<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Mar 8 2004, 10:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Mar 8 2004, 10:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Xzilen+Mar 7 2004, 11:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Mar 7 2004, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course, the liberal media loves to make attacks on any Republican president doing it :-\ I'm not a huge Bush fan, but find something better to bash him about.
You want something to Bash? Check out how Kerry got his Purple Hearts so quickly and the fact that if he did get them legitly, he broke regulation in doing so. For instance, he claimed he got out of a Gun boat and persued on sure, BIG NO NO, it would put you between the Gunboats gunner and the targets on land, plus you would call in another group and etc etc etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So help me, if I see one more knee-jerk reference to the 'liberal media' heads are going to roll.
Aren't conservatives the ones who are supposed to laugh everything off as 'conspiracy theory', instead of making them? To throw out a crude stat and then paraphrase Eric Alterman, many more papers supported Bush than Gore in the last election, and the press was particularly brutal to the latter. If that's a 'liberal media', you can have it.
At any rate, <i>your</i> post, <i>your</i> research. Why don't you provide some links for us so we can see what a truly bad man Kerry is. Really. Please. Everything I've seen so far reeks of spin, but maybe I'm just being duped by that darn liberal media.
And to get back on topic, this is partially why I find the ads distasteful (courtesy of Josh Marshall): <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.
George W. Bush March 6th, 2004 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.
The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.
Detroit Free Press March 3rd, 2004 <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As well, the press isn't allowed to show caskets coming off of planes from Iraq, yet Bush displays the shrouded remains of a 9/11 victim in his ad? Let's hope they don't find out whose body it is . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well for a funny link, here's
If you want to talk about the Media siding with Bush, it's rather ironic that over 90% of TV Anchormen and Women supported Gore in surveys conducted throughout the election. Just because you can point to Newspapers and say "OMG0rz they supported Bush" is not the whole point. The fact is, mainstream media continually show's liberal slanted stories. Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Mar 8 2004, 12:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Mar 8 2004, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lots of things to say, lots of time on my hand... I'm in hypocrite heaven!
<b>Xzlien:</b> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the liberal media loves to make attacks on any Republican president doing it :-\ I'm not a huge Bush fan, but find something better to bash him about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As much as I hate to play rulemonger in a thread I'm partaking in, refer to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Forum Rule #2</a>, and keep those blanket remarks at bay - I think BMs reaction showed quite clearly why. On the note of the political orientation of American media, seeing it all from this side of the Atlantic, I'd like to point out that the only political color they'd be allowed to don over here would be <i>brown</i>.
Anyway, BM is right, we're tackling a tangent so satruated that it threatens to kill the original thread. I'll split the posts mainly conntected to Iraq into a seperate topic.
[edit]<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=65220&st=0#entry968431' target='_blank'>Done</a>. I apologize to anyone I put in the 'wrong' thread.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, excuse me then. I shall refrain from that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's a more serious one. Vietnam Vets against John Kerry. Bias, but points out some rather interesting things. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two words: Ted Stampley. He's a Bush shill who slimed the honorable John McCain for Bush in the 2000 primaries, and he's doing the same against the Dems this time around. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, he actually got arrested for assaulting one of McCain's supporters last time around. Great guy, that Mr. Stampley.
Anyhow, let's hear from Mr. McCain:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.
I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyhow, in the context of this conversation, I find it odd that I've been corrected because I invoked the message of the firefighter's union as somehow being representative of firefighters, whereas this nut somehow now speaks a significant voice for Vets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to talk about the Media siding with Bush, it's rather ironic that over 90% of TV Anchormen and Women supported Gore in surveys conducted throughout the election. Just because you can point to Newspapers and say "OMG0rz they supported Bush" is not the whole point. The fact is, mainstream media continually show's liberal slanted stories. Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mainstream media has biases of all stripes. Period.
Incidentally, how do you think 90% of talk radio hosts voted? Oh, wait-- conservatives analysts (comically and disingenuously) never include talk radio--long dominated by the right-- in their discussion of 'news media', even though over 45 million Americans get their news from . . uh . . talk radio. So a lot of it is simply taking selective stats and sampling populations. If you study and complain about all the instances of liberal bias-- of which there are many, to be sure-- without likewise bringing attention to examples of conservative bias-- you're being intentionally dishonest, and building a hollow point. I've read both 'Bias' (Goldberg) and 'What Liberal Media?' (Alterman) and I'd recommend you do the same, or at least read <i>a</i> book from the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the way, 'conservative bias' brings up close to 10,000 hits in google-- which is still a pretty significant number. Additionally, look at the top hits (meaning, most popular/commonly linked) for 'liberal bias'-- they're sites about the 'liberal media myth'.
Edit: The term you actually listed was "conservative media". Incidentally, it brings up more hits-- 18,600. My bad.
Now, by your logic, check this out:
Bigfoot: 1,150,000 hits Alien Visitors: 348,000 hits Loch Ness Monster: 102,000 hits Leprechauns: 90,400 Fire Breathing Goats: 18,400 A guy who is twelve feet tall and has hands made out of salad forks: 1,760
Have I definitively proven that these exist, based on the scientific, bullet-proof 'Google Frequency Method'?
However, this is way off topic, except for the stuff at the top on Stampley. Sort of.
Edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is another link. This one from a retired Rear Admiral.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, which? All I see is that it's a 'retired Rear Admiral'. No name, and their link doesn't go directly to an article.
Edit 2: Oh wait, I finally found it: This info comes . . . <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->from a source he is "not sure [he] can reveal, said to be a retired Rear Admiral"...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironclad.
Final Edit: Sorry, had to have more fun with google.
Oh, I'll agree that Talk Radio is conservative. I can't deny that, but they don't deny it either. They don't try to pass it off as Unbias. They come right out and say it.
As for the Stampley thing, I'll conceed I had no idea about that, rather distasteful I'll say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the Stampley thing, I'll conceed I had no idea about that, rather distasteful I'll say. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, he pops up all over the place. He's very outspoken, and also more than a bit nuts.
I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that there are some vets who will simply worship Bush and hate Kerry, and some vets that will do the exact opposite. I suppose most of it comes down to personal politics, taste, principles, and tolerance. Either way, I tend to take their opinions (on both sides) with a grain of salt now . . . they're certainly entitled to them, but their service (while much appreciated) doesn't make me take them as Gospel.
*shrug*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, I'll agree that Talk Radio is conservative. I can't deny that, but they don't deny it either. They don't try to pass it off as Unbias. They come right out and say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most do. There are some who definitely lean one way or the other (Say, Bill O'Reilly) who paint themselves as dyed in the wool Independents. Either way, that's just an example of how people can paint the media as liberal very easily-- by ignoring what they consider to be 'fringe media outlets' which are very partisan, and very influential.
Just to get a rounded view on the situation, I'd highly recommend <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1079035667/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5664688-5016106?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Eric Alterman's</a> book on the subject. It's written by a liberal and not without its flaws, but it does raise some good questions. It never hurts to hear the other side's perspective.
For the time being, though, the best place to visit to cut through election rhetoric is <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/' target='_blank'>spinsanity.</a> It's wonderfully impartial.
Am I the only person who no matter what statistics are thrown at me whether right/left/middle/upside or whatever never believe them? I went to Vietnam Vets against Kerry and read what they had to say, I could tell it was biased but there were some things that looked REALLY bad from my stand-point. That is why I rarely even read an article about something and take face value, do a little research and whaam, you find out loads of info. I looked at the pictures and dates, not everything else. We can throw stats on TV, Radio, internet, newspapers, or whatever for liberal or conservative influence and never get anywhere. Simple fact is that all stations are biased and people find out very quickly. I am extremely conservative and regonize signs in news stations as they make annoucements with this or that undertone. I don't like what I hear so I may change the channel, throw the paper in the fireplace, or knock my radio out the window. People are never "right in the middle", so what do you expect?
<!--QuoteBegin-The_Angel_of_Death+Mar 12 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The_Angel_of_Death @ Mar 12 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Am I the only person who no matter what statistics are thrown at me whether right/left/middle/upside or whatever never believe them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of cause you're not. But it would seem that there's just more people believing blindly in what they hear than there's people taking their news with a grain of salt.
<!--QuoteBegin-xect+Mar 13 2004, 10:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xect @ Mar 13 2004, 10:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The_Angel_of_Death+Mar 12 2004, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The_Angel_of_Death @ Mar 12 2004, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Am I the only person who no matter what statistics are thrown at me whether right/left/middle/upside or whatever never believe them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of cause you're not. But it would seem that there's just more people believing blindly in what they hear than there's people taking their news with a grain of salt. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe blindly. If I did, I would probably be a liberal (no this is not another thing about the media being liberal, or at least how I [notice the I BM :-p] see it to be). My teachers throughout high school were rather liberal, and quite open about it, I listened to them, and respected them, but stood by my then conservative beliefs.
And Monkey, I shall check that out sometime (the book). Sounds interesting to say the least.
On a cool note, today, when getting off of work at the A&P Grocery Mart I work at, I got to see Rob Simmons (I've gotten to talk to him about three times now, all times that I've run into him there). He's a member of congress from Connecticut who is very, very moderate. A republican who only votes about 75% of the time with the republican party. In today's politics, thats damned good. A good guy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Xzilen+Mar 14 2004, 10:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Mar 14 2004, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't believe blindly. If I did, I would probably be a liberal (no this is not another thing about the media being liberal, or at least how I [notice the I BM :-p] see it to be). My teachers throughout high school were rather liberal, and quite open about it, I listened to them, and respected them, but stood by my then conservative beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> True, respecting the other side is the best way to get a perspective.
But I don't believe anyone in this place fall under the "ignorant and blind belief" category. There's a lot of people who do, but none of them care to spend the time it takes to post to a discussion forum.
Comments
<span style='color:white'>You wrote that... And still continued your post? Impressive.</span>
You want something to Bash? Check out how Kerry got his Purple Hearts so quickly and the fact that if he did get them legitly, he broke regulation in doing so. For instance, he claimed he got out of a Gun boat and persued on sure, BIG NO NO, it would put you between the Gunboats gunner and the targets on land, plus you would call in another group and etc etc etc. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So help me, if I see one more knee-jerk reference to the 'liberal media' heads are going to roll.
Aren't conservatives the ones who are supposed to laugh everything off as 'conspiracy theory', instead of making them? To throw out a crude stat and then paraphrase Eric Alterman, many more papers supported Bush than Gore in the last election, and the press was particularly brutal to the latter. If that's a 'liberal media', you can have it.
At any rate, <i>your</i> post, <i>your</i> research. Why don't you provide some links for us so we can see what a truly bad man Kerry is. Really. Please. Everything I've seen so far reeks of spin, but maybe I'm just being duped by that darn liberal media.
And to get back on topic, this is partially why I find the ads distasteful (courtesy of Josh Marshall):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.
George W. Bush
March 6th, 2004
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.
The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.
Detroit Free Press
March 3rd, 2004
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As well, the press isn't allowed to show caskets coming off of planes from Iraq, yet Bush displays the shrouded remains of a 9/11 victim in his ad? Let's hope they don't find out whose body it is . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well for a funny link, here's
<a href='http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1073617/posts' target='_blank'>http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1073617/posts</a>
Here's a more serious one. Vietnam Vets against John Kerry. Bias, but points out some rather interesting things.
<a href='http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html' target='_blank'>http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html</a>
If you want to talk about the Media siding with Bush, it's rather ironic that over 90% of TV Anchormen and Women supported Gore in surveys conducted throughout the election. Just because you can point to Newspapers and say "OMG0rz they supported Bush" is not the whole point. The fact is, mainstream media continually show's liberal slanted stories. Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\
<a href='http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083481/posts' target='_blank'>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083481/posts</a>
I'll bring up more later, but I have class now.
<b>Xzlien:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the liberal media loves to make attacks on any Republican president doing it :-\ I'm not a huge Bush fan, but find something better to bash him about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As much as I hate to play rulemonger in a thread I'm partaking in, refer to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Forum Rule #2</a>, and keep those blanket remarks at bay - I think BMs reaction showed quite clearly why.
On the note of the political orientation of American media, seeing it all from this side of the Atlantic, I'd like to point out that the only political color they'd be allowed to don over here would be <i>brown</i>.
Anyway, BM is right, we're tackling a tangent so satruated that it threatens to kill the original thread. I'll split the posts mainly conntected to Iraq into a seperate topic.
[edit]<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=65220&st=0#entry968431' target='_blank'>Done</a>. I apologize to anyone I put in the 'wrong' thread.[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, excuse me then. I shall refrain from that.
<a href='http://punditstar.blogspot.com/' target='_blank'>http://punditstar.blogspot.com/</a>
Two words: Ted Stampley. He's a Bush shill who slimed the honorable John McCain for Bush in the 2000 primaries, and he's doing the same against the Dems this time around. Heck, if I'm not mistaken, he actually got arrested for assaulting one of McCain's supporters last time around. Great guy, that Mr. Stampley.
Anyhow, let's hear from Mr. McCain:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.
I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyhow, in the context of this conversation, I find it odd that I've been corrected because I invoked the message of the firefighter's union as somehow being representative of firefighters, whereas this nut somehow now speaks a significant voice for Vets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to talk about the Media siding with Bush, it's rather ironic that over 90% of TV Anchormen and Women supported Gore in surveys conducted throughout the election. Just because you can point to Newspapers and say "OMG0rz they supported Bush" is not the whole point. The fact is, mainstream media continually show's liberal slanted stories. Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mainstream media has biases of all stripes. Period.
Incidentally, how do you think 90% of talk radio hosts voted? Oh, wait-- conservatives analysts (comically and disingenuously) never include talk radio--long dominated by the right-- in their discussion of 'news media', even though over 45 million Americans get their news from . . uh . . talk radio. So a lot of it is simply taking selective stats and sampling populations. If you study and complain about all the instances of liberal bias-- of which there are many, to be sure-- without likewise bringing attention to examples of conservative bias-- you're being intentionally dishonest, and building a hollow point. I've read both 'Bias' (Goldberg) and 'What Liberal Media?' (Alterman) and I'd recommend you do the same, or at least read <i>a</i> book from the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just type it into google, you'll get thousands of results. You type in "conservative media" you get crap :-\<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the way, 'conservative bias' brings up close to 10,000 hits in google-- which is still a pretty significant number. Additionally, look at the top hits (meaning, most popular/commonly linked) for 'liberal bias'-- they're sites about the 'liberal media myth'.
Edit: The term you actually listed was "conservative media". Incidentally, it brings up more hits-- 18,600. My bad.
Now, by your logic, check this out:
Bigfoot: 1,150,000 hits
Alien Visitors: 348,000 hits
Loch Ness Monster: 102,000 hits
Leprechauns: 90,400
Fire Breathing Goats: 18,400
A guy who is twelve feet tall and has hands made out of salad forks: 1,760
Have I definitively proven that these exist, based on the scientific, bullet-proof 'Google Frequency Method'?
However, this is way off topic, except for the stuff at the top on Stampley. Sort of.
Edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is another link. This one from a retired Rear Admiral.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, which? All I see is that it's a 'retired Rear Admiral'. No name, and their link doesn't go directly to an article.
Edit 2: Oh wait, I finally found it: This info comes . . .
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->from a source he is "not sure [he] can reveal, said to be a retired Rear Admiral"...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironclad.
Final Edit: Sorry, had to have more fun with google.
As for the Stampley thing, I'll conceed I had no idea about that, rather distasteful I'll say.
Yeah, he pops up all over the place. He's very outspoken, and also more than a bit nuts.
I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that there are some vets who will simply worship Bush and hate Kerry, and some vets that will do the exact opposite. I suppose most of it comes down to personal politics, taste, principles, and tolerance. Either way, I tend to take their opinions (on both sides) with a grain of salt now . . . they're certainly entitled to them, but their service (while much appreciated) doesn't make me take them as Gospel.
*shrug*
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, I'll agree that Talk Radio is conservative. I can't deny that, but they don't deny it either. They don't try to pass it off as Unbias. They come right out and say it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most do. There are some who definitely lean one way or the other (Say, Bill O'Reilly) who paint themselves as dyed in the wool Independents. Either way, that's just an example of how people can paint the media as liberal very easily-- by ignoring what they consider to be 'fringe media outlets' which are very partisan, and very influential.
Just to get a rounded view on the situation, I'd highly recommend <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001769/qid=1079035667/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5664688-5016106?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Eric Alterman's</a>
book on the subject. It's written by a liberal and not without its flaws, but it does raise some good questions. It never hurts to hear the other side's perspective.
For the time being, though, the best place to visit to cut through election rhetoric is <a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/' target='_blank'>spinsanity.</a> It's wonderfully impartial.
We can throw stats on TV, Radio, internet, newspapers, or whatever for liberal or conservative influence and never get anywhere. Simple fact is that all stations are biased and people find out very quickly. I am extremely conservative and regonize signs in news stations as they make annoucements with this or that undertone. I don't like what I hear so I may change the channel, throw the paper in the fireplace, or knock my radio out the window. People are never "right in the middle", so what do you expect?
Of cause you're not. But it would seem that there's just more people believing blindly in what they hear than there's people taking their news with a grain of salt.
Of cause you're not. But it would seem that there's just more people believing blindly in what they hear than there's people taking their news with a grain of salt. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe blindly. If I did, I would probably be a liberal (no this is not another thing about the media being liberal, or at least how I [notice the I BM :-p] see it to be). My teachers throughout high school were rather liberal, and quite open about it, I listened to them, and respected them, but stood by my then conservative beliefs.
And Monkey, I shall check that out sometime (the book). Sounds interesting to say the least.
On a cool note, today, when getting off of work at the A&P Grocery Mart I work at, I got to see Rob Simmons (I've gotten to talk to him about three times now, all times that I've run into him there). He's a member of congress from Connecticut who is very, very moderate. A republican who only votes about 75% of the time with the republican party. In today's politics, thats damned good. A good guy.
True, respecting the other side is the best way to get a perspective.
But I don't believe anyone in this place fall under the "ignorant and blind belief" category. There's a lot of people who do, but none of them care to spend the time it takes to post to a discussion forum.