quote:

Originally posted by LuckyBreak:
Not to interrupt or anything, but what is JAM?

Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM), or Mahdi Militia.

I can tell you one thing -- and this is with more than 46 years of being in a media environment (both my parents worked for the CBC and I'm a TV producer) -- nobody, I mean NOBODY, outside of the USA considers ANY of the mainstream American media as being left leaning, in any way whatsoever.

I suggest it is a question of perception ONLY from those who are so to the right that anything close to Center seems to be "leftist".

But, hey, you'll say "Yeah, but..." Shush! You know that I do my best to accept everybody's opinion -- even Presley's -- but trust me on this : the American mass media is a brown nosing self-centered pro-American machine like you've never seen one.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Loco:

quote:

If I may point out, your source is "Newsbusters", which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Media Research Center, an unabashedly extreme right-wing, self-described "watchdog group" dedicated to exposing and countering American liberalism. It's purpose is to "provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias ... and timely corrections to news media reporting" (italics mine). It is strident in its condemnation and derision of progressivism in America.

Presley copies and pastes total PROPAGANDA from exttreme right wing websites and then pretends these are things he came up with himself. And all his posts are exactly the same, a long diatribe against somebody or some group followed by a few sentences of Presley going "Tsk, Tsk, Tsk! Can you guys BELIEVE that! Oh my god, these Libs are TERRIBLE! Treasonous! Blah! Blah! And Blah!" I read his posts and I wonder WHAT IS HIS POINT? Is he trying to CONVERT those of us who don't agree with him or what? And I also wonder WHY HE HATES AMERICA SO MUCH. America is a DIVERSE country with people who don't LOOK LIKE YOU, talk like you, go to church like you do, have sex like you do, and most of all there are lots of Americans who don't BELIEVE what you do., Presley. Don't hate them, Presley.

Speaking of hate, a few questions:

1-what group took out full page ads during the testimony of General Pretraus that called him:
"General Betray-Us"

2-What candidate has a pastor of 20 years who condemns America in a Church with profanity laced sermons?

3-What party/candidate said America started the aids virus to keep blacks folks in line?

I have 1000's more from over the years if and when you would like to see them.

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:
I can tell you one thing -- and this is with more than 46 years of being in a media environment (both my parents worked for the CBC and I'm a TV producer) -- nobody, I mean NOBODY, outside of the USA considers ANY of the mainstream American media as being left leaning, in any way whatsoever.

I suggest it is a question of perception ONLY from those who are so to the right that anything close to Center seems to be "leftist".

But, hey, you'll say "Yeah, but..." Shush! You know that I do my best to accept everybody's opinion -- even Presley's -- but trust me on this : the American mass media is a brown nosing self-centered pro-American machine like you've never seen one.

1000% incorrect. Conservatives have Fox and Talk Radio. The dimocrats have left-leaning or in the tank news folks everywhere (TV, newspaper, magazines, etc). There are numerous studies (no not from right wing outlets) that confirm this.

I think your point about the media outside of the US reflects their own leanings to the left and see no problems.

quote:

Originally posted by TSF:
Presley,
With all due respect.. no need to label your political posts any longer. To be more efficient, why don't you just label your NON-political posts since they are so much more infrequent. Although most posts are interesting, the sheer volume makes me wonder about you and I think you are diluting your standing and credibility.

I'm curious...Did you post this same sentiment under Jeebus' posts? At least Pressley lets you know it is political post which gives you the opportunity to ignore it, no?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seabreeze,

quote:

Originally posted by TSF:
Presley,
With all due respect.. no need to label your political posts any longer. To be more efficient, why don't you just label your NON-political posts since they are so much more infrequent. Although most posts are interesting, the sheer volume makes me wonder about you and I think you are diluting your standing and credibility.

I'm not a politician, so my credibility is not of great concern. I post what I find interesting, if it does not interest someone, they are free to ignore it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
That single sentence was lifted out of a much longer context in which Speaker Pelosi specifically (and only) referred to the Iraqi assault on Basra, in which the Iranians did indeed play the major role in the withdrawal of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (which Iran called "outlaws"). Iran's purpose in undermining al-Sadr may well be -- is probably -- self-serving and reflective of power shifts among the Shiites, but this was the context of Pelosi's remarks. And in my view, she wasn't wrong. And most certainly not "almost traitorous".

Apologist.
You will make any explanation you can for those loons.
Pelosi's voting record...

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Supported funding contraception and UN family planning. (Jul 1999)

Defend civil liberties as we protect America. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
Rated 87% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Supported legislation on violence against women & safety. (Jul 1999)
Supported funding for women's and disadvantaged businesses. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 88% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing. (Mar 2001)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Rated 70% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)

Our ports and infrastructure are still not secure. (Feb 2005)
Greatest threat is unaccounted & unguarded WMD materials. (Feb 2005)
G.I. Bill of Rights for the 21st century. (Feb 2005)
Secure 100% of nuclear material with 100% inspection. (Jan 2004)
No soldier left behind in war-no veteran left behind at home. (Jan 2004)
Voted YES on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
End the use of anti-personnel mines. (Mar 2001)
Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Recognize women veterans; assist military families. (Jul 1999)

We cannot occupy Iraq indefinitely: We need an exit plan. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
Wage war on Terrorism, not on fellow Americans. (Sep 2001)


Gee, doesn't seem any far right group needs to slander her, her record speaks for itself.
BTW, her stance on partial birth abortion tells everyone all they need to know about her. How can you condone inserting a needle into a live babies skull and sucking his/her brains out?
Liberals say conservatives are heartless?

quote:

Originally posted by seabreeze:
I think your point about the media outside of the US reflects their own leanings to the left and see no problems.

So the WHOLE world is so far to the left that they get this impression... Hmm...

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:
So the WHOLE world is so far to the left that
they get this impression... Hmm...

You can speak to what the "whole" world thinks?

quote:

Originally posted by seabreeze:1000% incorrect. Conservatives have Fox and Talk Radio. The dimocrats have left-leaning or in the tank news folks everywhere (TV, newspaper, magazines, etc). There are numerous studies (no not from right wing outlets) that confirm this.

I think your point about the media outside of the US reflects their own leanings to the left and see no problems.

The left & right label for the media does not do justice to the subject matter if left is taken to mean anti-government and right is taken to mean pro-government.


(I have just pasted one of my previously posted ingenious dissertations and quoted excerpts.)

Required reading for this thread should be Noam Chomsky's and Edward S. Herman's Manufacturing consent explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" of the news media with numerous detailed case studies demonstrating it. According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies like the U.S. use subtle, non-violent means of control, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population. In an often-quoted remark, Chomsky states that "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." (Media Control)

The model attempts to explain this perceived systemic bias of the mass media in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people. It argues the bias derives from five "filters" that all published news must "pass through" which combine to systematically distort news coverage.

The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations. The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product—readers and audiences—to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses. In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which attack the media for supposed bias. Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion.) The model describes how the media form a decentralized and non-conspiratorial but nonetheless very powerful propaganda system, that is able to mobilize an élite consensus, frame public debate within élite perspectives and at the same time give the appearance of democratic consent.

Chomsky and Herman test their model empirically by picking "paired examples"—pairs of events that were objectively similar except for the alignment of domestic elite interests. They use a number of such examples to attempt to show that in cases where an "official enemy" does something (like murder of a religious official), the press investigates thoroughly and devotes a great amount of coverage to the matter, thus victims of "enemy" states are considered "worthy". But when the domestic government or an ally does the same thing (or worse), the press downplays the story, thus victims of US or US client states are considered "unworthy."

They also test their model against the case that is often held up as the best example of a free and aggressively independent press, the media coverage of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. Even in this case, they argue that the press was behaving subserviently to élite interests.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:
So the WHOLE world is so far to the left that
they get this impression... Hmm...

You can speak to what the "whole" world thinks?

Well, I have never ever seen or read or heard anyone, in any media outside the US, say anything similar to what the US right claims about the "leftist" media.

quote:

Originally posted by seabreeze:

I'm curious...Did you post this same sentiment under Jeebus' posts? At least Pressley lets you know it is political post which gives you the opportunity to ignore it, no?

You are right, I could have seebreeze. I guess Presley has been a little more prolific lately. I read and enjoy both and agree more with Presley's position than Jeebus'. My observations were made in a bit of frustration but I was truly trying to make a point that Presley's excess (and Jeebus' for that matter)may be counter productive to his efforts of persuasion and education. Sometimes, less is more.

And to Presley's response - of course I know you are not a politician and I don't think I called you one either. But, I do consider you a peer on this board. Participants will build a sense of credibility and standing with the others. In that regard, my obervations - although through a bit of frustration - were meant to help or offer another's perspective. If you didn't care about your credibility, then you would not be defending your posts so passionately.

Here are just a few interesting findings from mediaresearch.org:


How the Media Vote

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.


Los Angeles Times Survey
In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted one of the most extensive surveys of journalists in history. Using the same questionnaire they had used to poll the public, the Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers across the country. The survey asked 16 questions involving foreign affairs, social and economic issues. On 15 of 16 questions, the journalists gave answers to the left of those given by the public.

KEY FINDINGS:

Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.

82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.


The People & The Press, 2003

In the summer of 2003, Princeton Survey Research Associates conducted a poll of 1,201 American adults regarding the media for the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press. They found that a majority (53%) of Americans regard the press as “politically biased,” and most said the media tilted to the left.

KEY FINDINGS:

“Most Americans (53%) believe that news organizations are politically biased, while just 29 percent say they are careful to remove bias from their reports,” Pew reported.
“When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are “liberal” (51%) than “conservative” (26%) while 14 percent say neither phrase applies.”
Even Democrats thought the press tilted left, not right. Among Democratic respondents, 41 percent thought the media are liberal, compared to 33 percent who found the media to be conservative. Among Republicans, 65 percent said the press is liberal, 22 percent find the media to be conservative.

quote:

Originally posted by TSF:

quote:

Originally posted by seabreeze:

I'm curious...Did you post this same sentiment under Jeebus' posts? At least Pressley lets you know it is political post which gives you the opportunity to ignore it, no?

You are right, I could have seebreeze. I guess Presley has been a little more prolific lately. I read and enjoy both and agree more with Presley's position than Jeebus'. My observations were made in a bit of frustration but I was truly trying to make a point that Presley's excess (and Jeebus' for that matter)may be counter productive to his efforts of persuasion and education. Sometimes, less is more.

And to Presley's response - of course I know you are not a politician and I don't think I called you one either. But, I do consider you a peer on this board. Participants will build a sense of credibility and standing with the others. In that regard, my obervations - although through a bit of frustration - were meant to help or offer another's perspective. If you didn't care about your credibility, then you would not be defending your posts so passionately.

Point taken, thank you, Sir.

quote:

Apologist.
You will make any explanation you can for those loons.
Pelosi's voting record...

First of all, the thread, which you started and to which I responded, was about the remarks the Speaker made about Iran's role in ending the violence in Basra and whether the surge was succeeding. I offered an opinion on that subject and only that subject ... that her remarks were specifically and only about the Iranians throwing JAM under the bus in Basra (which they did).

Pelosi's Congressional voting record on partial-birth abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research or anything else has nothing to do with your thread's topic, and the fact you started the thread doesn't give you license to change the subject when someone replies in a way that you can't respond to and gets you mad.

But secondly, since you brought it up, it's my opinion that her voting record reflects her progressivism, which both her constituents and I share. Her position on most of the issues that I think are important to America coincide with mine. While no one will agree vote-for-vote with everything anyone does over a 21-year congressional career -- and I don't -- I think "this loon's" voting record is a very fine one.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

Apologist.
You will make any explanation you can for those loons.
Pelosi's voting record...

First of all, the thread, which you started and to which I responded, was about the remarks the Speaker made about Iran's role in ending the violence in Basra and whether the surge was succeeding. I offered an opinion on that subject and only that subject ... that her remarks were specifically and only about the Iranians throwing JAM under the bus in Basra (which they did).

Pelosi's Congressional voting record on partial-birth abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research or anything else has nothing to do with your thread's topic, and the fact you started the thread doesn't give you license to change the subject when someone replies in a way that you can't respond to and gets you mad.

But secondly, since you brought it up, it's my opinion that her voting record reflects her progressivism, which both her constituents and I share. Her position on most of the issues that I think are important to America coincide with mine. While no one will agree vote-for-vote with everything anyone does over a 21-year congressional career -- and I don't -- I think "this loon's" voting record is a very fine one.

I was under the impression that you were making a generality when you said this...

quote:

But I stand by my contention that contrary to the thrust of this thread in the beginning, Speaker Pelosi has been given a bad rap by the neo-con websites and blogs about her remarks (though I do think perhaps they could have been better phrased).

Regardless, I stand by my comments. You did not reply in a way which I could not respond, I aready stated my piece here...

Does that change the fact that she said the following..."some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians"? I don't think it does at all. The Iranians are killing our men, Jack?

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny Loco:


Presley copies and pastes total PROPAGANDA from exttreme right wing websites and then pretends these are things he came up with himself...

He included quotes and linked the source, so I don't understand what you mean here.