What Is Required in order to have REAL Fairness and Balance in the Media

some people say that we need to bring back the fair and balanced act in the media. they say that talk radio, for example, is dominated by conservatives, and there's too little balance on the radio. and, this is so because conservatives don't know the meaning of fairness or balance.
in contrast, media outlets dominated by liberals try to be fair and balanced. for example, many people know that most newspapers, tv news, and such are dominated by liberals. so is the academia. and, on the surface, there is an objective or fair-minded style. the newsman or commentators will often speak without much emotions and try to be as objective as possible. the best of this breed was represented by ted koppel on Nightline. but, look beneath the style and surface, and liberal dominated media and academia have been just as down-n-dirty as talk show conservatives. in a way, liberal objectivism is even more offensive because of the pretense of fairness.
even if the style is objective or fairminded, real objectivity or fairness is impossible for several reasons:

1. use of terminology. words like 'racist', 'sexist', and 'homophobic' are not neutral but value-loaded and emotion-laden. so, is a word like 'anti-semite'. it is judgmental. and liberal run media don't challenge the veracity or meaning of these words. some person on NPR, for instance, will speak in an objective tone but use the word 'homophobic' to describe a person or agenda. no matter how straightforward and objective the delivery, it is a value judgment.
recently, there was a PBS documentary on boxing in cuba. it ended with the narrator saying that boxers in cuba today face a future where they will continue to fight for the 'revolution' or for money. this is how terminology can distort how we see the reality at hand. from the choice of words, we are led to believe that cuban boxers are selfless revolutionaries instead of greedy pigs. they are noble amateurs than selfish professionals. but, suppose we change the narration to 'the cuban boxers face a future between fighting as free individuals or as puppets of the state'.
it completely changes our view of that reality. words carry great meaning, and in a way, cuban communism is propped up by powerful words like 'revolution', 'sacrifice', etc. purely on material evidence, cuban communism is a total failure. even its healthcare is a joke, more effective as a slogan than as reality. its power rests in its being called 'free and universal' than being available to the masses, which it is not. and, of course, athletes in communist nations have always been professionals. they want to succeed because they want more privileges, fame, and favors. athlete 'heroes' have it much better than most people in communism.
that a PBS documentary would use the word 'revolution' without any sense of irony is rather odd. that's like pretending that china is really a republic because it's called the people's republic of china, or north korea is really democratic because it's called democratic republic of north korea. the idea that cuba represents a revolution is hilarious. isn't revolution supposed to be about change? well, what has changed in cuba since the 60s in terms of culture, politics, economics, etc? looks like chile under pinochet saw more real change than cuba. cuban revolution is a revolution in name only. cuba is stagnant one-man dictatorship who rules thru crude demogoguery thru effective use of words. it looks as though PBS has also fallen under the spell of these words.
also, adjectives are very important. notice that even objective liberal news often resort to strongly charged adjectives to tilt our view of reality. and when these adjectives are used over and over, it's burned into our psyche that certain ideas are unspeakably evil.
consider how 'virulent' and 'rabid' have often been used to describe 'anti-semitism'. so, anyone critical of jewish power is 'virulent' and 'rabid'. but, a radical jew who's hateful toward christians is never labeled as 'virulent' and 'rabid' but only 'controversial' or 'alternative'.

2. choice of topics. no matter how fairly or objectively a topic is covered, the choice of news topic is, in itself, a form of judgment. suppose some negroes beat up a honker, and suppose some honkers beat up a negro. suppose the news objectively covers the latter while ignoring the former. the mere choice of the latter will make viewers think that white-on-black violence is a bigger problem than black-on-white violence.
or, consider how media and academia have given us countless books and news items about jews killed in the holocaust while giving us almost nothing about how jews played a very big role in communism. or, consider how the media and academia never make us forget about the 'evils' of mccarthyism while hardly dwelling on how leftwing jews in the US spied for the USSR or secretly worked for radical causes while pretending to be all-american. because of this imbalance, it's a greater sin to be anti-communist than communist in the US. anti-communism carries connotations of paranoia, witchhunting, mccarthyism, etc. communism, on the other hand, carries connotations of being falsely accused and hounded by bigots, louts, and demagogues. to be a communist in the US means to be a hapless victim of meanies. to be anti-communist means to be a meanie. why do we feel this way? because the media have given us many topics related to the abuses of mccarthyism. now, mccarthy did abuse his powers and was a no-good punk. but, his enemies were far worse. yet, his enemies are not defined by what they stood for or did but only by their victimhood by mccarthy.
also, notice that there have been far fewer books and far less retrospective coverage of FDR's policy against japanese-americans even though it was a much much greater abuse of political persecution and greater case of paranoia gone bonkers than mccarthy's anti-communism.
also, we are told again and again of what happened to negroes prior to civil rights movement. we are never made to forget what happened to emmit till. of course, much of this coverage isn't even objective but emotional and judgmental. but, even if such were objective, the very choice of topic--black victimhood at the hands of whites--would tilt our sympathies toward blacks and against whites. notice that the media rarely covers stories of how blacks have raped, beaten up, murdered countless whites since the civil rights movement. hardly any of that is covered, even objectively. we are not supposed to take notice of such things.

let us go back to the documentary on cuban boxing. notice that it's about kids, which makes us feel more affection for the subject. also, notice that it's about the pride of cuba--its boxing--than about other realities of cuba, such as the rising prostitution, corruption, and police brutality.
the documentarians chose a topic that would do most to make us sympathize with cuba. even if the documentary is mostly objective, the choice of topic makes it pro-castroite.
also, we are not fully made aware of the context of filming in cuba--that the view of reality is highly restricted and limited by authorities. it's not an honest look at cuba but look at cuba permitted by the cuban government.

3. choice of taboos. certain irrational taboos make it hard for even a fair-minded and objective news organization or academia to look into certain areas. one is the topic of race. we are told that 'racism' is evil. now, certain forms of radical racism is evil in their blindness, hatred, bigotry, and extremism. but, racism, in and of itself, should not be seen as evil. it means races exist and there may be general differences in temperament, IQ, physical strength, etc among the races. and research has borne this out to be true. but, there are taboos which make it nearly impossible to speak of races because the liberal orthodoxy says race is a myth. the idea that races are same as species is a myth, as all humans belong to one species. but, race is not a myth. many biologists believe in race in the sense that certain groups of people share certain traits distinct from other groups due to geographic/demographic isolation for tens of thousands of yrs. that a negro has a much greater chance of making the NBA than a mexican is not a myth but fact. that an ashkenazi jew is much more likely to have genius IQ than a fat hawaiian is also not a myth. there is a great deal of variances within each and every race. and all races are fundamentally similar. but, some races have more of certain kinds of traits than others, and that's the truth, and it's based on the dynamics of evolution. how anyone can accept evolution and deny race is idiotic. race simply means generally-shared-biological-traits prevalent in a certain group. races exist not only among humans but among animals. all dogs, wolves, and coyotes all belong to the same specie but constitute different races. if you don't believe me, have a wolf fight a poodle and see which one wins. 999 times out of 1000, the wolf will win. race is not the only taboo. there are some who argue that sex is also a myth. they say differences between men and women--other than reproductive differences and physical strength--are purely based on social conditioning. as such, there is no sex but gender, which means that one's 'sexual' identity is defined by culture and society. this is alot of caca. there are real biological differences between male and female on many levels. but, when lawrence summers tried to look into this, he was hounded and thrown out of office thru a witchhunt.
now, the media and academia will insist that they are open to all ideas and so on. but, if you ask them why they are not open to ideas about race and sexuality, they bitch and whine and hurl insults and throw fits. they put on prissy face and say that they are sooooo 100000% sure that race and sex are myths that it's not even worth bothering to discuss those matters. we should just accept liberal or leftist orthodoxy on faith. this is not about real science but the cult of science--since liberalism is supposedly about scientific inquiry, all liberal ideas must be scientific. of course, this is no different than what marxists used to say: since marx was a social scientist and understood history scientifically, there is no need to deny his Scientific Theories. this is the cult of science, not real science. no real science can conform to taboos. there are no taboos in real science. to be sure, many radical racist 'scientists' of the past use false methods to prop up their prejudices--also a case of cult of science. one was measuring skulls with crude instruments. but, racial science today is not what it once had been. surgical science in the 19th century was barbaric compared to what we have today, but that doesn't invalidate ALL surgical science.

4. choice of footage, subtleties, and narration. when a documentary filmmaker makes a movie, he ends up with alot of raw footage. suppose he ends up with 200 hrs of video or film material. there are endless things he can do with this. selective footaging can tilt the documentary one way or another. then, there is the narration which is just as or even more important than the footages. also, the panel of 'experts'. two exact same sets of footages can appear totally different depending on the narration. a documentary can show poor people in cuba while the voice-over narration telling us that though these people face many harships, they are still supporters of castro. or, the narration can tell us that for all the promises of the revolution, the people of cuba are desperate. same footages, two very different perception of reality.
also, there are many subtle ways to tilt our view of reality thru certain adjectives. consider the controversy in japan and china about japanese textbooks. japanese textbooks will describe japanese invasion of china using more neutral language instead of harsher language. this is the difference between 'kill' and 'murder', or between 'incident' and 'massacre'. or between 'intrusion' and 'invasion'. when a black man or a jew expresses hatred toward whites, he is said to be 'controversial' or 'outspoken'. but, if a white man expresses animosity toward blacks or jews, he is said to be a 'racist', a 'hater', etc. communists are rarely if ever described as 'ugly' while 'racists' are said to be ugly.
experts are used in documentaries to ostensibly add more objectivity but, in fact, most experts tend to be liberal or leftist partisans. as liberals or leftists, they are protected by the cult of science though many of them don't care about real science or truth. since liberalism is said to be 'open-minded' and 'secular and scientific', there is the assumption than a liberal or his opinion must be objective and open-minded simply because it conforms to liberal orthodoxy. this is like saying that since a priest is a man of god, his words must be that of god. too often, liberals think they monopolize Reason just as some religious zealots think they monopolize god. in their worship of almighty Reason, they are unreasonable.
so, many experts on documentaries are Liberal, not really liberal as meaning open-minded and unbiased. they have their own interests, agendas, biases, prejudics, preferences, etc.

suppose some documentarian makes a film about a religious community. he promises the members of the community that he will be objective and have the members tell their own story. he will merely record the reality. suppose he ends up with 200 hrs of video. even without narration, he can choose only the footages to make the people look like fools. or he can choose only the footages to make the people look like saints. but, if he adds narration, he will greatly change the meaning of the documentary. all narration focuses or shapes our attention to certain things while distracting us from others. but, suppose he goes the extra step. suppose he intercuts from his footage to talking head commentaries by experts--who turn out to be mostly liberal, often jewish. then, despite all the pretenses, it will not be an objective documentary.
of course, there is no such thing as a purely objective documentary. any footage chooses or favors one set of images or reality while missing all the others. suppose a documentary is about a community of a 1000 people. when the camera is shooting one person, it's missing 999 other realities. also, people can put on an act or lie. some lie cuz they wanna, some lie out of fear. most chinese living under mao lied to western academics when interviewed. they all said they love chairman mao and everything was hunky dory. so much for truth.

also, there is much one can do with the video or film footage. one can use slow-motion or grainy b/w. and there is also the use of music. in the cuban boxing documentary, there was a scene about the boxers who had defected to the US. they were shown in b/w and walking in slo-motion. they were presented in a trashy, hiphip gangsta manner. though the narration was objective, the image suggested they are traitors to the revolution.
whenever news stories wanna make us hate or distrust certain a certain group, the members of the group will be shown in slo-motion, made to look ominous and dangerous. they may well be evil and dangerous but such use of imagery doesn't allow or encourage us to think for ourselves. the imagery is thinking for us, manipulating us.

5. way words are spoken. even if the script or words spoken are objective, the way they are spoken can tilt the way we see reality. take charlie rose, for example. notice how he sucks up to liberal jews. when he once interviewes david remnick about what's happening in yugoslavia, he asked, 'how do you...(long grave pause)...as a... jew.......(long pause) feel about what's happening in yugoslavia?' in other words, jews are oh-so-noble. no one understands suffering like the jews. never mind that remnick grew up in the US with all the privileges and wealth of NY jews. simply the fact that he's jewish somehow makes him wiser than the rest of us!! this is funnier when we consider that over 30 million slavs--of which yugoslavs are a part--were killed by communism which was cooked up and largely guided by radical jews.
in a more recent interview with steven bach on leni riefenstahl, charlie rose put on a prissy grumpy face when discussing leni. he didn't show his emotions outright but was hinting to us that he's such a wonderful fellow and so offended by this topic that he's doing his best not to puke.
there are infinite shades of emotions one can express. oftentimes, the liberal news person will maintain the official objective face while suggesting shades of outrage, anger, and animosity when interviewing someone or discussing a certain topic. other times, he will maintain the official objective face while beaming favorably covering other topics. so, a newsman can look objective hinting toward grave/angry or objective hinting toward happy/favorable.
this is why the so-called liberal objective news is all caca.


--------------

and there are many other ways that news can be biased and slanted. this isn't to suggest that talk radio should be the standard by which all news and information should operate simply because it's more honest. god forbid!
the point is there is liberals don't give us fair and balanced news, and for them to attack talk radio for unfairness is alot of caca.
indeed, i would argue that the only true way to ensure greater fairness is not in the way news is presented--which allows for endless and subtle ways of manipulation and biased reportage--but by setting quotas on how many news outlets can be owned by certain interested groups. now, this proposal is unconstitutional, and this is only a devil's advocate argument. but, IF INDEED fairness and balance in the media are truly important, the best way to ensure such is to make sure that no one ethnic, racial, or political group has dominance over the media and academia. the fact is much of our media outlets are run by jews, mostly liberal jews. CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, NY Times, Time magazine, Newsweek, and etc, etc are owned, managed, and/or operated by mostly liberal jews. and many conservative journals are owned/run/operated by conservative jews though conservative jews make up only 8% of jewish community and even smaller number of overall conservative folks. this is why many traditional conservatives resent neocons whom the former accuse of being more loyal to israel than to the USA.
now, liberal jews may counter that it doesn't matter who owns or operates the news as long as they do it well, fairly, professionally, and etc. but, ironically, these are the very same jews who insist that diversity is important because fairness isn't only about professionalism and ability but range of perspectives which are often determined or defined by race or ethnic background.
the problem with the liberal jewish argument is they want diverisity among the troops but not among the commanders. NY Times and such will be for hiring more minority reporters but when it comes to those who own and manage the media, they find no problem with jews--who make up only 2% of the US population--being so dominant.
the fact is the real power, agenda, standards, rules, etc are set by those at the top. the guy at the top do the hiring and firing. those below may be diverse or disagree with those at the top but if they diverge or disagree too much, they are fired or shunted aside to less favorable posts. the jewish controlled media will carefully screen those who are most friendly and obedient to jewish interests and agendas. many of the hirelings are liberal jewish. but even when they are not liberal jewish, they better be jew-ass-kissers. consider charlie rose whose show depends on bloomberg media corporation. rose better kiss jewish ass or he's out of a job. of course, jews don't maintain control thru obvious and blatant means. outwardly, they act all fair and objective and so on. but, they know who is a jew-ass-kisser and who isn't. for entertainment value and in the interest of objectivity they will have guys like pat buchanan on certain shows, but guys like buchanan will never be allowed into the core centers of decision making in the liberal jew dominated media industry. now, there are powerful conservative media moguls too, like rupert murdoch, and they are often even scummier than the jews. indeed, fox tv is mostly a joke and most of murdoch's publications are shi*. and washington times is owned by looney tunes mofo reverend moon. and, there are some real pigheaded shi**ers in that outfit.
when it comes to professional skills, ability, and such, jews are indeed the best. and jews gained prominence in the media mostly fairly. they made money and bought media outlets. and, jews are more intellectualish than other groups so more jews go into academics and the media(and the arts). so, it's not the jews' fault that they are powerful. BUT, if we want real fairness and balance, we cannot get it with jews having such dominance in the media.
think of these scenarios. suppose mormons owned or operated CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, NY Times and etc, etc. suppose many many news writers and commentators were mormons. suppose mormons were very professional and skilled in reporting the news--as NY Times is. who would deny that the media would be slanted, subtlely or non-subtlely, toward mormon interests. even if the mormon publishers and moguls hired many non-mormons in the media ranks, the ultimate power would be held by mormon bosses who would determine and define the main agenda of the media. also, suppose there is a certain thing called 'anti-mormonism' that is deemed utterly evil because, at one point in US history, one million mormons had been rounded up and killed. so, suppose many of us feel historical guilt regarding the mormons. and suppose mormons today are so powerful that even though they make up only 2% of the population, they owned like 30% of the national wealth. out of guilt AND fear, we would all be afraid of criticizing mormon power. mormons could be the most powerful group in the US but we would not be able to discuss mormon power. meanwhile, suppose mormons feel free to openly criticize, condemn, mock, and insult all other groups.
or, replace mormons with muslim-americans. if mormons or muslim-americnas had the kind of control over US media and academia that jews have, would we say there is NO problem with this? bullcocky!!
indeed, suppose muslim-americans had the kind of media power that jews have. our view of the middle east would have been very different. in 1948, we probably wouldn't have supported the creation of israel. we wouldn't have given tons of aid to israel. we wouldn't have carried out a long policy in the region that alienated over a billion muslims against the US. muslim-american moguls would surely have done everything to make US feel closer to muslims. they would have used US media to serve muslim and/or arab interests. now, all groups--muslim, irish, chinese, polish, greek, turkish, armenian, cuban, etc--in the US have tried to steer US policy to serve their interests. in this regard, jews are no different and no worse. but, jews have more power that just about all other nationalities combined. most of the bigtime media is owned/run by jews. the most influential minds in the academia are jews. also, as both US and western europe feel guilt toward jews(i don't know why this is so with the US when gentile american soldiers sacrificed their lives to save jews in WWII; the answer is jew run media and academia brainwashed all of us toward feeling sorry for jews), jewish power cannot be identified or criticized. jews can not only have superwealth and superpower but we can't even discuss their power. while liberal jews can go on and on and on about arab power, chinese power, european power, russian power, japanese power, christian right power, cuban american power, and so on, we can't say anything about goddamn jewish power.
take an average american; walk up to him and and tell him about christian right power, and whether he agrees or disagrees, he finds nothing wrong with discussing such. but, try to talk about jewish power or influence, and he will look at you as though you're sick, as though you're 'rabid' and 'virulent'. why? because the jew run media and academia have brainwashed him that jews are the noblest folks in the world and that any discussion of jewish power is evil!!
to be sure, it's okay to bash conservative jews as 'uncle tamowitzes'.

so, if we really want fairness and balance in the media, we have to deal with the fact that much of the media(and academia which feed the media)are owned and/or operated by liberal jews who are also immune from any accountability or criticism. the relationship between the media and us is like a one-way see-through mirror. the jew can see us but we can't see the jew. the jew can't see his reflection cuz he's on the other side of the mirror. we can't see the jew cuz the mirror reflects our image. the jews who control the media will hire all-american looking types as the face of the media--diane sawyer, katie couric, tom brokaw, charlie gibson, charlie rose, judy woodruff, some negro, etc. so, when we see the media, we think WE are in control. but, all these dimwit whites and negroes were educated, brainwashed, and hired by liberal jews. they are the pretty goy puppets of the liberal jews. we see our reflection on the mirror but the real force behind the mirror is the liberal jew who provides the voices accompanying the image.

if we really want fairness and balance, affirmative action in the lower and middle level is not enough. we need affirmative action at the very top where the REAL POWER resides. with affirmative action only at the middle and lower, liberal jews can hire people to provide the window dressing of diversity and fairness. but, in the upper echelons of REAL POWER, it's jewish domination. jews make up 2% of the population yet control most of the biggest media outlets. just think about it. they make us care for what THEY care about and then make us think that it's OUR concerns. liberal jews, thru biased coverage, made us loathe apartheid in south africa while making us support apartheid in israel and occupied territories. why do WE feel this way? cuz we read and see the news with countless biases and subtle tricks. and who controls the news? the liberal jews. so, we are appalled by afrikaner apartheid against blacks and appalled by palestinian resistance against israeli apartheid.
liberal jews are so clever that even the worst excesses of israel are blamed on american christians; it's often said that the only reason why israel acts extremely at times is because they are encouraged by christian rightists. so, even the evil of jewish occupation in palestinian territories is the fault of overzealous american christians. zionist liberal jews benefit from the staunch christian right's support of israel AND accuse of the christian right of being the main obstacle to peace in the middle east. yes, liberal jews are very brilliant. never mind that much of american support of israel is the product of biased jewish reporting in the media dominated by liberal jews.

so, if we want real balance and fairness in the media, we need to restrict ownership of the media along ethnic or racial lines. suppose a law says a racial or ethnic group's ownership of the major media cannot exceed 5 times their represention in the population. since jews make up 2%, such law would not allow jews to own more than 10% of national media. the rest would be owned and run by other groups. this would lead to REAL fairness and balance. as it standards, fairness and balance supported by liberals is mere window dressing.