Ny Times/Liberal Media Bias?

[Eccentric Bibliophile]

Has anyone seen the article the New York Times did on LWW? Those Bigots and Slanderers! They painted C.S. Lewis out to be a PERVERT!!!! And they basically seem to praise Philip Pullmans views! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Saruman]

I fear that I have not, but seeing that it is the New York Times, it is no surprise at all.

[unleavened]

That's sad and frustrating, but somehow not surprising.

[glamel]

yeah,i just read it, it's okay, we should be open to criticisms.

and just like what the bible says,
"blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh" Luke 6:21 :)

[Eccentric Bibliophile]

Yeah, but this criticism is so full of innuedo and slander, not to mention presumptions that it cannot possibly be considered journalism. This is not merely criticism but a not-so-subtle attack against peoples values. Not to mention some seriously tasteless references I.E. the Aslan&White witch oral sex deal. :mad: It's pure blasphemy

[glamel]

yeah, but we can't do anything about it, it's their right,
the freedom of the press :(
which they don't really use to tackle nice things
they are biassed, they only saw the negative side of LWW and all of CS Lewis books,
If we can just only sue them for saying those things, like pullman said also. hmp.
those weird guys, just don't know the real literature is
One paper even said, that "CS Lewis, by contrast, was a magpie. He took whatever came to hand and dumped it all in."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/movies/13narnia.html

[Jewel of Narnia]

This article makes me so mad :mad: :mad: :mad: . I'm honestly speechless :mad:
I might post later when I cool down a bit.

[glamel]

so, you want also to protest?, why don't we just form a union against those press, who doesn't know anything but criticized Lewis?eh? :D

[Lord Eirek]

:eek: I don't know where this guy gets his blasphemous lies, something which can't even be called distortion because he's not even close enough to the truth to be distorting it (well I don't know if that made sense but :mad: ) He's a knavish liar plain and simply :mad: glamel do you have a lawyer I could borrow? Anyone have a lawyer? It will only take a little while, come on eh? :mad:

I'm joking with the lawyer bit (I'm really not if someone says "yes you can borrow my lawyer"), but really this is outrageous.

[LadyEm]

As a member of the Press (albeit the Canadian Press) I have to ask (not being in agreement and as disgusted with it as you are) was this an opinion piece?
Or was it an article?
Either way, the best plan would be to write the NYT a letter, a serious picking apart of the piece, with facts to back up your reasonings behind it.
Hit the author where it hurts...most of you can write quite well.
Sound intelligient and they'll print it, most likely. At least the journalist is likely to see his work picked apart for not having facts to back up his assessments ;)

[Lord Eirek]

Believe me I'm for that, but since my writing style isn't, um, uh, er, ehm, hmm, yeah,
so who wants to write 'em eh?

[glamel]

hmm, yeah, we can do that, actually a person can do that, or all of us can write, so the nyt would print our letters, or so, we can write to their rival newspaper, maybe they'd hear us :D

[Starkist]

The New York Times has not been a serious piece of journalism for years now.

One of the weblogs I follow has a writeup of the NYT piece. http://www.internetmonk.com/index.php/archives/the-sexual-cs-lewis

[inkspot]

Thanks, Starkist, that was a great article. Michael Spencer should send that to the NY Times.

[she-elfwarrior19]

That's sad and frustrating, but somehow not surprising.
I agree that is sad, frustrating, and it is really sad :(
Thats not a very good thing to say.

[LadyEm]

Well, discuss what you want to write with those who can't write, and come up with some good things.
You have a lot more power than you think you do ;)
You see, with newspapers it's all about the readership, not all about the reporters.

[rosymole]

When was this article posted in the NY Times? Just so I can have a look, ad give what I think to be an unbiased vie (possibly!) I am a fabn of Lewis, but also one of Liberal journalism?!
You can PM me if needs be!

[judyfromkansas]

...after reading that obnoxious article, and I'm posting the e-mail here. Tell me, if you would, what you think:

*Dear NY Times:

Regarding the article "The Narnia Skirmishes"...I wish to congratulate its author. In that article Mr. McGrath displays a talent for fiction, fantasy and fabrication that authors like C.S. Lewis could only envy.

I mean, really! Saying that J. K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books are better written than C. S. Lewis' Narnia series! There is not a single moment of unforgettable imagery, not a single passage that moves the heart and tingles the spine, not a single line of imaginative prose such as "It is she that makes it always winter. Always winter but never Christmas. Think of that!" in any of Rowling's rambling, episodic potboilers. Those elements are everywhere in Lewis' books - and he did it with the simplest, most economical of languages. And as for Phillip Pullman...it's one thing to dislike a book, but to savage it so completely as he does with he Narnia series suggests envy of a most dangerous kind. Having read all three of his "Dark Materials" books, I would suggest that while he has a way with prose, he is utterly unable to engage the hearts and minds of his readers, which is perhaps why his trilogy has sold so poorly, especially when compared with the sales of the books written by the object of his derision - C. S. Lewis.

I'm an agnostic myself, but I respect Christianity when it's honest about itself. Lewis was honest in all of his writings. He never pretended to be a saint, and was in fact very much in favor of enjoying life vividly with all the senses. It's getting to be very tiresome when so many writers constantly try to paint all things Christian with the same clumsy cartoon strokes. Christians apparently must be perfect little plaster statues without stain or somehow they're hypocrites, according to some in the "mainstream media". Lewis had little patience with pretenders or faux intellectuals - one can readily guess he'd have absolutely no use whatsoever with certain writers who work for The New York Times.

Sincerely,

(my real name)*

[Inklet]

I only got through the first half of the third page of that article.

I didn't like the way the author described "one of those earnest WWI pacts." This makes me sick. Does the author of this piece have no conception of what WWI was like? I was born 50 years after it was over, and I know that there was no conflict like it before or (so far, thank God) since.

Watching your friends climb out of the trench and run towards the enemy while they are pouring machine gun fire into their bodies is something I can't even imagine. I'm disgusted by the characterization of a promise made between friends in those circumstances as "one of those earnest WWI pacts."

The rest, as far as I can tell, is a smear on Lewis and his friend's mother. There is no evidence that it is true. But if it is true, what does it have to do with his later conversion to Christianity, or with his work?

Ab-hominable.

[TimmyofOz]

The NYTimes article is unfortunate. Lewis is unable to defend himself. The sucess of his writings do defend Lewis though. This movie is going to be a blockbuster and the secular media are afraid to admit it. :(

[inkspot]

Rosy, it was here
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/movies/13narnia.html
if this link is still good

I agree with Inklet that it is kind of sickening for people to make something dirty out of a pledge Lewis made to take care of his army buddy's family, and the fact that be put himself to a lot of trouble doing a thankless job, because she was a mean old woman! Isn't it even remotely thinkable to them that a man might have the integrity to stand by a promise he had made, without its being some kind of psycho-sexual bondage? Ick!

[LadyEm]

The NYTimes article is unfortunate. Lewis is unable to defend himself. The sucess of his writings do defend Lewis though. This movie is going to be a blockbuster and the secular media are afraid to admit it. :(


Actually what the NY Times does isn't what all media does. The actions and writings of one reporter does note denote that.
I know for a fact that my journalism buddies and contacts are all well aware and expecting Narnia to be a blockbuster. And we're all secular media - which I think is more mainstream media than secular, as I'm a Christian who's in the mainstream media - the secular media.
Whoever the person was he is entitled to his opinion, however wrong he might be. The truth is facts are facts - and you can misinterpret things according to your own bias. Everyone has a bias - and no matter what, we cannot have complete and objective news coverage. It's impossible.
My conservative Christian leanings are going to be ever present in my work because my faith us such apart of who I am.
That said, this person's beliefs, albeit twisted, are apart of who he is so it is reflected in the opinions of his work.
That said, I don't think there is "secular" media. I think it is mainstream media. I don't put much stock in so-called "Christian" media (with exceptions of course) because it honestly doesn't step up to the plate in a journalist's world and it falls short in its quality - not its content.
Additionally, it is only the "secular" media because Christians have not stepped up to the plate and are not apart of it because it's "too hard" or they're afraid they'll "lose their faith."
That is the reason why the media is so "liberal" and seems to have a bias against "conservatives." It's not the liberal's fault. Where are the conservatives? We need a good balance between the two for GOOD Journalism. Neither is right, and neither is perfect.
Sorry for the rant! It's just something I feel very strongly about.

[Starkist]

The reason the media seems to be liberal is that they have succeeded in marginalizing opposing viewpoints. It is hard for a good conservative to invade the liberal turf because the media has tarred conservatives as "extreme" and "out of touch" with "mainstream" America. They have moved the definition of "mainstream" much further to the left than it really is.

Just as they did with Mel Gibson leading up to the Passion of the Christ, the "mainstream" media will do what it can to tar and feather a conservative Christian icon such as C.S. Lewis.

[LadyEm]

The reason the media seems to be liberal is that they have succeeded in marginalizing opposing viewpoints. It is hard for a good conservative to invade the liberal turf because the media has tarred conservatives as "extreme" and "out of touch" with "mainstream" America. They have moved the definition of "mainstream" much further to the left than it really is.

Just as they did with Mel Gibson leading up to the Passion of the Christ, the "mainstream" media will do what it can to tar and feather a conservative Christian icon such as C.S. Lewis.

Like I said, I am a Christian who is apart of the mainstream media. I know exactly how hard it is, and how hard it isn't.
Also like I said above, if conservatives chose to keep themselves out of the mainstream media, then that is their own fault! If people don't desire to stand up and fight for what they believe is right and aren't willing to be challenged, then the presence of conservatives in the media is was and will be compromised.
If they aren't willing to take the challenge, then why whine about it being so liberal? Stand up and do something about it!
That said, I am also in the Canadian media. The Canadian Media is far more liberal than the American media, as is our politics. So wouldn't that make it even harder for me if the Canadian media is more liberal than the American media?
But, like I said, Christians aren't stepping up to the plate if they've let it slide and be held by people of the extreme liberal bent.
That said, the media is extremely liberal, but those are the reasons why. Basically what I am saying is that you cannot complain if you are not willing to make change.
The erosion of the conservative media in North America is not simply because liberals have marginalized them - but also because conservatives have let them.
This will continue to happen unless people stop being scared and take up the banner. For example, if I were working in that reporter's position at the Times, I would be saying the complete opposite of what he is.

[unleavened]

Many conservatives do act, but you are right in saying many fail to act. Many times conservatives don't make it far b/c their idea's aren't popular, b/c of the bias against Christianity in the world.
I don't like what's put out in the media. Some of it's sick. But I do like that I live where I can choose not to watch it, or put out something in opposition to it.

[LadyEm]

No, actually to clarify I was saying that many conservatives don't try being involved in media as media. I was not talking about anything conservatives do outside of that fact.

[glamel]

actually,
it's not only the reporter's fault,
its also the editor,
why on earth would they published an article that is biassed
when media should not be one!
or if they really want to published it, they should edit it at first and
add something that it is their own thoughts and they are welcome
for opinions and everything.
Besides, being a journalists, is not merely on being a liberal or conservative one,
Each Journalist have an ettiquette and values,
and I, being a writer in a school paper before, knew for a fact that
a JOurnalist,
1. should not be biassed
2. should commit to the truth
3. Respect other people

of course, writing doesn't have a rule, but these are not rules, these are values that we should kept in mind, when we write a fact,
and the article broke these values. :D

[LadyEm]

actually,
it's not only the reporter's fault,
its also the editor,
why on earth would they published an article that is biassed
when media should not be one!
or if they really want to published it, they should edit it at first and
add something that it is their own thoughts and they are welcome
for opinions and everything.
Besides, being a journalists, is not merely on being a liberal or conservative one,
Each Journalist have an ettiquette and values,
and I, being a writer in a school paper before, knew for a fact that
a JOurnalist,
1. should not be biassed
2. should commit to the truth
3. Respect other people

of course, writing doesn't have a rule, but these are not rules, these are values that we should kept in mind, when we write a fact,
and the article broke these values. :D

But you see, although I agree with your #2 and #3, one can never escape your bias. A Journalist will always be biased, because we all have our own bias.
The Journalist however, should be able to try and give a balanced report of the things he or she is talking about. Additionally, they should be able to back up whatever sort of opinion that they have on any given topic with facts.
For example, as a Christian I will always have a Christian bias...always. My perspective will always come from the side of faith, and never from the ultra liberal point of view. Why? Because it's what I believe it's who I am and my best work will come out of that.
One of the core things we learn in Journalism school is all about bias and how it should and should not be used. By industry leaders it is well understood that the traditional/steriotypical stereotype of the unbiased reporter, simply does not exist.
We should seek to be balanced, not unbiased, though we should be mindful of our bias and seek to temper it with balance.

[glamel]

no, of course, we can be biassed sometimes, but we have to remember that we can't just write whatever it is that we want, and if we remember that everytime, we won't write any biassed article, even if it includes religion or being a christian, once you are a writer, you have to be fair enough for both of the readers who are not of the same religious belief.

[LadyEm]

no, of course, we can be biassed sometimes, but we have to remember that we can't just write whatever it is that we want, and if we remember that everytime, we won't write any biassed article, even if it includes religion or being a christian, once you are a writer, you have to be fair enough for both of the readers who are not of the same religious belief.

Of course we do you are completely right about that. That is called being balanced, fair and well-researched journalism, not being unbiased.
I am now reading his piece more thoroughly and will be able to give a better critique in a few moments, however from what I have read so far, it seems to be half a review half an opinion piece. I can't quite tell which, but I can assure all of you it is not a regular article, which would account, not excuse, his lack of taste.
He has a decided extreme that is not balanced out by the opposite point of view, which I think is cardinal for such serious claims.

[glamel]

well, in my opinion again, it's not only the writers fault!
it is also the editor and the publishers fault,
they approved in publishing these kind of articles,
they should, let the author know that he's giving the one sided version of the author!
and its not being a good journalists. :D

[LadyEm]

well, in my opinion again, it's not only the writers fault!
it is also the editor and the publishers fault,
they approved in publishing these kind of articles,
they should, let the author know that he's giving the one sided version of the author!
and its not being a good journalists. :D
You're exactly right. The responsibility falls on the editors and publishers...if it were me I'd have slapped the article back on his desk and said "rewrite!"

[glamel]

yeah!! :D

not a reponsible editor! :D

and not a good paper! :(

[Starkist]

The problem with opinion pieces in newspapers is the same problem that some people have with Fox News: It is sometimes hard to distinguish opinions from reporting. I think that reporters today are getting sloppy, injecting their opinion into supposedly objective pieces.

Whomever wrote this piece is interested in demonizing a Christian icon. I am sure he justifies it as getting the message out to us ignorant conservative Christians, you know, enlightening us.

[Saruman]

There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof is death.

There are plenty of people in this world (rather, far too many) who believe they know exactly what life is all about, where they are going, and to whom they are responsible and have to give an answer (generally it is themselves). So a man, a journalist, has every right to spout hot air. Let him eat cake! ;)

[LadyEm]

There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof is death.

There are plenty of people in this world (rather, far too many) who believe they know exactly what life is all about, where they are going, and to whom they are responsible and have to give an answer (generally it is themselves). So a man, a journalist, has every right to spout hot air. Let him eat cake! ;)

LOL word.
Let him eat cake.
And Turkish Delight.
And gain ten thousand pounds from it!!! ;)

[glamel]

Another one, from New york times again,
but this ones, not really talking about LWW, they just point out that theres nothing Christian about the LWW, duh?

There have been murmurs that Hollywood is more tuned into religious moviegoers since the astonishing box-office performance of Mel Gibson's "Passion of The Christ," but Lalonde says he doesn't believe it. He mentions "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," from the Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis. "Great film," he says, but "there's nothing Christian about it." Explaining that he sees the big studios simply repackaging their family-friendly offerings, he adds, "I think that's a shell game, and it's not going to last long." That's the anti-Hollywood spirit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/magazine/13wwln_consumed.html

[Starkist]

Something tells me he has never read the books. I mean, it was obvious that the Passion was a Christian movie. However, if you are not very well versed in the Gospels, and you aren't very knowledgeable about Narnia, you will miss the connection.

[glamel]

yeah
precisely!
got ot agree, with that

[Soli_Deo_Gloria]

Is there anywhere else to read these articles? I tried the links and got blocked. Any suggestions?
Side note without reading the articles, is that many times people (myself included) will read a book or examine a work of art and see only what they agree with. It takes alot of work to be truely objective.

[inkspot]

In the first article, the author was making snide comment about CS Lewis' sex life which has nothing to do with the work! I think the author actualy liked CON, he said they were a favorite of his little girl ... it was as if he just couldn't allow anything wholesome and good to stand on its own, he had to cast some dark aspersions on it ... like he was driven to find something dirty about it in case anyone should think it was innocent and life-affirming. :(

[LadyEm]

The problem with opinion pieces in newspapers is the same problem that some people have with Fox News: It is sometimes hard to distinguish opinions from reporting. I think that reporters today are getting sloppy, injecting their opinion into supposedly objective pieces.

Whomever wrote this piece is interested in demonizing a Christian icon. I am sure he justifies it as getting the message out to us ignorant conservative Christians, you know, enlightening us.

One of the biggest myths about and by Journalists about themselves is that Objectivity is a reality.
Objectivity is a myth.
There is a huge difference between balance and Objectivity.
You can never fully remove yourself from who you are what you believe in - basically your bias is ever present because you are human and are present in what you are doing. If you weren't you couldn't report.
Because you cannot ever attain perfect objectivity, that is a myth.
What is reality is recognizing your bias and working within that to find a balanced way of reporting by searching out facts and facts from all points of view.
New thing in the journalism inudstry: Objectivity is a Myth. Let me say that again. Objectivity is a MYTH. It isn't real.

[Bitter Milton]

The NYTimes article is unfortunate. Lewis is unable to defend himself. The sucess of his writings do defend Lewis though. This movie is going to be a blockbuster and the secular media are afraid to admit it. :(

Saying that it's going to be a blockbuster is a bit preemptive. It hasnt had even a tenth of the hype that HP and LotR both had.

[Starkist]

Most journalists, especially for major national papers, will claim objectivity. That is the problem.

[LadyEm]

Most journalists, especially for major national papers, will claim objectivity. That is the problem.

That is because a lot of newspapers are still filled with old school journalists who still believe in objectivity.
The younger generations of journalists don't anymore. The term objectivity is a little outdated - we learn from the first day that it doesn't exist, but people used to try to be objective, never succeeded, and well...you know how far that gets.

[TimmyofOz]

Saying that it's going to be a blockbuster is a bit preemptive. It hasnt had even a tenth of the hype that HP and LotR both had.
I truly believe it will be a hit. :D

[dragons_roost]

:confused: WHAT THE HECK DO U MEAN MAN :confused:

:eek: OMG MAN THAT IS OOOOO RIDICULUS :eek:

[inkspot]

What is ridiculous? The bit about objectivity, or that the movie will be a hit?

[Soli_Deo_Gloria]

I am gunna guess the movie, cause I have yet to see anyone get that excited about abstract ideas. Angry yes, excited no.

[melbren]

It is as if the journalist is not only trying to tear down CS Lewis, but to tear down anyone who is "simple" enough to be a fan. He leaves nothing untouched here: Lewis' morals, his writing style, his faith, his borrowing from other books. His contempt, or at the very least condescension toward traditional-Christians is transparent. As usual, conservative Christians are painted as idiotic non-progressives and/or a force to be feared.

As the writer pointed out, there are some very un-PC aspects of the Chronicles of Narnia. I find this refreshing! Don't you? Who cares that the villains of later novels include Middle Eastern looking characters? Is Hollywood and the media going to continue to go out of their way to make sure all villains are played by people of European ancestry? I'm thinking Disney may cave to this point, so it is doubtful we would ever see The Horse and His Boy come to the screen.

The journalist shows much greater respect for the vile Freudian interpretation of LWW than he does for CS Lewis' works themself. I guess certain secular types, including those at the NY times can't resist viewing even the most pure of things with a perverted and cynical eye.

[Basilides]

I wonder how Jack himself would have replied. Something like:


"Now, even though many of these allegations are untrue, you have left out a plethora of worse ones. In many ways I'd be happy to trade the dark reality of my own sin for the comparatively harmless accusations in your article. And I do not say this out of some feigned humility - it is the stark truth. I have been and continue to be the worst sort of sinner, a blackguard of humanity. Whatever progress I have had against some sins of late, such as sexual immorality or deceit, I have lost ground against worse ones, such as pride or hypocrisy. Please do not think that I wish to represent myself as a paragon of virtue. I am not. And if I have not spelled out certain specific shameful sins throughout my life, it is because of that insidious pride once again. But I am precisely the sort of rascal that Christianity means something to. I do not need Christ because I am good. I need Him because I am bad. Forgiveness and grace are not abstract theological concepts to me - I apply them very concretely to my own life. This very day, in fact. This is one reason I argue Christianity with such passion: not only is it true, it is the means by which God rescued me from myself."

[LadyEm]

Wow.
That does sound like something he'd say.
Very true.
And really kind of lays any argument to rest...

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Oh, quite well done, Basilides! That seems like the very thing Lewis would say to such charges, and very close to his style, too! I am impressed, and I can easily imagine Jack himself looking down and smiling at your post.

The thing that always amazed me about Lewis was what he thought about his own works. For years his favorite book was Perelandara, but then he wrote Till We Have Faces, and that became his favorite. He thought it a spiritual autobiography, with the protagonist, Orual of Glome, representing himself. Knowing that, I was astonished as I read it, for it is a most damning picture of Orual. Considered by her subjects to be a very "enlightened" ruler, her self-analysis is much more severe. As the story unfolds, she is shown to be a grasping, loveless, dominating creature who does almost everything out of fear, pride, and the desire to possess exclusively. At one point she is accurately compared to a bloated spider who sucks the life from men, then casts them aside while reaching for a new victim.

Knowing this, I was aghast to think that Lewis considered this a self-portrait. Lewis, the insightful thinker, brilliant teacher, and stalwart champion of the faith? This was how he saw himself? Yet I could not deny it - if I was to respect his insight on other things, I could hardly reject it on this. If this was what the Holy Spirit was showing him about his own heart, who was I to gainsay it? The piercing question was: if this is what Lewis saw, after a lifetime of faithful and costly service - what should I be seeing?

[Parthian King]

Strong agreement here in regard to both comments made on Basilides' words. Standing back and looking at the larger picture, this whole thing once again reveals that at the bedrock, the spiritual realities of Christianity simply escape the wordly mind. Aslan sings, and all they hear are snarls and roarings: The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

I do not say this to escape the critiques to which we must submit as we use the media of this natural word--such as literature. But there can be no mistake here: The Times has attacked Lewis in the name of literary criticism (stooping rather low by comparing him to another, very popular and contemporary writer--after Lewis himself has been dead 42 years), and uglier smears because it won't do to say "I don't like his religion." This is the real reason for the attack--period.

A friend told be he was once in a college bookstore--at a school that was once a place of faith but had surrendered to the world. He overheard a student talking to his parents about the Chronicles, noting, "These are very charming stories, really. They'd be ideal except for that undercurrent of Christianity in them."

For those who are not so naive as the interpret Lewis' message as mere "undercurrent," stronger words, and other excuses, are required. We should expect no different, since our Lord has warned us that this would be the treatment we normally receive from their hands. Slander is part of the game, as our Enemy is the accuser of the brethren.

[inkspot]

Basilides, you ought to send that post to the NY Times!

And welcome Melbren, I didn't see you post before. :D

[Inklet]

Lady Em-

I don't think that the liberal bias in the MSM is because conservatives don't apply for internships at ABC. I knew several conservative writers at college. Every time they wrote something that could be construed as offensive to: gays, feminists, homeless advocates, pagans, blacks, radical evironmentalists, the poor, hispanics, women, the handicapped, native americans, lesbians, or muslims, their work was rounded up and BURNED. With the full cooperation of the administration! There is no such thing as freedom of speech on a college campus. Mock Christians, (and especially Catholics) only. Any other groups will censor you!

How can a journalist get a college education and the requisite clippings from work he's done if the clippings are burned unless he toes the liberal line?

[LadyEm]

Lady Em-

I don't think that the liberal bias in the MSM is because conservatives don't apply for internships at ABC. I knew several conservative writers at college. Every time they wrote something that could be construed as offensive to: gays, feminists, homeless advocates, pagans, blacks, radical evironmentalists, the poor, hispanics, women, the handicapped, native americans, lesbians, or muslims, their work was rounded up and BURNED. With the full cooperation of the administration! There is no such thing as freedom of speech on a college campus. Mock Christians, (and especially Catholics) only. Any other groups will censor you!

How can a journalist get a college education and the requisite clippings from work he's done if the clippings are burned unless he toes the liberal line?

Well I'm getting one, and I'm a conservative Christian, and I don't tow anyone's line but the rules of well balanced honest journalism.
Forgive me, but maybe things are different here. Nobody rounds anybody's stuff up and burns it. That is the first I've ever heard of that happening.
We are encouraged to be well-educated, well thought out journalists. If we are conservative, fine. If we are liberal fine. It's encouraged to bring our backgrounds and perspective into the industry, because it makes journalism more well-rounded if we have people from all sides of the spectrum.
There are also more conservative journalists in the US than in Canada.
I am an acute minority in my program, and I am still very much encouraged to pursue good journalism on all accounts, by the most liberal of my teachers.
They love what I do because I am not afraid to go into areas they themselves could never touch on!
So, I wouldn't agree with that sentiment - not that I don't feel awfully for your friends. That is TRAGIC and so not Freedom of the Press. It sounds like something coming from some place communistic, or Fascist.
That should not be happening.
But I have not seen it happen here.
The reason why I say what I do about there not being enough conservatives in the media, I am referring primarily to the Canadian media, because that is what I am apart of.
With that said, perhaps other places it's different, but from what I have seen here, most conservatives, especially Christians are afraid to pursue careers in the mainstream media.
Before I proved my point that I was very *needed* many people tried to discourage me from pursuing this. I know very few Christians in the mainstream media. I know hardly any Christians who plan to pursue it.

[Inklet]

Burning? No. I was exaggerating. Gathering up every copy of a student newspaper and throwing it in the garbage? Yes. Happens all the time. Especially at Ivy League schools.

I didn't realize you were Canadian.

Mark Steyn rocks!

[inkspot]

Mark Steyn rocks!
So true!

10thingy

[LadyEm]

Burning? No. I was exaggerating. Gathering up every copy of a student newspaper and throwing it in the garbage? Yes. Happens all the time. Especially at Ivy League schools.

I didn't realize you were Canadian.

Mark Steyn rocks!

Well, the Canadian and American news medias are so closely linked, it really doesn't matter what side of the border I live on. I was just explaining why I was looking at it the way I did.
Many Canadians now work in the American media, they are going across the border more and more. Half the news we report is American. If you read an American small town paper and then read a Canadian small town people, it's the same basic stuff.

From the Canadian perspective, most American news, especially media outlets such as Fox and CNN (yes, CNN) is very Conservative as well. So Conservatives being harassed like that surprises me for that reason as well, we seem to have this idea that Americans are far more open to conservative journalists, because that's who we see reporting the news.

As we don't have Ivy League schools, I admit that whole society is a complete loss to me, so I can't even comment on it.

[inkspot]

If CNN seems conservative to Canucks, then you must be way over on the left? I don't see it.

And our media here is mostly totally biased toward the left. An example, on election night in Texas when voters overwhelmingly passed a law to protect traditional marriage, the TV news featured one family "frightened of what this could mean to their future ..." It was a beautiful lesbian woman (featured in the story) and her somewhat less beautiful partner (seen only briefly) and their two beautiful children.

The story showed what good, loving parents these two were, and how they feared now that the law defining marriage as a union of man and woman had passed, that they would lose their children. Except, the law had NOTHING to do with children of any marriage or any unioon. It was just a story about how nice and sweet a gay couple is, and how Texas intolerance is making them upset and fearful! That was a made-up bit of "news" that had nothing to do with the actual election night stories. No one came out and said, "You bad Texans, being so mean to these pretty gals!" but that's what the story was intended to say.

And mind you, nowhere was there any coverage of a couple of not so pretty gay men with their chilldren, or reports on the fact that most sexual abuse of boys is homosexual abuse (if they wanted to focus on the effect this law might in some weird extrapolated fashion have on children, that would have been as appropriate a topic as the feature on the lesbians).

That is what we call liberal media bias. They can't of course come out and lecture us, but they play up the liberal viewpoint and attempt to discredit the more conservative one.

[MissBeaver]

Has anyone seen the article the New York Times did on LWW? Those Bigots and Slanderers! They painted C.S. Lewis out to be a PERVERT!!!! And they basically seem to praise Philip Pullmans views! :mad: :mad: :mad:

...it upsets me too. I think i saw something horrible about Mr C.S Lewis in The Sun too. A girl at school showed it to me. She said it was really gross and that she was glad about not having read the books. It makes me sad that people believe everything they read from newspapers and judge people too.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

"They have an instrument called The Press, by which the people are deceived."
Ransom to Merlin, That Hideous Strength, by C.S. Lewis

[Archerbear]

Is there anywhere else to read these articles? I tried the links and got blocked. Any suggestions?
Side note without reading the articles, is that many times people (myself included) will read a book or examine a work of art and see only what they agree with. It takes alot of work to be truely objective.
Good gentle, you might try BugMeNot. (www.bugmenot.com)
1. Copy the url-link to the story to your pc "clipboard" (right click, select copy),
2. Visit the BugMeNot home page,
3. "Paste" the url-link in the appropriate window,
4. Record two or three "log-in" usernames and passwords (so you won't have to go through steps 1-3 again if the first log-in fails),
5. Load the Log-in information into the N.Y. Times' log-in username and password windows. BugMeNot works with log-ins for most newspapers requiring registration.
6. Steam and fume as you read the hack-job the author did to Mr. Lewis - I know I did.....

AB

[inkspot]

I didn't see you post before, Archer. Welcome! :)

[Archerbear]

I didn't see you post before, Archer. Welcome! :)
Thank you, inkspot! :) Considering that was my first post...well.... ;)

I only found The Dancing Lawn today, so I lurked a bit and liked the atmosphere here...so I registered!

AB

[Basilides]

Archerbear, the same thing happened to me a week or two ago, and in fact it was this very thread. I decided to hang around partly because of the friendly, drawing-room atmosphere and partly because I get the odd feeling that God is reading the messages on this board with particular attention.

But that's just an idle fancy. Don't everyone stop posting, now.

[inkspot]

Thank you, inkspot! :) Considering that was my first post...well.... ;)
AB
LOL! Sometimes I accidentally welcome people two or three times because I can't keep straight if I've seen their posts before ... must be my age! Anyway, please do hang around and give us your insights on Narnia. And other stuff. :)

[Inklet]

Lady Em:

I'm glad there are people like you who are getting into journalism. It reminds me of Lewis's response to a question about Christian cookbooks (and scientific articles, and journalism): let Christians who know about these things write them, as opposed to producing poorly written Christian "perspectives" on the topic.

I agree with your assessment of a lot of specifically Christian writing, and I thought you might be interested in this (http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=1137) article about LWW.

[Nenya]

John 15:
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

I too read the article with disdain, and with fear. Because it meant other articles are bound to come out, to insult Lewis, his legacy, his memory, his works. We "friends of Lewis" can come out and write to them, but sometimes I think it will accomplish nothing.

Lady Em is right (conservatives should let their voice be heard), but in this age I also believe it had been prophesied that it will happen this way, that is, God's work will be hated, ridiculed, negated.

Look at Israel. Such a small country, and the world (the UN especially) hates it so much. Why? Because it is the apple of God's eye.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, just that the world will hate us because it hates Jesus first and foremost.

[LadyEm]

Lady Em:

I'm glad there are people like you who are getting into journalism. It reminds me of Lewis's response to a question about Christian cookbooks (and scientific articles, and journalism): let Christians who know about these things write them, as opposed to producing poorly written Christian "perspectives" on the topic.

I agree with your assessment of a lot of specifically Christian writing, and I thought you might be interested in this (http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=1137) article about LWW.

Great Great blog article. Thanks for sharing Inklet. I'll comment more later...I've got to be busy about being a Journalist and rewrite an article ;)

[LadyEm]

John 15:
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

I too read the article with disdain, and with fear. Because it meant other articles are bound to come out, to insult Lewis, his legacy, his memory, his works. We "friends of Lewis" can come out and write to them, but sometimes I think it will accomplish nothing.

Lady Em is right (conservatives should let their voice be heard), but in this age I also believe it had been prophesied that it will happen this way, that is, God's work will be hated, ridiculed, negated.

Look at Israel. Such a small country, and the world (the UN especially) hates it so much. Why? Because it is the apple of God's eye.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, just that the world will hate us because it hates Jesus first and foremost.

I completely agree with you. We are going to have the world hating us no matter what and it is prophesied about in the Bible. I just think that standing in this day and age is *so important* because of this. That our presence really helps be the salt and the light to keep the scale from tipping over too soon. I mean we know it's going to tip. But it's just our job, that's all.

[Samwise Gamgee]

I just think that news is just a waste. They don't hold on to the truth because to them the truth is very boring. But to the people that they are hurtting by not telling the truth, they don't care about. All they care about is getting out thier story. It is like they are just useing the 'Freedom of Speech' and ' Freedoem of Press' amenments to get out the 'latest stuff' weather it is right or wrong. All the press cares about is thier story and what they get out of it. I mean really, it is grbash and I hate on what they put on our pres. Half of the stuff is not even true. And CNN just bashes our home ground heros. It is just a whole rot. I think the news is just a joke, I rather get my news from Stars and Stripes than Fox or CCN or any other news media. That is just my opion, that is all.

[inkspot]

A good example of this, Aslan13, was when Dan Rather broke the horrid story about Pres. Bush evading the draft without taking the time to document his "evidence," which turned out to be a fraud. All the news services ran the story, using the fraudulent documentation. If alternative online news media had not proven the fraud, the major network news would have let the deceitful story stand. Would they have been so anxious to slander the reputation of a liberal leader? No, that's easy to see: they all but refused to run the seemingly truthful stories which showed John Kerry's military service to be far different from what he presented it to be.

[Wendygirljp]

Inkspot - thank you for the reference to the thread discussing "liberal media". a couple of things remain unanswered, however.

a. The link in the other thread did not give an entire article, but only a partial post. It does not give any representation of what you are claiming with that partial article. Maybe the rest of it does, but I could not get it. Do you have a copy?

b. You did not define "liberal media". To you, what does "liberal" mean? Liberal is not defined as "slanderous". Is this not what you are implying?

c. You mention about the concerns of a lesbian couple having their children taken from them because marriage is illegal in two states. Yes, the law may not mention the taking of one's children, however, somewhat similar events like that have happened in the past, even though the law did not say anything about such situations. One example would be the internment of the Americans in prison camps during World War II. There was nothing in the law passed that would take their properties and sell them, yet the government did that. So, I can understand the concern that something like that might happen with other situations.

Next, there is the mention on how the Narnia movie was reviewed as having been "WORST in so many categories" - It was not worst in "everything", but just a few categories. Do you think the editors of a news agency sit around and think, "Gee, how can we bash the Christians again? Ah, I know! Let's take a popular movie based on a children's story! That will upset those terrible Christians!" I do not think they do that. If you do, then, please feel free to say so. How many people were involved in this review? One? Ten? Fifty? It sounds, objectively, that you are upset because they did not like this movie which does reflect Christian (as well as many other religion-based) issues.

The issue of Mr. Bush and his military history - the issue of Mr. Kerry and HIS military history - These are both issues of "selling bad news" in the media. It was on BOTH sides, not just one. Yes, they told about bad news before they had the whole story - on both Mr. Bush AND Mr. Kerry. That is what the media does. They print and broadcast what sells. They don't CARE who it effects. That is neither liberal nor conservative but marketing. Is it ethical? I do not think so, personally, but it has nothing to do with defining "liberal" or "conservative".

Now, would you like to give the definition I requested, or shall we drop this?

If you wish to be upset at the person/people who wrote the review, why not write the reviewer(s) and let them know that you are unhappy with how they reviewed it? Why blame the news industry? The news media write "bad news", true, but they also write a lot of "good news", but maybe not as much as would be a balanced perspective, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SELL.

I await your comments. Feel free to make them either public or private. I do not care either way.

[Samwise Gamgee]

And in to what I said before, it is my opion and it can count or not. My opion of the press is mine and mine alone. Some times they don't tell the truth or they use what is called acover up for the truth. It is like Irqu and Iran, North Korea. Not every one in those countries are bad. They blow it up and mount it out of proportion. But that is what I think and it dosen't have to be encountered in any way.

[inkspot]

iMove one of WG's posts from the bad news thread to here, where it is more fitted, I think. Don't have time to answer now -- more later.

[Narborg]

isent this terning into a poltical thread?

mY view is that the meida is always bais, there no way to stop it.

[Aravis Kenobi]

THe news won't always be true, even if reported from a Christian standpoint. I've done that a time or two, only to find out later that what I heard was rumor, and nothing more. I feel regret, but you can't take it back. Like Narborg said, I think every newsmedia outlet will be bias, either towards the Republican or Democratic party. That's the way the media works unfortunately. Although, the drive-by media is just attacking the Republicans, or at least that's the way it seems.

[onlymystory]

I'm going off the last few posts for my response. I don't think the problem is so much a liberal news media. (by liberal I think most Americans have become used to liberal meaning those who are anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc. I personally feel this is a mistaken definition as I have very liberal stances on some issues and very conservative on others. But the majority of Americans think that way when they hear liberal just as conservatives tend to be misviewed as people with their heads up their butt who refuse to see the truth. Neither view is accurate but that tends to be the general opinion from what I've seen.) Anyway, I think the problem is that America still likes to believe that our news media is objective and unbiased. Obviously it is not but we continue to pretend that if you watch just one news channel you will hear the whole story. Most countries that have a free news media (at least as far as I'm aware) take sides in their news reports. The difference is that the viewers know what side they're on. I subscribe to a few British newspapers and I know when I read them that depending on which one I pick up that will determine which side of the issue I'm hearing. That way I know to read several papers and I will eventually get a much better picture of the problem as a whole. Here in America we still maintain this illusion of objectivity which ultimately causes our news to come off as a joke more often than not. Perhaps if each news station simply admitted to a certain political stance we'd start learning the truth about every issue and not just the ones they choose to promote.

[timbalionguy]

A good example of this, Aslan13, was when Dan Rather broke the horrid story about Pres. Bush evading the draft without taking the time to document his "evidence," which turned out to be a fraud. All the news services ran the story, using the fraudulent documentation. If alternative online news media had not proven the fraud, the major network news would have let the deceitful story stand. Would they have been so anxious to slander the reputation of a liberal leader? No, that's easy to see: they all but refused to run the seemingly truthful stories which showed John Kerry's military service to be far different from what he presented it to be.

LAst year, a story came out of I think, Taiwan, where they were supposedly having a contest between midgets and lions. Of course, the midgets were being shredded by the lions. Believable story, and a credible source, if I remember. A lot of people believed this preposterous story before it was shown to be a hoax.

At the time LWW came out last December, someone posted a story to the Forbes (I think) Financial News website. In thta story, there was a report that the country of Narnia had pulled out of the WTO talks going on at that time. Citing 'Bullying of small nations by the US and Britian', Narnia's spokesperson Susan announced the withdrawal. This story was on the Forbes website for three hours before someone pointed it out as a hoax.

[Parthian King]

"Liberal" in the original sense of the title of this thread, and as a number of posters intend it, means "socially and politically left of center." (I think we all know what "bias" and "media" mean.) In other words, we are not speaking of liberal merely in the broad societal sense (i.e., "liberal Western society"), but in the narrower socio-political sense within such a culture.

In the U.S. this means what has already been said: It represents the general political stand that seeks to institutionalize the most socially liberal agendas in society to today--a free hand for sexual activities that have heretofore been considered damaging to societies, socialistic tendencies in macroeconomics, and a discarding of traditional religious values (in the U.S. that being the Judeo-Christian worldview) in any arena remotely related to official public life in favor of moral relativism and religious and philosophical pluralism. Since the social and ethical stand of this political worldview largely stands at odds with the demands of the Christian faith, and Christians often have the temerity to say so, the "liberal media" often reacts negatively to the voice of Christians wherever it is heard, particularly when it abuts these issues near and dear to the liberal agenda.

I would wager this is what Inkspot meant, but she can surely add or adjust as she sees fit when she has a moment.

[Narborg]

LAst year, a story came out of I think, Taiwan, where they were supposedly having a contest between midgets and lions. Of course, the midgets were being shredded by the lions. Believable story, and a credible source, if I remember. A lot of people believed this preposterous story before it was shown to be a hoax.

At the time LWW came out last December, someone posted a story to the Forbes (I think) Financial News website. In thta story, there was a report that the country of Narnia had pulled out of the WTO talks going on at that time. Citing 'Bullying of small nations by the US and Britian', Narnia's spokesperson Susan announced the withdrawal. This story was on the Forbes website for three hours before someone pointed it out as a hoax.


LOL, where did you here that?

We, personally, I think the treat to the media came for the owenseship sturees, as many media organisations are owened by a few rich people. There people are genrally not libral, but more conservative.

[timbalionguy]

Inkspot - thank you for the reference to the thread discussing "liberal media". a couple of things remain unanswered, however.

a. The link in the other thread did not give an entire article, but only a partial post. It does not give any representation of what you are claiming with that partial article. Maybe the rest of it does, but I could not get it. Do you have a copy?

Look at the date of the story. This frequently happens with old stories.

b. You did not define "liberal media". To you, what does "liberal" mean? Liberal is not defined as "slanderous". Is this not what you are implying?

Media can be liberal without being slanderous. (There is NEVER a place for genuine slander, in any media.) However, it can come across that way, as the liberal worldview violently offends many people. This includes myself.

c. You mention about the concerns of a lesbian couple having their children taken from them because marriage is illegal in two states. Yes, the law may not mention the taking of one's children, however, somewhat similar events like that have happened in the past, even though the law did not say anything about such situations. One example would be the internment of the Americans in prison camps during World War II. There was nothing in the law passed that would take their properties and sell them, yet the government did that. So, I can understand the concern that something like that might happen with other situations.

And this (the prison camp thing) was completely wrong, and the government is still paying out reparations to people who were wrongly and involuntarily displaced in the interest of national security. I have strong views on the taking of children from homosexual couples, but in the interest of keeping the peace, I will not share these on-list.

Next, there is the mention on how the Narnia movie was reviewed as having been "WORST in so many categories" - It was not worst in "everything", but just a few categories. Do you think the editors of a news agency sit around and think, "Gee, how can we bash the Christians again? Ah, I know! Let's take a popular movie based on a children's story! That will upset those terrible Christians!" I do not think they do that.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what many members of the liberal media do. It's just simply not done overtly. As these people hold their liberal views religiously ('religion' in this case, legally defined, not spiritually defined, but it could be that in some cases.), it is second nature to 'bash Christians'. They stand against much of what the liberals believe in, so to them, they are the 'terrible Christians'. Believe you me, this is not the only area where this bias shows up.

The issue of Mr. Bush and his military history - the issue of Mr. Kerry and HIS military history - These are both issues of "selling bad news" in the media. It was on BOTH sides, not just one. Yes, they told about bad news before they had the whole story - on both Mr. Bush AND Mr. Kerry. That is what the media does. They print and broadcast what sells. They don't CARE who it effects. That is neither liberal nor conservative but marketing. Is it ethical? I do not think so, personally, but it has nothing to do with defining "liberal" or "conservative".

I am only familiar with the faking of the documents concerning Mr. Bush. This is not by any means the first time this has been done. Remember the faked pictures of the war in Lebanon a few weeks back. A reporter working for Reuters even admitted doing it. Remember the planting of an explosive device in a pickup truck to simulate a catastrophic fuel tank fire? Remember the attempt to slander Food Lion grocery stores? All of the above actions are not only unethical, they are downright criminal. I am sure there is a lot more of this sort of thing than we know about. (Hey, it's a slow news day. Why don't you go down to that old abandoned warehouse at the corner of Sixth and Gleason, and set a fire in it?) All of the above were done because of some pre-bias on the part of the media. So, don't believe everything the media tells you. And if they seem to be acting in a suspicious manner, they probably are.


If you wish to be upset at the person/people who wrote the review, why not write the reviewer(s) and let them know that you are unhappy with how they reviewed it? Why blame the news industry? The news media write "bad news", true, but they also write a lot of "good news", but maybe not as much as would be a balanced perspective, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SELL.

This is actually an excellent idea, and I do it all the time in working against the animal rights folks.

[inkspot]

PK handled the liberal question, so thank you PK. OMS also touched on it: in the USA in general we associate the liberal stance with those things she mentioned.

Timbalionguy has answered some of the other questions well, and thank you. I am aware of another, what I would call, bias issue in the media right now, with regard to this Mark Foley situation.

In 1994, Democrat Representative Mel Reynolds was arrested and convicted a year later on 12 counts of sexual assault against a minor, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. There were 19 news stories on this issue by the three major networks: ABC, NBC and CBS.

Just now the scandal broke about the Republican Foley who is not accused of actually messing with these boys (so far as I know), just coming onto them, and already the same three networks have run 152 stories on the subject.

(Stats courtesy of the Media Research Center.)

Foley so far is only accused, and already his bad press outdistances the man who was accused, and convicted, on charges which include sexual assault of a minor. The only real difference in the situation (besides the technology with the text messages, etc) is that Reynolds behaved worse, got less bad press, and is a Democrat -- the party more of us would associate with the "liberal" condition.

There's really hardly any way to explain the press' blasé overlooking of Reynolds compared to their mad dash to sully Foley's name, unless it is politically motivated.

I am not necessarily interested in saying the Democrats are a bad party and the Republlicans a good one, far from it. I am saying that, in general, the American media seems to want to show one party in a far worse light than the other, no matter what the real facts indicate.

This works the same way for Christians. Just look at the bizarre JESUS CAMP thread for confirmation there. The whole movie is designed to scare non-religious people into believing Christians are trying to take over the world, while other movies such as Syriana portray the causes and concerns of terrorists in a very human and sympathetic light. What gives?

WG, I think I didn't clearly make my point about the Texas marriage law and the gay couple: their story had absolutely zero to do with the law, as the law had absolutely zero to do with them or their children, or anyone's children. Its placement in the coverage of the overwhelming victory of the marriage law was deceptive. If there had been any real threat of gay couples having their families seized, the story would have been relevant, but there was none. The story was there only to make people think the law they had just passed was cruel and wrong, and to make people think the very concept of "one man/one woman" is dangerous to gay people and their children, which of course it is not -- we've had that concept since time began, and yet those two gals were able to have their family, and as far as I know, stil have their lovely children.

What that has to do with interment camps, I do not see.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Personally, I've learned not to believe everything I see, hear, or read. You just can't always trust the source.

[LifeMaiden]

Has anyone seen the article the New York Times did on LWW? Those Bigots and Slanderers! They painted C.S. Lewis out to be a PERVERT!!!! And they basically seem to praise Philip Pullmans views! :mad: :mad: :mad:


Let me put it very bluntly here. One of the primary reasons why non-Christians or people like myself who were former 'atheists' ( or had moved away from the faith) get a bad impression of Christians is because of the way the media portrays them. That's not the reality of it. The Jesus Camp show, the NYTimes article that painted CS Lewis as a 'pervert', media bashing of the LWW movie, the way Bill Maher and people on his show bash Christians..all seem probably tied together in the liberal anti-Christian slant. When does the media ever show Christians doing GOOD things?

I'm not saying it's any one particular political group, either. But in general, the media is not very conservative, at least not in my opinion.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Let me put it very bluntly here. One of the primary reasons why non-Christians or people like myself who were former 'atheists' ( or had moved away from the faith) get a bad impression of Christians is because of the way the media portrays them. That's not the reality of it. The Jesus Camp show, the NYTimes article that painted CS Lewis as a 'pervert', media bashing of the LWW movie, the way Bill Maher and people on his show bash Christians..all seem probably tied together in the liberal anti-Christian slant. When does the media ever show Christians doing GOOD things?

I'm not saying it's any one particular political group, either. But in general, the media is not very conservative, at least not in my opinion.

Even the Hollywood celebs magazine print trash. Most if it probably isn't true. I wish people would make sure that their sources are correct before they go make a story about it. LifeMaiden, for some reason, the Christians are being bashed up one side and down the other for sometimes no reasons. If you look at the hype surrounding Facing the Giants, they rated it (at first) PG-13 for "overly religious content" At least the makers of the film (who were members and staff of a church in Georgia) got it down to PG, but still.

[General Oreius]

PG-13 for overly religious content? Why in the world would the MPAA do that? That does not sound right.

I too have been noticing the overly liberal/anti-Christian/anti-right wing bias in the media. We are stuck with a PBS station and a CBS station. PBS currently has some Bill Moyers series called "Is God Green?" about Christians turned somewhat environmentalist. PBS has also put out "documentaries" about the 12 Apostles and Paul, but in the first minute the narrator said things that were totally untrue.

Then there's CBS. I do believe the media is supposed to be NON-partisan. YEAH RIGHT! The day Congress passed legislation over how terrorists detainees are to be tried, Katie Couric said "Today a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress passed legislation..."
And then they go on to report on some worthless piece of news or something that just HAPPENS to bring President Bush up and make him possibly look bad.

Then Bob Schieffer came onto their "Free Speech" segment (Rudolph Guliani's time on there was the only good one I've seen so far) when the whole Foley scandal broke and said that "people believe that Democrats share their moral values more than Republicans." This was based on a CBS AND NEW YORK TIMES poll that had the results: (I'm pretty sure about these numbers) Democrats-36%, Republicans-27%, margin of error-3 points. That's a rough memory, but it's still VERY wierd that there's still possibly a missing 37 percentage points, and then factor in a 3 point margin of error. You could possibly give all of those missing points to the Republicans and then it would be: Dems.-36%, GOPs-64%. Who knows?

[Aravis Kenobi]

PG-13 for overly religious content? Why in the world would the MPAA do that? That does not sound right.

I too have been noticing the overly liberal/anti-Christian/anti-right wing bias in the media. We are stuck with a PBS station and a CBS station. PBS currently has some Bill Moyers series called "Is God Green?" about Christians turned somewhat environmentalist. PBS has also put out "documentaries" about the 12 Apostles and Paul, but in the first minute the narrator said things that were totally untrue.

Then there's CBS. I do believe the media is supposed to be NON-partisan. YEAH RIGHT! The day Congress passed legislation over how terrorists detainees are to be tried, Katie Couric said "Today a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress passed legislation..."
And then they go on to report on some worthless piece of news or something that just HAPPENS to bring President Bush up and make him possibly look bad.

Then Bob Schieffer came onto their "Free Speech" segment (Rudolph Guliani's time on there was the only good one I've seen so far) when the whole Foley scandal broke and said that "people believe that Democrats share their moral values more than Republicans." This was based on a CBS AND NEW YORK TIMES poll that had the results: (I'm pretty sure about these numbers) Democrats-36%, Republicans-27%, margin of error-3 points. That's a rough memory, but it's still VERY wierd that there's still possibly a missing 37 percentage points, and then factor in a 3 point margin of error. You could possibly give all of those missing points to the Republicans and then it would be: Dems.-36%, GOPs-64%. Who knows?

They do that to each film that has "explicit" spiritual content. Narnia was excluded because to a lot of people, it's not a religious parallel to the Bible. Sadly, what you've described happens very often in the news, which is one reason I dont' listen to it.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I hate the Free press. I wonder if the Founding fathers knew this would happen. Hey peoples, take over the Media. Otto von Bismarck, the greatest statesman that ever lived, said that whoever controls the Media, controls the ears of the people.

When I run for President assume evrything they say is a lie unless I tell you otherwise.

[LifeMaiden]

I hate the Free press. I wonder if the Founding fathers knew this would happen. Hey peoples, take over the Media. Otto von Bismarck, the greatest statesman that ever lived, said that whoever controls the Media, controls the ears of the people.

When I run for President assume evrything they say is a lie unless I tell you otherwise.


You HATE the free press? You'd rather have it not be free? And they didn't have tv in Bismarck's time.

[Cyon Corell]

I believe that they had newspapers and other written forms of media at the time, which were sufficient enough to influence the ruling classes of the time, who controlled the fates of entire nations. Though, we are seeing a return to the old oligarchic system of classes, in America, which existed in the Europe the Founding Fathers revolted against, the main difference between the media of that time and ours lies not in whether or not our media is electronisized, but in the number of people it reaches. Thus, now, more than ever, small groups of people are armed with the ability to influence the opinions of the masses. BTW, IMHO, we should forget about the whole 'liberal-bias in the media' thing, as all media sources are biased in some way, thus leading to all media sources presenting a tinted view of the world. Thus, no matter who you go to for the news, you're only getting part of the truth. Contemplate that for a bit and perhaps you'll see my point. I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out the limited nature of the position presented, one which I used to hold. I personally would rather hear about one war or another from a general in charge of the troops fighting it, than hear some blankety-blank-blankin civilian, no matter their political leaning, who has no military experience what-so-ever, telling me what is going on and its supposed implications. But, again, that is just my opinion.

See ya on the flipside, :fightmonk:

Cyon Corell

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

LM. I don't hate the Free Press for being free. I hate them for lying, but Bismarck said something about that to. If anyone like Bill Clinton this should change your mind. "Don't believe anything you hear till it is officially dinied." That was one of his quotes on the Media.

[Narborg]

Personaly, I dont think the media is bias one one, its bias both ways, it dependes whicvh media campney you hvae. Fox for example, is very bais tawoaerds the right. I think tho both sides claim the midia a bias agabist them. If this was a webiste where a majaraty of the users were demacrat, we would all be complaining that the media are bais against the left. The real issue is balance. We relly too much on our media. Are I said before, Im aslo very consered about the owenship of media. A few rich people contiol vercally all the worlds media. This is not health for democary anywhere.

[inkspot]

I don't really think the "liberal" side could complain about a "conservative" media bias, considering:

* At a Press Club gathering just a few weeks ago, Ted Turner (the Founder of CNN) said he hadn't yet made up his mind about whose side he was on, in Iraq.

* The New York Times has leaked classified information about anti-terrorism efforts.

* After 9/11, the president of ABC News couldn't answer a question about whether or not the Pentagon was a "legitimate military target" for terrorists -- as if there is anything "legitimate" for terrorists to destroy!

* To kick off election time in the USA, CNN ran a special called "Broken Government" -- at a time when our economy is healthy and we have been protected for five years from any further terror attacks ... what exactly is broken?

[The First Joke]

You HATE the free press? You'd rather have it not be free? And they didn't have tv in Bismarck's time.

i agree with you, but some people abuse their freedom. that's where we hit trouble island. our responsibility in this country is to be responsible and respectful

[Parthian King]

There are some interesting figures (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,226857,00.html) in this article.

[inkspot]

That article pretty much sums it up. The network news stations have decided to oust the Bush administration, and they hope the puppet voters will simply follow their directions ...

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

i agree with you, but some people abuse their freedom. that's where we hit trouble island. our responsibility in this country is to be responsible and respectful

I believe I answered that, but thanks for telling everyone that Responsiblity is more important than your power.

[General Oreius]

I have a funny feeling that on Election Day a) The Democrats will win a majority in at least one house of Congress because the media has twisted things so much in the liberal's favor, or b) The Democrats are going to get the surprise of their lives when they don't win as many elections as they thought they would.

I'm praying and hoping that the liberals will not gain control of Congress in either the House or the Senate, but something is going to have to happen in the next 5 days that will FORCE the media to pay attention to it which will give conservatives enough of an edge to regain the lead. And ditto about that FOXNews article. Hit the nail right on the head. Everyone had better be praying for sure for the next 5 days, because this is going to be a tight one.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

When I run, I'll ignore the press and start my own Media, Called Truthful News :D

[LifeMaiden]

Some of the people in the liberal news are hysterical to me. You know who James Carville ( Carvell?) is right, and Mary Matalin? The Democrat and Republican couple? That guy makes me laugh really hard. He's almost like a strange, liberal version look alike of ET.


Over here in Nevada we're having our governor elections. Of course it's all about smearing the other person. :D :rolleyes: One thing that's going to badly hurt the Republican candidate is a sex scandal.

[inkspot]

That Ted Haggard scandal? That is a mess, and no mistake. I feel very bad for him and his family.

In Texas, we have a four-way race for governor. And one of the candidates is author and musician Kinky Friedman!!! Go, Kinky.

One way the media tips the scales toward the Democrats this year is this constant barrage of predictions that the Republlicans are going down. They keep running stories about which polls and think tanks have already decided that the Democrats are getting the majority in the House and probably in the Senate, too. They make people think it's a done deal.

If that was all the news Republicans could get, they would probably not even bother to vote -- which is just what the liberals want. But today with the worldwide web and alternate news sources, I think a lot of conservatives will get past the press and go ahead and vote.

[General Oreius]

I sure do hope so. But I don't think Ted Haggard was running for governor in Nevada because all I heard was that he resigned from his ministerial position in his church. That whole thing is very, very sad.

[LifeMaiden]

That Ted Haggard scandal? That is a mess, and no mistake. I feel very bad for him and his family.

In Texas, we have a four-way race for governor. And one of the candidates is author and musician Kinky Friedman!!! Go, Kinky.

One way the media tips the scales toward the Democrats this year is this constant barrage of predictions that the Republlicans are going down. They keep running stories about which polls and think tanks have already decided that the Democrats are getting the majority in the House and probably in the Senate, too. They make people think it's a done deal.

If that was all the news Republicans could get, they would probably not even bother to vote -- which is just what the liberals want. But today with the worldwide web and alternate news sources, I think a lot of conservatives will get past the press and go ahead and vote.



I forgot to add about that Time Magazine where the elephant's butt was showing. Did they ever show the donkey's butt showing when Clinton had all his scandals and troubles?

That guy Kinky Friedman is a trip!! A colorful, interesting dude.


Copperfox has an interesting article there you guys should read about the LEFT AND RIGHT PAWS OF ASLAN.


Define " liberal." What are they trying to 'liberate' people from anyways?!

[Twilight]

Media comes in many forms: ads, TV, books, magazines, movies, billboards, just to name a few. What do you think about today's media and how it affects society? Negative? Positive? Do they tell the truth, or do they lie most of the time? How much do you think it has an influence on our every day life?

[Darth Sparhawk]

Media is made for money. It does not says the truth and it does not lies intentionally, it does it all for money. It is dangerous when politics are involved in such case, it becomes a machine for propaganda.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The line that keeps coming back to me is Lewis' line in That Hideous Strength: "They have an engine called The Press by which the people are decieved." I think there he went from simply good writing to prophecy. I've come to see that the media is intent on deception, primarily by getting us to focus on what they think important, to the exclusion of what God thinks important.

[Darth Sparhawk]

Newspapers are the worst kind of [trash]. I don't respect newspapers. They are used for blatant propaganda. Still, I'm disgusted that NYT would write such crap. It is obvious that it is controlled by anti-Christian groups of people.
I want to say something about the thing, called Philip Pullman. This man happens to be a good author, but completely brainwashed. He is consumed by his envy to Mr. Lewis and, to less degree, to Mr. Tolkien and Mrs. Rowling. He is stupid socialist, who uses his books - which, as books are not bad - but he uses them as blatant leftist propaganda. He probably doesn't care how many people the atheist commies have killed in their history, far more than any religious group. I'm from Bulgaria and my grandparents - those, who survived - saw the terrors of the red invasion.
But I want to say other, hidden "quality" of Pullman. He is easily corrupted. Weeks after he bashed fantasy authors as "Tolkien imitators" he praised the biggest follower of Tolkien, Terry Brooks as "the best of the modern fantasy authors." While this is one of the few true things, said by our dear Philipao, it most obviously contradicts with his previous words and beliefs.
Pullman is a little man with idiotic visions.

[Copperfox]

Did you read the article I wrote about Pullman? In it, I observed how ridiculous are his accusations of Mr. Lewis having a "white supremacist" attitude. The Telmarines, who were the first corrupt human society to be depicted in the Narnian world, were clearly patterned on the worst qualities of WHITE WESTERN civilization, indeed Anglo-American civilization. Only AFTER effectively slamming his OWN culture's faults did Mr. Lewis introduce "non-white" human villains, the Calormenes. If every racist were exactly as "racist" as Mr. Lewis, racism would vanish.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, ultra-liberal bias remains the order of the day in the establishment news media. That's not my opinion, it's glaringly self-evident. Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press has written a partisan editorial column PRETENDING to be an objective news report on the election, full of loaded phrases like "a rebuke to President Bush."

[Narborg]

The media are inherantly bais. There is no way we can get away form it. They are owened by a few rich people, who have massive contraol on what news we get. Also, there main perpus is to make a profit, so they dont do much invaragative work now days to get to the btm of stories.

[Darth Sparhawk]

First, I want to say sorry for the rude word I used in my previous post :( Thanks for the mod for changing it.
Copperfox, please show me the article about Philipao. When I saw his name in the thread I felt obliged to write as quickly as possible the truth about little man, who envies the great, but in the end bows when his publishers tell him to do so.
By the way, Terry Brooks, who is truly a great author has called "Chronicles of Narnia" as "great fantasy tale", which shows that big authors act like big men, not like little jealous boys.
About the liberal bias... I live in a post-Comunist country. I know everything about media, controlled by politicians. And I know a lot about socialists. These people know no honour, this is the only thing I'd say.

[Twilight]

I agreee with what's been said previously in this thread. The media is just trying to make money off everyone who is willing to become someone fit for the 'world's standards'--in other words, dressing immodestly, getting drunk, leading immoral lives which are considered cool, and the list goes on and on. I think all of us have fallen for at least one lie in the media in the past; I know I still do; it really affects our way of thinking because it's everywhere, continually being shoved in our faces.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Well, as Bismarck said though, "If you control the media, you control the ears of the mass." Mass would be People.

[LifeMaiden]

Media comes in many forms: ads, TV, books, magazines, movies, billboards, just to name a few. What do you think about today's media and how it affects society? Negative? Positive? Do they tell the truth, or do they lie most of the time? How much do you think it has an influence on our every day life?


Well the media is definitely SKEWED to the left. And the media has a tremendous impact and influence on people's thinking.


The question is...how do we KNOW what to believe, and what not to? A big example is the concept of global warming. I say CONCEPT because there are actually studies that have shown that global warming is another myth...that the earth was WARMER in the years 1920 and 1930.


Another misconception, but with BOTH SIDES providing what can be construed as fact...the idea of overpopulation. Pro-abortion and birth control adherents will provide ample 'fact' that there is indeed a serious world overpopulation problem, and pro-life believers, with their own scientific data, will show that it is not as big of a problem as shown...that it's also just a way for people to spread abortion and artificial contraception.

[echoscot]

On the topic of the German Holocaust, how many people have seen the original "Judgment at Nuremburg"? It was produced in 1961 with Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland, Maximillian Schell, and a pre-Star Trek William Shatner among others. It is a wonderful film that captures the complexity and humanness of Nazi Germany. It is well worth taking the 3+ hours to watch it. I am a bit of an afficiando of stories of that particular era, and I really enjoyed this one. :cool:

Edit: Oops, I meant to put this in the Holocaust thread, sorry.

[Lady Eve]

The media tells us what to be, what to do, how to act, dress, and live. It corrupts our minds and we try to avoid it... but it's not as easy as just running and hiding. We live with it every day, our society has turned upside down because of it and it looks like there's no turning back now. I think it most definitely has a negative impact on our world today. People think they are happy, because they fit the image that's pushed it's way into their brains. You can't be truly happy until you are who YOU want to be, not who the world wants you to be. People think 'I'm not pretty enough because I don't look like so-and-so' or 'I'm not skinny enough' because all they see is skinny models and celebrities that our world practically idols. It's not about how the world sees you, but truly how you see yourself. It's hard sometimes... but you gotta dig deep if you want to find the true facts behind the media. You'd be surpised how different what you think is happening and what's really happening, can be. ~Eve

[Wendygirljp]

The media is a business system - it produces what sells. In most cases, it is not political. Rather, it is an "attention-getter".

The larger the audience base, whether that be the reader, the listener or viewer, the more they can sell advertising space. Look at the 30-second commercial spots for the U.S. Superbowl as an example. If, by using attention-getting verbiage, get people to pay attention to them, the more successful they are in business. Emotional appeal.

Fun, huh?

[Copperfox]

I wish it were so _simple_ as leftwing media figures just wanting to make money. Unfortunately, many of them have a warped sense of "mission": they want to convince us that God's moral laws are not valid, so that THEY don't have to feel guilty for THEIR disobedience to those laws.

Many years ago, a so-called anthropologist named Margaret Mead wrote a book titled "Coming Of Age In Samoa." She claimed to have found by research that the Samoan tribal people had virtually no restrictions on sex, living in a nonstop orgy, which Ms. Mead insisted was much healthier than those prudish, fun-spoiling Christian ideas about chastity and faithfulness. But years later, a REAL anthropologist visited Samoa, to discover that the Samoan people actually DID have a reasonable set of limitations on sex. Margaret Mead had flat-out LIED about it.

Now, it might be argued that making money would be enough motivation for Ms. Mead to write what would have been a somewhat racy book for its time. But there was more to it. Margaret Mead in real life was HERSELF sexually immoral, persistently and brazenly so. Therefore, she had a reason, _independent_ from the money she could make, to try to convince others that promiscuity was natural and healthy. If Jadis could lie to herself about her crime of genocide, surely Margaret Mead could lie to herself about being a tramp. And so she did.

Numerous prominent personages in broadcasting, music, etc. have the same attitude as Ms. Mead. Of course they don't mind making money; but they often pass up chances to do family-friendly projects which WOULD bring them a large profit...because they don't ONLY want money, they also want to justify their sins and pull others down into the sewer with them.

[Lady Eve]

I wish it were so _simple_ as leftwing media figures just wanting to make money. Unfortunately, many of them have a warped sense of "mission": they want to convince us that God's moral laws are not valid, so that THEY don't have to feel guilty for THEIR disobedience to those laws.

Many years ago, a so-called anthropologist named Margaret Mead wrote a book titled "Coming Of Age In Samoa." She claimed to have found by research that the Samoan tribal people had virtually no restrictions on sex, living in a nonstop orgy, which Ms. Mead insisted was much healthier than those prudish, fun-spoiling Christian ideas about chastity and faithfulness. But years later, a REAL anthropologist visited Samoa, to discover that the Samoan people actually DID have a reasonable set of limitations on sex. Margaret Mead had flat-out LIED about it.

Now, it might be argued that making money would be enough motivation for Ms. Mead to write what would have been a somewhat racy book for its time. But there was more to it. Margaret Mead in real life was HERSELF sexually immoral, persistently and brazenly so. Therefore, she had a reason, _independent_ from the money she could make, to try to convince others that promiscuity was natural and healthy. If Jadis could lie to herself about her crime of genocide, surely Margaret Mead could lie to herself about being a tramp. And so she did.

Numerous prominent personages in broadcasting, music, etc. have the same attitude as Ms. Mead. Of course they don't mind making money; but they often pass up chances to do family-friendly projects which WOULD bring them a large profit...because they don't ONLY want money, they also want to justify their sins and pull others down into the sewer with them.


First of all, that's terrible that someone would even write a book like that! But I agree with you on it being about more than money. People want other people to be like them so they don't feel bad about what they did. It's like the saying "Hey, everyone's doing it, so it must not be wrong." Instead of repenting their sins and being forgiven, they simply try to cover it up with lies.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

Media comes in many forms: ads, TV, books, magazines, movies, billboards, just to name a few. What do you think about today's media and how it affects society? Negative? Positive? Do they tell the truth, or do they lie most of the time? How much do you think it has an influence on our every day life?


Society is mostly influenced by today's media. There are little girls starving out there just so that they can look like models, and boys are getting drunk and smoking so they can look like 'bad boys'. What they don't understand is that most of those pictures are enhanced and cropped so that they can look perfect. In reality, most of those models are just normal people like me and you and not the beautiful models that we see. Most of the photographs that are taken are completely unnatural. Most photos are arranged and are set-up so that they can have an affect on the viewer. I think that media lies most of the time just so that they can make more money by producing a better ad or a better T.V. program. The sad part is that media has SO much influence on people.

[Copperfox]

One thing the media do wrong (not necessarily on purpose) is to mislead us with _partial_ truths which claim to be the _whole_ truth. For example, the magnificent sci-fi series "BABYLON 5," especially in its first season, endlessly harped on a theme of evil arising from "our fear and suspicion of those different from ourselves." While many evils can be described in this way, it is FAR from being the WHOLE picture of evil. Consider that most burglars are equally willing to steal from people of different races, OR their own race.

[Ephinie]

One thing the media do wrong (not necessarily on purpose) is to mislead us with _partial_ truths which claim to be the _whole_ truth. For example, the magnificent sci-fi series "BABYLON 5," especially in its first season, endlessly harped on a theme of evil arising from "our fear and suspicion of those different from ourselves." While many evils can be described in this way, it is FAR from being the WHOLE picture of evil. Consider that most burglars are equally willing to steal from people of different races, OR their own race.You quoted from Babylon 5. You are officially cool.

[Copperfox]

To say something entirely favorable about B5, its plotlines afford us plenty of chances to discuss issues of sin and redemption. Almost every major character feels guilty for something, and wants redemption. Sinclair feels guilty for surviving the Battle of the Line when so many of his friends died; Sheridan feels guilty for not having been able to save his deceased wife Anne from the Shadows; Ivanova feels guilty, eventually, for not having appreciated Marcus; Delenn feels guilty (and she really, REALLY should feel guilty) for her part in almost exterminating mankind; Londo feels guilty for tons of stuff he has done (he, too, REALLY has cause to feel guilty); Garibaldi feels guilty for his alcoholism; Marcus feels guilty over his brother's death; and Byron the season-5 telepath feels guilty for what he did when he was in the PsiCorps. (What Byron _should_ feel guilty for is swiping Lyta away from Zack!)

[Ephinie]

(What Byron _should_ feel guilty for is swiping Lyta away from Zack!)Let me first re-affirm this statement. You are SO right! I was always so upset that Zack didn't get Lyta in the end.

Then I have to admit... Babylon 5 played a pretty major role in shaping how I view the world. It was very infulential on me during an impressionable time.

I am also thrilled that there is someone else on this board who has at least a passing knowledge of that show, given that I like it so much.

And I guess that means you know what my avatar means, eh?

[furcoats]

Yes, the media is the most messed up thing. It takes things that are maybe a little mundane and then skews them to make intense thrillers.

Here's a video about what they do to models..

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca/

[Copperfox]

To Ephinie: I know the character by that name in the Hercules and Xena TV shows. As a matter of fact, I once wrote a fanfic novelette in that mixed-up universe, titled "The Return Of Cecrops," depicting Cecrops having an adventure with Iolaus and Joxer after Xena and Gabrielle helped him get free. I had practically everybody in it, including Ephinie. I wish I could direct you to it, but it got eliminated in the death of my old computer a couple of years ago.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"

[LadyEm]

It seems to me that there are a lot of generalizations about every form of medial all thrown into one box.

Generally, for entertainment media, I would most definitely agree with you that it has a very bad impact upon body images, beliefs, and pushes the boundaries of our moral code.

However, I do have a bit of an issue with generalizing completely when it comes to the media.

Some of you have lumped the news media into all of this, accusing them of lying, with an underlying evil conspiratory to turn the world's values on its head. You cannot know this, as you do not know these people personally.

I have issue with this as I am a Christian, with excellent values and morals, and I am also a Journalist and student.
This means that I am apart of the regular media, a member of the CAN (Canadian Association of Journalists). I do not have an immoral agenda but I certainley have an agenda.


I would say as well that the Christian media has an agenda and a bias as well, and that it is even more pronounced than the secular media. The secular media is trying to cater to a general audience, of a mix of beliefs. The Christian media is catering to an audience with a very strong message.

In Journalism school one of the first things we learn is that every human being has a bias. This means every Journalist, Broadcast, Newspaper, Magazine E-PUB - whichever it is we all have a bias. We look through a lens of our own beliefs.

We also learn that "Objectivity is a Myth." You know how you see Journalists in movies as saying they have to be objective? We all know that doesn't work. We can't. It's impossible.

What's in our hearts is what comes out. For me, I always have great stories about Youth groups and missions fall into my lap. Or about daycares, about families and their needs. I can also cover the political issues, but what my editors have loved is the ones that the other reporters don't have because they aren't thinking of such things. If the people are skewed left, then the reports will be skewed left. If they're hearts are skewed right, it'll be right.

The reason why the media is skewed to Liberalism and all these moral values is that Christians have abandoned this sector for years and years. Sure, they have their own newspapers, and television programs, but they are only catering to one sector of society.

My question to all of us, is that - if we are bothered by what we see in the media, why don't we change the media, instead of running away from it? We are apart of our world. It is our influence. The media doesn't write their own agenda, they write for people. It's called News Agenda. If the people aren't interested, their readership or viewership they won't air or publish it. Why? As someone said it's a business, and they have to make money to be able to keep publishing news.

I admit, this industry has burnt me out, made me sick, made it hard to keep a pure heart...made it difficult in day to day working life - but that is because I don't know anyone else in this sector with my beliefs. I love the media, the news, its intensity - - but there are very few Christians in mainstream media.

I have some great friends in the industry but they are hardened, jaded and bitter....and I have to say I can see why the majority of them are alcoholics. The stress and busyiness causes no time for good family values, nor real relationships. They don't have time! Journalists work 40 plus hours a week, and have usually been divorced 3 times, due to the business of the job.

They are just looking for what's newsworthy, through a jaded and cynical lens. They are hurting people. This is the media of our world. We have left the media unto themselves, and this is what they have become.

[Copperfox]

Actually, it IS possible sometimes to KNOW that someone is intentionally lying.

There was an incident back in the Nixon days that I remember clearly. It must be understood that, at the time this happened, Vice-President Spiro Agnew was _not_ yet known to have done anything unethical; therefore, the treatment he received was as unjust as if done to a purely innocent man.

Agnew gave a speech about leftwing news-media bias. He asked citizens all over America, as individuals entirely on their own, to contact media corporations and call for fairness in reporting. What he did NOT do was advocate _government_ censorship. I know he did not, because I watched his speech live.

So what happened no more than 24 hours later? One of the talking heads of the major networks--who had access to Agnew's whole speech to refer to--said unequivocally on the air that Agnew HAD CALLED FOR GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF THE NEWS MEDIA. This was no vague shade-of-gray interpretation; the man was stating as clear fact something which definitely was NOT a fact.

That was the night I learned that the leftwing establishment media DO lie.


Joseph Ravitts

[Afton]

Personally....I hate the media.They tell you lies all the time and want you to believe them.And most people do believe everything they say and almost always rely on them.The thing is people must not have common sense....do people ever think:The media hasnt evan been to this place,talked to this person or knows anything about whats going on!? People just assume they know everything....and about Iraq....none of the media has been there! How do they know what their talking about?

[LadyEm]

Personally....I hate the media.They tell you lies all the time and want you to believe them.And most people do believe everything they say and almost always rely on them.The thing is people must not have common sense....do people ever think:The media hasnt evan been to this place,talked to this person or knows anything about whats going on!? People just assume they know everything....and about Iraq....none of the media has been there! How do they know what their talking about?

Actually that isn't true. A great deal of American, Canadian and British Journalists have been to Iraq, and were there imbedded with the armies that are there. They have seen suicide bombings for themselves, and many of them have been kidnapped, held for ransom, been killed, and injured.
Journalists have to have at least three sources speaking for them before they can accurately report a story. Perhaps they aren't speaking to the right people - or the people who would agree with your opinion. Sometimes, they don't ask enough questions, or show enough sides of the story.

[LadyEm]

Actually, it IS possible sometimes to KNOW that someone is intentionally lying.

There was an incident back in the Nixon days that I remember clearly. It must be understood that, at the time this happened, Vice-President Spiro Agnew was _not_ yet known to have done anything unethical; therefore, the treatment he received was as unjust as if done to a purely innocent man.

Agnew gave a speech about leftwing news-media bias. He asked citizens all over America, as individuals entirely on their own, to contact media corporations and call for fairness in reporting. What he did NOT do was advocate _government_ censorship. I know he did not, because I watched his speech live.

So what happened no more than 24 hours later? One of the talking heads of the major networks--who had access to Agnew's whole speech to refer to--said unequivocally on the air that Agnew HAD CALLED FOR GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF THE NEWS MEDIA. This was no vague shade-of-gray interpretation; the man was stating as clear fact something which definitely was NOT a fact.

That was the night I learned that the leftwing establishment media DO lie.


Joseph Ravitts

I was not saying that the news media didn't have their issues and that there have been scandals. Yet, at the same time for the most part that is what I know to be true from my day to day job. It's how we are taught to process information in school. If we don't have at least three verifiable sources, we cannot print it. Nor can we put our own opinions into stories that are not Opinion columns or articles.
Even still, opinions are not printed nor are they allowed to be broadcast unless they have a whole slew of hard fact to back it up - they have to be verifiably based upon fact.
For example, if one is opionating on something Environmental, they must research what they are talking about before it can end up in any form of opinion.

[Shadow Hawk]

First, the opinion of that person is not all ways true. Second, the media does not know enough about what is going to really say what is happening. I met a jewish priest, and the news or media claimed that there had been an explosion right where he was. Not all the time do they lie but, they do a lot.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

"The Media is not Public Opinion." Otto von Bismarck

[Shadow Hawk]

NO, but is the opinion of that person.......

[Sain]

The media is undoubtedly has its share of dishonesty. Of course, everyone tells the truth when it is in their favor.

[Republican Rockster]

I don't want to sound harsh, but the majority of the media is run by democrats. Now we have a republican in office, and they've lost twice in a row for the last 7 years. I think they're gonna make lies about Bush's military status in Iraq and do a few unfair polls to pound into innocent minds that Bush is bad. So watch Fox News! God bless.

[office]

Well,it depends on what kind of ''Media'' you`re talking about. If you`re talking about ET(Entertainment Tonight) and stuff like that then yes it lies a lot. But I shouldn`t talk because I`m obbsessed with becoming an actor,director,screenwriter,and producer. Althugh,I try and avoid watching stuff like ET and Extra because they rott your mind with mostly untrue information.

[star trooper]

All of you are correct about the media. It is definitely skewed toward the left and it is unfair towards many circumstances, especially the war in Iraq.

[Rosalind]

Yes!

Why do girls starve themselves, wear low-cut shirts, try to make their place-on-which-you-usually-sit-down-on, date as young as in elementary school, and I could go on and on because I see it EVERY SINGLE DAY??!!! Why do boys slit their wrists, try to act gangster, cuss, talk about nasty stuff, and tell each other to commit suicide, fight, and I could go on and on and on because I see it EVERY SINGLE DAY????!!!!!

Because of sin, which influences the media, which influences the kids to be even more sinful, and then they "grow up" without even growing up! They simply get more and more immature each day! If God hadn't turned me around and set me on the cliff overlooking how everyone else acted and seeing that that wasn't how God wanted me to act, where would I be? I am the one girl revolution, one warrior of Christ, one soldier of Aslan, one girl who is destined to become a virtuous, God-fearing LORD in the midst of so much sin and folly and immaturity and it's disgusting!

If you just watched one minute of these people and knew what movies they watched, music they listened to, and even what they read and played! Way back when, reading used to be GOOD for you, but with things like The Clique, etcetera... that's why twentieth and nineteenth literature tend to occupy my reading log.

LORD, save this sinful race!

[Copperfox]

Yes, BE that soldier for truth, Rosalind! Remember that Joan of Arc was also very young.

[Copperfox]

Much lying in the media is done by omission. For instance, when James Baker was being treated ever-so-respectfully by the media for his panel basically recommending our surrender in Iraq, they _omitted_ to report the fact that Baker is a bought man. His law firm is in the employ of Saudi Arabia, and he is not likely to recommend any policy for America contrary to what the Saudis want to see happen. If a genuine _conservative_ were in a position like Baker's with the Iraq Study Group, and had a conflict of interest SO obvious as Baker's, the leftwing media establishment would be all over him like alligators on a stray Florida poodle; but because Baker was throwing his weight _against_ victory for our side in Iraq, they gave him a free pass.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Yes!

Why do girls starve themselves, wear low-cut shirts, try to make their place-on-which-you-usually-sit-down-on, date as young as in elementary school, and I could go on and on because I see it EVERY SINGLE DAY??!!! Why do boys slit their wrists, try to act gangster, cuss, talk about nasty stuff, and tell each other to commit suicide, fight, and I could go on and on and on because I see it EVERY SINGLE DAY????!!!!!

Because of sin, which influences the media, which influences the kids to be even more sinful, and then they "grow up" without even growing up! They simply get more and more immature each day! If God hadn't turned me around and set me on the cliff overlooking how everyone else acted and seeing that that wasn't how God wanted me to act, where would I be? I am the one girl revolution, one warrior of Christ, one soldier of Aslan, one girl who is destined to become a virtuous, God-fearing LORD in the midst of so much sin and folly and immaturity and it's disgusting!

If you just watched one minute of these people and knew what movies they watched, music they listened to, and even what they read and played! Way back when, reading used to be GOOD for you, but with things like The Clique, etcetera... that's why twentieth and nineteenth literature tend to occupy my reading log.

LORD, save this sinful race!


Amen, Rosalind. Amen!

[SlpNarniaQueen]

I find media influences not only how PEOPLE see us, but how WE veiw ourselves. Just earlier today I was looking in the mirror and pointing out all the things that were wrong with me. But I stopped myself and I said, "Who's standards am I going by?" Obviously the media's. "And who's standards do I live by?" If you live by media's standards, girls are to show off their bodies, be skinny and drop-dead gorgeous. If we go by media's standards, we should have started dating a looooooong time ago. Media makes my veiws all screwed, so daily I have to tell myself who I'm living for, what His standards are and why would I care what the media would think of me. It doesn't matter how we are veiwed by the people around us by how we look. God made us to be more than skin deep, He gave us hopes and dreams and a personality. The people around us shouldn't care what we look like, whether we are skinny or overweight, zits or fine skin, fair or dark, long or short hair, blue or green eyes, they should care about what's past the skin. Our skin is only of this world, but our hearts are with God. We have to ignore what the media says of us and what the media says we should look like and dress like, we should dress by God's standards, look by God's standards. We don't have to try and measure with un-reality that we see in the press. That is full of many people who live for things of this world, but we don't. We live for God and God alone. Our body is His temple and we must treat it like that. We must dress for God, not for the world. God says that beauty should not come from outward adorment or braided hair but from the inside.

[Jack of Blades]

I heard a song once that the Media rules the world.
In a way it does.
Basicly the Media can lie, and its the main information sorce for America.
Your words are a powerful weapon.
The Media has killed before, a long time ago. The War of the Worlds broadcasting. Yup.

I don't particurly like the media. And I feel that the goverment and the media will have the greater hand in Tribulation.
I take that back. They have the greater hand now.
They control the way you think
They tell you whats cool, and whats not. They tell you who died and how. They tell you everything.
The media could easily cover up murders.
They also tell you what countrys to hate, and which ones you should be mad at. Hence the boycot of 'French' Fries, they became Freedom Fries.
I don't like the media I say again.

[Copperfox]

Machinist, you are generally right, but the French illustration is not the most appropriate.

The liberal-establishment media have been ON THE SAME SIDE AS France, insofar as trying to convince us that there was no cause to overthrow Saddam Hussein. You hear "It's all about oil;" but it was precisely Saddam's would-be PROTECTORS (in France and elsewhere) who were "all about oil," all about the money THEY were making through cooperating with him. CNN also cooperated with Saddam, helping to hush up and hide his crimes against humanity so that he would let them keep their office in Baghdad.

[Savanna_2010]

I believe that they lie for a reason, not necesscecarily a good reason. But they lie to get your attention, so that you'll keep watching. They stretch the truth alot and make it seem far worse that the actual situation is. They think that they have to do it, just to get attention. Well I don't think they do, they should tell the truth, It won't hurt them any more than anything is hurting them right now.

EX.

I hope you guys have heard about the lady that got arrested who said she was beeding and needed to go to the hospital, but the officers refused and now, i think, she is threatening to sue. Well there is alot more to the story that my moms friends husband knows (hes a cop).

What really happened:

She has been arrested several other times prior to this incident. She has three other kids that have been taken away from her because of neglected abuse. (Sad I know but it's the truth behind the media's story.)

[Copperfox]

The more you can claim to belong to a politically-correct victim-group, the more likely the establishment media are to accept what you say without investigating it.

[Wendygirljp]

I am amazed that this thread is still open.

Let me state this:

The media is not just left-wing or right-wing - it is an organization of people who are trying to make money (and being quite successful at it) by reflecting what society is already saying. Yes, they sometimes report only partial truths because it sells better, but those partial truths are what sells. They already exist. Again, the media is just making money off what society is already doing.

One cannot blame the media accurately for making being thin the "in thing". That is society. Media moguls don't go around having meetings deciding how the fashions are going to go, what people will wear or what cars they will buy.

Any votes for locking this thread?

[Parthian King]

I am also amazed...but by something else.

This theme seems to be a catharsis for many, and if one such thread goes cold, another opens. WG, you have all the freedom in the world to not post--or come--to this thread or others like it if you find it so irksome to your sensibilities.

[*IOWW the Iasc*]

*sigh*
I really wish I knew what happened to the world...To society...to human dignity...

What is going on?!

It gives me such a headache...I just don't understand it...

[inkspot]

Don't be so glum. There are still people in the world who value human life, do heroic things in times of crisis, love their neighbors as themselves, protect their families and build their communities. Remember that the darkner the night, the easier it is to see the light!
:)

WG, there is a more current thread about media bias if you are to read through it and see how well one member defended the idea of "media is only a business and they publicize what sells."
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17879