GustavoRibas said:

He shouldn't get 10%.

Universaluv said:

For some of us, our views are right in line with our non-American friends, we are not going by what they said; more we think the same. Like Loakum said, "Bush's Lyin ass"! He lied about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction, for one thing.

SpudMonkey said:

You said he's failed in this area time and again, thats your opinion. Maybe thats what he means by Division; while u said he failed others said he succeded, but then again your probably a WB.

GustavoRibas said:

I don't know anyone who would classify the media in America as ultra-conservative. If anything, mainstream media in America slants to the left of center.

Doozer said:

- well, Michael Moore´s new movie was almost censored. Disney refused to distribute this one. I think it´s only on cinemas because it won Cannes award. The book ´Stupid white men´ almost wasn´t released too.
And there was an episode when a reporter was fired because she took pictures of coffins covered with the american flag inside a plane.
How would you define conservative?
(again, nothing against America. I am talking about a subject that annoys me much. I have great friends in America. Some of my heroes are americans. I just dont can´t stand this government)

theblueangel said:

not hardly.

but anyone that would spend time discussing politics as much as the people in that forum do on a music site, let alone one for a specific artist, is insane.

Doozer said:

Absolute rubbish...but the Republicans want you to believe that. Sadly, many people do. Even NPR isn't as liberal as it by all means should be, and the mainstream networks are pretty repulsive in their willingness to let Bush off the hook for everything.

GrayKing said:

Well I'm glad to hear you ain't no the dark side, and I agree with you...the people who stay in that forum are indeed insane. I think I went in there once in 6 years, and I shall not return!

GrayKing said:

- Aren´t we all insane?

GustavoRibas said:

Michael Moore's movie is widely available and got as much press in America as any movie since "The Passion of the Christ." Michael Moore has been on more newsmagazines and morning shows than I can count talking about this film. You're right -- Disney refused to distribute it. Plenty others lined up to take their place.



Read closer about this one -- that's was due to a government/military policy, not because the media had anything to do with it. If anything, the media went against government policy by releasing the photos you're referring to, thus...not exactly conservative.

theblueangel said:

I've never seen the mainstream media in America hold any president responsible for much of anything...at least not to the point of making a difference.

(That must be why we have Prince )

Just wait and listen....

Hello Blueangel !! How are you?

Doozer said:

That's not exactly true...Disney wouldn't even let Miramax (who is a subsidiary of Disney, but releases movies chock full of sex and violence) distribute the film, and since there were no other takers, the heads of Miramax started their own distribution company specifically for the purpose of distributing this picture.

And in terms of the reporter not being fired due to the conservatism of the media but rather to a government policy...I don't see it that way at all. You're right in that the asinine policy to not allow pictures to be taken of service member's coffins comes from the Bush white house (you can get killed for our country, but you can't have your picture taken as a memorial to the sacrifice you made, nice) ... but the government doesn't mandate that a news organization must fire somebody for not adhering to the policy. Not that they wouldn't love to have that power...

klaatu said:

Quelle coincidence, klaatu...I saw that you had posted on this thread, and I came on here specifically to say 'Allo to you!!

Hope all is well, my friend.

theblueangel said:

Even so, it all happened quickly enough to get the movie released nationwide on schedule, and, as you said, heads of Miramax (part of the so-called conservative media) broke free and released the film on their own.



I believe this policy has been in place over many presidents' terms...not just in the Bush white house. In any case, my point was that the mainstream media released these photos, and using this as an example of ultra-conservatism didn't make sense to me.

Just for clarification, although certainly the movie industry is considered "media," when I talk about how the American media is skewed to the right I'm not referring to popular music, books, TV shows or movies. I'm talking about the news media: Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, NPR, yada yada yada...and then of course the political commentators on AM radio and the aforementioned news media outlets as well.

Doozer said:

That policy started during the first Gulf War under George H.W. Bush.

And I think you guys are talking about the military contractor who was fired. She wasn't a reporter fired by a newspaper. She was an employee of one of the Aircraft contractors in Iraq whose picture was published in the Seattle Times. The military contractor fired her and her husband.




.
[This message was edited Thu Jul 1 12:57:30 2004 by Universaluv]

theblueangel said:

Right...I've just been referring to the examples given by GustavoRibas...those being the Michael Moore movie and the coffin photo incident.

I do disagree, however, than the media outlets you listed (aside from Fox News and AM radio, which is basically 100% conservative radio) are slanted to the right. I would consider the others to be left-leaning.

Universaluv said:

Okay...so the policy was put into effect by a 1-term Republican, then not changed during the tenure of a 2-term Democrat, nor by another 3/4-term (so far) Republican. Sounds like pretty equal time to me.

Doozer said:

I understand that compared to FoxNews or Rush Limbaugh the regular network news seems quite liberal, but in comparison to the rest of the world (i.e. "the real world") they're still too far on the conservative side of things.....it's disgusting that they gave Clinton a much harder time in the press for putting his dick in holes than they have been giving Bush for say, having private planes of Saudi nationals (many of them direct relatives of Bin Laden) be the first flights allowed to fly after the ban on flying was lifted post-9/11.

I think that compared to the extreme right-wing media such as Fox and ClearChannel, many of the other outlets could be considered "left," but trust me, if I were running any of those media outlets, this country would see what a true liberally biased media looks like!

theblueangel said:

We partially have ourselves to thank for what the media in America consider newsworthy and worth covering...you can bet the reason some things are covered and some are not stems from perceived consumer interest. Sadly, Oval Office hummers are deemed more newsworthy than terror policies or understanding world politics. Maybe what we're talking about here is that the media isn't as objectively critical as it should be, not a matter of conservatism vs. liberalism. Giving tons of press to Clinton's oral escapades is just as ridiculous as ignoring the point you mentioned above.

BTW...can't wait for a new Prince song (back on topic!)

Doozer said:

Although Clinton didn't have many flag draped coffin photos to suppress during his terms.

Universaluv said:

Regardless, he had 8 years to craft his own policies in the order of priority he saw fit...more time than any president since Reagan.

And this is still irrelevant to the discussion of "conservative" vs. "liberal" mainstream media.

Doozer said:

Great point...thanks for the stimulating discussion!



ME NEITHER!!! BRING ON THE FOURTH!!!

theblueangel said:

You too -- I'm impressed at how civil is has remained.



Uh - huh! Ain't nothing wrong with a new Prince studio tune for 77 cents.
[This message was edited Thu Jul 1 19:24:46 2004 by Doozer]