perfect example of merdia bias

[meesterperfect]

Sometime in the late 90's I realized just how biased most of the media is in the U.S..
The massacre of men women and children in Waco opened my eyes.
At the time I, like most of the world thought that Koresh and the Davidians were some wacko anti government cult militia because thats what the media told us.
a few years later during the investigation I realized the media was just covering the ass of the Democratic President at the time, who was covering for the FBI, who were covering for the ATF. It was during those hearings that I watched the democratic congressman attack witnesses and experts who gave tesimony to the real motives, the lies, the cover-up, just to protect their livelhood and protect their power.., regardless of the truth.
Thats when I not only stopped being a democrat, I began to consider most of them an enemy of the people, most people at least.
Thats when I realized the news media and the democrats were one in the same and will tell the people anything to make their side have/keep the power.

I love this one, almost subliminal, done with pure intent to sway the readers point of view toward " Republican bad", "U.S. bad".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081005/wl_nm/us_iraq_attack

Bomber strikes during U.S. raid in Iraq, 11 killed .
Not Religious fanatic suicide bomber kills 11.

Eleven Iraqis were killed on Sunday during a U.S. raid on a home in northern Iraq

Three women and three children were among those killed during the raid, not The enemy or crazy murderer killed 3 woman and 3 children
During the raid, not when the sick fuck detonated the bomb.
And the very last paragraph is simply one sentence , The U.S. soldiers later found weapons and explosives in the building, the military said.

Ah so they were the bad guys?

Most of you probably read it and don't think twice, just fall for it.
And you may think this is a lame example.
I've been noticing this type of journalism since about 6 months after the destruction of Saddams dictatorship, right around the time when the same dems who backed BUSH in the decision to take out Saddam turned 180 degrees in order to regain power over you and your money.

I hate the news media beacause I feel they owe the people the truth, but the twist almost everything in order to have control over us.

 

[Torre82]

Years ago, I hated my adopted parents. Now I hated adoption and parents.

Just sayin'.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'm not really sure what you're driving at. :dunno:

A news reporter isn't going to write something like:

"A sick fuck walked into a home early Sunday morning with a bomb strapped to his chest. There were 11 Iraqi natives killed by this psycho mother fucker. Three innocent women and three innocent children were among the victims of this piece of shit asshole and I hope he fucking burns in hell."

:dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

I'm not really sure what you're driving at. :dunno:

A news reporter isn't going to write something like:



:dunno:

I know that chef, Its just the article is written in a way to put responsibility on the U.S., not the scum that killed those people.
The media doesn't even know what happened, its unclear.Just a short, sweet headline pasted on yahoo for millions to read and be persuaded in a certain direction.

 

[calpoon]

I'm not really sure what your point is. you think that democrats are corrupt and full of shit, so what? you became a republican?

quoted from the article:

"At this point, we are not sure if each died specifically from gunshot wounds, effects from the blast or a combination of both," U.S. Lieutenant Commander David Russell said in an email.

so right, during a raid fire was exchanged between US soldiers and some armed men, during which point a suicide bomber triggered a detonation and the total number of casualties was 11. that's what the article said. how is that biased against US soldiers? because they want to investigate evidence to find out what exactly happened?

it states that most of them were killed by the blast. it stipulates that some of them may have been killed by the firing done by the soldiers. So what's the alternative? that in pursuit of apprehending a criminal they should be allowed to firing into a crowd of civilians and not have it be investigated or any accountability held?

It's not a matter of whether they were justified or not, because even if it was found that they did kill those people, in circumstances where they were at risk of their own lives, it would be found to have been acceptable. what's is biased is the notion that it doesn't matter to even ask the question and investigate in the first place and it's not important how those people died.

Yes, civilian casualties are an unfortunate and unavoidable part of war, but accepting responsibility for them because we actually care and want to avoid that as much as possible is supposed to be the difference between us and the people we are against.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Actually it goes much further back then the 90s.Walter Cronkite was obviously a communist sympathezier when he said in 1968 that the US could not win in Vietnam.

But seriously I don't think you have to be a religious fanatic to be an Iraqi who is willing to fight, and die even to oppose the US invasion.Reading the story I see no bias.They reported the facts of what happened.You seem to want more than that and expexct the media to report it a certain way which, would be biased.But bias as long as its your interpretation of being pro-american I bet would not be all that objectionable.Somebody invades us I will be proud to be called a terrorist by the invaders media.:thumbsup:

 

[ragincaucasian]

if you want to gripe about "liberal media bias", try reading this first

the media isn't biased.......they're just lazy

 

[calpoon]

the media is biased toward whoever pays them. depending on what their source is, that's how they slant their story. news is a business, not a public service.

 

[mongo18]

I think the media is more honest now than they've ever been. Try to find an "unbiased" newspaper report about WW2 from the day.

 

[hothannah]

I'm not really sure what you're driving at. :dunno:

A news reporter isn't going to write something like:



:dunno:

I don't buy papers, but if you wrote for them Chef, I would start buying them.


Although I still wouldn't read it.

 

[ragincaucasian]

I find that an awful lot of my colleagues are quite happy to go along with stories planted or otherwise. You’ve only got to see the number of times on the front page of the New York Times or the L.A. Times or the Washington Post when the phrase “American officials say” appears, particularly the L.A. Times. I can give an example of that, in which a whole story is repeatedly sourced, after 2003, when we know there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, when we know the press was misled totally in the United States and went along with the war party.

Still we see everything being sourced and re-sourced back to American officials, as if the U.S. administration is the center of world truth. I’ll give you an example. I was actually doing the book tour in Los Angeles, picked up my morning L.A. Times. Here’s a story about Zarqawi, who may or may not exist, of course. “U.S. authorities say,” “U.S. officials said,” “Said one Justice Department counterterrorism official,” “U.S. authorities say,” “officials said,” “U.S. officials said.” It turns to page B-10. It gets worse and worse. Look. “Several U.S. officials said,” “those officials said,” “U.S. officials confirmed”—stop me when you want—“American officials complained,” “U.S. officials stressed,” “U.S. authorities believe,” “Said one U.S. senior intelligence official,” “U.S. officials said,” “Jordanian officials said”—Amy, see, there’s a slight difference here—“Several U.S. officials said,” “U.S. officials said,” “U.S. officials say,” “say U.S. officials,” “U.S. officials said,” “The American officials said,” “One U.S. counterterrorism official said.” Welcome to American journalism today in Iraq. This is what’s wrong.

-Award winning journalist, Robert Fisk on the state of 'news' today

 

[meesterperfect]

the media is biased toward whoever pays them. depending on what their source is, that's how they slant their story. news is a business, not a public service.

So true, but I'm a little confused on your meaning of source. Source of the story or source of revenue ( the consumers)?

Yep it is a business, they are there to make money.
To me the price we pay for their profit is high, very high.
The reason is because , for example many of the people on this board do not like or trust republican politicians and politics, I'm not a big fan either in many ways, but at least most of you know why you don't like Bush and the Republicans, I'll give you that.
Its just that many, many people including kids all around the country and the world don't like the U.S. solely because of the "slant" of the news media.
They don't have opinions based from knowledge, only from almost completely one sided jounalism.

I'll stick to what I said about the News media being one in the same as the Democratic party and use Waco as an extreme example.
The media completely lied and mis informed the people in order to protect the democratic administration of the time. If that would have been a republican adminstration their slant would have been 180 degrees different.

 

[hothannah]

the media is biased toward whoever pays them. depending on what their source is, that's how they slant their story. news is a business, not a public service.

That is why I only ever watch the BBC for news as they have no sponsors and are only funded by the public, hence it is a public service.

The whole of the BBC is the only independent, non sponsored and publicly funded Media Company in the world.

If you can't trust them, then we are all surely doomed and no one can be trusted.

 

[bodie54]

Thats when I realized the news media and the democrats were one in the same and will tell the people anything to make their side have/keep the power.

So if an ATF agent comes to serve me with a perfectly legal warrant, and I fire some shots at him, what should I expect will happen to me?

I've been noticing this type of journalism since about 6 months after the destruction of Saddams dictatorship, right around the time when the same dems who backed BUSH in the decision to take out Saddam turned 180 degrees in order to regain power over you and your money.

Pretty much right about the time when the reason we'd all been given for the invasion, an imminent threat to our national security in the form of nuclear and/or chemical/biological weapons, was near becoming conclusively groundless.

 

[Will E Worm]

Sometime in the late 90's I realized just how biased most of the media is in the U.S..
The massacre of men women and children in Waco opened my eyes.
At the time I, like most of the world thought that Koresh and the Davidians were some wacko anti government cult militia because thats what the media told us.

They did lie, repeatedly, about What was really happening at Waco.
Everything they said was a lie.

One example. The sheriff in Waco checked the guns of Koresh and they were all legal. Even though under the Constitution all guns are legal.

The people in the media tell us lies all the time. People are just too lazy and dumbed down to look up anything. They also don't know what their rights are.

Just watch the one-eyed brainwashing machine and believe everything it tells you. Go back to sleep sheeple.

Go listen to the podcast about Waco on Hourofthetime.com.

 

[meesterperfect]

QUOTE=bodie54;2557434]So if an ATF agent comes to serve me with a perfectly legal warrant, and I fire some shots at him, what should I expect will happen to me?[/B]


I used to think that too. without getting into it too much bod it was the atf that fired first.
to serve a warrant for a search of premises you dont need to practice for weeks at an army base, surround the house with men with machine guns and call the press to come film it especially when the people living there invited the atf to "just come on over".
It was a publicity stunt gone crazy and the warrant was baseless anyway.
I know the atf opened fire first because #1 they lost the front door which had bullet holes only coming out of it.
and #2 there were 3 news crews filming the front door when koresh answered it and was shot and a 60 year old man with him was killed. ...and all three films were lost.
Do you really think the government would have lost all this evidence the davidians fired first?



Pretty much right about the time when the reason we'd all been given for the invasion, an imminent threat to our national security in the form of nuclear and/or chemical/biological weapons, was near becoming conclusively groundless.[/QUOTE]

you mean they didn't find any weapons that do this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-11836466348264133

 

[senob44]

MP, I do see anti-US bias in that article about Iraq. It certainly could have been written and headlined in a more responsible way I think. However, I wouldn't go so far as to reach some of the conclusions that you have.

I think like calpoon said, the media is biased by it's sources of income, AND perhaps even more strongly by what they think their readership wants to hear. I tend to side with Democrats on many issues, but I have been a little alarmed at how it has become somewhat fashionable among many to spin anti-US bias. It is one thing to not like the President and even government as a whole (even I will admit to those), but I cannot see any reason to bias oneself against the soliders and officers of the US Armed Forces, of whom I believe the very very vast majority believe that their mission is important and vital to the security of the United States, our Allies and the world. I don't believe this is a case where we should criticize soldiers and officers for using the copout "just following orders". Just because these men and women have an honest, but different view on the value of our missions in the middle east, we should criticize their actions repeatedly in the press? I think not.

 

[Rattrap]

While it may not relate directly to the actual topic of discussion (of that particular story, at least), a good book on media bias is Bias by Bernard Goldberg - somebody else mentioned it in another thread just recently (which is why I picked it up!). Just finished reading it, actually. An interesting read at least for me, who doesn't watch any network news.

 

[bodie54]

you mean they didn't find any weapons that do this? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-11836466348264133

Mr. P, that video is from 1988. Even the Bush administration itself admitted (but not until after he'd won re-relection, of course ) that there were no weapons of mass destruction....

http://dailycardinal.com/article/13535

"According to a White House press release, spokesperson Scott McClellan said the weapons of mass destruction the U.S. believed were in Iraq based on the intelligence received were not there."

January 14, 2005

....and that the widespread notion that there was a connection between Sadam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11th was incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU

 

[bodie54]

As far as the Waco thing goes, if I'm a Branch Dividian common sense tells me that if I kill 4 ATF agents, wound 16 others, hole up in a weapons and ammunition laden compound for 51 days afterwards while refusing to surrender, and accept then reject a negotiated solution; then I'm pretty much begging to end up dead.