farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

I suppose I could be mean and say that as GWB's job is simply to look good for the photo-ops and not to actually make any decisions, cutting out of that grade school gig early would have been a dereliction of his duties.But I will be more fair and admit that if I were president in that situation, I'm not sure whether I would not have continued reading to the kids myself, so as not to give a sense of panic. After all, despite the nationalist, Islamophobic hysteria this was a terrorist (read criminal) act, not a full scale invasion from an occupying force.Not to say that this decision isn't a mistake -- just a mistake that I could have made myself.By the way, Dan is right. The grade school thing has been in the liberal media (I'm speaking of the true liberal wing of the media, like The Nation) for a while.The eggs pelting the limo is new to me, though. Did that really happen? Here? In Amerika?

Bush supposedly visited Ireland this weekend. I have an Irish friend that was back there on holiday -- he said that he was going to participate in the demonstrations against him and the war in Iraq. Anyone here actually watch the "liberal" media here in the U.S.? Did the "liberal" media make any mention of the demonstrations?

Actually, I think it is possible to consider that the media may be biased without calling it a "conspiracy". I prefer Gore Vidal's characterization: "Conspiracy? No, they just all think alike."Anyway, I think shrafinator's point (and I definately know what my point is) is that if the media did have a liberal bias there are certain stories we would expect.(By the way:

quote:

---

Get on the phone with the Justice League or the Superfriends to stop the next plane?

---

I have to admit...that was good.)

quote:

---

If the editors, media moguls, et al are conservative as you say, I am just not seeing it. When is the last time you saw a pro-gun article in any major city newspaper?

---

How did gun control ever become a left/right issue? Although not a liberal, I confess to being very, very far to the left on political and social issues. But I am not in favor of most gun control issues. And if I recall correctly, the first George Bush, most prosecuting attorneys, and most chiefs of police (not exact poster children of the left) are in favor of gun control.--

quote:

---

Almost every day, I am sadly disappointed by a liberal slant on printed media.

---

As I said, I don't consider myself a liberal, but I do read literature that is liberal, I have many liberal friends, and so I consider myself familiar what constitutes "liberal" thinking. I don't see much liberal slant in the mainstream media in the U.S. -- if you want a liberal slant you actually have to go out and look for it.I accept that maybe the media doesn't portray the issues the way you would like them to be portrayed, but does that make it "liberal"? Do you even know what liberals believe? Or is a liberal anyone you disagree with?

What is the topic of this thread? The title is about Moore's new film, but the OP talks more about media bias.

quote:

---

For some posters here, hatred of Bush is the defining tic of their lives. It is what gives their lives meaning, and everything, even reason, is subordinated to it.

---

Perhaps true. Sort of like that pathological hatred so many people had (and still have) of Clinton. Boy, there was some interesting obsessions going on there. And I am someone who despised his policies, and felt that he should have been impeached. But I never understood the, to repeat, pathological hatred people had for him personally.

quote:

---

I have noticed that many of the same posters who usually post eloquent, well-thought, well supported posts regarding science, are the first ones whose brains short circuit when it comes to political issues.

---

Speaking for myself (assuming that I am one of the ones who write eloquent, well-thought, well supported posts regarding science -- modesty doesn't seem to be my strong suit), in the case of science the data are usually so unequivocal that there usually is no real debate -- and we can count on those on the other side to makes fools of themselves without any help.But in politics, there is a lot of fabricated evidence, misrepresentations, and "spin". Actually trying to find unbiased sources (only to have our opponents accuse them of bias anyway) and actually check facts, it's much much more fun to be outrageous and call each other names. But maybe I have strange hobbies.

quote:

---

At any rate I'm not impressed by hunting arguments in an age of corner supermarkets,

---

I am. As someone who is a vegetarian for ethical reasons, I have much more respect for someone who kills the meat she eats herself than I do for someone who goes to the supermarket so she can ignore where her meat comes from.