Media Bias - Is the media becoming more conservative?

  • News
  • Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Bias
In summary: MSNBC it was just 33%"In summary, the new prime time lineup for CNN has not been successful, as ratings have fallen 16 percent. Fox News Channel has been the only one of the four cable news networks to post ratings gains during the month.
  • #1
SOS2008
Gold Member
42
1
This thread is a continuation of the earlier thread: FOX News - Let's bomb a democracy back to the stone age. I finally have had some time to do some more research on the topic of media bias (also addressed in the thread: Gannon Guffaw), and it is amazing how many conservative web sites there are that tout a liberal bias in the media--which in itself "speaks volumes" if you know what I mean. Here is information on a few articles, web sites, and books on the topic of media bias becoming increasingly conservative (to the right):

San Francisco Chronicle
Ethan Rarick
Sunday, September 26, 2004
CBS explodes liberal media bias myth -- If ever a story should destroy the myth of liberal media bias, it is the flap over Dan Rather's flub. …the real and long-lasting lesson of this story lies in the amount of attention being paid to the apology… The answer lies in the political impact…and reveals much about political coverage in the mainstream media. The CBS apology obviously helped him [Bush], casting a pall of doubt over the entire issue of whether young Lt. Bush did his duty during the Vietnam War. The difference in play given to…apologies is only the latest evidence of a growing, and yet little remarked, conservative media bias.

I do not suggest that conservative apparatchiks crashed news meetings around the country and demanded front-page play for the CBS story. But I do suggest that as the country's political spectrum has become ever more conservative -- dragged "to the right, to the right, farther to the right," as Tom Frank puts it in his brilliant new book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?'' -- media organizations have shifted, too.

For one thing, mainstream media organizations are always in search of viewers and readers, and it's a solidly conservative country. Republicans have won six of the last nine presidential elections. They hold majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. They dominate the business establishment. Newspapers and television stations across the country are competing for the same viewers and readers that have pushed Fox News' audience past CNN's and made the Wall Street Journal one of the largest newspapers in the country.

Second, the conservative movement's hallelujah chorus among overtly partisan media outlets -- Fox News and talk radio are the prime examples -- has amplified the traditional right-wing charge that journalists are all participants in a grand liberal conspiracy. The ironic result is that journalism has become hyper-sensitized to conservative criticism, and, in the guise of trying to be fair, leans farther and farther to the right.
I've mentioned ratings and how this is indicative of changes in our nation (i.e., basics of supply and demand), and here are some numbers (posted on a conservative web site):

NewsMax.com Thursday, March 3, 2005
CNN Ratings Fall 16 Percent

CNN Headline News has been making headlines itself with its revamped prime-time lineup, with one new show beating MSNBC in the ratings and the other two new programs doing respectably well.

But the parent network is not enjoying any such success.
CNN is falling farther behind Fox News Channel in the cable news ratings war, with a network-wide 16 percent falloff in viewership for February and a 21 percent slide in prime time.

The New York Post reports, "Fox News was the only one among the four cable news networks to post ratings gains during the month."
An 18 percent gain, to be exact, pushing Fox News to nearly triple the viewership of its rival.

 CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" down 17 percent; Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" up 9 percent
 CNN's "Larry King Live" off 23 percent; Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" up 19 percent
 One bright spot for CNN: "Anderson Cooper 360," which gained 2 percent.
CNBC and MSNBC aren't immuned to losing audience to Fox, either. CNBC's ratings are down 42 percent in prime time, and MSNBC's viewer numbers are lighter by 15 percent.
In this website it appears FOX is no longer using the tag line of "fair and balanced" reporting, but now it is "We report. You decide"? In any event, here are some stats...

Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503180008#1
"We Report. You Decide."
-- Fox News Channel motto
"Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air. ... In the degree to which journalists are allowed to offer their own opinions, Fox stands out. Across the programs studied, nearly seven out of ten stories (68%) included personal opinions from Fox's reporters -- the highest of any outlet studied by far. ... Fox journalists were even more prone to offer their own opinions in the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq. There 73% of the stories included such personal judgments. On CNN the figure was 2%, and on MSNBC, 29%. The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC."
-- Project for Excellence in Journalism

And a book: What Liberal Media? By Eric Alterman
“Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.

What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for “liberal” bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.”
It was stated in the earlier thread that many CNN folks have moved to FOX, if anything this remark only helps substantiate this point, but as shown above, it isn't just an "institutional" phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
SOS2008 said:
...Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air...

But the strong opinions and the debates (ever watch right-wing Hannity and left-wing Colmes going at it?) are what makes Fox fun to watch.

I raise my skeptical antenna just as high while watching Fox news as I do when listening to evangelicals on the radio. But it's all good (fun).
 
  • #3
Janitor said:
I raise my skeptical antenna just as high while watching Fox news as I do when listening to evangelica radio. But it's all good (fun).

Nowadays, you have to do this for any sort of information that comes to you regardless of its form. Media has a delicate way of providing facts with color.
 
  • #4
SOS2008 said:
It was stated in the earlier thread that many CNN folks have moved to FOX, if anything this remark only helps substantiate this point, but as shown above, it isn't just an "institutional" phenomenon.

Can someone please explain how people moving from CNN to FOX demonstrates or substantiates an institutional problem? I find it hard to conclude anything from that information. Maybe FOX is paying better, maybe CNN's loss of ratings suggested it was a good time to find another network, maybe the people who can't keep their opinions separated from the facts were pressured to leave CNN and found a home at FOX, maybe they thought they could make a change at FOX and reach more conservative audiences with a liberal message, only to find out after arriving that they were being pressured to add opinions and to include more of the conservative viewpoint to keep up ratings.

I think for a long time the media really has been biased more to the left than the right, so a shift right-ward doesn't necessarily mean they've gone all the way over to the far right, just reaching closer to center.

Then again, as I think I mentioned in another thread, the problem I really see endemic in the media is not the side they lean to, but the laziness in their reporting. I think they need to fill time with more opinions because nobody is going out to gather more facts. If you're going to offer interpretation of the facts, make the effort to consider all interpretations.

When the local news fairly recently reported on the increase in unemployment rates, they blatantly editorialized it by saying, this is good because it shows more of the people who gave up on looking for jobs are seeking employment again. The "this is good" part was pure editorializing, and I heard the exact same canned phrase on more than one station, telling me this wasn't based on the reporters' own research, but just reading from a press release statement. Not one of the stations I listened to provided the evidence that this was indeed the reason for the increased numbers of unemployed. How do we know that's true? If it is true, they could have equally well provided the information in a factual manner, by presenting the data of, for example, how much of that increase was due to workers seeking jobs who have been unemployed for over 1 or 2 years who were not included in previous surveys or to even tell me how they are counting them now if they didn't count them before? But, this would require a reporter go to the original document and read through the data and find the most relevant rather than read from a canned statement on a press release.

I don't blame the administration for issuing press releases that put a positive spin on what they present; that's what anyone issuing a press release does, provide their side of the story. It is then up to the reporters to dig deeper and confirm the information and ask questions about the content of that press release.

Beyond that, I also don't want to hear the reporters' opinions and interpretations of information they report on, although sometimes it is helpful to get some form of interpretation on complex issues. In that case, I want them to go out and talk to experts in the field and quote the experts, (Dr. X from Y University explains that this indicates Z, while Dr. A from B Institute presents the counter-argument that these data indicate C).

So, regardless of which way the media leans on any given day, there is an overall problem of laziness in reporting.
 
  • #5
Moonbear said:
Then again, as I think I mentioned in another thread, the problem I really see endemic in the media is not the side they lean to, but the laziness in their reporting. I think they need to fill time with more opinions because nobody is going out to gather more facts. If you're going to offer interpretation of the facts, make the effort to consider all interpretations.
When I read this earlier I agreed with this point. It was said that MSNBC is considered liberal, but then this agency links to other agencies all the time, many of which are what I consider to be liberal. But truly, the point is to present real information instead of opinion.

Still, it would seem that if the market (American constituency) is becoming more conservative, the media will need to become more conservative to keep their ratings up--basic economics. This is why I feel the media can no longer be considered completely liberal...
 
  • #6
go search my posted quote of a new york times editor in 1954
basic idea was we work for the CORP and if we print anything
the bosses disagree with we are GONE

and cence where are CORP boss/owner liberal?


it also helps to know where an idea started go to it's roots
liberal media was a HITLER IDEA as in liberal jews =commies = evil people
control the media
why because they don't like or support HITLER
at least to the nazi ideals and we know how well they did

and cence when are the CORP boss/owner COMMIES?

the WHOLE IDEA IS PURE BS just an other BIG LIE that the neo-con's
learned from the NAZI's

ROOTS RUN DEEP
 
  • #7
ray b said:
it also helps to know where an idea started go to it's roots
liberal media was a HITLER IDEA as in liberal jews =commies = evil people
control the media

You do realize you just screwed yourself there right? Liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing is a US-Only (or well, non-european as far asmy knwoledge goes) idea so you basically said the liberals of the US have their roots in adolf hitler (which they don't of course, no sensible person tries to link 21st century news reporting with adolf hitler).

And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Pengwuino said:
And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.
As stated when posting this thread, such articles focused more on the apology stories, which actually helped cloud the issues and helped Bush become reelected. Also as stated when posting this thread, I saw a lot of conservative sites like this--and if there is anything of substance, such as the stats I posted from one of these sites, it supports the basis that the media is becoming more conservative. Otherwise, and in other words, these stories/sites are conservative, thus conservatively biased (i.e., are all about how liberal the media is).
 
  • #9
Where did you get that information. That story wouldn't have been part of the criteria the study took on when deciding how the media acted that way because it painted neither a positive or negative picture towards either candidates. And if anyone actaully watched the news, it was clearly anti-bush. I mean every single day you had to hear about people dieing in iraq or oil prices this and that or people crying about the economy. Now of course, same things are happening but the media doesn't really care anymore for some unknownn reason ;)
 
  • #10
Yeah, if they wanted to at least try to be fair to Bush they would have kept their mouths shut about Iraq and such. :rolleyes:
 
  • #11
This is an interesting thread you all have got going here.

The media has always input their opinions when they reported stories. I tend to agree with Moonbear in this situation as far as the media moving closer to the center versus media moving so far to the right, the way some people claim; not anyone specifically here.

The media has never really been fair about anything. Everyone has an opinion and when they feel strongly about something they will think of anyway, subliminally or bluntly expressing it. Reporters, again like Moonbear mentioned earlier, have found subliminal ways of getting their opinions interjected into the stories they report.

The media always has a way of warping the stories. For example, the newsreels shown in the movie theatres before the featured picture, those were done on mulitple takes with the filmer and the reporter picking the best take to show to the public. It is nothing like the coverage of war we receive today. Even today reporters will warp stories. A reporter, I don't remember who it was, was reporting with, I think, a marine unit in Iraq and he almost gave away their position. That's a big NO-NO. When they reported what had happend, the story was changed to something like the unit wouldn't let the reporter do his job.

My thought is its one thing to have a reporter in a war zone letting people what is going on. Its a whole nother story when positions or task forces and units are exposed potentially put many lives at stake.

The media is an unpredictable animal. They will do almost anything to increase viewer ratings and paper sales.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino said:
You do realize you just screwed yourself there right? Liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing is a US-Only (or well, non-european as far asmy knwoledge goes) idea so you basically said the liberals of the US have their roots in adolf hitler (which they don't of course, no sensible person tries to link 21st century news reporting with adolf hitler).

And a new study came out only a week ago i believe showing there is in fact, a liberal media bias (a variety of universities and journalistic institutions contributed to teh study if anyone was watching the newspapers the last few weeks). Almost 2x as many articles/news stories were negative towards bush as they were towards kerry.

WHAT??
LEFTWING/RIGTHWING is based on seating of members in the post revolution PARIS FRANCE government accembly or total euro and pre-1800 too
and has NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA

and the IDEA of a liberal media is HITLERS not the fact
in fact the media is CAPITALIST and cares about #s and CASH INCOME
far more then IDEAS

we once did have a liberal media in some citys in the 60's
it was the underground press and has been DEAD for years

just maybe the bias againts W BuSh was based on FACTS
like an ilegal war and LIES to get us into the ilegal war
 
  • #13
The media certainly is moving to the right - but its still far left of center.

Oh, and that crap about Hitler being the root of the perception of the bias is pretty rediculous.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
russ_watters said:
The media certainly is moving to the right - but its still far left of center.

Oh, and that crap about Hitler being the root of the perception of the bias is pretty rediculous.

no ! the media wants to be centered to MAX the #s and income
you and your neo-CONNED brothers are so far off to the right that the center looks like the left to you

HITLER was the man to bwitch about the media=jews=commies the loudest
was he the first maybe not but he was the man who made this idea an issue
the neo-conned have followed his lead
but so do not like to admit where this BS came from
and it is eazy to see why but that makes it not one bit less TRUE
know the roots of ideas and see what you are truly following
 
  • #15
Ray calm down there is no need to be abrasive. We're just discussing whether the media is presenting the news more from a republican view than the traditional democratic view.

I agree with Russ and Pengwunio. Its all rubbish. As far as left-wing/right-wing, it has to do with the seating of the house in Paris, but its just slang in the states for democrat and republican, that's all. There's no need to get all up in arms about it.
 
  • #16
I remember a time not so long ago that both partys had a left, right, and center
factions, but now the neo-cons have allmost totaly taken over the GOP
this is not good or normal as there is no moderation just dogma unchecked
once there was such a thing as liberal members of the GOP
now they are very few and far between

I post TRUE FACTS that the neo-cons don't like or admit to
the ones calling the fact rubbish are abrasive NOT ME
 
  • #17
ray b said:
I post TRUE FACTS that the neo-cons don't like or admit to
the ones calling the fact rubbish are abrasive NOT ME
Well, how 'bout the fact that "neo-con" is a word invented by radical liberals as an insult and not an actual division of conservativism recognized by scholars...?

Ray, you know you've already been warned for such behavior (re: Hitler and your combative attitude). Are you trying to get banned? Cool your jets.

And if you can substantiate your Hitler claims, please do (and we'll remove your warnings). Otherwise, cease and desist.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
I agree with Russ. Ray, support your claim with some evidence please. Otherwise, don't pursue the argument with your opinions as evidence.
 
  • #19
In fact modern media dates back to 1883: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAyellow.htm
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_197900_yellowjourna.htm
Yellow journalism reached its peak in 1898 when Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, editor of the New York Journal, were competing for circulation. Supporting the Cuban revolution, they exaggerated and falsified stories to attract readers and sell papers, contributing to U.S. involvement in the Spanish-American War.
[caveat - I'm not sure which direction they leaned] And I learned something new: Sensationalism, yellow journalism, "human interest" stories, and politically motivated stories were all invented by Pulitzer (I thought it was just Hearst). Wow, did his stock (and that of the award that bears his name) ever go down in my book. But hey - seems to me that Dan Rather should be up for a Pulitzer Prize: he's cut from the same cloth.

edit: According to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184 , (its a year old) the political leanings of journalists are actually moving further left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
I doNOT like or believe this BS
I am posting it here because
you don't know where the media is liberal IDEA came from

Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:

"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment
I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and
the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One
needed
only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the
cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were
highly
lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish
questions.
Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was
being
infected. It was worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what
mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally,
the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far
that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his
filth
directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this
connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought
to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten
thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers
in
poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could
not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by
Nature to play this shameful part.
"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people?
"I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result
of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I
had
hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a
thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.
"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic
tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of
people
who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation- that fact could not
be
gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to
examine my
favorite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.
"The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for
that
Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellant
and I
was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial.
To
claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitide was
impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The
writers
were- Jews.
"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me
now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things
which I
had formerly looked at in a different light."



"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in
doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to
mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most
of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic
representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions
and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David,
Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was
that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social
Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for
months
past."



I dislike posting hitler's words BUT your disbelife forces me to do so
does he say directly the media is liberal, well not directly, but the short version is
jews are liberal/commies who control the media, and posion the state/folk
as the neo-con's now [rightly I think leave off the jew part] say the liberals
[who are really commies] control the media and posion the people

the idea is the same

want more of this hitler drivel??

"" even more: all at once the Jew also becomes liberal and begins to rave about the necessary progress of mankind."" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

""Actually the Jew by means of the trade union, which could bea blessing for the nation, shatters the foundations of the national economy.
Parallel with this, the political organization advances.
It plays hand in glove with the trade-union movement, for thelatter prepares the masses for political organization, in fact, lashes theminto it with violence and coercion. Furthermore, it is the permanent financialsource from which the political organization feeds its enormous apparatus.It is the organ controlling the political activity of the individual anddoes the pandering in all big demonstrations of a political nature. In theend it no longer comes out for political interests at all, but places itschief instrument of struggle, the cessation of work in the form of a massand general strike, in the service of the political idea.
By the creation of a press whose content is adapted to the intellectualhorizon of the least educated people, the political and trade-union organizationfinally obtains the agitational institution by which the lowest strata ofthe nation are made ripe for the most reckless acts. Its function is notto lead people out of the swamp of a base mentality to a higher stage, butto cater to their lowest instincts. Since the masses are as mentally lazyas they are sometimes presumptuous, this is a business as speculative asit is profitable.
It is this press, above all, which wages a positively fanaticaland slanderous struggle, tearing down everything which can be regarded asa support of national independence, cultural elevation, and the economicindependence of the nation.
Above all, it hammers away at the characters of all those whowill not bow down to the Jewish presumption to dominate, or whose abilityand genius in themselves seem a danger to the Jew. For to be hated by theJew it is not necessary to combat him; no, it suffices if he suspects thatsomeone might even conceive the idea of combating him some time or thaton the strength of his superior genius he is an augmenter of the power andgreatness of a nationality hostile to the Jew.
His unfailing instinct in such things scents the original soull in everyone, and his hostility is assured to anyone who is not spiritof his spirit. Since the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker, not onlyanyone who attacks passes as his enemy, but also anyone who resists him.But the means with which he seeks to break such reckless but upright soulsis not honest warfare, but lies and slander.

Slowly fear of the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmareon the mind and soul of decent people.
They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus havebecome his final victim.
The Jew's domination in the state seems so assured that nownot only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimatenational and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itselfto be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists tryto make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness ofthe Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, theJews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their headsto build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there;all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle,endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the interventionof other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for buddingcrooks.


He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense:economic and political.
Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attackfrom within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence,incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants the flag of revolutionon the very battlefields.
In economics he undermines the states until the social enterpriseswhich have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected tohis financial control.
In the political field he refuses the state the means for itsselfpreservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenanceand defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history andpast, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.
Culturally he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makesa mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity,of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere ofhis own base nature.
Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, untilthe last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world havefallen.
(e) Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining politicalpower the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democraticpeople's Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few yearshe tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoplesof their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave'slot of permanent subjugation.
The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people."" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

please note I doNOT agree with any of this BS
it is posted here to show HITLER was the one who popularised this idea
that our current neo-con's repeat
 
  • #21
ray_b, one quote in Mein Kampf does not imply anything about modern conservatives. Its exactly the same as the commonly cited fallacy that:

-The Nazis banned guns.
-Democrats want to ban guns.
Therefore, Democrats are Nazis.

Unless you can show that conservatives actually follow Hitler (and that means, conservatives need to mention him by name), you need to stop making these claims.
 
  • #22
But where did he ever claim conservatives follow Hitler? Best I can tell he simply argued that Hitler originated the argument of a liberal media, which his quotes seem to back up unless you can prvoide earlier examples from others.
 
  • #23
kyleb said:
But where did he ever claim conservatives follow Hitler? Best I can tell he simply argued that Hitler originated the argument of a liberal media, which his quotes seem to back up unless you can prvoide earlier examples from others.

exactly
I said the IDEA was hitlers
I never even claimed he said it first
just that he pushed the IDEA on to the popular world scene
and that you should know who's ideas you are parroting
 
  • #24
kyleb said:
But where did he ever claim conservatives follow Hitler? Best I can tell he simply argued that Hitler originated the argument of a liberal media...
ray b said:
exactly
I said the IDEA was hitlers
I never even claimed he said it first
just that he pushed the IDEA on to the popular world scene
and that you should know who's ideas you are parroting
Well, if that's all you're saying, then all you've said about it is an irrelevant rant. If Hitler thought of it first, so what? It has no relevance to whether or not the media is actually liberal today or why people see the media as liberal. The only reason that would be relevant is if it is your intention to connect Hitler to modern conservativism. Please clarify or retract.

The fact is that people percieve the media as liberal because it is. This fact is already referenced above.

edit: ray_b, it would also help if your posts were more coherent - if you would write in somewhat complete sentences and include occasional punctuation.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Let's face it -- all the weed-smoking, sexually liberal Republicans I know don't realize the Republican Party nows consists of fundamentalists (right-wing Christians) and right-wing Hawks (militant conservatives). As for Duped Ya, I've already shown in earlier threads that he is a fascist, so why wouldn't it be possible for ideas that may have been originated from Hitler to be incorporated in his administration? Quite frankly, I've seen some condescending aggression from all sides in the forum...
 
  • #26
SOS2008 said:
As for Duped Ya, I've already shown in earlier threads that he is a fascist...
Riiiiiiiiiiiight... :rolleyes:
so why wouldn't it be possible for ideas that may have been originated from Hitler to be incorporated in his administration?
I appreciate your being up front about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Riiiiiiiiiiiight... :rolleyes:
The truth is, I'd be so bored without you--you know I love ya. :biggrin:
 
  • #28
SOS2008 said:
The truth is, I'd be so bored without you--you know I love ya. :biggrin:
Fair enough. For my part, I enjoy debating you - you're not one of the ones who annoys me...
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Fair enough. For my part, I enjoy debating you - you're not one of the ones who annoys me...

LOL! :smile: SOS, you better take what you can get; that's high praise from Russ! :-p :smile:
 
  • #30
Moonbear said:
LOL! :smile: SOS, you better take what you can get; that's high praise from Russ! :-p :smile:
Dang it--he edited while I was replying too. I have many engineer friends--for which this is typical, but I like engineers (because I can be a little picky about the details myself). :smile: But seriously, for those within academia, there are diverse people who participate in this section, which I personally enjoy--as long as they practice a little professional courtesy.:smile:
 
  • #31
In regards to "neo-con" being a product of the "radical left", I invite you all to check out

http://www.newamericancentury.org

It is a website featuring numerous essays and ideological outlines from many of the people who have been figure heads in the Bush administration in recent years (including Cheney, Rice, Powel).

Among the essays are arguements for invading Iraq and transforming the Middle East.

Basically it is the homepage of the neo-con agenda, and outlines exactly the direction in which they hope to take the world.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
SOS2008 said:
Let's face it -- all the weed-smoking, sexually liberal Republicans I know don't realize the Republican Party nows consists of fundamentalists (right-wing Christians) and right-wing Hawks (militant conservatives). As for Duped Ya, I've already shown in earlier threads that he is a fascist, so why wouldn't it be possible for ideas that may have been originated from Hitler to be incorporated in his administration? Quite frankly, I've seen some condescending aggression from all sides in the forum...

SOS, normally I can see where you are coming from and I respect your views and opinions. However, I'm not sure what it was exactly you were trying to get at with the first line of your post. I find it a little bit offensive.

Who is this Duped Ya person you were referring to? I'm just curious.

Everybody has there days when they come off a little more aggressive than others and you're right it does come from all sides of the forum. Take it with a grain of salt and don't dwell on it.
 
  • #33
misskitty said:
SOS, normally I can see where you are coming from and I respect your views and opinions. However, I'm not sure what it was exactly you were trying to get at with the first line of your post. I find it a little bit offensive.
I know quite a few people who are Republican who smoke weed, and fornicate, etc., and my point was that the Republican Party now consists of many fundamentalists (right-wing Christians) who intend to put an end to their decadent ways, and though they may not know it, these people no longer fit in the Republican Party. The remark is not directed at you.
misskitty said:
Who is this Duped Ya person you were referring to? I'm just curious.
George "Dubya" Bush is referred to in many ways, sometimes "Shrub" or what have you. I realize many people feel this is disrespectful to the office, but respect is something earned in my opinion, and at least it is only humorous and not worse.
misskitty said:
Everybody has there days when they come off a little more aggressive than others and you're right it does come from all sides of the forum. Take it with a grain of salt and don't dwell on it.
I agree, and was joking a little too--hoping to diffuse this thread a little...not everyone is a thoughtful as you. :smile:
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
ray_b, one quote in Mein Kampf does not imply anything about modern conservatives. Its exactly the same as the commonly cited fallacy that:

-The Nazis banned guns.
-Democrats want to ban guns.
Therefore, Democrats are Nazis.

Unless you can show that conservatives actually follow Hitler (and that means, conservatives need to mention him by name), you need to stop making these claims.

actualy there are 5 quotes from him not one
and I don't want to dig thru all of hitler's posion to find the many more times he said it

NAZIs never baned guns except from certan groups of people
guess who they were
normal german christians never faced any gun ban at any time from the nazis

that is just another example of the BIG LIE a nazi IDEA that is also favored by BuSh like saddam has WMDs or ben lauden and saddam are supporting each other two resent BIG LIE proved WRONG
 
  • #35
MaxS said:
In regards to "neo-con" being a product of the "radical left", I invite you all to check out

http://www.newamericancentury.org

It is a website featuring numerous essays and ideological outlines from many of the people who have been figure heads in the Bush administration in recent years (including Cheney, Rice, Powel).

Among the essays are arguements for invading Iraq and transforming the Middle East.

Basically it is the homepage of the neo-con agenda, and outlines exactly the direction in which they hope to take the world.
Where on that site can I find the term "neocon"?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
197
Views
24K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
124
Views
13K
Replies
37
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
8
Replies
253
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
Back
Top