yeah, only brave, intelligent people would repeat and regurgitate everything they're taught by foxnews and the administraion. it's easy to flap your gums about this sort of crap when you're being backed up by media behemoths. try coming up with something original, and then we'll talk. til then, shut up.

Sure Marc, everyone who disagrees with you is under the sway of Foxnews and the government. We're all unthinking automatons. Unlike leftists, of course, who are backed up by "media behemoths" like the New York Times and, of course, virtually all of academia in their unified theories of corporate conspiracies and evil Republicans.

Marc, dear, you have all three broadcast networks, all the big newspapers except the WSJournal, NPR taxpayer-funded for you, the public-employee unions (also taxpayer-funded), Academia (taxpayers again heavy subsidizers) to nearly 100%, Hollywood, the Arts, all their private foreign corollaries and the U.N. and most foreign official governments. Even Fox presents lefties almost hourly, and treats them with respect. Granted, you don't have this administration, but you did have the last two, when so much of today's trouble brewed up. So, why do you have to be so insulting, and tell others to "shut up"? Don't really like the Bill of Rights that much, do you?

Unbelievable. There finally comes a network without a clear liberal bias and the liberals cry foul. I'm so sick of liberals and their lies I'm getting angry. These liars are bigger threats to our liberty than Hussein was. So from now on, I'll give to the Republicans.

Liberals lie: Clinton "i did not lie, i did not sleep with her.....she blew me...thats all"

Conservatives lie: Nixon "i am not a crook, oh fuck the tape!"

They all lie, lie to each other and lie to themselves. Cept the green party but there all freaks. Vote Nader in 2000! oh shit too late.

Ventura: "yea i smoked just as much dope as any other teenage navy seal in vietnam at the time"

interesting theory but it doesn't apply to all. i think some protestors are just anti-bush and are hiding behind the anti-war movement.

Maybe I'm the only one, but my local leftwing community access station (WORT-Madison, Wisconsin) convinced me years ago that Saddam was an evil dictator who needed to be replaced. I failed to follow along when they decided that Saddam was good enough for the Iraqi people to put up with for an unspecified period of time, at which point Saddam would supposedly leave for unspecified reasons. My other main source of news was National Public Radio and I couldn't help but notice they had the same inconsistent position.

Like Marc, both radio stations constantly repeat the mantra, "Americans are stupid, Americans are uninformed, too much Fox, etc. etc."

I think the Left is correct when they point out the corporate bias in the mass media but I have also noticed those who avoid the mass media, (and I've been there, done that) tend to become mass ignorant.

Howdii, your friendly neighborhood pessimist here.
Once again I am amused at the level of bias that
is being displayed here.

(Quick note: If you are able to carry on logical
debates with someone you do not agree with
and do not feel anger that they are not agreeing
or listening to you, then skip the rest of this.
If you feel that your opinion or way of thought
is right and that your opponent is wrong then
read on.)

On message boards across the web and political
shows on tv I am seeing people saying that
their opinion on what is happening is right,
because it is backed up by truth and that their
opponents are using data that was mangled
with purpose.

I hear people saying not to trust the American
media, because it is only telling us what the
government wants us to know. And then I hear
people saying not to trust the media of other
countries, because they hate us for who we
are and what we stand for.

If you fit the bill for either of the two above
cases, then I have a simple request. I want
you to prove to me that what you are using
for your facts is indeed fact. I do not want urls
for news sites. I want first hand data.

I want to know that what you present as fact
is what you saw, because you in the meetings
with the higher ups in Iraq or you are in meetings
with Bush or with the heads of defense. I do not
want second or third hand information. If people
are going to say that Bush's agenda is this or
that, then I want proof of it.

I want proof damnit. Yeah. Proof, or possibly
a massage. I haven't had one of those in a while.

The dismissive au courant lefty meme of "oh, you've been brainwashed by Fox News" is just another way of avoiding factual, logical arguments. They never go back and actually reexamine how their previous positions jibe with reality, instead adopting undigested spur-of-the-moment ad hoc arguments. Anything to maintain the tenuous grip of ideological righteousness that they're so heavily invested in.

What JB said!

"corporate bias in the mass media"

What is this, exactly? Does it mean that the mass media is biased in favor of corporations? How does it express itself, and what relevance would this "corporate bias" have to the war in Iraq?

You have to understand that for many of these people, the NYT editorial page is a bit to reactionary for their tastes. That basically makes CNN rabidly right wing, and Fox the transcribed brain patterns of John Birch's ghost. They are not interested in 'news stories' unless they come from some source that we uneducated would consider 'dubious'.. ie nutty web pages and newsletters that regurgitate their credos without resorting to anything as urbane as 'evidence'. Liberals are never wrong, it is reality that is frequently inaccurate.

As one involved in The Arts, allow me to raise my right hand and say, I am not of the Leftist ilk.

www.folkartships.com

Your work is interesting and unusual John. But I wonder, have you ever expressed your non-lefty views at a party with your peers? The art community isn't totally leftist, but I've found that it mostly is and man, are they intolerant of views unlike their own. Quickest way to end a conversation and get shunned: "I think Bush is doing a pretty good job"

R. McLeod,

Absolutely I have--it is taken as the outrageous mannersims of an artist, and doubly ironic. They are less intolerant if there is an element of entertainment, even if that entertainment is a projection of their own ability to imagine either side. In fact, much of our initial perception of the war, IMHO, has been about our Western penchant for imagining the very best that other side could do, and severely underestimating our own inabilities. Americans, in many have ways, have an inferiority complex, and it is particularly acute in the face of Europeans, different languages, and big words. It has been this way for almost 250 years, and perhaps culminated in someone like Jimmy Carter. As for the arts, I hope someday I can bring down the Andy Warhol's, and chic European abstractions that dominate the scene and replace it with things that are real, with American history, with vestiges of our heritage, with a level of honesty in expression, and respect for trying to communicate with others (rather than hide in obscure pronouncements). OK, getting off of soapbox.

Smart, well-spoken group, with an exception or two. Yep, it'd be nice to have 'corporate bias' and 'Bush's conspiracies' explained better by those who use the terms--and so many others--so loosely, and often. What I can't understand is, where does all this hatred come from? Obviously these free-from-facts-and-logic people feel threatened, but by what, and whom, and why? John's comments on 'art' as a bottom-up people's product as oppossed to a self-given priesthood aesthetic accessible only to the elites, is most refreshing; odd to chance across such an excellent statement on some obscure message board while trying to come down off the war-news excitement.

Since I mostly threw in the "corporate bias in the media" bit to mollify marc, and it wasn't very relevant to Iraq, I didn't bother to explain it or defend it. Although, If you think advertisers have no influence on the media, good for you and enjoy those highly rated speakers you bought.

I'm not guilty of using "Bush's conspiracies" and find the phrase a little oxymoronic.

I was lucky enough to have access to quite a large number of tv news channels during this war and found quite a range of attitudes, opinions and biases. CNN International seemed to be trying to outleft the Arab media most of the time, the Arab media seemed to be trying to scoop the National Enquirer, and the embedded reporters were way cool.

Fox was of course ridiculously gung ho but that may be an appropriate attitude when you're fighting evil. And just in case I haven't burnt all my bridges back to Liberal Land, I have to admit If I ever get stuck in a hot LZ with a reporter, I hope to God it's Ollie North.

I'm not a Liberal, nor a republican. I'm not a politician either. My father is though, and a 'liberal" as well.

I never could agree with him on anything, still don't. So, this year, because i wanted to prove a point, and get him out of office , as I think he's just to old and living in the past to be effective in government. I ran against him for mayor.

people thought i was a liberal, as my father is. they just thought I had better ideas.

I won, my father came in third. I resigned the next day to the second place finnisher, who was a republican, I just had to cite "personal problems" to do this.
Ooops I lied, I'm really a rupublican, but I have no desire to hold office. So there you have it, the ultimate spit vote conspiracy, and all perfectly leagal

I never got invited over for easter dinner this year.....I giuess dad has a grudge still....

Rich Schultz hits the core of the thing with his comment that Fox may be gung-ho, but in this case, when the difference between this country and the enemy is so incredibly obviously clear-cut, then the goal of complete fly-on-the-wall internationalist objectivity may in fact be secondary to realizing who the good guys are, and then throwing in with them. And, of course he is right, someone pays for TV, and the advertisers have some degree of influence over the content of the programming--but so long as advertising pricing holds up, you can be certain that this influence is largely negative, in the sense that advertisers in the main have only the power to pull their dollars, and those dollars can be swiftly replaced. This is a subject of some sensitivity in the media trade, so when a buyer slips, the news gets out quickly. This is even more a straw man issue when you realize that these corporate sponsors are the companies that organize and make economically viable much of the work of the country, if you don't directly work for them, then you do indirectly, or at least a large part of your extended family does. Corporations are you and me, as either workers or shareholders or customers, directly or indirectly. It's called free-market capitalism, and it flows from and to individual liberty. Would you have it any other way?