Liberal Media & Entertainment

I can say exactly the same of you. Attacking me shows nothing. Your not dispelling anything that more Americans discover each day, the media is liberal.


And you have failed to demonstrate why we should not boycott these dangerous leftwing fanatics like Goerge Clooney, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Ted Turner.

It's just fine to agree with the liberal media, but just simply admit to it.
 
As far as generalizing, or not producing certain facts goes. The liberal media does it al the time and I never hear folks like you complain.

When the libs at the NYT say something as dumb as "Experts Say Gun Crime is....."

Thats my favorite, the old EXPERTS SAY, or, A NEW STUDY HAS JUST COME OUT.

They rarly site who these experts are, and these experts always seem to go against the mainsteam American.
 
This whole boycott idea is just one step away from living in a compound with tinfoil hats. Antis are everywhere, you can't avoid it. I would be willing to bet that half of us work for anti-gun companies. You gonna quit your job over it? If not then demanding others boycott the media is hypocritical to the extreem.
 
How is this...


abortion= good
Click to expand...

...preaching against my rights?
Click to expand...

It's not anymore. But it's sure preaching against the rights of those not lucky enough to have been born yet!

You're alive. Funny thing about everyone who defends abortion...they're all alive already.

Back to the main topic: I watch very, very limited amounts of television. I refuse to spend money at theaters or on CDs/DVDs of anti-rights material, however subtly veiled. I also refuse to give money to the blatantly anti-rights organizations, whether by donation or by purchase--I can certainly find products elsewhere (S&W and Ruger are on that list, too). Many companies have given small donations to anti-rights causes, and those are not always conspiritors in the effort to disarm America...these I usually pay little mind to. Remember, you don't have the time or energy to weed out and boycott every company and organization that has spoken out against rights or donated to those who have--pick your battles and fight them thoroughly!
 
A Firestone dealer up the road has a gun ban sign in the window. I kindly let them know that they banned me and my $500 for new tires and that freedom means I'll take my money else where.

It's ok for them to practice freedom as it suits them, but not me, I missed something in the costitution.

I went to Goodyear, and they're manager agree's.

Now who is the hypocrite?
 
This whole boycott idea is just one step away from living in a compound with tinfoil hats. Antis are everywhere, you can't avoid it. I would be willing to bet that half of us work for anti-gun companies. You gonna quit your job over it? If not then demanding others boycott the media is hypocritical to the extreem.
Click to expand...

That's a mighty defeatist way of looking at it. Boycotting the media is the most important thing to do! They're actively trying to fill your mind with propaganda. The least you can do is deny them the opportunity.

And remember this: even pro-rights people like most of us here have been negatively affected by the media in more than a few ways. How many people here support any gun law, even though the Constitution precludes its legality? How many people here support federal drug laws, when the Constitution clearly does not grant the federal government the authority to control drug sales/usage? "Anti-terrorism" laws which increase government power at the cost of individual privacy and liberty? Another classic example.

Find me an unconstitutional law, and I'll bet I can find a hundred people, even here, that not only support it, but say it is constitutional, if for no other reason than some obscure Supreme Court ruling that contradicted the obvious intent of the Framers said so.
 
Quote:
Even as they preach against your rights


How is this...


Quote:
abortion= good


...preaching against my rights?
Click to expand...

Abortion isn't a Right, just an almost totally unsupported SCOTUS decision that we're going to fix here pretty soon...
 
The very articles themselves imply he is ill.

Instead of pointing ot the simple fact that he got smashed, blacked out and broke the law.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the articles? Associated Press did not conjure up the idea that he might have a mental illness. All of those articles reported the information available. Please quote some lines from the articles that relieve Kennedy of responsibility.

Unless of course you are somehow involved with the investigation into this incident and you actually have first hand knowledge that he was legally intoxicated. Innocent until proven guilty...as long as he's a Republican? :(

also: http://www.threadless.com/product/290/They're,_Their,_There


You're alive. Funny thing about everyone who defends abortion...they're all alive already.
Click to expand...

a357_002.jpg



:D:D:D:D
 
carbiner,

I was actually kind of expecting you to produce an example. "That's all they do" isn't an example.
 
"That's all they do" and "they do that all the time" are perfect examples of how a child argues, not how a rational adult should argue (i.e., with definite examples, evidence, etc.). An absence of evidence might be telling, but it does not make for a very strong argument. Burden of proof, you know ...

The reason I was so aggressive with carbiner is that his posts are a perfect example of the inherent dangers of making sweeping judgments about the current state of mainstream American media and entertainment. carbiner chose a very specific example of what he perceived to be liberal bias in the media, but has not offered a single shred of substantial evidence to support his very specific claim. Rather, he tried to support his very specific statement with broad ramblings about the nature of the media generally. While he may well be right, that is not the proper way to establish credibility for your position or to convince rational adults of the correctness of your views.

Even a cursory glance at the major news outlets produces examples of reporting tinged by liberal bias, reporting tinged by conservative bias, and even (gasp!) relatively unbiased reporting. Consistent, pervasive bias can be an incredibly difficult, at least in some cases, issue to prove, especially without knowledge of all that happens 'behind the scenes' at these places or within the context of the reported subject.

Do a Google search on "liberal media myth" sometime; that will take you to a number of articles, some well written, some not, regarding this issue. It is nowhere near as simple as "the media has a liberal bias" or even "the liberal media is trying to restrict gun rights."
 
Out of curiousity, what do people here actually consider "anti-gun" or "anti-RKBA/2nd Amendment" reporting? I'm not talking about editorials here, but about actual news articles and reporting. Obviously, there's the "assault rifle" nomenclature issue, but beyond that, what do you see in American mainstream news media as presenting a consistent, explicit "anti" message? Please provide specific examples (citations, links, etc. - I'm not interested in the generalized style or spirit of the reporting, or the absence of reporting, but actual concrete examples of "anti" reporting). I'm sure some examples exist, but I'd like to see what others have to offer.

Any takers?
 
The mass media does have a Leftward tilt; not as far Left as the Right makes it out to be (and slanting it the same amount Rightward would be no fix!), but it is there.

Comparisions between general-population polls and media-only polls have shown this misalignment.
Here's one report: http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html I am not entirely pleased with their graphics, which could be more clear. One of the better gun bloggers did a more concise and clear illustration, but I have not been able to find it.

There are things that keep this from being as dire as it might look:

First, all of the studies and most of the outcry concern old media. Conventional news media isn't just old, it's going away. Increasingly irrelevant, it's like the last of the steam locomotives in commercial freight service: large, impressive, emblematic, but no longer vital.

While "the media" is a nice concept, even traditional media is not really monolithic. The various outlets are run and owned by differing people and groups. The good thing (IMO) about Fox News is that it's pulling in the other direction and getting good ratings at it. Me, I vote Klingon, so every so often I think the newsies on Fox are plain nuts, as off-base as NBC or CNN but in the other direction; doesn't matter. The overall trend is what matters.

Print media, cry all you like but the dead-tree version is dead. Profits are shinking like ice on a summer sidewalk: what's in the paper, how it leans, really doesn't matter any more. Grandad reads the paper, Dad might look at it and I bet you rarely do more than glance. If it's not on the front page in screaming type, maybe on the Editorial page, with the comics or in the Sports section, it's not there. News magazine audiences are tiny, fragmented. It's doctors-office fodder -- even there, sports mags, women's mags and National Geographic (et al.) are crowding them out.

Films: read history. Actors and theatrical troupes have always been "out there," the bane of All Right-Thinking Villagers. What we have now? More of the same. Ignore them, rail against them, doesn't matter. They'll get up on stage and make faces all the same; they have to. You can steer what stories they present and how they tell them by what you spend your money on -- and keep those gun-grabbin' actors looking the hyprocrites they are making fine action-adventure films.

Two kinds of new media do matter: online decentralized news from blogs and BBSs and any oddball or old-media enterprise with a website soapbox (a lot of this is by specific request or in response to webseaches), and "pushed" news that comes to your homepage, celphone, PDA, etc. by subscription of some sort. Even the second sort has a greater element of pick and choose than any old-media mode, and provides greater feedback to the supplier.

The thing to remember is that a whole society, a free society, is well-nigh impossible to steer and ours is starting to push back against its would-be helmsmen more and more. "The Media" is moving to the center and will continue to do so, not because there's any upsurge of goodness or morality (the Left, while encompassing plenty of eejits -- and is the Right altogether free of them? -- doesn't lack for good and decent people, though some of them have mighty odd notions) but because it wants our money. The only way it'll get us to buy is by offering us what we want.

Being selective is a good idea. A blanket boycott? Not for me. I live in a highly-connected world; I'm keeping my 500-channel satellite TV, and it's keeping track of what I watch. If you won't tell 'em what they want, they won't know to sell it to you.
 
Last edited:
Leif, the MSM has long gone for interviews from groups like Brady and usually cites stats like those from Kellerman and others in any policy discussion regarding the 2A. They like to cite the Brady interpretation of the Miller Decision and the position that the courts have already ruled on the 2A. The NRA gets small mention at the end of blurbs(unless it is the focus of a hit-piece) and the other pro-gun groups get nary a nod. The best I have seen, other than the occasional local piece, might be a fairly even handed story. I can't remember having ever seen, heard of or researched a truly pro-gun item from the MSM, or even a major paper since the Indy Star took a leftist dive.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=108

http://www.rense.com/politics6/bias.htm

http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/2000/summary/sum01052000.asp

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/412154p-348562c.html
 
leif, you have been given many great example from the people on this thread. Making me a scape goat to call a foawl on me doesn't change the fact that the media is liberal. But thanks for giving me so much authority.

Any pro gun human can see it easily just by the way the media reports on guns and anything that surrounds guns. Guns are the best way to see blatant liberal bias.
They also use direct and indirect association to negative circumstances when the report on any issues they don't like.

You want people to believe the propaganda the media calls mainstream news because you support the same ideology, and you know it works as well as I do. Simply put, it's called BSing people, which is a liberal view on 90% of what they report or select to and not to report.

Selecting what part of an issue to report has a big impact on what a person will walk away with. They're also very crafty at associating issues with positive or negative aspects in life. News bias/propaganda is subtle, and for good reason.

When sports fans up here in Minneapolis found out the Star Tribune newspaper was with holding parts of sports teams names, such as "Redskins" for the sake of political correctness, the paper saw a drop of 100 subsripts in one day. That is subtle bias, most did not even notice. Once people see this, they get angry, and start to ask what else do they not tell us?

I don't have to prove it more and more people are seeing it and learning how to spot liberal bias everyday.

Liberal bias/propaganda is very dangerous to America.
 
2nd Amendment, thanks for the links, I have some reading to do.

carbiner, answer the question. If you can't answer to the specific request, then retract your claim. Period.
 
Lief, you wouldn't admit to to if I did.

I don't have to retact a thing, your just rough around the edges because you know liberal bias is alive and well:D
 
carbiner,

1) Answer the question. We'll go from there.

2) Learn to spell my handle correctly.

3) I'd offer to take this to PM, but please refer to my post about this being a good demonstration of the problem of overgeneralization with respect to claims about the media and its potential bias.

:D :D :D :D :D all you want, you still need to answer the question.
 
Overgenralization? That would the liberal media.

This is not PM material, it's a simple thread about liberal media jargon.

Maybe you could present us with some facts to prove otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top