WASHINGTON - A US owner of eight ABC stations will not air a "Nightline" news show dedicated entirely to US soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel will spend his entire half-hour show Friday reading the names of more than 500 members of the US armed forces killed in Iraq. Pictures of the deceased will flash on the screen along with a brief description.

However, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which controls eight ABC-affiliated stations in areas including St. Louis, Missouri; Columbus, Ohio; Pensacola and Tallahassee Florida, will not air "Nightline" on Friday.

"Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq," the Sinclair Group said in a statement Thursday.

Koppel and the show "are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," the statement read.

The Sinclair statement wants to know why Koppel is not reading "the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001."

Sinclair owns stations affiliated with major US networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, in 39 markets around the country.

"Nightline" replied by describing the show as "an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

ABC has "reported hundreds of stories" on September 11, and broadcast the names of victims on the anniversary of the attack, the statement read.

"ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades," the statement concluded.

Copyright © 2004 Agence France Presse.

Sinclair is the one politically motivated.

The news here is so damn sanitized. God forbid that anybody get a picture of what the costs are.

I think the show is a good idea.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Sinclair is a major backer of the Bush administration.

Some liberal media...

I wrote an article on this topic for another website.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=7&id=4922

Pagan, you present a well written paper.

My first thought at seeing or hearing any type of soldier/veteran type of retrospect is appreciation. These people are to be thanked, respected, and in the case of this listing on Nightline, revered. They are doing what they do for us. And for that they are due all the respect that can be given them.

I do not curse the administration that made the decision, it's their job to make the calls the rest of us might not want to make. A simple reading such as this doesn't make me feel anything politcal at all. It's not about Bush, it's about the military and the sacrifices they make for their country.

Thanks 007...:D

I completely agree...there is nothing at all wrong with honoring the soldiers who have given their lives for what they believed. The only reason that the Sinclair Group acted as they did in pre-empting the show, was because they had a political agenda...and a distasteful one at that.

Is your real name Bond...James Bond?:D

it is a political stunt by koppel, nothing more. why would he read them on the aniversary of the fall off saddam? why would he read only the names of those who have fallen since? I know he read more, but the original plan was to read only the names of those who died since the fall of saddam, he decided to change his mind after pressure from families of the soldiers he planned not to read the names of in his political stunt. Why would he not wait until memorial day? why read the names of the soldiers when the war is still going? its so obviously a stunt. it happens to fall exactly on the aniversary of the george bush flight suit thing. come on! every week stepanoplis reads the names of those killed that week. that is respectful. koppel is a partisan hack using the dead soldiers to get a cheap shot in on hte administration. I tell you this, between the liberal media and senate democrats, Al Queada could not pay for better PR people.

I tell you this, between the liberal media and senate democrats, Al Queada could not pay for better PR people.

What liberal media? The Sinclair Group? Clear Channel?

At least pretend that you have read both sides of the issue...all you really need to read are the statements put out by The Sinclair Group and ABC on this issue to see who had a political agenda.

If you want to see both statements they are available in the article link I posted.

It was not the right time for ABC & Koppel to do anything like this. As TravH notes, at the very least wait until Memorial Day when we honor all who have fallen in the service of their country. Traditionally, we do not honor our war dead until the fighting has stopped.

pagan, of course ABC is going to deny anything about a political agenda in the reading of these names :rolleyes: just look at it from the other angle. I want our troops to be honored too, but this isnt the way. IF you think that this is just an somber rememberance you cant see your own bias. its a political stunt, end of story. the solemn rememberance just happens to happen on the aniversary of the bush aircraft carrier thing the dems all hated so much?? it only read the names of those who have fallen since that day?

Trav, I'm not going to try and convince you that ABC didn't have a political agenda because you are convinced that they did, and I'm even going to admit that it's likely they did. What I'm saying here is that it's somewhat disingenuous for the Sinclair Group to tell it's viewing audience that they won't get to see this because it's too political, meanwhile they're giving money to the GOP in large chunks. If you read the article I linked to, you'll see that the Sinclair Group has a political agenda of their own, and they aren't above using censorship to foist their agenda on their viewers.

The airwaves are publically owned and it's time that media outlets were taken out of the hands of large corporations.

You don't need Sinclair's permission to be informed. It's all right here --

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

once again the neocons underestimate the power of the internet. This is exactly why the left is so much better prepared for arguing current events. 80% of internet use is by liberals. We use newspapers for picking up dog shit. That's all they're good for.

Dop

I think it may be possible that dop is the first person I know that is entirely wrong about absolutely everything

Originally posted by Travh20
I think it may be possible that dop is the first person I know that is entirely wrong about absolutely everything

Gee Trav...I thought I was wrong about everything...:D

no, your not

It's not surprising travh would come on here and poo poo this idea. I guess we should tear down that vietnam memorial because it reminds us of the 60,000 + that died in war, or the new WW2 memorial which lists the almost 200,000 killed in that war.

Why is it that Bush Jr hasn't been to one soldiers burial?

its not suprising pepper would say this exact thing, assucing me of not caring and being political, while all along it is he who is doing what he accuses me of doing. "honoring" the dead by reading a partial list on the aniversary of the stunt you hated most of all is a stunt. in case you hadnt noticed, WW2 and vietnam are over, the list of dead is final. what if we made a memorial to just those killed since the fall of saddam? would that be a proper memorial? it is disrespectful. you are so clueless about the military culture that you just cant understand, you put everything into the context of politics. its a slap in the face to the soldiers to read a list of dead as a way to get a swipe in at the president. I am suprised they didnt have a little screen shot of bush in his flight suit in the corner of the screen while they read the list. of course that probably would have been approriate for you.

Trav, I can see your point regarding the timing of the tribute, but I think in addition to being a political statement it was motivated by a desire for ratings. There is a large segment of the country who feel that the current admisistration has not paid enough attention to the casualties in Iraq. The fact that they don't show any pictures of the returning coffins, and the President has not attended any funerals bothers a lot of people. ABC perceived tis dissappointment and saw a way to grab some ratings.

I never said you didn't care.

Why hasn't bush jr been to one ceremony?

It's not about politics, it's about honoring the dead. This president has to be held accountable for his actions. He wants all the glory of the war , but none of the negative consiquences that are a result of his actions. He decided this war was worthwile, and meanwhile the bodies keep piling up.

Forever war.... war forever, that is the bush/cheney way.

Koppel and ABC had a political agenda by a) initially wanting to list casualties only since the fall of Saddam and coinciding it with Bush speach under the "Mission Accomplished" banner last year and b) by only including the names in Iraq and not those in Afghanistan. Why no include them? Have they not died in the war on terror too?

On the flip side Sinclair was politically motivated to preemt the showing because of his opposite affiliations to Koppel and ABC. Basically it was a pissing contest between two media groups.

Trav is right though...there are much better and prudent ways to honor the fallen soldiers. It actually makes me sick that their memories were used in such a partisan manner.

Bush has visited many wounded troops in the hospital. for all we know he may have been to a ceremony or two. just becasue he doesnt turn every thing he does into a photo op like clinton doesnt mean he isnt doing it. I am sure on memorial day he will be paying his respects along with the rest of the americans who arent out on the lake forgetful of the reason they get the day off.

Sure he has visted living troops, but has paid no respect for those who died. He is commander and chief of the military and can't make it to one funeral in over a year?

No ceremonies for dead soldiers. No pictures of dead soldiers, no listing of names for dead soldiers...how is that being respectful?

They want us to forget the nastyness of their war, all while Haliburton, and Bechtel make millions.

You are naive to think that only select politicians position themselves for photo ops. Bush has just as many PR people working on his image as Clinton did. The msg is the same, only the lead character has changed.

so how are you so sure he hasnty been to any ceremonys? I am not saying he did, I only have heard he hasnt from people like you, who have proven to be far from a reliabel source. anyway, why is that you can find the smallest thing to criticize him about? if he did go to a bunch of funerals you would say he was politicizing the deaths of the men. there is no making you happy.

Bush can run election ads that show dead victims of 9-11 on a stretcher - but the American public cannot see soldiers coffins or have the names of the dead read on TV.

This is such political bullshit - most of the public are going to see the heartless hypocracy in that and see clearly that they put polls way above giving a shit about dead soldiers.

http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2004/1/2004_1_dept_innews.xml

drew, it isnt bush who is stopping hte people from viewing the coffins. that has been a rule ever since the vietnam war. you act as if only bush is suppressing it. why do you inisist on believing the hype? go back and look for the photos of coffins shown during the last gulf war, or somalia, or afghanistan, or panama. there may be pictures now, but the rule to not show them during the war is an old rule. you always expect bush to go above and beyond what any president has done to please you. you want him to break centuries of presidnetial protocol and 30 year old rules at the drop of a hat in an attempt to set him up for failure. maybe its you who only gives a shit about polls, the polls that say bush is losing.

I do not get any positive feeling that Bush cares one crap about the dead soldiers - that may not be true but it is the feeling I have gotten. His spin doctors need firing.

maybe its not bushs people, maybe its the 90% of the media that are registered democrats.

Didn't Bush put coffins in his ad's?

ya and look waht happned. the same thing that would happen if he attended a funeral. the guy cant win for losing with the rabid left wing media proping kerry up. if there were truly a objective media kerry would be done for by now. but, even with the media fully behind the democrat candidate, he still isnt winning. it must be infuriating. it shows just how conservative te country is, the silient majority

Originally posted by Travh20
ya and look waht happned. the same thing that would happen if he attended a funeral. the guy cant win for losing with the rabid left wing media proping kerry up. if there were truly a objective media kerry would be done for by now. but, even with the media fully behind the democrat candidate, he still isnt winning. it must be infuriating. it shows just how conservative te country is, the silient majority


The only reason President Bush is ahead is because he has spent 50 million dollars in the last month on negative Kerry ads. While Kerry has spent roughly 9 million dollars on ads. With Bush spending 41 million more, he has only managed to sway the public on his side by a few percentage points. While John Kerry is close to matching Bush dollar for dollar, and is waiting, to spend his money when it really counts, (close to November).

Thanks for trying, though, Trav

why would you spend money when you got katie couric, chris matthews, ted koppel and all the rest doing it for free?

Originally posted by Travh20
why would you spend money when you got katie couric, chris matthews, ted koppel and all the rest doing it for free?

lol, Trav just keep playing the media card. Even if the liberals do own the "media" (which I don't believe), the Republicans control the radio. So it all equals out. Now face the facts.

Kerry was ahead of Bush by several points. Then Bush spent enormous sums of money, and swayed the points to his side. So Bush is only up, because he has spent 41 million more dollars on ads, then Kerry.

While Kerry hasn't even begun to start spending his millions, which matches Bush.

Now, it's ironic because the polls shift because of this. But you have yet to offer proof of the media being liberal, quotes please. Or anything....would be nice.

Its impossible to see bias if you are on the side of it. like a smoker cant smell cigarette smoke on another smoker.

Liberal you are only taking into account the money Kerry has spent against what Bush has spent. What about all the million$ groups like moveon.org and the AFL-CIO has spent to attack Bush? The democrats have done a good job countering the Republican grassroots effort with their 529 groups and when the day is done both the Kerry camp (including democratic groups) and the Bush camp have spent almost the same amount of money.

And Bush is still ahead.

Originally posted by Travh20
Its impossible to see bias if you are on the side of it. like a smoker cant smell cigarette smoke on another smoker.
I see bias in Democratic Underground and the like as easily as I see bias in Free Republic and WorldNetDaily.

Oh, and it would be nice to provide evidence for a "liberal bias" instead of saying "you can't see a bias because you're biased" blah blah blah. Show me some proof.

Originally posted by The Republican
Liberal you are only taking into account the money Kerry has spent against what Bush has spent. What about all the million$ groups like moveon.org and the AFL-CIO has spent to attack Bush? The democrats have done a good job countering the Republican grassroots effort with their 529 groups and when the day is done both the Kerry camp (including democratic groups) and the Bush camp have spent almost the same amount of money.

And Bush is still ahead.

Republican, those groups have spent about 10 million total. Kerry 9 million. That does not match Bush, since he spent 50 million.

Dems 19

Rep. 50

Bush is ahead by 4 points...and Kerry hasn't even started spending and is matching Bush almost dollar for dollar.

So really, the Republicans have spent more, way more. Yet, Bush is hardly ahead.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Republican, those groups have spent about 10 million total. Kerry 9 million. That does not match Bush, since he spent 50 million.

Dems 19

Rep. 50

Bush is ahead by 4 points...and Kerry hasn't even started spending and is matching Bush almost dollar for dollar.

So really, the Republicans have spent more, way more. Yet, Bush is hardly ahead.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-03-kerry-ad_x.htm

From my totals in this article today it looks that combined the following has been spent...

Dems 47
Bush 60

A difference of 13 and Kerry is spending 27.5 this month.

Originally posted by The Republican
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-03-kerry-ad_x.htm

From my totals in this article today it looks that combined the following has been spent...

Dems 47
Bush 60

A difference of 13 and Kerry is spending 27.5 this month.


Ahh, thanks. I admit I take what I said back. But REGARDLESS, the republicans have spent more. In return, they have only managed to sway public opinion by a few points. So you just in a way, proved my point, just not as extravagantly. I wonder what Bush is spending this month. It’s just all-ironic, because the polls switch because of Bush’s spending. Once Kerry and the Dems spend just as much, if not more, we will pull ahead of the Republicans. We were up by several points, before the massive amounts of money were spent. Now that they are, we are only down by a few. We are going to start out-spending the Republicans soon, and we will ahead by a large number.

While I do not doubt that the Dems will spend more than Bush I am not so certain that they will be able to make a lot of headway. If the economy keeps improving the way it is and more jobs were added in April it will be tough for the Dems to use that to their advantage. Bush has already done a good job defining Kerry as a flip flopper and so far Kerry has not been able to counter that. Every week you hear something new to support that, sometimes from Kerry himself (Voting for the funding before voting against it, I have SUVs but they are really my families, I threw my medals then someone elses then my ribbons but they are the same).

Originally posted by The Republican
While I do not doubt that the Dems will spend more than Bush I am not so certain that they will be able to make a lot of headway. If the economy keeps improving the way it is and more jobs were added in April it will be tough for the Dems to use that to their advantage. Bush has already done a good job defining Kerry as a flip flopper and so far Kerry has not been able to counter that. Every week you hear something new to support that, sometimes from Kerry himself (Voting for the funding before voting against it, I have SUVs but they are really my families, I threw my medals then someone elses then my ribbons but they are the same).

You'll be surprised. But we will just have to watch and see. ;)

Originally posted by The Republican
Every week you hear something new to support that, sometimes from Kerry himself (Voting for the funding before voting against it, I have SUVs but they are really my families, I threw my medals then someone elses then my ribbons but they are the same).

These are the same tired old ones...got any new ones?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
These are the same tired old ones...got any new ones?

Those are the ones Kerry has helped us define him with over the past month or so. As he keeps assisting us in defining him I will gladly post them here.

Really republican, if the worst thing that can be said about Kerry is to call him a "flip-flopper" I'm not impressed. It sounds like something you'd hear on a playground.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Really republican, if the worst thing that can be said about Kerry is to call him a "flip-flopper" I'm not impressed. It sounds like something you'd hear on a playground.

Oh that's not the worst thing that can be said...that is how we have defined him with the voters. He has a lot to do to overcome that so that people other than the "I hate Bush" crowd will want to vote for him. While he has a ferverent base it is the swing voters (soccer moms and NASCAR dads) that are going to decide this election.

Originally posted by The Republican
Oh that's not the worst thing that can be said...that is how we have defined him with the voters. He has a lot to do to overcome that so that people other than the "I hate Bush" crowd will want to vote for him. While he has a ferverent base it is the swing voters (soccer moms and NASCAR dads) that are going to decide this election.

Well, we all know what attacks we use against Bush.

But besides the flip flooper, aspect. Do you really think Bush is better???

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Well, we all know what attacks we use against Bush.

But besides the flip flooper, aspect. Do you really think Bush is better???

Honestly. Yes I do. I have been a supporter of his for 4 years and feel he is the best person for the job. Everything he has done I feel has been for the best interest of this country. Sure he might favor his friends in the oil industry but every President favors their friends. Big contributors expect to get rewarded no matter who the candidate is Republican, Democrat or other. Bush's ideals are in line with mine and I know where he stands on each issue. I cannot say the same for Kerry.

Originally posted by The Republican
Honestly. Yes I do. I have been a supporter of his for 4 years and feel he is the best person for the job. Everything he has done I feel has been for the best interest of this country. Sure he might favor his friends in the oil industry but every President favors their friends. Big contributors expect to get rewarded no matter who the candidate is Republican, Democrat or other. Bush's ideals are in line with mine and I know where he stands on each issue. I cannot say the same for Kerry.

I suggest you go to www.johnkerry.com it may be of some help. Click on the “issues” and it will have each issue, and what he believes on them. I admit he has “flip flopped” but under the circumstances, and the lies President Bush had made and broken promises he had done, Kerry has every right to change his mind. Every issue Kerry has changed on, I have…because of President Bush’s lying of WMD’s, not funding no child left behind, and the jobless rate has forced me to want to keep jobs here.

Originally posted by The Republican
Honestly. Yes I do. I have been a supporter of his for 4 years and feel he is the best person for the job. Everything he has done I feel has been for the best interest of this country. Sure he might favor his friends in the oil industry but every President favors their friends. Big contributors expect to get rewarded no matter who the candidate is Republican, Democrat or other. Bush's ideals are in line with mine and I know where he stands on each issue. I cannot say the same for Kerry.

So where does Bush stand on the concept of "nation building"?

I know where Kerry stands on the issues today and I disagree with his current stance right now...if in fact that is where he really stands and is not pandering to the polls or who he is speaking infront of. With Kerry I do not know where he truly stands on the issues he has taken so many stances.

I also do not feel Bush has lied about Iraq's WMD. IF in fact Saddam truly did disarm then I blame our intelligence community for providing false information. Right now I do not have the same faith in our intelligence community that I did prior to the War in Iraq. Given the information at the time I completely understand the decisions Bush has made and support him fully. Bob Woodward's book even spoke how Bush was sceptical of the information and George Tenet told him it was a "Slam dunk." If i was in Bush's shoes at the time, and given the information that the CIA, FBI, MI6, the Mossad, Iraqi National Congress, etc. gave to me I would have done the same thing. Lying would imply that Bush specifically made up the information in order to go to war and at this point in time it clearly appears that is not the case.

It’s funny the Republicans target Kerry on changing his mind on little issues.

But then their own President attacks Iraq, to NATION BUILD, something he was COMPETLEY AGAINST. That is the biggest flip-flop of ALL.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
So where does Bush stand on the concept of "nation building"?

Given the fact the world changed on 9-11 I am willing to give Bush a pass on that. Had 9-11 not happened I would question it. But that said this one instance would not be ebough to sway my voting for President Bush. I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said "If a person agrees with you 80% of the time you can consider them a friend."

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
It’s funny the Republicans target Kerry on changing his mind on little issues.

But then their own President attacks Iraq, to NATION BUILD, something he was COMPETLEY AGAINST. That is the biggest flip-flop of ALL.

That is one flip flop...not a career built upon them.

Originally posted by The Republican

I also do not feel Bush has lied about Iraq's WMD. IF in fact Saddam truly did disarm then I blame our intelligence community for providing false information. Right now I do not have the same faith in our intelligence community that I did prior to the War in Iraq. Given the information at the time I completely understand the decisions Bush has made and support him fully. Bob Woodward's book even spoke how Bush was sceptical of the information and George Tenet told him it was a "Slam dunk." If i was in Bush's shoes at the time, and given the information that the CIA, FBI, MI6, the Mossad, Iraqi National Congress, etc. gave to me I would have done the same thing. Lying would imply that Bush specifically made up the information in order to go to war and at this point in time it clearly appears that is not the case.

Okay, the UN found nothing, so our intelligence community is not to blame. It was right in front of Bush’s eyes, Iraq had nothing. There is evidence that Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. Since day one President Bush has wanted to invade Iraq. It was not because of our intelligence, it was because Saddam has had it out for the Bush family ever since the 90’s. 9/11 fell right into his hands, and he used it to his full advantage.

Originally posted by The Republican
Given the fact the world changed on 9-11 I am willing to give Bush a pass on that. Had 9-11 not happened I would question it. But that said this one instance would not be ebough to sway my voting for President Bush. I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said "If a person agrees with you 80% of the time you can consider them a friend."

Pass? He wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 so that argument is out.

I’ll be like you for a second:

I think I’ll let Kerry pass on his pro-war stance
Since Bush lied about WMD’s

I think I’ll let Kerry pass on his support of the No Child Left Behind
Because Bush under funded it

I think I’ll let Kerry pass on wanting jobs overseas and now wanting them to stay
Since Bush has given us a 3 million job loss

So America changed when Bush came into office, so I’ll let Kerry off on these issues the Republicans attack him on.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Okay, the UN found nothing, so our intelligence community is not to blame. It was right in front of Bush’s eyes, Iraq had nothing. There is evidence that Bush wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. Since day one President Bush has wanted to invade Iraq. It was not because of our intelligence, it was because Saddam has had it out for the Bush family ever since the 90’s. 9/11 fell right into his hands, and he used it to his full advantage.

Having a plan to invade Iraq is nothing new. Clinton had a plan as well. we also have plans to invade North Korea, Iran, etc. Also plans on how to respond if other nations do something. It was, afterall, standing US policy for regime change in Iraq when Bush took office.

Originally posted by The Republican
Having a plan to invade Iraq is nothing new. Clinton had a plan as well. we also have plans to invade North Korea, Iran, etc. Also plans on how to respond if other nations do something. It was, afterall, standing US policy for regime change in Iraq when Bush took office.

Clinton never had the evidence the UN presented to the world about Saddam disarming.

Clinton never had the chance to debate Saddam, so Saddam could prove to the world he did indeed disarm the weapons (we gave him)

Clinton is always brought into this by the Republicans. It's so funny....

Please show me this evidence that Iraq disarmed. The failure to find weapons does not mean Saddam did not posses them. I know that is what you believe but that is not what I believe. And again debating Saddam would have proved nothing he could not proove to the UN. There was no point in doing so.

Originally posted by The Republican
Please show me this evidence that Iraq disarmed. The failure to find weapons does not mean Saddam did not posses them. I know that is what you believe but that is not what I believe. And again debating Saddam would have proved nothing he could not proove to the UN. There was no point in doing so.

The evidence? The evidence was presented to the world by the United Nations, when they came out with nothing. Please, they were sent into Iraq to see if Saddam did disarm. All of their reports showed that Iraq had no weapons, or else they would have said he didn’t disarm. Also our satellites picked up nothing. Plus Bush wouldn’t give Saddam the chance to prove to the world and him that he did disarm. He would have shown evidence, but Bush declined to debate him. And we have been in Iraq for over a year, and we have found nothing

Now again, this brings me back to, Saddam “may” of had weapons. Yes. But you don’t go to war on “possibilities” but fact. Something Bush ignored.

It’s just common sense…

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
lol, Trav just keep playing the media card. Even if the liberals do own the "media" (which I don't believe), the Republicans control the radio.

You're right, but there's a difference. The media claims to be unbiased. Conservative call-in radio shows never claim to be anything but partisan. The point being that if you listen to Rush, you know you're getting a slanted view. Dan Rather claims to be telling you the entire story, even if he's not. And the casual viewer can't tell whether they're getting the entire truth or not.

But you have yet to offer proof of the media being liberal, quotes please. Or anything....would be nice.



Lots of quotes here (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You're right, but there's a difference. The media claims to be unbiased. Conservative call-in radio shows never claim to be anything but partisan. The point being that if you listen to Rush, you know you're getting a slanted view. Dan Rather claims to be telling you the entire story, even if he's not. And the casual viewer can't tell whether they're getting the entire truth or not.





Lots of quotes here (http://www.mediaresearch.org/)

yeah, yeah, yeah

And that site is biased for it's Republican, give me a break.

I see Republicans and Liberals on the media. Honestly, this is just BS

that site will be attacked as partisan.

I can't think of anyone less liberal then Dan Blather.

You can't judge the media on the news alone. You have to include the crappy informercials, the tripe miniseries, boring reality shows and advertising advertising advertising.

What we have is a consumer media. It advertises and sells us crap morning noon and night. WHen DatelineNBC offers a 2 hour special on Trump, it does not reflect a liberal media. It reflects a consumerist media.

Sure the media is quesey liberal on some issues, but I saw almost nothing on one of the largest marches in U.S. history. One would think a liberal media would have it as the top story. 15 minutes with live camera feed. Nope those things are reserved for the Oscars and celeberty trials.

there was a anti abortion march twice teh size of the pro abortion marhc, and the anti abortion march got NO coverage at all. the pro abortion march was talked about for 2 days. and dan blather is oneof the most radically liberal anchors there is. on election night 2000 he looked like he was about to cry when he mentioned bush had won, then he got all perked up when he said "wait a minute, we have something here". didnt you see him fawning all over saddamin that interview, throwing him softball questions? if he was a real american he would have produced a pistol and shot saddam between the eyes right there and then and stopped the war from ever happening.

Again you can't just look at the news, you need to look at the whole package. Have you watched local news? It's one of the most dreary things on tv. Media is on 24 7. when I look at the majority of crap on tv I see consumer capitalism, I don't see liberalism.

I don't trust what I see on television especially not the corporate advertised news, I was there in DC for the march and I was looking for coverage of the march and I saw only brief snipits. CSPAN was the only place I was able to find comprehensive coverage.

And actually this was the largest march, estimates range at around 800,000 to 1.2 million (consversitive.) There might have been 2000 or so Anti Choicers.

If the media is so liberal why isn't Nader getting more coverage, he is the most left candidate out of the group? WHere is Chomsky, or Howard Zinn? where is the labor hour (plenty of wall street and business shows) where is the diversity of voices?

OK, they are deomcrat leaning, is that better?

Trav, the TV networks are not nearly as interested in politics as they are in ratings.

the networks yes, but the news arm of those networks is interested in politics. if they didnt claim to be objective it wouldnt be a big deal, but by claiming to be objective but clearly leaning to the democrats is misleading.

Travh the news arm works no differently then the sit coms, the reality shows and the infomercials, they are all based on advertising revenue. These media companies are only interested in promoting images and idea that brings impressions (that's eyes in industry talk), viewers if you talk to normal people.

If you want more objective news, stop allowing ratings to dictate content.

I never said democratic media is better, but I also don't think what we have is necessarily democratic. More tyrannical perhaps almost facist, but not democratic. We would see more discussion instead of partisian politics. And when I say democratic, I mean democracy not the policial party.

well if the network news is based on ratings they would be off the air.

Originally posted by Travh20
well if the network news is based on ratings they would be off the air.

Yes network news is based on ratings, and no they are not off the air. Fear sells, and we're buying.

so are you saying the media sensationalizes the news to cause fear in order to gain revenue? that seems to go agaisnt your theory that there is no bias, or that its as bad in iraq as you claim, which is it?

Originally posted by Travh20
so are you saying the media sensationalizes the news to cause fear in order to gain revenue? that seems to go agaisnt your theory that there is no bias, or that its as bad in iraq as you claim, which is it?
The only media bias is towards making money.

so the fact that 90% of the "objective" mainstream news media are democrats doesnt sound any alarms in your head?

Originally posted by Travh20
so are you saying the media sensationalizes the news to cause fear in order to gain revenue? that seems to go agaisnt your theory that there is no bias, or that its as bad in iraq as you claim, which is it?

I never said there wasn't a bias, I just don't believe it's the liberal one that you and others keep saying exists.

I really don't watch the media news so I don't know what they are saying about the war. When I do tune in I see a lot of generals speaking, I see a lot of government officials speaking, so if they are saying things are going wrong in Iraq, you need to speak to the messenger.

I know fear was used to start a war in Iraq, I know fear is being used in the current campaing by the two major parties and when I see murder, rape and assult on the news every night I know it's not to make me feel more secure. And what good do these stories do? Do they empower us to act? Or does it leave us feeling more helpless.

I know when I do watch the news I get depressed, and feel helpless. This is not how a liberal media, in my eyes, would operate.

Not really. If it was so critical - democrats would be in charge of the senate, congress and presidency - they have none of those.

well, the fact that with a barrage of subtle endorsements for the dems and blatent attacks on the prepublicnas, its amazing that the dems dont own every thing in the government. this is because the majority of americans are conservative. you could say the only reason the democrats have anyhting is becasue f the media. right bnow it is being made to look lik ebush and kerry are neck andneck, I bet if the elsection were today bush would win handily. thats the influence of the media. its a smoke screen. selective questions to seletive groups of questionable position. if you could jus tsee if for what it is it is so obvious. th emedia is trying to sway the election. maybe not consciencely, but they are doing it. why do you think its such a big deal when kerry is questioned and just another day at the offcie when bush is attacked?

Originally posted by Travh20
well, the fact that with a barrage of subtle endorsements for the dems and blatent attacks on the prepublicnas, its amazing that the dems dont own every thing in the government. this is because the majority of americans are conservative. you could say the only reason the democrats have anyhting is becasue f the media. right bnow it is being made to look lik ebush and kerry are neck andneck, I bet if the elsection were today bush would win handily. thats the influence of the media. its a smoke screen. selective questions to seletive groups of questionable position. if you could jus tsee if for what it is it is so obvious. th emedia is trying to sway the election. maybe not consciencely, but they are doing it. why do you think its such a big deal when kerry is questioned and just another day at the offcie when bush is attacked?

Didn’t Gore win the popular vote? More Republicans then Democrats…I think not.

And keep playing the media card, because that is just a plain LIE. Whatever, be blind, see if I care.

after felons and dead men and college students voting two or three times, payin gbums carton sof ciggarettes to vote, scaring little old ladies with stories of dog food or medicine, ya he won the popular vote. Now if only we could get rid of that pesky electoral college the democrats would never lose another election.as far as the media, how would you feel if the media was 90% republican and all were going to vote for bush, but sat there and told you they wee objective?

Originally posted by Travh20
after felons and dead men and college students voting two or three times, payin gbums carton sof ciggarettes to vote, scaring little old ladies with stories of dog food or medicine, ya he won the popular vote. Now if only we could get rid of that pesky electoral college the democrats would never lose another election.

:p hehe, forgot about that didn't you Trav. We won the pop. vote, get over it. More Dems!

so what, gore is out making shouting and TV stations now, so whats your point?

Originally posted by Travh20
so what, gore is out making shouting and TV stations now, so whats your point?

You said there are more republicans, and I told you that since Gore won the popular vote, there must be more democrats. Just face it…and realize you were wrong on that one! :p

OK, if you count the dead and felons and those who vote multiple times, your right, there are more democrats

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
And that site is biased for it's Republican, give me a break.


You're absolutely correct. Those are also exact quotes found in the media. The fact that they're on a conservative website doesn't change that in the least.

Ah - the good old popular vote la la.

Bush won the election - Gore lost the election. It's that simple.

I do not think that because Gore got more votes in the popular vote that we can say for certainty there are more Democrats than Republicans. A lot of the people that voted are registered with neither party and choose to vote for the man and not necessarily the party. I would tend to think that this country is pretty evenly divided between liberal and conservative ideaologis and the true measure of who has the larger party would be in the members and the money raised.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
And keep playing the media card, because that is just a plain LIE. Whatever, be blind, see if I care.

Would you stop calling everything a lie? Grow up and learn to debate.

And arguing over whether there are more democrats or republicans is pretty stupid. Clearly the majority of people flip back and forth between one or the other.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Clearly the majority of people flip back and forth between one or the other.

Exactly true - imagine how many democrats would become republican if Kerry had copper red hair.

For Bias in the media, if you want an expanded view of actual quotes I would suggest www.fair.org if one looks enough you can find all sorts of bias from all sorts of sources ranging from across the political spectrum.

That doesn't change the dynamic on which television survives. That's by high ratings and advertising revenue. A 30 second spot for the last Friends episode costs an advertiser 2 million dollars. Has anyone asked why they want to spend so much for us to see them? This doesn't stop here, but runs along the whole spectrum of what we watch on television. IF NBC had it their way they would command $2 million for every 30 second spot. Right now they try to get as much as advertisers are willing to spend. The impetus for every show on tv is to make ratings. WHen I see Nader getting free airtime on all the major networks, and labor hour instead of wall street hour, we can talk about liberal media. Until then call it for what it is Corporate media. Disney, General Electric, Viacom, Westinghouse, Fox.