A liberal media does not necessarily lie. It just views things through a biased lens, just like the conservative media. This results in misleading statements that the author may genuinely believe or that the author uses loaded adjectives to guide the reader's opinion. Example: that article views Chavez in a positive light because he rules over a democracy and uses positive adjectives to describe th word "democracy". Had the author instead noted that Communist China is and Nazi Germany was democratically elected then the impression one gets of Chavez being democratically elected would be strikingly different. (I refer to the Federalist Papers, available on-line, starting with #10 if you want to see how Democracy can be painted in a very bad light.)
Another good example of how bias works would be ommissions, which Bush and Clinton are a good example of. I personally have very strong negative opinions of both these presidents so maybe that makes me objective.
So please don't construe this as a defense for one of them over the other. The media, excepting Fox, has been hard on Bush for the PATRIOT Act, lying about WMDs in Iraq, and having too much collateral damage in the war. Here are some examples from Clinton that did not garner quite the level of media criticism as Bush despite being strikingly similar as these three examples. Clinton said near the end of his term: "The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of this administration." His Secretary of State, when asked if the death of half a million Iraqi children was worth the economic sanctions, she said, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." And lastly, after the McVeigh bombing, Clinton tried to pass an anti-terrorism bill that the Bush administration used as the basis for drafting the PATRIOT Act. I don't recall much outcry for those actions 10 years ago; I believe things were pretty silent. Yet they really sound to me very analogous to complaints against Bush one could easily find in the NY Times et al. I'd be less suspicious if there were similar stories trashing Clinton or an equal ommission of reporting for both guys.
As for the article itself, one thing that is worth noting is that Saudi Arabia is possibly running out of oil. There have been cases where Saudi Arabia has been unable to deliver the oil they have promised. Plus the high oil prices are actually bad for Saudi Arabia because it drives business to other countries. Saudi Arabia's interest is to keep oil just low enough that no other country and make oil profitably, just like how Alcoa maintained its aluminum monopoly in the early 20th century. (Alcoa developed a way to make cheap aluminum and killed all their competition by perpetually keeping prices low like that.) I don't see how a "Saudi price drop" as a weapon of the American oil tycoons is even possible, as this conspiracy theory cites. That presumes the Saudis have excess oil since the only way to drop oil prices is cause a glut. The fact their monopoly is cracking seems like evidence that Saudi Arabia has lost control of the market due to a lack of oil and is ceasing to be an important player. (Which opens up a whole other can of worms!!) Claiming that the Saudis are being used as a weapon against Chavez is putting the cart before the horse: if the Saudis could be used in such a manner then no one would care about Chavez's oil. The only countries that could cause oil prices to drop IMO are America and Japan by attacking the demand side of the economic equation. China garners less energy per barrel of oil than any country since their industrialization is still infant. This makes them the world's largest polluter when measured by fuel efficiency and so very ripe for massive improvement. If they were to acquire fuel efficient engine technology from trading partners such as America and Japan, which have the best engine technology in the world, then China's oil consumption would plummet. But I don't see either country doing that since China is hostile to both.
Another good example of how bias works would be ommissions, which Bush and Clinton are a good example of. I personally have very strong negative opinions of both these presidents so maybe that makes me objective.
So please don't construe this as a defense for one of them over the other. The media, excepting Fox, has been hard on Bush for the PATRIOT Act, lying about WMDs in Iraq, and having too much collateral damage in the war. Here are some examples from Clinton that did not garner quite the level of media criticism as Bush despite being strikingly similar as these three examples. Clinton said near the end of his term: "The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of this administration." His Secretary of State, when asked if the death of half a million Iraqi children was worth the economic sanctions, she said, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." And lastly, after the McVeigh bombing, Clinton tried to pass an anti-terrorism bill that the Bush administration used as the basis for drafting the PATRIOT Act. I don't recall much outcry for those actions 10 years ago; I believe things were pretty silent. Yet they really sound to me very analogous to complaints against Bush one could easily find in the NY Times et al. I'd be less suspicious if there were similar stories trashing Clinton or an equal ommission of reporting for both guys.As for the article itself, one thing that is worth noting is that Saudi Arabia is possibly running out of oil. There have been cases where Saudi Arabia has been unable to deliver the oil they have promised. Plus the high oil prices are actually bad for Saudi Arabia because it drives business to other countries. Saudi Arabia's interest is to keep oil just low enough that no other country and make oil profitably, just like how Alcoa maintained its aluminum monopoly in the early 20th century. (Alcoa developed a way to make cheap aluminum and killed all their competition by perpetually keeping prices low like that.) I don't see how a "Saudi price drop" as a weapon of the American oil tycoons is even possible, as this conspiracy theory cites. That presumes the Saudis have excess oil since the only way to drop oil prices is cause a glut. The fact their monopoly is cracking seems like evidence that Saudi Arabia has lost control of the market due to a lack of oil and is ceasing to be an important player. (Which opens up a whole other can of worms!!) Claiming that the Saudis are being used as a weapon against Chavez is putting the cart before the horse: if the Saudis could be used in such a manner then no one would care about Chavez's oil. The only countries that could cause oil prices to drop IMO are America and Japan by attacking the demand side of the economic equation. China garners less energy per barrel of oil than any country since their industrialization is still infant. This makes them the world's largest polluter when measured by fuel efficiency and so very ripe for massive improvement. If they were to acquire fuel efficient engine technology from trading partners such as America and Japan, which have the best engine technology in the world, then China's oil consumption would plummet. But I don't see either country doing that since China is hostile to both.
