"Tracy Barber" <Mohawky@adirondack-pc.com> wrote in message
news:3f9c45ac.13239686@news-server.nycap.rr.com...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:16:23 -0700, "%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote:

"Tracy Barber" <Mohawky@adirondack-pc.com> wrote in message
news:3f9c3747.9553871@news-server.nycap.rr.com...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:04:08 -0700, "%" <surfs@uniserve> wrote:

"Joe User" <noone@noone.com> wrote in message
news:4hbopvkgecqe3944lalt53vi2ms14t18oj@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:19:19 GMT, devilman
<noone@sodifjoijsdfsdfoisdf.com> wrote:

Joe User wrote:

I love that law suit from Fox
news against the book.The Fox News Channel is "Fair and
balanced"?Yeah-and I'm the Pope

Oh like the NY times or Washington post are. Face it, Americans

are

really sick of the liberal world loving agenda, we have our own
problems, we don't give a ***** about the world's. We don't give

a

***** about social justice for the pathetic of the world when our

own

are going without. We don't care about the plight of immigrants

when

Americans are losing their jobs for the sake of "efficency"

(a/k/a

cheap labor). Such is life in the 21st Centruy.

The flower children of the 60's FAILED, they are aging, it's time

for

them to move out of the way before they are kicked out of the

way.

The NY Times and Washington Post are both conservative papers.

This

has

well documented in studies.

Please, in compairsion to what, The communist's "worker's world"?

They

are so commited to liberalism , they like other radical liberals are
"sleeping" with the NeoCons.

The conservative and some of the liberal media is just waking up to
the "exporting of America" ie. globalisation, massive immigration,

and

saying how it has to stop or we will lose our country. The New York
Times is babbering NeoCon *****, "The foriegners are investing

here

too! It's win win, everybody wins!"

***** them, I like most americans will settle for "inefficencies" and
higer prices if that means we get to keep our country, that's a

price

worth paying.

there are no such thing as americans ,

Tell that to the Native Americans that came over the Russian land
bridge, a long, long time ago... :^P

and you already don't have your own country ,
but you might when you finish paying for Iraq to be rebuilt

With a "little" help from our "friends".

Tracy Barber

read what you just wrote will ya ,
you're asking me to tell the russians that they aren't americans ,
i think they would know that , " native americans from russia "
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ,
well Tracey , they'd be what ya call immigrants just like the rest of you
are ,

^^^^
^^^

See above. %, you're an immigrant as well. :^P

only maybe they did it first

That is correct-o!

Tracy Barber

i've never denied it ,
in fact i know exactly how it happends ,
i am a decendant of British ancestry ,
and what you are calling native americans had to come through canada first

devilman wrote:

Pinwheel wrote:

devilman wrote:

Indigo Moon Man wrote:

devilman <noone@sodifjoijsdfsdfoisdf.com> spake thusly:

No it's not. While there are a few conservative news outlets, the media
is by and large very liberally biased IMO.

If the media has a liberal bias, why was Al Gore criticized more heavily
than Bush during the presidential campaign?

Well, the answer to that is simple... he wasn't. The 'Bush is stupid' crap
started almost from the day Bush announced he was running. And let's not
forget the cameras lingering on Al Gore's eye rolling every time Bush was
speaking during the debates. A more despicible display you'd be hard
pressed to find in Presidential campaigning history on anybody's part and
yet the media gave it almost full time live coverage. The Dems have done
nothing but run him down from the beginning and the media by and large has
been their more than willing pawn, Fox News Network and Rush Limbaugh being
the two notable exceptions to the rule.

You hardly rely on facts do you. The Pew Charitable Trusts Project has
documented the media's actions during the campaign. Gore was criticized
harshly much more than Bush.

PCT is also a huge supporter of National Public Radio which, like most
non-profit media organizations, is left-leaning. No big secret there,
but it's worthy of consideration. I would be hard-pressed to find any
news/media organization that doesn't have a discernable political slant,
and this often makes "fact" more of a matter of perspective than
objective. It's tricky.

NPR does not distort facts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean
Hannity, and Fox News does. The latter have been proven to be
unreliable and use lies to further right wing agenda. I have yet to
hear proof that NPR is left and biased. It is all hearsay to me.

You missed my point. I didn't claim that NPR distorts facts. What I was
getting at is that the "facts" are often open to interpretation. No
matter how "objetcive" or balanced a media organization is, they are
selective in what kind of news they represent and how it is presented.
Certainly, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al, are interested in furthering the
right-wing agenda; that's their job, after all.

FWIW, I've found NPR to be well balanced in presenting the news, and
their approach is refreshing. But, as with any media organization,
politics are going to play a role. You can't divorce the two: NPR is a
"by the people for the people" station, and will tend to approach hotly
debated political topics from a humanist perspective that you don't get
from conservative news programs (such as "man in the street" interviews
and stories). But "by the people for the people" is a creedo most often
associated with democratic and liberal-democratic principles. That's not
a criticism. That's how it is. Every news show will have some degree of
bias because they're targeting different audiences.

devilman wrote:

Pinwheel wrote:

devilman wrote:

Indigo Moon Man wrote:

devilman <noone@sodifjoijsdfsdfoisdf.com> spake thusly:

No it's not. While there are a few conservative news outlets, the

is by and large very liberally biased IMO.

If the media has a liberal bias, why was Al Gore criticized more

than Bush during the presidential campaign?

Well, the answer to that is simple... he wasn't. The 'Bush is

started almost from the day Bush announced he was running. And let's

forget the cameras lingering on Al Gore's eye rolling every time Bush

speaking during the debates. A more despicible display you'd be hard
pressed to find in Presidential campaigning history on anybody's part

yet the media gave it almost full time live coverage. The Dems have

nothing but run him down from the beginning and the media by and

been their more than willing pawn, Fox News Network and Rush Limbaugh

the two notable exceptions to the rule.

You hardly rely on facts do you. The Pew Charitable Trusts Project

documented the media's actions during the campaign. Gore was

harshly much more than Bush.

PCT is also a huge supporter of National Public Radio which, like most
non-profit media organizations, is left-leaning. No big secret there,
but it's worthy of consideration. I would be hard-pressed to find any
news/media organization that doesn't have a discernable political

and this often makes "fact" more of a matter of perspective than
objective. It's tricky.

NPR does not distort facts like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean
Hannity, and Fox News does. The latter have been proven to be
unreliable and use lies to further right wing agenda. I have yet to
hear proof that NPR is left and biased. It is all hearsay to me.

You missed my point. I didn't claim that NPR distorts facts. What I was
getting at is that the "facts" are often open to interpretation. No
matter how "objetcive" or balanced a media organization is, they are
selective in what kind of news they represent and how it is presented.
Certainly, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al, are interested in furthering the
right-wing agenda; that's their job, after all.

FWIW, I've found NPR to be well balanced in presenting the news, and
their approach is refreshing. But, as with any media organization,
politics are going to play a role. You can't divorce the two: NPR is a
"by the people for the people" station, and will tend to approach hotly
debated political topics from a humanist perspective that you don't get
from conservative news programs (such as "man in the street" interviews
and stories). But "by the people for the people" is a creedo most often
associated with democratic and liberal-democratic principles. That's not
a criticism. That's how it is. Every news show will have some degree of
bias because they're targeting different audiences.
--
Pinwheel *****
|||||