Re: I was misled

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not "compasionate
conservatives" :-)

Just remember to vote in November .. vote early and often.

ABB

Charles Beristain said:

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not "compassionate
conservatives" :-)

Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at more
than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for people
with blinders.

Quoted message said:

Just remember to vote in November .. vote early and often.

....and trust your voting machine software. This is another thing the
Bush regime brought us by complaints of hanging chads in Florida. In
all the years of using the punch card ballots, no one I have
interviewed has ever seen a hanging chad, however it opened the door
to the electronic voting machine that has no credibility at all. And
you think this came upon us by accident. You don't see the Bush
administration raising a fuss about it.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Charles Beristain said:

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not "compassionate
conservatives" :-)

Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at more
than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for people
with blinders.

Tears are rolling down my face now... if you REALLY think libs like to
hear both sides of an issue, just look at how their media outlets
handle news that doesn't agree with their ideology, or might (gasp)
support their ideological foes. They bury it.

Yet the same liberals will rain derision on anyone who would dare
listen to a biased source of news like Rush Limbaugh (who does
precisely the same thing, though in an admitted op-end format, rather
than under the guise of "news reportage"😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just remember to vote in November .. vote early and often.

...and trust your voting machine software. This is another thing the
Bush regime brought us by complaints of hanging chads in Florida. In
all the years of using the punch card ballots, no one I have
interviewed has ever seen a hanging chad, however it opened the door
to the electronic voting machine that has no credibility at all. And
you think this came upon us by accident. You don't see the Bush
administration raising a fuss about it.

LOL.... you're killin' me, Jobst... exactly who have you interviewed
on the "hanging chad issue"??? Do at least some basic research so you
can discover this is hardly a new issue... and while you're at it you
might discover that methods were in place to interpret "hanging chads"
- the same standards that were used to determine Bush won Florida
outright (and in the recount, and re-recount, and re-re-recount).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

...
LOL.... you're killin' me, Jobst... exactly who have you interviewed
on the "hanging chad issue"??? Do at least some basic research so you
can discover this is hardly a new issue... and while you're at it you
might discover that methods were in place to interpret "hanging chads"
- the same standards that were used to determine Bush won Florida
outright (and in the recount, and re-recount, and re-re-recount)....

The real story in the 2000 Florida elections was the deliberate
prevention (by the Secretary of State's office in collaboration with
ChoicePoint) of thousands of potential voters who should have been
allowed to vote. This harping on the recounts of a few counties is a red
herring.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Quoted message said:

...and trust your voting machine software. This is another thing the
Bush regime brought us by complaints of hanging chads in Florida. In
all the years of using the punch card ballots, no one I have
interviewed has ever seen a hanging chad, however it opened the door
to the electronic voting machine that has no credibility at all. And
you think this came upon us by accident. You don't see the Bush
administration raising a fuss about it.

"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the
President next year." --Walden O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold
Inc., one of the largest manufacturers of computerized voting machines

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Charles Beristain said:

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not
"compassionate conservatives" :-)

Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at
more than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for
people with blinders.

Tears are rolling down my face now... if you REALLY think libs like
to hear both sides of an issue, just look at how their media outlets
handle news that doesn't agree with their ideology, or might (gasp)
support their ideological foes. They bury it.

What media outlets? The Nation? Al Franken? That's about it. The
rest of the "media outlets" in the United States are owned by heavy
contributors to the Republican Party. The conservatives own the
media.

Quoted message said:

LOL.... you're killin' me, Jobst... exactly who have you interviewed
on the "hanging chad issue"??? Do at least some basic research so
you can discover this is hardly a new issue... and while you're at
it you might discover that methods were in place to interpret
"hanging chads" - the same standards that were used to determine
Bush won Florida outright (and in the recount, and re-recount, and
re-re-recount).

How short your memory is. Of course, this was the state where the
candidate's brother was governor and his campaing manager was
responsible for certifying the election. LOL. A fine demonstration
of the "ethics" of the Bushies.

Charles Beristain said:

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not "compasionate
conservatives" :-)

But enough are - 51% just like last time.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Charles Beristain writes:

> This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not
> "compassionate conservatives" :-)

Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at
more than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for
people with blinders.

Tears are rolling down my face now... if you REALLY think libs like
to hear both sides of an issue, just look at how their media outlets
handle news that doesn't agree with their ideology, or might (gasp)
support their ideological foes. They bury it.

What media outlets? The Nation? Al Franken? That's about it. The
rest of the "media outlets" in the United States are owned by heavy
contributors to the Republican Party. The conservatives own the
media.

Look at how the media handled the revelation that President Putin of
Russia warned the US in the days after 9/11 that they had gathered
credible evidence of Iraq's plans to attack the US and US interests
abroad. That's huge - and should be the lead story on any credible
network because it speaks directly to the greatest current controversy
- why are we in Iraq?

The network news basically didn't cover it at all... not a word. It
warranted the bottom of an inside page in the New York Times.

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our
measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the
Drudge Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the
average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House
of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge
Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample.
Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most
centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the
outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters
to the editor from our sample.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOL.... you're killin' me, Jobst... exactly who have you interviewed
on the "hanging chad issue"??? Do at least some basic research so
you can discover this is hardly a new issue... and while you're at
it you might discover that methods were in place to interpret
"hanging chads" - the same standards that were used to determine
Bush won Florida outright (and in the recount, and re-recount, and
re-re-recount).

How short your memory is. Of course, this was the state where the
candidate's brother was governor and his campaing manager was
responsible for certifying the election. LOL. A fine demonstration
of the "ethics" of the Bushies.

What - you mean "enforcing the existing laws for interpreting votes"?
Yeah, that's really an evil thing to do - better to let the loser come
up with some vague standards and selectively apply them to certain
areas that might help his or her cause, right? LOL.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Look at how the media handled the revelation that President Putin of
Russia warned the US in the days after 9/11 that they had gathered
credible evidence of Iraq's plans to attack the US and US interests
abroad. That's huge - and should be the lead story on any credible
network because it speaks directly to the greatest current
controversy - why are we in Iraq?

The reason this has not made much news is that it is too off the wall
and useless considering that no such buildup or weapons were found in
Iraq during the inspections or the subsequent war. You wouldn't want
to be seen resting on that story at this time, knowing what was found.

Quoted message said:

The network news basically didn't cover it at all... not a word. It
warranted the bottom of an inside page in the New York Times.

That's because it isn't newsworthy. The bushnmen didn't even find it
worth leaning on. What do you think should be said about it that
wasn't?

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

Quoted message said:

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Quoted message said:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our
measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the
Drudge Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the
average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the
House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the
Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our
sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is
the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news
stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book
reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Quoted message said:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

That's not a good measure for me. I get the SF-Chronicle and
SJ-Mercury that represent fairly moderate viewpoints on the liberal
and conservative perspective. The Merc has William Saffire as a
regular voice and they panned Fahrenheit 9/11 and ridiculed it while
the Chronicle showed theater attendance and called the film
provocative with viewers giving it a rating of 6+ out of 10. Neither
of these papers had much to say about Putin's comments other than to
report them without comment.

You can make your judgment on that.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

Quoted message said:

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Quoted message said:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our
measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the
Drudge Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the
average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the
House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the
Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our
sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is
the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news
stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book
reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Quoted message said:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

That's not a good measure for me. I get the SF-Chronicle and
SJ-Mercury that represent fairly moderate viewpoints on the liberal
and conservative perspective. The Merc has William Saffire as a
regular voice and they panned Fahrenheit 9/11 and ridiculed it while
the Chronicle showed theater attendance and called the film
provocative with viewers giving it a rating of 6+ out of 10. Neither
of these papers had much to say about Putin's comments other than to
report them without comment.

Looking further into that "UoC" article, anyone can see that it's not
actually sanctioned by the University; it's an incomplete document
without any academic peer vetting and not published in official academic
journals. Not surprising, since it's amazing that anyone will take it
seriously. For example, look at its method of scoring the political
leaning of news programs:
*********************************************************
"To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites
various think tanks. We compare this with the times that members of
Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the
House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct
an ADA score for each media outlet.

A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a
subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is.
That is, for instance, we do not need to read policy reports of the
think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its
ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of
Congress who cite the think tank."
*********************************************************
The document then goes to great lengths to try to quantify its
methodology, in an attempt to, one can only conclude, give an air of
scientific credibility to its message. It only succeeds, however, in
making such a gobbledygook publication that it makes one wonder at the
desperation of people to grasp at straws such as this document to shore
up their arguments.

Mark Hickey said:

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey said:

[email hidden] wrote:

>Charles Beristain writes:
>
>> This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not
>> "compassionate conservatives" :-)
>
>Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at
>more than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for
>people with blinders.

Tears are rolling down my face now... if you REALLY think libs
like to hear both sides of an issue, just look at how their media
outlets handle news that doesn't agree with their ideology, or
might (gasp) support their ideological foes. They bury it.

What media outlets? The Nation? Al Franken? That's about it. The
rest of the "media outlets" in the United States are owned by heavy
contributors to the Republican Party. The conservatives own the
media.

Look at how the media handled the revelation that President Putin of
Russia warned the US in the days after 9/11 that they had gathered
credible evidence of Iraq's plans to attack the US and US interests
abroad. That's huge - and should be the lead story on any credible
network because it speaks directly to the greatest current
controversy - why are we in Iraq?

The network news basically didn't cover it at all... not a word. It
warranted the bottom of an inside page in the New York Times.

Considering this is utterly at odds with Russia's subsequent stance,
it is difficult to take this seriously. Especially in light of the
fact that Iraq had no useable weapons of mass destruction and that
most of its military power was in fact illusory. And in light of the
fact that there is no evidence that there was collusion between Saddam
Hussein and Al Qaeda (which as I mentioned in response to your other
post trumpeting this, the psychology of Hussein makes it extremely
unlikely that he would have permitted such an alliance). The Bush
Administration continues to insist that these connections existed, and
yet cannot offer any proof other than conjecture- it reminds me of how
the old USSR used to operate, in fact: lie long enough and some people
will believe you, and those who don't will move on to other things.

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

The media has a serious conservative bias, IMHO. I've said this many
times, perhaps you hand't noticed. Of course, if you REALLY don't
think that the media has a conservative bias, you're obviously pretty
well aligned with it.

Quoted message said:

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress.

That's not exactly a meaningful standard of reference given the makeup
of the current Congress. Who is "we" in this context, by the way?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How short your memory is. Of course, this was the state where the
candidate's brother was governor and his campaing manager was
responsible for certifying the election. LOL. A fine demonstration
of the "ethics" of the Bushies.

What - you mean "enforcing the existing laws for interpreting
votes"? Yeah, that's really an evil thing to do - better to let the
loser come up with some vague standards and selectively apply them
to certain areas that might help his or her cause, right? LOL.

No, better for the Florida Secretary of State- who was Bush's campaign
manager in Florida-to be ethical and recuse herself from certifying
the election. But she didn't because it just tickled her so much to
be able to personally hand the presidency to Shrub, no doubt counting
on an upgrade in her political career as a reward. The conflict of
interest was staggering and yet- like in all other areas of his
campaign- George W. Bush was given a free ride by the "liberal" media.
His entire campaign was given a free ride without critical
examination- while Clinton was castigated in 1992 for his stupid
comments about marijuana, Bush's history as a dangerous drug abuser
and alcoholic with flagrant disregard for the safety of those around
him was largely ignored, as well as his religious megalomania.

Mark:

When you say liberal media outlets, who do you refer to?

I have found two kinds of media: private and public. By public, I
refer to PBS and NPR. These two public media are sponsored by the
public itself. Every year, communities have fundraising campaigns that
pay for these media. Usually, they are mostly college professors and
other professionals who support PBS and NPR. The rest of the media is
private, is managed by corporations and paid for by advertisers.
Essentially there are 4 main TV media sources. They are CBS, ABC, NBC
and Fox. These four entities own all the media that you hear on TV.
They will broadcast whatever the corporations allow and the
advertisers will pay for. Essentially if an advertiser wants something
taken out, they call corporate and tell them to take it out or they
will pull their adds. Corporations definitely contribute to both
parties because they want help from both parties. The republican party
always comes ahead in corporate contributions, but not by much.

The other big news source are newspapers, and most of the stories come
from private news story agencies such as the associated press,
knightrider, Gannett, etc. Again, what they print and publish depends
on what the corporations and the advertisers want.

All radio media is essentially own by one big corporation, Clear
Channel Network. They, together with advertisers decide what gets
broadcasted.

Most media get the bulk of their information from established
newsources. They are essentially government and corporate entitites
that put out press releases for them to broadcast. This is what gets
broadcasted. Occassionally, journlists fish for their own stuff, but
more and more they go to what is systematically released.
Occassionally, if other versions of newstories are broadcasted by
media outside of the US, the US media may pick it up, if there is
enough dissemination that the public finds out about it. Otherwise, it
does not get printed. Of course, each entity will put their own spin
to the stories depending on their writers, anchors, etc. However the
spin is controlled by what the coporations, and advertisers want.

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some corporations
are more liberal and others more conservative. However, in truth large
corporations tend to sympatize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely not left wing.
Of course there are some left wingy news media but they have very
limited distribution.

Andres

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Charles Beristain said:

This is beginning to sound as if most cyclists are not "compassionate
conservatives" :-)

Lets not completely forget that a liberal is one who can look at more
than one side of an issue rather than being a swear word for people
with blinders.

Tears are rolling down my face now... if you REALLY think libs like to
hear both sides of an issue, just look at how their media outlets
handle news that doesn't agree with their ideology, or might (gasp)
support their ideological foes. They bury it.

Yet the same liberals will rain derision on anyone who would dare
listen to a biased source of news like Rush Limbaugh (who does
precisely the same thing, though in an admitted op-end format, rather
than under the guise of "news reportage"😉.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just remember to vote in November .. vote early and often.

...and trust your voting machine software. This is another thing the
Bush regime brought us by complaints of hanging chads in Florida. In
all the years of using the punch card ballots, no one I have
interviewed has ever seen a hanging chad, however it opened the door
to the electronic voting machine that has no credibility at all. And
you think this came upon us by accident. You don't see the Bush
administration raising a fuss about it.

LOL.... you're killin' me, Jobst... exactly who have you interviewed
on the "hanging chad issue"??? Do at least some basic research so you
can discover this is hardly a new issue... and while you're at it you
might discover that methods were in place to interpret "hanging chads"
- the same standards that were used to determine Bush won Florida
outright (and in the recount, and re-recount, and re-re-recount).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

From: Tim McNamara

Quoted message said:

His [Bush] entire campaign was given a free ride without critical
examination- while Clinton was castigated in 1992 for his stupid
comments about marijuana, Bush's history as a dangerous drug abuser
and alcoholic with flagrant disregard for the safety of those around
him was largely ignored, as well as his >religious megalomania.

It was a lot worse than that. His "religious reform" was used as an out, an
excuse to not look at the "war on drugs" in the light of day. This could have
been a time for a constructive change-- if you can drink hard until you're 40,
and admittedly do drugs along with excessive alcohol consumption, and go on to
be President, then maybe "drugs" aren't so bad after all! At least, not so bad
as to justify the billions spent in the "war" against them, and the lives
ruined by harsh punishment.

But there's a class war going on, too. And it's not just economic:

From <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4988269/>

<The Pop Prophets [The "Left Behind" series]

The first volume, "Left Behind" (1995), kicks off with the Rapture—the sudden
snatching up of millions of the faithful into heaven—and subsequent volumes
follow airline pilot Rayford Steele and journalist Buck Williams, left behind
to tough it out down here on earth through the seven-year Tribulation and the
rule of the Antichrist. The 12th and final installment (not counting a planned
sequel and prequel), called "Glorious Appearing," has the return of Jesus, the
battle of Armageddon and the Judgment. It sold almost 2 million copies even
before its March publication; it's still tied for No. 2 on The New York Times's
list—which doesn't count sales at Christian bookstores. In all, the "Left
Behind" books have sold more than 62 million copies.>

What a wonderful unholy alliance-- pop culture scifi/prophecy and politics.
Yup, our god is bigger than your god...

"Religious megalomania" would include scoring extra points for pushing the
world to Armageddon. James Watt "doing the Lord's work" by allowing
clearcutting old-growth forests was just a warm-up act.

Well, what do we need those trees for if the world is going to end soon? Makes
perfect sense. Big right-wing party, lots of bucks to blow, and then, [censored]!--
whisked off to Heaven. The way God planned it. --Tom Paterson

(Tom Paterson) said:

What a wonderful unholy alliance-- pop culture scifi/prophecy and
politics.

Anybody remember L. Ron Hubbard?

Andres Muro said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and it
is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left wingy
news media but they have very limited distribution.

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Look at how the media handled the revelation that President Putin of
Russia warned the US in the days after 9/11 that they had gathered
credible evidence of Iraq's plans to attack the US and US interests
abroad. That's huge - and should be the lead story on any credible
network because it speaks directly to the greatest current
controversy - why are we in Iraq?

The reason this has not made much news is that it is too off the wall
and useless considering that no such buildup or weapons were found in
Iraq during the inspections or the subsequent war. You wouldn't want
to be seen resting on that story at this time, knowing what was found.

You seem to be confusing "pre-war" with "post-war". Things are always
a little easier to analyze after the game is played, but that doesn't
make 20 million spectators' opinion more valid than the two coaches
that actually had to make the calls based on the information they had
at the time, not the replay three days later.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The network news basically didn't cover it at all... not a word. It
warranted the bottom of an inside page in the New York Times.

That's because it isn't newsworthy. The bushnmen didn't even find it
worth leaning on. What do you think should be said about it that
wasn't?

Funny how you resort to name calling so often? No faith in your
logic?

Anyway, why do you say that the White House hasn't tried to make this
story more public - they don't control what gets broadcast.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

Quoted message said:

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Quoted message said:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our
measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the
Drudge Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the
average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the
House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the
Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our
sample. Our other measure found that Fox News' Special Report is
the most centrist. These findings refer strictly to the news
stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book
reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Quoted message said:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

That's not a good measure for me. I get the SF-Chronicle and
SJ-Mercury that represent fairly moderate viewpoints on the liberal
and conservative perspective. The Merc has William Saffire as a
regular voice and they panned Fahrenheit 9/11 and ridiculed it while
the Chronicle showed theater attendance and called the film
provocative with viewers giving it a rating of 6+ out of 10. Neither
of these papers had much to say about Putin's comments other than to
report them without comment.

You can make your judgment on that.

SF-Chronicle "fairly moderate"? Tim McNamara claiming the NY Times
"leans right"? We aren't living in the same universe it seems...

At any rate, anyone who's ever seen a real documentary would be likely
to pan any of Michael Moore's films. "Provocative" is a good word -
like lunging at a cop with a knife is "provocative"... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

The media has a serious conservative bias, IMHO. I've said this many
times, perhaps you hand't noticed. Of course, if you REALLY don't
think that the media has a conservative bias, you're obviously pretty
well aligned with it.

One of us is obviously absolutely wrong. You think the NY Times
"leans right". I don't think I need to say anything else to make my
point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's a very good article on the subject from the University of
Chicago:

Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the
left of the average member of Congress.

That's not exactly a meaningful standard of reference given the makeup
of the current Congress. Who is "we" in this context, by the way?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How short your memory is. Of course, this was the state where the
candidate's brother was governor and his campaing manager was
responsible for certifying the election. LOL. A fine demonstration
of the "ethics" of the Bushies.

What - you mean "enforcing the existing laws for interpreting
votes"? Yeah, that's really an evil thing to do - better to let the
loser come up with some vague standards and selectively apply them
to certain areas that might help his or her cause, right? LOL.

No, better for the Florida Secretary of State- who was Bush's campaign
manager in Florida-to be ethical and recuse herself from certifying
the election.

It didn't matter at all who certified the election. The methodology
was in place, cast in concrete (since the election had already been
held), and she simply followed process. Did her job, IOW.

Quoted message said:

But she didn't because it just tickled her so much to
be able to personally hand the presidency to Shrub, no doubt counting
on an upgrade in her political career as a reward. The conflict of
interest was staggering and yet- like in all other areas of his
campaign- George W. Bush was given a free ride by the "liberal" media.

Heh heh heh... that's the "liberal media" that called Florida for Gore
an HOUR before the polls closed in the predominantly Republican
panhandle? Uh huh...

Quoted message said:

His entire campaign was given a free ride without critical
examination- while Clinton was castigated in 1992 for his stupid
comments about marijuana, Bush's history as a dangerous drug abuser
and alcoholic with flagrant disregard for the safety of those around
him was largely ignored, as well as his religious megalomania.

No one's ever going to accuse you of being rational on this issue...
you're WAY left of center, yet consider someone's possible
recreational drug use in their youth grounds to be kept out of public
office. Well, unless the candidate is a Democrat (or were you equally
upset over the allegations of Clinton's drug use?).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(andres muro) said:

Mark:

When you say liberal media outlets, who do you refer to?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some corporations
are more liberal and others more conservative. However, in truth large
corporations tend to sympatize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely not left wing.
Of course there are some left wingy news media but they have very
limited distribution.

The same corporation puts Howard Stern and Sean Hannity on the air. I
think you can safely say that there is little direct correlation
between ownership of the media, and the management of the news
organizations.

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're probably
either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that...) ;-)
or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox network was
telling - they are pretty much centrist (with some op-ed shows leaning
right, though most have both sides well covered), still they "sounded"
so radically right to most folks who'd had nothing but a CNN, ABC, CNS
and NBC to compare it to...

.... the fact that Fox is growing rapidly while the rest are shrinking
says that a lot of people are figuring it out. And it's not just
conservatives who are watching, either. Mainly those who really DO
want both sides of the story.

FWIW...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Quoted message said:

Andres Muro said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and it
is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left wingy
news media but they have very limited distribution.

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Did those lobbyists fly in in black helicopters or use mind-control
rays? ;-) Perhaps you could point to some credible sources for those
wild-sounding accusations... or perhaps not...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame