Hizbullah: "Shut up Bush and Rice"...

[.Guy.]

Can someone please explain to me if the media is so "liberal" how come they only play the few outcast muslims? If the media was liberal, wouldn't it be in the best intrest of the country to show the Muslims that DO speak out against this? I mean there are muslims everywhere who are saying how bad these people are, yet the media doesn't report it. Why?

Serious question to ponder guys. . .

Because it gets higher ratings. Who wants to see a bunch of moderate/progressive Muslims sitting around denouncing extremism? NO ONE!

We want to see Muslims rioting, fighting, killing, terrorising. Its more exciting.

Well atleast thats what the media believes.

And no, the American media is no longer liberal. With the success of Fox News, former liberal news channels (CNN) are following suit inorder to gain viewers. :doh:

[luckydevil]

I think the media has a more pro-government bias than a liberal bias.

[mcorone]

If you want to know why more moslems don't speak out against their extremeist brethern you have to dig a bit deeper for the real answer. Fear is a part of it, but its roots actually are in the religion itself. It is a tenant of Islam to never let an infidel see two moslems disagree. I'm not kidding, if a moslem goes into the press and criticizes another moslem, he is literally going against part of his religion. And you're darn right the extremeist fringe uses this tenant to its advantage, and it silences dissent very effectively.

[.Guy.]

If you want to know why more moslems don't speak out against their extremeist brethern you have to dig a bit deeper for the real answer. Fear is a part of it, but its roots actually are in the religion itself. It is a tenant of Islam to never let an infidel see two moslems disagree. I'm not kidding, if a moslem goes into the press and criticizes another moslem, he is literally going against part of his religion. And you're darn right the extremeist fringe uses this tenant to its advantage, and it silences dissent very effectively.

Not neccessarily. If a Muslim (not Moslem) is going against the teaching of the Koran, then it is the duty of another Muslim to make the offender aware of it. Dont you see Musharraf criticising (and disagreeing) with Bin Laden and his beliefs about Islam?

Another reason many moderate Muslims dont speak out against extremist Muslims is that they are afraid of possible repercussions. For example, after siding with America on the war against terrorism, President Musharraf has had 10+ assasination attempts on his life. His counterparts in other countries see this and dont want to risk their life, and they dont want to lose support in thier country.

[mcorone]

Not neccessarily. If a Muslim (not Moslem) is going against the teaching of the Koran, then it is the duty of another Muslim to make the offender aware of it. Dont you see Musharraf criticising (and disagreeing) with Bin Laden and his beliefs about Islam?

Another reason many moderate Muslims dont speak out against extremist Muslims is that they are afraid of possible repercussions. For example, after siding with America on the war against terrorism, President Musharraf has had 10+ assasination attempts on his life. His counterparts in other countries see this and dont want to risk their life, and they dont want to lose support in thier country.

A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم) (sometimes also spelled Moslem) is an adherent of Islam. Literally, the word means someone who has submitted or surrendered to the will of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moslem

And you are right there are exceptions, but I'm not referring to the leaders of nation states but more to the moderate moslem masses that remain silent in the face of their neighbor's extremeism. And I did point out that fear is part of it, but this religious tenent allows them to not have to confront that fear, and instead hide behind the face fo being a good moslem.

If you want to read a good break down of our current situation in the world read Prof. Samuel P. Huntington's The clash of civilizations.http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

It was written in '93 and is turning out to be quite prescient.

[prophet]

Religion period. Ugh.

These kinds of statements are idiotic

Name one people group that does have wacko's that do the stupidest of things? Yet you want to single out the religious... Shows how ignorant you are. Why don't you watch your local news, and see how many people under the "name of god" committed crimes that nite.... I doubt any.

This is as stupid as a white man saying that black men do most the crime in america. :doh:

[prophet]

Christian extremists are just as, if not more hate-filled and violent than Muslim extremists.

How many christians/jews/muslims are committing violent crimes on the campus of UF these days? Your hate of religious groups are unjustified, and

seems you are picking the wrong groups... it seems the people without religion are committing the violent crimes on the UF campus.

[.Guy.]

And you are right there are exceptions, but I'm not referring to the leaders of nation states but more to the moderate moslem masses that remain silent in the face of their neighbor's extremeism. And I did point out that fear is part of it, but this religious tenent allows them to not have to confront that fear, and instead hide behind the face fo being a good moslem.

They are many, many Muslims who speak out against the extremists. You just dont hear about because, unfortunatly, our american media chooses to focus on the extremist portion of the population.

And yes, some do hide behind that tenent, but only some. Its just unfortunate that our media doesnt focus on the mass of people who do. For example, Iran has more than half of its population under 20. These people want to live in a free, unopressive state and would like nothing better for the religious leader to resign. But, out of fear of being osctracised, they cannot make these feeling known, and therefore, the entire world thinks Iran is a nation that harbors fundemental Islamic ideals. But, well read people know this (the media) but they choose not focus on it.

[frommd]

I think the media has a more pro-government bias than a liberal bias.

While Fox News may have a pro-government bias, most of the major network news is very liberal. As to why they don't show moderate muslims, it's because they show the loud angry demonstrators against the "evil" U.S. government. As if to say, "they are justified in their actions, since they are just anti-Bush like us."

Also, I am a director for CBS News here in Miami. I don't control content. Most of those that do walk around here behind the scenes literally saying, "Bush is the anti-Christ." I've heard two managers use those words.

[webnarc]

Can someone please explain to me if the media is so "liberal" how come they only play the few outcast muslims? If the media was liberal, wouldn't it be in the best intrest of the country to show the Muslims that DO speak out against this? I mean there are muslims everywhere who are saying how bad these people are, yet the media doesn't report it. Why?

Serious question to ponder guys. . .

Interesting point. You are suggesting that showing the moderates speaking out would fuel tolerance and understanding towards Muslims, but by not showing them, the media is indirectly furthering a fanatical stereotype.

[stevenaa]

Interesting point. You are suggesting that showing the moderates speaking out would fuel tolerance and understanding towards Muslims, but by not showing them, the media is indirectly furthering a fanatical stereotype.

A grass roots movement by moderate Muslims would be news and it would get covered. The problem is there is not a significant number of Muslims leading the charge. Until this happens, the view of Islam will be tainted for the majority and the problem will not get solved.

[tizzod]

Can someone please explain to me if the media is so "liberal" how come they only play the few outcast muslims? If the media was liberal, wouldn't it be in the best intrest of the country to show the Muslims that DO speak out against this? I mean there are muslims everywhere who are saying how bad these people are, yet the media doesn't report it. Why?

Serious question to ponder guys. . .

Because chaos and disorder sell newspapers and get you ratings, my friend. The media couldn't care less what moderate Muslims have to say if it's not stirring up any kind of pot and/or creating incitement. Now if the moderate Muslims come out marching and screaming and banging their shoes on a podium like Kruschev, then you've got a story!

They are there to make money, just like any other business.

[Predicto]

While Fox News may have a pro-government bias, most of the major network news is very liberal. As to why they don't show moderate muslims, it's because they show the loud angry demonstrators against the "evil" U.S. government. As if to say, "they are justified in their actions, since they are just anti-Bush like us."

Also, I am a director for CBS News here in Miami. I don't control content. Most of those that do walk around here behind the scenes literally saying, "Bush is the anti-Christ." I've heard two managers use those words.

I find your first paragraph to be narrow and ill-informed. Loud angry demonstrators are shown because they are loud and angry - i.e., flashy news. Under your hypothesis, the networks showed the Terry Schiavo protestors because they endorsed their view that the State of Florida was murdering a fully cognitive woman - which is hardly a liberal point of view. You can't have it both ways unless you are intellectually dishonest.

[Popeman38]

Predicto,

Congrats on the 3000th post...

[frommd]

I find your first paragraph to be narrow and ill-informed. Loud angry demonstrators are shown because they are loud and angry - i.e., flashy news. Under your hypothesis, the networks showed the Terry Schiavo protestors because they endorsed their view that the State of Florida was murdering a fully cognitive woman - which is hardly a liberal point of view. You can't have it both ways unless you are intellectually dishonest.

Predicto, point taken, to an extent. I'll agree that loud, angry demonstators are flashy news. But, if you don't believe that there is an overall agenda behind most news coverage, you may be a little ill-informed. Just take Fox News, for example, versus CNN. If you can't see a distinct difference in their coverages of events, then you aren't paying much attention.

As an example, the whole Cindy Sheehan-Crawford, Texas protest. You would've thought there were thousands down there protesting the president. The families of many of the military members staged an anti-Cindy protest in Crawford, and were rarely, if ever shown on television.

[Winslowalrob]

A Muslim (Arabic: مسلم) (sometimes also spelled Moslem) is an adherent of Islam. Literally, the word means someone who has submitted or surrendered to the will of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moslem

And you are right there are exceptions, but I'm not referring to the leaders of nation states but more to the moderate moslem masses that remain silent in the face of their neighbor's extremeism. And I did point out that fear is part of it, but this religious tenent allows them to not have to confront that fear, and instead hide behind the face fo being a good moslem.

If you want to read a good break down of our current situation in the world read Prof. Samuel P. Huntington's The clash of civilizations.http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

It was written in '93 and is turning out to be quite prescient.

Oh god, Clash of Civilizations is a great book... except that ignores history, economics, and politics. Huntington is an intelligent bigot that makes nativist ignorance fashionable. It is not in the prescient range quite yet...

[Winslowalrob]

Predicto, point taken, to an extent. I'll agree that loud, angry demonstators are flashy news. But, if you don't believe that there is an overall agenda behind most news coverage, you may be a little ill-informed. Just take Fox News, for example, versus CNN. If you can't see a distinct difference in their coverages of events, then you aren't paying much attention.

As an example, the whole Cindy Sheehan-Crawford, Texas protest. You would've thought there were thousands down there protesting the president. The families of many of the military members staged an anti-Cindy protest in Crawford, and were rarely, if ever shown on television.

So basically the liberal media is anything that attacks Bush? And what you cite as CNN "trying" (and I use the word loosely) to add protesters to a crowd, does that make Bush look worse? Or Sheehan look crazier? So people watching CNN will have their views changed on Bush because "thousands" of protesters were on the street? Or do you want equal coverage of the other protest? Then would CNN not have to show more anti-Bush protests that go on in the United States? If the "average" American does not know about about the military anti-Cindy stuff, then maybe they are just as ignorant to other protests against Bush. You cannot have it both ways; if you want equal, or perhaps "fair and balanced" news then EVERY protest must be shown, for and against Bush.

[frommd]

So basically the liberal media is anything that attacks Bush? And what you cite as CNN "trying" (and I use the word loosely) to add protesters to a crowd, does that make Bush look worse? Or Sheehan look crazier? So people watching CNN will have their views changed on Bush because "thousands" of protesters were on the street? Or do you want equal coverage of the other protest? Then would CNN not have to show more anti-Bush protests that go on in the United States? If the "average" American does not know about about the military anti-Cindy stuff, then maybe they are just as ignorant to other protests against Bush. You cannot have it both ways; if you want equal, or perhaps "fair and balanced" news then EVERY protest must be shown, for and against Bush.

Actually, the point I was making is that regardless of who you watch, the content of the news is subjective. The people behind the scenes are making decisions to show what they think you, their loyal viewers, want to see. So, CNN caters to their audience, and Fox to theirs.

[Predicto]

Actually, the point I was making is that regardless of who you watch, the content of the news is subjective. The people behind the scenes are making decisions to show what they think you, their loyal viewers, want to see. So, CNN caters to their audience, and Fox to theirs.

I think your point has changed drastically over the course of this thread. I agree with the point you are now making (up to a point )

Everyone is biased, and everything that is written has some bias to it. The difference is that the traditional networks tend to be staffed by a lot of liberal types who don't think they are being biased, even when they are. Sometimes you can even call them on it and they will sheepishly admit their error and resolve to do better.

Fox, on the other hand, has a top-down policy of consciously slanting the news and how it presents it to serve a political agenda. They know they are bing biased, they don't care, and they will vociferously deny it and act outraged when it is pointed out.

Maybe there is no difference.

[frommd]

I think your point has changed drastically over the course of this thread. I agree with the point you are now making (up to a point )

Everyone is biased, and everything that is written has some bias to it. The difference is that the traditional networks tend to be staffed by a lot of liberal types who don't think they are being biased, even when they are. Sometimes you can even call them on it and they will sheepishly admit their error and resolve to do better.

Fox, on the other hand, has a top-down policy of consciously slanting the news and how it presents it to serve a political agenda. They know they are bing biased, they don't care, and they will vociferously deny it and act outraged when it is pointed out.

Maybe there is no difference.

I don't think there is any difference. I'll admit my views may have come across in my original post on this topic, but I was always trying to make the point that television news is slanted in one direction or another, depending on who you watch. You watch Fox and see biased coverage. I see the same thing when I watch CNN. Working in television, I've seen a great deal of this first hand. People were practically weeping in the newsroom on election night 2004. It comes across in the way they cover stories.

[Winslowalrob]

I don't think there is any difference. I'll admit my views may have come across in my original post on this topic, but I was always trying to make the point that television news is slanted in one direction or another, depending on who you watch. You watch Fox and see biased coverage. I see the same thing when I watch CNN. Working in television, I've seen a great deal of this first hand. People were practically weeping in the newsroom on election night 2004. It comes across in the way they cover stories.

While whatever slant may come across in coeverage, problem is, I do not think CNN is liberal.

[frommd]

While whatever slant may come across in coeverage, problem is, I do not think CNN is liberal.

On this issue, we'll just agree to disagree. :2cents:

[Predicto]

Working in television, I've seen a great deal of this first hand. People were practically weeping in the newsroom on election night 2004.

That just shows how intelligent and well-informed the people in your business really are.

[frommd]

That just shows how intelligent and well-informed the people in your business really are.

Or what jealous losers they are. Just kidding.

[Winslowalrob]

On this issue, we'll just agree to disagree. :2cents:

There is one problem I have with that; trying to equate Fox News (the editorial sides, not the straight reporting which is kind of decent) with CNN. Now, having lived in the DC area, I read the Washington Post, which I would categorize as "liberal," but with caveats in that the Post was no kinder to Clinton during his presidency. CNN does not push for gay marraige, or pro-choice issues, or pro-immigration issues, or anything else I would consider a liberal issue. People cite that CNN reports stories unfavorable to the President... guess what, it did the same thing with Clinton. So there are a few logical conclusions that can come from this;

Bush is the same quality of president as Clinton, and CNN simply did not like both

OR

Bush is a better president than Clinton, and CNN dislikes Bush more than it disliked Clinton

OR

Bush is a worse president than Clinton, and CNN dislikes Bush less than it disliked Clinton.

Notice that two of the options would indicate that CNN is not necessarily "liberal" in that it favors Clinton over Bush. Instead, the middle option would indicate that. To which I ask; if the news prefers bad news to good, and the current standing president is Bush, then what is the most likely outcome? The press will put out more bad news about the current president. That would also mean that the president has done things that are not necessarily worth praising (which does not mean bad things, just not great things), or else these stories would not come out. Every president after Washington was annoyed with the press. It comes with free speech.