Originally Posted by superworms1000

I am sure vast majority of left wingers (who seem to be about half of the nation if you look how many of them support Democratics) are faithful and loyal American citizens who wish their best for their nation.

Actually, last time I checked the polls only 18% of Americans identified as "liberal" as oposed to 32% who identified as "conservative"

And I suspect from voter turnout the remaining percentage would be classified as "I Don't Give a "

I would have no idea if the Chinese media have covered it as it coincides with Koizumi visiting the WWII dead shrine and the landing of their space mission... Iraq is trivia here.

The only time Iraq was in the news in a major way was at the outset of hostilities and all things American were bad. I had an escort to and from work for about three months, pretty funny though as I was bigger and better trained than my government assigned escort. I think he wasn't there to protect me but rather just to witness whatever might have happened.

Gladius the headlines on CNN change constantly and from US to International version as well. Might be something to it, might not be... "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you".

The referendum also wasn't front-page news in our local newspaper either...mind you, Australia is a member of the "coalition of the willing".

News changes often, and while I can't speak about all media, sometimes the media will give precedence to local or national events over international events.

Besides, I don't think the placement of news is a reflection of media bias, per se. The media is also a business, and in order to attract more readers [and hence more money], they have to tailor to their target audience. Therefore, they may change the order of the news around to suit what they perceive their audience wants.

Originally Posted by Ramjet

News changes often, and while I can't speak about all media, sometimes the media will give precedence to local or national events over international events.

Oh come one mate, they have been covering Iraq for years, ever single day, when bad news were first news, when attacks killed hundreds. And now, all of a sudden, you mean they "sometimes will give precedence to local events"? Mmmh yeah sure on the very day of the successful Constitution referendum.

That's why I said "sometimes". They don't give precedence to local events all the time.

[Unless it's a local community newspaper, but that's not relevant.]

Oh come one mate, they have been covering Iraq for years, ever single day, when bad news were first news, when attacks killed hundreds.

Again, I can't speak for all media but IMO negative news stories will often make front-page headlines. Why? Is it merely media bias? Personally I would disagree, because that view forgets that people are generally drawn towards news items that are dramatic and can be sensationalized.

News media likes those sorts of stories because they can quickly grab a person's attention.

Stories that are not drama-filled are less likely to become headlining news simply because they aren't seen as having the same attention-grabbing ability. It seems that the Iraqi referendum falls into this category because there hasn't been any widespread violence or the like occuring.

Look, I can't say for certain that there is no bias. Yet I also find it hard to accept that bias is the over-riding factor in news reporting.

[PS: I think two other news items may have supplant Iraq, at least in Australia - bird flu and the recent earthquake.]

I won't start messing with you only because you have a cool Avatar. Damn that IS cool
Kidding man.

Why, thank you

[We both know I owned your ass :P ]

C'mon guys no matter the subject good news is never front page. Bad news sells. The masses like to see death, mayhem and destruction. Even on the nightly TV news the "feel good" happy stuff is dead last.

Not if its important enough.

All the major US news sources had it headlined on their webpages except for CNN.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Gladius the headlines on CNN change constantly and from US to International version as well. Might be something to it, might not be... "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you".

The page I went to was the US version. They have a seperate International version. So we are not talking about the international version here.

I'm not paranoid, and no one is out to get me. I'm simply trying to find out answers. Does finding out answers you don't like makes someone paranoid all of a sudden?

If CNN didn't do it on purpose as you say, then they need to get on the ball and feature top news, not secondary news. Thats pretty staightforward and simple stuff. If thats the case then they are inept, all the more reason not to listen to them.

So whether they did it on purpose by putting their agenda over real news, or by being inept to not feature something they should have. Either way theres no real good reason to listen to what they say. So that would make the majority of Americans who don't listen to CNN pretty smart and well informed.

If they change then more people will take them seriuosly.

The paranoid thingy was a joke, reference to the 60's man, like farout... chill, I am not attacking you, please back to DefCon 3. CNN is a business and they cater to an audience, enough people take them seriously to sell their advertising space or they would change. By searching their website you defeat your purpose of fomenting change. Every hit is recorded and used to set prices and sell advertising space. If you really object to a source vote with your feet, enough people do it and you will see a change.