Think the Media Is More Biased Today?

I walked thru and by them. The vitriol between pro and con, cop and kid, father and son, had to be seen to understand. People worry about race now, but then if you had long hair in the wrong place, you were in for it. The war seemed winnable-that's what we were told and what we believed-the anti war rallies were held because kids did not want to be drafted-and unlike Cher and others, they actually did go to Canada.

I lived through that period as well... I remember my mom learning how to use a gun because the race riots might spill into our neighborhood. It problaby seemed to my parents generation that the whole society was falling apart.

And this is kind of my point. Conkrite really didn't move the needle that much. The thing is the media is usually a reflection of where the country is at.

A more recent example is the Iraq War... The media went along with everything Bush said when it started, and he was able to ride that horse to re-election. By 2006, the country and the media had turned on the guy, big time. But even then, no one wanted to be the "Guy who lost Iraq", so Bush still got his surge and we didn't get out until 2011.
Depends on where you are perhaps, I went to school down the road from Yale where Bush was, so my school was right and his school was left. The parties I went to started as civil rights discussions and moved to anti war discussions after that broadcast. Point is Cronkite did not change everybody's mind, but before that, no newsman gave his opinion like that.
 
Hilarious spinning.

that language evolves? Yes, that's spin, buddy.

Give you a more clear example.

For a long time, the word "Negro" was used to describe black people.

Then they use the term "Colored"... because they thought it was less offensive.

Then we went with Black.

Now the popular term is "African-American".

We stopped calling people "Retarded" and started calling them "Special Needs". (Well, except you.. you are definitely still retarded.)
Now the popular term is "People of color".
 
Now that MSM’s totally, unquestionably out of the closet there’s no reason not to ratchet up the bias going forward as there’s nothing to lose. No more fear of getting caught, being accused of supporting radical leftism in America, etc. Now, they’re in pure selling mode and whatever lies and bullshit it takes they’ll do.
 
How did they lie, exactly? Not that Stalin was killing millions or anything.
Stalin only murdered 61,911,000 of his own people, ignoramus.

Walter Duranty - Wikipedia
And The NY Times told him to do it?

What a moron
Fvckhead, The NY Times lied so Stalin could keep doing it.

Damn you Leftards are dumber than a nail.

So......let me get this straight

Stalin needed the permission of The NY Times to slaughter people
You are one stupid fuckhead who feels the need to play stupid about one of history’s biggest mass murderer and the puppets who paved the path for him.

Yes...tell us again how he did it on orders from the NY Times
 
One of the enduring myths of the Vietnam War is that it was lost by hostile American press coverage.

Exhibit A in this narrative is Walter Cronkite, the CBS News anchor, billed as the nation’s most trustworthy voice, who on Feb. 27, 1968, told his audience of millions that the war could not be won. Commentary like this was remarkable back then because of both custom and the Fairness Doctrine, a federal policy requiring broadcasters to remain neutral about the great questions of the day.

The doctrine was rescinded in 1987, so now we have whole networks devoted to round-the-clock propaganda. But when Cronkite aired his bleak but decidedly middle-of-the-road assessment of the war 50 years ago, immediately after the Tet offensive, it was a significant departure. It struck like revelation. From the pinnacle of TV’s prime-time reach, he had descended to pronounce:
"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past," Cronkite declared. "To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. ...
t is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could." That last sentence caused a president to retire and millions of people who saw and heard it as I did to remove our support for the war-he gave us a way out-but we did not take it till years later.

This is fun and all, but this is like the Edward R. Murrow took down McCarthy myth of journalism.

Conkrite's pronouncement that the war was unwinnable in 1968 was hardly a shock. There had already been massive anti-war rallies by that point.
I walked thru and by them. The vitriol between pro and con, cop and kid, father and son, had to be seen to understand. People worry about race now, but then if you had long hair in the wrong place, you were in for it. The war seemed winnable-that's what we were told and what we believed-the anti war rallies were held because kids did not want to be drafted-and unlike Cher and others, they actually did go to Canada.
In the Pentagon Papers they had already admitted the war was not winnable
They were hoping for a war of attrition. Wasn’t going to happen.
They had been fighting and dying for 25 years. They were not ready to give up.
 
tim pool on youtube just did an entire series on it. they're selling hate cause ad revenue went down and they know people will go nuts on this.

like i said long ago - best way to win this game is not to play it. ignore 'em and they shut up.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top