One Soldier's Viewpoint of Iraq

by ThiChi 92 Replies latest social current

• 

  dubla

  talesin-

  Actually, atm we are discussing the percentage of journalists that are liberal. So, you did not address my comments in the context of the discussion.

  Did we switch from the 'liberalism' of the press back to US politics? I must have missed it.

  first off, you are replying to a comment i made to moody which was actually just an inside joke. secondly, the topic all along has been largely political, if you read back over the thread. "we", as in you and i, havent been talking about anything up until now. i did address your comments in the context of the discussion when i said:

  in discussions such as these, and in the survey stats i provided, thats what "liberal viewpoint" generally means.

  if you dont think thats the definition or general meaning that was intended by the journalists who answered the survey, please elaborate on why. please note this clip from the survey i provided:

  Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues.

  aa
• 

  Abaddon

  Hey dubla...

  Well OBVIOUSLY you think you're right and I think I'm right.

  As for the difference between CNN and FOX, I think you miss the point of the comparisons being made with PBS et. al. showing at least a four-fold increase in liklihood of misconceptions.

  If you agree that the Bush administration effectively deceived the American public, will you be voting for them again in November?

  why would journalists necessarily have a more accurate world view than conservatives?

  That whole bit was really tongue-in-cheek. Well, a bit tongue-in-cheeck. I'm sorry, but if people listen to a news source, be it a DJ or a news station, and fail to discard that source when it is consistantly wrong or biased, then that says something about them.

  We've 'established' around 80 million or so conservatives who watch FOX effectively know dick. Whether they choose FOX because of pre-existing conditions or have their world-view distorted by FOX does not change them knowing dick.

  As journalists are not using or selecting a joke of a TV station as their main source of information, they know more than dick. The difference in politics could therefore be down to conservatives knowing dick, and journalists being occasionally well-informed about world affairs.

  But to accept this you would have to accept that certain right-wing beliefs are only maintainable by knowing dick, which you're unlikely to accept.

  Of course, left-wing journalists can be just as biased as right-wing journalists... but most newspapers are owned by more conservative elements, something that many right-wingers fail to point out when they go on and on about left wing bias in the press.
• 

  dubla

  abaddon-

  been away....

  As for the difference between CNN and FOX, I think you miss the point of the comparisons being made with PBS et. al. showing at least a four-fold increase in liklihood of misconceptions.

  then you agree that cnn viewers are also being fed the same "non-facts" as fox viewers? i think you miss the point that you singled out fox, when in fact the difference between fox, cnn, and msnbc is apparently miniscule. if you had set out with an argument against mainstream media versus pbs, then youd have a much more solid foundation to work with....as it is, your argument against fox is weak at best.

  If you agree that the Bush administration effectively deceived the American public, will you be voting for them again in November?

  kerry hasnt shown me a thing yet....and i certainly dont believe in voting for someone just because hes the other choice. so, well see. keep in mind too, that regardless of whether or not a "threat" was over-hyped, i still believe saddam needed to be ousted, and im glad he was.

  We've 'established' around 80 million or so conservatives who watch FOX effectively know dick. Whether they choose FOX because of pre-existing conditions or have their world-view distorted by FOX does not change them knowing dick.

  well, unless the survey broke down which viewers were conservative and which were liberal, then no, we havent established how many conservatives even watch fox. furthermore, we have only "established" your assertion if weve also "established" that cnn and msnbc viewers also "know dick". whether they choose cnn and msnbc because of pre-existing conditions or have their world-view distorted by cnn and msnbc does not change them "knowing dick", right? so, weve really "established" dick about fox, unless we are only comparing fox to pbs (and then, in all fairness, we have to compare cnn and msnbc to pbs as well....so again, this doesnt single out fox).

  As journalists are not using or selecting a joke of a TV station as their main source of information, they know more than dick. The difference in politics could therefore be down to conservatives knowing dick, and journalists being occasionally well-informed about world affairs.

  well, if they select cnn or msnbc as their main source of information, they know little more (if anything.....you still havent provided the specific stats) than fox viewers. do you really think the majority of journalists choose pbs as their main source of information? give me a break. and, again, what about conservative journalists? we cant compare apples to oranges, no matter how bad youd like to.

  aa