Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Mainstream media is going to have to get cleaned up..
Published on December 27, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered.  When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

Conservatives have had to grin and bear it for years as the mainstream media, led by the New York Times and followed by the network news stations, had a virtual monopoly on news distribution.  NBC anchors could casually say "If we could get the NRA out of the way we could have a decent civilized discussion on the 2nd amendment" as if this were an established fact.

Books like Biased have warned for years that there was a serious slanting in the news - something most conservatives were painfully aware of.  Unfortunately there was nothing they could do about it. If ABC's Nightline wants to run a full show smearing Pat Buchanan as being anti-semetic without any real evidence, what could he really do? What could anyone do?

And conservative statistic freaks could notice that stories on homelessness and the AIDS epidemic seem to greatly increase when Republicans are in office but die down if a Democrat is in office (apparently AIDS and homelessness went away during the Clinton administration but boom, now it's back with a vengeance and it's undoubtedly the fault of the "smirking chimp").

I am sure the folks in news rooms across America wish for the days when the only opposition to their ideological positions came from a fat man on AM radio.  Now they not only have to deal with AM radio (gasp) but also cable news such as FOX and now the Internet.

Funny thing about the blog sites, the most popular blog sites are conservative. Not even a close call.  There are a limited number of viable theories for that and none of them favorable towards liberals (a: Conservatives are more interested in discussing real world issues on-line or b: Conservatives don't find enough conservative info through traditional outlets are the two Occam's razor answers).

And so as we head towards 2005, I am very thankful that, at time goes on, the mainstream media won't be able to pass on poorly researched ideological bombs as facts and history as they did in the past.  What happened with CBS this Fall wasn't unique, it was just that critical moment when the Internet had reached critical mass to be able to get the truth distributed out to counter the lies.


Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Dec 29, 2004
stevendedalus -

That comment puts it all in a nutshell, if you ask me - the delusional conviction that the message of the MSM is pure, just unappreciated.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 29, 2004

I have to agree with that. I even think liberals would agree and wouldn't say that FOX News isn't at fault in any way for what they report or how they report it. So indeed they are MURDERING the messenger.

on Dec 29, 2004
Look I know I don't live in the USA so I don't see all your news, but it amazes me that no conservative joeuser seems to be aware of the existence of Fox News. Unlike Australia, you actually get some balance there. If you want to hear more than one perspective, watch CBS then switch over to Fox. Then make up your own mind. That's what democracy is about.
on Dec 29, 2004

Reply #18 By: Champas Socialist - 12/29/2004 2:20:36 AM
Look I know I don't live in the USA so I don't see all your news, but it amazes me that no conservative joeuser seems to be aware of the existence of Fox News. Unlike Australia, you actually get some balance there. If you want to hear more than one perspective, watch CBS then switch over to Fox. Then make up your own mind. That's what democracy is about.


I've been aware of Fox News for quite some time now. But everytime I quote them on something, I get shot down and am told that they are biased to the max and as such are unreliable.
on Dec 29, 2004
Replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and the statement is still just as valid. Replace it with "people" for a good general view of how the world operates.
---cithellion

No, I must respectfully disagree....despite the fact that I am a conservative, I must say that cons are much more concerned with the truth of the facts they cite than many, many liberals I've encountered on quite a few forum sites and in everyday life, to my neverending frustration.
Liberals, for the most part, seem to be more content to spout the rhetoric spoon-fed to them by their media and are very often not willing to give in on their views. There's also very often an "I'm right and you're wrong and if you don't like it, too bad" arrogance to liberal views.
Cons, on the other hand, seem to be more willing to think for themselves and seem more flexible and willing to cede their points if faced with strong enough evidence to the contrary. There are always exceptions, of course.....there are conservative zealots on here just as there are lib zealots. They're everywhere, and they're all nuts.

"I think they did a disservice to the debate because they made the debate about the documents and not about the president of the United States. There was another half to that story that had to do with verifiable events of what Bush may have been up to."
Daiwa, quoting A. M. Cox

When you're talking about documents or "information" that turns out to be completely fabricated and yet is presented as cold fact by a major media outlet, there's no question where the debate should lie.
What the President did or didn't do becomes irrelevant in light of the greater betrayal of trust by the media.

Reporting lies as the truth....hm.....isn't that pretty much what they so snidely accuse GWB of doing?
on Dec 29, 2004
To bash is human.....so....

Bash lawyers; bash doctors; bash the rich; bash the poor; bash corporations; bash employers; bash unions; bash welfare recipients; bash politicians; bash other races; bash other religions; bash athiests; bash the media.

Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems. Never, ever, take responsibility. It's so much easier to get through life that way.
on Dec 29, 2004
Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems. Never, ever, take responsibility. It's so much easier to get through life that way.


To bash is human......................

To bash bush is devine.

Fact is, bush has never, ever taken responsibility for anything he's ever done (Iraq debaucle comes to mind). Never. It's so much easier that way.
on Dec 29, 2004
Just make sure to blame anyone or anything but yourself for your problems.


But when you bash yourself all you get is accusations of trolling for sympathy!! ;~D
on Dec 29, 2004
If we learned anything last year with regards to the media and bloggers, it is that the days of ideologically driven "mainstream" reporting are numbered. When CBS tried to smear Bush with blatantly phoney National guard documents it blew up back in CBS's face as Internet users posted on-line how the documents were obviously forged.

CBS was dead wrong to use these documents. However, the facts were correct. Bush did get in and out of the guard with the help of his family contacts; he did not take a required physical that resulted is him being grounded (he was commissioned to be a pilot); he did not attend drills for 6 months in 1972. It is also likely that he went into the guard to avoid service in Vietnam. It is a fact that in the late 1960's that guard units did not go to war unlike today. Please do not respont that this is Bush bashing. Everything in this reply is 100% true!
on Dec 29, 2004
Please do not respont that this is Bush bashing.


Not "Bush Bashing" but pretty much irrelevant. Any vet can think of people who they served proudly along side, but wouldn't vote for if they ran for dog catcher (much less President and Commander in Chief). Furthermore, at least for myself, I can think of guys who (as an NCO) I helped drum out of the service who I'd vote for in a second. They weren't bad people, just weren't up to the standards of military life.

During the rhtetoric of this election I heard a lot of people say that no one in the Alabama Air Guard could remember a Lt Bush drilling with them. Well, I know I've drilled seperately with probably a half a dozen or more units. If anyone from either of those units remember me now, I would be surprised. I can't name many of the troops from other states who showed up for a few drills with my Guard units either.

One thing I did get a kick out of during this campaign was, finally hearing the anti war crowd refer to the Vietnam war as "service to America". Of course, now that it doesn't further their agenda, they'll probably go back to making a point of disrespecting Vets in general and Vietnam vets especially.
on Dec 29, 2004
When a person running for president tells the voters he met his obligation while serving in the military and did not obey regulatuions and attend drills that is relevant!
on Dec 29, 2004

Replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives" and the statement is still just as valid. Replace it with "people" for a good general view of how the world operates.

That would only be true if there was a history of Conservative Bias in Mainstream media.  Since there is none (and even if you want to argue that Fox is, they have not been around long enough), it is moot.

And the World?  Which World?  The world of the Guardian or al Jazeera? Yea, right!

on Dec 29, 2004

Fact is, bush has never, ever taken responsibility for anything he's ever done (Iraq debaucle comes to mind). Never. It's so much easier that way.

Off Topic.  Take it to your own blog.

on Dec 29, 2004

When a person running for president tells the voters he met his obligation while serving in the military and did not obey regulatuions and attend drills that is relevant!

Your previous post was fact, this one is just Bush Bashing.  FACT he fulfilled his obligation. Dont beleive me? Check the OFFICIAL records. Now back to the regularly scheduled Blog.

on Dec 29, 2004
Standing for re-election constitutes taking responsibility.


It takes no responsibility to run for re-election, only a desire to stay in power. Can you name anything specifically he has taken any responsibility for or stated that he would fix. Iraq, outsourcing of jobs, deficit...anything that he has stated that there are problems out there that he will not blame others for?
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last