Media Bias

[OakWood]

OakWood:

Right and left are political perspectives that evolve over time, neither hold the patent on truth. Either taken to the extreme would be catastrophically bad for this country or any other to rule the realm

 

That's not true. As I have pointed out,the definitions change over time because Leftists change them.

[Sam Adams]

I too have moved along the political spectrum but instead of going from one extreme to the other like you have I have moved from far right to the middle.

The definitions have changed because society has changed, and more importantly, grown.

What works in a small homogenous group of like minded people will not in a group of 300,000,000 diverse people.

Both the far right and the far left are about controlling things to make society fit your point of view. That just won't work anymore, too many people with too many views

Edited February 1, 2015 by Sam Adams

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually Sam I said that all media outlets are biased and Fox would be included in that.   At least Fox doesn't hire people who basically hate America.

[OakWood]

I too have moved along the political spectrum but instead of going from one extreme to the other like you have I have moved from far right to the middle.

The definitions have changed because society has changed, and more importantly, grown.

What works in a small homogenous group of like minded people will not in a group of 300,000,000 diverse people.

Both the far right and the far left are about controlling things to make society fit your point of view. That just won't work anymore, too many people with too many views

 

You misunderstand what 'far right' means because Leftists have changed the definition. Absolute far right is anarchy (no government). Absolute far Left is tyranny (government controls everything) By definition the far right can't control anything.

Nazism, Communism and Fascism are all extreme Left ideologies because they are statist by nature, but the Left (who love to control everything) twisted the definitions to make Leftism appear to be about equality, sharing, benevolence and Rightism appear to be about hatred, inequality, racial superiority and so on. The Communists didn't wanted to be associated with Hitler so they tried to claim that he was the polar opposite to them, and their propaganda was very successful.

Even today, the Left still want government to solve all their problems (the government should raise the minimum wage, the government should tax the rich more, the government should pay more in welfare to the poor and so on), whereas the right believe that less government is better, and that people are better solving their own problems and that charity should not be forced onto people by excessive taxation but should be voluntary, or that private individuals or groups are better suited to serving these needs.

The Left have always redefined words to further their agenda. Political Correctness originated in Leftist think tanks. Even the word 'gay' was hijacked and changed to mean homosexual.

The Left are incapable of solving any problems so they just try to redefine what the problem is or rename it as something else. No matter how hard they try they always end up bringing death and despair. No matter how many times Communism (or other statisms) has been tried it always ends up in restriction of freedom, state control, mass murder and economic disaster. It happened under Mao, under Stalin, under Pol Pot, under the Kims of Korea, under Mussolini, and so on.

[Sam Adams]

Oakwood:

I am going to bow out of this one, I have already said things to another poster I guess I should not have and I cannot go any further with you using such broad and biased statements.   I was going to reply to your points, but when I got to the line "The left is incapable..." I knew it was just a waste of both of our times.

Have a great evening/morning. 

[JustinM]

We are discussing media bias, right?

 

I agree that in the spectrum of left/right, fully left is tyranny, and fully right is anarchy.  Most conservatives aren't far right on the spectrum, they most definitely do not want anarchy or tyranny, they want law and order and justice.

 

Here's the problem with being a leftist.  Leftists want anarchy, they want to cast off all laws and have the freedom to behave however they want, with no repercussions or judgments or accountability for their actions.  Once society embraces this limitless behavior, government has no choice but to crack down on it and become more forceful and less tolerant of unlawful behavior.

 

The reason there's a perception of media bias, is because stories aren't being reported accurately, either facts and data are exaggerated, misapplied, or left out entirely, or the sources they use have a conflict of interest, without fully disclosing that to the public.

 

For instance, the keystone pipeline issue.  Some media will have you believe the reason the Democrats oppose this is for environmental reasons.  But, did you know that one of the largest donors to the Democrat party is Warren Buffet who owns Burlington Northern, the rail company that ships the oil from Keystone? 

 

All of a sudden, it isn't really about the environment then, is it?  It's about Warren Buffet maintaining the rail hegemony for the oil shipments.

 

Media bias would be leaving that part out of the conversation.

[Youfamissim]

The media provides news - ostensibly.  

The media is an unbiased, reliable, source of accurate information that may often conflict with the personal observations and opinion of the media staffers.  

The media constructs its content in a manner that challenges the reader and seeks to lift up the public consciousness and society, reflexively.  

The media never resorts to labels or impugns opinions, comments, and thoughts - regardless of the media's published and inferred perspective.  

The media works to assure all the news is reported and refuses to omit information that may refute information the media previously produced, the media's declared perspective, and always provide the public an alternative interpretation of controversial topics.  

The media is wary of controversy and takes considerable strides to assure its content is valid, verifiable, and cogent with the Bill of Rights and basic duties of a reporter - to retain a verifiable credibility and reputation.  

The media takes its responsibility to the public seriously and enjoys its role as the four estate - to protect the public against the government and organizations that seek to make life difficult for the public.  

The media is an advocate for opinions not enjoying large public support.  

The media never takes sides in a debate - they report the content offered/discussed.  

The media recants prior reporting when and if the reporting is found incorrect or improperly portrays the topic questioned and found unreliable, inaccurate.

 

How far has the media strayed from their pronounced and solemn duties? I honestly want to hear answers to what can be done, within Constitutional limits, to return integrity to our media.   

 

 

[ncn]

Locked for review

[ncn]

I have tried my best to clean this up, in doing so I have had to remove posts and posts that quoted posts. 

 

I am going to reopen it but please do not go down the line that this thread was taking before. 

Please stick to the OP. 

 

God Bless, 

 

Nigel. 

[1to3]

What about sweden ? Their political system has worked to provide all free education, medical care, state run social services.

Opportunity for business has existed and exists to make this a  country avery progressive country.

 

I think maybe the problem could be with allowing to many people from different countries in and letting them abuse the system, that is making even Sweden want to change and cut their social programs.

 

But in general, I think that Sweden has had a political system that has helped the country to prosper. it is known as one of the best countries to live in.

 

 On this planet, we were given enough to be able to help out everyone, we should all be our brothers keeper.

In this world we do have resources that could provide so that  no one to go hungry, so that all  have a chance for medicine,education, a roof over their head.

 

it is our individual greed that stops this from happening.

 

why can't other countries follow the countries which system works best for everyone concerned?