inertia? since when is "inertia" doing what the owners of CNN want...

You know putin bought all the news stations in russia before taking over?

Arnold had to buy 20% in a variety of networks so they stop slamming him (went from smearing him to adoring him), etc...

The news networks in question are owned by people, and you can bet that if the owner saw HIS news outlet saying something against his political idealogy he would fire them, profits be damned.

the crux of the argument is basically "liberals are too greedy to let their values get in the way of making money, thus CNN will only report in a partial neutral way".

I don't have much respect for liberals, but at least I don't attribute that level of greed to them.

While they might be quite happy if both profits and political ideology goes together in their actions, they won't jeopardise their business by enforcing their ideology in the newset if the public isn't interested. We are talking of sound business people here.

But it is true that you can influence what the public wants to know, and create a tendency in the media to depict an issue with a biaised view, so that your viewers don't want to hear any other side of the issue. Exemple: Israel in the US news.

That's a good example as most of the local journalists are those that the PLO and Hamas allow to remain local. That's how we get news like the "Jenin massacre" or the "bombed UN school" that turn out to be lies a few weeks later but are reported often enough to keep the conflict going.

But one problem is that conspiracy theories like "Jews control the media" usually make people believe that the media are on Israel's side and that hence whatever lie they tell about Jews or Israel is not, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds, a lie but merely a softened-down version of the truth.

It works like this:

ACTUAL FACT: A terrorist attacked a Jewish kindergarden and Israeli police shot him in the act.

MEDIA REPORT: Israeli soldiers shot a Palestinian they said was a suspected terrorist. (Never mind that the media sometimes do report the kindergarden attack angle. But mostly they don't and simply report what happened afterwards, because it sounds, in isolation, a lot more interesting.)

WHAT PEOPLE REMEMBER: Since the media are controlled by the Jews, this news must be the peak of the iceberg, hence Israel shoots innocent Palestinians all the time. (It goes without saying that no Palestinian can be a terrorist. The Jews only say that to justify their genocide.)

Leauki, you foolish mortal, everyone knows Jews own the media.  Jews kill Palestinians. Jews are just wanting to kill everyone else pretty soon as well. 8->  You can't forget this one, Leauki, all Jews are lawyers or is it all lawyers are Jews or is it all doctors are lawyers.......

Actually, you just have to look at how most people feel about that whole conflict (Israel/PLO) most people from the States feel we should just nuke them both.   Along with the SWAT region maybe Iran and maybe Korea (well actually they haven't done anything to us or for us recently so maybe not them)

I do wonder where that particular urban legend comes from. Banks and entertainment industry I can see, but the media???

But Americans always find enough time to force Israel into giving up important advantages or accept terrorist rule over "Palestine".

America's problem is that abandoning the Jews will ultimately result in a major war when those who killed the Jews feel that they can do whatever they want, and that helping the Jews will make the "kill the Jews" crowd and their friends unhappy and lose elections.

Question: Do you think the Arabs would be ok with calling it Canaan? (I know and understand that obviously there most not be any NOT ONE Jew in it but other than that what do you think? I understand why the Arabs hate the Agorot.) That isn't the only problem we have.  When a war does happen over there, Israel is for sure getting sick of being slapped in the face and after being punched in the face enough times either two things will happen watch any boxing match (the individual will launch an all out counter assault which we haven't seen from Israel yet or that individual will go down which we've seen from Israel backing down BUT they will not be KO'd.).

As famous American Philosopher from the early 90s said 'Here we are now, entertain us.'  I think most people in the States just want to be entertained.  Look at our politicians they're about bunch of jive turkey limelight craving baffoons!  While we are all being entertained everything will be striped away.  'Hey wait, you can still be entertained. BUT THEY'LL choose what we'll be entertained by and with.'

Muhammed called it "Israel"; I don't see why the Arabs have to call it by the pagan name ("Palestine").

Canaan is the region roughly occupied by Lebanon and Israel. The Lebanese are the descendants of the pure Canaanites (the Phoenicians) while Israelites are the descendants of a mixture of Hebrews and Canaanites.

The religious aspect of this war will be resolved once the Arabs stop thinking that what the pagan Romans called the land is more important than what G-d (in Judaism and Islam) called the land. In other words, the Arabs will have to re-learn their religions, Christianity and Islam, and they will have to accept that Arab nationalism and the so-called "Islamic fundamentalism" are bogus.

I respect the Arab nation and call their homeland (Arabia) by whatever name they want me to call it. I expect the same respect for my nation. I understand a need to compromise between Judaism and the other religions who insist on calling an ancient Jewish city their "holy city" but I won't compromise between those religions and Arab nationalism, which has no place in the middle east (as Muhammed himself made clear in the Quran).

Incidentally, I have spoken with Imazighen, the native population of northern Africa, and they tell me that their land is called "Tamazgha" and not "the Arab Maghreb". Again, good enough for me; I'll try to comply. I am all for political correctness, if it is used to show respect to everyone.

That reminds me: ESKIMO, ESKIMO, ESKIMO (not politically correct according to some, but at least it doesn't limit itself to the Inuit people(s) but includes also those Eskimos who live in Alaska)!

He does say stuff like that, a lot. Yes, I knowingly and willingly admit that other news agencies like CNN, NBC, etc have bias, because well..NO ONE cannot have bias. It's impossible. That's my biggest problem with people trying to defend Fox news, is that they seem to think that they're damn near perfect, but they're not.

But if you're going to talk about something, isn't it...well, smart, to know what you're talking about. Either you know what you're talking about (check the facts), or you don't...and come out like an ass. Maybe it's just something I was brought up to do for when  I comment on something.

You're implying they don't have fact checkers, come on now. These shows are all alike, they take a current topic, have a few guests and give a little insight. It's really up to the viewer to come to their own conclusion. Maybe the part I like most about O'Reily's show are the e-mails at the end. He shows a mix of viewer reactions to the stories and how they were handled.

You don't have to be an expert to have an opinion. Example, I've seen a lot of people comment on the economy here on JU, yet I don't think everyone is an economist. Sometimes plain common sense is enough. I'll listen to anyones opinion, that doesn't mean I'll agree. The folks complaining about these shows, are taking them way to seriously.

I'm implying based off the times they (Fox, CNN, NBC, etc.) apparently had bad fact checkers. Dude, you really think people are going to investigate on their own and not just be sheeple? Maybe I'm way to cynical, but I still feel that people will likely become sheeple - just look at what happened this last election with Obama.

True, but you should still know something about what you're talking about. Again, maybe that's just how I was brought up, but I've always felt that if I'm going to talk about, say, plumbing, i should know a thing or two before I speak. Eh, common sense is good, but not much beats critical thought.

Agreed, like a comment that is frequently attributed to Voltaire goes, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm taking these shows too seriously, but in the end I've always had a pet peeve about stuff like that. I guess it plays into my desire to be a journalist.

~Alderic

I wasn't singling you out, in fact, you didn't single out any show specifically. I was thinking more of the folks that responded that think there is some sort of right-wing opinion piece that trumps the news, and can't see them for what they are. On top of that their own bias is skewing the commentary that is presented on these shows. Of course if you feel that way of your own accord, take a fresh look for yourself.