Skip to comments.
AOL Liberal Bias
AOL
| 6/11/03
| Outraged
Posted on 06/11/2003 12:38:19 AM PDT by Outraged
I have been paying special attention to the liberal editorial front page headlines that stain my AOL homepage
I haven't documented each and every instance of bias but this latest frontpage pushed me to the limit.
From Tuesday, June 10, 2003, they have a pop up of GW at the Presidential podium and the caption Does he rate a thumb's up? Bush linked War to Weapons, Terror. But Where's the proof?
This underlined bit brings you to the heart of the liberal bias
The title of the linked page is AOL NEWS -- The Bush Credibility Meter
The body reads "He went after Saddam for banned weapons. None have been found (this links to an AP editorial in the guise of news, by Tom Raum) so far. He argued there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. High-ranking captives (say it didn't exist.) Is President Bush losing credibility?
So they cite the AP and The New York Times as their sources but they intentionally omit a balancing fact
In short they are another piece of the liberal machinery bent on doing damage to truth and the Republican party.
Where is the mention of (NewsMax)or (WashingtonTimes)?
glaringly absent of course.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: antibush; aol; aoltimewarnercnn; bigmedia; bushbashing; mediabias; scumbags
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-133 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator
To: Outraged
AOL Sux!
Bump
22
posted on
06/11/2003 8:04:49 AM PDT
by
Fiddlstix
(http://www.ourgangnet.net)
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
To: Outraged
And folks wonder why I call AOL "AO-Hell".
24
posted on
06/11/2003 8:42:15 AM PDT
by
rdb3
(Nerve-racking since 0413hrs on XII-XXII-MCMLXXI)
To: Outraged
AOL is terribly biased. The office subscribed to AOL for almost 5 years. Personally, I didn't enjoy AOL at all. Doesn't Ted Turner own AOL-Time Warner? If so then he's a very strong dumbocRAT. AOL then reflects his political convictions. For instance when Israel would defend itself against the barrage of suicide bombers in 2001-2002, AOL wouldn't display pics to gain sympathy for Israeli victims plight. However, with the palis, subscribers would be subjected to pics of memorials to dead terrorists, women crying, one in particular was a 4 year old little boy holding a machine gun ready to fire at its taught enemies--Israelis. And the phrasing of topics would be definitely anti-Bush. Finally, DSL came into the area, and we changed in January 2003. I'm so glad too.
To: Outraged
What is their "Bush credibility meter" based on? I would bet my left [finger] it's not based on actual polling data.
26
posted on
06/11/2003 9:05:09 AM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Xenalyte
That said, she's 61 and refuses to switch because "I'd lose my buddy lists."She can install AOL Instant Messenger even without having AOL (I do). She probably won't lose her buddy lists (and she can always get the list back, if you write it down before she deletes her AOL account if the AOL management doesn't want to let her export it)
27
posted on
06/11/2003 9:06:45 AM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Outraged
I got rid of aol years ago, and I am very happy that I did.
Their political "leanings" are left of left.
28
posted on
06/11/2003 9:08:20 AM PDT
by
demsux
To: KneelBeforeZod
newsmax has good info but too often jumps the gun NewsMax is worthless -- mostly what they do is to quote stories written by real news organizations, and slop on a bit of their own spin.
What little original reporting they do is generally poor.
And they pay Buchanan and Hackworth.
29
posted on
06/11/2003 9:12:50 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Skywalk
Can anyone tell me where this anti-AOL bias came from...Geeks latched onto the hate-AOL refrain as long ago as 1994. It's a status thing. Personally I always thought it was dumb. They seem to think that it's a sign of low testosterone if you find ease of use attractive.
I say make it as easy as possible. I don't need intimate knowledge of the OS kernel to make myself feel special.
As for the liberal bias on AOL's frontpage, it is egregious and highly irritating. One good thing though. Whenever AOL polls, the loaded liberal answer choice usually gets hammered by the token conservative one.
30
posted on
06/11/2003 9:14:18 AM PDT
by
beckett
To: Skywalk
Can anyone tell me where this anti-AOL bias came from, and I refer to the NON-POLITICAL aspect of the companyThere is no "NON-POLITICAL aspect" to AOL. Its bias permeates every facet of its business existance.
31
posted on
06/11/2003 9:15:23 AM PDT
by
zip
To: xm177e2
Many thanks - I'll try that, but somehow I doubt it'll work. She's great at coming up with new objections that didn't exist before.
32
posted on
06/11/2003 9:17:40 AM PDT
by
Xenalyte
(I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
To: Outraged
AOL is owned by Time Warner, who is owned by Ted Turner.
Ted Turner is not concerned with facts, and indeed never has been.
33
posted on
06/11/2003 9:20:26 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Nox aeternus en pax.)
To: Outraged
AOL is welded-on training wheels.
When I see @aol.com in an email address, I automatically think "newbie" or "loser". It conveys "I'm just playing around here - I really don't know much about this Internet thingie. My grandkids help me press the buttons."
Get real. Get a real ISP.
34
posted on
06/11/2003 9:25:05 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
To: Xenalyte
I am on AOL. My husband and I would find it a big hardship to switch. We are registered at many sites under our e-mail address. Once that changes, we would have to go to every one of those sites and re-register under a different e-mail and password. In addition, I am on an old computer and have Windows 95...and the old aol version. I am adverse to trying to go to a new provider, dumping AOL, and loading a new system onto this limping dinosaur.
I realize people who are computer savvy think it is terrible, but it is what we are used to and I am not into arguing with my husband over this.
To: Hank Rearden
You know, there are far more aol users on this forum than you imagine, including me. I am not trying to impress anyone, including you.
To: Miss Marple
For some reason, Internet Exploder won't go to www.mp3.com, yet AOL will.
No clue why.
37
posted on
06/11/2003 9:29:14 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Nox aeternus en pax.)
To: Cindy
Boy...isn't that the truth?
ADSL or Cable with Google as browser homepage is on almost everyone's PC I know....but I'm in an urban area.
Maybe dial-ups like them....??
38
posted on
06/11/2003 9:30:42 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(I was born my Papa's son....when I hit the ground I was on the run.....)
To: Darksheare
I'm in IE, and I just went there. Maybe you need a reboot, or an update.
39
posted on
06/11/2003 9:32:09 AM PDT
by
Xenalyte
(I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
To: beckett
They seem to think that it's a sign of low testosterone if you find ease of use attractive. One of my sisters has tried many other internet providers and ALWAYS goes back to AOL. She, like some others have stated here, gets begged to come back and get free months of service. That said, she REFUSES to learn anything new because of the "ease of use" by AOL.
Personally, I have always disliked AOL. (When I initially got online it was through Prodigy...in the days of Windows 3.0, but I had free accounts for both through work. Prodigy was good back then; AOL stunk from the beginning.) I don't like their silliness (little hearts for favorites and all that other junk) and don't like the way their service is more of a "gated community" than a porthole to the world.
40
posted on
06/11/2003 9:34:04 AM PDT
by
arasina
(When the truth comes out, Hillary will blame her ghostwriters!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-133 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson