Do you hear that ticking Mr Moore?

[Bishop Hedd]

You just discovered the liberal press now??

 

Yeah, in other news, the sky is blue and the earth is round.

308726[/snapback]

 

 

It's the great conservative catch-all for everything bad that happens to them: Blame the media!

 

 

Also add "Hollywood elite" to my ever growing list as well.

 

 

If anyone else wants to lend a hand with some right wing buzzwords feel free.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

It's the great conservative catch-all for everything bad that happens to them: Blame the media!

Also add "Hollywood elite" to my ever growing list as well.

If anyone else wants to lend a hand with some right wing buzzwords feel free.

308737[/snapback]

You doing pretty well by yourself.... Keep thinking I am sure you will be able to add to the list if you look deep inside and let the truth out... its very liberating isn't it?

 

[/dev/null]

Gotcha.

Now to get back to the thread, if Dev Null's out there I'd like to ask what the basis for the thread was? That was actually my original reply to the topic. Did he give up Show Biz-which is unlikely because the man obviously has a big ego- or are you just throwing out red meat to the hounds?

308472[/snapback]

 

trying to interject his brand of humour on the pope vote shows how far off the radar he's dropped

[RuntheDamnBall]

You just discovered the liberal press now??

 

Yeah, in other news, the sky is blue and the earth is round.

308726[/snapback]

The myth continues. The only thing the "press" is slave to is capital. Whatever will sell papers, ad space/time, etc. etc. Same for CNN as it is for Fox News. Same for the Washington Post as it is for the Washington Times. Most "reporting" is so devoid of content that the Daily Show, fake backdrops and all, provides more truth.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The myth continues.  The only thing the "press" is slave to is capital.  Whatever will sell papers, ad space/time, etc. etc.  Same for CNN as it is for Fox News.  Same for the Washington Post as it is for the Washington Times.  Most "reporting" is so devoid of content that the Daily Show, fake backdrops and all, provides more truth.

308785[/snapback]

 

Read Ari Fleischer's new book for a reasonable description of "liberal bias" in the media. If you can get around his obvious bias as a conservative press secretary (and stomach his incessant repetition of "there's liberal bias in the media", which he repeats to the point of sounding whiny), he makes some pretty good points. To tell the truth, his observations of the media in general (not just bias) scream for a true scholarly study of how the media presents itself and its stories.

[SilverNRed]

The myth continues.  The only thing the "press" is slave to is capital.  Whatever will sell papers, ad space/time, etc. etc.  Same for CNN as it is for Fox News.  Same for the Washington Post as it is for the Washington Times.  Most "reporting" is so devoid of content that the Daily Show, fake backdrops and all, provides more truth.

308785[/snapback]

Yes...."myth".......

[IDBillzFan]

The myth continues.  The only thing the "press" is slave to is capital.  Whatever will sell papers, ad space/time, etc. etc.  Same for CNN as it is for Fox News.  Same for the Washington Post as it is for the Washington Times.

308785[/snapback]

All true. Except keep in mind that going after the capital means creating a need, and then filling the need. News agencies create need by generating fear that all is wrong and few things are right. They pepper some 'good will' stories here and there to keep people on their toes, but otherwise keep to the bad stuff. After creating the fear, they can then tell people: Turn to us for all the crap happening in the world today.

 

Case in point: the hostage situation in Iraq that didn't exist. Everyone was SO quick to talk about this horrible, horrible event. HUNDREDS HELD HOSTAGE!!!! Yet when it came to be that it was all a bunch of crap, did it get lots of airtime? No. Why? Because the media was literally manipulated into running a story with no basis in fact...simply because whomever pulled the stunt knew that they'd all bite.

 

And what was missed in the process? The fact that the charge to go after the hostage-holding insurgents was run exclusively by Iraqi law enforcement. No US troops involved.

 

A suddenly free country is getting is legs underneath itself and learning to operate on its own, but it goes unnoticed. Why? Because there's no money in finding out that things are getting better in Iraq.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yes...."myth".......

308806[/snapback]

One isolated headline from Bloomberg (owned by a Republican mayor, BTW) doesn't cut it. if you were citing a comprehensive quantitative or textual study, that would be one thing, but you're just airing out this one like so much dirty laundry to bring up the point that there is always something to be angry about, and cite one article out of context to point out that "Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal media."

 

No mention of the fact that the party that is most angry about the media has almost total control of the government, and even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter because the "opposition" is so limp-wristed it can hardly be named as such.

 

It is ludicrous to point to one side or the other as the source of the problems when it's the system that has been poisoned by power and greed.

[RuntheDamnBall]

All true. Except keep in mind that going after the capital means creating a need, and then filling the need.  News agencies create need by generating fear that all is wrong and few things are right. They pepper some 'good will'  stories here and there to keep people on their toes, but otherwise keep to the bad stuff. After creating the fear, they can then tell people: Turn to us for all the crap happening in the world today.

 

Case in point: the hostage situation in Iraq that didn't exist. Everyone was SO quick to talk about this horrible, horrible event. HUNDREDS HELD HOSTAGE!!!! Yet when it came to be that it was all a bunch of crap, did it get lots of airtime? No. Why? Because the media was literally manipulated into running a story with no basis in fact...simply because whomever pulled the stunt knew that they'd all bite.

 

And what was missed in the process? The fact that the charge to go after the hostage-holding insurgents was run exclusively by Iraqi law enforcement. No US troops involved.

 

A suddenly free country is getting is legs underneath itself and learning to operate on its own, but it goes unnoticed. Why? Because there's no money in finding out that things are getting better in Iraq.

308896[/snapback]

Fear sells. As an aside, gun rights and ownership aside (I have no problem with them as long as people respect them for what they are and the laws are enforced and obeyed), the gun industry is as guilty of this as the media.

 

And I would hardly say that Iraq's emergence as a "suddenly free country" is going unnoticed. The election was a gigantic story and a success in the face of a lot of naysayers (I myself thought it would not go as successfully, though my hopes and thoughts were with all the people courageous enough to go out and vote). This story stemmed the tide of negative ones. Now, the media feels more comfortable going back to the use of the obvious fear that our men and women are in harm's way and capitalizing on it. This is a complicated struggle and should be covered as such, but I will agree that there is a tendency to fish for the bad stuff because a lot of people are still not comfortable with the way we went to war.

 

Regardless, the media is sensational to the core because it has to go to great lengths to get our attention in a world with myriad distractions. And this includes fishing for stories, fabricating stories, fabricating identities as paid spokespersons and journalists.

[KRC]

As an aside, gun rights and ownership aside (I have no problem with them as long as people respect them for what they are and the laws are enforced and obeyed), the gun industry is as guilty of this as the media.

309108[/snapback]

 

 

Please elaborate. Are you referring to the "they want to steal your guns" and "people will continue to die if you don't support these gun control measures" stuff?

[Alaska Darin]

One isolated headline from Bloomberg (owned by a Republican mayor, BTW) doesn't cut it.  if you were citing a comprehensive quantitative or textual study, that would be one thing, but you're just airing out this one like so much dirty laundry to bring up the point that there is always something to be angry about, and cite one article out of context to point out that "Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal media."

 

No mention of the fact that the party that is most angry about the media has almost total control of the government, and even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter because the "opposition" is so limp-wristed it can hardly be named as such.

 

It is ludicrous to point to one side or the other as the source of the problems when it's the system that has been poisoned by power and greed.

309080[/snapback]

There was a 1992 study that stated that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton. You can't get 89% of any single group to agree on the weather but I suppose these very same folks are able to put aside their obvious bias and report evenly.

 

Whatever.

[Alaska Darin]

Please elaborate. Are you referring to the "they want to steal your guns" and "people will continue to die if you don't support these gun control measures" stuff?

309116[/snapback]

C'mon, only conservatives are guilty of such behavior. Liberals never use emotion for ill gotten gain.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Please elaborate. Are you referring to the "they want to steal your guns" and "people will continue to die if you don't support these gun control measures" stuff?

309116[/snapback]

Yeah, that kind of rhetoric coming from both sides of the debate, for sure.

 

I also think it's safe to say that guns are marketed to people who have no respect for them and no real idea how to use them because there are "predators" out there and one has to "protect the family and property."

 

The kind of people who are swept into this give all the people who are really careful and respectful a bad name. I suppose it's just like the rest of society that way, though.

[RuntheDamnBall]

There was a 1992 study that stated that 89% of journalists voted for Clinton.  You can't get 89% of any single group to agree on the weather but I suppose these very same folks are able to put aside their obvious bias and report evenly.

 

Whatever.

309129[/snapback]

I think we can agree the media climate is pretty different from 1992 in every way. Post 9/11, significant deregulation of media, and so forth.

[KRC]

Yeah, that kind of rhetoric coming from both sides of the debate, for sure.

 

I also think it's safe to say that guns are marketed to people who have no respect for them and no real idea how to use them because there are "predators" out there and one has to "protect the family and property."

 

The kind of people who are swept into this give all the people who are really careful and respectful a bad name.  I suppose it's just like the rest of society that way, though.

309132[/snapback]

 

I am not sure if I agree with the marketing aspect you mention, but I also do not have numbers to back up my claims. You will see guns glorified in movies and TV, but that is not the fault of the gun industry. That is the fault of the media.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I am not sure if I agree with the marketing aspect you mention, but I also do not have numbers to back up my claims. You will see guns glorified in movies and TV, but that is not the fault of the gun industry. That is the fault of the media.

309144[/snapback]

You are probably right on that account, I don't have the numbers either, it is just a general perception I have and it probably does rest more on the media. That said, one has to admit the gun industry certainly profits from the glorification of guns in movies and TV and it would be nice to see the NRA step up and say something about it (or have they?).

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, that kind of rhetoric coming from both sides of the debate, for sure.

 

I also think it's safe to say that guns are marketed to people who have no respect for them and no real idea how to use them because there are "predators" out there and one has to "protect the family and property."

 

The kind of people who are swept into this give all the people who are really careful and respectful a bad name.  I suppose it's just like the rest of society that way, though.

309132[/snapback]

Which explains why over 200,000,000 privately held legal firearms in this country have never been used in the commission of a crime.

 

The Clinton Administration publically admitted that firearms in the hands of private citizens were used to stop over 750,000 crimes annually (the numbers are probably a bit low, but that's over 2,000 crimes A DAY). Surprisingly, there are few media accounts of such endeavors, yet if someone is murdered it is on the front page or headline of virtually every news outlet in the country.

 

But let's pretend it's the gun industry that's the problem.

[BuckeyeBill]

Fahrenheit 9/11 just plain sucked. There were so many problems with the "so called" facts in that movie. I felt dumber after watching it.

 

I can see his 15 minutes coming to a halt very quickly. Hatred will attract people for a little bit, but not for long. Michael Moore is all about hate. Hate Republicans, hate conservatives, hate Bush, hate America.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Which explains why over 200,000,000 privately held legal firearms in this country have never been used in the commission of a crime.

 

The Clinton Administration publically admitted that firearms in the hands of private citizens were used to stop over 750,000 crimes annually (the numbers are probably a bit low, but that's over 2,000 crimes A DAY).  Surprisingly, there are few media accounts of such endeavors, yet if someone is murdered it is on the front page or headline of virtually every news outlet in the country.

 

But let's pretend it's the gun industry that's the problem. 

309168[/snapback]

Darin, I'm sorry I said anything about guns because it obscures my point, and I half-knew the backlash over one line would weigh more heavily than the rest of what I thought were good points.

 

1) I never said that the gun industry is the problem. I just meant it profits in the same way from a culture of fear. I don't think that can be denied, and if you do I suppose that's just our difference of opinion.

 

2) In the same posts I lauded responsible gun owners. What else do I have to do to make it clear I am not against the second amendment or responsible gun owners?

[KRC]

You are probably right on that account, I don't have the numbers either, it is just a general perception I have and it probably does rest more on the media.  That said, one has to admit the gun industry certainly profits from the glorification of guns in movies and TV and it would be nice to see the NRA step up and say something about it (or have they?).

309149[/snapback]

 

We live in a capitalist society. Of course, if the demand is there the gun manufacturers will make more guns. Simple supply vs demand that works in ANY industry, not just guns.

 

The NRA has ALWAYS said that guns need to be used safely. They spend millions on gun safety courses targeted at a variety of individuals (kids, women, law enforcement, private citizens, etc). The reason why you do not hear more from the NRA is because the media purposely suppresses their views. They want to paint the NRA as an eeeeevil organization, so the less that people hear from their POV, the better.