Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I noticed a lot of people are misinformed about Bush policies and the war in Iraq, as well as the war on terror. I've always wondered how this could be. I think the article below explains it well. And here's a tip for anyone out there who actually does want to try to actually undersatnd issues, rather than just be a cheerleader for a cause: DON'T waste your time listening to radical right wing radio like Limbaugh, Hannity, ad nauseum. These clowns will teach you nothing except how to talk dumb in public - just look what years of listening has done to our friend rodney

Esteemed journalist lectures on ethics

The media industry has been infested by the rise of pseudo-journalists who go against journalism's long tradition to serve the public with accurate information, Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll told a packed room in the Gerlinger Lounge on Thursday.

[clip]

"All over the country there are offices that look like newsrooms and there are people in those offices that look for all the world just like journalists, but they are not practicing journalism," he said. "They regard the audience with a cold cynicism. They are practicing something I call a pseudo-journalism, and they view their audience as something to be manipulated."

In a scathing critique of Fox News and some talk show hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly, Carroll said they were a "different breed of journalists" who misled their audience while claiming to inform them. He said they did not fit into the long legacy of journalists who got their facts right and respected and cared for their audiences.

Carroll cited a study released last year that showed Americans had three main
misconceptions about Iraq: That weapons of mass destruction had been found, a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq had been demonstrated and that the world approved of U.S intervention in Iraq. He said 80 percent of people who primarily got their news from Fox believed at least one of the misconceptions. He said the figure was more than 57 percentage points higher than people who get their news from public news broadcasting.

"How in the world could Fox have left its listeners so deeply in the dark?" Carroll asked.
Article Link

Gee, a newspaper editor from a newspaper that is constantly being accused of liberal bias, thinks Fox is conservative biased? That's a shock! And this article calls him esteemed?

And he tries to make a conclusion that because the public that views FOX News answers certain questions, that are themselves biased, a certain way, that FOX must be misleading them?

Did it ever occur to him that these poll answers were based on the individuals bias, and had nothing to do with FOX's reporting? That conservatives that don't watch FOX would answer in a similar way? Or that liberals would answer the opposite just because of their bias?

For instance, when resolution 1441 was unanimously signed by the UN, and represented as a last resort to prevent war, and the resolution clearly stated there would be severe consequences, this would indicate to many people that at that time, the entire world was behind this war. Also, there was the overwhelming congressional vote (again, unanimous I believe) to give Bush the authority to wage this war. One could also argue that since there was a coalition of over 40 countries supporting this war, that the world was behind this war.

One could also argue that since the UN wouldn't enforce it's own resolution, the world wasn't willing enough to go to war, just to enforce this resolution, so the world was not for this war.

So, which view is correct? Is one a misinformed view and the other not? I clearly think the former is a much better argument. Does that mean I would be wrong to answer a question as vague as "Do you think the world was behind this war?" in the affirmative? I don't think answering this question in either way shows that you are misinformed. But that is clearly the conclusion he is trying to make.

Then there is the Al-Queda/Iraq link question.

I believe there is a link for a number of reasons. Personally, I think the Al Qaeda members that were captured in Afghanistan that said they were trained in chemical warfare in Iraq, and the terrorist (captured with chemical weapons by Jordan last month) that said they were recruited by Iraq, and Tariq Aziz's testimony that he regularly met with Osama in the late 90s when he was still Saddam's right hand man (the vice prime minister of Iraq), and the plane hulls that were found in Iraq for training hijacking (an Al-Queda tactic) are all credible reasons to believe there is a link between Iraq to Al Queda.

I think there is a link because of any or all these reasons. Is that being misinformed? Would someone who only listens to liberal news shows be aware of all these events? Would ignoring these things be misinformed? Would someone who listens to liberal news shows answer these questions the same way I would? And would our collective biases not influence our answers far more than whether we watch FOX news or not?

Clearly, If you have a biased belief as to what the correct answer to these polls is, then you could make the argument that FOX listeners are misinformed just as easily as you could argue that they are better informed. Depends on which answer you believe doesn't it? And that answer also depends on the vagueness of the question and the way in which it is asked.

Has he compared this poll to another poll of the public that listens only to liberal news to see if they are better informed about conservative views? No, he is only quoting a poll of the conservative public, being questioned about liberal points, using liberal answers, and comparing that to a the same poll of the liberal public--very unscientific.

For instance, if you polled individuals that never listened to FOX news, how many of this group understand that Iraq violated many other aspects (like long range weapons, WMD programs, etc. ) and any one violation is as good as any other? How many of them know that Iraq has been violating virtually every aspect of the peace treaty they signed (and on a daily basis), after they were pushed back into Iraq from their invasion of Quait? That finding WMDs isn't really that important when all these other weapon violations have been found? That chemical weapons were found in a terrorist attack attempt that was thwarted by Jordan. That Jordan, an arab nation, has said that these weapons came from Syria when these terrorist entered their country? That it is possible these weapons may have come from Iraq, since Syria is where it is believed that they may have been hidded? How many of them understand that the UN voted unanimously that there would be serious consequences if Iraq didn't comply with 1441, and when they didn't comply, the UN didn't act?

Would you find that people who listen to liberal media, when polled about conservative points and opinions, would be just as misinformed? My guess is that it would be yes!

------------
I wonder if Fox's ratings are so much higher than any other news station, because they don't have to compete with any other conservative biased station? After all the country is about 50/50. It couldn't be because virtually every other news station in the country is liberal could it? It couldn't be because liberal ABC competes with liberal CBS who competes with liberal NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. And FOX has no one to compete with since they are the only conservative biased television news source is it? Is that why FOX's ratings are better than the next 2 highest rated (liberal news) stations combined?

Interesting how all these liberal shows, show a liberal slant when reporting the news, but he doesn't mention how Hannity, O'Reily, etc. aren't delivering the news, but they are editorials and "allowed" to be biased. Nor does he mention that O'Reily isn't considered conservative by most conservatives. Nor does he mention all the liberals on FOX news. (Geraldo, Gretta van Sustren, Colms, etc. all have liberal slant.) Where are the conservative anchors on all those liberal stations? I can think of only one. (Dennis Miller)

Here's a quote from a newsperson. Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg

"liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world-and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.

And then there is the double standards in effect by liberal news media.

www.gargaro.com/bias.html

No need to go on. Except for a lot of talk radio and FOX news, the liberals have a lock on the media. Anyone to the right or to the center knows it. It's blatantly obvious. But if you are far enough to the left, you might miss this since even those radical liberals that are slightly to the right of you, and left of everyone else except you, will look like conservatives to you. You also might miss this because you think the mass media is agreeing with you all the time, and you view them as being unbiased when they are not.

Rodney

The responsible press tries to present the facts. It may be impossible to remove every last bit of bias, but they work at it, in most cases honestly.

The right wing press, and especially right wing radio has little interest in the whole story. For them its about the revenue. They "speak to their audience" as they say in the business. This means they say whatever they need to to attract and hold an audience. Now its no secret that the right wing radio audience is, shall we say, not the sharpest crayons in the box? So the business of right wing radio and FOX TV to a lesser extent is to grab that, ahem, less well educated audience and hold them.

Its clear how they manage this: they get people all excited, even angry by talkin trash. Limbaugh's recipe for success has been the same for years: get people pissed off. Thats why he still blames the country's ills on Clinton, fer cripes sake, because he knows his audience loves to hate Clinton.

The radical right also spends a good bit of time trying to discredit the legitimate press. And of course, given their audience, its not difficult to convince them

But what is sad, is that we are misinforming nearly half the country. And of course they don't realize it. Its difficult to educate people who are too dumb to realize their own ignorance.

There are a lot of right leaning members of the legitimate press, just as there are a lot of left leaning members. But FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk do nothing to educate the public and that has never been their intention - they are not members of the legitimate press at all. But as the author in the article relates, they pretend to be, and thats too bad. It leaves too many of our citizens uninformed, yet with strong opinions. They have, in a way, been duped into believing they have been informed.

While you are looking at the link that Pulatus posted, take a look at all the replies to this article.

They are located at the bottom of the article.

Clearly, many clear thinking americans give the L.A. Times a scathing review due to their liberal bias, so don't just take my word for it, see what everyone else thinks about this garbage of an article and garbage of a newspaper.

I'd line my birds' cages with it, but I don't want them to catch anything!

Rodney

You know, after I posted that article I remembered that rodney actually "proved" the bias in the main stream media while he was in junior high! Tell us about it again rodney!

I can't believe the head of teh LA Times hasn't been made aware of your "research"!