[spacefreak]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/0...ROB275923.html

I think this is a quintessential example of a journalist's liberal ideology being deliberately soaked into her coverage of President Bush's speech.

Do you agree?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/0...ROB275923.html

I think this is a quintessential example of a journalist's liberal ideology being deliberately soaked into her coverage of President Bush's speech.

Do you agree?

She was ok, pretty objective until paragraph 8 and she quoted Sen. Hagel. But, in fairness, his views ARE significant there as he is a Republican who is said to be looking for the nomination in 08, and because he's a Viet Vet.

And Feingold's comment is important because it frames the scene. Everything the pres. is trying to do may have a time limit if Feingold's call for a Dec. 2006 pullout is enacted.

And yet the two comments paint what I believe is an inaccurate picture of the mood of the country or the country's opposition to his policies. But if you believe poll #'s, the Pres. may NOT have the support he had during the 11/04 election.

The Celeste Zappala quote was important as she is part of the Cindy group, an important footnote already to history, and because Zappala lost a son and was in SLC for the event.

I'd say you can tell she's liberal, it has a liberal slant, but this is not an unfair or highly opinionated report, imo.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SO EFFECTIVE FOR THE LEFT! SHE MAKES IT LOOK LIKE SHE'S BEING FAIR!!!!

[spacefreak]

I think he piece is WAY off base. For one, she's covering the speech. Yet she quotes Hagel (who's nowhere near the event). What about the 40+ GOP senators who support the war? Why just Hagel?

The author has no problems stating the "critics" point of view, but she can't include a quote from a supporter other than one token dude? Also, she frames the 9/11 commission's report in a way that is disigenuous: they flat-out said that they were only assigned to see if there was a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda with regards to 9/11. The commission's report goes out of its way to state that it was in no way the final conclusion on whether there were other, general ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (which there were).

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's promoting an ideological bias under the guise of objectivity.

I think reporters should have to mention their stance on the issue in the bylines of their articles.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

I think he piece is WAY off base. For one, she's covering the speech. Yet she quotes Hagel (who's nowhere near the event). What about the 40+ GOP senators who support the war? Why just Hagel?

The author has no problems stating the "critics" point of view, but she can't include a quote from a supporter other than one token dude? Also, she frames the 9/11 commission's report in a way that is disigenuous: they flat-out said that they were only assigned to see if there was a direct link between Saddam and al Qaeda with regards to 9/11. The commission's report goes out of its way to state that it was in no way the final conclusion on whether there were other, general ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (which there were).

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's promoting an ideological bias under the guise of objectivity.

I think reporters should have to mention their stance on the issue in the bylines of their articles.

Just because you are disagreeing with the conclusion doesn't make (i) the article and (ii) all of journalism per se `soaked with liberal ideology'. Can't you separate information from conclusion? If you staunchly oppose the conclusion from the outset, 20+ disagreeing GOP senators couldn't change your mind.

It sounds to me as if you are insecure and defensive about all this issue.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The commission's report goes out of its way to state that it was in no way the final conclusion on whether there were other, general ties between Iraq and al Qaeda (which there were).

Did your secret government sources tell you that? The same ones as said that they've made massive finds of WMD's and more?

[Chuckit]

It's not a very good story, but I wouldn't say bias "drenched" it. It brings up the points Bush made and the relevant disagreement from the antiwar crowd. Aside from needing a couple more direct quotes from Bush supporters (looks more like lazy reporting than bias to me), what is missing or excessive about the story?

[Maflynn]

I think its very difficult for a true journist to create a totally unbiased article, then throw in the various journalist mainstream and otherwise that have an agenda and you have basically media giants reporting news as they see fit. Foxnews vs. cnn for example.

[Chuckit]

People who say it's impossible to create an unbiased article are seriously abusing the word "bias."

[Wiskedjak]

It's a good thing there aren't any conservative biased journalists out there ...

[Spliffdaddy]

true. I can't think of any.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

true. I can't think of any.

Of course; you'd need capacity of human judgement for that.

[Wiskedjak]

I'm thinking if the article in question here is an example of "liberal bias", than Pat Robertson must be an example of conservative opinions ...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I'm thinking if the article in question here is an example of "liberal bias", THEN Pat Robertson must be an example of conservative opinions ...

(fixed)

He's an extremist who espoused a radical idea that virtually EVERYONE in America has denounced or repudiated.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

(fixed)

He's an extremist who espoused a radical idea that virtually EVERYONE in America has denounced or repudiated.

I didn't hear that so I assume you support his comments.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I didn't hear that so I assume you support his comments.

You know what happens when you ASSuME?

Sigh! No, and your assumption (von) WRANKELS me.

I said Chavez should be annoyed by right wing opponents beating wooden spoons on pots and pans while protesting in the streets until he relents to whatever their demands are.

Well, I didn't actually say it before now, but now I have said it. So there, now.

Hey everybody, you can still not pay attention to the signs developing right before your eyes.

Hey, yeah! No, it's NOT about oil. Nope. Not at all. Un uh.

A fight for oil goes on in the M.E. but you deny it. Terrorists are trying like the dickens to disrupt the oil flow to the US with attacks on the pipelines and port facilities.

An oil play is developing in Venzuela but you don't see it.

China has already invested HUGE sums to gain access to Canadian tar sands do you know? Do you care?

But keep on following Cindy. That'll work out for ya...

Maybe Pat Robertson was doing a martyr thing to alert the American public to the impending dangers which we've conveniently ignored til now.

Nah!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

He's an extremist who espoused a radical idea that virtually EVERYONE in America has denounced or repudiated.

Good. Then I imagine his show will soon be off the air due to lack of viewers?

Tell me, what would you be saying if an extremist Muslim religious leader were to call for the assassination of George Bush?

The point is, bias exists everywhere, and you appear only able to see bias' that disagree with the ones you accept.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Good. Then I imagine his show will soon be off the air due to lack of viewers?

Tell me, what would you be saying if an extremist Muslim religious leader were to call for the assassination of George Bush?

The point is, bias exists everywhere, and you appear only able to see bias' that disagree with the ones you accept.

Problem there, Wiskedjak...he OWNS the network. Read the thread and you may be in for a surprise at how thrilled I am with his wonderful remarks and how much I agree with his every utterance.