Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Media bias ...

0 helpful
89 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Because of a strong tendency in these discussions to rubbish the "biased lefty media," I think it is appropriate to define and explain precisely what function the media fills in our societies.

The most common incorrect assumption is that the media has some duty to provide the public with the "absolute" truth in all regards.

In fact the media has no obligation whatsoever. The various branches of the media are merely industries whose primary funtion is to return a profit to their shareholders.

The only laws which apply directly to the media are libel laws and ownership monopoly laws.

You will not find any government legislation which requires the media to be honest. However within particular publications, and if a journalist joins a professional union, a code of ethics may apply. But the government is not involved in policing these codes.

Some publications will target a particular social group by attempting to provide the best quality of reporting that is feasible. Others will deliberately target the sensation seeker -- I understand the the British tabloids specialise in this.

I worked for a number of years on the now defunct Daily Mirror, which was regarded as the worst "rag" in Sydney. But let me assure you that I was under as much pressure there as at the Sydney Morning Herald, to report as accurately as possible.

Now to bias: this is sometimes as interpreted as "it's different from my point of view, therefore it is biased." As regards political bias, the media in Australia retains a fair balance and in fact the only news source that is continually attacked as having a left-wing bias is the Government funded ABC.

Deliberate political bias will only come from the owner of the publication which, in turn, is almost entirely dependent upon advertising income. As an example, if a newspaper has a cover price of $1, about 90 per cent of this comes from advertising. If there were no advertising, there would be no media, period.

The second primary aspect which the reader overlooks is that the media is competetive, and time is of the essence. In order to stay ahead of or even with the competition, the newspaper/radio/TV staton must get the basic story published as soon as the rudimentary facts are available. It might take weeks to research a story and refine it.

Finally, in the vast majority of instances, the information comes from a third party. Parliament is one of the few exceptions in which the reporter can actually hear the words as they are spoken, study body language and gauge acceptance/disagreement by the actual real-time response.

So next time you are on the point of exlaiming "media bias," please try and look at some of the background factors which have led to the story being presented as it is.

89 replies

by maxwell edison

.
So many things are a matter of perspective.

Just as the average height but anorexic 75 pound woman would consider a 110 pound frame "fat", someone else would consider it slim and trim. Still, others might consider that skinny. It all depends on one's mind-set and perspective.

In the political arena, whereas an opinion writer such as Molly Ivans would consider the current Republican administration "extreme right wing", someone like Pat Buchanan might consider it way too far to the left. (Apologies to those who are unfamiliar with the people mentioned in my illustration.)

I think I've errored in past threads challenging some assertions that the American media is right-wing. If that right-wing media assertion was coming from a person with, what I might consider, an extreme left wing mindset, then it's understandable that he might make that claim. On the other hand, someone working from the perspective of the extreme right-wing would consider that assertion ludicrous. I've even called that assertion ludicrous, and even though I would consider my political slant to be right of center, I certainly wouldn't consider myself extreme right-wing.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible to find a common language with some things, especially in an international forum. It's no wonder that in the arena of foreign policy, even the most seemingly insignificant detail could derail the desire to find a common ground, or even a common language. It's been said that being the President of the United States is the most difficult job in the world. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if it is, the job of Secretary of State must come in a strong second.

----------

(By the way, Julian. On a totally unrelated topic, whenever I run my spell-checker, it identifies the word "errored" as incorrect. Moreover, I can't find any reference to "errored" as being the past tense of "error". Am I being grammatically correct or incorrect in my choice of using "errored" as the past tense of "error"? I suppose I could say, " I've been in error" as a substitute, but it's something I've been wondering about lately.)

by jardinier

In my two best dictionaries "error" is listed only as a noun.

The corresponding verb would be "err," of which the past tense would be "erred."

by oldefar

Your statement regarding bias and advertising is accurate, Jules, but your interpretation misses some key dynamics I think.

Begin with deliberate political bias. The owner(s) of the paper influence the general leaning of the paper not by direct approval of articles but through hiring practices. Editors make decisions on controversial articles based on their assumptions of what will be acceptable to the publishers. Journalists submit articles based on their assumption of acceptable parameters from the editor. In this manner a political or other bias becomes part of the culture of each media firm.

A savvy publisher plays on this and owns publications biased in opposite directions. In effect, he becomes his own competition for an audience within a given market.

Some privately held media remain platforms for a specific position. Many state sponsored media fall into this category, as well as some narrow focus print media and probably most Web sites. Web sites in particular can reach a large audience with self funding versus advertising dollars. The tools to present a "professional" appearance are now available at a low enough cost to allow anyone with a strong enough motive able to appear as if having a global presense.

As for the advertisors, this is a numbers game. What is important to them are the demographics of the readers and the potential exposure per dollar spent. Controversy, unpopular positions, and even a direct attack to the advertisor's beliefs are not important if the demographics and numbers hold or even improve.

An exception to this is consumer backlash. When consumers specifically and openly choose to not buy from an advertisor because of where they are advertising, this will influence where they spend their advertising budget.

by oldefar

Ignoring columnists with little direct interaction, I believe there is a natural inclination for journalists to move left over time.

I start with an assumption that most people, journalists included, are essentially good. Most of us share a common sense of right versus wrong, fair play, a dislike of blatant selfishness and self centered behavior, a desire to simply get along, and a dislike of overt control by others.

For societies to function, and for businesses to flourish, we accept a certain amount of questionable behavior provided we can distance ourselves from the behavior. This is why a government can exist without being totally fair and with a degree of control. This is why businesses, seen as non-human entities, can behave selfishly. We overlook self centered politicians by believing they also have a sense of vision and an underlying ethic for fair play.

As long as we can keep sufficient distance, we can ingore any variance from our own ethics by simply creating an excuse (greater good is popular), or claiming it is out of our control (another popular excuse).

Enter the journalist. By investigating a story the journalist loses the ability to maintain a distance. The journalist sees not a casualty list, but dead or maimed individuals with family, feelings, and goals and objectives not unlike his own. The journalist does not see a corporation, but workers directly harmed or mistreated by managers with names and faces.

Under these circumstances, the journalist must deal with the facts on a personal level. Most often, this means facing a government that is acting unfairly in some aspect, or a corporation managed by individuals focused only on their own best self interests, or a politician who considers the next election when acting in a particular fashion. Actions take on the more limited immediate result rather than the long term or big picture aspect. Since the journalist cannot change reality, his own ability to function requires him to gravitate towards those parties and persons who at least seem to have a higher regard for others. This tends to be politically a move left.

I suppose this is much like being a soldier and demonizing or at least dehumanising those he must kill.

by oz_media

I have a university psych book(Hunting Humans) that explains how serial muders are played by the press to help in prifiling. One of the things it mentions is that in the USA, most young reporters may start out with string leftwing beliefs but usually move left with experience. It says that reporters and those who cover human tradgedy, are usually pushed toward left-wing or "human stories" as they experience more human destruction.

They say this move is generally due to higher intelligence and worldly education that allows one to undertsand issues and people from a widened perspective.
These left-wingers are chosen based on thier ability to add feeling and a more understanding or human perspective to stories.

Your statement that media will favor hiring left wing reporters may hold true but this can also be seen as a sign of industry experience, as a reporter gains wider knowlegde and understandig of humanity they are 'graduating'(for lack of a better word0 into left-wing reporters.

I don't know if left-wing supporters can neccessarily be considered MORE intelligent but perhaps someone with either higher intelligence or s more wordly knowledge tends to fall left more than right. I don't know if this refers to a learned intelligence or just a greater sense of spirituality and inner awareness.

by maxwell edison

.
A saying that has been incorrectly attributed to Winston Churchill goes something like this. If you're twenty and you aren't a liberal, you haven't got a heart; if you're forty and you're still a liberal, you haven't got a brain. I won't say that I fully agree with that saying (nor will I say that I don't), but I sure do understand it.

A young person of college age has, I think, a natural tendency to lean towards the left. I know that I did. They're idealistic and want to save the world, so to speak. As I often suggest, such people prefer to see policy decision based on emotion rather than reason. For example, personal pacifism and being part of the anti-war crowd might sound rational on an individual basis, but pacifism could be disastrous for a nation as a matter of policy. Make love, not war, was a saying born out of the prevalent pacifist thought of my generation's younger and idealistic days. But just as one can't make love without a willing participant, one may also be unable to avoid war without that equally willing participant.

I think the colleges, especially in America, reinforce this natural tendency towards liberal thought. (But then we would have to explore liberal bias in the colleges, wouldn't we?) And I think the journalism colleges reinforce it to an even stronger degree. One journalist, in a discussion about liberal bias in the media explains, "We are taught in journalism school that our mission as journalists is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. But no one ever explained what gives us the right to do that. No one ever suggested that the comfortable are not inherently evil because they are comfortable, or that the afflicted are not inherently virtuous because they are afflicted."

I "grew" out of my liberalism, as I began to realize that, for the most part, a person really is in control of his or her own destiny, regardless of all the standard liberal rhetoric to the contrary. Big business, whatever that is, is constantly demonized by liberals and labor unions are routinely praised. The rich, whoever they are, are always evil, while the poor, whoever they are, are always victims of something or someone else. The rhetoric of the equal rights days is almost nonsensical today, but it's still there in media circles. Why, for example, isn't someone like Jessie Jackson laughed out of town? Instead, his forty year old thought process is, for some reason, given legitimacy (unlike some of his children) in the minds of most journalists.

The "save the world" mentality is, I think, what drives many of the issues. And think about it, who determines what the issue of the day is? Who decides what to cover and what not to cover? How many of us saw on television and read about the anti-war protests of past months? Well, we all did. But how many of us know about the protest that took place in Baghdad recently? Oh, you don't know the one I'm talking about? Well, about 10,000 residents took to the streets to protest.........no, not the American presence in the region, but the violence inflicted upon the Iraqis by the insurgents disrupting the rebuilding of Iraq.

Why will we all hear about 60 people in an anti-American or anti-war protest, but a protest of 10,000 strong in support of the war effort gets hardly a mention? A little bias perhaps?

by maxwell edison

.
BBC bosses have banned reporters from calling tyrant Saddam Hussein a former dictator.

Instead, staff must refer to the barbaric mass murderer as ?the deposed former President?.

The astonishing edict was seized on by MPs last night as more proof of a Left-wing bias inside the BBC against the Iraqi war.

Labour MP Kevan Jones, of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said: ?This shows the crass naivety of the BBC. Such political correctness will be deeply hurtful to many of our servicemen serving in Iraq.

?It amply demonstrates elements of the BBC have got a clearly anti-war and anti-Government agenda.?

Link:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003583553,00.html

tiny:

http://tinyurl.com/29pbh

by oldefar

Perhaps the BBC management is trying to adhere to a sense of fair play, a presumption of innocence.

Would refering to Saddam Hussein as a deposed dictator constitute right wing bias?

Then again, the BBC may be trying to protect its field personnel from becoming targets of terrorists by seperation from coalition nation governments.

by jardinier

It is very common for an accused person to be tried, found guilty and sentenced before the actual trial begins, and the actual evidence presented, with the media doing its best to fan the popular view be it in favour of guilt or innocence.

There was a particularly bad case of this in Australia some years ago when Lindy Chamberlain was accused of murdering her own infant child, whilst she insisted that it had been taken by a dingo (an Australian native dog). The public loved it; the press loved it. She spent two years in jail before being released, but the finding of guilt was never rescinded from the court records.

So I am suggesting that there is a very slight possibility that, as Hussein will eventually be brought to trial, his guilt of specific crimes must not be assumed until all the evidence is presented.

by thechas

Max,

I wonder if the truth here is that the media in Europe, and Europeans in general are more liberal than we here in the US?

In a previous thread, you complained about the European media using the New York Times rather than the Washington Post as a source.
I suspect the reality here is that the Washington Post is just far too conservative for the European media to take them seriously.

I hear an hour of BBC news some days. From what I hear, they are several steps to the left of NPR.

On almost all social issues, Western Europe is much more liberal than the US. Be it sex, drugs, or social welfare, Europe is several steps to the left of the US position.
You may recall that both the people and leaders of Europe could not understand what all the fuss was over Bill Clinton's sexual affairs. Several European leaders have mistresses.

As to how Saddam is referred to, while we consider him to be a former dictator, the BBC is only using his actual title. Isn't that the more accurate way to refer to someone?

Chas

by maxwell edison

Even though I've never been to Europe and I have no first-hand knowledge, I do believe they are much more liberal than America, much more so. I have many reason to think as much, but won't get into them here and now.

And it was the Washington Times I mentioned as never being cited, not the Washington Post. The Washington Times is, I will admit, intended to present a conservative alternative to their local competitor, the Washington Post. But the Washington Times presents itself as such, while the Washington Post (and New York Times) won't admit to their liberal slant.

by thechas

In the US, a number of careers have a tendency to be the choice of liberal minded individuals.

News,
Education,
Entertainment.

Why?

A liberal chooses their career based on a desire to serve others, and to "improve" the world.
This also includes the "dreamers" that forget all practical aspects of society in pursuit of their dreams.

A conservative on the other hand, tends to look for a career where they can best utilize their skills for a profit.

You simply do not see many conservative reporters in the US because they can use the same skills for greater rewards in other businesses.
Since you usually need to be a reporter before you can advance to other positions, there are very few US media personalities that are true conservatives.

Since very few individuals can cast aside there own biases, the news in the US has a liberal tilt.

In the past few years, there has been a growth in news sources. This is starting to generate niche marketing.
Since there is a market for highly biased reporting, a few organizations are tilting there reporting hard to either side of the political spectrum in order to create a core market.

Interestingly, the liberals feel that the media is tilted as far to the right as Max and Jim feel it is tilted to the left.
They just do not have to funds to create a left biased national media outlet.

Chas

by oldefar

With the exception of dreamers, which includes the true entrepreneurs of the world.

by jardinier

of occupations based on a desire to serve others. Education, yes, but media and entertainment definitely not.

Entertainers have certain artistic skills which they feel a need to express. They usually rely on positive response from the audience in order to feel successful, and actually use this positive feedback as a source of energy. So in a sense it might be regarded as quite a selfish occupation.

Journalists choose that profession bcause they have a natural instinct to be drawn to it, perhaps because of the interesting nature of the profession and, with the visual media, glamour. They strive to do well because this is the only way to advance in the profession and earn a higher wage.
I think I was regarded as somewhat eccentric because I actually wanted to change the world, and refused to join in the normal pastimes of drinking a lot of beer, talking about sport, and boasting of alleged sexual conquests.
I fact it use to disturb me to know that these people -- most off whom were partially intoxicated for most of their shift, actually contributed to the process of forming public opinion.

Now how about dentists? Surely they must feel some need to help others, because who would CHOOSE such a tedious vocation which provides no particular social prestige, and doesn't pay all that well either.

by john_wills

People become dentists and, I suppose, dental nurses, because they ahve fixations on mouths. I am told that dentists are very nice to kiss, although I've never done it myself.

by john_wills

So the solution is to increase the salaries of journalists? But you're wrong anyway: there are lots of people U.S. parlance would call conservative who want to help the world in one way or another. Think of the counselors in Birthright, Mother Teresa's sisters and brothers, the staffs of the Cato Institute and the London Institute of Strategic Studies, Ku Klux Klan members, active members of all non-"liberal" political parties, and, yes, the journalists of the Washington Times, the London Telegraph, die Welt and other "conservative" newspapers.

by jardinier

In Australia journalists are most definitely underpaid compared with members of other professions.

This leads to a brain drain to Public Relations, where the money is better and the work usually easier. But there is no social recognition.

When I introduce myself today as a "former Sydney Morning Herald journalist" I am instantly granted the same respect as when I actually worked for that publication.

by jardinier

I think the aspect of "media bias" which irks me most frequently is the common habit of dismissing a point of view that differs from one's own by casually saying: "oh, you can't believe anything you read in the media --it's all biased anyhow"

by maxwell edison

.
...some of this stuff certainly does find itself into the main-stream media, especially since it's presented by, what some people consider, a reputable organization, the National Organization of Women (NOW).

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Link:

http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/

or tiny:

http://tinyurl.com/p0iy

(By the way, I stumbled upon this site when I did a Web search of "hate Bush", as that search related to a discussion in a different thread.)

----------

My comments:

The National Organization of Women said, "When the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush president, five biased justices overruled the people of the United States....."

The truth is, SEVEN justices of the U.S. Supreme Court OVERRULED a lower Florida court when biased Florida court justices overruled the people of the United States."

The National Organization of Women said, "Bush is reversing women's rights here and abroad."

The truth is, yea right. Tell that to Condoleezza Rice, Gale Norton, Christine Todd Whitman, Elaine Chao, Ann Veneman, and Linda Chavez, all women originally selected by President Bush to be part of his cabinet. And tell that to the liberated women in Afghanistan and Iraq who, for the first time in their lives, have a glimmer of hope for a decent future.

I won't bother to comment on all the nonsense they claim, but......

This is the kind of garbage that finds its way into the main-stream media and into the minds of uninformed Americans. (And people from other nations as well.)

by thechas

Come on Max,

I expect you to know that N.O.W. has a single agenda.

N.O.W. has but one item on their agenda, full, open, unfettered universal access to abortion services.

They among others construed from the Roe vs. Wade decision that Women have a universal right to have an abortion at their choice at any time with NO restrictions.

Now, I agree with the point that women should have reproductive freedom. However, that freedom should end at the moment of conception.

As to the election, the hanging chads and the recount in Florida was a ruse to hide the REAL travesty. The Republican Party BOUGHT the 2000 election in Florida.
The firm that was hired to verify that no convicted felons were registered voters expanded the list to include ANY similar name that resided in a strongly Democratic area. Had the disenfranchised voters been able to cast their ballots, the world might be a very different place today.

My cynical mind wonders if the whole hanging chad issue was created so that Diebold and a few other companies could profit from the states being forced to replace $300 mechanical voting systems with $3,000 electronic voting systems.

The concept of computer voting scares the crap out of me. It would be very easy to create an algorithm that would adjust the running vote tally to provide a winning margin for the chosen candidate. Unless you ran a full real-time test with actual voting patterns and pole times, there would be no way to prove that the software was fair.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
...to get Democrats elected. (Yes, I'm serious.) But, you're right, to have full, open, unfettered universal access to abortion services is the motivation.

But I must ask, what news service convinced you that, "The Republican Party BOUGHT the 2000 election in Florida"?

And in keeping in line with this discussion's topic, do you think that was a biased news report?

Moreover, did you know that the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Florida court ruling was 7-2? That was the ruling on the primary question before the court. But almost all news accounts that were broadcast and/or printed emphasized the secondary 5-4 decision on an additional recount question. I wonder why? Media bias perhaps?

(By the way, I wasn't intending to post anything like that, but I just ran across it and it was just too good to not share.)

by lesdabney67

Does not provide a paper ballot and there are internal memos from Diebold discussing a problem where 16,000 votes that should have gone to Gore went to a 3rd party candidate instead. Of course this is NEVER brought up by the liberal media.

Electronic voting machines should be outlawed. Canada votes by paper ballot and it works great for them.

by oz_media

Sprry I missed the foirst paragraph 2nd sentence, I said:
"One of the things it mentions is that in the USA, most young reporters may start out with string leftwing beliefs but usually move left with experience."

This should read: "ONe of the things it mentions is that in the USA, most young reporters start out with strong RIGHT-wing beliefs but usually move left as they gain more experience."

Got the left and right mixed up, I a pair of those shoes with the green 'L' on one and the red 'R' on the other.

by oz_media

Ah yes, the dingo: small wild dog/hyeina cross that eats small children.

The article is interesting. Taking in to account my views that the sponsors quench questionable media, it is interesting to see that the left-wing is monitored and frowned upon if not toe-ing the line accordingly or at least within reason so as not to piss of the wrong people, thus having viewers change channels in disgust or even boycotting a right-wing sponsors product.

by hal 9000

But in real life it was not so much the evidence that got Lindy convicted as the way she appeared in Court.

This is one very good example of where the evidence while inconclusive is not as important as the way the defendant carries on in the Court and a very good example of not Pissing Off the Jury as they will always errer on the side of caution and if they don't like the defendants actions while in front of them will convict.

In thisparticular case after spending some time in jail a babies top[ was found and without any other proof other than Lindy's word she was given a Pardon. Maybe she was inconent all the time but I for one would like to see a far more open view than that expressed by one person who feels betrayed. But then again I suspose the Bonny & CLyde movie did much the samr thing all those years ago as well didn't it?

by oldefar

The study seems to contradict my personal observations and experiences. However, I have made no attempt to validate my perspective with any valid scientific study.

by maxwell edison

.
Are you talking about the story written by Greg Palast that is making the rounds in all the Democrat underground circles? The Greg Palast who writes for the Guardian? The Greg Palast about whom Tony Blair said, "Palast's reports have not one shred of evidence"? The Greg Palast whose been called a Liar and a Sleaze Reporter by, of all publications, the Daily Mirror? The Greg Palast who contrived a "quote" based on the "substance" of what was told to him by a BBC reporter in a Russian setting? And are you talking about the film Unprecedented, the one that's right up there, and along the lines of, Bowling For Columbine?

Ooooooooookay. Whatever you say.

by lesdabney67

has no association with DU. It is easy for you to point a finger and say Mr. Palast has no credibility, yet you quote Blair who told us that Saddam could strike with WMD in 45 minutes ( a claim which later was called a lie), how about disputing the information he reports?

Oh, you can't...

Laff.

by oz_media

The part of my previous post that I thought would raise some opposition was the following line;
"They say this move is generally due to higher intelligence and worldly education that allows one to undertsand issues and people from a widened perspective."

The book actually states that "Left-wing suporters are generally more intelligent than those that support the right."

I think that's a little too bold and conclusive, even for someone such as myself, I stepped around it a bit.

Although I strongly oppose the Bush administration, I don't think I'm as far left as so many US peers here may think.

Someone ahd recently said that how far left or right someone appears to be is relative to thier country's government. In Canada, because I am involved in many types of small business and have many associates in the industry, I'm would seen as left-center or even slightly right in a business perspective. It is visible humanitarian effort that makes us stand out as left-wing ot as we all call them 'tree huggers' (even if not protesting forestry).

EG:
I am strongly against clear cutting practices in BC,however over the past 20 years, awareness has reduced this and more selective and environmentally practices are in place. I understand the need for industry but some European countries have successfully tackled this problem and we need to be aware of others and learn.

This makes me left-center in Canada.

Now relatively, in the USA for example, I would be viewed as a 'hippie, happy go lucky, save the world dreamer'. The USA is a right-wing biased country as a result of having a Republican government.

I think the measure of one's political slant will be wiewed differently based on geographic and political surroundings also.

by maxwell edison

.
....Greg Palast has an association with the Democrat Underground. I said that the Democrat Underground whacko circles are the only ones picking up a story that turns out to be, under even the slightest bit of investigation, unreliable at best, and shows that Mr. Palast, a writer for socialist causes, most likely misquoted Mr. Baker. (Find an exact quote from the source himself, Mr. Baker. You can't because it's a misquote.)

The extreme left-wing sources that you continually rely on are about as reliable as all those whacko extreme right-wing sources.

You just can't get over the fact that your guy, Al Gore, lost the election. Well guess what? WHO CARES? And the fact that you continually harp on it is what the real laugh is. GET OVER IT, ALREADY!

And speaking of media bias, which is what this discussion is all about, if there's any source of information that should be automatically discredited and considered unreliable, it's the extreme whacko sources, both on the extreme left and on the extreme right. It's too bad you can't see past the extreme left.

by jardinier

This story was grist for the mill for the media. The public loved it, and 50 % of people still think that Lindy was guilty. Her initial sentence was life with hard labour.

I think that there was some local politics involved, because the Northern Territory authorities were afraid it would make people steer clear of one of Austalia's tourist highlights. There was tampering with evidence, and available evidence not presented.

The incident destoyed her marriage, and didn't exactly do much good to her husband's vocation as a Seventh Day Adventist pastor.

The time spent in jail was 7 years, not two as I stated earlier. The criminal convictions against her were also ultimately quashed.

However, quite recently, there was another incident with dingoes, which demonstrated the plausibility of the Chamberlain case and all of Australia was obliged to feel guilty for not believing Lindy' orignial statement.

by thechas

Hi Max,

One of my co-workers (who is much more liberal than I may be)has been reading several books that take a very critical look at George W. Bush and his circle of advisers.

I think the information about how the Republican Party spent at least 10 times the amount of money for the firm that audited the Florida voter list came from the book "Bush's Brain".
The auditors eliminated more voters than ever before, and reportedly did NOT follow up to verify the actual status of ANY of the voters removed from the list.

Couple this with news reports from Florida on election day 2000 where voters were denied:
the right to challenge their refusal at the poles;
new ballots to replace spoiled ballets;
early closure of poling sites in traditionally Democratic areas.

Of course, these were all hard to follow up on.

This left the press with the hanging chads, and the butterfly ballot.

IMHO, the Republican "machine" in Florida would have made Mayor Daley's 1960's Chicago "machine" jealous.

Chas

by oz_media

A picture of Bush's brain:

Followed by a picture of Bush's supporters brains:

Sorry Chas, you left that one wide open.

by thechas

Oz, I am NOT a supporter of the current President Bush, so no harm was done from my point of view.

I did support and vote for his father, and Ronald Reagan.

I have not trusted George W. Bush since early in the 2000 Presidential campaign.
I don't remember the specific details, but in back to back speeches, he committed to conflicting stances on an issue. From that point, he lost both my trust and my vote.

So far, I have not seen any actions that would lead me to vote for him in 2004.

IMHO, George W. Bush will be regarded by historians as one of the 10 worst Presidents.

Chas

by jardinier

a flaw in the world's most superior system of government -- you can't add up your votes.

In Australia we use paper ballots, which I doubt could lead to the type of schemozzle which occurred in Florida. Incidentally, would someone care to explain what these voting machines look like and how they function?

For those who can't tell the difference, the following is tongue-in-cheek:
Now supposing that on the last day of his first 4-year term, incontrovertible proof were found to prove that George Bush did not win the ballot. Who would be responsible for reversing the events in Iraq, including restoring to life and health all the dead and wounded?

by thechas

Julian,

After the vote for each state is certified by the state, and the votes for each presidential candidate are cast in the Electoral College, the election is considered final.

Any evidence that there was a fraudulent result in the last election would most likely increase voter apathy and reduce the turnout in the next election.

As to the voting machines.
Remember computer punch cards?
These voting machines use a card similar to a computer punch card.
(Ours have several rows of numbers.)
The card is manually inserted into a holder underneath a series of pages that indicate which candidates go with which numbers.
The voter flips through the pages (which expose 1 column of numbers at a time) and using a hand held stylus, punches out the "chad" for their candidate of choice.

It does require a little bit of force to break the chad free. I can see where people with arthritis could have problems punching out the chads.

Where I vote, they have an electronic reader on the ballot box. Each punch card is checked by the reader for proper voting before it is inserted into the ballot box.

There are 2 systems being promoted to replace the punch card style ballot.
Paper ballets that would be read and tallied by computerized readers.
And, touch screen computer systems.

My concern is the push being placed on the touch screen systems.
Most of these systems do NOT create a paper trail to verify that the numbers reported are correct.

Chas

by jkaras

To me the "paper" or "rag" need to be completely accurate to profit off information. There written word influences people either correctly or incorrectly. I dont care how much or what advertizers they have to make a profit. Money and truth shouldnt effect the other but it does to generate sales to generate more advertizing dollars. What is sad is we accept this so we can gain some knowledge that is going on in this world, and trade that for the falsehoods saying we still have to question the facts rather than knowing that it is in fact the facts which we paid for.

Another thing I can't comprehend is how the "rags" can smear your name on the front page and then print a retraction once ordered by the courts to print the "apology" on the back page that would be missed unless you systematically read the entire page. If they made money off their lie to sell papers then they need to embarrass themselves on the same page with the same font, but that would cause people not to trust the info if it was on the front page "sorry we screwed up!"

As for dealing wiht bias I find it impossible to write completely objective but you gotta at least put the effort in. If they are about the truth then they need to accept the handle of that responsibility in it's entirity.

by jardinier

I would guess that any newspaper which repeatedly published obvious untruths would eventually lose
its readership, PROVIDED there were a more honest newspaper available in the region. If there were several newspapers available, then all the better because competition for sales (hence profit) would eventually drive people to choose the most reliable news source. However, a section of the public would still prefer sensationalism to facts.

The more serious (responsible) papers tend to be those which are sold on a subscription basis, and home delivered. The rags rely much more heavily on impulse buying during the day with sensational banners.

Having worked on both, I can say that the pressure for accurate reporting was stressed equally on both.

There was a wonderful incident while I was working on "the rag" of a cow walking through a china shop. The reporter decided that the story would sound better if he subsituted "bull" for "cow."

And so the banners appeared all over Sydney: "Bull In China Shop." The reporter was sacked without hesitation.

So where do you find the "truth" in the media? I can only recommend that you choose as your primary news source that publication which, over a period of time, can be shown in retrospect to have most accurately presented the facts.

by jkaras

I never understood what is right or left wing opinions. Why classify them and not have a specific opinion on a specific problem? We love to stereotype people into categories so they can only respond within the confines of the group rather than formulate the own opinion. When these people operate outside the box they get written up over their deviation rather than talk about the right choice for the right situation to better existence. We rather attempt to discredit them rather than praise their attempt at a better tomorrow. If people just did the right things when they mattered just think how the world might be? I say bring back the Inquesition and really go to town!

by oz_media

Gee, that just mirrors my thoughts here a year ago.
I was scolded for having an 'unsupported' opinion.
Basically, I'd seen both sides of the news and had arrived at my own conclusions as a result of seeing various views and decidgin which were credible and which were not.

I was told that unless I had support for my comments, they meant nothing and were just uneducated babbling.

I then started to post links to views that mirrored my own. This was instantly degraded as it was a LEFT-wing source. The old, if the Democrats didn't win the election they must be wrong, frame of mind. SO this then made me see that unless you are republican or right-wing, your statements are not valid.

This could then be seen as unless you follow the leader, you are wrong. Therefore in order to have a valid opinion, you must follow Republicans, which some have admitted to doing here, no matter what Bush does, as it is thier obligation as an American to support him no matter what.

This is complete crap. You voted for him on his promises, if you don't like what he does after being elected you should be free to say so without the whole left-right argument being relevant.

Your political views should not, and in MOST countries DO not, have any bearing on the validity of your opinion. That like minded attitude has held back positive progression for too many years by having closed eyes and ears.

by maxwell edison

.
You're right. People should form their opinion based on doing the right thing or, as you said, making the right choice for the right situation. So let me ask you this.

What do you think should be done about the widget crises in Wenobia?

What widget crisis, you might ask. Furthermore, where is Wenobia and what does it mean to me?

As a concerned citizen you decide to educate yourself on the issue, so pick up your local newspaper so that you might be informed enough to make a wise decision. Your local paper, the Podunk Daily Times, has a front page story about the widget crises in Wenobia. The story quotes people "in the know" that suggest that widgets are bad, really bad, and that Wenobia should solve their own problems. But wait, you pick up another newspaper, the Nowhere Daily Post, and sure enough, they also have a front page story about the widget crises in Wenobia. Their story also quotes people "in the know", but wait a minute. These people suggest that widgets are good, in fact, they say they're really good, and that we should help the Wenobians solve this problem.

So what's a person to think, and why? And whose right, and why? And more importantly, why do these two different newspapers suggest totally different things?

by oz_media

You're right based on your example one MUST rely on one of two sources and how does that person determine which source is correct.

First of all, although your point is correct, widgets and human crisis are slightly differet I think. I know by listening to someone explain a situation whether the statement is dredible or requires further review. In the case of these recent events, there have been MANY hundreads of sources available that all share some similarities and some offering new information or opinions. These statements can be further researched for credibiity, not just the writers credibility.

So if I doubt the person takling about bad widgets has a valid point, I will research wifdgets and any claims the writer has made that makes them seem so bad or dangerous. With enough suporting evidence, ie: "widgets are sharp and can hurt you" is easily confirmed true or false, one then forms a basic opinion of widgets.

Now, turning to the other side and comparing statements and researching facts one can determine that Widgets are a ball shape and have no sharp corners, thus making the first statement incorrect and the second accurate.

I use media for guidelines or to get an avenue to review. I never take any written or TV news ver batim, non of it is reliable. I prefer to see several sides, get a basic overview of my own opinion and then research for evidence or validity of either opinion from there.

This is pretty much all you can do as the first few stories or reports will be so off kilter, they are best used as a starting point for further research.

by jkaras

I phrased my question wrong. I was asking what makes a left wing thought a left wing thought or a right wing thought right? Is a right wing thought the moral majority and the left wing the radical thought or vise versa? Or is it referring to spending to fix the problem of how much to invest or not at all? Everytime I hear of the classification of right and left the person has both views under different issues ie "he's right winged when it's about __________ and left winged during this issue __________. Personally they could be ambydextrious, this footed or that footed, all I care if getting the job done and save the pat on the back, you're just doing your job, it's expected to be effective. Although it is pretty impressive to see someone actually make a difference once and a while since no one in power ever attempts.

To answer Max, I hate widgets, a straight razor blade works just fine and is cheaper. I understand the point of truth is to be sought and earned, but people of the media have a moral responsibility to do the right thing with that info to educate first profit second. If I want entertainment, I'll buy a ticket for admission.

by hal 9000

But of courseit would mean no more Polititions either as this is a whole subspecies who bring self interest to a new meaning.

I've personally dealt with lots of "Pollies" who promise you the world when not in power and then drop you like a hot patato when they get into power.

Then there will be a "Honeymoon" period where they can do no wrong in the publics eyes no matter how much damage that they do and when it come time for the next election they are all nice and helpfull again but with the priviso that they will need to retain power to do what they promise which of course they never seem to get around to doing anyway. Perhaps that where the Americian Inidian saying comes from "White Man Speaks with Forked Tounge!"

From my experience that is a perfect description of any politition anywhere.

Several years ago we where all told that if only there where women in politics things would be so much better but when they got in they just sunk to the common gutter level and nothing changed.

Now let me find my Iron Maden and thumb screws!

by mallardtooxx

To claim that one is too far left or right is in and of itself a fatal bias. I do believe the media is allowing too much personal bias in regular "news". If one is to look literally at the word NEWS, the actual meaning is not what most think, it means North East West South. That means the news comes from everywhere in the known world and thus will naturally have a regional bias.
If someone is to write an opinion piece then IMHO it is okay to allow your viewpoint to be your viewpoint. However if you are going to report on a bombing raid or a knitting circle then you should keep to the facts and just the facts. It is the gleaning of fact that makes news valuable, if someone cannot take what they need from something they read or hear or see, then I think it is their fault that they see only bias.
When in the course of history has the media not been biased? When there was no media. As long as humans dominate the earth there will always be differing views and thus bias. To remove the media bias one of two things must happen, wither the media must be removed or the human race will have to be removed. Honestly I think it would be bad for either to happen, even though I am just a lowly duck.

-duck

by maxwell edison

The Difference Between Liberal (the left) versus Conservative (the right):

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your spouse and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:

I shoot the SOB

----------

I'll give you a more serious answer later. Stay tuned.....

by oz_media

I mean it, that's actualy a perfect example.

Now you would classify me as extreme lft wing I'm sure, whereas I said before, IN Canada I'd be seen as more left-center.

Now in YOU example, I would be thrown in jail for life if I shot the man. This is something else I have to consider when making such a hasty judgement.

I wouldn't shoot without a reason, someone running at me screaming is not what I consider a threat and I would instntly put myself between him and my family fist. If my life was threatened, this only takes a fraction of a second to decide, CAN he kill me and my family or not. NOt a very confusing thought, he either also has a gun or he doesn't.

If he doesn't have a gun, I can't shoot him.
If he has a gun, he'd be dead very fast.

That is a very instant decision that I have had a lot of training on. I can evaluate a risk almost instantly and act appropriately. Unfortunately, the general public can't. Unless you've been placed in the situation, all your forethought is useless, you must have practice.

Thankfully our polic force is also trained the same way, you glance at the subject, hands, feet, and eyes. From this split second evaluation you will know what he was carrying, what he was wearing and what he looked like, instantly.

Your example makes it look as if one would need a laptop to make a decision.

Life or death of a human being cannot be considered so simply. It is this exact attitude that has your president sending young Americans to Iraq, where many do not return alive.

There was no threat from Saddam, there was therefore NO reason for such rapid and poorly planned invasion of Iraq.

Being Liberal doeasn't mean it's not a big easy going, well should we or shouldn't we. Perhaps if we give him time, maybe he will come around. Smoke a bowl and wait til later or anything like that.

All Liberation would do differently in Iraq is consider the outcome of your actions against Iraq BEFORE invading. There may ber other ways to effectively remove saddam and topple the regime without full scale invasion.

What I didn't like was that there is NO tactical thought process behind the Iraq invasion, other than how do we get our boms and soldiers into Iraq as fast as possible.

Bul in a china shop syndrome, the shoot first and ask questions later theory that has put some parts of the US back into the dark ages.

You don't have to sit idly by and you don't have to shoot first. It should be a learned and planned strategy that resolves world issues not a testosterone fuelled freak show.

by maxwell edison

.
...which has been making its way around the Internet and emails, illustrates the difference between the left and right by placing a ridiculous emphasis on the most extreme of the extreme of each side. And that's why I like that joke. It pokes fun equally at both sides.
Of course, reality falls somewhere in the middle.

You'll sometimes notice that a person who has a tendency to lean one way, especially if there is a strong dislike of the other way, will often fling accusations at the "other side" that resemble the ridiculous extreme, as illustrated in the joke.

But, as with any joke, if it has some semblance to the truth, even it it's only one one-hundredth accurate, it will come across as funny. (Leno, Letterman, etc.)

That's why I just laugh at the ones who really think that the most extreme of the extreme has any basis in reality. They often come across as though they think that's the way things really are. (Yea, you'll see some of them post messages around here.) But like I said, in most cases, reality falls somewhere in the middle.

by maxwell edison

.
"The slow allied buildup and positioning of forces took too long."

-Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a military industry think tank (in a paper titled, "lessons from Iraq".)

or

"There was no reason for such a rapid and poorly planned invasion of Iraq."

-OzMentalCase

------------------------------------------

"The pursuit of the Iraq war followed a fairly detailed script. Air superiority was so successful it was essentially taken for granted."

-Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a military industry think tank (in a paper titled, "lessons from Iraq".)

or

"There was no tactical thought process behind the Iraq invasion"

-OzMentalCase

------------------------------------------

?There was a lot, I mean a lot, of time given to planning what they would have to do to ramp up to a conflict?

-Patrick Garrett, associate analyst with Globalsecurity.org, an organization that has tracked the buildup in Iraq.

or

"There was no tactical thought process behind the Iraq invasion"

-OzMentalCase

------------------------------------------

And speaking of bias, which this thread is all about, which opinion shows more bias with less basis in reality, and which is more of an unbiased opinion with more of a basis in reality?

by john_wills

Joan Ryan is a columnist on the SF Chronicle. On Saturday she had a column describing a discussion with pro-lifers outside a PP abortuary and dismissing one of their claims about the latest morning-after pill, namely that it was an abortifacient, as uninformed. On Friday the actual news article in the Chronicle had detailedly described the working of the drug in question, and it was indeed an abortifacient (although a contraceptive too: dual-use). Anyone reading Ryan's column without first having read the scientific article might easily suppose the drug in question to be a plain contraceptive and pro-lifers to be ignorant. Ryan's bias is obvious, but it is not a left- or right-wing bias (Ayn Rand and Vladimir Lenin both favored abortion). Her ignorance - or dishonesty - will mislead people into accepting her bias as more nearly objective truth than it is. It will also make people less likely to accept truthful statements by certain classes of honest people. This kind of reporting is very bad.

by john_wills

"afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted"... why not afflict the comfortable, smug, self-satisfied corporatists like those in Global Exchange, who knowingly advocate trade policies likely to increase poverty in the world? Why not afflict the makers of ideological fashion whose policies have given us AIDS in the North (the South would have got it anyway) and children who grow up dyslexic instead of being cured at 7 (as, thank God and the teacher he sent me to, I was).

by maxwell edison

Okay, you asked for it, so here it is.

Generally speaking (as there could be some argument on particular issues):

Left = Democrat = Liberal = Collectivism = more government. Extreme left = Socialism.

Right = Republican = Conservative = Individualism = less government. Extreme right = Libertarian.

As I suggested earlier, "center" is a matter of perspective.

For the purpose of comparison, I'll refer to OzMentalCase, who called himself left of center, as it relates to the "center" as generally applied in Canada. I call myself right of center as it relates to the "center" as generally applied in the United States. (The same could be said within the U.S. only. People see the center differently) So based on our respective perspectives, which is the definition of "center", I might consider someone like OzMentalCase extreme left, while he would, most likely, consider me extreme right. Moreover, a person might define himself (or others) differently depending on the issue.

I think that three scales could really be considered. 1. Foreign policy and world affairs. 2. Fiscal policy. 3. Social policy. I know many people who consider themselves right of center on fiscal issues, and left of center on social issues. A better gauge of defining center might be found in the answers to some tell-tale questions. (Or is it?)

----------

Foreign policy: The right would place more emphasis and importance on nationalism. The left would place more emphasis and importance on, what might be called, a world community.

I would consider myself way right of center. I might consider OzMentalCase way left of center.

The American left, for example, generally considers the United Nations as more correct and/or more effective than those on the right, who are generally leery of the UN, its motives, and its effectiveness. The right, in general, believes in a stronger military than the left. I, for example, want the biggest and meanest figurative dog on the block, and I don't care what anybody in the world might think about it. Many on the left consider military buildup as looking like a threat to others in the world and counter-productive to achieving world peace, while many on the right consider it necessary regardless of what other nations think. Indeed the right might think that world peace can be achieved better with the deterrence of maintaining a strong military. Yes, I want America to be the dominant force in the world. I see it as a better alternative to anything the world has produced in the last couple of thousand years, and we've only been at it a couple of hundred. I want America to be a leader in the world, not a follower.

----------

Fiscal Policy: The right generally believes in less taxes, and the left generally believes in more taxes, especially for what some might call "the rich" (whoever they are). The right generally believes in less regulation on business, while the left believes in a more regulated business environment. The left is generally associated as being pro-labor, while the right is generally considered pro-business.

I'm right of center on this. I think OzMentalCase may also be right of center, but perhaps not quite as far right as me.

Calvin Coolidge, the 30th U.S. President, said that the business of America is business. I agree, and I cringe at the "evil big business" sentiment that so many people have. However, just as I believe that people need business, I also believe that business needs people. Just as I believe that business should be left alone to grow and excel and profit, I also believe that absolutely no regulation could be dangerous. I'm a capitalist, I believe in the concept of supply and demand, and I don't begrudge anyone for making a profit. Profit is a good thing, not a bad thing. Businesses should not be taxed. The tax is just passed on to the consumer anyway. Unions once had a vital role in the workplace. However, I think they've grown too big and expect too much. A win-win-win outcome should always be sought. Business should win - Workers should win - Consumers should win.

----------

Social Policy: The left believes in higher taxes on those who have higher incomes for the purpose of redistributing income to pay for social programs, while the right believes that taxation for the support of social programs is treading on dangerous ground and could lead to a more socialistic nation. The right believes in more individualism., while the left believes in more collectivism. The left believes in more government involvement in social issues, while the right believes in more individual responsibility to address social issues. The right believes in personal responsibility, while the left might believe in more a more collective environment

Some issues would put me right of center, but some would put me left of center. So on balance, I'd put myself right at center. I would, perhaps, put OzMentalCase left of center.

I believe drugs (social drugs, whatever that really means) should be legalized. America's "war on drugs" is one of our worst failures. But for some reason we keep doing the same thing over and over again, and surprise, we keep getting the same results. How about trying something else, guys? I think drugs should be made legal and regulated much like tobacco and alcohol is. I think if drugs were legal, we could implement better treatment for those who abuse them, and taxes on the product could pay for it. I believe we should pardon all those in prison who are there on "social use" drug charges. We could solve our prison overcrowding problem in one fell swoop. Moreover, all crime associated with the sale and use of drugs would be put out of business overnight. Would people abuse drugs? Well yea, sure they would. But they do now anyway. Is it easier for society to get control of a legal substance or an illegal one? History has shown that, even though billions upon billions are spent, getting control of illegal drugs is a losing proposition. Let's try something different.

I believe the death penalty is wrong, including the death penalty for our fledgling and developing children, something they call abortion. Sure, I believe that a woman has a right to choose whether or not she becomes a mother, but after she becomes a mother is not the time to make that decision. And abortion does not make for very good prenatal care for "mother and child". We need to have a higher respect for the sanctity of life. (Anti-war extremists might consider this a reason for pacifism. However, pacifism, as a matter of national policy is not practical.)

I believe that the legal age for anything and everything should be consistent. I would pick eighteen. (Except for driving, where sixteen seems to be just fine.) It makes no sense that a nineteen year old soldier can't buy a beer.

The words, "Separation of Church and State" appear nowhere in the American Constitution. The establishment of a state religion is prohibited, but that does not mean the state should prohibit anyone's religious preference and/or practice thereof. Giving school voucher money to a religious school does not violate the intended principle, as long as no one religion is favored over another. (How many people spend their G.I. bill money at religious schools like Notre Dame?) Just because some nimrod is offended at the sight of a plastic statue of the baby Jesus in a public setting doesn't mean the state should prohibit it, as long as they don't prohibit any other religious symbols as well.

Political correctness run amok - Get a life people. I have a right to say and do anything I please, as long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights. But the right to not be offended is not one of them. You're offended? Too bad. You have a right to choose whether or not to be offended. If you're offended, you made the wrong choice.

I believe that society should take care of those who truly can't take care of themselves. The government should be the last resort, however, not the first and only resort. Other than the circumstances that would fall into that category, I believe it's inherently wrong for a government to take the property (dollars) of one person who earned it, for the sole purpose of giving it to another person who didn't. I believe in equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. If one person works harder than another, then he deserves a better quality of life than another. And yes, even it that person gets more of life's breaks. Life is not fair, but it's not the role of government to attempt to make it so.

I could go on and on with social issues, but the bottom line and common denominator on almost ANY issue is personal responsibility.

----------

For the purpose of putting all this in the context of the discussion topic, bias in the media, some people think that the reporting of events and/or issues, and even the decision concerning which stories and/or issues to report, is influenced by the personal preference (the bias) of the journalist and/or reporter. For example, if a reporter is very sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, the wording and emphasis might be different than a reporter who might not be as sympathetic. The same could apply to a war, a business related story, or an election. Therefore, in my opinion, getting a good balance is the key to being well-informed. (I even struggled to write the various descriptions without being too obvious as to my bias.)

Agree or disagree or comments? Feel free to chime in.

by oz_media

You made a valid point regarding perceptive bias yet your examples were generally taken out of context.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The slow allied buildup and positioning of forces took too long."
I believe this regards the actual execution of the invasion.

When I said:
"There was no reason for such a rapid and poorly planned invasion of Iraq."

I was referring to the haste in which it was finalized as a resolution and the poor execution mirrors the acove statement as how the invasion was originally executed in a very motley crew style.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The pursuit of the Iraq war followed a fairly detailed script. Air superiority was so successful it was essentially taken for granted."

This suggests a well planned and trained taxtical
formation of the US and UK troops.

When I said:
"There was no tactical thought process behind the Iraq invasion"

I was referring to the absence of needed Canadian recon teams and support. This I believe was shortly after a tank crew was hit and later said to be hit while absent of recon and forced to move onward without needed knowledge.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There was a lot, I mean a lot, of time given to planning what they would have to do to ramp up to a conflict?

Again this refers to the American position only, as well as standard training that ANY force would undergo. In these times of war, America has trained and fought in desert conditions and are well prepared to go to war anytime. This does not reflect the decision making process behind this war, just the military preparedness of the US Army and tactical teams.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perhaps interpretation is a much more important part of the media than the message is.

by oz_media

I think it will change depending on who you are talking to. If a democratic government is in place, I'm sure he will be one of the ten worst, in a Republican government he is seen as ten best.

It's funny to watch from the outside though, almost like the boys one one side of the dance floor while the girls are on he other and everyone wanting to dance yet too shy to get the ball rolling. Would be nice to see a best of both worlds governmentsomewhere.

by maxwell edison

Unless the context of your intentions failed to find its way into your words.

You said one thing, while military experts said another.

Gee, I didn't know that, among all the other areas of expertise you espouse, that you were a world renowned military tactician as well.

Is there anything that you're not the best at?

If there is, one wouldn't know it by your braggadocios know-it-all attitude.

by maxwell edison

The real rating will come after we are both long gone, or at least too damn old to care about it. After the divisiveness of politics can be set aside, and a more balanced perspective can be gathered, I think the rating ultimately given GWB will be fair - whatever it is. Historians are usually not so partisan, since long after the fact it doesn't really matter.

Here is an interesting paper on the subject, one of the better ones I've seen.

The article concludes, "Of one thing we can be certain: Presidential reputations will change. The reputations of controversial recent presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan are particularly likely to either grow or lessen as we get more perspective on their accomplishments and failures. Being president is a tough job. Only one president in each century is rated high enough for us to call them ?great?: George Washington in the 18th century, Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century, and Franklin Roosevelt in the 20th century. Perhaps sometime in this new century, we will have another."

Link:

http://ragz-international.com/pres.pdf

tiny:

http://tinyurl.com/3g4re

I must say, however, that I could imagine folks like the ones contributing to that article might rate GW Bush as something like this. The first president to really take a stand against world-wide terrorism, while the actions of the half-dozen before in him in that regard were either ineffective or non-existent. And if I could make a bet that our grandkids would collect, I'd sure put him, at the very least, in the company of those in the top half.

Something that struck me as odd about the ratings was Ronald Reagan. He was rated at the most under-rated AND second behind JFK as the most over-rated. How could that be, both, I mean? Eisenhower also made both of those lists, as did LBJ. The ratings and explanations do, however, make sense in the full context of the article.

by rabbit_runner

I have decided to jump in here, and am adding a point to the original post.

My problem is not with 'what' or 'how' information is reported. My problem lies with the fact that the different media claim that they are 'neutral' when in fact, they are very biased. Let me give some illustrations.
I enjoy listening to the radio, and in particular Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz, and Rush Limbaugh. Also I like reading articles from FoxNews.com, Townhall.com, and the Jewish World Review (JWR.com) If they are questioned as to whether they are biased, they all will answer 'yes'. They admit that they have a conservative viewpoint plus give reasons why they they hold a particular idea.
On the other hand, you have NY Times, MSNBC.com, CNN, CBS, BBC and others who state that they are 'not biased' They are being neutral in what they say or print. When in fact they are definitely liberal in their outlook. In my mind, there is nothing wrong for them to hold their viewpoint, print articles supporting that view, or broadcasting their perspective.
My problem is that they report with their bias, and (then) claim that they are neutral and NOT biased. This is where I have difficulty. They are being 'two-faced'
I guess that if these organizations were to admit that they have a liberal bias, they may loose readers and listeners. I am not certain that would happen. My news habits will not change. There is ample time when I spend reading their articles and listening to their broadcasts. Even though I am biased towards conservatism, it is my intention to understand those who differ from my perspective.
That is my two-cents worth.

by maxwell edison

If you and I try to rise above our respective personal likes and dislikes, remove the current day political rhetoric (from both sides), and if we were to look at the list of the ratings of Presidents and the stated reasons for the ratings, who on that list might be most comparable to GWB, at least from what we can tell in these early stages?

In the second part of my comparison message, I have selected a past President with whom I've drawn similarities. Not just personality and popularity type similarities, but events and circumstances as well, and their subsequent responses. I thought that, if you felt so inclined, it might be interesting to compare your pick with mine. That's why I put my pick in a separate message, so you could do the exercise without knowing who I picked. This may also be an exercise in objectivity? (Do you think either of us is capable of being objective with such a thing?)

By the way, if anyone else in interested in this fun little exercise, feel free to jump in.

by maxwell edison

I see that George W. Bush has a lot of similarities with Harry S Truman.

Both men are/were rather feisty and curt in their demeanor. Both men are extremely firm in their convictions, disregarding criticism levied against them. Both men squeaked into the White House (even though Truman initially found himself there because of FDR's death) by the slimiest of election margins (Chicago Tribune: Dewey Defeats Truman). Both men had their political legitimacy questioned. Both men were extremely disliked by the opposition party. (Nonpartisan dislike: Truman was a Democrat and Bush is a Republican.) Both men were considered and were accused of being extremely incompetent by the opposition party. Both men had their education questioned. (Truman was the last President, by the way, who didn't have a college degree.) Both men preferred the familiar and comfortable surroundings of their family home to that of the White House. (Bush: Crawford, Texas. Truman: Independence, Missouri) Both men have/had that "good ol' boy" demeanor.

Both men were businessmen before they entered politics. Both men believed that having a strong military (and the use thereof) was more important than having a balanced budget. The Truman Doctrine was a military and political response to what Truman perceived to be a military expansionism on the part of the communists in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Bush War on Terrorism is a military and political response to what Bush perceives to be the expansion of terrorism by terrorists who take refuge in the middle-east. Truman was faced with the dilemma of the spread of communism. Bush is faced with the dilemma of the spread of terrorism. Truman started something, the cold war, that would have to be finished by future administrations. Bush started something, the war on terrorism, that will have to be carried on (and hopefully finished) by future administrations. Both men have/had "the buck stops here" kind of attitude.

Both men were victims of circumstances that were thrust upon them while they were in office. Circumstances which were not of their own making, and subsequently required them to make a most difficult decision that would have world-wide repercussions for generations to come. Both were faced with strong opposition concerning such decisions. Both put their political life on the line by making such a decision. Both put the credibility of the United States on the line by making such a decision. (The respective decisions: GWB's reaction to 9-11 and the war on terrorism, and HST's decision to drop fat-man and little-boy, and later involvement in the war on communism.) Both men were faced with the prospects of building a new world, so to speak. Both men were faced with the rebuilding of war-torn countries and the building of new democracies from the ground up in what were formerly totalitarian nations. Both men were firm in their resolve to stand up for, and defend freedom and liberty. Both men struggled with the prospects of sending American soldiers into harm's way on foreign soil in the defense of freedom and liberty. Both men were brutally criticized by the opposition party for making such a decision. Both men struggled with attaining and maintaining United Nations support in the effort. (Although Truman was more successful in that regard. The United Nations, however, was in its infancy at the time, and more prone to "follow" the lead of the United States.)

George W. Bush and Harry S Truman - A lot of similarities. Will history be as kind to George W. Bush as it has been to Harry S Truman? Only time will tell.

(By the way, Truman is ranked at number seven.)

by oz_media

Well it looks as if surly Max is at the "that's not what YOU said" phase of his existence again.

YES, you completely took these statements out of context as you so often do due to your conprehension disability.

Here's a good idea,they say if you have nothing worthwhile saying, don't say it, so don't.

You offer nothing here other than criticism, your people skills are practically nonexistent unless you are sucking up to gain more friends. Weak and sad to say the least.

I offered an honest and open dicscussion on your topic, you have once again unsuccessfully taken quotes out of context and twisted words to offer SOME form of argument. You are wrong, completely wrong, those comments are WAY out of context and if you have that much trouble understanding things in your old age, perhaps a discussion forum is a little over your head now.

Musilix Max, get your fibre and cheer up for god's sake, you've turned into a miserable, surly old crab of a man and it is demonstrated here daily.

So do us all a favour, heve something constructive to offer for a change instead of just pinning your rants on other people and pointing at other's faults instead of your own.

Man, there's no dealing with you is there, just like your nutbag president who you are so proud of. Oh well, someone's gotta like the gy I suppose. You're both so anal and stupid that you belong together.

What a knob, man, I just can't believe people like you still exist!

by maxwell edison

Your words are right there for all to see. I took nothing you wrote out of context. You are either being disingenuous or dishonest, or you don't know what "out of context" means.

You just don't like being exposed as the fraud you are, do you Harold?

And must you always resort to name calling?

by oz_media

I'm usually the type of person who gives someone ten minutes of my time and that's it, you F*&K up and it's Bye Bye.

I have made several efforts wells over and above any normal human beings acceptance level to try and deal with you in a mature and professional manner >>(this is where you cut and paste previous comments and take them out of context in an attempt to call me a liar)<<.

NO matter HOW the discussion is lead, no matter WHAT the discussion is ergarding, no matter what is said, wither in agreement or disagreement with you. Your ONLY response is negative, you insist on finding SOMETHING you can either minsconstrue and take out of context, correct or disagree with. You just insist on winning at something whether it is a game or not. YOU must be correct, end of story, bottom line. You have NEVER accepted an alternate opinion, from ANYONE that I've seen. You MUST be the leader, whch brings me back to seeing you as a very insecure person.

What I don't understand, and I know you won't answer(but you will flame about something else irrelevant in an attempt to discedit myself)is that you have a serious acceptance problem. Unless you are seen as high and mighty on all fronts, you get stupid with your responses.

I work in promotional media and advertising, what you do with your cut and pasteing of comments is a skill in advertising. I've taken BAD reviews and added them to ptomo as positive reviews, you just have to take things out of context and make yourself look better. It's not new, many may be fooled by it, but others know how you do this first hand and I sure as hell aint gonna buy it, it's BS and you know it as well as anyone.

Oh well you're 50 now, will be 51 next year and with the way you are so concerned about others perceptions of you, you will be dead by 52. I'd hold my breath but it's ineveitable, you miserable existence wont be that much longer and the world will be a better place without another venemous Republican that offers anally retentive suggestions all day. Freak.

FO mon frer.

by maxwell edison

.
OzMentalCase, the master at stating a false premise, and then building an opinion based on that false premise. If someone points out the error of his false premise, he jumps to defend his opinion, which was built on a false premise, and claims that someone is infringing on his right to his opinion. An analogy: OzMentalCase might say that since pigs can fly, it's his opinion that they should be reclassified as birds. "But OzMentalCase, pigs can't fly", someone might say to him. At which point, OzMentalCase blows a fuse and might say, "I have a right to my opinion that pigs should be classified as birds. Just because you disagree, blah blah blah." He never will concede that he stated a false premise. Oh, I know. It was "taken out of context". Yea, right.

OzMentalCase, the master at being an expert at everything. He knows more about military tactics than the most recognized world-renowned military experts. He's an expert at news analysis, even though he's admitted to avoiding the news. He's an expert at American politics, even though he's admittedly naive' in the area of politics. He knows more about America than any and every American. He's an expert at psychoanalyzing people based on a silly Internet message board. Oh, and he can, in a split second, analyze a person in a dark ally and subsequently subdue him. Wow, I'm impressed! He's an expert at business, even more so than someone like Bill Gates. He's an expert on cars, on music, on the recording industry, on world perception, on world events, on war tactics, on business, on technology, on history, on psychology, on law enforcement, on forestry, on foreign policy, on politics, on whatever the topic may happen to be. OzMentalCase knows more than anybody and everybody. He has to one-up everything and everyone, and he always has to have the last word. He's an expert at everything. What an amazing guy. Yea, right. And pigs can really fly.

by oz_media

Other than your out of context statement "Oh, and he can, in a split second, analyze a person in a dark ally and subsequently subdue him."

Please provide the source of the dark alley statemnt, if you're going to quite me at least get it right.

As you've mentioned you don't take things out of context, sow me where you copied and quoted the above statement from.

Just because I've had experience and training in apprehension and self defense does that then make me odd? Can you not protect yourself without just shooting someone? That's weak max.

I have ran a security team at a major hockey/concert venue for over 16 years of events. You do a lot of training in those areas.

I AM very successful in my business endeavors, I have extremely successful professional friends and business associates. Somehow, you've surmised that I also quoted that I know more than Bill Gates. Please provide that source to support your ramble.

You then accuse me of uneducated assumptions? Get bent.

I was just saying to another TR peer that it would almost be worth the money to fly down there and inflict harm upon you just to clear up your anal attitude. That would be in vain though as you would see some other nonrelated reason for getting pumbled.

God you're such an idiot Max, you get so wound up by misconstruing a persons statements into something you disagree with. Then you expact everyone else to see and agree with your warped understanding of the world, which you have admittedly not seen too much of. Ever seen th eocean Max? It's outside your miniscule existence if that helps. You are so insignificant yet mach so many false accusations, is one due to the other?

Look deep inside yourself old man, just make sure you have a gun ready when you do.

I will do you a favour, no longer will I respond to your senseless BS, please be a man and do the same.
Give it up loser, I don't have time for your S&^T.

by maxwell edison

A sentence in the "Read this Second" message read:

Both men squeaked into the White House (even though Truman initially found himself there because of FDR's death) by the slimiest of election margins (Chicago Tribune: Dewey Defeats Truman).

Of course, the typo is in the word "slimiest", whereas it should read "slimmest".

Now that typo really hurts! Ouch, even.

by jardinier

As I tried to explain in my original posting, the media has no legal obligation to tell the truth, apart from statements about actual persons which may be libellous.

Too often I hear the remark: "The media has a moral reponsibility to present the truth or as you have put it: "Educate first, put profit second." As I also explained, each media company's primary responsibility is to make a profit for its shareholders.

Now it would be nice to know that the media has a "moral responsibility .. etc" but who, what or which has imposed this responsibility?

Please note the wording of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No mention there of obligation -- quite the opposite really.

So please, from whence does this moral obligation arise?

by maxwell edison

.
(From an article on T.J. and the press):

A press that is free to investigate and criticize the government is absolutely essential in a nation that practices self-government and is therefore dependent on an educated and enlightened citizenry. On the other hand, newspapers too often take advantage of their freedom and publish lies and scurrilous gossip that could only deceive and mislead the people. Thomas Jefferson himself suffered greatly under the latter kind of press during his presidency. But he was a great believer in the ultimate triumph of truth in the free marketplace of ideas, and looked to that for his final vindication.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1600.htm

http://tinyurl.com/55fx

by thechas

Max,

How come so many of your responses feel like homework?

When I get some free time, I will take a look at the site.

In the holiday spirit, I will not post my comments about George W. Bush.

I have not thought about what past Presidents I would compare George Bush to. I am not the scholar of history and politics that you are.

I base my assessment on what I believe the long term effects the policies and initiatives of the Bush administration will have on the US and the world.

Merry Christmas,

Chas

by oldefar

I thought it was time to move the thread to a new level since the last 10 or so posts were at max.

You ask from where the moral responsibility of the press to report fairly and accurately comes from. As with any moral responsibility, it is a social contract between members of society. This is distinct from any legal obligation, and subject to change when a society as a group deems such change appropriate.

The scope of moral responsibility is inferred by the response of society at large to those who breech its boundaries. The punishment for a moral transgression is equally determined by society at large. Mob action is the most serious punishment.

We all recognize the existense of these moral responsibilities, have a general concept of the boundaries, and an idea of just what punishments may be meeted out. We violate them at our own peril.

by jardinier

is the society at large going to see appropriate for dishonest reporting?

[Thanks for starting the new thread, as it is inappropriate to accuse the media of bias unless there exist some ground rules by which to judge it].

"The punishment for a moral transgression is equally determined by society at large. Mob action is the most serious punishment." Perhaps boycotting the publication might constitute mob action.

"We all recognize the existense of these moral responsibilities, have a general concept of the boundaries, and an idea of just what punishments may be meeted out. We violate them at our own peril."

Simple enough in reference to murder, theft, adultery etc. But biased or inaccurate reporting? What options are there? In the early days of small town newspapers the answers were relatively simple: smash the printing press, beat up the publisher and literally drive him out of business.

So if you can't present an appropriate and realistic punishment in today's world, your fine words are hollow and meaningless.

by oldefar

History is full of examples where a society has taken action against members who violated the social contract. In recent times we can see the issues in Africa, or move back to the fall of the Soviet Union, or further back to any number of revolutions.

Most of the time, social action is taken by the "common man" against one or more segments of the "establishment", and this includes members of the fourth estate.

The social contract and repercussions for violation are similar to how illness or injury impacts an individual. I think you are looking for a degree of detail more along the lines of how such illness or injury would impact individual cells, and that level is too detailed an anlysis.

by thechas

For the major networks in the US, the news staff is no longer independent from the entertainment staff.

Unfortunately, the job for the news staff (as seen by management) is to procure the highest ratings.
One need only look at the stories that run during "sweeps week" to verify the "goal" of network news.

If biased reporting gets more viewers, so be it.

Truth and fairness in network news went out the window a number of years ago.

Chas

by jardinier

While I was pondering this matter, I stumbled onto a new perspective.

A journalist, like any artist, strives to do the best possible work for his/her personal fulfilment. The item is then passed onto a sub-editor for correction of spelling, grammer and facts, and to think up a catchy headline.

The New Editor makes a final perusal to pick up any errors that might still remain.

The editor then realises that if the paper continues to publish high quality, accurate news, this will present a challenge to any competing publication.

And so the self esteem of the initial reporter eventually translates to financial gain for the publication.

by oz_media

I think many of us would agree that although newspapers show SOME bias, the major bias comes from TV reports and live news reports.

THis 'cutting edge' style pf reporting often has reporters on air and filling time with whatever thye can. During these times I think the greatest speculations and assumtions are made. THis will often get dragged on unless proven wrong or corrected. During this time of ad-lib or impromptu reporting, it is generally up to the person on the scene to CREATE a surrounding story to fill in the silence while news is unfolds and ofetn leads to 'ground breaking' reports showing a one sided and often VERY inaccurate report to lead the viewer in a given direction.

With the exception of the Daily Mirror, Star, Enquirer etc. I think the majority of print media needs to be somrwhat liberal for the mere reason of keeping 'public' interest.

Republican print would not be too amusing to read, but the entire world, regardless of political beliefs, wil lbe more receptive to a people oriented or left wing report. Whereas on TV, people want to see Victory, Power and Action. They don't accept dead Amerericans on the news, they would change the channel to see something more positive. This is where I see that the Right-wing, Republican (or Capitalist)corporations's would not support a news report that was showing the negative sides to American actions. These company's strongly suport Bush, and whether or not they are right, I'm sure they don't have much more information than most other Americans do.

If they have the same information as you or I do, why would they not just support thier political belief before they looked for fault in it?

Reporters may be more 'in the know' as they have experienced many reports first hand, this is the reporting that I feel is being restricted by those that pay for the station to be in business.

As with this forum, an idea is useless and an opinion is unsupported or unfavorable of GWB. This I feel is due to the many American TR members that support BUSH, some with good reason, some without. Either way, the loudest voice wins.

As a minority, a left-wing, democratic or socialist view is quickly tagged as biaised and uninteresting by the Republican supporters. THese are the same majorities that determine what is accepted on TV and what isn't. ALL TV networks have a single focus, VIEWERS. No viewers, no station. From a sponsors perspective, lost viewers equals lost sales.

Unfavorable reporting means NO sponsors which means no TV Network. No matter WHO the reporter is, the editors and producers are one and the same with the sponsors, viewers equal money.

Reporters get paid for stories, they aren't the ones paying the TV Network to air those stories.

by hal 9000

Some of the above and even putting in some replys to some of the points raised I think that everyone is missing the point here.

The Media is a business and generally a very BIG BUSINESS and there are no Big Business who show any morals other than making money for their shareholders/Managment.

Particuarly in the Vedio Media the presenters are chosen for their eye appeal hence the term "Eye Candy" and they can not be taken serriously most times particuarly with a breaking story as they always only get partial information. I can remember with the recent Saddam Hussain capture when it was first reported he had $250,000 on him or in his posision but over the ensuring hours thsi figure grew to $750,000 and I don't know what the fional figure was and I honestly don't care either they caught the bastard that is all that matters.

Print media on the other hand doesn't have the same preasures on it and with onr or two publications per day they can at least get their story more correct but even then it is based on what they are told by whoever they can get to tell them so it is natuarally biased as a Police Officer will not Say we caused this sisutation but will say so & so is hold up in the house with hostages {just as an example} and by the time that the truth is available it is "Old News" which no one is interested in reporting anyway. Now what was the saying about the print media todays news tomorrows fish wrappings?

Actually any Media outlet should be treated as what it actually is a money making organisation who make their money on others missery and with the methoids that they employ to gatter news they should at best be treated as suspect and little to no creedence placed on their reporting.

by maxwell edison

'
In a free society, and I'm primarily speaking of the United States (as that is the country with which I am most familiar), the media has a fiduciary responsibility to the general public to be fair and accurate in its reporting. But knowing that, at times, the truth is sometimes "in the eye of the beholder", so to speak, different versions of the same event are inevitable. The key is balance and a proactive public - proactive in the sense to make more of an effort to become informed. (Fat chance!) All too often, however, people don't (or can't) differentiate between an opinion piece and a reporting piece, especially when an editorial masquerading as a news story appears on the front page of a newspaper or is the lead story on the evening news.

by jardinier

"In fact the media has no obligation whatsoever. The various branches of the media are merely industries whose primary function is to return a profit to their shareholders."

And you are under no obligation to wade through any discussion which you find boring, or contains irrelevant postings.

by hal 9000

Ok I?m SORRY for any offence that my above posting has caused. I received a few complaints that I wasn?t taking this discussion seriously but worst of all deriding those who where. This was never my intent and I should have phrased my first remark better but I was only attempting to point out that this was one of the longer posts and took time to read through.

So anyone who was offended by my above post my sincerest apologies and I?d like to say it will never happen again but as sure as there are little green apples I?m bound to upset someone else at sometime even tough it was never intended.

Colin

by oz_media

Your chad system explanation was great. I had no idea it was that primitive in such a technologically advaned society.

As for Canada, we usually just vote by a show of hands, last year Big Whale Tooth got voted in but that was only because he'd put in a full seven sun's worth of deboning on the winter carcass.

I have a good line on some seal meat that's boung to get me voted in next time!

But we live a simpler life here.:-)

by jardinier

a mass revolution by "the people" against the media. Well I can't see that happening in the immediate future.

If you can't give me a straight answer to my question (which evidently you can't) would you do my intellect the courtesy of just saying that you can't, rather than evade the answer with meaningless remarks like:

"and that level is too detailed an anlysis."

by hal 9000

Several years ago. It was in one of th e US Mags and claimed that Indy Cars where inherently safer than F1 cars because they had fewer fatalities involved in using them.

There was a smirk little boy pointing thsi out to me and my first Politically Incorrect responce was this is written by a woman with an axe to grind so it is hardly impartial! Well he just heard the bit about the woman and it went downhill from there. If he didn't want a full and correct answer he should never have asked the question and while I'm sure there are mechanical enginers of the female persuasion out there I've never meet one yet but I've done a lot of interviews with female reporters who always seem to put their own slant on you're direct quotes and while I'm used to being misquoted by reporters {or was back then} the females did a much better job of turning what you said as a positive into a negitive. So you not only have to look at each article but the author that wrote it to find their own prespective behind their own writing style and opinions.

by oz_media

That's an interesting point Colin.

As for women knowing these things, one of the most intelligent racing engineers I've met was a woman, many testosterone filled guys, have a problem with her until a little experience working with her proves that her knowledge is far beyond thier own.

My main parts dealer has a female manager who can talk cars better than ANY of her custoers, she is part of a successful drag racing family and actually was crew chief for the first couple of quarter mile cars I designed. When I walk in the door or call them, I ask for her immediately or wait in the store until she is free, I will always get the right answer or the part that fits correctly by seeing her. She hasn't made a single mistake with my part needs in 9 years.

Being IN the industry, I'd never question a woman's position in the field ever again.

As a general rule though, women know squat about cars, automotive engineering or safety.

These are not MY thoughts but the general concensus I'm sure. Most women are not raised to know about cars and many don't have the phsical strenght or patience with pain to work in the industry full time. ( patience with pain refers to the thousands of skinned knuckles and slamming your hand into a sharp heat shield with every turn of a wrench for an hour straight, not the ability to simply ignore pain but the patience needed to deal with it, over and over again. I also see men with the same inability but less than women because men won't generally admit to being in pain).

by hal 9000

But as I mostly worked in the racing side of the industry I didn't see any female tech's there but then again I wouldn't expect to either as it means long times away from home working all different hours and on a few occasions eating chips with less than clean hands well at least the engine assembly paste is clean but it does have an interesting taste.

I did see a few female mechanics working for dealers but they seemed happy to put in 8 hours a day or whatever it was then and go home they didn't strike me as the types who would mess with a car that just would not start no matter what you did to it for an entire weekend.

I very well remember a Ford Serria which just would not start it was driven onto the car carrier to the track driven off by one of the mechanics and then the guys set to work setting it up for the track and it refused to start afterwards.

After a couple of hours with no luck it was moved to the back and my tream attacked it while the spare car was setup and raced. You should have seen the mess around it we replaced the entire engine managmant system then all the wirring and then the engine which we pulled out of another teams spare car that was running. There where empty cans of Aerostart lying all around it as well as god only knows what else. It ended up a total mess.

But what was the most galling thing was that at the end of the race meeting when it had been returned back to the way it was some mechanic just jumped into it and started it and drove it onto the car carrier. We all just stood there in shock and when he got down he was imediatly attacked with questions on what the hell he had done to get it started.

Well to this day I don't know why it wouldn't play nice and I constantly say that the "Evil Little Deamon that lived inside it Didn't Want to Play that Weekend!" I don't have a better answer and I've long since tried to find one.

But it was interesting as everyone who was running Serrias was involved at some point over the weekend trying to find out what was wrong just in case they encounted the same trouble. But that was one problem that I never got an answer to and have given up trying by now but I did grab one of these cars from a team and tried to recreate the same problem and couldn't but I only wasted 5 weeks trying.

by hal 9000

I don't see the Media any differently to any other big business. I can remember not so long ago a mojor news story was who won Australia Idol. {Big Bloody Deal} news that aint but self serving promoting of one of that TV stations programs it was. I see thas all too oftern and even with the CNN coverage that we get here in the wee small hours of the mourning it is all slanted towards that companies best interests. After all just how often do you actually hear or see an article in bold easly read places stating "Sorry We Got It Wrong?"

With the electronic media thsi never happens and with the print media any retractions are burried far enough back in the paper that very few ever see them on the rare occasion when they admiot to getting something incorrect or just plain wrong. About the closests that I've ever seen was an apology for using the incorrect fottage for an item.

Big business has no morals never did and never will they work for their own best interests and hopefully increase revenue in sales of advertising space or advertising slots. Of course the better ratted the outlet the more they charge for their precious time.

I don't know about the print media in the USA but over here opinions are rated differently to so called facts but even then these articles are still controlled by the managment who set the standard for what thet particular media outlet represents be it political bias, moral bias or whatever.

There are still stories of Rupet Murdock firring reporters/editors for what appeared in his newspapers when he was an Australian Citizen anything he didn't like generally was known instantly and we are a very small market so I guess that was why he moved you're way and set up shop. I can still remember him appearing in front of a Senate Committe about Media Cross Ownership a few months ago and he brought the place down in laughter when he said that he had no secret ambitions for his empire in the USA. I don't know if you saw that one but no one believed him one little bit. News worthy it may have ben but for outright comedy it was great all these serrious people sitting around asking silly questions and then laughing at the answers that they recieved.

Sorry Max but I still see the Media as any other Big Business no morals and no accountability other than to their share holders every so often and to their CEO's and the like when it comes time to arrange payment which like most other companies is outragious for the work that they actually do.

CNN, ABC, ENRON, HIA to me they are all the same the only difference is that they push their own BS and attempt to make us believe them or at least what they say is true.

by thechas

This is at least partially on topic.

I just came across a web site that among other things has a log of conspiracy sites. Talk about bias.

Check out some of the links at www.crank.net

Chas

by oz_media

It does have some links to some pretty F-d up sites. I don't think I even found any =relevant info but it was fun looking at the junko stuff and then running adaware to see how much crap had been installed while checking it all out.

37 entries added to a clean platform before visiting the site! Gotta love these guys with so much time and no lives to live!

This discussion is closed to new replies.