Thanks for sharing where you get your news. I was especially interested in the Web addresses. Every now and then I'll turn on some of the TV shows that have been mentioned. It drives me nuts to hear people bicker (which is what lots of them do) and talk over one another so much that you can't even understand what they're saying. When they do that, I change the channel. I enjoy reading online. You don't get all the angry voices roaring in your ears. Who needs it?

Beg to differ, Josie, on several points.

First of all, we don't _inherit_ intellectual and cultural "traits" via DNA. We can have traits like quick thinking, methodical thinking, etc. which may be inherited, but we learn about the world and so so from a cultural standpoint. What we learn is not set in stone. Unlike animals, humans are extremely malleable. We have a rational soul and are able to choose freely. We have very few (if any) instincts.

Bias is consistent. You can have points of view depending on your life experience, gender, social class, race, etc. That's not the same as bias. As I pointed out above, the US media has a consistent bias in favor of business.

Bias connotes unfairness and is related to prejudice. If the newspaper consistently favors, for example, business interests over the interests of the poor unemployed, that's unfair coverage. The bias prevents the reporter from even _seeing_ that there's another side to the story. The story will talk about development, profit, and job creation. It will probably not talk about fair wages, fair treatment of employees, work schedules, etc.

It's also prejudging (prejudiced) in the sense that the reporter has developed a standpoint based on what the news outlet wants. US media get into trouble when they upset businesses that advertise. Thus, a bias in favor of business makes sense to corporate US media.

With regard to your "Going against straight party-line thinking", I'd call that independent thinking rather than bias. It's what everyone should do.

I respect your opinions, DJ. It is great that you can offer points of view polarized from those expressed by myself and some others, on a board which welcomes all voices.

If only the political handlers and their leadership could learn from the ecumenism of our discourse.

My personal slant (bias) remains in favor of voting based on a combination of personal research, conscience and gut.

Josie, thanks for adding the comment about the many source links provided on that particular Wikipedia search. Often contributors are conscientious and provide support with their contributions... something appreciated by readers who don't want to be 'taken' by unsupportable commentary.

DJ, I also respect and appreciate your thoughts. Because I do, I'd like to hear how you view things (how you feel about issues), more so than dissections of our thoughts and the way we express ourselves.

Josie, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that my views are "polarized" from you and others. How is what I say the polar opposite of you? Please explain what you mean by that.

Gims, To me, how we get information is the biggest issue. I'm sorry you aren't interested in discussing it. As far as the candidates, other than dissecting the way we talk about them I'm not going to take sides in these forums (i.e., I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about who are the better candidates). Are you asking me whom I support or what? Or what issues are you referring to? I feel like you're picking on me for some reason. Why are you singling out my comments? Am I missing something here?

DJ, I appreciate your perspective....

The Internet has opened the door to more information sources, which can be add to more cacaphony to the myriad of voices.

It's probably better to review a list of articles and read articles about Palin and Obama ...over the past 5-10 years to get a better grip/trend of their actions over a longer time period.

Anyway Palin is not the presidential candidate in running. Are people think that she will be the real power wielder behind McCain? Am I not understanding something here.

Associated Press is reporting this afternoon that MSNBC is making changes in their reporting team due to unchecked bias. MSNBC is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory, and will use the two newsmen as commentators.
Their blatant slant illustrates yet another reason why I crossed off MSNBC (and NBC) from my news radar screen long ago.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann

Interesting, Josie.
I shot off an email to CNN today, after watching a review on Obama, McCain and the Veep picks. While CNN commentators were doing the Dem side they were cutting up and laughing (in a good way, even though they pointed out some of BO and Biden's faux pas). Then when they were presenting the GOP side, they were straight faced and serious. I honestly believe it was intentional... giving viewers a suggestive and negative mental implant.


To me how we interpret and evaluate the information is one of the bigger issues. So, we differ in opinion. I respect that. I may be the only one who wants to hear what others have read and heard about the candidates - as much as possible and whether good or bad. Even want to hear how each feels about what they've read and heard. No matter where we get the information, we still have to mentally digest it, which is a personal thing. I'll admit, right here and now, I felt as if you were calling me out, when you referred to my comment and some shared feelings about liberal biased reporting being 'poppycock.' (re:post #159051)
I, for one, am not asking anyone to share which candidate they think is better. But, I would like to hear what everyone is thinking about each of the four - information gathering, before making a decision. If I'm leaning a certain way and it's the worst of the ways to lean, something someone has to say might correct my leaning... I'd count that as a blessing. This election is so important.
I apologize if anything I've written is/was bothersome.

And I apologize if I used incorrect wordage. I should've said
"woman's intuition" as opposed to "gut"; that's a milder usage and most likely wouldn't incite negativism.

Okay. Thanks for explaining. It's difficult carrying on a conversation in "type" rather than face to face.

And thank YOU, Orchid. It's nice finding a friend!

Actually, I'm very very afraid for our country these days. I say this as a grandmother of 5. Their USA is starting to look very different from the one that I grew up loving. What I love about this country is that we can discuss issues and make decisions ...but I think that has all been eroding right before our eyes.

I'm a professor of media and other communication topics so I study this stuff all the time. (and by the way, I got my Ph.D. when I turned 50, after having raised 4 kids). I'm actually planning to develop media literacy programs in the community because I'm so concerned about this. I'm currently teaching a course on propaganda in the college where I teach. To prepare for this course, I've read about 60 books since summer 2007 on various topics, including law (decisions about the 1st Amendment and corporations as persons), the use of opinion polls, lobbying, censorship, media history, the concept of the public and the public sphere, etc. etc. All in all what I've learned is more dire than I'd anticipated.

Because space is limited, I'd like to boil it down to the problem and the solution.

1. The problem is that Corporations control ALL the media (radio, TV, books, recording companies, movie companies, textbooks, magazines, billboards...and the same companies own amusement parks, baseball teams, movie theaters etc.). There are 5-6 of them TOTAL in the world that own most of this. Corporations are huge businesses. They're interested in profit, particularly on the stock market. They're impersonal. They do not care about you or me. They want laws (all over the world) that help them keep their power, and they want to get rid of laws that threaten it. They treat democrats and republicans the same and lobby them equally. And starting in the years after the 14th amendment was passed the Supreme Court (I think it was in the 1880s) interpreted that law as applying to Corporations. So they have free speech like you and I do. Think about that. The Walt Disney corporation has the right to free speech. And they own ABC. (By the way, what network do you own?)

2. Corporations prefer that we, the public, be passive. They want us to buy things, but they don't really want us to act as citizens because citizens think and act and make laws to control and contain them. The solution: We the public need to recognize our collective power. We need to hold these corporations accountable.

Lots of other issues are secondary, like what do journalists do, and what party the individual journalists belong to, and what their particular feelings and opinions are. They aren't the enemy. Essentially, journalists are on our side.

There's great difficulty finding real, decent, true information. It shouldn't be so hard, but it is. But the "other party" isn't out to get you. The corporate world is (and spend a lot of time trying to buy politicians). Look around you and start asking yourself what the world looks like, and what it could look like: Big ugly big box stores everywhere, cheap goods from China, Americans out of work. How can little neighborhoods fight against development when a huge corporation comes to town?

And this is not me being anti-business, not at all.

Some of the other corporations to worry about are oil and arms manufacturers. Go back and read history. Look at oil in the 19th century, the "Spanish American War" created by the Hearst news media. Look at WWI and how a country of pacifist-isolationists (i.e., the US) who didn't want to enter into a war with Europe ended up sending so many young men to be slaughtered.(WWI was horrific -- men were used as cannon fodder).

Dwight D. Eisenhower said "Beware the military- industrial -Congressional complex." (The Congressional part is often omitted).