Good article, MelodyLane. Funny, although I have always hear that Drudge was very conservative, I have found it to be a good place to get news (of course, they don't write the news, they just link it). I have Drudge on my links toolbar and check it several times a day. My liberal friends think I'm crazy.

What I find most interesting about that article is that people's perceptions are so often distorted (in both directions). I would like to read the full text when I have some time to see if the methodology makes sense. At first glance, it does.

One of the things I find so disturbing about the media (in all its forms) is that what is being passed off as 'news' is exactly as Catperson describes it:



What we see today is not 'news'. It's entertainment, it's gossip, it's opinion but only certain TV and Radio shows even attempt to provide fact-based reporting. And when I say shows - I mean shows - not the entire network or radio station. Sometimes I think they sprinkle the fact-based news programs in there just to prove they are objective.

My point is the American public has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. "Obama must be Muslin because I heard it on Rush Limbaugh." I'm only using that as an example, I don't know if Rush said that or not. However, I do know that Rush Limbaugh's objective is entertainment and ratings. He, like any editorial commentator, sprinkles facts in between his opinions and people believe that everything he is saying is true. Well, it's not. It's his opinion, his analysis. If someone prefers to trust his judgment over their own, then I guess that's their business but it doesn't strike me as very smart.

Once 'we' got away from strictly fact-based reporting, it is only natural that a left-leaning bias would creep into the media. That is because the majority of people who major in journalism tend to be liberal because it is a major that attracts liberal thinking students. There's a connection there, just as there is a connection between conservatism and business majors. People often pick careers that 'jive' with their own political views.

I found after year of listening to and watching a wide variety of news shows, I can usually immediately pick up on the bias. I listen to NPR every morning as I dress. There are times when a liberal comment wil slip in there. Sometimes a whole news segment is very liberally biased. BUT I know that when I listen to it and I immediately start paying closer attention so that I am not unduly influenced by the bias. Sometimes I will agree with the commentator, sometimes not. Still, on the whole, I think NPR gives a much wide range of unbiased coverage on a daily basis than any other news outlet I watch or listen to. The 'World' on at 3pm EST is a great show if you want to know what is going on around the world. But that's only my opinion.

The one thing I refuse to listen to from either side of the aisle are these 'talking head' shows where most of the show is aimed at slinging mud that the opponent and hoping some of it will stick.
You can always tell when someone has a weak argument because the attacks become very personal. It pains me to admit that BOTH political parties do this and I except it to accelerate greatly in the next sixty days before the election.

Where did I say this?

I think you hit on the KEY right here, MizzJuneBug. It was not until I became WELL READ that I discerned BIAS. When Clinton was in office, I became a voracious reader of the news and used several sources. [I WAS a liberal too!] I quickly discovered who was biased and who was not.

The biggest shock to me? The NEW YORK TIMES! It has degraded into little more than an American replica of PRAVDA. And sadly, the major news follow their lead at times.

But, like you said, when I really want to understand a story, I go to NUMEROUS sources before I come to a conclusion.

It seemed to be implied.

You said:


I hope I'm WRONG.

Maybe you're just wanting CATPERSON to say that she has LIBERAL VIEWS.

I am liberal and have liberal views. I don't mind honestly sharing that...for the record.

I didn't think you could find a quote where I said OR IMPLIED any such thing.

I have liberal views when it comes to personal rights and the environment. Aside from that...I wish we could eliminate welfare. I wish we could reinstate the draft. I wish we could really go after deadbeat dads and stop the neverending level of poverty among so many divorced women. I agree with the wall between Mexico and Texas. I believe, aside from defense and infrastructure, the government should only be around for emergencies and should quit meddling in everyone's lives. I believe judges should have the right to dismiss more cases that are just obvious attempts for people to get something for nothing, no matter the precedents. I believe judges should be able to sentence convicted people to more appropriate punishment, like the congressman from Houston used to do when he was a judge (Ted Poe). I believe the country is falling apart because people keep getting handed stuff just because they cry louder than others (read: New Orleans Katrina victims), and I believe that getting stuff instead of working for it tears down the individual as well as the country. I'm ashamed that this has become a country of people who don't marry but have kids so they can get the government to give them a monthly wage for doing nothing. I believe there should be NO amnesty for all the Latinos who came here illegally, and I believe that they - as well as the kids they had in America - should be transported back over the border.

Maybe, if I have to pick something to 'call' myself, I should align with the Libertarians. But I prefer not to, because I never make up my mind based on someone's political leaning. I've voted for as many Republicans as I have Democrats. I voted for Ross Perot, because at least he was willing to try to cut through all the crap in Washington.

But bottom line, I now vote for whoever will protect the environment, because once it's gone, it's gone. All the rest can right itself after whomever leaves the office. But the forests and animals will be gone forever.

Rather than not wanting to define themselves because they don't want to have to defend themselves, maybe they prefer to look at the choices being presented to them during each election and then deciding who the best candidate is to represent them.

Although I would consider myself liberal, I have voted for Republicans and third-party candidates on a number of occasion (including like Catperson, Ross Perot).

If Hillary had won the nomination, I would probably vote for McCain because, quite frankly, the thought that only 2 American families have held the executive office for last 20 consecutive years is scary to me. Also, like a lot of liberals, I think McCain is a pretty straightforward and decent politician. He's much more of a centrist than Bush, hence the reason the conservative 'base' dislikes him. As it so happens, of the three I like Obama the best but I refuse to define myself strictly along party lines.

Every election is different. What was my top issue last election might be totally different this election because things change, constantly. For me, today, the economy is the number #1, the environment and energy would be a close second. Things like abortion, gay rights, etc. don't affect my everyday life and although I hold positions on them, I would never vote solely based on those issues.

There is always some concern when there is a good chance that a supreme court position will need to be fill but because the supreme court's job is to interpret the constitution, not make law, in general, even the most liberal or conservative of judges tend to not walk the party line on every issue once they are appointed.

catperson, I am fascinated by this statement (and I mean that in a good way). Would you elaborate on your thought process? I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this. Are you thinking it would be a more equitable way of providing military service?

******************************************

Thanks for answering, mel. I asked because I was under the impression that you held a more defined definition of an Independent voter and I wanted to understand better.
It seems there are quite a few different opinions on the definition of Independent......or liberal or conservative for that matter. Yours is definitely one of them and partly why I registered Independent at 18....I didn't want to associate myself w/ either party w/o truly understanding or believing the views. If I HAD to chose a party, I would consider myself libertarian over democrat or republican.....my grandmother liked to tell people my first word was Goldwater, who liberals considered far right.....but, far right is defined and associated w/ different values today.

Here is the thing, though, MizzJuneBug, I think you just defined me exactly and many, many others. However, we do associate ourselves with a PARTY. That doesn't mean we agree with each and every issue, just the majority of the views. I have voted democrat almost all my life until the last decade when I left the party. So, I am not beholden to any party, I am only beholden to my own principles. That is how I vote.


Some of these issues are knock out factors for me. For example, pro-abortion is an automatic knock out factor because it speaks to the candidates character. So, first I discern a candidate's CHARACTER and then work back from that point.

Nia, when I take political acument tests I always test out closest to LIBERTARIANS. I don't agree with every one of their views, but almost ALL of them. I RESPECT Libertarians. I don't think I am a registered in any party. [I am not sure! ] If I had to register in a party, it would be REPUBLICAN, though.

ITA!

These are my feelings also.

Charlotte

I agree a candidate's character (or at least what we know of it) is paramount. I suppose the importance of individual character 'traits' varies from voter to voter, just like the importance of the issues.

An interesting factoid, up to 35% of the voters in any given election are considered 'swing voters' meaning they will vote for candidates from either party - they are not loyal. Remember the 'soccer mom' vote that got Clinton elected. When you think about it, these are the people who really hold the power to elect the president.

I think the draft would teach all the spoiled kids today discipline, respect for authority, having to work to achieve something...and that you can live for 24 hours without a cell phone, iPod, and video games.

I think every single person born in this country owes this country a HUGE debt for being allowed to live in the most fascinating and wonderful place in the world.

I think not having to acknowledge that debt, nor pay it, is very detrimental to both the people living here as well as the country itself.

I think that if we had the draft, the military wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does, and that we would have an enormous wealth of working hands to help fix our infrastructure and help out in emergencies (so maybe Alabama wouldn't still be trying to rebuild so long after Katrina because New Orleans got all the attention and money).

I think it would be an easy way to fix the current economic slump by giving millions of men and women constructive jobs in which they could learn a skill. So when they get out, they can get a real job instead of just flipping burgers, and support their families, instead of expecting the government to feed them for the rest of their lives. Spend a little for 2 years up front, skip having to spend a lot for the next 50 years, for each person.

I totally respect your opinion on this. However. It is your opinion, not necessarily THE truth. Millions of people are on the other side of the issue - are they all miscreants and horrible people? With no morals? Just because your opinion is that anyone who favors the right to choose is without morals doesn't make it the truth. I can name dozens of people I know personally who favor the right to choose who are incredible people and incredibly moral. And let's be clear, it ISN'T that such people like abortion but rather prefer that other people cannot determine what they do solely because of those other people's opinions. Of course nobody wants anyone to have an abortion; but the decision should not be placed in the hands of one group who believes they have the only answer based on their opinion.

ummmm....yep.

yeah, forced military service...now there's a good idea. Hmmm...a huge debt for being born here. Wow. Maybe we do owe a debt...how about Native American's that are born here...what do they owe?

Flipping burgers, spoiled kids. Wow...I guess I should tell my 12 year old that will start college at age 16 to put off his plans so that he can march around and learn to fire a gun. So much for the discipline that has allowed him to skip two grades and achieve beyond his years in school.

:RollieEyes:

So, let me get this straight...you believe in the right of a woman to butcher and fillet her unborn child because it is her body and we shouldn't tell her what to do with it....
and yet, you also believe that the government should be able to tell people what to do with a portion of their life and their body simply for the fact that they were born in what you consider to be the most fascinating place on earth.

:crosseyedcrazy:

I believe any citizen of any country owes that country an allegiance and a debt to help preserve it.

Did I ever say I believe in abortion?

I said people with one opinion don't have the right to push an agenda on people with another opinion just because they have a stronger force behind them. Let the courts decide. That's what they're there for.

well, actually THIS is what you said...it is straight out of the pro-choice (pro-abortion) playbook.