Government controlled media

[CaramonLS]

Right so Tjin, you are ignoring the fact that certain news reporters are getting handouts to promote GW's positions in the media.

Clearly there is profit to be had in supporting GW's position, therefore tainting objectivity significantly.

Does the government do it? Sure they do, but from what I've watched of CBC vs. FOX news I can tell you I am much more satasfied with the CBCs coverage than I am through the rose colored Right wing glasses of FOX news.

[CaramonLS]

Oh and in response to your Stanford report.

They use the "median" senator as the middle, instead of the mean, can be skewed different ways. They use Center as the "Center" of Congress. Because even though Fox news is extremely far to the right, it falls into this specific definition of median.

So for example we can do it like this:

Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Socialist, Commy, Commy.

Oh look, The Nazis are the Median.

[RougeUnderoos]

Stanford Study

[tjinaz]

Welcome to the dKosopedia, a collaborative project of the DailyKos community to build a political encyclopedia. The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take. It was started in April of 2004, and currently consists of 2762 articles.[B]

I guess the next question is... where is the published study from an unbiased source (like a University or other acknowleged thing tank) the left that refutes the claims?

As far as I know this is the only study that has been published on the issue.

Right so Tjin, you are ignoring the fact that certain news reporters are getting handouts to promote GW's positions in the media.

I have heard this about 4 times now and have yet to see any more info. Like i said before there was one blogger but no reporters that I have seen. If you have a story on how reporters are getting handouts I would like to see it. I see no facts here just accusatations

Right so Tjin, you are ignoring the fact that certain news reporters are getting handouts to promote GW's positions in the media.

Clearly there is profit to be had in supporting GW's position, therefore tainting objectivity significantly.

Wow so Dubya controls the press enough to significantly change the opinion of all the editorial staffs everywhere. Wait isn't this the same guy that is some kind of idiot redneck that knows nothing? Pick your side ... is he an idiot or a evil genius at least this way I will have a frame of reference.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 06:55 PM
Still waiting for the counter to the Stanford study...

Anyone?

What is to counter? The thing is just plain silly. The Drudge Report is centerist? To whom? Brownshirts? Jesus, take a look at the linkage off of Drudge's site and tell me the guy doesn't lean right. And by leaning right I mean lying on his side with his head handing over the edge. If you think the Drudge Report is moderate/median/centerist then you must consider this fellow as being a centerist thinker as well. He links through to many of the same sites as well.

Really, just a guy from the middle!

The Stanford report is a joke because it invalidates its data with the reader's common sense. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of a hockey jersey can see through the BS of this report.

Oh, and finally (and most damning), the writers (Milyo and Grosclose) have both been endowed (paid off) by the American Enterprise Institute. They have infact both made media appearances on behalf of AEI, The Heritage Foundation and the Weekly Standard. A paper on Liberal Media Bias from these two is like reading a paper on the Evils of Capitalism by Joseph Stalin.

You stepped in a bucket of shinguard when you linked that one junior, and now you've gone and tracked it all over the good rugs.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 01:49 PM
[b] Welcome to the dKosopedia, a collaborative project of the DailyKos community to build a political encyclopedia. The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take. It was started in April of 2004, and currently consists of 2762 articles.

I guess the next question is... where is the published study from an unbiased source (like a University or other acknowleged thing tank) the left that refutes the claims?

As far as I know this is the only study that has been published on the issue.

I have heard this about 4 times now and have yet to see any more info. Like i said before there was one blogger but no reporters that I have seen. If you have a story on how reporters are getting handouts I would like to see it. I see no facts here just accusatations

Wow so Dubya controls the press enough to significantly change the opinion of all the editorial staffs everywhere. Wait isn't this the same guy that is some kind of idiot redneck that knows nothing? Pick your side ... is he an idiot or a evil genius at least this way I will have a frame of reference.

Do you really think we can't dredge up some leftie stats that show a right-wing bias?

I have heard this about 4 times now and have yet to see any more info. Like i said before there was one blogger but no reporters that I have seen. If you have a story on how reporters are getting handouts I would like to see it. I see no facts here just accusatations


Gee, that's not a sign of a right-wing media slant. You've never heard of it.

Imagine if the White House issued a press pass to a guy from a GOP sponsored "news organization" and had him ask the President easy questions. Then one day it comes out that this "reporter" is also a part-time "prostitute" and "porn model". If something like that were to happen it would be the biggest story in the world and the left-wing media would never let it die. Right?

Well son of a gun, it happened last month. Most people have never even heard of it though.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 08:49 PM
Wow so Dubya controls the press enough to significantly change the opinion of all the editorial staffs everywhere. Wait isn't this the same guy that is some kind of idiot redneck that knows nothing? Pick your side ... is he an idiot or a evil genius at least this way I will have a frame of reference.

Bush is an idiot who is pushed out front to take the bullet when it comes. The brains behind the operation are Cheney, Rove and the PNAC think tanks driving the good ship Titanic towards that big ice cube. Bush is the dumbest mother fataer I've ever seen, but the Republican party has made damn sure that he's been surrounded by some very sharp people who can pull the strings.

Don't believe it? Consider this. When the 9/11 attacks took place, where was Bush and where was Cheney? Who wasn't seen for weeks and was in a secure undisclosed location? Who was walking around making speeches and shaking hands? The country was at its highest security state since October 1963, and the President was out on display for all to see, but the Vice-Preseident was in a secure location? Who was expendible in the big picture and not worthy of protecting? I think you get the picture?

[tjinaz]

Don't believe it? Consider this. When the 9/11 attacks took place, where was Bush and where was Cheney? Who wasn't seen for weeks and was in a secure undisclosed location? Who was walking around making speeches and shaking hands? The country was at its highest security state since October 1963, and the President was out on display for all to see, but the Vice-Preseident was in a secure location? Who was expendible in the big picture and not worthy of protecting? I think you get the picture?

\

In these circumstances the line of succession had to remain intact, neither the President or the Vice president or the President pro tempore of the Senate could be at the same place at the same time. Makes sense.

When the nation is at this state of readiness and tension it is up to the President to show himself and to be a leader, to reassure the people by making appearances. What did Kennedy do in 63? What did Churchill do? If he would have hidden the people would have been much more tense. You may think he is an idiot but he is decisive and an effective leader. I would also wager that in the future he will be thought of as one of the more wily and cunning presidents in history.

[RougeUnderoos]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan25.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli...34_watch29.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...1-27-hhs_x.htm

This one is good, it's about the hooker with the press pass

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 09:20 PM
In these circumstances the line of succession had to remain intact, neither the President or the Vice president or the President pro tempore of the Senate could be at the same place at the same time. Makes sense.

When the nation is at this state of readiness and tension it is up to the President to show himself and to be a leader, to reassure the people by making appearances. What did Kennedy do in 63? What did Churchill do? If he would have hidden the people would have been much more tense. You may think he is an idiot but he is decisive and an effective leader. I would also wager that in the future he will be thought of as one of the more wily and cunning presidents in history.

Bullshinguard! Total unmitigated bullshinguard!

What did Kennedy do in 1963? He ran the show from a bunker. The President has certain powers that ONLY he can execute. HE is the most important person and HE is the one that should be in a secure location. The Vice President can only execute executive orders if the President is dead or deemed incompetant and unfit for duty, which with Dubya isn't much of a stretch. So it should have been Bush in a bunker, not Cheney. The government protected the guy they knew could carry the ball should the worst happen.

And Bush will not be recognized as being cunning or wily by anyone. He may be recognized like Wile E. Coyote, but definitely not wily. Bush is an idiot, plan and simple.

[tjinaz]

Do you really think we can't dredge up some leftie stats that show a right-wing bias?

No I don't think you can come up with a University study or other UNBIASed Source that shows a right wing bias. I think you can come up with plenty of opinion pieces but nothing empirical. Like I said as far as I know this is the only study I have seen or heard of. You are a daisy if you do. Better internet researcher than I.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan25.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...4_watch29.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...1-27-hhs_x.htm

This one is good, it's about the hooker with the press pass

The last one is interesting but the first 3 are syndicated columists that sided with Bush anyway. They are paid to have an opinion, they do not report the news. Big difference there.

Read the article on the last guy too and don't see where he was paid to lob softballs.

Oh and I believe Clinton did the same but on a much bigger scale.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/114029.shtml

[Agamemnon]

This guy doesn't seem to think the Media Bias Report is that valid. He's not a University professor, so I suppose he'll be shot down for not being 'credible'. I have no idea how 'university studies' are somehow brilliant, undeniable gifts-from-god.

The creators of the report also counter this critique, at the bottom.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog...ves/001169.html

edit: oops, I think the critiquer is actually a Stanford professor himself...

[tjinaz]

Bullshinguard! Total unmitigated bullshinguard!

What did Kennedy do in 1963? He ran the show from a bunker. The President has certain powers that ONLY he can execute. HE is the most important person and HE is the one that should be in a secure location. The Vice President can only execute executive orders if the President is dead or deemed incompetant and unfit for duty, which with Dubya isn't much of a stretch. So it should have been Bush in a bunker, not Cheney. The government protected the guy they knew could carry the ball should the worst happen.

No he doesn't. That is the whole point of the line of succession, that is what makes the "decapitation" nuclear strike impossible. If President is assumed dead the Vice then the president pro tempore can execute as president. Look at LBJ when Kennedy was assasinated.

Kennedy did all the 13 days of the Cuban missle crisis in the white house, he never hid in a bunker Get your facts straight before you have a tantrum.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 09:55 PM
No I don't think you can come up with a University study or other UNBIASed Source that shows a right wing bias.

And you have provided nothing that is considered UNBIASED yet either. I completely destroyed your little Stanford report by exposing that both the authors are AEI stooges and have been on the payroll of the likes of AEI, the Heritage Foundation and the Weekly Standard. Three standards of the far right bank rolled these guys. Gee, what result do you think they are going to come up with?

Man, did you get beat up on this topic. You hung your hat on that Stanford report without doing the background check on these clowns and got murdered. You stepped into the same trap that the Whitehouse did with Jeff "Man Hole Model" Gannon/Guckert.

[RougeUnderoos]

LOL. Another president did it as well and you are using that to prove there is not government control of the media? Interesting way to do things.

That study -- I provided a link to an analysis that discounts it. You predictably said "look at the source" and as far as I can tell you didn't even read what they have to say. They make a pretty good argument. I don't really understand why you keep trumping that guy up as completely unbiased either. Nobody is. The way he went about doing his study demonstrates that.

As for the commentators -- do you seriously not see where that is a problem? Why has George put a stop to it?

EDIT!!: Can't forget this gem.

If the press is supposed to keep the government in line and they are owned by the government, who do you believe?

Guess who said that?

I find it rather funny that you say the prostitute story is merely "interesting". You say there is a left-wing bias in the media but you had never heard of this story? Why is that? It's a pretty scandalous affair but the leftist-monster barely reported it at all.

He did ask puffball questions but that is hardly the story here. The fact that he got in the room in the first place is where the real problem lies IMO. He wasn't a journalist and came from a tiny, now actually defunct, stridently conservative website. He was in the room to ask easy questions, and he did it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 10:24 PM
No he doesn't. That is the whole point of the line of succession, that is what makes the "decapitation" nuclear strike impossible. If President is assumed dead the Vice then the president pro tempore can execute as president. Look at LBJ when Kennedy was assasinated.

Kennedy did all the 13 days of the Cuban missle crisis in the white house, he never hid in a bunker Get your facts straight before you have a tantrum.

Hey Sparky, WTF do you think is right beneath the Whitehouse and where the command center is in times of emergency?

[tjinaz]

Hey Sparky, WTF do you think is right beneath the Whitehouse and where the command center is in times of emergency

So by your logic Bush sleeps in a bunker every night? Yet he is unprotected. So the VPs house has a bunker too? Yea the secret bunker where they keep all the Da Vinci codes, where the the alien autopsies occur, and Halliburton and the Vatican secretly meet to decide who wins the next World Cup. Besides if there ever was a conspicacy to get Bush, why Cheney? He would not last a week with his heart problems.

The primary location for protection against nuclear attack during Kennedy's time was at Greenbrier West Virgina. Needless to say Kennedy never went there during the 13 days. Oh yea and the meetings were held in the situation room in the white house, the regular one they met in every day.

LOL. Another president did it as well and you are using that to prove there is not government control of the media? Interesting way to do things.

You could be right. Scale is a bit off though. I always thought of Government control as a bit more rigid and larger in scope. The type of control I think of is at a very high level influencing everything, not paying $4k to a syndicated columnist to write a favorable piece.

that study -- I provided a link to an analysis that discounts it. You predictably said "look at the source" and as far as I can tell you didn't even read what they have to say. They make a pretty good argument. I don't really understand why you keep trumping that guy up as completely unbiased either. Nobody is. The way he went about doing his study demonstrates that.

They do make a pretty good argument. But I can't really think of another way to quantify the data. You have to have some context. I agree with your point that nobody is unbiased. That is why I think the media is slanted to the left. You have to admit the vast majority of the journalists are left leaning, it only stands to reason that there interpretation of the facts is going have a leftward slant.

Check out this report from the PEW research center.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=825

EDIT!!: Can't forget this gem.

If the press is supposed to keep the government in line and they are owned by the government, who do you believe?

Guess who said that?

I did. That is why I think corporate news is better. Corporate news is out there to sell, to get ratings, to make money. They don't want to control people, they simply want to get advertisers. They can spin the news all they want, eventually the truth will come out. If they spun too much they look like jackasses and lose credibility and that costs them money. The system has built in checks and balances. With a government run press the money is always there. What is to stop them from pushing their own agenda?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 21 2005, 05:36 PM



They do make a pretty good argument. But I can't really think of another way to quantify the data. You have to have some context. I agree with your point that nobody is unbiased. That is why I think the media is slanted to the left. You have to admit the vast majority of the journalists are left leaning, it only stands to reason that there interpretation of the facts is going have a leftward slant.

I'm not familiar with the logistics of this kind of study and I understand they need context, but their scale has Matt Drudge right in the middle. Working from there, everyone and their dog is going to be a liberal and of course it will look like a bias.

From where I stand, it's no different than saying every single member of the media is a conservative because they are further right on the scale than Al Franken is.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Mar 22 2005, 12:36 AM


I did. That is why I think corporate news is better. Corporate news is out there to sell, to get ratings, to make money. They don't want to control people, they simply want to get advertisers. They can spin the news all they want, eventually the truth will come out. If they spun too much they look like jackasses and lose credibility and that costs them money. The system has built in checks and balances. With a government run press the money is always there. What is to stop them from pushing their own agenda?

So how about when Shell Petroleum took out full page ads in the National Post and Winnipeg Free Press and both papers barely mentioned the riots that broke out in Nigeria because of Shell's corporate practices?

Wouldn't you say that the private corporation in that case was trying to manipulate what the people think and know?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Mar 21 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Mar 21 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I don’t know how many people care, but it is an important point. It’s funny when you want unbiased media and at the same time you don’t mind government sponsored/controlled media. Government control over the media is the first sign of totalitarianism. But who cares, right.

I don't see how the government controlling a media outlet is _so_ much worse than corporations controlling them. At least the government is supposed to look out for the people (whether they achieve that aim or not) as compared to the companies, whose sole purpose and motive is the bottom line.

How are corporations preferable as media outlets? Are they somehow fundamentally honest, and governments fundamentally liars? [/b][/quote]
When corporations control their media, they are merely exercising their property rights.

When the government is telling the media what to print and what not to print (that includes all kinds of regulations), they are aggressing against them and their property rights. Ultimately there is no freedom of speech without freedom to own and use private property.

This is not about being fundamentally honest or fundamentally liars. This is about the right to use your property as you seem fit (as long as you are not aggressing against someone else’s property).

Lastly, virtually every government in history which had control (direct or indirect) over the media abused it in order to increase their power. It’s what they do. For us, it’s just another reason to watch out, regardless whether the media say their aim is to offer “balanced news reporting” or not.