StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Captain tycho wrote:Name another country in the world that has given out as much aid as we have. Our soldiers died to defend Kuwait, our soldiers died defending Seoul. We have given out billions in aid and have sent voluteers all over the world to help out. We have doctors in Africa helping to fight against HIV. The list gets longer....
But, really, do you see any other countries like that?
We have been at the frontline of civil rights and women's rights for decades, as well as have been at the technological forefront.
Why do you think so many people try to get in the US?
Because it's a much better place than the rest of the world.
Those European snobs can go fuck themselves.

Now that's a bit too harsh.

For the "defending the world" and "donating the world" facts I have to say yes that can be sometimes a little annoying but superpower comes with super-reponsibility...

Wether you like it or not that's life.

Beside that a lot of european fights against AIDS and other diseases all around the world as well. You only know what the media is telling to you and that's understandable.

You know I'm european and I really don't care about stupid polls like that one.
I'm not a snob and I don't fuck myself!!!

I have no biases against the USA and I don't think most of the people have here.

Stop digging the trench line, we don1t need it.

I do my best to make this world a better place and tried to shut my mouth in the last week while you were bashing Europe.

Come on dudes, it's getting boring.

OK, France, Germany, Belgium said no. But there were several other countries who said YES!!!

Just like Hungary. We're NATO members already and we do our best to help our allies. We offered our airbases for US planes and air transports as well.
We don't have any biases against the USA.

In fact the american embassador here (Mrs. Brinkmann) is a very popular person here. I personally like her very much for her work against breast-cancer.

...of course she's not insulting us with polls and theories like this.

NF, you know the more posts of yours I read the lower my opinion of you drops.

I also find the "well they are saying one thing on thier news and we are hearing something different on ours...so the truth must be in the middle." attitude a lot of people here seem to have epressed.

I cant watch CNN for more than a few minutes without feeling somewhat sick or bursting out laughing....it usually doesnt seem to report facts...it (and what I've seen of FOX News) is totally reprhensible at times when it comes to the idea of reporting facts....you only get "sanatized" news there....look around the world as a whole and see how it matches with what CNN tells you the world is....ugh.....

Sky News is a good service, they tell you the facts....BBC arent quite as good...

As for the Europe biased against America thing.....as regards human rights you are far from world leader....you didnt even get on board first on a lot of it....slavery was abolished in europe a long time before it went away on the other side of the atlantic....so saying they are a world leader in human rights is not exactly the best thing.....hey, while you're at it swing by "Amnesty International" and take a look at the section on Human Rights and the US....

I could shout about a lot of other crap that the US has done....don't assume its a bias...something isnt a bias if its rational and based upon facts.

Did I ever say CNN was good? I really don't like CNN, as a matter of fact, they go so far as to border on yellow journalism, as do many major media outlets in the US. We have a terrible news service, here.

And must we mention the human rights violations by the European colonial powers? Don't say that Europe is any better than the U.S. in that area, because you aren't. We are far from perfect in that area, but are no worse than Europe.

And no, something might not be a bias if it is a rational basis, but, is it all a rational basis for the prevalent Anti-Americanism in the European community?

NF_Utvol wrote:Did I ever say CNN was good? I really don't like CNN, as a matter of fact, they go so far as to border on yellow journalism, as do many major media outlets in the US. We have a terrible news service, here.

And must we mention the human rights violations by the European colonial powers? Don't say that Europe is any better than the U.S. in that area, because you aren't. We are far from perfect in that area, but are no worse than Europe.

And no, something might not be a bias if it is a rational basis, but, is it all a rational basis for the prevalent Anti-Americanism in the European community?

Only the very start of my post was directly aimed at you, the rest of it was in general about some of the things brought up in the thread. European powers in the past have done more damage to the world than the US could hope to have....but alot of that is down to the advantage of a head start.
I dont claim Europe is any better in the past, but to claim the US is the world leader in human rights as someone did etc is pure bull.

I don't think the vast majority of Europeans are biased against America.
How much trouble has there been on this board from "biased European" members? Very little, if any, AFAIK. And yet Europe's apparently a hotbed of anti-American angst. Is it?
Why doesn't it plainly come out here, even though we on this board are effectively anonymous and don't have the stabilising effects of face-to-face contact?

because, if it did, the board would soon degrade to total chaos if a level of respect to other members was not maintained

NF_Utvol wrote:Did I ever say CNN was good? I really don't like CNN, as a matter of fact, they go so far as to border on yellow journalism, as do many major media outlets in the US. We have a terrible news service, here.

And must we mention the human rights violations by the European colonial powers? Don't say that Europe is any better than the U.S. in that area, because you aren't. We are far from perfect in that area, but are no worse than Europe.

And no, something might not be a bias if it is a rational basis, but, is it all a rational basis for the prevalent Anti-Americanism in the European community?

Give me examples for this "Anti-Americanism", please.

Well, this was previously stated, and is at hand, so I will use it:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/871193.asp?0cv=CA01

That is from a news service that is considered far left in the US, too.

Boba Fett wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:Did I ever say CNN was good? I really don't like CNN, as a matter of fact, they go so far as to border on yellow journalism, as do many major media outlets in the US. We have a terrible news service, here.

And must we mention the human rights violations by the European colonial powers? Don't say that Europe is any better than the U.S. in that area, because you aren't. We are far from perfect in that area, but are no worse than Europe.

And no, something might not be a bias if it is a rational basis, but, is it all a rational basis for the prevalent Anti-Americanism in the European community?

Give me examples for this "Anti-Americanism", please.

There is also Anti-Americanism here in quebec and its been running for a looong time when the WTC was destroyed by fucking assholes what i heard around here is the Americans got what they deserves. if i could legally buy guns i would have killed everyone of these bastards.

IT seems to me that Europe has fell into the extreem Left, maybe due to communist infulences, and because America is Right Wing that they will inevitabley clash. Lefties see RightWingers as a cancer to be stamped out. Right Wingers see Lefties as soft headed bleeding heart fools who cost THEM money. Some form of bias towards each other is always gonna happen.

Keevan_Colton wrote:I cant watch CNN for more than a few minutes without feeling somewhat sick or bursting out laughing....it usually doesnt seem to report facts...it (and what I've seen of FOX News) is totally reprhensible at times when it comes to the idea of reporting facts....you only get "sanatized" news there....look around the world as a whole and see how it matches with what CNN tells you the world is....ugh.....

Sky News is a good service, they tell you the facts....BBC arent quite as good...

Truth be told, I've fairly well given up on figuring out the mass media. I'll read a few different interpretations and try to figure out what seems most accurate based on what I know, since I only get the major American channels here (one television service provider...no monopolies my ass).

As for the Europe biased against America thing.....as regards human rights you are far from world leader....you didnt even get on board first on a lot of it....slavery was abolished in europe a long time before it went away on the other side of the atlantic....

1. Slavery was not as profitable in Europe as it was in the US for agricultural and property reasons. Population densities had a lot to do with it. Not excusing slavery, just explaining part of the reason.
2. Ah, yes, slavery, the institution in America started by the British. Maybe the Spanish if you want to count the treatment of some of the natives. If you're going to back in history, why not go medieval on it? We had no Crusades, no Inquisitions (2000 dead in Spain, 4000 in France, 6000 in England, and at least 20,000 in the Netherlands). Or how about good ol' Hitler? Great European product there. No slavery in the death camps. Nope. Pure, wholesome European goodness. [/rant] I know I sound like an asshole there, but that statement is just typical of the "Eurosnobs" we dislike. "Well, we got rid of slavery first, so...you're barbarians and we've got culture." I don't know, maybe y'all are right, but to this fella that stinks like bullshit.

so saying they are a world leader in human rights is not exactly the best thing.....hey, while you're at it swing by "Amnesty International" and take a look at the section on Human Rights and the US....

I'm sorry, but even my respect for human life doesn't lead me to consider them anything but fools. Well-meaning fools, perhaps, but still fools. Some of their "facts" are just plain wrong, including the one about the death penalty "never having been shown to deter crime." There are studies showing that crime rates do drop in areas with the death penalty. It may not be conclusive proof, but in social science conclusive proof is much harder to obtain than in natural science due to the larger margin of human error when you're using a handful of scientists compared to a few billion people.

Also, how does one person's right to life exceed my right to security (which are in the same clause of the document creating AI)? While life in prison may seem as good an alternative as capital punishment, the fact remains that murderers have escaped from prison and murdered again; there is no such thing as an escape-proof prison. When a murderer is executed, on the other hand, they almost definitely won't kill again. Is Texas too hasty in killing death row inmates? Certainly. But do you know the number one cause of death for death row inmates? Complications from old age. Most live and die a natural life, usually with better health treatment than I get as a full citizen.

I could shout about a lot of other crap that the US has done....don't assume its a bias...something isnt a bias if its rational and based upon facts.

Of course not. I have no problem with criticisms of the United States if they are rational and based upon facts. When people refuse to admit any alternative to the theories they have formed based on conjecture, that is irrational and is a bias.

The Dark wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote:I cant watch CNN for more than a few minutes without feeling somewhat sick or bursting out laughing....it usually doesnt seem to report facts...it (and what I've seen of FOX News) is totally reprhensible at times when it comes to the idea of reporting facts....you only get "sanatized" news there....look around the world as a whole and see how it matches with what CNN tells you the world is....ugh.....

Sky News is a good service, they tell you the facts....BBC arent quite as good...

Truth be told, I've fairly well given up on figuring out the mass media. I'll read a few different interpretations and try to figure out what seems most accurate based on what I know, since I only get the major American channels here (one television service provider...no monopolies my ass).

As for the Europe biased against America thing.....as regards human rights you are far from world leader....you didnt even get on board first on a lot of it....slavery was abolished in europe a long time before it went away on the other side of the atlantic....

1. Slavery was not as profitable in Europe as it was in the US for agricultural and property reasons. Population densities had a lot to do with it. Not excusing slavery, just explaining part of the reason.
2. Ah, yes, slavery, the institution in America started by the British. Maybe the Spanish if you want to count the treatment of some of the natives. If you're going to back in history, why not go medieval on it? We had no Crusades, no Inquisitions (2000 dead in Spain, 4000 in France, 6000 in England, and at least 20,000 in the Netherlands). Or how about good ol' Hitler? Great European product there. No slavery in the death camps. Nope. Pure, wholesome European goodness. [/rant] I know I sound like an asshole there, but that statement is just typical of the "Eurosnobs" we dislike. "Well, we got rid of slavery first, so...you're barbarians and we've got culture." I don't know, maybe y'all are right, but to this fella that stinks like bullshit.

Well, I remember shrubby shouting about a crusade against terror......that one's bound to go over real well....thats not any particular european nation that was behind the crusades it was a large number of religious assholes (assholes being a great tradition of religion anywhere...lets not even get started on america and its status as the great bastion of idiot creationists....)

so saying they are a world leader in human rights is not exactly the best thing.....hey, while you're at it swing by "Amnesty International" and take a look at the section on Human Rights and the US....

I'm sorry, but even my respect for human life doesn't lead me to consider them anything but fools. Well-meaning fools, perhaps, but still fools. Some of their "facts" are just plain wrong, including the one about the death penalty "never having been shown to deter crime." There are studies showing that crime rates do drop in areas with the death penalty. It may not be conclusive proof, but in social science conclusive proof is much harder to obtain than in natural science due to the larger margin of human error when you're using a handful of scientists compared to a few billion people.

Also, how does one person's right to life exceed my right to security (which are in the same clause of the document creating AI)? While life in prison may seem as good an alternative as capital punishment, the fact remains that murderers have escaped from prison and murdered again; there is no such thing as an escape-proof prison. When a murderer is executed, on the other hand, they almost definitely won't kill again. Is Texas too hasty in killing death row inmates? Certainly. But do you know the number one cause of death for death row inmates? Complications from old age. Most live and die a natural life, usually with better health treatment than I get as a full citizen.

Dead people dont re-offend....
If you kill everyone, then crime drops to absolute zero.....
If you make everything legal, crime technically drops too.....
Still doesnt make them great ideas.....

There's been a lot of cases in the US where the legal system has fucked up, someone's been executed then been found to be not guilty....

As regard the bit I put into bold....then why bother with the death penalty at all?

I could shout about a lot of other crap that the US has done....don't assume its a bias...something isnt a bias if its rational and based upon facts.

Of course not. I have no problem with criticisms of the United States if they are rational and based upon facts. When people refuse to admit any alternative to the theories they have formed based on conjecture, that is irrational and is a bias.

*nods*

The Dark wrote:

Keevan_Colton wrote:I cant watch CNN for more than a few minutes without feeling somewhat sick or bursting out laughing....it usually doesnt seem to report facts...it (and what I've seen of FOX News) is totally reprhensible at times when it comes to the idea of reporting facts....you only get "sanatized" news there....look around the world as a whole and see how it matches with what CNN tells you the world is....ugh.....

Sky News is a good service, they tell you the facts....BBC arent quite as good...

Truth be told, I've fairly well given up on figuring out the mass media. I'll read a few different interpretations and try to figure out what seems most accurate based on what I know, since I only get the major American channels here (one television service provider...no monopolies my ass).

As for the Europe biased against America thing.....as regards human rights you are far from world leader....you didnt even get on board first on a lot of it....slavery was abolished in europe a long time before it went away on the other side of the atlantic....

1. Slavery was not as profitable in Europe as it was in the US for agricultural and property reasons. Population densities had a lot to do with it. Not excusing slavery, just explaining part of the reason.
2. Ah, yes, slavery, the institution in America started by the British. Maybe the Spanish if you want to count the treatment of some of the natives. If you're going to back in history, why not go medieval on it? We had no Crusades, no Inquisitions (2000 dead in Spain, 4000 in France, 6000 in England, and at least 20,000 in the Netherlands). Or how about good ol' Hitler? Great European product there. No slavery in the death camps. Nope. Pure, wholesome European goodness. [/rant] I know I sound like an asshole there, but that statement is just typical of the "Eurosnobs" we dislike. "Well, we got rid of slavery first, so...you're barbarians and we've got culture." I don't know, maybe y'all are right, but to this fella that stinks like bullshit.

Well, I remember shrubby shouting about a crusade against terror......that one's bound to go over real well....thats not any particular european nation that was behind the crusades it was a large number of religious assholes (assholes being a great tradition of religion anywhere...lets not even get started on america and its status as the great bastion of idiot creationists....)

so saying they are a world leader in human rights is not exactly the best thing.....hey, while you're at it swing by "Amnesty International" and take a look at the section on Human Rights and the US....

I'm sorry, but even my respect for human life doesn't lead me to consider them anything but fools. Well-meaning fools, perhaps, but still fools. Some of their "facts" are just plain wrong, including the one about the death penalty "never having been shown to deter crime." There are studies showing that crime rates do drop in areas with the death penalty. It may not be conclusive proof, but in social science conclusive proof is much harder to obtain than in natural science due to the larger margin of human error when you're using a handful of scientists compared to a few billion people.

Also, how does one person's right to life exceed my right to security (which are in the same clause of the document creating AI)? While life in prison may seem as good an alternative as capital punishment, the fact remains that murderers have escaped from prison and murdered again; there is no such thing as an escape-proof prison. When a murderer is executed, on the other hand, they almost definitely won't kill again. Is Texas too hasty in killing death row inmates? Certainly. But do you know the number one cause of death for death row inmates? Complications from old age. Most live and die a natural life, usually with better health treatment than I get as a full citizen.

Dead people dont re-offend....
If you kill everyone, then crime drops to absolute zero.....
If you make everything legal, crime technically drops too.....
Still doesnt make them great ideas.....

There's been a lot of cases in the US where the legal system has fucked up, someone's been executed then been found to be not guilty....

As regard the bit I put into bold....then why bother with the death penalty at all?

I could shout about a lot of other crap that the US has done....don't assume its a bias...something isnt a bias if its rational and based upon facts.

Of course not. I have no problem with criticisms of the United States if they are rational and based upon facts. When people refuse to admit any alternative to the theories they have formed based on conjecture, that is irrational and is a bias.

*nods*

Keevan_Colton wrote:Well, I remember shrubby shouting about a crusade against terror......that one's bound to go over real well....thats not any particular european nation that was behind the crusades it was a large number of religious assholes (assholes being a great tradition of religion anywhere...lets not even get started on america and its status as the great bastion of idiot creationists....)

Yeah, that was purely idiocy on Shrubby's part. I don't know what he was thinking when he said that, whether he was thinking of the religious connotations or merely said the first thing that popped into his head. It's possible that he was thinking of religion, since bin Laden had declared the war against America as a jihad. I don't know. It was pure stupidity, and frankly I'm glad I didn't vote for the man.

Dead people dont re-offend....
If you kill everyone, then crime drops to absolute zero.....
If you make everything legal, crime technically drops too.....
Still doesnt make them great ideas.....

True. The question is what's feasible. It's not feasible to make everything legal; society will disintegrate. Same with the death of everyone. However, if society in its social contracts says, "the penalty for this crime should be the loss of life of the offender," then the government is entitled to respect the wishes of its population (sorry if this offends any modern liberals...I lean more towards the libertarian).

There's been a lot of cases in the US where the legal system has fucked up, someone's been executed then been found to be not guilty....

23 cases over 100 years. By comparison, at least 377 who were wrongfully convicted were released before their execution. I realize that's still not a great percentage, but it's not some endemic condition.

As regard the bit I put into bold....then why bother with the death penalty at all?

As a deterrent. Besides, there are some people I really feel should not have any chance at escape. McVeigh, Mumia Abu-Jamal (assuming he does get a second trial and is convicted, since the first appears to have had some possible oddities, though the sources claiming that are suspicious)...people who commit horrible crimes.

First of all, I'm European snob who is a strong advocate of EU and I occasionally fuck myself to relieve the stress. What comes to the subject of this poll, I have to say that anti-Americanism is becoming increasingly widespread here. It has almost become trendy to regularily bash USA, even among teenagers, who like to act tough.

For example, I was watching a SMS chat show on tellly last Sebtember, exactly one year after the terrorist attacks. A fifteen year old girl sent the following message (not exactly like this, but close): "Yanks got exactly what they deserved. They've killed millions with their nuclear bombs in WWII etc ... " Others joined in immediately after this, continuing on the same "well-educated" path.

I don't bash America, and I know many (Finns) who feel the same way as I do. However, this does not mean that I agree with everything that hardliners such as Rumsfeld or Cheney say. The people of United States can sometimes be arrogant asses who pretend to be so much superior compared to others. Some parts of Captain Tycho's post are an example of this thinking, mainly the classic, over-used ending line: "Because it's a much better place than the rest of the world." No, it's okay. There are people everywhere on the globe, thinking their country has the only one right way to live.

Among other propagandistic stuff that was in the post included the following: "[We have been at the frontline of] women's rights for decades," Women's suffrage in USA occured in the twenties, am I right? Too bad, since Australia did it in 1902, followed by Finland in 1906, Norway couple years later, Denmark, Austria, Russia, Germany, Britain, etc.

Am I bashing USA here? I don't think so, but it's up to everyone to decide. I've seen so many Finns dissing Russians, Swedes believing in their militarical superiority over country X, Europeans foolishly believing in Palestinian propaganda and so on. Country bashing, especially this Eurotrash vs Great Satan of USA setting is getting weary and tiredsome.

Bashing the French is very common here, but how many of you has talked with a real Frenchman, not just someone from Quebec? I have met some and they all have been very nice and friendly people - far from the "frogs" that some people see them as. Perhaps I have just been lucky, who the hell knows.

"What did you think of movie X?"

"It was good."

"How about movie Y?"

"It sucked."

"You're biased."

Oberleutnant wrote:<snip stuff I generally agree with>
Bashing the French is very common here, but how many of you has talked with a real Frenchman, not just someone from Quebec? I have met some and they all have been very nice and friendly people - far from the "frogs" that some people see them as. Perhaps I have just been lucky, who the hell knows.

I know two people from France. One lives near La Defense. Sophie's a very nice person, though hard to get to know, since she's rather shy. The other is from the northern coast and is a total snob and bitch. I don't remember her name (had her in a few classes), and I wish I could forget her totally. She did live up to the stereotype of "Eurotrash," and I am glad I don't have her in any other classes.

I also found an interesting editorial in the USA Today by Yves Faes of Beveren, Belgium.

Yves Faes wrote:I fully understand the criticism by many Americans of the Belgian government, which, along with France and Germany, has opposed U.S. efforts to enlist NATO in the anti-Iraq campaign.
The reasons for not supporting an immediate attack against Iraq are mostly linked to internal conditions and domestic Belgian politics.
Our federal government is a coalition of Liberals, Socialists, and members of the "Green" party; the latter strongly opposes the war. There are national elections in May, and our government cannot stay in power without the Greens' support.
Belgium has a large Muslim population. In cities such as Antwerp, relations between Muslims and non-Muslim Belgians are tense.
Many Americans don't seem to know that U.S. forces use the Port of Antwerp for the shipment of military supplies and the American officers stay in a military camp near the Belgian town of Sint-Niklaas.
Many of us in Belgium do not approve of the behavior of our federal government on this NATO issue. But we hope Americans can show some understanding of our political position

I'm not sure what his third point is proving. All I can think is either:
1) The Belgians are worried about reprisals aimed at Americans and causing collateral damage
2) The Belgians don't want to lose the money American soldiers spend if they are stationed in Turkey rather than Belgium.

There was also an editorial by a man from Clitheroe, England about how "many of us in Britain" do not consider themselves to be fully European, and have long considered France and Germany unfaithful allies. There additionally was an article by a woman from Graz, Austria, saying that the Americans "have only limited knowledge about other countries and cultures," and thus should not go to war (great logic there, since EVERY nation has only limited knowledge about other countries and cultures...heck, if we had unlimited knowledge about Iraq, we'd probably just bomb the weapon sites and maybe Hussein's bunkers and be done with it).

A. Europes perception of America comes from 3 Sources
1. Tourists, by far the greatest causes of the stupid, fat culturely devoid stereotypes that Europeans will see en masse. They rarely if ever abide by local customs, they are rude and loud and they aren't shy about sharing their opinons with others (right or wrong). - Yes I know there are considerate tourists, but they tend to go unnoticed as the loud offenbsive ones get all the attention and spread the stereotype.
2. Your presidents current inability to string 2 words together without offending someone or stumbling over the long words. I don't care how smart his advisors are, or how smart hemay be in person. He comes across as a buffoon and that tends to paint a seriously bad image for your country.
3. The Internet. Lots of teenagers or ill-educated sections of the American populace that loudly and repeatedly give the other citizens a bad name, with trolling, flaming and fucked up illiterate L337 speak.

Other countries are far from blameless in this regard, but the most widespread offender is the States whether you like it or not.

B. The States is hardly the world leader in Defending Democracy (incase any of you missed this fact about your country, you are not a Democracy you are a Republic!), As has been pointed out France beats you in world aid contributions and in Kuwait there were British, French, Canadian, German and Belgian troops just to name a few. Until you got attacked you couldn't have given a flying fuck about international terrorism and if Saudi didn't have any oil you certainly wouldn't be there.

C. Anyone who has actually travelled to the States doesn't have the same feelings as those that only know it through the stereotypes. The vast majority fo people I know that have visited actually like Americans.

D. Britain is not a part of europe!

E. CNN is a joke for news as they tend to pander to popular opinion, Fox News is tabloid journalism for TV, The BBC tends to take as neutral a stand as possible (though the anchors of late have been asking some assinine questions and you can see the pain on the Correspondents faces when they realise that the anchors mean what they say. ) and lastly Sky news is great... provided you wait a few hours after a story has broken to give them time to stop spouting ratings grabbing sensationalist nonsense and give you the facts.

Rob Wilson wrote:C. Anyone who has actually travelled to the States doesn't have the same feelings as those that only know it through the stereotypes. The vast majority fo people I know that have visited actually like Americans.

I'll second that. Doesn't mean I approve of the US government's politics, but Americans I've met I like. (most of them)

Slartibartfast wrote:"What did you think of movie X?"

"It was good."

"How about movie Y?"

"It sucked."

"You're biased."

The best comment on this threads subject to date!

Edi wrote:

Coyote wrote:In Israel I became a big fan of Sky News; the way the BBC portrayed us was pretty sick at times...

Out of curiosity, how long ago was that?

Most of the time I spent in Israel, since September of 1998 until I left in June of 2002. Especially with the breakdown of talks and the Intifada and all, BBC was really one-sided about the whole thing.

Edi wrote:It should also be noted that communism and marxism were the creations of upper class diletantes who had a tenuous grasp of reality in the first place. They've fallen quite out of favor, though the leftist tradition is still alive.

Yeah, that was the impression I had about the original Marxists, but it did become popular for awhile. And I think, to an extent, the promises of Communism (even though they were undelivered) seemed more interesting to a European audience than to an American one.

Edi wrote:The problem with media is that they always give an impression more extreme than the reality, because that way they get a bigger audience. Hype sells...

Yeah, in America the unofficial motto of the media is "If it bleeds, it leads"...

i think a lot of people mix things up.

there´s a difference between disliking the american government and disliking the american people.

Re: bias in the news: American news sources are predominantly biased to the right, but most people think there is a bias to the left. There's a new book on this subject (What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman). Consider the number of significant conservative publications and television channels or shows:
Fox News
The Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
New York Post
American Spectator
Weekly Standard
New York Sun
National Review
Commentary

and of course Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, William Saire, George Will, Robert Novak, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, Cokie Roberts, John McLaughlin, Oliver North, and so on and so forth.

In contrast, the liberal media consists of perhaps three notable journals (The Nation, The New Yorker, and the Atlantic Monthly), all of which include commentary from conservatives (and, in the case of The Nation, at least, actively seek it out), whereas their conservative counterparts do not seek out liberal contributions

On television, MSNBC is perhaps the most liberal news channel, but both it and CNN are roughly centrist. CSPAN is almost totally neutral. MSNBC has Donahue (one of the few liberal pundits on TV), but he is followed immediately by Chris Matthews.

The people who claim that there is a liberal media are usually conservatives (such as the guy who was on Chriss Matthews last night and whose name eludes me right now) who base their opinions on a. the fact that the news agencies still occasionally run stories that don't support the hard-line conservative view and b. the few liberal news sources out there. The gentleman on Chris Matthews last night relied on anecdotal evidence rather than looking at the facts, and in my experience that is a common approach by those talking about the so-called liberal media.

salm wrote:there´s a difference between disliking the american government and disliking the american people.

A good point. According to Eric Alterman, the most common reaction amongst Europeans regarding America is support for the nation, but not for the Bush administration. The average European has no problem with America per se, but a problem with the Americans who are in power (from the article "USA Oui! Bush No!" in The Nation, Feb. 10 2003).

Frank_Scenario wrote: In contrast, the liberal media consists of perhaps three notable journals (The Nation, The New Yorker, and the Atlantic Monthly), all of which include commentary from conservatives (and, in the case of The Nation, at least, actively seek it out), whereas their conservative counterparts do not seek out liberal contributions

yes, it´s the same here. while the right winged papers usually have one, in fact their, oppinion printed, the left winged newspapers usually have several opinions printed next to each other. probably because they expect their readers to be intelligent enough to form an own oppinion instead of reading it and taking it up as the truth.

Is Europe biased in their views against the United States?
No.

If you compare europe with the rest of the world you will find that europe is one of the last defenders of US policies.

If you have travelled the world for a while you will notice that the resentment against the US is much more widespread in africa, sam and asia.
Even Canadian media is more anti-US than european.

The only reason why the US feels that europe is "biased" against them is because europe is the only nation that has a powerful enough position and media to make an effect on US politics.



This is the simple result of unilateral policies, people will tend to judge you by your worst behavior, so even when doing "the right thing" people will look for your hidden agenda.