Left-Leaning Antennae

From my perspective I notice a much greater leaning to the right then the left but that may be that I pay little attention to local news and focus more on national news networks and as I am sure you are aware there is different types of news presentaion in different areas. Some are more left and some are more right while there is a real lack of center positions in the media. A center approach in every area that presents all peoints of views equally would be best but that just isn't how things work. I am also sure that many that watched the same news broadcast as you thought it was to conservative leaning so it is all a matter of opinion. It is also important for the media to be free to present what they want as long as it is either truthful or an opinion. Well that is my view and many probally disagree with me as well.

Are you saying that war could possibly be presented in a positive way?

Akrym -- I appreciate your comments. I certainly see Fox News as more conservative in their stance but I also see they make a big deal about trying to present both sides. I was watching ABC news when I saw the program. I was noticing not a single thing was said to balance an opinion the medium itself was advancing. A medium (plural: media) is merely a channel. I'm lamenting the fact that "media" are no longer channels; they are the advancers of a message whether conservative or liberal. I subscribe to a political newsletter in my state that is clearly neither conservative or liberal. They merely report exactly what is happening without telling about too many opinions. (Opinions tend to sway readers/viewers like in mob psychology, bandwagon approach, and other means of propaganda.)

I agree that the media should be free. However, if it exercises its right to say what it pleases, it should advertise as thus. It's like improper labeling on goods; one can get in trouble for false advertising or not listing what's really in a can of ranch style beans. In other words, if you're going to advance liberal viewpoints, say so. "This is my opinion..." or "We at ABC news feel..." I think that will give viewers more of a notice of who really feels how.

JeremyG -- I think that war can be presented in a positive way. I realize this may sicken you, but have you ever heard the WWII song, "praise the lord and pass the ammunition"? You see, we believed that by rescuing a population from genocide and curtailing nazi growth in the world, we were doing an honorable thing. The God I believe in used war to bring his people back to him, to take them where he wanted to take them, and to achieve other goals. I don't think war is innately evil any more than sex is. I think both can bring about great travesty at times and sometimes we use them incorrectly and unwisely. Both can be positive when used correctly and wisely. In fact, I believe both can be blessed. I still think a news medium that advances itself as "the facts" should stick to them instead of using singular events to color an issue.

Stating something as an opinion is a good idea especially for a news service, I have seen some anchors give commentary at the end of a news broadcast and this is clearly the opinions and views of the anchor. I also really hate to see views expressed as fact which is often the case for both conservative and liberal networks, they kind of twist the factual event one way or another. I can see through this but many people can not and just accept it. We honestly can't expect any big changes with this so I would like to see people become more aware about the world instead which is also a rather far fetched idea. Things change so I guess I will just have to wait and see.

I was actually going to mention WW II is response to that statment, the events of the war were not positive but the outcome certainly was. I think that Iraq is a much different situation then WWII but as wars go WWII is generally the most glamourized, just look at all the movies and games about it.

The 9/11 Commission Investigation

The 9/11 Commission Investigation

... The international narcotics trafficking problem is an order of magnitude more important that international terrorism. Also, it is a direct attack on the United States by hostile nations operating covertly through their foreign intelligence services as explained and documented in detail in Red Cocaine. Is this any different from the international terrorist threat? Moreover, international organized crime, which is closely connected with both drug trafficking and terrorism, is even worse with its annual revenues in the $3 trillion plus range and capital reserves in the $30 to $50 trillion range. This could not be possible without the assistance of the big banks, the big law firms that help organize the money laundering, and payoffs to the politicians, courts, and intelligence/po! lice investigating agencies. As explained by Professor Jordan in his book Drug Politics, the drug trade and organized crime flourish because they are politically protected. Is there anyone that really thinks the criminal overworld – all of whom are very powerful and respected people – are not in touch with people on the Commission? Their interests (and similar ones that exist at high levels throughout the U.S. government, from the White House to Congress to the CIA and Department of Justice) are served best if the Commission’s charter is as narrowly focused as possible, where it can do no harm.

link: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/douglass/2004/0330.html

Stating something as an opinion is a good idea especially for a news service,

Personally I prefer to see the news report facts, and let me form my own opinion. Reporting an opinion as fact, and reporting actual facts are two different things. Save the opinions for editorials, but then ALL news has become an editorial and very little news involves just reporting facts any more.

VES

The Spoils of War:
Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

... Narcotics: Second to Oil and the Arms Trade

The revenues generated from the CIA sponsored Afghan drug trade are sizeable. The Afghan trade in opiates constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion. (Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000). At the time (1994), the global trade in drugs was of the same order of magnitude as the global trade in oil.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

Based on recent figures (2003), drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report.

There are powerful business and financial interests behind narcotics. From this standpoint, geopolitical and military control over the drug routes is as strategic as oil and oil pipelines.

However, what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organised crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking.

In turn, the CIA, which protects the drug trade, has developed complex business and undercover links to major criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade.

In other words, intelligence agencies and powerful business syndicates allied with organized crime, are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes. The multi-billion dollar revenues of narcotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large international banks together with their affiliates in the offshore banking havens launder large amounts of narco-dollars.

This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in narcotics have "political friends in high places." Legal and illegal undertakings are increasingly intertwined, the dividing line between "businesspeople" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence establishment has tainted the structures of the state and the role of its institutions.

link: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html

The difference between reporting the war in a negative light, reporting the same story in a positive light and offering an unbiased perspective usually comes down to a few adjectives. This shouldn't be a big deal.

As soon as I read this blog post, I opened CNN. The headline is "U.S. suspends offensive in Fallujah." I would rate this as mildly negative. Why? "Offensive" indicates that we, the U.S. I mean, are the aggressor. We are indulging in offensive behavior. The story goes on to say that we halted the offensive in order to begin "talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid." Please note that I am directly quoting the CNN article. A headline of "Ceasfire talks begin, US offers humanitarian aid" (NOT a quote, but a paraphrase from the very news story) paints the same news story in a different light, while presenting the same facts.

I don't really need the news media to make up my mind for me. If they would just present the facts, I could handle that responsibility for myself.

Bear this in mind however. There is nothing new here. It is NOT something that was invented recently or by the current generation of reporters. The more sensational the headline the more likely we are to read it. That having been said, our generation is fortunate to have access to multiple news sources. Read several and you can glean the facts.

vernmeister2u You misunderstood what I was saying, what I mean is that if a news service is going to state an opinion then they should tell people before hand. I didn't mean news service should report informaition with their opinion, I hope I am a little clearer now.

sometimes facts are negative and not just political spin...i thought the news was too easy on rice yesterday after that display of lying and incompetence.

someone should have handed rice a piece of juicy fruit on the way in...to see if she actually can walk and chew gum at the same time.

at this point, someone should hand her some paper and a pen so she can resign. i am tired of her incompetence and lying to cover it. she was not experienced enough to be NSA in the 1st place, and the only reason she was there was to tilt the political clout scale towards cheney and co. ...her lack of experience and knowledge of the mid east (fact is her specialty is and always was missle defense and star wars systems) is the weakest link in the administration's chain and she needs to be replaced, even if George wins in november...in fact, i see her replacement as much more vital than a presidential chain.... i've had enough of her "on the job training" and would prefer someone who has a little actual experience and expertise and the guts to stand up and be accountable without being led by the nose.

hope I am a little clearer now

Yes, clearer. Although I could argue that you mistated yourself, not that I misunderstood what you said. But the fact remains, news services still spend very little time JUST reporting facts. They all have become editorial, pretty much all the time.

"They all have become editorial, pretty much all the time."

I agree and that is the biggest problem with the news media and I think things will stay the same. I do however notice less of this in some of international news services from other countries where you actually get a lot more facts and a lot less opinions.

Sean -- Were you as angry when Madeline Albreit was widely renowned for NEVER reading her foreign news briefs on prime ministers and our policies with other countries? She almost NEVER knew what was going on. In fact, she was supposed to go speak to the PM of N. Korea about his egregious abuse of human rights (including slavery) and instead, she was profusely photographed eating gourmet foods, drinking expensive wines, and all around rather "partying it up" with him. She came back with nothing accomplished! and this was the norm. Were you as indignant then? You sound like a very intelligent person and I'd not think you were sexist or racist... but perhas this has more to do with a personal dislike. I think she did a wonderful job when under such unprecedented (and unethical) pressure from the left to testify publicly while still serving her boss. And the comment about the gum was really uncalled for. It was a personal attack (ad hominem) and didn't advance your opinion at all. Instead, I am less inclined to take your side because of it. I would like to hear more about why you ACTUALLY feel this way though. BTW she says she's stepping down in Jan regardless of outcome.

I saw parts of Rice speacking an I honestly didn't see a thing that was either a big misstake or was a great defence. She was very neutral sounding on every question and I can't really see why either side would be speaking out. The republicns were praising her job before she was even finished and the democrates quickly started atacking her. Everything that has been happening lately has been partisan for the most part because it is an election year. Rebublicns think she was great and democrates just call her a liar and incompetent and quite honestly she isn't either. She may not have a great deal of experience but how many people that move into important positions within any government really do. Experience is usually the last thing used by a president to pick someone for a position, politics is almost always the reason for the choice regarless of what party they are from. I want to see honest assessments and not attacks or partisan opinions. Well that is just my view .

1st off,,,i commented on Rice's testimony and my view, that i have held since she was appointed long before 9/11. i went back and read my post here...which was not angry nor partisan. there was not one word in all caps or anything to suggest just anger as being a driving force. also, i am not a democrat, so partisanship is not possible. i am an independent who held elected office as a member of the GOP during the end of Reagan's tenure and Bush 41's service.

like i said before, bias does not indicate truth or a lack there of. the fact is that from a non partisan view (not every non partisan view, but mine) Condoleeza Rice never had any business being NSA. Her lack of experience overall and her only expertise in a field that is hardly "the priority" for our defense interests was and is a detriment to our national interests as Americans. She is a weak figure in a position that demands a person with much more experience and diplomatic skills than she posesses.

in her testimony i saw a person scrambling to make sense out of nonsense. She seemed to be saying overall that they were doing every thing they could to fight an enemy they hardly knew existed. she wanted to defend the actions and non actions that led to the failures that allowed 19 guys with box cutters and a few bucks to 100% defeat our entire national defense.

and when i know of George Tenet's 1st reaction of "i hope it wasn't that guy taking the flight lessons" referring to Moussoui when he learned of the 1st hit on the WTC. This vs. Bush's "that guy must be a pretty bad pilot" reaction, clueless about the intelligence that was well known. And that was FBI intelligence, not CIA intelligence. So, even tho the official organizations try to keep the "collars" in their column, someone was sharing.

But Rice wasn't sharing and that was obvious. She is the key liason between FBI and CIA and the President. And I don't see a lack of information being the problem when it comes to Condi's job performance. Yes, there were problems, but those beaurocratic problems have existed thru our history, yet we have managed to work around them. Just like every person's job has certain things that are obstacles, but emplyees find a way to work around them. in my view, her weakness and inexperience was detrimental, and still is to our national interests. i have an extremely hard time believing that she was or is the best person for this job.

when she was appointed, one could make the arguement that she was well suited, at least in her academic and limited field expertise in the area of missle defense and star wars type defenses. if you go back and look at the writings of conservative journalists and white house press releases as they set their agenda in the 1st hundred days..it is more than obvious that missle defense was the #1 priority of this administration pre 9/11. Their #2 priority was continued modernization, which is a priority of every administration in their own way (i won't get into the partisan political aspects of that as this is not what this is about.).

Funny thing is, when discussing the new administration, Rice is hardly ever mentioned as she was and is a political lightweight. She does get occasionally mentioned, but especially the conservative journalists were more about praising other heavyweights who they were more familiar with when talking about how this administration was going to do everything Clinton didn't do. They actually poo-poo his emphisis on terrorism basically stating that the terrorists aren't a big threat and what the low level people are doing is more than adequate. the big wigs needed to be concerned with missle defense.

the other thing they commonly mention before 9/11 is Iraq. Again, Bush's appointees are praised as being the guys who will finish the job. And they aren't talking about just the last couple years, like when the 1998 letter was drafted by frank gaffney and the neocons and sent to clinton. these are the guys who never wanted to pull out of iraq and have been working since the day we did in 1990 to get us back there. don't take my word for it, go to townhall.com where conservative journalists gather and look for yourself. look in their archives of columns from pre 9/11.

the people who have made this clinton vs. bush are the partisan mongers. this is not clinton vs. bush. this is a difference in policy that goes back to the 1st bush administration. rumsfeld and wolfowitz and other s were at odds with bush's father, not bill clinton on the issue of invading iraq.

bill clinton continued and with the Un, expanded the policies of bush 41. he didn't take some radical off course path as sean hannity wants you to believe. this iraq debate originated within the republican party. it is the primary reason behind the whole neoconservative movement. clinton's policies were basically compromises with senate and house republicans so he could get kids student loans and hot lunches and head start and other social policies that were closer to his heart.

the group clinton went along with were the traditional conservatives. this caused guys like wolfowitz and rumsfeld and their friends in the media like gaffney, hannity and bill kristol to begin working the system from inside the beltway. even tho their former boss was out of office, there were plenty of opportunities to lobby and solicit inside the beltway, as well as work public opinion thru the media.

if you want to know what i think of madeline albright, my opinion is mixed. she did some things well, and made mistakes in my view. but she was a political heavyweight, just as every NSA was before her, regardless of party. but the point you try to make is moot. the fact is she is not holding office currently, therefore the parallel you try to make is not appropriate.

i have said before the commission began, that i expect all to be held accountable, regardless of party. one thing that seems very clear to me tho is that the democrats seem much more willing to accept responsiblility and honestly review facts for the sake of future improvement. the white house has resisted any attempt by anyone to seek the truth. after 3 years of watching their act, it is now jjust tiresome to see their apparent fear of any truth being found by anyone who isn't a loyal crony.

as far as your charge of "unethical" treatment. that is false.

yes, 9/11 was unprecedented. and we all have been asked to make sacrifices for this "new world" we live in. what i see from the white house is every one else is supposed to tighten the belt, and be more open to scrutiny (the patriot act) except them. they hide behind flimsy "seperation of powers" acts and other legalities while they strip legalities away from the people, who by the way, own this country, not them.

then they tell us that these great patriots who happen to be the rich folk getting the big breaks won't create a job unless we give them gobs of cash 1st. it used to be that people started companies and created jobs to make money. now, companies and the rich essentially blackmail the govt. into forking over my cash or they will ship our jobs abroad or just shut down. the bush "tax policy" is nothing more than a combination of a "kickback / extortion" scheme that drains our coffers. the big lie of all of this is that in the "investor" class, there never has been a shortage of money. giving them more money does not address any issue concerning job creation. it does give the rich more to throw into the stock market or squirrel away.

think about that. most wealthy people, aside from the inheritance class, got there because they overcame adversities. those "alpha" types are the ones who thrive on challenges, excell at "thinking outside the box" and so forth. how does a handout, like you would give a bum, inspire them to create jobs? there is no logic behind it. bush has oversimplified this arguement and made it into an irrelevent one when he makes his speeches. again, don't take my word for it, think a little bit.

ask yourself why no "war bond" has been created to help finance the war? when bush collects those 2000 dollar a plate receipts as he raises his campaign chest, why not use that as a way to appeal to the richest 1% to invest in this war. not by the privatization of it thru inside, no bid contracts, but investments all could invest in.

my arguements are not partisan, nor are they sexist (i won't even address that as it is ridiculous) but they are 100% american from an american who has been involved in politics for the majority of my life and looks beyond the rhetoric.

and beyond the rhetoric, the democrats are not 100% right, but they are one whole hell of a lot closer than the GOP that has gotten drunk with power and is being controlled by way too few, even for them. if i were a republican still, i would be pissed off mad at how bush has handled his presidency overall. both on domestic issues and foreign policy ones, there is nothing conservative about them, their spending or their policies and combinations of arrogance, incompetence and deception on truly important matters should take this out of a partisan debate for you as well. approaching this with a "the admin. is 100% right and all others must unbiasedly prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt before even considering another viewpoint" is just wrong and about a 1/2 a step away from being brainwashed. the policies of infallibility didn't serve the catholic church well and will not serve you well here.

the attitude held by the right is one of if someone doesn't agree with me, they must be partisan, they must be spinning, it must be a lie...that itself is a lie. bias does not effect truth necessarily. especially if one can see beyond their personal bias. all arguements have a bias. this isn't scientific method. this is politics.

The country is just more politicaly charged now then it has been in quite a long time ever since the whole if your not with us your against us statement by Bush. It seems that the administraition is sticking with that idea and moving it into the political world from the war on terrorism. Many people from different parties or not from a party at all are critizing different aspects of this administraition including Rice and as a result are getting labeled as partisan. Some of these claims are of course true but the republicins seem a little too eager to play the partisan card. Not every critizism is partisan and they should be more willing to engage in an open debate then to attack. All people should be more interestede in debate then attacks but this is one of the most important elections in a long time and the result will determine just what the country will take and that direction will have many long lasting implications for future generations.

by the way,,,the real bias in news isn't really conservative or liberal. there are 2...laziness and pro business.

laziness---it has become far easier to simply parrot stories rather than to actually research and write your own. i see this daily in the media. everyone copying each other,,,no one doing actual fact checking or researching but assuming the "other guy did it." if you pay attention, sources are now 2 or 3 removed rather than being direct like they used to be. the editorializing isn't the fundamental problem. journalists have always done that. the difference is that people used to fact check. now, you hear a story like "the washington post reported that the london gaurdian cited an unidentified source as saying...." instead of "we interviewed someone close to the story who wished to remain unidentified who said...." there is a huge difference in the accountability of that story. in the 1st scenario, no one can be held accountable...the way it used to be, the journalist was accountable for his facts.

that is why guys like Cronkite and Murrow were so respected. Everyone knew Cronkite was a liberal, Everyone knew Murrow was conservative...but they reported truth. they didn't claim things as fact unless they or their people checked it out. today, you can just repeat someone else's wuote from another source and wash your hands clean of any liability or accountability.

Pro Business---Here, just put on CNN, MSNBC or Fox...you will get the point. Don't watch the news, watch the commercials. look who sponsors them. most of the "pproducts" being offered are either from companies that no common person would ever be in a position to do business with like big investment firms, paper shredding compaies, IP companies, defense contractors and such. Also, the big pharmacuticals and companies like that spend a lot to push us into demanding certain brand names from our doctors. those are the same companies that just raped, pillaged and plundered in the last medicare bill. watch especially the 1st ad when they take a break. that is the best position for an ad, and usually a little more expensive than the ones that run after it. kind of like the inside cover is a little more expensive than the other pages in a magazine ad.

if you pay attention, you will see why news must be pro business..it's their paycheck. advertising pays for tv, plain and simple. and although everything is not 100% pro business on any of the news services (even fox) there is a bias towards it more often than not.

there are other biases that come in with individual journalists and such, but overall, these biases are pretty much universal and more dominant than any other factor.

to all responding to Sean...

You have Been Trolled.... You Have Lost... Stop feeding it and it goes away. Goodnight Nurse.

The media is far more conservative/right wing than anything else. It's a popular myth that there is a Liberal Press. Maybe there was in the 60s and 70s, but there sure hasnt been for a while.

Coverage of most things is taken from the standpoint of Blind Patriotism (and really more so, Bling Government Following, since Patriotism should be more about the collective people than the "leaders" and mega-rich who run things here) and almost never on whether things theyre being covered is true or not.

Doubt is the origin of Wisdom. Not just a witty saying, its true. If you believe whatever youre told, or even just repeat it so you can keep coming back to the press meetings, then you are hardly objectively investigating anything. Youre just a mouthpeice for someone elses agenda.

You guys need to understand the target audience for the news. A lot of people who watch the news, like people who read the newspaper, have the attention span of a firefly, so if they can get dragged into something with a negative slant on it, like CNN's reports on the war in Iraq, and more people are drawn to it because they want to hear the dirt. The same thing happened with Clinton, and the only reason anybody cared was because the media was making a big deal out of it.

I just reread that paragraph over, what bad sentence structure.

Good point Shulamite, there is quite a bit of bias in today's media, probably due to the utter lack of objectivity in the newsroom.
It is interesting (okay, it's actually depressing) to see how the media is used to keep people fighting over issues without actually addressing THE ISSUES. Two sides constantly keeping us in turmoil with each other and letting those with the real power and poor motives continue to slide by with their agenda. Our current presidential race is a fine example. While Kerry and Bush try to distinguish themselves from each other, forum posters are going mad, but the final winner will still be the same product : A rich white male from the Skull and Bones Secret Society with policy mandates keeping the same stagnant status quo for the poor, while the top one percent continue consolidating their power. Will Kerry repeal the Patriot Act? Well, parts of it, maybe. Will Bush ever get his ban on gay marriage? Well, probably not, but enough people think he represents their beliefs to try to re-elect him.
The perception of the state of the country and the world is controlled by corporations not serving the American people's interest. A wake-up call to viewers / readers / listeners can be found in the sharp contrasts given by the reporting found in media outlets in other countries compared to what is vaunted here as "news". Mike Jackson is in trouble again? Who cares! I'd like to know why Venezuala is upset with us right now, I'd like to know why there has been no connection made by the big networks to the oil / gas problem we're facing.

The news networks of today are slick entertainment junk food for the head. They promise "in-depth" reporting then replay the same image and sound bite every quarter hour. Americans might spend more time actually finding out the truth themselves, but there is so little time for the truth when work, family, and endless distractions take center stage.

Are we Lemmings? No. We are deer, frozen in the blinding headlights of an oncoming eighteen - wheeler.