Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 2, 2004 OK, MRC has done their annual year-end awards for bad reporting. For those on the left who can't fathom why anybody would think the media might tilt a bit to the left, read these quotes. But, I will give you their award-winner for absolute worst comment made by a journalist this year: “If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.” – Charles Pierce in a January 5 Boston Globe Magazine article. Kopechne drowned while trapped in Kennedy’s submerged car off Chappaquiddick Island in July 1969, an accident Kennedy did not report for several hours. Read on. If you want to understand the "press is liberal" frame of mind, these will go a long way in explaining it. http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof...3/bestquote.asp And, while this is a conservative site, virtually every single quote from TV has a link to a video clip of what was being said, so claims of "taken out of context" won't wash nearly as well. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2004 That maybe the worst ever. What a fucking insult to that woman's family. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2004 Wow. That is one of the greatest quotes I have ever read. Please note "great" isn't to be used as a good thing here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2004 Aren't the Kennedy's worshipped in Massachussetts? It would at least partly explain the idiotic comment that "journalist" made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 2, 2004 OK, MRC has done their annual year-end awards for bad reporting. For those on the left who can't fathom why anybody would think the media might tilt a bit to the left, read these quotes. The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted January 2, 2004 The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. To add, at least in my mind, when it comes to politics, it's either centrist or shading to the right. I've found "What Liberal Media?" (the Bible, apparently, for left-wing media critics) to be full of some serious horseshit in spots. And he also deregulates himself after an extended period of time to a non-funny Al Franken. Does it bring up good points? Yes, which I've used on the board before. But there are some Ann Coulter-level mistruths in there. It's not even funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2004 OK, MRC has done their annual year-end awards for bad reporting. For those on the left who can't fathom why anybody would think the media might tilt a bit to the left, read these quotes. The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. When did being pro-choice become a "leftist" stance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 Since being pro-life became a "rightist" stance... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 3, 2004 OK, MRC has done their annual year-end awards for bad reporting. For those on the left who can't fathom why anybody would think the media might tilt a bit to the left, read these quotes. The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. No pundit argues that the media's bias are due to a conspiracy. It's groupthink. Journalists tend to be left of center and tend to hang out with other people who are left of center. Thus, they believe that liberal positions are mainstream and that nobody can honestly disagree with their beliefs. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 3, 2004 OK, MRC has done their annual year-end awards for bad reporting. For those on the left who can't fathom why anybody would think the media might tilt a bit to the left, read these quotes. The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. When did being pro-choice become a "leftist" stance Because, believe it or not, A LOT of people have a problem with abortion. And since pro-lifers are branded as right-wing, it only follows that pro-choicers are leftist. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 3, 2004 The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. To add, at least in my mind, when it comes to politics, it's either centrist or shading to the right. I've found "What Liberal Media?" (the Bible, apparently, for left-wing media critics) to be full of some serious horseshit in spots. And he also deregulates himself after an extended period of time to a non-funny Al Franken. Does it bring up good points? Yes, which I've used on the board before. But there are some Ann Coulter-level mistruths in there. It's not even funny. Let's just go ahead and say that EVERY study that shows journalists vote Democratic by an 80%+ clip. I have a simple question for you: Let's say a black man is accused of murder. Let's say the detective is known to, in the past, have uttered racist words and engaged in racist behavior. Would you assume that the officer could put his prejudices aside and be impartial in his job? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. To add, at least in my mind, when it comes to politics, it's either centrist or shading to the right. I've found "What Liberal Media?" (the Bible, apparently, for left-wing media critics) to be full of some serious horseshit in spots. And he also deregulates himself after an extended period of time to a non-funny Al Franken. Does it bring up good points? Yes, which I've used on the board before. But there are some Ann Coulter-level mistruths in there. It's not even funny. Let's just go ahead and say that EVERY study that shows journalists vote Democratic by an 80%+ clip. I have a simple question for you: Let's say a black man is accused of murder. Let's say the detective is known to, in the past, have uttered racist words and engaged in racist behavior. Would you assume that the officer could put his prejudices aside and be impartial in his job? -=Mike Mark Fuhrer? While it is very possible that the black man could have committed the murder and that the detective had undergone a fair and impartial investigation, it would be asinine for anyone involved in trying to solve the case to let him handle it as his credibility is obviously gone and that odds are his opinion might just be a tad skewed. I wouldn't trust him personally, especially due to the behaviour part. Racist words are one thing, to act on it is another. But what kind of question is that? Would you trust a KKK member to come up with a fair and impartial hearing as to what the extent of punishment should be for some black guy that was jaywalking? Doubtful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 3, 2004 The media does tilt to the left. But that's mainly on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights). It isn't a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! as some pundits would have you believe. To add, at least in my mind, when it comes to politics, it's either centrist or shading to the right. I've found "What Liberal Media?" (the Bible, apparently, for left-wing media critics) to be full of some serious horseshit in spots. And he also deregulates himself after an extended period of time to a non-funny Al Franken. Does it bring up good points? Yes, which I've used on the board before. But there are some Ann Coulter-level mistruths in there. It's not even funny. Let's just go ahead and say that EVERY study that shows journalists vote Democratic by an 80%+ clip. I have a simple question for you: Let's say a black man is accused of murder. Let's say the detective is known to, in the past, have uttered racist words and engaged in racist behavior. Would you assume that the officer could put his prejudices aside and be impartial in his job? -=Mike Mark Fuhrer? While it is very possible that the black man could have committed the murder and that the detective had undergone a fair and impartial investigation, it would be asinine for anyone involved in trying to solve the case to let him handle it as his credibility is obviously gone and that odds are his opinion might just be a tad skewed. I wouldn't trust him personally, especially due to the behaviour part. Racist words are one thing, to act on it is another. But what kind of question is that? Would you trust a KKK member to come up with a fair and impartial hearing as to what the extent of punishment should be for some black guy that was jaywalking? Doubtful. The question IS: Why do you assume that cops can't put aside their prejudices, but journalists can? What makes a reporter able to do that? Don't tell me their education because I've taken criminal justice AND journalism courses and I can tell you that the journalism courses were politically biased. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Your Paragon of Virtue 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 I never said that cops can't put aside his prejudices, but if he's actually acted on it then that is a different story. A cop who believes that all black people are stupid is one thing, but a cop who has pulled over people for the sole reason that they were black and driving a fancy car is another. That's not important though, as the final decision would be ruled on someone other than the cop. Going back to your question about journalists, well, I don't really trust journalists to make unbiased decisions. They *do* make biased decisions, and to try and prove this is pointless since we all know this. However, they can only go so far, since a news story is still a news story at heart. It doesn't matter how biased someone might be in favour of Michael Jackson, there would be many things that could be pointed out, by the Jacko fan themselves that would only be a detriment to MJ's character. Obviously they could put their own spin on things, but the truth is still in there somewhere for others to make a judgement. A pastor would include their own personal beliefs in their political views, and if a reporter doesn't agree with the War on Iraq then why wouldn't they criticize it? It's only natural. (I would have quoted this, but for some reason whenever I try to quote Mike the part where you press 'post message' or whatever does not pop up. Weird) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 If a reporter doesn't agree with the War on Iraq then why wouldn't they criticize it? They can criticize it all they want. In the Opinion section of a newspaper... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 3, 2004 No pundit argues that the media's bias are due to a conspiracy. It's groupthink. Journalists tend to be left of center and tend to hang out with other people who are left of center. Thus, they believe that liberal positions are mainstream and that nobody can honestly disagree with their beliefs. The whole LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! thing was obviously a joke. I also feel you're unfairly implying that journalists are elitist snobs who don't listen to the other side. Many so-called "liberal" positions ARE mainstream (i.e. the pro-choice side of the abortion issue). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted January 3, 2004 Many so-called "liberal" positions ARE mainstream (i.e. the pro-choice side of the abortion issue). What the hell? I'm pro-choice (only up to the point of viability, though) without parental notification and even I know that most Americans do NOT agree with me. If you seriously believe that's a "mainstream" position, it only proves Mike's point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 3, 2004 No pundit argues that the media's bias are due to a conspiracy. It's groupthink. Journalists tend to be left of center and tend to hang out with other people who are left of center. Thus, they believe that liberal positions are mainstream and that nobody can honestly disagree with their beliefs. The whole LIBERAL CONSPIRACY~! thing was obviously a joke. I also feel you're unfairly implying that journalists are elitist snobs who don't listen to the other side. Many so-called "liberal" positions ARE mainstream (i.e. the pro-choice side of the abortion issue). And you make my point for me. Pro-choice is no more mainstream than pro-life, going by virtually every poll taken on the issue. If you truly believe that your position IS mainstream, even if it is not, then you will not seriously listen to an opposing viewpoint. More than a few journalists stated that nobody they knew supported the war --- yet support for the war was rather widespread. Pauline Kael, in 1972, said that nobody she knew voted for Nixon --- after Nixon had just pulled off one of the biggest popular vote landslides in history. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 4, 2004 This poll was posted a short time ago on this board. Here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Most people I know are pro-choice. I would assume that JMA thinks that the pro-choice position has more supporters than the pro-life one because of actual human interaction, rather than compiling facts and figures tainted by the GIANT LIBERAL MEDIA~! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricMM 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Well I dunno where JMA is from, but it's probably an urban area. Where I live (College Park) of course more people than not are Pro-choice. It's a college campus. There are probably entire counties in this country where EVERYONE is pro-life. But not around cities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Most people I know are pro-choice. I would assume that JMA thinks that the pro-choice position has more supporters than the pro-life one because of actual human interaction, rather than compiling facts and figures tainted by the GIANT LIBERAL MEDIA~! Most people I have talked to (people who aren't very into politics) support the pro-choice argument. There has to be a good reason for it (the abortion, that is), though. Hell, even most sensible pro-lifers will make exceptions in the case of the Big Three (rape, incest, danger to the mother). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Most people I know are pro-choice. I would assume that JMA thinks that the pro-choice position has more supporters than the pro-life one because of actual human interaction, rather than compiling facts and figures tainted by the GIANT LIBERAL MEDIA~! Nobody is arguing that the media's left-wing tilt is intentional. But, going by that poll alone, 43% of the country oppose abortion. Thus, stating that pro-life is MAINSTREAM is a misnomer. It is a majority opinion, but it does begin to qualify as mainstream. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 The thing is that the pro-choice crowd really doesn't have anybody like the pro-life bombers. These terrorists (no distinction is necessary) make the pro-lifers look bad, and affirm thoughts in pro-choice peoples' heads that yes, any sane person would agree with them instead of the bombers. And heck, I'm pro-choice and even I recognize that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 The thing is that the pro-choice crowd really doesn't have anybody like the pro-life bombers. *Biting lip* I'm so not touching this thread's new topic twist with a 10-foot keyboard... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 No, I'm sorry, but if there was someone out there equally violent on the pro-life side making the news, it would be turning people off from that ideology too. It's like the fundie Christians draggin' the Republicans down. All's well and good until the scum at the bottom rises up and makes a mess for everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Most people I know are pro-choice, but that doesn't make it mainstream. Basically because most people I deal with are young 20-something know-nothing degenerates, who have been spoon-fed liberal causes and liberal propaganda via television, movies, school and through products their whole life. If one bases mainstream opion on soley their surroundings, then they're missing the entire picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted January 4, 2004 The thing is that the pro-choice crowd really doesn't have anybody like the pro-life bombers. Um...........pro-choicers fucking KILL unborn babies Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Um...........pro-choicers fucking KILL unborn babies Well, that's your perogative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 4, 2004 Um...........pro-choicers fucking KILL unborn babies Well, that's your perogative. It's not my perogative -- I don't slaughter the unborn. I just wait until they turn 15 years old and die, along with six of their friends, in a car crash. *Touched topic, runs to wash hands...* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
