No, not really. However according to this CNN story there are links to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen. However: Interesting theory why: Damned liberal American media, making people think Saddam had something to do with September 11th.
A war would shoot up the ratings for CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. They're liberals (except for Fox), but they're ratings hounds first. Alex
This quote completely undermines the liberal-media argument of the right. Media outlets are companies, meaning they want to make money. That seriously supercedes any political desires that journalists may have. Editoral staff, seeking to boost sales, will put up headlines that make money, not headlines that push a political agenda.
This is true, my point is that they will usually put up something with a left-wing bias AND that generates sales. But when the 2 are mutually exclusive, I'll agree that they go for the ratings (with TV news, most print media is IMO a lot more left-wing). I'll admit that in recent years, CNN and the network news programs have started to move back towards the center, most likely due to the popularity of Fox. Alex
Prove it. The right likes to claim this all the time, but when asked for factual evidence, they shut up.
So why is liberal MSNBC giving Mike Savage and that poor man's Bill O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough so much air time??? With all the right-wing talk shows, Fox News, and now even MSNBC I fail to see the liberal media conspiracy.
Actually, the US media is a bit schizophrenic. Culturally, they're liberal because capitalism demands that people spend money and therefore have desires that they believe can be fulfilled by buying things. The job of the media is therefore to stimulate those desires. Economically and politically they are conservative and tend to produce outputs that serve the political interests of their owners, including their parent corporations.
When has the media ever linked Saddam to 9/11? Many Americans are uneducated and therefore believe Saddam is tied to 9/11. The President usually benefits in terms of getting support for his policies because he has the loudest voice and the American people remain uneducated. Clinton benefited all the time.
The TV media are simply extensions of for-profit entertainment companies. Whatever they do is directly driven by the need to increase ratings and thereby increase ad revenue. HOW they do it is irrelevant. Kudos to FoxNews for inventing a new schtick that others are now trying to emulate. I have a hard time taking them seriously -- the same company that says its journalism is so great ("fair and balanced" blah de blah) is the same one that cranks out "Married by America" and other opiates for the masses. Just read the papers. Lots of 'em.
Because they want good ratings? Liberals can't survive on the airwaves, radio or tv, because their arguments just don't hold up under scrutiny. Fox and talk radio have proven this out.
I don't think the validity of the arguements is even relevant. Conservatives are better performers. See Reagan, Limbaugh, etc. They don't even believe what they say half of the time but they know that the shock value will draw attention to them.