The Media Bias/Incompetence Thread

CNN lying through their teeth again.....

This year, police said they thwarted an explosives attack on the house of worship in Dearborn, just west of Detroit city limits. In January, police arrested a man in the center’s parking lot in a car they said was packed with fireworks.

Police said the suspect, Roger Stockham, drove to Dearborn from California. He faces two felony charges carrying maximum sentences of up to 20 years.

The arrest provoked state and local law enforcement agencies to urge the 70,000-square-foot mosque to bolster security and develop a new emergency response plan.

“We’ve never had an incident like that, where we were targeted by someone who wanted to do us harm based on who we are,” said Kassem Allie, the center’s executive administrator.

To Allie, the incident is evidence that some Americans are being radicalized against Islam, turning the allegation of growing Muslim radicalization on its head.

“The suspect was apparently radicalized quite some time ago,” Allie said. “And there are other instances of radicalization that are of great concern to us.

“I have no problem addressing Islamic radicalization,” he said, monitoring the mosque's security cameras from a computer screen in his ground-floor office. “But there should be an acknowledgment that other communities have the same problem.”
Click to expand...

So you'd sink the perpetrator Roger Stockham is some Islamophobic fanatic from "another community"......

Not so

Back on January 31, the AP described the arrestee as "a Vietnam veteran-turned Muslim holy warrior" based on what he had said to a Detroit restaurant manager, who later testified that in addition to bragging about the plot, Stockham had told him about becoming Muslim and joining the "mujahedeen." Stockham's own attorney also called his client an "Islamic convert." Behaving like a radical Sunni, the defendant rejected his first lawyer because "he is a Shiite and I am not," asserting that the man attends the Shiite-run ICA. The same news item cites sources claiming that Stockham spoke fluent Arabic and quoted from the Koran during an interview.
Click to expand...
 
Some climate scaremongering from NBC
On the NBC Nightly News, Williams prompted Greg Forbes of the Weather Channel:

Let's be candid here. When you and I go home, you see friends and family, you get e-mail from people you know. People ask the same question: What's going on here? Is this something we have done? What has happened to the climate because it seems so much of what we cover is relentless weather-related tragedy?

Forbes skirted around Williams’ silliness:

Yeah, it really has been a remarkable April, certainly a record April. It may be the most tornadic month of any month on record. It certainly, the atmosphere has been in a frenzy. The jet stream just keeps blasting across the country, and then the warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico just keeps feeding the instability and so we’ve had tornado after tornado...

Champion, on ABC’s World News, conceded there’s no substantiation to the speculation:

You know, all winter long, Diane, we've been talking about the fact that the leaky Arctic fence, that unusual cold polar air, the melting sea ice, the thing is, there's no coordinated effort to study what that looks like on climate change compared to severe weather, so we don't know the answer to that.
Click to expand...


Hey at least they're not blaming god for a change....
 
w1z4rd said:
An important video for people wanting to understand intentional one sided bias and media corruption:

I love this thread. Now I got a place to post all the crap I see weekly :D Lets start off with an introduction:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428# - Series to introduce people to what is Fox News.
Click to expand...

w1z4rd you are going to get such a KLAP from Alan! :D

This thread is only meant to pull the P out of the Liberal Media!! :twisted:
 
Probably the wrong place to put this little snippet, but I'm sure Alan will enjoy it :D

New Proof that 20% of Americans are Below Average
The recent poll results that nearly one in five Americans believe (incorrectly) that Obama is a Muslim is just more evidence that a small but significant percent of Americans will believe just about any cockamamie story.

Of course, it doesn’t help when you have people like Rev. Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham) spouting nonsense like this on ABC:

I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name.

Nevermind the truth — that Obama’s father was an atheist, not a Muslim. Not to mention that if being given an Islamic name makes you Islamic, then everyone named Jesus (or David or Ruth) must be a Jew. And if the seed of Islam is passed through the father and the seed of Judiasm is passed through the mother, then what is the child of a Muslim man and a Jewish woman? Or as PZ Myers speculates, are the offspring of Muslim women with Jewish men automatically atheists?

The Washington Post points out some other crazy ideas that polls show are believed by 20% of the population, including that socialism is superior to capitalism, that torture is a good idea, that states have the right to secede from the US (what civil war?), and that aliens from outer space have made contact with humans. In fact, 20% admit to peeing in swimming pools, which shows you just the kind of people we are dealing with here.

I won’t say what kind of people, but it is interesting that if you only consider conservative Republicans, 34% of them believe Obama is Muslim. That’s one third who believe a lie. Not reported was what percentage of Fox News viewers believe this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Here's another interesting link:
http://politicalirony.com/2009/09/0...a-versus-fox-news-president-obama-whos-worse/
 
Last edited:
Washington Post calls U.S celebrations "almost vulgar" then attempts to link it too "islamophobia"

There were cigars, a few beers, a lacrosse stick turned flagpole waved by a kid who just climbed a statue, joining others aloft in trees and atop lamp posts. Well past midnight, cars zipped up and down the streets of downtown Washington with women standing up through sunroofs waving ginormous American flags and guys blowing vuvuzelas, spring break style.

It felt a little crazy, a bit much. Almost vulgar.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...-of-jubilation/2011/05/02/AFue42XF_story.html

Then again vuvuzelas are vulgar.....
 
Taxpayer-funded Pacifica Radio receives around $1.5 million a year in funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It has a nasty habit of being especially radical on conventionally patriotic occasions. On Memorial Day 2010, Pacifica brought on radical Noam Chomsky to denounce "the great killer and torturer" and "grand criminal" Ronald Reagan. The morning after Independence Day in 2010, Pacifica brought on Michael Moore to declare that Americans will be turned away from Heaven for U.S. war crimes. So it's not surprising Pacifica added another outrage after Osama bin Laden was killed. Democracy Now hostess Amy Goodman brought on her old friend and radical journalist Allan Nairn to suggest Osama bin Laden was a smaller killer than the U.S. government, the global center of bin-Ladenism:

But if we recognize that someone who is willing to kill civilians en masse, someone who is willing to send young people out with weapons and bombs to, as President Obama put it, see to it that a family doesn’t have a loved one sitting at the dinner table anymore, see to it that a child and a parent never meet again, if we say that someone like that deserves to die, then we have to follow through on that idea, and we have to recognize, OK, if these things really are so enormous, we have to stop them. Killing bin Laden does not stop them. Bin Laden is dead, but the world is still governed by bin Ladens.

People cheer because they thought they saw justice, but this was not justice delivered by—a kind of rough justice delivered by victims. This was one killer killing another, a big killer, the United States government, killing another, someone who’s actually a smaller one, bin Laden.
Click to expand...

and the Brits thought they had it bad with the BBC :o
 
Liberal media continue to spin the U.S victory in killing Bin Laden trying to associate it with "islamophobia"...

From NBC...

On NBC's Today on Wednesday, co-host Matt Lauer worried about Americans celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden: "...your children are going to see, and have already seen, people in the streets celebrating about the death of someone and that's a contradictory image for them." Today contributor and psychiatrist Gail Saltz replied: "Absolutely, very disturbing for them."

The segment was on how to talk to children about the killing of bin Laden and Saltz speculated that kids may ask: "Why are people partying, being happy that anybody was killed?" She suggested those who celebrated may now regret their actions: "I think it's really important to talk about this, because what you saw was a lot of people who, in the impulse of the moment, reacted in a way that later on they may not be happy about."

Saltz further declared:

...this is a conversation really about moral development that you're going to help your child with. So do they feel right about people partying, and smiling, and looking happy? Does it look different enough from recent pictures we've seen of what went on in Egypt and so on? I think those are the kinds of – and I think it's fine for you to say, 'I don't think they should be celebrating,' if you don't.

Almost as an afterthought she briefly entertained an alternative perspective: "Or 'I think they were celebrating because of their patriotism.'"

At the end of the segment, Lauer concluded: "And always when you're having these discussions try to emphasize things like open-mindedness and-" Both Saltz and child development specialist Robyn Silverman quickly joined in the political correctness. Saltz finished Lauer's sentence: "Tolerance." Silverman agreed: "So important." Saltz then added: "And say that this man looked a certain way doesn't mean that everybody who looks that way is a bad person." Silverman chimed in: "Absolutely." Lauer agreed: "That's important."
Click to expand...


and Huffington Post....

While the killing of Osama Bin Laden is being enthusiastically celebrated throughout America and some parts of the world, to say that such merriment is out of order will surely be considered heresy. Nonetheless, I'm saying it--because it needs to be said. For starters, let me say this: "Those of you who are celebrating--could you just pause for a moment and consider: What message are you sending the world?"

I certainly understand how those who have suffered from the events of 9/11 may feel relieved, even happy, to have "closure" after ten years of waiting for "justice to be done"--and I don't quarrel with such feelings. Closure is a natural yearning and can help people move on from serious trauma. And, of course, feelings are feelings. If you feel joyful, you feel joyful.

But celebration in the streets and on the airwaves is neither appropriate nor advisable--really--no matter what your feelings of elation. Here's why.

"Celebrating" the killing of any member of our species--for example, by chanting USA! USA! and singing The Star Spangled Banner outside the White House or jubilantly demonstrating in the streets--is a violation of human dignity. Regardless of the perceived degree of "good" or "evil" in any of us, we are all, each of us, human. To celebrate the killing of a life, any life, is a failure to honor life's inherent sanctity.
Click to expand...


All this over a few chanting college kids? :erm:

more lunacy from the Washington Post

American Indians object to ‘Geronimo’ as code for bin Laden raid
 
MSNBC guest claims Obama administration committing "high-tech murder on a large scale"


JEFFREY SACHS: I know these countries from the ground, what these villages are like. People are hungry, they don't have employment, they don't have income. And the idea that you can murder your way to a successful society strikes me as very, very odd.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Well, but Dr. Sachs, the idea that you can develop a society that is still way, way behind in the Third World is naive as well.

SACHS: But I'm saying, the idea that this is going to be in some targeted way, high-tech murder on a large scale, that you're getting the right people. What are the right people in this sense? These are kids in villages.
Click to expand...
 
More from DNN

CNN's Fareed Zakaria, host of the weekend show Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor-at-large for Time magazine, admitted on CNN Thursday that he has been advising President Obama on foreign policy matters.

Eliot Spitzer, host of CNN's In the Arena, brought up the fact at the very end of a conversation with Zakaria about Pakistan and foreign policy. Zakaria affirmed it and clarified that "mostly it's been face-to-face meetings...organized by Tom Donilon, the national security advisor."


Spitzer brought up the subject by telling Zakaria that "I read something in the paper this week...It said the President of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world."

After verifying that, Zakaria quickly changed the subject to praising Obama's approach to foreign policy. "It's been a very thoughtful conversation," he mused. "You know, we'll see where it goes."

A transcript of the segment, which aired on May 12 at 8:28 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

ELIOT SPITZER: Look, I read something in the paper this week a couple of days ago that actually made me -- you know brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world.

So first, when he calls you, what does he say? "Hi, Barack calling for Fareed?" What does he do?

FAREED ZAKARIA: Mostly it's been face-to-face meetings.

SPITZER: Right.

ZAKARIA: You know, it's usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.

SPITZER: Right.

ZAKARIA: What I'm struck by, though, honestly, Eliot, is how much time he's spending thinking about the issues of the Arab spring particularly the issues of Egypt, how -- how to make Egypt go right, what -- you know, what is the -- what are the mechanisms that the United States has to help the moderates and liberals.

It's been a very thoughtful conversation. You know we'll see where it goes.

SPITZER: I'm not going to ask you what you have said to the president but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice. And thanks for coming on the show.
Click to expand...

So a DNN anchor advises the president privately and then lavishes praise for his policies on his show....

Conflict of interest /me thinks :o

As for Eliot Spitzer a former democrat governor of NY now turned DNN anchor, what a surprise there, is conveniently left out of DNN show on political sex scandals



Suzanne Malveaux‘s story, which aired at 2:30pmET, made mention or showed images of politicians ranging from John F. Kennedy to John Edwards; also former Governors James McGreevey and Mark Sanford, and former Sen. Larry Craig and current Sen. David Vitter, former Pres. Bill Clinton, and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich — their private indiscretions made very public. But no mention of Eliot Spitzer who resigned as Governor of New York after it was revealed he had patronized a prostitution service. Spitzer now hosts CNN’s 7pm show “In the Arena.” We’ve learned the producer/editor on the story, who use their own judgment on what to use and what not to use, chose not to include Spitzer in the story.
Click to expand...

What they left out...


Governor Spitzer, referred to as "Client–9" in an affidavit filed in US Federal Court,[3] arranged to meet at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on February 13, 2008 with a prostitute named "Kristen" — an "American, petite, very pretty brunette, 5 feet 5 inches and 105 pounds" (165 cm, 47 kg). Allegedly this contact was made by telephone while Spitzer was in Niagara Falls, New York at a press conference at Shorty's Bar and Grill on Pine Avenue.[4] "Kristen" was later identified as the 22 year old Ashley Dupré.[5][6] She intended to travel from New York City for the planned tryst and Spitzer agreed in advance that he "would be paying for everything — train tickets, cab fare from the hotel and back, mini-bar or room service, travel time and hotel".[7] After the assignation on February 13, 2008, Spitzer paid her $4,300 in cash.[8] The payment included $1,100 as a deposit with the agency toward future services.[9]

Room 871 at the Mayflower Hotel was booked under the name George Fox, a pseudonym Spitzer had allegedly been using that was later revealed to be the name of his close friend, a hedge fund investor.[10][11] Reportedly, some of this information came to light from a federal wiretap.[12][13][14]

Spitzer had at least seven or eight liaisons with prostitutes from the agency over six months, and paid more than $15,000 for their services. Federal agents had him under surveillance twice in 2008.[15][16][17] According to published reports, investigators believe Spitzer paid up to $80,000 for prostitutes over a period of several years — first while he was attorney general, and later as governor.[18][19][20]
Screenshot of the website of Emperors Club VIP.

The investigation was purportedly initiated after North Fork Bank[21] reported suspicious transactions to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as required by the Bank Secrecy Act. According to Newsday, Spitzer wanted to transfer more than $10,000 to what turned out to be a front for the prostitution ring. However, he broke up the transactions into smaller slices due to federal law requiring the reporting of any transfer of $10,000 or more. When he tried to get his name taken off the wires, the bank refused, saying that the money had already been wired out and that it would be improper to do so in any case. The IRS's Criminal Investigation Division then started a probe, initially fearing that Spitzer was the victim of either extortion or identity theft.[22]

North Fork's report in July 2007 went largely unnoticed until HSBC in the fall filed a report that the transactions were going to QAT International and QAT Consulting Group, which were offshore shell companies operating as a front for the Emperors Club VIP.[23]

Later, the IRS contacted the FBI to investigate possible political corruption. The investigation led Federal authorities to link the money transfers to the Emperors Club.[24][25] Prosecutors charged the four people operating the escort service with violations of the Mann Act, a week prior to the revelations of Spitzer's involvement.[26]

On November 19, 2007, Republican operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI saying that Spitzer "used the service of high-priced call girls" while in Florida. Stone provided detail saying that Spitzer wore calf-length black socks while performing the sex act.[27]

Spitzer announced on March 12 that he would resign his post as Governor effective March 17, amid threats of his impeachment by state lawmakers.[28]

"I cannot allow for my private failings to disrupt the people's work," Spitzer said at a news conference in New York City. "Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor."[18]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal
 
Alan said:
So a DNN anchor advises the president privately and then lavishes praise for his policies on his show....

Conflict of interest /me thinks :o
Click to expand...

A conflict of interest only exists when impartiality is expected. Do you expect your media to be impartial? If so you're in the minority. I think we would all like media to be impartial but we don't expect it.
 
porchrat said:
A conflict of interest only exists when impartiality is expected. Do you expect your media to be impartial? If so you're in the minority. I think we would all like media to be impartial but we don't expect it.
Click to expand...

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

A journalist cannot give a fair assessment of a policy from a politician he has advised. At the very least he must inform his audience from the start that he played a role in formulating that policy.
 
Alan said:
...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

A journalist cannot give a fair assessment of a policy from a politician he has advised. At the very least he must inform his audience from the start that he played a role in formulating that policy.
Click to expand...

All those opinions aside you still haven't answered my question. Do you actually expect media sources to be impartial?
 
I've never said I expected them to be impartial. But it is a far cry from the blatant conflict of interest when a political adviser is masquerading as a journalist.

The media are supposed to be separate and independent of political parties/state. That is clearly not the case here so again a conflict of interest.
 
Alan said:
I've never said I expected them to be impartial. But it is a far cry from the blatant conflict of interest when a political adviser is masquerading as a journalist.
Click to expand...
When you don't expect impartiality then there can be no conflict of interest. This is perfectly logical.

I don't understand why you think someone that is generally not expected to be impartial can have a conflict of interests. A conflict of interests is when involvement in one domain influences your impartiality in another domain. If you aren't expected to be impartial in the second domain you can't have a conflict of interests.

The media are supposed to be separate and independent of political parties/state. That is clearly not the case here so again a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
No we would like it if they were separate and totally impartial. They don't have to be. There is no rule that says they have to be.

Therefore there can be no conflict of interests.

If a source chooses to align itself with one group or ideology then that is fine. Just make sure you're aware of it when you read anything they produce. Don't squeal about conflict of interests though.
 
Last edited:
*facepalm*

You obviously can't grasp the difference between a journalist's natural ideological sway and directly taking part in the formulation of government policy. :eek:

So again the media's job is too report on policy with at least some degree of impartiality not take part in formulating it. To do so is a conflict of interest.

In any case it's not what the viewer expects. It's what the media organization claims. DNN claims to be totally impartial yet they clearly are not.

kthxbye
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
*facepalm*

You obviously can't grasp the difference between a journalist's natural ideological sway and directly taking part in the formulation of government policy. :eek:

So again the media's job is too report on policy with at least some degree of impartiality not take part in formulating it. To do so is a conflict of interest.

kthxbye
Click to expand...

Alan, are we take it that your conservative self only gets his fill of current affairs from the liberal media?
 
Alan said:
*facepalm*

You obviously can't grasp the difference between a journalist's natural ideological sway and directly taking part in the formulation of government policy. :eek:
Click to expand...
Oh no I can see the bias. It is definitely bias and makes me take everything the journalist writes with a pinch of salt. However it isn't a conflict of interest unless journalists are required to be impartial. Which they aren't.

A judge for example is required to be impartial. So a judge can have a conflict of interests. So can a politician handling tenders. A journalist however doesn't have conflict of interests. They have bias but that is to be expected.


So again the media's job is too report on policy with at least some degree of impartiality not take part in formulating it. To do so is a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Show me the rule that says this or it is just your opinion.

Seriously man you're trying to claim that journalists have to be impartial (this is the only way they can have a conflict of interests). You're going to have to back that up.

EDIT: even more contradictory you're claiming their job is to be impartial even after you've admitted yourself that you don't expect journalists to be impartial. :wtf:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X