Is the mainstream media biased?
0 voters
I don’t view myself as a liberal or a conservative, but as someone fairly close to the center as it relates to politics. I hear almost every day about the MSM being biased one way or the other. I don’t really see it in the American networks (except Fox) or the CBC in Canada but would like to hear other views from this forum.
well…here we go again… :snore:
bear
shit
woods
How could an overwhelming majority of Americans in 2003 support a war and a president when the rest of the world held record-breaking protests against this war (knowing full well that the motivation behind this aggression was NOT because of WMDs)?
How could over 60% of Republicans hold the belief in 2004 that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with 9/11?
The answer, my dear Watson, is a right-wing American corporate media that spews GOP talking points without critical thought or analyses.
Is this not obvious already?
U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!
Of course the mainsteam media is biased, but not left or right. They’re biased toward sensationalism and whatever will crank up viewer numbers.
:bravo: 
:bravo:
Capitalistics pigs they are.
CNN and FOX are a evil cult. 
Biased media? Oh come on! Please! Media bosses are bound by law to be fair, unbiased and objective – its one of the pricipal tenets they have drummed into them in media boss school.
So the answer is of course “No!” The media is not biased.
The least biased news source I’ve found is the Christian Science Monitor. The majority of news sources have a liberal bias and a growing minority a conservative bias.
A good rule of thumb I’ve found in life is actual honesty/objectivity/intelligence/fairness is inversely proportional to how ready a person is to publicly proclaim they possess those traits.
In the U.S., you are definitely off the mark.
There is sensationalism to avoid the real news stories that make the GOP look bad. (they’re called “diversions”).
Compare the Clinton / Lewinsky blowjob scandal to:
If the right-wing media in the U.S. had spent half the time investigating these stories than dwelling on white anglo-saxon abducted females and Michael Jackson, Bushco. would NOT have won the 2004 election. It would not have even been close. How many times did you hear of the Department of Homeland Securities “orange alerts” the year before the 2004 election? Have you heard them since?
And now, we have a senior CIA officer telling CBS news that George Tenet himself warned Bushco. not to use the claims that Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger because they were false – months before the SOTU address in January 2003. The CIA was then told that this did not conform with their policy of regime change. Bravo, CBS! But this is only about 3 years old knowlege!!! The Downing Street Memos and subsequent briefings (leaked in July 2003 onwards) were proof of this. The U.S. media STILL TO THIS DAY has not really given fair time to these memos.
And don’t forget how much of a brouhaha the “swiftboaters” got from the media – not to mention Dan Rather and Bush’s military records (noone has since questioned the fact that Bush was indeed A.W.O.L. during his time with the National Guard)
The U.S. media unquestionably is right-wing. Not surprising, since Colin Powell’s son is head of the government department regulating the media (the FCC).
I found the poll confusing, was the question referring to Taiwan, US, global media or somewhere else altogether?
I read papers from at least 3 countries online every day andlove the contrast that you can get on the same story by doing this.
If the question relates to HK then the media is definitely biased towards Beijing these days, which is to the right of HK (location not politics). 
You have GOT to be kidding.
Could it be that the media is being a lot more careful about the “stories” they break these days, after Dan Rather pissed away thrity years of credibility with fake documents?
With respect to the Taiwan / China issues…
The U.S. media is incredibly biased towards China and the KMT.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Could it be that the media is being a lot more careful about the “stories” they break these days, after Dan Rather pissed away thrity years of credibility with fake documents?[/quote]
Bullshit.
The Dan Rather story was in 2004. More than a year after Judith Miller (NY Times) was whoring for Bushco. with her lies about Iraq.
And what did Rather get wrong in this story? He didn’t properly verify the authenticity of the letter. The fact that Bush was A.W.O.L from the National Guard for a year gets nary a mention.
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]With respect to the Taiwan / China issues…
The U.S. media is incredibly biased towards China and the KMT.[/quote]
AH I see. 
Well, of course. No one knows/cares about Taiwan in the US. Sad but true. It probably works in Taiwan’s benefit to NOT be under the eye of the US press though.
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]With respect to the Taiwan / China issues…
The U.S. media is incredibly biased towards China and the KMT.[/quote]
AH I see.
Well, of course. No one knows/cares about Taiwan in the US. Sad but true. It probably works in Taiwan’s benefit to NOT be under the eye of the US press though.[/quote]
I’m not sure I follow your argument here. The more that the U.S. citizens know about the cross-straights issue, the more likely they will support defending Taiwan.
Top 5 AP stories from Yahoo:
[quote]
Because most of us understood that WMD or no WMD, Saddam had it coming and that we and our partners across the pond and down under were the only ones who had the balls to give it to him.
Because they need an excuse to tell folks like you who can’t accept that Saddam Hussein deserved an ass beating as much as any other thug in the world. 
[quote=“Richardm”]Top 5 AP stories from Yahoo:
[quote]
Because most of us understood that WMD or no WMD, Saddam had it coming and that we and our partners across the pond and down under were the only ones who had the balls to give it to him.
Because they need an excuse to tell folks like you who can’t accept that Saddam Hussein deserved an ass beating as much as any other thug in the world. [/quote]
Saddam Hussein was contained in 2003 and the deaths of 10’s of thousands of Iraqis and Americans were the result of a madman and chickenhawk – named George W. Bush and his cronies who were itching for war since the day he was appointed in January 2000.
Now we face the possibility that this madman will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.
On June 2, 2006 – there will be a test involving 10’s of thousands of pounds of explosives in the Nevada desert named, get this…
“DIVINE STRIKE”.
If you haven’t awaken to this madness, yet – you are truly one sad fool.
Of course, the U.S. media will be focusing their attention on the latest Bin Laden tape or another orange alert or the latest abducted anglo-saxon female.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Could it be that the media is being a lot more careful about the “stories” they break these days, after Dan Rather pissed away thrity years of credibility with fake documents?[/quote]
Bullshit.
The Dan Rather story was in 2004. More than a year after Judith Miller (NY Times) was whoring for Bushco. with her lies about Iraq.[/quote]
So? Are you saying that one voids the other?
Wrong. Rather and his editors pushed the envelop and when they couldn’t get the muck they needed, they invented it.
Getting back to the point, what Rather did DID ruin a lot of the credibility of the left, first with his forgery, then with his “retirement.”
Far as I know, no one has taken his place.