Most Hated Nation

[Rooster7]

Thank you Firstpusk - for providing a perfect example of how liberals present facts in a manner that reinforces their own twisted worldviews. Lets dissect that last sentence:

 

From the names of our fallen soldiers

 

Have we lost soldiers?

Yes.

For a war of this magnitude, are those numbers significant (relative to other wars)?

No, not even close.

When a newscaster such as Ted Koppel reads off a list of the dead, is he trying to honor them or is he trying to take advantage of their deaths to manipulate the emotions of the general public?

The MANIPULATION seems pretty obvious to me.

Has the media ever try to determine the views of these soldiers Did they want to fight this war? Did they know the risks? What did they believe about the war? As a group, how many would like to see America run from this fight?

 

to the gradual withdrawal of our allies

 

Are they withdrawing because they believe the war is wrong, or are these nations bowing to internal political pressure and/or threats of terrorism (i.e., the Spaniards)?

If these nations refuse to stand with us, were they ever truly our allies?

Perhaps we were merely allies of convenience?

Its okay for America to sacrifice her blood for her allies, but apparently some of our allies dont want to make sacrifices. Interestingly, America has remained free for over 200 years.

Can any of our allies make the same claim?

No? Perhaps its because we have the courage to fight for our freedom.

Are these nations acting on principle or are they simply acting like cowards?

I think Cowards.

 

to the growing insurgency,

 

Has there been an increase? Yes.

But what exactly does that mean? Do people fight the hardest when theyre winning or when their backs are up against the wall?

The growing insurgency may simply be acts of desperation. And if even more terrorists are coming out of the woodwork, is that reason to run or to gain resolve?

Why does the media choose to label these murderers as insurgents? Who do they represent? Do they represent the majority of Iraqis? Where is the daily coverage of Iraqis embracing Americans?

 

it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.

 

Is this clear? I think this is clear The liberal media and those simple-minded folks who like to put their politics ahead of their country will twist any story (even those that harm America) if it means regaining political power. The Bush agenda is to defend this country against despots. Those who say otherwise have either been asleep since 9/11 or simply have their own agenda.

 

The bumper sticker humor/mentality of late TV fits the Democratic Party well. Both have the same level of dimwitted analysis.

 

[firstpusk]

"Is this clear? I think this is clear The liberal media and those simple-minded folks who like to put their politics ahead of their country will twist any story (even those that harm America) if it means regaining political power. The Bush agenda is to defend this country against despots. Those who say otherwise have either been asleep since 9/11 or simply have their own agenda"

 

Corddry has you nailed. In the kingdom of the blind, everyone watches FOX news. Your stuff could be used on the Daily Show, too. You are funny and don't even know it.

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

I consider myself conservative and can honestly say that FOX goes over the top with their blatant skew on the news. It is almost embarresing sometimes.

[firstpusk]

The "Daily Show" is more accurate and informative than FOX news but probably not as funny.

[Zahnada]

To each his own.

 

It is my opinion that ideology creates viewing behavior instead of viewing behavior creating ideology. Then does it matter what slant people like with their news? We all seem to have some "third-person effect" where we think, "Watching this biased news doesn't affect me, but it's inaccurately shaping the opinions of everyone else!" That's probably not the case. Any Democrat watching Fox News will spit at the biased nature of the coverage and cry out that Fox is deceiving the world. They then won't believe anything Fox says. But they wouldn't believe that side of the story anyway. The same holds true for a Republican following a more liberal media source.

 

The truth is, complete objectivity is impossible. Just the fact that we're living in American means we're not getting the objective side of the Iraqis viewpoint. The personal biases of the networks, reporters, broadcasters, station managers, etc will always bias the news in some way. People will then select out what they agree with and what they want to believe.

[mrs red feather]

ummm.....I'm a little confused. Left-wing liberal media...aren't those the same guys who used to be the right-wing capitalist media?

 

Seriously, if you want a balanced look at current events with no drama (and some people don't), try MacNeill-Lehrer.

[Proud Eagle]

Everyone is politically biased. (OK, every adult that has full mental facilities.) If anyone says otherwise they are lying.

 

Now good journalists used to be the ones that were able to overcome their biases and report the news as completely, correctly, and fairly as possible. This also extended to editors and producers making the selections of what stories would be shown and how much time would be given to each. Did they always succeed? Certainly not, but they made the effort. However, things have changed quite a bit in journalism in the past few decades, just as they have in previous times changed in other ways.

 

Now the big news outlets are dominated by left leaning reporters, editors, producers, and the like. Most of them probably think they are doing a good job of unbiased reporting. However, what they are really doing is a good job of hiding their biases beneath the surface. Essentially, they are slanting the news to the left, but in ways that make it appear at first glance to be unbiased.

 

FOX news on the other hand, is far more open about their biases. Sure, the don't have a big banner that says, "America's Right Leaning Network" or anything like that, but they don't hide the biases either. Instead, everybody knows the leaning of the reporters, commentators, editors, and producers at Fox (including the left leaning ones). Yet, they still attempt to present the news in a reasonable way. If Fox was as biased as some think, the prisoner abuse scandal would immediately been taken off the air and replaced by non-stop 24/7 coverage of Iraqi children going to schools built with American money and things like that. Those that think Fox takes it news straight from the RNC have probably never bothered to actually look at the stuff the RNC does put out. If they did, they would know they are not written by the same people. Fox used that "we report, you decide" slogan for a while. It was much maligned as was "fair and balanced". Well, perhaps a more complete version would be, "we already decided, but we are still going to report and let you decide".

 

MSNBC is also a bit more transparent than the old networks in its coverage and commentary. It still suffers from some of the old problems, but usually you can tell which side the various MSNBC people are coming from.

 

CNN on the other hand, seems to think it is still the ultimate in journalism. Yet, it doesn't take much of an effort to find people slipping in ridicule of religious conviction in the middle of news reports. All while maintaining the-this-is-the-unbiased-truth-without-any-opinions-tone-of-voice. (It was a while back that I saw that happen. Essentially two of their news people denounced Pat Robertson, and millions of American Christians, as being nut jobs. It wasn't done in a OK, I think that is crazy sort of way, it was the it is a proven fact these people are crazy sort of way.)

 

NPR certainly has a left bias as well. They do have some good journalists, but they also have more than their fair share of left leaning programs and journalists. I seem to remember All Things Considered being one of the more amusingly biased programs they have.

 

Generally speaking, most of the media is left leaning. Only a small portion of it is far left. Generally, it is just a short distance to the left of center. However, it takes a few sources that lean a bit farther right to try to balance out the larger volume of the media that leans left. I think the success of these right leaning media sources validates the point. When alternatives became available, a large number of people decided to partake of them. The reason hard core left wing media (such as various attempts in recent years at liberal talk radio) don't work is because there is already an abundant supply of news for those that prefer a left slant. I think eventually the media situation will even out a bit. There will be moderate news sources and there will be fringe news sources, and there will be everything in between on both sides of the political spectrum (and perhaps even some off the tradition left/right axis). The more moderate providers with a larger appeal will end up dominating the TV news and newspapers. More extreme providers will continue to distribute the limited circulation means such as small talk radio programs at obscure ours of the night, and Internet blogs, and monthly newsletter and such things as this. However, the media is still in a state of flux adjusting to the proliferation of cable and satellite TV and the increase in channels broadcasting by those means, and it has only just begun to adjust to the still emerging on-line media sources.

 

 

[firstpusk]

"Any Democrat watching Fox News will spit at the biased nature of the coverage and cry out that Fox is deceiving the world. They then won't believe anything Fox says. But they wouldn't believe that side of the story anyway."

 

Excuse me, but that is a steaming pile of road apples. Present a factual case and I will consider the position for reasonableness. FOX does not try to do this. Instead, there is a consistent effort to mischaracterize the position of the opposition. And that is the key. FOX does not veiw the positions Democrats or liberals as someone they report. These positions are ones that are opposed or not presented at all.

[Zahnada]

Huh?

[firstpusk]

As I said - present a factual case and I will consider it. FOX rarely does anything of the sort. This is especially true when they are talking about Democrats. They will demonize them and actually call them the enemy - Not the opposition or the other party. O'Reilly did just that tonight. He also referred to those that complaining about the prisoner abuse scandall as "Bush haters". This should bring to points to mind for anyone that is fair minded.

 

1) Why does this network feel the need to characterize one party as "the enemy"? No Spin Zone, my eye!

 

2) If they cannot present news programming without such characterizations, how can they be objective in any meaningful way? Further, how can any honest person claim that what they are doing is objective?

 

I have never heard any other network allow any reporter or other personality they employ label the subject of their reporting in such manner.

[SR540Beaver]

The problem we have today is that the 24 hour news channels don't just report the news. They put "analysis" and commentary shows on the air. These people call themselves journalists and tell you they are giving you the news or like O'Reilly, they are "looking out for you". They mention during their analysis that they are presenting the news fair and balanced. No, they are giving you their analysis which is their opinion of the news, not the "news". Face it, people tune into MSNBS, CNN and FOX to get their news, but instead are getting commentary and analysis. It is getting to where people are confusing the entertainment shows with all of their hand selected experts for hard news. Those channels only program about one hour or actual news programing. I watch all three channels. When it comes to actual news programming, the stories and details are virtually identical. News anchors and true journalists still know how to do their jobs in as unbiased of a way as humanly possible. It is we the viewer who have mistaken the entertainment portion of the 24 hour channels as hard news and that is where we see blatent bias happening. Sadly we see so little news anymore to be able to distinguish commentary from news reporting. To ad further to the problem, you have shows like Brit Humes Special Report on FOX that intermixes news and commentary throughout the program and it can sometimes be difficult to know where ones leaves off and another starts.

[Zahnada]

firstpusk,

 

I'm not clear on what point of mine you're arguing against, but I will try to respond. Please tell me if I'm going in the wrong direction.

 

Personally, I find Fox News to be the most blatantly biased and uncivil coverage and reporting. A good reporter will create dialogue between the sides, but Fox inhibits that dialogue by promoting the "I'm right, you're wrong and I'm going to talk over you to prove it" attitude. (side note: a very similar attitude presents itself in this forum frequently).

 

But all of this has little to do with my argument. I'm saying that biased coverage does not have the major effect on people's attitudes that some like to believe. We often assume that everyone else who watches something like Fox News is a mindless robot who will accept all the information and form judgments accordingly. That's not the case. Nearly anyone who frequently watches a 24 hour cable newscast will be educated and will probably have already formed their own opinions. So the people who watched O'Reilly call democrats "the enemy" and who believed that democrats are "the enemy" already believed that democrats are "the enemy" (Ummmm... please tell me if that sentence makes no sense). People already have their opinions and are rational actors when it comes to viewing the news. So the bias in Fox News probably has very little effect in changing attitudes. All it does it cement current attitudes and beliefs and polarize the population. But I think it's very rare for O'Reilly to turn a Democrat into a Republican.

[LovetoCamp]

and Bill Moyer on PBS is even in his "reporting". Not even close. Wolf Blitzer, Dan Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, they're one big liberal talking head. It's a given that you with a liberal bias are sooo much smarter than us mindless robots who watch Fox News. But seeing that I have MTV, CNN, and ABC programmed off my TV, I'll just continue to stay "Locked on FOX".

 

Your atheist friends here hate President Bush, the homosexual crowd hates President Bush, the democrats field candidates like Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Carol Mosely-Braun, Lyndon LaRouche, who all tally tens of thousands of votes and recieve tens of thousands in matching funds....I'm a Republican. I watch Fox News. I'm going to remain a Republican. I'm going to continue to watch Fox News. I send money to the NRA. I send money to BSA. I give money to my church. I might be outnumbered here, and don't debate very well, (didn't have a debate club in the platoon) but my checkbook's active and you lefties motivate me.

 

 

[Zahnada]

TrailPounder,

 

Are your comments directed at me? I never attempted to claim that other news organizations aren't biased. In fact, the point of my original argument is that every news organization or individual is biased and the coverage is affected accordingly. And I certainly never said that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I only assume those comments are directed at me because you reference my "mindless robot" comment, but you take it completely out of context.

 

Who did I say was the mindless robot? Not liberals or conservatives. I'm saying that everyone but yourself ("yourself" not necessarily referring to you, TrailPounder, but every individual) is seen as a mindless robot. It's the "Third Person Effect." The effect is basically, "I will not be influenced by this biased media, but everyone else will be." So, liberals are concerned that people watching Fox News will adopt a conservative view of the world while conservatives fear that people watching other news will adopt a liberal view. This theory has one assumption: that everyone else is a mindless robot who believes everything at face value. This is most certainly not the case.

 

In summary, you will form your own opinions regardless of whether you watch Fox or CNN. The liberals will form their own opinions regardless of whether they watch Fox or CNN. People actually think when they watch the news.

 

You've been insulted by a statement I was arguing against.

 

Did I make myself clearer or did I just make everything I said more confusing?

[acco40]

The good old US of A is the most hated nation in the world. It is also the most loved. It is practically the "most" of almost everything. We dominate popular culture, the world economy, military might, etc. We are an easy target.

 

The question is what should our response be to such feelings. I'd also add that many outside our nation dislike our government (and I'm not just talking about dubya) and not the American people.