One example of the MSM agenda – why the daily “body count” for Iraq? Quick, does anyone have any idea (without looking it up) how many soldiers have died in Afghanistan? How many fatalities occur in the military when we’re not at war?

You are correct when you say that what we have come to know as the “mainstream media” are in it for the profit. Hence the tendency toward the “if it bleeds, it leads” doctrine. However, since the majority of the personalities involved in both print and broadcast journalism have a liberal political slant in their personal philosophy and politics, there is a certain selectivity which takes place. They will tend to show stories which reinforce their own views and disparage the opposing viewpoint more often than not.

While it is true that the MSM covered the Clinton-Lewinsky story ad nauseum, the stories were often presented in a manner which supported Clinton and put his political foes in a bad light. With Bush we have seen just the opposite. The majority of stories are presented in a way which denigrates Bush but supports his Democrat detractors.

If you are of a liberal bent you may not be able to detect the often subtle ways in which what is covered, and how it is presented, can be used to support an agenda. Of course, many in the MSM would deny that this is so, and declare that they have no agenda. They may even be telling the truth insofar as they see it. It may be more of a subconscious thing than an outright overt campaign, but if you know what to look for, and try to take in what the MSM puts out with a neutral viewpoint ( you don’t even have to look at it as a conservative might), it will become obvious to you.

Try one of these specials with your breakfast:

Stop the ACLU! interviews Glenn Reynolds
aTypical Joe looks at Andrew Sullivan’s new venture
La Shawn Barber asks why only whites are racist
Phin is in danger
Dane Bramage does Headlines &#82…

This is clearly fact. The “minority” gets to set the rules of engagement and define what, where, why, how and when the minority is offended.

The MSM can respond with a “tough luck” statement or go into paroxysms of political correctness or just support the minority view as just and valid. They tend toward the last.

Since we are living in a main stream consciousness that minorities are incapable of racism or hate crimes, it stands to reason that the MSM would ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Arbitrariness. Many here need to understand what the term means. Whiteness, blackness, it is all arbitrary. Racial links exist less in biology than they do in the superficial way we view the world. After all, what we are talking about is pigmentation. Did a lack of melanin create the internet, and did a profuse amount of it create tribalism?

We mistake correlation with causation when we discuss racial differences. A black kid that grows up in the ghetto will behave as if he grew up in a ghetto. A black kid that grows up in Grosse Pointe Blank will behave as if he grew up in Grosse Pointe Blank. A white kid that grows up a redneck behaves as if he grew up a redneck. A white kid that grows up rich and spoiled behaves as if he grew up rich and spoiled.

In case you haven’t caught on, the differences we speak of when we speak of race are less biological than cultural. Culture, instead of being genetically derived, is a nothing more than a state of mind, freely chosen or discarded at will (though few ever manage to freely choose–mostly because of these faux distinctions like race). When one uses culture–not race–as one’s discriminatory prism, everything gets much simpler.

The white people who rampaged across a medieval Germany and waged total, endless war on each other did not, in fact, create the internet. The white people that bought into the enlightenment, and scientific inquiry, and an empirical understanding of the world did. The white people who searched the worlds for enemies to slay, while disregarding their duties at home, did not create the automobile. The white people who developed consensual government and believed in the unalienable rights of man did.

We owe our prosperity not to white people, but to a mental paradigm that just so happened to be developed first by white people (arbitrary–there’s that word again). Blacks were not oppressed by white people, they were first enslaved and then oppressed by a mental paradigm that just so happened to reside in all people (you can look it up). The acceptance of slavery as nothing special is what caused slavery. Not white people.

The answer, then, lies in our power to discern positive mentalities against a backdrop and history of discredited and hurtful mentalities. It makes little sense to build one’s mental sphere in response to somebody else’s faulty one; a derivative of the flu will never be healthy. Just because some white people still have a mental disease should not cause others to embrace their own. Just because some blacks identify themselves based on their skin color, and not the content of their character, does not justify the triumphalism expressed by a superior-feeling white. Both are just plain wrong.

So be careful what you embrace for self-identification. Hate will destroy you, and a collective hate will destroy all. Free yourselves from these untruths, and join the world of the liberated. Inside we are all the same, however the sun reflects off our skin.

Oh, all right, I’ll say it. Their reports are frequently slanted, sans relevant and essential information, agenda-driven, and flat out misleading.

Recent terminations, whining, and belt-tightening at some of the majors, print and broadcast (Rupert Murdoch stated a few days ago that his quarterly report was “not as bad” as the competitors), may suggest that “inaccurate” is also not the best bottom-line strategy.

Merry

Kamou Kambon did call for the “exterminance of white people”.

Why is there no outrage about that….or this?

“Kill the white people; we gonna make them hurt; kill the white people; but buy my record first; ha, ha, ha”;
“Kill d’White People”; Apache, Apache Ain’t Shit, 1993, Tommy Boy Music, Time Warner, USA.

To redirect the discussion, I will begin with your comments. It is often very convenient for people to claim that the MSM media has an agenda to explain why stories of white racism outnumber stories about black prejudice. But this assertion leads to several questions.

The initial question is who is the MSM? Just the New York Time, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CBS, NBC, and CNN. If that is who you are talking about, then you must include FOX news (which claims to have a larger viewership than CNN), and the Wall Street Journal.

The next question would be what is their agenda? I believe the ultimate goal of any business, including any news organization, is to make a profit. Nothing is wrong with that. Each news outlet selects stories that they find compelling and believe will be of some interest to their readers, viewers, or listeners. FOX News, despite claiming to be far and balanced, produces stories that cater to conservatives and republicans. Nothing is wrong with that. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with CNN producing the stories for its audience. The reporting is not necessarily about having an agenda, its about running a business.

The last question is why do people complain so much about the so-called MSM? It sounds as if we are blaming the MSM for the country’s current attitude about the war. We decry their coverage of the insurgency and casualties. No one, however, has said their reports are inaccurate. I think it is easy to chastise the so-called MSM when the stories are not what we want them to be, but we must keep in mind that they would not be doing what they are doing if they were not making money. And they make money because people watch, read, and listen.

Remember, it was the same MSM that covered ad nauseam the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

Gosh, even after your last update, NOBODY ELSE is acknowledging what your post was originally about. Everybody is stuck on the race thing. Sometimes these comments strings can go off on quite a tangent

There is only the human race, which is divided into many, many ethnotypes, mainly because of geographic isolation. The fact is that there is more genetic diversity among any two Africans than between say, an Irishman and an Australian aborigine, because the group of humans that left Africa so long ago was so small that the gene pool that accounts for most of the world’s population can be traced to a few dozen individuals.

“To say they are superior is foolish, look at all the wars they have caused, the millions of lives not fully lived.”

And Africa has always been a garden of Eden. Except of course for the constant tribal warfare, cannibalism, etc. You should try to learn to make a sensible statement without resorting to blaming Evil Whitey for everything. The fact is, like I mentioned in a previous comment, were it not for we evil white folks, you wouldn’t be here right now, but rather in Africa, looking forward to nothing but an early death.

“All races have provided “superior individuals” who made the world a better place where they lived and, eventually, better elsewhere, with their dicoveries, enlightenment, and inventions.”

Name one major discovery, invention, innovation, artwork, or technology in the last two thousand years that did not occur in Europe or Asia.

“I, too, dislike the term “African-American, because it sends the wrong message. I also dislike the term “black” American, we are all Americans FIRST and formost. To classify certain people with this kind of label, why doesn’t the MSM say, “European-American” when referring to others? And does that mean there are African-Egyptians, African-Morrocons? Where does it end? It’s stupid.”

I will agree with you there, but it sounds like you need to admit to yourself that without Evil Whitey and his evil inventions, such as the internet, life would be short and brutal for those of us who depend on Evil White Technology to get by.