Yes, clearly you're the one with the sense of balance. You have a very myopic view of media if you believe they try to get Democrats in power. Here's a quick primer: Media wants viewers. How do you get viewers? You give them coverage with a slant they want to hear. When Bush's approval ratings are high, they give him/his party favorable coverage because their viewers like to hear things that reinforce their views. When they are low, the opposite happens. If you look at any of the coverage immediately around the time of the war starting, you will find almost universal positive coverage. When you say things like "[they] will do what they can to help," that tells me that you're the one with the biased view of the media, as opposed to the people who you're acting like you're smarter than.
Thanks for the lesson. And democrats are more likely to allow lascivious crap over the air. People want to see crap and smut and garbage and republicans (publicly) do not want that stuff shown.
Here's more to chew on: According to WHO reports Health Situation in Iraq (1990) was "one of the best in the Middle-East Region.". The UN report states that "Before August 1990, the health care system in Iraq was based on an extensive and developed network of primary, secondary and tertiary health care facilities. These facilities were linked among themselves and with the community by a large fleet of ambulances and service vehicles, and by a good communications network facilitating referral to the next level of the health care system. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20050614&articleId=78
That perfectly explains the timing of the "news" story that led to Rathergate (09/04) and the apology which followed.
At least they are honest with themselves, not claiming "fair and balanced" like you know who. The article I quote was based from the UN report. Facts and figures don't lie, no matter how you like to spin them.
OMG. You should be a Saturday Night Live Skit. You are a poster child representing people that believe overtly biased "news".
I am not a Fox Parrot. I think they are a joke. Maybe not as much of a joke as some of your, ahem, sources, but a joke nonetheless.
Have you even watched the news on PBS? I dare anyone to watch it for a week and tell me they have "liberal spin". They always show all sides to a story, and the guests they bring in to discuss current issues always run the entire gamut of the political spectrum (liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, and everything in between). It is quite the refreshing alternative from CNN, Fox & the major networks.
PBS is paid partly by government grants, partly by foundation/corporate grants, and the rest by individual donations. Their news is very balanced, and always shows all sides to a story. Their guests reflect the entire political spectrum. I highly recommend it as an alternative to the news channels and the network news.
MSM doesn't endorse Democrats or Republicans, they endorse 'Big Business' and spread propoganda to safeguard the interests of the elite class, regardless of political affiliations.
Are you saying the World Health Organization is biased? Why is this news obviously biased, because it doesn't support what you want to believe is the truth? For the record I agree that there are good things being done in Iraq, but news that comes from organizations like the World Health Organization doesn't seem like it would have a natrual bias. I certainly won't assume it does without proof.
I agree that about every news source has some sort of slant or bias but to a certain point we have to take things on trust. Unless any of us go there we have to rely on second or third hand sources and even if we could go we probably still want have a very good picture since our movements will be very limited. The best we can do is follow multiple sources. Even with all of the inherent biases there are still some facts that are pretty much constant among all media sources. One is the amount of casualties among US troops and while we don't know how many Iragi casualties there are there is pretty consistent reporting of major attacks. From there we can get a pretty good indication of at least how much the security situation is going on in Iraq. From those facts it doesn't appear like things are improving since the rate of US casualties seems about the same now as it did last year and has even increased since the same time two years ago.
No the WHO is fine in an eerie new world order kind of way. Noble cause, noble intentions, etc... It was the globalresearch that I had a problem with. They provide the spin and the selective journalism.
I didn't mention the news on PBS, the programming in general is liberally sided... but to say that it is the true balance of the left and right is a joke. It is still an entity that works for money... you should NEVER trust one source on any story.
and you're just an amoeba becasue you post and believe the US governement's facts on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, etc...
really? pray tell why fox has the worst programming interms of 'decency' around? so much for your theory.
