who says the media is biased?

[Black Lazerus]

you can't rape white women, deal drugs, rob liquor stores either.

Now you know why the police bother black people all the time, and look at the shit they get.

Black people are responsible for a lot more than 3,000 deaths a year.

Cite your Source!!!

then, please show me how that compares to other races.

[The Jays]

they surveyed articles written by the top 2 newspapers in terms of circulation in the top 50 cities in terms of population.

John Stossel...

"Liberal media" was my publisher's phrase, but I certainly agree that it exists. I define it as the mainstream media, which takes its cues from The New York Times.

The Times shouldn't have much influence, because its readership is so small, about a million people a day (compared to the networks' 30 million viewers), and I assume readers who reach, say, page A16 total only a few thousand. Yet The Times matters more because other media copy it, sycophantically. When I worked at WCBS-TV, the editor clipped articles from that morning's Times, assigned us a camera crew, and said, "Do that." The newscast was a video version of the Times. That's how bias in the Times becomes bias in other media.

On Aug. 19, 2000, the front page of the Times featured a picture of the North Pole; the accompanying story said: "The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water … something that has presumably never before been seen by humans and is more evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate."

Ten days later the Times apologized, saying it "misstated the normal conditions of the sea ice there. A clear spot has probably opened at the pole before, scientists say, because about 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice in a typical summer."

But by then the Washington Post, USA Today, The Associated Press, NPR, American TV networks, Canadian TV, and papers in London had repeated the story. NBC Nightly News talked about "a mile-wide stretch of water where ice should be." CNN said the ice cap "is losing its ice." CNN, CBS, and Canadian TV interviewed the same "global warming expert" who was quoted by the Times.
The Times helps create the climate where I work (in network TV) and live (on the Upper West Side of Manhattan). People say "conservative" the way they say "child molester." It's the worst thing to be called. Everyone here agrees: Conservatives are repressive, uptight, fearful of new things, and above all, indifferent to the suffering of the poor. People here talk about the "far right, extreme right, hard right, religious right, unapologetic right," but never about a "left." What you might call "the left" doesn't exist in my neighborhood. It's just enlightened thinking to favor more safety and environmental rules, tougher gun control, abortion on demand, and higher taxes to fund good-government projects.

Anyone who disagrees is seen as not just wrong, but selfish and cruel. Leftist thinking is simply the culture I swim in. More safety regulation? Who could not want that? Everyone I know wants that. When I question other reporters about bias, I get blank stares. It's like asking fish about water. "What water?" say the fish.

This media climate helps explain why some people call me "that conservative on ABC." I'm hardly what I would call conservative. I happen to think consenting adults should be able to do just about anything they want. I think prostitution should be permitted. (If quarterbacks and boxers make money with their bodies, why can't a woman make money with hers?) I believe homosexuality is perfectly natural, that the drug war should be ended, that flag-burning and foul language should be tolerated, and most abortion should be legal. This is conservative? Real conservatives should be insulted.

But the mainstream media are tilted so far to the left that they call me conservative

I guess they call me that because I believe the free market is a good thing, but what's conservative about the market? It's unplanned, unpredictable, scary, noisy. "Libertarian" is a better term for my beliefs. But it's a lousy word. People think it means "libertine," and the Libertarian Party has had flaky people like Howard Stern run for office. Maybe "classical liberal" is a better term for what I am. Liberals were originally the ones who advocated freedom and tolerance.

Not lately.

There are cities that have their conservative media, and liberal medias. Staten Island Advance, which I would think has to be the fourth highest circualting paper in NYC, runs a fairly conservative paper, and endorses most of our republican candidates. And then they are the Daily News, and the NY Fox, er, I mean Post. Those tend to lean right on most matters. And then, the New York Times, which has a very low readership, when you take into consideration of how highly revered it is throughout the world. But, there are still publications that have have good circulation, such as Time Out New York and the Village Voice.

You only speak about articles. What about televison?

[Arpikarhu]

as soon as I'm wrong, I'll happily own up to it.

And CITE YOUR SOURCE

the day i that i feel the need to include a biblography with my posts just because you are too lazy to look up a refuting argument will be a sad day indeed.
the info i gave is accurate and i am not going to open up packed boxes just to satisfy your laziness.

Until you cite a source, everything you say on this topic is suspect.

i will tell you what, if everyone agrees that from now any statement they make on this board has to include either a link to the source or a bibilography and i will give the source of the study i mentioned.

[AbeSapien]

i will tell you what, if everyone agrees that from now any statement they make on this board has to include either a link to the source or a bibilography and i will give the source of the study i mentioned.

I got a better counter-offer for you. Learn not to make statements without citing sources in a political discussion thread, and maybe people wont come down on you for talking out of your ass.

[Sir O]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.journalism.org/resourc....ult.asp">http://www.journalism.org/resourc....ult.asp</a><!-- m -->

In the culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race, the press coverage was strikingly negative, and Vice President Al Gore has gotten the worst of it, according to a new study released today by the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

Gore's coverage was decidedly more negative, more focused on the internal politics of campaigning and had less to do with citizens than did his Republican rival.

In contrast, George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. Coverage of the governor was also more issue-oriented and more likely to be directly connected to citizens.

These are some of the key findings of a major new study of press coverage in newspapers, television and on the Internet during key weeks in September and October.

Overall, nearly a quarter of all Bush dominated stories were clearly positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of Gore stories, according to the study. Bush was also less likely to receive negative coverage than Gore.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush
Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31 27
Negative 56 49
Total 100 100


One reason for the hard time for Gore may be the penchant of the press to focus coverage around strategy and tactics.

The study produced, for the Committee by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates, examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites.

The study captured a time that some observers consider one of the most substantive moments of the campaign, the period of the debates. Yet the press assessed the debates not on the basis of where the candidates stood or their character but overwhelmingly through a tactical lens—especially as performances. Roughly seven-in-ten debate stories were about performance (53%) or strategy (12%). As the debates went on, coverage of political themes increased and coverage of issues and character declined.

In particular, stories assessing the debates tended to focus on performance (53%) and strategy (12%) rather than on the philosophical differences between the candidates. Fewer than one-in-ten were about their policy differences, perhaps fueling the perceptions among voters that there is little difference between them.

This may have particularly hurt Gore, the more experienced debater and the one expected to get the best of the encounters. In short, the data makes clear the press was playing the expectations game.

The study examined the weeks of September 23-29, October 7-13, and October 14-20, which included the run up to the first debate coverage before, during and after the second and third debates. It also included assessments of the vice presidential face off.

Among other key findings:

Neutrality has gone by the wayside in coverage of Campaign 2000. Less than a third of all stories were neutral in tone. The majority (51%) was negative, and the press was almost three times more likely to be negative than positive.1

The press did write stories in a way that showed how the topic would affect citizens a good deal more than it did during the primary season. In all, 27% of stories were written in a way that made the connection to citizens clear, compared with 17% during an earlier study this year. That number, however, may still strike the electorate as frustratingly low.

For all the talk of health care & elderly and taxes as deciding issues of the campaign, these two themes made up only 11% of all the stories studied.

There was remarkably little coverage of the character of the candidates—only 13%—even though polling research suggests that these were one of the reasons so many voters were either undecided or soft in their support of Gore and Bush.

Internet stories, especially those produced just for web, tended to be far less neutral—and much more negative—than traditional broadcast or print news organizations.

[Galt]

An independent source has shown that 99% of newspapers in this country endorsed either Clinton or Gore. That shows without a doubt that the media is inherently liberal since nowhere near that amount voted for Bush.

Now, did I just make that up, or did I just choose not a cite my source? If you take me at my word, you are a gullible fool.

If you are going to state a fact as an argument at least be able to show where you got that information.

Seriously you are a fucking jackass.

[AbeSapien]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.journalism.org/resourc....ult.asp">http://www.journalism.org/resourc....ult.asp</a><!-- m -->

Thank you for posting this, at least we know it exists now.

Seriously Arpi, was it so fucking difficult to post a link?

[Galt]

By Sir O

The study produced, for the Committee by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates, examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites.

Is this a different study, or was Arpi just making shit up again?

By Arpi

they surveyed articles written by the top 2 newspapers in terms of circulation in the top 50 cities in terms of population.

Edited By Galt on 1081810781

[The Jays]

they surveyed articles written by the top 2 newspapers in terms of circulation in the top 50 cities in terms of population.

And what do you get when you apply that to NYC? Daily News, NY Post.

[The Jays]

Major newspapers in the country

[Keyser Soze]

so in '98 they said that terrorists wanted to hijack planes. And Bush/Clinton was supposed to do what exactly to stop that?

we could start with more secure cockpits that cannot be opened from the outside. sorry, they can slaughter the entire cabin but they're not gonna use another plane as a missle if they can't get into the cockpit.

[Sir O]

Is this a different study, or was Arpi just making shit up again?

I'm inclined to believe the latter.

[The Jays]

They didnt mention using it as a missle. They wanted Sheik Abdel Rahman out of prison. They wanted to just hijack the plane, similiar to incidents in many other countries, where planes are held on the tarmac, or even taken midair.

[Galt]

weren't the cockpit doors opened by the pilots because they were killing the stewardesses.

[The Jays]

:knock knock:

"Who's there?"

"Arabs"

"Arabs?"

"Crazy arabs, open up."

:opens door:

BANG!

[The Sleeper]

:knock knock:

"Who's there?"

"Arabs"

"Arabs?"

"Crazy arabs, open up."

:opens door:

BANG!

can you cite a source for this alleged dialogue?

[Keyser Soze]

like i said, pilots need to forget about playing hero to the rest of the people on their plane and worry about the greater good. perhaps commercial airliners should be piloted by military personnel who will drop a bomb over a city full of civilians in order to kill a 'high value' target for the 'greater good'.

there were PDB's describing the possibility of planes being used as missles. i will cite my source if you give me a moment to find it. regardless, a plane cannot be hijacked if the pilots refuse to allow the terrorists to enter the cockpit.

[Sir O]

They didnt mention using it as a missle.

Two things:

First, the declassified portion of the Aug 6 memo isn't the entire thing. Two pages were released to the public, but the entire thing is rumored to be 11 pages.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/diezeit100102.html">http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... 00102.html</a><!-- m -->

Crawford, Aug. 6, 2001. U.S. president George W. Bush is on vacation. He wants to spend the whole month at his ranch in Texas. Every morning, however, he still receives his Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, wherein the CIA informs the president about the country's security situation. On this morning, the report is straight from the CIA director. His PDB runs 11 and one-half printed pages, instead of the usual two to three, and carries the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Therein the CIA chief explains that al Qaeda has decided to carry out attacks within the United States, and that presumably members of the terrorist organization have been in the country for some time. It is unclear whether the CIA director informed the president about the statements of arrested al Qaeda members. According to their confessions, the terrorist organization for some time has been thinking about hijacking planes and using them as missiles.

Second, even if this isn't true, it was already known for some time that terrorists had planned on crashing planes into American buildings.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/ ... 9488.shtml</a><!-- m -->

CBS) Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.

"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.

The Bush administration has asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.

"Had I know that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," Mr. Bush told U.S. Air Force Academy football team members who were visiting the White House on Friday. It was his first public comment on revelations this week that he was told Aug. 6 that bin Laden wanted to hijack planes.

CBS Senior White House Correspondent Bob Schieffer reports that other top officials were less forthcoming. The usually talkative Attorney General John Ashcroft just stared when reporters asked him about the terror warnings. FBI Chief Robert Mueller also refused to comment.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the administration was aware of the 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and U.S. intelligence on emerging threats. He said the document did not contain direct intelligence pointing toward a specific plot but rather included assessments about how terrorists might strike.

"What it shows is that this information that was out there did not raise enough alarm with anybody," Fleischer acknowledged.

Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council when the report was written, said officials long have known a suicide hijacking was a threat.

"If you ask anybody could terrorists convert a plane into a missile, nobody would have ruled that out," he said.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress Friday raised the volume of their calls to investigate what the government knew before Sept. 11.

"I think we're going to learn a lot about what the government knew," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said during an appearance in New York. She said she was unaware of the report created in 1999 during her husband's administration.

Sen. Charles Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees, demanded the CIA inspector general investigate the report, which he called "one of the most alarming indicators and warning signs of the terrorist plot of Sept. 11."

Meanwhile, court transcripts reviewed by The Associated Press show the government had other warning signs between 1999 and 2001 that bin Laden was sending members of his network to be trained as pilots and was considering airlines as a possible target.

The court records show the FBI has known since at least 1999 that Ihab Mohammed Ali, who was arrested in Florida and later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, had been sent for pilot training in Oklhhoma before working as a pilot for bin Laden.

He eventually crashed a plane owned by bin Laden in Sudan that prosecutors alleged was used to transport al Qaeda members and weapons. Ali remains in custody in New York.

In February 2001, federal prosecutors told a court they gained information in September 2000 from an associate of Ali's, Morrocan citizen L'Houssaine Kherchtou, that Kherchtou was trained as an al Qaeda pilot in Kenya and attended a meeting in 1993 where an al Qaeda official was briefing Ali on Western air traffic control procedures.

"He (Kherchtou) observed an Egyptian person who was not a pilot debriefing a friend of his, Ihab Ali, about how air traffic control works and what people say over the air traffic control system," then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told a New York court.

"And it was his belief that there might have been a plan to send a pilot to Saudi Arabia or someone familiar with that to monitor the air traffic communications so they could possibly attack an airplane perhaps belonging to an Egyptian president or something in Saudi Arabia."

That intelligence is in addition to information the FBI received in July 2001 from its Phoenix office that a large number of Arabs were training at U.S. flight schools and a briefing President Bush received in August of that year suggesting hijacking was one possible attack the al Qaeda might use against the United States.

The September 1999 report, entitled "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" described suicide hijacking as one of several possible retribution attacks the al Qaeda might seek for a 1998 U.S. airstrike against bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

The report noted an al Qaeda-linked terrorist first arrested in the Philippines in 1995 and later convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had suggested such a mission.

"Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters," the report said.

Bush administration officials have repeatedly said no one in government had imagined such an attack.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said Thursday.

The report was written by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress that provides research for federal agencies.

"This information was out there, certainly to those who study the in-depth subject of terrorism and al-Qaeda," said Robert L. Worden, the agency's chief.

"We knew it was an insightful report," he said. "Then after Sept. 11 we said, 'My gosh, that was in there.'"

Gannon said the 1999 report was part of a broader effort by his council to identify the full range of attack options of U.S. enemies.

The vice president has repeatedly asked Congress not to investigate the intelligence failures. But with the new commotion, the White House now says it will cooperate with an investigation if it's done the right way.

Now, put two and two together:

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." + "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House" = "I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile" ????

No sir, it doesn't add up...

[Keyser Soze]

thanks sir o for citing my reference for me

[Arpikarhu]

i will tell you what, if everyone agrees that from now any statement they make on this board has to include either a link to the source or a bibilography and i will give the source of the study i mentioned.

I got a better counter-offer for you. Learn not to make statements without citing sources in a political discussion thread, and maybe people wont come down on you for talking out of your ass.

i wasnt talking out my ass. i just dont feel like unpacking a box to find a source to appease someone who would argue with me if i said the sky was blue.
i say my info is correct. i stand by it. if you think i am wrong, prove me wrong or shut up.