[Machette]

I said I was finished with this thread but whatever. Firstly I only have to use only one argument to justify the bedding theory. The iraq war. FAIR did a study stating just how ignorant the press was in its reporting.

* Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.
* At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.
* Sources affiliated with anti-war activism were nearly non-existent. On the four networks combined, just three of 393 sources were identified as being affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than 1 percent. Just one of 267 U.S. sources was affiliated with anti-war activism-- less than half a percent.

http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.html

The report goes on to conclude many other mistakes. The corporate media was literally banging the drums for war, no objectivity was heard. It was all let's go to war to fight for freedom..no one even questioned the actual rationale for war. Another one of my favorite media stories was the Micheal Gordon - Judith Miller articles (work for NY times, the most liberal media outlet) They wrote stories that would later be pardoned by the editorial staff at NY Times, they literally told their readers "sorry we printed this stuff". The articles that were published were based on false facts and government sources that were told to leak info to the press. President Bush actually would quote the article in a press briefing at his ranch. Now this is only one example, I'd rather not go on because it's highly tedious and exhaustive and I know only a small fraction of American society can actually grabble the media theories. And that's fine I guess. And I always hear "the media is liberal" I've never seen hard facts...can you give me some studies or something I'm interested.

EDIT:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270005

[c312]

don't need studies, just watch tv. Most major networks are clearly anti-Bush. Sometimes you don't need studies, just observations. Watch 4 hours worth of network news (other than Fox) and tell me they don't have something that is anti-Bush administration or critical of it, whether it's "truth" to you or not doesn't matter, it's there. It being "truth" or not is debatable, depending on which side you are on.

Also, right before the Iraq war, there was an extremely high approval to invade...I don't attribute that to the news as much as I do to the fact that at the time, we thought Iraq was a threat and the echo of 911 was still in everyone's ears. Not to mention most of our elected officials, both democrats and republicans stood up in congress and argued for war. The media wasn't the only one who wanted to go to war, almost everyone did.

[Machette]

Alright, let's drop the liberal media argument already because I find it utterly hard to believe there is one. And yes I wouldn't mind stats or some proof because the argument is highly weak. When I flick through the channels and see blizters the situation room I see both sides argued. I know they bring in a republican and democrat to debate each political issue..how on earth is that liberal bias. Do I see huge amounts of coverage of the outcry on the wiretapping issue from profs from gerogetown or ny university? No I do not. The media consistently covers topics that they want you to see. They'll show the daily bloodshed in Iraq which is reported horribly enough as it is. Then they will move on to political issues such as immigration maybe bring on a immigrant protestor and some right wing researcher at cato to debate. Chris matthews the host of hardball is a conservative. He is supposedly even running for congress..know how is that liberal bias? Well what about scarborough country.. the host is a former republican..see where I am going? To say the media is fully biased sounds like something you heard from a conservative pundit. The media in general is shit. And please don't even get me started on Fox News. I could write a nice formal essay on them.

[c312]

Maybe I should do an experiment when my exams end. I'll watch NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS and I'll write down what I see.


Also, I've been thinking about those stats you posted earlier. Isn't it possible and even highly likely that the percentages of anti-war people who were on tv was proportionate to the amount of anti-war people in the population, meaning there were few of them on tv because there were few of them in the US population?

[Machette]

Probably a small minority because as the quote I have as my signature signifies..its not hard to pursuade the public. I can give you a perfect example here in Canada based on the election we just had. Everyone started raising support for the conservatives because they were going to cut taxes. In the papers I was reading only small paragaphs questioned if it would work. Later when they were elected economist pointed out it would only benefit the rich in Canada. When people see something that looks like it will work they'll go along with it. The public - a large majority of it - is so easily pursuaded by just about anything. The media morphs public opinion.