Quoted:
I try to research and understand both sides of an issue/argument using firsthand quotes from authoritative sources involved firsthand in the issue, as well as the obvious (and sometimes not-so-obvious) spin and distortion coming from many sides (read: the corporate/liberal media)
View Quote
Well, there's another thing. We all believe that the media has a liberal bias. Is that true, or is that "liberal media" a lie cooked up by the right-wing propaganda machine?
I think in [b]general[/b] the media does indeed have a liberal bias, but then how do you explain this?
The wave of war protests swept many major cities in this country, and yet coverage in the mainstream media consistently [b]under[/b] reported attendance at the rallies, sometimes by a factor of 10! I know this because out of curiosity, I attended a rally in NYC to see for myself what it was all about (I wasn't really protesting the war, so don't get on my shit. I just wanted to see for myself what it was like and the types of people there). My guess is that there were 300,000 people at the rally. "Official" media reports put the numbers around 100,000.
The rally in DC a month beforehand was similarly underreported. I think the media estimates were around 30,000 (or maybe 13,000?) protesters, but just from looking at the photos you could tell the crowd counters probably failed accounting school.
So why would the media lie to make it appear that there was [b]less[/b] opposition to the war than there really was? If they are so liberal, where were all the anti-war stories? Instead they twisted the facts and inserted reporters which I saw more as cheerleaders for the military than unbiased reporters.
Personally, I think the media sucks up to the president and the ruling party so the big-name reporters keep getting invited back to the Whitehouse dinners and shit.
The first images to come back from the war were people beating their shoes on posters of Saddam Hussein. The American people really thought that the Iraqis were grateful for being "liberated."
Anyways, the point I'm making here is that we can call the media liberal. And it is, but it's not a cut & dried issue. The media coverage I saw was almost exclusively pro-war.
And I started this thread not to debate the war or the coverage of it, but to get people to look at themselves and look at their beliefs and how the media (all media outlets, from the NY Times to conservative talk radio) influences those beliefs. Do we really realize the extent to how we're being "worked" by special interests?
Remember, in the days leading up to the war, some polls said that over 50% of Americans thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and I have seen many people on here use the 3000 dead from the WTC bombing as justification for attacking Iraq. Where do these ideas and beliefs come from, when almost all the hijackers were Saudi Arabian?
I am just bringing up points here. I'm not trying to debate middle eastern foreign policy, but trying to get people to examine all the different groups that are tugging at us for our support. How much of what we "know" is really the truth, and how much of it is fabricated from thin air (like Iraqis being the hijackers?)?
-Nick Viejo.