News:

Welcome Back to the MenWithFibro Forums
It does not matter the name, We all have the same symptoms.
We are THE ORIGINAL
"MenWithFibro"

Main Menu

ShoutBox! For quick short shout outs to other members. For introductions, questions or comments please post in the proper sections of the forum.

2023 Nov 18 19:10:11
ronr: Sorry folks but we have to move again.  Finances is the major reason and but the new hosting service is kicking back tons of errors and things just aren't work well!  I cleaned out the shoutbox just so that the changes messages will stand out better!

2023 Nov 18 19:06:32
ronr: Facebook does not allow nearly the amount of privacy and they search for people and groups thatdon't follow their guidelines.

2023 Nov 13 19:25:44
ronr: This link is an invitation for those that would like to follow us! https://discord.gg/WYfQM3TW

2023 Nov 13 19:25:04
ronr: Discord is new to most of us but there is a GREAT DEAL of privacy there.  You need to be invited to even see our page.  Download of the app is easy and there are plenty of directions

The Media Sucks

Started by Robby, August 26, 2015, 09:46:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tojo

I may have my left and right messed up today as the fog is really thick. So thick I thought about not posting at all LOL, should have listened to the little voices in my head.
one of Jesus' own
Tojo

Sleep Mode zZ

Quote from: tojo on August 30, 2015, 03:48:41 PM
As far as PBS and NPR they are about as right wing as you can get without actually saying it.

That is interesting. Edit: tojo actually meant left-wing, it seems.

I read that one time Kenneth Tomlinson, a Republican, accused PBS of having a liberal bias. He was the chairman of CPB and was especially annoyed by Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW, and he ordered an investigation about it. The investigation did not find such a bias, but Tomlinson dismissed the results of the investigation and reduced time and funding for the show and extended a show by Tucker Carlson. It seemed that these actions were not acceptable to others and in 2005 he resigned from his position. That is the only story I found about politically trying to influence the programming on PBS.

The President of the US nominates a board of nine directors for CPB. Only five, at the most, can be from one party and the rest have to be from the other party. Currently the board consists of four Democrats and four Republicans. I don't believe that the directors can really skew the programming in either direction. (And if they could, would not the programming always be in the direction of the current President? It would currently be more to the left, but when GWB was the President it would have been more to the right . I don't think it swings like that...)

Based on what little I read, it seems people do not generally find PBS to be biased in one direction or other, when compared to other media. Some do find it biased to the right and some to the left. Some think it includes a bit of both biases.

I got the impression, from what I read, that in relation to the average politician, the average billionaire, and the average US citizen, the US media, as a whole, is more to the left or liberal side. The clearly right-wing publications and networks - like Fox News and Washington Times - are in the minority. That is, the US media has a liberal bias when "unbiased" is defined as being in the very middle, as the average values of all US citizens.

The media has its liberal bias in spite of the fact that the people in power, the people with the big money, and the media's very audience, on average, would prefer them to be more to the right. This is opposed to the view which others have expressed in this thread, the view that there are political and economical powers dictating what the media can and cannot show, say and write. Both the political and economical powers would steer the reporting to the right, on average. Even the audience mostly see the media as skewed to the left and is unhappy about it. They would all prefer it to be more to the right - to reflect their own values.

So the media can't really be being pulled to the left by power, money or popularity. There are more of them to the right. What could it then be, pulling the media towards the left and more liberal views? My guess is that they are actually the media's own values, the values of individual journalists and reporters, that influence their reporting in that way. Journalists and reporters are, on average, biased to the left and liberal views when compared to the general US population, including the rich and the powerful.

General reading (or listening, as the Freakonomics link contains a 36 minutes long radio podcast).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

Robby

#32
I'm not saying they are left or right, just that they have an agenda, and it's usually toward whichever side is in power. I could list a lot of "news stories" and events lately where the "unbiased" media intentionally reported the events in such a way to make people feel a certain way about the subject. But, I will not do that as it would serve no purpose other than make you feel the way I do. To tell you how bad it is, one story in particular several powers that be that support a certain organization, actually came out to condemn it because of how horrible the news was, but other leaders defended the actions, which just makes me sick, and I have to wonder just how deviant and evil these people are.  This is stuff that makes the "experiments" by the Nazi's look like a school project.

REST OF POST REMOVED BY ROBBY BECAUSE I WAS A DUMBASS.
/>----------
I will put you in the trunk, and help people look for you, DON'T TEST ME.

foxgrove

Gentlemen, let's be a little more culturally sensitive here.  Making comparisons between Nazis and Muslims is not fair. 

The Nazi party was a group of people that formed together under a single leader with the intention of taking over the world and reshaping it's population through the genocide of a number of groups of ethnic, religious, and socially stigmatized people including Jews, Christians, gays, blacks, Romani, Poles, Slavs, and the disabled. 

Muslim people are a group of people who adhere to the teachings of the Prophet Mohamed as written in the Koran, a religion known as Islam.  Within this group are a subset of extremists who use the writings of the Koran to their militarized ends and call for the extermination of anyone who does not believe as they do, including fellow Muslims.

That's NOT the same thing.  The people that you should be referring to are violent extremists, radicalized Islamic extremists, or Jihadists.  The fact that they are using phrases from the Koran and claim Islam as their religion.  I do not believe the teachings of Islam but that doesn't mean I believe that every Muslim is a danger to me or my country.  There are tens of millions of peaceful Muslims in the world today.  Don't let some extremists rob your mind of that fact.  They do NOT represent the Muslim faith!

If you doubt that this kinda stuff is going on, just remember that the Westboro Baptist Church members claim to be Christians.
Where God leads, His hand always provides
...so keep Calm and code on....

Foxgrove

Robby

Fox, I have removed the offending post, and made note there why I removed it. I totally agree with your statement about Westboro, I will tell people daily they don't practice the same religion I do.

However, my statement did not compare muslims and Nazi's as far as religion, beliefs, or as a whole people. I only compared that fact that if the group in charge of 7% of the population could cause all the issues of WW2, imagine what the leaders of 12% can do left unchecked, whoever that group happens to be. In this case it just happens to be the Muslims.  I do apologize that I'm not politically correct, but then I really don't want to be.

But not all Germans were Nazi's either, and you see what happened when they were allowed to continue their reign of terror unchecked, just because it wasn't politically correct to stop them. My comment also goes to the fact that the Nazi's were what I would call a "passive revolution", where as the jihadist is a very "active revolution". Left unchecked, allowed to prosper and grow, they will be the end of existence as we know it.

I don't think all Muslims are bad, or terrorist, I have some good friends that own the closest gas station/country store, that are both middle eastern, and muslim, three of the four I would defend in a physical confrontation, I have already defended them vocally. However, I did tell the fourth one he got what he deserved on 9/11 when four guys beat him into a coma, it was his fault. Right in the middle of a store full of rednecks watching the events at the towers, he says "America got what it deserved". But, his brother, and cousins all condemned him for it, and I stand by them, even though general belief is they were just trying to keep from getting beat up. About half the people in this area will drive 15 minutes past their store, just in case they are sending money to the terrorist. I think the one guy is just a dumbass, kind of like Westboro, or the KKK, or Sharpton, etc...., I think he just has some strong resentment toward a lot of Americans over their view of Muslims, and people of Middle Eastern descent in general. 

But not all Germans were Nazi's either, and you see what happened when they were allowed to continue their reign of terror unchecked, just because it wasn't politically correct to stop them. My comment also goes to the fact that the Nazi's were what I would call a "passive revolution", where as the jihadist is a very "active revolution". Left unchecked, allowed to prosper and grow, they will be the end of existence as we know it.
/>----------
I will put you in the trunk, and help people look for you, DON'T TEST ME.

looneylane

The silent peaceful majority is always the problem not the crazy murderous minority. If the peaceful majority of any religion stops supporting financiallya and ethically Islamic Militarism and extremism would disapear. The fact that many moderate Islamic groups fund the extremists and support their cries to destroy all who don nto agree leads to tacit approval. Some say to look at the crusades and the evil Christians did. Christians Arabs adn Jews lived epacefully for hundreds of years before Islam even existed in the region and yet it was the Christians blamed for the violence wehn Islam tried to "Reclaim" the holy land? How can you reclaim something that belonged to other groups before you existed as a group? All this to say every group has doen its fair share of not only doing terrible things but blaming as well.

Sleep Mode zZ

Quote from: looneylane on August 31, 2015, 11:30:36 AM
Christians Arabs adn Jews lived epacefully for hundreds of years before Islam even existed in the region and yet it was the Christians blamed for the violence wehn Islam tried to "Reclaim" the holy land?

Nothing peaceful about the period before Islam. Christians started oppressing the Jews well before there were any Muslims in existence. Jews had several failed rebellions against Romans and then Christians. During the fifth century Christians practically replaced the Jewish population of Palestine.

A bit before the Muslims there were the Sasanids (or Sassanids, or Sasanians, depending on spelling; they were Zoroastrians) who were to the east of Byzantine (who were Christians). When Sasanids fought against the Byzantine empire, Jews took the Sasanids side because they treated them better and let them even return to Palestine - but only for a short while. Then Byzantine struck a deal with the Jews to gain control of the area - and betrayed them soon after by banning Judaism in the Byzantine Empire. Byzantines and Ghassanids (Ghassan was a Christian vassal state to Byzantine) massacred Jews in Galilee and Jerusalem. This all was before Muslims stepped into the scene - so not really "peaceful" by any stretch of imagination.

The "golden age" of Jewish culture during the middle ages was under Muslim rulers. Not that they got quite equal rights there either, but it was night and day compared to Christian rulers. Muslim caliphates also allowed Jews to settle back into Jerusalem. During the Crusades when Christians took Jerusalem from the Muslims, there were lots of Jews with the Muslims, defending the city. Christians massacred thousands of Jews along with Muslims while taking it back to Christian rule once again.

Not that there is much use in retelling the cruelties of past struggles over power and possessions. The little I know about history is that Christianity, as any other religion, have not given immunity against power madness, or possession madness - to the masses and their leaders at least. Maybe some individuals have benefited - I hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

Barberian

Holy crap. There has been violence amongst any given cultural, religious or social division you pick since before history began being recorded. It is still going on today.

Only way to fix it is as Ghandi said. "Be the change you wish to see".



My to copper


Preacher

I believe any and everything including television, internet etc is being used to complete every prophecy jot and tittle of Gods Holy Word. I'm just waiting for Christ to bruise his heal on the serpents head.

looneylane

Before the church became an organized political arm instead of followers of Jesus was my point. That lasted for 300 years. Jews, Christians and Arabs were all persecuted by the Romans. There is always struggles but peace has existed in that region many times between the groups there.

Sleep Mode zZ

Quote from: looneylane on August 31, 2015, 07:55:44 PM
Before the church became an organized political arm instead of followers of Jesus was my point. That lasted for 300 years. Jews, Christians and Arabs were all persecuted by the Romans. There is always struggles but peace has existed in that region many times between the groups there.

Makes sense that persecuted and powerless groups lived "peacefully" together while the Romans gave them no other choice. They had bigger problems to face then. The attack against the "murderers of our Lord" started only when Christians had the power to do that, with the first Christian emperors in power.

Before that there were a development of growing distinction between the Jewish and the Christians: Uneasiness against Judaizing within the Christians, and against false messiahs among the Jews. When Christianity developed into a religion of its own, with its own canon of scripture and its own churches and hierarchies, there were increasing amounts of writings against the Jews.

It seems also that Jews were more willing to compromise with their Pagan rulers than Christians and were tolerated somewhat better because they chose to pay taxes to the Pagans, while Christians chose more often martyrdom. When Christians got powerful they were not so willing to compromise with the Jews and would not tolerate them like the Pagans had been tolerating the Jews before.

Or that is my very short view into the matter. I wrote this and my preceding post only because I got the impression that you suggested that the uneasy relationship between Jews and Christians is somehow related to Islam's rise, that people were able to live peacefully together before Islam came to the scene. I probably misunderstood you, though.  Anyway, the conflict between Jews and Christians was brewing from the start when the groups developed distinct separate identities with an uneasy relation between them. It then exploded into violent action when Christians got the means to do that. Islam is another, later, story.

It seems silly to write about "Christians this" and "Christians that" - like I did in these posts - when they were not one unified group through time and space but were comprised of different individuals in different situations - there is not much point in identifying with all of them. Even less does it make sense to accuse or defend "Christians". So maybe my point is that it seemed to me that that was done in this thread concerning "Muslims". It makes sense to bring to justice anyone who funds terrorism - but there is no point in building up anger and suspicion against "Muslims" by saying that even the "silent peaceful majority" of "Muslims" might be funding terrorism. Just deal with those that are actually caught doing it - and I think that every Western country (and probably many others also) does that already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

denny

I feel one of Christs greatest teachings is that of tolerence.
And thats where I stand.

History of course is always interesting.and men have been killing each other since Cain killed Able.
But we can live together now with all that perspective ya know...naaa. not till His return.
I KNEW IT WAS THE ALIENS!



"FREE ME FROM EXISTANCE"
It is what it is...

ronr

We're all trying to get to the same place in the end - even if our vision of that hereafter is different.
Times are tough when "Happy Hour" is your nap.
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!

denny

Sex in the afterlife always puzzled me.
Why would anyone continue to torcher themselves in Heaven.
I KNEW IT WAS THE ALIENS!



"FREE ME FROM EXISTANCE"
It is what it is...

foxgrove

Um.... Not that I'm trying to cause enmity here or claiming that what you've written is factual or not but quoting Wikipedia is about as useful as quoting the National Enquirer.  Find a better source, please.  Wikipedia is the dungheap of solid research.
Where God leads, His hand always provides
...so keep Calm and code on....

Foxgrove

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk