• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

right-leaning media bias

Re: Consider the source

> Being a journalist means that you stick to a code of ethics
> & dont let your personal bias interfere with your work,
> something that allot of people dont do. I took journalisim
> and was assigned an article about the schools Wi-Fi network
> - I kept my bias out of it and chruned out a ok article.

I'd rephrase that: Being an ETHICAL journalist means that you stick to a code of ethics & dont let your personal bias interfere with your work. But what about all those who aren't?

Remember Peter Arnett and Jayson Blair?

We've seen enough stories in recent years -- from reporting an unfounded rumor on CBS news to reporters who make up quotes or entire news stories to softball interviews of politicians they like -- to know that ethical behavior is no longer a prerequisite for big bucks in journalism.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
The New News/Talk WKAT ... Unforgettable WJNA</P>
 
Re: the source

> No way, cat. He meets NEITHER of the definitions. He has
> an obvious extreme view and agenda

Has anyone ever pointed out to you
that this is something
that you and Drudge have in common?

73s from 954


<P ID="signature">______________
The New News/Talk WKAT ... Unforgettable WJNA</P>
 
Re: media bias

> > With all of the various media sources out there, everybody
>
> > gets to be their own editor, which, on balance, is good.
>
> Not really. The problem is that some of these partisan
> journalists don't seem to be especially concerned about
> doing fact checks for the alleged information that they
> include in their news reports. And while I think that there
> can be value in honestly presented "advocacy journalism"
> (where the writer has a clear point of view), it is still no
> excuse for getting information wrong.

And the most extreme and horrifying example of this was perpetrated on CBS Evening News just before the 2004 election -- when fact-checking was abandoned because it might jeopardize a juicy anti-Bush story.

Fortunately, the voters were smarter than the folks at CBS thought.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
Re: media bias

"Horrifying" is a bit of over-statement.

The funny thing is, after that was all said and done, the information was never, EVER challenged. It was the source that was in question. The facts were essentially correct.

> And the most extreme and horrifying example of this was
> perpetrated on CBS Evening News just before the 2004
> election -- when fact-checking was abandoned because it
> might jeopardize a juicy anti-Bush story.
> Fortunately, the voters were smarter than the folks at CBS thought.

***Yes, we can see how smart they were- more Marines died in one event today
than had died together throughout this whole stupid useless war.

Brilliant voters, huh?
 
source

Moore's Farenheit 9/11 wasn't sold as or meant to be news.

It WAS, however, factually true.


>
> I suspect that there are 1000x more leftists who think
> Michael Moore's propaganda pronouncements are news than
> there are conservatives who take that
> Walter-Winchell-Wannabee Matt Drudge seriously.
>
> 73s from 954
>
 
source

RIGHT! I forgot- if you're not in lock-step with our current administration,
you're extreme, you hate America, you want our soldiers to die and you're for abortion.

Amazing.


>
> Has anyone ever pointed out to you that this is something
> that you and Drudge have in common?
>
> 73s from 954
>
 
Re: source

> Moore's Farenheit 9/11 wasn't sold as or meant to be news.
>
> It WAS, however, factually true.

Phhhhhffffffffffffffffffffffffft!

I see you subscribe to the Hitler philosophy that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

> > I suspect that there are 1000x more leftists who think
> > Michael Moore's propaganda pronouncements are news than
> > there are conservatives who take that
> > Walter-Winchell-Wannabee Matt Drudge seriously.
> >
> > 73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
non-sequiturs

Please, Oldies Cat, go back and re-read all your postings in this thread and count how many are non-sequiturs or nonsensical outbursts or accusations of people you know nothing about.

> RIGHT! I forgot- if you're not in lock-step with our
> current administration,
> you're extreme, you hate America, you want our soldiers to
> die and you're for abortion.

In your ignorance, you assume a lot about people who disagree with you. Day after day.

I'm guessing I might agree with you on some issues, but I'd be reluctant to sit down and have coffee with somneone so vicious and antagonistic. So we'll never know.

> Amazing.

You certainly are. I just hope you're not in the news department at any station. Maybe you're .... never mind.

> > Has anyone ever pointed out to you that this is something
>
> > that you and Drudge have in common?
> >
> > 73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
Re: media bias

> "Horrifying" is a bit of over-statement.
>
> The funny thing is, after that was all said and done, the
> information was never, EVER challenged.

Why would you challenge an obvious forgery? A made-up story.

After it has been discredited it deserves no further attention.

> It was the source
> that was in question. The facts were essentially correct.

There we go again. That's exactly what you said about Michael Moore.

THE LETTER WAS A FORGERY. The "facts" you believe in never existed. Your "facts" were lies. BS. A crock!

It was a fairy tale -- a political dirty trick that CBS News really wanted to believe. Nothing more.

Boy are you naive!

Oldiescat, I think your definition of "fact" is something you want to believe, no matter how outrageous it is.

73s from 954
<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
source

You must be confused- that one is prominent in the Republican Party playbook these days.

WMDs?


>
> I see you subscribe to the Hitler philosophy that if you
> tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.
>
> > > I suspect that there are 1000x more leftists who think
> > > Michael Moore's propaganda pronouncements are news than
> > > there are conservatives who take that
> > > Walter-Winchell-Wannabee Matt Drudge seriously.
> > >
> > > 73s from 954
>
 
ouch

OH! I'm wounded (not). Hope you're not another "if you're not for us you must be against us" lemmings.

It is indeed a sad day when we cannot have discourse- the back & forth free exchange of thoughts and ideas. As with politics these days, there are a few on this and other radio boards who easily brand somebody as ignorant or antagonistic simply because there's a disagreement of thoughts.

It is the freedom to exchange differing thoughts and ideas that have made this the greatest nation on earth.

God forbid we actually think for ourselves. I could have predicted a response like yours and I proudly stand by my statement made in the previous post:

> if you're not in lock-step with our current administration,
> > you're extreme, you hate America, you want our soldiers to
> > die and you're for abortion.
>
> In your ignorance, you assume a lot about people who
> disagree with you. Day after day.
>
*(ref your comment below) See, I COULD sit down & have coffee with you- I'm grown up enough to handle people with differing views up front and honestly.
You call me ignorant and say I assume a lot about people who disagree with me, yet you brand me vicious and antagonistic- that's rich.

> I'm guessing I might agree with you on some issues, but I'd
> be reluctant to sit down and have coffee with somneone so
> vicious and antagonistic. So we'll never know.
 
bias

I gotta ask this, just for grins: did you ever watch "Farenheit 9/11"?
 
Re: media bias

> And the most extreme and horrifying example of this was
> perpetrated on CBS Evening News just before the 2004
> election -- when fact-checking was abandoned because it
> might jeopardize a juicy anti-Bush story.

If you think that is the most horrifying example of poor journalism, you live in a world that is sheltered from reality.

I'd rank the rather shoddy excuse for reporting perpetrated by Judith Miller prior to the Iraq War to be a much more extreme example. Because she essentially swallowed a bunch of now-discredited information regarding Saddam Hussein's non existent WMDs, and fed it right out in her alleged "news stories" in the New York Times.

Erroenous reporting regarding the justification for a *war* is a far more serious issue than a dispute over a single document regarding Bush's mediocre military record from thirty years ago.

That said, I'll also observe that anyone who thinks that sloppy partisan reporting is limited to *only* one side of the political spectrum is either a fool or a complete idiot.
 
amen

and right-on Tom. Thanks for bringing more level-headed, free thinking to the table.

Now, get prepared to be "attacked" (isn't tha their favorite word these days-
disagree and youre "attacking". <LOL>
>
> If you think that is the most horrifying example of poor
> journalism, you live in a world that is sheltered from
> reality.
>
> I'd rank the rather shoddy excuse for reporting perpetrated
> by Judith Miller prior to the Iraq War to be a much more
> extreme example. Because she essentially swallowed a bunch
> of now-discredited information regarding Saddam Hussein's
> non existent WMDs, and fed it right out in her alleged "news
> stories" in the New York Times.
>
> Erroenous reporting regarding the justification for a *war*
> is a far more serious issue than a dispute over a single
> document regarding Bush's mediocre military record from
> thirty years ago.
>
> That said, I'll also observe that anyone who thinks that
> sloppy partisan reporting is limited to *only* one side of
> the political spectrum is either a fool or a complete idiot.
>
 
Re: Consider the source

> I was a journalism major myself. Articles on Wi-Fi Networks
> are not susceptible to a great deal of bias but
> congratulations anyway.

When you're the security threat & the network admin is going on about the "secure" network (and theres more holes in the coverage area than swiss cheese), it is subject to bias. <P ID="signature">______________

AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.117.32:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
 
naive ignorance

> OH! I'm wounded (not). Hope you're not another "if you're
> not for us you must be against us" lemmings.
>
> It is indeed a sad day when we cannot have discourse- the
> back & forth free exchange of thoughts and ideas. As with
> politics these days, there are a few on this and other radio
> boards who easily brand somebody as ignorant or antagonistic
> simply because there's a disagreement of thoughts.
>
> It is the freedom to exchange differing thoughts and ideas
> that have made this the greatest nation on earth.
>
> God forbid we actually think for ourselves. I could have
> predicted a response like yours and I proudly stand by my
> statement made in the previous post:

> > if you're not in lock-step with our current
> administration,
> > > you're extreme, you hate America, you want our soldiers
> to
> > > die and you're for abortion.
> > In your ignorance, you assume a lot about people who
> > disagree with you. Day after day.
> >
> *(ref your comment below) See, I COULD sit down & have
> coffee with you- I'm grown up enough to handle people with
> differing views up front and honestly.
> You call me ignorant and say I assume a lot about people who
> disagree with me, yet you brand me vicious and antagonistic-
> that's rich.

Your hostile comments in bold above show you are assuming a lot about the people you disagree with.

You use the leftist talking points and buzzwords but are ignorant of the views of the people you are criticizing. Hence my comments below.

> > I'm guessing I might agree with you on some issues, but
> I'd
> > be reluctant to sit down and have coffee with somneone so
> > vicious and antagonistic. So we'll never know.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
Re: media bias

> I'd rank the rather shoddy excuse for reporting perpetrated
> by Judith Miller prior to the Iraq War to be a much more
> extreme example. Because she essentially swallowed a bunch
> of now-discredited information regarding Saddam Hussein's
> non existent WMDs, and fed it right out in her alleged "news
> stories" in the New York Times.

Are you talking about the non-existent poison gas that Saddam used to kill thousands of Kurds or the non-existent weapons found buried in the desert or some other non-existent WMD all together?

And the non-existent millions of dollars Saddam gave to the non-existent families of suicide bombers show that Saddam didn't support terrorism, either.

73s from 954<P ID="signature">______________
MEDIA BIAS WEB SITE</P>
 
sticks & stones

More far-right buzzwords: hostile, attacking, vicious, leftist. Again, my statement stands and you've been very helpful in proving it true.

Look, you and I see things differently-- and that's OK, it is part of what makes America great. I would defend to the death your right to voice your opinion, different as it might be from mine.


>
> Your hostile comments in bold above show you are assuming a
> lot about the people you disagree with.
>
> You use the leftist talking points and buzzwords but are
> ignorant of the views of the people you are criticizing.
> Hence my comments below.
>
> > > I'm guessing I might agree with you on some issues, but
> > I'd be reluctant to sit down and have coffee with somneone
> so vicious and antagonistic. So we'll never know.
>
> 73s from 954
>
 
bias

I'm talking about the "imminent threat to the United States" Saddam's weapons of mass destruction premise that was billed as the sole reason for invading Iraq.
It was THE reason given to the American people for starting the war and since we've found nothing, the NEW reason is "to spread democracy around the world".

Noble, yes- but these people and their cultures (Iraq, Iran, et al, have no concept of democracy and I'm not sure when it became our business to shove it down their throats. These have been religious battlegrounds for years and, if you have ever read about it in The Good Book, you also know there will NEVER be lasting peace in the Middle East.

You'll get no argument from me that Saddam is one of history's most murderous characters, but there are currently 137 other dictatorships around the world.
Are we going to invade them, too? How many brave soldiers in your family have died over the past few years-- for what has amounted to nothing?

>
> Are you talking about the non-existent poison gas that
> Saddam used to kill thousands of Kurds or the non-existent
> weapons found buried in the desert or some other
> non-existent WMD all together?
>
> And the non-existent millions of dollars Saddam gave to the
> non-existent families of suicide bombers show that Saddam
> didn't support terrorism, either.
>
> 73s from 954
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom