Discussion: Media, The Press, Journalism, Cable News, Media Bias, and Other Media Issues

So what? George Bush is still evil.

Seriously, though, great post exposing blatant media bias yet again.

 

That's right,just because they show Bush as a fool..which he is. People get angry,NBC is great news.

 

So, how do you like it when people edit what you say to completely change the meaning?

 

I love how the right-wing nuts denounce the media as "left". It's not left. If it were left they would have asked the tough questions prior to the Iraq war instead of regurgitating whatever the administration fed them.

Why isn't the media covering the story of the British soldiers caught, dressed in "Arab" garb planting a car bomb? There's a myriad of other stories not being covered. Why was the media barred from filming the arrival of dead soldiers?

They'd ask even TOUGHER questions regarding Iran, if they were left. The American media is a joke. Infotainment!

Please ALL major Hollywood studios have a pentagon office that "reviews" scripts.

Left wing (or free) media, my ass!

 

It doesn't really seem like they edited out anything of importance from his first response - he still sounds like a mo.'

Alright, so - if we don't take those word SRSLY, then we might not take other words so SRSLY. And then BAM! Hitler's gotcha.

Yeesh.

 

So what did the final, aired interview entail? If anyone has links to a transcript, I'd like to see it, so I can make my own judgment on this. Mr. Gillespie isn't really the purveyor of objectivity himself.

 

They edited out 2 sentences that don't change anything, whatsoever. This whole argument is for people like Norman, who can be counted on to respond (in a predictable way) to the staple, rallying messages of the Right Wing. They fall back on these messages...when they get in trouble...in order to distract the masses from reading between the lines. They know that most people just don't have the time, nor inclination to pay attention to the details. It's much simpler and easier to just react to your own preconceived notions and assumptions. You think you're being skeptical and inquisitive, but you're really just following along behind someone else* who's thinking for you.

In this case, the message is that the liberal left-wing media is out to "deceive" us all, and undermine Fearless Leader's agenda of fighting the Global War on Terror. They give the appearance of objectivity and journalistic integrity, but in truth, they have their own (possibly subversive) agenda, which is demonstrated by the fact that they aired an interview with Fearless Leader which portrayed him in a false and unfair manner. This is what Ed Gillespie would have us believe.

Could it be that NBC has been infiltrated by al Qaeda? Or, possibly worse, the French?




*Someone like Ed Gillespie, who speak up for Bush when he screws up, or can't defend himself, either because he lacks the ability, or simply because he's too inept...he can't be allowed to potentially make the situation worse.

 

The man gave up golf to cope with the thousands of lives being lost in Iraq...he has had enough media ****es......................................................................(I can't put enough dots sorry)

 

Moral of the story: Everyone in said story sucks all around. To hell with them all, they're all liars.

 

Another Non-Issue made up by the Neo-Cons.

 

C'mon Norm, you're better than this.

 

Can't say it better than this.

 

It would be more accurate to describe media bias not as left or right, but as “corporate.” In that, I mean that the way in which the reporting of a story in the mainstream media will be ultimately shaped is determined, first and foremost, by what will maximize profit for whatever news organization reported the story. It’s a very simple idea and is really the only sensible interpretation of the situation. Think about it: Would some magic honor code prevent GE, Time-Warner, and News Corporation from acting in a self-interested manner like every other corporation on the face of the Earth? The very obvious answer to that question is a resounding NO.

 

Still better than Fox

 

FoxNews is constantly being touted as the least biased Network News Organization, even Hillary has stated they are one of the only Networks that showed any sign of fairness this campain cycle.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mcauliffe-says-media-in-the-tank-for-obama-2008-05-13.html

 

It's not "doctoring." All they did was cut out a couple of throwaway lines. It happens all the time. It's called editing. You'd have a reason to complain if the lines that were cut actually added something worthwhile to his response, but they didn't.

On top of all that, the President completely evaded the question, which was very simple and straightforward. Now his handlers are turning the issue into a media bias question, in order to divert our attention from the fact that Bush can't support his position when challenged. This is called "bait and switch." You took the bait, and now you're focus is turned away from Bush's screw-up.

-"We need to take the words of people seriously." True, except when they're coming from Bush's mouth. Seriously.

-"...the need to defend Israel..." Israel is our ally. Of course we will defend them. That's always been our government's policy.

-"...the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas..." We don't negotiate with terrorists. That's government policy. I guess it makes you look tough to people who don't realize this, though...

-And, of course we don't want Iran to get nukes! Are we finished pretending to be dense, now? I mean, these policies haven't changed. Stating them now is irrelevant to the question of what (who) exactly was the aim of this attack. To me, it's basically like calling someone a traitor, without explicitly stating their name. It's made worse by the fact that it was done on foreign soil.

 

haha did anyone bother to watch the interview? it really doesn't change the context or makes anyone seem biased at all.
maybe the letter should address the fact that Bush never answers the simple question

"Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

and they get outraged? Bush never says a simple yes or no.
hahaha the nerve!

 

Just for lulz I should go look up Normie's resposne to when the media edited Reverend Wright's entire career as a preacher down to four sentences. I'm sure he was really super concerned about media bias and presenting a fair and balanced accounting of the man's merits.

 

Oh get a grip.

If you bothered to actually watch the damn thing you would know that what they took out didn't change a thing as far as Bush's double-talk response.

Like I said, Another Non-Issue made up by the Neo-Cons.

 

Because they want her to run against McCain. They're playing a game.

 

Firstly, Norm, I said you're better than this because the supposed media bias is a load of crap. It's a great ploy by Republicans, though, to get those who want to to believe that reality is shaded to their side and that the even though you see on the news that Republican policies for the most part suck; they really don't. More of the "don't look at the man behind the curtain" messaging from a group that is great at it. I envy you guys and your ruthless precision. I pray every day that the Democrats will eventually "get it."

Secondly, without seeing both the edited and unedited versions and only reading a letter from the White House, I can't help but be skeptical.

Thirdly, nothing goes together like the words "Bush" and "recession". They're like hot dogs and baseball, baby. I mean, the unemployment figures would be relevant if the jobs that were being created were either full time or decent paying or both. But they're clearly not.

Here's where my original point gets so interesting. I'm going to link to an article that backs up what I'm saying. But because the press has such a liberal bend to it, this article can easily be discounted. Genius! Whichever think tank came up with the liberal press (which is controlled by giant corporations) is horribly underpaid and overpaid all at once.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2008/04/02/unemployment_rate_misleading_analysts_say/6746/

 

It's Real