Not that I disagree with you bob, quite the contrary, but do you think that their is any news source not being filtered and spun before you read it?

It's not just the socialist-lite lefties or the Nu-fascists on the right, it's all media. Those in power will only let us see what they think will get whatever their desired respone out of us is.

Believe only what you see, and only half of that.

All "news" sources spin things to fit their agendas. But few of them have been as blatant at just making up stories as CBS and NY Times have been lately.

In general, the major media has not been "news" for quite a while. They all have become propagand outlets 24/7, including BBC and others who claim to be "unbiased." They select which story to cover based on biases. They fram the story based on a bias. Often the real story can be ferreted out by noticing what they don't say more than what they do say.



The media today is almost all leftist. And, BTW; a "fascist" is a leftist socialist who didn't quite follow the Stalinist Communist party line. To call the right "fascist" is just plain silly. Of course both political parties and all the media in the US are now badly socialist so "fascist" might apply to all of them.


Yep. They can fool you even when you see it.

Blessings

Bob

I suppose the main distinction I make between the idealogies is the difference between their two purest forms of practice: the government of Lenin and the government of Hitler.

As for the left controlling media... I think it's a lot more evenly distributed than either side will admit. For example,

Obvoiusly left wing media: Ny Times, Newsweek, CNN

Right wing: Fox, Any newspaper not associated with a major metropolitan area, MSNBC

Everyone is bullshitting us, and I'd say it's all about the same ammount of bullshit.

I'd agree that much of what we see in the mainstream media is slanted because there are always agendas, either the advertisers or the editors/owners.

I would dispute the idea of left/right balance. Maybe it's true in the U.S. but here (Canada) it seems to be mainly the group of themes under "political correctness" that get the most play.

For instance, it is unusual to hear much positive about the military here, except for Nov. 11 ceremonies, while articles about working women, multi-culturalism etc are common. Stories about religion are usually about "modernized" churches rather than those which are "old-fashioned."

Even the Britsh Royalty are fans of the UT Longhorns.



Princess Margaret with the Queen mother.

It seems like Tv out here is more left centered with the exception of a select few networks. However, talk radio and newspapers are all run by men who are either a part of, or have bowed to, the right's attempts to make Amerikkka a totalitarian "Christian" prison.

The only way to get real news is to read as much as possible online, then turn your bullshit filters on high.

I agree that there are extremists on both wings. I'm not interested in living in a theocracy, whether Christian or Muslim. For one thing they tend to be anti-intellectual, anti-art and anti-science.

Getting good information is easier said than done.

Indeed. I wouldn't want to live under any kind of "ocracy" if I had the choice. Government is in it's nature oppressive.

More fans of the UT longhorns............

YasserArafat.


Dick Cheney.


Sarkozy.


Fred Durst.


Former Thai Prime Minister.


Elizabeth Taylor.


Prince William.





Robert.

Travis my young poster, you're not even close.

The media *themselves* admit to voting Democratic about 85-90-95% depending on which part.

There are very few balanced news sources that actually present just the facts and leave out the editorializing. The viewer can do the latter.

Look at your example of MSNBC being "right wing" oriented. It's actually by far the most liberal of the cable news channels. It's not even close to being neutral and has been that way for years.

For example "journalist" Chris Matthews says that it is his "job" to help Obama and his presidency. Say what? This is a half step from a government controlled media when the liberals hold power. They can rely on MSNBC digging into their foes while pumping up liberal POVs.

Look at how MSNBC chooses what news to show...if it is bad news on a Republican it gets on the air. If it is bad news on a liberal, it gets supressed.

Look at the second panel from the bottom:



Spend a couple minutes looking at this...notice how the "right wing" channel, FOX covers the candidates very equally. Notice how the "Liberal" channel, MSNBC (which you consider right wing, or maybe you are much more liberal than the most liberal cable news channel) has a clear slant to their coverage. This is the channel that the reporters cheerlead one party and consider it their job to help, gloss over goofs, and promote.



In the US there is basically ONE cable news channel that is relatively unbiased, FOX.

Did you know that many kids your age get their political news from cartoons and comedy skits. Guess what political ideology is cheered on and which is derided in that very lite no thinking needed media, the one preferred by stoners all over?