Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-04-2007, 05:35 AM   #1
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 672
Israel
Offline
Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

This thread is based on the discussion I and Neil have started:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=562


The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.

I wish to avoid turning this into a political opinions thread, regarding Israel / Palestine or Republicans / Democrats etc. And keep it on the subject of the media choices what should we hear about in the news. For starters, lets try and stick with factual data rather then the language of the media discussion (a lot could be said about that, but I suggest to keep it for later on).

From that post:
Quote:
I'm betting dollars to donuts you heard about Jack Abramoff...
Who is that? what happened about him?
The name rings no bells?
You owe dollars to someone of your choice though a search has shown some items about the name (in Hebrew)

Neil have you still heard nothing about the Ramon conviction? Here it remained the talk of the day through the weekend. People still argue about it and about the effect it should have over male female relations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/mi...st/6320359.stm


Please feel free to bring up whatever central local news you have and we will see if it had any echo world wide?

Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 12:46 AM   #2
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

I heard about a high-level Israeli minister being accused of sexual improrieties, but in the version I heard it was the prime minister, and he had been convicted of rape!

While the real behavior behind the story is unplesant, I'm glad to hear that it wasn't so bad as I thought.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 03:08 AM   #3
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 672
Israel
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Well, I think whoever told you this was confused between multiple different issues:

The Israeli president is being accused of multiple "sexual improprieties", including one count of rape and many counts of sexual harassment and using his authority for sexual favors. The office of president in Israeli is only symbolic and has no authority at all, as I have listed somewhere above the link in the first message.

Another Israel (past) minister - Ramon - was just convicted of "sexual improprieties", after he kissed a young female army officer against her wishes. The case is far from clear cut, though the verdict is clear cut, and many feel the court has gone a little too far in this case, some even claim it was a conspiracy since Ramon announced he will perform a revolution in the Judicial system ...

I doubt I could count the number of investigation against the current Israeli prime, but all of them are about monetary issues, mostly about getting payments in circumvent ways (getting payed too much for his apartment when he sold it etc.).

Personally, I am not sure if the situation has gone worse or actually has a turn for better cleaner concept, which forces out all those who try to keep the "old ways" of doing things and find the law enforcement no longer keeps a blind eye...

Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2007, 09:27 AM   #4
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.
Hello Amir,

Here in the U.S., we're spoon fed politically driven stories that the media chooses to report, even when they're completely wrong. In fact, when they are wrong, the media usually doesn't print corrections. And the real story is usually a completely different picture which would change our view of the situation.

Here's one example:

Quote:
AP report wrote:
Sunni residents in a volatile northwest Baghdad neighborhood claimed Friday that revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques
Here's a link to one CBS news article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2207491.shtml

The AP and the Main Stream Media here in the U.S. painted a picture that was not true in an attempt to portray a politically driven message to the people.

Some of the truth:
http://patterico.com/2007/01/21/5714...not-destroyed/

You can't deny video that shows the mosques still standing. Yet there has been no correction to this fabulous story spread by the MSM here in the U.S.

It goes beyond what the media "forgets" to tell us into a whole new world where the media is only telling us what it wants us to hear. There is no more "truth" in news in the U.S.

If you want a liberal spin on things, read the NY Times or watch CNN. If you want a conservative spin, go to the Internet or listen to the radio.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 03:51 AM   #5
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
This thread is based on the discussion I and Neil have started:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=562


The purpose of this thread is to try to examine how much does the news change as it travels around the world. What aren't we told about other places? What does the media forget to tell us, which may change our entire view of situations, etc.

I wish to avoid turning this into a political opinions thread, regarding Israel / Palestine or Republicans / Democrats etc. And keep it on the subject of the media choices what should we hear about in the news.
See, Amir, here's the problem...the output of the US media cannot be discussed, except within the context of the encroaching monolith of the corporate MSM.

In 1996, Congress pretty much made it impossible for low-band radio outfits to get a license. Since then, the FCC (a committee empowered by Congress to oversee radio/TV giudelines are followed) has tried to open the door for media monopolization of the airwaves, but ppl of all political spectra fought back. Still, the struggle continues.

You can see the effects of such media blindness and corporate monopolization, from the local to the international level. Take the incident in Minot, ND, for example...

EXCLUSIVE... 911 Calls in North Dakota Town Reveal Dangers of Media Consolidation

Quote:
Five years ago this week, a one-hundred-twelve car train derailed just outside Minot, North Dakota - the state's fourth largest city. The accident occurred shortly before two in the morning on January 18, 2002. Minutes later, the train's conductor called the local emergency dispatch.

Minot, North Dakota 911 Dispatch Call.
Two hundred forty thousand gallons of anhydrous ammonia leaked out of the train producing a vapor plume that floated over the town. Limited exposure burns the eyes, the skin, and the lungs. Larger doses can shut down the human respiratory system. The chemical leak in Minot, North Dakota ended up killing one person. Approximately 330 were treated for immediate health problems and more than 1,000 people needed medical care for recurring illnesses in the next month. But questions remain to this day over how the crisis was handled and the role played by media consolidation.

The radio giant Clear Channel owned all six commercial stations in Minot, North Dakota. None of them broke into regular programming to provide emergency information to the city's residents. After the town's Emergency Alert System failed, local officials tried to call the stations - but no one answered. The stations continued to play music piped in from out of state.

The sociologist Eric Klinenberg examines this tragedy in the opening of his new book "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media." He obtained the 911 tapes from that night. In a moment Eric Klinenberg will join us here live, but first - let's hear some of the phone calls. These recordings have never been aired before.


Quote:
Amir wrote:
Who is that? what happened about him?
Jack Abramoff, indicted in the US on several counts of influence peddling and bribery (I believe, not sure of the details). A bigwig who was mixed up in lobbying scams, tied up intimately with quite a few Republicans. Apparently tied to Israeli interests (unethically used $ designated for US innercity kids, actually went for "security equipment," for settlers).

Quote:
You owe dollars to someone of your choice though a search has shown some items about the name (in Hebrew)
Apparently, I do!

Quote:
Neil have you still heard nothing about the Ramon conviction? Here it remained the talk of the day through the weekend. People still argue about it and about the effect it should have over male female relations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/mi...st/6320359.stm


Please feel free to bring up whatever central local news you have and we will see if it had any echo world wide?

Amir
Interesting. No, I haven't heard of it. As I said, the news we get in the US is muffled, and filtered.

When it comes to info re the Occupied Territories, it is HEAVILY filtered.

Amir, what do you think of this...? http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/index.php4

I like how it protrays the multilayered perspectives, within the ME.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 03:52 AM   #6
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
Hello Amir,

Here in the U.S., we're spoon fed politically driven stories
Correction…we're spoon-fed economically driven stories. Sometimes, the economics masquerades as a political agenda, but never forget that the MSM are a collection of corporations, and corporations, first and foremost, want to make money.

And so, the MSM focus upon media that attracts the viewer's attention, over widening the viewer's perspective. Infotainment.

Quote:
that the media chooses to report, even when they're completely wrong. In fact, when they are wrong, the media usually doesn't print corrections.
Correct. And, the retractions are often crammed at the bottom.

Quote:
real story is usually a completely different picture which would change our view of the situation.
Yep.

Quote:
Here's one example:

Here's a link to one CBS news article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2207491.shtml

The AP and the Main Stream Media here in the U.S. painted a picture that was not true in an attempt to portray a politically driven message to the people.

Some of the truth:
http://patterico.com/2007/01/21/5714...not-destroyed/

You can't deny video that shows the mosques still standing. Yet there has been no correction to this fabulous story spread by the MSM here in the U.S.
You forget an important detail. Michelle Malkin issued a challenge that Jamil Hussein did not exist. She said that she was off to Baghdad to interview him.

Of course, the Iraqi Minister of the Interior not only confimed that Hussein actually exists, but that he could be jailed for talking to the AP. Malkin issued a terse 4-word retraction on her website.

But then, of course, this isn't enough. The rightwingblogosphere (RWBoS) kept digging, and found out that (at least) portions of the story are bogus, exaggerated, or misreported (it is unclear, which).

Instead of decrying the slipping of journalistic ethics (Hussein is an alias, and this violates AP's ethical standards, to quote a person under a pseudonym), the RWBoS keeps trying to make this out to be some sort of attempt by AP, et al, to help the insurgency, by making the Occupation look so bad.

Let's be clear, here (and, I hope that we don't take up too much of this thread's time, with the subject): there simply IS no "Liberal Media Bias" within the MSM. There's plenty of data out there to support this.

Quote:
It goes beyond what the media "forgets" to tell us into a whole new world where the media is only telling us what it wants us to hear. There is no more "truth" in news in the U.S.
Well...there IS some truth: but it is getting increasingly sketchy.

Every year, Project Censored gives note to the 25 stories of that year that should have made it to the media.

Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006

Certainly, the fact that these stories never make it to the attention of the MSM gives proof to the lie of "Liberal media bias."

Quote:
If you want a liberal spin on things, read the NY Times or watch CNN. If you want a conservative spin, go to the Internet or listen to the radio.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Mark
Stop, please. Remember Judith Miller? Somehow, I don't remember her being a big antiwar critic. In fact, I believe that it was the NYT (and CNN) who paraded a nonstop hit parade of pro-military pundits pom-pom'ing the war in its early-days.

Funny how the "Mission Accomplished" signs aren't waving, anymore.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-08-2007 at 03:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2007, 04:05 AM   #7
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

And finally, there's the simple fact of how dangerous it is, for the media to do its job in certain areas of the world.

In Iraq, for instance, it is impossible for a Western journalist to get an accurate, firsthand picture of the "situation on the ground." Even the Iraqi journalists are under increased threat (both from the insurgents, and from a few detained, by the military).

This video gives an inciteful overview of the frustrations facing Western journalists, and Iraq (WARNING! video contains upsetting material, and should only be viewed by a mature audience).

Iraq: The Hidden War

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-08-2007 at 04:17 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2007, 02:06 PM   #8
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

*Bump*

Hey, this is a good topic: the media affects us all. No comment?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 05:01 AM   #9
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 672
Israel
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

I think the basic problem is quite simple, we can not filter the news from all over the world ourselves. There are a lot of others who do this for us (one simple example - news in Israel are in Hebrew, someone has to decide on the content to be translated, I have often found a very insightful article in Hebrew that was not translated to English, same goes for many others languages).

The modern media is commercially biased. At best, this only means they try and decide on the content that would interest ost people. At worst, they have some other economical interests (advertisement for example) that affect their intentions.

Further, many of the people in the media are not the best in the fields they cover. No one would expect a Nobel prize winning economist to write a weekly news papers column, or a genius in physics to write the scientific column. The same holds for all other regions, the writers are often just as qualified as the reader, yet we have the wrong impression they know what they write about.

Finally there are the personal views of those selecting the news for us. They can edit and promote some topics instead of others. This can pertain to any issue with differing view, from Global warming to local politics and international conflicts.


Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2007, 06:50 PM   #10
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Thumbs down Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
I think the basic problem is quite simple, we can not filter the news from all over the world ourselves. There are a lot of others who do this for us (one simple example - news in Israel are in Hebrew, someone has to decide on the content to be translated, I have often found a very insightful article in Hebrew that was not translated to English, same goes for many others languages).
Absolutely. I notice how the quality of media content in the English language is declining rather rapidly, just within the past 10 years.

It used to be that the NYT was the flagaship of Western journalism. Now, it's occasionally the laughingstock, of it.

Quote:
The modern media is commercially biased. At best, this only means they try and decide on the content that would interest ost people. At worst, they have some other economical interests (advertisement for example) that affect their intentions.

Further, many of the people in the media are not the best in the fields they cover. No one would expect a Nobel prize winning economist to write a weekly news papers column, or a genius in physics to write the scientific column. The same holds for all other regions, the writers are often just as qualified as the reader, yet we have the wrong impression they know what they write about.

Finally there are the personal views of those selecting the news for us. They can edit and promote some topics instead of others. This can pertain to any issue with differing view, from Global warming to local politics and international conflicts.


Amir
Lol, very well put. All true. I think we could put this post under the thread "We can all agree..."
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 02:13 PM   #11
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
You forget an important detail. Michelle Malkin issued a challenge that Jamil Hussein did not exist. She said that she was off to Baghdad to interview him.
No, I didn't. You're trying to sideline the issue. My point was about the AP story and the lies it told. Those lies have yet been corrected. Later AP stories even contradict the earlier one.


Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Let's be clear, here (and, I hope that we don't take up too much of this thread's time, with the subject): there simply IS no "Liberal Media Bias" within the MSM. There's plenty of data out there to support this.
ROTFL. Okay, I'll call. Show me the "plenty of data out there". I'd like to see it all.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 03:16 PM   #12
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
No, I didn't. You're trying to sideline the issue. My point was about the AP story and the lies it told. Those lies have yet been corrected. Later AP stories even contradict the earlier one.
Wrong. I am trying to bring the issue into perspective. The RWBoS were practically wetting their collective, virtual pants about "Jamilgate."

When a person makes an accusation and then is proven wrong, that's important to the issue. Michelle Malkin made an accusation, was proven wrong, and decided to make some case about collusion btw the AP and supporting terrorists.

If you want to go on telling 1/2 the story: be my guest. But please--don't try to pretend that you're telling it honestly; or completely.

Quote:
ROTFL. Okay, I'll call. Show me the "plenty of data out there". I'd like to see it all.

Mark
"All" of it would take several books, to fill (including the sham arguments, against).

This is a good start:

New Study Reveals Public TV Bias
And debunks conservative myths


Study Finds Lack of Balance, Diversity, Public at PBS NewsHour

"the Liberal Media" — A Poltergeist That Will Not Die

Quote:
In interviews on major networks, Goldberg has emphasized his book's charge that American media outlets are typically in step with the biased practices he noticed at CBS News — where "we pointedly identified conservatives as conservatives, for example, but for some crazy reason didn't bother to identify liberals as liberals."

But do facts support Goldberg's undocumented generalization? To find out, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg searched a database of 30 large daily newspapers in the United States. He disclosed the results in an analysis that aired March 19 on the national radio program "Fresh Air."

Nunberg discovered "a big disparity in the way the press labels liberals and conservatives — but not in the direction that Goldberg claims." Actually, the data showed, "the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does."

When Nunberg narrowed his search to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times — three dailies "routinely accused of having a liberal bias" — he learned that "in those papers, too, liberals get partisan labels 30 percent more often than conservatives do, the same proportion as in the press at large."
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim
Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage


Quote:
Executive Summary

The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.

The findings include:

On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.

Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.

The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.

Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
Media Matters applies Bozellian logic: Since GOP readers outnumber Dems, online newspapers must be conservative

Quote:
Summary: L. Brent Bozell III used data from a new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to suggest that programs such as PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Comedy Central's The Daily Show "can be identified as liberal since they are so passionately embraced by the Left." By that logic, online newspapers must be conservative, since the study found that Republican readers outnumber Democrats.
If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative

Quote:
Summary: Following up on Media Matters' in-depth study showing that Republican and conservative guests outnumbered Democratic and progressive guests on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press over a nine-year period, an examination of the guest lists for those programs during the first three months of 2006 showed that Republican and conservative dominance continued unabated.
"LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" STUDY MADE ITS POINT - BY BEING DEEPLY FLAWED

Previous Labeling Studies and Recent Examples

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-14-2007 at 03:22 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2007, 04:59 PM   #13
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Wrong. I am trying to bring the issue into perspective. The RWBoS were practically wetting their collective, virtual pants about "Jamilgate."

When a person makes an accusation and then is proven wrong, that's important to the issue. Michelle Malkin made an accusation, was proven wrong, and decided to make some case about collusion btw the AP and supporting terrorists.

If you want to go on telling 1/2 the story: be my guest. But please--don't try to pretend that you're telling it honestly; or completely.
The whole story? Well, let's see. AP, NYT, et. al. posted a story that was full of lies. No retraction, no correction. MM and the RWBoS caught them. According to you, MM posted that she erred in one part. AP, NYT, et. al. have yet to correct their lies. Now that's the whole story. Don't try painting a nice picture for the AP because they have yet to do what MM did. Not only that, but AP, NYT, et. al. have repeatedly used stories about the incident that contradicts other stories, yet none of them have printed retractions or corrections. That's the truth. Usage of terms like "practically wetting their collective, virtual pants" is merely a sidelining tactic that shows gaps in logistical analysis.

THE LIE: AP reported four mosques destroyed.
TRUTH: No mosques were destroyed.

Any sidelining of the above is just being a puppet for the MSM. The AP, NYT, et. al. are media and news outlets. Bloggers are supposedly not in their class. The former is supposedly professional and the latter is not.

And just to add further insult, there is zero evidence for anything else the AP reported in those stories.

You want to talk about honesty, you should be hammering the AP. Those stories had no truth to them and they still haven't issued a correction or an apology.

Nah, you won't though. You'll go on blaming MM or the RWGoS to uphold the AP and MSM. You'll call it bringing it into perspective just to hide the lies of the MSM.

Too off topic for me ... I'm done.

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2007, 12:54 AM   #14
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:

Too off topic for me ... I'm done.

Mark
Translation: I will go on believing what I want. Run awaaaay!!!

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-15-2007 at 01:06 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 10:44 AM   #15
Croft Stanfield
Location: British Columbia
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2
Canada
Offline
Smile Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Yes, the all aspects of the media are generally slanted to control people's actions and conceal much knowledge and wisdom that could be more beneficial. That is why humanity should know that there are fundamental laws governing life, human mind and the movement of time. World conditions are worsening because of lack of knowledge of that and many other factors. That is why it is important to carefully analyze and think logically in all respects.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 05:53 PM   #16
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Croft Stanfield wrote:
Yes, the all aspects of the media are generally slanted to control people's actions and conceal much knowledge and wisdom that could be more beneficial.
You lost me, Croft (unless, you are trying to be sardonic).

However, there's an old axiom among progressives..."The mainstream media is the propaganda of the status quo." This observation fits in well...and somewhat explains...the corporate, profit-driven motives of the MSM.

Corporations, first and foremost, seek profit. This is no different with the big media conglomerates. When a big corporation takes over a smaller outlet, the first thing that the corporation usually does is institute mass-firings and dismissals of whole sections.

Foreign news is often hardest hit. It's very expensive to keep a whole foreign news bureau going: far more cost-conscious to consolidate, at the risk of good journalism. Over a short time, we get slick, gloss infotainment, substituted for good watchdog journalism.

Quote:
That is why humanity should know that there are fundamental laws governing life, human mind and the movement of time. World conditions are worsening because of lack of knowledge of that and many other factors. That is why it is important to carefully analyze and think logically in all respects.
"Humanity" has less to do with it, than corporate greed.

Oh yeah, and one more thing...

Quote:
Mark Murray wrote:
You want to talk about honesty, you should be hammering the AP. Those stories had no truth to them and they still haven't issued a correction or an apology.
Mucho bombast, doth not a careful reading, substitute.

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Instead of decrying the slipping of journalistic ethics (Hussein is an alias, and this violates AP's ethical standards, to quote a person under a pseudonym), the RWBoS keeps trying to make this out to be some sort of attempt by AP, et al, to help the insurgency, by making the Occupation look so bad.
So, actually, I am ADVOCATING further investigation, and a toughening-up of AP standards. But then you go on and attempt to put words in my mouth...

Quote:
Nah, you won't though. You'll go on blaming MM or the RWGoS to uphold the AP and MSM. You'll call it bringing it into perspective just to hide the lies of the MSM.
Wrong. I want MM and the RWBoS to KEEP hounding the AP: but STOP mislabelling it as some sort of "Lib'ral media bias."

But, a considered reading of a post has to take a backseat to shrill bombast and mislabels, right Mark? Oh, that's right...you're "done..."

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-16-2007 at 05:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2007, 09:36 PM   #17
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
You lost me, Croft (unless, you are trying to be sardonic).

However, there's an old axiom among progressives..."The mainstream media is the propaganda of the status quo." This observation fits in well...and somewhat explains...the corporate, profit-driven motives of the MSM.
It's NOT an "old axiom", it's a trendy excuse of "why the MSM just can't be liberal". Problem is that every survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased. Oh... and gee, anyony who has been to a college with a School of Journalism knows it's obvious that almost all journalists and journalist schools are decidedly Left-wing. As one commentator pointed out.... "notice how the results of those surveys and analyses are not even mentioned by the MSM?" Just one more datum that the MSM doesn't want to report.

It's sort of like someone we know who only posts articles that will support his own extreme biases. Sort of an innate dishonesty.


Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2007, 02:08 AM   #18
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Problem is that every survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased.
Nonsense. I won't even bother to ask you for sources.

Quote:
Oh... and gee, anyony who has been to a college with a School of Journalism knows it's obvious that almost all journalists and journalist schools are decidedly Left-wing.
Ah, yes...the Mike Sigman "scientific method," revealed!




Quote:
It's sort of like someone we know who only posts articles that will support his own extreme biases. Sort of an innate dishonesty.


Mike
Funny, Mike: but you seem to end a lot of posts as if you're talking about yourself. Is this why you post self-contradictory sources? Gad, what two sides war within the one known as mike sigman??

Oh never mind...I really don't want to know...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-17-2007 at 02:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 04:52 AM   #19
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 672
Israel
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either

You can not generalize over so many self-interested people and groups into a single category.

Each organization works based on it's own economic interest and/or the interests of those involved.

Retraction diminishes the credibility of a news agency, it is therefore bound to be given way less publicity then the sensation being retracted. This has always been true, regardless of the facts of the particular case.

Do not be Naive and think everyone is ideologist. A few people in positions of import might actually have some political biased view, but others have other biases. The readers opinions often matter just as strongly as the reporters ...


Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 09:59 AM   #20
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either

You can not generalize over so many self-interested people and groups into a single category.
Well, my opinion of your judgement just declined, Amir. Of course the MSM is liberally oriented. Journalism is liberally oriented. Many journalists, even liberals, openly concede that the MSM is liberally biased... they're at least honest.

Notice, for instance, how crimes against Americans by foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., are seldom reported. The term "illegal alien" is avoided because it's not politically correct. Most people in our prison systems would vote or would prefer to vote Democrat. Minority crime rates, etc., are not reported fairly. Ethical lapses, misstatements, etc., by Democrats make very little news in the MSM, while a Republican who says something barely questionable will get weeks of coverage. A study of the top 3 *broadcast* (not cable) networks during the last election showed that ABC, NBC, and CBS coverage of the election heavily slanted in favor toward the Democrats.

The BBC.... I recently posted an article URL where members of the BBC admitted that the BBC is liberally biased.

It's very simple to judge bias, Amir. Most of us learned how in about the 7th grade. You read an article and separate out the adjectives and who they apply to; you look at what current news items are not reported, and so on.

I watched an interview with a prominent journalism teacher from Columbia University who, when read a list of things that the New York Times had published, simply said, "The Constitution calls for a free press, not an honest one". That's the cynicism of liberals. Their beliefs are as much a religion as the beliefs of fundamentalist religious zealots. Notice the instant cries of "racism" recently... anything that goes against the socialist belief that "everyone is equal and we shouldn't be judgemental except against the US and the Jews" is heretical.

In other words, the "socialism" that was so trendy in the 20's and 30's (of the last century) carried forward all the way to the present.... college-educated journalists force that view on the world with the same zeal the self-righteousness that the Religious Right would have if they were in power. It's about forcing others to accept your views, Amir... even if you have to lie to make people believe in how morally correct you are. A great example was Walter Durante of the New York Times who refused to report that 6 million people in the Ukraine died of starvation while he was there... he felt that socialism was so correct that those 6 million people shouldn't be mentioned in case it smeared the good name of socialism.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 12:30 PM   #21
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
News flesh - the MSM is not liberal
Second news flesh - the MSM is not conservative either
Exactly. It's a corporate enterprise: which means that money comes first...ideology (even for outfits like FoxNews) second.

Quote:
The readers opinions often matter just as strongly as the reporters ...


Amir
Possibly, even moreso.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-18-2007 at 12:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 01:10 PM   #22
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

A good example is this "report" that just came out from UNICEF that the US and UK rank lowest in taking care and bringing up their children, among the industrialized nations. Sounds astounding. In fact, it's just as astounding that one-fourth of all UN resolutions are against Israel and the just as astounding that the UN is notably anti-US.

Take infant mortality. The US reports all infant mortality figures, including deaths of premature infants, infants we try to save that other countries pronounce dead and don't even try to save, etc. So actually infant care in the US is far higher than in all the other industrialized countries that have "diverse" populations (remember some 'cultures' within the US are not great child-rearers... that's not the US's fault).

OK, so the point is..... do a Google search right now and see how many MSM outlets have done an expose on the infant-mortality figures, etc., and how many have simply reported the UNICEF (that our "Oil for Food" guys and the panel includes North Korea and other America haters) report as is. If it had been a report by Bush, it would have been analysed and shown to yield proof that Bush is a criminal.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 02:18 PM   #23
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Journalism is liberally oriented.
Still waiting for all of those huge reams of

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
survey and analysis in the last five years has said definitively that the MSM is certainly liberally biased.
I suppose that we'll just have to consider these specious claims in the same light as calling me an anti-Semite, "prooving" that Joe Wilson lied, etc, ad nauseum.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Many journalists, even liberals, openly concede that the MSM is liberally biased... they're at least honest.

The BBC.... I recently posted an article URL where members of the BBC admitted that the BBC is liberally biased.
What ppl think of themselves (or what they SAY of themselves) is a very different animal from what they actually are.

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Notice, for instance, how crimes against Americans by foreigners, illegal aliens, etc., are seldom reported. The term "illegal alien" is avoided because it's not politically correct.

A study of the top 3 *broadcast* (not cable) networks during the last election showed that ABC, NBC, and CBS coverage of the election heavily slanted in favor toward the Democrats.
Notice, for instance, how Mike just happens to omit any link to any such study, so that we cannot judge its criteria for measurement. Who needs sources, when you can jaw on, infinitum, about moons made of green cheese and the prosaic biases of journalism?

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Most people in our prison systems would vote or would prefer to vote Democrat.
Another example of speculative nonsense. You cannot possibly know this, for sure. Besides, what's the relevance? Perhaps you're suggesting that journalists underreport crimes by "illegals" so that they might get lighter sentences and be out on the streets, voting Democrat with abandon and mayhem??

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Ethical lapses, misstatements, etc., by Democrats make very little news in the MSM,
This is silly, on its face. Remember the "slip" of a joke Kerry made about the troops? Or the Dean "victory-yell?"

Have you got ANYTHING to confirm this little piece of fiction?

Quote:
It's very simple to judge bias, Amir. Most of us learned how in about the 7th grade. You read an article and separate out the adjectives and who they apply to; you look at what current news items are not reported, and so on.
Yes, and its a shame you don't try it.

Quote:
I watched an
unidentified

Quote:
interview with
an anonymous

Quote:
journalism teacher from Columbia University who, when read a list of things that the New York Times had published, simply said, "The Constitution calls for a free press, not an honest one".
Quote:
Their beliefs are as much a religion as the beliefs of fundamentalist religious zealots.
Number of journalists that Mike has probably actually talked to, personally, about media bias: 0

Quote:
Notice the instant cries of "racism" recently...
in response, to your recent spate of racist postings.

Quote:
anything that goes against the socialist belief that "everyone is equal and we shouldn't be judgemental except against the US and the Jews" is heretical.

In other words, the "socialism" that was so trendy in the 20's and 30's (of the last century) carried forward all the way to the present.... college-educated journalists force that view on the world with the same zeal the self-righteousness that the Religious Right would have if they were in power.
You haven't visited many Schools of Journalism of late, have you? If you had, you'd have noticed an increasing (and disturbing) pattern of the meshing of Journalism and Public Relations departments, together. The NYT, et al, is increasingly becoming inseparable from Madison Avenue...NOT the Communist Manifesto.

Quote:
It's about forcing others to accept your views, Amir... even if you have to lie to make people believe in how morally correct you are.
A technique of which you are intimately familiar, no doubt.

Quote:
A great example was Walter Durante of the New York Times who refused to report that 6 million people in the Ukraine died of starvation while he was there... he felt that socialism was so correct that those 6 million people shouldn't be mentioned in case it smeared the good name of socialism.

Mike
Ah yes, when the grandiose statements about "piles and reams" of (unlinked and undocumented) studies fall away: we're left with the usual anecdotes, of course proving nothing.

And here's where your thesis falls dead, and the flaw exposed.

See Mike...you assume here that Durante "felt that socialism was correct." But, from what I can tell, NO ONE HAS REALLY DOCUMENTED, WHY DURANTE failed to report the famine.

Certainly, he didn't...but it could well have been sloppy journalism (which he'd been guilty of, before '32 and since); it could also have been an attempt to curry favor with the Soviet regime.

NPR did a pretty good segment on it, back in '03:

Talk of the Nation: 1932 Pulitzer Prize

Yes...it could EVEN have been an attempt to bury the story, because he "felt that socialism was correct." But, you have no proof of this.

All you really have, is an example of a journalist, not doing his job. But of course, you try to spin incompetence, into bias.

I can easily point to similar case that blows your contention out of the water. In 1945, Walter Laurence, ANOTHER NYT journalist who won a pulitzer, extolled the "wonders" of the atomic bomb, having never even seen the aftermath of Hiroshima, and all while in the pay of the US gov't.

Hiroshima Cover-Up

Quote:
In the spring of 1945, a remarkable meeting took place secretly at the headquarters of The New York Times in Times Square in New York City. General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, which was the name of the program that was developing atomic bombs for the U.S. military, came to Times Square to The New York Times and met secretly with Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, the Editor-in-Chief of The New York Times, and William Laurence. At that meeting, he asked Laurence if he would become a paid publicist, essentially, for the Manhattan Project. So, while simultaneously working as a newspaper reporter for The New York Times, he would also be writing essentially propaganda for the War Department.
(No doubt, he only took the position because he thought he could slip in some pro-Soviet coded manifesto's, in between the lines of his propaganda, for the US gov't )

Quote:
DN! wrote:
Officially he was asked to put in layman's terms the benefits of atomic weapons and the development of atomic power. Other New York Times reporters were unaware of this arrangement, this dual arrangement where he was being paid by both the government and the newspaper and, in fact, were somewhat mystified when Laurence began taking long leaves of absence.

Well, the government's investment in Laurence paid off in spades because he was rewarded for his loyalty. He was also writing -- ended up writing statements for Secretary of War Stimson and for President Truman himself. He was rewarded by being given a seat in the squadron of planes that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. I'll read to you a little excerpt of Laurence's dispatch. In general, his writing -- well, these days journalists would call it purple prose, but it was often imbued with these messianic themes about the potential and power of atomic weapons.

Now, Laurence went on to write a series of ten articles about the development of the atomic bomb. This is -- this and his reporting about the Nagasaki bombing won him the 1946 Pulitzer Prize in reporting. He seems to have been completely unashamed and unrepentant of what was clearly an egregious conflict of interest by any of the most basic canons of journalism ethics. Laurence later wrote in his memoirs about his experience as a paid publicist for the War Department. He wrote, quote, "Mine has been the honor, unique in the history of journalism, of preparing the War Department's official press release for worldwide distribution. No greater honor could have come to any newspaperman, or anyone else for that matter."
So, Mike: where's the "leftwing media bias" evident, in Laurence's actions? Notice? I am not attempting to force some questionable idealist motivations upon Laurence (as you seem to do, for Durante). Laurence makes clear his motivations in his memoirs, anyway, and unless you have some secret memoir of Durante's tucked away, all you have is speculation, as to his motives and biases. You've presented a pretty poor case for MSM "lib'ral bias (no surprise)," indeed, filled as it is with anecdote, speculation and a telling lack of sources.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-18-2007 at 02:32 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 02:44 PM   #24
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Think about it a second, Neil. You have a reputation for taking the extreme "make America look bad, hurray for socialist liberals" position.... the very fact that you're in vehement denial about liberal bias in the MSM is enough to convince everyone that it's true. Er, for the few who don't already realize it.

Just as an example that really got my attention, I found an article regarding the press coverage by the MSM of the Swift Boat Veterans' coverage. Now the interesting thing with that coverage was that many in the MSM were embarrassed into making excuses about why they tried to kill that story by not covering it and it was the start of the current anger by the MSM against "bloggers" who spill the beans but who "don't have proper journalism credentials" (like the fact that they got caught gatekeeping the truth is not embarrassment enough for "proper journalists"):

All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news. The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.

After Kerry, the deluge. On August 24, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and an editorial on the Swifties; other papers expanded their coverage as well. But, curiously, they didn't try to play catch-up with the new media in ascertaining the veracity of the Swifties' claims. Instead, they pursued (or rather, repeated) the charge Kerry made: that Bush was behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was a touch surreal--as it would have been if Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe's criticism of Bush's National Guard record had prompted the media to investigate Terry McAuliffe.

But even here, it seemed their hearts weren't in it. In Time magazine, Joe Klein called the whole affair "incendiary nonsense." As the Los Angeles Times observed in an editorial, "Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question." As last week wore on, the coverage continued to ignore the specifics of the allegations against Kerry and began to concentrate on the dangers of the new media. In the New York Times, Alessandra Stanley warned that in the seedy world of cable news, "facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer--without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection." It is perhaps impolite to note that it took the Times nearly four months to catch up with the reporting Carl Cameron did in the beginning of May.

STILL, the baying of the Times and the rest of the old media is a sign of capitulation. Against their will, the best-funded and most prestigious journalists in America have been forced to cover a story they want no part of--or at the very least, they've been compelled to explain why they aren't covering it. How did this happen? Analyzing how the Swift boat veterans had injected their story into the mainstream media, Adam Nagourney blamed summer. The Swift boat ad buys, he wrote, had "become the subject of television news shows . . . because the advertisements and [Unfit for Command] were released in August, a slow month when news outlets are hungry for any kind of news."

But Nagourney has it exactly backwards: Even though it was August, network television and most cable news shows stayed away from the Swift boat story for as long as they possibly could.

Instead, James O'Shea is right. An informal network--the new media--has arisen that has the power to push stories into the old media. The combination of talk radio, a publishing house, blogs, and Fox News has given conservatives a voice independent of the old media.

It's unclear which of these was most critical for bringing the Swift boat story out into the open. Without Unfit for Command, the story would never have had a focal point with readily checkable facts. Talk radio kept the story alive on a daily basis. The blogs served as fact-checkers vetting the story, at least some aspects of it, for credibility and chewing it over enough so that producers and editors who read the blogs could approach it without worrying they were being snookered by black-helicopter nuts. Despite all that, however, no other medium has the reach of television, which is still the only way to move a story from a relatively small audience of news-obsessives to the general public.


Oh... and don't forget the extreme embarrassment and humiliation to Dan "Rathergate" Rather when they got caught submitting.... just before the election... a false story that was supposed to sway the voters.

Got any instances of MSM media bias to the Right, Neil? And of course, to you, you may think I mean "any media not liberal must be Rightist", but I don't. I don't like either extreme... I happen to like the truth.


Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2007, 04:05 PM   #25
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Media Coverage Local Vs Int'l &Ignorance

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Think about it a second, Neil. You have a reputation for taking the extreme "make America look bad, hurray for socialist liberals" position....
Correction: In your continual effort to censor this site, you attempt to paint me as some sort of anti-American.

And, socialism is a part of the fabric of this country. You can thank the socialists for the 40-hour work week, retirement benefits, and unions...none of which would exist, without the socialists pushing these reforms, in the early party of the 20th C.

Quote:
the very fact that you're in vehement denial about liberal bias in the MSM is enough to convince everyone that it's true. Er, for the few who don't already realize it.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Talk about recursive tautological fallacies!
"Neil argues against it: therefore, Liberal media bias MUST exist, by definition!" Too funny. You really should do a pseudo-political comedy-act, Mike...you're missing your calling.

Quote:
Just as an example that really got my attention, I found an article regarding the press coverage by the MSM of the Swift Boat Veterans' coverage.
(notice how Mike conveniently skips over my last post, and all its implications).

Quote:
Now the interesting thing with that coverage was that many in the MSM were embarrassed into making excuses about why they tried to kill that story by not covering it
Proof, that they "tried to kill" the story...?

Nah, didn't think so...

Quote:
and it was the start of the current anger by the MSM against "bloggers" who spill the beans but who "don't have proper journalism credentials" (like the fact that they got caught gatekeeping the truth is not embarrassment enough for "proper journalists"):

All the while, traditional print and broadcast media tried hard to ignore the story--even as Kerry officially changed his position on his presence in Cambodia. Then on August 19, Kerry went public with his counter assault against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and suddenly the story was news.


Newsflash, Mike: this is what we in the journalist-watchdog biz, call "politics." Until Kerry answered the charge: it was all just sleezy namecalling. The whole "swiftboat" story was a Rove-inspired hit on Kerry. You can see the pattern in the piled corpses of political careers and lives destroyed by the Rove-Bush duo. Remember John McCain and the allegations that he had an AA child, out of wedlock?

Quote:
The numbers are fairly striking: Before August 19, the New York Times and Washington Post had each mentioned Swift Boat Veterans for Truth just 8 times; the Los Angeles Times 7 times; the Boston Globe 4 times. The broadcast networks did far less. According to the indefatigable Media Research Center, before Kerry went public, ABC, CBS, and NBC together had done a total of 9 stories on the Swifties. For comparison, as of August 19 these networks had done 75 stories on the accusation that Bush had been AWOL from the National Guard.

After Kerry, the deluge. On August 24, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and an editorial on the Swifties; other papers expanded their coverage as well. But, curiously, they didn't try to play catch-up with the new media in ascertaining the veracity of the Swifties' claims. Instead, they pursued (or rather, repeated) the charge Kerry made: that Bush was behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was a touch surreal--as it would have been if Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe's criticism of Bush's National Guard record had prompted the media to investigate Terry McAuliffe.

But even here, it seemed their hearts weren't in it. In Time magazine, Joe Klein called the whole affair "incendiary nonsense."
That's because it WAS incendiary nonsense.

Quote:
As the Los Angeles Times observed in an editorial, "Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law is not a very interesting question." As last week wore on, the coverage continued to ignore the specifics of the allegations against Kerry and began to concentrate on the dangers of the new media.
Reality-check for Mr. Sigman!

Vietnam War: 1963-1975

Bush-Kerry race for Presidentcy: 2004

Yeah, that "new media..." all "dangerous" and everything, for bringing up a 40-year-old topic that America MUST know, in the midst of an election-year.

It didn't seem very important in 1970-2002...but NOW! the MSM is CLEARLY censoring the news, because they wish for Kerry to win.

I suppose that the MSM was being "Liberally biased," when they called the election early for Bush, in 2000. No doubt the MSM wanted Bush to be elected, so that they could laugh so hard at his policies, that Kerry would be a shoe-in, in 2004.

Uh huh.

Quote:
The combination of talk radio, a publishing house, blogs, and Fox News has given conservatives a voice independent of the old media.
Nah...what these oufits want is control of the old media.

Quote:
lear which of these was most critical for bringing the Swift boat story out into the open. Without Unfit for Command, the story would never have had a focal point with readily checkable facts. Talk radio kept the story alive on a daily basis. The blogs served as fact-checkers vetting the story, at least some aspects of it, for credibility and chewing it over enough so that producers and editors who read the blogs could approach it without worrying they were being snookered by black-helicopter nuts. Despite all that, however, no other medium has the reach of television, which is still the only way to move a story from a relatively small audience of news-obsessives to the general public.
Too funny, Mike. Really, consider comedy. All this diversion over a story that his gone on, largely unproven.

Swiftboating

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
The name comes from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization's negative portrayal of 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam and subsequent antiwar activities. Although many of the charges were unverifiable or subsequently disproven, they were disseminated widely[3] leading to swiftboating's reputation as a controversial but effective form of "smear campaign".[4]
So, once again, Mike tries to paint some fantastical conspiracy onto the MSM, based this time on their understandable reticence to give full and immediate coverage to a transparent smear campaign.

I mean, even a 9-year-old could figure out that the Swiftboat nonsense was political axe-grinding. Unless, of course: you're someone who ALREADY has their political hatchett well-honed (*looking significantly at Sigman...*)

Quote:
oh... and don't forget the extreme embarrassment and humiliation to Dan "Rathergate" Rather when they got caught submitting.... just before the election... a false story that was supposed to sway the voters.
Wrong, wrong, wrong again. Sorry, but you try yet again to print a lie and pass it off as some sort of "proof."

The REAL story is that the documents that CBS presented for the story could not be authenticated. Nice attempt at spin, Mike.

The real story is right here:

Quote:
wikipedia wrote:
The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved an unknown number of documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard. The documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but had not been properly authenticated by CBS and were subsequently characterized as likely forgeries by a number of expert forensic document examiners (see: Killian documents authenticity issues).

The documents had been obtained by CBS News producer Mary Mapes from Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard (TexARNG). In the report, Dan Rather asserted the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian's personal files" and that they had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s.

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[1] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[1][2]

The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination.

Several months later, a CBS-appointed independent panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[3] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."
So, we really don't know if the documents are authentic, or not. But, it's certainly a misnomer to label the whole story false (as I'm sure you're well aware).

W's chronicles of how he dodged active-duty in Vietnam doesn't need fake documents to support it:

Dan Crashes--Bush Flies High

Quote:
Greg Palast wrote:
Rather's "unsubstantiated story of Bush's military service" (says USA Today) got him canned. Yet, all the poor man did was repeat a story we put on BBC Television a year earlier — that Poppy Bush put in the fix to get his son out of ‘Nam and into the Texas Air Guard, spending his war years guarding Houston from Viet Cong attack.

But Dan never reported this: the documentation from inside the US Department of Justice detailing the fix. Why not? Because it opened up a far more serious charge: that those who kept Little George out of war's way ended up very well rewarded. We ran that full story — from the evidence of the fix to the evidence of the lucrative pay-backs — on the world's biggest network, BBC, and we've never retracted a comma of it. Nor, by the way, has the White House denied our accusations despite our repeated offers to respond.

We know George Bush was a Naval Aviator because it says so right on his toy box. Actually, he never was a Naval Aviator and never once landed a plane on the deck of an aircraft carrier. During the Vietnam War, our future President flew in the Texas Air National Guard protecting Houston from Viet Cong attack. Our President obtained that job the same way he got the current one: The fix was in.

Congressman Poppy Bush, said Rather, put in the fix for his son, despite Junior's too-dumb-to-fly test scores, by putting in a call to the head of the Texas Air Guard via Texas Lt. Governor Ben Barnes. That's what Dan Rather reported on 60 Minutes, that Bush Jr. got the Texas top gun post, and thereby dodged the draft and the bullets of Vietnam. It was a hell of a scoop and his network rewarded him and his producer, Mary Mapes, by firing their sorry asses. That wasn't enough.

The president of CBS, Leslie Moonves, bullwhipped his network's stars and, with his own spit, polished the soiled war record of our President, declaring that Rather's producer: …ignored information that cast doubt on the story she had set out to report — that President Bush had received special treatment thirty years ago, getting to the Guard ahead of many other applicants.

Really? Well, Mr. Moonves, look at this evidence: "His [George W. Bush's] dad called then - Lt. Gov. Barnes to ask for his help to get his son not just in the Guard, but to get one of the coveted pilot slots which were extremely hard to get. [Barnes, through a "cut-out," a third party,] contacted General Rose at the Guard and took care of it.
George Bush was placed ahead of thousands of young men, some of whom died in Vietnam."

The real story, for me, is that Little George was just one of a dozen privileged princelings saved from the dangers of their powerful daddies' wars. Barnes did not give help to Bushes only. The man who actually made the call to the Air Guard for Little George at Barnes' request also confirmed that at Barnes' request, he also put in the fix for sons of Democratic big-wigs, Governor John Connally and Congressman, later Senator, Lloyd Bentsen.
Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote:
Got any instances of MSM media bias to the Right, Neil?
Sorry, Mike: I don't (unless you want to count VNR's, Armstrong, and his pseudo-journalism, shilling Bush-inspired dogma about No Child Left Behind, on the news, failing to identify himself as independent from the gov't. But really, that doesn't count, because it wasn't officially approved by the media outlets, and so it doesn't really count as bias...more like sleezy, underhanded tactics).

Unlike you: I don't try to imagine some farcical conspiracies about the media. I try to look to the facts, even when someone is desperately trying to obscure them, with disingenuous (and still not even a single documentation of) claims of political bias.

Again, the bias is economic, not political. I think it hysterical that you utterly ignore and fail to post anything about the FCC's attempts to broaden the monopolization of the media.

You saw on forever about the "new, internet media, going boldly where no MSM has gone before;" and yet you have nary a single word, about net neutrality...even tho such disparate groups as Moveon.org, the NRA, and some evangalist groups all stood up, shoulder to shoulder, to fight for net neutrality in Congress.

While on the other side, utilities apparently pulled out all the stops and hired every single lobbyist they could, to aid their cause.

I suppose you're too busy pouring over adjectives and vitriolic blogs to realize the wider implications of this struggle. Not too surprising...just a little sad.

Quote:
I happen to like the truth.
Mike
Man, if that doesn't qualify for the "Great Lies of All Time, That We Tell Ourselves," I don't know what does.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 02-18-2007 at 04:16 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2016 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2016 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate