DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

OK


I found a non-biased source where you can read the whole story about it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2106590#ContinueArticle But it's on lots of websites.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

my grandma, 2 aunts, 2 uncles, and cousins all make it a point to only watch Fox news

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

You'll forgive me if I doubt something from the mouth of Al Franken regarding the "truth" as far as bias. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's book shows them worshipping at the liberal altar. If you'd actually like to display the FACTS of your study, feel free to post that though, so we can actually see who did the study and the questions that were asked.

I've found this compilation of polls to be very informative on that aspect.

Media Bias

One thing is for certain. That a disproportionate majority of media personnel are self described liberal persons. Now whether that leaks into their reporting, writing, etc.. is a matter for debate. However, I find it highly unlikely that one can totally disassociate from your beliefs when writing a story.

What has recently furthered my belief that they lack the ability to do so, have been the recent scandals involving Ms. Mapes, a vehemently self described liberal, basically threw all sense of journalistic integrity into the fire to get her viewpoint broadcast on the air. That CBS would even employ someone who so obviously portrays a bias makes me question what other media out there similarly overlook such indiscretions. The Halperin memo draws into question what exactly is ABC's agenda.

When you really boil it down though, it's the viewers that decide what networks are too liberal or too conservative for their outlook. I consider myself a centrist overall, liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues. I "test" that area as well on the political question sites you can access on the web.

Excluding the pundits which inhabit every network, my overall opinion is that:
CNN: Slightly left social, Slightly Right economic
FOX: Moderately right social, Slightly Right Economic
MSNBC: Don't watch enough to have a clue.
CNBC: Never heard of it.
ABC: Slight left social, centrist economic
CBS: Moderately left social, slightly left economic
NBC: Slightly left social, Centrist economic
PBS: Slightly left social, slightly left economic

Generally speaking I watch either NBC or CNN so I have a better idea of what they do overall. I have seen relatively unbiased reporting on all of the channels to some extent, but every so often, particularly when there is a "good story" the reporter or program managers bias becomes so obvious as to be laughable. I can't honestly say I've ever seen an unbiased news source because I just don't think it's possible. The only way that would be possible I think is for reporters to report the facts of the case, rather than making it into a story and eventually decide which "facts" are important enough to include and which ones can be left out in the interest of their 45 second segment.

That's hardly God telling him something. Most christians believe when they work towards a goal that it is what "God" wants because he's a central figure in their desires. You pray/Sit and think, you get a warm fuzzy about your decision and you walk away saying to youself it's ok. Whether that's God tapping you on the shoulder, or your own common sense reaching peace with your decision is a question for the relgious debate.

Kailyn, it's not anything spout from his mouth. It's a study.

I'll work on finding a transcription. If you want to find it, it's somewhere in the middle of his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

bush's quote is clear-cut: he honestly believes god favors him.

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Franken does the same thing as Limbaugh does in his books. They quote certain aspects of a study, or get studies from notoriously liberal or conservative think tanks and hold them up as the bastion of truth. If it was an actual study, Franken's book should reflect that in the bibliography page, or as a footnote.

The sad reality however, is that the truth is not a primary concern for these morons. Getting their "side" of the story out is the overriding concern. And of course, their side is always correct.

If you're trying to convince anyone of the sincerity or truthfulness of your perspective, mentioning an extremely liberal or extremely conservative pundit in the same sentence is a kiss of death to credibility.

I think he honestly believes God has input into his life decisions, which isn't all that unusual for a christian. Do you not have much contact with christians? I find it odd that you find this statement so strange. It's not all that unusual for christians to say God has input or goals for them in life, or supports their decisions. I don't particularly know if I believe in God or not (Call me an undecided voter on that issue), but to me what christians believe isn't all to unlike the moral compass we all have in our heads. Whether some people perceive that as God telling them not to be a jackass and piss in the coffee pot at work, or their own moral compass going off is a matter of perspective.

Now if you had something where he was saying, 'God told me I would be President" than I'd say he's a bit fruity. Sounds more likely that you just have something against Bush and are fishing for something to make you feel better. There are plenty of issues to do that on without attacking the man's faith.

I always found it odd how some atheists and agnostics think sometimes with regards to God. If a person says praying to God helped them make a decision, than that person is wierd, a sheep, a nutball, etc.. But if the athetists own moral compass says the same thing, than they're ok because they arrived there by some non-divine method. Ever consider they're both probably the same thing?

DELETED BECAUSE I WAS FUCKING STUPID

Can you post the entire Pew Research study? You'll forgive me if I doubt that the talking head for the liberal left would actually leave out some facts that might not support his case. I've attempted to find it and have been unable.

The only Pew Research study regarding the 2000 election and media bias that I can find seems to indicate the contrary to the findings of Al Franken's book quotes.

2000 election bias

Additionally, this survey from Pew also considerably backs up the perspective that there is a distinct liberal bias among journalists.

Pew journalist survey

I think the most compelling fact is at the tail end of the second link which concludes that most self described liberals were unable to point out liberally biased media and likewise with self described conservatives. I think that in and of itself is the problem in that a disproportionate majority of our media are self described liberally biased.

Just a quick question.. how do we know President Bush snorted cocaine when he was younger? I mean, I've heard it too, but. Who reported it?

On the president election issue, if I can vote today, I would probably prefer Bush over Kerry. However, there's one thing Kerry can do to make me change my vote. It's "Tell me what are your plans." I am very disappointed after watching 2 presidential debates and walked away with nothing. Kerry kept saying "I can do better than Bush, I have plans." But when asked what's his plans, he always avoided to answer it. Seriously, I love Kerry's idea of reducing tax and give all of the benefits he mentioned to the society. However, any normal person will know that is unlikely to happen.

A president who already done something for 4 years and everything isn't perfect but we are still alive.

A president who can't clearly identify his believes and flip-flops on issues, writing future hot checks.

I think if I have a choice, I'd rather to let the president who already done something to have another chance to improve himself. I am scared to let someone who doesn't even know what his own plans are to lead the nation.

You've basically sumed up everything I've been thinking Peejo. But since I live in NY, Kerry will probably win this state regardless of my vote for Bush. I'm a Democrat, but I won't vote for someone who I feel isn't qualified for the job just because I don't like Bush personally. I think Bush is a bit of a dick, but hey, at least I know what he's going to do and that he has the best interests of the nation at heart.

Gay rights is a religious issue, because the most stalwart opposition makes it a religious issue. Under no philospohical school of thought could a homosexual relationship be considered evil, corrupt, or otherwise outwardly disturbing enough to require laws to forbid such unions. Sorry, but it is the religious fundamentalists, and those whom want those votes, that discriminate against this issue. Thereby making the platform of opposition relgiously based. Spin it as 'not a whole(some) household' but I fail to see how two potentialy happy homosexual people being married is somehow fundamentaly more flawed then a 'standard' heterosexual couple that boasts a 50% divorce rate.



I agree, convienence abortions should not be funded by tax payers dollars. In my opinion any abortion should be illegal unless the pregnancy critically endangers the mother, or the pregnancy is a result of sexual abuse (incest, rape).

As for the social security issue, the system is flawed and needs improvement. Its not fair that I won't see any such returns on my 'investment' personally. But, on the counter point to that right now I am feeding someone whom probably can't do so themselves. Sure there are persons exploiting the system, but I am helping and just because a few degenerates take advantage of that won't stop my contribution.

Ever heard of Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives?" It's a plan allowing religious organizations (also known as churches) to funnel our money back into the community. Hmm, I wonder who they'll funnel it to? (No, Thanks.)

"Resources should be devolved, not just to the states, but to the charities and neighborhood healers who need them most, and should be available on a competitive basis to all organizations - including religious groups - that produce results." -The Bush Administration

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

I remember hearing that some time ago, and balking at it. It's an absurd idea, having federal aid go to religious institutions. Charities are one thing, as long as they are operated in a buisness like fashion. That is what such endevors end up being anyway because that is the best method. But funding a church, temple, or other such organization with tax payer monies is silly. If your faith is important enough to you to support your local insitution, then so be it. If your faith is not, then so be it.

Making the <insert relgious sect here> organization a national matter in some pathetic attempt to promote morality is wrong. How about teaching critical thinking and philosophy in public schools. Instead of assigning readings then present students with loaded questions. I would say teach the parents, but I doubt that would be altogether effective. Teach the kids before the become parents.

damn http://www.jibjab.com has a new flash video and i can't even watch it on this crappy laptop with 28k modem.. won't load

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

If it is the DC Land flash, its catchy.

I don't particularly have a problem with faith based institutions getting federal grant money, as long as the way in which the funds are dispersed are in line with federal guidelines. If the money is handed out equally to all religious and non-religious instititutions, it has maintained the principle consitutional clause that the government not endorse any particular religion.

If I'm down and out in the gutter, I don't give a rats ass whether it's a buddhist monk, a islamic mullah, or an evangelical 'Jeeee-suhs' minister who's providing the food and shelter. There are obvious restrictions we should place on them, but they are nothing dissimilar from the restrictions that we already place on these institutions. No "preaching" to the masses, you can make the service available (like a priest in a hospital), but you may not advocate it.

It's sad to me that many charities have gotten so business like that they have lost touch with reality. I'd prefer a charity that people actually "felt" they were making a difference rather than some of the charity workers I've run into who seem like they just want to finish their shift and go home. $200,000.00 of your charity money goes to pay for the President of the Red Cross alone. Yes, the Red Cross president makes as much as the President of the United States.

constitutionally speaking, the 1st amendment prohibits the government from making any laws that respect any religious establishment, no matter how many funds are given to non-religious groups.

respect: a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation http://www.m-w.com

_________________
RIP Shiloh - I'll never forget ya

Ergo my problem with it all. Seperation of church and state, which in my opinion is an ethereal assertion at best. I am all for charities, humanitarian aid organizations, and social programmes. But relgious biases are going to be expressed by relgious insistitions, it's thier motis operandi. By all means offer all of the programmes, but ditch the religious ties as it only continues to keep furthering ideas and ideals of segregation.

Dont quote me on this but i think the constitution says that the govenment can not back any particular denomination. (This makes sense, as this is why the pilgrims left England so that they could be free to worship how they saw fit and not have a king or queen that told them they must be catholic or must be protestant) i think a lot of people misinterpret this as saying there must be a seperation of church and state, when in fact that statement is not to be found in the constitution. Obviously our laws are founded within the judeo-christian religion.

_________________