More Anti-Americanism from Newsweek

[IHL]

</IMG><img align=left textalign=top hspace=5 vspace=5 src="http://www.nwj.ne.jp/public/toppage/20050202/images/tophyoushi.gif"></img>Newsweek obviously has a problem with the United States. As if the Quran story (http://www.ihateliberals.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=1014) wasn't bad enough, it seems Newsweek thinks the American flag looks good in the trash can.

Ok, for those of you on the left who don't think there is a media bias, let's take a look at bit of Newsweek's history. There is the fake Quran story that Newsweek rushed to press in an attempt to make America look bad to the rest of the world. Newsweek used anonymous and uncorroborated sources on this story - a policy they now claimed to have changed. The reporter, Michael Isakoff has had other stories with numerous sources and witnesses that Newsweek didn't run. Why not do you suppose? For those of you who may not realize it, this is the same Michael Isakoff that had one of the biggest stories of the century. It was a story of the president of the United States having an affair with an intern inside of the White House. A president that was married at the time and also asked the intern to lie and then proceeded to be impeached for also lying under oath. Some of you may have since read about it. Does the name Monica Lewinski ring any bells? That's right, Newsweek passed on that story.

Michael Isakoff also was one of the first reporters to have the scoop of the accusations of Paula Jones. The Washington Post which owns Newsweek, also refused to run that story. Newsweek also passed on the story of Kathleen Willey's (http://www.wnd.com/speakers/kwilley.asp) experiences with Bill Clinton and his henchmen.

So it seems that Newsweek doesn't always rush to publish hot news stories. Actually they seem to be able to show amazing restraint when the subject of the story is a liberal democrat. Let the story be one that shows America insulting Muslims and Newsweek will rush that story to press faster than Ted Kennedy heading for happy hour, even if the story is fake. Disrespect the Quran and Newsweek will post that story all over the world and exclaim how horrible it is and then create a cover on their magazine showing our flag in the trash can. The only thing Newsweek forgot to do is set it on fire first.

No - no liberal bias here is there? Ok liberals. Your turn. Defend Newsweek. Oh go ahead. Give it a try. In the meantime, here are just a few of the covers from the "unbias" Newsweek.


http://www.ihateliberals.com/pages/images/newsweektrash.jpg

The following cover was the International edition of the January 31st issue. This one contained a story entitled "Yume no kuni Amerika ga kuchihateru toki" which roughly translated means, "America, the dream country, is rotting away" This did not run in the U.S. however. Instead, the American version had a cover of Hilary Swank, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, with the title "Oscar Confidential". Come on Newsweek, if you are going to bash the United States, at least have the balls to be upfront about it.

http://www.ihateliberals.com/pages/images/newsweekamerica.jpg

[IHL]

Picture links should be fixed... let me know if they aren't.

[God v2.0]

Me damn it, where can an omnipotent being like myself get decent, unbiased news?

One big w00t w00t for FARK.

[Wadi66]

Me damn it, where can an omnipotent being like myself get decent, unbiased news?You've come to the right place :icon_bigg :icon_bigg

[Count Rugen]

Karzai denies article prompted riots
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: May 23 2005 18:36 | Last updated: May 24 2005 04:20

Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, on Monday denied the riots in Afghanistan that led to 16 deaths had been prompted by a magazine article, calling them instead “a political act against Afghanistan's stability”.


“These demonstrations were in reality not related to the Newsweek story,” he said at a joint press conference held after a meeting with President George W. Bush. “They were more against progress in Afghanistan and our strategic partnership with America. We know the people who were behind the demonstrations.”

His comments contrast with those of White House officials who have forcefully condemned the Newsweek report that claimed a Koran had been flushed down a toilet by interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, and have suggested it helped trigger the riots.

Last week Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, said: “This report was used to excite violence and did serious damage. The protests may have been pre-planned but this report was used to excite violence.”

Mr Karzai's remarks echo the views of General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, who said the violence was “not at all tied to the article in the magazine”.
Here's the entire article:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6958aa8-cbaf-11d9-895c-00000e2511c8.html

The reason you publish a newspaper or produce a television newscast is to make money. There is no liberal bias, only a bias towards making you buy a newspaper or watch a newscast. The reason conservatives think there's a liberal bias is because they only notice the stories that make them mad. Same thing goes for the liberals who think there's a convservative bias.

[chi1088]

I plan on defending the magazine. But first...are there any sources of media that you or members here who hate liberals find to not have liberal biases? I am just curious as to what those may be if there are any. I have little time to respond right now but a defense is on the way.

[IHL]

The reason you publish a newspaper or produce a television newscast is to make money. So then to follow your logic, Newsweek wouldn't have made any money by breaking the Monica Lewinski story. Instead, Matt Drudge got that one. And Newsweek wouldn't have made any money by running the Paula Jones story either.

Liberal bias is rampant. Think about it. Newsweek, The New York Times, LA Times, PBS, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, all tilt wildly to the left. When you mention that to the liberals, the scream "Yeah, well what about Fox News!!!" Fox News has Alan Combs, Gretta, Geraldo - all liberals.

Lets not get off on the liberal bias tangent. I'd love to hear how those on the left feel Newsweek is serving America in what it's done.

[Count Rugen]

"Yeah, well what about Fox News!!!" Fox News has Alan Combs, Gretta, Geraldo - all liberals.
I didn't say anything about Fox News. They have very little news content, instead filling their day with commentary. They're doing very well with that format.


Newsweek wouldn't have made any money by breaking the Monica Lewinski story. Instead, Matt Drudge got that one. And Newsweek wouldn't have made any money by running the Paula Jones story either.
Drudge will post anything as soon as he gets it, he's wrong just as often as he's right.
Nobody knows how much stuff Newsweek had on the Paula Jones or the Lewinsky scandal. If they had what Drudge had (unconfirmed anonymous accuasations) then they didn't have enough.


Lets not get off on the liberal bias tangent. I'd love to hear how those on the left feel Newsweek is serving America in what it's done.
The only papers I know of that "Serve" their country exist in communist countries.

[deek]

i think there is liberal bias because of one simple fact.

there are two major parties, that means if the news was fair...there would be a 50/50 chance of a horribly wrong story being against the liberals. however, we find that story after story is incorrectly against the conservatives. pure random chance would dictate that eventually we will have a false story about a liberal printed on the front page. im waiting...but im not holding my breath.

[Republican_Anthem]

Ok ok...I have been taking journalism and have one of the best teachers in the country...even though he is a Mets fan.

The number one rule for journalism is to make sure you have your facts straight, credible sources, and at LEAST 4 sources.

Newsweek, not using the traditional New York Times or Columbia University journalism rules, decided to not get their facts straight, have bad sources, and less than 4 sources.

So, Newsweek deserves to get its ass kicked right now.

And to quote my speech to my staff...

"Quote a lie, a punch in the eye."

[God v2.0]

I plan on defending the magazine. But first...are there any sources of media that you or members here who hate liberals find to not have liberal biases? I am just curious as to what those may be if there are any. I have little time to respond right now but a defense is on the way.


OOOOO! I know one! The LA Times, or Move On(whose name is now useless)...just kidding.

FOX has no liberal bias <smacks hand to chest>, neither does Rush Limbaugh, or G-dubya.

[FKLBRLS]

FOX has no liberal bias
And that is why FOX News is the only network that isn't losing viewers. People are realizing that FOX tells the truth and the facts, and networks/magazines like CNN, TIME, NBC, Newsweek and CBS have a slant to the left. These media groups always talk about Republicans with a negative attitude and constanly bash Bush and talk about how great of a president John Kerry would be and bring in liberals to speak on their shows. Or in TIME's case that would translate into having liberal readers and ONLY liberal readers write responses to the stories written. Newsweek runs anti-Bush political cartoons. FOX reports with no bias because they operate on the truth and straight facts, bringing in both Democrats and Republicans to speak on their show. They view each side without showing any signs of leaning to the left or the right.
Unfortunately many liberals view this as FOX slanting to the right and everyone else telling the truth. Why they say this is I have no idea?

Some more proof the much of the media is liberal:
-During the 2004 election, CNN reported that John Kerry had more electoral votes than he actually did and Bush had less than he actually did
-The day after the election was spent showing anti-Bush protests
-63% of journalists voted for John Kerry in 2004
-Hollywood and the media clamored over Michael "Fat-ass" Moore's "inspirational" movie, Fahrenheit 911

[redwinger13]

When ace reporter Michael Isikoff had the scoop of the decade, a thoroughly sourced story about the president of the United States having an affair with an intern and then pressuring her to lie about it under oath, Newsweek decided not to run the story. Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek, followed by The Washington Post.

Ann coulter


Praise Matt Drudge, and the work that he does



Sorry Ihl Post Owns Newsweek

[IHL]

You are correct, the Post does own Newsweek. I knew that but wrote it wrong in my story. I have corrected it.

[chi1088]

i think there is liberal bias because of one simple fact.

there are two major parties, that means if the news was fair...there would be a 50/50 chance of a horribly wrong story being against the liberals. however, we find that story after story is incorrectly against the conservatives. pure random chance would dictate that eventually we will have a false story about a liberal printed on the front page. im waiting...but im not holding my breath.

Because you are conservative, you feel that anything bad about your party is a result of liberal bias. Liberal bias is an excuse used so that you and other conservatives alike do not have to take responsibility and change your party for the better.

[chi1088]

OOOOO! I know one! The LA Times, or Move On(whose name is now useless)...just kidding.

FOX has no liberal bias <smacks hand to chest>, neither does Rush Limbaugh, or G-dubya.

Well, if G-dubya counts let's just add the rest of the Bush administration. They don't count for news. They don't give news. They give propaganda. And in press conferences, every one of them reports in talking points. They are short and to the point and want to keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

[deek]

chi...you didnt reply at all to what i said.

i will ask you directly now...shouldnt there be a 50/50 chance of a story being grossly incorrect and damaging towards a liberal? If the news is "fair" like you say it is...that fact MUST be true.

so based on that, i ask you, why is it that no false stories damaging the liberal side of things has come out when untrue story after untrue story about conservatives are coming out?

i really want to know the answer.

also, i will make a bet with you, if you are so sure that the news is fair...its a 50/50 chance for each of us according to you. the next untrue story that comes out (significant, front page stuff), if it is against a liberal, i will start every post of mine for a month with "chi was right," but if the opposite is true, you must do the same.

if i were you i wouldnt take the bet, i am interested to see how dumb you are though.

also, i dont think anything bad about my side is because of liberal bias...there are plenty of things wrong (i am fine with it when they report facts, i provided the definition of facts below since you are a liberal and likely dont know its meaning). but i think the lies that are in the newspaper are becaues of liberal bias...not because of a "mistake."

fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
(dictionary.com)

[Count Rugen]

The Newsweek story isn't about conservatives, it's about the army.

The current party of power gets the most press because they are the ones making things happen. They are the ones in the spot light. Don't you remember the press during the Clinton years? I do, and it was just as bad. Somalia, Boznia-Herzegovinia, White water, they were all scrutinized by the "liberal" media.

Seriously, I've never seen a bigger group of sore winners.

[IHL]

I don't have a problem with the media criticizing this administration. But I do have a problem with the media making up stories in order to do it.

The New York Times with Jayson Blair, CBS and Dan Rather and the forged documents, and Newsweek... just to name a few.

Name me just one major media source that made up completely fake stories about Clinton.

[Count Rugen]

Did Jayson Blair write political stories?
I don't think you can use the phrase "making up stories". Newsweek, CBS News and the New York Times didn't "make up stories", they printed and aired stories that didn't have enough coroboration to stand up under scrutiny. There's a difference.
I have no doubt that the US military desecrated the Quran in front of detainees. I also have no doubt that President Bush was AWOL during his time in the Air National Guard and refused to take a physical (probably for the substances that would show up in a blood test).

[Wadi66]

I have no doubt that the US military desecrated the Quran in front of detainees. I also have no doubt that President Bush was AWOL during his time in the Air National Guard and refused to take a physical (probably for the substances that would show up in a blood test).Is your "no doubt" based on gut feeling or proof? If it isn't provable, aren't you being foolish to incorporate it into the belief system? To believe in something unprovable is tantamount to having faith in something that could be a lie. I thought you were a stickler for provable facts.

[Count Rugen]

That's why I said "I have no doubt", not "it is fact" as is used by others on this site. I believe it to be true based on the evidence I've seen, but it is in no way provable. I believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save us from our sin, but it is in no way proveable by Earthly standards. So, you see, I have no problem believing things on faith, but when you present them as fact and they go against what I believe I'll ask for proof.

[Caleb]

Here is a CBS News Fact:

President Bush's National Air Guard Story Was a Made-up Story.The Story didn't have enough coroboration because there was no coroboration. It was made - up to try to swing the shift of power to Kerry.

Remember I am not political.

[Caleb]

Well Count, if you need a Religious belief to be a fact come find me.

[Avid_Liberal_Hater]

Newsweek, CBS News and the New York Times didn't "make up stories", they printed and aired stories that didn't have enough coroboration to stand up under scrutiny.

That sounds like making things up.