mad pierrot
I jump to conclusions
Let the debate rage.
-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Is the American Media Biased?
- Thread starter mad pierrot
- Start date
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
The media of any country is baised. It depends on who owns the paper and their political views. For example the Telegraph in the UK is known to be a Tory paper (hence it is sometimes called the Torygraph) and the Guardian is a Labour paper. I think the same goes for TV networks. Isn't Fox biased towards the Republicans as Rupert Murdoch is supporter of Bush Jnr?
Pachipro
Conspiratorialist
Well since no one will take the bait, I'll be first. Whoops. I see Mycernius was first.
Being a conspiratorilist I think the media reports whatever is required at the moment and prints or reports whatever they want the American public to focus on at the moment for the purposes of "their" agenda. Call it "The One World Order" if you like. Whatever you call it, something fishy is going on.
Take, for example, 1998. While the mass media of the US was focusing America's attention on the Clinton "sexcapade" and Clinton's DNA on the infamous Blue Dress, nary an American realizes that the Clinton administration passed on nuclear technology to China, extended the international zone along the southern boarders 150 miles, and passed another executive order allowing a first nuclear strike against the US to go unanswered. I ask you, why didn't the media focus on these, among other, important issues of the day?
Why is the media focusing on the rights of illegal aliens, and the desecrating of the Qu'ran, and the treatment of allegedly Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo Bay; allowing factories to close at an enormous pace while putting thousands of Americans out of jobs, not reporting daily on our unsecured boarders while thousands of illegals flood the US daily, among countless other things? Especially when we are supposidly in a time of war!
The answer is because there is an agenda going on behind the scenes that "they" don't want us to know about. By 'they', I mean those that control the media. Hogwash you say? In his book, Rule By Secrecy, author Jim Marrs says, "The purpose of the media is not to tell it like it is, according to media critics, but rather to tell it like the media owners want it to be." Media critic Michale Parenti says, "The media may not always be able to tell us what to think, but they are strikingly successful in telling us what to think about." He also says that the major role of the press is "to continually recreate a view of reality supportive of existing social and economic class power." You can read the reviews yourself and then decide, but all his work is backed up by facts and written documents regardless of what other reviewers might say. You can't argue with actual facts and documents.
Marrs also says, that by 1997 ten corporations controlled most of the mass media in the United States. These are Time Warner (magazines, radio/TV, cable); Walt Disney Co. (newspapers, radio/TV, cable, movies) Tele -Communications, Inc.; News Corp; General Electric; Advance Publications; Cox Enterprises, and New York Times Co. Today you can add Clear Channel Communications into that mix with their severe consolidation of the radio talk shows and their gobbling up of radio stations by the hundreds.
Many heads of these companies also sit on world-wide policy shaping organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) to name one. Some well know reporters, anchors, and columnists who are members of the CFR include Dan RAther, Bill MOyers, C.C. Collingwood, Diane Sawyer, David Brinkley, Ted Koppel, Barbara Walters, MArvin Kalb, Sol Linowitz, George Will, Tom Brokaw, among many others. I ask you why? Why, if they are supposed to be independent reporters are they a member of such an organization shaping world policy and opinion?
"Choke points" within the flow of information, such as the international desk at Associated Press (AP) headquarters in New York where one person decides what news from outside the US makes it onto the wire servces. The real control here is in the distribution of information. Is it any wonder that when you hear of a breaking major news story it is always preceeded by, "And the AP confirms that......" Why must they always say that the AP has confirmed it? Hmmmmm
CBS's Morley Safer is quoted as saying that, "I challenge any viewer to make the distinction between Jerry Springer and the three evening news broadcasts and CNN" (and FOX today).
Therefore, getting back to your original question of whether the media is liberal or not, I stand by my conviction that they are whatever is needed at the moment for the American "sheeple" to swallow and believe. They may seem awfully liberal right now, but it is what is needed at the moment. The same may be said for the countries of Europe with their uncontrolled immigration. What is it with all this uncontrolled immigration around the world, not just in America? It almost seems like it is planned and wanted.
Also check out the meaning of "Yellow Journalism" which I think alot of US media is engaged in today. Courtesy of Michael Savage.
Well I'm getting off on a rant here so I better stop.
Alot of my info above was taken from the book Rule by Secrecy, by Jim Marrs among other sources along with a little of my own opinion added in.
Being a conspiratorilist I think the media reports whatever is required at the moment and prints or reports whatever they want the American public to focus on at the moment for the purposes of "their" agenda. Call it "The One World Order" if you like. Whatever you call it, something fishy is going on.
Take, for example, 1998. While the mass media of the US was focusing America's attention on the Clinton "sexcapade" and Clinton's DNA on the infamous Blue Dress, nary an American realizes that the Clinton administration passed on nuclear technology to China, extended the international zone along the southern boarders 150 miles, and passed another executive order allowing a first nuclear strike against the US to go unanswered. I ask you, why didn't the media focus on these, among other, important issues of the day?
Why is the media focusing on the rights of illegal aliens, and the desecrating of the Qu'ran, and the treatment of allegedly Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo Bay; allowing factories to close at an enormous pace while putting thousands of Americans out of jobs, not reporting daily on our unsecured boarders while thousands of illegals flood the US daily, among countless other things? Especially when we are supposidly in a time of war!
The answer is because there is an agenda going on behind the scenes that "they" don't want us to know about. By 'they', I mean those that control the media. Hogwash you say? In his book, Rule By Secrecy, author Jim Marrs says, "The purpose of the media is not to tell it like it is, according to media critics, but rather to tell it like the media owners want it to be." Media critic Michale Parenti says, "The media may not always be able to tell us what to think, but they are strikingly successful in telling us what to think about." He also says that the major role of the press is "to continually recreate a view of reality supportive of existing social and economic class power." You can read the reviews yourself and then decide, but all his work is backed up by facts and written documents regardless of what other reviewers might say. You can't argue with actual facts and documents.
Marrs also says, that by 1997 ten corporations controlled most of the mass media in the United States. These are Time Warner (magazines, radio/TV, cable); Walt Disney Co. (newspapers, radio/TV, cable, movies) Tele -Communications, Inc.; News Corp; General Electric; Advance Publications; Cox Enterprises, and New York Times Co. Today you can add Clear Channel Communications into that mix with their severe consolidation of the radio talk shows and their gobbling up of radio stations by the hundreds.
Many heads of these companies also sit on world-wide policy shaping organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) to name one. Some well know reporters, anchors, and columnists who are members of the CFR include Dan RAther, Bill MOyers, C.C. Collingwood, Diane Sawyer, David Brinkley, Ted Koppel, Barbara Walters, MArvin Kalb, Sol Linowitz, George Will, Tom Brokaw, among many others. I ask you why? Why, if they are supposed to be independent reporters are they a member of such an organization shaping world policy and opinion?
"Choke points" within the flow of information, such as the international desk at Associated Press (AP) headquarters in New York where one person decides what news from outside the US makes it onto the wire servces. The real control here is in the distribution of information. Is it any wonder that when you hear of a breaking major news story it is always preceeded by, "And the AP confirms that......" Why must they always say that the AP has confirmed it? Hmmmmm
CBS's Morley Safer is quoted as saying that, "I challenge any viewer to make the distinction between Jerry Springer and the three evening news broadcasts and CNN" (and FOX today).
Therefore, getting back to your original question of whether the media is liberal or not, I stand by my conviction that they are whatever is needed at the moment for the American "sheeple" to swallow and believe. They may seem awfully liberal right now, but it is what is needed at the moment. The same may be said for the countries of Europe with their uncontrolled immigration. What is it with all this uncontrolled immigration around the world, not just in America? It almost seems like it is planned and wanted.
Also check out the meaning of "Yellow Journalism" which I think alot of US media is engaged in today. Courtesy of Michael Savage.
Well I'm getting off on a rant here so I better stop.
Alot of my info above was taken from the book Rule by Secrecy, by Jim Marrs among other sources along with a little of my own opinion added in.
Last edited:
Miss_apollo7
Cat lover
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- I am from YOKOHAMA,Japan!!
I would say FOX is highly biased....and the channel didn't hide the fact that they adored Bush during the last Presidential campaign...
Pachipro
Conspiratorialist
You are quite correct in that they favor Bush and everything he is doing. The funny thing is that Bush is acting just like a liberal with all his domestic policies and such. I see nothing of the conservative he is supposed to be. Nothing.Miss_apollo7 said:
Duo
Southern Sun
I think most overall, the american media, especially TV and News networks are not worth a damm...... I think america is so isolated internally that everything is biased that way...... well i donna, when i hear like american news everything is so dramatic like even water shortage, and yeah fox news by far the worst ever...... but then again every media can be a bit biased, but I think the american media is highly biased and there is very litte freedom in there to express oneself, is like a communist by choice type of media......
AngkorianKnight
bronze squire
I don't even watch American TV anymore. Nothing but garbage on there, even local news. They would talk about serious topics then jump to celeb news.
Ma Cherie
Your Goddess is here
AngkorianKnight said:
I know what you mean, believe me. But I know the American media is biased. I watch the news, anyway weather it's biased or not. Only because I want to find out for myself about what's going on in the world. What I do is go and research what the media doesn't tell you or what is has lied about. In my opinion however, every media in any country is going to report what they want to report.
AngkorianKnight
bronze squire
That's so true Ma Cherie, I look for news that I am interested in from organizations that are credible. Or from the source itself if permited. News papers are somewhat trust worthy.
I used to think that way too, until I heard about Jason Blair, who used to be The New York Times reporter, whose false article got printed resulting dissmissal of the editors who didn't do a thorough fact check behind his story.AngkorianKnight said:
The state department is pretty desparate to avoid the consequences caused by misinformation, so they've created this site. I'm not sure how reliable this one is, though.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html
America is not the only country with biased media, Japan is even worse, and don't forget 'Al-Jazeera'.
Last edited:
Ma Cherie
Your Goddess is here
You know what, Misa j I was going to point out Al-Jezeera. You see how the American military is protrayed?
Apri1
I didnt do it
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- finnish, irish, pennsylvania dutch, german, english
It's true fox is biast and other news places too. Fox is the worste. There are hardly any good reporters anymore. Now you get paid more if you ask questoins they want you to ask .. you get the good seats if you agree with them. But if you are a real reporter you get paid less and get to sit way in the back. It doenst help that some places own news stations so they can control what comes on. This is friggin psycho. But we do have the ability to look up the truth. the world of information at our fingertips. =)
Ma Cherie
Your Goddess is here
You read the article, and so have I. Yes, looks normal. But have you sat down and watched Al-Jezeera? Unless I'm mistaken, it's not protrayed in a very good light. Just like our media. Using words such as "Islamic fundelmentalist" "Arab terrorists." Purly biased.
Gaijinian
?~??????
Pachipro said:
Really? Not ONE thing?
I think your back on drugs, man... Not ONE thing conservative policy??
http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm
Look at the 'Domestic Issues' part, or tell me from your own knowledge...
In what way is he liberal?
Pachipro
Conspiratorialist
What Bush says and what he does are actually two different things. On the outside he is a conservative and says the things a conservative is supposed to say. But his actions do not show him to be a conservative. A Conservative is supposed to conserve the constitution and our constitutional rights. On Domestic Issues he may be a conservative when it comes to abortion and the death penalty. Other than that he is still a RINO (Republican In Name Only) in my opinion.Gaijinian said:
I am a conservative from way way back and have always voted Republican and I have witnessed the complete turn of the Republican Party into something I don't even recognize anymore. Today I consider myself a libertarian and no more vote strictly the party line.
If Bush is such a conservative why has he not shut down and sealed the boarders after 9-11 when daily thousands are coming into the country illegally? If he REALLY wants to fight terrorism and protect our country why does he not take action? Only a liberal would do something as he he is doing with the boarders. Is this conservatism?
Why are our constitutional rights being taken away daily by the Patriot Act and more so by Patriot Act II? "If you haven't done anything wrong than you shouldn't worry," is the standard answer. Now they don't even need a search warrant to search your house or person! Is this conservatism?
Why is Bush pushing for the "Real ID"? Did you know that there is a provision inside the Real ID Act that, if passed, would allow the justice department to suspend all rights under the constitution if they deem it necessary? Is this conservatism?
Why is Bush allowing so many factories to close putting thousands out of work and moving to China without so much as putting tarriffs and quotas on Chinese goods coming into the country? These laid off workers are now screwed as they will never get equal paying jobs again. Is this Conservatism?
Why is Bush pushing so much for the CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) when it will do exactly what NAFTA is doing and that is taking more and more jobs away from the US. Ross Perot was right when he said, "if NAFTA is approved, there will be a giant sucking sound coming from the US when jobs begin to leave." He was right. Is this conservatism?
Shall I go on? I could write a thesis on why the Republican Party, and Bush, is not conservative anymore. You should do a little more research into the ACTIONS the Republican Party is taking to take away our rights and jobs NOT LISTENING TO THEIR WORDS and rehtoric that has so many right wingers believing every word while being blind to ther actions.
Since this is a thread about the American Media being biased how many Conservatives who blindly watch Fox News, and yes, I was one of them, know that the second largest shareholder of the FOX News Company or their parent company run by Rupert Murdoch, is the six wealthiest man in the world and he is a SAUDI ARABIAN PRINCE!! "We Report. You Decide." Yea right. No wonder they never speak ill of the Saudis burning bibles and such. Is THAT conservatism?
Last edited:
Gaijinian
?~??????
Is what your describing liberalism?
Your think he is acting liberal for not COMPLEATLY ISOLATING the US?
...and you think the Patriot Act is 'liberal?'
Then the factories in China... You think a CONSITERVE puts a TARRIF, a TAX!!! on things? I have always thought of them as the ANTI-TAX people...
Do you really think what your writing is liberalism? Please...
Your think he is acting liberal for not COMPLEATLY ISOLATING the US?
...and you think the Patriot Act is 'liberal?'
Then the factories in China... You think a CONSITERVE puts a TARRIF, a TAX!!! on things? I have always thought of them as the ANTI-TAX people...
Do you really think what your writing is liberalism? Please...
Funny what i fount out about the 2nd gulf war was this.
When a british soldier was killed by an american soldier in Friendly Fire it was all in the papers all over britain.
I did research and fount out that nothing was even being said about this to the american people.
And on another case i remember when a british jeep was attacked by a american gunship (helicopter).
Its like jesus you americans spend like 5 billion dollars on youre military.
The down right least you could do is ID youre enemys and Allies RIGHT!!!
The british are about the only nation that will defend the americans in this world. And for that i dislike my own country.
The americans are so lucky to at least have one ally in this world.
How about saying to the americans that they are one of the most hated nations in the world huh?
And it annoys me so much that british soldiers where and most likly still are being killed by the americans in friendly fire.
The americans are a little TOO trigger happy.
When a british soldier was killed by an american soldier in Friendly Fire it was all in the papers all over britain.
I did research and fount out that nothing was even being said about this to the american people.
And on another case i remember when a british jeep was attacked by a american gunship (helicopter).
Its like jesus you americans spend like 5 billion dollars on youre military.
The down right least you could do is ID youre enemys and Allies RIGHT!!!
The british are about the only nation that will defend the americans in this world. And for that i dislike my own country.
The americans are so lucky to at least have one ally in this world.
How about saying to the americans that they are one of the most hated nations in the world huh?
And it annoys me so much that british soldiers where and most likly still are being killed by the americans in friendly fire.
The americans are a little TOO trigger happy.
Pachipro
Conspiratorialist
Yes I do. Whatever you want to call it, it sure isn't conservatism. Study your history. In the past, before the income tax was illegally instituted, America derived all of her income from tarrifs on foreign made goods and services and taxes on business.Gaijinian said:
Well I can see there is no arguing with you here. You seem like a nice guy but you need to do a little more reading. From your profile I see you are only a 15yr old high school student. I have 35 years of experience on you and have read more books than you may ever read in your lifetime. When you do a little research into what I have said and can make yourself a little more articulate, I'll be glad to debate you. Until then, we'll just agree to disagree.