OF COURSE The Liberal Media isn't biased

[jared81]

Thumbs down because of the "liberal media" bull****. Grow the **** up, both of you...

didnt you just post an article the other day on fox news calling westboro "left wing"? as rafiki said, the liberal media is biased, just as the conservative media is biased. you will never see anything like this reported on the typical media sites (huffington post, msnbc, etc), because this doesnt fit their narrative that anyone who owns ago is a right wing hick.

[Locke]

didnt you just post an article the other day on fox news calling westboro "left wing"? as rafiki said, the liberal media is biased, just as the conservative media is biased. you will never see anything like this reported on the typical media sites (huffington post, msnbc, etc), because this doesnt fit their narrative that anyone who owns ago is a right wing hick.

I posted it for a laugh. I didn't post it and rant a conspiracy theory about the "conservative media bias". Frankly, anyone who thinks news isn't going to be biased one way or another needs to wake the **** up. It's just these damn partisans who can't think for themselves, so they parrot whatever they are told to. I know for a fact Fox News likes to harp on the "liberal media", which is probably where these clowns got it...

[Spesh]

I think the only real liberal bias there is present in this country's newspapers. And I think that's pretty well documented. All the news channels serve their corporate interests rather than any real bias. MSNBC caters to the liberal crowd, Fox serves the extreme right wing crowd. CNN is just slightly left of center from what I can tell. That's why I get most of my news from a few different websites. Sure I read Foxnews but I read CNN just as much, if not more. I want my news with varying slants, not just one slant.

Agreed, though im guilty of believing that Fox News crosses the line from "bias" to "propaganda" all too frequently, but thats just my personal opinion.

And while their might be a liberal bias in newspapers, but how about talk radio? Its dominated by right wing entertainment. Rush Limbaugh makes 4 times the salary of Peyton Manning. And the internet is a free for all.

The point im making is, by and large it all balances out. I think the narrative of "sinister liberal media" should have died when Fox News started dominating the cable ratings.

[Awsi Dooger]

I love the implied logic. A gun is brought into a movie theater for the intention of killing, and that's positive news regarding guns?

You guys on that side of the argument are so warped and petrified you can't even sense what you're describing.

It's just another example -- among tens of thousands -- that guns are not utilized for the initial purpose. The fact that they are available 24/7/365 means they will be abused. In movie theaters and elsewhere. And an abused gun(s) means injury and death, far too often.

The fact that somebody else used a gun successfully in this particular case is irrelevant. There are going to be examples at the extremes, as I described weeks ago. I wrote that I was sure somebody used a gun on his first day of ownership while closing his eyes and aiming in the wrong direction. In cases like this we'll see counter examples of an over eager guard firing shots when none would have been fired to begin with from the original source.

The first guy is the issue, not the second guy. You've got to be an absolute fool to believe an increasing number of guns means less danger. Let's see, that family is bringing 8 guns into the store tomorrow, we only have 3. Honey, we'll have to stop after church and pick out 5. It can be a surprise for little Jimmy. He'll be thrilled.

Scary aspect is, that won't even read as absurdity to an increasing chunk of society. They've been brainwashed, and they're already dense and clueless toward probability. Jon Huntsman may not have been specifically referring to this topic but he was remarkably astute this weekend when he emphasized that the GOP was "devoid of a soul," and “We can’t be known as a party that’s fear-based and doesn’t believe in math.”

[TheWalrus]

I think the only real liberal bias there is present in this country's newspapers. And I think that's pretty well documented. All the news channels serve their corporate interests rather than any real bias. MSNBC caters to the liberal crowd, Fox serves the extreme right wing crowd. CNN is just slightly left of center from what I can tell. That's why I get most of my news from a few different websites. Sure I read Foxnews but I read CNN just as much, if not more. I want my news with varying slants, not just one slant.

The numbers don't support that claim. The top five newspapers by daily circulation are:

1) Wall Street Journal (conservative)
2) USA Today (non-biased)
3) New York Times (liberal)
4) Los Angeles Times (historically a conservative paper, but trending more liberal in recent years)
5) San Jose Mercury News (not very familiar with them, but they endorsed Obama)

#6 is the New York Post, which is a famously conservative paper.

Journalism is a business, and like any business supply is always proceeded by demand. To argue that the media as a whole or newspapers generally are liberal is to say that liberals read more newspapers or digest more media. I doubt that's what you're intending to argue. One aspect of the media that is provably liberal are news magazines such as Time. Those are read predominantly by college graduates, who trend liberal. But... conservatives hold sway over talk radio, because more conservatives than liberals like to get their news that way.

The media doesn't fight back on the charge of bias, so conservatives have been able to perpetuate this false myth with great success. The liberal counterattack against Fox News has been similarly successful, but unfortunately that hasn't really fixed the problem, which in my view is the notion that objectivity is anything but a dangerous fallacy.

[WVDolphan]

I love the implied logic. A gun is brought into a movie theater for the intention of killing, and that's positive news regarding guns?

You guys on that side of the argument are so warped and petrified you can't even sense what you're describing.

It's just another example -- among tens of thousands -- that guns are not utilized for the initial purpose. The fact that they are available 24/7/365 means they will be abused. In movie theaters and elsewhere. And an abused gun(s) means injury and death, far too often.

The fact that somebody else used a gun successfully in this particular case is irrelevant. There are going to be examples at the extremes, as I described weeks ago. I wrote that I was sure somebody used a gun on his first day of ownership while closing his eyes and aiming in the wrong direction. In cases like this we'll see counter examples of an over eager guard firing shots when none would have been fired to begin with from the original source.

The first guy is the issue, not the second guy. You've got to be an absolute fool to believe an increasing number of guns means less danger. Let's see, that family is bringing 8 guns into the store tomorrow, we only have 3. Honey, we'll have to stop after church and pick out 5. It can be a surprise for little Jimmy. He'll be thrilled.

Scary aspect is, that won't even read as absurdity to an increasing chunk of society. They've been brainwashed, and they're already dense and clueless toward probability. Jon Huntsman may not have been specifically referring to this topic but he was remarkably astute this weekend when he emphasized that the GOP was "devoid of a soul," and “We can’t be known as a party that’s fear-based and doesn’t believe in math.”

Owned.

/ thread

[spydertl79]

I love the implied logic. A gun is brought into a movie theater for the intention of killing, and that's positive news regarding guns?

You guys on that side of the argument are so warped and petrified you can't even sense what you're describing.

It's just another example -- among tens of thousands -- that guns are not utilized for the initial purpose. The fact that they are available 24/7/365 means they will be abused. In movie theaters and elsewhere. And an abused gun(s) means injury and death, far too often.

The fact that somebody else used a gun successfully in this particular case is irrelevant. There are going to be examples at the extremes, as I described weeks ago. I wrote that I was sure somebody used a gun on his first day of ownership while closing his eyes and aiming in the wrong direction. In cases like this we'll see counter examples of an over eager guard firing shots when none would have been fired to begin with from the original source.

The first guy is the issue, not the second guy. You've got to be an absolute fool to believe an increasing number of guns means less danger. Let's see, that family is bringing 8 guns into the store tomorrow, we only have 3. Honey, we'll have to stop after church and pick out 5. It can be a surprise for little Jimmy. He'll be thrilled.

Scary aspect is, that won't even read as absurdity to an increasing chunk of society. They've been brainwashed, and they're already dense and clueless toward probability. Jon Huntsman may not have been specifically referring to this topic but he was remarkably astute this weekend when he emphasized that the GOP was "devoid of a soul," and “We can’t be known as a party that’s fear-based and doesn’t believe in math.”

Who are you referring to? I didn't see anyone make the argument that more guns means more safety. Did I miss something?

In this case it is a good thing that someone was able to stop this ******* before he could kill more people. It is kind of surprising that this story didn't receive national news coverage.

Happy New Year everyone!

[Dogbone34]

the people unable to recognize liberal media bias are the ones it was intended for.

[TheWalrus]

the people unable to recognize the global illuminati conspiracy are the ones it was intended for.

(note: edited by me, TheWalrus)

See how dumb it sounds when you use this kind of logic?

[LouPhinFan]

The numbers don't support that claim. The top five newspapers by daily circulation are:

1) Wall Street Journal (conservative)
2) USA Today (non-biased)
3) New York Times (liberal)
4) Los Angeles Times (historically a conservative paper, but trending more liberal in recent years)
5) San Jose Mercury News (not very familiar with them, but they endorsed Obama)

#6 is the New York Post, which is a famously conservative paper.

Journalism is a business, and like any business supply is always proceeded by demand. To argue that the media as a whole or newspapers generally are liberal is to say that liberals read more newspapers or digest more media. I doubt that's what you're intending to argue. One aspect of the media that is provably liberal are news magazines such as Time. Those are read predominantly by college graduates, who trend liberal. But... conservatives hold sway over talk radio, because more conservatives than liberals like to get their news that way.

The media doesn't fight back on the charge of bias, so conservatives have been able to perpetuate this false myth with great success. The liberal counterattack against Fox News has been similarly successful, but unfortunately that hasn't really fixed the problem, which in my view is the notion that objectivity is anything but a dangerous fallacy.

I'll stand by my thought that most all of the city newspapers in this country are, at the very least, left of center if not fully left leaning. So the newspaper (LA Times) in the biggest city in the most liberal state is conservative?