posted 01-21-2003 11:57 AM               

And when it comes to coverage of a political rally or protest, the cameras will ineveitably find the most extreme, ignorant, and generally unappealing Idaho militia types to represent the whole of a conservative gathering.

But, when it's a liberal rally, the well-groomed, well-spoken moderates will have all the camera time. Or if it's nothing but radicals, the media will just gloss over the story quickly and skip the dirty details. Take for example the so-called "peace rally" in DC this past weekend. Nobody in the major news media, at least not that I heard, bothered to mention that it was actually organized by the Communist Workers World Party, or that some speakers spoke in favor of a revolution to fight to destroy the "real terrorists" here in America (from George Washington up to Bush and Giuliani). One speaker actually started chants that were identical to those uttered by the homicide bombers on 9/11. ("Allahu Ahkbar! Allahu Ahkbar! Allahu Akhbar!") That's a strange thing to do at a "Peace Rally".

Can you imagine if 20,000 ignorant, filthy, radical, right wing, racist, KKK/neo-nazi freaks got together and shouted about having a revolution to advocate similar behavior aimed at advancing their own agenda, then started chanting Hitler quotes in the original German? The media would: 1) Label all people one inch to the right of center as agreeing with 100% of the fringe's message, 2) Put sound bytes all over TV of the most hateful language from the speech that they could find, 3) Count the days, hours, minutes, and seconds until the Republican leadership spoke out against the message being delivered, 4) Plaster the airwaves with sound bytes from popular Democrats talking about how wrong it is that after all these years the Republican Party is still the party of hate and exclusion, and 5) Find a way to incorporate Rush Limbaugh into the blame.

I'm still waiting for them to provide the same treatment to the Democrats after the latest hate-filled peace rally. I won't hold my breath.

But there's no bias in the TV news media. Just ask them.

posted 01-21-2003 11:57 AM            

Granted this was from the Media Research Center who states they are "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias."

Brokaw's actual quote was ,“The President of Bushmaster Firearms was the source of some controversy in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election. Richard Dyke was finance chairman for the state of Maine for George W. Bush’s campaign back in 1999. He resigned after reporters pressed him on his company’s use of loopholes to sidestep the 1994 federal ban on assault rifles. And in his words, 'because he didn’t want the anti-gun people making an issue out of it all.'"

posted 01-21-2003 12:04 PM               

I certainly will concede that big judgment mistakes get made at all levels of the news business. And I will concede that biases pop up from time to time.

Just want to drive home the point that most news organizations are reputable and have noble goals. How well they meet them varies from day to day and organization to organization.

Have fun, boys!

posted 01-21-2003 12:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Hammond:
MP, I have made no such conclusion at all. What I attempted to do the other day was present a FACTUAL account of instances that show why there is in many people's minds warranted justification for paying attention to people of certain ages and backgrounds. And if all those tragedies had been caused by 80-year-old Swedish grandmothers, I would feel the same way about applying profile attention to them.

---

Bill, As an editor, you know that, through carefull selection, facts can be misleading.
Someone close to me read what you had written and took umbrige to you calling all of those terrorists "muslim" extreemists. Saying that most of those incidents were not about islam but about Israel trying to force people from their homes.

Did they do it because they were muslim? If they did that is a FACT not in evidence. You list of events was one of the most biased things I have ever seen. Had it not been you would have included all terrorist events NOT done by what you call "muslim extremists". You would have mentioned the 800,000,000 muslims who are not terrorists.

As a point of fact, now more than ever, it is important that airport security is applied to everyone. If not a subsequent attack will come from a person who has not been "profiled". Osama can read the papers and adjust his plans accordingly.

posted 01-21-2003 12:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Hammond:
Arch, I have deleted that post and all of my threads and I am going on vacation. Buh bye.

---

Bye. Enjoy Canada!! You lucky dog!
Bill you are a fine man and a wonderful entertainer. I feel honoured to have you for a friend.

Me, I like to argue.

Cheers!

posted 01-21-2003 12:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jdub2:
Loopy, judging by your post, you are clearly a tool of the Democratic Party!

---

posted 01-21-2003 12:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arch Monkey:
Ah Loopy, always unbiased, never used hyperbole and he wouldn't exaggerate in a million years!

---

posted 01-21-2003 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:
The details of the "peace rally" are true. My analysis of how the media would have reacted if the tables were turned is, as always, fair game for criticism.

---

Perhaps the "details" you mentioned are true. But they are far from the whole truth. Another case where FACTS can be misleading.

I have no doubt that the communist workers party was involved, but there is no way that they organized that kind of numbers of people. It was many groups, most of which were not in anyway affiliated with communism. Maybe some people did shout "Allahu" or what ever, but believe me if they all had, 400,000 in Washington alone, it would have been reported.