Washington Post refused to print anti-war opinions

[ypsidan04]

I'm glad some major media outlet finally acknowledges that they were part of what most anti-war people already knew was going on: next to no one was printing/showing people who thought that the Bush Administration's intelligence on Saddam was flawed. I've seen some estimates that say that people were TEN times more likely to hear a pro-war opinion instead of an anti-war opinion. And I KNOW that in the actual population, the number is quite more evenly balanced. Newspapers and TV stations just didn't schedule nearly enough people who questioned Bush, probably because they didn't want to add fuel to the fire of controversy - but in a time like this, keeping one side of the spectrum from voicing their opinion adequately should be looked upon as totally shameful.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=World&cat=Media_Watch

[Viceroy]

At least they admit it which is more than can be said for some media outlets.

[puppyroach]

Interesting article, although it didn´t come as a big surprise...:)

It´s sad if the people doesn´t put more pressure on the media to cover all sides of every story (both good and bad), because if the people would want the information, I do believe the medias would fall for the pressure, everything to get good ratngs you know... ;)

[BigMattTheHobo]

Those faggots!

[poopchow]

Except what about the NYtimes?

I never read their paper but the Hearald tribune by the NYTimes shows no pro-bush satements at all.

everyone wants to be a victim.

[vchampionl70]

Except what about the NYtimes?

I never read their paper but the Hearald tribune by the NYTimes shows no pro-bush satements at all.

everyone wants to be a victim.

Yup. It's almost how disgustingly blatant the bias is. When the anti-Bush articles outnumber the pro-Bush ones 7-1 that's pretty bad. Think of the Washington Post as a balance.

[droogsteve]

Yup. It's almost how disgustingly blatant the bias is. When the anti-Bush articles outnumber the pro-Bush ones 7-1 that's pretty bad.

It's not bad, that just the way it is for any incumbent. Ask Clinton, the press was relentless and all he did was lie about a blowjob, not start a war based on shaky evidence. Do you expect the press to run ass kissing articles about Bush when he does his job without screwing up:

New York Times:"Bush doesn't fuck up this week! Good job George!

This isn't kindergarten. A president shouldn't expect praise from the press for doing the job he was elected to do in a competent manner. That's just fulfilling his part of the bargain; we were promised competent leadership in exchage for our votes. When he doesn't hold up his end of the deal the press has every right to jump all over it. There are no doubt biased media outlets. But comparing the number of what you consider "pro" Bush and "anti" Bush articles is meaningless.

[ypsidan04]

New York Times:"Bush doesn't fuck up this week! Good job George!


LOL :D That's great. :)

[Lestatdelc]

Those faggots!

Wow... a homophobic bigot who back Bush... there is a shock.

[Lestatdelc]

Except what about the NYtimes?

I never read their paper but the Hearald tribune by the NYTimes shows no pro-bush satements at all.

everyone wants to be a victim.

Actually the NY Times ran a psudeo-appology a couple of months ago about not digging deeper and instead just reporting on the WH propaganda by and large in the war run up.

Judith Miller in particular has and still is an abject Bush apologist and mouthpiece in her articles for BushCo and the Iraqi invasion.

Safire and Friedmen's op/eds at the NY Times have consistently backed the Bush adminsitration false claims about Iraq.

So your assertion about the NY Times is simply not supported by the reality of what the Times reported in the war run-up and in the immediate aftermath.

[droogsteve]

Wow... a homophobic bigot who back Bush... there is a shock.

Actually BigMatt is a liberal. He was mocking Bush supporters.

On an unrelated note: Jesus Christ, 80 posts in a day. That might be a new record. I'm a mod who spends way too much time here and I average around 11.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Wow... a homophobic bigot who back Bush... there is a shock.

Ok, I fucking positive rep you for one of your posts saying I really liked it and you think I am conservative.... haha wow, I gave you more credit then you deserved.

Glad I changed my sig, you all can't take, or better yet, understand a joke.

[vchampionl70]

It's not bad, that just the way it is for any incumbent. Ask Clinton, the press was relentless and all he did was lie about a blowjob, not start a war based on shaky evidence. Do you expect the press to run ass kissing articles about Bush when he does his job without screwing up:

I politely disagree. Here is a link to a 'basic study' into the media bias of the Times. Most of this, if not all, was conducted before Mr. Bush was president, and thus should have negatively been focusing on Mr. Clinton or at least the Democratic party. Unless they were anticipating Mr. Bush's arrival :rolleyes: they demonstrate a clear 'hatred' or absolute enfatuation with the 'extreme right.'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651282/posts

[Lestatdelc]

Actually BigMatt is a liberal. He was mocking Bush supporters.

I see... I fail to see how that it mocking people if in the anonymity of the internet gives a person zero clue that the post a was sarcasm. As has been said by others more famous than me and applied to the here and now... "Political satire became obsolete when George Bush was awarded the White House."

;)




edit: fixed typo "Geirge" to "George"

[Lestatdelc]

I politely disagree. Here is a link to a 'basic study' into the media bias of the Times....

(snip)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651282/posts


BAWHAHAHAHA

The Free Republic?!?!!?? :eek:

BAWHAHAHAHA

The Free Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic) is as far right as you can get on the net. They (FReepers) are the unwashed rabble that could only hope to be John Birch Society (http://www.who2.com/johnbirch.html) members.

You have GOT to be kidding if you think they are even close to a legitimate source for anytthing. Hell they are are still trying to make hay with linking former Texas Gov. Geroge W. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father George HW Bush (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/07/13/free/).

You have lost all credibility by citing them.

[ypsidan04]

The Free Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic) is as far right as you can get on the net.

As in the opposite of www.whitehouse.org ;)

[daveo the great]

If anyone wants an extremely accurate and humourous book on the media bias..... look down!---- V ----

[Lestatdelc]

As in the opposite of www.whitehouse.org ;)

Ahhh, but one is satire (hint the one that fools people into thinking they are visitng the White House web site)...

...the other, well they really believe thier BS is the literal truth.

;)

[vchampionl70]

I'm glad you don't like the credibility of the site for whatever reasons, but the study they did is not /not factual/. You may interpret their findings however you'd like but they do make a case in what they have found.

Honestly, I'm not one to hold a stubborn point if it's proven untrue. I would gladly concede there is no bias if you can show me how neutral they really are. However, most sources in the political world recognize the bias of the Times; and therefore that is how I feel as well.

[daveo the great]

www .whitehouse. com is a porn site...


oh and... of course the media isnt gunna be fair when it comes to anti-war stuff... do u know how much better ratings news channels and how much better sales newspapers get when there is a war?


the media is business. they must do certain stuff that will give them a profit. so what if its unethical.... they make more money. so lets make it look like war is good... so our country goes to war and ppl watch and read the news alot more and thus advirtising companies pay them more for commercials or newspaper ads etc. (also, ppl buy more newspapers)

this is why pbs and npr are much much better. they are funded by the public so they dont run like a business. they tend to have much less bias as such.

[pidgeball6]

Moore's film was anti-war, it broke a few sales records didn't it?
http://www.campusbooks.com/Bestsellers.asp
Franken, Clarke, and Moore are all in the top 5 best sellers list . There are a couple more in there like "Dude, where's my country", and "the Great Unravelling" in the top 10 as well. As a matter of fact, you just read Franken's book, didn't he say something like;
"The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. . . . ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair."
But the right-wing media -- FOX News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Journal editorial page, talk radio -- are "biased," the book declares. They have "an agenda." They are "not interested in conveying the truth." They "concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals."
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/lies_and_the_lying_liars_who_tell_them.html

I thought you agreed with the book.

[Chewy]

I have buddy who keeps having his posts against the war being removed on a MSN and MSNBC website being removed. Censorship lives everywhere.

[daveo the great]

Moore's film was anti-war, it broke a few sales records didn't it?
http://www.campusbooks.com/Bestsellers.asp
Franken, Clarke, and Moore are all in the top 5 best sellers list . There are a couple more in there like "Dude, where's my country", and "the Great Unravelling" in the top 10 as well. As a matter of fact, you just read Franken's book, didn't he say something like;
"The mainstream media does not have a liberal bias. . . . ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and the rest -- at least try to be fair."
But the right-wing media -- FOX News, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the Journal editorial page, talk radio -- are "biased," the book declares. They have "an agenda." They are "not interested in conveying the truth." They "concoct an inflammatory story that serves their political goals."
http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/lies_and_the_lying_liars_who_tell_them.html

I thought you agreed with the book.


I do. Franken also states how all of those have the bias of "hoping theres a war to cover" what i was talking about was non partisan, simply the owners of the media corporations trying to make more money.

and films and books dont fall under the same "media" they are allot freer than our "free press"

[pidgeball6]

Oh I see,you mean like yellow journalism? Media that sensationalizes stories to sell more of their product, often times over dramatizing or exaggerating facts in order to present a more exciting story than the competition. In that context I completely agree, but I'm convinced it happens on both sides of the issue.
I remember, at the beginning of Afghanistan, the media emphasizing how important it was to get in and get control quick because the American attention span is too short for a long, drawn out war. Another example is how all the government officials repeatedly saying how the war on terror is a long tough road that won't end anytime soon. It seems like they wanted to prepare the public for a lengthy struggle, knowing that the longer we are involved in military action, the more support for it will decline. It held true, as the public opinion polls demonstrated. If there was a disproportionate number of sources supporting the war in the beginning, there is definitely a disproportionate number of anti war sources now. A google search for "anti war on terror" will return about 2,730,000 results, while submitting "pro war on terror" only yields 978,000 results.
Either way, you're right, it's a pain in the ass to find an objective source for information. I think that was your point. Sorry if I rambled.

[ypsidan04]

www .whitehouse. com is a porn site...


No shit. It's .ORG! Learn to read carefully before opening your mouth next time.
so what if its unethical.... they make more money.

LOL! You can go far in life with that philosophy. :rolleyes:
Censorship lives everywhere.

F*ck censorship! :p It causes brain damage.