US Media Bias

bob said:
when did they say that ?
Click to expand...
When did the media show the body of someone who was unquestionably a (dead) terrorist and label it as a (dead) civilian?

Toby was wildly extrapolating motives from events -- and events that happened only in his head at that -- again. I was merely pointing this out by putting the metaphorical shoe on the proverbial other foot.
 
uscitizen said:
No but the same end justifies the means mentality.
Click to expand...
What? Somebody not part of the admin says something that you attribute to the administration just because it feels good? Come on, that is truly disingenuous.
 
Birds of a feather Damo.
Should I seperate them by party even if they act the same ? I am not that partisan.
 
No, but you should separate them by the fact that one was not a member of this administration and therefore what they say is not part of this admin.

I mean, I could go and say all sorts of things were stated by you if the "If I think it sounds like something they would say" rule applied!

I could just assume that you would say all sorts of things I read and hear from other people and then just attribute it to you... It would be great fun, but not very accurate now... Wouldn't it?
 
How is it that Isreal becomes the bad guys in your eyes? What I have seen in the media is nothing more than the damage inflicted upon lebanon, the doctored photos of the dead, and nazrollah claiming victory.

What I have'nt seen much of was the damage created by the katuysha rockets landing in Israel, the killed soldiers, the dead civilians from this.

Not been watching the mainstream media then?

Having watched ABCnews regularly since this crisis began, and various other US news outlets as and when it is overwhelmingly in favour of Israel.

The majority of the reports have been Israeli-slanted. From the civilians of Haifa to the Russian billionare who built resettlement towns for the Israelis (at the time Israel was denying Lebanon decent aid).
 
Damocles said:
No, but you should separate them by the fact that one was not a member of this administration and therefore what they say is not part of this admin.

I mean, I could go and say all sorts of things were stated by you if the "If I think it sounds like something they would say" rule applied!

I could just assume that you would say all sorts of things I read and hear from other people and then just attribute it to you... It would be great fun, but not very accurate now... Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Damo, why should I seperate them. I am pretty much non partisan. The subject seemd to be about govt officials not carying about innocent children being killed. I go after the offender not the party, unless of course that offense seems to be one of the partys policy. I believe the "the end justifies the means" attitude is a very bad thing and will slam anyone whom I see using it.
 
uscitizen said:
Damo, why should I seperate them. I am pretty much non partisan. The subject seemd to be about govt officials not carying about innocent children being killed. I go after the offender not the party, unless of course that offense seems to be one of the partys policy. I believe the "the end justifies the means" attitude is a very bad thing and will slam anyone whom I see using it.
Click to expand...
Look. If I were saying that you stated something you didn't say, based on the fact that somebody that I was pretty sure would say the same thing said it, I would be wrong. You are wrong in this case. You should separate them because they are different things.

If I think bob says things that I think you would say, attributing all of bob's statements to you would not be accurate, fair, or truthful. Attributing statements to one administration that were made by another is pretty much exactly the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top