Is this conservative media bias?

[Tim Elston]

There was an Associated Press story that came out today about a federal judge's ruling that a twenty-one year-old Guantanamo detainee, who has been captive there since he was fourteen years old, must be released. A comparison of the AP piece as presented by Foxnews.com and NPR.org indicates that Foxnews bowdlerized the article. The piece is clearly the same Associated Press article, but Foxnews.com has edited out information about the rationale for the judge's decision.

Is there anyone in the journalistic profession here who could provide a rationale for Foxnews.com's reduction of the story apart from conservative bias?

Foxnews: "Judge Orders Release of Guantanamo Detainee Captured at 14"

NPR: "Judge Orders Young Guantanamo Detainee Freed"

[Gerald Creasy]

Extremely mild.
A dime store squirt pistol vs Water Canons and police dogs.

Incredibly flimsy in the face of the blatant and irrational bias of just about everyone else.

Tim YOU KNOW as well as I do that if Obama had lost and HIS church had been burned with arson there would be an ONSLAUGT of media reporting, specials, calls for tougher Hate Crime laws, calls for Congressional hearings, Calls for tougher protection for politicians and their lives AD NAUSEM.

But what happened in the case of Palins church?

It was almost a NON-story and then they continue to berate her even after the Republicans lost.


There seems to be an idea among the intellegensia (at least those who tell us they are the smart ones) that BECAUSE there are two sides to every issue then equality and responsibility are evenly given to the two sides. (This was what exasperated me about Alan Combes. Use that as a key and you would know his reasoning and responses before hand).

Try to find the political party of Mayor Gary Becker of Racine, Wisconsin charged with soliciting sex from a child- outside of a media watchdog group.

Look for the media outcry over the new Nominated treasury Secretary and his tax evasion.

But God help them if they're conservative and wink at the camera...it's all over then.

[Pastor Gary]

Your issue, if I am reading this right, is that a news source that is openly conservative in orientation, providing counterpoint to the overwhelmingly liberal mainstream of the media, reported the story without the Defense attorney's expected spin?

Let's look at another example:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... auguration

Liberal bias?

[Gerald Creasy]

It's really mindboggling to me.

To point at a simple turn of phrase and say "SEE it's on both sides" and ignore things like the soon gigantic love fest innaugural which will cost around 45 MILLION DOLLARS.....

...when the SAME MEDIA SAVAGED BUSH FOR HIS EXCESSES at an innaugural 5 MILLION DOLLARS CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[free]

Sure their biased but I guess that's what makes the world go round. I like to watch Fox News and while it's on I'll flip over to MSNBC just to see how they cover the same story. There is a huge difference most of the time.

[MacUser]

What I find interesting is that the Pentagon released a report that 61 (sixty-one) returned to terror after being RELEASED from Gitmo.

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism
According to reports by the Pentagon on Tuesday, 61 former Guantanamo Bay detainees seem to have fallen back into terrorism since their release.


Armed with this info... after Jan. 18th...

President-elect Barack Obama, who takes office next Tuesday, is expected to issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Defense Secretary Robert Gates also favors shuttering Guantanamo.


This information isn't left or right biased. It's a fact.

[crispfin]

IMHO, I don't think the biases really matter to most people. I think we like hearing our perspectives and opinions parroted back at us, and the amount of information sources many have available to them in America allows them to choose the ones that share their bias. It does tend to insulate them from all other perspectives, but it's a small price to pay for feeling right all the time.

[Tim Elston]

To point at a simple turn of phrase and say "SEE it's on both sides" and ignore things like the soon gigantic love fest innaugural which will cost around 45 MILLION DOLLARS.....

On Monday this week I was standing around with my mostly liberal co-workers and pointed out that Wall Street was footing 90% of the bill for the inauguration, and that Obama was already getting himself as deep into their pocket as any other politician. I read about the 90% from either NPR or the Wall Street Journal; I don't remember which, but I remember it being on their home page.

[Dr. Ron]

Yes,....we are all biased.

Obama thinks we are his cash cow. He calles the shots and we pay.

How can Wall St. invest big in the inauguration when it just got it's bail out.....oh well......

As fior Obama's spending excesses......YOu ain't seen nothing yet.

[MacUser]

amount of information sources many have available to them in America allows them to choose

So you agree that the Fairness Doctrine is not needed?

You have multiple sources of which to get your news, right?

[crispfin]

amount of information sources many have available to them in America allows them to choose

So you agree that the Fairness Doctrine is not needed?

You have multiple sources of which to get your news, right?

I can see the good intention behind the fairness doctrine, because there are a good number here in America who don't have the media access others do. But I personally would not want it. And if you're asking do I have access to multiple sources, then yes. Do I seek out as many as I could? No. Do I realize this colors my view of things? Yes. Do I appreciate the contrasting views that many share here on Jude2? Yes. Why? It allows me to see what's going on with the lunatic fringe.

[MacUser]

But I personally would not want it.

Great. That was easy?

[dolfan]

I can see the good intention behind the fairness doctrine, because there are a good number here in America who don't have the media access others do.

Honestly, I don't get that. The media access that is available to those without internet access is primarily television. TV news audiences far and away eclipse those for radio. Furthermore, radio is truly a mixed bag on hard news. Most conservative talk stations pipe in news feeds from ABC or CBS radio, hardly conservative or even "moderate" news outlets.

The heavy tilt in programming on talk radio is not news. It is opinion. It is discussion. It is discourse, however well or poorly it is done. There is no good intention behind any limitation on the content of political discourse. It is censorship, plain and simple, under any name, and it is counter to the very purpose of the First Amendment. Imagine how the country would've been if Thomas Paine had been censored by some sort of fairness-in-print-doctrine. The only distinction between that and the Fairness Doctrine is the government control of broadcast spectrums. Hiding behind fair allocation of those signals when really regulating political content and speech traveling on them is a lie, and every bit as insidious as would be a censorship of printed content.

I shudder to think of the censorship of online content that is coming in the future in the name of revenue-raising and redistribution of opportunities for access. Taxes. Content "fairness". All of these are plausible. None of these are proper. None.

Total freedom of political expression is the best and most constitutional option, no matter who gets offended, upset, disagrees, or even left out of the loop.

[crispfin]

Honestly, I don't get that. The media access that is available to those without internet access is primarily television. TV news audiences far and away eclipse those for radio. Furthermore, radio is truly a mixed bag on hard news. Most conservative talk stations pipe in news feeds from ABC or CBS radio, hardly conservative or even "moderate" news outlets.

The heavy tilt in programming on talk radio is not news. It is opinion. It is discussion. It is discourse, however well or poorly it is done. There is no good intention behind any limitation on the content of political discourse. It is censorship, plain and simple, under any name, and it is counter to the very purpose of the First Amendment. Imagine how the country would've been if Thomas Paine had been censored by some sort of fairness-in-print-doctrine. The only distinction between that and the Fairness Doctrine is the government control of broadcast spectrums. Hiding behind fair allocation of those signals when really regulating political content and speech traveling on them is a lie, and every bit as insidious as would be a censorship of printed content.

I shudder to think of the censorship of online content that is coming in the future in the name of revenue-raising and redistribution of opportunities for access. Taxes. Content "fairness". All of these are plausible. None of these are proper. None.

Total freedom of political expression is the best and most constitutional option, no matter who gets offended, upset, disagrees, or even left out of the loop.

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I meant I get what they believe will be accomplished by implementing the fairness doctrine. They see the providing both points of view in all cases as a good thing. I think it is a good thing to listen to opposing viewpoints, but I do not think it is a good thing to force media outlets to give both sides.

[Pastor Gary]

They see the providing both points of view in all cases as a good thing. I think it is a good thing to listen to opposing viewpoints, but I do not think it is a good thing to force media outlets to give both sides.

And that is the core issue... forcing people to listen to opposing viewpoints is antithetical to all we profess to be. I am not sure why the left shakes in their boots over right-wing talk radio, FoxNews, etc. -- they just elected an extremely liberal President, Speaker of the House, and even -- apparently Al Franken despite the best efforts of Hannity and others.