Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

On 6 Oct 2004 12:44:51 -0700, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:

Dunno whether my fairly infrequent posts to this NG have resulted in
folks labeling me "sensible", or otherwise. But my $0.02 says Fox
News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
from TV news.

That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
look right-wing.

To the same liberal, the major broadcast networks, CNN, and PBS all
look moderate, unbias, balanced. Like the New York Times! To a
conservative, they all seem liberal.

Where I start to worry is when people declare in all seriousness that
the broadcast networks are Republican-leaning! I haven't yet met
anyone who believes that Fox is a liberal conspiracy, but that's
probably because I live in a college town. I bet they're out there!
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
look right-wing.

To the same liberal, the major broadcast networks, CNN, and PBS all
look moderate, unbias, balanced. Like the New York Times! To a
conservative, they all seem liberal.


There is a difference. While Fox's Opinion shows, like Hannity and Combs, have
a conservative slant, their actual newscasts are quite balanced.

CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news reporting
itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
what IS news.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news
reporting
itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice
of
what IS news.

A perfect example:

Yesterday, a new report on WMD in Iraq was released. In it, they reported
finding no WMD -- but NPR reported that they DID find evidence of intent to
build WMD when sanctions were lifted. The author of the report stressed
that Saddam had every intention of building WMD the moment inspectors
left -- which would have happened in the absence of pressure from the U.S..

Thus, although no actual weapons have been found, the report says that WMD
were "in the works" and presented a clear danger, had the U.S. not applied
pressure. It went on to say that Saddam would not have hesitated to use
those WMD once he had them again (remember, he had WMD before) in his
arsenal.

Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
newspaper? Nope.

Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
report the WHOLE truth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
newspaper? Nope.
Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
report the WHOLE truth.

I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing that NPR reported, on several
different CBS/ABC/NBC stations in the DC area.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but
they report the WHOLE truth.

For the best in news reporting, watch "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.

Watch tonight as O'Reilly himself makes a guest appearance.

Cub Driver wrote

Dunno whether my fairly infrequent posts to this NG have resulted in
folks labeling me "sensible", or otherwise. But my $0.02 says Fox
News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
from TV news.

That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
look right-wing.

It's too bad so many folks jump to black and white judgements about
ones political leanings based on such a minimal amount of information.
At least Cub Driver appears to have read what I wrote. Which is more
than can be said for the likes of Thomas Borchert, who disgraces
himself with the following juvenile tripe so unfortunately common on
Usenet:

Bruhaha! OMG! You guys are hilarious.

Who "you guys" are is left a mystery, probably because Mr. Borchert
lacks either the ability or the intellectual honesty to respond to the
substance of what I wrote.

For the record, I oppose the war in Iraq, am pro-abortion, and think
the Patriot Act was a very bad thing. Now to Cub Driver, how is that
consistent with "conservative leanings"? And for Thomas Borchert, who
are the "you guys" this puts me in league with? I'm not holding my
breath on any thoughtful answer from Mr. Borchert.

Cub Driver also writes:

Where I start to worry is when people declare in all seriousness that
the broadcast networks are Republican-leaning!

Yup. Hear it all the time on Air America radio.

Jim Rosinski

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsQb9d.138603$wV.119360@attbi_s54...
CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news
reporting
itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice
of
what IS news.

A perfect example:

Yesterday, a new report on WMD in Iraq was released. In it, they
reported finding no WMD -- but NPR reported that they DID find evidence of
intent to build WMD when sanctions were lifted. The author of the report
stressed that Saddam had every intention of building WMD the moment
inspectors left -- which would have happened in the absence of pressure
from the U.S..

This is the actual language from the actual report (I got it from the BBC,
but the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times also had it):

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence
suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return
to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "

Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add up
to a done deal.

Henry

Wdtabor wrote:

That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
what IS news.

This is the first time I agree with you. Of course, "their" can stand
for everything.

... their actual newscasts are quite balanced.

Here, my agreement already finishes. (Again, no matter what "their"
stands for.) There is no such thing as a balanced view. Every view is
biased by definition. Hence there is no such thing a balanced choice of
news. More to the point, there even is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Liberals (I mean, true liberals) tend to know this. After all, this is
the core of the word "liberal", or at least was, before it has been
politically abused.

Stefan

Henry Kisor wrote:

Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add up
to a done deal.

The individual I heard interviewed on NPR yesterday stated that Saddam told him that
himself during recent interviews.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote

CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news reporting
itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
what IS news.

The recent fiasco at See BS excepted, of course. But that incident was
relatively rare, I think, in terms of media bias manifesting itself in
the presentation of outright fabrications as truth. I agree with you
that the choice of what IS news does play an important role in
defining bias, but the SLANT put on each story is also critical. Here
are two examples, hopelessly outdated because it's been a decade or
more since I regularly watched broadcast TV news.

o Carole Simpson of ABC News did a story on daycare centers in France.
Fine, at the time Europe had a much more extensive daycare network
than the U.S. Maybe that's news, maybe not. But the report was riddled
with additional fluff about how wonderful it was that these centers
were "free", and poor folks didn't have to worry about the burden of
cost. Unnecessary bias that caused me to reject the entire report as
unobjective.

o While ATT was fighting to avoid being broken up (20 some years
ago?), Dan Rather commented on the strongarm tactics being employed by
the (then) giant phone company that perhaps they should change their
motto from "Reach out and touch someone" to "Reach out and crush
someone". I kid you not.

Jim Rosinski