I was reading an article from the newspaper talking about recent deaths in Iraq. The article started by saying that 16 Americans (I think it was 16) died in a helicopter crash in Iraq. The story went on to tell about the incident and what exactly happened in the incident. This took up 2/3 of the article. The last third mentioned that American soldiers killed over 30 insurgents and apprehended (arrested) 5 or so terrorists. The media just slid this little pro-Iraq tidbit of information in at the very end, after most people stop reading. I hate how they look for the news that supports their side of the story and focus on that. Usually they don't ignore one side, they just don't give it much clout.

Similarly, have you ever heard any news about Afghanistan? News flash, we're still at WAR there!! In Afghanistan, we have established a "stable", as stable as you can get with insurgency, government and are now rebuilding schools. The insurgents no longer have support of the government or the people. The media totally ignores this whole issue under the guise that Iraq is "more interesting" or "more pertinent", but really, they are ignoring this whole issue because it does not support their view that these wars are inherently bad. Afghanistan is showing that we CAN be successful, and that we ARE being successful. Once the people of Iraq turn whole-heartedly from the insurgents, the insurgents have no more foundation, and can only attack from the outside, not the inside. Iraq will eventually become stable, as long as we get the confidence of the people (that was our downfall in Vietnam, I'm sure we learned SOMETHING from that).

One of the main reasons that the media does not like the Bush administration is because he refuses to talk with them. He is not like Pres. Carter or Pres. Reagan where they had a metaphorical "love affair" with the media. He gives out only the information necessary to the media, and the media fills the void with anti-Bush "propaganda". This is also the reason why Bush's approval rating is so low. Bush does not do his job to please the people, he does his job to protect the people. The general populace does not understand the war in Iraq because they do not have all of the information. The only information they have is the information provided them by the media, which media is biased into anti-Bush/anti-Iraq war propaganda. The population is "duped" into believing that the Iraqis do not want us there, that we are losing the war, and that no Democracy is not possible. The truth, on the other hand, is that Iraqis DO want us there (we see this in the execution of Hussein), we are not losing the war (we ARE having difficulties, but that's to be expected with terrorists), and that Democracy is just beginning (every country adopting Democracy had a rocky beginning, America for example).

I think that the media is biased towards the liberal point of view. I do not profess to have absolute knowledge on the subject, so I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. Is the media run by liberals, is it neutral, or is it run by the republicans? Please explain your thoughts, I am anxious to hear about what you think.

I'm assuming you haven't heard of the website "Right Wing News". Go to http://www.rightwingnews.com

The MSM is vastly owned by the liberal left. Fox News is probably the sole exception. Compare the acts of people on Fox compared to those on CNN, and you notice a very large difference. The liberal MSM does not want the conservative side of the story to be heard. They only want their side to be heard. If a balanced media law were enacted, every media station in the USA, including Fox News, would be shut down. There is no such thing as balanced media. There is the liberal media, Fox News, and the blogosphere, which is split into fair Conservative and Wacky liberal, for the most part. There are a few shunned wacko conservative blogs, but they are shunned.

Yeah, it really depends on the source, and the author. My local newspaper is liberal (so I'm told).
The whole issue of biased media is one of much debate. If we spent the time trying to figure out how to make a completely unbiased newscast, by the time we had prioritized the news it would be past the deadline. And truly there is no agreement on which stories should be given priority. For example, a story of a local shooting could be front page news; it all depends on what the media thinks the public wants, because the media exists to tell the public either a ) what the public wants to hear, b ) what the government wants them to hear, or c ) what the newscaster/media station wants you to hear. It's not so much the actual importance of the news item as the potential impact it could have on the station's consumers. A nuclear bomb could go off in Asia and if the papers didn't want to say it, it wouldn't be said. (of course, they would want to say it because it makes a nice headline, but you get the idea)

This post has been edited by bluefish: Mar 8 2007, 09:30 PM

i think the media is currently with the conservatives the reson is that we find most of the news from a conservative point of view ,the news always show from the particular countries perspective not from a humanity perspective which is really bad as we feel that if a judge or soldier kills people than it is ok but if another countries people do the same than it is terrorism,if our soldier kills 10 terrorist and die he is a bravo ,but if a terrorist(said so) he is a suicide bomber,a war can never be a solution to anything but is definately a big [roblem because no one is going to sit quiet ,if us has defeated afganistan now,there would be young minds in afganistan in oppose of us, today us is the powerful nation but due to globalisation every country is going to become equal and that is the time us will see it has more enemies than friend,its simple when u are powerful you have a lots of friends but when you grow weak or others becokme as powerful as u ,no country would be with us then,and this problem wont come only when the thirld world countries grow ,even before thst there will be many osamas out there.to kill one osama us has created millions of osama and all fruits of those osama would be coming soon from those countries