Bill, this may be a good starting point for you.

Post #44,139 by mmoffitt 7/1/02 6:24:50 PM Reply	Bill, this may be a good starting point for you. From your posts in this thread, I doubt you are old enough to remember Ronald Reagan, but you might want to check out this book: [link\|http://www.pir.org/sources/aN.html\|On Bended Knee]
Post #44,144 by bepatient 7/1/02 6:41:09 PM Reply	bzt Voting by then. Theres [link\|http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020625.asp\|other studies] and [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0895261901/reviews/ref=pm_dp_ln_b_6/102-0635001-5016124\|books] too. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,151 by Brandioch 7/1/02 8:07:47 PM Reply	I suggest you read their site. [link\|http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020604.asp\|Global Warming] ABC, CBS and NBC Promote Liberal Critics, Pretend Dissent Over Global Warming No Longer Exists Instead, ABC, CBS and NBC last night gave airtime to critics who expressed disappointment that the administration had not slid further into the extremist camp. Hager revealed that the EPA report included the view that warming could have positive repercussions, including lower heating bills and longer growing seasons, but CBS and ABC skipped over those inconvenient paragraphs. Yup. I'll put a lot of faith in the "analysis" of a book by the same people who claim that global warming could be "a good thing" (tm).
Post #44,172 by bepatient 7/1/02 10:34:06 PM Reply	Pointing to an alternate site and an alternate book...with opposing views. I can see you disagree with their views. Unsurprising. I can see you trying to change direction as well. Also unsurprising. You should have followed the book link, though...since its unrelated to the MRC page in the link. I know how you like to stay informed. Hugs! You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,179 by Brandioch 7/1/02 11:27:44 PM Reply	A different site? www.mediaresearch.org, right? So, the link you posted was to www.mediaresearch.org The link I posted was to www.mediaresearch.org But you claim it is a different site? And I am not trying to change direction. I'm pointing out that the same people you are going to for "analysis" about "liberal bias" are the ones endorsing Bush's "global warming ain't so bad, we get longer summers!" plan.
Post #44,208 by bepatient 7/2/02 8:32:20 AM Reply	The >book<...my ever so sensitive friend... ...is NOT at MRC. 2 separate links requiring 2 separate mouseclicks. You would have known that had you followed the link. You can "question" the global warming thing all you like. There are scientists who disagree with you...some of them are referenced in the article you linked. It >still< has nothing to do with the bias research conducted. Anyway, you said Yup. I'll put a lot of faith in the "analysis" of a book by the same people who claim that global warming could be "a good thing" (tm). Follow the book link before you speak more nonsense like this, k? Enough with you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,226 by Brandioch 7/2/02 10:47:43 AM Reply	A book on genetics, endorsed by the KKK web site. Context is everything. I followed them. I showed that the people endorsing the book definately had an agenda. Unbiased reporting that is not.
Post #44,235 by bepatient 7/2/02 11:32:00 AM Reply	Brain death? The book link was to a review on AMAZON. Not on MRC. And while I'm certain that the MRC would like the book...their >other< views have no bearing on what Goldberg wrote in the book...and the MRC had no hand in >writing< the book. They are 2 separate links. One to a website that has conducted studies showing liberal bias. One to a book, recently published, from an industry insider who also says that there is liberal bias. And global warming has exactly >what< to do with this? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,259 by Brandioch 7/2/02 2:06:38 PM Reply	I will reconstruct the crime. #1. There is a discussion about "bias" in the media. #2. mmoffitt posts a link to a book "on bended knee" indicating that there is media "bias" and the media went easy on Regan. #3. you post TWO links. one to mediaresearch.org which offers analysis of a BOOK titled " Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News". This book and analysis seem to support your position that there is a "liberal" bias in the media. and you post another link to Amazon about another book (Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News) Oh, wait. IT'S THE SAME FUCKING BOOK!!! All mediaresearch.org did was to to do some followup "research" to reach the same conclusions as that book. Note, that book was SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the article you linked to. #4. I point to ANOTHER article on mediaresearch.org to show that they are NOT unbiased researchers. My reference showed them supporting global warming because it could lead to longer growing seasons. They are a bunch of fucking idiots with blatant agendas. #5......... . .. ... Current post. You've claimed that it was the OTHER link that you were talking about. The one that goes to the book review. You know, the book review of the book that is mentioned in the article on the site I posted the other link to. So, you claim that I should look at the reviews on Amazon? Strangely enough, those reviews have even LESS substance than the mediaresearch.org site. Once again, (I'm sure, not for the last time), I do not CARE HOW MANY IDIOTS YOU CAN FIND TO AGREE WITH YOU. 1,000 idiots are still a bunch of idiots. They don't get less idiotic in groups. You are NOT impressing me by your CONTINUED attempts at veracity via groupthink.
Post #44,268 by bepatient 7/2/02 3:26:31 PM Reply	You do whatever you like dear. You are dismissing something based on something completely unrelated. Your call I guess. T'ain't worth it. You're right. The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Simple. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,275 by Brandioch 7/2/02 5:02:15 PM Reply	"Bias" is completely unrelated? No. I've established that mediaresearch.org has a bias. I've established that their bias is so overwhelming they can say that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Again, once it's been established that said "genetic researcher" is a klansman, how much further do you have to go to show his research is biased and untrustworthy? The entire press is full of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. So, given your past behaviour, your retreat to irrelevent strawmen is your admission of failure. Nope, they're not. But their boss's boss' bosses know which side their bread is buttered on. Republican means big media conglomorates. Which mean big salaries for the big bosses. The little news anchors know not to rock the boat too much. Keep the bosses happy and you'll keep your job.
Post #44,286 by bepatient 7/2/02 6:28:27 PM Reply	Like I said... ...you do whatever you like. I admit nothing. I simply quit wasting finger motions on you. Neither you nor this point are worth it. Global warming isn't a strawman...but Limbaugh wannabe's are. Thats a classic. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,290 by Brandioch 7/2/02 6:38:13 PM Reply	Again, their position on global warming shows their bias. I never said that the media was full of Rush wannabes. You implied that such was my position. Therefore, that is a strawman. I said that THAT PARTICULAR SITE is heavily biased. More than "heavily" biased. They are so biased they are delusional. This is evidenced by their claims that global warming is a "good thing" (tm). Therefore, referencing their position on global warming is substantiating my claims that they are "biased". Therefore, you using that site to substantiate your position that there is a "liberal bias" in the media is faulty. Hence, my klansman/"genetic research" reference. Again, for those unwilling to see. I did not disprove your position. Just your substantiation. Or, rather, I illustrated how the group you used for substantiation are delusional. Hence, not a useful reference.
Post #44,291 by bepatient 7/2/02 6:39:40 PM Reply	Whatever. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,341 by Brandioch 7/3/02 10:47:40 AM Reply	So, your point is that a book store will sell it? You don't like that I've pointed out that the site doing an "analysis" of the book was delusionally biased. Instead you keep refering me to the OTHER link. The link to amazon.com A book store. You "support" for this book is that a book store will sell this book. [link\|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395951054/qid=1025707762/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-2128288-9836121\|Another book sold by amazon.com] And look how many stars the reviewers give THAT one! So it MUST be right.
Post #44,283 by Ashton 7/2/02 5:39:55 PM Reply	Refs. be damned than.. So: It IS a Religious Thing with you, Beep - right? Selective data taking is ever a wondrous thing .. esp. when trying to prove a negative. SO no matter the source: if'n it don't prove Librul Bias IS: it must be 'selective', ergo.. not as Clean as your selections: ergo false. Yup, guess Circle-Jerk is the mode; doggerel is the aim. You Win the locus of points around the Circle. For creative definitions of 'win'. Wagg-Edd - you gotta bid for this one! Ashton who prefers rectilinear not polar coordinates, for geometrical obfuscation amongst the debate-impaired.
Post #44,254 by Silverlock 7/2/02 1:22:38 PM Reply	Was any research actually conducted? I like to think he isn't just giving an opinion and supporting it with numbers pulled out of his ass. It could be hard to verify the contention that 'conservative' is used to describe more often than 'liberal' on network news. Where are the transcripts? What is the source of the study he used to get these numbers? For a different take, and with methodology explained, try [link\|http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html\|this] survey of print articles. "We are patriotic citizens too. Patriotism means 'love of country', caring about its people, its ecosystem, and others around us. Not giving blind loyalty and a blank check to George W. Bush. We are patriotic enough to care about the long term effects instead of just the short term gain. Therefore it is our patriotic duty to guard our country and our constitution against people and forces hiding behind the flag." -Jello Biafra
Post #44,265 by bepatient 7/2/02 2:37:06 PM Reply	Goldberg appears... ...to be giving anectodal evidence...what he >felt< on the inside. The website looked as if they hac conducted a study or 2. You would be very hard pressed to tell me that there isn't liberal bias in print...at least the Philadelphia Inquirer. They don't even pretend. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #44,273 by Silverlock 7/2/02 4:23:38 PM Reply	That's not what I'm saying Of course individual news orgs have their own bias. Left or right. Just as individual reporters have their own bias. The rightwing campaign to label "the media" as having a liberal bias is where my objection lies. After 10 years of enduring "the media's" fascination with Clinton's zipper I find it hard to see the liberal bias so often touted. I think even you will admit to the rightwing bias found on radio (in general, on syndicated talk shows). As for television, can you say "Monica"? My anecdotal evidence is that I >feel< the TV news and opinion shows are saturated with conservative viewpoints. I will give you one thing, though. The entertainment shows are skewed liberal by a large margin. "We are patriotic citizens too. Patriotism means 'love of country', caring about its people, its ecosystem, and others around us. Not giving blind loyalty and a blank check to George W. Bush. We are patriotic enough to care about the long term effects instead of just the short term gain. Therefore it is our patriotic duty to guard our country and our constitution against people and forces hiding behind the flag." -Jello Biafra
Post #44,349 by mmoffitt 7/3/02 11:31:08 AM Reply	America is bi-polar. I will give you one thing, though. The entertainment shows are skewed liberal by a large margin. This is the thing that fascinates me the most. Given a choice to watch something that is "the way we want things to be" Muricans always prefer the liberal to the conservative. We want the real west wing to be like the tv show, we want a President and White House staff like the fictional one (smart, concerned with the little guy, and liberal). The producers of all tv shows know that conservative views are unpopular (with cause, I might add). Yet, there is an alarming number of Muricans who vote for conservatives who are no where near wealthy enough to benefit from any of their policies. It makes no sense: they want liberal and vote conservative.
Post #44,403 by Ashton 7/3/02 4:49:56 PM Reply	To the extent that is true.. I don't think you can ignore the "self-flagellation" component of Puritanism ie "if I vote for what I Really Want... I might experience pleasure.. Sample re (IIRC) a Sinclair Lewis novel, in which is decribed an autocrat with his family at dinner. The kid doesn't want to eat _x_ and the father wants him to. Finally wife says, "oh let him eat what he wants..!" Father explodes, "IN MY ENTIRE LIFE I'VE NEVER DONE A SINGLE THING I WANTED TO DO.." Yes exaggerated, yet - have heard such a rationale (once stripped of self-serving euphemism) in those 'explaining'.. how it was that, serially they chose: abusive spouses. As below so above (to paraphrase). Funny species. Ashton
Post #44,405 by mmoffitt 7/3/02 4:59:39 PM Reply	Good Point and one I hadn't considered. I guess that's why so much of Christian doctrine makes no sense to me.
Post #44,274 by screamer 7/2/02 4:52:04 PM Reply	Interesting you should post that link... when I did a Google search I found this link... [link\|http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020625.asp\|eerie, huh?] Like Mark Twain says... There are lies, damn lies and statistics Or even better... (They) use statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost. More for support than illumination. Just a few thoughts, Screamer
Post #44,285 by screamer 7/2/02 6:27:09 PM Reply	The only one that comes close to as many hits as Media Research is Fair Play (www.fair.org) using other search engines. Most of these sites link to eachother. Either this is a grass roots web effort, or there is something fishy about this... I read a bunch of articles on Fair Play and have to admit, it's hard to defend Brokaw, Rather and the Today Show. It's pretty obvious that these anchors have an agenda. The thing that pisses me off the most in all of this, is that these folks are completely mislabled. There is no liberal media bias, there is a Democratic Party media bias. As a liberal, it pisses me off to be associated with the Democratic party with such a broad brush. There hasn't been a liberal bias in this country since the 30's. /Rant Just a few thoughts, Screamer You need rhino skin If you're gonna begin To walk Through this world You need elephant balls If you don't want to crawl On your hands Through this world Oh my love if I reveal Every secret I've concealed How many thoughts would you steal How much of my pain would you feel You need eagles wings To get over things That make no sense In this world You need rhino skin If you're gonna pretend You're not hurt by this world If you listen long enough You can hear my skin grow tough Love is painful to the touch Must be made of stronger stuff You need rhino skin To get to the end Of the maze through this world You need rhino skin Or you're gonna give in To the needles and pins The arrows of sin The evils of men You need rhino skin T. Petty - Rhino Skin
Post #44,296 by Ashton 7/2/02 9:03:52 PM Reply	Close enough.. I think it's all covered in the Confucius quote re the consequences of (not) correcting language. (I posted full quote eons ago in IWE) ie. once language itself has been corrupted - beyond some highly arguable point? - communication fails. We don't need Confucius, to list the "things which remain undone" when finally, ..justice goes astray. The people stand about in helpless confusion. Hence it matters above all else that language be correct. We've become a Nation of illiterates, exposed to blaring noise most waking hours - and most of us are: utterly and unprecedentedly! unfamiliar with the founding documents' Names! let alone the content and (The Federalist Papers) and the debates.. yada yada. What could you call our next Prospects except: A Crap Shoot? Ashton

Welcome to IWETHEY!