CNN Flashes 'X' Over VP'S Face During Live Speech
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
That's because Drudge, itself, isn't a news source - it just links to other news sources. That would be like having an RSS news aggregator and thinking it was biased because of the headlines and stories it compiles.Bustem' Down said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Ok, so it's a biased news reporter. Like having Dan Rather.vraiblonde said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
:shrug: I look at the Drudge site and see basic headlines.Bustem' Down said:
The only reason the screaming libs think Drudge is a righty is because he broke the Lewinsky story after Newsweek sat on it for week. So the DU types think he's anti-Clinton, therefore anti-Democrat. They think Katie Couric is a right-wing nutball, too.
What's funny is that the Lewinsky incident is what gave Drudge national attention - prior to that, he was nobody. And since the liberal media spent so much airtime disparaging him, he got the reputation for being a right-winger. And since he had the national reputation, righty orgs offered to pay him to spew on TV and radio. So he said, "Okay, thanks for the money."
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I don't think it's that, look at the following. If the right likes you and the left doesn't, then that means that the stuff you write appeals to the right. This makes you right. It may be inadvertant, and he might not consider himself right, but it's righ all the same.vraiblonde said:
If you want a highly biased source, Wiki is where to go. It's interesting to check out the change log to see the arguments about what belongs and what doesn't in an article. Here's a great example of bias in Wiki:Bustem' Down said:
One could take literally any person and say, "Critics regard them as..." and follow that with anything they please, no matter how accurate or wide-spread.
Generally - over all - Wiki is usually non-partisan, since it's collaborative and most of its material is NOT terribly political. I use Wikipedia all the time for everything to stuff about Battlestar Galactica to stuff on day trading and economic theory.vraiblonde said:
Most political stuff there that is disputed, is labelled as such.
Again, the DU (extreme left) thinks Katie Couric and Chris Matthews are right-wing media whores. Just because the Left doesn't like you, that doesn't make you Right.Bustem' Down said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Also, the whole right left scale is fluid and position is based on where the evaluator himself stands on the scale. Your right and see him as more of a moderate while CNN is left. From where I stand, I see him as slightly right with CNN as slightly left. I see you as right, but that doesn't mean I'm left because if I were to go to DC they look at me as a baby burning right wing nutball, but back home in Texas, they see me as a left wing commie.vraiblonde said:
It's the disputes that are interesting. And the - they call it something I can't remember - where someone will write a biased paragraph, someone else will delete it, then the person will write it again and keep doing it until the others give up.SamSpade said:
I got into it with some Wikinut about whether it was biased to include one of those "Critics say..." about Judith Miller. I think Wiki should be pure facts and very little, if any, opinion and conjecture if it's going to be considered a valid source.
I've been called a liberal many times on here so :shrug:Bustem' Down said:
Anyway, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are right-wingers. Drudge just wants to break the story, no matter where it falls on the political spectrum.
He does have a point though. What you say and what positions you hold are classified by how they're received. I hear what you're saying but....vraiblonde said:
For example......
Some time ago, ABC had a special where they simply read off the names of the dead after the first 1000 soldiers had died. I called into Sam Donaldson's radio show and got to talk to Sam and Ted Koppel (the only time I've ever done that). Ted was saying, it's just *names* - there is NO political agenda for it. Sam commented more than once that this was done one time during the Vietnam war, and although it was just NAMES, it was clear enough that the ones behind it wanted to drum up support AGAINST the war.
This time around - same thing. Veterans and right-wing conservatives - against. Liberals and anti-war - for. Almost RIGHT DOWN the line. So my comment to Ted was, look, you might SAY it's not partisan, but the parties themselves have decided for themselves that IT *IS* partisan. Whatever your tune is, you've chosen to do something that plays into one party over another. Further, the first time it was done, it was considered controversial, and anti-war. Why wouldn't it be, the second time? (Sam said "you raise some interesting points").
Your position can always be hijacked by one side, no matter what YOUR personal bias happens to be.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
This is why for anything important, I check it out on all three networks. And yes, I'm someone under 30 that actually reads the paper other than the comics.vraiblonde said:
Since it's collaborative - and a few people have the final say - it'll always share their bias, whether it's meant or not. Very few people are able to have a Web presence and NOT have their bias revealed.vraiblonde said:
I have to admit, though - I've never figured out the SNOPES site author - Mikkelson - what her political leaning is. Same with the guy who runs the Presidential Atlas, David Liep. They do a good job of being non-partisan about some very partisan issues.
The problem with Wiki - and anything that wants to be an "encyclopedia" - is that, to be up to date, they have to cover EVERYTHING. It's one thing if you're Greg Bulmash, trying to build IMDB from global volunteers keeping up a simple, factual site online - but what do you do if you have to include economic theories that are in dispute, global warming and cold fusion theories that aren't widely accepted? How do you cover everything under the sun and ensure that you WON'T be disputable? It's a job I'd hate to do.
I think issues that are in dispute should have two separate entries - here's what the pros think and here's what the cons think.SamSpade said:
Global warming - a page for the environutties and a page for the sensible scientific types like me.
And everyone gets to edit or add to the page that reflects their beliefs so you get a truly complete picture of both sides and can go from there.
But the big three are all liberally biased.Bustem' Down said:This is why for anything important, I check it out on all three networks. And yes, I'm someone under 30 that actually reads the paper other than the comics.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Everything is biased. History is even colored by the bias of the winner.
Except that -- it is usually possible to report simple facts without bias or commentary. You can deliver the sports scores, the weather or the business report, and no one can call it biased.Bustem' Down said:
And from MY memory - it used to be that way, with TV news reporting. I was never really sure which way John Chancellor voted. I knew David Brinkley was somewhat liberal - I wrote to him, as a kid - but he was also *fair*, as a journalist. I suspect Tim Russert is slightly liiberal - but - I honestly can't tell. Chet Huntley? No idea. Harry Reasoner? Howard K. Smith? Roger Mudd? No idea. These guys were just anchors. They weren't celebrities.
How about today? How would you guess that Chris Matthews votes? Dan Rather? Even someone I LIKE - Sam Donaldson? (My dad can't stand him).
Katie Couric? (Big hint - after interviewing Bob Dole back in '96, she went off camera and opened her mouth to point a finger way down it, as a gesture of induced vomiting).
Or for that matter - most of the staff on FOX News?
It's not invisible anymore.
It IS possible to go through your job without widely advertising your political leanings. I have a guy who works right on the other side of the divider from me - whom I've known for ten years - who only two months ago discovered I'm a conservative - and NOW, no longer talks to me or acknowledges that I exist. We were friends for ten years - he just never knew what I believed. I didn't think I needed to advertise.
But in the news world - it's all about ratings. And this means doing pieces that draw in audiences. It means being part of the news making. And it means commenting on the news. With the arrival of various cable channels being WIDELY viewed (as opposed to the virtual monopoly the big three had until the '80's), it becomes - like radio - fragmented to support niche markets, rather than broadly based to support a general audience. Hence, you have networks for golf, for Catholics, for veterans, for food, for kids - and news programs and networks as well.
I don't "deny" that FOX is right-wing. You can't listen or watch the three morning anchors and NOT KNOW this. But it thrives, because the other major networks DON'T cover their angle of the news. If the others were more balanced, FOX wouldn't survive.