Yes, it does. Because he says, "That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.” It’s a huge difference.
The caption does not say, “the argument against J’s law is that rape victims will have to take the stand and this will be traumatic.”
It conveys, “Opponent of J’s law claims he’d tear apart young rape victims.”
And, if I’m using the term correctly, they’ve buried the “lede” underneath it.
Even IF a place like NPR has a liberal slant, they never assume their listeners are that stupid. If NPR were to run an analogous piece, they would show a guy holding a puppy saying, “proponents of J’s law want to execute this man!!”
Oh, I’m sorry. I was talking about liberal vs conservative slants, which is not the same as Democrat vs Republican.
One has to do with what the producers feel is “newsworthy” and how it is presented, the other is the agendas of the major American political parties. Words and phrasing make a great deal of difference in which way a given media outlet slants.
Just as an experiment, when a given outlet has a story about people who now live in the USA, without having gone through the paperwork needed for a visa or other type of documentation, observe what is the story about and do they tend to use the modifier “illegal” on the term “immigrant.” That is a good first approximation
It’s mostly the same thing though. I just do not see this liberal bias at NPR. I do not think they are promoting what liberals want you to think.
On the other hand I just saw a Fox story a few minutes ago. They said the latest polls show the presidential race being a “dead heat.” This is blatantly untrue as recent polls have shown Obama with a 15 or so point lead nationally. It’s bunk and they could not help but know it yet they make the claim anyway.
Not that huge. He’s not saying, “Everyone has a right to legal defense and I consider it my sacred trust.” He’s saying, basically, “I am a drama queen. I am telling you I will put kids who have already seen hell through six lifetimes more of it simply because it is in my job description. You see, I am a grandstanding prick and this may be my only chance at national media recognition, so I will say anything to make the most of it.”
Reading over this thread the most obvious thing I notice (besides that it is still in Cafe and not GD) is that those from the far-left do exactly what those on the far-right do.
Namely you guys engage in prejudiced, intolerant, narrow-minded, simplistic, smug, excluding, stereotype-enforcing language that just reinforces your own (left) slanted views. But because the liberals are the ‘open-minded nice guys’ and the conservatives are all the ‘racist, religious, oppressive, redneck puppy-kickers’ you don’t think you’re being biased, just sensible.
Read Democratic Underground posts sometime. You’ll see bias and hatred there that does makes Fox look fair & balanced.
It’s on at 9:00 PM instead of 10:00 PM. People are in bed before ten to start work by 6:00 AM. I don’t watch television for news. I have websites to I check out.
Nah, not really, that’s only because we’re talking about Fox news, a specific instance of all those bad qualities, and the people who appear to consume it as if it were regular news. You won’t find people talking about George Will in the same tone. It’s hard to talk about an obvious fraud like Fox in terms of anything except sheer dismissal.
Although I can’t help noticing that you’re following the same “you drink your koolaid, I’ll drink mine” sort of mentality that passes for an explanation of why Fox news is such a joke.
Nah, I think that the whole current crop of Righties is more along the lines of “You’re drinking kool-aid! Why can’t I drink antifreeze? It’s the SAME THING! They’re both blue!”
The RW analogue of Democratic Underground is not Fox New (which has no LW analogue) but Free Republic. And if you compare the two, you’ll find that, while they’re both echo chambers with little serious discussion like we expect here, FR far, far surpasses DU in both hatred and stupidity. There’s just no comparison.
You’ve just proven the previous point. Anything that heinous must be true, because no one would ever lie about something like that, right?
I’ll bet if you were ever falsely accused of rape, you’d want that so-called “grandstanding prick” on your side. Can you imagine what kind of world we’d be living in if we took everyone at their word and cast “innocent until proven guilty” out the window like so much garbage? Let’s just put Nancy Grace in charge of the SCOTUS and be done with it!
Don’t get me wrong, child rapists are the scum of the earth and should be dealt with swiftly and severely, but if you’re going to accuse someone of something that vile, you’d better be right! Everyone, and I mean everyone , gets their day in court.
Fox is biased to the right. CNN is biased to the left. The LA Times leans crazily to the left.
If I had to pick a single, neutral source, I’d say it was NPR. They have a bias, no question about it, and it’s a leftward bias, but it’s small, and they do their best to overcome it, ending up with about as much bias as is inevitable when human beings are involved. NPR makes the most effort to present their news in a factual and neutral manner as exists in any news outlet.
The LA Times, in contrast, can call a poll with a 12 point margin “wide” when the results are something they support, and a poll with a 19-point margin “narrow” when it’s a result they disfavor.
And even the LA Times is even-handed when compared to DU and Free Republic.
See, this is why we like Fox News, because they all but admit their slant. Where as CNN, CBS, MSNBC etc. still claim to be ivory tower bastions of unbiased journalism.
Cronkite, Rather, Couric, Brokaw, Bernie Shaw, Judy Woodroff are all just as biased as O’Reilly. Difference is they’re worse because they don’t see (or pretend not to see) that they are…
And there you have it. One person who believes that any opinions opposed to his/her own is invalid and another that appreciates that opinions are valid and worth discussing.
Is Fox News a valid news source. Certainly, as much as MSNBC, NBC, ABC or any other. People can make their own decisions. While remembering to distinguish between news reports and obvious opinion shows such as O’Reilly and Hannity. I don’t always agree with those shows, but I don’t always agree with Olbermann either.
This is as close to an accurate assessment of NPR from a conservative I’ve ever read, and is given slightly further credence if one holds to the now-hackneyed meme that facts have a liberal bias.
I personally don’t hear a bias on NPR at all. They do tend to report a few higher-brow stories and culture pieces than conservative-leaning stations, and perhaps that contributes to the perception of a liberal bias, but in everything they do there seems to always be an unvarnished reporting of the facts.
Very seldom does one have any inclination of where a commentator or interviewer on NPR stands politically. The only exception I’ve noticed is one reporter on Morning Edition (can’t remember his name of the top of my head) who I’m convinced is conservative, only because he presses guests who lean left harder than those who lean right in follow-ups during his interview segments. However, even he reigns it in enough that the listener is not really sure, and I definitely don’t perceive him as having a conservative agenda.
FOX, on the other hand, has absolutely no qualms about blatantly lying to foster one of their six or seven main agendas. And for those who still, inexplicably, believe FOX is in any way concerned about presenting facts, wasn’t FOX a party in a lawsuit a few years ago wherein they defended their right to lie, and, get this, actually won the case?