The Shotgun Blog
« Why I hate Mullahs | Main | Hezbollah flag at Calgary war memorial »
Saturday, August 19, 2006
A classic case of media bias
It isn't often that you get a case of media biased distilled into one sentence, let alone the opening sentence of a story. Yet the Washington Post gives us a perfect example on the news that two parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (the pan-Shiite bloc that holds a near-majority of seats in the Parliament) publicly ripped Iran's interference in their country.
One would think anti-Iranian Shiites raising their voices would be a good thing, unless one reads the Post: "Two Shiite Muslim parties on Friday accused Iran of instigating violence in Iraq and attempting to destabilize the country, exposing a growing rift within Iraq's largest sect that many fear will exacerbate the nation's slide into full-scale civil war" (emphasis added).
Only in mainstream media.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on August 19, 2006 in International Affairs, Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a9b46b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A classic case of media bias:
Comments
Maybe someone can splain this to me.
The WP says that the Shia in Iraq might engage in full blown civil war with ?? the shiite of Iran? or the the Shiites in Iraq?
And what about the Sunnis ... you know the sect that is already waging a defacto civil/religious war with the Shiites in Iraq?
A civil war is within the borders of one country ... yes?
The goal is for one group to dominate the other when talking won't work ... yes?
How does Iran fit into this? If their Shiites go to war with Iraqi Shiites, then that would be a cross border war between two very confused groups that are actually supposed to be part of the same group.
That is other than the fact that the Persians hate Arabs generally regardless of their religion.
Is that anything about the Muddled Yeast that makes any sense at all ... NO!
I have said it before and I will say it again ... Every and ALL Muslims should be routed back to the Middle East and confined there untill they either kill each off completely or figure out a way to join the human race.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-19 1:08:14 PM
Well, see Duke, even though there are different "sects" of Judaism, many of us agree that "Jews" are one nation, right? And this is from history that is recorded in our Bibles, right?
Well check this out:
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
See, Duke.. the Arabs are children of Abraham, just as the Jews are. And the Arabs have a historical right to be a "nation" just as the Jews have some historical right to be a "nation."
Both the Jewish AND Christian holy scriptures vouch for this.
So if you accept the Jewish claims to being a "great nation," which in fact, it is the Old Testament that provides this claim, then who are you to denounce God, and suggest that the Arabs are not also entitled to their 'great nation' as promised to Abraham, through Ishmael?
It's been European/Indian/Turkish involvement in Arab affairs for centuries that have drawn up geographical boundaries in the Middle East, that according to some Jews even, should not exist as they do today.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-19 1:27:29 PM
This thread isn't about Jews.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-19 1:38:43 PM
No, it's about boundaries, and what constitutes a civil war, as far as Duke is concerned.
Thought he might like a history lesson on the history of the Arabs, which is the same history as far as origens, as the Jews/Israelis.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-19 1:41:47 PM
Interestingly Duke, even the nation of Israel has had it's "civil wars" as well. In fact, at one point, Israel and Judah were two separate kingdoms - and where we get the term "Jew" from is the kingdom of Judah, which historically, is not the entire nation of Israel.
Then there are the Ten Lost Tribes... who according to both Christian and "Jewish" tradition, would have every right to call themselves part of "Israel."
But anyhow - Arabs aren't the only ones who have had civil wars - it's quite well known in the history of Israel as well.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-19 1:47:43 PM
Ian:
Correct, to a point.
That was before the acceptance by Arabs of the Satanic, er Qur'anic, verses ... which according to 100% of respected historians happened 600 years after Christianity.
By provably rejecting and manipuating the intent of the Ten Commandments, the basic tenet of Old Testament wisdom, Muhammad willingly created his own blueprint for world domination through force.
Shi'ite and Sunni have been killing each other over who's right about the successor of Muhammad for about 1350 years ... this is nothing new.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-19 1:48:38 PM
"By provably rejecting and manipuating the intent of the Ten Commandments, the basic tenet of Old Testament wisdom, Muhammad willingly created his own blueprint for world domination through force."
Not in exactly the same way, but in some ways similar to what St. Paul did - who also manipulated the intent of the Ten Commandments and basic tenet of Old Testament wisdom - and we ended up with Roman Catholicism, which there is no doubt also had desires on world domination.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-19 1:51:40 PM
Meanwhile, as history lays in its grave, there's a real live question for now and the future: how and to what extent will the quasi-civil-war between Islamic theo-factions effect the geo-political quasi-guerilla-war between the Islamist totalitarians and modern civilization?
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-19 2:01:15 PM
Ian:
I will agree up to a point again.
I'm not sure about what alleged maniupulations of the Ten Commandments you're speaking about. Could you give me an example or two?
Rome was one capital of what is known as the Pentarchy of the ancient Christian church.
The others were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, the areas where Christianity actually started and was well-established before its expansion into Rome. Each had a Patriarch ... or Pope. The words are interchangable, meaning father.
All were considered of equal importance until Rome broke away from the other four in 1054.
Without the checks and balances of the other four, the Pope unilaterally declared himself the supreme ruler of the church.
I'm not sure what you mean about your world domination point ... Christianity made it a point to be non-violent, unlike Murderin' Mo, whose cult is trademarked by forced conversions.
If you mean the Crusades ... that was a response to 400 years of Islamic imperialism, again well-documented.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-19 2:08:37 PM
why is everything about Jews for Ian Scott?
by the way, Genesis 16 also has this to say about Ishmael, "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren."
If the Shia of Iraq recognize that the Shia of Iran are trying to destabilize Iraq, isn't this a good thing? Or is this the Shia of Iraq saying "in your face" to their brethren in Iran?
Posted by: ex-liberal | 2006-08-19 3:14:08 PM
No one has answered my question.
What will happen if the Iraqi Shiites go to war with the Iranian Shiites? Will the Sunnis sit back and enjoy the show or side with one or the other?
What will the Americans do about this if it gets big?
No more history lessons please we are talking about the present possibilities.
Anyone, anyone?
I think the Washington post may be reporting a load of horse shit here.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-19 5:21:44 PM
"why is everything about Jews for Ian Scott?"
Odd. I'm sure I just spent some comments on Arabs.
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-08-19 5:41:01 PM
Don't worry about "Ian", folks: he'll be one of the first to go when islamofascism "runs wild" on him and other (Canadian?) metrosexuals suffering from confused sexuality.
The "guy" is a eunuch and an apologist for evil (its what validates his existence in his own view).
Posted by: bk | 2006-08-19 7:12:33 PM
Duke,
Well, I can tell you what we should do - back any and all efforts to knock the Iranian mullahcracy out of the box. That's why this is such a big deal. My guess is the average Iraqi Sunni will be thrilled that the anti-Khameini Shia are active (the Sunni terrorists, being backed by Iran's Syrian ally, will probably not be so happy).
Sadly, until W ends his wobbly act and gets serious about regime change in Syria and Iran, Iraq will be much more of an uphill battle than it should be. But today was a good day for climbing.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-08-19 8:19:30 PM
@Duke,
you can't really ignore the history, a lot of these current problems are rooted in the history of Islam / Judaism / Christianity.
Anyways. The probem with the "open disagreement" I think is something completely different, and that is the fact that now the Shiite could appear as being divide which may lead the other factions in Iraq to consider to take up arms.
Or differently: If they believe that the Shiite would not automatically accept help from Iran they may be tempted to strike out. This is where the "biased" opening line in the WSJ is coming in.
Out of curiosity: If there are several observers who are concerned with a rising chance of a full blown civil war in iraq, how is that "bias" by the WSJ when they are reporting it?
And more so, what does the poster believe will happen to US and British forces if the powder keg actually does go up?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-19 8:26:22 PM
Snowrunner,
First off, it was the Washington Post, not the Wall Street Journal.
Secondly, one of the big drivers of Sunni anger is Iran's fingerprints in the main Shiite parties (SCIRI and Dawa). Anti-Iranian Shiites mean more help for them.
In other words, this news means a move AWAY from a Sunni vs. Shiite civil war and more towards a pro-independent-Iraq vs. pro-Iranian-satrapy fight. NO ONE on the anti-Iranian side would call that a civil war; they'd call it a battle against Iran's nefariousness.
It would just be nice if people in MSM could think, that's all.
Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-08-19 9:40:13 PM
Our media believes that these savages can't govern themselves without a 'strongman' in charge who will beat them into submission - and they want to get everyone to understand that.
Most media types don't care how brutal or savage evil dictators are - they are 'unbiased' after all...
Posted by: philanthropist | 2006-08-19 10:11:54 PM
HERE IS TRUE MEDIA BIAS
Lebanese deaths, and Israeli war crimes, kept off the balance sheet
by Jonathan Cook
(Saturday August 19 2006)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our news and picture editors say this is about good taste. They justify their decisions on the grounds that we should not exploit the victims of war by showing pornographic images of their death -- a useful excuse as we can never know what the dead would have chosen. More significantly, however, the exclusion of meaningful images of the human cost of war protects us from understanding the appalling consequences of Israel’s military actions, an onslaught sanctioned and supported by our Western media, politicians and diplomats, and indirectly by our taxes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Israel’s war against the people of Lebanon, our media, politicians and diplomats have colluded with the aggressors by distracting us with irrelevancies, by concocting controversies, and by framing the language of diplomacy. In the fragile truce that is currently holding while Lebanon waits for Israel to withdraw, we are simply getting more of the same.
One example of the many distractions during the war that neatly reveals their true purpose is the “faked Reuters photograph” affair. The supposed scandal of a Lebanese photographer tampering with a picture to add and darken smoke from an Israeli missile attack -- to little or no effect, it should be noted -- has not only been decried by activists on Zionist websites but amplified by mainstream commentators into a debate about whether we can trust the images of this war.
Who benefits from these doubts? If we cannot be sure that this one photograph is genuine, then maybe many more that purportedly show some of the 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed by Israel’s bombardment are fake too. Maybe the dead have been airbrushed in as easily as a puff of smoke. Maybe too, were the smoke removed, we would still be able to see that Israel has “the most moral army in the world”.
The far worse photography scandal, which is not talked about, is that the images of the war we saw over the past month in our Western media were constantly doctored, day in, day out. Not by ordinary photographers who risk their lives, and hope to make their fortunes, conveying the reality of war, but by the senior executives of newspapers and TV stations who ensure we are never presented with that reality. Pictures were binned or cropped if they hinted at what suffering and death truly looked like. Western audiences were not shown the row of charred corpses lying in the street, or the agony of a son pressing a scrap of cloth to the severed arm of his mother as she bled to death, or the crushed baby pulled from the rubble.
Our news and picture editors say this is about good taste. They justify their decisions on the grounds that we should not exploit the victims of war by showing pornographic images of their death -- a useful excuse as we can never know what the dead would have chosen. More significantly, however, the exclusion of meaningful images of the human cost of war protects us from understanding the appalling consequences of Israel’s military actions, an onslaught sanctioned and supported by our Western media, politicians and diplomats, and indirectly by our taxes.
How long would Israel’s war have been allowed to continue if American audiences had seen those charred bodies or dead babies? How long would most Western viewers have remained silent if they were exposed to the kind of images shown daily on the Arabic satellite channels? Might we then start to understand why they hate us -- and more usefully why we should hate ourselves?
Much the same purpose has been satisfied in the diplomatic arena by the endless debates about whether Israel’s offensive was “disproportionate” -- a word that raises a yawn almost the second it is uttered -- rather than whether it was necessary. And by the controversy initiated by the United Nations’ Jan Egeland about the “cowardly blending” of Hizbullah fighters among Lebanese civilians, a comment he made while in Jerusalem, not Beirut, based on evidence he has never divulged. It is truly astonishing that the world’s representative on humanitarian affairs made most impact in this war -- one in which more than 1,000 Lebanese were killed and in which hundreds of thousands more were made homeless -- trying to hold Hizbullah to account for the thousands of Israeli air strikes on civilian areas of Lebanon. Such is the upside-down logic and morality of our leaders.
And we are in the same territory again with the current discussions about how Lebanon and Israel will be rebuilt after the fighting. Reconstruction -- another word that provokes instant boredom -- fits the bill perfectly: both nations, we are told, will need billions of dollars to repair the damage done to their infrastructure. The story of astronomical losses conveys reassuringly to us a sense both of technical problems that will eventually be solved and of the ultimate symmetry and justice in the suffering of these two nations. Both peoples face a terrible financial burden imposed by war, both are equally deserving of our sympathy.
But let us pause. How precisely are these two nations’ material losses equivalent? Israel’s derive mostly from the enormous costs of its attacks on Lebanon, the tens of thousands of missiles fired into its towns and villages, that killed mostly civilians, and damage to the tanks, helicopters and warships that were the machinery needed to invade another sovereign country. Most of the rest of the cost will follow from losses in tourism revenue and investment, the consequences of a fall in confidence caused by Israel waging an unnecessary war for the return of two soldiers captured by Hizbullah rather than engage in negotiations. A small share of Israel’s lost billions has been inflicted by the aggression of Hizbullah.
The material damage done to Lebanon is in a different category altogether. The bombed roads and bridges, the tens of thousands of homes in ruins, the destroyed power stations, factories and petrol stations, the oil slick across much of the Lebanese coast are the direct result of Israel’s campaign of precision bombing of Lebanese civilian infrastructure.
Think of how your local court might consider the respective claims of these two nations if this were a domestic dispute between neighbours. Would a judge view with any sympathy a claim from a man demanding compensation from his neighbour for the damage done to his expensive sledgehammer after a destructive rampage through the neighbour’s home, as well as for the loss of his reputation that followed the attack, as he found himself cast as the neighbourhood pariah? Would it make any difference if it could be proved that his neighbour had sworn provocatively at him before he went on his rampage?
Incredibly, a similar claim may yet be heard -- and possibly sympathetically -- by the US civil courts if Israeli lawyers succeed in bringing a case for damages against the Lebanese government.
But all of this, like the “faked photograph affair”, is another layer of distraction. The real issue that should be the most pressing matter at the top of the world’s agenda is not an assessment of the mutual crimes against property but the mostly one-sided crimes against human beings -- the massive Israeli war crimes that have been committed throughout the past month in Lebanon, whose effects will continue as cluster bombs blow up returning refugees, and are still being committed every day against the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank.
This urgent moral case is being quietly overlooked in favour of the material damages story, and for reasons not hard to discern. Because if we concentrated on the tally of war crimes, Israel would come out the undoubted winner in both Lebanon and Gaza.
Posted by: mediabias | 2006-08-19 10:20:48 PM
DJ,
sorry about confusing WSJ and Washington Post, the latter is not necessarily known for being liberal when it comes to news reporting.
Secondly, the rift in the Shiite could very well lead to trying to take advantage of the situation, hence terms like "Divide and Conquer".
The chances are pretty good still that it goes boom, simply because they can't really stand each other, a disagreement with Iran will not "calm the waters" (as nice as it may be) but does in my opinion as well increase the chance that one of the parties will try to make a move and once that happens I guess we can be certain it will get really ugly really fast.
@Philantropist,
Let's not forget that it was us during the cold war that put many of those dictators in place. The idea that we take them out now and let people govern themselves is good and noble, what it fails on is the fact that borders that those tyrants were ruling where also created by us during colonial times, so what we have is a very unstable country that under normal circumstances would not have existed in this fashion.
If left to their own devices they will sort it out themselves, but Iraq would most likely not exist afterwards but most likely you'll see a Kurdish state to the North and a Shiite state in the south with the rest bungled in the middle.
A society that has three major religious factions that can't really stand each other will only "get along" if you either have a strongman like Saddam in power or if religion takes a backseat and it becomes a secular state. The latter one clearly won't be happening in the next few generations and the first one we removed.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-19 10:39:06 PM
mediabias: That was a load of rubbish. What anti-israeli moron wrote that crap anyway ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-19 10:48:55 PM
Snowrunner: I like the idea of letting Iraq split up into 3...however Turkey will not let that happen, as they would have a heck of a time with their Kurds.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-19 10:51:05 PM
Mark,
yes I am aware of that. Chances are good that Turkey would seize what is now Norther Iraq if the Kurds declare independence. I think there is only one reason why Turkey hasn't done it yet: they want to get into the European Union and with the US still in Iraq Kurdistan isn't really a danger.
But the moment civil war would break out (and this split will not be a peaceful one) you can bet that Turkey will move in.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-19 10:58:42 PM
Don't think we'll have to worry about that as Iran and Israel or the U.S. is going to blow up first.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-19 11:05:15 PM
The topic deals with Media Spin. Both the Washington Post and New York Times have been spinning "the news" for decades. Times was required to terminate some professional lying "journalists" as so was the "Post" but these newspapers no longer have any significant influence in the US or Abroad. Consider for a moment that virtually evry newsprint mill in the entire Atlantic Region and Quebec a re shut down or about to be this is because of the drastic decline of sales of newsprint "papers" in Canada and the US. Americans look to their news to Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS Time Magazine, and the dominnet internet bloggers, or internet publications like the Western Standard. The Bowaters Mersey Mill in
Brooklyn, Liverpool NS is owned by the NY Times will shut down for good I wager early in 2007. But the worst media for spinning "the news" are in Canada, I need not name them, you all know who they are. But I will say it is time to dispose of the CBC.
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-08-20 8:26:08 AM
Jack Macleod wrote: Both the Washington Post and New York Times have been spinning "the news" for decades. Times was required to terminate some professional lying "journalists" as so was the "Post"but these newspapers no longer have any significant influence in the US or Abroad. Consider for a moment that virtually evry newsprint mill in the entire Atlantic Region and Quebec a re shut down or about to be this is because of the drastic decline of sales of newsprint "papers
Drastic decline in sales of newsprint papers? Lets have a look at the NY Times average daily circulation numbers over the last 8 years for the months of March and September.
(Audit Bureau of Circulations Six-month Average)
March
1998 1,110,143
1999 1,134,974
2000 1,149,576
2001 1,151,047
2002 1,194,491
2003 1,130,740
2004 1,133,763
2005 1,136,433
September
1998 1,066,658
1999 1,086,293
2000 1,097,180
2001 1,151,047
2002 1,113,000
2003 1,118,565
2004 1,121,057
2005 1,126,190
Now for the March Sunday average
1998 1,650,179
1999 1,687,959
2000 1,691,287
2001 1,694,138
2002 1,735,059
2003 1,118,565
2004 1,672,965
2005 1,680,582
Do you see a “drastic” decline in sales? The Washington post averages about 750,000 sales a day, so close to 2 million people read those two papers. How does that compare to cable news. Look below.
Jack Macleod also wrote:Americans look to their news to Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS Time Magazine, and the dominnet internet bloggers, or internet publications like the Western Standard.
Week ending August 4th
Fox News 1.9 million
CNN 1.01 million
MSNBC 386,000
It doesn’t look to me that all that many Americans are watching cable news, even with a war on
I would suggest Jack that before you try and make a point that you get your facts straight.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-08-20 10:07:37 AM
Thanks to D.J. McGuire and others for the enlightenment on the situation in the middle east vortex. I am not sure I can get my head around the all the points made. I know that my questions were hypothetical and the answers were all possibilities ...
What I do know for sure is that we are in mortal danger in the west and this is the issue of our time. We must be vigilant and prepared.
We do need stronger men in our political arena as well. As in the divided muslim world, our world is divided as well between the leftist appeasers and the right, who are making an effort to "stand on guard for thee"
I already know what will happen if the Left wins in our world.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 10:21:01 AM
Tell you what "nospinzone" the figures published by the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) are provided by the newspapers they are "auditing"
-the reason is that the ABC figures are used to entice advertisers to use print media, but real money for advertising goes to the TV networks and internet. You sound like you used to work for Stats Canada the notorious centre of misinformation, known in our offices as bullshit.
The "newspapers" are not buying newsprint paper
because they are not selling on the streets or by subscription. If you think you know what you are talking about why not pass on your nonsense to all the people in the newsprint industry in Canada who have lost their jobs. When I read your numbers on TV viewing I just laughed. The sleezy little Asper newspaper "The National Post" is now only sold in selected outlets (1)
and restricted to Capital cities in the Atlantic region
-a clear indication of the edge of failure. No surprise to me. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-08-20 10:50:11 AM
A biased media is a always a cabal of manipulaters of facts and outright liars in much of their reporting. The true facts therefore have to be sought by the general public who often don't take the time to get past the outrageous headlines.
The mainstream media in Canada is nothing more than a pack of vindictive louts out to skew the news stories to do the most damage. The most dangerous bias is coming from our own public broadcaster CBC. They seem so certain their favourite party will get re- elected thet it's safe for them to do a hatchet job on the present government, these tactics have served them well for decades. It's up to we, the people, to do our own filtering of the news and there is a lot of evidence that is just what's happening. There should soon be a house cleaning of CBC to get rid of the blocked- off, smart-ass hangers-on and get back to doing what it was created to do, report the spin-free facts, otherwise it should be shut down. If we want opinions there are many sources for them and they should always be identified as such.
We have a serious and dangerous situation here and we should be treating it as such.
Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-20 11:11:15 AM
Liz,
I went to school during the 50s and I remember as early as the 5th grade, being taught about sensationalism in the press. Also what current events were and how they were often skewed to make them more interesting and contraversial to the public.
I wonder if that lesson is still being taught in present day indocrination camps we know as the public school system.
I also got into a big argument with my so called financial advisor last year regarding quebecor stock (newsprint and sun papers) where I said this was a dead stock and he argued that it was still good. I sold it and I think it then dropped by about 80% never to return.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 11:54:27 AM
No spin,
I think you are reporting printed copies rather than actual circulated and sold copies.
Also they did keep their dicks up until this year and then they finally lowered the boom. I think there was 400 lay offs this year ... right? and there will be more to follow.
You are propping up and defending what you believe and that is fine, but it's not the reality.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 11:57:38 AM
Let us all hope "Iraq" will suffer the worst civil war in its short history, until just two men remains alive, who will then put their guns to each other's head and count until three (hopefully they know how to) and then pull their triggers.
Once this has been done it can be repeated in "Iran", "Syria" and all other muslim countries. Just please, first send all muslims back from the free world to their homelands.
Thanx;
Madyar Dyaerec
Posted by: Madyardyaerec | 2006-08-20 11:58:08 AM
The 400 layoffs were at the NY time which is the paper you are referring to.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-20 11:59:10 AM
Jack Macleod wrote: Tell you what "nospinzone" the figures published by the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC) are provided by the newspapers they are "auditing"
-the reason is that the ABC figures are used to entice advertisers to use print media,
Actually Jack, the NY Times gets more than 2/3 of its daily sales through home subscriptions. The rest of the numbers are based on deliveries less returns, so the numbers are pretty accurate.
Jack Macleod also wrote: but real money for advertising goes to the TV networks and internet.
And that’s the way it’s always been, you’re not telling us anything new. CSI Miami draws about 14 -15 million viewers during a first run episode. The king of cable news, Bill O’Reilly, averages about 2.1 million during the week. The Closer on TNT, which is the top-rated cable only show, last week drew 6.4 million Where would you put your advertising money?
Jack Macleod also wrote: The "newspapers" are not buying newsprint paper
because they are not selling on the streets or by subscription. If you think you know what you are talking about why not pass on your nonsense to all the people in the newsprint industry in Canada who have lost their jobs.
Your original statement was about the NY Times and Washington Post, not papers in Canada.
Jack Macleod also wrote: When I read your numbers on TV viewing I just laughed.
Why did you laugh Jack? Maybe because those numbers demolish your belief that cable news is watched by large numbers of people? BTW, I happen to be in the broadcast industry (not for a Canadian broadcaster) and I know what I talking about. You don’t.
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-08-20 2:20:02 PM
Duke wrote: You are propping up and defending what you believe and that is fine, but it's not the reality.
Unless you can supply sales numbers for the NY Times which contradict those of the ABC you are engaged in nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Is that the reality you live in?
Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-08-20 2:57:49 PM
* NOTE-Public Library's Media Bias.Most of the Greater Vancouver public library's reference sections where the newspapers are on display for the public.THEIR almost all left-wing newspapers. Especially the New Westminster Public Library.-> {North Shore News community newspapers.Fridays edition has one conservative column. This paper the library places at the back.The other two days or editions no conservative column, gets public display at the New Westminster Public Library.} Toronto Star too-no Toronto Sun, Calgary Herald yes-no Calgary Sun,ect.,.
Posted by: Larry | 2006-08-21 4:33:16 AM
* NOTE-This is a continuation 2ndpart.The Burnaby public library's are the same too. Mostly left-wing newspapers on display for the public. NewYork Times-Yes,NO-NewYork Post,ect.,.Read above post too!.
Posted by: Larry | 2006-08-21 4:57:20 AM
Duke,
Regrading your question, it does appear to me that there are some people who live to relish off of being offended at others. They live to relish with the adrenaline that comes from hating someone, or a group of people. They willfully divide to the point where no one, due to the rash of hatred, can really tell where all their hatred started in the first place.
I prefer the "wild ass of a man" as part of the root cause myself.
Havign said this, we do tend to see them as one group.
They are not a group. They are families of people, with clans. So, the fighting we see, is that. Like the women being stoned in the streets, it is a continuation of their ugly hatred, one person to another.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-21 7:24:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.