Example of CNN bias

#51
#51
JayVols said:
News agencies didn't use 'Shock and Awe'? Come on. Get over the poor little Republican presidents are picked on and not treated fairly boo hoo schtick. It's unbecoming.
Click to expand...
No schtick. Just a recognition of facts. You can close your eyes to the fact that the overwhelming majority of those working in the MSM are liberal if you want. You can deny that their worldview and paradigm has any influence on their "reporting". Just don't expect me to be that blind.

FWIW, I don't know whose idea it was but the use of the press in the early Iraq War was near genius. The military provided extraordinary access and made reporters part of the invasion.... However, many began reporting not too far into the battle that there was no "shock and awe".
I don't recall ever crying about a Fox bias like you have CNN/HLN on here. I really don't care. I own a remote that changes the channel if something comes on that I don't like. It's great.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I seldom watch CNN for this very reason. I find leftwing bias more easy to stomach in print. I find news generally easier to process in print where you get more detail. I actually don't watch Fox that often either. My wife watches it quite a bit but most of my news comes from a wide range of web sources.

Again, I am not "crying" about anything... I think a partisan press like a multi-party political system ensures more accountability. To this end, the internet is great. A partisan press is what I want... so why would I be disappointed when I get it? The only remaining problem is that organizations like CNN claim with a straight face that they are objective and neutral when their editing and language demonstrate that they aren't.
 
Last edited:
#54
#54
sjt18 said:
No schtick. Just a recognition of facts. You can close your eyes to the fact that the overwhelming majority of those working in the MSM are liberal if you want. You can deny that their worldview and paradigm has any influence on their "reporting". Just don't expect me to be that blind.


I seldom watch CNN for this very reason. I find leftwing bias more easy to stomach in print. I actually don't watch Fox that often either. My wife watches it quite a bit but most of my news comes from a wide range of web sources.

Again, I am not "crying" about anything... I think a partisan press like a multi-party political system ensures more accountability. A partisan press is what I want... so why would I be disappointed when I get it? The only remaining problem is that organizations claim with a straight face that they are objective and neutral when their editing and language demonstrate that they aren't.
Click to expand...


And you are acting just like those that complain about a Fox bias. Way to emulate that which you claim to despise.

I never claimed that news agencies don't contain biases. I was just saying your example was a 'see what you want to see' phenomenon. Maybe one day I will become the nonblind high road taking victimized by MSM person that you claim to be.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
You just don't like the language and the policy. It would be "balanced" to have cuts and tax increases. Your personal belief that there should be no tax increases does not mean that it is inaccurate to call the Obama approach "balanced."
Click to expand...
Yes. It is an objective fact what the guy and Dems have spent over the past 3 years. They are on pace to double the debt in just 4 years. "Balance" is what you would do if this were a company... you "balance" where you cut overhead from while preserving your investment and capital going to the income producing part of your business.

Obama's "balanced" approach is that you continue to grow gov't at maybe a slightly less aggressive pace... about 5 years from now but you increase taxes next year.

Let's look at it this way. The sum of Obama's new spending is considerably more than $3 trillion in 10 years. "Balance" would be going back to pre-Obama baselines and making the cuts from there. If you add $10 trillion in spending then propose that at some point you will cut $3 in exchange for $1 trillion in new taxes... that IS NOT BALANCED.

When you see "balanced" you view that as having some ideological point to it.
Click to expand...
No. I see marketing and deception. There is no balance. We are NOT under taxed. Our gov't recklessly overspends, is involved in things it should not be, and is generally corrupt.

It might be that a "balanced" approach is more popular with voters. Heck, every poll I've seen suggests that a significant majority of Americans approve of increasing taxes on the wealthy.
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it but the polls I have seen oppose tax cuts generally as well as cuts in service. People tend to believe that gov't can and should do what companies do... become more efficient. The one thing not being talked about by either side is gov't salaries and benefits. Those must be cut as well along with total headcount.

Don't take what you don't like and falsely spin it as inaccurate.
Click to expand...
I have given my reasons... you on the other hand make de facto statements that defy defense.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
In context, balanced is absolutely an apt description.
Click to expand...

In what context? The one where you blindly accept that politicians who say the things you want to hear are telling the truth?

I do not trust politicians of any stripe. The ONLY way to get "good" out of them is to force them to give up power (money). They are NOT going to get better because we agree to give them more. Liberals have NEVER seen tax increases as anything more than a means to justify even more spending. With that record... I don't trust the most liberal president in our history to start a new trend.
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
This is why Obama wants to make the "Grand Deal." He sees this as the last best opportunity to truly deal with these problems, including reform to SS and Medicare cuts, and he's 100 % right.
Click to expand...
So you think taking liquid capital out of an economy struggling to create jobs (long term damage) coupled with reductions in spending (short term damage if you actually believe they will happen) is dealing with "problems"?

The irony is that, if you really believe we have to reform these programs, and do things like increase the eligibility age in SS, make big cuts in Medicare and even Medicaid, then you have to root for Obama to force everyone's hand. This is the last best chance to get it done.
Click to expand...
The idiocy is that you actually believe these cuts will ever be made or that Obama really thinks they will. The tax increases however would occur.

I will give you a "balanced" approach that I would grudgingly accept... Make REAL cuts beginning next year that are not derived from baseline budgeting. Under that scenario, I would be willing to see a temporary tax increase package of monies dedicated ONLY to paying down the debt. In short, effectively freeze then reverse gov't growth, begin to reduce the size and scope of gov't, maximize pressure for efficiency,.... and then I would be willing even as a middle class person to pay more so that my children would not inherit the train wreck these clowns are making.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
Yes. My understanding from the news reports is that he has proposed over a trillion in cuts. He has also advocated for including SS in the discussion, even though theoretically it could be excluded, because he sees the opportunity to address it now, in the larger scheme of things.
Click to expand...
"Cut" in Washington speech means that a program will increase by 5% instead of 5.1%. He increased spending by over $1 trillion per year. Now he proposes immediate tax hikes coupled with supposed baseline growth cuts sometime around the end of his potential second term. The total of those "cuts" would be about $300 billion per year without adjusting for inflation.

SS reform will NOT take effect within 10 years. Any proposal like that is politically unviable.
 
#61
#61
BigPapaVol said:
It's absurd that the media lets these idiots, on either side, get away with calling their proposals X trillion in cuts, which is clearly over ten years and includes potential savings on interest.
Click to expand...

Yes and all of that is loaded at the back... when someone else will answer to voters and be force to renege.
 
#63
#63
milohimself said:
So you take equal issue with CNN fox msnbc then?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's my point. I don't take issue with any of them. I think a partisan press much like a multi-party democratic system yields far more accountability.

MSNBC and Fox are pretty honest about the whole thing. They aren't pretending to be something they're not. EVERYONE including the two of us operates from a worldview/paradigm. It makes some things apparent and other things... we're blind to.

When you have an organization like CNN where everyone related to content is liberal... the product is going to be biased toward liberals even if they make an "honest" effort to be objective. They either need to acknowledge that bias or replace 50% of their production and editing staff with conservatives and libertarians.
 
#64
#64
sjt18 said:
That's my point. I don't take issue with any of them. I think a partisan press much like a multi-party democratic system yields far more accountability.

MSNBC and Fox are pretty honest about the whole thing. They aren't pretending to be something they're not. EVERYONE including the two of us operates from a worldview/paradigm. It makes some things apparent and other things... we're blind to.

When you have an organization like CNN where everyone related to content is liberal... the product is going to be biased toward liberals even if they make an "honest" effort to be objective. They either need to acknowledge that bias or replace 50% of their production and editing staff with conservatives and libertarians.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion.
 
#65
#65
JayVols said:
And you are acting just like those that complain about a Fox bias. Way to emulate that which you claim to despise.
Click to expand...
How do you figure? I am not claiming that Fox is unbiased while leftwing stations aren't...

I never claimed that news agencies don't contain biases. I was just saying your example was a 'see what you want to see' phenomenon. Maybe one day I will become the nonblind high road taking victimized by MSM person that you claim to be.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I am not a victim... Why do you insist on trying to poison the well with personal insults rather than discussing the issue?

I see through what they're doing. And yes, I catch Fox and conservative sources doing the same thing... they just do it acknowledging their bias. The victims are those who let these marketing buzzwords be planted in their heads so that when they hear "balanced approach" they believe that's the reasonable way to go.... without even knowing the details.
 
#66
#66
KiffinKiller said:
Good suggestion.
Click to expand...

I really don't think so. I WANT the liberal/statist pov to be heard. I want the libertarian pov to be heard. I want every pov in between to be heard.

Compromise of the kind that would be the product of a divided editorial staff would simply deny the public information... they would make decisions for everyone else.

Let's see everyone present their case... then decide.
 
#67
#67
Obvious problem: all televised news media outlets are biased.

Obvious solution: inform yourself elsewhere.

Real, tangible point to this thread: there isn't one.




This is like getting pissed off over the POTUS dodging a question... they all do it.
 
#68
#68
sjt18 said:
I really don't think so. I WANT the liberal/statist pov to be heard. I want the libertarian pov to be heard. I want every pov in between to be heard.

Compromise of the kind that would be the product of a divided editorial staff would simply deny the public information... they would make decisions for everyone else.

Let's see everyone present their case... then decide.
Click to expand...

Adding both sides to the argument would allow them to discuss issue before/while reporting it. Can't go bad there.
 
#69
#69
sjt18 said:
How do you figure? I am not claiming that Fox is unbiased while leftwing stations aren't...



I am not a victim... Why do you insist on trying to poison the well with personal insults rather than discussing the issue?

I see through what they're doing. And yes, I catch Fox and conservative sources doing the same thing... they just do it acknowledging their bias. The victims are those who let these marketing buzzwords be planted in their heads so that when they hear "balanced approach" they believe that's the reasonable way to go.... without even knowing the details.
Click to expand...

At least you admit that other media outlets are biased. I give you credit for that, which I wasn't doing before. Those that proclaim that one source is totally unbiased because they fit their views aggravate me. It's not seeing the forest for the trees. We don't agree on a lot politically (you are too far right for my tastes), but that's America. We can disagree here.

I still think you are seeing boogeymen that aren't there on this particular issue. Sorry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#70
#70
DinkinFlicka said:
Obvious problem: all televised news media outlets are biased.

Obvious solution: inform yourself elsewhere.

Real, tangible point to this thread: there isn't one.




This is like getting pissed off over the POTUS dodging a question... they all do it.
Click to expand...

Yep. The #1 goal of most media outlets is to make money.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#73
#73
DinkinFlicka said:
Obvious problem: all televised news media outlets are biased.

Obvious solution: inform yourself elsewhere.

Real, tangible point to this thread: there isn't one.
Click to expand...
Well.... Yes there is... You just made it.

If everyone were as thoughtful and took the approach you prescribe then we'd be much better off... or worse... but we wouldn't be so vacillating.
 
#74
#74
KiffinKiller said:
Adding both sides to the argument would allow them to discuss issue before/while reporting it. Can't go bad there.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. They discuss it and decide FOR YOU what you need to hear. Sometimes compromise turns into "I won't say this if you don't say that". That's the opposite of both sides of the argument being heard. That is a prescription for maybe even a worse form of ignorance.
 
#75
#75
JayVols said:
At least you admit that other media outlets are biased. I give you credit for that, which I wasn't doing before. Those that proclaim that one source is totally unbiased because they fit their views aggravate me. It's not seeing the forest for the trees. We don't agree on a lot politically (you are too far right for my tastes), but that's America. We can disagree here.
Click to expand...
But I have more at stake than you do. If my side wins this debate... then your property and money won't be threatened. Your civil liberties won't be curtailed. You won't be forced to accept moral viewpoints that you oppose. I am a small "L" libertarian. I don't want you to pay for what I want and need. I don't want to tell you what to do... and I expect the same.

I still think you are seeing boogeymen that aren't there on this particular issue. Sorry.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

That's fine. If it were one instance then you'd be right. I only gave one example so your objection is fair. However it is repeated.... that's what makes it bias.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top