Reptile & Amphibian Forums

From the DOD web site - and before you get you undies all in a twist and claim its just the DOD's liberal bias, let me assure you the evidence indicates otherwise...

Joe
=====================================================
DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
 
A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, from Douglas J. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony.  One of the questions posed by the committee asked the department to provide the reports from the intelligence community to which he referred in his testimony before the committee.  These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
 
The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the intelligence community.
 
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency.  The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community.  The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question.  The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.
 
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

First, that report doesn't bother me one bit.(My undies are just fine, thanks for your concern. ) It just goes back to my original contention that this should have been covered in the mass media (in my opinion) and it was nowhere to be found as far as I am aware. I would love to hear this kind of info. on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. but, I never would have even known of its existence if it wasn't for listening to right wing radio which pointed me to the weekly standard. I never even heard about it on any 24-hour cable news stations. I bet you never would have known about it either, if I hadn't mentioned it. Obviously, the reports of this link did exist by your references own admission, and in my opinion it is important and it is newsworthy considering how much time the media has spent saying that there is no link over the past 2 years. I keep seeing this by the media. Ignore as much as you can that is pro-conservative, and over emphasize anything pro-liberal. That is one reason I labeled my post. "has anyone seen this yet". I figured no one else had, because it was too pro-conservative to be covered by the media.

When I was in high school (about 25 years) we did an experiment to test the bias of the media. About twice as much time was spent reporting on pro-liberal topics as pro-conservative. (part of the assignment was to take a stop watch and time the reports.) Different groups in the class were assigned different TV channels, and each person was to watch the news and take times and then the info was all averaged, correlated, etc. About 2/3 of the news time was pro-liberal and 1/3 pro-conservative. I have seen this bias get considerably worse over the last 20 years, and considering that the vast majority of college professors are also liberal, I don't see this liberalizing of America changing anytime soon, and I think it is very dangerous for the country. The news should report the news, period. Not make political editorials and shape public opinion. College should educate,period-not shape public opinion to comply with the political views of its professors. Imagine how mad liberals would be if most college professors and most media were conservative biased.

Rodney

Rodney,

The reporter who wrote the Weekly Standard article was on CNN at least 24 hours before you posted it here. So your wrong there.

Second, most reliable media will make some effort to affirm the reliability of a report such as this before they report it. Obviously rags like the Weekly Standard, Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh are not interested in verifying sources, which is also why they are not serious journalists.

Fox News's own terrorist expert, on Bill O'Reilly no less, saif the report was basically completely flawed. And although I never would have thought I'd be referencing Fox News, in this case they were willing to report an unbiased story - must be a first for O'Reilly.

I'm sorry you were in high school for 25 years, but do I really have to tell you your little experiment doesn't carry a lot of weight? Hey, did you try to publish your research?

Joe

LOL, that's funny--25 years in high school! Man would my parents have been pissed! Actually, I skipped a year or two and took sciences and math classes a bit earlier than my peers. I wish I could remember my softmore Calculus classes better than I do though, I can't remember much about that anymore.

I'm sorry I missed those reports, I'll try to catch a rerun of O'Reilly late tonight. One other thing I did hear today was that Terik Aziz testified about personal multiple meetings with Osama in 1997, and some earlier meetings, when he was still the vice-Premier of Iraq. (though I don't really give him much credibility after listening to Baghdad Bob!) I also distinctly remember al Qaeda members that were captured in Afghanistan reporting how they were trained in Iraq on both hijacking planes and on chemical and biological warfare, and that the bases they said they trained at did exist and were exactly where they said they were. Plus, plane hulls were found in those training bases in Iraq. While all this evidence may not be conclusive in many people's eyes, it is pretty weighty in mine.

After seeing all the terrorist bombings in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and now Turkey, I think Bush was right on the money when he said that we can fight them over there or over here. I am amazed how many Muslim countries have been hit since 9/11, yet we have not.

And no, as far as I am aware, my high school social studies teacher didn't publish those reports-it was a simple experiment to try to determine if the media was biased like many have said. If you take a stop watch, and watch a non-cable newscast like ABC, CBS or NBC, it will be obvious to you what I am talking about. (assuming you can unbiasedly categorize what you are viewing as pro-liberal or pro-conservative.--that's another thing we had to do, discuss and classify what was what.)

Rodney

Rodney,

I asked you if you published your high school research on media bias and you said, "And no, as far as I am aware, my high school social studies teacher didn't publish those reports"

Do you understand why thats a pretty sad thing for you to say? I mean, really, you do know, don't you? And if so, why did you say it?

And you also said,
"assuming you can unbiasedly categorize what you are viewing as pro-liberal or pro-conservative.--that's another thing we had to do, discuss and classify what was what.) "

So, how did you distinguish liberal from conservative? If you don't recall, I'm sure you can describe a new distinction today. Maybe we can all do your experiment togther?

Joe

I said it because anyone that doesn't think there is bias in the media can easily take a stopwatch and do the experiment themselves. That way, you can prove it to yourself, instead of just taking someone's word for it. It's very easy to do, and doesn't cost anything. (as long as you have a digital watch or some other time keeping device that can easily be read quickly). Or, you could do it using a VCR by taping the news and just use the display and record that.--a great experiment for families to perform together too.

I hope everyone that thinks there isn't media bias, or that the media is biased toward the right, and reads this post, tries this experiment.--It'll only cost you some of your time after all. You sould use elite media (like abc, cbs, nbc) for this because pretty much everyone in the country gets it and most seem to agree that it is the fairest (most middle of the road) and largest out there. Or you could try this experiment on multiple news sources. Obviously, there is one media source out there that is conservative biased--FOX news. I am sure that is why they have the highest rating of all news channels. With all the liberal news channels to choose from out there, they thin out their ratings by fighting for the same viewers. The most important thing, is to be fair when analyzing what is pro-conservative and what is pro-liberal. When you eliminate the weather, sports, etc. it really doesn't take that long to do. Obviously, depending on where you live, your results will vary. Places like New York, D.C., and California will be very liberal compared to the bible belt states.--But I bet most people, honestly doing this experiment, will find their results will show a lot more time is spent on pro-liberal stories than on pro-conservative. I also recommend doing this over a few nights because certain stories will slant the results if you only use a one night sample.

I figure other people are probably reading some of these posts and they can do the experiment easily enough to prove it to themselves.--that's why I said it. Too many people believe whatever someone tells them without wanting evidence or performing experiments to see if what they were told is really true. Look how many people think that there is evidence of global warming just because some liberal types with links to environmentalist groups keep saying that it is so. How many people know that about 10 times as many scientist say there is no evidence for global warming as there are that do?--Question, think, reason and experiment for yourselves--don't just believe what you are told by someone who is probably very biased!

Rodney

Thats pretty sad Rodney. You actually totally missed the point. You took the time to explain that we should use a digital watch, and that media bias may vary from Los Angeles to Alabama (thanks for those brilliant insights, by the way) but you neglected to tell us how to eliminate observational error in our research.

How do we tell whats liberal and whats conservative? If your conservative might you perceive liberal bias where I would not?

The very fact that you apparently believe that you or I (let alone a bunch of high school kids) could arrive at any results worth pondering is amusing, and telling.

Joe

Frankly, I don't find it that hard to tell when a story is supporting a liberal argument or a conservative one. It used to be a bit harder to tell, but the news keeps getting more and more brazen about it.

When the news shows protesters in the streets and interviews them night after night after night, it's pretty easy to see that the news is giving their side of the story a lot more press time than the majority of the people who support this war and only get a very small blurb. Why should a minority opinion get so much more air time than the majority opinion, about the exact same subject?

I remember during the primaries when a woman reporter said in a very dull tone of voice, and looking very bored, bush won again by a margin of 30%, in such and such a state. Her face then lit up, she smiled, and she said, Gore crushed his competition by getting 51% to 47%.--it was pretty offensive and obvious to anyone who is the least bit objective. 4% is a crushing victory but a 30% margin win isn't anything special? If you can't see things like this as being biased, it is very sad, and I worry for our countries future when we are producing people that can't see it like it is.

Rodney

Rodney,

I know *you* don't have trouble telling conservative from liberal bias, just like *I* don't have any trouble doing the same. The problem comes from the fact that your list and mine would bare little resemblance. I'm really surprised that this is not obvious - even to you.

Do you really not understand?

I asked you to explain how you tell the difference - you came back with suggestions about videotape and digital watches: brilliant.

Since its "easy" to tell the difference, would you please explain how? I know you gave an example, but that doesn't explain your technique - just provides an example. What we need, if we are going to pursue this fascinating research is a way to tell liberal bias from conservative.

How many different ways do I have to ask that question?

Joe

I know *you* don't have trouble telling conservative from liberal bias, just like *I* don't have any trouble doing the same. The problem comes from the fact that your list and mine would bare little resemblance. I'm really surprised that this is not obvious - even to you.

Do you really not understand?

Yes, I obviously understand what you are saying, it's quite simple. You don't seem to understand what I am saying. If we both honestly try that experiment, and we both come up with similar results, you can be fairly sure that the media is biased! If, for instance, I find the news is pro-liberal 75% of the time and pro-conservative 25% of the time, and you find that the news is pro-liberal 51% of the time (or more) and pro-conservative 49% of the time (or less), even though our views of what exactly is liberal and what is conservative might be different, we both still come to the same conclusion that the news is pro-liberal more than it is pro-conservative, and thus biased. If 100 people do this same experiment (50% being liberal and 50% being conservative), and at the end of the experiment, 99 say the media is pro-liberal and 1 does not, wouldn't that prove it to you? How about if 51 of those 100 said it was pro-liberal? That would prove it to me! The broadcast news is so lopsided, that even someone with liberal leanings should be able to see the bias, if they honestly asses the situation. I could easily see that when the republicans were going after Clinton, that story was pro-conservative. And the people who were claiming that it is OK to lie under oath if it is just about sex were pro-liberal.

When 2 people recount a crime to a police officer, the things they agree on are most likely true and things they don't agree on are either somewhere in the middle, or only one person is telling the truth. Same thing here. If most people who do the experiment come up with the same results, you can be pretty sure that that is the case, even though they have different views. Their views become irrelevant if they come up with the same facts/results.

I asked you to explain how you tell the difference - you came back with suggestions about videotape and digital watches: brilliant.

How many different ways do I have to ask that question?

First, when the news spends 5 minutes showing and interviewing antiwar protesters, and asks many of them their opinion of the war, and they show this on the network news night, after night, after night, from many different cities, and they don't spend a single second of air time asking a single person who supports the war why they do so, that is biased. Just because they put in a 5 second blurb that most people support the war, doesn't mean they have undone the shaping of peoples opinions by those 5 minute pro-liberal clips every night. Especially when you consider that there are more people who support the war than do not. They should have at least an equal amount of coverage asking people who support the war, why they do so. Going by percentages, they should have more pro-war interviews than antiwar. Yet, you almost never see any of these pro-war interviews on the news. (Gasp!-You don't think they might be editing them out because they are biased do you?) If you can't see bias in that, you are blind. I am sure I have seen many dozens, if not hundreds, of people interviewed by the major networks that are antiwar and not a single one that told why they were for the war. (again, on broadcast news, yes, I have seen supporters on Fox News, but not on ABC, CBS, NBC.--there might be one or two out there, but their numbers come nowhere close to that of the antiwar interviews). If are unable to see that bias, even though you have liberal views, you are simply not being honest. Measuring the time the news spends on pro-liberal issues vs. pro-conservative issues just makes this bias easier to quantify.-That is all I was saying regarding the VCR. If the news spends all, or most, of their time only telling one side of a story, or one political viewpoint, when most people support the other side, that is biased.

Now, there is a far higher percentage of people that are antiwar that are democrats than there are that are republicans. There is also a far higher percentage of pro-war republicans than there are pro-war democrats. Most republicans in office support Bush and this war, while most democrats in office are speaking out against it and against Bush. Can't we agree that going to this war is a pro-conservative position and the protests against it are pro-liberal? Even though there are a few conservatives against the war and a few democrats for it, we should be able to objectively see these political positions. If we can't agree on that, then one of us is not being truthful. (I think the vast majority of people would) Then, any news stories that show the war as not going well (when it has been the fastest, lowest casualty war of this size in history, with none of the prewar concerns occurring) are pro-liberal biased. There's nothing wrong with telling the truth about the deaths of our soldiers, but not giving at least equal time to all the amazing successes is biased. If you tell of soldiers getting killed night after night, and you don't mention the many hundreds of patrols that went fine night after night, you are biased. In the same respect, if you show only successes and no losses, then you are being conservative biased.

Second, here is the technique I use. There are basic values that make people conservatives or liberals. They consider themselves part of that group because they agree with that group most of the time. If you don't know what those values are, now we have a problem!

For instance, I am an atheist, but I understand that most republicans are religious. I don't have to believe in god in order to understand this fact. I agree with republican ideas and values the vast majority of the time. When the ACLU or some other group tries to eliminate voluntary prayer or any religious act from a government office or a public place, I can easily see that it is a pro-liberal group doing so, and a pro-conservative group fighting them. My beliefs are irrelevant. Most conservatives understand that not letting the government establish a religion is completely different from the zero tolerance stance of total separation of church and state that most liberal groups take.

Let's see some other subjects here and how I would rate them.

legalizing drugs-pro liberal
legal abortions-pro liberal
welfare increases-pro liberal
pro environmental causes-pro liberal
more taxes-pro liberal
more govt. services-pro liberal
no school vouchers-pro liberal
antinuclear power-pro liberal
no drilling in Anwar-pro liberal
anti-death penalty-pro liberal
more gun laws-pro liberal
pro-union-pro liberal

more money for defence-pro conservative
less taxes-pro conservative
pro business-pro-conservative
school vouchers-pro conservative
drilling in Anwar-pro conservative
pro-death penalty-pro conservative
pro nuclear power-pro conservative
no more gun laws-pro conservative

You might rate these slightly different, but if you rate them substantially different, you are either a conservative or I am a liberal!

We might not agree 100% of the time on all these classifications, but are you still unable to see the differences here? The position that the entire group takes is that groups position, period. If most liberals support abortion, then abortion is a pro-liberal issue, your personal position is irrelevant. That is very easy for me to see. If you can view the news using your parties position, (not your personal position) and rate the stories based on this, you should get an accurate media bias test. If you can't rate the news stories you see without using your personal position, your test will not be accurate. If you don't know your political party's position on most issues, I suggest you either change parties or educate yourself about your party's positions.

Rodney

I actually first heard about this on Comedy Central...their "news" program, The Daily Show.

Go figure.

As to its credibility....if the information was truly leaked and wasn't supposed to be, then it's entirely possible that the contents revealed would then be denied by "the powers that be." It's also probable that such a leak would be turned down by the prominant news sources because it doesn't fit in with their Bush-bashing agendas, and it was then botched by a too-eager, unreliable right-wing rag.

I don't know...I'm just speculating on possibilities.