18 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

I would truly like to understand how the Press can so blatantly trample on its so-called principles of journalism.

Most journalists want to "make a difference" in the world which sets them up to be taken in by every chicken little who yells "The sky is falling."
But more than anything, they want to be accepted by those whom they idolize and for whom they get tingly feelings running up their legs.
At a minimum they wish to be celebrated insiders, and on the list of Washington's "ELITE."
See who's on the list of the White House Christmas Holiday parties: The elite who always say the proper things!!!

Even Galileo recanted his position that the earth revolved around the sun to avoid ridicule and punishment.
But he still didn't get to go to the parties.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 07 December 2009 - 08:20 PM.

[bullshort]

The broader implications of this conspiracy (if you don't mind my using that term) are very very troubling to me.

Don't leave out the likes of GS and GE who are posed to benefit nicely from the Green Revolution.

So who's behind it and who will benefit?
...the UN, Government, Science (even NASA), Academia, Wall Street, Big Business and the Press, and you dare to call it a conspiracy.

Instead of conspiracy I meant to say "mutually desirable goal which only benefits special interests." But seriously, how does the Press benefit from this nonsense? The fact that GE owns NBC, Disney owns ABC, etc., doesn't count. I would truly like to understand how the Press can so blatantly trample on its so-called principles of journalism.

They typically jump on board with the liberal line, and are definitely prone to accepting environmental science at face value. They don't do journalism any more. No time.

I must say, they were duped and then scooped. I don't think that they were any more complicit than in any other liberal agenda.

M

I would still be interested to learn how Roger or anyone else thinks the Press benefited from being behind this movement, implying that that is why they don't report both sides. I can't see that but if true, I could more easily understand the corruption involved. If they don't stand to benefit then why not just report based on their journalistic obligation instead of completely ignoring the facts that they don't agree with?

The fact that they "jump on board with the liberal line" is obviously true but it doesn't answer the question of why they so blatantly ignore their own principles of journalism. Maybe I've had my eyes closed for a long time, but I can't remember any time in my life where the bias has been so blatantly dishonest.

[Sentient Being]

You have a radicalized portion of our population who support the entire socialist movement of the far left. They completely believe in big government and follow the drum beat laid out by those pushing the buttons for the "progressive" movement. Yes, it's self defeating. But even Hitler had his supporters, he was elected. Many industries climbed in bed with him at first in order to play politics and get a short term profit. Long term, it was disaster for them and all of Germany. The main stream press are true believers in the progressive socialist movement. The believe our news should be controlled and used to guide us to the socialist agenda they support. They think they are brilliant for doing so. That the socialism they help to bring about will take us to a better place. The left has the schools, they control the minds, they have taken the press, they are "educating" us to the greatness of big government and socialism.

[*JB*]

You have a radicalized portion of our population who support the entire socialist movement of the far left. They completely believe in big government and follow the drum beat laid out by those pushing the buttons for the "progressive" movement. Yes, it's self defeating. But even Hitler had his supporters, he was elected. Many industries climbed in bed with him at first in order to play politics and get a short term profit. Long term, it was disaster for them and all of Germany. The main stream press are true believers in the progressive socialist movement. The believe our news should be controlled and used to guide us to the socialist agenda they support. They think they are brilliant for doing so. That the socialism they help to bring about will take us to a better place.

The left has the schools, they control the minds, they have taken the press, they are "educating" us to the greatness of big government and socialism.

Very well put!

I would put it this way -- to simpify it more -- it's all about POWER and CONTROL over the most people and institutions possible by government AND IT ALLIES.

That is the agenda of the left...period.

If anyone has ever studied Utilitarianism, the tenets of the "religion" of the left, it is simple to understand. The BIG lies don't matter -- since the "cause" is so powerful and "righteous" -- since the end justifies the means. And it always ends in totalitarianism, if allowed.

BTW -- I am not ROFLMAO.

Edited by *JB*, 08 December 2009 - 03:15 AM.

[maineman]

No expert on "the press" here, but Fox News, which is a conservative opinion pushing agenda laden front for the right has the highest daily viewer numbers, far more than any "liberal" news organization. Second, we are possibly just waking up from 8 years of a stupor in which the "press" bought into a pack of lies about WMD, Guantanamo, ill-vetted appointments at the Justice Department, and high level appointments ("Heck of job, Brownie"), Gonzalez, etc. without quesitoning or doing appropriate due diligence. That does not sound like a "liberal led" press to me. As for this dumbing down of our collective knowledge and pigeon holing "liberal" this and "rightwing" that, all I hear is increasing stupidity. Liberal - me - practices tolerance of all people. Strict separation of Church and State. Government intervention for the sake of life, decency and basic welfare of those less fortunate than us. I'm happy to pay my taxes. Those are "my" roads you are driving on, for instance. Promotion of intelligence through a vibrant public school system. (you know, the teaching of SCIENCE, for instance? - not spending 4 months in school practicing Christmas Carols or debating whether to include so-called Intelligent Design- as a valid curriculum item) Clearly this oversimplifies the whole shebang, but you get my point? If you think the "liberals" control us all, tell my why, since I was born, It's been Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush and only brief interludes of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton? Are facts allowed in this conversation? mm mm

[mss]

If you think the "liberals" control us all, tell my why, since I was born, It's been Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush and only brief interludes of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton?

Are facts allowed in this conversation?

mm
mm

mm, Do two things if you really want facts.

Count the years EACH president was in office.

THE MOST IMPORTANT - count the years WHICH PARTY had control of BOTH CONGRESS AND HOUSE.

And last, look back at the years leading up to WW I & WW II who and what party was in control.

mss

Edited by mss, 08 December 2009 - 08:36 AM.

[maineman]

What's your point? Is it "liberals" who started WW 2 and 1? I'm missing something here..... mm

[OEXCHAOS]

The fact that they "jump on board with the liberal line" is obviously true but it doesn't answer the question of why they so blatantly ignore their own principles of journalism. Maybe I've had my eyes closed for a long time, but I can't remember any time in my life where the bias has been so blatantly dishonest.

I think we have to be fair here. Climate science is fairly complex. It took me quite a while to get my brain around enough of it to speak critically, and I was motivated. Folks in the press are not particularly well versed in the left brain skills in the first place, plus they seem (like a whole lot of folks) to respect academic authority at face value. They may not trust politicians or business people, but put a PhD behind their name and they buy in. Normally, btw, that's a safe shortcut.

Then, throw in the politics and the political bias, and it's not surprising at all.

As an example, Ron Bailey at Reason is a pretty smart and well educated guy. He started out a GW Skeptic, then came back to "believer" status, and then grew silent. The poor guy got taken in, and just decided to step back. If one of the best and brightest science journalists got fooled, is it any surprise that so many others did too?

Mark

[OEXCHAOS]

Yanno, guys, this could get out of hand. I'm going to close this one, but leave you with the thought that perhaps it's less about liberals or conservatives and more about statists... Play civil. Mark