I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith

[mespock]

Many of those who approve of Bush's job performance cited his Christian beliefs and strong values, the second biggest reason for support after backing his policies.

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do." By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

Because he prays he's a man of integrity? Blind Faith!!!

Oh she must be reading something from the conservative media - Therefore it is true LOL.

Solomon asked God for wisdom.... Maybe Bush should do the same thing.

 

[TheDude]

Because he prays he's a man of integrity? Blind Faith!!!

No no, she said that she 'read' that he prays, theres no solid proof that he does.

Oh she must be reading something from the conservative media - Therefore it is true LOL.

Conservative media doesn't exist. It's all liberal don't you know.

 

[mespock]

Conservative media doesn't exist. It's all liberal don't you know.

What? No conservative media? really? Then it's all Liberal?

What about Fox?

 

[raVeneyes]

What? No conservative media? really? Then it's all Liberal?

What about Fox?

Oh but this article was by those gas bags at the Associated Press!

BURN THEM BURN THE MEDIA!!!

 

[mespock]

Oh but this article was by those gas bags at the Associated Press!

BURN THEM BURN THE MEDIA!!!

I'm with you Burn them - and then let's start burning books - Like that pagan Harry Potter Series and while we're at it let's burn the author at the stake for Witch Craft... That will show them and save our children.

 

[MonsterMark]

Rasmussen has Bush's poll numbers rising. Up to 44%.

Hey, what happened to the Rove indictment?

 

[Calabrio]

Is this supposed to encourage debate,
or are Mespok, Deville, and Raveneyes just sitting in a circles with their hands in each others pockets again?

 

[raVeneyes]

I don't have my hand in anyone's pocket... I'm only trying to point out that this 'conservative' supporting article is from the main stream media in a comic and sarcastic way...

 

[Calabrio]

I can't tell. The article wasn't linked.

 

[raVeneyes]

I can't tell. The article wasn't linked.

No but it *is* credited:

"I know he is a man of integrity and strong faith," said Fran Blaney, a Republican and an evangelical who lives near Hartford, Conn. "I've read that he prays every morning asking for God's guidance. He certainly is trying to do what he thinks he is supposed to do." By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

 

[TheDude]

Is this supposed to encourage debate,
or are Mespok, Deville, and Raveneyes just sitting in a circles with their hands in each others pockets again?

It's funny how hostile you can get. Oh, did you go look at our little Arnold debate? He disagree's with you too now. Go check it out if you like.

 

[TheDude]

Is this supposed to encourage debate,
or are Mespok, Deville, and Raveneyes just sitting in a circles with their hands in each others pockets again?

It's funny how hostile you can get. Oh, did you go look at our little Arnold debate? He disagree's with you too now. Go check it out.

 

[Calabrio]

It's funny how hostile you can get. Oh, did you go look at our little Arnold debate? He disagree's with you too now. Go check it out if you like.

I'm not hostile. I just would rather there be some intellectual debate from you guys, not this kind of flame baiting. I know a couple of you guys are infact articulate and thoughtfull. I'm just not seeing that right now.

And yes, he did credit the article, but the body and headline aren't there, so what's the point. Other than sticking your hands in each other's front pockets, I don't see the point of this thread.

But, at a glance, it certainly doesn't look like a positive article. My hunch is, if I were able to read it, that the tone of the article would be about how "stupid religious people are blindly supporting that Jesus freak president." Just a hunch though.

 

[mespock]

But, at a glance, it certainly doesn't look like a positive article. My hunch is, if I were able to read it, that the tone of the article would be about how "stupid religious people are blindly supporting that Jesus freak president." Just a hunch though.

Sorry to let you down!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111...HxI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Calabrio]

The first paragraph says this:

WASHINGTON - Two crucial pillars of
President Bush's public support — perceptions of his honesty and faith in his ability to fight terrorism — have slipped to their lowest point in the AP-Ipsos poll.

Sounds like a fluff piece to me.... /sarcasm

But I was wrong, it wasn't a "look at the Jesus freaks."
It's more like "even the Jesus freaks don't like Bush now."
my mistake.

 

[raVeneyes]

But I was wrong, it wasn't a "look at the Jesus freaks."
It's more like "even the Jesus freaks don't like Bush now."
my mistake.

LOL

 

[MonsterMark]

James,

I see you as being the most intellectually 'open' of those of you on the left on this board. That said, you may be the most likely to fall prey to the RWW constituency if you were given the chance to see the light.

If you are truly open, here would be a good place to start.

The book is called 'Bias' by Bernard Goldberg. Here is a description of the book.

Think the media are biased? CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN crying foul for years, but now a veteran CBS reporter has come forward to expose how liberal bias pervades the mainstream media. Even if you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's far worse than you think. Breaking ranks and naming names, Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, journalistic integrity has been pawned to liberal opinion, and "entertainment" trumps hard news every time. In his three decades at CBS, Goldberg repeatedly voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature of the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints-or if they did listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no choice but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence that pervades the news business. Bias is the result. As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world-and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.

It may shock you to someday find out that much of what you have heard and thought was 'spun' by the media so as to 'change the truth'. I liken it to the movie 'The Matrix'. You can go along and believe the swill you are spoon-fed everyday by the Main Stream Media or you can take the 'blue pill' and join the rest of us down here in Zion that live in reality.

Good luck. Hope to see you down here someday.

 

[MonsterMark]

James,

I see you as being the most intellectually 'open' of those of you on the left on this board. That said, you may be the most likely to fall prey to the RWW constituency if you were given the chance to see the light.

If you are truly open, here would be a good place to start.

The book is called 'Bias' by Bernard Goldberg. Here is a description of the book.

Think the media are biased? CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN crying foul for years, but now a veteran CBS reporter has come forward to expose how liberal bias pervades the mainstream media. Even if you've suspected your nightly news is slanted to the left, it's far worse than you think. Breaking ranks and naming names, Emmy Award-winning broadcast journalist Bernard Goldberg reveals a corporate news culture in which the close-mindedness is breathtaking, journalistic integrity has been pawned to liberal opinion, and "entertainment" trumps hard news every time. In his three decades at CBS, Goldberg repeatedly voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature of the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints-or if they did listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no choice but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence that pervades the news business. Bias is the result. As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world-and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It may shock you to someday find out that much of what you have heard throughout your formative years has been 'spun' by the media so as to 'modify the truth'. I liken it to the movie 'The Matrix'. You can go along and believe the swill you are spoon-fed everyday by the Main Stream Media or you can take the 'blue pill' and live ion reality by joining the rest of us down here in Zion.

Good luck. Hope to see you down here someday.

 

[raVeneyes]

Bryan,

Firstly thank you. I take it as a compliment (although an odd one) that you think "you may be the most likely to fall prey to the RWW constituency if you were given the chance to see the light".

I don't disagree that there are news agencies that are horribly skewed and have an internal culture of changing the news to fit how they see it. The primary argument you will see me make though is that it's not a problem with "Mainstream Media" it's a problem with some news people/organizations. I think there is skew on both sides of the fence and I think that when you look at the overall picture of what is considered mainstream media you will find skew in both the conservative and liberal bent... Yes there are several more liberally biased agencies...yes there are several more liberally biased reporters...and yes it affects how we see the world (if we're not careful). I however will always maintain that it's media and news agencies job to out everything.

It's perhaps too idealistic to think that is possible without a bent.

 

[Joeychgo]

Didnt I read somewhere about the seperation of Church and State? Guess not.

 

[Calabrio]

Didnt I read somewhere about the seperation of Church and State? Guess not.

I guess the obvious question is, where did you read that?

 

[fossten]

I don't disagree that there are news agencies that are horribly skewed and have an internal culture of changing the news to fit how they see it. The primary argument you will see me make though is that it's not a problem with "Mainstream Media" it's a problem with some news people/organizations. I think there is skew on both sides of the fence and I think that when you look at the overall picture of what is considered mainstream media you will find skew in both the conservative and liberal bent... Yes there are several more liberally biased agencies...yes there are several more liberally biased reporters...and yes it affects how we see the world (if we're not careful). I however will always maintain that it's media and news agencies job to out everything.

It's perhaps too idealistic to think that is possible without a bent.

Don't you find it odd, though, that in spite of your effort to downplay the level of bias in the MSM, if you read and listen/watch the news, it's those SOME PEOPLE who always have their stories printed/aired, and not those SOME PEOPLE who are conservative/positive toward Bush? Look at the Pew poll, which pointed out the results of the report released in July by the non-partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. ABC news is critical of the President 78% of the time???

Look at the polling: heavily weighted more toward polling Democrats and Independents (who usually vote Democrat). Look at the stories in the AP or CNN or MSNBC about the economy or Bush or the war. Negative negative negative. Look at the headlines: 2,000 DEAD (from my local paper) while on page A21 there's a little blurb about the troops securing an Iraqi town or wiping out more terrorists. It goes on and on.

And if it's the newspaper's job to out everything, why aren't they (SOME PEOPLE) interested in who leaked the story about the CIA prisons? All they want to talk about is speculation about torture. But in the Plame case, the emphasis was on whether or not Rove leaked, not on whether or not Joe Wilson lied and was in fact discredited, or even whether or not Plame was covert, which they still haven't started saying yet.

Why does the press use the title 'Indicted' before Tom DeLay's name all the time, while not using 'Former Grand Wizard of the KKK' in front of Senator Robert Byrd's name? Or 'Infamous for the Chappaquiddick coverup' after Ted Kennedy's name? Why did the press give Dan Rather an award recently, despite his shameful retirement over using forged documents?

One last thing: You keep referring to 'skewing on both sides.' Name a major news agency BESIDES Fox news that prints or airs news that isn't heavily slanted against conservatives or Bush.