Media Bias and it's effect on elections...

Is there a media bias thread here at DU?

Sad to say, but, I think I've beat the 2004 election
farce about as long as I can.

Time to maybe move to a different board here at DU.

Suggestions anyone?

I post there some times. Some interesting information there. But its focus is on Media and not the election. I believe the election fraud went hand in hand with the media manipulation, or shall we call it propaganda.

I've heard mention of a 2006 & 2008 elections board
which unfortunately currently is pretty dead.

I was thinking of moving my bias-bias over there
to convert hindsight into foresight.

Thanks for the post! =)

Heya Prag
Even though I don't believe * won the election, (nor do I believe he get over 50% of the vote), There are 10's of millions of people who did vote for * even though he does not represent them.
I think the single most culpable (and effective) action to cause this lunacy is the * propaganda machine (with support from the MSM of coarse).
In short...people believed the lies.
I think most of us know these people, we live among them. They can be friends, relatives, or associates, but the single common factor is their belief in the lies.

Now what if we made a questionnaire (or test) to demonstrate to them (the ones who don't foam at the mouth) the extent of the lies they have come to believe. Nothing elaborate, maybe 15 to 20 questions. But well constructed to hit home about what they believe vs. reality.
We would need an answer sheet with links or quotes to the correct answer, and only pick questions that
A)Will not illicit a hostile reaction (don't bring up Clintons, Kerry, Micheal Moore)
B)Are 'provable' with no contesting the source of the answer.

Example off the top of my head....
1)Did the Duelfer report find that Iraq
A)always had WMD and are hiding them
B)had them, but shipped them out of county before the war
C)Have not produced them in the last 10 years and destroyed what they had stockpiled (as per UN resolution)
D)Never had any WMD, ever.

2)What was the determination of the 9/11 commission, in relation to Saddam and Osama's relationship?

3)What did Jessica Lynch do before being captured by the Iraqis?

4)Are all Humvee fully armored in Iraq?

I think thats enough to show where I'm going.
I know several people I could have fill this out, and possibly understand that they were lied to. A few of them might go back to their 'hive', to get the info to disprove it (which might inadvertently spread the word, like a virus in the 'collective').

Then again I have been known to be delusional (am I supposed to take 5 red pills and one blue, or the other way around.
Hell I'll just cover my bases and take 5 of each)
<Chi starts drooling>

So, what you're saying is make a questionnaire to
illustrate to people their gullibility and or
culpability in buying into the so-called memes
created by the CRM.

Hmmm...

Now, I'm drooling too. =)

<Offers Chi his well used DU drool mop.>

Chi,

I hope you don't mind if I tinker with your idea. I'm only
searching for clarification in my own mind.

As, per...

"I think most of us know these people, we live among them. They can be friends, relatives, or associates, but the single common factor is their belief in the lies."

I must admit, I've fallen for a few also. (very few)

Whatever happened to, "Don't believe everything you're told or
read"? It used to be an almost identifying characteristic of
being an American.

The "rules"... Gad! How I dislike rules.

A)Will not illicit a hostile reaction (don't bring up Clintons, Kerry, Micheal Moore)
I need an example of what you mean here. Peeling off the band aids
from a brainwashing is never a pretty sight. They always flinch,
twitch, and kick.

B)Are 'provable' with no contesting the source of the answer.
So, "The sky is blue" type facts then.

Your move.

"I must admit, I've fallen for a few also. (very few)"
I as well.

The difference is that their lies are persistently re-enforced by a network of sources that seem to have that effect in mind.
Great example of this is the second to last report from the 9/11 commission.
Every single conservative media source I checked followed the W.H. talking point....
'Saddam and Osama had no relationship as it pertains to 9/11'
I'm paraphrasing, but the same sentence occurred in all of the six news sources I checked.
The 9/11 commission actually held a press briefing to refute that and say Saddam and Osama had no working relationship at all.


"Whatever happened to, "Don't believe everything you're told or
read"? It used to be an almost identifying characteristic of
being an American."
Agreed!

"The "rules"... Gad! How I dislike rules.

A)Will not illicit a hostile reaction (don't bring up Clintons, Kerry, Micheal Moore)
I need an example of what you mean here. Peeling off the band aids
from a brainwashing is never a pretty sight. They always flinch,
twitch, and kick."

OK, from what I have seen, there always seems to be a few (at any one time) 'enemies of the Kingdom'. When Clinton was Pres., it was most often Bill/Hillary/Reno.
Recently it's been Kerry, Moore, and Soros. Bring up these names at a gathering, and you'll likely hear the word asshole said aloud. I witnessed this at a New Years Eve gathering. My wife was talking about Moores new movie about pharmaceutical industry, and I watch one woman say asshole at least three times. She didn't care what the movie was about, and I would bet she had not seen a single one of his movies, but the simple mention of his name over-rode any higher brain function and replaced it with hostility.
She stopped thinking, she was only angry.
Avoid triggering this, and more will listen longer.

"B)Are 'provable' with no contesting the source of the answer.
So, "The sky is blue" type facts then. "

If we ask a question about 9/11 commiss findings, it is indisputably verifiable with the 9/11 report, same with the Duelfer and the Future of Iraq Project reports. The event with Lynch is provable with an interview of her from MSNBC, I believe (her own words).
All indisputable answers, all targets of misinformation from the dark side.

called; "The Corporate Media Skeptic."

You are quite correct (notice I didn't say right) with
your feeling of a running EOE (Enemy of Empire) statement.

I've noticed this too. How is it avoided. Remove personality
from concept?

"She stopped thinking, she was only angry.
Avoid triggering this, and more will listen longer."
True, but, I'll wager a pretzel she stopped thinking
long before the missus brought up Moore.

It hearkens back to the conspiracy tales of old where
the operatives we're implanted with an activation word like,
"Kumquat".

"You are quite correct (notice I didn't say right) with
your feeling of a running EOE (Enemy of Empire) statement.

I've noticed this too. How is it avoided. Remove personality
from concept?"

Yes, there usually is not a necessity to involve a name in order to discuss the topic.

""She stopped thinking, she was only angry.
Avoid triggering this, and more will listen longer."
True, but, I'll wager a pretzel she stopped thinking
long before the missus brought up Moore."

Actually she was doing fine in the conversation about the huge problems with the health care system, until someone said 'r*o*s*b*u*d'(M.M.), then she just shut down. 8)

"Peeling off the band aids
from a brainwashing is never a pretty sight. They always flinch,
twitch, and kick."

Kudos on this line!
It really gives a nice mental image, hehe.
I'm gonna be giggling about that all day.

However, as this wonderful idea grows in your mind. Be
sure to look me up and share your progress.

These things grow and I'd love to hear more.

I'll think about it some more also and I'll
tell you what I come up with.

It's us, the liberals who are brainwashed by the "liberal media.":eyes:

The depth of the conservative delusion is amazing.

"It's us, the liberals who are brainwashed by the 'liberal media.'"

I keep hearing that... But, I've never seen any PROOF!

;)

I always ask...
"If I were to watch a liberal newscast, what could I wait to see to illustrate it's liberal bias?"
Have not gotten a reasonable answer to date.
Not that I expected one.

The Liberal Bias moniker always appears when inconvenient
facts are pointed out.

If the media were truly unbiased you would hear unvarnished facts!

Not facts spun to conform to an existing ideology.

Those darn facts... They hurt my feelings.

:)

I would miss your sense oh humor.

I stay the same. =)

Thanks for the comp!

"The depth of the conservative delusion is amazing."

Truly amazing, indeed.
I spent months over at Free Republic before coming here.
The lies are like onions, with many, many layers of misinformation.
But once you get through the layers, there is nothing left.
Too bad they are happy not checking the facts.

Here is one of my favorites...
http://www.alamo-girl.com

She actually believes that the Clinton's were responsible for dozens of murders <rolls eyes>.

Who's responsible for hundreds of thousands?

"I spent months over at Free Republic before coming here."
Ouch...

Erm... May I ask? That's kind of a mis-match isn't it?

They had to go home and get more guys.

J/k. I was not combative (most of the time) over there. I did it mainly to test my beliefs, but it turn out to be enlightening.

To see how the misinformation is delivered and re-enforced is scary. Their arguments would seem to hold water for a while, but the information seemed to always lead back to same handful of sources.

They also use links back to other posts at FreeperLand as proof, which is something I found a little disturbing when I came over here at first.
Then I realized articles over here link to organizations such as NYT, and Wash Post. Their links were to Drudge, newsmax, Rush, etc.

The best thing that came from my trips to DisneyLand, is I found out about DU (and I got to vote against them in alot of polls 8-)).

the Internet at many many sites.

I like to keep an open mind.

Really, compared with many here at DU I'm kind of
conservative.

In the old fashioned sense though... Like, I'd like
to have a few trees and animals around for my golden
years.

I have no problem with a strong defense.

There's nothing inherently wrong with science or
technology. (Except for it's tendency to outstrip
wisdom and ethics.)

A few others... Mostly in the social realm.

Q: This being a 'Christian' nation, how many times do any of the words (god or jesus or christ or christian or holy or faith or religious or religion or pray or prayer) appear in our founding document, the US Constitution?

A: 3

Article IV, Clause 1:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State..."

Article VI, Clause 3:
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly, each instance is either completely non-religious ("full faith and credit"), or prohibits the Government from religious involvement.

This is perfectly on topic!

Quite true as well.

BTW... I'm no stickler about being on-topic.

Q -- How many sentences are in the 2nd amendment?
And what is the subject of that sentence?

A -- One, A states right to have a militia

My father-in-law is a NRA nut. I drove him crazy when I challenged him to find ONE piece of paper the NRA sent him containing the ENTIRE 2nd Amendment.
He couldn't do it <EG>.
Nor did he know it was only one sentence.

It's hard to look a page listing the Amendments without seeing the 2nd Amendment. It's hard to interpret it any other way than giving states a right to a militia, or at most, citizens to bear arms if they belong to a state militia. That's why the NRA never challenges gun laws in court (they are well aware they would lose).

Q -- Were there UN weapons inspectors in Iraq before we attacked?
According to the inspectors, were the Iraqis cooperating?

A -- Y, Y

Q -- Does the Pope...
Speak well of Bush?
Understand the war in Iraq was necessary?
Understand the war in Afghanistan was necessary?

A -- N, N, Y

Q -- After the 2000 Pres. Election was over, and Bush was inaugurated, the Florida votes were recounted by hand in full.
What was the result?

A -- Al Gore won Florida, and subsequently should have been the Pres OTUS

I knew most of the answers...

But, you're right. There's a whole lot of hoodwinked
people out there who don't.

No need for me to go anywhere.

This board formerly known as, "Election 2004 Results and Discussion"
has been renamed, "Election Reform Advocacy and Action."

So, I was magically transported to where I needed to be.

Isn't technology a wondrous thing? =)