"Clinton's Presidential bid hinges on Failed Surge"

[Plane]

I submit that the media's bias towards B&H is the same as the one afforded Bush and his cult.

LOL......too bad reality doesn't mimic your submission

 the Bush "administration" and the DLC types have had free reign and nothing but love from the media. 

Oh man!

The media loved Cliton and ballyhooed hs unessacery wars , marvelled a his wonderfull economy , gave short shrift to most of his accusers.
Bush is really doing a better job in all three of these areas in a one for one comparison but who repeats this?

[_JS]

Interesting that the "real world" is completely in line with how Sirs, Ami, and Plane see it, but not how Brass views it.

The "real world" conforms perfectly to Sirs very complex notions of media bias against the right wing. The "real world" amazingly defies Occam's Razor and instead goes about a troubling, yet unwitting conspiracy of raging media bias towards (coincidentally of course!) the political philosophies of Sirs, Ami, and Plane.

The pure probability of that taking place is astounding.

In fact what we have here is argumentum ad consequentiam. Slapping the label of "reality" or "the real world" doesn't make it so. More than that it has become a nice example of Groupthink in America.

Your version of reality is no more credible than Brass' ,Sirs. Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed. There's nothing even pseudoscientific here. You have an outcome you desire (left-wing media bias) and you are going to see it whether it exists or not and you'll seek proof of its existence only.

argumentum ad consequentiam

Honestly, find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this.

[Amianthus]

Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed.

I made no claim of media bias to the left or right; I only laughed at the supposed "love fest" between the media and Bush. Therefore, I have no obligation to supply any evidence. Though if you want evidence of a "love fest" (or more accurately the lack of one) between the media and Bush, I would be happy to supply scads of articles from any number of countries to demonstrate. Heck, there are plenty of 'em posted here.

I understand that every media outlet has a bias, and those bias' apply in different directions depending on the media outlet. This is why I read a variety of media reports on each subject, to come to a more truthful and thorough understanding. I'm not one to rely on NBC nearly exclusively, or Vanity Fair nearly exclusively, etc.

[sirs]

Interesting that the "real world" is completely in line with how Sirs, Ami, and Plane see it, but not how Brass views it. ... Your version of reality is no more credible than Brass' ,Sirs. Neither is yours Plane or Ami. You offer no evidence to support it, and the evidence you'd offer is clearly biased to an outcome you have presupposed. There's nothing even pseudoscientific here. You have an outcome you desire (left-wing media bias) and you are going to see it whether it exists or not and you'll seek proof of its existence only.  Honestly, find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this.

With all due respect Js, "reality" does demonstrate an overt bias to the left, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  I can't count how many times I've referenced that it's not some back room round table conspiracy.  Simply the apparent repercussions of a vast number of like minded folks, unfortunately allowing their predisposed ideologies seep into what's supposed to be objective news reporting.  And it happens in both ideological directions, just predomnantly more left.  And the proof is in the daily headlines and stories presented (and more so NOT presented) by most of the mainscream media folk. 

So, if you want to stick your head into the sand at that reality, fine.  Just don't stand their and demand it not be discussed because you personally don't find it worthwhile.  If you don't, then don't respond

[Brassmask]

Regardless of you sirs' and ami's non-responses, I still hold that Bill and Hillary Clinton with their think tank, the DLC, have shown signs that they are of like mind with Bush and the neo-cons.

I could even put forth the idea that the "attacks" on Bush and the GOP implosion are nothing but pre-planned campaigns to put the Dems in a good light in order to set up a Hillary presidency.

[sirs]

I could even put forth the idea that the "attacks" on Bush and the GOP implosion are nothing but pre-planned campaigns to put the Dems in a good light in order to set up a Hillary presidency.

You could, but it would have no more credence than no plane hitting the pentagon.  And of course, that favors/loves Bush, how again?  Strangely it seems to reinforce precisely what I've been saying

[Amianthus]

Regardless of you sirs' and ami's non-responses, I still hold that Bill and Hillary Clinton with their think tank, the DLC, have shown signs that they are of like mind with Bush and the neo-cons.

I've said this for years: The Democrats and the Republicans both want to take away your rights. They only disagree on the order in which to remove them.

[_JS]

That was unfair of me to lump you in there Ami. My apologies.

[_JS]

So, if you want to stick your head into the sand at that reality, fine.  Just don't stand their and demand it not be discussed because you personally don't find it worthwhile.  If you don't, then don't respond

I make no such demands Sirs. You are free to discuss what you wish, of course. It is only that I see it as a waste of intellectual capacity and time. You don't even see that you are making an argumentum ad consequentiam?

You can see anything if you look long and hard enough Sirs. But don't let me stop you.

[sirs]

I make no such demands Sirs. You are free to discuss what you wish, of course.

Well, "find something worthwhile to discuss and something with at least more merit than this" sure seemed like a commad, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

It is only that I see it as a waste of intellectual capacity and time.....You can see anything if you look long and hard enough Sirs.

[/quote]

So says you, which given how the current media disposition favors your ideological bend, not surprising either.  And with the current reality, one need not look long or hard to find such a skewing of reporting.  But don't let me stop you from keeping the blinders on

[_JS]

So says you, which given how the current media disposition favors your ideological bend, not surprising either.

Yes, socialism has gotten wonderful media love over the decades in the United States. That's why we have all of these wonderful socialist institutions in the United States like...erm...

And we have a dominant Socialist Party like...umm...

And we've elected great Socialist leaders like...uhhh...

Well, there is one Socialist Senator now. I guess all these years of media bias have finally paid off Sirs.

[sirs]

Yes, socialism has gotten wonderful media love over the decades in the United States. That's why we have all of these wonderful socialist institutions in the United States like...And we have a dominant Socialist Party like..And we've elected great Socialist leaders like...

Apparently you missed the part where I clearly statied  the mainscream media predominantly leaned left.  I don't recall ever claiming or even implying the media were all hard core socialist commies with an agenda of imposing socialism.  Or perhaps you can show me where I did.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?       

[_JS]

You said they favor my ideology.

Clearly that isn't the case. I don't recall reading anything in the paper about nationalising any industries, do you? I can't remember the last time I read anything coming close to supporting labor unions.

So no, I haven't seen much at all supporting my ideology. You're confusing me for your own view of what "leftists" are.

[Brassmask]

Seriously, though.

I know I've posted numerous times where I felt the media was mistreating someone on the left and the right was getting away with murder.

I would say that the serious lack of coverage of the Libby trial is indicative of the media's bias FOR Bush and the  gang.

There have been several bombshells during the trial and none have been reported in the first five minutes on the CBS Evening News.

Libby won't take the stand in his own defence which I feel is an indication he fears being charged with still more perjury.
An assistant to Mary Matalin basically said that if they wanted to control the message on something, they would simply "MTP-VP" meaning put Cheney (the VP) on Meet The Press insinuating that Russert was their guy.
Libby's claim that he was told by Tim Russert on a certain date was blown away over and over again by presentation of notes showing he and Cheney had discussed it days prior.
Even Ari Fleischer (who bargained for immunity in exchange for testimony) said that Libby and told him that Plame was CIA prior to the date Libby claimed Russert had told him.

All of this, I've had to read about via DailyKos links to articles.

This case cuts to the heart of the lead up to the "war" in Iraq and is exemplary of how the current "administration" has handled themselves.  But not a peep from the mainscream (or as some's hero, Rush calls it, "the drive-by media") media.

[sirs]

You said they favor my ideology.

OK, lean towards your ideology.  Better now?