Modern Media: Biased or not? [Archive]

Mark in Oshawa

29th March 2009, 02:50

Ok, here we go. After reading about the Morning Star and the opinion of those who are afflicted with access to the commie rag ( so I have been told..lol) I wondered just about how people on here view media. I realize we are mostly in the English speaking world with a few of you from varied and interesting places, so we all look at the modern newspaper or TV station differently.

It is my opinion that as the media world explodes, the traditional networks and newspapers are now openly showing biases, right or left in a search to appeal to a niche. They have given up to an extent on broad based appeal to everyone.

Example is the criticisms of the US networks, with many on the left feeling Fox News is Right wing Bush lovers, and MSNBC/NBC being hard on the left for many on the right. The New York Times has lost huge amounts of money swinging to the left and maybe coming out of the closet a bit. Media outlets in Canada have been more centrist but they too have their biases. I know the Guardian in the UK is on the left, while I think the Daily Mail tends to be Tory in its outlook.

Now...do you guys feel that it is getting worse like I do? Do you feel it is better now or worse? Do you have an issue with it?

Just curious....had to start a thread on something deep...

Easy Drifter

29th March 2009, 03:24

I don't think there is much doubt of bias. As you know Mark most of the print media and the Cdn. broadcast media is left leaning. The Toronto Star has always been considered almost a Liberal party paper and the Globe which used to be centralist has gone far left most of the time. Canoe (the Sun Group of papers) is right wing, although the group chief editor Paul Berton (London Free Press) is more left wing. One thing about the Sun Group is they do employee columnists across all spectrams of political thought and give them a pretty free hand to disagree with the papers stance. The other papers do not give their columnists this freedom. I haven't figured out the Ntl. Post but very rarely read it.
Then there is the Cdn. Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) our Govt. funded, but independent of govt. control broadcaster often referred to as the Communist Broadcasting Corp. by the right wing crowd.
That should start something.

Tazio

29th March 2009, 04:01

Bernie Ecclestone said: "I have always said that we are in the entertainment business ;)
News is now only "reality based"!(based on the constituency it wants to impress)
Yes Mark I agree with you, it's getting worse. It's also getting more sensationalistic.

BDunnell

29th March 2009, 13:44

Mr Peppermill

29th March 2009, 14:49

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

Lousada

29th March 2009, 18:04

There has always been bias in the press. Maybe now certain voices, notably on the US talk shows, shout louder. However, a lot of perceived bias in straight coverage of events is purely in the eye of the beholder, and, in my view, not to be taken seriously.

Have you ever watched US newschannels like Fox News? The bias is incredible, I'd go as far as to say they are propaganda machines. I don't know much about the newspapers, but since they belong to the same media empires I presume it's the same.
The situation in the US is a lot different than here in Europe were, I agree with you on that, there is hardly any real bias.

Mark in Oshawa

29th March 2009, 18:09

Mr Peppermill

29th March 2009, 20:29

Have you ever watched US newschannels like Fox News? The bias is incredible, I'd go as far as to say they are propaganda machines. I don't know much about the newspapers, but since they belong to the same media empires I presume it's the same.
The situation in the US is a lot different than here in Europe were, I agree with you on that, there is hardly any real bias.That is not true, what we need in Europe is a channel like FoxNews.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...px?RelNum=6664

BDunnell

29th March 2009, 20:43

And therein lies one problem, because USA Today is one of the blandest newspapers one could ever not hope to read.

Drew

29th March 2009, 22:12

Yes and it always will be. The biggest problem is that reporters are people too, who have personal opinions, beliefs, friends.... It will always be biased :)

BDunnell

29th March 2009, 22:16

I think one great difficulty with the rise of the blatantly biased outlets such as Fox and the shouty talk-shows is that they encourage people to believe that purely factual reports must be biased and therefore in some way untrue. I think this is happening with global warming, for example.

anthonyvop

29th March 2009, 23:25

BDunnell

29th March 2009, 23:32

Most US newspapers swing wildly to the left.

Most TV Networks in the US are either extremely leftwing MSNBC, CNN, PBS, CBS. Mildly left wing....ABC and NBC.
Only Fox is Middle of the road when it comes to news reporting. Their evening broadcasts do not apply as they are not "News" but opnion shows.

You do not know the meaning of the phrase 'left-wing' — nor, apparently, of 'middle-of-the-road'.

Rollo

30th March 2009, 01:05

Most US newspapers swing wildly to the left.

Most newspapers are controlled by business people; consequently, what you're noticing is not a left-right swing but an authoritarian-libertarian bias, hence the reason for this comment:

You do not know the meaning of the phrase 'left-wing' — nor, apparently, of 'middle-of-the-road'.
Mr Vop is using the term in an entirely different context to what you are I suspect.

I don't quite understand the historical reasons for the change in terminology particularly in America, but the left-right parlance in the USA denotes a libertarian left and an autoritarian right as opposed to an economic-left (full government control) and an economic-right (no government control).
Strictly speaking Stalin and Ghandi were both leftists, but they could hardly be said to share ideology at all. If we were to use Mr Vop's definition, then Hitler would have been further to the right than George W. but again, they did not have ideologies that resembled each other.

I spent almost all of the last hour checking through the top 25 highest circulating newspapers in the USA (yes, I was that bored at work) and then read through their own blurbs as well as made my own judgement, and came up with the following list:

http://www.burrellesluce.com/top100/2007_Top_100List.pdf

1. USA Today 2,278,022 N/A centre-right
2. The Wall Street Journal 2,062,312 N/Aextreme-right
3. The New York Times 1,120,420 1,627,062extreme-right
4. Los Angeles Times 815,723 1,173,096centre-right
5. The New York Post 724,748 439,202far-right
6. The Daily News - New York,NY 718,174 775,543centrist
7. Washington Post 699,130 929,921extreme-right
8. Chicago Tribune 566,827 940,620centrist
9. Houston Chronicle 503,114 677,425extreme-right
10. Arizona Republic - Phoenix,AZ 433,731 541,757extreme-right
11. Dallas Morning News 411,919 563,079extreme-right
12. Newsday - Melville, NY 398,231 464,169centrist
13. San Francisco Chronicle 386,564 438,006centre-left
14. The Boston Globe 382,503 562,273rightist
15. The Star-Ledger - Newark,NJ 372,629 570,523rightist
16. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 357,399 523,687rightist
17. Philadelphia Inquirer 352,593 688,670rightist
18. Star-Tribune - Minneapolis,MN 345,252 574,406rightist
19. The Plain Dealer - Cleveland,OH 344,704 442,482rightist
20. Detroit Free Press 329,989 640,356leftist
21. St.Petersburg Times 322,771 430,893rightist
22. The Oregonian - Portland, OR 319,625 375,913rightist
23. The San Diego Union Tribune 296,331 378,696far-right
24. The Orange County (CA) Register 284,613 329,549leftist
25. The Sacramento Bee 279,032 324,613rightist

It is quite rare to find any leftist views in an American newspaper short of the idea of "bailing out" failed business, but even then they seem to speak of nationalising losses and privatising profits which is still a centre-right policy.

Having spent a fair amount of time in the USA (I even married an American), my general experience is that newspapers tended to be reasonably rightist in terms of economic policy and depending on the readership, their social policy moved vertically. A newspaper in San-Francisco is likely to be a libertarian-leftist paper compared with an equivalent one in either Texas or New York City, but probably almost identical in terms of economic policy.

In basic terms the entire US media is right-shifted economically to the rest of the world, which is perfectly understandable considering that the whole economic structure is also right-shifted. It follows therefore that the newspapers should also generally follow that trend, because they want to speak with the same voice as their readership.

airshifter

30th March 2009, 01:56

I note something funny. Those who claim the news organizations that are NOT biased or little biased happen to agree with them. Those organizations people find fault with are often news organizations that they DON'T agree with. Oh continue on...I want to see more people's thoughts before I say more...

That in itself is great entertainment!

To be honest, I think 99% of reported news these days is biased, and very often not even fact based. Most often skip things easily proven as fact in an attempt to publish their point of view.

There are quite a few times I've seen major outlets publish or televise things that can be proven to be outright lies, without any statement made by those outlets that it is simply an expressed opinion rather than fact.

Easy Drifter

30th March 2009, 02:57

The most difficult matter to decide is which is the papers or broadcast slant using in their news reporting. The news reporting should be neutral.
Then you go the the opinion pieces or columnists. Their job is to give opinions on news. They are not supposed to be unbiased but are biased to the left or right. A good paper should have a mix of positions. Some will only allow opinions of one slant or the other but not both. Others give more freedom to their columnists.
There is little question that some papers and networks slant the news and do not leave the opinion pieces to just columnists or commentators. With the biased outlets the reporter or news anchor puts a slant on the news.
Canada's CBC is nortorious for this.
How is that for being convoluted?

Tazio

30th March 2009, 05:22

Orange County is the most Conservative county in California, followed by San Diego

24. The Orange County (CA) Register 284,613 329,549leftist
I think you are mistaken!

The Register is notable for its generally conservative/libertarian-leaning editorial page. It often supports Republican politicians and positions!

Tazio

30th March 2009, 05:56

BTW what is yor resource material?

Rollo

30th March 2009, 06:45

Tazio

30th March 2009, 06:59

I used Burrelle Luce for the statistical data, then read through the summary provided by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, checked each of the websites of the newspapers themselves to see of they could provide an "About Us" section or some such and then read through the editorial and overview pages themselves.

In the case of the OC Register, it says that it's a "conservative/libertarian" newspaper but since neither conservatism nor libertarianism are actually economic positions their description was useless.
They did however run an editorial supporting the Teachers Union's demands for increased public education funding, and opposition to a proposed tollway - both of which are leftist in tone. Freedom Communications generally appears to lean slightly to the left, which mainly reflects the fact that it's in California.It's in California but it's behind the Orange Curtain!
(and that's not a reference to its social programs!) :p :
It is definitely to the right of "The San Francisco Chronicle"
I think the rest of your info was very accurate!
The Detroit Free Press Is the only "major" Newspaper in the U.S. that is truly leftist!

The Orange Curtain is a term used to describe the border between Orange County and Los Angeles County in California. It is a sometimes derogatory, sometimes light-hearted term, depending on context. Residents of Orange County tend to be more conservative and suburban than their more liberal big-city neighbors in Los Angeles.[1] The Orange Curtain is a word play on the infamous Iron Curtain which separated communist and capitalist Europe. The City of Santa Ana could be said to be a liberal enclave within the curtain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Curtain
________________________________________

Alexamateo

30th March 2009, 18:24

.......I don't quite understand the historical reasons for the change in terminology particularly in America, but the left-right parlance in the USA denotes a libertarian left and an autoritarian right as opposed to an economic-left (full government control) and an economic-right (no government control).....
.

I thought your list extremely odd until I re-read it. You are using left-right in pure economic terms and as an American, It threw me off. We're both speaking English, but we're not speaking the same language :p : ;) :)

anthonyvop

31st March 2009, 02:05

Most newspapers are controlled by business people; consequently, what you're noticing is not a left-right swing but an authoritarian-libertarian bias, hence the reason for this comment:

Mr Vop is using the term in an entirely different context to what you are I suspect.

I don't quite understand the historical reasons for the change in terminology particularly in America, but the left-right parlance in the USA denotes a libertarian left and an autoritarian right as opposed to an economic-left (full government control) and an economic-right (no government control).
Strictly speaking Stalin and Ghandi were both leftists, but they could hardly be said to share ideology at all. If we were to use Mr Vop's definition, then Hitler would have been further to the right than George W. but again, they did not have ideologies that resembled each other.

You are so wrong. It is the right that is both libertarian and economically free trade.
The left in the US is against the rights of the citizen. Gun Control. Smoking bans, Political-correctness and the nanny state are all creatures of the left.

1. USA Today 2,278,022 N/A centre-right
2. The Wall Street Journal 2,062,312 N/Aextreme-right
3. The New York Times 1,120,420 1,627,062extreme-right
4. Los Angeles Times 815,723 1,173,096centre-right
5. The New York Post 724,748 439,202far-right
6. The Daily News - New York,NY 718,174 775,543centrist
7. Washington Post 699,130 929,921extreme-right
8. Chicago Tribune 566,827 940,620centrist
9. Houston Chronicle 503,114 677,425extreme-right
10. Arizona Republic - Phoenix,AZ 433,731 541,757extreme-right
11. Dallas Morning News 411,919 563,079extreme-right
12. Newsday - Melville, NY 398,231 464,169centrist
13. San Francisco Chronicle 386,564 438,006centre-left
14. The Boston Globe 382,503 562,273rightist
15. The Star-Ledger - Newark,NJ 372,629 570,523rightist
16. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 357,399 523,687rightist
17. Philadelphia Inquirer 352,593 688,670rightist
18. Star-Tribune - Minneapolis,MN 345,252 574,406rightist
19. The Plain Dealer - Cleveland,OH 344,704 442,482rightist
20. Detroit Free Press 329,989 640,356leftist
21. St.Petersburg Times 322,771 430,893rightist
22. The Oregonian - Portland, OR 319,625 375,913rightist
23. The San Diego Union Tribune 296,331 378,696far-right
24. The Orange County (CA) Register 284,613 329,549leftist
25. The Sacramento Bee 279,032 324,613rightist

It is quite rare to find any leftist views in an American newspaper short of the idea of "bailing out" failed business, but even then they seem to speak of nationalising losses and privatising profits which is still a centre-right policy.

Having spent a fair amount of time in the USA (I even married an American), my general experience is that newspapers tended to be reasonably rightist in terms of economic policy and depending on the readership, their social policy moved vertically. A newspaper in San-Francisco is likely to be a libertarian-leftist paper compared with an equivalent one in either Texas or New York City, but probably almost identical in terms of economic policy.

In basic terms the entire US media is right-shifted economically to the rest of the world, which is perfectly understandable considering that the whole economic structure is also right-shifted. It follows therefore that the newspapers should also generally follow that trend, because they want to speak with the same voice as their readership.
On what planet is the NY Times, LA Times or the Washington Post Right-wing?
They are extreme left wing. I have yet to come across a major city daily that could be considered "right Wing.
USA Today has been a shill for the DNC for years.
The Left wing papers are suffering a well deserved death in the US as their sales and advertisers are dropping.
Just because you married a Hippie does not make you an expert.

Easy Drifter

31st March 2009, 03:11

Hey Tony, try the Toronto Sun. It has left wing writers but basically it is a right wing paper. Yes it is a major paper and the GTA has a population of about 5 to 6 million in its major distribution area. It is also available outside the GTA in limited stores. The other 'Sun' (Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa) papers are also right wing but in smaller areas.
The chain is across most of Canada although not as 'Sun' papers and they have pretty free editorial policy.

ArrowsFA1

31st March 2009, 13:32

Most US newspapers swing wildly to the left.
It all depends where on the scale you're standing when they swing by :)

Tazio

31st March 2009, 14:41

It all depends where on the scale you're standing when they swing by :) :up: :)

chuck34

31st March 2009, 20:27

I think Rollo might be a bit confused in his Left/Right dealings. That is understandable because there is no set definition really. When he said that neither conservatism or libertarian are economic views I think he's off a bit. Economically libertarians and conservatives are pretty much the same (although Ron Paul is a bit of an odd duck), the difference is socially.

One thing that may be helpful is to not think of it as a line left/right, but more of a continum (you move far enough to the left you get communists, move far enough to the right and you get facists, but there are only minor differences between the two).

It may also be helpful to not think about the classic definitions because they no longer apply to everyday ways of thinking. For example the word Liberal is very confusing. If you asked George Washington or Thomas Jefferson if they were liberal or conservative, they would tell you liberal. However, they both would be disgusted with today's "liberal" party, the Democrats. "Classic" liberals held free speach, free thought, equal rights, equal opportunity, and limited government as sacred. But the Democrats of today are almost the exact opposite. You can't say or think what you want, or you'll be labeled "racist" or "sexist" or some other -ist. You no longer have equal rights, we all must pay for past wrongs. Nor do you have equal opportunity, if you took advantage of that opportunity you will be forced to pay to guaruntee equal results. And forget about limited government, haven't you heard, government is the only thing that can solve all of today's problems?

It is the same for Conservative. The definition has almost flipped over the last 200 years or so.

Then you get people like libertarians, collectivists, and the like that blur all the lines.

BDunnell

31st March 2009, 20:34

It all depends where on the scale you're standing when they swing by :)

Absolutely right — just as, like I said, bias is always in the eye of the beholder. Such accusations seem to me to be levelled equally at the same media outlets by left and right over time, so I think they generally steer a reasonable middle ground.

One field that interests me is political humour, and it generally holds true that if you want a comedian/satirist to be funny about current affairs on your TV or radio show, you book a left-winger. This isn't indicative of left-wing bias, but rather the fact that the field of topically-minded right-wingers who are funny is almost non-existent.

anthonyvop

31st March 2009, 22:21

Absolutely right — just as, like I said, bias is always in the eye of the beholder. Such accusations seem to me to be levelled equally at the same media outlets by left and right over time, so I think they generally steer a reasonable middle ground.

One field that interests me is political humour, and it generally holds true that if you want a comedian/satirist to be funny about current affairs on your TV or radio show, you book a left-winger. This isn't indicative of left-wing bias, but rather the fact that the field of topically-minded right-wingers who are funny is almost non-existent.

The main problem is that a right wing comic cannot get away with what a liberal comic can due to political correctness. heck you can't even critisize Barry with being branded a racist by some people.

Dennis Miller is the F*cking funniest man on the Planet.

Tazio

31st March 2009, 22:31

Dennis Miller is the F*cking funniest man on the Planet.I beg to disagree! I think Rush is funnier

:rotflmao:

BDunnell

31st March 2009, 22:52

The main problem is that a right wing comic cannot get away with what a liberal comic can due to political correctness. heck you can't even critisize Barry with being branded a racist by some people.

Dennis Miller is the F*cking funniest man on the Planet.

I tend to dismiss the opinions of anyone who moans about political correctness immediately, and nothing you say there has changed my view. I have no concerns about anything I say being deemed 'politically incorrect' and thus inappropriate, and don't see why anybody else should. What on earth do people want to say that they feel they can't?

anthonyvop

1st April 2009, 01:05

chuck34

1st April 2009, 02:08

I tend to dismiss the opinions of anyone who moans about political correctness immediately, and nothing you say there has changed my view. I have no concerns about anything I say being deemed 'politically incorrect' and thus inappropriate, and don't see why anybody else should. What on earth do people want to say that they feel they can't?

How about disagreeing with Obama's policies because of a true difference of opinion and being branded a racist? What do you call that? It has happened to me many times and it has happened to many others as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511470,00.html

edit: I'm not an entertainer, just a Young Republican

BDunnell

1st April 2009, 10:50

How about disagreeing with Obama's policies because of a true difference of opinion and being branded a racist? What do you call that? It has happened to me many times and it has happened to many others as well.

It clearly depends what is being said.

chuck34

1st April 2009, 13:24

It clearly depends what is being said.

Me: Obama's policies are leading us down a road to ruin. He's repeating many of the mistakes that lead us into the Great Depression. It's a horrible mistake. Does he not know history?

Response: Your just a racist, you don't agree with him because he's black.

That is an actual converstion I had with a liberal "friend" of mine.

Was it something I said?

Also, did you read the article I posted?

BDunnell

1st April 2009, 15:31

Me: Obama's policies are leading us down a road to ruin. He's repeating many of the mistakes that lead us into the Great Depression. It's a horrible mistake. Does he not know history?

Response: Your just a racist, you don't agree with him because he's black.

That is an actual converstion I had with a liberal "friend" of mine.

That is plainly absurd. I'm sure racism does lie behind some people's dislike of Obama, even if they say it doesn't, but this should not be allowed to get in the way of debate over policies, just as someone's gender or sexuality shouldn't, but still undoubtedly does in some quarters.

Also, did you read the article I posted?

Yes.

anthonyvop

1st April 2009, 17:00

chuck34

1st April 2009, 18:32

That is plainly absurd. I'm sure racism does lie behind some people's dislike of Obama, even if they say it doesn't, but this should not be allowed to get in the way of debate over policies, just as someone's gender or sexuality shouldn't, but still undoubtedly does in some quarters.

Yes.

It IS plainly absurd, but it still happened to me and many others that I know. If I explain that I don't like Obama's policies because historically those policies have not worked, why is it that someone would automatically jump to racism? Because they are actually the ones that are racist. And that is exactly what I am talking about. You can not have a different opinion from a modern day liberal because that means you have some sort of hate in your heart. For example, I have not heard one person that disagrees with Michael Steele being called a racist by a Republican.

Captain VXR

1st April 2009, 19:31

Me: Obama's policies are leading us down a road to ruin. He's repeating many of the mistakes that lead us into the Great Depression. It's a horrible mistake. Does he not know history?

Response: Your just a racist, you don't agree with him because he's black.

That is an actual converstion I had with a liberal "friend" of mine.

Was it something I said?

Also, did you read the article I posted?

That liberal sounds like an anti-white racist :mad:

also any media will be biased because the writer of the article will have an opinion on the subject

BDunnell

1st April 2009, 22:01

That liberal sounds like an anti-white racist :mad:

also any media will be biased because the writer of the article will have an opinion on the subject

And generally those outlets that are exclusively blandly factual or try desperately hard to be completely balanced are extremely dull.

BDunnell

1st April 2009, 22:25

It IS plainly absurd, but it still happened to me and many others that I know. If I explain that I don't like Obama's policies because historically those policies have not worked, why is it that someone would automatically jump to racism? Because they are actually the ones that are racist. And that is exactly what I am talking about. You can not have a different opinion from a modern day liberal because that means you have some sort of hate in your heart. For example, I have not heard one person that disagrees with Michael Steele being called a racist by a Republican.

I do not count that as racism, but I do count it as a complete lack of imagination and thought on their part. And as someone that you no doubt think of as a 'modern-day liberal', may I say that you are completely wrong about not being allowed to have a different opinion from the likes of me. This is utter nonsense, if I may say so. Or you just haven't met the right modern-day liberals.

Personally, I am always suspicious of those on right and left who always adopt the expected position on something depending on their viewpoint. For example, I recently went on a date with someone that I simply found too unthinkingly left-wing for my liking. Really nice chap, but I couldn't live with him. Having worked in politics, I mentioned Tony Benn, the veteran Labour left-winger — a man of genuine principle, certainly, but who is also unduly revered on the left in my opinion. When he retired from Parliament in 2001, his successor managed to lose what had been a rock-solid Labour seat. Why? Because Benn had turned into a dreadful constituency MP, something you never heard from left-wing journalists and the like who would visit his constituency and see him apparently hard at work caring for the electorate. This was rubbish. My date wouldn't have this, though, and ended up using the argument that 'you can't expect to be an icon of the left [Benn spent a lot of time out of the constituency giving lecture tours and on campaigning visits] and be as effective as you might be as a constituency MP'. This really angered me, because had it been a Conservative MP not bothering to do the constituency work because they were always away at the board meetings of various companies of which they were a director, he would have been outraged by it.

I find this sort of lazy thought, in relation to which a person adopts a position not because they have weighed up a matter to any extent but because they feel they have to take a particular position, extremely annoying to say the least. You would be wrong to think that the left has a monopoly on it, as well.

anthonyvop

1st April 2009, 22:37

That liberal sounds like an anti-white racist :mad:

That is called Liberal White Guilt.

Eki

1st April 2009, 22:51

You are so wrong. It is the right that is both libertarian and economically free trade.
The left in the US is against the rights of the citizen. Gun Control. Smoking bans, Political-correctness and the nanny state are all creatures of the left.

So you consider the rights for guns, smoking and behaving like an asshole the only rights worth having and not the rights for education, healthcare, jobs and other human rights. What else is new?

BDunnell

1st April 2009, 23:06

And let's not forget the areas in which the right has denied freedoms when it doesn't suit their pre-ordained way of thinking, such as abortion and gay rights. The notion that one 'side' can claim victory over the other when it comes to upholding freedoms is frankly laughable.

anthonyvop

2nd April 2009, 05:10

So you consider the rights for guns, smoking and behaving like an asshole the only rights worth having and not the rights for education, healthcare, jobs and other human rights. What else is new?
Healthcare and jobs are not Human rights.

What you call "behaving like an asshole" I call freedom of speech and expression.

As a conservative I am afraid of the loss of the most important right.

The right to fail.

Rollo

2nd April 2009, 06:05

Healthcare and jobs are not Human rights.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

As this is not legally bind you are of course technically correct, (and considering that this was championed by Eleanor Roosevelt whom I believe may have been an American) it's so nice to see that in 60 years we've come such a long long way.

Well done.

chuck34

2nd April 2009, 13:25

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

As this is not legally bind you are of course technically correct, (and considering that this was championed by Eleanor Roosevelt whom I believe may have been an American) it's so nice to see that in 60 years we've come such a long long way.

Well done.

What is a right and what is a guarantee? Eveyone has the RIGHT to a job, but that does not guarantee that everyone will have one. Everyone has the RIGHT to healthcare, but that does not mean that the government must provide it.

Conservatives in the US would all pretty much agree that everyone should have equal access to things such as jobs, healthcare, etc. But no one is guaranteed such things. If you don't work for certain things you don't get those things. Here's an over-the-top example for you. If I want a Ferrari instead of the Chevy I drive, do you think the government should provide that for me, or should I go out and earn it? Same sort of thing with healthcare. If I can't afford the "gold plated" healthcare my boss has, should the government provide that for me, or should I go out and earn it?

And as for abortion ... Everyone is always thinking about it in terms of the "right of privacy" of the mother. Why is it that no one on the "choice" side of the argument ever thinks about the rights of the child, or about the choice the mother made to get pregnant? It is the easiest thing in the world not to get pregnant, is that not a choice?

BDunnell

2nd April 2009, 13:28

chuck34

2nd April 2009, 13:31

I think the word 'right' in the Declaration serves as a clue. These should be classed as basic human rights. To what degree the state offers provision in respect of them is up to the individual government and its policies.

Ok fine. How does the US government not provide healthcare currently? What jobs do you want the gov. to provide, remember there is also that "free choice" clause in there.

BDunnell

2nd April 2009, 13:45

Ok fine. How does the US government not provide healthcare currently? What jobs do you want the gov. to provide, remember there is also that "free choice" clause in there.

I don't know. I don't have an opinion on the matter.

chuck34

2nd April 2009, 13:52

I don't know. I don't have an opinion on the matter.

What a cop out. You are the one that is insisting that everyone has a job and healthcare. Therefore you must have an opinion on how to go about doing that. If you are going around espousing opinions about how things need to "change", but you don't have a plan then you are just as week willed and unthinking as the guy you went on that date with.

BDunnell

2nd April 2009, 14:03

What a cop out. You are the one that is insisting that everyone has a job and healthcare. Therefore you must have an opinion on how to go about doing that. If you are going around espousing opinions about how things need to "change", but you don't have a plan then you are just as week willed and unthinking as the guy you went on that date with.

Where on earth have I stated that everyone must have a job and healthcare? Absolutely nowhere.

chuck34

2nd April 2009, 15:17

Where on earth have I stated that everyone must have a job and healthcare? Absolutely nowhere.

Your earlier post #47 seemed to imply that you were on the same side as Rollo in that government should provide for these "rights", as opposed to my view that government must ensure that no one blocks those rights. If I am mistaken about that then I am sorry. Text based forums are sometime hard to judge tone.

Eki

2nd April 2009, 18:32

Conservatives in the US would all pretty much agree that everyone should have equal access to things such as jobs, healthcare, etc. But no one is guaranteed such things. If you don't work for certain things you don't get those things. Here's an over-the-top example for you. If I want a Ferrari instead of the Chevy I drive, do you think the government should provide that for me, or should I go out and earn it? Same sort of thing with healthcare. If I can't afford the "gold plated" healthcare my boss has, should the government provide that for me, or should I go out and earn it?

A car is not a human right and disabled people aren't able to earn healthcare by themselves.

anthonyvop

2nd April 2009, 18:39

A car is not a human right and disabled people aren't able to earn healthcare by themselves.
You are wrong.
Private ownership is a right. Now I don't have a right to drive it on public roads. That is a piviledge granted by the state.

Many Disabled people are productive members of society and can afforded healthcare. Those that can't are given healthcare by the charity of the state.

anthonyvop

2nd April 2009, 18:40

As this is not legally bind you are of course technically correct, (and considering that this was championed by Eleanor Roosevelt whom I believe may have been an American) it's so nice to see that in 60 years we've come such a long long way.

Well done.
No it is not Legally binding.......And that is a good thing.

Bringing up Eleanor Roosevelt will not win you any points with many people including me.

chuck34

2nd April 2009, 19:20

A car is not a human right and disabled people aren't able to earn healthcare by themselves.

There are no sane people on this earth that would advocate for getting rid of healthcare for those who *TRULY* need it.

Mark in Oshawa

4th April 2009, 04:27

Ok...After a week I see my little thread sort of migrated off its original topic but that's cool.

I knew sooner or later the American factions would have their 10 cents on this.

First off, most US and Canadian Media tend to be center left in their orientation. That list you had Rollo of 25 papers I sort of laughed at when the New York Times was listed as "Extreme Right WING". Heck, they would have a conniption at the NY Times if someone thought they were THAT.

No...the Times is left of most US papers. It wasn't 20 years ago, but sure as heck is now.

Most US papers took a swing to the left during the last election and ADMITTED to it and their circulation numbers are dropping.

Yet papers such as the Center/right Washington Times are holding their own. USA today is mildly left (and that's ok, most people expect their papers to be mildly one way or the other) and the only "national" paper that is easily found anywhere. It is dead boring, I will agree if you are looking for indepth reporting on anything. That too is part of its design.

As for the rights? Well in the US Constitution, and the Canadian Bill of Rights, I cant find in either document where a "RIGHT" to healthcare is listed. Nor is there a "RIGHT" to a job, or a "RIGHT" to an university education. Getting married is not a "RIGHT" either.

The US Constitution is over 200 years old. The Canadian Bill of Rights was redone in 1981 by one of the most libreal/left politicians to ever be elected in Canada but both documents still agree on the lack of "RIGHTS" of a job, post-Secondary education, marriage or healthcare.

I think if most people are honest, they will realize that while all these things are part of life, you EARN them. You get a job when you go out and either educate yourself to be able to do the job, apply FOR the job or start your own business. Your healthcare is given to you by the gov't at a minimum level in the US (which you will still have to pay back at some point), or in Canada it is "given" to you while you pay through the nose in taxes and have little choice in how it is delievered. You dont' have a right to be married to a member of the same sex, or opposite sex, but you do have the right to fall in love, live with someone and get their benefits from the government as a legal spouse.

You are given a basic education, but no one is guarnteed a spot in University, nor should they.

You have the right to own property, but it seems many modern politicians want to confiscate what you own when it suits them. Somehow rights go out the window when politicians with an agenda come along with something they want more.

What Iam noticing that the people most aware of defending rights that are in black and white are conservatives/libertarians. Left of center, or more socialist posters on here read rights into things and want to point to people like Elenaor Roosevelt and her thoughts that the UN has adopted. Well, like my American friends, I have little use for the UN's thoughts on human rights. Any organization that appoints the representatives of Cuba or Zimbabwe to head up the human rights committee of the Gen Assembly has ZERO credability with me......

Easy Drifter

4th April 2009, 06:17

chuck34

4th April 2009, 06:29

This might be a bit of a random thought here, but I'll say it anyway.

The US Constitution is actually a document that limits the scope of the government.

Most people think that it GIVES people rights. IT DOES NOT DO SUCH A THING. Rights are GIVEN to us by a Creator (or God, if you will). We the people seed some rights to the government in order to have some one to look after them. This is the basic flaw in the US Public School System, no one teaches this.

The government has no rights except those which we give to them. Members of the US Congress would do well to remember this.

Mark in Oshawa

4th April 2009, 07:04

Actually Mark one of the great failures of the Cdn. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe deliberately so by PET, is the the right to own property.
It does make it easier for the Govt. to expropriate or sieze ppty. It also makes it far easier for Govt to pass laws restricting what you can do on your ppty. such as the banning of cutting down a tree without the munincipalities permission. (Toronto) Another example is the ban on most pesticides now enacted provincially. It even makes things like the smoking ban easier to make legal.
If the right to own property was enshrined in law the chances of overturning many of these laws would be far greater.

Yes...I forgot that the right to own property was missing.....a glaring error that wont be changed because of the Mickey Mouse amendment process that PET designed. He was such an egomanic he never figured anyone might find fault with his "pet" project.

Chuck..you are dead on the money of course. Your constitution is designed to limit the right of government. The problem is of course is too many in the US of A seem to keep wanting to elect people who don't see government as a threat...and in theory they are not....in practice they usually are...

Mark in Oshawa

4th April 2009, 07:13

As for anyone in Europe or anywhere else who keeps trying to drag the US into some sort of international governmental system where you can hold American leaders accountable....ummm keep on dreaming.

The whole idea is farcical. When you get Putin and the Chinese to buy into such nonsense and actually examine what they are about, then come back and tell me the US should succumb to some sort of world government. It seems Europeans are bent on this train of thought and always use the UN as a vehicle for promoting it. Sorry....I don't even think Obama will buy that..and he seems pretty bent on being "Conciliatory" and "accomodating" but I think he would not willingly stick his head in a noose.

Sovereignty of nations is not something you give up easily, especially when you are leading the US of A, who the last time I looked had more people trying to tear them down for their own selfish national agenda's than any other nation....

chuck34

4th April 2009, 07:18

in practice they usually are...

Yep. What else can be said?

chuck34

4th April 2009, 07:20

BDunnell

4th April 2009, 10:49

Your earlier post #47 seemed to imply that you were on the same side as Rollo in that government should provide for these "rights", as opposed to my view that government must ensure that no one blocks those rights. If I am mistaken about that then I am sorry. Text based forums are sometime hard to judge tone.

Apology accepted.

Eki

5th April 2009, 10:44

Great speech by Obama in Prague.

anthonyvop

6th April 2009, 02:43

Great speech by Obama in Prague.
Yea.

Kim Il Jung is crapping in his pants!!!!

This wuss will make Jimmy Carter look like Hawk.

Eki

6th April 2009, 13:20

Yea.

Kim Il Jung is crapping in his pants!!!!

This wuss will make Jimmy Carter look like Hawk.
And that is bad because ...?

Bush couldn't intimidate Kim Il Jong or Iran, so intimidation wasn't apparently working.

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2009, 23:43

And that is bad because ...?

Bush couldn't intimidate Kim Il Jong or Iran, so intimidation wasn't apparently working.

Don't be so sure Eki. It made Libya cough up their nuke's without any real reason other than the fact Quaddafi realized the best way to be an Arab Dictator was to be one that wasn't sitting with WMD's trying to figure places to use them.

I will agree that Kim doesn't seem to respond to threats, but being nice to him like Clinton did was a waste of time also. As for Iran, they went after Obama after he offered them the hand of friendship.

Of course Eki, I know you have your thoughts on this and they wont agree with mine. I just know that I remember one Ronaldus Reagan being fair and kind to those who were clearly wanting peace and at the same time dressing down the leaders of the USSR for their gulag mentality. If you want to ignore the fact he did get results by being forceful, it would be typical but basically people want peace if they are logical and pragmatists open to democratic principles. When the Mullahs of Iran and the pint sized tyrant in North Korea show any of those signs, I will then think diplomacy will work.

You moral equivalency types never seem to grasp some people cannot be dealt with....

BDunnell

8th April 2009, 23:53

Don't be so sure Eki. It made Libya cough up their nuke's without any real reason other than the fact Quaddafi realized the best way to be an Arab Dictator was to be one that wasn't sitting with WMD's trying to figure places to use them.

There were many other reasons why Libya decided it was best to re-emerge into international respectability, not least the regime's desire to buy weapons from the West again and gain Western investment for various infrastructure projects.

Eki

9th April 2009, 09:27

You moral equivalency types never seem to grasp some people cannot be dealt with....
However, I noticed that Bush was one of them. He wanted everything his way or no way.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2009, 14:54

There were many other reasons why Libya decided it was best to re-emerge into international respectability, not least the regime's desire to buy weapons from the West again and gain Western investment for various infrastructure projects.

In short, get along with the West. Something that requires a leader of his nation to pay lip service to human rights at least, not go out his way to provoke the President (whomever it is at the time) and understand there is nothing to be gained by poking a hornet's nest. You understand these things Ben because you think about this stuff. Eki figures anyone who agrees with the US is a stooge....

Eki

9th April 2009, 16:22

I understand there is nothing to be gained by poking a hornet's nest.
That's what the opposite side tries to make you understand too. If both won't compromise for mutual benefit, the quarrel will go on forever.

I looked up the word "compromise". Apparently Americans understand the word differently from Europeans.Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise

In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance, tolerance. In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or materiale, in the process of negotiating an agreement. In human relationships "compromise" is often said to be an agreement that no party is happy with.
Cultural background and influences, the meaning and perception of the word "compromise" may be different: In the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries the word "compromise" has a positive meaning (as a consent, an agreement where both parties win something); in the USA it may rather have negative connotations (as both parties lose something).

That explains things. We once tried to start a research project with an American company. Nothing came of it. The Americans wanted all potential benefits and leave us all potential losses.

chuck34

9th April 2009, 16:48

That's what the opposite side tries to make you understand too. If both won't compromise for mutual benefit, the quarrel will go on forever.

I looked up the word "compromise". Apparently Americans understand the word differently from Europeans.Interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise

That explains things. We once tried to start a research project with an American company. Nothing came of it. The Americans wanted all potential benefits and leave us all potential losses.

If one side's starting point for negotiation is the one thing the other side will not give up, how do you negotiate?

PolePosition_1

9th April 2009, 16:52

I spent almost all of the last hour checking through the top 25 highest circulating newspapers in the USA (yes, I was that bored at work)

Lol, where do you work ?

BDunnell

9th April 2009, 16:58

In short, get along with the West.

Basically, yes. And take financial advantage of being able to trade with it.

Eki

9th April 2009, 16:59

If one side's starting point for negotiation is the one thing the other side will not give up, how do you negotiate?
You could at least start negotiations with them and try, like we did with that American company. Then you can try to give them something if they give something back.

chuck34

9th April 2009, 17:13

You could at least start negotiations with them and try, like we did with that American company. Then you can try to give them something if they give something back.

Kind of like we did with Iran right? We told them, stop enriching Uranium, and calling for Isreal to be wiped off the face of the map and we'll talk about lifting the sanctions on your country. They bascially told us to take a flying leap. Where would you go from there?

Eki

9th April 2009, 17:53

Kind of like we did with Iran right? We told them, stop enriching Uranium, and calling for Isreal to be wiped off the face of the map and we'll talk about lifting the sanctions on your country. They bascially told us to take a flying leap. Where would you go from there?
You forgot to give something back. Like that you also stop enriching Uranium. What you're doing with Iran is not negotiating, it's dictating. People usually don't take kindly to dictating. The sanctions was just a punishment you put on Iran earlier. It's like keeping someone hostage and tell him you let him go if he pays you and call that negotiation.

chuck34

9th April 2009, 18:29

Eki

9th April 2009, 19:15

We (the US) did not place the sanctions. The UN did. Your precious "World Opinion" at work again.
.
Right. And now tell us who proposed the sanctions to the UN and lobbied for them. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the US. I know the Finnish politicians aren't that worried about Iran and I'm quite sure most other countries aren't either. Well, it's not like they even asked Finland or the other almost 200 countries that aren't in the UN Security Council, but let the 15 countries in the Security council decide on the sanctions for them. The UN isn't exactly democratic.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2009, 22:41

You forgot to give something back. Like that you also stop enriching Uranium. What you're doing with Iran is not negotiating, it's dictating. People usually don't take kindly to dictating. The sanctions was just a punishment you put on Iran earlier. It's like keeping someone hostage and tell him you let him go if he pays you and call that negotiation.

Eki...do you want Iran to have the bomb?

The US isn't getting anywhere when they try to negotiate with Iran. They got no where dictating to Iran. They will get no where when the Europeans to do it because they wont ever reach a point where the Iranians will really give up. The Iranians wont give up this quest for nuclear weapons because the Mullah's feel Iran wont get respect without them.

What you and many people seem to miss is the US is not going to be the loser if Iran gets a weapon. The Middle East as a whole and likely Europe will be though. Iran will be close enough to Europe that they could in theory launch missles into Europe. Israel is the most likely target. Tell me how logical it would be for Iran to start a nuclear exchange with Israel? Tell me why you think Iran having the bomb makes anyone in Tel Aviv sleep at night in light of the rhetoric coming out of Tehran? Tell me who will lose if these two go at it? Israel has refrained from going after any Arab nation since 1973. They have gone after Hezbollah and Hamas yes, and they went after Iraq's reactor when it was clear Saddam was planning on building a bomb. That is something they didn't want to chance. They don't have this option with Iran. but Israel has never threatened to use their nuclear weapons on any other people in the region. Iran has come right out and said they want Israel gone. You can think all the evil thoughts you want about the political leadership of Israel, but the people there don't deserve to be nuked by some nutjob in Tehran who has visions of the Madhi coming back to save Islam.

Now the Americans are not wanting anything like this to happen, but alas, really they could just tell Tehran to do what they want knowing the Israeli's will do what they feel THEY have to do and create a war. So what does the US do? Well being nice to Tehran hasn't really been much of an option since the President of Iran has come right out and attacked the US in print and video numerous times. Obama's legitimate overture of changing the tone was slapped down in about 15 seconds. So spare me the BS that the US is being unreasonable. New tone in Washington, haven't you heard? Obama keeps telling everyone how much he wants to apologize. Get in quick and negotiate a good deal while they are showing you their belly people...because if Obama wises up, your last chance at the Yanks playing nice will disappear....

Eki

9th April 2009, 22:55

Eki...do you want Iran to have the bomb?

No, but I don't mind them having nuclear power plants. We have them too.

And even if they will have nuclear weapons, Israel and the US have them too, among others.

Eki

9th April 2009, 22:56

Tell me how logical it would be for Iran to start a nuclear exchange with Israel? Tell me why you think Iran having the bomb makes anyone in Tel Aviv sleep at night in light of the rhetoric coming out of Tehran?
I don't care about Tel Aviv more than I care about Tehran.

chuck34

9th April 2009, 23:15

I don't care about Tel Aviv more than I care about Tehran.

There is your nieve world view showing again. Who exaclty have the Israelis threatened to "wipe off the map", and who exactly have the Iranians threatened to "wipe off the map". You see there is a difference, a very real difference between the two governments. And that should very much be of concern to you. How long do you think it would take for a conflict between Israel and Iran to get out of control and become a very real concern for you. THAT is something for you to care about.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2009, 23:22

No, but I don't mind them having nuclear power plants. We have them too. .
Eki, Iran is an oil nation. They don't NEED a nuclear power plant, but they still wouldn't have a problem if they didn't have their President walking around the world telling everyone how he wants to see Israel in flames, and how he feels the Jew's are scum. In short, the man is a loose cannon. WE don't want people like that with Nukes. I shouldn't have to explain THAT to you.

And even if they will have nuclear weapons, Israel and the US have them too, among others.

Israel has never threatned anyone with their nukes. The US were the only nation with them for 3 years and yet didn't go around ruling the world with them. That said, if every nation had nuclear weapons, it wouldn't be scary if every nation was run by rational human beings. Iran? Not Rational.

As for you not caring one way or the other for Tehran or Tel Aviv, that's just that warm human caring of yours coming out isn't it? Ummm I don't know about you my friend, but watching two nations exchange nuclear weapons is BAD for the world. PERIOD. The Israeli's maybe shouldn't have them and I know the US was against them having them, but in the end, the Arab world has been very careful with Israel since they attained these weapons. You surely can see why. It is why Israel wanted them. No one will directly attack Israel nation on nation anymore, which is all Israel wanted after 4 wars in less than 25 years. Fault the Israeli's all you want, but they are the only nation on the planet that was surrounded by hostile enemies who never stopped planning their next invasion for that length of time. Iran? No one is invading Iran. The Americans are not, the Israeli's are not, the Russians are not, and Iraq will not. The west's support of Saddam in his war with Iran was a mistake but after seeing the way the Mullah's treated their own people and the US hostages, you cant exactly say they were innocent children in any of this....

No..Sane rational people don't want Iran with nuclear weapons. It isn't just the right wing Yankee who listens to Rush Limbaugh saying that, it is very moderate and progressive voices in Europe that know Iran having nuclear weapons will be a bad thing.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 00:10

Now...could we go back to the media debate? I believe I started the thread to gauge how people on both sides of the spectrum viewed modern media and how this bias has hurt or helped media outlets...

chuck34

10th April 2009, 00:20

Now...could we go back to the media debate? I believe I started the thread to gauge how people on both sides of the spectrum viewed modern media and how this bias has hurt or helped media outlets...

Ok, sounds good.

I think the problem is (at least in the US) that a lot of the media has an obvious left bias. This would be absolutely fine if they would just admit to it. Fox pretty much does this. They make no attempt to hide the fact that they have a right bias, but even at that I believe they try to present both sides more often than not. On the other hand you have the nightly news broadcasts, particularly CBS. Katie Couric might as well be Obama's Press Sec. The others aren't much better. The icing on the cake, for me at least, was during the campaign. All three network anchors followed Obama around Europe like they were puppy dogs. Not once did they go over seas with McCain. I'm not even aware of them going to any campaign events for him. From watching the coverage you could almost sence their disdane for being forced to the Republican Convention.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 00:26

Ok, sounds good.

I think the problem is (at least in the US) that a lot of the media has an obvious left bias. This would be absolutely fine if they would just admit to it. Fox pretty much does this. They make no attempt to hide the fact that they have a right bias, but even at that I believe they try to present both sides more often than not. On the other hand you have the nightly news broadcasts, particularly CBS. Katie Couric might as well be Obama's Press Sec. The others aren't much better. The icing on the cake, for me at least, was during the campaign. All three network anchors followed Obama around Europe like they were puppy dogs. Not once did they go over seas with McCain. I'm not even aware of them going to any campaign events for him. From watching the coverage you could almost sence their disdane for being forced to the Republican Convention.

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with this. The trouble from a news point of view was that the Obama campaign was just a better, more interesting story, and in these days of personality-driven politics and the chase for viewing figures it was natural that he should have been concentrated on, coupled with the fact that Obama himself was and is a far more telegenic figure than McCain. Oh, and I must add that the right-wing bias of Fox swings far further to the right than any perceived left-wing bias in other outlets does.

My view remains the same as expressed ad nauseam earlier — that much perceived bias is in the eye of the beholder and nothing more. I don't see much overt bias in the UK's national broadcast outlets at all.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 00:40

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with this. The trouble from a news point of view was that the Obama campaign was just a better, more interesting story, and in these days of personality-driven politics and the chase for viewing figures it was natural that he should have been concentrated on, coupled with the fact that Obama himself was and is a far more telegenic figure than McCain. Oh, and I must add that the right-wing bias of Fox swings far further to the right than any perceived left-wing bias in other outlets does.

My view remains the same as expressed ad nauseam earlier — that much perceived bias is in the eye of the beholder and nothing more. I don't see much overt bias in the UK's national broadcast outlets at all.

So your thesis is that we should elect our leaders based on how they look on TV, or how compelling their "story" is? I would argue that we should have a balanced look at the different policy proposals so that we, the voting public, can form an informed opinion on who we want to be our leader for the next 4 years.

I would agree that Fox swings to the right, quite far in some instances, but that is widely known and expressed as such. You see Fox has opinion shows that are branded as such. O'Reilly and Hannity do not express themselves to be journalists or "newsmen". For comparison Matthews and Olberman on MSNBC are not out there saying that they are opinion shows. MSNBC even went as far as putting them up as anchors this summer, a move that they rightfully reversed. That being said there are true "anchors" on both networks, just from my standpoint Fox does a bit better job keeping their's more down the middle. Watch Shepard Smith's show sometime if you get a chance it is really pretty fair.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 00:42

So your thesis is that we should elect our leaders based on how they look on TV, or how compelling their "story" is? I would argue that we should have a balanced look at the different policy proposals so that we, the voting public, can form an informed opinion on who we want to be our leader for the next 4 years.

Certainly not. Indeed, I don't like this, nor the increasing 'professionalisation' of politics, because very good people can easily slip through the net, but it is a natural development.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 00:48

One other point about media bias would be to look at the debates. The moderators are chosen by the a panel of the broadcast networks. Look at who the picked for the VP debate. Gwen Ifill isn't the most un-biased person to ever moderate a debate. Surely even the most "left-wing" among us can see that?

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 00:49

chuck34

10th April 2009, 00:52

It would be all but impossible to pick a moderator for such a thing who didn't have an opinion, to be fair.

She had/has more than an opinion. She wrote a book. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It was released on January 20, 2009. See anything funny about the release date?

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 00:59

She had/has more than an opinion. She wrote a book. The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It was released on January 20, 2009. See anything funny about the release date?

I was aware that her use as a moderator was somewhat controversial for this reason. But it works both ways and it's not just people perceived as being on 'the left' that play such roles. In the UK, there is an awful weekly political discussion programme called This Week, which tries desperately — and fails — to generate passionate partisan debate by using the Labour MP Diane Abbott and former Conservative MP Michael Portillo as its regular panellists. In the chair is the ghastly journalist Andrew Neil, who is used on this and other BBC shows as one of the Corporation's main political presenters. He is used by the Conservative Party to help select its 'A-list' candidates. There can be no doubt where his loyalties lie.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 01:20

I was aware that her use as a moderator was somewhat controversial for this reason. But it works both ways and it's not just people perceived as being on 'the left' that play such roles. In the UK, there is an awful weekly political discussion programme called This Week, which tries desperately — and fails — to generate passionate partisan debate by using the Labour MP Diane Abbott and former Conservative MP Michael Portillo as its regular panellists. In the chair is the ghastly journalist Andrew Neil, who is used on this and other BBC shows as one of the Corporation's main political presenters. He is used by the Conservative Party to help select its 'A-list' candidates. There can be no doubt where his loyalties lie.

Generating debate on a weekly panel show is quite diffent from the US Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates. These official debates are just that, official debates. The moderator should not factor in what-so-ever.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 01:40

Generating debate on a weekly panel show is quite diffent from the US Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates. These official debates are just that, official debates. The moderator should not factor in what-so-ever.

True. I should have said that the gentleman I mentioned unfavourably, Andrew Neil, was used on one of the London Mayoral election debates in the same role as you describe, namely as a supposedly impartial moderator, and again his own views were mightily clear. This is one of the very few instances I can think of where a broadcaster in what should be a neutral role has, in my view, overstepped the mark in terms of bias on British television.

We shouldn't forget that it cannot be helped that close personal relationships develop between journalists who work in the political field and politicians. On television, at any rate, it rarely shows through and interviewers generally remain equally combative with everyone. I loved a line by the satirist Armando Iannucci, who said of this: 'For example, as much as I hate every fibre and sinew in Tony Blair's contemptuous, righteous body, we regularly go fruit-picking together.'

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 01:51

Ben, I am going to tell you this only to get it into your head that the US media is biased. When a candidate for President goes overseas traditionally in the past, the major US media outlets followed him. Even if it was to be criticial. John McCain was hardly a right-wing candidate. Most Republicans with more conservative leanings thought he was too cosy with the media leading up to the primaries, and the Media thought he was plenty a sexy story when he was winning the primaries. When Obama came along, that all changed and little critical has come from the US media outside of Fox and a few renegades about the Obama Presidency.

Now you can argue, and I know you will this proves little. All I am going to say is it is HIGHLY unusual if you were around to pay attention to the way the networks tended to cover the Clinton White House, or Bush Sr or even Reagan. As much as the major networks have had anchors and people lean to the left, they always managed to do some sort of filtering and shading in their opinion. With Obama, the optmistic utopian idea of having a black progressive as President has seemed to take all objective notions away. When you have a press secretary taking a talk show host to task in a partisan way like what has happened to Rush, and no one in the networks finds fault with it, you should wonder. The role of the Press Secretary is to dispense infomation and not speak for the administration in any way but the most genial way. Ari Fliesher or any of the Press Secretaries after him with Bush took great pains to not get down and sling mud at members of the press or talk show hosts.

You have NBC taking Keith Olbermann and putting him as an anchor at the Republican convention and letting him pretend to be neutral when anyone who saw his act this summer would realize he was so far in the tank for Obama there was no point in even discussing it. Major networks NEVER used to do this.

Is Fox Biased? Yup....a shade to the right in most of their political shows such as Hannity. That said, they have Alan Colmes on the payroll and give him lots of air time ( he was with Hannity for years until Alan decided he couldn't handle Sean's bad hair cut no more) and he has free reign. Bill O'Reilly is more a libertarian and is as hard on Republicans at times as he is Democrats. If anything, he has bent over backwards being fair to Obama and his administration. He was more than fair with Hillary Clinton when he got her to sit down with him last year. I have yet to see that sort of introspection and fairness in the big 3 American outlets. Where is the right wing pundits on the major networks? Do they get equal time? Are they respected members of the conservative media? I can tell you that besides Colmes I have seen panels with NPR people on Fox a few times. Juan Williams, a black NPR host who has been a Democratic supporter is a regular who gives excellent counter points at times. I have yet to see that type of figure from the right get air time on a regular basis on the big 3.

Now I know most on the left see nothing wrong with this. I don't expect they will but let me also leave you with this: Do you understand the proposed "Fairness" Doctrine that many on the left in the US want to bring in?

If so...explain your version of it to me. I have heard much about it and find it a reprehensible idea, but I want your take on it.

OH yes...as for my country? Canada? Well the CBC is pretty much center left. Their fawning coverage of the Libreal candidates on and off over the years when the Libreals were running Ottawa came and went often with the size of the CBC budget. Their burying of Sheila Copps, who was once a minister over them who was a bit of a tyrant in their eyes showed their bias. I have a friend who works there who freely admitted THAT but that said, for the most part Canadian media is predictable in its biases and is pretty careful to stay close to the center of most arguments. I can live with SOME Bias, and for the most part that is network media in Canada.

As for the print Media, well I expect it and find it easy to get different points of view but I think we all hold networks to a higher standard....

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 01:54

Ben....I will also point out that I have little or no time for any ex politician or operative from a party who gets his own show on the media and then pretends to be neutral. George Stephanpolous was a member of the Clinton White House and then got a job about 2 seconds after resigning with ABC running what is to be a "neutral" news panel show on Sunday mornings. Every network in the US has them and they are the staple for any hard core political junkie but I have little or no time for the credibility for this sort of guy....

You cant be neutral if you were once a player...sorry. Fox Has political people on as guests, but no one hosts a show on Fox with former politcal connections like this.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 02:05

Mark, that's a very good and interesting post. I do take your points. One particular thing...

Do you understand the proposed "Fairness" Doctrine that many on the left in the US want to bring in?

If so...explain your version of it to me. I have heard much about it and find it a reprehensible idea, but I want your take on it.

I don't know anything about it, so can't comment. Do enlighten me.

I will add that the German national state-owned networks had (I don't know if they still do) very strict quotas about covering stories involving the different parties, and even stories from different regions, in the name of 'balance'. What this produced was deadly dull for the viewer, because things that really were not worth airtime had to be given it in the interests of fairness. Additionally, I do think that one factor which could explain the greater fairness of British television news is the much more combative style journalists have taken with politicians for many, many years. Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight has some close friends from within the Labour ranks, such as the Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, yet his interviews show neither fear nor favour. People like Bill O'Reilly and others would be laughed off the screen in the UK, for they would not be seen to serve a purpose.

British politicians are more used to having to be combative and think on their feet — they have to do it in the House of Commons, for better or worse, and the sensible ones are well aware of the ridicule they can face if they can't do it. The chairman of the Conservative Party, for example, knew full well that he'd made an utter fool of himself on Question Time on the BBC last week when trying to defend MPs' expenses in an indefensible manner, and said so. We also have some genuinely very funny politicians here — Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson, Charles Kennedy and Bob Marshall-Andrews all spring to mind. No matter what one might think of their political views, they are all very witty, amusing characters (and sought-after participants on certain 'higher-end' comedy shows).

In short, I feel that the different traditions of political debate, of political interviewing and even of political satire all contribute to the differences in style of news broadcasters in the UK and US. I must say, I think we do it better in the UK, but then I do think that despite all the crap it churns out in common with every other broadcaster we have the world's finest broadcasting institution in the BBC.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 02:09

Ben....I will also point out that I have little or no time for any ex politician or operative from a party who gets his own show on the media and then pretends to be neutral.

There is the odd example. I have a very high regard for Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP who quit in the mid-1980s specifically because he was offered the job of presenting a then prestigious ITV programme called Weekend World. He was rubbish at it and knew it, just because he wasn't a good TV presenter, but then became an outstanding newspaper columnist liked by people on all sides of the political divide.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 02:14

We shouldn't forget that it cannot be helped that close personal relationships develop between journalists who work in the political field and politicians. On television, at any rate, it rarely shows through and interviewers generally remain equally combative with everyone. I loved a line by the satirist Armando Iannucci, who said of this: 'For example, as much as I hate every fibre and sinew in Tony Blair's contemptuous, righteous body, we regularly go fruit-picking together.'

You are correct. However, a profit motive for one candidate to do well is over the line. How well do you think a book about "The Age of Obama" would have sold had he lost the election. At least tell me you see that as a bigger conflict than a personal relationship.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 02:20

People like Bill O'Reilly and others would be laughed off the screen in the UK, for they would not be seen to serve a purpose.

In short, I feel that the different traditions of political debate, of political interviewing and even of political satire all contribute to the differences in style of news broadcasters in the UK and US. I must say, I think we do it better in the UK, but then I do think that despite all the crap it churns out in common with every other broadcaster we have the world's finest broadcasting institution in the BBC.

Have you ever actually watched Bill O'Reilly. I don't personally like him too much, he gets WAAAAAY too fired up for me. But, as Mark said, he bends over backwards to be fair to people like Obama and Hillary.

As far as the difference between the US and UK, I must confess that I don't see too much. Top Gear is about it, and that is in no way political, well maybe a bit. But I do love British comedy. And I think alot of politicians in the UK "buy into" that. Much like I hope Comedy Central will get back to. When than show started it was great. Poking fun at all Pols., having them on to poke fun at themselves. Over the past couple of years it was bash Bush all the time. Hope it will pull back a bit and bash everyone equal. I emagine that is sort of how satire shows work in the UK.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 02:23

DanicaFan

10th April 2009, 02:34

ShiftingGears

10th April 2009, 06:59

The only news channel I watch is Fox News and my favorite is the Bill O'Reilly show. These guys are the best. They tell you the truth, the whole story.

:laugh:

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 07:02

The only news channel I watch is Fox News and my favorite is the Bill O'Reilly show. These guys are the best. They tell you the truth, the whole story. They dont have to be politically correct. They dont sugarcoat everything.

Other media stations only tell you what they want you to know, They only give you part of the story, very bias and bad.

Danicafan, you should watch CNN or ABC or another network in some form to at least get some balance. No matter what your political stripe it is always healthy to listen in to something on the other side.

I can listen to O'Reilly's show and do on my satellite radio in the rig when I am on the road so I can tell you that much of what he does is focus in on a few issues he cares about and that is ok, but you have to get context and occasionally question your own belief system by listening or watching another media view point.

This is where many on the left I think are missing the point. Most conservatives and libertarians do seek out other opinions and view points to test their own values and maybe learn from them. If you only watched O'Reilly and maybe Hannity, you would be getting a lot of view points from the center to center right. Watching or listening to the other side is always good, even it makes ya mad.

Me? I live in Canada. The CBC is never going to be accused of ever being right wing, but I do find I can read the tea leaves after they are done and get a good idea on how solid my own views may be on a world event. Sometimes a few unpleasent truths are good for you......

Eki

10th April 2009, 10:17

Eki, Iran is an oil nation. They don't NEED a nuclear power plant,.
And Finland is a forest nation, we don't NEED nuclear power plants. It's just that nuclear energy is way cheaper and better for the environment than burning wood for energy. We also get more money when we refine our forests into pulp & paper products, building material, furnitures, etc. than burning it up for energy. Same with oil, it's very expensive base energy compared to nuclear power and have high carbon dioxide emissions just like wood. Plus the Iranians get way more money refining their oil into gasoline, plastics and other petroleum products than burning it up for energy.

Eki

10th April 2009, 10:22

The US isn't getting anywhere when they try to negotiate with Iran. They got no where dictating to Iran.
I usually respond more kindly and be more cooperative when people ask me nicely instead of threatening me and dictating what I should and shouldn't do. I'm sure it's the same with Iranians. And personally I first ask nicely and just after that try threats if necessary. The US always seems to start with threats and dictating.

Eki

10th April 2009, 10:31

Iran will be close enough to Europe that they could in theory launch missles into Europe.
Why would they launch missiles into Europe? They have never threatened Europe verbally or otherwise.

Eki

10th April 2009, 10:35

Israel has never threatned anyone with their nukes.
Neither has Iran. They even claim they aren't building any nukes, just peaceful nuclear energy.

Eki

10th April 2009, 10:40

Iran has come right out and said they want Israel gone.
The US wanted the Soviet Union gone and vice versa, but they never used their nukes against each other.

Besides, it wasn't Iran who said he wants Israel gone, it was their President who doesn't even have control of their armed forces.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 12:39

You are correct. However, a profit motive for one candidate to do well is over the line. How well do you think a book about "The Age of Obama" would have sold had he lost the election. At least tell me you see that as a bigger conflict than a personal relationship.

Definitely.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 12:40

Have you ever actually watched Bill O'Reilly.

Yes.

chuck34

10th April 2009, 14:21

Plus the Iranians get way more money refining their oil into gasoline, plastics and other petroleum products than burning it up for energy.

Iran doesn't refine much oil. That is why they actually import about 40% of their gasoline.

Eki

10th April 2009, 14:38

Iran doesn't refine much oil. That is why they actually import about 40% of their gasoline.
They could, if they had nuclear energy. Now they have to use oil.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 21:10

The US wanted the Soviet Union gone and vice versa, but they never used their nukes against each other.

Besides, it wasn't Iran who said he wants Israel gone, it was their President who doesn't even have control of their armed forces.

Eki...he is the PRESIDENT of the country. If he HAS NO POWER, then it would be a good idea if the people IN CHARGE of the country shut this guy up, because he is making Iran look like a bunch of morons.

AS for Finland having nukes and not burning their forest, THAT makes sense since wood burning is very inefficient for electrical generation. I wouldn't have a problem with Iran having a nuclear power plant if they were not telling the world on one hand they were not developing the bomb, and then in the next having their president telling the world he wanted to see Israel in flames.

Also, it would be a responsbile nation that wasn't openly funding Hezbollah and Hamas while building this nuclear weapons program. How about a nation that isn't on the Amnesity list for inhumane punishments for such things as adultry and how about Iran having a free press? See, it is easy to impress everyone with your progressive nation when you are the only voice.

No....I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. If they only had nuclear power for electricity, I could deal with that, but they have shown little or no interest in signing a non-nuclear proliferation declaration.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 21:12

Iran doesn't refine much oil. That is why they actually import about 40% of their gasoline.

They produce oil, but rather than building more refinery capacity and maybe refining oil from other Persian Gulf area nations, they just export the crude for the most part. Still doesn't change the fact they probably have other options for power production. I could live with the nukes however if the government of Iran had any credibility towards human rights, democracy and being a force for peace in the region. Their record indicates otherwise.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 21:16

Why would they launch missiles into Europe? They have never threatened Europe verbally or otherwise.

Eki, they haven't threatened India or Pakistan either. They are not happy with anyone who tells them no, and while that is their right, I know that the European nations have been asking Iran to refrain from going down this course. If they were not concerned, then they wouldn't care. Obviously the nations of the European union care.

This doesn't change the fact a nation that has openly advocated turning Israel into FLAMES is going to have a weapon that can reach out and drop a nuclear bomb and do JUST that. The US and Russians used to at least get a dialogue going and keep the war of idelogy going through proxy's and controlling the level of the conflict after the Cuban Crisis proved you cannot step so close to the edge.

The Americans never had issue with the Russian people, it was the idelogy of Communism. The USSR always was rather vague about their goals but of course were quick to use the platitudes that communism was all about the proletariat and peace while subjecting their own citizens to a very hostile police state complete with Gulags, poor human rights, dismal working conditions, shoddy health care and spending more than 10 percent of their GDP on weaponry.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 21:24

As for the example of Gwen what's her face moderating a debate between McCain and Obama while having a book out about Obama, this is common place and no one in the US media outside of Fox and the static that is talk radio took note of it. I am sure though if Rush Limbaugh were the moderator of a debate there would be 10 tons of holy heck raised and rightfully so.

The bias in the US network media is often shown not by what they say, but what they wont say.

Eki

10th April 2009, 21:30

I wouldn't have a problem with Iran having a nuclear power plant if they were not telling the world on one hand they were not developing the bomb,
They have adamantly denied they are developing the bomb, so there. What ever happened to the "innocent until proven guilty" principle?

Eki

10th April 2009, 21:32

This doesn't change the fact a nation that has openly advocated turning Israel into FLAMES is going to have a weapon that can reach out and drop a nuclear bomb and do JUST that.
Ahmadinejad has only said he wants Israel off the map (and become Palestine), not that he wants Israel into flames. Much like you might want North Korea off the map and be part of South Korea.

Eki

10th April 2009, 21:41

Obviously the nations of the European union care.

They are mostly sucking up to the US and Israel.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2009, 21:56

Ahmadinejad has only said he wants Israel off the map (and become Palestine), not that he wants Israel into flames. Much like you might want North Korea off the map and be part of South Korea.

No. I want North Korea to find the strength to get rid of the pint sized moron that runs their nation, rebel against the corrupt regime he runs, and open their borders open to a peaceful reunion with the South.

As for Israel, how does Ahmadinejad propose to give Palenstine back to the Arabs? By asking nicely as you always insist the US must do when it doesn't like something? You think obviously the Jew's don't belong there. I guess 4000 plus years of history connected to that area would not mean anything?

Eki, you keep hijacking this thread, but go start your own. I started this thread to speak of media bias and how people from either side of the political spectrum feel about it. I made a mistake of even having the conversation with you about anything else onhere. You cant grasp this obviously.

Eki

10th April 2009, 22:09

I guess 4000 plus years of history connected to that area would not mean anything?

It means as little as the Fenno-Ugrian tribes in Russia mean to me. Modern day Jews in Europe and America have as little right to land in the Middle East as modern day Finns have right to land in the Ural and Volga regions of Russia or modern day Anglo-Saxons in America have right to land in Britain.

Eki

10th April 2009, 22:17

Eki, you keep hijacking this thread, but go start your own. I started this thread to speak of media bias and how people from either side of the political spectrum feel about it. I made a mistake of even having the conversation with you about anything else onhere. You cant grasp this obviously.
You stop responding and let me have the last word. That will be the end of this discussion.

BDunnell

10th April 2009, 22:35

You stop responding and let me have the last word. That will be the end of this discussion.

I'm not sure this is how a 'discussion forum' works, is it? It would have been better not to have this discussion in a thread about the media (though I realise I'm a fine one to talk when it comes to going off-topic...)

Captain VXR

10th April 2009, 23:13

modern day Anglo-Saxons in America have right to land in Britain.

or Germany

Eki

10th April 2009, 23:25

or Germany
Exactly.

Easy Drifter

10th April 2009, 23:28

Eki Your last word normally makes even less sense than your first word if that is possible.
You have previously stated history doesn't matter and then constantly bring up history when it suits your perverted thinking.
Your view of the world seems to be dictatorships good, freedom bad.
You praise some of the most obnoxious regimes in the world.
You constantly disparage the US and any country that supports the US in any matter or manner.
Your hatred of Israel is immense and you support Hamas, a group condemmed by most of the free world as a terrorist organization.
In my opinion you are an obnoxious, anti freedom twisted little twit.

Eki

10th April 2009, 23:38

Your view of the world seems to be dictatorships good, freedom bad.

On the contrary, I oppose the US deciding and dictating how the rest of the world should think and live. The US simply has too much power on the rest of the world.

Easy Drifter

11th April 2009, 01:08

I stand by my opinion of your childish twisted opinions.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2009, 20:33

You stop responding and let me have the last word. That will be the end of this discussion.

Who died and said "Eki is GOD and has the last word"?

You my friend will not dicate to me or any other member of this forum the rules of debate and decorum. That is NOT your call.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2009, 20:35

I'm not sure this is how a 'discussion forum' works, is it? It would have been better not to have this discussion in a thread about the media (though I realise I'm a fine one to talk when it comes to going off-topic...)

Ben, you go off topic and we follow you so hey, a little blame goes all around. I just find it rather conceited and arrogant to dicate to me on a thread I started to discuss media bias that he keeps hijacking that HE SHALL HAVE THE LAST WORD. My lord...you and I disagree on almost everything but could probably sit in a pub all night and have a good debate and still leave friends, but I am thinking Eki needs help.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2009, 20:37

On the contrary, I oppose the US deciding and dictating how the rest of the world should think and live. The US simply has too much power on the rest of the world.

Eki, the US may have more power than they should, but I wouldn't take that argument from you when you have spent so much mental energy defending the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, The Mullahs of Iran and Saddam Hussein. Your tenets of peaceful negotiation would argue that if the Russians invaded Finland tomorrow, you would be greeting them at the border with your butt in the air grabbing both ankles to facilitate an unseemly act....

Eki

11th April 2009, 21:57

Your tenets of peaceful negotiation would argue that if the Russians invaded Finland tomorrow, you would be greeting them at the border with your butt in the air grabbing both ankles to facilitate an unseemly act....
Not at all. In 1939 Finland tried to negotiate, but it didn't help and the Soviet Union attacked, and that was the right time to grab weapons to defend yourself. Finland also negotiated peace with the Soviet Union, not only once but twice (in 1940 and 1944), without demanding a total surrendering from the SU and neither did the SU demand total surrendering from Finland. Ever since have Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia lived in peace and had good relations with each other. The US never stops before they get their way and the other party surrenders.

BDunnell

11th April 2009, 22:31

Not at all. In 1939 Finland tried to negotiate, but it didn't help and the Soviet Union attacked, and that was the right time to grab weapons to defend yourself. Finland also negotiated peace with the Soviet Union, not only once but twice (in 1940 and 1944), without demanding a total surrendering from the SU and neither did the SU demand total surrendering from Finland. Ever since have Finland and the Soviet Union/Russia lived in peace and had good relations with each other.

Yes, even during a time when the Moscow-controlled regimes around eastern Europe were committing what we would nowadays consider to be serious human rights abuses. I have a very high regard for Finland, as I think it's a delightful country of delightful people, but I find this element of its political history puzzling, to say the least, given that there is little or no evidence that Finland ever attempted to use its bit of extra influence with Moscow to disapprove of any of these actions.

Eki

11th April 2009, 22:52

Yes, even during a time when the Moscow-controlled regimes around eastern Europe were committing what we would nowadays consider to be serious human rights abuses. I have a very high regard for Finland, as I think it's a delightful country of delightful people, but I find this element of its political history puzzling, to say the least, given that there is little or no evidence that Finland ever attempted to use its bit of extra influence with Moscow to disapprove of any of these actions.
Finland didn't have any more extra influence on Moscow than it had on Washington DC. It had influence just about enough to let Moscow leave us relatively alone.

BDunnell

12th April 2009, 00:25

Finland didn't have any more extra influence on Moscow than it had on Washington DC. It had influence just about enough to let Moscow leave us relatively alone.

What was the good of that policy towards Russia, then, other than being left alone? After all, those nations such as the UK that took a harsher line towards the USSR were also left largely alone. I suspect that Finland's position towards Moscow would have looked far from heroic had the Cold War turned hot.

Mark in Oshawa

14th April 2009, 01:34

Finland didn't have any more extra influence on Moscow than it had on Washington DC. It had influence just about enough to let Moscow leave us relatively alone.

Eki..you are naive. You really think if Stalin really NEEDED Finland for WHATEVER reason your country wouldn't have been rolled up like a carpet? I have no doubts the Finn's give as good as they get in any military action at that time in history, but I can do the math, and I have seen enough of the Russian military history to know that if the Red Army wants something bad enough, it gets it. You cant tell me that in light of the mess that was the Eastern Front against the Germans that the Russians were intimidated or scared of Finland. No...they had bigger fish to fry and in the new post war world Finland was one stone they never turned again.

AS for the Finn's having influence on Washington, maybe as a moral one. I think the American press and various political forces are open to lobbying and influence on some level from any moral democratic nation. Just they may not follow that advice.

That's the thing Eki, unlike the Russians, the US has left its neighbours alone for the most part. The only ones who have raised the ire of Presidents and gotten a military treatment were often the same ones who either were being used as pawns by the communists in Moscow or were subsidizing revolution against US allies. Now they have their crosses to bear on some of that, but the fact that Canada and Mexico have been good neighbours with the US for years says to me that the Americans while no saints, are not the people you claim them to be either.