Free Speech Debate (Round Two)

[QUOTE=FlackBait]
-Your statistics are irrelevant. The employee’s aren’t the one’s who decided what gets aired on the news and what doesn’t. Employee’s are the one’s who do what their told by taking orders from those who do have an agenda. I’m talking about those old wrinkly white guys who own just about everything under the sun. ;)[/QUOTE]

Holy F-ing S--t! Did you really say that? Quote again:

The employee’s aren’t the one’s who decided what gets aired on the news and what doesn’t.

You are going to sit there and tell me that the editor of a newspaper has no say in what goes into an article, and what articles get chosen. Keep in mind bud, that those 'employees' also include the higher-ups, not just the peons. Those "old wrinkly white guys" don't approve every word of every article, and every word of every news report. Think! Think! Think!

Read this:

CNN's HOWARD KURTZ: "It is a tight race. Do you believe that most reporters want John Kerry to win?"
NEWSWEEK'S EVAN THOMAS: "Yeah, absolutely."
KURTZ: "Do you think they're deliberately tilting their coverage to help John Kerry and John Edwards?"
THOMAS: "Not really."
KURTZ:"Subconsciously tilting their coverage?"
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Maybe."
THOMAS:"Maybe."
KURTZ:"Including at Newsweek?"
THOMAS:"Yeah."
KURTZ:"You've said on the program 'Inside Washington' that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as young and optimistic, that's worth maybe 15 points. That would suggest."
THOMAS:"Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't thin k it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
KURTZ:"Is it worth five?"
THOMAS:"Maybe, maybe."
(CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004)

According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.

Much of the Kerry campaign's political calculation relies on the media reporting as fact baseless charges of voter intimidation, "privatizing social security" and "reinstating the draft," blaming President Bush for the flu vaccine shortage when Kerry opposed liability reform for vaccine manufacturers, and the demonstrably false charge that the President has banned stem cell research. People don't believe these things because they are all necessarily that stupid, they believe them because the media portrays these things as true. Here is a CNN article for you to read, but considering you are having trouble reasoning, I doubt you will get the main points, so I'll quote them here:

First line of the headline:

Sen. John Kerry has said re-electing President Bush would create "the great potential of a draft."

If the media were responsible, they wouldn't even report Kerry and Edwards' speeches about the draft, nevertheless report about them EVERY SINGLE DAY. Not a day has gone by over the last 3 weeks where I haven't heard about "The Bush Draft". If the media were responsible, they would note that the sponsors of both current draft bills were proposed and co-sponsored by Democrats ONLY. Democrats ONLY. But they don't mention that, of course not, they want to you to think, maybe, just maybe, that Bush DOES have a secret plan to reinstate the draft.

Now here IS a stupid group of so-called "students":

The University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election survey found that half of young people believe Bush wants to reinstate the military draft. Only 8 percent said Kerry wants it.

F-ing HALF!! How are these kids that stupid? Or are they stupid? Maybe they are just so influenced by the media coverage of a Bush-draft, they they believe it to be true.

The research also shows a spike in the number of youths who say they're likely to vote. Count Nick Ford among them. The 21-year-old George Washington University student began the year favoring Bush but is now in Kerry's camp. "I don't like the war in Iraq and I'm opposed to the draft," said Ford, who plans to vote absentee in his hometown of New York City.

Find the interview with a student who is afraid Kerry will reinstate the draft....whether they even found one, or whether they didn't find one, either one proves my point. If they didn't find one, it's because they (the media) are too oft-ly reporting about every single prominent Democrat talking about "The Bush Draft". If they did find one, they left him off their news article for some reason (though I know what that reason is).

Same article:

"We're paying attention to everything," said Nicole Bautista, a 21-year-old Kerry backer from Pittsburgh, "including the notion that we could be drafted."

Now either Kerry supporters are really stupid, and I'm beginning to think that they are after reading this full article, or the media is way too influential, reporting about the so-called "Bush Draft" far more often than a responsible news agency should.

Found this article on CNN also: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/
Read the headline:

Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

They don't note until AFTER the headline that he is a Democrat, but you do note that they abbreviated "Representative" to give the illusion to headline browsers (such as my mother) that he is a Republican. This is a dirty trick by the media, and known about for years by smart Republicans such as myself.

Celsius 41.11 has something to do with my point however…

What point is that? You still haven't stated.

Do you know that an editor’s responsibilities vary with the employer?

Maybe in your little local Iowa paper the editor has that kind of control but it’s not that way in the mass media. Whatever decisions the editor makes it all goes back to the Executive editor who takes his orders from you know who.

“According to one of the most established members of the "mainstream media," the fact that "most reporters want John Kerry to win" could be worth 5 to 15 percentage points- or 5 to 20 million votes- on Election Day.”

It doesn’t sound like a conductive argument to me. Evan Thomas can honestly say that the mainstream media is out to tickle Kerry’s pickle? Sure being an Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek is impressive. I think you just have to accept there isn’t any real answer to your question. You can speculate all you want.

I really thought commenting on your question and relating it to your article you originally posted would offer you an opinion you could be satisfied with even though you don’t agree with it. Hey man it’s your problem not mine.

Mattboy_slim,

I just sent you a PM, when you have time I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it and send me any info you might have.

Cheers!

Maybe in your little local Iowa paper the editor has that kind of control but it’s not that way in the mass media. Whatever decisions the editor makes it all goes back to the Executive editor who takes his orders from you know who.

Maybe you don't understand how newspapers work, but to pass everything by every higher up simply doesn't work. There are these little-known hurdles that newspapers have called 'deadlines'. If every single writer and interviewer has their stories into the editor 8 hours in advance of press time, then maybe every single person in the paper will have a chance to review the article to ensure a 'fair and balanced' endeavor. But get realistic. The marketing guy at the company I work for was THE editor at our local paper, and often had no chance to review everything that went to press. If you cannot rely on your reporters to be fair and balanced, then you should not have those people on staff.

Evan Thomas can honestly say that the mainstream media is out to tickle Kerry’s pickle?

Yeah, that is the basis of what he was saying....

You can speculate all you want

You don't have to speculate, you can clearly see the stats I posted above, and by the quote by Evan Thomas. You can speculate all you want, but give me evidence to the contrary and I can start to see things from your side of the fence. I have evidence, you do not. You are speculating, I am not. I am making an educated decision, you are not. You are saying there is no media bias because you do not believe it, not because you have evidence to back your statement up. As I said, give me evidence to the contrary, and I will attempt to see where we can go from there.

Maybe you don't understand how newspapers work, but to pass everything by every higher up simply doesn't work. There are these little-known hurdles that newspapers have called 'deadlines'. If every single writer and interviewer has their stories into the editor 8 hours in advance of press time, then maybe every single person in the paper will have a chance to review the article to ensure a 'fair and balanced' endeavor. But get realistic. The marketing guy at the company I work for was THE editor at our local paper, and often had no chance to review everything that went to press. If you cannot rely on your reporters to be fair and balanced, then you should not have those people on staff.

I’m not talking about the little articles about Uncle Ted who caught the worlds largest Salmon. I’m talking about the coverage of the presidential election. You better bet every story with that kind of attention before it's published in the mass media goes to the higher ups.

You don't have to speculate, you can clearly see the stats I posted above, and by the quote by Evan Thomas.

Big Foot
Try and prove his facts are wrong. Try and prove he didn’t see what he saw. He’s got everything laid out there for you. Sorry but I still don't believe in Big Foot...

I have evidence

You have facts which are questionable.

You are speculating, I am not.

You can say without a doubt Evan Thomas is right and that nobody could question him? You assume too much.

You are saying there is no media bias because you do not believe it, not because you have evidence to back your statement up.

Nope, I'm saying there's media bias but not because of how many network employee's made donations to the democrats.

Try and prove his facts are wrong. Try and prove he didn’t see what he saw. He’s got everything laid out there for you. Sorry but I still don't believe in Big Foot...

You are looking at this completely wrong. The Bigfoot video is not indisputable evidence. The footprints are not indisputable evidence.

If you can look at those statistics, and think that I made them up, you can look for yourself here:

http://www.opensecrets.org

They are factual statistics. If you think they are as factual as Bigfoot sightings, then you sir need a reality check. If you think that they are irrelevant, that is a different story, but don't tell me that my evidence is the same as Bigfoot evidence. And to compare the statements of Evan Thomas to a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot is also ridiculous. Evan Thomas is what the courts call "a firsthand witness". He works IN the media. He works IN the media. He works IN the media. I don't understand how that is so hard for you to understand.

You have facts which are questionable.

Which of those are questionable? Please explain why they are questionable also.

You can say without a doubt Evan Thomas is right and that nobody could question him? You assume too much

But you can say without a doubt that he is wrong, so why is so wrong that I trust him? We can play a war of the words for days, but until you learn the basics of human reasoning, you are going to be playing at Level 1. You don't believe it because you don't want to believe it. If you can honestly say to yourself, without a doubt, that there is absolutely NO Liberal bias in the media, then I'll give up trying to convince you that there is, because it's not worth my time to attempt to jam something through the concrete wall that is your head. Granted, I understand that you see things the way that you want to see them, but if you don't see even the slightest hint of a media bias, and if you can't look at the NBC & CBS contributions and deduce like a human being that those stats MIGHT mean something, then you need to get your head checked.

Nope, I'm saying there's media bias but not because of how many network employee's made donations to the democrats.

OK, ignore my last paragraph. So how can you look at those stats and assume that they mean nothing? I understand that we went through this before, but I really, honestly, no f-ing joke, do no understand how you can look directly at those stats and think that they mean absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE=mattboy_slim]OK, ignore my last paragraph. So how can you look at those stats and assume that they mean nothing? I understand that we went through this before, but I really, honestly, no f-ing joke, do no understand how you can look directly at those stats and think that they mean absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE]

This material relates to minuscule donations of network employee contributions and has nothing to do with a broadcaster's coverage whatsoever.

Would you like to point out an article that says Press Bias proven? You are just spreading disinformation. I feel bad for you because you aren't able to see that. :(