Friendly Star Trek Discussions Sun Nov 24, 2024 6:05 am  
  SearchSearch   FAQFAQ   Log inLog in   
Political Hostility
View: previous topic :: next topic

stv-archives.com Forum Index -> World News This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.   This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.
Author Message
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 8:33 pm    

I think it has just as much to do with timing as everything else. Of course there is going to be more hostility towards a current president, than a past one. Afterall, why really bother complaining about something finished? I'd say there's equal amounts of disrespect from both sides.


-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 8:40 pm    

Compare the times of Clinton and of Bush and all the attacks that went to both and you'll know that Bush DEFINITELY has a harder time and far more criticism (or at least brutal, hateful attacks) than Clinton. He's the most hated President, even by a proportional few, since Lincoln, at least when he was president. Vicious attacks are all that comes from most liberals, and anti-Bush bias in the media is far more prevalent than anti-Clinton bias, as the media loved Clinton but hates Bush.
I'd say that if you added it all up it would be 35% Clinton, 65% Bush. Both had hard times and staunch, hateful animocity, but Bush has much more hateful animocity and is more prevalent in the media than with Clinton, even though I would agree that overall, if there were no extremes of hateful or non-hateful, both have/have a very similar amount of hostility (minus the extremes, again, and fact that the media is anti-Bush and all).



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
lex
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 226

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 9:03 pm    

RM, I know that we're at different ends of the political spectrum (to put it mildly! LOL), but I hope you'll objectively consider my suggestion that "hatred" is not overall an accurate description, at least in a personal sense, of the anti-Bush sentiment that exists among a significant number of Americans. If you forget, for a moment, the "us/them" dogmatic mentality that characterizes your political opinions, I think you'll see that the reason for the mockery, disapproval, discontent, and eye-rolling exasperation directed against our current president is as widespread as it is because the man deserves it. Most Americans (yes, even Republicans!) feel that he's doing a very poor job as president; his administration is clearly plagued by a variety of trust-shaking problems; both his domestic and foreign policy have antagonized people from both political parties, as his approval ratings clearly demonstrate. Even those who did not support Clinton politically could not (and did not) accuse him (Clinton) of the ineptness demonstrated by Bush, and even those who did support other conservative leaders (Reagan, for instance) did not condemn those leaders for stupidity and incompetence the way they do Bush.

Where there's smoke, there's fire, as the saying goes. You can still be a loyal Republican and not approve of Bush; you can also be a thoughtful Republican, if you take off the blinders for a bit, and objectively consider the man's performance - as many other Republicans have done.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 9:34 pm    

I almost entirely disagree with you.

lex wrote:
RM, I know that we're at different ends of the political spectrum (to put it mildly! LOL), but I hope you'll objectively consider my suggestion that "hatred" is not overall an accurate description, at least in a personal sense, of the anti-Bush sentiment that exists among a significant number of Americans. If you forget, for a moment, the "us/them" dogmatic mentality that characterizes your political opinions, I think you'll see that the reason for the mockery, disapproval, discontent, and eye-rolling exasperation directed against our current president is as widespread as it is because the man deserves it.

He deserves it by YOUR opinion, NOT because he DOES deserve it, but because YOU, a liberal, think that he deserves it. However, at the same time I would agree that he does deserve some criticism on certain issues, but this down-right hatred and the relentless attacks that many on the left are doing to him? NOT deserved. Not even CLOSE.
By hatred I don't simply mean disagreements or discontent. By hatred I mean HATRED. Like the New York Times, which had I believe it was yesterday's issue that had, on the front page, four pictures of this one door at his China conference being locked and him not being able to come out, once again giving the impression that he's stupid, etc, and also came out with two op-ed pieces calling Bush a liar, etc. Hateful. So is much of the bias coming out of other media outlets, like CNN and MSNBC, and from liberals like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rengal, Dennis Kucinich, and others.
And it's NOT the majority of Americans that mock him and attack him and roll their eyes at him--that's a MINORITY that hates him, or borders on hate. Right now a majority of Americans disagree with him, not to say that that's not deserved on some issues, but that doesn't mean that you are right in saying that the hate is wide-spread, when it's not, but my point was that so many liberals and members of the media are hateful of him, not the majority of Americans. And I'm fine with disagreement and anger to some extent. It's sometimes, like on immigration and spending, deserved. But there's NO excuse for these relentless attacks that the media and many liberals are directing towards Bush, Cheney, and other Republicans.
Again, I disagree with him on some things. That's fine. I think you have it incorrect in that part of your assessment, though.


Most Americans (yes, even Republicans!) feel that he's doing a very poor job as president; his administration is clearly plagued by a variety of trust-shaking problems; both his domestic and foreign policy have antagonized people from both political parties, as his approval ratings clearly demonstrate.

Most Americans don't feel that he's doing a "very poor job" as president--that's just liberal spin. What most Americans DO believe, however, is that right now he's not doing a good job. But believe that he's doing a very poor job? No, that's not what most Americans believe, but it's liberal spin and media spin on the polls. Disapproval doesn't necessarily mean "very poor job."

Even those who did not support Clinton politically could not (and did not) accuse him of the ineptness demonstrated by Bush, and even those who did not support other conservative leaders (Reagan, for instance) did not condemn those leaders for stupidity and incompetence the way they do Bush.

You prove my point there. Those that really don't support Bush are so filled with hatred that they always criticize him for being "inept," "dumb," "foolish," a "liar," etc. But that's NOT most Americans, as you are wrongfully trying to make it out to be. Most Americans are clearly turned off by these harsh attacks and don't like them at all. Most Americans DON'T hate this man, or he wouldn't have been re-elected.
It's simply a small minority of Americans that hate him, but the media and the left, in their consistent attacks and spin, make it out to be that it's the majority of Americans--which it clearly is not!
And no, I've heard those who don't like Reagan attack him for being dumb. One even said that he lost his mind in 1985--my assistance Speech and Debate coach last year--instead of when he was affected by Alzheimers in '92, attacking him there. Yes, it may have been rare for Reagan, but again, that proves my point that no President has been hated so much like this president has that it's just dispicable--and it's by a proportional few of Americans, too. The media elite and a lot of liberals. But NOT the average American. It's true that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush right now, but hate him or do what you say above? No. They're just ticked off right now, mostly thanks, I seriously think, to the negative press and spin of the media.
Again, in response to that last part, it's the political landscape right now, and it's factions of the left filled with hate, for some reason, more than they've ever felt before, and so they demean him in such a manner.

"You have to understand that when you criticism you have to do it with RESPECT." That's a quote of Ed Koch, former Dem. NY City mayor responding to the NY Times attacks these past few days. And, mind you, he's a self-admitted liberal. He's disgusted at the media pushing forth a minority viewpoint that Bush is an absolute failure, a liar, and a horrible person--and their absolute hatred of the man.




Where there's smoke, there's fire, as the saying goes. You can still be a loyal Republican and not approve of Bush; you can also be a thoughtful Republican, if you take off the blinders for a bit, and objectively consider the man's performance - as many other Republicans have done.


And again, I have been CRITICAL of Bush in recent days! I was in the NO category to the question "Do you approve of President Bush's performance" for more than a month. You can even ask Exalya to vouch for that, if you need.
He's a FAILURE on Immigration policy, the WORST spender in US history, and has some other things that I don't like. He's not a perfect person, and I do NOT think that criticising him is wrong, or, again I say, that those who dislike this president hate him. I do NOT think, again I say, that those who dislike the president or disagree with him HATE him! Most people don't HATE him. It's just the majority of the media and a large group of liberals that HATE him, truly, not the majority of Americans and NEVER did I say that. STOP taking my words out of context and putting other words into my mouth!!



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 9:53 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
Compare the times of Clinton and of Bush and all the attacks that went to both and you'll know that Bush DEFINITELY has a harder time and far more criticism (or at least brutal, hateful attacks) than Clinton. He's the most hated President, even by a proportional few, since Lincoln, at least when he was president. Vicious attacks are all that comes from most liberals, and anti-Bush bias in the media is far more prevalent than anti-Clinton bias, as the media loved Clinton but hates Bush.
I'd say that if you added it all up it would be 35% Clinton, 65% Bush. Both had hard times and staunch, hateful animocity, but Bush has much more hateful animocity and is more prevalent in the media than with Clinton, even though I would agree that overall, if there were no extremes of hateful or non-hateful, both have/have a very similar amount of hostility (minus the extremes, again, and fact that the media is anti-Bush and all).


The only reason the media paints a less sympathetic view of Bush is because that's what America wants to see. Afterall, people can think for themselves, the media isn't doing all the thinking for them. However, during the Clinton administration, people seemed more content. Another thing is that there are more popular people against Bush than Clinton, so that may also make it seem as if more hostility exists. I doubt it's really all that one sided in the long run.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 9:58 pm    

IntrepidIsMe wrote:
Republican_Man wrote:
Compare the times of Clinton and of Bush and all the attacks that went to both and you'll know that Bush DEFINITELY has a harder time and far more criticism (or at least brutal, hateful attacks) than Clinton. He's the most hated President, even by a proportional few, since Lincoln, at least when he was president. Vicious attacks are all that comes from most liberals, and anti-Bush bias in the media is far more prevalent than anti-Clinton bias, as the media loved Clinton but hates Bush.
I'd say that if you added it all up it would be 35% Clinton, 65% Bush. Both had hard times and staunch, hateful animocity, but Bush has much more hateful animocity and is more prevalent in the media than with Clinton, even though I would agree that overall, if there were no extremes of hateful or non-hateful, both have/have a very similar amount of hostility (minus the extremes, again, and fact that the media is anti-Bush and all).


The only reason the media paints a less sympathetic view of Bush is because that's what America wants to see. Afterall, people can think for themselves, the media isn't doing all the thinking for them. However, during the Clinton administration, people seemed more content. Another thing is that there are more popular people against Bush than Clinton, so that may also make it seem as if more hostility exists. I doubt it's really all that one sided in the long run.


No, it's not. They've been pushing forth such BLATENT, HORRIBLE anti-Bush bias ALL the time, since he took office. And the media, in how they present the news, is influencing them. We are very much influenced by the media, sadly. During Bush's reelection campaign, did the American people want to see anti-Bush bias? Clearly not, but it was there. It's been there since December of 2000, if not sooner. It's the media in their blatent anti-Bush bias that's causing the negative coverage, not the American people.
Besides, look at other articles that aren't just anti-Bush. They're liberal. The media is overwhelmingly liberal and overwhelmingly anti-Conservative, particularly anti-Bush. They have been that way since Watergate. It has nothing to do with the fact that prominent democrats have gone to the dark side and are saying such horrible things. Nothing at all.
It's THEIR bias and that's it. It's always been that way, even during the Carter and Clinton years it's been liberal. The American people want to see fair coverage of the news and not blatent bias. That's why they're switching to Fox, the most successful news company in America now.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Founder
Dominion Leader


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 9:59 pm    

Are people here actually arguing that Clinton is going through what Bush is going through right now? Wow....

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
lex
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 226

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:10 pm    

Ok. I tried.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:11 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:


No, it's not. They've been pushing forth such BLATENT, HORRIBLE anti-Bush bias ALL the time, since he took office. And the media, in how they present the news, is influencing them. We are very much influenced by the media, sadly. During Bush's reelection campaign, did the American people want to see anti-Bush bias? Clearly not, but it was there. It's been there since December of 2000, if not sooner. It's the media in their blatent anti-Bush bias that's causing the negative coverage, not the American people.
Besides, look at other articles that aren't just anti-Bush. They're liberal. The media is overwhelmingly liberal and overwhelmingly anti-Conservative, particularly anti-Bush. They have been that way since Watergate. It has nothing to do with the fact that prominent democrats have gone to the dark side and are saying such horrible things. Nothing at all.
It's THEIR bias and that's it. It's always been that way, even during the Carter and Clinton years it's been liberal. The American people want to see fair coverage of the news and not blatent bias. That's why they're switching to Fox, the most successful news company in America now.



Hmmm, if nearly half of America voted for Kerry, I'd say a fair amount wouldn't have cared if there was any bias against Bush.
I don't think the media would be as hostile if most of America liked Bush, afterall, who would watch? They're simply appeasing to what many Americans want.
So, with Bush's approval rating down in the 30s, last I heard, would the media really want to paint a good image? People would think they were full of *beep*. It's all about profit.
I don't think America is truly as influenced by the news as people seem to think. The facts are all there, no matter what news channel you're watching.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Founder
Dominion Leader


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:15 pm    

Actually people DO care about the bias against Bush. A poll was run and one of the main reasons people voted for Bush was because of the ridiculous and childish attacks that Dem. lowered themselves to. All of the Bush=Hitler pictures, Bush is a monkey, he is stupid, etc. It never stopped. Instead of running a campaign on who is better, they decided to win off of attacking him. Just like Kerry in the debates....

"Senator Kerry? What are you going to do about Iraq?"

"This President lied to us about Iraq!"

"Ok, I didn't ask that. I asked what are you going to do about Iraq..."

"There are no WMDs!!!"

"Ok...one more time. What are you going to about Iraq if elected?"

"Uh...I was in Vietnam! This man did not serve! He was a draft dodger!"

"Ok...moving on..."


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:16 pm    

Yes, people care, but clearly not enough, or not enough of them. The media would change if they did.


-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:17 pm    

It's not about profit. Not anymore. It's all about bias.
And if what you were saying was true, why do more people watch Fox than CNN, Headline News, and MSNBC combined if they want anti-Bush bias, hmmm? And even if a good amount of Americans DID want anti-Bush bias, does that mean that it's justified and approriate? NO! Far from it! He's a sitting president in a TIME OF WAR, and the media, in their HATRED for this president, is attacking him left and right! We are at war! It's DISPICALBE what the media is doing in their hatred. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. Even when Bush's approval ratings were quite high they still attacked him. They are BIASED against him, otherwise, also, the media wouldn't be pushing the "Bush lied" movement too.
I think you're very wrong on this one.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus


Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:17 pm    

Since we seem to be targeting Clinton to compare Bush to, why? They are both in totally dissimilar situations. I know it's cliche, but hello, apples and oranges? Bush is in a unique situation. Unique means "singular, nothing else like it". (hoping we all knew that).
People for the most part don't know how to react. Remember France helping us out back in the 1700's? Do you know how popular that decision was? And the comments about a sitting president being under more fire are totally accurate. But, I guess you're going to believe what you want, so, more power to you.



-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:18 pm    

IntrepidIsMe wrote:
Yes, people care, but clearly not enough, or not enough of them. The media would change if they did.


No, they wouldn't. They never have. And I would think that they would realize this, with all the people moving to Fox. But they don't. Hmmm, wonder why...



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Founder
Dominion Leader


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:20 pm    

The people don't control the media. The media controls the people.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:22 pm    

Theresa wrote:
And the comments about a sitting president being under more fire are totally accurate. But, I guess you're going to believe what you want, so, more power to you.


I agree with that in terms of Clinton being under much less fire now than Bush, and same with Bush senior. After a president leaves office, attacks on him mostly cease. However, what I was talking about was when they were in office (or are, as the case with Bush is) is the comparisons. It's fine to compare the animocity towards Bush and all other presidents, even with their situations being different, though. So yeah, I'm talking about DURING the presidency, not Clinton now compared to Bush now.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:23 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
It's not about profit. Not anymore. It's all about bias.
And if what you were saying was true, why do more people watch Fox than CNN, Headline News, and MSNBC combined if they want anti-Bush bias, hmmm? And even if a good amount of Americans DID want anti-Bush bias, does that mean that it's justified and approriate? NO! Far from it! He's a sitting president in a TIME OF WAR, and the media, in their HATRED for this president, is attacking him left and right! We are at war! It's DISPICALBE what the media is doing in their hatred. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. Even when Bush's approval ratings were quite high they still attacked him. They are BIASED against him, otherwise, also, the media wouldn't be pushing the "Bush lied" movement too.
I think you're very wrong on this one.


I haven't exactly seen any numbers for the moves to Fox, from the other channels?
Of course it isn't appropriate. Is much of TV appropriate? No. But it's still there. Once again, I'd say it's because of what America is moving towards, a more "liberal" outlook. But... that's bad... or something.
Would media companies really risk bankruptcy because of their "personal hate" which supposedly exists? I doubt it. They sway with the public, just like any other good bureaucracy.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Founder
Dominion Leader


Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:29 pm    

You're logic would almost be correct except for the one flaw. Like I pointed out, many people, enough to get Bush to win again, did not like the negative media depctions of Bush.

I do think that the media gets paid to paint a negative picture on ANY topic. It is what sells, but not because the people demand it and love it. Obviously many people do not like the whole "Bush bashing".

The media does have its own bias. They're own stories. Not out to make a buck, but they push their beliefs into the topic of the day.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address  
Reply with quote Back to top
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus


Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:31 pm    

RM, you are in High School, right? Which means you were what, 12 or 13 when Bush was first elected, that's assuming you are at least sixteen or seventeen. So that'd make you fairly young when the whole Clinton thing was going on. Lewinski, Whitewater, etc... I was in my early twenties. () Every time the news came on, or the channel was on CNN, w/e, guess what? Clinton bashing. But it was a bit quieter in the public because people had money in their pockets, and with money, you can forgive anything. Even cigars in odd places in the Oval Office.
Sick, but that's how some people think. The biggest complaint right now isn't even the loss of life, it's the money that this war is costing. Americans, for the most part, are selfish bastards. So, I hold no surprise for any reaction to anything right now. In the long run was the liberation of Iraq a good thing? Of course. Will that be obvious anytime in the near future, or even ten years? Probably not.



-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:34 pm    

IntrepidIsMe wrote:
Republican_Man wrote:
It's not about profit. Not anymore. It's all about bias.
And if what you were saying was true, why do more people watch Fox than CNN, Headline News, and MSNBC combined if they want anti-Bush bias, hmmm? And even if a good amount of Americans DID want anti-Bush bias, does that mean that it's justified and approriate? NO! Far from it! He's a sitting president in a TIME OF WAR, and the media, in their HATRED for this president, is attacking him left and right! We are at war! It's DISPICALBE what the media is doing in their hatred. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. Even when Bush's approval ratings were quite high they still attacked him. They are BIASED against him, otherwise, also, the media wouldn't be pushing the "Bush lied" movement too.
I think you're very wrong on this one.


I haven't exactly seen any numbers for the moves to Fox, from the other channels?
Of course it isn't appropriate. Is much of TV appropriate? No. But it's still there. Once again, I'd say it's because of what America is moving towards, a more "liberal" outlook. But... that's bad... or something.
Would media companies really risk bankruptcy because of their "personal hate" which supposedly exists? I doubt it. They sway with the public, just like any other good bureaucracy.


Yes, they would, and they have. That's why different liberal media outlets are failing. Do a search for your own stats, if you need to. You'll find them. Plus, there are far-left papers like Florida's St. Petersburg (I think it's that) Times, which is losing customers and failing rapidly, all because it's keeping it's outrageously liberal bias. Proof that media outlets care more about bias than profit.
And also, America becoming more liberal? Far from it! Just because they're disapproving of Bush right now doesn't mean they're becoming more liberal! And if they are, why is the LA Times, for instance, going through a little bit of reform, trying to become a bit more balanced? Why does MSNBC, despite it's otherwise outrageously liberal bias, have two shows hosted by "conservatives" in a row now? They're trying to get more viewers by adding in a LITTLE bit of a more open standpoint, while still keeping their bias. And despite these attempts, however, their bias has gone down little.
The US is not becoming more liberal. I would argue that the opposite is true. And the media is not more liberal for profit. That's entirely ridiculous. They simply are liberal because that's the way their bias is and has always been. You can live if your own little land of oz if you want. That's fine by me.



-------signature-------

"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:35 pm    

Founder wrote:
You're logic would almost be correct except for the one flaw. Like I pointed out, many people, enough to get Bush to win again, did not like the negative media depctions of Bush.

I do think that the media gets paid to paint a negative picture on ANY topic. It is what sells, but not because the people demand it and love it. Obviously many people do not like the whole "Bush bashing".

The media does have its own bias. They're own stories. Not out to make a buck, but they push their beliefs into the topic of the day.


Yes, you're right about not enough people falling into the bias to vote Bush out of the presidency, but how many did? Nearly half of all the votes. That's a very large number of Americans. And with his approval rating in the 30s, more of those people that did vote for Bush are now on the other side.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus


Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:39 pm    

RM wrote:
You can live if your own little land of oz if you want. That's fine by me.



If you're going to make it personal, stop posting? You aren't offering any facts. Merely your speculation. Any facts you did offer-ish, were quickly rebutted, yet you say that they are lies, like the CNN glitch, w/ no proof. So, there's a bit of fantasy there, no?
Anyway, go take a few deep breaths, and stick to the issue,



-------signature-------

Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:46 pm    

Republican_Man wrote:
Yes, they would, and they have. That's why different liberal media outlets are failing. Do a search for your own stats, if you need to. You'll find them. Plus, there are far-left papers like Florida's St. Petersburg (I think it's that) Times, which is losing customers and failing rapidly, all because it's keeping it's outrageously liberal bias. Proof that media outlets care more about bias than profit.
And also, America becoming more liberal? Far from it! Just because they're disapproving of Bush right now doesn't mean they're becoming more liberal! And if they are, why is the LA Times, for instance, going through a little bit of reform, trying to become a bit more balanced? Why does MSNBC, despite it's otherwise outrageously liberal bias, have two shows hosted by "conservatives" in a row now? They're trying to get more viewers by adding in a LITTLE bit of a more open standpoint, while still keeping their bias. And despite these attempts, however, their bias has gone down little.
The US is not becoming more liberal. I would argue that the opposite is true. And the media is not more liberal for profit. That's entirely ridiculous. They simply are liberal because that's the way their bias is and has always been. You can live if your own little land of oz if you want. That's fine by me.


By more liberal I meant more and more liberal issues are coming up that many Americans are more and more open to. Such as gay marriage, it wasn't an issue before, but now is. Why? Because America is more accepting of the issue.
Hmmm, I'll stand by the fact that the issue that drives all companies is money. Without the company, the people with the bias wouldn't have a job. So, would they go so far as to let their own bias destroy them? Most likely not, unless they were suicidal.
And I believe it's up to the one who offers up the facts to do the research. Unless the rules of debate have changed.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative


Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 10:55 pm    

(Some of these thoughts may be leaving out a bit, but I'm just not in the mood to re-read everything again. Just an FYI about that. )

Theresa wrote:
RM, you are in High School, right? Which means you were what, 12 or 13 when Bush was first elected, that's assuming you are at least sixteen or seventeen. So that'd make you fairly young when the whole Clinton thing was going on. Lewinski, Whitewater, etc... I was in my early twenties. () Every time the news came on, or the channel was on CNN, w/e, guess what? Clinton bashing. But it was a bit quieter in the public because people had money in their pockets, and with money, you can forgive anything. Even cigars in odd places in the Oval Office.
Sick, but that's how some people think. The biggest complaint right now isn't even the loss of life, it's the money that this war is costing. Americans, for the most part, are selfish bastards. So, I hold no surprise for any reaction to anything right now. In the long run was the liberation of Iraq a good thing? Of course. Will that be obvious anytime in the near future, or even ten years? Probably not.


True, I don't remember it. But I've done research and heard from people like my parents--who are FAR from conservative--and my grandpa. Maybe during Lewinski their was Clinton-bashing, but that's pretty much it. It wasn't nearly as extreme as Bush, and that's a fact. Otherwise, why would CNN, for instance, be knicknamed the "Clinton News Network?" That's right. Overall, they loved the Clinton's. It's just that at certain points in time there was a lot of scrutiny into Clinton because of the Lewinski thing. That was a sex scandal of presidential proportions. You think that's not gonna get big news? Of course it was. And there was more reason to have great scrutiny into the Whitewater scandal than there is into pre-war Iraq intel--that is to say this "lying" stuff. It was more valid than these vicious attacks on Bush for that. Not that all the stuff revolving around that was all valid, but still. It involved loads of money, and clearly that's important. But when you have the continuous ranting of people in the media supporting or enabling baseless accusations of lying and misleading on going to war, it's wrong--and that tells you something.
Regardless, the media still loved Clinton a lot more than it loves, and after the Clinton years simply adores him.
Just because I'm not old enough to remember much of the Clinton years doesn't mean that I'm not knowledgable enough to form an opinion on it. To say that is, in my opinion, not right. It's another argument that teens/kids don't know any better, so they should just shut their mouths, I think. And I personally don't like that philosophy. (That's what I take from that, mind you--it's not necessarily your insinuation, I know. )

And Intrepid, I think that the reason why certain issues that used to not be in public debate are due to increasing pressure from a variety of liberal and progressive special interest groups--not because most Americans are for such things. Plus, if you look at how many liberal states have been pushing this into the public debate in their states, naturally it's going to slide over to other states. It's logical.
I believe that, if you look at the votes state-by-state too, most Americans believe, for instance, in civil unions but not gay marriage. I happen to be in that position, but I really think that Americans, which truly are statistically more religious and conservative than almost any other planet on the country, are more intent on being in the center on such an issue than on one of the fringes.



Btw, on my FOX, CNN, and MSNBC thing, here's an article I found in a search.

Quote:
Tuesday, 4-27-04

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 27, 2004--FOX News Channel (FNC) beat CNN and MSNBC combined in viewership and demographics in the Prime Time and 24-Hour time periods for April '04, according to Nielsen Media Research.

In addition, FNC continued its dominance capturing ten out of the top eleven shows in cable news. CNN's only show in the top eleven, Larry King Live, remained at number four with 1,335,000 viewers. King trailed FNC's The O'Reilly Factor (2,240,000 viewers), Hannity & Colmes (1,638,000 viewers) and The FOX Report with Shepard Smtih (1,465,000 viewers) respectively.

While all news networks suffered a drop-off from last April's ratings, FNC demonstrated the smallest drop in both the Prime Time and 24-hour time periods. FNC averaged 1,497,000 viewers in Prime Time, whereas CNN and MSNBC combined to average only 1,156,000 viewers. MSNBC lost nearly three-quarters of its April 2003 Prime Time audience and CNN plummeted 63% in Prime Time viewership.

In the 24-Hour Time period, FNC averaged 884,000 viewers vs. the 713,000 viewers CNN and MSNBC drew collectively. Again, MSNBC saw 72% of its audience vaporize and CNN almost matched it with 69% of its audience vanishing from April '03.

April's big losers included CNN's much hyped Paula Zahn Now and Wolf Blitzer Live, down 72% and 65% respectively from Apr. '03. On MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Lester Holt Live were down 69% and 82% respectively from their Apr. '03 averages.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed


Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York

PostTue Nov 22, 2005 11:05 pm    

Hmm, that article is from April of '04.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/fncs_2554_prime_downward_spiral_20939.asp

That one is April of '05. Seems that the reverse is happening now.



-------signature-------

"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

-Wuthering Heights

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger 
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Goto Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.   This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.



Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com