LB, all I did was catch up on this thread. I chose to
reply to a string of posts that I happen to strongly
disagree with. I figure if some folks can rationalize,
justify, dismiss & diminish real media bias in a series of
posts, I can select a few to offer my POV.
I happen to think that this is a serious problem that has
gotten progressively worse in the last decade, but has
accelerated since the last Presidential election. I know
I'm not imagining the increased bias & decreasing
objectivity.
I think that my POV isn't all that different than yours....
"What they do wish is to defeat Bush. They
will "accentuate the negative and eliminate the positive"
in their news presentations to help accomplish that if
they can. They don't think through to the logical outcome
of their activity until it happens. And then it would
be, "Oh, no, I never wanted that!""
I think that may be how most of them operate, some
consciously, some unconsciously. I think though that some
actually are so ideologically partisan that they do want
failure, at least until Bush is out. And the potential
consequences of all of this media bias is not good for
anyone but the terrorists IMO.
Look at how this is played up & exacerbated in Europe &
even more so in the Arab world. Don't tell me that almost
every negative spoken by a politician that make headlines
here isn't hyped in their press. The same goes for all the
negative reporting on almost any aspect of our involvement
in Iraq.
These journalists & media outlets may think/rationalize
that they are just against Bush. However, their actions
are assisting in fanning passions that will cause more of
our troops to lose their lives unnecessarily.
So, if you wish to categorize my disdain of liberal media
bias as being "too worked up", so be it. |
