Remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio?

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I'm curious, what makes you think that? Have you ever heard AFR? Where are you drawing this point of view from?

It certainly couldn't be an emotional response stemming from your dislike of liberal ideas, could it?

If NPR takes up a good part of their programming, that says enough to me. Regarding the term "liberal ideas"? Is that an oxy moron?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Bumbles
see, at this point, wvrevy, I've lost all hopes of having a rational discussion with you because unless you live in a hippy commune with no outside sources of information coming in, there's no way you can honestly say there isn't a liberal slant to the media.

You honestly believe the current media is fair and balanced?

Well, pass me some of what you're smoking then

Again, insults instead of facts.

You kinda remind me of the knights from monty python...When faced with actual resistance, your response appears to be "run away ! run away !" :rotflol:

C'mon, you can do better than that...If the media is so biased on the liberal side, you should have NO trouble citing dozens of examples, and I'm only asking for ONE.....

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by caitycaity
here bumbles, you can have some of mine.

Or some of mine!

I too agree that various media sources will have some degree of bias in some form or another. We have two major papers in the Tampa Bay area, the Tampa Tribune and the St. Petersburg Times. One tends to be more conservative, the other more liberal. But I would say that neither is too far from the center.

It's interesting to note too that the more conservative newspaper is owned by a large media company. The more liberal is independently owned.

Ultra-liberal media bias? No, it doesn't exist.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
If NPR takes up a good part of their programming, that says enough to me. Regarding the term "liberal ideas"? Is that an oxy moron?

As others have stated, while NPR does have some programming that is more liberal-leaning the vast majority of its programming isn't political to begin with or is more moderate than anything.

And, once again, you have no proof so you resort to childish regurgitation of right-wing sound bites. Wasn't that what got you banned from the DIS before?

 

[meandtheguys]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
As others have stated, while NPR does have some programming that is more liberal-leaning the vast majority of its programming isn't political to begin with or is more moderate than anything.

And, once again, you have no proof so you resort to childish regurgitation of right-wing sound bites. Wasn't that what got you banned from the DIS before?

Can you get banned for regurgitation of right-wing sound-bites? What about left-wing sound-bites.

WV, can we come to the commune for a field trip? That would be a good time. My boys could pin-trade with Elora! And learn about left-wing politics at the same time!

 

[wvrevy]

To AF Rocks: CBS News currently has the story as: "9/11 Panel: No Al Queda / Iraq link" and says in it's opening paragraph exactly what the report says: The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda in attacks against the United States.

I does go on to mention Bush and Cheney's assertion that Saddam had long ties to Al Queda, and that the report addresses those claims as well: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said. "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq."

I don't think that's biased at all, and certainly not an example of the massive liberal media conspiracy the right is always raving about.

To Galahad: I am certain you're going to claim that I've just done what you claimed I would, but again, I do not see how that story is supposedly evidence of some massive liberal lean from the source that AF Rocks claims is the single most biased group out there.

As to the FOX News bias in the other direction, I found this on my first google search:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

Presents some very interesting reading...

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by meandtheguys
Can you get banned for regurgitation of right-wing sound-bites? What about left-wing sound-bites.

WV, can we come to the commune for a field trip? That would be a good time. My boys could pin-trade with Elora! And learn about left-wing politics at the same time!

I don't think Dawn was banned for the message...more for the delivery, if you catch my meaning

As for Elora pin-trading.....she hasn't quite grasped the concept yet...She just expects you to give her your pins

 

[jrydberg]

I haven't read it and frankly don't have time to, but I'd take anything on a site called "fair.org" with a VERY large grain of salt. Kinda reminds me of "Pravda" which was anything but "Pravda" (truth).

As to liberal bias, I don't think it's a myth, but I don't think it's ultra-liberal or any sort of conspiracy. That profession tends to draw people with a more liberal outlook. The conservative outlook tends more towards "leave me alone" whereas the liberal outlook tends more towards activism. The end result is a modest liberal bias in most news outlets. Nothing overwhelming and nothing outrageous, IMO. But better to recognize that and understand where it comes from. I still get news from CNN and *gasp* even the BBC. But I can easily filter out the opinion from the news. It's not that hard to do. Works with Fox News as well

 

[meandtheguys]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I don't think Dawn was banned for the message...more for the delivery, if you catch my meaning

As for Elora pin-trading.....she hasn't quite grasped the concept yet...She just expects you to give her your pins

That's perfect! The boys love giving thing to little girls! Their niece is sooo spoiled!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by meandtheguys
That's perfect! The boys love giving thing to little girls! Their niece is sooo spoiled!

Then yep, they'd get along great

 

[Bobbles]

I am amazed that it is assumed that mostly "liberal" media is scheduled on AFRTS and Rush is needed to balance it.

Is Hannity, O'Reilly, (eeek) Ann Coulter regularly broadcast?
Does anyone have a schedule of what is played on AFRTS?

If the liberal media, let's say NPR, gets air time,then what shows get aired? An NPR show on politics or gardening?
The conservaive radio shows are consistently one way political points of view.

That cannot be said about the rest of the media. If CBS gets charged as "liberal" media and the time alloted for CBS is a sporting event, would that be balanced by a Rush Limbaugh radio show?

So while we can say that the "liberal" media provides programming to AFRTS, what are those shows?

I totally agree that balanced broadcasting is a good thing. But I can't see or judge how it's balanced if I don't know what is on the air.

 

[caitycaity]

I've personally found MSNBC to be the least liberally biased

what about Fox?

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I haven't read it and frankly don't have time to, but I'd take anything on a site called "fair.org" with a VERY large grain of salt. Kinda reminds me of "Pravda" which was anything but "Pravda" (truth).

As to liberal bias, I don't think it's a myth, but I don't think it's ultra-liberal or any sort of conspiracy. That profession tends to draw people with a more liberal outlook. The conservative outlook tends more towards "leave me alone" whereas the liberal outlook tends more towards activism. The end result is a modest liberal bias in most news outlets. Nothing overwhelming and nothing outrageous, IMO. But better to recognize that and understand where it comes from. I still get news from CNN and *gasp* even the BBC. But I can easily filter out the opinion from the news. It's not that hard to do. Works with Fox News as well

Good Post !

 

[Galahad]

The bias that exists on either side is as much from implication and delivery as anything else. Our local paper ran the headline today:

Commission: No Saddam - 9/11 Link!

Well, that's true. AND, it was never claimed that there was a link. But, the existence of the headline at all implies to those who aren't news junkies that the administration must have, at one point, claimed that or otherwise there wouldn't be the headline.

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That's not an example, but thanks for playing

C'mon...If there's such a massive liberal media conspiracy out there, then surely you can cite SOME example of it.....

CBS Radio has produced a 1 hour special about Clinton's new book. This in and of itself does not display a bias, but they are requiring all of their affiliates to air the special. I can not think of a single time that CBS has dedicated an hour to discuss a book by a conservative (though I would accept a counter example to prove me wrong), and I know that they have never required their affiiates to cover a book by a conservative. Doesn't that hint of bias to you?

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Galahad
The bias that exists on either side is as much from implication and delivery as anything else. Our local paper ran the headline today:

Commission: No Saddam - 9/11 Link!

Well, that's true. AND, it was never claimed that there was a link. But, the existence of the headline at all implies to those who aren't news junkies that the administration must have, at one point, claimed that or otherwise there wouldn't be the headline.

I JUST GOT IT !!!!!

No wonder everyone is so confused about the facts all the time. People are just reading the headlines !

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I JUST GOT IT !!!!!

No wonder everyone is so confused about the facts all the time. People are just reading the headlines !

I think many people DO just read the headlines. Media bias, from the left or the right, doesn't really have much effect on news junkies that read the whole article, or pay more that cursory attention to a news cast. But it does potentially affect the majority of consumers, that don't pay close attention.

 

[cardaway]

Back to Rush...

Maybe they are just trying to remove the shock jock aspect. I find it very fitting that Stern was borught into this because I put them into the same boat. Both use styles that cater to a specific audience while at the same time looking to offend another group.

I suspect the response will be that Stern is crude and profane, but IMO a objective look at Rush's show would find that his slang and name calling is just as offensive and has the same purpose.

IMO it doesn't matter if it's sex talk or lib slamming. A style aimed at offending an entire subgroup of people shouldn't be on public radio. Period.

 

[Bobbles]

Originally posted by Galahad
The bias that exists on either side is as much from implication and delivery as anything else. Our local paper ran the headline today:

Commission: No Saddam - 9/11 Link!

Well, that's true. AND, it was never claimed that there was a link. But, the existence of the headline at all implies to those who aren't news junkies that the administration must have, at one point, claimed that or otherwise there wouldn't be the headline.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH



Could this be misconstrued that the Bush Administration NEVER said there was a link between Hussein and 9/11?
It is true that the administration has backed away from that assertion since but.....?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by WDWHound
CBS Radio has produced a 1 hour special about Clinton's new book. This in and of itself does not display a bias, but they are requiring all of their affiliates to air the special. I can not think of a single time that CBS has dedicated an hour to discuss a book by a conservative (though I would accept a counter example to prove me wrong), and I know that they have never required their affiiates to cover a book by a conservative. Doesn't that hint of bias to you?

I have no idea what motivation CBS could have for airing a special about Clinton's book, but I don't know that it has anything to do with "bias". In all likelihood, the special will probably focus on the "revelations" in the former president's book about the Monica affair and such. But let's not pretend that this is just some liberal book that has no relevance, this is a former president we're talking about here. It's not like they're dedicating an hour to Al Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" or anything

As to prime time specials, I've seen more than one on the Bush administration, essentially following him around for the day followed by an extensive interview (at least, one extensive interview...the president doesn't like going without a script...can't imagine why ). Does that make the network that aired that biased towards the right ? No. It's NEWS.