Is the "liberal" media a better news source?

Question

Bush has admitted that there were no WMDs:
In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So it is confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq that were the reason we went to war. Weather Bush knew that or not is up for dabate. But if this is the truth, then what do these satatistics say?

Media source, Respondents believing evidence of WMD had been found in Iraq since the war ended
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print media 17%
PBS-NPR 11%

Do you think that this says anything about the credability of these new stations? Are the news stations many call the "liberal media" actually informing their audience better? I've always thought PBS was a very good news source, and they appear to be the best at informing their viewers

yes, he had WMDs from the 80s that we gave him. yes he used them on the kurds. But in the late 90s, they were dismantles and disables by force from the UN and he didn't build any new ones. We went to war because we were told he made new ones, and hid some from weapons inspectors. those are the WMDs we went to war for, and those were never found.

And just because he was "almost ready" to make nukes, does not mean he had any, like 33% of Fox News viewers think.

Answer 1

It's not the stations but the news reporters that have their own opinions.

Answer 2

I guess I almost view the media as any other business. For instance, Fox News came around when there was a lack, and a movement beginning with the conservative backlash against Clinton, left a void with conservatives to be filled...Thus Fox News. If you watch MSNBC now very carefully, last year they were more often then not following the same lines as Fox was. And NOW, with the success of shows like Keith Olbermann, they are now showing I think a liberal slide, because that's where the country and thus the revenue is going this time around. I think it really can be that simple.

If Saddam was preparing to make nukes as the documents revealed indicate (before 1991), then why was nothing done about these and what evidence they may be referring to?

Answer 3

No.
Each news agency has given up on real news and only reported on personal issues and dirt. Not one has reported that the Patriot act has no mention of the southern boarder even though it goes through great detail on the security of the Canadian border. No mention of the control lobbyists are given. No mention of our congressmen working 100 days a year and voting to up their pay. Case in point, each has given great time on campaign ads yet very little time on actual issues. These stations are about entertainment NOT education.

Answer 4

Some people! Never will they admit that they are wrong. Just ignorant rant after hateful name calling! Use some facts people! Look at his argument. It would seem that it is a relatively straight forward question.

You are correct. These "Liberal" news reports (especially McNeil Leher and NPR) are much more informative and much less biased than "Conservative" news reports.

Answer 5

HOW DID SADDAM KILL ALL THOSE IRANIANS AND KURDS? I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS PROVED THAT HE USED A NERVE AGENT TO KILL THEM. WHAT DID HE DO WITH THE REST OF HIS STOCK PILE. IT CAN'T BE SAID THAT HE NEVER HAD WMD'S BECAUSE HE USED THEM TO WAGE WAR ON HIS NEIGHBORS. HE OBVIOUSLY SOLD THE STOCK PILE OR HID IT IN THE COUNTRY SOME WHERE. THE NEWS HAS IT'S OWN AGENDA. LIBERAL STATIONS TWIST THE NEWS AS MUCH AS RIGHT WING OR LEFT WING STATIONS.

Answer 6

you spoke too soon, they've found evidence that Saddam was almost ready to make nukes, reported this morning

Answer 7

Especially if you're pro-terrorist.

Answer 8

http://blog.democrats.com/gayrepublicans