media bias

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmelosi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Latias said:
Where is this left-wing propaganda? I do not see the mainstream media supporting Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
Click to expand...
The media is mostly left-wing when it comes to social issues but not economic ones. Sanders and Corbyn aren’t liked because most left-wing outlets are owned by private companies. These companies hate conservatives especially on social matters. They’re more centrist on economics because they benefit from such policies.
It’s not even outright propaganda that many can’t stand. It’s the double standards and smears of conservatives especially social conservatives who are mostly Christians in the West.
An example would be how Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh are labelled as ‘Christian terrorists’ but didn’t believe in God or weren’t motivated by a belief in God. When it’s brought up by Leftists guests, it tends to go unchallenged by editors and TV anchors.
 
ATraveller said:
The media is mostly left-wing when it comes to social issues but not economic ones. Sanders and Corbyn aren’t liked because most left-wing outlets are owned by private companies. These companies hate conservatives especially on social matters. They’re more centrist on economics because they benefit from such policies.
It’s not even outright propaganda that many can’t stand. It’s the double standards and smears of conservatives especially social conservatives who are mostly Christians in the West.
An example would be how Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh are labelled as ‘Christian terrorists’ but didn’t believe in God or weren’t motivated by a belief in God. When it’s brought up by Leftists guests, it tends to go unchallenged by editors and TV anchors.
Click to expand...
Well, I never called them “Christian”. They sympathize with some far-rightist element. Breivik spoke of a Christianized West that is a bulwark for Western culture.

I remember this about Timothy McVeigh (by Ted Kaczynski), and I agree with it.

Eric Rudolph was a Christian terrorist.
McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall his mentioning that prior to the Gulf War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the “enemies” he was supposed to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect their culture.
…
Click to expand...
But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers. I’ve already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people’s cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn’t aware of any indication that he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature, and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for adventurers.
Click to expand...
McVeigh never discussed the Oklahoma City bombing with me, nor did he ever make any admissions in my hearing. I know nothing about that case except what the media have said, so I’m not going to offer any opinion about whether McVeigh did what they say he did. However, assuming that the Oklahoma City bombing was intended as a protest against the U.S. government in general and against the government’s actions at Waco in particular, I will say that I think the bombing was a bad action because it was unnecessarily inhumane.
Click to expand...
A more effective protest could have been made with far less harm to innocent people. Most of the people who died at Oklahoma City were, I imagine, lower-level government employees—office help and the like—who were not even remotely responsible for objectionable government policies or for the events at Waco. If violence were to be used to express protest, it could have been used far more humanely, and at the same time more effectively, by being directed at the relatively small number of people who were personally responsible for the policies or actions to which the protesters objected. Such protest would have attracted just as much national attention as the Oklahoma City bombing and would have involved relatively little risk to innocent people. Moreover, the protest would have earned far more sympathy than the Oklahoma City bombing did, because it is safe to assume that many anti-government people who might have accepted violence that was more limited and carefully directed were repelled by the large loss of innocent life at Oklahoma City.
Click to expand...
The media teach us to be horrified at the Oklahoma City bombing, but I won’t have time to be horrified at it as long as there are greater horrors in the world that make it seem insignificant by comparison. Moreover, our politicians and our military kill people in far larger numbers than was done at Oklahoma City, and they do so for motives that are far more cold blooded and calculating. On orders from the president, a general will kill some thousands of people (usually including many civilians regardless of efforts to avoid such losses) without bothering to ask himself whether the killing is justified. He has to follow orders because his only other alternative would be to resign his commission, and naturally he would rather kill a few thousand people than spoil his career. The politicians and the media justify these actions with propaganda about “defending freedom.” However, even if America were a free society (which it is not), most U.S. military action during at least the last couple of decades has not been necessary for the survival of American society but has been designed to protect relatively narrow economic or political interests or to boost the president’s approval rating in the public-opinion polls.
Click to expand...
3-3-3.org/docs/Kaczynski%27s%20comments%20on%20McVeigh.htm

Yes, McVeigh was probably not a racist. But for some reason, he had some copies of the Turner Diaries with him. He may have liked the Organization, but blanched at its racist ideology.

Reading that, I realize that Timothy McVeigh was a human. He may have been rightly executed, but that is why I am opposed to torture. Everyone is a human and should not be subjected to dehumanizing treatment.

Interesting that Ted Kaczynski advocates some “just terrorism” principle by saying that the bombings were “unnecessarily inhumane”.
 
dmelosi said:
I would hate to see what they would be if they were any further left.
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=UlSWKfsRUkE (watch it, about Soviet media from the CIA)

youtube.com/watch?v=2GvDyJobHTM (same video from the CIA channel)

The description:

Overview of Soviet perceptions of the United States, created by CIA’s Global Video Program. Reagan was interested in the subject and wrote how important it is to see “how others see us.” To learn more, read Ronald Reagan: Intelligence and the Cold War on CIA.gov’s Historical Collections Division page at 1.usa.gov/24hNgoH.

From the description, it doesn’t seem to be CIA propaganda but a briefing video for Reagan.
 
Latias said:
Well, I never called them “Christian”. They sympathize with some far-rightist element.
Click to expand...
I never said you did anything wrong. I’m saying those in the media let some of their guests get away with saying or writing that. Stuff like that angers people. Most journalists always question if Isil is really that Islamic if a guest says Isil is motivated by Islam. They never show the same amount of care and concern for Christians or even Hindus. Local stories of events reflecting negatively on pro-life people become national or even international stories but if they reflected negatively on the pro-abortion on demand mob they don’t become national or even international stories.
 
ATraveller said:
I never said you did anything wrong. I’m saying those in the media let some of their guests get away with saying or writing that. Stuff like that angers people because it isn’t merely a mistake. Journalist always question if Isil is really that Islamic if a guest says Isil is motivated by Islam. They never show the same amount of care and concern for Christians or even Hindus. Local stories of events reflecting negatively on pro-life people become national or even international stories but if they reflected negatively on the pro-abortion on demand mob they don’t become national or even international stories.
Click to expand...
Ok, so the media is just left-wing in social matters. I am not even that socially left-wing, unless I oppose the demonization of Muslims and I have no fervent position against the legality of abortion. I really don’t care about the repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell, and I did not lament the Obergefell decision.

Since I don’t care about social issues and I am content with the legal status of abortion, I don’t notice any left-wing bias. No, I am not going to say the media is left-wing. The way to avoid the hypocrisy is not to care or avoid listening to it.

For better or for worse, there isn’t much of a Catholic influence in the United States. Corporations are against abortion.

I saw the Euromaidan being praised as a bunch of people protesting against oppression even though it was extremely violent and brutal since there were mobs storming government buildings, while the media condemns the Ferguson riots for the same thing (but there wasn’t that much violence and government buildings were not seized).
 
Latias said:
Ok, so the media is just left-wing in social matters. I am not even that socially left-wing, unless I oppose the demonization of Muslims and I have no fervent position against the legality of abortion. I really don’t care about the repeal of don’t ask/don’t tell, and I did not lament the Obergefell decision.

Since I don’t care about social issues and I am content with the legal status of abortion, I don’t notice any left-wing bias. No, I am not going to say the media is left-wing.

For better or for worse, there isn’t much of a Catholic influence in the United States. Corporations are against abortion.

I saw the Euromaidan being praised as a bunch of people protesting against oppression even though it was extremely violent and brutal since there were mobs storming government buildings, while the media condemns the Ferguson riots for the same thing (but there wasn’t that much violence and government buildings were not seized).
Click to expand...
The media supported Ferguson, did not condemn it, although they should have.
 
Latias said:
Corporations are against abortion.
Click to expand...
The truth is most corporations are run by people who support abortions on demand. The rich who support the Republicans in the US and ‘conservative’ parties in other countries don’t do it over social issues but economic interests.
I am not even that socially left-wing, unless I oppose the demonization of Muslims
Click to expand...
Opposing the demonization of Muslims isn’t a left or right issue but a matter of decency and civility.
 
ATraveller said:
The truth is most corporations are run by people who support abortions on demand. The rich who support the Republicans in the US and ‘conservative’ parties in other countries don’t do it over social issues but economic interests.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant to say that they support abortion or against restrictions on abortion to promote a cosmopolitan image.
 
All the MSM does these days is show stories about how they think President Trump can be impeached. Sorry, that’s not news!
 
sallybutler said:
What news outlets are you watching???
Click to expand...
The mainstream media is owned by a handful of global corporations. They are given the same basic script and repeat it, regardless of what label they carry. Yes, a few are more obvious than others, but the narrative is pretty much the same for most media outlets. If I was to read an article from one or another, without knowing who they were, I would get the same thing, with a little more or less salt and vinegar depending.

Ed
 
sallybutler said:
What news outlets are you watching???
Click to expand...
Just my local stations, but I’m still subjected to the garbage from ABC, NBC, or CBS at the beginning of their broadcasts. I have even quit watching FOX. I don’t watch the local FOX station for news because they are just unprofessional
 
edwest2 said:
The mainstream media is owned by a handful of global corporations. They are given the same basic script and repeat it, regardless of what label they carry. Yes, a few are more obvious than others, but the narrative is pretty much the same for most media outlets. If I was to read an article from one or another, without knowing who they were, I would get the same thing, with a little more or less salt and vinegar depending.

Ed
Click to expand...
Seems like the same can be said for Rush and all the other radio talk shows.
 
ProVobis said:
Seems like the same can be said for Rush and all the other radio talk shows.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for them outside of a few observations. Mr. Limbaugh is a showman who appeals to a certain demographic. Mr. O’Reilly, the public persona, not the man, is a manufactured media personality. It is clear to me anyway, that he is an actor.

Ed
 
Does anyone see any bias in the reporting of Trump getting rid of the US Attorneys?
 
Michael68 said:
Just my local stations, but I’m still subjected to the garbage from ABC, NBC, or CBS at the beginning of their broadcasts. I have even quit watching FOX. I don’t watch the local FOX station for news because they are just unprofessional
Click to expand...
Fox news and local fox aren’t the same entity though. Local Fox news are part of Fox TV (the simpsons, ect) Fox news is the cable news station.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top