the 'liberal media', ....NOT!

i feel a need to try and dispel this obvious crock of propoganda.

the media, as a whole, is NOT liberal. that is, unless you take the root meaning of 'free' from 'liberal', then, yes, they are liberal. to be conservative means to support the status quo. to be liberal means to welcome change. change happens. there is no stopping it.

nor is the media conservative. sure, certain outlets are biased SLIGHTLY one way or the other, but, all in all they are bound to remaining mostly impartial. it doesn't matter WHICH PARTY is in power. it is the media's job to criticize them. whoever is in power, gets criticized. clinton was severly attacked by the 'liberal media'. 'i didn't inhale', and 'neither did she' was enough to turn that president's term into a circus.

so, where is the 'liberal media' on bush's coc aine habit? where are they on his homosexual tendencies? where are they on his removal of american rights? where are they on his relationship with 'kenny boy', or the bin ladens, or his grandfather's enditement for nazi support, or his father's lunch with hinckley's brother, or his insider trading?

the media is the whipping boy of the ultrarich. that spells 'conservative'. it is a self-serving business. however, it does not exist in some kind of isolation tank. the 'owners of the system', lord conrad black et al. are in it for the long haul. that means that they don't 'jump' on every newsworthy story. if it's going to tee off their friends down at the country club, they simply won't print it, because they get most of their revenue from ADVERTISING.

there are no liberals or conservatives. there is only THE CORPORATION.


[edit on 18-11-2004 by billybob]

Could it be they don't report your wild theories, Billy, because they are not true? Yeah, I know, you read those things at Rense.com so they must be true. Still, maybe you should stop and reconsider.

As far as the mainstream media not being liberal, that is a statement that is so far from the truth that it is not defendable but at the same time not worthy of debate. If you don't see it, it is only because you wish not to see it.

What's interesting is that in Europe, the concept of partial media has been there for centuries. People know exactly, when they read a paper, what position the paper is defending and on which side of the spectrum it is. Heck, the papers themselves say it.

Only in North America do we have this illusion of the neutrality or objectivity of the media. Interestingly, it's starting to crack and fall apart...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Could it be they don't report your wild theories, Billy, because they are not true? Yeah, I know, you read those things at Rense.com so they must be true. Still, maybe you should stop and reconsider.

As far as the mainstream media not being liberal, that is a statement that is so far from the truth that it is not defendable but at the same time not worthy of debate. If you don't see it, it is only because you wish not to see it.

i'm not talking about wild theories, thomas crowne(BTW, i just saw that movie, so now i know who you wanna be).
i'm talking about ownership and top down control. you have not supported your argument, which is strange for you. you're the king of legalese.

the media is self serving. i stand by this statement and i hope that a whole cascade of links shower down into this thread that demonstrate that the media is just the face of the body which occupies the hangouts of the rich and infamous. let's get a little bohemian grove bildberger CFR WMF CIA OSS paperclip whatnot into the mix for some 'context', that object which seems to have COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED from mainstream sound byte drivel.

the 'media' is in a vice of constriction. too many issues are 'too sensitive' and cannot even be openly approached. things like war crimes of israel. things like 'the cabal' of globalists which have taken over the world(that's right folks, you're TOO LATE, while you've been waiting for a NWO, it's been here for the last fifty odd years AT LEAST).

i'm glad you think my 'theories' are wild, thomas(even though they're not 'my' theories). that makes them more 'sensational', and therefore more worthy of spreading. the truth will out, eventually. or not, sometimes. i really don't care which corporate lapdog sits in the oval office. they are just that. lapdogs. it is the way the system is set up.(against the intentions of the founding fathers, too).

bush and ken lay are buddies. is this a myth?
bushes and bin ladens are in business together, and have been for years. a special plane was used on 911 to fly them out of the country. is this a myth?
the taliban had representatives negotiating oil deals in texas, post nine one one, and post "we will not deal with terrorists"? is this a myth?
pescott bush was arrested and indicted for supplying and coluding with the nazis in world war two. is this a myth?
nobody found any WMD. myth?
highrises collapse into a perfect footprint from fires on a couple floors? myth? where is the 'liberal media' on this? they NEVER draw attention to tower seven. if they wanted to oust bush, this alone could do it.

do you deny that bush has been arrested for coc aine? that he was arrested for DUI? do you deny that americans have lost ALL their rights, if they are deemed and 'enemy combatant', or 'terrorist'. do you disagree that, by the wording of the patriot act, you can be deemed a 'terrorist' for trying to 'coerce' peopl against the government? that USED to be called 'campaigning', now it is 'terrorism'.

i wish people would stop demonizing rense. it's an open forum, over there. anyway, that's not where i get my news. i do something called 'cross-referencing' and something else called 'thinking'.

gotta go make pizza. looking forward to all responses on this thread.

it all depends what new source you are checking. some are liberal and some are conservative.

not some...most main stream media is obviously liberal...if not very pro-democrat...only in the past few years have we seen a station (FOX) thats more converative slanted getting mainstream status...no media is unbiased...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Could it be they don't report your wild theories, Billy, because they are not true? Yeah, I know, you read those things at Rense.com so they must be true. Still, maybe you should stop and reconsider.

Yeah, a super moderator at the world's largest conspiracy website being condescending about somebody's wild theories.

I have a pretty firm grasp of logic. I think in pictures. I don't paint on cave walls, so that makes my reasoning skills slightly above average. Also, I'm the Chinese grand master of ping pong, yet this one is throwing me entirely for a loop.

Deny Ignorance indeed.

remember how tom sawyer got everybody else to pay him to whitewash his fence?
this is one of the grandest lessons of media.

they SEEM liberal, or they SEEM conservative, but when you look at the actual political parties, they only SEEM to be different. in truth, they must all cowtow to the whims of big money. in truth, the media outlets themselves are dictatorships, and that's just no way to represent democracy.
the medias' function is supposed to be to criticize and expose the faults of the government. instead, they whitewash everything local, and exagerate everything international. you'd think that the entire middle east, for example, is filled with 'fundamentalist jihadists', when that particular group of crazies only make up a small percentage of the total population. you'd think the CIA hasn't been screwing around with the power structure of every third world country. they use the excuse of bringing democracy, but end up just propping up a dictator that will deal with them. it's all about money, and has nothing to do with philanthropy.

'they hate our freedom', .......what a CROCK! what an ironic crock, at that, because, americans are no longer truly free, so these 'alleged' terrorists have won. when did they drop the 'alleged' anyway? nobody hates somene elses freedom. they might envy it, but then you'd think they'd attack their own warders, no?
so, where's the 'liberal media' telling us that there is a sentimental backlash the world over, from people who are tired of this little country(5% of the world's population) pushing around the whole globe, like it's some kind of divine right? i personally don't see it. not in any mainstream source.

Thomas: well, billy, could it be that they don't report your wild theories because they're not true?
Billy: i think your theory is pretty wild, thomas. a media that isn't just on an agenda of controlled sensationalism and power stroking is a pretty 'wild theory' in my humble opinion.

actually, i DO know of some liberal media. it is in the form of small independent rags that you can pick up in restaurants and street corners for FREE. these papers speak of RUNAWAY POLICE POWERS, BACKROOM POLITICS, and the PLIGHT OF THE POOR. now THAT'S liberal media.

these labels, 'liberal' and 'conservative' do not have the same meaning as they once did. they're just a couple of straw dogs.

The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus

"George W. Bush's grandfather(Prescott) helped finance the Nazi Party. Karl Rove's grandfather allegedly helped run the Nazi Party, and helped build the Birkenau Death Camp. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian father volunteered for the infamous Nazi SA and became a ranking officer."

no link provided. it's all easily verifiable with a little searching. so, where's the 'liberal media' outrage? the media, conservative OR liberal should be POUNDING THIS HOME, so people will know they have a nazi legacy in their midst. why is there only the sound of crickets? because, the 'liberal media' is actually the 'fascist propoganda arm'.

nazis aren't REALLY socialists, children. they are totalitarians/fascists. totalitarians can use either extreme(left or right) to bring about their TERRORIST REGIMES. happy hunting!

Originally posted by Otts
What's interesting is that in Europe, the concept of partial media has been there for centuries. People know exactly, when they read a paper, what position the paper is defending and on which side of the spectrum it is. Heck, the papers themselves say it.

Only in North America do we have this illusion of the neutrality or objectivity of the media. Interestingly, it's starting to crack and fall apart...

As an European, I think it's a bit more complicated. Yes, I know what position the different newspapers have, but I do want an objective presentation of the facts. The facts should be presented objectivity and the newspapers can interpret them as they like. My liberal-progressive newspaper has about 6 pages for stories that report the facts and 3 pages for opinions and editorials.

There's no problem with partial media, but it should be clear what is fact and what is interpretation or opinion.

I don't get the impression that the media in the United States are very liberal. I even think that they are at best centrist or maybe even conservative. However, I've only read newspapers featured on Arts & Letters Daily: New York Times, Washington Post and to a lesser degree the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe.