Moderator: Bazz
That's why I said "the ones I posted before while biased" - I would never, ever use a source like that for serious research. However a couple of those aren't quite as biased and are simply connected to media watchdog groups.Renge Ishyo wrote:bsd, the sources would be more trustworthy if you looked for facts at say a place that was not called "liberalslant.com" for one
It isn't like the liberals owning the media is a new thing...this has been true since the beginning of the media in the early 1900's. The whole thing behind the entertainment people being arrested in the "red scare" and McCarthyism for example was all about consolidating political power on the right by turning the public against the entertainers in the media who were of course on the left.
The major reason whey there is such a desperate attempt at the moment to try to convince people that liberals do not have such a stranglehold on the media is that it became so obvious in the last election (With movies, fake memos, etc. making the democractic news services look like liars, criminals, or worse). But the dems DO own the media by and large, and they always have...it's only because they have lost so much support over here by how they have behaved on the media that they are trying to cover it up.
Don't call protestants "the church," it's totally wrong. Oh wait....they've got my church too.Renge Ishyo wrote:The conservatives do this sort of thing too, it's just that they don't happen to *need* much of a presence in the media because they already have the church (which serves the same purpose btw...).(
Not the liberation theologists though! 
I never disputed that. However, keep in mind that the *Democrats* were supporting the war in Iraq at that time (remember all those comments during the election about John Kerry and co. voting on behalf of Bush at the time? Michael Moore being booed by the democrats at the oscars for speaking out against the war early on?). The opinion on the media was for the President early on, because they wanted the same thing as he did (at the time). Once Bush won, then the Democrats had no reason to support the President or the war and so the liberal networks turned on him to try and regain power for themselves (since he is a conservative with conservative agendas). At no point did the people behind the networks change political parties, they change opinions based on what they want from the American people at any given moment.My claim is simply that from the period between 9/11/2001 and 8/29/2005, the media was too frightened or just too biased (whichever it was, the slant became conservative) to criticize Bush, because he was "our savior." I don't have a problem with people saying what the media used to be, but in those 4 years, it was quite a different monster.
what it boils down to is the media sucks
But if you understand how it "works" the fact that we DO have competing sources of information makes it ultimately a useful source of information though. For example, I read the LA Times full well knowing that I am getting the liberal agenda fed to me. Reading it allows me to see what that agenda is, who are they attacking, what aren't they reporting, why are they showing me this, what are they up to? Then, when I switch gears and watch Fox News I get the other side of it, what is their agenda at the moment? Who are they attacking? What are the things these guys are reporting that the other guys aren't and why? Once you have *both* views you can then take a step back and evaluate what has been said and come to your own judgement as to what is going on here in America.I'm still upset we aren't competing with the Soviet Union anymore. In all those 80's propoganda movies, the Russians always made the coolest bad guys (it was the accent that always did it, the evil butch Russian chicks were always pretty hot tooI bet the founding fathers wouldn't have been too happy if the media gave equal consideration to occupying colonists and Native Americans.
). You should come to Jefferson Lab some time. I'd like to see if that changes your tune.Renge Ishyo wrote: Of course, I don't really pay *that* close attention because politics is far less interesting than Physics...
Lol! For me that just makes the news entertaining. If you are willing to kind of laugh at it even the politics is funny sometimes. I was amused the other day just watching the John Roberts interviews. Not the real thing, oh no (it's too genuine when you watch it live), just the highlights because they are edited and slanted (and hence, more fun). On Fox News, they picked out the questions that made the democrats look like morons and they showed Roberts responses which were all calm, cool, and collected (frankly, I think you could cut off that guy's leg and not get much of a reaction out of him). So I switch over to the more liberal local KTLA, and they had only one statement from a Democrat stating affirmly that they are taking a gamble with Roberts (i.e. the line didn't sound all that stupid), and when they cut to Roberts to show his response they had digitially messed with the color control to make his face appear bright red (make him appear angry or flustered), and didn't have him say a thing, lol!"You have something in your house that is going to kill you. In fact, I'm positive you use it every day. What is it? Find out at eleven!" Fuckers.
You're talking to someone who gets wet just thinking about being able to mess with our school's TEM next weekYou should come to Jefferson Lab some time. I'd like to see if that changes your tune.
Maybe our next hot topic should be about Yuka? If s/he's still alive and not in jail, it might catch his/her attention at some point.Damien wrote:Could have been a number of other reasons as well, but it's probably because Yuka didn't want us to know he was a guy. Whether he was trying to actively deceive us or what will never been known. He never outright "no" to meeting though. It was always more "maybe next time"/"no money right now".
?
(Now just to back away, slowly...).
