Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Media Bias: Bush twins having a beer vs. Ashley Biden snorting cocaine
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.... because Fox is such a legitimate news source. :: tears :: |
Anonymous
| I'm not the PP you quoted, but I am pretty sure that the point about Fox was not that they are a reputable news source, but that if anyone were to run with such a story (anti-Democratic VP), it would be Fox. |
Anonymous
I am the pp. My point is that even Fox isn't carrying it, because the source is that unbelievable. Do did you even read the words that I wrote? |
Anonymous
| 2103--what are you talking about? So do you throw the baby out with the bathwater?? Conservatives definitely prioritize family values but unlike liberals who are like-oh well since kids can be bad let's faciliate. Come on get real. I am proud of Bristol Palin that she didn't have an abortion which is what a lot of kids would have had and unfortunately there are a lot of families who would have encouraged an abortion. |
Anonymous
|
21:03 is talking about the fact that Sarah Palin backed abstinence-only sex education in Alaska schools. We Liberals find it kinda rich that she did that and then her own daughter got pregnant. Now, if Palin had changed her mind about the policies because she realized they clearly do not work, I think I (and a lot of others) would have a lot more respect for her. But to continue backing those abstinence-only policies just makes her look like a hypocrite. Basically, it is saying everyone else's children shouldn't have sex but it is ok if my daughter did.
As for Larry Craig and all the other closeted homosexuals in the GOP, do you not see how it is hypocritical for them to vote for anti-Gay policies while they themselves are Gay?? |
Anonymous
How is this a double standard? Be resourceful and find a news source that fits your philosophy. There are plenty of examples of conservative and ultra-conservative media from which to choose: http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:SZ-5tfwFaE8J:library.lakelandcc.edu/PDFs/research/bias.pdf+are+newspaper+readers+liberal%3F+%2Bedu&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a And for what it's worth, the majority of journalists are indeed liberal: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp But as one PP stated, what's preventing conservatives from entering the field? money? (or lack there of?) |
Anonymous
|
2103-still doesn't make sense. I support abstinence education for kids and will still do so even if one of my kids had a pregnancy. Why? I think it's the right way to go and despite the fact that there will always be problems, I am never going to be okay with schools giving out condoms and that kind of stuff. For what it's worth- I would have felt like it was a free pass for sex if that were the case when I was young. You also didn't note that the more dificult choice was not aborting a baby once it is conceived. Now I could see the media going nuts if Sarah Palin had asked Bristol to have an abortion sinc that would have been hipocritcal.--but of course the fact that she stood behind her values for Bristol and also when she knew she was having a special needs child (kind of kids that society seems to think are okay to kill) and celebrated the new life instead of killing him.
As for conservatives in newspapers--you miss the more important point--I am fine with conservative and liberal voices in the op ed area but...when you read the news it should be unbiased and it just isn't it is always slanted in a way that distorts the truth and that isn't okay. I think one of the reasons that newspaper readership is going down apart from the Internet is that people want to read news without slant. |
Anonymous
| Agree on all points; insightful post. It's interesting that circulation at the two top papers (USA Today and WSJ) is flat, while it is down significantly for the two noted "liberal" papers (NYT and WP). Most people consider USA Today and WSJ "objective" (except for WSJ editorials), and the NYT and WSJ would do well to follow their example, if only for business reasons. Slanted news coverage just didn't exist at the NYT and WP 50 yrs ago. Objectivity then was a virtue. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
That's kind of a false comparison. The WSJ and USA Today are national papers, NYT and WP, while national, are also local papers. The WSJ has a dedicated readership that is for business and business only. While their news coverage is great, it is not a paper that people necessarily read to follow topics like religion or education. USA Today gets a lot of readers from travellers who get the paper for free when they go on planes and to hotels. The NYT and WP are losing readers because for and more people go online for their news. They are losing money because of advertising - because you can advertise classifieds online for free on Craigs List and because the all around advertising environment is poor due to the economy. As for McPaper, I just read that USA Today's readership is way down and they are losing money too. |
Anonymous
WSJ is not objective. They have a slant toward the business community in their reporting (as well as the poster's acknowledgement that the editorial section is very conservative). They cheerlead when they think things are looking bleak, and that's the worst kind of bias because it affects the markets - and not for the good in the long run. They also tend not to question business practices until after the rest of the news media bring it up. And after the Murdoch takeover, they have begun to interject political bias into their framing of news stories. |
Anonymous
|
Clearly the USA Today is an organ of right-wing propaganda, since they don't carry a daily "911 Truther" story on A1.
Outrageous! |