Here is a perfect example of what liberals do.
This guy is the chief news executive at CNN (a very leftist news organization) and this guy has known for YEARS about Saddam's torture methods.
So, even though he says that he couldn't report those specific incidents, when the preparation for war started, did he get behind the president to try and convince people that liberating the Iraqi people was right? No, quite to the contrary. CNN <B>continues</B> to be biased to the left, to this very day.
This guy didn't even need to share those specific examples that would have gotten his employees killed or tortured, all he would have had to do, is publish a few pieces on the Human Rights issue in Iraq...after all, the president was talking about liberating them, if he knew all this stuff, he should have SUPPORTED the president instead of trying to prevent war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinio...ner=GOOGLE
Liberals--who needs them? Not me.
I dunno... CNN is actually the news station I've been watching the most (since the other two tend to add too much of their own opinion to things) and they don't seem that biased, at least they aren't letting it sink into their reporting at any rate.
I've been signed up to the New York Times for quite a while now... its a very good news site...
Oh, and CNN is far from the perfect news channel but its still a thousand times better than MSNBC and Fox News combined...
Oh, and knowing this stuff goes on doesn't mean that he should support a war... by reading that it sure looks like he really couldn't say anything... do you think he should have or something? I;d think that would jeporadize all kinds of lives... even if he was more vague...
Obviously Sadaam's regime was evil. No one ever denied that. And I wouldn't say that no one reported that they were torturing people... or do you forget reports of people saying that sometimes people dissapeared and were never seen again...
But other countries do that and worse and have been for many years and we don't do anything about them... and in this case they've been doing that for a long time and we never did anything until now, after the problems had gotten less obvious (ie Sadaam hasn't had massacres of his people since just after the Gulf War when we let him slaughter those rebels after encouraging them to revolt)... so while its clearly good for the Iraqis that the regime is gone, I'm hardly going to delude myself into thinking that doing that had much of anything to do with why we went in... because it didn't...
Oh, and again: Why should knowing that make him support war? There are other measures that would have helped against the regime that were'nt war... Bush just refused to seriously consider them...
I've been watching Fox News, mostly because I like the anchors and because they actually, to as much as degree as they can, support the war.
We don't get Fox News on campus but if we did I wouldn't watch it... its got such a obvious rightwing bias. Not good.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
We don't get Fox News on campus but if we did I wouldn't watch it... its got such a obvious rightwing bias. Not good.
And I can say the exact same thing about CNN, only replace "rightwing" with "marxist sons of bitches". :D And I HAVE been saying that since before there even was a Fox News Channel. If you don't see it then that's just cause you're on the same side as them.
(And yes I CAN see that at least some of the people that work for Fox News slant to the right but they still give you the other side as well.)
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Jaguar
I dunno... CNN is actually the news station I've been watching the most (since the other two tend to add too much of their own opinion to things) and they don't seem that biased, at least they aren't letting it sink into their reporting at any rate.
You can't be serious. CNN is the most extreme of all the major news channels. If you don't notice the leftist slant of 90% of CNN's reporting, then you must half-way agree with them.
FoxNews and MSNBC are <B>MUCH</B> more fair and balanced. Only ABC rivals CNN in terms of biasedness.
Now that's a harsh thing to say. Maybe it's just because I don't pay attention to any opinion things they might say. I think maybe CNN is just more subtle about fitting in whatever agenda they supposedly have than Fox News.
I always change the channel when ANY news station starts actually having a "talk" with the reporter's "opinions" on things.
Eh, whatever.
Fox News Channel was created to try to combat "liberal media bias"... so naturally its rightwing...
As for CNN, I wouldn't say that they are all that liberal... I know that they sure don't look it to me...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I know that they sure don't look it to me...
And those would be the key words.
I would have to say that Fox News seems the most biased. Some guy was on yesterday using the war to bash Clinton. Luckily the anchor called him out on it and pretty much embarrased him. CNN isn't that far behind, though. I'd probably say that MSNBC is the most unbiased, but every news organization is biased so that isn't saying much.
your right both fox and cnn are extremely biased, so is Msnbc. As for ABC I honestly didnt even know they had news...
Here in Canada we have the CBC, terrible really. Stupid goverment owned station, they are also to the left. Only news I dont find biased is cfcf-12, some local Montreal channel
Quote:Originally posted by Italian_Pyro
Here in Canada we have the CBC, terrible really. Stupid goverment owned station, they are also to the left. Only news I dont find biased is cfcf-12, some local Montreal channel
WTF?
The CBC is no more liberal now than it was when the conservatives were in power. It has the same anchors as back then and everything. What you may notice is the fact that the CBC seems to reflect Canadian values which tend to be more liberal than american ones. They do recive government funding but the government doesn't have any direct control over them, the CBC also doesn't critisize the government to often, but they also treat the oposition parties witht he same level of respect.
I am convinced that Fox News is attempting to spread the "chosen people" syndrome that comes with nationalism, and I'm saddened that people really connect with that. Somehow, on Fox News, two minority students ,who were protesting the war, came off as incoherent, while this old man who advocated using brutal tortures on terrorists came off as respectable. But there was more. Later, when a woman was advocating that we tone down our righteous attitude by avoiding the word "evil," the conservative correspondent stated, "The greatest power of the devil is that he can put evil right in front of our eyes and we don't see it." Talk about irony.
I am also worried by Fox New's vocabulary. Saddam and his "cronies?" What is this, Saturday morning cartoons? Generalizations of good and evil are what made us think that Saddam was reasonable in the first place...what made us give him anthrax...because, well, he was the enemy of Iran. When will we face the fact that the world is a bit more complex than checkers. I guess it's okay for the populace to believe that this is a Saturday morning cartoon where the good guys are going to win, but when it gets into the heads of the people that have to make world-altering decisions, that's when I get worried.
I guess this discussion of bias is all relative to the individual's perspective, which makes it pointless to discuss "who is more biased." However, after watching an hour of Arab television on C-Span, one cannot help but see the great divide between the Western view and the Arab view. Every single US news organization looks incredibly US-biased relative to Abu-Dhabi TV.
But it is not enough to simply remark, "Wow, look at that chasm." There must be a point at which the US recognizes that the Arab world, including Arab moderates, believes that the United States is a source of evil in the world. And if we act foolishly to this, we will make a sad assumption, one that scarily parallels the war for independence in Algeria. We will assume that they have offended us, and then very sad things happen. Because once we define this assumption, we clearly define who "us" is. And with an "us," there is a "them." Until finally there can be nothing but conflict.
CNN is most definitely left-slanted with their news analysis, that cannot be denied. Their reporting usually seems straight, as it's mostly Associated Press stuff anyway.
MSNBC? Well they had Peter Arnett, a hero of morons and Antiwar protesters (if they can be differentiated), though they did let him go when he really made an ass of himself. Still, for the simple reason of hiring him...
Fox News analysis is to the right, which is why I love it, but the analysis is probably better than the others, especially O'Rielly and Hannity & Colmes.
Who doesn't like to see Hannity make asses out of the silly liberals? And some of them are so stupid even Colmes goes after them.
For example, there was a woman who sued a police department, can't remember what city, because they wore bands with the American flag on them, and she claimed that it was against statute to wear anything not a part of their uniforms, and claimed that it had nothing to do with the flag being a symbol of support for their nation. Then Colmes asks her if she would pursue this lawsuit had they been wearing peace signs. The woman responds, predictably, "No, that's different" yet cannot explain how it is different.
That's why I like Colmes. He's a liberal, but he will fire at a fellow liberal who is trying to push their agenda for the sake of pushing an agenda.
Yea...I only watch Fox news, but it is sno blatantly biased, despite their "your news, fair and balanced" slogan. Still, it's slanted to the right...which is the true, good side, so I'm good! :p
:bummed: Does anyone bother to read what I have to say? Oh well. Zelda will make me feel less ignored. She always listens to me.
I read your post...some of it...a little bit of it...okay actually I didn't read any of it.
:)
all media , regional, national , international all have their own biased agenda . The local newspappers in my town would never bash their owners ,Irving Oil Corp for enviromental violations and employee rights violations as Irving owns all the media in atlantic canada.
Ctv would never bash Westjet as they own a fare share in it but they do enjoy bashing Air canada to hell.
You will never see NBC bash mircrosoft .(owned)
I pretty much agree, Nintendarse...
I would say that people who like Fox News like it because they're rightwing too...
On CNN, they once in a while discuss the Arab networks and always are saying how they are biased against us and focus too much on the injured civilians... but I'd say that in many ways that sounds like it'd be more fair than CNN's 'we aren't wrong about anything' attitude about this war...
They think we are evil, we think they are evil... I see no easy solution to this problem... and yes I would say that it brings up scary possibilities for the future. Not many people are looking for what the facts about the situation are... and it'll only lead to a bigger and bigger divide that will surely cause more problems in the future...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I pretty much agree, Nintendarse...
I would say that people who like Fox News like it because they're rightwing too...
On CNN, they once in a while discuss the Arab networks and always are saying how they are biased against us and focus too much on the injured civilians... but I'd say that in many ways that sounds like it'd be more fair than CNN's 'we aren't wrong about anything' attitude about this war...
They think we are evil, we think they are evil... I see no easy solution to this problem... and yes I would say that it brings up scary possibilities for the future. Not many people are looking for what the facts about the situation are... and it'll only lead to a bigger and bigger divide that will surely cause more problems in the future...
Oh yes, Arab networks are much more fair and balanced than American news. Probably because you believed everything Baghdad Bob said right up to the point our first shells landed on the Information Ministry building. I bet it was a shock to you to hear that we were not in fact commiting suicide at the gates of Baghdad.
For you to say Arab TV is more fair is to say you believe him, because Al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi, and the others were airing his press conferences and reporting them as truth.
Of course I don't believe him... he was a press person so of course he's going to propagandize and act like they are winning... even while they got crushed... it was kind of funny to see how ridiculous his comments were... and there was very little truth in them, as I said before, except for when he said they wouldn't use chemical weapons (or did you forget me saying that?)...
And I haven't exactly watched much of those Arab channels, and I do know that they skew the viewpoint too... as I said, they focus a LOT from what I've heard on the humanitarian issues and don't spend enough time on how Sadaam is/was a evil person... they are right that we shouldn't be there, but it seems they do ignore the bad points of Sadaam's regime too much...
But the American channels' bias is worse.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Of course I don't believe him... he was a press person so of course he's going to propagandize and act like they are winning... even while they got crushed... it was kind of funny to see how ridiculous his comments were... and there was very little truth in them, as I said before, except for when he said they wouldn't use chemical weapons (or did you forget me saying that?)...
And I haven't exactly watched much of those Arab channels, and I do know that they skew the viewpoint too... as I said, they focus a LOT from what I've heard on the humanitarian issues and don't spend enough time on how Sadaam is/was a evil person... they are right that we shouldn't be there, but it seems they do ignore the bad points of Sadaam's regime too much...
But the American channels' bias is worse.
Those Arab networks were showing not just humanitarian imagery, they were repeating, and verifying what Baghdad Bob said. Arab news agencies were reporting that we were
losing the war and that we were commiting the fabricated atrocities that the Iraqi Information Ministry was telling them we were committing. How on earth is American media more biased than those who report blatant and obvious lies as fact?
Al'jeezera is probaily the most open minded Arab new network but even they have plenty of Bias as they are agiast the war.
Weltall, they did report all of his press conferences, but do you know that the more balanced networks (such as Al Jazeera) meant to say 'we believe him'? Sure, they do play all kinds of videos that our networks wouldn't (that video of the American POWs, all those movies from Bin Laden...), but still... I think they do try to be fair... and I doubt they said that he was telling the truth all the time. Anyone with eyes could tell he isn't...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Weltall, they did report all of his press conferences, but do you know that the more balanced networks (such as Al Jazeera) meant to say 'we believe him'? Sure, they do play all kinds of videos that our networks wouldn't (that video of the American POWs, all those movies from Bin Laden...), but still... I think they do try to be fair... and I doubt they said that he was telling the truth all the time. Anyone with eyes could tell he isn't...
That station represents a people who are mostly uneducated, poor and already indoctrinated with a dislike for everything to do with us. If they dedicate far more time to showing our POWs, Bin Laden Videos, Baghdad Bob speeches, each one of our mistakes and our fabricated military defeats than our victories and humanitarian efforts (Which al-Sahhaf claimed were all fabricated themselves), how can you possibly say they are more biased than our networks, who go only as far as to officially support the war?
I would say that just showing those videos doesn't negate everything else they say, like you seem to think...
Which is why I mentioned more than just the videos. Read more carefully.
I did... and they're not that one sided...
I heard that many Arabs were surprised when Baghdad was taken over, because they were led to believe that the war was going badly for us and that the people of Baghdad were taking up arms against us. They also didn't know that the Iraqi people despised Saddam.
Jesus, you talk about CNN like it's fucking Pravda... honestly I find it's quite alright, don't really see a difference with other stations...
Un, the American networks were surprised by how easily Baghdad fell too...
The Arabs probaily believed Iraq Information ministry ,which even the Iraqis were doubting at the very end.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Un, the American networks were surprised by how easily Baghdad fell too...
*sigh* Did you read anything in my post besides "surprised when Baghdad was taken over"?
Yeah. I just think that you're wrong about the Arabs believing him... they probably did take him a bit more seriously than they should have, but I very much doubt many people actually thought that Iraq was winning or "had us surrounded" or something...
And while it definitely surprised them when Baghdad fell so fast, that surprised US networks too.
I'm saying they believed all that because that's what the Arab stations were telling them.
The CBC played the American POW video, they also played the videos of the Iraqi soldiers who had been captured by Americans
I find in interesting how the US was upset that their soldiers were being "embaressed" on TV and how it violated the Geneva convention, but I don't belive they had anything to be embarased about, I don't think you should be embarased that you had to say what they told you too, considering they had a gun to your head.
But it was no more embaressing than the videos being carried by the American networks showing Iraqi POW's being forced to lie face down in the dirt for hours, and these were shown long before the other videos came out, and what about the prisioners being held by the US in Cuba, are their rights not being violated?
Oh that's right the US thinks the Geneva convention only applies to those who they are not fighting against
Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
The CBC played the American POW video, they also played the videos of the Iraqi soldiers who had been captured by Americans
I find in interesting how the US was upset that their soldiers were being "embaressed" on TV and how it violated the Geneva convention, but I don't belive they had anything to be embarased about, I don't think you should be embarased that you had to say what they told you too, considering they had a gun to your head.
But it was no more embaressing than the videos being carried by the American networks showing Iraqi POW's being forced to lie face down in the dirt for hours, and these were shown long before the other videos came out, and what about the prisioners being held by the US in Cuba, are their rights not being violated?
Oh that's right the US thinks the Geneva convention only applies to those who they are not fighting against
The difference is, we did not show the faces of the Iraqi POWs. That's where the line is. They not only showed our guys' faces, they paraded them like trophies, to say nothing of mistreatment and torture. That you don't differentiate that surprises me little, you are a liberal, after all.
As for the enemy combatants and terrorists we have in Cuba, you will note that their basic needs are provided for. They are kept in anonymity and are not revealed. They are allowed basic correspondence. We treat them much better than they deserve to be treated.
Quote: As for the enemy combatants and terrorists we have in Cuba, you will note that their basic needs are provided for. They are kept in anonymity and are not revealed. They are allowed basic correspondence. We treat them much better than they deserve to be treated.
Yes, that's true...I am disgusted that a member of a fellow western democracy would even dare compare out treatment of terrorists to how the Iraqis treat their POWS! It's disgusting and shameful. You don't have to support us, but you just as well don't need to critique us on such a blatantly exaggerate claim as that.
Do you honnestly Know how those Pows are being treated besides what they say on the news?Not that I care about terrorist rights.
Personally when it comes to Al'Qeada I dont believe they even desserve to live.Personally I feel they should be fed to the sharks.
The Iraqi Pows are no doubt treated well as U.S has alot to gain from encouraging surrender.
Yes, showing the faces of the American POWs might violate some rules... but they didn't mistreat the POWs, it seems, and did fix their wounds...
And we treat POWs well to both encourage surrender and to not get other countries going after us about breaking international law on that issue too...
Its just so funny that they put the big terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba... I bet the Cubans aren't exactly pleased... :)
"We know you hate this base and desperately wish we would leave, but that would require us deciding we want to leave and we don't. So let's put the terrorists we capture there!"
Strange, I saw the Irai POW's faces on the news
Oh well I guess now you'll just start saying that they weren't forced to talk on TV
Yes, that and something about distance -- you can only show faces from a certain distance away... and the Iraqis didn't follow that rule.
![[Image: db030414.gif]](http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030414.gif)
Accurate.
And its Doonesbury this time, not This Modern World... :)
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Accurate.
And its Doonesbury this time, not This Modern World... :)
I saw that today too. It's why I like Fox. They're biased, but at least they're biased in the right direction. :)
I like reading Doonesbury (and This Modern World (which is weekly, but not in most normal papers so it doesn't get run in color)) online because they are in color, unlike the versions in newspapers...
And I'd say that its better to be more accurate as opposed to blind one-sided patriotism like Fox does...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I like reading Doonesbury (and This Modern World (which is weekly, but not in most normal papers so it doesn't get run in color)) online because they are in color, unlike the versions in newspapers...
And I'd say that its better to be more accurate as opposed to blind one-sided patriotism like Fox does...
I wouldn't call some of the laughable anti-war media sentiment accurate by a long shot, but as we're obvious political polar opposites, I digress. I for one find it very refreshing that there's a news station that isn't totally preoccupied with anti-war rhetoric and believes that liberating an oppressed people and ending the lives and rule of the oppressor is well worth some sacrifice.
But then again, it's more important to tell us, for the billionth time, that humanitarian efforts will be hard, and that we should let the despicable and cowardly UN to control reconstruction, than it is to celebrate the freedom of almost two-thirds of our POWs.
Fair and balanced, baby. :woo:
I don't understand how you keep saying CNN is anti-war... I don't see that at all... all I see is a more balanced look at things with slightly less blind patriotism than Fox News...