Simply mindboggling! It's like the ending of the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", where the guy is screaming and noddy is listening. Are these "seed pods" of this administration spread to far to do anything about it?

A little OT but hey, it's my article:

Boggles the mind that Chavez & I agree on something.  Wonderland could not be more bizarre.

Ouch, Chavez just thru my whole "buddies with Obama" theory out the window with this. Gotta give the guy craedit though. When he's honest, he actually is.

As for the article. Did I read it right? Obama is trying to curve freedom of speech in the US?

Chavez probably believes he deserves the award!

I heard this weekend the best thing Obama could do, now that the deed is done. That would be to send a family (or family member) of a slain US soldier to Oslo to receive the award. The message would be clear...US troops (and other similar minded nations troops) are dying so that these high-brow elitists can sit back on their comfy chairs in freedom and pass judgment. Of course the president wouldn't dream of upsetting some of his biggest supporters, but it would be a huge shot in the arm for him here in the US. I suppose he can't be thinking about the people he is supposed to serve while he dreams of being president of the world.

Hmm, while I'm naturally skeptical and have a few questions about the bias/slant of the article, since it is the weekly standard - the thought of what they say Obama is doing, is very, very troubling.

If it's true, and he pushes the curtailing of speech - he'll have found a very stubborn and determined opponent, I promise that.

~AJ

Facts is facts.  Too many media 'sources' are unconcerned with them these days.

Bias is bias, and "sources," as well facts, images and video can be faked; welcome to the world of yellow journalism. So, like I said, I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

~AJ

Pray tell - how are the facts in the linked article 'biased'?

I'm not implicitly saying they are,  but that they could be. Heck, technically I didn't say they're biased at all, I'm merely implying that things *can* be arranged to fit one's agenda. I even conceded that I could be wrong; however, right now, I'm not going to buy this hook, line, and sinker. This comes from knowing full well the power of the media and what it can do, has done, and will do - as well as could do. I'll read more about it and research more.

That being said - the bias comes from not the facts per se, but the presentation of the story - which is essentially what each news report is.

~AJ

AJ This is EXACTLY what I was speaking to you about in the other article. Your twisting the intent into something entirely different. Read the article/link if you feel it's biased in some way, post your response/proof/conflicting data and go from there. The only thing you've stated (the obvious) was that bias exists, and your not sure if it is driving this link. More personal theories. You should get into politics because nobody can get a direct response from you on the topic without going off on a tangent. You might call it idealism, but in this particular forum it's just a distraction.

"All we want are the fact's ma'am". - Sgt. Joe Friday

It's called cynicism and skepticism Nitro. Yeah, maybe I am way too much of both, but I'm not going to piss around the bush or lie - saying: "Yup, I think the article is accurate or not skewed." I just won't. I provided my opinion, and gave my reasons behind it, so there you go. Sorry if it's not to your liking, but oh well. Not like anyone hasn't not liked my comments that before.   

My original comment was implying that - not the facts - but the slant/intent/bias (and so on so forth) was what I was concerned about. The facts may be: Obama said XYZ. That's fine and dandy, but as I read the article - I realized that you could interpret it in multiple ways. 

In fact, I am going to mention something that has been on my mind: In this case, people are willing to acknowledge the fact that the weekly standard has it right. That they have the facts. Yet, I've heard time and again that news agencies like the NY Times, FoxNews, CNN, Msnbc, and so on so forth - are biased/liberal/elitistist, and so on. Fact is, the weekly standard is as much a journalistic venture as any of those are. They're bound by the same principles, and burdened by the same human faults. So I ask:

What makes one journalistic place any different from another? The writers are still biased, the facts/photos/etc. can still be adjusted to fit the desired story. A lot of things can be manipulated. 

Anyways, got that off my chest. 

No thanks, don't plan on running for office - I actually have a set of standards/morals thanks.  

\sarcasm  Apparently the new fad is to not be skeptical, use critical thinking, research, and take what you hear with a grain of salt...

~AJ

You did...sort of. You said the piece was bias because of the source. If you left it at that...no problem. But then you went off on a rant about bias... something that is subjective to the reader, and therefore dependent on them. This just seems to be a pattern for you. You feel the need to explain what doesn't need explanation. If someone needs more clarification they will ask for it. Give your readers the same credit you expect for yourself. That's all I'm saying to you, take the advice or don't.

Your doing fine on the first, not so sure on the second, and I'm just not seeing the third. Believe me with all that going on for you, the reader has no choice but to take what you say with a grain of salt. Skepticism is good, but saying something is bias in broad terns is a cop out. What parts of the article lead you to believe this? What is your source for unbiased news? Much better to show where the story is incorrect or flawed don't you think? Anyone can call any piece biased, that's not critical or thinking, and definitely not using research.

moving on...

Sorry for hijacking the topic Daiwa. I haven't heard anymore on this, but based on how much of the news is being buried these days I'm not surprised. Post any updates if you get them. 

Opinions about what people did (i.e. opinion versus rant) are also subjective Nitro; anything you read is subjective. To be fair, I'll try to take a look at it tonight (or tomrrow) when I have time; however, to be honet, I'm exhausted because of having to work on mass editing DuckU TV footage. I would've been done within 3 hours if the freaking computer, program and server had not crashed last night; I didn't finish until 4am this morning and I get up at 6 for class.(btw, that might be adding to my mood - so if i've been rude, mea culpa)

~AJ

As usual, the so-called mainstream media are ignoring it.  They're too busy making false accusations of racism against Limbaugh.

Yeah, I see them in a huff over Limbaugh trying to buy a football team. Typical of the left - pissed off that someone is willing to buy something in this economy. They feel they should the only ones spending cash (others at that) I suppose.