| Author | Post |
|---|
outkast
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2005 05:44 pm |
|
Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
|
TravelGal
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2005 05:58 pm |
|
outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ Thank you
|
Polemic Argumentation
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2005 10:17 pm |
|
outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
|
Iconoclast
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2005 11:47 pm |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote: outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
And just what agenda might that be? ![[usa]](/forums/themes/default/usa.gif)
|
outkast
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21st, 2005 11:59 pm |
|
That agenda might be to bring down conservatives and conservative ideals in America.
Much like your aparent agenda.
|
Irukandji
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 12:10 am |
|
outkast wrote: That agenda might be to bring down conservatives and conservative ideals in America.
Much like your aparent agenda.
Oh, of course. YOU dont have an 'agenda', you have an 'Ideal'
Please...
|
outkast
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 07:03 am |
|
| For me the ends don't justify the means. For many liberals, and some conservatives, they do.
|
Polemic Argumentation
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 02:39 pm |
|
Iconoclast wrote: Polemic Argumentation wrote: outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
And just what agenda might that be?
You don't read too gud, do ya?
" The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth."
The media, which is supposed to give the appearence of being neutral, has declared its allegiance to the Democrats and liberal policies. They have lied and presented false 'evidence' to attempt to influence a Presidential election. They claim to be independent, but their use of identical terms, like "gravitas" or "hubris" reveals their collusion and bias. THAT's an AGENDA.
Too bad you need it spoon fed to ya!
|
Jon Stewart
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 02:45 pm |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote: outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
i know liberal news is soooo horrible... almost as horrible as Conservative news (lets admit Fox news is biased because it admits it openly) and lets call CNN liberal because you dont like what you hear??? ok???
|
Jon Stewart
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 02:47 pm |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote: Iconoclast wrote: Polemic Argumentation wrote: outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
And just what agenda might that be?
You don't read too gud, do ya?
" The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth."
The media, which is supposed to give the appearence of being neutral, has declared its allegiance to the Democrats and liberal policies. They have lied and presented false 'evidence' to attempt to influence a Presidential election. They claim to be independent, but their use of identical terms, like "gravitas" or "hubris" reveals their collusion and bias. THAT's an AGENDA.
Too bad you need it spoon fed to ya!
i'd like you to give me 3 examples and we all know what ONE of htem will be but i want 2 more
|
Irukandji
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 06:58 pm |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote:
They claim to be independent, but their use of identical terms, like "gravitas" or "hubris" reveals their collusion and bias.
Yes, but this is commonplace in Journalism. ANY journalism. Particularly when they are covering the same story. For the most part, Journalists work together.
|
happyin04
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22nd, 2005 09:52 pm |
|
Thank you for the link. Nice to hear from the Iraqi people.
ABC, NBC and CBS should be ashamed of their pathethic coverage. CNN news also.
FOX needs to do exclusive reports on the Iraqi citizens.
|
Polemic Argumentation
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 12:33 am |
|
Irukandji wrote: Polemic Argumentation wrote:
They claim to be independent, but their use of identical terms, like "gravitas" or "hubris" reveals their collusion and bias.
Yes, but this is commonplace in Journalism. ANY journalism. Particularly when they are covering the same story. For the most part, Journalists work together.
Being from the under part of the world, it is not surprising that you missed the significance of the practice.
The US has two major parties - Rs and Ds. Each side has a group to administer to their needs called National Committees (RNC and DNC).
For the last 12 or twenty or so years, the DNC has issued "talking points" to their operatives: issues to be discussed and terms to use when attacking their enemies or supporting their programs. An example was when GW Bush ran for his first term and picked Cheney as VP. The DNC determined that Bush should be portrayed as not having the experience necessary to be President and that he chose Cheney to make up for his lack of "gravitas." The next morning, EVERY elected official from the left was on the political interview shows using the term 'gravitas,' which was immediately picked up by the talking heads and reporters, not as quotes, but to describe what they perceived as Bush's deficiency.
Using someone else's terms or materials is plagierism unless it is presented as a quote. There can be collaboration on a story, but the newspapers and other news outlets are competitors and would not all be privy to the same terminology ALL the time. That's much more than just working together.
|
Polemic Argumentation
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 12:38 am |
|
Jon Stewart wrote: i'd like you to give me 3 examples and we all know what ONE of htem will be but i want 2 more
Three examples of what? Bias? Partisanship? Deceit?
|
Iconoclast
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 04:31 am |
|
| If the media is so liberal, why did they allow the Bush administration to get away with the lies and vicious attacks during the election campaign? Why did they fail to expose the warning signs of 9-11 that this administration failed to act on (that were later exposed during the 9-11 hearings)? Why did they not expose the lies and manipulation of the administration and ignore the many foreign policy experts who doubted Iraq's threat capability and ties to Al Qeada? If the American media is so liberal, they would have crucified Bush by now. His manipulative lies, inaction, unaccountability, and weak decision-making has certainly given them enough nails to do the job.
|
Will4987
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 04:50 am |
|
Iconoclast wrote: His manipulative lies, inaction, unaccountability, and weak decision-making has certainly given them enough nails to do the job.
But that guy didn't win the election, Bush did.
|
Irukandji
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 07:48 am |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote:
Being from the under part of the world, it is not surprising that you missed the significance of the practice.
Hmmmm. Yes, us underworlders do tend to miss subtlety, and dodgy Journalistic practices.
Dont forget where Rupert Murdoch came from... No, don't thank us. You guys can have him
|
Jon Stewart
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 04:38 pm |
|
happyin04 wrote: Thank you for the link. Nice to hear from the Iraqi people.
ABC, NBC and CBS should be ashamed of their pathethic coverage. CNN news also.
FOX needs to do exclusive reports on the Iraqi citizens.
Fox is no better and has an equal amount (if not more) lies to answer for
not to mention its open biasm....
|
Moral Democratic Majority
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 5th, 2004 |
| Location: | :>), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 10:14 pm |
|
outkast wrote: That agenda might be to bring down conservatives and conservative ideals in America.
Much like your aparent agenda. Sounds like a wonderful agenda! Much better than the evil, bloodthirsty tyranical necon fascist conservative agenda!
|
Moral Democratic Majority
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 5th, 2004 |
| Location: | :>), Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2267 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23rd, 2005 10:16 pm |
|
Polemic Argumentation wrote: Iconoclast wrote: Polemic Argumentation wrote: outkast wrote: Found this in BBC, apparently the wacky liberals thought this was by CIA, but BBC debunked that. It's really good and informative since our media is so off.
Good find.
The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth.
And just what agenda might that be?
You don't read too gud, do ya?
" The media in the US is not off by accident, it has its own agenda. They backed Gore/Kerry and still haven't gotten over their loss, so they do their utmost to sabotage Bush and anything that might make him look good - even if it means ignoring the truth."
The media, which is supposed to give the appearence of being neutral, has declared its allegiance to the Democrats and liberal policies. They have lied and presented false 'evidence' to attempt to influence a Presidential election. They claim to be independent, but their use of identical terms, like "gravitas" or "hubris" reveals their collusion and bias. THAT's an AGENDA.
Too bad you need it spoon fed to ya!
YOu are deluded! All national media and newspapers in Amerika are controlled by neocon conservatives, not by liberals.
|
Current time is 10:06 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
