"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:

Whe you ACTUALLY look at the real world, for example,
the Congress, Fox is very close to the center. If you
look at all the people, same result.

Actually, as I quoted from a scientific study, I am
correct.

People who think Fox is right wing are generally
from very close to the coasts, in areas where Fox really
is right of the center for that local groups of people.

Go to Alabama or Wyoming and you will find Fox to
be well to the left of the center of those people.
Limbaugh would be closer to their center. When
you average over the whole USA, as represented in
Congress, Fox is centrist.

By that logic, then, a cool day on Venus would be somewhere around 350C, rather than
400C.

You can't measure the centre based on the average of a pre-selected group.
Left/right, when considering politics, can be easily determined in a vacuum if you
look at the policies and values of each group. Conservatives view the world as
entirely self-actuated, self-rewarded and assumed risk at the individual level.
Facism extends this concept to business, where the relationship between government
and business is distinctly favoured over individual rights. Socialists and, going
further, communists (and not the Soviet kind) view the world as mutually-actuated,
mutually-shared rewards and mutually-shared risk. By that measure, Congress is
distinctly conservative, FOX News is clearly right-wing, and we're all going to hell.

CBS, as is the case for all legitimate news organisations, is better at covering a
story with balance and provides opportunities to hear opposing views. FOX exhibits
no such behaviour. And Steve is right.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

In article ,
"Charles Tomaras" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
But in the US the whole "true left" end ot the spectrum of public
opinion, socialism, is missing, neatly excised by the long pressure of
the Cold War. Now the American right wing is busily propogandizing us
into believing that traditional liberals, who have always been staunchly
pro-capitalist and are more like libertarians than anything else known,
are "leftists".

They'll probably succeed, too.


Leonard, that is a very telling statement. Is that an observation of your
own as I'd love to pass that along with proper attribution.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA



An observation of my own indeed. Here, this is my wisdom. Go and share
it with the world and be my prophet.

Leonard

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor

Bob Haberkost wrote:


CBS, as is the case for all legitimate news organisations, is better at covering a
story with balance and provides opportunities to hear opposing views.

You are joking. CBS NEVER presents the conservative point of view.
It ALWAYS treats subjects from the left wing viewpoint. It is true
that very occasionally they ask a conservative to utter words ...
but they actually treat the news and also "features" from a left
wing viewpoint. They do NOT cover stories with balance.

If you think they do, you are a severe liberal.

You cannot be a balanced news organization without covering
stories that are interesting and held close to the heart of
conservatives, such as the right to life for unborn children,
treating them as being the right side. CBS may talk about
right wing subjects ... BUT THEY ASSUME THAT THE LEFT WING
POSITION ON THE ISSUE IS THE CORRECT ONE.

And have you EVER heard CBS breaking a big story attacking
Kerry with forged documents?

Doug McDonald

"Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message ...
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...

It's actually true. There are of course conservative
talk shows. But no actual "news channel" that is
consistently substantially to right of center. That's
exactly what the previously quoted showed.

Yes, you are correct: while Fox is extremely right-wing, it is not a "news
channel". Rather, it is Republican propoganda in the guise of entertainment
loosely disguised as "news". Sort of like a neo-conservative Saturday Night
Live, minus the humor. Or at best a political Jerry Springer or Howard
Stern, with politicians etc. as the dysfunctional guests/entertainment.

All except Fox and MSNBC are very far left of center.

True, if you are looking at things from the point of view of John
Poindexter, Dick Cheney, or John Ashcroft (or the point of view of Rupert
Murdoch or Roger Ailes). Some years ago one of the initiators of the
"liberal media" myth essentially admitted that the media was "liberal" only
because all of society was liberal form that person's point of view. These
people wanted a definitively right-slanted media in order to influence
society, not to reflect it. And they came up with the scam (which they are
fully conscious of, even admitting publicly that it's a wonderful racket) of
accusing mainstream media, which strives not to be biased, of being biased,
when it is they, the accuers, that are actually biased and making no attempt
to be fair. But if you keep saying it, people will believe it, right?

People who say things like "Fox is right wing" are
simply WRONG. They are weong because they are using
a cloud cookoo land definition of center. That is, they
simply assign themselves ... quite left wing people ...
as center.

Whe you ACTUALLY look at the real world, for example,
the Congress, Fox is very close to the center. If you
look at all the people, same result.

You are naive enough to believe that Congress is a good reflection of the
real world?

In the "real world", the large majority of the population disagrees with
actual Republican policies in virtually every area, when they are each taken
in isolation and stripped of rhetoric: universal health care, abortion,
welfare, taxes, gun control, separation of church and state, education,
drugs and crime, media ownership, environment, labor relations, workplace
safety, civil rights, corporate accounting abuses, etc. But the right wing
have become masters of deception and framing the issues in such a way that
their bad positions are made to look good and their opponents are forced to
debate on their terms. Continual mudslinging and misdirection of blame onto
their opponents only helps their cause.

They also have their own right-wing "news" outlet in Fox, which doesn't
bother with fact checking or even trying to tell the truth, freely mixes
editorializing with "reporting", gives no time at all to balancing
progressive points of view, and generally plays out the Republican
leadership's philosophy that politics is war, to be won at any cost (get all
the spoils and kill your opponents). There is nothing in the current
Republican philosophy about building a better world or country, about
benefitting the population as a whole, about accommodating different points
of view, or about reasoned debate about policies. It is all about winning:
disparaging and degrading your opponents and discrediting them and their
points of view. Then you can get all the spoils.

And the mainstream media have played along: despite being "liberal" (if
that's really the case: a 1998 study showed that the Washington press corps,
at least, were more conservative than the general public on issues such as
trade, taxes, Social Security, health care and corporate power, and the
majority of newspapers have endorsed Republican candidates in virtually
every election this century), individual reporters have been unable to
provide accurate and meaningful information in the face of this propoganda
blitz, largely as a result of their rules of proper journalism: since most
of what Bush and his cronies say has a tiny grain of truth mixed with
subjective opinion and gross exaggeration, they can't be called the liars
they so clearly are (it's also not in the nature of journalists to make such
accusations: rather, they try to present the facts and let the reader or
viewer decide for him or herself; the Republicans know this very well). All
journalists can do is put such statements up against what Kerry (or whoever)
says in return, and hope the reader can judge. But with all the noise,
misdirection, deception, outright lies, continual repetitions of untruths,
accusations, and false impressions, it's difficult for anyone to tell what's
true or not, and at best they may come away confused and not knowing whom to
believe. See: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/swift-boat.html

Also, due to the massive, well funded and organized letter/email/phone/fax
attacks the stations or papers receive any time anyone says or writes
something not quite conservative enough, they've been cowed into taking a
right-of-center view much of the time. (Not all of the time, but moreso than
they would naturally.)

Even when they can do meaningful reporting, it often gets drowned out. See:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/c...documents.html

Another reason reporting glosses over many issues is that the media is far
more concentrated now than it used to be, and owned by major corporations.
This is something that's happened without most people being aware of: most
media in the U.S. are now owned by a small number of major corporations, due
to relaxations in media ownership rules by the likes of Michael Powell (but
starting many years earlier). Clearly there are many potential conflicts of
interest when, for instance, NBC covers news about GE, ABC about Disney, or
CBS about Viacom. (see
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/ge-boycott.html for one old example.
There are plenty more, and the situation is certainly not getting better.)
But in addition, large corporate media are concerned about keeping large
corporate advertisers happy, and also about keeping the recipients of large
political donations happy so that policies will move in the direction of
unrestrained profit-making. "News" is really about profit, by way of being
entertaining enough to hook an audience and hence major advertisers. None of
this creates an atmosphere conducive to reasoned and penetrating reporting
in the best interest of U.S. citizens.


What a nice little diversion in abstracts. How about looking at the
real example. Dan Rather was already under the glare of international
spotlights after it was apparent to everyone that his newly discovered
documents were very likely forged. If not forged, it was
unquestionable that they received very little proper scrutiny, nor did
the source of the documents. So, what does he do? How does he then
try to correct this error? He goes back on 60 mins again claiming
the story is true, even if the documents are false. He brings out the
84 year old former air national guard secretary that worked for Bush's
now deceased superior officer, with her 30+ year old recollection of
events. One of the very first questions he then asks is if she
believed President Bush got into the ANG through influence. She
answers "Yes, I do. I've always felt that way." End of questioning
by Rather. No follow up. Even a junior reporter from a third rate
paper interested in the truth would have asked "What do you base that
on? What evidence did you see?" Better than that, they never would
ask a question about how she "feels", they would have asked for facts.
This is a prime and current example of the bias at CBS. And, in this
case, already being under intense scrutiny, no one can claim it was a
mere oversight.

Then, we have the fact that CBS called the Kerry campaign and
requested they contact the 60 mins source for the forged documents.
Joe Lockhart admits he was contacted and then did talk to the guy.
This is unbiased journalism?

And of course, if CBS wanted a fair presentation in either this or the
original 60 mins story, they had plenty of opposing witnesses
available to be heard. The wife and son of Bush's supperior officer
both have said they know what he had said to them about Bush, and it
was all favorable. Yet, we didn't hear from either them or any other
source with opposing information.

As for FOX being so right wing, I believe the previous poster is
correct. They are a lot closer to the mainstream American than Dan
Rather, Michael Moore, or George Soros. And that explains why they
are thriving and the attempts at liberal shows just went by the
wayside. Anyone remember how long Phil Donohue lasted with his show
on MSNBC?

The only question left is how long until they fire Dan Rather. With
ratings impacted, CBS must be left wondering who will be left watching
Rather's coverage of election night. I wouldn't be surprised to see
CBS tell him they won't let him cover it, which would also be a
convenient way to get him to quit.

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
Bob Haberkost wrote:


CBS, as is the case for all legitimate news organisations, is better at
covering a
story with balance and provides opportunities to hear opposing views.

You are joking. CBS NEVER presents the conservative point of view.
It ALWAYS treats subjects from the left wing viewpoint. It is true
that very occasionally they ask a conservative to utter words ...
but they actually treat the news and also "features" from a left
wing viewpoint. They do NOT cover stories with balance.

If you think they do, you are a severe liberal.

You cannot be a balanced news organization without covering
stories that are interesting and held close to the heart of
conservatives, such as the right to life for unborn children,
treating them as being the right side. CBS may talk about
right wing subjects ... BUT THEY ASSUME THAT THE LEFT WING
POSITION ON THE ISSUE IS THE CORRECT ONE.

And have you EVER heard CBS breaking a big story attacking
Kerry with forged documents?

Doug McDonald

Has anyone ever offered CBS forged documents which attack Kerry? CBS does in
fact air GOP sponsored commercials which are full of forged interpretations
of Kerry's politics.

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...

You are joking. CBS NEVER presents the conservative point of view.
It ALWAYS treats subjects from the left wing viewpoint. It is true
that very occasionally they ask a conservative to utter words ...
but they actually treat the news and also "features" from a left
wing viewpoint. They do NOT cover stories with balance.

If you think they do, you are a severe liberal.

You cannot be a balanced news organization without covering
stories that are interesting and held close to the heart of
conservatives, such as the right to life for unborn children,
treating them as being the right side. CBS may talk about
right wing subjects ... BUT THEY ASSUME THAT THE LEFT WING
POSITION ON THE ISSUE IS THE CORRECT ONE.

And have you EVER heard CBS breaking a big story attacking
Kerry with forged documents?

Doug McDonald

Sigh. You are a Chemistry professor, no? What do you think of the
"Intelligent Design" movement?

"Chet Hayes" wrote in message
...
"Matthew Vaughan" wrote in message
...
"Chet Hayes" wrote in message
...

No further questions required, case proved. He could have asked "What
evidence do you have that this is true? What documents did you see?
But Dan the man just couldn't seem to get the words out. And you know
why? Because he's so full of hate and venom he can no longer think
straight. And I would say your previous response puts you in that
category too.

And you're the paragon of virtue, eh?

plonk!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Chet Hayes" wrote in message
...
No further questions required, case proved. He could have asked "What
evidence do you have that this is true? What documents did you see?
But Dan the man just couldn't seem to get the words out. And you know
why? Because he's so full of hate and venom he can no longer think
straight. And I would say your previous response puts you in that
category too.


Are you accusing Dan Rather and the other poster of being like about 50% of
the population of the United States? I though so!

We are a nation so divided over what has become of things, it seems the most
prudent course of action would be to try a different administration and set
of policies. Anyone but Bush makes plenty good sense to me.

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...

I don't believe our president is telling the truth. I can't imagine
anyone who was of draft age during that time believing him. You don't
have to be full of venom or hate to believe it.

There's no point in imagining that we can trust any of them to tell the
truth. There
is one thing (and one thing *only*) on the mind of a politician: the next
election.

They will say anything to win. When they are boxed in is when the lies
become apparent.
Other than that, they usually sound believable.

Jean Giraudoux said, "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake
that,
you've got it made."

Rather to little old lady "Do you think Bush got into the ANG through
influence?"

Little old lady "Yes, I do. I've always felt that way"

No further questions required, case proved. He could have asked "What
evidence do you have that this is true? What documents did you see?
But Dan the man just couldn't seem to get the words out. And you know
why? Because he's so full of hate and venom he can no longer think
straight. And I would say your previous response puts you in that
category too.


30 year old memories or even 74 year old memories can be very accurate.

Yes, they can. Memories of WHAT? She didn't get a chance to talk
about them.

Talked to my 86 year old father yesterday about his childhood. He
remembers the full names of all his neighbors, dates and intricate and
accurate details of when he was 12 years old.

Sure, but that doesn't make his opinion of Bush any more credible
unless Bush was one of his neighbors at the time.

Sure, let's hear what the little old lady remembers. Someone told
her they had to let Bush in? She overheard conversations about
favors exchanged for letting him in? She saw documents halting
investigations of why Bush didn't show up when he should have? She
noticed that Bush was among a group of people treated specially in
certain ways (name them) in the Guard? She knows that anyone in
this unit had to kiss this officer's ass? These are things to
base a credible opinion on.

I thought that the "little old lady" was a very credible witness.

Witness to WHAT? That Bush did NOT assassinate Abraham Lincoln?
All she stated was her opinion, without any basis, justification,
or reasoning. Was it her opinion that ANYONE who got into the
ANG received special treatment? If so, why? If not, why does she
think that Bush, specifically, got special treatment? What did
she see or hear that justifies this?

I'm not saying her opinion is wrong, but I'd like to hear convincing
evidence, not just her opinion.

As to the ANG and whether Bush got in with special treatment. It was
well known in Michigan where I lived at the time that you had to know
someone to get into the National Guard. I doubt there were many living
Americans at the time that did not fully understand this reality
nationwide.

I doubt that the majority of Americans living at the time even knew
there *WAS* a National Guard and that it wasn't a football team or
a position on a football team.

Our born again Christian president said straight faced to the camera the
other day that he had no idea that he received any favorable treatment.
This has to be a blatant lie or he is from another planet. I was drafted

Maybe. But the little old lady has not given me any reason to
believe that. Maybe she CAN, but she was never given a chance
to give one.

in 1968 and 75% of my basic training unit was black and 90% of those
went to advanced infantry training and then straight to the front lines
in Nam. They sure knew that they were getting special treatment. How
many blacks were in Bush's NG unit?

I don't believe our president is telling the truth. I can't imagine
anyone who was of draft age during that time believing him. You don't
have to be full of venom or hate to believe it.

Ever think of the possibility that Bush actually BELIEVES he didn't
get special treatment? (It's not unheard of for parents to exert
influence on behalf of their kids behind the kids's backs so they
don't know about it.) Doesn't EVERYONE get served caviar by his
personal maid every night? There weren't really many blacks in the
USA (around the time of the Vietnam war), were there? A few thousand,
maybe. They all move around from one riot to another in different
cities :-) Sure don't see them in MY neighborhood. Oh, maids don't
count.

You can probably argue that I used influence to stay out of Vietnam.
I was white, had good enough grades to get into college, had parents
well-off enough to pay for some of it (these three alone are probably
a significant advantage), and I was lucky enough to be born on a
day which drew a high draft number.

Gordon L. Burditt