|
Post by jq on Oct 20, 2007 14:25:31 GMT -5
Yeah honestly, I'd say my example of the God Hates Gay people footage not being seen on mainstream media is EXACTLY the same if you ask me.
Also, I wasn't saying the media has a double standard, but simply liberals (as well as conservatives.) And these days, with Murdoch owning both Fox News AND Wall Street Journal, two HUGE media conglomerates which are both undeniably conservative, you could argue there is just as much conservative bias in the media.
But also, the mainstream media just doesn't report certain issues they feel are too extreme for the mainstream. They don't show much on gay haters, and they don't show much on muslim extremists.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 20, 2007 15:56:02 GMT -5
I think we may be misunderstanding HackFest. Something tells me that his next post on this subject will bring together what he was really trying to say and we're probably going to feel crusty for not realizing it. Then again, maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 24, 2007 0:35:41 GMT -5
Point out what you are misunderstanding and I'll try to clarify. But I'll hit some things now that I perceive as possibly misunderstood by reading these posts.
You stated that it doesn't sell products, so its ignored. That's an opinion since you don't do market research. I stated that it was more relevant, meaning relevant to current popular issues.
jq said: But I still think that your example would have been far more effective if it showed something happening in Iran that the media isn't showing. As far UK, my paper reported what was happening pretty often. But then, my weekly paper comes from the UK, so maybe the US is different.
My example was put there to show that during the "Bush talks WW3" fiasco, the media failed to show anything that would support his statement, and I believe whole-heartedly that this is partially due to a mostly liberal media with an agenda. It was never intended to validate any point of view on Iran. It was to point out all of the reasons the media gave to counter his statement. And you should know that your UK paper CONSISTENTLY prints more accurate stories. The US media is extremely censored.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 24, 2007 0:41:09 GMT -5
And you should know that your UK paper CONSISTENTLY prints more accurate stories. The US media is extremely censored. I will definitely agree with you here, 100%. In fact, it is worth noting that that is the very reason for why I get much of my news on the US (and international politics) from the UK-- it seems far more upfront about current events, and less politically biased.
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Oct 28, 2007 7:21:06 GMT -5
Back to WWIII, am I the only one who watched the news conference where he made this statement and smirked and chuckled at the prospect? apparently he finds the idea of a WWIII amusing.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 28, 2007 13:50:11 GMT -5
I saw that chuckle too. What a scary man.
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Oct 29, 2007 3:56:40 GMT -5
That chuckle was a perfect sound bite for the Dems to use, but so far they let it pass. I ask, why? Bush kicks them in the nuts at ever turn, but they will not fight back. I do not want any of these guys deciding my future.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 29, 2007 4:01:37 GMT -5
They're too chickenshit to impeach, too chickenshit to vote against funding the war, and too chickenshit to fight dirty when the other side is fighting dirty.
|
|
|
Post by chuq on Oct 31, 2007 3:51:57 GMT -5
Yep, that iis because they are always looking to the next election, not the next generation. If this keeps up we are condemned to a perpetual war, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 31, 2007 4:29:28 GMT -5
Yep, that iis because they are always looking to the next election, not the next generation. If this keeps up we are condemned to a perpetual war, IMO. It sometimes almost seems that's what they're hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 1, 2007 0:13:35 GMT -5
Too chicken to impeach?! Don't you have to have substance to impeach?!
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 1, 2007 0:40:29 GMT -5
Yes, and there's plenty of it. Unfortunately, in a court of law, it would be quite a battle to push any of the things that are impeachable offenses. It would not be an easy battle because of the vagueness of some of the charges. That's what I mean by chicken--it would be a difficult battle, and they're not willing to take that chance and lose public support, even though they're losing public support by not doing a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 1, 2007 1:10:54 GMT -5
Well, I guess I'm glad that vague won't convict. I'd hate to have myself before a court and know that it all hangs in the balance on "vague". Agreed that they lose support by doing nothing. I've heard a LOT of liberals lately that are angry with the Democratic party for this very reason.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 1, 2007 1:19:49 GMT -5
Do you think that Bush really believed that Saddam was going to start a nuclear war, or do you think that Greenspan was more correct in his assertion that the war really was to get more control of oil flow? I only ask because your message seems to imply that Bush isn't guilty of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 3, 2007 4:17:50 GMT -5
Do you think the Bush administration wasn't guilty of anything?
|
|