearly. I doubt you would have a problem that. Also the Olin link where the guy spent 380 million on the media to control it with no return on his investment. Thus this one is so to the point a person spent 380 million dollars with wanting absolutely no ROI, Are you saying this righty did not know what he was doing??? And did not have an effect. Just grants to righty causes.

No I do not think they are financial as strong as political but in a way related. Example is the Washington Times owner will not release his profit and loss, from other papers and their circulation and cost it is estimated rev Moon has never made a profit in his years of owning that paper.
http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000500.html
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2003/moonienet.html
http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000500.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0310-03.htm
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/wa...gton-times.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0103-07.htm

Fox lost money for 3 years. Also CBS, NBC are owned by defense related interests, CBS is run by a former military intelligence officer Sumner Redstone, and CBS was owned by Westinghouse a defense contractor for many years, Westinghouse changed their name later to CBS not their product. would not air commercial by liberal during super bowl, yet put on drug company propaganda, would not put on the movie about Reagan because right wing protested.

NBC is owned by GE a defense contractor; come on, Jack was not on the right side of the scale, come on lets be intellectually honest here.

ABC, would not honor their agreement and put out M. Moore’s movie, and puts on the air a bunch of the overtly right wing radio programs for 15 or so years, there is no way I or any liberal would put that trash on the air. ABC airs Rush and Hannity on their radio stations (no national liberals), removed show by libertarian Bill Mahr that was gaining market share that they aired at midnight on TV though he had great ratings over his statement about 9-11. On their family channel where kids movies are shown they have Pat Robertson. In 2001 FAIR counted all their conservatives brought on vs liberals, it was 75% conservatives to 25% liberals. That was 14,000 sources

FOX, (now the largest) is owned by the former Australian who got his start in enquirer type magazines that made him wealthy. Someone even questioned if Murdoch is a righty, come on get real. Murdoch offered to pay Newt 4 million dollars for a book that had not even been a concept, just write a book and we pay you 4 million.

No comment from anyone on the ARMED FORCES COLLEGE concern with the limited ownership of the media link I submitted. http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/IS2001/newsmedia.htm

http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=28527


Now who are the board of directors of the media., even Carlyle group on NYT (maybe that explains why the idiot Judith Miller is there) who Bush senior is/was deeply involved with and Baker and the Saudis were running in recent times.
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissecto...falert400.shtml



http://sinclairaction.com/
http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/default.aspx
largest media
http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/indust...x?act=broadcast
top recipients of money and givers of money
http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/itview...s&sub=broadcast
http://www.stateofthemedia.org
http://www.democraticmedia.org/resources/articles/index.html
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071870
http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2002/021011_2.html

Who owns the print media. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/business...rh5C/syUjK9JICQ
A note these links took many many hours to find over time… http://www.namebase.org/books17.html
I listed sources where the don’t bite the hand that feeds ya and you did not counter what happened there at coke and NYT.

Lets my try to address the fundamental point I think you are missing. First and foremost we are addressing is the "MEDIA" biased. Not just as you and others seem to be focused on reporters. I go to where the actual discussion in the media should be, but because the media is controlled by rightys it is not EVER discussed on-in the major media. If you can understand this point alone it is very telling.

I have shown in a recent document that the more appropriate question to them is what do you think you are. 34% say liberals. Several are saying they are not somehow truthful, and say their data where 6x%? voted for gore is the difinitive answer, yet they are saying they were truthful there. That logic defies any credibility.

Now there is a big difference in my attacking and asking for proof. You are very familiar with marketing 101, repeat it enough and it becomes truth, that was also a Hitler propaganda theory. This is what is going on with the “media” liberal bias statement repeated by the media and people to the right all the time. The world flat, is your line of questioning.

Now I say the military and intelligence and enforcement are rightys. You infer this is a blanketly wrong, not backed up. It is not a media stated saying, it is just me, I have never heard anyone say it in the media. But it is correct and I backed it up. And it is common sense to boot. Again about 9 to one in the military, you saw it at the election in votes and in officers behind Kerry and behind Bush, the numbers were about 9 to one. Again to repeat myself, a fraternity brother who is a officer told me a liberal will not last in the military he knows of none. That is NONE. If you out yourself your career is over with. Every generation of my family have volunteered for the military, my grandfather a officer, my father a officer, my brother a grunt. My brother was so ticked off at the way they brain wash you to hate American liberals in the military and my father hated the ignorance of the military officers, yes they found out he was a liberal and they made his life miserable. Yes we are a liberal family. Yes my father is a genius, far beyond what you could imagine. I would hope his lifelong sacrifices-efforts at world peace will be rewarded someday. He even said no to the CIA to be a clandestine agent well after he left the military (would have paid well). Good thing the Bushies would have outed him when he use to take phone calls at home from the secretary of energy for his advice. So is the military biased into hating Americans(liberals)?

Inventor
I listed sources where the don’t bite the hand that feeds ya and you did not counter what happened there at coke and NYT.

We can search the web all day long and without the financial resources and manpower to make sense of it, will prove nothing other than there is a lot of antecdotal evidence that can be used to prove any point.

Donttreadonme has said it best, as follows:
As I've said before, and I'll say again.....though the majority of reporters in the mainstream media lean liberal, and the choice of wording and word accenting they use is decidedly liberal, I don't claim any vast left wing media cabal is at play. I just think that liberal reporters think they are the mainstream, and that their views and values are the norm. Anyone else is quite obviously a hayseed from flyover country. Most reporters can be accused of elitism but not conspiracy.
The media conglomerates are driven by the dollar not by the pagan idol of political ideology.

Greed for power and/or money, and selfishness are prime motivators for the average human being. Politicians (on both sides), driven by the dollar and in addition the lure of power, know that, and make use of that and our other weaknesses to suit their own wants and needs. Remember that when wondering why the education system in this country doesn't spend more time on teaching us to think. The last thing our elite leaders want is an educated/informed/thinking voter. They prefer non-thinking, pliable, gullible instead. And a lot of the journalists are playing into their hands without even knowing it. Most of them have much better educations than is available to the masses, but there isn't much clamor among them to make that better education available to the rest of us. They would rather serve as the government's nannies, spoon feeding pablum to us while the meat and potatoes is locked away, available only on the dinner tables of the elite.
But at least we have a very large variety of pablum, otherwise we might get bored and notice that there is something better out there that we are being denied.

Do you actually believe what you are saying? 9 to 1? Really? A fraternity brother doesn't know any liberals in the military? If you out yourself your career is over with? I won't address this anymore to take the thread off topic, but your entire post concerning liberals in the military is analogous to your supposition that the media is conservative. You have not only thrown out opinion and blanket statements, but you have manufactured statistics to back up your claim, thus losing any shred of credibility you may have had. Brainwashed indeed.......I would so love for you to start a thread on this subject, to see what else you can fabricate.

Assuming that the media is conservative is just as ridiculous as assuming that it is liberal on the whole. The dollar rules all, and the MSM worships the dollar. No dark conspiracy at play, just greed, no matter what extremists from left and right would like to think.

Yes my father is a genius, far beyond what you could imagine.
What a patently obnoxious thing to say......

What are you inferring/saying why debate with resources found? Or is it why debate at all?


I agree a great many people are of that definition. But as you will probably agree there are poeple who are not in that definition of people. There are many people who enter politics to help people. And the media will not give people the light of day. Just as putting crime on the front page of papers news makes people more conservative.


I believe we have a good education system, we just have a media that tells people we don't, the media does not put the problem where it is. Two fold, first by disrespecing a entire class of people who are giving unselfishly to our society for no respect and low pay. To me a teachers salery should be tied to the highest paid PUBLIC corporation CEO, if they make tons of money so should the rate of teachers go up. After all that is where he came from and that is why he is making the money he has employees that are making the company successful that were in the education system. I believe the top teachers in every state should received a award of a million dollars. Why shouldn't teachers have the shot at being a millionaire. They deserve it and that is more important to the future of the US than anything. The second important thing that the media does not hammer home with the education system, is parent day to day involvement may even be more important than even who the teacher is.

It is not our teachers... again it is our biased media that is trying to bring down our education system for the rightys. So they can put in their religious based system of coupons.

I am very familiar with that site and those numbers. Here is my perspective, we do not include what music industry or hollywood producers as the media. The site says

So if you notice we are talking about the media. Your reference is NOT the media, they the authors clearly say it is the entertainment industry.
Now if you use your cited resource and break it down into the subgroups of media,
The data for TV radio stations only you will see the following,
http://opensecrets.org/industries/contrib....2100&Cycle=2006
2006 70% for republicans and 30% dems
2004 58% for republicans and 42% dems
2002 64% for republicans and 36% dems
2000 64% for republicans and 36% dems


If you think Murdoch intentionally just giving $3,500.00 more money to the liberals vs the air unfair time he gives daily is a fair and balanced way to look at it I do not know how to influence you. I also mentioned Murdoch offered Newt a 4 million dollar book deal that from the difference alone of $3,500.00 that he gives to the dems you cited. it would take close to 1000 years before all things would be equal here. But to say Fox is not a righty outlet I just do not know where you are coming from.

I think I did an ok job.

Backing up my statement as requested,

Per a survey by Army Times....
73 percent would vote for Bush and 18% support Kerry.

this one during a unpopular war. See the second chart that 23-25 percent of the military personnel disagree with how Bush is handling the war, generally this would be 0.

So if they were not unhappy with how Bush was handling the war we could pull about half 9 percent more from Kerry and give it to Bush for a vote of 82 percent to 9 percent. Roughly 9 to one for the republicans.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292...veygraphics.php
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-383722.php


Yes I have used the above site before in debates..

Here is another way to support my post. though this is only 8 to one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2004Sep1.html

I also will discuss the media and this air america story. The MSM is running with it and their appears not to be one factual backup of this informnation. It is in the Moonies paper washington times, CNN, NYDN, wall street journal, HBO and 5000 other hits on the web. So the media is on this story. Seems as I said the media does not like AAR the first and only true liberal outlet in the entire media and they only have 66 stations. Why does the media and the right hate them so much? Why does the right want to stop AAR, isn't america about other views, if the main media was liberal what is the fuss? Obviously the media is not liberal.

Here is what I read,



http://danjuma.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/30/124315/828



Here is AAR response.
http://www.airamericaradio.com/press/gloriawise

Since in another post I cited Army Times, Here is some data on their parent company and their related sister publications. Here is a the largest newspaper in the USA, the USAToday. I have selected information from their parent company Gannett to show their military and defense contractor bias. Note how the chairman is tied into the AP news agency. These reporting agencies is where 90+% of the news comes from, the reporting agencies. Control the reporting agencies and you control the media another way.

http://www.gannett.com/

Corporate Overview

Gannett Co., Inc. is a leading international news and information company that reaches audiences through publishing, television and the Internet. Gannett is the largest newspaper group in the U.S. where it publishes 101 daily newspapers including USA TODAY, the nation's largest-selling daily newspaper. Gannett’s combined average daily U.S. circulation is 7.6 million. Gannett also owns more than 600 non-daily publications in the US and USA WEEKEND, a weekly newspaper magazine with a circulation of 22.7 million.


BROADCASTING:The company owns and operates 21 television stations covering 17.9 percent of the USA.

Board of directors
Douglas H. McCorkindale
Chairman, Gannett Co., Inc.
Formerly: Chairman, president and CEO (2001-2005); President, chief executive officer and vice chairman (2000-2001).
Board committee: Executive (Chair).
Other directorships: The Associated Press; Continental Airlines, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Corporation; and a number of investment companies in the family of Prudential Mutual Funds.


http://www.gannett.com/map/propmap.htm
Other Publications
Air Force Times, Springfield, Virginia
Armed Forces Journal, McLean, Virginia
Army Times, Springfield, Virginia
Defense News, Springfield, Virginia
Federal Times, Springfield, Virginia
Marine Corps Times, Springfield, Virginia
Military City, Springfield, Virginia
Navy Times, Springfield, Virginia
Nursing Spectrum, Falls Church, Virginia

AAR is not the first and it is not the only blatantly overt liberal media outlet. I'm not up to speed on my liberal trivia, but I can state that Pacifica Radio came along waaaay before AAR.


Well, why does the media and the left want to stop FNC and talk radio? Isn't America about other views?

In your last post you cite how the MSM is owned by corporate entities. Um....that point has been made ad nauseum by members of all parties. What you have repeatedly failed to prove, as is your assertion, is how that fact makes the media conservative, instead of greedy.

I checked Pacifica, I have never heard them on a radio station, though have heard of them only a few times. But I see why I have never heard of them,
http://www.pacifica.org/stations/
KPFA (94.1 FM in Berkeley),
KPFK (90.7 FM in Los Angeles),
KPFT (90.1 FM in Houston),
WBAI (99.5 FM in New York) and
WPFW (89.3 FM in Washington DC)

Five stations is not what I would consider a national presence, just as I do not consider 66 by AAR a national presence, maybe half of Rush's 600 would say it is a major force.. A quarter a national presence, possibly.

I have never met a liberal that wants to stop FOX.... (after all I watch/listen to them) I can not ever remember reading anything like that. Can you site your source on this that and you state the media wants to stop FOX for political reasons, please back that up also. Again if you are talking about the owners, I would like to see you prove they are liberals trying to silence FOX, vs. what I have laid down they are owned by rightys it would be interesting.

As a matter of fact what I propose is that we have about six-seven radio stations that are divided up to political parties. Two dem, two repub, one ultra right like militia, one left green party and one center for libertarians. Funded by a licensing fee that all the other stations pay for the right to our airwaves. Similar to how our national park vendors bid on the concession rights to the national park, so would stations bid. As an alternative that we have a national radio station run by the minority party as a minimum.

Can you rephrase clarify your statement "as is your assertion, is how that fact makes the media conservative, instead of greedy. " the word media conservative, are you referring to the work output, the ownership, the writers, the control of the message? But maybe again the Olin one should be perfect, the Olin guy gave 380 million to the extreme side of the righty party for media control. no profit here just loss.... And the issue with Rev Moon not allowing us to see how much money he loses a year with the Washington Times. And lets look at the religious channels that talk politics. Then the fact that we have a overwhelmingly military/defense contractor ownership involvement of the media.

Wow, in this day and age it's almost akin to incredulously asking if the sky is blue. For being a liberal and somehow not knowing that liberals want virtually nothing more than to shut down, silence, stifle or at least compete with FNC and talk radio, you seem to be somewhat out of tune with today's American liberal.
I won't waste Mike's bandwidth nor the rest of my Sunday afternoon listing even a fraction of the sites just on the web, not to mention the various books and numerous columns penned by liberals.
You merely have to visit such paragons of truth and balance as Democratic Underground, DailyKos, Buzzflash, Bartcop, Newshounds, Orielly sucks, Counterpunch, Media Matters, FAIR, LyingLiar, Indymedia, the Nation, Truthout, etc, etc, etc.......

Now if the MSM as a whole was decidedly conservative, then we would see this liberal vitriol against all outlets, minus their scared cows. But we don't, we see coordinated campaigns by those on the left, to charge FNC as Howie Dean puts it: "My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News" Link
We see from the left denigrations of talk radio as 'hate radio' because the majority of talk venues on radio are conservative or Libertarian. I thought America was about other views? Why the venom against one TV network, and the talk radio genre that conservatives in general and Rush specifically, blazed the trail for? If all MSM is conservative, then why the diatribes against the few? It must mean that the news that reaches ordinary Americans ears is at best is neutral or infotainment, or that it has a fairly liberal bent. That or the liberal crusade against the vast right wing corporate-Republican and now defense media conspiracy is woefully led and ineptly executed.

Your proposal of limited stations and viewpoints still boggles my mind, that you would wish to limit free speech in such a manner. I have no problem with a network or station wearing it's bias on it's sleeve, but to try and funnel, limit and control broadcasted speech that would irreparably damage the First Amendment.

As to clarifying my remarks for you, I'll simply restate what I've said before. The dollar rules all, and the MSM worships the dollar. No dark conspiracy at play, just greed, no matter what extremists from left and right would like to think.

I will wait for the specifics that any liberal and as you are now stating all those specifically want FOX specifically off the air. I have only heard talk if bringing back the fairness doctrine, getting a liberal point of view out there and so on. So I await your specifics to each and every one of your mentioned groups specifically said remove Fox. Even your example does not show Dr.Dean saying it should not be there. He is just saying it as it is, it is trash. As we know that is where Murdoch made he money trash journalism, he was the grand daddy of enquirer type newspapers in Australia. Do you believe the ends justify the means for Murdoch?

Next you will not reply to the Olin example of a 380 million dollar give away to righty propaganda machines with no request for return of any fraction of it.

And you stated "Your proposal of limited stations and viewpoints still boggles my mind, that you would wish to limit free speech in such a manner. " You have me wrong... I think you are missing what I said, there can be 3000 stations for all I care as long as there are 6 that are out there that give the fore mentioned or similar perspective opportunities. So no limiting, just guaranteeing several other non mainstream views have a chance to be heard. You can always change the channel if you don't like the green or militia view, but it will be heard. Kind of what these debate forums do. This vs a fairness doctrine is far better in my book.

Another great example, (9am MST) not one major broadcast MSM has run a story of Cindy Sheehan. If the media was liberal in the slightest they would have her front and center every broadcast like AAR does. I did a goggle search and only Fox showed up on the first 10 pages of media news under her name.

This is a great story and has so much human interest. She also presents well on the radio, she talks very clearly. I have heard her on AAR at least 10 times now.

Again if the media was even a bit liberal she would be on all the networks. On fox all you heard was them talking about some of her husbands side of the family. Relatives that as she says did not know her son as well as her and people that did not even come to her sons funeral.

Now this is a direct example of a important news event, where as the one by other poster about AAR that a republican affiliated person who lied to AAR people even inferring he was more to the left than he was, and that he raised 6 million when he did not. That poster inferred that somehow showed the media was biased to the liberals. Well not putting Cindy Sheehan on the national news which is far more relevant and more important and newsworthy. You have to love a mother who asks Bush why he is lying and says she looked into his eyes and “
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080805I.shtml

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_an...rbial_truth.htm

Now that would be broadcast everyday if we had a liberal media. (as it is with AAR, the only liberal media in the US) And she is sitting outside his ranch while the president has so much time to vacation again, even yesterday going to a 2 million dollar fundraiser at a nearby ranch. But no time to meet with her.

Inventor, you may want to actually turn on the TV once in a while before making such a reckless statement. Can you back up your assertion? You didn't in your post.
Sheehan has been making the rounds on TV and radio morning shows since her crusade began. She's been the subject of nearly every evening debate show, and has been mentioned on every 'top of the hour' news broadcast that I have viewed.
Why, we even have excepts posted in the President v. Protestor thread of actual news broadcasts talking ABOUT and TO Cindy Sheehan.

Are you so biased that you can't see the factual error in your statement?

You should make sure before you fabricate statements that nobody can call you on them.

Here is a link to goggle's first page results as of 11:10 am: Link

Not one mainstream media? Let's see.. Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN all appear in the first page. Would you like to retract your statement.


Here is a link to google's news search first page results:Link

Under the news search we have : Washington Post, Fox News, and CBS affiliates.

And I did back it up, I said 10 pages of google search. A site search does no good to link to, it changes.
Here is my google search page google news search

New ones are saying 3 hours ago, so there are a few more added, it did list a few more.... read the time stamps. I posted 5.5 hours ago.... MORE importantly I said major broadcast media. . and no when I did my search CNN was not on it, just Fox as I clearly stated. To my knowledge Washington Post and NYT are not broadcast. And a minor affiliate doing a local show is not major network broadcast.... MSM....

Again I went to your link and again did not find significant major broadcast media covering it. What is it that you are reading in there. Out of 10 pages I found CNN 2 reports, none by Fox one by ABC a week ago.

And I listen to Fox news for about 2-3 hours a day. I did not hear them cover it once.... That is why I did a google news search and was shocked to find no major broadcast media covering it day in day out. But as I mentioned there was two listings from Fox in the first 10 pages of google news. I think they had O'Reilly cover it, to the negative.

Now I went to your link for your search and it showed on page 9 ABC had one report of it on the 6th. Nothing since. It showed two reports by CNN on the 6th and 7 th. Even by your search it did not show the Fox one. Just 3 of the broadcast major media on the first 10 pages and they were old ones from the 6th and 7th. That is hardly being covered by the MSM broadcast media everyday like they do a missing girl.

Now if you do my search via the news on Goggle, you will find fox having a second reporting but 3 hours ago which I posted this 5 hours ago. So more has been added.
My search
http://news.google.com/news?q=Cindy%20Shee...lr=&sa=N&tab=wn

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/12/fox_ne...ndy_sheehan.php

I agree with DTOM. Not only inventor, but everyone else should be concerned about factual errors. A few days ago aevans176 linked us to Joe Biden’s page on a thread about Evan Bayh. I did not notice this until Izdarri pointed it out. At this point I acknowledgted that I had a fact wrong.





On the other hand, I think it is over the top to accuse inventor of fabrication--lying.

OK, this took me one website and about two seconds to find a transcript of one of the many interviews in the MSM that have featured either Sheehan or her supporters.



There's much more, but go to the LINK if you want to read the rest of it.

I don't think you can come up with one iota of evidence, nor one fellow poster who will validate your claim of the MSM shunning Cindy. Some of us have had quite enough coverage as a matter of fact. Which was one impetus behind starting the thread about her personal crusade.

on edit:

Let's go back to your original statement:


Let's see now........
MSNBC
CBS
CNN
CNN
MSNBC
ABC
FNC
FNC

Well that took another two minutes out of my Saturday, and of course, there's more......
Do you still stand by your original statement? And if so, do you care to prove your assertion?

By the way both of your MSNBC links are identical……….
By the way the fist CNN is a repeat of the CBS one.
And two of the ones you posted were after my statement/search.

So to summarize, you posted two duplicates and one even misnamed, you posted two that occurred after my statement. So you by my way of looking at it had a 50% error post. Half of what you said was either dead wrong or debatably wrong for the context of calling me on the subject. Then some are even attack on her by Fox. I have further done a few more goggle searches on the sources you posted below.

As I said there are not a lot of MAJOR BROADCAST links on goggle for her. I stand by my statement, and have discredited half of your posts on this subject that you inferred I did not know what I was talking about. Please do not waist my time by double posting the same articles and posting ones after the time