"You do know we have plans for invading any numbers of countries, right? The govt plans for all these contegincies and one part is controlling using or keeping online all aspects of production. So a plan to invade Iraq and divide oil fields is not in and of itself suspicious."

You seem to be perfectly comfortable with this state of affairs. Or am I misreading you?

You are (intentionally?) misinterpreting the concept of bias

You say CNN and NBC have a liberal bias

In the wiki article about media bias, they included "pro government and power bias", "infotainment", "oversimplification", "liberal bias", "conservative bias", "racial bias", etc...

The point is, that whenever you listen to anything, they have biases so you have to listen to things critically.

Like the mainstream media likes to talk about sex offenses because it titilates people so they'll listen - they just want ratings.

Or if the race is close, then more people will watch - they can charge more for advertising - so the media will try to forward the case of the person that's behind.

Sometimes the media will present a pro-administration case so they'll continue to get interviews

etc.

And, if you conservatives accuse CNN and NBC of being liberal, they'll bend over backwards to present the conservative case to show it ain't so. "working the ref" it's called.

I don't think CNN and NBC have a liberal bias. MSNBC has a liberal bias, but they don't just make stuff up like Fox "News"

Tom,

Absolutely. Why shouldn't we plan for any and every eventuality? Just because you have plans on the best industries to bomb in china to cripple their military, it doesn't mean we will or even want to use them. But if you wait until you need them then try to come up with them it's too late. So you oppose our country coming up with plans in case of war?

Jerry

Are you intentionally being dense? Of course they discuss all sorts of bias. That is what the article is about. We however were discussing the bias in the media as pertains to politics. So who cares at the moment about the rest?

Now once gain there have been numerous studies revealing a liberal bias in the media. Far fewer studies show the opposite and much is focused on fox. I'm not even saying its intentional. I believe the one study that points out how all the lib journalist think they are neutral while reporting with a liberal slant.


Now is it not indicative that conservatives think fox fair and the rest liberal while liberals call fox right wing and the rest fair? But now you want to claim only msnbc is leftist, the rest fair except radical fox? That just shows how far left you are.

28 pages of this stuff huh? Gonna be a loooong winter.

Well played R S

The point is, CNN, CBS, and NBC have liberal bias, conservative bias, bias to whoever's in power, bias to whatever get's them ratings,... depending on the day, subject, and individual. And depending on whose judging them

If I was as far left as you are right, I'de say CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have a conservative bias, only MSNBC has a liberal bias

I am fairly moderate so I say MSNBC is liberal, Fox is conservative, the rest are somewhere in the middle

Sorry bout the dense comment

I understand your point. And while everybody will have occasional bias towards diff stuff, the majority of the time the majors lean left as shown repeatedly.

You're supposed to put a happy face after the "Are you intentionally being dense?"

or I'll sic Doug on you

Hard to be expressive on my phone!

I was listening to Rush (only reception)

He said not to listen to the "liberal media" when they tell you that there has been more domestic oil production under Obama.

Actually, we produce more and import less oil now than in many years. You can give Obama credit or not, but that's not the point.

The term "liberal media" is used by conservatives to propogandize people into believing their wacky ideas.

And then it "goes viral". People like Michael believe this propoganda and pass it on to places like BPL.

I'm not calling Michael a "dupe" because that wouldn't be polite and Doug wouldn't approve : ) Have I worn this joke out yet Doug?

"Have I worn this joke out yet Doug?"

Sorry Jerry, but you've become the off screen adult and I'm Charlie Brown. When you post in political threads, all I hear is wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah.

Jerry said "NBC, CBS, CNN are not liberal, they bend over backwards to "be fair". PBS and NPR are very objective - neither conservative or liberal MSNBC has a liberal bias"
First, people are cancelling cable contracts in droves. I know I have. I get 0% of my news from those outlets.
MSNBC seems to be just as much a shill for the Democrats as Fox is for the Republicans. But that's not a "liberal" bias. The word liberal is derived from the latin "libre" which means freedom and is also the latin word for book. Both political parties serve corporate interests, not the people. Both parties are far, far to what you would call "the right" of what the average person thinks on most issues, especially related to wars, military spending and surveillance.
The largest sponsor of PBS is Chevron.
NPR could easily stand for "National Petroleum Radio"
A more "unbiased" source of news would be zerohedge.com or shows such as "Breaking the Set" on RT.
Which brings up another point, it is ironic that I find the news on Russia Today to be far more objective than the propoganda I get from US media. When I was a boy, I used to feel sorry for Soviet citizens who had to get their news from Pravda and Tass. Now I feel sorry for those who get their news from the US corporate media.

Good point James

That's consistent with the wikipedia article that says the media has many biases

But, "Frontline" on PBS for one, is pretty objective, in my opinion.

I agree, it bothers me that PBS has all these sponsors. If they do a negative story about Chevron, they could pull their sponsorship so that has to effect their decisions on storys.

Worse than Chevron is that David Koch is a sponsor. He is a heavy financer of right wing causes. Why does he sponsor PBS shows anyway?

I'de prefer that PBS was funded by the government like they used to be. And like Canada, Britain,...

" Now I feel sorry for those who get their news from the US corporate media."

I feel sorry for you folks too. Maybe you should use the internet more (non-US sites)and your TVs less. You might become liberated in many of your beliefs...

Take the 60 Minutes piece on how congressmen do stock trades with insider information

They asked (ambushed) Nancy Pellossi and John Boehner about stock trades they did on companies which they were doing legislation about (see - no liberal or conservative bias). They were both indignant. I love Nancy Pelossi and even have some affection for Boehner.

Since 60 Minutes has a lot of people watching, this provoked them to pass some bill preventing insider trading by congressmen.

Did they actually pass that or did they just talk about it?

Anyway, the networks have more opportunity to get results than a Russian network that may be more accurate in a lot of ways.

One other thing

Since no one else mentioned it, wasn't Joe great?

He didn't put up with any "malarky" from Paul

James,

Latin roots has no bearing on the appropriate term "liberal bias"


Jerry,

I guess you listen to more Rush than me then! I have listened to a grand total of 2 hours over my life at most. I can't stand any of the radio political hacks. I don't watch Fox or MSNBC. I get my news from the internet, even the liberal slanted sites like CNN. I figure since I am more towards the right, I should listen to the other side so I don't get influenced by "my own" kind of propaganda. It gives me a good balance I feel.

I've listened to a little more Rush than you

I think he's pretty talented and entertaining

Too bad he has devoted his talents to evil

Also,

I can't believe anybody likes Pelosi.

And Biden was a rude jack@ss. I thought Ryan wasn't very good, but Biden laughed, interrupted constantly and grinned like a maniac. The moderator lost all control. I am still not sure why she was chosen? Was it because she's buds with Obama and they thought she'd help out Biden? She did like to try to debate Ryan herself. ;)

You mean when she asked for specifics about the loopholes Romeny/Ryan were going to close to offset the $5 trillion of tax cuts?

And she asked him several times because he wouldn't answer?

I call that journalism

Romney was much better. He just said "what $5 trillion tax cuts, I've never proposed $5 trillion of tax cuts" and Obama just sputtered in disbelief.