Rei - you are correct that FOX leans conservative. I cannot attest to MSNBC; ABC unbiased? Listen to Jennings in the last couple of months? CNN? Don't watch it but heard it is liberal. Most of my TV news comes from local TV, which is INCREDIBLY liberal, and from which I can certainly relate to the a/m items about 5 second segments (with 5 days of 30 second commercial buildups).

That's why FOX is necessary, because they are the only network on TV bringing an opposing viewpoint to much of what is reported.

Just my opinion. If it was fact then I'd be a reporter!

Liberal? Conservative? Regardless, the media sucks.

In the spirit of Fark-style argumentation, anybody who
fails to agree with me is "a gay fagot that blows dik".

Oh, FP, I agree. In fact, I agree with what anyone says because I don't want to be labelled as a hater, racist, homophobe, whatever whatever whatever blah blah blah yada yada yada.

Smirk.

I think the two-party system is to blame for low voter turnout. Jaded citizens feel their voting for the lesser of two evils, or in most cases a vote for either is a vote for the same thing: politics.

Vote Pepsi!! We don't want 4 more years of Coke!!!

The war on drugs could be won if we wanted to send troops into every country that is mass producing them. It won't happen, it would probably cause a world war if it did happen, but it would stop the flow of drugs.

Ah, good idea, support the slaughter of people to stop people from being able to take drugs. Much better alternative. That marijuana is evil, ya know?

In seriousness, do you know how much of "drugs" are produced in our country? Or our allies? For example, over 1% of australia's GNP is spent on marijuana, and its almost all homegrown. Are we going to bomb our allies?

BTW, have you ever heard of the School of the Americas?

BTW, I love your "war to end all war" attitude ;)

This war is different because most of the world WANTS us to send troops into nations that promote terrorism. Even Jordan is commiting troops to Afghanistan.

Laf, even our allies barely support this action. Britain, our closest ally in this war, the last survey I saw showed only a 62% support. France is barely above 50%. Even Canada, our "neighbor to the north", is barely over 70%. In the arab world, support is generally in the 0's to 10's. Most countries merely support us nominally, due to our "you're either with us or against us"

Remember international terrorism could not exist without national governments supporting it.

Excuse me while I go outside to laugh ;) Most places where terrorists use as bases of operations are places with *little* government control, such as somalia, algeria, etc.

If we don't fight this war to the finish now then we will fight it again in the future, probably with nuclear weapons.

And look at israel. Wow, look at how well finishing off terrorism with military action has worked! We should do our best to emulate *them*, right??!

poop

b00bies

DasWookie: I assume nothing and sincerely did not mean to condescend. But McCartyist is flamebait.
Nothing personal but would anyone one give a good goddam about this article if it came out of Spy, National Lampoon or Mad Magazine? It's satire. And where did I once tell you to stop "thinking", stop posting, to be or remain silent? or whine? unlike yourself, I have never taken myself that seriously espcially on a message board. Relax or cry into your pillow silently.

Bifjamod:

I cannot attest to what they broadcast... I'm not a big fan of talking heads, I get my news from their sites ;) All I can say is that CNN's and ABC's sites are nonpolitical, MSNBC's is left, and FOX's is right :)

Also, where do you live? I found that in Indiana, my local news tended to be conservative, while in Cedar Rapids, its fairly moderate. I think local media depends on the local climate.

REI; Chicago; it's all about the money and pandering to the lowest common denominator here. You may very well have a point about locale. maybe that's why I cannot get St Louis superstation on my cable network....hmmmm...

READ MY SHIAT!!! I AM SMART AND YOU ARE STUPID (probably)!



Too many stupid ass hippies out there. They forget that humans are just animals like dogs or lions. I don't know
why we build ourselves up to think we are greater than
murder and war. We need to accept it and embrace it.
We eat, Fvck, shiat and sometimes THINK like animals...
and there isn't anything wrong with that!
We are what we are.

DasWookie:
When you say, "...for expressing an unpopular viewpoint is a frighteningly McCarthyist sentiment the likes of which should make us all recoil in disgust whether you agree or disagree."
You are saying that the article is disgusting and, therefore, not funny. (Unless you find things that make you recoil in disgust funny.) Satire (political or not) can be seen as funny by all sides, with or without an agenda. From your statements it is clear you dont understand that and that's why you were told to relax. So... relax.

So we are Harry. So we are. And that's why some things simply will not and do not and can not change.

Hey conservatives:

Doesn't this article just remind you that part of the reason the media are now like this is because reporting has become a far more capitalist enterprise than it was back in the 40s?

Not that people were not out for money then, but competition now between news outlets is staggering. There are 10 times as many as there used to be, and they're all jockeying for money to get a scoop.. the corporatization of the news industry has resulted in a really impatient, short-sighted, bottom-line driven, inane press corp.

It is pretty scary that people could actually be against love, or a message about love. That is some scary crap if you can denounce a message of peace or love.

Take a deep breath and think about it, you are against love, against people that want to think of people starving worldwide, of children starving. Against people not starving as others drive around in brand new cars. Farking priorities here people. Possesions are not more valuable than people starving.

Hey Gumbo - the perfect solution: a government run media. No competition. No money issues. Sound good comrade?

I'd like to see a followup to that article. One that parodies Nazi journalism of that era. Oh, I guess that would be truth. Not much fun there.

Why can't anyone get past the stupid liberal/conservative sh!t? This is a big world and you people are shorting yourselves with this black & white thinking.

If Fark were around during world war two....
oh. it would have sucked, coz Photoshop hadn't been invented yet. nevermind.

[sarcasm]

Did someone say Israel? I guess now I have to pop up and offer my obligatory "The US and Israel are terrorists, I hate my country and I want to have Osama Bin Laden's love child" post.

The US and Israel are terrorists, I hate my country and I want to have Osama Bin Laden's love child.


That is all.

[/sarcasm]

Animals yes. But the main difference between us and a dog for example is that we have opposable thumbs. That and I guess we can create abstract thoughts. All media is biased. Too many stupid ass crusty conservatives who would sell out the entire planet to make a 10% profit.

ahhhh, FARK. Time to go back to work. Farking profit driven society.

Nkosika: Why do I have to believe that? In the whole history of the world, that veiwpont has never succeded.

If WWII was covered by todays media, there would be a lot of dead reporters littering the battlefields of Europe, I can see it now.......

"This is Christian Amamanpour reporting from Normandy *BAM*"
CNN Anchor:"we seem to have lost our signal from Normandy"

"and thats how this seige at Stalingrad is shaping up, this is Wolf Bl.. *BOOM*

"With a stunning victory in Europe for the allies, the war effort in this sleepy Japanese city of Nagasaki still goes on, this is John Roberts reporting...oh wait there is a plane flying over head....wait, I can see right through my hand"... ***ZAP***

Tonight on Larry King, live from Nuremburg, Johnny Cochrane and Alan Durshowisz will tell us how they got a innocent verdict for Herman Goering.

the media today is farking stupid, except for Fark.com which makes fun of the stupid people.

Leonard_Cohen:

You forgot Dresden ;)

"And depsite the flood of refugees from the east, the city is stillholding its annual celebrations... it looks like there are some sort of fireworks overhead...."

I love how people try to put down liberalism. So stupid. Liberalism is a necessary political force: without it there would have been no civil rights movement, no transportation safety standards, hell, probably no American revolution. Liberals are the ones who effect change and improve standards of living. Conservatives are the ones who try to rein it in, asking "how much is this change going to cost, and is it really worth it?" And that's fine, but conservatives should never delude themselves into thinking that they are the balloon. They are the ballast.

Superiorstudio- Well said.

Superiorstudio:
Ah... read a history book. Look who voted for the civil rights movement and their political affiliation then open your mouth. What world do you live on?

Very competent thinking superiorstudio.

Mmm_hogfat:

Do you have any clue how much the parties have changed since then? Republican vs. Democrat wasn't Conservative vs. Liberal back in the 60's, it was North vs. South. I think you're the one who needs to get a clue. The south, which was what voted against the civil rights movement, is now the Republican stronghold, while the democrats are strong in places like the Northeast and California, the areas that were the major supporters of the civil rights movement.

Will the South rise again?

Sure, I'll crack open an unbiased American history book right now and.. hmm... give me a second.. I'll find one..

So what you're saying is the traditionally conservative Southern states, the ones who fought to keep slavery, voted for the civil rights movement? Well, I'll be. I didn't realize it was a big single public vote, to be honest, I assumed it was a series of laws and amendments shepherded through a hostile congress by Kennedy et. al, but obviously I need to brush up on the subject..

bifjamod: "Hey Gumbo - the perfect solution: a government run media. No competition. No money issues. Sound good comrade?"

Nahh.. competition's good. I'm just saying, if the ugliness pisses people off, they should realize that the ugliness mostly comes from competition..

First: This article was satire -- like a column or an editorial, satire is written from a point of view; and one that is often skewed so much as to make it OBVIOUS that the point is a good laugh.

Second: I used to be a member of the media before I rediscovered my soul. But, joking aside, I think the greatest compliment to the "media" as an entire entity right now is that everyone is complaining about something. Too right, too left, too reactionary, too liberal... All that means is that all sides are being represented.

Keep in mind, objectivity is oft talked about but rarely truly found. Individual publications are known to lean in particular directions -- and in many cases, those in charge don't try to hide that fact. However, if you read enough, you see that there's a right-wing group for every left-wing group and a moderately conservative publication for every moderately liberal publication. I'm no media apologist because working in the field taught me that people put a lot of trust in a lof of people who don't know their own arse from their own elb-be-bone. But there are good ones out there; if you find them, keep reading them, if not saddle up to the ol' media buffet table and have a healthy serving of everything. Most importantly -- make up your own mind.

I don't post on here much, but if I start, you'll probably find that I sit somewhere a little to the right of neutral. So, my comments are based upon my own subjectivities and I probably won't take much pain to be objective. Then again, I'm not a reporter anymore, so I don't have to be objective.

ahhh,such fun to be had on fark.com.

Anyone remember what the article was about? Sorta reminds of that old telephone game we played in first grade.

Hawkifann.....great post.

Rei:
The parties have changed? no sh!t? But when he says things like, "Liberalism is a necessary political force: without it there would have been no civil rights movement" he is wrong. In the 50's and 60's Democrats were strong in the south and were not real strong with the civil rights movement. Republicans pushed that through. Those are the facts Superiorstudio made an uneducated statement.

Just out of curiosity, Hawk, what would you recommend as a journalist for media outlets? I am addicted to the BBC (seemingly a little left of center) and the Economist (seemingly a little right) and read the Saturday Globe and Mail (right, trying to appear left).

And I forgot to close a tag to boot. DAMN!

No Hogfat, you willfully misread my comments. I was talking about liberalism and conservativism, not your political parties, which in my opinion are not adequate representations of either.

WorldCitizen:
As far as party changes occuring, the republican party of today is really pretty close to the democratic party of the 60's don't you think?

As a conservative, I few the proliferation of blonde bimbos on the news as a liberal occurrence, designed to pander to the lowest common denominator. To me, that's the definition of liberal media. You see it more pronounced in the large markets....