Iwo Jima

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

but Akira we should blame it on the lol 70's hippie media :rolleyes:

[FireflyPL 0]

<!--QuoteBegin--Monkey Lib Front]

O jesus christ read what i posted+the OP posted an essay on what Iwa Jima would have been like if it attracted the same kind of media coverage that todays Iraq conflict has, To say that we would have lost the war because of the media coverage is pure fantasy.

[/quote--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front]

O jesus christ read what i posted @ the OP posted an essay on what Iwa Jima would have been like if it attracted the same kind of media coverage that todays Iraq conflict has, To say that we would have lost the war because of the media coverage is pure fantasy.

[/quote)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Yea you definatelly read this essey but didnt understand its meaning.

lol contradiction ahoy.

lol yourself until Bin Laden knocks at you door with commie jurnalist scalps.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Firefly i don't get you seem to have some pent up anger with the media, probally stems from the way they show Israel bulldozing peoples houses.

[Akira 0]

O jesus christ read what i posted,the OP posted an essay on what Iwa Jima would have been like if it attracted the same kind of media coverage that todays Iraq conflict has, To say that we would have lost the war because of the media coverage is pure fantasy.

<!--QuoteEnd]

lol contradiction ahoy.

Quote[/b] ]

lol yourself until Bin Laden knocks at you door with commie jurnalist scalps.

Yeah and if you think that is gonna happen....

Oh....and tsk tsk...tags

[DracoPaladore 0]

?   Didn't the media push the comparison that WTC = Pearl Harbour, Afghanistan = Japan,

I think it was in the idea that the United States was attacked on it's own soil like Pearl Harbour. I don't remember, though, that there was any comparsion to Afghanistan being Japan.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

I think it was a case of "It's the only time a foriegn force/group has ever attacked US soil since Pearl Harbour.

[ozanzac 0]

I would like to add that comparing the situation of Iwo Jima to the situatiions that surround todays modern, 'superior' warfare as extremely pointless: thus stupid on the writers behalf.

Simply, it is not possible to commentate on, and thus, compare the combat between WWII and the standards of todays warfare. The article is negligent..........I mean c'mon, Why not compare the battle of Trafalga... or something as far off as the crusades, in such a way that the media of today would.

We could all commentate on anything in 'hindsight'....but something as far back as WWII....IMO, it's irresponsible to even try. (unless, of course, you were there)

The situation was different: it was a world war, and the most bloody and desperate one at that.

It was not 'ooo la dee dah': let's invade a country and hope our superior technology and righteounesss will suceed, enabling a minimal loss of life. The people at home knew that their lads woud die...It was fact, and no-one tried to pretty it up by 'todays standards' either.

It was blood and guts, where the sacrifice of life, even if it was worth no more that a foot of ground, was considered, 'worthwhile'.

The modern media has tried to replace the 'blood and guts' reality of warfare, with a 6 o'clock, watered down variant: where the whole family can sit down & have have a bit of a gander.

War is ugly...always has, and always will be. To compare today vs yesterday is probaly worth thought, but worth an article?...Not in my opinion . Hopefully, we all have the capacity to think, and thus dream... or at least be realist and know that times have changed dramatically.

[denoir 0]

Funny thing is that it fails to mention how the media was in the 40's. It was the worst type of shite propaganda. Europe got over it in the early 60's, America in the late 60's, early 70's. The Soviet Union until the late 80's.

I can't believe that anybody would want to go back to that. It wasn't reporting, it was propaganda. Actually, I can. Pre-Hitler Germany was far more free than after the Nazis came to power. Yet people supported their authorative approach, because it was "strong leadership". It's worrying to see that it wasn't so period specific and how people can be equally spineless sheep today. And that's exactly what those that attack "mainstream" (i.e free) media today, in the name of the state, the nation or whatever.

As for the satirical text, it misses a big point - it wasn't the media that proclaimed that it's all over in Iraq and that it was going to be easy. It was Bush. "Mission Accomplished"

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

hmm. Although you start well, you go wrong in the second half of your post.

Media was indeed propaganda during the war. But it's unfair to talk about the german people as spineless sheep. If you see photo's of fighting german soldiers (as a german yourself) fighting against the 'big evil enemy' and you read about victory after victory (and you have not other news scource), than what do you expect? You will automaticly become a supporter of the war. It has nothing to do with being mindless or spineless. 'Even' you and I can be heavily influenced by what the media chooses to show and not to show on television.

The support by the germans for the Nazi-rue has many, any other reasons. The situation had little to do with being free. Germany was extremely poor at that time and Hitler promised to make thing better and in the first few years he actually did (making railroads and high-ways). That those nice improvements were only meant to support war, was of course not known to the normal german civilian.

So although germany was less free, people felt like they were much better of and did not feel less free. You must give hitler some credit; he did an awesome job in playing the public.

[denoir 0]

You have a very cartoonish picture of WW2 Germany. It was nothing so trivial as the big bad state fooling the poor individuals. It's a two way process and if you try to think little ahead, you'll see the same processes at play today.

The period between the two world wars was a very chaotic one in Germany. Many different political ideas exploded at once and combined with a crappy economy, the situation was close to anarchy. People were uncertain, they wanted stability, they needed their safety blanket. Nazism provided one. It gave strong leadership and the chaos went away. Not only were people willing to part with various liberties, but they thought it was a good thing too.

Of course, they did not bother to think ahead but behaved like sheep, only to wake up with one very nasty hangover in 1945. Far from all Germans were Nazis and many saw it coming and thus not behaving like sheep.

No difference in the present situation with right wing nuts calling for media auto-censorship. And the sheep who really don't like reading negative news, so they aim for the messenger. These are of course the same people that point out that "Bush is a strong leader". No different from the scared little drones looking for a safety blanket in Nazism during the Weimar republic.

[kerosene 0]

I guess you can put the article in context a little more, if you consider that Zell Miller's a loud mouth democrat whos been pandering to right wing voters since the Republican National Convention.

Aside from that, watch Fox news if you truly believe the medias job is to make people feel better, rather than think about stuff.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

You have a very cartoonish picture of WW2 Germany. It was nothing so trivial as the big bad state fooling the poor individuals. It's a two way process and if you try to think little ahead, you'll see the same processes at play today.

The period between the two world wars was a very chaotic one in Germany. Many different political ideas exploded at once and combined with a crappy economy, the situation was close to anarchy. People were uncertain, they wanted stability, they needed their safety blanket. Nazism provided one. It gave strong leadership and the chaos went away. Not only were people willing to part with various liberties, but they thought it was a good thing too.

Of course, they did not bother to think ahead but behaved like sheep, only to wake up with one very nasty hangover in 1945. Far from all Germans were Nazis and many saw it coming and thus not behaving like sheep.

No difference in the present situation with right wing nuts calling for media auto-censorship. And the sheep who really don't like reading negative news, so they aim for the messenger. These are of course the same people that point out that "Bush is a strong leader". No different from the scared little drones looking for a safety blanket in Nazism during the Weimar republic.

yes, that what I meant. I agree.

My english is not the best, so I had a hard time trying to explain things in my previous message. But I sure don't have a cartoonish picture of WW2, since I studied it many times (for school and personal interest).

Media-censorship is absolutely wrong. But I do want the media-organisations to think about wat they are doing; they should send very experienced people to a warzone, who know very well what to expect. Not some nice-looking ladies, who in the middle of a firefight start looking for their lip-stick, if you know what I mean. Most reporters (inlcuding females!!) were/are very good, but some really talk complete bull-shit and give us a very bad view on what is going on.

[Homefry 0]

I don't believe the problem is how negative the news is, it's how they present their negativity (if that makes any sense...) Reporting, especially out in the field, should contain facts, and only facts. Speculation is what makes the news poor, and it's where most of the negativity spawns from.

[Konyak! 0]

I still disagree with the fact that media would cause us to loose the war, -snip- ..find a few torrorists n00bs hiding on a pacific island), the heavy losses and media reports on TV will have a serious effect.

I can't get past this idea many posters here have exhibited. They maintain that the media doesn't have enough influence to win or lose a war.

Most people here have very strong opinions about a war that they have never been in, in a place they haven't been too, against an enemy they haven't been touched by. Everything they know about this war comes to them from the media of their choice.

You going to sit there and say that the media has no power over you?

Those of you who speak of being sheep and eating up what the government tells us.. how are you any better if you are simply eating up what the media tells you? Oh yeah, you can choose which ones you tend to aggree with, and you can read all of them and try to find the underlying truth, but you will always be influenced at some level.

Let's try something. Most of you seem to want a free media, as is to be expected. What is the price of that? If we expect our media to carry on the glory of Woodward and Bernstein, and expose any misconduct in our governments, and we want up to the minute coverage of what our soldiers are doing in wars fought in our names. We also don't want the government to censor or feed the media false information. Right?

Considering this, how would you answer the following statment with a yes or no answer?

A massive military operation such as D-day could be executed in the year 2005 against an enemy such as the Germans were, with similar results. (Don't turn this into a techology thing)

If you are not sure, I suggest you go to your bookstore or library and find some books on WWII propaganda in US and Great Britain, and the government control of the media back then, and then consider the question again.

And this brings us to the reason Mr. Miller wrote his little article, which I enjoyed, allthough I feel it could have been done much better.

Konyak

[ralphwiggum 6]

if this war did not start, there would be no press covering it.

[denoir 0]

Those of you who speak of being sheep and eating up what the government tells us.. how are you any better if you are simply eating up what the media tells you?

The difference is that serious media has an agenda of displaying an accurate picture. The government on the other hand uses media to push its own agenda, which has nothing to do with telling the truth - especially in war time. Its agenda there is to rally support for its campaign.

Do you really think a Soviet-style media is to be preferred to what we have today?

The big thing with free media is that you can get several sources and average them out. If Al-Jazeera says 100 dead civilians, BBC says 50 dead and Fox News says 20 dead, then you can average it out to get a good picture. Or at least you can say that no less than 20 dead and no more than 100 dead.

And you don't need to read them all. It's enough to take two extremes and one in the middle and through that get a fairly good idea what it looks like if you remove the bias.

After a while, you'll find some source that consitently gives a good picture.

Quote[/b] ]Let's try something. Most of you seem to want a free media, as is to be expected. What is the price of that? If we expect our media to carry on the glory of Woodward and Bernstein, and expose any misconduct in our governments, and we want up to the minute coverage of what our soldiers are doing in wars fought in our names. We also don't want the government to censor or feed the media false information. Right?

Considering this, how would you answer the following statment with a yes or no answer?

A massive military operation such as D-day could be executed in the year 2005 against an enemy such as the Germans were, with similar results. (Don't turn this into a techology thing)

The answer there is no, but it's not because of the media and you have to take it into context of our current social values. With the current system in place, there would have been no need for a military operation such as D-day. Without propaganda and without the ruthless eliminations of dissidents, Hitler wouldn't have been able to start his war in the first place.

Furthermore the balance of power was quite different. In WW2 it was very uncertain who would win. With the Iraq war, there never was a question of if the US could defeat the Iraqi military.

For example, if you check out FAS or any similar source, you'll find specifc technical data on various weapons systems. During the cold war, people were thrown in jail or even executed for sharing that type of information. Today such secrecy is not a necessity.

In the same manner, directly trying to translate D-Day into today's system is futile.

Having said, that, I would also answer you question by "Yes - given a little time". If need, I have no question that the media would willingly transform again to a government controlled propaganda tool. For instance it's quite interesting to study the period after the WTC attacks and what happend in America. Patriot act and all that. People need to be a bit shaken, but then they'll willingly remove their freedoms and rights - as long as they feel threatened.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

@Konyak!;

Please quote the entire thing and don't cut out an important part   If you read my original post you see that I do think the media has a lot of power, but in a war like WW2 (where you can't just withdraw, sit on your continent and wait for the war to be over) it wouldn't have such an effect as in a some peace-enforcement mission in a coutry that is no threath to your country in any way.

A D-day type peration;

That would cause a riot, but if the fight is like in WW2 (the entire world is at war and you are to liberate europe) the public may accept these losses. I say 'may' because we have not seen losses like this in a long time (last time was ww2), so the public is less used to losses like this. The public probably thinks a major war can be won without serious losses.

@Homefry

Couldn't have said it better. That's what I meant with the bad reporting that is sometimes done in Iraq. Some reporters ask very stupid question that have little or nothing to do with the facts, An example;

the question if the Marine Corps with all it's power wasn't overkill in Fallujah; "isen't it like killing a mosquito with a slegdehammer"  

The entire report was like she wanted to say "we use far too much force for fighting these poor insurgents. Infantry could have done the same job". She's rigth, but than the losses would be 10 times what they are now. We don't like to fight fair, we want to win!

She should have stayed with the facts (how is the fight going, how many losses on both sides, are there still civilians in the city ect)

[Wilco 944]

if this war did not start, there would be no press covering it.

Well it did, so we'll have to get over that one won't we?

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

if this war did not start, there would be no press covering it.

Well it did, so we'll have to get over that one won't we?

He was talking about this one;

Quote[/b] ]A massive military operation such as D-day could be executed in the year 2005

It's not like Ralph is one of those guys who think the holocaust is just a propaganda-stunt from the US

[ralphwiggum 6]

how CONservatives want media, and how they think media should cover Martin Luther King Jr.

*I decided to use word blacks instead of n-word just because i don't like that word.

Quote[/b] ]

As the morning sets on fields of Alabama, the black farmers slowly walk up to their fields. Not many own their fields but they are familiar with the field. It was the place where their fathers once did the same thing they do.

Just like the day before it will be a long day, and nothing will happen. It has been that way, and it will be so for tomorrow.

That was until an agitator showed up. He claimed that the current system in which they are fully employed and guarantees a dwelling and food is not enough, and should seek more from the owners of the field.

He called himself "Dr. King" but with no proper credential, one can only see the farce that was to follow.

His words were nothing a rhetoric with no consequence. Just like the carpetbaggers from the North, he was not educated in beautys of the South, where it was calmer than the clam chowder in a bowl.

Unfortunately, some did fall for his evil words and soon started tossing away the safe life they lead and decided to rebel against the owners, demanding what is more than acceptable.

These blacks clearly defied the tradition in which they were born into, and prospered. Soon the whole town was in turmoil thanks to the agitator.

On that particular day, they walked down the street chanting songs. It was their method of showing solidarity and their power. Although cleverly disguised as non-violent movement, their actions resulted in shops closing their doors in fear, a massive traffic congestion, causing more harm than anything else.

It was the duty of our police officers to disperse them to avoid any harm to the town, but it was too overwhelming. Luckily the young folks who joined the community group of Ku Klux Klan managed to deal with the situation. Those young members were eager to serve community and provided needed help for officers. Although carpetbaggers would call them 'racists' those youngmen were fine Southerners who wanted the tranquility of the South preserved.

With such effort, the rioters were subdued and the town was once again safe. It won't be the same as before, but with our youngmen, the town has nothing to fear and will be safe.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if this war did not start, there would be no press covering it.

Well it did, so we'll have to get over that one won't we?

then those who initiated the war should bite the bullet.

[Homefry 0]

how CONservatives want media, and how they think media should cover Martin Luther King Jr.

*I decided to use word blacks instead of n-word just because i don't like that word.

Quote[/b] ]

As the morning sets on fields of Alabama, the black farmers slowly walk up to their fields. Not many own their fields but they are familiar with the field. It was the place where their fathers once did the same thing they do.

Just like the day before it will be a long day, and nothing will happen. It has been that way, and it will be so for tomorrow.

That was until an agitator showed up. He claimed that the current system in which they are fully employed and guarantees a dwelling and food is not enough, and should seek more from the owners of the field.

He called himself "Dr. King" but with no proper credential, one can only see the farce that was to follow.

His words were nothing a rhetoric with no consequence. Just like the carpetbaggers from the North, he was not educated in beautys of the South, where it was calmer than the clam chowder in a bowl.

Unfortunately, some did fall for his evil words and soon started tossing away the safe life they lead and decided to rebel against the owners, demanding what is more than acceptable.

These blacks clearly defied the tradition in which they were born into, and prospered. Soon the whole town was in turmoil thanks to the agitator.

On that particular day, they walked down the street chanting songs. It was their method of showing solidarity and their power. Although cleverly disguised as non-violent movement, their actions resulted in shops closing their doors in fear, a massive traffic congestion, causing more harm than anything else.

It was the duty of our police officers to disperse them to avoid any harm to the town, but it was too overwhelming. Luckily the young folks who joined the community group of Ku Klux Klan managed to deal with the situation. Those young members were eager to serve community and provided needed help for officers. Although carpetbaggers would call them 'racists' those youngmen were fine Southerners who wanted the tranquility of the South preserved.

With such effort, the rioters were subdued and the town was once again safe. It won't be the same as before, but with our youngmen, the town has nothing to fear and will be safe.

Your kidding me.... right? I would hope you realize that people aren't racist because of their political affiliation....

[Konyak! 0]

how CONservatives want media, and how they think media should cover Martin Luther King Jr.

*I decided to use word blacks instead of n-word just because i don't like that word.

Quote[/b] ]

As the morning sets on fields of Alabama, the black farmers slowly walk up to their fields. Not many own their fields but they are familiar with the field. It was the place where their fathers once did the same thing they do.

Just like the day before it will be a long day, and nothing will happen. It has been that way, and it will be so for tomorrow.

That was until an agitator showed up. He claimed that the current system in which they are fully employed and guarantees a dwelling and food is not enough, and should seek more from the owners of the field.

He called himself "Dr. King" but with no proper credential, one can only see the farce that was to follow.

His words were nothing a rhetoric with no consequence. Just like the carpetbaggers from the North, he was not educated in beautys of the South, where it was calmer than the clam chowder in a bowl.

Unfortunately, some did fall for his evil words and soon started tossing away the safe life they lead and decided to rebel against the owners, demanding what is more than acceptable.

These blacks clearly defied the tradition in which they were born into, and prospered. Soon the whole town was in turmoil thanks to the agitator.

On that particular day, they walked down the street chanting songs. It was their method of showing solidarity and their power. Although cleverly disguised as non-violent movement, their actions resulted in shops closing their doors in fear, a massive traffic congestion, causing more harm than anything else.

It was the duty of our police officers to disperse them to avoid any harm to the town, but it was too overwhelming. Luckily the young folks who joined the community group of Ku Klux Klan managed to deal with the situation. Those young members were eager to serve community and provided needed help for officers. Although carpetbaggers would call them 'racists' those youngmen were fine Southerners who wanted the tranquility of the South preserved.

With such effort, the rioters were subdued and the town was once again safe. It won't be the same as before, but with our youngmen, the town has nothing to fear and will be safe.

Talk about de-railing a topic and flame bating..  how this guy ever made it to moderator status is breathtaking..  

Is that some kind of joke Ralph?  Or just another insight into the mind of a liberal?  One name for you: Robert C. Byrd, and a little history:

Quote[/b] ]The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.

Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential "liberal racist," a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.

In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.

Now on topic: I suggested reading a few books about propaganda in WWII, especially in Britain, and the total censorship of the BBC by the government. For every time they stopped something, or changed some info, there was behind it a very good reason, be it to stop them from giving away valuable information to the enemy, or to give them wrong information.  Both very good reasons that I for one, do not trust todays media to be able to control themselves with.  Today we marvel at the resolve and unity that kept the British fighting, coordinated efforts that fascinate me, such as removing all roadsigns so that invading forces would get lost.  These things need to be organized and controlled, and the people need to be encouraged to stay the course.

Problem is there needs to be a lot of trust between the people and the government, and that is really where the media steps in.  They can create that trust or they can take it away.  We see it all the time.  

Denoir speaks of a respectable news media that strives to deliver accurate and unbiased news.  I'd like to know if he thinks such a news agency exists today, and if so, which one?

Furthermore, would you rather have such a media, that is unbiased, or would you rather have outspoken biased coverage, such as Fox or CNN?

Konyak

[ralphwiggum 6]

Talk about de-railing a topic and flame bating..  how this guy ever made it to moderator status is breathtaking..  

just as i suspected. When CONservatives make absurd piece to claim their opinion, they think it's true, but when a 'liberal' does it it's flamebaiting.

Yes, it's a sarcastic joke. My writing was intended to show how things can be skewed with a particular perspective, or in my specific case, how CONservatives want things skewed.

Quote[/b] ]Is that some kind of joke Ralph?  Or just another insight into the mind of a liberal?  One name for you: Robert C. Byrd, and a little history:

Quote[/b] ]The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.

Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential "liberal racist," a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.

In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.

of course, it's been about 100+ years since Civil war and all you CONservatives can come up with is one 'liberal'.

Lincoln. He was a Republican. He is creditted with abolition of slavery. Look at the Republican party right now. within last 25 years,

Reagan: Failed to acknowledge that AIDS was an epidemic, Iran-Contra

Bush Jr.: start war on wrong "intel", increase police activity over civilians.

Sen. Helms: scuttle funding for UN

Rep. Gingrich: blaming immigrants for everything

Rep. Buchanan: pretty much the same as above

and many more Republicans are running on the basis of "America only" idea, or catering to southern voter's causes. furthermore, most of the agenda's put forth by GOP seems to be based not on principles.

Social security, affirmitive action are just a few to name.

Quote[/b] ]Now on topic: I suggested reading a few books about propaganda in WWII, especially in Britain, and the total censorship of the BBC by the government. For every time they stopped something, or changed some info, there was behind it a very good reason, be it to stop them from giving away valuable information to the enemy, or to give them wrong information.  Both very good reasons that I for one, do not trust todays media to be able to control themselves with.  Today we marvel at the resolve and unity that kept the British fighting, coordinated efforts that fascinate me, such as removing all roadsigns so that invading forces would get lost.  These things need to be organized and controlled, and the people need to be encouraged to stay the course.

Problem is there needs to be a lot of trust between the people and the government, and that is really where the media steps in.  They can create that trust or they can take it away.  We see it all the time.  

Because there is a BIG difference between WW2 and current situation. in WW2 it was clear that who the evil was. In current war, especially Iraq, there is no distinction. I'd have to ask why GOPs were so against humanitarian action in Somalia. After all, it was a humanitarian mission. Instead of criticizing they shold follow Clinton's words and support it. And talk about that limited strike he did just around Lewinsky news came out. Why did GOP criticize it?

A good media is the one that can see through BS and give truth. The trust that Americans have for government is torn apart by years of lies and hidden agenda. Just look at what happened with 'No child left behind' policy advertisement.

Quote[/b] ]Denoir speaks of a respectable news media that strives to deliver accurate and unbiased news.  I'd like to know if he thinks such a news agency exists today, and if so, which one?

Furthermore, would you rather have such a media, that is unbiased, or would you rather have outspoken biased coverage, such as Fox or CNN?

Show why CNN is biased, and how much it is biased to FOX. It's amazing that after 2 years in to war, many who whined that 'liberal' media is not giving the support for the war by not supporting the evidence is still thinking it's media's fault.

[EiZei 0]

Also remember how the republicans took over south. They just capitalized on the racist reactionary feelings when the civil right acts were made.