information and they stood behind it wouldn't it clear
them if they gave the source? Why protect someone that
duped them anyway?
If they are standing behind the story it means that they still believe
the story is true. They are putting their reputation on the line
saying that they still believe their source. In other words, they do
not think they were duped. I cannot explain this in the context of the
type face and superscript issues that have been raised, but that is
what it means. I personally do not know what I think on the matter at
the moment, and I agree with the previously raised point that other
issues are probably more important.
> As for the
> mostly right-wing
> opinion... you aren't seriously questioning that are
> you?
They lean a bit to the right but are not mostly to the
right.
Considering most major media is to the left we need at
least a little truth out there :)
yu had to go back to february to find something that supported this ? :)
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html
Like every other institution, the Washington and
political press corps operate with a good number of
biases and predilections.
They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal
shared sense that liberal political positions on
social issues like gun control, homosexuality,
abortion, and religion are the default, while more
conservative positions are "conservative positions."
I would say a great reluctance to question governmental institutions,
especially including the presidency in the early years of an
administration or of a war...
I also would say that they allow "conservatives" to set the agenda for
public debate... How else did cutting welfare, Head Start and health
care become "family values"? And that is only to explore the tip of
the iceberg.
They include a belief that government is a mechanism
to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on
corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the
deficit and raise money for social spending and don't
have a negative affect on economic growth; and that
emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or
consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic
statistic stories.
These are liberal traits, yes. Is the media liberal? Hmm.
More systematically, the press believes that fluid
narratives in coverage are better than static
storylines; that new things are more interesting than
old things; that close races are preferable to loose
ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning,
somehow.
It is a flaw of our current media that they prefer fires and pretty
pictures to substantive news reporting, yes. Close races are more
exciting and thus more likely to be covered, yes. New things are news,
by definition. Not saying this is right, just that it is the nature of
the beast. The bit about incumbents which the author tries to sneak in
there... naw.
The press, by and large, does not accept President
Bush's justifications for the Iraq war --
well no, because they are a load of stuff....it took them over a year
to realize this though.
It does not understand how educated, sensible people
could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or
friendly, sophisticated European allies.
oh c'mon... who is ciculating the French jokes according to you?
It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax
cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer
spending.
It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.
So if you don't think Bush's economics are correct you are therefore liberal?
Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard
stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not
to mention the bias towards process stories (grand
juries produce ENDLESS process!).
huh?
The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in
every frame of video and every print word choice that
is currently being produced about the presidential
race.
not by me, sorry....
That's quite a headline in the Los Angeles Times:
"Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas." LINK
link is missing
And the Washington Post story filled with quotes from
Republican-leaning business people who have
politically soured on the President is quite striking.
LINK
ditto
As is the Wall Street Journal piece despoiling the
Medicare reform law before it event takes effect.
Medicare reform??? You mean that travesty that increased prices,
paperwork and profits? I don't see how that is conservative except in
that it benefits Bush's buddies.
On the strength of all the negative coverage of the
President and all his own positive coverage, Sen.
Kerry heads into today's twin primaries on a roll.
funny, last I heard he was behind...
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
