Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (15448)	3/29/2006 3:49:30 PM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541962

I think that they are right.. Right in many ways that it's the Liberal Press...that is to blame... ????? BUT HOW ? Explain to me. That's why the thread is called Politics for Pros.. Peons exist over here. We are no match.. Although this is a Centrist thread... We have both groups represented here...and are tolerant of one another to some extent. Humor is always appreciated.. It takes away the sting... <G> As for me I have been trying to figure out what press is referred to in their referencing as far as I am concerned the press is not liberal enough..and take that to mean exposing the hypocrisy and lies.. that are omnipresent in the politics of both parties. For example. Abramoff was just convicted and given a prison sentence.. While DeLay talks to a convention of Conservative Republicans about VALUES and Morality... and how God has to be our leader as the greatest leader in the world.. I think he and Abramoff were associated.. How in the world can DeLay talk about values..and have people applaud him.. In Yiddish it's called CHUTZPAH... In Protestantism it's call HYPOCRITICAL.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (15448)	3/29/2006 4:28:34 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541962

I have it on good authority (the folks on the PfP thread) that the liberal bias of the papers is the cause of declining readership.<g> You might wish to check this story. I know, I know, its USA Today. Still, read the content. usatoday.com Most of the media scandals in the last few years have involved newspapers and broadcasters that, rightly or wrongly, are associated with liberal politics. Dan Rather, Jayson Blair, the snippy and rude Gregory fellow, Helen Thomas, et al, are not Fox alumni. The Inquisition sought to be initiated after Cheney's hunting accident was disgraceful, and it was wholly a creature of the mainstream media. Did you notice how quickly that story died? I suspect the polls suggested that the people were not interested in that kind of trash, and the white hot focus on it ended as quickly as it started. Contrast the findings reported by USA Today in the link set forth above with the findings two years later by, ahem, ABC News. While one would think that trust in the media might have gone down during that period, according to ABC it went up. abcnews.go.com The findings made by CBS appear to be even more favorable to the media than those made by ABC. cbsnews.com If you believe mass media, they're doing great. Trust is fine, no problems. Why, then, do they keep losing money? Why do consumers of information increasingly go somewhere else? Is it simply the prevalence of greater choices or the fact that consumers don't care for or trust what they get from established sources? I don't know, but I am certain that a substantial amount of the financial difficulties faced by the media are due to a lack of trust in what is being delivered. And there are lots of examples of liberal bias in the media. Here's one written today: media.nationalreview.com And if that example doesn't convince you, here's a deconstruction of the NYT's article on Weinberger's death: timeswatch.org Things like this are noticed, digested, and disliked by many readers. Is there any wonder that the mainstream media is losing tons and tons of money? You may not care for PfP, but I think it is onto something quite real.