![]() |
who says the media is biased? - Printable Version +- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih) +-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9) +--- Thread: who says the media is biased? (/showthread.php?tid=8828) |
- The Sleeper - 04-12-2004 ![]() - Gooch - 04-12-2004 I saw that NY Post. Incredible. Meanwhile, the Daily News isn't a liberal outlet...it leans to the Right, as well...but the Post is super-ultra Conservative. Scary, huh? Also...in a CNN poll, majority of Americans believe Richard Clarke over Rice. - AbeSapien - 04-12-2004 The views of the paper depends solely upon the views of the majority stockholder. - Keyser Soze - 04-12-2004 I think the steinbrenner headline is hysterical. - HedCold - 04-12-2004 i find it more strange that the ny post used that headline yet kept the picture of her so dark looking, while the daily news used a picture and either brightened it or left her looking "brighter" or maybe thats just the way the picture is that sleeper posted - Galt - 04-12-2004 the conspiracy theory that anyone in the administration knew about the attacks and didn't care enough, or intentionally allowed them to happen is just insane. Politics aside, how retarded do you have to be to think that would happen? What human would think "yeah, let's have this happen just so we can use it to attack another country" - Doc - 04-12-2004 Does anyoen else think the victim's families are getting WAY too much power here? 3000 people died, awful, so sorry. But why should the wife of a firefighter be more entitled to have their opinion heard around the country than some guy who actually WORKED in those buildings or watched it on TV in Arkansas? I feel really sorry that your husband died, but shut up already, it affected us all and was an attack on all of us, not on your family. That being said, I think Brown Sugar did a splendid job, no matter what The Post says - Galt - 04-12-2004 She does remind me of Omorosa, and so I hope she gets fired. - Arpikarhu - 04-12-2004 an unbiased washington research group did a study during the last presidential campaign and found that the myth of the "liberal media was untrue. there were more positive george w articles and more negative gore articles. the ratio was something like 2/1 in favor of positive george w articles to positive gore articles. - Galt - 04-12-2004 there is no such thing as an "unbiased" anything. Just because they say they are unbiased doesn't make it so. Look at "FAIR", who is anything but. Simpleton. - Arpikarhu - 04-12-2004 by unbiased i meant that they were not funded by either party or claim to have any affiliation with any government agenda. idiot - AbeSapien - 04-12-2004 Galt Wrote:the conspiracy theory that anyone in the administration knew about the attacks and didn't care enough, or intentionally allowed them to happen is just insane. Politics aside, how retarded do you have to be to think that would happen? What human would think "yeah, let's have this happen just so we can use it to attack another country"The PATRIOT act gave the United States government nearly unlimited power when it comes to certain facets of control, such as surveillance, investigation, prosecution and punishment. The PATRIOT act could never have passed if 9/11 never happened, as there was simply no justification for the government to have that much power outside of the bounds of the courts. Im not suggesting in any way that the government helped plan 9/11, but if they knew it was going to happen, and they knew that the PATRIOT act could be passed with little or no difficulty because of it, I could see how a argument linking the two can be made. - Galt - 04-12-2004 Check your definition of unbiased. You meant "independent". There's a big difference. Try and communicate effectively. The Patriot Act wouldn't have been approved. But I still think it is horrible to actually think that people in power would allow something like that to happen for any reason. Only if a psycho were in power would they make that ocnnectiion ahead of time and allow it to happen. Think about what that is saying about the people in power. You are saying they are monsters. Disagree with the politics and what not, but Holy Shit, I refuse to believe that anyone that could reach such a level of authority in the government is that much of an ogre. - Arpikarhu - 04-12-2004 i meant unbiased. you are clearly reading with a bias and are therefore unable to comprehend the point. - Goatweed - 04-12-2004 Quote:Disagree with the politics and what not, but Holy Shit, I refuse to believe that anyone that could reach such a level of authority in the government is that much of an ogre. any human being in that's in a positon in which they can do something wrong but have a high probability of getting away with it will probably try, especially if it benefits them in some way - as heinous as it sounds. I don't wanna believe it either, but god only knows what the hell goes on behind closed doors, especially behind those of government officials. - Galt - 04-12-2004 I have no governmental backing and am not tied (registered) to any political party. Does that make me unbiased? No. Can't you ever admit when you are wrong? You used the wrong word and it completely changed the point you were trying to make. Just admit it. They are an independent research company. Great. Now, point two. I call bullshit. Cite your source. What is their criteria for what is standard for what is positive/negative and what sites/sources did they use for their research? (i.e, were they using the National Review, Rush Limbaugh, becuase that's obviously going to be slanted toward Bush, but those sources don't try and come accross as "unbiased", though they are "independent"...see how I used the proper words there, chief?) - Arpikarhu - 04-12-2004 as to being unable to admit when you are wrong, you need to say that out loud while looking in a mirror. now the other matter, they surveyed articles written by the top 2 newspapers in terms of circulation in the top 50 cities in terms of population. - Galt - 04-12-2004 as soon as I'm wrong, I'll happily own up to it. And CITE YOUR SOURCE - The Sleeper - 04-12-2004 Quote:Rice: There Was No Silver Bullet to Avert AttacksIt looks like there were enough warning signs that something like 9/11 could happen and not enough was done about it or shadiness took priority over stopping the attack. - Galt - 04-12-2004 That memo says that Bin Laden wanted to attack in the US. He already had ('93), so it's not like it was earth shattering news. The memo also gave no indication of how, when, or where he intended to do anything. What are they going to do, make it a police state in advance of the threat? People would not have stood for it UNTIL, As the fake Gonzo said, after something happened. I still stand pat that had any person democrat, republican, or communist, had an inkling of what the terrorists had intended to do, how, when, or where, they would have acted on it. The alternative is just horrifying, and would honestly break my spirit about this country and any leader it has. |