Whistleblower Denounces ABC's Marxist Bias, CNN's Propaganda

G

gladius

Active member
Whistleblower Denounces ABC's Marxist Bias, CNN's Propaganda for Saddam

Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, May 1, 2003

Having kept quiet for 14 years, a former ABC News correspondent has gone public for the first time with allegations that network anchorman Peter Jennings manipulated news scripts during the 1980s to praise the Marxist-backed Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/1/160050.shtml

And some people call Fox biased...

The average American had supected this for a long time, turns outs its true.

Its a good day now that stanglehold was finally broken.

Its also not suprising most of those news media didn't jump on this.
 
I know its old, but true none the less.

My point was to show absolute proof of left wing bias in the media, since I see alot of liberals here calling Fox News propaganda and totally forget to mention other news simply because it is left wing. I thought it was getting old.

If they are going to do that then they need to start with themselves and liberal left wing news, which was totaly slanted long before Fox came into existance. The duplicity in which they accuse news sources (Fox being their main target) that don't agree with thier views is totally hypocritical in my oppinion.
 
gladius said:
I know its old, but true none the less.

My point was to show absolute proof of left wing bias in the media, since I see alot of liberals here calling Fox News propaganda and totally forget to mention other news simply because it is left wing. I thought it was getting old.

If they are going to do that then they need to start with themselves and liberal left wing news, which was totaly slanted long before Fox came into existance. The duplicity in which they accuse news sources that don't agree with thier views is hypocritical in my oppinion.
Click to expand...


The problem is that people know that ABC is a left leaning organisation and that Fox is a right leaning organisation hence I suspect the reason many people prefer to use the BBC and CNN as more balanced sources.
 
Well the article does also mention something about CNN as well, the same person also worked for CNN and blew the whistle on them too, so I don't think they are balance as well.
 
Probably true however next to Fox and ABC the are at best center left and I would consider the BBC to be center right and as I am a mixture of both left and right I consider them balanced (I think).

No matter what organisations you choose to use they all have a political slant one way or another you just and it is usually compounded by the invdividual's political leanings ie a confirmed right winger may see Fox as centerist, CNN and BBC as mildly left and ABC extreme left vice versa for a Lefty.
 
It all boils down to this: get your news from many sources and all sides and make your own determinations or you'll be just another sheep.
 
Charge 7 said:
It all boils down to this: get your news from many sources and all sides and make your own determinations or you'll be just another sheep.
Click to expand...

Precisely, you hit the nail on the head.
 
Charge 7 said:
It all boils down to this: get your news from many sources and all sides and make your own determinations or you'll be just another sheep.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the point I'm trying to make.

You simply can't denounce one news source call it propaganda simply because it doesn't agree with you, when the ones that you favor are even more guilty of it.
 
It pays to do some research on the anchor persons if you suspect blatant bias. The broadcasting company hires whoever brings more watchers, not what their politics are. Walter Cronkite is a good example.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/C/htmlC/cronkitewal/cronkitewal.htm

"Initially, Cronkite was something of a hawk on the Vietnam War, although his program did broadcast controversial segments such as Morley Safer's famous "Zippo lighter" report. However, returning from Vietnam after the Tet offensive Cronkite addressed his massive audience with a different perspective. "It seems now more certain than ever," he said, "that the bloody experience of Vietnam is a stalemate." He then urged the government to open negotiations with the North Vietnamese. Many observers, including presidential aide Bill Moyers speculated that this was a major factor contributing to President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to offer to negotiate with the enemy and not to run for President in l968. "

I still have respect for the man but I think after TET, even though it was a sound victory for America, his reporting had some effect on outcome of the war.
 
gladius said:
Charge 7 said:
It all boils down to this: get your news from many sources and all sides and make your own determinations or you'll be just another sheep.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the point I'm trying to make.

You simply can't denounce one news source call it propaganda simply because it doesn't agree with you, when the ones that you favor are even more guilty of it.
Click to expand...

Dont you find it somewhat ironic of accusing people of being bias when your using 3 year old posts from a 'no credibility' website (Whispering Death words to describe NewsMax).

As for me, I read the WSJ everyday which is conservative. I often don't agree with it but I dont call it propaganda. Tell me why?
 
They are different because you don't like what Fox challenges the left wing mindset all the time.

This proves my point, you are calling Fox propaganda, when you call the NY Times news.

This is the point I'm trying to make is your hipocrasy in presenting this things, by calling Fox trash and NY Times a good paper.

Regardless whether you think Fox is propaganda or not is beside the point, it is your bias and duplicity is presenting these things that is evident here, and is the main subject of this thread.
 
Thats because the NYTimes is considered one of the most prestigous news organizations in the world, while FOX is regarded internationally as a GOP stooge. Thats not opinion thats fact.

And yet you seem to be the only one who doesnt get it.
 
Hahaha. Your statement just proved the point of what I was trying to say.

As far prestigous goes, the NY Times had some credibility problems in the past, but thats kinda off topic.

Still my point is proven.
 
Gladius man just drop it lol your never going to convince him otherwise and vice versa.

This article is really old and all news agencies make mistakes and have some ethical issuses.


edit~ This just found something interesting (even thought its from an evil propaganda right wing stooge of a source)

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
 
gladius said:
Charge 7 said:
It all boils down to this: get your news from many sources and all sides and make your own determinations or you'll be just another sheep.
Click to expand...

Which is part of the point I'm trying to make.

You simply can't denounce one news source call it propaganda simply because it doesn't agree with you, when the ones that you favor are even more guilty of it.
Click to expand...

Oh sure you can, Gladius. ;)

Be honest, if you have a particular view, and I know you have several, are you going to point out the inequities in your view? Of course you wouldn't.

Also, seeing as I've often witnessed the Democrats accuse the Republicans of something they've done themselves and vice versa, why would you expect that average people would do any differently? I think your expectations are unrealistic.

People like sides - sad, but it is a part of human nature. The tribal portion of us still lives. I make my own choices about my beliefs and values (though to again be honest, my parents instilled my core values). In doing so I have been called a "liberal" and even a "leftist" by those on the right. I have also been called a "conservative", "anti-liberal", and even a "fascist" by those on the left. What they were really telling me was that I didn't belong in their "tribe". So be it. My maker gave me a brain and the ability to use it. When I abrogate that power I have failed first myself, and then my creator.
 
i think this goes to show what a massive kick in the pants the US news media needs unfortunatly.


news should rate well whatever the politics, you should never dumb it down or sensationalise it to get better ratings.

what happened to the days of News media being objective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top