Legislative committee finds Palin guilty of abusing her power as Alaska's governor

[Metamorphosis]

Originally Posted by Usehername

The general consensus from the politics profs at my university is that Al Jazeera is one of the most unbiased large sources out there. Sure, I could've used an American source, but it's sort of ironic that you call it biased. Because if you compare it to mainstream American press re: stuff published that Bush claimed to be true (and all that stuff we found out later that wasn't true) Al Jazeera is likely to get it right in the first place.

+1

They are biased, but so is all media. I heard once that when you've found an unbiased media source, you've found your own bias...and I think that holds true.

[pure_mercury]

I wouldn't trust the professors in a Political Science department at most universities to be unbiased. I certainly wouldn't go to Al-Jazeera first, either. The United States actually has some of the best reportage in the world, although they were cowed quite a bit in the post-9/11 through early Iraq War period.

[Usehername]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

I wouldn't trust the professors in a Political Science department at most universities to be unbiased. I certainly wouldn't go to Al-Jazeera first, either. The United States actually has some of the best reportage in the world, although they were cowed quite a bit in the post-9/11 through early Iraq War period.

NO one is unbiased, as Meta points out. However, I think this 53 minute lecture in podcast form is completely worth listening to, for anyone who wants a holistic overview of media as related to politics, and how Americans are getting such a biased selection of reporting. (So you don't have to listen if you don't want to: If you don't respect Chomsky's views, you aren't going to respect this guy's views.)

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20080128_4451.mp3

[pure_mercury]

Originally Posted by Usehername

NO one is unbiased, as Meta points out. However, I think this 53 minute lecture in podcast form is completely worth listening to, for anyone who wants a holistic overview of media as related to politics, and how Americans are getting such a biased selection of reporting. (So you don't have to listen if you don't want to: If you don't respect Chomsky's views, you aren't going to respect this guy's views.)

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20080128_4451.mp3

Noam Chomsky is about as biased as it gets. Have you ever read Rogue States? He was basically making shit up. Really, you should seek out a more eclectic set of viewpoints.

[Mondo]

Depending on what you listen to, you get very different views of Palin.
I was watching Fox News yesterday and they portray her as a strong, intelligent, independent woman who despite her lack of experience possesses talent.
Everywhere else... Jane Six Pack.

[Usehername]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

Noam Chomsky is about as biased as it gets. Have you ever read Rogue States? He was basically making shit up. Really, you should seek out a more eclectic set of viewpoints.

I do. This is why I have BBC, CNN, my local press, Globe and Mail, National Post, NY Times and Al Jazeera all as quicklinks on my Firefox Browser. And yes, when I find an interesting story, I read it in all of the papers and compare.

You should seek out a worldview that goes beyond your own country. I'd think it'd be difficult to find a non-American that agrees with your statements about the large American media corporations. I mean, have you ever spent a few months outside of America? From the way you respond to these topics I highly doubt it.

[ZiL]

The Al-Jazeera article just sounded like a shortened version of a couple of Yahoo-news articles I read. I didn't detect a breach by the big-'ol-bias monster in any of them - they all just recounted what the investigative report said. So...what's the problem again?

By all means, continue talking about media bias, it's a worthwhile topic - but I don't see why it had to come up with this particular article. Just looking for reasons to cry "wolf" or what?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

Noam Chomsky is about as biased as it gets. Have you ever read Rogue States? He was basically making shit up. Really, you should seek out a more eclectic set of viewpoints.

I found Chomsky exciting and fun. Particularly as he is so consistent in his attitude.

I have tried to understand him but failed. This I find interesting in itself.

But moving towards understanding I can see that on the surface he is a principled dissident.

And he also strikes me as a quintessential American who lives in our near New England. So I put him in the box of New England dissident.

This makes some sense as America was founded by New England dissidents. So is this why he resonates so strongly?

But why would he resonate with me? I live on the other side of the Earth and am the creature of a different history.

But Chomsky does ring bells with me - a big bell.

And that bell is paranoia.

I've always been attracted to paranoia. It is emotionally involving. It provides a reason for everything. But most of all, it takes the moral high ground.

Paranoia appeals to all my predilections.

But beware!

Paranoia not only provides a simple solution to a complex problem, paranoia is also psychological preparation to attack.

And paranoia is ultra rational. In fact ultra rationality is the psychological defence of the paranoid.

So Chomsky slyly invites you to defeat him on rational grounds - knowing he is undefeatable. So he sets up a brilliant hypnotic loop from which we can't escape.

Chomsky is a true darling.

[Jack Flak]

I get that too, Victor. Wish he'd stuck to linguistics.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by ZiL

By all means, continue talking about media bias, it's a worthwhile topic - but I don't see why it had to come up with this particular article. Just looking for reasons to cry "wolf" or what?

It was an instinctive reaction on my part. "Al Jazeera wtf!"