Bias in the Media, LOL

[PLAYER57832]

If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

[thegreekdog]

I loved being quoted at the beginning of this thread.

Seeing as how the "Fox is biased" people have posted links, here are some counter-links (really, "counter-links" should be a real word):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m9Gbb6NSwM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDv1vTrPUw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vazP15Bi ... PL&index=1

This last one is an entire playlist on Keith Olbermann. While the poster put these videos up there to praise Olbermann (and, surely, the dude can speak), they are indicative of his radical views on what President Bush was actually up to. For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

I'm not sure what this thread is trying to argue. I agree that Fox News is biased. I also point out that other news outlets, in this case MSNBC, are also biased. The difference is that people generally acknowledge that Fox News is biased. People generally do not understand that MSNBC is biased as well. That's why I encourage, and will continue to encourage, people to listen to and watch a variety of news outlets.

[Snorri1234]

For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

Bush is nor was an idiot, he was just frightingly focused on his own worldview which does not agree with the real world and dismissed everything that didn't agree with that worldview. It's not truly the same as idiocy in the sense that he is intelligent but in the sense that he doesn't let any information convince him of how wrong he is.

Which is probably why he's a creationist.

[thegreekdog]

For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

Bush is nor was an idiot, he was just frightingly focused on his own worldview which does not agree with the real world and dismissed everything that didn't agree with that worldview. It's not truly the same as idiocy in the sense that he is intelligent but in the sense that he doesn't let any information convince him of how wrong he is.

Which is probably why he's a creationist.

I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make a joke and/or be ironic. I just find it interesting that the same people who call President Bush an idiot, also tend to be the same people who think he is a nefarious man with many interwoven plots to ruin the world. Being an idiot and a nefarious super villain are pretty much mutually exclusive.

[Snorri1234]

For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

Bush is nor was an idiot, he was just frightingly focused on his own worldview which does not agree with the real world and dismissed everything that didn't agree with that worldview. It's not truly the same as idiocy in the sense that he is intelligent but in the sense that he doesn't let any information convince him of how wrong he is.

Which is probably why he's a creationist.

I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make a joke and/or be ironic. I just find it interesting that the same people who call President Bush an idiot, also tend to be the same people who think he is a nefarious man with many interwoven plots to ruin the world. Being an idiot and a nefarious super villain are pretty much mutually exclusive.

The comically used images and jokes about bush being a monkey are silly. What people mean by calling him an idiot is that he's completely obvlious to real world shit. When something that proves his worldview is twisted and simplistic he tends to ignore it. He's an idiot, not dumb.

[captain.crazy]

If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

[thegreekdog]

For a really big idiot, President Bush sure had some crazy sh*t going down (at least according to Mr. Olbermann).

Bush is nor was an idiot, he was just frightingly focused on his own worldview which does not agree with the real world and dismissed everything that didn't agree with that worldview. It's not truly the same as idiocy in the sense that he is intelligent but in the sense that he doesn't let any information convince him of how wrong he is.

Which is probably why he's a creationist.

I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make a joke and/or be ironic. I just find it interesting that the same people who call President Bush an idiot, also tend to be the same people who think he is a nefarious man with many interwoven plots to ruin the world. Being an idiot and a nefarious super villain are pretty much mutually exclusive.

The comically used images and jokes about bush being a monkey are silly. What people mean by calling him an idiot is that he's completely obvlious to real world shit. When something that proves his worldview is twisted and simplistic he tends to ignore it. He's an idiot, not dumb.

No. I'm referring to people referring to President Bush's slips of the tongue, use of poor grammar, graduation from Yale with a C average, etc. All of these things were used and are continually used to discredit President Bush's intelligence... and that's fine with me. I happen to think the President of the United States should be more intelligent than me (the current President is, for example). My issue stems from the fact that those people who use President Bush's lack of intelligence to discredit him
also seem to think he has the wherewithal to ruin the world. As I said, these ideas are mutually exclusive. And these ideas kind of bring us back to the point that every media outlet is biased (except the Associated Press, which is a conglomerate of many media outlets) - to discredit President Bush, media outlets will say that he's an idiot and at the same time say he is hatching nefarious plots of world domination. Similarly, Sean Hannity will rip Vice President Biden but toss softballs to Lynne Cheney. Just trying to get the Hannity bashers to admit that their "boys" are just as guilty of bias. Apparently, it's not working.

[MeDeFe]

If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

"Many people" also believe that the devil took the form of a talking snake and convinced the first two humans to eat some weird fruit right under the nose of an omniscient god. These people are tax payers, surely this needs to be taught as historical fact that has credible sources. If your school system taught there was no war in Vietnam, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

[captain.crazy]

If the science community is so open minded, why not let people decide for themselves what they wish to believe.

They do, but Creationists deny proofs they find inconvenient and meanwhile complain about "media bias" whilst refusing to submit anything to any reputable journal.

And still, the theory cannot be considered? You see, the thing is, many people believe it, and those people are the taxpayers if the school systems that teach their kids. If your school system taught that there was no Holocaust, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

"Many people" also believe that the devil took the form of a talking snake and convinced the first two humans to eat some weird fruit right under the nose of an omniscient god. These people are tax payers, surely this needs to be taught as historical fact that has credible sources. If your school system taught there was no war in Vietnam, would you think that you might be a bit concerned about sending your kids there to learn?

And yet, this cannot be disproven. In fact, I personally believe that creation, evolution, the time line for creation, and God's hand in it all are a combination of these things. But I would have a hard time even acknowledging God if not for being introduced to ideas about Him. It is the hopes of atheists so strip God from the public view when, in fact, a relationship with God is a very healthy thing!

People are paying taxes to have their public education provided to them by people that will not offer their theory into the public arena of ideas. I think its wrong.

[thegreekdog]

How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."

[captain.crazy]

How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."

It isn't fair. And that's not the point. People believe in creationism... but why should they pay taxes for a system that won't even introduce a theory that they believe, when evolution and creationism are both theories. You believe that evolution is true, and they believe the same of creationism. Put the shoe on the other foot, as in if creationism was taught, and evolution was mocked openly in public. Now imagine that you were told, "We're not going to teach evolution to your kids, that's preposterous!" If you start to think like this, then you start to see that equal representation of both major theories should be presented in schools. That's all!

You just don't like it because you believe in evolution, as do I! but that doesn't make me right.

[oVo]

Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.

[thegreekdog]

How does teaching evolution in school and creationism at home a bad thing? One can understand and/or believe both and one can be taught both. If I'm taught evolution in school and creationism at home, that does not mean that I will automatically drop my creationism beliefs. It's an illogical argument made by some conservatives that drives me a little nuts - "We must teach creationism in schools, it's not fair. Our children are going to believe in evolution instead of creationism."

It isn't fair. And that's not the point. People believe in creationism... but why should they pay taxes for a system that won't even introduce a theory that they believe, when evolution and creationism are both theories. You believe that evolution is true, and they believe the same of creationism. Put the shoe on the other foot, as in if creationism was taught, and evolution was mocked openly in public. Now imagine that you were told, "We're not going to teach evolution to your kids, that's preposterous!" If you start to think like this, then you start to see that equal representation of both major theories should be presented in schools. That's all!

You just don't like it because you believe in evolution, as do I! but that doesn't make me right.

I pay taxes for a lot of things that I don't use, don't agree with, and don't think are fair. Should I pay taxes for a system that gives money to people who don't pay taxes, or money to people who cannot pay their mortgage, or money to roads that I don't use?

By the way, I'm Catholic, so I believe in creationism. I just don't care if it's taught in schools or not. And these are the types of issues that make me "throw away" my vote on a Libertarian candidate instead of voting for a Republican. Conservative Republicans care so much for these issues that they alienate a broad spectrum of potential voters by constantly espousing the idea and ridiculing those that don't hold the same beliefs. It's a little childish and it's a lot counterproductive to say "that's not fair." Especially considering that there are other things that Republicans and conservatives can stand for that can be very productive.

[captain.crazy]

Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.

These 'atheist' that created our country were, in fact, Godly men that believed that we were all created equal. They were no atheists at all. they believed in the power of free will. I am not trying to suggest that we not have the right to believe as we wish. I am saying that creationism deserves a place in the hall of "How we got here" just like any other belief. none are taught other than evolution, because that is the only one that scientifically explains how we got here, even though it is only a theory.

[thegreekdog]

Our children are going to believe what they are going to believe... and in time those thoughts will change with the world around them. IF the kids of the past only believed what they were told and accepted all teachings on blind faith as the absolute truth, we would not be where we are today.

The many biases and hypocrisy of the past is one factor in the doubts expressed and shared by many people today. I do not believe there is a "team atheist" agenda to strip God from public view, it can't be done. The United States was founded by atheists who attempted to establish many freedoms for their citizens... which included a right to follow the faith of your choosing. The choice to be a non-believer is protected by those same rights.

I agree with some of your thoughts, but not others. The United States was surely not founded by atheists. We can just look to the founding documents and other writings, as well as my favorite quote by Benjamin Franklin ("Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy").

The Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion because the United States was meant to be inclusive of all religions. I do not know if atheism was contemplated, but atheism is not a religion such that one would need freedom to practice it. Additionally, the separation of church and state provision was not meant to separate religion from the state; it was meant to separate the state from a state religion. The revolutionaries did not want a Church of United States.

In any event, I have no problem with atheists. They are pretty brave if you really think about it - If the atheist is right, he dies and gets put into the ground (a scary thought indeed). If the atheist is wrong, he goes to Hell. It's a lose-lose situation.